|
Content
/ Colormap • Page 3673 • {1/133} (1)Monday, 29 May 2000 [Open session] [The witness entered court]
--- Upon commencing at 9.39 a.m. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Good morning, ladies and gentlemen; good morning to the technical booth; good morning interpreters. THE INTERPRETER: Good morning, Your Honour. (10) JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Good morning legal officers, court reporters, Mr. Harmon, Mr. McCloskey. I see Mr. Cayley is not here. Good morning, Mr. Petrusic, Mr. Visnjic; good morning, Professor; good morning to the accused. (15)Have you had a good rest? THE WITNESS: I have, thank you, Mr. President. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Even with this storm we had? (20) THE WITNESS: I stayed indoors.
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] I should
like to remind you, Professor, that you are continuing
under oath and you will now be answering some further
questions put to you by Mr. McCloskey.
(25)Mr. McCloskey, you have the floor.
WITNESS: RICHARD WRIGHT [Resumed] (5) • EXAMINED by Mr. McCloskey: [cont'd] • Q.: Professor Wright, if we could, I'd like to go back just briefly, and if you could place the Exhibit 196 on the ELMO, the exhibit of your computer-generated graves. (10)All right. I just want to clarify one point. I know that previously we went over the dimensions, the length, the width, and the depth of each of the secondary graves you exhumed as well as the dam, and I noticed that -- we also discussed the ramp (15)that was present in these graves, and I wondered, could you discuss the depth, how accurate that depth figure is for these graves, how that relates to the ramp? • A.: Yes. The ramp on the Cancari 12 site which we're looking at here is at this end, and the graves (20)get deeper as you go towards the end. That's the very nature of the machinery digging them. So the depth that I gave in my testimony on Friday relate to the maximum depths that are at the far end of the grave from the ramp. (25)
• Q.: So in order to determine the volume of
• A.: Yes. I didn't present any testimony on the (5)volume of the grave, merely the maximum depth. The only exception to that is the grave of Zeleni Jadar, which was not dug in this way. So that was a fairly even depth all over. • Q.: Now, also in your probing of all the (10)secondary graves, were you able to link any of the secondary graves to each over merely by this brief process of probing? Especially I'm referring -- were you able to link Cancari 3 with any of the other probed graves? (15) • A.: The content of glass at -- of broken glass at Cancari 3 and at Cancari 1 led me to think that they had both come from the same source, which I considered to be the site of Kozluk. • Q.: Thank you. Now, the Liplje sites. Clearly (20)the exhumation at Liplje show these very large, cut boulders as you've described. Did you notice anything like that in the other brief probings you did on the other sides around Liplje?
• A.: The point about the Liplje grave is they're
(25)not boulders in the geological sense. They are
• Q.: Did you come across any of that quarried rock as you were probing the other two Liplje sites that you (5)probed? • A.: No. I've never seen it anywhere else. • Q.: Again, could you -- but the probing process is not a detailed archaeological study in any way, is it? (10) • A.: It's not a detailed archaeological study, but the content at Liplje of large, fractured rocks is such that had it been present in any of the other sites, I believe I would have seen it during the scraping process at the top of the filling of the grave. (15) • Q.: We hope you have a chance to get to those graves the upcoming summer. Well, let's now get on to the following summer, where you were able to look more into the Kozluk site, which you were led to, the Kozluk site, by (20)the investigation. And you described briefly what you found there the previous summer; the area near the bottling factory, the surface remains and such. But let's put Exhibit 201 on the ELMO, if we could. If you could describe what that photo depicts. (25)
• A.: This is obviously an aerial photograph taken
(5) • Q.: And for the record -- excuse me, Professor Wright -- the area of the exhumation was the large sort of disturbed dirt area on the left of the photo, and the area of Serbia is in the top of the photo on the other side of the Drina River from the excavation? (10) • A.: Correct. • Q.: Can you tell us what you -- a little bit about the area and what you discovered as you excavated this particular grave?
• A.: I first went there in 1998, when I suspected
(15)that the Cancari 3 site had come from near Kozluk. And
when I went there, I found the whole area covered in
soil, but in one place there were human remains. There
was a leg and, I think, some other part of the anatomy,
and some clothing lying around, also shell cases from
(20)rifle fire. But there was nothing else to be seen.
I returned with my team in 1999, in -- I
don't have the dates with me, but it was sometime in
the summer, late June, July of 1999, and we brought
some heavy earth-moving equipment with us. And there
(25)were three things that we discovered at Kozluk.
• Q.: Now, we have some exhibits, I think, that
will help explain your conclusions, and if you could
put the next exhibit, which is 202, on the ELMO.
(25)But before we get to that, let me ask,
• A.: Yes. I think there was nowhere we didn't (5)find the green glass. I should qualify my use of the word "grave". There was little or no sign of dug graves of the sort that I have been giving testimony about. This area at Kozluk is an area of sloping (10)ground. There are places where gravel and sand have been extracted for commercial purposes. Nearly all the bodies lay on the slopes and were then covered up with dirt. So they are graves, yes, but they are not big, excavated graves of the sort which we have been talking (15)about in previous testimony. • Q.: Thank you. All right. And if you could put Exhibit 202 on the ELMO, and if you could explain that and how that fits into the conclusions you were just speaking of. (20)
• A.: This is the third type of deposit at Kozluk.
This is the place where we found -- this is one of the
places where we found bodies lying on a surface, this
surface from which we have removed the covering dirt
(10) • Q.: So just to clarify, your normal practice is to, as you uncover a body, you take it away so it's not open to the elements? • A.: Yes. • Q.: But in this case, because they were (15)skeletonised -- and this is a good exhibit of what happened -- you just uncovered all these bodies and left them lying? • A.: Yes, much more like a conventional archaeologically excavation. (20) • Q.: And you spoke of people that you thought were shot in the grave. Are those people depicted in this particular photograph?
• A.: This is the place that we called Kozluk 2 and
where there's a limited number of bodies. The main
(25)area I'll talk about later of Kozluk 3.
• A.: Several of them in this photograph, I think about half of them, had their hands tied behind their (5)back or their hands arranged in such a position that I believed their hands were tied behind their back. And because these bodies are so close to the surface, natural materials like cotton disintegrate as the bodies disintegrate, so in other parts of the site (10)where the hands were behind the bodies, where they were protected from destruction, we almost invariably found ligatures, the actual ligatures themselves. • Q.: Some of these bodies were actually blindfolded, were they not? (15) • A.: In this particular photograph, I can't -- I couldn't say -- speak to the numbers, but my memory is, yes. • Q.: In the Kozluk grave generally there were a number of blindfolded bodies? (20) • A.: In the Kozluk grave generally there were many blindfolded bodies, I think in the order of 16 per cent.
• Q.: From this photograph, can you conclude
whether or not any of these individuals in the
(25)photograph were shot in the grave?
• Q.: I believe yesterday [sic] You testified that you discovered bullets underneath some bodies. Was that this group or another group? • A.: In two places we found bullets underneath (10)bodies and this was one of them. • Q.: Okay. Could you point out that and try to describe, on the ELMO, which bodies you're talking about, for the record. You may need to pull the photograph or the ELMO may need to come up a bit to (15)include the entire photograph. • A.: I do have an exhibit designed -- which shows the distribution of bullets coming up, but essentially they're embedded in this surface. This is the original surface that was exposed at the time of execution. It (20)had, underneath the bodies, plant remains preserved that were actually growing in place, had been growing in place, so this was a land surface on which the people had fallen when they were shot.
MR. McCLOSKEY: All right. And for the
(25)record, Professor Wright has pointed to the five bodies
• Q.: Is that correct? (5) • A.: Yes, that's correct. At the bottom right of the illustration is a -- where the surface suddenly stops, this is an area where subsequent robbing activity took place. • Q.: How do you know that? (10) • A.: Because of the tooth marks and the disruption and actual removal of the bodies that are on the edge of this distribution. In other words, as you move towards the bottom right of the photograph, there is a sudden break which is where the robbing trench cut (15)across and removed some bones from bodies. • Q.: When you say "tooth mark," you're talking about the tooth marks of the digging machine that robbed them; is that correct? • A.: Yes. (20) • Q.: Could you point out what you believe to be tooth marks on this photograph? • A.: Not on this photograph. I think they are showing in this portion, but I have another illustration to show that better. (25)
• Q.: All right. And the -- where this trench
• A.: Yes. One had lost a leg by the trenching action. (5) • Q.: I believe the next exhibit is a better exhibit on the tooth marks that you're speaking of, and that is Exhibit 132/107. That is the same group of individuals but a larger view; is that right? • A.: Yes, at about 45 degrees the view. But we're (10)looking at the same bodies as we looked at in the previous photographs, and the distribution from the right-hand side to the left-hand side, something like 16 or 17 bodies. • Q.: So the teeth marks on this, can you describe (15)that? • A.: Yes. In the foreground of the picture there is trench showing. It's common in these graves to find that either tyres or the teeth on the machines or both have compressed the soil at the time of the removal of (20)the soil so that subsequent soil falls into the hollows of the tooth marks. It's much looser and it's, therefore, possible to remove it and to display the machinery that was used to do the robbing.
• Q.: So how were you able to take the dirt off of
(25)these bodies and these scrape marks without disturbing
• A.: It's done in the normal archaeological way, with trowels and with brushes. • Q.: So your backhoe never got -- didn't get near (5)these bodies or these scrape marks, this was all done by hand by you? • A.: This is done by hand. • Q.: Is there anything else in this photograph of interest to your conclusions? (10) • A.: I think the fact that the bodies are skeletonised shows up well. Some items of synthetic clothing have survived well. The -- most of the natural materials have been destroyed by the weathering process because these bodies were quite close to the (15)surface. • Q.: Now, we don't see the individual number markings on these bodies that you usually photograph next to bodies, but in some other of your photographic records, each of these bodies will be identified by (20)number; is that correct?
• A.: Each of these bodies has been assigned a
sequence number, and that sequence number will be
included in the photograph of each body, and that
sequence number would have gone down with the body to
(25)the mortuary.
• A.: Yes. The individual -- the bodies are treated as individual bodies for the purpose of analysis. MR. McCLOSKEY: For Your Honours, we have (10)asked one of the pathologists who will testify to go over the results, particular results of these five, just for your recollection, when we get to the pathologists in a day or two. • Q.: All right. Now, you mentioned other parts of (15)the grave. Can you discuss other parts of the grave and how that fits into your conclusions? • A.: The main area of discovery of bodies is what we have called Kozluk 3, and in that area, we recovered some 270 bodies, together with about 200 body parts (20)left over by the attempts to move some of those bodies. • Q.: Can you describe how you found them and any conclusions you might have reached?
• A.: They are some 20 or 30 metres to the west of
the picture that you have on the screen. We discovered
(25)it by scraping down the covering of soil over the
• Q.: Do these appear to be on, like you said before, some kind of a slope? (5) • A.: They are on a slope. They are lying on probably hundreds of thousands of pieces of broken glass. In other words, before the people were executed, the bottling factory had dumped many hundreds of broken bottles down that slope, and all 270 bodies (10)at Kozluk 3 lie on that broken glass. • Q.: Were you ever able to make any conclusions about whether or not the people were killed where they were lying or whether they were dumped there later? • A.: On the margins of the distribution of the (15)270 bodies, where you're dealing with individual bodies at the extremities of the body mass, the bodies looked like they do in this photograph from Kozluk 3; that is, they're lying on surfaces just beyond the glassy edge, on their own, and where there are bullets embedded in (20)the clay. • Q.: How about the large cluster of the group? Were you able to determine anything or would that be speculation?
