1 Wednesday, 22 May 2002
2 [Open session]
3 [The witness entered court]
4 [The accused entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.05 a.m.
6 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Kay, let me deal with two administrative matters
8 The first is this: That I understand that one of the associates of
9 the accused handed in a book which -- of which mention had been made, I
10 think last week, to the Registry, and the registrar has it. Perhaps I
11 could have it. Thank you. It is "To Kill a Nation: The attack on
12 Yugoslavia," by Michael Parenti [phoen]. We will keep this and have a
13 look at it, and in due course, anybody who wants can make mention of it
14 and, if necessary, could be made an exhibit.
15 The next matter is purely administrative, and it's this: On
16 Friday, there has to be an initial appearance before this Trial Chamber.
17 It will take place at 12.45, and as a result, we shall have to cut short
18 the hearings here at 12.15.
19 The final matter - this is really for the Prosecution - Mr.
20 Ryneveld, we should deal with the total number of witnesses that you're
21 going to call in this part, your application to vary the order we made at
22 the Pre-Trial Conference. We should have an argument perhaps about it, or
23 we'll hear argument about it perhaps next week, along with the
24 investigation and any other matters we've got to deal with. We must find
25 some time for that.
1 But let me tell you that preliminary thinking on the matter is
2 that we will extend the time by a week, to the 26th of July, and we will
3 expect you to finish the Kosovo section by then. It's clearly important
4 that this section ends so that the next section can begin. But as I say,
5 that is purely a preliminary thought, and we will hear argument about it.
6 MR. RYNEVELD: Thank you, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE MAY: The -- yes, Mr. Kay.
8 MR. KAY: It's just an introduction, Your Honour. It's Mira
9 Tapuskovic sits beside Mr. Tapuskovic today. She is his assistant for
10 cross-examination and his assistant for working on the case as part of the
11 amici curiae.
12 JUDGE MAY: Thank you.
13 Yes, Mr. Ryneveld.
14 MR. RYNEVELD: Resuming, if I may then, with Dr. Baccard.
15 WITNESS: ERIC BACCARD [Resumed]
16 [Witness answered through interpreter]
17 Examined by Mr. Ryneveld: [Continued]
18 Q. Dr. Baccard, yesterday we left off with my asking you about the
19 conclusions in your report at page 15 of that document, and I think I had
20 asked you about what is in the conclusions at 1.4.3. I would ask you if
21 you would now turn with me to 1.4.4, the Dubrava Prison. Very briefly,
22 because the report speaks for itself obviously, and in due course I hope
23 will be marked as an exhibit, I just want to have you highlight for us if
24 you would, please, the conclusions about the number of autopsies and
25 whether there was identification positive for any of them. Can you tell
1 us about that.
2 A. Yes. The autopsies that were performed by the Spanish forensic
3 team were 97, and at the time of the autopsy, 42 people were identified.
4 Q. And were you able to determine the age of the victims and their
6 A. As for the age, the victims aged from 18 to 60. All of them were
8 Q. And your report also indicates the cause of death and the types of
9 causes of death. What can you tell us, sir, about whether or not gunshot
10 wounds were involved at all and what percentage?
11 A. Thirty-seven per cent of the cases were the result of gunshots and
12 40 per cent by explosives.
13 Q. Turning to 1.4.5, the Izbica case, I understand this was performed
14 by the French forensic team on 139 graves; is that correct?
15 A. That's correct.
16 Q. And you've already told us about additional forensic data you
17 obtained from a videotape. Can you indicate to us, sir, the -- from the
18 examination and other information, how many bodies were involved in this
19 particular incident?
20 A. The number of exhumed graves were 139. As regards the number of
21 victims that one could see on the videotapes, it's difficult to determine,
22 but as regards information that was taken from testimony I was made aware
23 of, there were 127.
24 Q. Are you able to indicate, from what you could see, the apparent
25 cause of death in the majority of these cases from the video? I
1 understand you were not able to perform autopsies on these bodies because
2 they were missing.
3 A. Yes. Within the limits of that method, the cause of death could
4 not be asserted for each case. Only one could speak of -- we could talk
5 about compatibility with this or that cause. The lesions that one could
6 see on the video cassette did not appear on all the bodies but only on
7 some of them, and on some of the bodies there were wounds that were
8 compatible with wounds that are caused by gunshot.
9 Q. Now, on all of these reports that are comprised in these binders
10 which form the source material for your report, photographs or photographs
11 or videos are part of the source material that you used. In other words,
12 there are photographs which are available to the Court that form a basis
13 of the source material for your report as well, are there not?
14 A. Yes, that's correct.
15 Q. Turning to 1.4.6, the Kacanik case. I understand there are four
16 subsites under Kacanik. Turning first, if I may, to the Dubrava Islamic
17 cemetery. I understand that there were some eight autopsies performed by
18 the Swiss team; is that correct?
19 A. Yes, that's correct.
20 Q. Seven of those were male and one female? All were identified?
21 A. Yes, that's correct.
22 Q. Are you able to indicate to the Court what the cause of death was
23 and the percentage?
24 A. [No translation]
25 MR. RYNEVELD: I don't think I received a translation.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The cause of death was thoracic or
2 abdominal injury by gunshot in 75 per cent of the cases. As I said, that
3 is three-quarters of the cases, 75 per cent, the cause of death was
4 related to wounds to the abdomen or the thorax related to the projectile
5 of a gunshot.
6 MR. RYNEVELD:
7 Q. Thank you. The Kotlina site in 18.104.22.168. I understand there were
8 25 individuals autopsied there; is that correct?
9 A. Yes, that's correct.
10 Q. And are you able to tell us anything about age or gender of those
11 victims that were identified?
12 A. As regards the gender, only five cases provided -- is there
13 information provided for in the autopsy report. As regards the age, 68
14 per cent of the victims were less than 40 years old.
15 Q. And now the cause of death with respect to these individuals, can
16 you tell us, in the majority, what you found to be the cause of death?
17 A. The majority of the victims died from gunshot wounds caused by
18 explosives. That is in 84 per cent of the cases. Only 12 per cent died
19 of projectiles from gunshots.
20 Q. From your recollection, sir, do you know where these bodies that
21 died from explosions were found? It's not contained in your conclusions
22 portion, but in the Kotlina site, do you know where those particular
23 bodies came from?
24 A. I could not answer from my memory. I would have to refer to the
1 Q. All right, sir. Turning to the Stagovo site, I understand that
2 there were some ten autopsies that took place in Kacanik by, again, the
3 Swiss team. And what can you tell us, sir, about the gender of the
4 identified victims and their ages range?
5 A. As regards the gender of the victims which were identified, six
6 were men, four were women, and they ranged from 7 to 83 years of age.
7 Q. And are you able to indicate to us what the cause of death was in
8 the majority of cases?
9 A. In the majority of cases, the cause of death was related to wounds
10 from gunshot projectiles which primarily were involved with thoracic and
11 abdominal wounds, and then in the second place, wounds to the head.
12 Q. Turning to Vata. I understand that there were some ten victims
13 autopsied by the Canadian forensic team, and are you able to tell us about
14 gender and range of age of those victims?
15 A. The victims were all men, aged from 15 to 52 years of age.
16 Q. Are you able to say anything about the cause of death?
17 A. The cause of death was the result of projectiles of gunshots,
18 mostly to the abdomen, the thorax, and the ...
19 Q. All right. And about these particular bodies, were there any --
20 were the entry wounds from the back as opposed to from the front?
21 A. Yes. Insofar as possible, that detail was sought in each report,
22 and the entry point was at the posterior part of the body in 37 per cent
23 of the wounds.
24 Q. Now, sir, just going back to the Stagovo site, the previous site
25 one moment. Again there, the location of the entry wounds of those
1 bodies, are you able to give us a percentage of entry wounds from the back
2 of the body?
3 A. Yes. At Stagovo, the location of the entry wounds was at the back
4 side, at the back level, that is in 89 per cent of the cases.
5 Q. Eighty-nine per cent. I see. Turning then, if I may, to 1.4.7,
6 the Krusha e Vogel site, there were some four victims I understand that
7 were autopsied by the British forensic team, and I understand that there
8 were one female and three males, one young adult and three adults; is that
10 A. Yes, that's correct.
11 Q. 1.4.8, Padalishte. The Spanish forensic team performed autopsies
12 on the Imeraj family, I understand. Is that correct?
13 A. Yes, that's correct. That involved 18 victims.
14 Q. And are you able to tell us anything about gender or age of those
16 A. Yes. Eleven of the victims were males, seven females, and
17 two-thirds were less than 40 years old.
18 Q. And what percentage died from gunshot wounds, sir?
19 A. Eighty-three per cent.
20 Q. Turning to Racak, if I may, 1.4.9, how many victims were
21 autopsied in Pristina?
22 A. In all, 40 victims were autopsied in Pristina. 16 of them were
23 autopsied before the arrival of the Finnish expert pathology team.
24 Q. Who had performed the earlier autopsies, sir, do you know?
25 A. Yes. The identity of the experts appears in my report. There was
1 a team of forensic professors, Yugoslavian, with the assistance of two
2 forensic specialists from Belorussia.
3 Q. All right.
4 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Ryneveld, if we can go back to 1.4.7, to Krusha e
6 MR. RYNEVELD: Yes, sir.
7 JUDGE KWON: In the statement, there is a saying that "the status
8 of these remains did not permit to determine the cause of death." Could I
9 hear some explanation of this?
10 MR. RYNEVELD: Certainly. Thank you, Your Honour. I'd be happy
11 to ask that.
12 Q. Sir, in your conclusions, there was something about the status of
13 the remains. What can you tell us about the status of the remains that
14 does appear in your report which prevented you from determining the cause
15 of death? What was it about those bodies that prevented you from doing
17 A. Yes, I can. The bodies were severely damaged. They were
18 skeletonised and partially burned, which prevented the British experts
19 from being able to go further in respect of determining the cause of
21 Q. So their state of having been burnt and skeletonised simply did
22 not permit you to venture an opinion; is that correct?
23 A. No, because they were what we call body parts, fragments of
24 bodies, body fragments mostly.
25 Q. All right.
1 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
2 MR. RYNEVELD:
3 Q. Returning, if I may, to Racak, sir. The cause of death in the
4 majority of those 40 individuals, were you able to determine what the
5 cause of death was?
6 A. The cause of death was determined. It related to wounds through
7 projectiles from firearms.
8 Q. In what percentage of the victims would you say that was the case?
9 Were all the deaths related to gunshot wounds? Is that what I hear you to
11 A. Yes. All the victims died from gunshot wounds.
12 Q. Turning, if I may, next to 1.4.10, the Studime e Eperme case. I
13 understand that some 93 individuals were exhumed and autopsied by the
14 French forensic team; is that correct?
15 A. Yes, that's correct.
16 Q. Are you able to say anything about gender or age of the victims?
17 A. As regards the sex, 87 per cent were -- 87 were men, six were
18 women. More than 75 per cent of the victims were under 50 years old.
19 Q. Are you able to provide some opinion to the Court concerning the
20 cause of death?
21 A. As regards the deaths, 97 per cent were due to firearms.
22 Q. Are you able to indicate, sir, whether or not the range at which
23 these people were killed in a certain percentage of the cases, whether it
24 was from a distance or close range?
25 A. As regards the firing distance, I myself was unable to confirm it,
1 and I could only repeat what was indicated by my colleagues, Professor
2 Lecomte and Dr. Vorhauer; and according to their conclusions, the firing
3 distance was close, even though they were not able to be more specific.
4 Q. And again, the entry -- was there any incidence of the entry wound
5 being in the back side of the corpse in those victims?
6 A. According to the information and the photographic documents which
7 appear in the reports, in 43 per cent of the cases, the wounds were in the
8 back side of the body, and in 23 per cent of the cases on the front side.
9 Q. Turning finally, with respect to this report, to your conclusions
10 under 1.4.11, the Suva Reka case, I understand, sir, that there were some
11 six bodies autopsied there by the British forensic team.
12 A. Yes, that's correct.
13 Q. And are you able to indicate, sir, for some of the identified
14 victims what the cause of death was?
15 A. Yes. For the victim identified as being Faton Berisha, that
16 victim died from a gunshot wound to the thorax. As regards the victim
17 identified as Fatime Berisha, that victim died from a gunshot wound to the
18 head. And as regards the four unidentified victims who were mixed
19 together, mingled together in the body bag, the cause of death could not
20 be determined.