• A.: I considered whether or not these people
(25)might have been shot on top of the slope and then
• Q.: You found many shell casings throughout this grave, didn't you? • A.: Amongst the bodies and to the side of the (10)bodies, we found many shell casings. • Q.: Could you put Exhibit 203 on the ELMO and explain what that is?
• A.: I mentioned in my testimony on Friday that we
surveyed each of the bodies, taking 12 anatomical
(15)landmarks. This allows us to produce maps of the
distribution of these bodies, of which this is the map
for the site of Kozluk 3 that we've been talking
about.
Kozluk 3 -- in the case of Kozluk 3, the
(20)bodies had soft tissue very well preserved, and here we
had to remove them as we found them, because it was the
height of summer and bacterial decomposition and
destruction by insects was beginning to start within
two or three hours of their exposure. So we removed
(25)them one by one. Therefore, our survey is the only
(5) • Q.: The bodies are the little black stick figures? • A.: Yes. On the bottom left where this individual is on its own, here where its on its own you can see the effect, but, of course, within the main (10)mass of bodies where they were sometimes four thick, you lose resolution, you lose detail. • Q.: What are the little red marks? • A.: Red dots are the shell casings that we found as the bodies were removed. These are mixed up with (15)the bodies, lying to the side of the bodies, on the surface on which the bodies lie. • Q.: Now, is there anything else, any other major conclusions you wish to share with the Court? And, of course, the total number of individuals represented in (20)the grave, as you've received information from the anthropologist, would also, of course, be important.
• A.: The anthropologist will have to testify to
that, but we removed -- my records show that we moved
from this location that is illustrated here some
(25)270 bodies and some 200 body parts. I'm not aware of
• Q.: All right. And just finally, Exhibit 223 is (5)your resume or your CV, and you've had a chance to review that and that is an accurate copy of your CV; is that correct? • A.: That is. MR. McCLOSKEY: Your Honours, I have no (10)further questions at this time. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Yes. Thank you very much, Mr. McCloskey. Professor, you're now going to answer questions put to you by Mr. Visnjic, the Defence (15)counsel, is going to ask you. Mr. Visnjic, you have the floor. MR. VISNJIC: [Int.] Thank you, Mr. President. • CROSS-EXAMINED by Mr. Visnjic: (20)
• Q.: Professor Wright, in your statement about the
exhumations in 1998, within the frameworks of your
conclusions you state that none of the 857 individuals
were wearing military uniforms. Can you tell us -- can
you explain to us what you mean by the term "to wear
(25)military uniform"? What do you consider that term to
• A.: By that statement, I mean that I did not see essentially khaki jackets and khaki trousers of the sort that I associate internationally with military (5)wear. • Q.: Did you mean that some individuals had a complete uniform or only parts of an army uniform? Is it possible that individuals were wearing both civilian and military clothing at the same time, parts of these (10)different types of clothing? • A.: No, I was referring to items of military clothing. I did not see, in 1998, nor in 1999, for that matter, an item of military clothing in the grave, though I have expressed in my report some caution there (15)because the clothing is covered in mud in many instances and so the final conclusion about the nature of the clothing we found is done by the mortuary staff after washing the clothes. But I did not see, in the course of exhumations, an item of military clothing. (20)
• Q.: In the same report, within your conclusions
you state that on the basis of the findings by
Mr. Mills, that it was possible to ascertain the time
of the execution as being Thursday, the 14th of July,
1995.
(25)My question is the following: In your
• A.: On the basis of the watches alone -- on the basis of the watches that I observed in the course of (10)excavation, I was struck by the fact that eight out of ten showed either "Saturday 15" or "Sunday 16" in the windows. My understanding of these watches is that -- because I actually own one myself -- is that they -- you do not have to set the day or the date in order for (15)the watch to work as a timepiece. So although one possible conclusion would be, from a watch that did not show ""Friday [sic] 15" or "Sunday 16", one possible conclusion would be that its user died at a different time. It's not a necessary conclusion, because the day (20)and the date may never have been set. MR. McCLOSKEY: Excuse me. Perhaps we could clarify which grave you're talking about. I believe that these watches are specific to specific graves, and that may make more sense. (25)
• A.: I'm talking -- in my report, I list the --
MR. McCLOSKEY: No. That was just an objection to try to clarify the record, because the question is vague as to -- (5) THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, Mr. McCloskey. MR. McCLOSKEY: Excuse me. It's an objection as to vagueness, because we don't know which grave site he's talking about. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Yes. (10)Mr. Visnjic, could you specify and tell us exactly what you mean in your question so that we can follow the discussion. So when you're talking about watches, perhaps it would be a good idea for you to indicate what the grave site is that you're referring to where (15)the watches were found. Otherwise, it is difficult to follow. MR. VISNJIC: [Int.] Mr. President, in the question -- that is to say, we are talking about two watches found at the Hodzici grave site, A-4. That (20)is what it states in the professor's statement, at least. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Mr. McCloskey, is that precision sufficient for you?
MR. McCLOSKEY: I think Professor Wright has
(25)a whole section on the watches that he, in order to
JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Yes. Very well. Perhaps Mr. Visnjic could ask the question in a more precise way, and then Professor Wright can answer (20)and explain. And at the end, if there are any difficulties, you can take up the matter, Mr. McCloskey, later on in your redirect. I think that that is the way to proceed.
MR. VISNJIC:
[Int.] Thank you,
(25)Mr. President.
• A.: The aerial photographs were, in a sense, precise. But the area that they showed was an area of general disturbance, which was much larger than the (10)grave itself. So the area of disturbance might be in the order of 100 metres by 100 metres, but within that there was a grave that might be 30 metres long and five metres -- and three metres broad. So the aerial photographs allowed us to go to the general area, but (15)exploratory work with a backhoe had to be done to find the exact grave. • Q.: My next question is linked to that answer of yours. Is it a logical assumption that underneath the larger surface that was dug, that you find the largest (20)number of bodies? Was this assumption borne out and confirmed in practice?
• A.: I didn't do any formal analysis of the
relation of the disturbed area shown by aerial images
and the number of bodies. I couldn't answer that
(25)question.
• A.: One of our considerations was that we could get to the site the heavy equipment and the -- or set up the camp with washing facilities and analytical facilities and so on. Some of the sites were suitable (10)for that, some were not. All of them, except for Hodzici 1, were by the side of a good gravel road. We decided, on the basis of the ease of work -- the separation, for instance, in Cancari road between number 12 and number 3 was a sample of two that were (15)well separated. So there were a mixture of factors that made us decide which ones to totally exhume and which ones to probe.
• Q.: During your testimony yesterday
[sic], you
said that on the basis of your experience from Bosnia,
(20)you were able to conclude that the blue and green
colour of the soil indicated that below the soil it
would be probable to expect bodies.
My question is the following: Based on your
experience, did this refer only to the Bosnia area as a
(25)geographical region, to Bosnia itself, or -- bearing in
• A.: In terms of my own previous experience in the (5)Ukraine, we saw dark soil associated with the bodies, but we did not see this bright green/blue soil. That is unique to my Bosnian experience, though I have read textbooks on homicide investigations, and the occurrence of such blue/green soil associated with (10)bodies is commonly mentioned. • Q.: Were there any differences in colour with the secondary and -- primary and secondary grave sites in terms of soil colour? • A.: No, I can't say that there were consistent (15)differences. The primary sites that I saw were the dam -- that I investigated were the dam site, Petkovci Dam site. Around the bodies were certainly this -- around the body parts was this greenish soil. And the other primary site I have worked on is Kozluk, and (20)again around the bodies that still had flesh associated with them was this green soil. I don't remember any differences between the general properties of the soil in those two primary sites and in the secondary sites.
• Q.: Judging from your experience, what level
(25)above and below the bodies does this colouring of the
• A.: It extends to beyond the bodies, perhaps to 20 or 30 centimetres beyond the bodies, even into the undisturbed soil alongside the bodies. I should say 20 (5)or 30 centimetres. • Q.: Above and below the body level, you say; is that correct? • A.: And to the side. • Q.: Thank you. This experience of yours, does it (10)relate -- is it the same for primary and secondary grave sites? • A.: Yes. • Q.: Does the same colouring in the soil -- would the bodies of animals produce the same soil colouring, (15)animals or some other putrefaction, decomposition? Would it give the same soil colouring? • A.: I imagine that's so, but I don't have any direct experience of digging where there's a mass of animals buried. But I don't think it's something (20)peculiar to human remains.
• Q.: Professor Wright, with respect to your
experience as far as secondary grave sites are
concerned, your experience in that field, what would
you say determines these sites of secondary grave
(25)sites? What led the perpetrators to choose a
• A.: The only answer I can give to that is that the sites were accessible to trucks. I can't speak for the people who dug the secondary graves, but I did observe that all of the sites could be driven to by (10)vehicles, by heavy vehicles. • Q.: Professor, during your testimony today in the examination-in-chief, you said that you found the bodies -- parts of bodies of two individuals at the surface of the soil in Kozluk in 1998. According to (15)your assessment, what was the age of the body parts on that surface; that is to say, how long were they on the surface?
• A.: I couldn't say, in number of years, but they
still had flesh and tissue holding the bones together.
(20)They were clearly not very old. But just looking at
those bones on their own, I couldn't say how old they
were. The body parts, I couldn't say how old they
were.
Can I add to that? Now I have studied the
(25)site, I know they must be later than the executions and
• Q.: Were these body parts damaged in any way? • A.: By definition, because they're body parts, (5)they must have been removed from complete bodies. So to that extent they were damaged. • Q.: At what depth underneath these body parts were the rest of the bodies in the grave site located? • A.: At the exact spot where we found those body (10)parts on the surface in 1998, immediately below that there were no other bodies. The other bodies were to the west and to the east of those two remains. There was something like 20 metres separating the site of Kozluk 2, the grave of Kozluk 2 from Kozluk 3, and they (15)are on the surface between those two areas. • Q.: Could you say whether in that locality, whether there were more exhumations at one particular spot, whether the primary gave sites were dug over several times? (20) • A.: No. I think that the observations we made only require one episode of robbing of the area. I didn't see any indications that led me to suggest that it had been dug over many times.
• Q.: On the basis of your experience, again can
(25)you exclude the possibility of there being many
• A.: At Kozluk, yes, because most of the bodies were totally undisturbed. It was only near the top of (5)the main mass of the bodies that there were body parts and disturbance. Most of them were totally undisturbed. • Q.: Within the frameworks of that same report of yours, you say that a number of body parts were pulled (10)off from the bodies during the exhumation and in the attempt to cover up the primary grave site, that they were severed from the main body. Do you know -- I know that this does not come exclusively within your field of expertise, but do you happen to know whether the (15)pathologists, when they made the identifications, whether they discovered any of those body parts and were able to incorporate them? Did they find them in the secondary grave sites and were they able to link them up to the bodies that were found in the primary (20)grave sites? Were they able to put two together?
• A.: I think you're referring to the Cancari 3
site and the Kozluk site. I don't know whether they
were able to fit them together. I have not been -- I
have not taken part in the mortuary operation, so I
(25)don't know the results there.
(5) • A.: I'm not a ballistics expert. I should say that the shell cases at Kozluk were found mixed up with the bodies as well as below the bodies, that is, the shell cases. The bullets were both on the edges of the Kozluk 3 site, that is, the main mass of bodies, and at (10)Kozluk 2 were embedded in the clay below the bodies to a depth of about 5 centimetres. The shell cases were not found embedded in the clay underneath. The shell cases were found on the surface on which the bodies lay, amongst the bodies, (15)and on top of the bodies. But I cannot -- not having any expertise in ballistics, I cannot comment on the significance of that except to say where I found them. • Q.: The number of bullets found, did it correspond to the number of persons executed? (20) • A.: Can I ask you if we're referring to the number of shell cases or the number of bullets? • Q.: Number of bullets.
• A.: I don't know how many bullets were found
altogether. A lot of them will also have been found in
(25)the mortuary. And although in the site logs we
• Q.: Also in your report referring to Kozluk, you (5)stated that the bodies were transported by trucks. I think that this is to be found on page 12 of your report, just to help you. Page 12, paragraph 2, last sentence. • A.: Yes. That conclusion was based on the (10)observations that we made in 1998, that there was a slope which had clothing and some body parts on it that -- where there were body parts spilled down the slope, and I interpreted that as being the remains of the removal of the bodies after the robbing of the (15)primary grave. I didn't, however, see truck marks or any other evidence. That is an interpretation based on my knowledge of the Cancari 3 site, to which I attribute the bodies in the Cancari 3 site to having come from Kozluk. And knowing the road distances, I, (20)therefore, assume they must have come by truck, and I identified at the Kozluk site a place in the landscape which had clothing and body parts and which I think is consistent with the place where the bodies were loaded into the trucks. (25)
• Q.: Professor Wright, I should like to go back to
• A.: Yes. • Q.: Could it be that for the same reason, because of the circulation of air, that bodies are mummified (10)more quickly too? • A.: For a body to become mummified, in my opinion, it has to be dry, and the site at the dam is far from dry because of the rainfall that falls on the surface of the ground. So I would not expect bodies, (15)under those circumstances, to become mummified.
MR. VISNJIC:
[Int.] I should like
to ask the registrar to show the witness Prosecution
Exhibit 22/8. It is a photograph. So could it be
shown to the Witness, please.
(20)I should also like to ask the registrar,
Mr. President, Mr. President, to facilitate
proceedings, this is a page of the transcript in which
the Professor is explaining this photograph. I'm
sorry, not the Professor but Mr. Ruez. Mr. Ruez was
(25)commenting on this photograph. It is page 742 of the
• Q.: Professor, the part that I should like to (5)refer to has been highlighted in yellow, and it has to do with the following: The ligatures or the cloth, as Mr. Ruez said was like a ligature, was found on the surface or immediately below the surface of the soil at the dam. (10)My question is the following: How long is it possible for a piece of cloth of this kind to remain on the surface without decomposing, in view of the composition of the material?
• A.: My experience of these sites is that the
(15)answer depends on the type of the material. If it's a
natural material such as cotton or wool, then it is
destroyed very quickly. If it's an artificial material
such as nylon or polyester, then it will last for many,
many years. I don't know the composition of this
(20)particular item, so I can't answer your question
directly. I can only distinguish between -- in
answering that general question, I can only distinguish
between natural and artificial materials, and they have
different -- they have different lifetimes in the
(25)soil.
JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Mr. Visnjic, excuse me for interrupting you. Are you (5)going to use other exhibits? In that case, you can tell the registrar the exhibit numbers in advance so that she can prepare them for you. MR. VISNJIC: [Int.] Mr. President, I had thought about it, but in view of the fact that we (10)didn't ask for a break between the examination-in-chief and the cross, and I'm close to ending my cross, so I think this is a more rational way to proceed. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] I understand. Thank you anyway, Mr. Visnjic. (15) THE REGISTRAR: Excuse me. I'm having a problem finding it. If we can take a break perhaps. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Perhaps I see that Mr. Harmon is going to find the exhibit for us. (20) MR. VISNJIC: [Int.] • Q.: Professor Wright, my question is: Is this the type of material that can last for a protracted period of time?
• A.: Yes. I have seen this material in the sites
(25)we've exhumed. I identify this as a polyester twine.
MR. VISNJIC: [Int.] Exhibit 131/1 also has a first page containing explanations, so could (5)I ask for that to be shown to the witness as well, please. Yes, yes, that's it. • A.: Do you want me to display this? MR. VISNJIC: [Int.] Yes, please. • Q.: Professor Wright, can you just explain to us (10)these two numbers that appear here in the left-hand corner, lower left-hand box? • A.: I can't explain those numbers from my direct experience. These numbers are assigned to that object after I have handed the material over to the mortuary. (15)So I don't know the significance of those numbers. • Q.: Professor Wright, according to your report and findings, how many hand ligatures were found at the dam grave site?
• A.: To answer that, I would have to consult my
(20)report, and then I would also have to consult the log
that was taken of the remains. I have my report with
me and I can have a look at that, but I do not have the
log which has been tendered in evidence and is part of
ICTY's records. I don't have it with me, but I will
(25)look first in my report and see if I made mention of
JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Mr. Visnjic, would you like a break now? Would that be convenient? We have been working for an hour and a (5)quarter. Perhaps we could have a break now. You are about to finish, are you? MR. VISNJIC: [Int.] Mr. President, I only have one further brief question for Professor Wright, so I can put it before the break, or it's up to (10)you. If you decide to have the break now, it's fine. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] In any event, as we have questions by the Judges later, perhaps it would be better to have a break now so that Professor Wright can have a chance to look through his (15)report. And then we can resume, because we need to have the re-examination and the questions of the Judges. So we'll now have a 20-minute break. --- Recess taken at 10.48 a.m. (20) --- On resuming at 11.13 a.m. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] We're resuming the hearing. Mr. Visnjic, you may continue, please.
MR. VISNJIC:
[Int.] Thank you,
(25)Mr. President.
• A.: This is the one? • Q.: Professor Wright, based on your experience, (5)if we were to compare the ligature shown on this photograph, 22/8, and the ligature shown on Exhibit 131/1, the one you described earlier on, which of these two materials can have a longer lifetime on the surface of the soil? (10) • A.: I can't answer that because I don't know the material from which this ligature was made. If it was made of polyester, then it would last a long time. If it was made of cotton, I wouldn't expect it to last very long. (15)Can I just clarify one point too -- at one point as well, that in the testimony that I was shown, that is, in this page, the time of discovery of this item is said to be April 1998. I think it should read "April 1997", because it was found before I went to (20)the site.
• Q.: Thank you for the explanation.
Professor Wright, my next question has to do
with the part of your report dealing with the potential
grave site at Potocari. You carried out some
(25)investigations there, but you didn't find any bodies or
• A.: That is correct. • Q.: However, in your report, if I understood you correctly, you do express a certain doubt or (5)suspicion. So could you comment on that in a little more detail, please? • A.: Yes. I was asked to go to an area behind the bus station at Potocari where there were aerial images of disturbed soil. I looked in two of these places. (10)In one, I could detect nothing. In the second one, a hole -- a large hole had in the past been dug and refilled, but it had no human remains in the refilling, no body parts in the refilling. What I did see near the top were some lumps of this green putrid clay, but (15)there were no body parts adhering to them, and I am unable to come to any firm conclusion about the Potocari site. • Q.: Thank you, Professor Wright. Professor, could you exclude the possibility of certain grave (20)sites -- I'm talking about primary grave sites such as Kozluk, for instance -- after bodies had been buried there, bodies of people who were executed en masse, that there may have been additional burials of other bodies from other locations? Is this a possibility? (25)
• A.: No. We studied the stratigraphy, that is,
MR. VISNJIC: [Int.] Mr. President, (5)that ends my cross-examination. Professor Wright, thank you. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Thank you very much, Mr. Visnjic. Mr. McCloskey, any additional questions? (10) MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, briefly, Mr. President. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Please go ahead. • RE-EXAMINED by Mr. McCloskey: • Q.: Professor Wright, I believe you have Exhibit (15)5/22 [Realtime transcript read in error "522"], the aerial image of Potocari, and could you place that on the ELMO. So after the season of 1999, you were asked to go explore a site behind the Express bus compound in (20)Potocari; is that correct? • A.: Yes. • Q.: Could you point, with your pointer, to the area that you actually took a look at and excavated?
• A.: There are three areas marked by an arrow. I
(25)looked at this area, and I looked at that area, and
• Q.: You're referring to the area, the large hole, is the middle arrow. (5) • A.: The middle arrow. • Q.: And you looked at the arrow to the bottom of the area -- of the arrow at the bottom of the picture and didn't find anything but you did find a hole under the middle arrow; is that correct? (10) • A.: That's correct. • Q.: And how big was that hole? • A.: I would need to consult my report. My memory is that it was about 6 metres by 4 metres, but the dimensions are given in my report, if I may consult (15)that. Eight metres square by 2 metres deep was my estimate of the size of that hole. • Q.: Were you able to get any indication of whether it was dug by hand or dug by machine? • A.: No direct indication, no. (20) • Q.: Do you recall how deep in the hole the green clay or the green soil was that you found that is usually indicative of some sort of organic body flesh? • A.: I saw these scattered lumps of this green clay near the top of the filling of the hole. (25)
• Q.: All right. Thank you. Now, getting back to
JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Mr. McCloskey, I apologise for interrupting you, but for the transcript, the exhibit that you showed (5)Professor right was 5/22, was it? MR. McCLOSKEY: According to my records, yes, Mr. President. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Because I see on the LiveNote it says "522." So it needs to be (10)corrected; 5/22. MR. McCLOSKEY: Thank you, Mr. President. • Q.: Now, back to the analysis of the watches. I think if we use the example of the dam, which is, I believe, the first time in the Srebrenica case that you (15)found and analysed a watch; is that correct? • A.: That's correct. • Q.: Okay. Can you explain the circumstances of finding that watch and the information that you gained in your analysis? (20)
• A.: The watch from the dam site was found as an
isolated artefact within the filling of the grave,
because the bodies had been mostly broken up and we
were finding artefacts in the filling of the grave.
This particular watch is a mechanical,
(25)automatic watch that stops about 36 to 48 hours after
(5) • Q.: So you found out the information that if it had stopped, you would just make some simple arithmetic and determine the date that it actually stopped moving; is that right? • A.: Yes. One watch on its own, even perhaps two (10)watches, don't take on significance. Only at the end of the season was the significance clear to me, and that is that the remarkable coincidence had taken place if these eight out of -- if all ten watches had stopped at random, the chances of eight out of ten showing (15)either "Saturday 15" or "Sunday 16" can be simply calculated as several millions to one. So some event -- I believe some common event had caused this tendency for watches to stop on Saturday 15 or Sunday 16. That was my conclusion. (20) • Q.: So basically you had eight watches that if you do the subtraction, would have stopped their natural movement around the -- on the 14th or 15th; is that correct? • A.: Yes. (25)
• Q.: And you were told by the investigators that
• A.: That's what Mr. Rhodes told me. MR. McCLOSKEY: Nothing further, Your (5)Honours. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Thank you, Mr. McCloskey. Judge Fouad Riad. JUDGE RIAD: [Int.] Thank you, (10)Mr. President. • QUESTIONED by the Court: JUDGE RIAD: Good morning, Professor. • A.: Good morning, Your Honour.
JUDGE RIAD: I have a question really in the
(15)light of information you gave this morning, in the
testimony of this morning, as I was not present
before.
You mentioned that, and I quote you, "On the
fringes," when you're speaking of Kozluk 3, "On the
(20)fringes of the main distribution of bodies, they had
been shot in place," and they could not have been shot
on the slope itself or on the top of the slope and
pushed down by machinery, according to your
assessment.
(25)Then speaking also of Kozluk 2, you mentioned
(10)
• A.: Well, Your Honour, if I can just distinguish
one or two points there. The absence of military
clothing that applied to 800 and something individuals
is for all the sites that I have exhumed. At Kozluk
there were some 280 individuals, none of whom had
(15)military clothing.