21 Q. Is there a reason -- I suspect the answer is in your -- to my next
22 question has already been in your last response, but is there a reason why
23 the cause of death could not be determined for the four other victims? Is
24 it because their body parts were all mixed together? Is that what I'm
25 assuming from your answer, or is there some other reason?
1 A. That's the -- this deduction is correct. The absence of a
2 diagnostic -- diagnosis as to regards the cause of death was connected to
3 the fact that the bodies were extremely degraded, and there was a mixture
4 of the bones there.
5 Q. Thank you.
6 MR. RYNEVELD: Your Honours, I would tender Dr. Baccard's report
7 as the next exhibit.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, just one clarification from
9 yesterday. We're going to renumber the Meja binder, and that will be
10 given -- it was previously marked as Prosecutor's Exhibit 160.1. It will
11 now be 167. The expert report will be 168.
12 MR. RYNEVELD: And in accordance to what I indicated yesterday in
13 relation to the additional page from the index that was handed out
14 yesterday, I have had prepared an additional page which includes the tab
15 numbers for the Meja binders, three binders. And also, finally, one
16 binder that has also not been mentioned yesterday, the Cirez, Srbica
17 municipality binder for sexual assaults. That's on the same page. So if
18 I could distribute those pages, and then I want to finally deal with the
19 Cirez binder with Dr. Baccard.
20 This page is numbered 9 of 9. I think you received pages 1
21 through 8 yesterday.
22 This will be the last area of examination for the doctor.
23 Have the Cirez binders been distributed, are they there? Thank
25 Madam Clerk, have we assigned numbers to the -- you've just
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 assigned the number to the Meja binder. Have you assigned the number to
2 the Cirez binder?
3 Your Honours, might we have a number assigned to the Cirez binder?
4 Because I intend to show it to the witness in a moment.
5 JUDGE MAY: Is it one of those which have been lined up or is it a
6 totally different binder?
7 MR. RYNEVELD: It's not one of the ones that was lined up
8 yesterday. It's a binder that was still being worked on yesterday and
9 it's been completed this morning. So it is a further binder but it does
10 -- it is on this index. It has been -- the contents were disclosed, we
11 just didn't physically have the binders reproduced yesterday, and they've
12 been produced now. They were disclosed. All this material in this binder
13 was disclosed in February to the amici and to the accused, and it relates
14 to the sexual assault counts only.
15 JUDGE MAY: Do we have the binder here or is there only one copy
16 of it?
17 MR. RYNEVELD: No, there are copies.
18 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we'll give this Prosecutor's Exhibit
19 Number 169.
20 MR. RYNEVELD: Thank you.
21 Q. Very briefly, Dr. Baccard. I understand, sir, that during the
22 year of 1999, you were in charge of all of the autopsies that were
23 performed under your supervision, including the French forensic mission on
24 the 2nd and 3rd of July of 1999 in Cirez; is that correct?
25 This was under Professor Dominique Lecomte?
1 A. No, that's not correct. In 1999, I was not responsible for the
2 autopsies performed by the French mission.
3 Q. All right. During the course of your employment, during the
4 course of your review of the autopsies of various bodies performed on
5 Kosovo victims, was one of the sites that you reviewed the Cirez site
6 involving some eight women who had been apparently found in a well, in
7 three wells? Do you recall looking at that?
8 A. Are you referring to the mission from 2000 or the mission in 1999?
9 Q. This would be 1999.
10 A. In 1999, I did not participate in the autopsies performed at that
12 Q. All right. Doctor, there is an autopsy report performed by the
13 French team, with photographs of the various bodies. Sir, if you were
14 requested to review the -- actually, it's a very brief report, about five
15 pages with photographs, and if you were asked to stand down, would you be
16 able to provide the Court with an opinion later this week if you were
17 asked by the Court to review -- or by the Prosecution to review these
18 photographs to determine whether or not the findings in this binder are
19 consistent with your observations?
20 A. I don't understand the question.
21 JUDGE MAY: I think, Mr. Ryneveld, the witness can't assist on
22 this matter. I think -- suspect you'll have to call another witness or
23 review the position rather than trying to put a burden on him now.
24 MR. RYNEVELD: Yes. My hope was that since the witness is here,
25 that he may, if the Court would - after he concludes his evidence - permit
1 him to review this binder and if he is able to render an opinion, to
2 recall him before he leaves.
3 JUDGE MAY: One moment.
4 [Trial Chamber confers]
5 JUDGE MAY: We think it's going to be difficult, but we'll see
6 what the position is.
7 MR. RYNEVELD: Thank you, Your Honours.
8 MR. KAY: Shall we withdraw the exhibit?
9 JUDGE MAY: I think that would be the best course. Let's withdraw
10 the exhibit now.
11 MR. RYNEVELD: Thank you.
12 JUDGE MAY: Cross it out of the numbers and I'll hand this copy
14 MR. RYNEVELD: Thank you, Your Honour. Those are the questions I
15 have with respect to Dr. Baccard at this time, subject, of course, to a
16 further application once he's finished testifying. Thank you.
17 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Ryneveld, before we move on, I'm not sure whether
18 he gave us the explanation of the concept of minimal number of victims
19 which was dealt with in 22.214.171.124.
20 MR. RYNEVELD: Thank you.
21 JUDGE KWON: Can I hear it again?
22 MR. RYNEVELD: Yes, absolutely.
23 Q. Dr. Baccard, did you hear the question from His Honour Judge Kwon
24 about 1. -- I'm sorry, I've got the wrong binder. 1.3. -- sorry, what was
1 JUDGE KWON: 4.1.
2 MR. RYNEVELD: Thank you.
3 Q. Would you turn to that part of your conclusion, and --
4 JUDGE KWON: 126.96.36.199, yes.
5 MR. RYNEVELD: I'm trying to locate it, Your Honour.
6 JUDGE KWON: It's on page 10.
7 MR. RYNEVELD: Ah. Yes. All right.
8 Q. Yes. On page 10 of your report, sir, at the bottom of the page,
9 you gave a report concerning the minimum number of victims, talked about
10 commingling of skeletonised body parts, et cetera. Can you explain what
11 you mean, how you arrive at the minimal number of individuals for the
12 purposes of reporting in this report? Can you explain the process you
13 adopted where you were confronted with commingled body parts? You
14 understand my question?
15 A. Yes, I do. This has to do with the problem with which
16 anthropologists and forensic anthropologists are confronted. When one is
17 in the presence of bones that have been destroyed and commingled about
18 which it is difficult to identify not only the individuals but even the
19 number of individuals because one might find only one part of a right arm,
20 for example, for instance, or a part of a left arm, and that the two parts
21 could belong to -- either to two individuals or to the same individuals.
22 And the expert work is to try to put together the bones which can be put
23 together. And the risk one runs is overestimating the number of victims,
24 and that's the reason that we prefer to speak about the minimum number of
25 victims, realising that this is the lower limit below which one cannot go,
1 basing oneself on bones that are only one single bone, like the sacrum or
2 the right or the left side, and that one would get a left or right
3 humerus, that prior work which the anthropologist expert does when he is
4 faced with commingled bones which have been severely damaged.
5 Q. Is another way of phrasing what you've just told us, sir, that if
6 you err on the side of caution, in other words, you err on the side of a
7 lower number of victims that might possibly be there? Is that what you
8 mean by the minimal number of victims? There could be more but no less
9 than what is reported?
10 A. Absolutely.
11 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
12 MR. RYNEVELD: Thank you. Those are my questions of Dr. Baccard
13 at this time. Thank you, Your Honours.
14 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Before I start with my questions,
16 for the record, in connection what I asked for yesterday, I have here your
17 ruling of the 4th of January, 2002. And under point (e), it says that the
18 current status of disclosure [In English] "66(A) of the Rules including
19 the necessary translations into the language of the accused."
20 [Interpretation] Therefore, you made the ruling that I should
21 receive the documents translated into my language. My yesterday's
22 objection was not whether something was disclosed or not but that it was
23 not disclosed in the language that you required it to be disclosed in.
24 And when something was not disclosed in accordance with the Rules, then it
25 is the same as if it hadn't been disclosed at all. And I link this to
1 this witness who notes errors which he himself established, discrepancies,
2 differences, and so on.
3 Therefore, I have been withheld the possibility for the experts
4 assisting me to review the documents on the basis of which the witness
5 made his conclusions, on the basis on which he found errors and so on and
6 so forth. I'm saying this --
7 JUDGE MAY: Just a moment. Which documents have not been
8 disclosed in B/C/S?
9 MR. RYNEVELD: Your Honour, to -- all this material has been
10 disclosed in English. These are exhibits under -- my understanding is
11 that even the report doesn't have to be disclosed in B/C/S, nor do
12 exhibits. This is -- these documents are not subject to the ruling that
13 they have to be in the language of the accused.
14 Now, we, as a courtesy, provided him with a copy of Dr. Baccard's
15 report in B/C/S, but my understanding of the Rules is that that was not a
16 requirement, nor are exhibits themselves. They are not part of the
17 documentation that needs to be disclosed in the language of the accused.
18 That's my understanding of the Rules. And everything was disclosed, as I
19 say, in its form, in its present form, since February.
20 JUDGE MAY: We don't want to waste the time of this witness. The
21 report has been disclosed in B/C/S, so the witness has that. We will
22 review the position with regard to disclosure in due course.
23 MR. RYNEVELD: Thank you.
24 JUDGE MAY: Now, Mr. Milosevic, do you want to ask this witness
25 any questions based on his report?
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, certainly.
2 Cross-examined by Mr. Milosevic:
3 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Baccard, what do you imply under sources of
4 forensic information?
5 A. As regards the sources of information which I used for the
6 drafting of this report, those sources were mentioned yesterday and they
7 appear on page 9 of my report, that is, they were reports of autopsies of
8 anthropological experts that were prepared by my colleagues who worked on
9 site and which constitute this document. There are also reports of crime
10 scene examinations which were prepared within that same context,
11 photographic albums of photographs taken during the autopsies, also
12 photographs taken at the crime scenes. And in the case of Izbica, there
13 was an additional document which is the video cassette and the photographs
14 which were extracted from that video cassette.
15 Q. As I am not an expert, I have to ask you some questions which may
16 appear to you to be too simplistic, but I would like to put them to you
17 because I think they help to clarify the situation about which you are
18 testifying. The question is linked to the first point you just made.
19 Is it necessary for those sources of forensic information to exist
20 prior to the beginning of the post-mortems, those that you have listed, as
21 this can affect the position of the persons carrying out the autopsies of
22 bodies or post-mortems?
23 A. I did not understand the question. Could it be re-asked, please.
24 Q. My question was: This collection of forensic information that you
25 have listed as your sources, do they need to be available before
1 undertaking an autopsy? Do you need to have what I would call information
2 that are included in the overall analysis before undertaking a post-mortem
3 or not?
4 A. The sources of information were based on the autopsies which were
5 performed by international experts who came on site. The sources of
6 information and the autopsy reports, the photographs were taken at the
7 time of the autopsies, and therefore, they come from the autopsies and did
8 not pre-exist the autopsies.
9 Q. I wanted to establish that. So before an autopsy, you didn't have
10 any information as a guideline for those autopsies. So you had no
11 information whatsoever prior to the autopsies?
12 A. The list that I use for this report of an analysis and summary is
13 clearly mentioned on page 9. I did not use other information.
14 Q. Thank you. Military or civilian clothing, can it determine the
15 status of a person in an armed conflict in a war-ravaged area or is the
16 status determined by the activity of a person who is carrying weapons,
17 using weapons, and killing people? So does the clothing determine the
18 status of the person or not?
19 A. I can answer that question -- I cannot answer that question which
20 goes outside my speciality, and have access only to the photographs which
21 give details. And this was mentioned in several of the reports. I
22 systematically studied that criterion in order to make -- to point out
23 that information to the Judges. It was for their information. And then
24 the Judges will have to interpret the information. But that is not up to
25 -- it's not up to the forensic expert to -- to evaluate things in that
2 Q. Yes. But in your report, in point 1.1, you do refer to that
3 aspect of the situation.
4 A. Yes, that's correct. This is a criterion, as I said, which was
5 systematically studied in the report but no interpretation was made, at
6 least not by me, in the report on the meaning which the presence or
7 absence of this or that piece of clothing might have.
8 Q. So you do not consider yourself qualified to judge whether the
9 status of a person is determined by the clothing he is wearing or the arms
10 he's carrying or --
11 JUDGE MAY: He has answered that question. Now, let's move on.
12 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
13 Q. Why are statements of witnesses a component part on the report on
14 autopsies and anthropological expert findings?
15 A. Certain witnesses that were doctors, these persons provided
16 clarification about the interesting information and in -- as such, it was
17 very rare. This is established in the report in that case. From the time
18 that forensic information was indicated in the statement, and then if that
19 was the case, I learned of it.
20 Q. So that means when you're talking about witnesses, you're talking
21 exclusively about information of a forensic nature provided again by
22 experts. Do I understand you properly?
23 A. The list of documents appears for each case in the introduction to
24 the report on that site. Therefore, one has to refer to it in order to
25 answer your question.
1 Q. Mr. Baccard, I am cross-examining you, so you can't tell me it is
2 to be found in the list of documents. I have that list. You need to
3 answer my question. My question was very clear.
4 When you mention witness statements, does that mean exclusively
5 forensic expert findings of your own colleagues that you used? Yes or no.
6 A. As regards the witness statement to which allusion has been made,
7 it was the statement of a physician who carried out what we call an
8 external examination at the site of the incident. It was a medical
10 Q. So you only have one medical opinion as a witness statement that
11 you used in your report?
12 A. The term "witness statements" concerns seven statements of a
13 witness who was a physician who carried out an external examination of the
14 corpses at the site of the incident; and in his medical studies, he has a
15 part which is devoted to forensic medicine and the opinion of a specialist
16 physician which might be very, very useful in terms of the -- in terms of
17 the forensic information he noted.
18 Q. And what is the name of that person?
19 A. That was (redacted).
20 Q. And what was her position and function in the investigations?
21 A. I think -- well, I don't know exactly what the functions were. I
22 think that that person did not have any function in the investigation, but
23 the -- she was there, because we're talking about a physician who was
24 there to treat.
25 Q. Are you aware of the qualifications of that witness regarding her
1 forensic expertise?
2 A. No, I don't know them.
3 Q. But you took her statement as being the statement of a forensic
5 A. No, that's not correct. It was one of the elements which is
6 indicated last and that I used in the Racak case study after the autopsy
7 reports that were performed by the Finnish forensic pathologists and those
8 from Yugoslavia and Belorussia and the various documents which were
9 drafted for that incident.
10 Q. I'm talking in principle about witness statements as a component
11 part of the reports on autopsies. So my question was: Why is a witness
12 statement a component part of a report on autopsies? And I wanted to get
13 a professional explanation for this. We'll come back to this specific
14 case later.
15 My next question, Mr. Baccard, is: Can videotapes and stills made
16 on the basis of those tapes being considered evidence in legal
17 proceedings? This refers to the part of your report 1.2. I wish to
18 facilitate your answers.
19 MR. RYNEVELD: Your Honour.
20 JUDGE MAY: Yes.
21 MR. RYNEVELD: When reviewing the question, I believe that's
22 something within Your Honours' domain rather than the witness's domain.
23 He's asking his opinion as to whether or not this is, as I see it,
24 considered evidence in legal proceedings.
25 JUDGE MAY: Yes, of course.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 Yes. It's not matter for the witness. It's a matter for us.
2 Let's have the next question.
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I shall move on to the next
4 question, Mr. May, but I do have the right in cross-examination to ask any
5 questions that were mentioned and brought up by the witness in his report.
6 But, yes, I shall move on to my next question.
7 JUDGE MAY: That wasn't brought up. But let us move on.
8 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. If in the report on Suva Reka, for example, two anthropological
10 experts of the same kind do not coincide, what about the rest of the
11 findings of the anthropologists? Can they be accepted as being
12 trustworthy? And it is point 188.8.131.52 that I'm referring to.
13 A. I apologise. Could you repeat the question, please?
14 Q. If in the report on Suva Reka two anthropological expertise --
15 experts of the same team do not coincide, what about the rest of the
16 findings of the anthropologists? Can they be accepted as being
18 A. I noted the contradiction which appeared on a very specific point
19 of the report on Suva Reka. This does not put into question the rest of
20 the report.
21 Q. In wartime conflicts, do we see more adults taking part, young
22 adults, that is to say, or adults --
23 JUDGE MAY: That's not a question -- this witness is here to deal
24 with the pathology, not to deal with general points such as that sort.
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The witness is a forensic expert,
1 Mr. May.
2 JUDGE MAY: No. That's a matter for the Court if it's a matter
3 for anybody.
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.
5 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. How, and does this occur, that is to say, how do the putrefaction
7 changes and disintegration of the corpses, as well as the existence of the
8 bones themselves of human origin, how does this affect the establishment
9 of the number of wounds on the body and the establishment of the cause and
10 origin of death?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. But my question was if yes, how? How were these putrefactions
13 expressed, decaying processes?
14 A. The state of degradation of a body - and this is a general answer
15 - does constitute an additional obstacle for the forensic pathologist in
16 determining the cause of death. Perhaps I won't explain all of the
17 changes that take place in the colouring of the teguments which can mask
18 or conceal in part ecchymosis or haematomas or changes which are related
19 to the appearance of ecchymosal cavities of putrefaction. All of these
20 changes that take place during putrefaction cause difficulties for
21 determining the source of the wound or the trajectories.
22 At a later stage, the gradual disappearance of all the soft
23 tissues also constitutes a handicap for the forensic pathologist who will,
24 in the end, be confronted with only a skeleton. And if the wounds which
25 have soft parties are on a body, then from that point of view, the state
1 of a body is very important in order to determine the cause of death.
2 Q. Therefore, they have -- they affect the number of wounds on the
3 body and determining the cause and origin of death. They affect this very
4 much; is that right? Am I understanding you correctly?
5 A. This is a difficulty, an additional difficulty, but there are
6 other methods which allow one to make up for that additional difficulty.
7 Q. How is it possible for a person killed to establish different
8 forms of death? First of all, a person can die because the fact that the
9 brain has been blown out or destroyed. Perhaps it is due to bleeding.
10 Perhaps it is due to the heart or the fact that the aorta has been cut
11 off. And you have this in 184.108.40.206., these different elements. 220.127.116.11.1.
12 A. In general, the answer is that the death is not the result of a
13 temporal succession of pathological but rather a succession of various
14 events that take place at the same time. When a person has been hit by
15 several projectiles, those projectiles can wound different organs, and the
16 pathologist is then faced with several potential causes of death, and to
17 that extent, the conclusions of the autopsies indicate frequently several
18 causes of death.
19 Q. And to determine the circumstances under which death set in, is
20 that the business of the person, the physician conducting the post-mortem,
21 the autopsy? Is that their duty?
22 A. There is no obligation from a scientific point of view, but it is
23 recommended. Still, there are cases when the cause of death cannot be
25 Q. I'm asking this question in connection with your point 18.104.22.168.2,
1 manner of death. So it was in that regard that I asked the question,
2 whether physicians conducting autopsies can determine the circumstances
3 which cause death, under which death occurred, and whether that was their
4 job or not, and as you're a professional man, whether you can tell us
5 since when that has been their job.
6 A. As to determining the circumstances of the death and not the cause
7 of death, the determination of the circumstances of the death require,
8 when possible, knowledge of other information, in particular information
9 relating to observations that were made on crimes -- on crime scenes and
10 the certainty that the chain of proof was respected.
11 Q. And is it the duty of the expert dealing in homicide?
12 JUDGE MAY: What's the question?
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The question is: Is that the duty
14 of the experts investigating homicides?
15 JUDGE MAY: Is what the duty?
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, to establish the circumstances
17 under which death occurred. A moment ago, the witness mentioned --
18 JUDGE MAY: That's the question. Let the witness deal with it.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The obligation of the expert is to
20 provide to the Judges the most complete information, the most exhaustive
21 information possible. When that expert is in a position to provide an
22 opinion on the circumstances of death, he can do so, observing, of course
23 -- or being as careful as possible. But if there is information allowing
24 him to establish that the possibility of suicide, for example, would be
25 the most plausible in respect of forensic medicine, he can make a
1 statement in respect of that possibility.
2 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. And on the basis of which parameters will a pathologist be able
4 to, after an autopsy has been conducted, to draw conclusions as to how he
5 differentiates death which occurred through hand firearms, for example, in
6 war as opposed to a killing that took place, for example, in an armed
7 conflict in which two people were involved, or the results of an
8 unfortunate event such as self-infliction of wounds by a firearm going off
9 and things of that kind? So all these different circumstances in fact and
10 these different possibilities. What are the parameters that a pathologist
11 will use to differentiate between these different types of death?
12 A. He refers to the Racak case where the Finnish team systematically
13 took up that point without -- without giving an answer. In practice,
14 current forensic medicine establishes that the -- that we must consider
15 the possibility and on which we have to make -- give an opinion generally
16 is that of suicide, homicide, or accident. And I can give you perhaps the
17 various forensic arguments which allow us to decide which of these
18 possibilities is the correct one and which we then provide to the Judges.
19 I don't know whether your question is actually related to that.
20 Q. Yes. Thank you. Now, with a skeletonised corpse, how can you
21 differentiate between inflictions to the bone with blunt or sharp objects
22 in the course of life from injuries that were caused with those same
23 objects after death or while the person was being buried, the body was
24 being buried? And this is once again referring to your point 22.214.171.124.
25 With skeletonised corpses, how are you able to ascertain that?
1 A. In that case, the forensic pathologist is confronted with
2 significant difficulties, and that explains that, in some cases, he is
3 unable to make a diagnosis as to the cause of death. As regards the first
4 part of the question, from the very moment when the body has -- even if it
5 has been skeletonised, that body has lesions. By the aspect of -- the
6 external aspect of those lesions and the microscopic aspects of the
7 lesions, one can find wounds which could be indicative of gunshot wounds
8 or types of fractures which would indicate a blunt instrument or a cutting
9 instrument. That is possible, but nonetheless, there must be lesions on
10 the bones.
11 Of course, when we're talking about wounds on the soft tissues and
12 when we are dealing with a skeletonised body, one cannot make an
14 Q. And what about carbonised corpses and corpses that have been
15 distorted through decay after exhumation? Can you ascertain whether the
16 effect of the firearm was while the person was still living or when he was
17 dead? And I'm linking this up with your point 126.96.36.199.1 to facilitate you
18 in answering your question.
19 A. 188.8.131.52.2 --
20 Q. 184.108.40.206.1.
21 A. Yes. As regards the difficulty caused by carbonisation of a body,
22 x-rays make it possible to establish whether or not there were
23 projectiles. Then everything depends on the degree of carbonisation. The
24 wounds systematically must be studied with a desire to find whether one
25 can find the antemortem character or the post-mortem character.
1 Everything then depends on what remains of tissue around the wound which
2 would make it possible for the expert to answer the question as to whether
3 it is a -- it was a lethal wound or one that was -- that occurred later
5 Q. So it is possible, even with carbonised and decayed corpses; is
6 that right? Have I understood you correctly, it is possible?
7 A. It is difficult to make a general answer because there are
8 different degrees of the stages of putrefaction. There are also different
9 stages of carbonisation. Therefore, each case is individual, but
10 systematically one has to try to see whether it is possible to point out
11 certain indications of wounds that give to that wound the definition
12 whether it was something that happened before death or after death.
13 Q. So it is on the basis of bleeding around the wound, with a
14 carbonised body, that you are able to establish that. Am I correct in my
16 A. That is one of the criteria which is studied.
17 Q. Very well. And with a skeletonised and putrefied corpse, can you
18 establish the exact number of entry wounds or can you only assume how many
19 there are or a minimum number of wounds and something that is not
20 conclusive in that respect? And I'm linking this up to the next paragraph
21 of yours which is 220.127.116.11.2, number of gunshot wounds.
22 A. From the moment that the parts of the skeleton show lesions, it is
23 possible to identify those lesions. But first one underestimates the
24 numbers because all the wounds which concern only the soft tissues, which
25 have therefore disappeared, are not taken into account.
1 And secondly, as regards a skeleton, one must take into account
2 the fact that certain of the -- of the wounds are entry wounds and -- some
3 are entry openings and some are exit openings and that they might
4 correspond to the same wound.