At Kozluk, on the fringes of the site, I was
able to conclude that the people had been shot on the
spot because they lay on this vegetated surface and we
found bullets embedded in this surface.
(20)In the middle of the main mass of bodies at
Kozluk, because they lay on glass, on broken glass, and
because bodies underneath would have absorbed some of
the bullets from above, I was not able to determine
directly that they had been shot on the spot, but the
(25)arrangement of the bodies is consistent with their
JUDGE RIAD: And being shot on the spot (10)excludes being shot in a fight, the arrangement you mentioned? • A.: No, I think being shot on the spot does not exclude people being shot in a fight. However, at Kozluk, 42 per cent of the 280 individuals had their (15)hands tied behind their back, and in my opinion, that does exclude people being shot in a fight. JUDGE RIAD: And there were no weapons -- no kind of weapons around these bodies which suggests that these people were carrying weapons or using them? (20) • A.: No, I don't remember, at Kozluk, any weapons whatsoever. We found the discarded shell cases from rifles and we found bullets, but I don't remember finding any weapons.
JUDGE RIAD: Thank you very much, Professor
(25)Wright.
JUDGE WALD: Professor Wright, if you come upon a mass grave or a grave with many bodies in it, (5)and this is to be based on your experience generally, is it possible to tell if the bodies in those graves have been put in there at different time periods? I mean maybe not within a day or so, but within weeks or months, at different time periods, or whether they were (10)all put in there at approximately the same time.
• A.: I think I haven't found any graves that I
have interpreted in that way. In my experience, I have
two sites, one in the Ukraine and one in Bosnia that is
not part of this current case, where I have concluded
(15)that bodies were put in on two occasions, but there was
a small amount of time between them.
At what I would expect, yes, it should be
possible, because if bodies were put in, say, in --
talking generally, if they were put in in May, the
(20)month of May, and then covered up with some soil, and
then more bodies were put in, that would be an
indication. If they were put in in May and not covered
up with soil, I would expect considerable destruction
of the tissues and evidence of survival of insects and
(25)beetles, which we commonly find on bodies that have
(5) JUDGE WALD: Right. And in the case of the bodies that you exhumed about which you testified here, did you see any such indications that bodies had been put in at significantly different times? • A.: No, I saw no indications that would require (10)me to conclude that. JUDGE WALD: And the second part of my question is: In the case -- this would probably be primarily secondary graves -- you were able to tell, I gather from reading your report and some of the others, (15)when bodies have come from different locations either because they have different soils or in the case of the glass; is that generally true? If a secondary grave contains bodies from two different primary sites, you would be able to tell that? (20) • A.: Yes, I should be able to tell that. JUDGE WALD: Okay. Thank you.
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] Professor
Wright, I have a question of a general nature.
You have seen several mass grave sites. Are
(25)you able to have an idea of the means of organisation
• A.: Yes, I would have two comments to make on (5)that. Firstly, the organisation of the digging of the grave is manifest by whether or not machinery was used. If it's dug by hand, it can be done quite casually. If it's dug by machinery, then obviously (10)it's a bigger organisation required. My second comment is, that having related the primary graves to the secondary graves, I can conclude that the bodies were not taken by hand over several kilometres but were taken by truck, and that again (15)bears on the question of the level of organisation. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] In your opinion and from your viewpoint, is there a difference between organisation for primary grave sites and the organisation required for secondary grave sites? (20)
• A.: Yes, Mr. President, I'd say there is a
difference in level of organisation. In the case, for
example, of the Kozluk site, some few hundred living
people were taken there and executed. That would
require much more organisation than the removal of the
(25)bodies from the Kozluk site to secondary graves.
• A.: I think the answer to that question bears on whether or not the event took place in a very short period of time, and my conclusion at all the sites is (10)that -- or rather I should say my conclusion at Kozluk and the secondary graves is that both operations took place over a very short period of time. The shorter the time, the greater the level of organisation required. (15) JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Thank you very much, Professor Wright, for coming here to speak before us. I should also like to thank you for cooperating with the international justice system. We thank you very much and wish you bon voyage back to (20)your country, and every success in your continuing work. THE WITNESS: Thank you, Mr. President.
MR. McCLOSKEY: Mr. President, I do have some
exhibits to tender, and they would be 188, 189 through
(25)194, 196 through 205, and 223.
JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Mr. Visnjic, do you have any objections to make? MR. VISNJIC: [Int.] I do not, (5)Mr. President. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] I think, Mr. Visnjic, that it is not necessary to tender that copy of the transcript, because we have our own references, and so we have -- you have tendered the (10)evidence and it has been admitted. What are we going to do now, Mr. McCloskey, or perhaps Mr. Harmon? MR. McCLOSKEY: Mr. President, it's still me. We have Dr. Bill Haglund, the chief of the (15)exhumation season for 1996, who is a forensic anthropologist as opposed to Professor Wright, who is an archaeologist, and he will be able to tell us, much in the same vein as Professor Wright, about the exhumations and the results from 1996. He is ready to (20)go.
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] Have the
witness brought in, please.
MR. McCLOSKEY: I believe we had his exhibits
(25)ready to go, if we could put them next to him.
THE WITNESS: Yes. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Good (5)morning to you. You are now going to read the solemn declaration that the usher is going to give you. Please go ahead. THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the (10)truth. WITNESS: WILLIAM HAGLUND JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Please be seated. I think that you are quite familiar with procedure in the courtroom, so I can take it that you (15)feel at ease, Professor. THE WITNESS: Yes. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Thank you. And thank you for coming, to begin with. For the moment, you're going to answer questions put to you by (20)Mr. McCloskey. Mr. McCloskey, you have the floor. MR. McCLOSKEY: Thank you, Mr. President. • EXAMINED by Mr. McCloskey:
• Q.: Could you state your name and spell your
(25)last?
• Q.: And what is your profession? • A.: A forensic anthropologist. • Q.: And can you give us your educational (5)background? • A.: Yes. I received my Ph.D in physical anthropology at the University of Washington in Seattle, Washington State, United States. • Q.: Prior to that what was your undergraduate? (10) • A.: My undergraduate, I received also a masters degree in physical anthropologist and a bachelor's degree in biology. • Q.: Could you give us a brief outline of your employment history? (15) • A.: In forensics, for 16 years I was employed by the King County Medical Examiner's Office in Seattle, Washington. That's an office that has jurisdiction over all unexpected, sudden deaths; homicides; accidents; suicides; natural deaths that are (20)unattended; and those deaths of suspicious or sudden nature. • Q.: What was your position there?
• A.: I was the chief medical investigator. In
that position, I supervised the death scene
(25)investigators who actually went to the death scenes,
• Q.: All right. What kind of field experience have you had and employment after leaving Seattle, the Seattle office? • A.: Well, I took holidays and went on some (10)foreign missions. In 1993, I was a member of the expert committee and went to Croatia. I then, on a yearly basis, once or twice a year, would go to Honduras, where I would do exhumations and identifications of individuals. (15) • Q.: When did you first start working for the International Criminal Tribunal? • A.: In an official capacity, other than missions, in December 31, 1995. • Q.: And can you describe to us what the term (20)"forensic" means and especially as it relates to anthropology, your expertise?
• A.: Well, let's first look at physical
anthropology. Physical anthropology basically deals
with the human skeleton, its development, its
(25)maturation, and how skeletons of some populations
• Q.: Where does your expertise, which is forensic
(25)anthropology, fit in with the actual exhumations
• A.: Well, it's a crime scene and that's part it. (5)I do have a smattering of archaeology, but, of course, the work that we do in these sorts of teams are great endeavours with many, many people involved, and so I did have very good archaeologists working with for me and with me, Becky Saunders from the United States, (10)Fronimis Coso [phoen] From Guatemala, and, you know, various people with other skills. So they could compensate my lack of certain skills in areas. • Q.: You mentioned that part of your job as an anthropologist was the examination of bones, bone (15)trauma. How did you work with the forensic pathologist? Can you explain what a forensic pathologist does and how you connect with it, realising that we're going to be hearing from some pathologists soon? (20)
• A.: A forensic pathologist is a medical doctor.
I'm a Ph.D, Doctor of Philosophy. The forensic
pathologist, of course, performs autopsy examinations
and makes the medical opinion as to the cause of
death. But the pathologist routinely deals with
(25)fleshed remains, and more and more as the flesh
• Q.: Now, can you give us a little bit, just a brief rundown on what you were doing in Rwanda before coming to Bosnia? A little bit about those projects. • A.: Okay. In September 1995, I did an assessment (15)for the International Criminal Tribunal in Rwanda, for ICTR, to determine what -- of the Prosecution's priority of graves would be, lend themselves to excavation and forensic investigation. • Q.: Go ahead. (20)
• A.: And then subsequently, from the 15th of
December through the 22nd of February, 1995/1996, we
excavated and did the examinations on a large grave in
Kibuye, Rwanda, a grave that contained or involved 496
individuals, and then another smaller forensic
(25)investigation was gone in Kigali, Rwanda. At that
• Q.: Then in the summer of 1995, did you come over to be in charge of the exhumations for Bosnia? • A.: That's correct. (5) • Q.: Now, as a person that was associated with the pathologists, can you give us a little background? We've heard about the archaeology site and the procedures there, but can you give us a little background on what happens once the bodies arrive to (10)the morgue, especially in relation to your expertise as we'll leave some of the medical information for the pathologists?
• A.: I think, as the Court appreciates, at this
time the bodies arrive in varying conditions.
(15)Sometimes they're parts of bodies, sometimes they're
skeletons, and sometimes they're bodies with a
significant amount of flesh on them.
Once the bodies -- the bodies are removed
from our refrigerated containers from the numbered,
(20)sealed bags that they were regularly placed in, and
they're photographed as they're opened, and then the
pathologist and the radiologist look through the
remains and pass them under a fluoroscope to find any
projectiles that might be in the remains.
(25)Then the pathologist proceeds with their
• Q.: In the situation where you just have body (15)parts and it's difficult or impossible to tell from that part alone how many people are involved, do you determine a minimum number of people from the various body parts? • A.: Yes. That was an issue in a few instances in (20)1996, but it has become a great issue since then. • Q.: All right. So I think --
MR. McCLOSKEY: Your Honours, Mr. Jose Pablo,
who has dealt with these issues previous where there
were many more numbers involved, I think we would like,
(25)at this point, to leave the explanation of the minimum
(5) • Q.: Now, could you -- we have your report which is Exhibit number 207/1, and could you open that to page 32 and place that on the ELMO so that we can see that. Now, you were speaking generally of some of (10)the work that you do in the morgue. Can you explain that photograph and how it would have been incorporated into your work? • A.: Yes. This is a fragmented cranium or skull minus the lower jaw, and what we've done here is placed (15)the pieces together and glued them together. You can see there are multiple fragments. Here's one, here's one here, here's one here, and et cetera. By conjoining these fragments and putting them together, then the pathologist can look at this gunshot wound, (20)and tell its sequence relative to other trauma that might be in the cranium and to get a better idea of entrance wounds versus exit wounds, et cetera. It helps them in their analysis.
• Q.: So an anthropologist would have assembled all
(25)these various parts and glued it together?
• Q.: And can you point out on this particular exhibit where you see particular wounds, and describe how you know that? (5) • A.: Well, this is an entrance gunshot wound. If we could just see the back side of it in a good picture, you would see that the back side of it and the direction the bullet is proceeding has a bevelled contour around the circumference of the entrance wound. (10) • Q.: And you're referring to the skull on the upper part of the frame, the small hole? • A.: Yes, to the small hole here. Then there was some other trauma that went on in this, and not seeing the front, I can't appreciate what it is. But the (15)fracture lines emanating from this gunshot wound ran like in a piece of glass. If you have one trauma to a piece of glass, the lines radiate out. If you have a subsequent trauma, the lines would radiate out but stop at the line made by the first trauma. And you see this (20)kind of phenomena here. • Q.: And the bottom photograph, is that the same skull?
• A.: That's the same skull, and it shows the exit
wound derived from the trauma on the other side of
(25)the -- at the entrance.
• A.: That's correct. • Q.: All right. Well, let's get you to Bosnia in (5)1995. You did a series of exhumations of mass graves, and let's start with the first grave you did. Can you tell us a little bit about that and what you were able to conclude from the excavation? (10) • A.: This is looking westerly down a dirt road that runs through the Cerska Valley here. We have a high embankment down the northerly side of the road, and we have a slope or an embankment off of the southerly side of the road. (15)Quite briefly, for 30 metres along this road there were bodies that had been placed on the surface and buried for an extension -- for about six metres down the slope. Our investigation of this site first involved looking at the surface. And on this side of (20)the road, more dense, next to the embankment on the northerly side of the road -- • Q.: Could you indicate, when you say "this side of the road", for the record --
• A.: On the northerly side of the road. On the
(25)far side of the road from the grave were cartridge
• Q.: For the record, that reflects the opposite (5)side of the road on the left side of the photograph? • A.: On the northern side of the road. It was borrowed from the northern side of the road and used to cover up the bodies that now lay on the surface of the embankment. (10) JUDGE RIAD: Excuse me. Can I understand what's the meaning of a sprayed shot, "in a spraying-type fashion" as you expressed? Thank you. • A.: I'm using the -- coining the words of the pathologist who did this summary, about his assessment (15)that because of the multiple gunshot wounds that covered many, many body areas, that the weapons were sort of just not aimed specifically but sort of just like this [indicates], and he called that spraying. JUDGE RIAD: So they were automatic? (20) • A.: Yes. It would be automatic weapons, yes. JUDGE RIAD: Thank you. MR. McCLOSKEY: And also for clarification I should note that --
• Q.: Dr. Haglund, you work in close connection
(25)with the pathologists, and you have reviewed these
(5) • A.: Yes. I collated the reports. • Q.: And you also assisted the pathologists, as you've shown us, with bone trauma and other issues? • A.: Yes, with the caveat that I'm not a medical doctor. (10) • Q.: This has been on ongoing debate somewhat between the two professions over the years, has it not? • A.: Yes, that's right, but I refer to medical doctors for medical opinions. • Q.: And what do you base your conclusion of the (15)story on? Can you tell us why -- did you see any marks of heavy equipment used, or how do you know that heavy equipment was used to get soil from that side of the road?
• A.: I think just a magnitude of the soil removed
(20)and the reach that would have to have been made to get
the soil down, I assume it was a machine. And it's the
cartridge casings -- the distribution of the cartridge
casings and the fact that as this dirt was removed by
the machine from the northern side of the road, many of
(25)those cartridge casings were also picked up and
• Q.: Were you able to tell from the wire ligatures (5)whether or not -- well, you've got 150 bodies total and about 48 wore ligatures. Were they bunched together, the 48, or were they separated throughout the grave? Can we make anything of those details? • A.: The individuals with the ligatures were (10)randomly disbursed in the grave above, below, and in between other bodies. As the individuals were shot, they either fell over the side or subsequently were rolled over the side. So many of them rolled further down the hill, where they piled up, and some of them (15)still remained on the hillside. • Q.: So is it your opinion that this is a primary grave? • A.: This is a primary, undisturbed body disposal site. I think as the previous witness pointed out, (20)technically it's not a grave, no hole was dug, but it is a repository with human remains, yes. • Q.: And what do you base your conclusion that it's not disturbed on?
• A.: The remains were relatively intact, as we
(25)would assume they would be, if they were deposited in
MR. McCLOSKEY: And for the record, this (20)exhibit is 16/3.
• Q.: Let's go to the next exhumation, and that was
the exhumation known at Nova Kasaba 96, since it was --
excuse me. Nova Kasaba, yes, 96.
You have put what has been marked Exhibit
(25)14/4 on, the only piece of photography we're using for
• A.: Just to orient ourselves, this is the main (5)road, highway. We're looking at two fields, one field to the right and one field to the left [indicates] It's separated by a hedge row of bushes. You see some light-coloured areas. These are areas of disturbance. • Q.: And that's -- if you could just note for the (10)record where the arrows are pointed in KS-1 and 2.
• A.: Yes, and the arrows are pointing and the
letters indicate four graves, NSK -- Nova Kasaba grave
number 1, grave number 2, grave number 3 and grave
number 4. You can see the location of each of these
(15)graves is marked by a smear of disturbed surface soil;
a very large smear on this side to the right, and to
the left of the hedge, a more medium-size smear, and a
very small smear up here.
Nova Kasaba grave 1 was a shallow grave. It
(20)contained seven men. Nova Kasaba 2 was a deeper grave,
about one and a half metres. It contained 19 men.
Nova Kasaba 3 contained six men. And when I'm saying
"men", men and boys, basically. I should correct
myself. And Nova Kasaba 4 contained one elderly man.
(25)The seven individuals in the grave number 1
(20) • Q.: Were you able to make -- come to any opinion regarding whether or not any of the individuals died or were shot at the location of the grave?
• A.: In grave number NSK-2, the grave containing
the 19 individuals, some were in kneeling positions,
(25)some were in sitting positions with their heads slumped
• Q.: And were you able to determine whether these graves were dug by hand or by machine?
• A.: They were relatively shallow graves, but the
smear, the disturbed area, if we were digging graves by
(10)hand, I would expect -- for instance, the Nova Kasaba 1
grave was just probably two times bigger than the
pointer size
[indicates], and the grave Nova Kasaba 2
maybe covered three or four times the pointer size
• Q.: Yes. What is that? Were you able to make
out what that big area of disturbed earth is above
NKS-4? It's not where the grave is pointed, but just
(25)above it there is a very large area relative of --
• Q.: And were you able to see any indications (5)whether this was a primary or a disturbed grave? • A.: I'm sorry, these are all primary, undisturbed graves. And by "primary", I'm meaning that these are the graves that the individuals were placed in or were killed in and is the original position -- at the (10)original location at which they were buried. • Q.: Let's talk about the next graves which were referred to as Lazete, and we now refer to that as Lazete in the area of Orahovac. And the first photograph is 20/2, and if you could put that on the (15)ELMO and tell us the story of that grave. • A.: Here we have an overview of the area of the Lazete graves. There's a main road that's traversing up from the right-hand corner towards the centre -- • Q.: Excuse me, Dr. Haglund. We need to pull (20)that -- look at it on your screen and centre it.
• A.: I can see it just fine. Thank you.
There's a road that traverses towards the
centre of the picture from the upper right-hand
corner. That's the main road. We see the label
(25)"Lazete 1" here, and this was noted by -- was
• Q.: That's designated -- (10) • A.: LZ-2. • Q.: -- in the photograph. Thank you. Okay. And what can you tell us about this particular excavation and what did you find? • A.: This particular excavation was actually (15)located in a drainage area where it had a very high water-table and where water ran down from the fields and the hills above it. • Q.: Why don't we look at the next exhibit, 20/8, for that explanation. (20)
• A.: From this view now, we can see the raised
railroad track bed, the underpass which you need to
access this site from. The road, the little road to
the farm, passes across the midline of the section
running left to right here.
(25)We can see a large disturbed area here
(5) • Q.: Could we go to the next exhibit, which you should have before you, and could you tell us the exhibit number as it's marked on there? It should be "OTP," on the back. • A.: It says "IT9833T." (10) MR. McCLOSKEY: Just one second. I'm sorry. • A.: Okay. I'll do it myself now, thank you. OTP Exhibit 213. MR. McCLOSKEY: • Q.: And Exhibit 213 is just out of your report, (15)is it not?
• A.: That's correct. It's an overall map that
shows the Lazete 2 general area. To orient you,
running from the top to the right here is the railroad
embankment; again, the field road; and we're looking at
(20)the disturbed area that's outlined in blue towards the
lower left-hand area of the disturbed area that we saw
in the aerial imagery.
You'll see one, two, three rectangular
trenches which were test trenches that were dug to
(25)locate the graves. Then you see two red localised
• Q.: Now, let me ask you, do those reflect two separate pits or can you explain that? (5) • A.: We were unable to determine if this was a large trench that was made to deposit the remains in or if they were two separate pits. It was an unseasonably wet year in 1996, and we ran into the rainy season, which is not the best conditions under which to do some (10)of this work, and so it did, I think, obscure some of our findings. So the answer to that question is no, that's ambiguous to us at this point. • Q.: And can you explain those two designations and what they reflect? (15) • A.: Yes. As I just said, grave A is what we call in our report LZ, Lazete 2, grave A; and Lazete 2, grave B. • Q.: Why don't you tell us about each one. • A.: If I might show the next exhibit. Would that (20)be possible? • Q.: Certainly. • A.: Okay. • Q.: And that's Exhibit 214.
MR. McCLOSKEY: And if the ELMO could focus
(25)on the photograph and not at the drawing underneath.
(5) • A.: It's relatively blurred, but ... MR. McCLOSKEY: Just go down towards it and centre it in there. It should be able to fill the screen. There we go. Okay. Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Back it off a little bit so we just get the (10)photograph. • A.: Okay. That's excellent. This is looking down into the grave pit. It's about a 5 by 6 metre area or mass of bodies. MR. McCLOSKEY: (15) • Q.: Is this A or B?
• A.: This is LZ-2A. You can see individual
remains, this individual here lying face up, for
instance, and basically underneath this whole area are
bodies below it. This is just the top layer of bodies
(20)before they've been fully exposed and removed.
This mass of bodies extends to the floor of
the grave, which is approximately 2 1/2 to 3 metres
deep, depending on what area you measured it.
It contained 112 individuals. These
(25)individuals were relatively complete remains. This
(25)
• Q.: I think we have in the next exhibit a little
• A.: Yes. This is remains number 6, and then subsequently we'll look at remains number 13 and 14, which are under number 6. (5)This is Exhibit 216. To help you appreciate this, this is a belt, and these are the lower extremities and pants of this individual. • Q.: For the record, can we show that he's talking about the body marked number 6. (10)
• A.: And his legs extend into the body mass
towards the upper part of the picture.
Below we see his waist and his chest, and we
see about the area of the breast that this body has
been transected, basically chopped apart, and that the
(15)upper part, the arms and the neck and the head have,
been removed from the grave.
All along these sharp margins in this grave
that separate groups of bodies from areas where bodies
are not present, we see this phenomena; transected
(20)bodies from this removal process.
When body number 6 is removed -- it was
positioned right here between body 17 and 13 -- we find
the same -- a similar phenomena for these bodies. In
this case, this man's head and upper part of his body
(25)is still in the body group, and his legs have been
• Q.: So could you give us the basic conclusions as for numbers and blindfolds for the people in the (5)primary undisturbed grave, Lazete 2A? • A.: Well, the undisturbed grave LZ-2A, had 112 individuals, and they were all males. They -- I haven't separated these all out. I think I have them as a composite. A hundred and twenty-seven of these (10)165 bodies from this site -- incidentally, I neglected to mention that LZ-2B has a minimum number mostly -- a minimum number of 52 people. Fifty-two plus the 112, plus the 1 skeletal remains that we found at Lazete 2 was the total of 165 individuals. Their ages range (15)between 16 and 45 years of age. A signature of Lazete 2A and B were that there were a total of 104 blindfolds recovered from these remains. Seventy-seven blindfolded individuals were removed from grave A, and 26 or 50 per cent of the (20)individuals in grave B were blindfolded. • Q.: How about cause of death?