5 And then the third point that the pathologist has to consider is
6 whether the fact that the victim is a moving target and that that target
7 might have an arm raised in a gesture of defence and it will be wounded in
8 the arm, the forearm. The projectile will therefore afterwards perforate
9 the thorax but it is the same shot. And if one examines the person in an
10 anatomical position, you would see three different wounds, four if you
11 count the exit wound in the thoracic cage. And that is why the
12 pathologist, as far as possible, tries to speak about the minimal number
13 of shots.
14 Q. Now, an experienced expert, an experienced professional, can he,
15 without having any great problems in determining the entry and exit wounds
16 on the upper and lower extremities, and where does the difficulty lie in
17 determining the position of the wounds on the extremities, as is stated in
18 your report in paragraph 18.104.22.168.4, location of the point of entry?
19 A. The problem of the upper limbs and lower limbs, in fact, is a
20 significant one because the bones will be long bones. There are bones
21 which have a cortical thickness which is significant with a cylindrical
22 form. In those cases, it is much more difficult to determine whether we
23 are talking about an exit or an entry orifice. I'm speaking about a body
24 which has been skeletonised, and I'm leaving aside the case of a body
25 which is -- still has soft tissue, because at that point we have other
1 arguments that we can use.
2 Having said this, even when we're talking about a long bone, it is
3 possible in many cases to determine an entry -- an open -- an entry point
4 which we can distinguish from an exit point. But it's difficult to have a
5 general position on this, but there is no question that it is much more
6 difficult to make a differential diagnosis between the exit and the entry
7 point on a long bone than on a flat bone. That would be the skull or the
9 Q. And on the bodies, were blindfolds and ligatures found, and if so,
10 where were they found?
11 A. If I remember correctly, there was never shown that there were
12 blindfolds on the corpses. There was one case was disputed, but in my
13 opinion, it was a kind of a band that was -- that was put around the head
14 in order to keep the jaw in place and that during movement, that type of
15 tissue might move. And then in that case, on that site, it was not shown
16 that there were any blindfolds.
17 Q. I'm talking about all your localities. In explaining the
18 methodology of your work in Racak, for example, you state that all the
19 autopsies can be classed into three groups and that they were verified
20 ones, supervised ones, and complete forensic autopsies. And for the first
21 two, you give detailed explanations of your methodology, but there is no
22 detailed explanation of methodology for your third group. Why is that so?
23 A. The third group is the group of autopsies which were performed by
24 the Finnish team.
25 Q. You mention that the first 16 autopsies were carried out before
1 the Finnish expert team arrived. Isn't that so?
2 A. That's correct.
3 Q. But were the expert positions of the Yugoslavs, Finnish experts,
4 and Belorussian experts for those 16 autopsies, were they harmonised
5 and dovetailed or not? Aligned or not?
6 A. Those reports are -- well, I only had available to me the Yugoslav
7 expert and the Belorussian expert. I only had one page, and it was a page
8 indicating the conclusion responding to answers asked by the Yugoslav
9 judge. I did not have available to me the full report drafted by the
10 Yugoslav physicians, and therefore, this was a comparative work done
11 between the conclusions -- based on the conclusion page prepared by the
12 Yugoslav and Belorussian physicians which I compared with the report and
13 conclusions made by the Finnish physicians. In order to answer your
14 question, there existed - and this is listed in the annex of my report -
15 there existed some cases wherein the conclusions were different.
16 Certain points were minor points. Others were more important in respect
17 of the number of shots that were fired on the victims.
18 Q. And do you consider those differences to be significant or less
19 significant? The differences that you've been speaking about.
20 A. On the whole, for questions which are significant, such as the
21 cause of death, there were some differences. Those differences, in my
22 opinion, did not call into question the agreement between the two or three
23 teams, that is the Finnish team, Belorussian, and Yugoslav. But there
24 were some contradictions, and that appears in the annex.
25 Q. Yes, yes. The important thing is this: That you say they don't
1 bring into question this agreement, that is to say, the differences will
2 not affect the general agreement. That's how I understood you. Is that
4 A. That is not quite what I said. What I said is that I had
5 available to me a conclusion page which provided information which is
6 extremely simple, even somewhat summary, in respect of the causes of death
7 and the fact that the wounds were ante or post-mortem and the number of
8 shots. As regards the cause of death, there was no discrepancy that was
9 evident between the work carried out by the two teams, that is the Belarus
10 and the Yugoslav team on one side and the Finnish on the other.
11 As regards other points, because these reports, which I had to
12 study, from the Finnish pathologists were sometimes quite long and one
13 could not compare a very complete report with a one-sheet conclusion
14 because I did not have available to me the complete reports that were
15 drafted by my colleagues from Yugoslavia and Belorussia.
16 Q. All right. Now, if the pathologists in Racak claim that in one
17 case you cannot exclude the possibility of the fact that a wound was
18 inflicted with a blunt object and then the person conducting the autopsy
19 concludes that, only on the basis of a photograph, that that injury was
20 caused by a firearm because it has a typical description, the keyhole
21 element, then the question arises - and this is my question to you - how
22 come the pathologist does not see that? And this is linked to 22.214.171.124,
23 paragraph 126.96.36.199 of your report.
24 A. I remember the case which is being referred to, and it is true.
25 The conclusions of the Finnish forensic specialist left some doubts as
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 regards the two possibilities, the first being that of a cranial cervical
2 lesion caused by a gunshot and the other being a wound by a blunt
3 instrument. And therefore, I learned of the photograph album which was
4 prepared at the time of the autopsy, and I can assert that the lesional
5 aspect that one sees on the photograph is typical of a lesion caused by a
6 firearm which performs a kind of a keyhole aspect described by many
7 writers, particularly in the United States. And this is the type of
8 lesion which one frequently finds with certain types of calibres which
9 then create a kind of a keyhole, which is absolutely typical. That is the
10 -- that's my expert opinion.
11 Q. Yes, but my question is how come the pathologist did not see it,
12 notice it?
13 A. Those people who performed the autopsy noted the lesion, described
14 it, measured it, and mentioned two possibilities among which is the
15 possibility of a wound by gunshot, and this was the first possibility
16 which was mentioned.
17 JUDGE MAY: It is the time for an adjournment. We will adjourn
18 now for 20 minutes.
19 --- Recess taken at 10.32 a.m.
20 --- On resuming at 10.55 a.m.
21 JUDGE MAY: Yes.
22 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
23 Q. Mr. Baccard, you said --
24 JUDGE MAY: We've got no translation.
25 THE INTERPRETER: One, two, three. Is that better?
1 JUDGE MAY: Thank you.
2 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. You said, Mr. Baccard, in connection with the comparison of
4 reports, that you only read a page-long list of conclusions by Yugoslav
5 and Belorussian experts, that you didn't read their entire report. Is
6 that right? Did I get you correctly?
7 THE INTERPRETER: The witness doesn't have his microphone on, Your
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I read what was given to me, that is
10 40 times one page of conclusion of the expert report of the experts of the
11 Yugoslav and Belorussian experts. Those are the only -- that's the only
12 thing I had available to me.
13 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
14 Q. And did you ask the Yugoslav authorities to provide you with the
15 whole report in view of the job that you were asked to do?
16 A. I asked that from the Office of the Prosecutor, and I myself did
17 not make a request with the Yugoslav authorities. I didn't have any
18 qualification -- any authorisation to do so.
19 Q. Very well. But you did ask this of peoples who were able to
20 provide you with that. So you did address yourself to the Prosecution,
21 did you not? Thank you for your answer.
22 In connection with the witness that you mentioned, do you, as an
23 expert and in view of your references, which are most impressive and show
24 that you are a very prominent forensic expert, do you consider that person
25 that you mentioned as a physician who testified for this case, that she
1 was able to provide relevant facts in that testimony in view of the fact
2 that, according to her testimony, which I hold in my hands, she spent a
3 total of two hours for all those 40 bodies that she examined. So was it
4 possible for a high-level expert or an expert who is far from that that
5 you referred to, in a period of some two hours, to examine 40 bodies,
6 establish the entry and exit wounds, the clothing, and all the other
7 parameters that she mentions in her testimony?
8 JUDGE MAY: Can you comment on that, Dr. Baccard, or not?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I would like, Your Honour, to recall
10 that the testimony of (redacted) was only one element among others
11 that I used partially for the summary report. I would remind you that the
12 doctor was not on site as an expert but, rather, as a witness. And I
13 would also like to recall that in current forensic medicine, whether it be
14 in France or other countries, we frequently have available to us at the
15 time of the autopsies descriptive certificates which were prepared by
16 general practitioners called on to appear on site, either by the family of
17 the deceased person or by the police services, and that this type of
18 document is transmitted to the forensic expert as one piece of information
19 among other pieces of information.
20 And therefore, I would like to put this in its right proportions.
21 That is, I am speaking about the contribution of (redacted)
22 the documents which were the basis of my report.
23 JUDGE KWON: Doctor --
24 MR. RYNEVELD: Your Honour, if it assists, that report referred to
25 by the witness whose name I don't want to mention and ought be redacted
1 from the transcript, is found in the Racak binders which are part of the
2 38 binders that Your Honours have. So --
3 JUDGE MAY: The Trial Chamber has the position in mind. We have
4 dealt with this matter. And Mr. Milosevic, there's no need to ask any
5 further questions about it. We have it fully in mind, and we have now the
6 witness's answer that it was merely one element amongst the others which
7 he took into account in coming to the conclusions which he did. But
8 there's no need to repeat the point, because as I say, we are fully aware
9 of it in the various points that you have made.
10 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
11 JUDGE MAY: Have you got your microphone on?
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It is switched on now.
13 I was saying, regarding the question, it has to do exclusively
14 with my interest in hearing Dr. Baccard's professional opinion in
15 connection with the very specific question, that is, whether two hours is
16 sufficient to draw any kind of conclusions of the examination of 40
18 JUDGE MAY: Yes.
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] As Dr. Baccard is a specialist
20 witness --
21 JUDGE MAY: So we don't go over this again, let the witness give
22 an opinion, if he thinks he can, as to that point.
23 If you think it's right -- you've heard the point. Is it possible
24 in two hours to come to any kind of conclusions in these circumstances?
25 What would your view be, if you have one?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Of course not as part of a forensic
2 expert -- expert evaluation, but one can carry out a serious forensic
3 analysis on 40 bodies in two hours. But the conclusions of this colleague
4 were not of interest to me. What was of interest to me were the comments
5 and not the conclusions or the interpretation about what she had seen,
6 only what was important to me were the observations that she was able to
7 make on the bodies of the victims.
8 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. Which observations, Mr. Baccard?
10 A. The observations in respect of the position of the victims and the
11 wounds that were shown, that is, those observations which appear in that
13 Q. And do you know that there is a serious reason to believe that
14 those corpses were moved and brought from various locations to the spot
15 where she found them? Did you take into consideration that fact too?
16 A. I did hear about the possibility that that might have happened,
17 but my work essentially was based on the results of the autopsy -- the
18 autopsies and not on a prior possible moving of the bodies.
19 Q. Very well. Let us move on then with other questions.
20 The number of gunshot wounds and other wounds, can they be an
21 indication of the cause of death or not?
22 A. The number itself, no, but the location of the wounds, yes.
23 Q. If a group of armed men is surrounded by another group and if
24 there is an armed conflict between them, on what part of the body will the
25 surrounded people have entry wounds, and will in that case be a greater
1 probability of one part of the body being fired at more frequently than
2 another? I draw attention to paragraph 188.8.131.52 of your report.
3 A. To answer in general terms that question, that is outside the
4 scope of my specialisation. The question calls into account criteria
5 which are not necessarily forensic, and I am not in a position to answer.
6 Everything would depend on the respective positions of the two groups, of
7 their weapons, the circumstances; there are too many variables, and I
8 cannot answer that question.
9 Q. So there are too many variables to be able to give a qualified
10 professional opinion on your part.
11 JUDGE MAY: That's what the witness has just said.
12 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
13 Q. And can one explain a large number of injuries on the head and
14 trunk by the fact that in any training of soldiers or any members of armed
15 formations at exercise grounds one usually uses targets with heads and
16 trunks, and the advice is mainly to hit the head and trunk. This is part
17 of the routine training of anyone being trained for combat.
18 JUDGE MAY: It's not a matter for the witness. Yes. Next
20 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. In the event of a person lying down, on what part of the body
22 would the wounds be found if we're talking about close-range struggle,
23 running, moving, when both sides are mobile, moving around?