• A.: Well, the cause of death, 158 of these 165
individuals died of gunshot wounds, in seven cases, the
cause of death was undetermined, and multiple gunshot
(25)wounds accounted for wounds in 108 of these
• Q.: Okay. Now, let's go to your -- the next grave site, which you refer to as Pilica, and now we call it -- refer to it as the Branjevo Military Farm. (5)And you're now going to Exhibit 24/4. • A.: This aerial imagery depicts a view of the buildings of the farm proper and surrounding fields. The buildings are labelled -- next to the road here, and they're at the mid-right of the image. Then if we (10)proceed towards the left, past an area of brush, through the field, we come to a -- labelled a burial area, and that's the location of the grave at the Pilica grave site. The grave measured 28 by approximately (15)5 metres, and it ranged from 2 1/2 to 3 metres in depth. • Q.: Could you go to the next exhibit, 217. It gives us a shot of the sort of finished product of the empty grave. (20)
• A.: If that could be sharpened. We're looking
from one end of the grave to the other, and with these
individuals standing on the floor of the grave, you can
appreciate the depth of the grave, which is about in
excess of 3 metres, about 3 metres. You might also
(25)appreciate -- I don't know if the colour shows up --
• Q.: Would you go to the next exhibit, 212. That (20)also gives us an idea of the size and scope of the grave. Tell us a little bit about what this is. We need to back it off again.
• A.: Well this depicts some of the -- actually, we
could back off a tad more and we can see the lip of the
(25)grave. You can see the workers down in the grave, and
(25)
• Q.: Could you go to the next exhibit and could
• A.: Well, this was a questionable luxury of
(5)having a very damp environment, that we were able to
expose many bodies. Of course, when bodies are so
entangled, you need to expose several surrounding a
particular individual because one individual may be
entwined with other individuals around them.
(10)But we see, looking down into the grave, the
top of an assemblage of approximately 130 persons. We
can see, for instance, the individual labelled
number 3. He's lying sort of on his side with his face
facing towards the upper part of the picture, so you
(15)can see his hands are bound behind his back.
We have another individual over here that's
bound, another one down here. All told in this group
of remains, 77 people had their hands bound behind
their back. To give you a little -- the ages of these
(20)people actually -- of course, they're all males, and I
won't give -- when you're dealing with minimal numbers,
sometimes you have more males than you do have bodies,
and sometimes you have more causes of death than you
have bodies, because you may have had causes of death
(25)for different parts and you don't know what parts go
• Q.: Is this the only grouped mass of bodies in that whole grave? • A.: Yes. Like I say, it occupied -- this group (5)of bodies occupied the far extreme of one end of the grave and the rest of the grave is empty. Just to appreciate a little bit more of the ligatures, if I may, this is also a picture that was previously shown, I believe. (10) • Q.: This is Exhibit 219. If we could focus on the top half of that photograph. • A.: That's correct. You can see in this case, this is an individual subsequently identified, and he's lying on his left side, you can see, and you can see (15)his hands are bound at the wrists. This is an individual that has an artificial leg, and here's his hands here, bound behind his back. • Q.: Okay. • A.: Then, of course, other parts of the grave had (20)rather gruesome parts of remains. If I might just show this last exhibit, 211. This is the kind of body parts that we were finding in the grave, severed head and neck.
• Q.: Finding these kinds of severed body parts as
(25)well as this one clumped group of 132, what kind of
• A.: I think it was ambiguous. One would think -- (5) • Q.: I think we can turn the -- could you take that off the -- • A.: Yes, let's do that. I think we're done, anyway, with the photographs. One of the questions that arises with these (10)graves is why there is such a big grave space and so little of the grave occupied? That's a question I tried to answer, really not coming up with much result. The group of bodies in the pile -- (15) • Q.: Excuse me, Dr. Haglund. I've just been informed by my legs and by the time and colleagues it may be a good time for a break. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Yes. Thank you, Mr. McCloskey. I was going to draw your attention (20)to this. I think that we need a break, a 20-minute break now. --- Recess taken at 12.40 p.m. --- On resuming at 1.04 p.m.
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] The hearing
(25)is resumed. Mr. McCloskey, you may continue, please.
• Q.: Dr. Haglund, could you briefly, just to bring us back to where we were, summarise the contents of this grave, where the clusters were, where the body (5)parts were, and then, as you were getting into, give us your analysis of what you believe that shows us?
• A.: Yes. As I previously mentioned, this was a
very large grave, 28 metres long, and at one far
extremity the major portion of the remains of 132
(10)minimal number of individuals was located. Also in
this grave, in parts of it were 188 -- parts of 188
other human remains; bones, fragments, heads, et
cetera. The pile, the one massive body, did have
partial remains in them, mixed with them, and also in
(15)this particular mass of bodies there was vegetation and
there was a soil intermixed with and amongst them.
The question then is: "Was or was not the
grave disturbed?" It's a large area. Only a
fraction -- 14 per cent of the area of floor space of
(20)the grave was utilised. If it was not disturbed, we
need to explain how bodies got dismembered and pulled
apart. One possible explanation could be that the
bodies were dismembered, many of them, in the process
of putting them in the grave.
(25)The soil and vegetation intermixed with the
• Q.: So at the time you were writing your report, you didn't have access to the information regarding the secondary graves, their analysis and -- (10) • A.: That's correct. • Q.: [Inaudible] that information? • A.: That's correct. • Q.: Now, we do have the cluster of bodies in the bottom of that grave, and I just want to ask you, if (15)you can, if we have a concentration of bodies similar to the cluster that we actually see in the bottom of that grave and that concentration is throughout that grave, is that grave big enough to hold 1.200 people at that concentration that we see? (20)
• A.: Well, this is a rosary of "if"s, and it's
rather speculative. If -- if the complete floor of the
grave was packed with a density and a height of the
bodies that we found in the one body mass, yes, it
could hold seven to nine hundred people. But realise
(25)the grave was three metres deep. It could hold much
• Q.: Now, most of your testimony has been (5)regarding the graves and the excavation, but as a forensic anthropologist, you also supervised the morgue work and spent a lot of time helping the pathologists in actually going through the anthropology work, determining sex, age, minimum numbers; is that correct? (10) • A.: That's correct. MR. McCLOSKEY: And I am, Your Honours, not going to have Dr. Haglund tell us how an anthropologist determines sex and age at this point, of course, and would save that for Jose Pablo, although he can (15)certainly answer that question if anyone would like to know about it. • Q.: Also, at the end of this very long summer, did one or two of your young colleagues have some criticism regarding your supervision of the archaeology (20)work? • A.: Absolutely, yes. • Q.: What was that about?
• A.: Well, there was some criticism raised
regarding the perceived rate and quality of the work.
(25)Basically, that was the crux of it.
(10) • Q.: And more significantly, were there -- well, did anyone -- were there any complaints regarding your work at the morgue and your anthropology work? • A.: Not that I'm aware of, but there was a complain raised regarding the supervising pathologists (15)and the autopsy reports. • Q.: And were those allegations that the supervising pathologists, in some of the reports, actually reviewed the reports and findings of other pathologists and, in some cases, changed the cause of (20)death without notifying the underlying pathologist that did the report?
• A.: Yes, I think in an effort to make things
uniform. But, yes, I think it was proven he did not
consult the other pathologists. And the panel, the
(25)independent expert panel, also reviewed this issue, and
• Q.: But were you aware that the expert panel did conclude that it was inappropriate for the chief pathologist to change the reports of others without (15)consulting them? • A.: That's correct. MR. McCLOSKEY: Mr. President, I have no further questions. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Thank you, (20)Mr. McCloskey. Professor Haglund, you are now going to answer questions put to you by Mr. Visnjic on behalf of the Defence. Mr. Visnjic, you have the floor. (25)
MR. VISNJIC:
[Int.] Thank you,
• CROSS-EXAMINED by Mr. Visnjic: • Q.: Good afternoon, sir. Professor, could you tell us, in your (5)opinion, whether the number of identified bodies is small, and what is the reason for this small number of identifications?
• A.: I've not been appraised of the actual numbers
of the identifications exactly, I've not been following
(10)that issue, although I know it's proceeded far beyond
what we originally had anticipated. But, yes, it's
understandable to me that there are so few personal
identifications if you require scientific rigorousness
for positive identification.
(15)We're dealing -- if I just might give a
hypothetical. If we have a small grave in a local
community and we knew who should be buried in that
grave, that's one kind of problem. It's easier to
solve. But if you have potentially several thousand
(20)individuals and they are scattered way away from their
home territory and they end up in graves that you do
not know which grave who ended up in, then it becomes a
great feat to interview members of 7.000 families to
find them, in the first place, and then to put together
(25)a database, and then to find information enough on the
• Q.: Thank you. You have already answered my next question, Professor. Among the bodies, was it possible, and on the (20)basis which parameters, to establish differences between injuries that occurred during the person's lifetime and those that occurred after death? • A.: Yes, that is possible in many, many occasions. (25)
• Q.: Is it also possible to ascertain with
(5) • A.: I think one has to look at a mass grave as a contextual situation, and when I look at a grave, for instance Nova Kasaba grave number 4, and I see 19 individuals in that grave, and I see that they're all shot, and I see that 13 of those individuals with (10)their hands bound behind their backs, it defies reason to me that they would have been combat soldiers. And it's similar in the other graves. • Q.: My next question refers to this particular grave at Nova Kasaba, Nova Kasaba 4. I think one body (15)was found there. • A.: That's correct, yes. It was elderly gentleman who had no determined cause of death. A skeletal remains which is explainable because of the relatively superficial nature of the body compared to (20)the depth of the ones that were fleshed at the same site. • Q.: Bearing in mind your previous observation, can one leave open the possibility that that body may have been brought there later on and buried there? (25)
• A.: I think that's possible.
(5) • A.: It was not over the top of the grave. It was a distance from the actual disturbed site, lying by some bushes by the hillside. We recovered it because it would not have been proper for us to leave a body lying out in the open. (10)Whether it was actually connected with that particular incident, I could not tell, it's just that it was in the same location. • Q.: Thank you. On the basis of the clothing found on the bodies, is it possible to make any (15)conclusions as to whether those bodies were those of civilians or soldiers or, rather, whether persons in civilian clothes had any traces on them which could lead to the conclusion that they were military men clothed in civilian clothing? (20)
• A.: I don't recall any indications on the remains
of the people dressed in civilian clothing that they
would have been military. However, in the Cerska
grave, in, I believe, Lazete, and, I believe, in the
Pilica grave, of all the people that were there, there
(25)may have been maybe five or so individuals that may
• Q.: Professor Haglund, is one of the parameters distinguishing injuries in lifetime and after death the colour of the bones, and to what extent is that parameter important? (10) • A.: Excuse me. Would you repeat that? Are you asking about distinguishing trauma after death or before death; which? • Q.: The difference between those injuries before death and after death, the bone structure. (15) • A.: Yes. For dried bones that have been exposed to the soil, yes, you can tell the difference between post-mortem injuries versus injuries that occurred pari-mortem or at or about the time of death. • Q.: Is a different colour one of the elements? (20)
• A.: Yes, but we're dealing with bones that are
completely skeletalised, and for the most part these
individuals were not completely skeletalised. Many of
them had very much flesh left on them. And one of the
indications of trauma that occurred during life, the
(25)pathologist will find accompanying gunshot wounds, is
MR. VISNJIC: [Int.] Mr. President, with your indulgence, can I have a minute, please, to (5)consult? • Q.: Professor Haglund, another question related to the previous one. The time factor when determining whether the injury was post-mortem or before is the time when the injuries were discovered after death, (10)does it play a certain role? • A.: I think if you're referring to fleshed remains, I would like to defer to the medical experts, the physicians, the pathologists who deal with the fleshed remains, and that's their area of expertise. (15)If you want to talk about bones that are skeletalised and lying in soil, then I'm happy to discourse on those, but I'd like to stay within my area of expertise. • Q.: So we're only talking about bone injuries; is (20)that right?
• A.: In the majority of these cases they had bone
injuries, but when they have injuries in the context of
flesh, then I think that that's the best area for the
pathologist, because some of the questions you're
(25)asking me also have to do with the characteristics of
• Q.: On the basis of which indicators has it been established that it was an execution, a murder, in the case of all of the bodies? Could causes of death also include suicide or combat? (10) • A.: Well, I just would like again to point out that -- I have investigated many suicides. I have never seen an individual with their hands bound behind their back shoot themselves multiple times. Many of these people have multiple injuries which are totally (15)inconsistent with the circumstances of suicide. MR. VISNJIC: [Int.] Mr. President, thank you. I have no further questions. Thank you, Doctor. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Thank you (20)very much, Mr. Visnjic. Mr. McCloskey, do you have any re-examination?
MR. McCLOSKEY: No, Mr. President. I would
merely point out that we also would like Dr. Haglund's
(25)CV marked as OPT Exhibit 222, which he has just
JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] We will deal with all the exhibits at the end. Judge Fouad Riad. (5) JUDGE RIAD: Thank you, Mr. President. • QUESTIONED by the Court: JUDGE RIAD: Good morning. • A.: Good afternoon. Good morning. It's afternoon. It's morning somewhere. (10) JUDGE RIAD: In Dutch there is a word for it, but ... I have been listening carefully to your very clear testimony, and I would like just to have a few explanations. One of them concerns the body parts (15)which you mentioned, because you said that you found once 53 complete individuals and then 170 body parts, either missing heads -- or 10 missing heads, 16 transected at the torso, and 5 upper extremities. Now, how -- and you explained that later in some way by (20)saying that it could have been torn apart in the loading or unloading. For instance, the missing heads, ten missing heads, would they be torn apart in the loading or unloading? (25)
• A.: It would seem more consistent -- if you mean
(5) JUDGE RIAD: Were they cut in the same way? • A.: No. No. It was very random. JUDGE RIAD: The same thing applies to the transected -- the bodies transected at the torso? • A.: That's correct. It was very random. If I (10)might refer you -- I don't know what exhibit it is. It's -- the Pilica report, page 60, table 7, might help clarify some of this. Is that possible? Who might I ask? JUDGE RIAD: It's possible. If not, you (15)might explain it. MR. McCLOSKEY: I believe you have your report with you.
• A.: Yeah. I have my report with me, and
basically this is a table that summarises all
(20)264 separate collection units that we took out of the
Pilica grave, and it does mention the complete
individuals of 53 and the 23 nearly completed
individuals, and then it has a part called "Sections of
Individuals," and there's ten bodies with missing
(25)heads. And if we looked at the individual bodies, the
JUDGE RIAD: Thank you for this answer. My other question, or the last one, you said that there were many causes of death even for one body. What could these causes be? (20)
• A.: These were -- let's see if I can put this in
a simple way. We would look at a body part, for
instance. Let's say we had a head here and we had a
gunshot wound to the head, and it's one of these body
parts. We can say that that's a lethal gunshot wound.
(25)So that person could have died of that gunshot wound.
JUDGE RIAD: Because when you said two causes of death I thought one cause would be the cholera, another would be a gunshot, the third would be cut throat, but it is all being shot? (15) • A.: Yes. JUDGE RIAD: They are shot everywhere. • A.: Yes. JUDGE RIAD: Thank you very much. • A.: Thank you. (20) JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Thank you very much, Judge Fouad Riad. Judge Wald.
JUDGE WALD: Professor Haglund, in your first
account of the Cerska Valley graves, you talked about a
(25)likely scenario being that the 150 men and boys were
• A.: [No audible response] • Q.: Okay. (10)My second question would be whether or not, based on all of your experience with the several grave sites, you would have any explanation or hypothesis of the fact that insofar as I can see, all but Nova Kasaba, you had basically one or in Lazete two grave (15)sites with relatively large numbers of bodies, body parts, at least in one of the two graves. The number has been sometimes 120, 132, numbers like that. In Nova Kasaba you had a total, as I counted up, of 36 bodies but separated into four different (20)grave sites that we saw on the aerial picture. What, if anything, would be the explanation for that?
• A.: There has subsequently been another Nova
Kasaba grave that has been exhumed, and I'm not sure
how many individuals -- I believe it was less than
(25)100. I'm not sure. But I think my experience with
(5) JUDGE WALD: I guess my question is that might be true of the killings, but if you had 36 in the same relatively small area, the fact that they went around and made four grave sites -- • A.: Yes, that's very interesting. They may have (10)appeared at different times. I have no idea. JUDGE WALD: My next questions may either be out of the area of expertise, and if it is, that's fine, or it may draw upon some of your other experiences. But one question which I find puzzling is (15)that in these grave sites which have been disturbed, theoretically meaning that some bodies have been taken out of them, it's hard for me to hypothesise why, if somebody were intent upon concealing or getting rid of the incriminating evidence, they would take out some (20)but leave relatively large numbers still in the grave, which would be, it seems to me, almost as incriminating. I don't know whether anything in your experience would give you any reason to figure that one out. (25)
• A.: Well, I assure you they don't intend to leave
JUDGE WALD: You think it's done in such haste that -- (5) • A.: I think it can be done in haste. I think it could be done at night. It could be done with individuals who were not familiar with where the original graves were and of the extent of those graves. I think there's many, many possible reasonable (10)explanations we could make. JUDGE WALD: Well, those are some reasonable ones. Thank you. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Thank you very much, Judge Wald. (15)Professor Haglund, I have two questions. You spoke about the disintegration of bodies, body parts and so on, and you had certain explanations. I would like try out another hypothesis for that list. (20)Is it possible to observe this dismantling of bodies, where the trunk is transected, with regard to the process of killing by gunfire, that the transection of the bodies was related to the process in which they were killed, that is to say, gunfire or whatever? (25)
• A.: Well, if we could just single out, I think,
JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] My other question: You spoke about, when describing the work (10)and the composition of the teams, that there were people that had come from different countries. The team members had different experiences and different backgrounds. In your opinion, from the viewpoint of results, the results of the work, the scientific (15)results, how do you view this difference? Was it an interesting, substantial difference; was it troubling to the work? How do you see it?
• A.: Well, I think it's a wonderful situation, to
tell you the truth. I do a lot of international work,
(20)and I prefer to have international teams, and I prefer
to have them not just because of their expertise,
because I prefer to have different philosophical and
cultural views present in a mission.
In the main, the pathologists around the
(25)world read the same books. They may work under
JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Therefore, if I understood you correctly, that is a conclusion -- my conclusion, but I would like to hear your opinion. (20)The difference in heterogeneity, does it favour -- does heterogeneity favour truth better than homogeneity, from the scientific viewpoint, of course?
• A.: Well, I don't think that the science is
heterogeneous. The science, as I tried to say, is
(25)relatively uniform. These people all believe in the
JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] I have no further questions, Professor. We have come to the end (10)of your testimony. Before you go, I should like to ask Mr. McCloskey where we stand with reference to the documents and the tendering of evidence. MR. McCLOSKEY: Mr. President, I would like (15)to offer Exhibit 211 through 219, 222, and 206 through 209. I believe those reflect all the new exhibits that we've discussed in the last two hours. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Mr. Visnjic, any objections? (20) MR. VISNJIC: [Int.] No, Mr. President, none.
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] Very well,
then. The exhibits mentioned have been admitted into
evidence.
(25)Professor Haglund, I should just like to
THE WITNESS: I would like to thank the Court for their patience, yes.
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] It wasn't
patience; it was a pleasure to hear you. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Mr. McCloskey, are we continuing? MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, Mr. President. It's now -- Mr. Cayley is ready to put on Jose Pablo Baraybar, (15)one of the anthropologists that worked on more recent exhumations.
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] Very well.
Thank you very much. We'll have the pleasure of having
Mr. Cayley next. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Good afternoon. Can you hear me? THE WITNESS: Yes, very well.
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] You are now
(25)going to read the solemn declaration that the usher is
THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. (5) WITNESS: JOSE PABLO BARAYBAR JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Please be seated. I think that you're quite familiar with the proceedings in the courtroom, so I take it you feel at ease. Yes. Very well. You are now going to answer (10)questions put to you by Mr. Cayley. Please go ahead, Mr. Cayley. You have the floor. MR. CAYLEY: Good afternoon, Mr. President, Your Honours, my learned friends for the Defence. (15) • EXAMINED by Mr. Cayley. • Q.: Mr. Baraybar, good afternoon. Could you please spell your name for the record? • A.: My name is spelled B-a-r-a-y-b-a-r. • Q.: And your Christian name is Jose Pablo? (20) • A.: That is correct. • Q.: And you were born on the 1st of October of 1964? • A.: That's correct.
• Q.: And you are of Peruvian nationality; is that
(25)correct?
• Q.: You have a bachelor's degree in archaeology from the University of San Marcos in Peru; is that correct? (5) • A.: That's correct. • Q.: And I think you have a master of science degree from the University of London, in fact University College London. What was that degree; in what were your studies in? (10) • A.: It was a master of sciences, including many areas. I would say bio-archaelogy was one of them, the application of tendencies of human biology to archaeological human remains, as well as paleopathology, which is the study of pathological (15)conditions in human remains, and forensics. • Q.: Just one thing to remember, Mr. Baraybar. Because we're being simultaneously interpreted and because we're speaking the same language, you must try and speak quite slowly, and if you can pause between (20)the end of my question and the beginning of your answer, that will help, particularly as you're using very technical terms. What year was that, your master of science degree? (25)
• A.: 1991 to 1992.
• A.: A forensic anthropologist deals with human (5)remains from forensic contexts, from medical and legal contexts. Forensic anthropologists deal with the recovery and with the analysis of human remains from those kind of contexts. One of the main tasks after recovery of those remains is to ascertain the age, the (10)sex, and the stature, among other things, of the remains recovered. • Q.: Now, apart from your work for the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, where else have you done work as a forensic (15)anthropologist? • A.: I have worked in Argentina, in Peru, my home country, in Haiti, Ethiopia, Congo, Guatemala. I started to work for the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, where the Forensic Unit was actually (20)created, as a matter of fact, and from there transferred to this Tribunal. • Q.: Was all of your work as a forensic anthropologist concerned with alleged violations of human rights? (25)
• A.: That is correct.
(5) • A.: Yes, sir. MR. CAYLEY: If the witness could just be provided with Exhibit 220 and also, in fact to speed matters up, the anthropological report. • Q.: Mr. Baraybar, is Exhibit 220, the document (10)marked Exhibit 220, your curriculum vitae? • A.: Yes, it is. MR. CAYLEY: Mr. President, I simply offer that to the Court. It contains all of Mr. Baraybar's field work, his laboratory work, his manuscripts and (15)publications and papers in conferences and congresses. I don't intend to go through it, but I offer it to the Court as foundation for his evidence. • Q.: Mr. Baraybar, can you look at the very next document in front of you, which I think is Exhibit 233, (20)and can you identify that document? • A.: Yes. This is a report I submitted last year and basically describes the anthropological examination of the human remains recovered in this case.