24 A. It would be difficult to answer that question also because it
25 calls into account too many variables into whether the person is lying
1 down, whether he's lying on the back, on the stomach, whether that person
2 ran or was running. One cannot give a general answer to that type of
3 question. One must take into account the particular cases in order to
4 provide a well-reasoned answer.
5 Q. And on the basis of the appearance and size of the wound, is it
6 possible to determine the calibre of the firearms that were used and on
7 the basis of which criteria? I'm referring to paragraph 184.108.40.206.
8 A. As regards determination of the calibre of the weapon, one --
9 220.127.116.11, you said? One can provide only general directions. It's very
10 difficult to make the aspect of a wound match a specific calibre. One can
11 give a direction in respect of a type of weapons or munition. That's much
12 easier when one has, for instance, a body which has been pierced by a
13 projectile. It's much more elastic then. The diameter of the entry point
14 will be more or less the same as the calibre of the weapon. That is much
15 more hazardous in respect of the entry wound on the skin because of the
16 fact that the skin is elastic.
17 Another fact which gives information as to the calibre of the
18 weapon is what we call, in ballistics, lesional ballistic, the lesional
19 profile, that is what one finds during the autopsy in respect of the
20 issues which were traversed by the projectile. So it is a kind of -- a
21 grouping of various elements which will allow, later on -- allow the
22 expert later on to provide information to the judge about a large category
23 or a large class of weapons or projectiles; weapons, calibres, and
25 Q. And which are the criteria for determining the distance from which
1 a projectile was fired, the projectile that hit the body?
2 A. This is a very important question in forensic medicine, but one
3 wants to make a distinction between two cases, depending on whether one --
4 one is dealing with a single shot, a bullet of a weapon or a rifle or a
5 carbine or an assault weapon, or ones which have gunshot -- gunshot wounds
6 which come from buckshot. Buckshot or various projectiles. The spacing
7 of the spray at the point of impact will be correlated with the distance
8 of the firing. The person firing either will be far away -- the further
9 he is from the victim, that is the person firing, the larger there will be
10 a spray of shot. But there are other variables to be taken into account
11 which take into account the length of the gun, the -- the charge of the
12 weapon or the -- the -- what is going to help in dispersing the shot.
13 And then we deal with the single projectile, that is the bullet
14 itself, the bullet which is by itself. In that case, other information is
15 used in order to determine the firing distance. These have to do with
16 information which are either visible or which are shown by analysis. This
17 information which is visible is -- would be burns on -- at the point of
18 the wound or the kind of tattooing of the powder traces which have been
19 partially or incompletely burned on the edges of the wound and then we
20 call it the fading zone. That is the place where the smoke struck the
21 body. And then in respect of the firing distance, some of this
22 information will be present or absent.
23 The final case to be taken into account is the one of firing which
24 had been at close range or in which -- when one sees a specific aspect of
25 the wound itself.
1 These are the different criteria which we use in forensics in
2 order to determine the firing distance.
3 Q. Yes. But, for instance, there are no burns, which means that it
4 was not close range. Can you then assess the distance from which the shot
5 was fired? Was it 10, 50, or 500 metres?
6 A. Beyond a certain distance, which various depending on the length
7 of the gun or the size of the -- amount of powder used, it is true that
8 one can determine the firing distance. One can determine contact
9 discharge firing with the -- where the gun is put right up against the
10 skin of the victim, those which are close range, those which are short
11 range, and then intermediary distance and long distance about which one
12 cannot give any specific information from the point that the traces of
13 sulphur powder have dissipated. Once that has happened, one cannot
14 determine the firing distance.
15 Q. Very well, then. Let me be more specific. Which distances can be
16 established during the autopsy and using which research methods? Which
17 distances is it possible to establish and on the basis of which methods of
19 A. The firing distance which we can evaluate at the time of the
20 autopsies, referring to single projectiles, one can determine that things
21 -- approximately only those which -- the cases where the gun actually
22 touched the skin, at close-range shooting, that is, a few centimetres from
23 the wound, and then intermediary distance. Once all of those factors can
24 no longer be determined, there would be no signs on the body.
25 Q. So in that case, it is not impossible to establish the distance
1 from which the shot was fired, whether it was 20 metres or 200 metres, if
2 those traces are lacking?
3 A. With -- using classical methods, traditional methods. Using other
4 methods, using more sophisticated techniques relating to lesional
5 ballistics, there are differences in velocity which will cause changes on
6 the lesional profile, but that requires specific methodology.
7 Q. In the studies that you did of those killed in Racak, did you have
8 at your disposal information about the number of persons for whom the
9 paraffin test was positive? That is, it was established that they were
10 shot at by firearms.
11 A. As regards the reports which I consulted, that is the Finnish
12 report and the one-page conclusion of the Belorussian and Yugoslavian
13 team, there are no mention of paraffin tests. I would add that that
14 paraffin test, which dates back to the 1930s, is a test which is of
15 historical interest but which today is of no scientific interest. It is a
16 test which can make it possible, when used on a person who shot in order
17 to get an idea of the distribution of nitrate on the hands. But it will
18 only indicate nitrate and in no way will it be very specific about firing
19 residue. This is a test whose scientific valuation today has been
20 rejected by all experts throughout the world because of its lack of
21 specificity and the fact that our atmosphere has nitrate pollution at very
22 large levels which is related to fertilisers and related to the
23 possibility of having positive tests if there are traces of urine or nail
24 polish or using any other kind of agents which would give positive
25 reactions. So that is a test which is no longer scientifically accepted
1 at all and has no scientific value in respect of showing firing residue.
2 Having said this, I -- I was able to -- I did not really use that
3 method in order to -- to come to any conclusions. If I had had to, I
4 would have pointed out that there was a lack of specificity in that type
5 of test which does not allow it to be accepted in the scientific
7 Q. And did any of the persons killed have any traces of nail varnish
8 or did you have any information that in that village in the month of
9 January, which had been abandoned several months ago, did you have any
10 information to show that somebody had been using artificial fertilisers?
11 A. I had no information in the reports about the use of nail polish
12 with the victims, including the female victims there. There was no
13 information as to the use of fertilisers. But we do not need information
14 about that type of detail in order to reject categorically - and that
15 appears in all criminalistic books - to reject categorically the use of
16 this type of method in order to look for firing residue.
17 And I'm absolute on that point. I can refer you to several
18 international publications, the most recent dating from 2001 from the
19 Lausanne forensic laboratory. This is something which everyone knows in
20 the scientific community.
21 Q. You have already said that the Prosecution did not provide you
22 with the entire report, but did they provide you with the testimony of the
23 witness that they have in their file, Dr. Dusan Dunjic, a forensic
24 pathologist and also a member of these international associations of
25 forensic experts and pathologists? Do you perhaps remember seeing that?
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 A. The list of reports or documents that were used for drafting my
2 report appears in the introduction, and I did not use them to prepare the
3 report, that is the one from Professor Dunjic.
4 Q. Very well. Thank you. Diseases verified among those killed in
5 Racak, could they have been an obstacle for them to take part in armed
7 JUDGE MAY: It's not for the witness to say.
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I don't understand why not.
9 JUDGE MAY: He's a pathologist. He's here dealing with the
10 various corpses and not the diseases they suffered from and whether they
11 prevented them from being in armed conflict. If you want to call a doctor
12 about it, you can.
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] But I'm linking this to paragraph
14 18.104.22.168 from his report, and diseases are also part of the pathology.
15 JUDGE MAY: Let us look at that. 22.214.171.124.
16 You will have to help me, Doctor. 126.96.36.199?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] 188.8.131.52. It's on page 26, Your
19 JUDGE MAY: I have it. Doctor, can you help us whether somebody
20 who had cancer of the bladder would be capable of taking part in an armed
21 conflict? Or any of the other diseases that you mention; pulmonary
22 emphysema? It would depend on how bad it was, presumably.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's correct, Your Honour. That
24 would depend on the seriousness. In respect of the cancer for RA2, it was
25 a cancer which had not metastasised into secondary locations and was
1 relatively limited to that particular part of the body. Therefore, one
2 could assume that that individual was still in a position to -- was still
3 -- able-bodied. But I do not have any medical information which would
4 allow me to answer properly that question.
5 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. Very well. Why anthropologists and pathologists could not
7 establish the minimum number of persons in the Djakovica site in Millosh
8 Gillic Street on the 2nd of April, 1999, and was, on that occasion, an
9 adequate method used to determine the minimum number of persons in the
10 grave? I am linking this to 184.108.40.206, paragraph 220.127.116.11.
11 A. Yes, the difficulty which apparently was encountered by Dr.
12 Rodriguez and his colleagues was related to the very bad condition of the
13 human remains which they had to examine. They were not bodies but
14 fragments of bodies and bodies which were partially carbonised.
15 As regards the estimates of Dr. Rodriguez as to a minimum number
16 of approximately 20 victims, this is related to the fact that in this type
17 of case, as I have already said, the anthropologist or the forensic
18 specialist will try to count the bones which are in a single position, and
19 it's on the basis of that information, or that anthropological
20 information, that we can estimate numbers.
21 Q. And the burnt nature and dismemberment, is it the result of mines
22 and explosives of great destructive power or not?
23 A. It is difficult to answer the question because of the very poor
24 state of preservation of the bodies, and that did not allow pointing --
25 pointing out traumatic lesions. One could point out that there were
1 wounds and most likely those were caused by explosives. I could say that
2 in some cases there were signs of post-mortem animal activity to show that
3 the bones had been degraded by dogs or others -- or other animals.
4 Q. If the doctor that we're talking about could not ascertain with
5 any certainty the minimum number of individuals and the sex of the people
6 that were victims and found in this grave, how is it possible that the
7 human remains of minors coincide with the published number of children
8 listed as missing? And I'm talking about the number 12. And is that --
9 does that come within the frameworks of that professional work as well?
10 A. Some of the bones have an unequal value in respect of others when
11 it comes to determining the age. If one is lucky enough to find a part of
12 the sacrum or a part of the clavicle or a rib or a fragment of a skull,
13 depending on the specific anatomical relief that one notices on those bone
14 fragments, one can make estimates as to the age. For the certain parts of
15 the body, we know that -- that it changes with age. It will -- the
16 cartilage will change in that part of the body, particularly having to do
17 with the pubic bone. And so we have reference tables, or there is
18 the Suchet and Brooks team which we can use. They have the same thing for
19 the extremities of the limb -- of the ribs. We know that the sutures,
20 cranial sutures will come together at different times and different ages.
21 The same thing applies to internal aspects of the clavicle, the
23 So when we can put forward these types of bones among commingled
24 bones, that one -- one will be able to identify, according to the age
25 group, those bones. And that allowed the Dr. Rodriguez to answer that
1 question and to provide the detail from that point, although he was not
2 able to give a specific number because he spoke only about a minimal
3 number of individuals. That is something which is completely acceptable
4 and understandable from the point of view of a scientific study.
5 Q. Yes. But this kind of finding, could it have been made with any
6 certainty, any degree of certainty?
7 A. Everything depends on the type of bone which is being considered.
8 The predictive value of this or that bone is different depending on the
9 age group. The pubic bone has a diagnosis value which is very important
10 for determining the age before the age of 40. The value of an internal
11 clavicle extremity or a cranial suture may be much less specific and
12 therefore one has to refer to each of the bones under consideration in
13 order to determine whether the predictive value has been encountered.
14 Q. Yes. You're explaining how this is professionally possible in
15 principle, and I'm asking you in concrete terms for a concrete case and
16 concrete data which was arrived at by looking at concrete bodies, specific
17 bodies. So were you able -- is it possible -- possible to ascertain that
18 kind of thing with a high degree of certainty or not?
19 A. As regards the documents made available to me, I did not have any
20 specific criticisms to make about the methodology that was used by my --
21 by Dr. Rodriguez. I do not have any reason to doubt his work, but I was
22 not in a position to control all the evaluations which he made. I did not
23 have photographic documents of each of the bones, only overall views with
24 limited incidents. And therefore, I have no reason to question the
25 doctor's conclusions but I myself was not able to control each one of the
1 operations carried out.
2 Q. So in principle, you have no reason to doubt. But in this
3 concrete case, as far as I understood you, you were not able to check this
4 out and test it. Is that right?
5 A. I was -- I was not able to carry it out as part of an
6 anthropological evaluation.
7 Q. Thank you. Now, yesterday, you were talking about this particular
8 matter and you were asked during the examination-in-chief in your
9 testimony something with respect to the determination of sex of those 20
10 persons that were killed. And as far as I was able to gather and note,
11 make a note of, you said that only in one case was it possible to
12 establish the sex and that that was in fact in the case of a male, whereas
13 in 19 of the other cases, it was not possible to determine sex. Did I
14 understand you correctly?
15 A. Yes. The comments that one can make in general which will apply
16 also to the specific case in respect of determining the sex are the same
17 as those done -- made in order to determine the age. Only some of --
18 points on the skeleton will be of interest to determine the sex of the
19 victim. This is the case, for instance, of the pubic bone, which shows
20 different morphological characteristics depending on whether it's a man or
21 woman. And this is the case of the base of the skull and other criteria
22 which are much less reliable and which are related to the general
23 condition of bones like the femur and the overall impression of the
25 However, in that case, one is faced with bones that are extremely
1 degraded and whose diagnostic value in respect of sex may be limited.
2 When Dr. Rodriguez was lucky enough to come upon a fragment of the pubic
3 bone, it was possible to state the sex, but in other cases that is not
5 Q. Therefore, did I understand you to say that in the rest of the 19
6 cases it was not possible to determine the sex of the bodies; is that
8 A. It was possible to determine the bones which were -- had more
9 female characteristics than not and to distinguish them from bones which
10 could not be attached to one sex or the other. The problem also was that
11 in respect of determining the sex, one does not give a categorical answer.
12 In respect of the sex, there are -- there is a certain percentage of
13 probabilities that the subject would be of this or that sex.
14 We're dealing with men whose morphology is more feminine, more
15 graceful, and then there are certain females which have more masculine
16 characteristics. That explains the care that was expressed in Dr.
17 Rodriguez's report. Only one individual showed very clearly masculine
19 Q. All right. Now, would you answer this then, please: Why does it
20 say in this list of yours one man and 19 women? On the basis of what?
21 How come you were able to introduce that factor into your list as you say
22 it was impossible to determine the sex of the 19? Why then does it say
23 one man and 19 women in the list, one male and 19 female corpses?
24 A. One male and 19 which were either female or male. Female or
25 undetermined, rather.
1 Q. Well, take a look at what it says in your list. I haven't got the
2 page in front of me, but I did study it carefully. One man, one male.
3 You have a list and it says one male, 19 females.
4 A. Page 38, paragraph 18.104.22.168, there we read that all the others --
5 well, there was only one adult male was identified - that is bone cluster
6 number 10 - and all the others were diagnosed as either female or
8 In the conclusions on page 50, paragraph 2.5.2 -- it says that one
9 was male and the others were female or undetermined. And as regards the
10 chart which -- which says sex distribution, 22.214.171.124, we read that there
11 were 5 per cent male and 95 per cent female or undetermined. I didn't say
12 that the rest were only females.
13 Q. But that question was asked you yesterday during the
14 examination-in-chief. One man and 19 women. So that means that that is
15 not correct. One cannot make that conclusion; right?
16 A. It seems to me that I corrected that yesterday when -- and I said
17 at issue were either women or people whose sex was not determined.
18 Q. So that observation and conclusion could not have been drawn from
19 your report. The Prosecutor could not have drawn that conclusion from
20 your report in asking you that question; is that correct?
21 JUDGE MAY: The witness has clarified the matter. Move on to
22 another question.
23 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. All right. Then I just have one more specific question. As we're
25 talking about professional reports here, expert reports, highly expert and
1 professional reports of which I was denied the right to be provided them
2 in my own language, could you please, Mr. Baccard, when I receive a
3 translation in my own language and when I am able to pinpoint certain
4 questions and some of the differences that you yourself point to, not I
5 establish them but experts who will take a look at it, would you be so
6 kind as to come back and answer some of my other questions which will
7 emerge from that study and examination?
8 JUDGE MAY: That is a matter for the Court. We will ask Dr.
9 Baccard whether he's available, and if -- once you've provided your
10 questions, we will see if we can ask him to come back. Unless, as Judge
11 Robinson said, you would like to call him as a witness, but that's another
13 Yes, Mr. Tapuskovic.
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No, no. I do have some more
15 questions. You thought I was finished? No.
16 JUDGE MAY: Yes, absolutely. Right. Well, you've got about half
17 an hour more. See if you can finish by the break, please.
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I don't know why in this particular
19 case you're once again restricting my time for cross-examination, Mr. May.
20 We have a report which numbers 150 pages. We had a comprehensive
21 examination-in-chief. We have 38 binders that were not provided to me in
22 my own language, and you now tell me that all I have left is half an hour
23 for my questioning.
24 JUDGE MAY: Yes.
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I don't understand.
1 JUDGE MAY: Yes. We've considered the time which you've taken and
2 the purpose for which it's been taken, and with respect to you, it hasn't
3 been to a great deal of purpose so far. Now, you've had an hour and a
4 half and you're getting another half hour. We'll consider the position
5 then. But let's move on. If you've got specific questions, ask them.
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] As you have noticed, I of course
7 don't have an objection to this, but the witness is giving extensive
8 answers. So could you please take that into consideration as well when
9 you calculate the time that you allot to me and all the circumstances.
10 JUDGE MAY: Yes.
11 Dr. Baccard, could you please answer as shortly as possible. Yes
12 and no, if possible.
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I personally don't have any
15 objections to lengthy answers, but I do have objections to you and the
16 time you are restricting me with and all the other things that you are
18 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Move on.
19 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
20 Q. Now, explosive wounds registered on the bodies of those killed in
21 the Kacanik area, 2.8.5, what do these indicate, these injuries, these
22 wounds, what do they indicate?
23 A. It was noted by Dr. Markwalder and Dr. Wyler that there was marks
24 of explosions, of wounds and fractures and disintegration on 21 of the
25 bodies, which would call into mind explosive agents.
1 Q. And in view of those findings, does the possibility exist that
2 people were buried there who had died in the bombing, who were killed in
3 the bombing?
4 A. I have no information which would allow me to make -- give you a
5 forensic answer in respect of the burials.
6 Q. You say that they were killed as the result of an explosion. Now,
7 an explosion can be the explosion of an aeroplane bomb, for example, in
8 the vicinity. Is that possible or not, or do you exclude that
10 A. I have no information in the report of the two forensic physicians
11 which would allow me to answer the question. The determination of the
12 origin of an explosive agent is based more on the basis of shrapnel
13 fragments that were found during the autopsies rather than clinical
14 examinations, taking into account the nature -- the very nature of the
16 Q. All right. Now, if eight persons were exhumated [sic] at the
17 Muslim cemetery in Dubrava, for example, and if all these persons were
18 identified by their relatives and family, how come the age was not
19 determined in five cases? And that is point 126.96.36.199, paragraph 188.8.131.52.
20 JUDGE MAY: Can you help us as to that, Dr. Baccard, or not?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have no answer, no. It appears
22 that the bodies were extremely degraded, that is, most of them were. I
23 don't know whether that is referring to the state of degradation of the
25 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
1 Q. If seven bodies in this case were in the skeletonised state, that
2 is to say with no soft tissues, how were the pathologists were able to
3 conclude that death resulted predominantly from internal bleeding, and is
4 it possible at all to draw that kind of conclusion or, rather, is it
5 possible to arrive at conclusions in that way when you are dealing with
6 skeletonised bodies? And that is point 184.108.40.206 that I'm referring to.
7 A. Could that question be asked again, please?
8 Q. The question was: If in this case we have seven bodies that were
9 skeletonised, seven skeletonised corpses, that means without any soft
10 tissue, how then were the pathologists able to conclude that death
11 resulted predominantly from internal bleeding, that it was caused by
12 internal bleeding? And is it possible at all to make conclusions of this
13 kind when you're dealing with a skeletonised corpse?
14 A. I have no information about internal bleeding.
15 Q. 220.127.116.11 paragraph. That is it, Doctor, 18.104.22.168.
16 JUDGE KWON: Page 53.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. There is an error. You're
18 speaking about what site? Is that the Kotlina site or the Dubrava site?
19 Both were part of the Kacanik case. Because I was not at the right --
20 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. Yes, it belongs to Kacanik. This is 22.214.171.124, the question I'm
22 asking you is about 126.96.36.199, skeletonised bodies, seven of those, and the
23 conclusion was that death resulted from internal bleeding. Is it possible
24 at all to establish that death was the result of internal bleeding when
25 you're dealing with skeletonised bodies?
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 JUDGE KWON: And it's Dubrava.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Dubrava. My previous answers dealt
3 with Kotlina and not Dubrava.
4 As regards Dubrava, since I was not looking at the right page, it
5 was noted that the bodies were skeletonised. Now, I have to explain what
6 is particular about that term. It means that there is a gradual
7 disappearance of the soft tissues and that the -- most -- that most
8 remaining -- remains are constituted by the skeleton. But that can be --
9 the skeletonisation can have different phases as well. There can be
10 partially skeletonised bodies which let one see, depending upon the burial
11 situation -- I'm sorry, but I've got to go into more detail here, and I
12 give you a somewhat longer answer, but I've got to make this point clear.
13 One can have, depending on the -- the burial, there can be
14 skeletonisation which is not complete, which is partial, and which varies
15 depending upon the location of the body. There can be within the thorax,
16 with ribs that will be apparent, that is in skeletonised stage, in death,
17 there can be remains of traces of bleeding which are putrefying, but there
18 are still remnants of that, which might explain why that there was the
19 diagnosis of internal bleeding that was provided by the forensic
21 And I repeat that my previous answers referred to Kotlina. In
22 terms of Dubrava, there were seven cases of skeletonised bodies in various
23 degrees, and one was mummified.
24 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
25 Q. All right. So in answer to my question of whether we can note
1 that -- conclude that death resulted from internal bleeding on a
2 skeletonised body, your answer to that was yes. Did I understand you
4 A. Skeletonised is the end result. There are different degrees of
5 skeletonisation, as I have just explained. There are partially
6 skeletonised bodies or totally skeletonised. When the body is completely
7 skeletonised --
8 Q. Yes. We've already heard about that, Doctor. Yes, I know that.
9 But we can ascertain that death was caused by internal bleeding even on
10 skeletonised bodies. That's what you said, isn't it? I'm just checking
11 out whether I understood you correctly.
12 A. From the point that the forensic specialist notes that there were
13 traces of bleeding in the thorax, the diagnosis can be given even if the
14 limbs have been skeletonised. There must be enough soft tissue in order
15 to make that assertion.
16 Q. Very well. Thank you. Now, on the basis of which findings was
17 the pathologist able to conclude that in some of these cases the victim
18 was leaning or lying down when the bodies had in fact been skeletonised?
19 How is that possible?
20 A. We are referring to the Dubrava case in Kacanik; is that right?
21 Q. That is 188.8.131.52, point 184.108.40.206, what I'm referring to. On the
22 basis of which factors was the pathologist able to determine whether the
23 victim was kneeling, in a bent-over position, lying, et cetera, when he
24 was dealing with skeletonised bodies?
25 A. These are questions that you should ask him. I put in the
1 criticism -- I put this in the criticism about the report, but these are
2 questions that should be asked of him directly.
3 Q. Does that mean that you personally did not examine these bodies in
4 the capacity of an expert pathologist? Does that mean that in fact your
5 report is exclusively based on the reports you got in, you were relying
7 A. That's correct. And that was stated yesterday in the beginning
8 and is explained in my evaluation report.
9 Q. Fine. And could all injuries on the body be registered when we
10 know that the bodies were skeletonised? I'm referring to 2.9.5, to save
11 time and facilitate your answer.
12 A. What is the question?
13 Q. I was referring to 2.9.5, to help you answer. And the question
14 was if it is known that the bodies were skeletonised, was it possible to
15 register all the injuries or wounds?
16 A. Once again, I would recall that there are degrees of
17 skeletonisation of bodies. Secondly, the wounds which were studied and
18 the statistics drawn from those wounds deal with wounds that were
19 identified as such.
20 Q. Very well. In the case of Vata and Kacanik, the appearance of
21 the wounds in three cases indicates that they were shot at from a large
22 distance. Is that a sign that these persons were killed in an armed
23 conflict? 220.127.116.11. 18.104.22.168.
24 JUDGE MAY: The pathologist cannot determine the circumstances in
25 which they were killed in this sort of case, I would anticipate.