• Q.: Now, am I right in saying that your report is
(25)based on both exhumations and anthropology that you
• A.: That is correct. MR. CAYLEY: If the witness could be shown (5)Exhibit 140. • Q.: Mr. Baraybar, if you could look at the top right-hand corner, there are some red index numbers, and if you could go to page 25. No, it's actually -- in fact, if the usher puts my copy on, it will make it (10)easier. I don't want to spend time going through documents. Can that be placed on the ELMO? Mr. Baraybar, did you prepare reports on the anthropological remains of all of the graves that are (15)actually shown on this exhibit? • A.: That is correct, I did. MR. CAYLEY: And let the record show that that is the ERN number page 25 up in the top right-hand corner of Exhibit 140, which is an exhibit that went (20)through Mr. Manning. And if the usher could turn to the next page.
• Q.: Now, Mr. Baraybar, in the case of the graves
that are shaded green, which were exhumed secondary
graves, did you also complete the anthropological
(25)reports on the remains from those graves?
MR. CAYLEY: And let the record show that the witness has confirmed on page 26, and that's the ERN number in the top right-hand corner of Exhibit 140. (5) • Q.: Now, you stated in your evidence earlier that the four objectives of anthropological studies of human remains are to determine the sex of the individual, to determine the age, to determine the stature, and I think you also stated to determine the minimum number (10)of individuals within any grave. Now, purely talking in generic terms before we get to any specific grave, can you explain to the Judge how, as an anthropologist, you determine the sex of an exhumed body or human remains from a grave? (15)
• A.: Yes. In principle, the sex of a body will
always be determined by an examination of external
genitalia. If the body is decomposed beyond
recognition or the soft tissues are virtually gone,
that is not possible. Therefore, we are left with the
(20)bones to be examined.
Having a complete skeleton that consists of
206 bones, we will be able to look at three different
areas. In order of priority, these areas are the
pelvic bones that basically are the hip bones, then the
(25)skull, and then the long bones.
(5) MR. CAYLEY: If the witness could be provided with the next three exhibits, which are 224, 225, and 226. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Mr. Cayley, I do apologise for interrupting, but you mentioned (10)page 25, 26 of the 140 exhibit. This is just a small question, but perhaps for identification purposes we should give IT another number, because we have 926 but we also have 1026. But I'm going to leave it up to you, of course, to do that, and I do apologise for (15)interrupting.
MR. CAYLEY: Thank you for that,
Mr. President. Because I didn't have the document in
front of me, I didn't know the -- I think it's a
seven-figure number. There is, in fact, a page 26 in
(20)that document, but these were diagrams and the pages
were not numbered. In fact, the only page numbers on
these two pages, and I'll put them into the record, the
first diagram is ERN number 00950925 and the second
number is 00950926. So that will make sure that we
(25)don't confuse it with the page 26, which is a separate
• Q.: Mr. Baraybar, excuse me. If you could first of all show the photograph of the pelvis and explain to the Judges how you would use the pelvic bone to (5)distinguish between a male and a female.
• A.: Right. I am showing Exhibit 224. We're
looking at a male pelvis, and in order not to confuse
the audience, I will avoid mentioning technical terms
or the specific name of each structure. I will just
(10)point to you each of the structures we examine in order
to determine a sex.
If you have a complete and fully articulated
pelvic bone such as in this case, you could definitely
see there are a number of obvious features that will
(15)differentiate this male pelvis from the female pelvis I
will show you in a moment. One of the main features is
the extent of this area that I'm pointing to here.
If you were to have only fragments of this
pelvic bone, you would be looking at certain structures
(20)such as this one, some of the structures in this area
here, primarily related to the angle of these two
bones. You would be looking at some other structures
not visible on this drawing, that is, basically on the
inner aspect of this pubic bone. Then you will be also
(25)looking at the position and shape of the sacrum bone;
• A.: We have taken a very conservative approach. In other words, whenever the pelvic bones were not present, sex was not ascertained. • Q.: So am I right in saying that many of the (10)individuals who are termed as of ascertained sex could have been males? • A.: That is correct. • Q.: Now, moving on to the next objective of forensic anthropology, if you could briefly explain to (15)the Judges how you assess the age of an individual from the mortal remains from a grave.
• A.: Well, the assessment of age follow again
similar principles as the assessment of sex. A number
of structures in the human skeleton change in relation
(20)to age. They change in shape, in appearance, in
integrity.
Sex and age are two multi-factorial, if we
can call it in this way, analyses. We have to look at
different elements in order to reach a conclusion. The
(25)problem with aging, and primarily in a forensic
• Q.: So to summarise what you're saying, am I
right that you are stating that the scientific tests
(25)used to assess the age of individuals that were exhumed
• A.: That is correct. • Q.: Now, in terms of all of the scientific (5)standards that you employed as a forensic anthropologist for all of these areas, sex, age, minimum number of individuals per grave, can you make a few comments to the Judges on those standards? • A.: The -- as with sex, what I would like to add, (10)age is extremely influenced by the preservation of the remains. In other words, if I have only a fragment of a body, if I have a body part, my assessment, as age goes, will be very limited. For example, if I am using a combination of ribs and pubic bones, if I happen to (15)have an arm or a leg, I will not be able to apply those standards to that specific body part, in which case I will be able to say only this individual is an adult or is a sub-adult, is a growing individual, or maybe it's simply an adult. It could be 30, 50, 80. I cannot (20)really make a difference of that.
• Q.: We can move on to the next objective of
forensic anthropology, and that is the MNI or minimum
number of individuals. Now, before I show you any
exhibits, can you explain to the Judges what the
(25)purpose of the MNI test is?
(20) • Q.: Now, you've put together a number of exhibits to explain this scientific concept to the Judges. And if you have Exhibit 227 -- the usher can assist you -- could you explain to the Judges what is represented by this diagram? (25)
• A.: Although I am using the example of a left
(15) MR. CAYLEY: Mr. Baraybar, if I could just interrupt you there. The witness is indicating, on Exhibit 229, that in the left portion of the photograph is the proximal portion of the femur, and in the right-hand photograph, the distal portion of the right (20)femur. • Q.: Please continue, sir.
• A.: Considering that we cannot actually fit these
two fragments and make one femur, we have to take again
a conservative approach and say that we assume that
(25)these two fragments, although not fitting with one
(5) • Q.: But am I right in saying that potentially in any grave site, these two portions of bone could represent two individuals? • A.: That is correct. • Q.: So this technique of counting individuals (10)naturally always under-counts the number of people in a grave? • A.: That is correct. • Q.: Now, if you could move on to Exhibit 230 and explain to the Judges the process that you went through (15)in either a primary or a secondary grave in order to make an assessment of the number of the -- the minimum number of individuals in that grave. One question before you begin. This is simply a model. This does not represent any particular (20)report that you can completed in respect to Srebrenica, does it? • A.: That is correct. • Q.: Please continue.
• A.: Right. As you told you earlier, and I'll put
(25)this in perspective so we can understand what I'm
• Q.: Mr. Baraybar, you need to bring it down. You need to -- that's fine. (15)
• A.: I will slide it as I explain. Right.
If we go now to the category of 13 to 24, the
number highlighted in red that says "38," is the
highest number in the whole column. If I just put it
here, you can see that all the other numbers are lower
(20)than 38. Therefore, we consent to say that there are
38 fragments of the left proximal femur in the category
13 to 24, meaning that at least we have 38 individuals
between 13 and 24 years of age.
We can do the same thing for 25-plus
(25)category, and again it is highlighted in red the number
• A.: Yes, sir. • Q.: Now, it's not quite as simple as that, is it? It does actually become more complex, where when (20)one is dealing with primary and secondary grave sites. Why does it become more complex when one is dealing with a primary site, which has been robbed and the contents moved to secondary site?
• A.: In the previous testimonies, we have seen the
(25)process of disturbance of primary sites and the
• Q.: Can you demonstrate this on Exhibit 231,
which I think is another model? Now, in respect to the
(25)sites in and around Srebrenica, how did you know that a
• A.: I was informed by investigators and then read various reports, such as Dr. Brown's property on soil (5)comparisons, and that is the way I found out which sites were related to what others. • Q.: If you could use the exhibit in front of you and explain to the Judges the MNI in respect to linked sites? (10) • A.: This again is another simulation. The first, I have only extracted data for the left femur to make it actually easier to explain. The top part, the top chart in yellow represents a primary site and the bottom one in blue (15)represents the secondary site. We know, because of the information I just mentioned, that the two are linked. The way we would then calculate this merged or combined number of individuals would be very much in the same fashion as we have done it before but with (20)some differences. If we observe the first column, meaning the one from 8 to 12 years, we see that in the primary site, there is a fragment of left distal --
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] Excuse me,
(25)Witness, for interrupting you.
• A.: If we observe then first the first column (10)from 8 to 12 years, we will see that in the primary site, highlighted in red, there is a number 1 indicating that a fragment of left distal femur, meaning the area of the bone of the thigh bone above the knee is represent. However, in the secondary site, (15)there is no entry for the same category and the same bone. The left distal femur says 0. This basically means that merging the two sites, at least we can say that one individual between 8 to 12 years was represented. (20)If we proceed with the second column between 13 and 24, we will see again that the highest number on the primary site is 49, and is highlighted in red, and --
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] Excuse me,
(25)Witness. I'm sorry for interrupting you.
THE REGISTRAR: The technical booth says there's no problem.
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] Perhaps
there is a problem, because if there's no technical
(10)problem, then there's another problem, because I do not
see on the monitors the picture which the witness is
talking about. So I'm -- now I see it. It's there
now. So there was no technical difficulty, but again
something was lacking.
(15)We must deal with these matters in a dynamic
rather than a static way. If a witness is talking
about a picture or a table, we cannot follow what the
witness is saying if we do not see the picture in front
of us or the table. So please pay attention. I'm
(20)asking the technical booth to pay attention and to make
sure that when the witness is talking about an exhibit,
that that exhibit should be shown to the public.
I apologise to the witness, once again, and
to Mr. Cayley. Perhaps we should round off this point,
(25)because it is 2.30.
• Q.: Mr. Baraybar, if you could just complete your explanation of this particular exhibit. • A.: I think I left it at the 13-to-24 range, (5)again it is highlighted in red that there are 49 pieces of the proximal left femur, the top part of the femur, and in the secondary site the same -- we have 38 individuals also represented by the proximal left femur. And if we move to the 25-plus category, we see (10)that the distal femur has 68 and 44. The minimum number of individuals then would be calculated at the bottom of the page. You can see that in the first category, eight to twelve, we have one; 13 to 24, we have 49 plus 38. That is 87. And in the last one, 68 (15)plus 44. That is 112. The total number or the minimal number in this case is 200 individuals, meaning that between the primary and the secondary site, 200 individuals are accounted for, or at least -- that would be the right (20)way to say it -- at least 200 individuals are accounted for between the remains recovered at the primary and the secondary site.
• Q.: But again, as you stated previously, there
could be a great deal more than 200 individuals
(25)represented by these bone fragments?
MR. CAYLEY: Mr. President, if you wish, this (15)would be a good point in time to pause in Mr. Baraybar's evidence. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Yes, Mr. Cayley, I think it is time. We have been working a little longer. I apologise to the interpreters. But I (20)think we have finished for today, Witness, and we will resume work tomorrow. So tomorrow at 9.30.
--- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at
2.34 p.m., to be reconvened on
(25)Tuesday, the 30th day of May, 2000,
|