1 Dr. Baccard, is that right? Can you tell whether it was an armed
2 conflict or what it was?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour. The firing
4 distance in no way indicates the circumstances under which the firing was
5 done, whether it was an accident or a homicide or an armed conflict.
6 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
7 Q. And in Stagovo and Kacanik, the wounds established, were they made
8 by a blunt instrument? Could they have been caused by falling? How was
9 it possible in 99/04/5 -- 10 that it was not impossible to establish
10 whether the injury on the left side of the chest was caused by shrapnel or
11 not? This is paragraph 22.214.171.124.
12 A. It is noted that in some cases there were associated lesions which
13 are described in paragraph which -- to which reference is being made.
14 Wounds which would call into -- which call up three-quarters of wounds
15 caused by blunt instruments, and the term was used by the forensic
16 pathologist, that is, possible wounds caused by shrapnel to the -- in the
17 left thorax.
18 Q. So it's a possibility. And the different condition of
19 putrefaction of bodies exhumed at Gornje Stimlje, does it indicate that
20 death occurred at different times? That is the different degrees of
21 putrefaction, is that an indication that death occurred at different
22 times? This is 126.96.36.199. 188.8.131.52, I'm sorry.
23 A. We know in terms of forensics that the states of putrefaction
24 which are different do not indicate different burial dates. The damage to
25 the bodies once they have been buried depend upon local burial conditions,
1 whether or not there is water at that location, what the quality of the
2 soil is, what the significance of -- of the clothing and other factors
3 such as the size of the body. There are many factors that have to be
4 taken into account, and it is not possible to deduce from that what the
5 dates of -- different burial dates.
6 MR. RYNEVELD: Your Honours, I wonder if I might just clarify the
7 paragraph to which we're being referred, because I don't know whether it's
8 a matter of translation or a matter of the reference being given
9 incorrectly, but I don't see, on a number of occasions now, that there's a
10 corresponding paragraph. Thank you.
11 JUDGE MAY: You've got to have a good look. It's 184.108.40.206. Yes.
12 Let's go on.
13 JUDGE KWON: There's a problem in the report in numbering
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] 220.127.116.11.
16 JUDGE MAY: There is obviously some problem in the numbering
17 because the numbers are not the same.
18 MR. RYNEVELD: And in fairness to the witness, we're now on to a
19 different site altogether. By my reading, if it's 18.104.22.168, then we're on
20 to Studime e Eperme.
21 JUDGE MAY: The accused did say that.
22 MR. RYNEVELD: Thank you.
23 JUDGE MAY: Yes.
24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Shall I continue?
25 JUDGE MAY: Yes.
1 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
2 Q. By which method was it established that, in those cases on this
3 location, firing was at close range? This is 22.214.171.124.
4 A. The evaluations were performed by two forensic French -- two
5 French forensic specialists, Dr. Vorhauer and Dr. Lecomte, assisted by a
6 ballistics expert and munitions expert.
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'm not getting any interpretation.
8 I'm sorry. I have to apologise.
9 JUDGE MAY: Dr. Baccard, would you go back, please. You said
10 that the evaluations were performed by two forensic -- I think French
11 forensic specialists. Could you pick up the answer from there.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. I was saying that
13 each autopsy was performed by two forensic specialists from France,
14 Professor Lecomte and Dr. Vorhauer, with the assistance of a ballistics
15 and munitions expert, and that in most of the cases, the firing distances
16 were asserted by observations that were made by that expert on the
17 clothing and traces that were found on the clothing.
18 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
19 Q. And the victims in the prison in Dubrava, were they killed mostly
20 as a result of the effects of explosions -- of an explosion? This is
21 126.96.36.199 -- 188.8.131.52.
22 A. As regards Dubrava and the prison at Dubrava, the victims -- 40
23 per cent of the victims showed wounds that were related to the effects of
24 explosive directly by shrapnel or by sulphur, and part of the victims as
25 well, 37 per cent, suffered bullet -- gunshot wounds. Thirty-seven per
1 cent with the wounds and the other per cent by shrapnel -- explosives,
2 excuse me.
3 Q. The death of a person with a sharp object and a blunt object in 25
4 cases could have been caused as the bodies were thrown by the explosion
5 and as those bodies hit against blunt or sharp objects as they fell to the
7 A. There are several mechanisms in explosive-caused deaths. They
8 could be direct explosives, fragments of the explosive envelope which hits
9 the body in the form of projectiles, there is the sulphur effect which
10 alone can cause death, and there is also the possibility of secondary
11 lesions related to a fall which sometimes might happen in steep areas.
12 The two major causes are deaths caused by shrapnel or sulphur blast.
13 Q. And the death of 23 persons on which no external or internal
14 injuries were established, are they due to so-called blast injuries as a
15 result of the explosion which caused this air blast? And as you know, the
16 prison was bombed, so could that have been the consequence? That is in
17 the case of persons for no -- on which no external or internal injuries
18 were found, could their death have been caused by this blast effect of the
20 A. Once one does not have enough soft tissue in order to carry out
21 histological examinations, the diagnosis remains one of eliminating. The
22 only conclusion that one could arrive in the 25 cases, the only conclusion
23 that the forensic specialist arrived at was that it was impossible to
24 determine the origin or the cause of death.
25 Q. And all the bodies found at the grave in Rakosh, were they killed
1 at the prison in Dubrava or could they have been brought there and buried
2 from some other place?
3 A. I don't have information, forensic information, that would allow
4 me to answer that question.
5 Q. But you find that in paragraph 2.13.5.
6 A. What is the title of that paragraph?
7 Q. 2.13.5.
8 JUDGE MAY: No, its title, because there's something gone wrong
9 with the numbering.
10 JUDGE KWON: It might be "Conclusions," 2.13.9.
11 JUDGE MAY: Yes.
12 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I can be of
13 assistance. There is a serious difference in the numbering between the
14 B/C/S version and the English version so the errors are very considerable,
15 and that is why the difficulties arise.
16 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. Regardless of that, my question remains whether all the bodies
18 found at the Rakosh cemetery were killed at the prison in Dubrava or,
19 after being killed, could have they been brought there and buried there
20 after being brought there from some other place?
21 A. I cannot answer -- give a forensic answer to that question.
22 Q. Very well. Thank you. And the report on Suva Reka, can it be
23 considered acceptable if there are differences in the findings and
24 opinions regarding the gender and age of the victims between experts,
25 members of one and the same team that examined them? 184.108.40.206 and
2 A. There were differences between the two anthropologist reports who
3 successively investigated the cases, the report of Dr. Black and of
4 Dr. Roberts. I was not in the position to know which of the two was
5 right. I noted it down in respect of the cause of death, as I have
6 already said, and Fatime Berisha and the cause of death could be asserted
7 for Fatime Berisha and Fatime -- Faton Berisha. We have there is the
8 problem then of this divergence between the two reports. The cause of
9 death, in any case, was not determined.
10 Q. You said that you personally did not examine any of these bodies
11 but that you just used findings and reports. Did you carry out any
12 autopsies personally? Did you examine any one of these gravesites that
13 are mentioned here at any time? I'm not just referring to the time when
14 you were working on your report.
15 A. I -- this was said yesterday: I did not perform autopsies on the
16 sites which are the subject of this report. I did not carry out the
17 autopsies by myself. I did it -- I performed autopsies in 2000, but not
18 the autopsies which are described in this report.
19 My work, as I said yesterday, was a work of analysis and summary
20 and work of analysis of a video document and a photographic document
21 relating to the Izbica site.
22 Q. Could you tell me, Mr. Baccard, please, I'm more interested in an
23 explanation as to how a prominent expert in your field of expertise can
24 accept, on the basis of what I would call poor photos, stills taken from a
25 videotape, to interpret the types of injuries on dead bodies, the types of
1 injuries inflicted during life, the age of the victims, the origin of
2 traces on the clothing of the victims, the mental retardation and --
3 JUDGE MAY: Let the witness answer that and then we shall adjourn.
4 You're being asked about how you can make observations on the
5 basis of a film of sorts.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As regards the list of conclusions
7 which I made in the report, I certainly did not interpret the mental
8 condition of the victims. I return to what I said beforehand about the
9 forensic analysis and the video cassette. The limitations were clearly
10 indicated in terms of scientific research, first of all, in my report, and
11 they appear in the annex which deals with Izbica.
12 The conclusions are not forensic conclusions which are absolute.
13 The answers are always given with the possible correction that such images
14 are compatible with certain -- with such lesions. And as I said, this is
15 not a document which has the value of an expert evaluation. This is
16 stated in the introduction to my report.
17 Having said this, I answered yesterday a question asked about the
18 -- the character -- the fact that it was not unexceptional to have this
19 type of a mission, a mission which is frequently given to us by judges.
20 JUDGE MAY: We will adjourn now.
21 Mr. Milosevic, we've considered the extra time you should have.
22 We said a quarter of an hour, however, you've had five minutes of that, So
23 you'll have ten minutes on our resumption.
24 Mr. Tapuskovic, we shall expect to finish this witness today. We
25 don't want to detain him here any further.
1 We will adjourn now. Twenty minutes.
2 --- Recess taken at 12.21 p.m.
3 --- On resuming at 12.43 p.m.
4 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.
5 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. Could I ask you to give me short answers, please, because I have
7 very little time left for a lot of questions. How did you establish, as
8 we are talking about Izbica, how did you establish that the photos were
9 indeed from Izbica?
10 A. I didn't determine that those photographs were from Izbica. I
11 analysed a video cassette which was given to me by the Office of the
13 Q. So you were given the tape by the Prosecution.
14 A. That's correct.
15 Q. Do you know who filmed the video?
16 A. Yes. I was told that.
17 Q. And who was the author?
18 A. I was told that the video was made by a witness, a doctor,
19 Dr. Dosik [phoen].
20 Q. Did you ask for the minutes of the Yugoslav authorities or the
21 reports of the Yugoslav authorities from Izbica? Because I've just been
22 told that they too carried out a detailed investigation into what had
23 happened there, an on-site inspection and investigation was carried out.
24 Were you given those reports?
25 A. No.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 Q. Very well. Very briefly, then, a few more questions. You spoke
2 yesterday about errors and discrepancies. Are you sure that you
3 identified all the errors and discrepancies?
4 A. What I was given, under the -- using as a control the photographic
5 albums and the various reports, I believe that the divergences that could
6 be seen were listed in my -- the annexes to my report.
7 Q. Is it possible for you to have established each and every single
8 discrepancy and error?
9 A. I don't know. The -- I described in the annex of my report any
10 divergencies I noted, and I don't know whether that list is complete.
11 Q. The documents indicating discrepancies, by being looked through by
12 another expert, would that expert possibly find or identify some other
13 errors or discrepancies?
14 A. I don't know.
15 Q. Would you allow for the possibility for another expert being able
16 to identify some other errors and discrepancies?
17 A. I don't know.
18 Q. You said yesterday that the use of this method, that is
19 photographs, has its limitations and that it is not frequently used.
20 Isn't that so?
21 A. That is correct. I -- was written in the annex in respect of the
22 report on Izbica. On page 93, it is stated that the limitations of the
23 state are shown by the poor quality of the images that came from that
24 videotape and that the definition's very incomplete and does not allow
25 important enlargement of the details. There is no reference to a
1 millimetre length scale, and that do not correspond obviously to the
2 criteria required of the scientific photography. It says that a simple
3 analysis of the images can in no way correspond to the external
4 examination of bodies, but I emphasised that, in other terms, this
5 medico-legal opinion in my report did not have the value of a scientific
6 evaluation, that nowhere was there a diagnosis or certainty but simply
7 diagnostic hypotheses, and what I did note here was things that were
8 compatible or not compatible with lesions that had been noticed. This was
9 stated in the introduction to my report.
10 Having said this, in the absence of an autopsy report, this
11 document was the only one, along with the report of the French team on the
12 exhumations, it was the only one which allowed us to have a forensic
14 Q. Do you consider this to be a serious limitation or not? Please,
15 yes or no.
16 A. I'm sorry, I have to temper my answer.
17 Q. I didn't quite understand the answer.
18 A. I was saying that, in this case, it was not possible to answer by
19 saying yes or no but that I had to give a more qualified answer.
20 Q. But as briefly as possible, please, because my time is limited.
21 So the question is: Do you consider this to be a serious impediment or
23 A. I repeat that in no way is this a question of an expert -- a
24 scientific expertise but, rather, a forensic opinion like the one that we
25 give in other cases at the request of judges who have only available to
1 them videos or photographic documents.
2 Q. What if the photographs were not taken by an objective person but
3 by an interested party or by a person with prejudice? Would you consider
4 that an impediment?
5 A. That would in fact be a possibility which I took up in the last
6 paragraph of the chapter material, on page 93, where I looked at the
7 possibility of simulation, and I gave my opinion on that possibility. But
8 I must say that I did have that come to mind.
9 Q. Very well. It did occur to me as well.
10 Could you tell me where you specialised in ballistic wounds?
11 A. At the faculty of medicine in Marseille as part of a diploma in
12 lesional ballistics that was organised by the faculty of Marseille and
13 General Breteau.
14 Q. And why did you prepare a new report on all the sites when your
15 colleagues had already prepared reports for each of those sites
17 JUDGE MAY: He's already explained what he did.
18 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
19 Q. Did anyone - and if so who - express doubts as to the expertise of
20 your colleagues who had previously studied the sites covered by your
22 A. No.
23 Q. And did you coordinate your report with the -- with your
24 colleagues whose reports and conclusions you had analysed?
25 A. No. This report was prepared afterwards.
1 Q. Can you explain, in view of the fact that you were in Bosnia, why
2 expert pathologists engaged by this institution, after so many years,
3 still do not have a unified methodology of expert analysis of mass graves?
4 A. At the ICTY, we use a single methodology for exhumation operations
5 that took place in Bosnia and in Croatia or in Kosovo. The methodology
6 which was used in 1999 by the various international teams who worked
7 separately, this is methodology which -- their methodology might have
8 varied, and principally that was the reason that the Prosecutor's office
9 asked me to prepare this summary report.
10 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, this must be -- this must be your last
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Allow me two last questions, please.
13 JUDGE MAY: Very well.
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
15 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
16 Q. What is the total number of victims that you mention -- or,
17 rather, on how many victims have you given your expert opinion though you
18 said you personally did not examine a single victim? You used one witness
19 testimony and the rest was based on photographs and the videotape. On how
20 many victims have you provided your expert opinion?
21 JUDGE MAY: Unless the witness has got it in his head, he'll have
22 to add it up, and we can do that ourselves. What's the next question?
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.
24 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
25 Q. If you have so many objections regarding the findings of experts
1 of this institution for Bela Crkva, Padalishte, Studime, and Dubrava, and
2 then you come to the conclusion that, from the forensic point of view,
3 these are observations, do not change the content of the expert reports,
4 my question is: Do you justify -- are you justifying somebody's mistakes
5 or ignorance or the need of this institution to justify the omissions made
6 by others?
7 A. I would say, of course, no.
8 JUDGE MAY: Thank you. Yes, Mr. Tapuskovic.
9 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, thank you. I
10 should just like to tell you, however, before I begin my questioning, that
11 throughout my professional career, I was never faced in such a sensitive
12 point in time to make -- to take care of the time and to deal with only
13 two sites out of all the sites that are before us, are before you, first
14 and foremost. So I would like to ask Mr. Baccard just things related to
15 the Dubrava site, the Dubrava prison site, that is to say 220.127.116.11. And
16 the second site is the Racak site.
17 Questioned by Mr. Tapuskovic:
18 Q. Mr. Slobodan Milosevic has already asked several questions
19 pertaining to the Dubrava prison site, and Mr. Baccard answered his
20 questions. However, I should like now to ask a direct question, to ask
21 Dr. Baccard a direct question, and it is the following: In paragraph
22 18.104.22.168, in the second paragraph of that point, it states that the cause
23 of death is pulmonary shots, explosions. So there are no outside signs
24 but the lungs burst in 23 cases. Now, what kind of explosion could it
25 have been, what kind of blast could it have been to have caused the death
1 of 23 persons exclusively by this cause, that is to say, the shattering of
2 their lungs? So was it a blast of extraordinary strength?
3 A. As regards the answer to that question, that diagnostic
4 clarification does not necessarily mean that there was a single explosion.
5 At issue there might be a blast -- consecutive blasts of several
6 explosions. This is a comment which -- this is the comment that I would
8 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please. Microphone for the amicus.
9 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]
10 Q. These, however, were blasts, were explosions of such a nature that
11 they caused exclusively internal injuries. That means that they must have
12 been several explosions, one following another, of great power and
13 strength. Strong, very strong explosions.
14 A. In the report, we do not have details which would allow us to
15 answer that question. It also depends on the situation of whether the
16 victims were being confined at the time of the explosion. An explosion in
17 the open air will not have the same effect as one in a confined area, as
18 in a small room, for instance.
19 Q. But none of these individuals was killed through direct contact
20 with anything. It was just this air blast. Now, can that be
21 characteristic of bombs, bombs that were thrown in this locality during
22 the bombing, during the NATO bombing? Could that be it?
23 A. I am not aware of the circumstances, but this type of lesion might
24 be encountered in the explosion of a bomb.
25 Q. Thank you. Similarly, when you spoke of these 25 injuries where
1 we were dealing with damage -- that is to say, they weren't lethal, now,
2 could that have been the product of these air blasts as well, similar air
3 blasts, that people were thrown through the air, went flying through the
4 air as a result of the blast?
5 A. No. What is stated is that in 25 cases, the type of agent,
6 wounding agent, could not be determined.
7 Q. Yes, but what -- could the wounding agent have been an explosion,
8 a blast which threw the victims up in the air and then they fell every
9 which way and landed on the ground?
10 A. Insofar as my colleagues were not able to answer that question, I
11 cannot answer now. As regards the blunt trauma instrument wounds, the
12 aspect of the wound was sufficiently characteristic for that explanation
13 to be given. But in 25 cases, it was not possible to determine the
14 wounding agent.
15 Q. Thank you. I have no further questions about that, Dr. Baccard,
16 but I should like, and I have to bear in mind the time, to move directly
17 to another area and cover everything that you described and explained in
18 your introductory remarks, in fact, when you said that you were presenting
19 -- when you presented your views on method, methodology. And then you say
20 -- I don't know where it is in the English version exactly, let me try and
21 find it. It is 22.214.171.124. And in that section, you deal with clothing,
22 military or civilian, and you present the view that: "We are able to
23 conclude that the victims in practically all the cases were wearing
24 civilian clothing." Is that right? Do you make that observation?
25 A. This is in paragraph "Military/Civilian Clothing" on page 12 of
1 the report, and in fact it is stated that all the victims seemed to be
2 wearing civilian clothes. That is, almost all the cases were that.
3 Q. Thank you. Now, what about Racak? The clothing that the people
4 were wearing who lost their lives in Racak, were those people dressed in
5 any specific way, that is to say far differently from all the other people
6 that you encountered wearing civilian clothes? Were they wearing
7 substantially different types of clothing?
8 A. As regards Racak, in the autopsy reports of the Finnish team,
9 there is a paragraph which dealt with the description and photographs of
10 the clothing. This did not exist for the 16 autopsies which were used to
11 -- for verification purposes, because those bodies were undressed.
12 The second source of information was the photographs taken on site
13 and on those clothes that one could see on those victims on site or on the
14 clothes that were described in the autopsy reports, there were only
15 clothes that seemed to be civilian clothes.
16 Q. Thank you. However -- of course I'm not going to tire either you
17 or the Court, but among the documents that are in existence, in the
18 binders, that is, of the 40 persons -- of the 40 persons that were looked
19 at, 24 show without a doubt that they were wearing two kinds or even three
20 kinds of clothing. I'm not going to show anything else but just a case in
21 point. I have selected one particular case, and I would like the Trial
22 Chamber to have a look at it. It is in binder 5, which is the Racak
23 binder. It is tab 30.
24 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] May this one case be viewed by
25 Dr. Baccard, and then I would like to ask him something concerning what he
1 has looked at.
2 May we place the document on the ...
3 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Let it be put on the ELMO, and then perhaps the
4 doctor can see it on the screen.
5 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, Judge May, there are
6 quite a number of photographs, and I think that Mr. Baccard ought to have
7 a look at all of them in this particular case, one by one.
8 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Now, do you want them to go on the ELMO?
9 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I'm forced to ask that, yes.
10 JUDGE MAY: Yes.
11 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] In all other --
12 JUDGE MAY: It can go on. Now, start, if you will, with -- there
13 seems to be the first one. What is it you'd like him to look at?
14 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] The number of the clothing on
15 this person. He had two jackets or parkas, three pairs of trousers, and
16 so on. I don't want to go into all the details. Then there were
17 cartridge belts, and then we have an insignia of the KLA among all that.
18 And I think it would be very useful to have a look at all the photographs
19 in this particular case. I am trying to bear in mind the time, but this
20 is a case I'd like to look into.
21 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Well, let's all have a look. Let's put it on
22 the ELMO and just go through them one by one. Yes. We've got the first
23 picture. Do you want to ask the witness a question about that or do you
24 just want to go through the photographs and then ask him a question?
25 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Could he please take a look at
1 all the photographs first?
2 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Let's just go through. Can we go through all
3 the photographs, placing them briefly on the ELMO. Yes.
4 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]
5 Q. And here is the KLA sign.
6 Mr. Baccard, in 24 cases, it was like this. There are 24 cases of
7 people dressed in this way. Is this clothing that civilians wear in
8 normal -- in the normal state of affairs regardless of what times we're
9 talking about or the actual moment that they were taken? Is this standard
11 A. The answer will be drawn from my experience during 2000 in respect
12 of several hundred autopsies, several hundred -- thousand autopsies.
13 These are autopsies which we did in Kosovo in order to find the victims
14 who were wearing different layers of clothes.
15 It is true there -- they were very frequently wearing several
16 layers of clothing. I don't remember what the temperatures were in Racak
17 at the time of the events, but this is information which might be compared
18 with that -- with that data.
19 Q. Mr. Baccard, if you carried out all these autopsies, did you
20 perhaps have occasion to learn the facts or to perform autopsies with
21 respect to persons who were found in the month of December? Mr.
22 Ciaglinski, who was a witness here, spoke about that and said that a group
23 of people were intercepted that were importing arms from Albania, that
24 they were victims, that they were carrying weapons, and that they all --
25 they were all dressed in similar fashion. Do you know about that
1 particular case and those autopsies?
2 A. What case are we talking about?
3 Q. Well, never mind. If you don't know, I won't ask you. I won't
4 pursue the point. I have to hurry up, in view of the time.
5 Now, what I want to ask you is this: You spoke a moment ago of
6 the fact that taking paraffin gloves was not a suitable method for
7 ascertaining particles of gunpowder and their presence on hands or
8 clothing. I know about the analysis that Interpol conducted a while ago,
9 but I have to say that, in my country at least, we use this method still
10 exclusively. That's how we do the job.
11 You know that these paraffin gloves were taken off some of the
12 people. You have that particular fact in your lists. And that the
13 Yugoslav team arrived at a fact that with 37 individuals, the presence of
14 paraffin particles was established and found on their hands. Particles of
15 gunpowder, I beg your pardon. Particles of gunpowder were found on the
17 A. I was not -- I did not read that report. I can state
18 categorically, and I can provide all the scientific publications which
19 would justify what I'm going say. I repeat categorically that from
20 paraffin tests one can show on the hands only nitrates. One cannot claim
21 that one is showing the presence of powder because of the pollution of the
22 -- the nitrate pollution in the environment and the many other pollutants
23 that exist. And I also repeat in the most absolute way that this test is
24 no longer accepted scientifically today and hasn't been so for many years.
25 Q. Thank you. I understood that when you were describing it earlier
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 on. But the paraffin test was not taken by the Finnish team at all, and
2 I'm asking you this in connection with the clothing. On the clothing,
3 gunpowder particles are still -- still can be found. Now, do you know why
4 the Finnish team did not conduct an analysis of so much clothing that was
5 found on these people and why they did not use a radiological analyser and
6 all the other methods that are used to ascertain the presence of gunpowder
7 particles? Do you know why this wasn't done? It could perhaps be
8 conducted today, in view of the fact that the clothing still exists, or
9 would you say that it was impossible to conduct such an examination at
10 this point in time?
11 A. I can answer only that it is important in order to keep for this
12 examination the scientific value. The fact that the clothing must be
13 taken as soon as one arrives on the crime scene and that afterwards these
14 clothes have to be conserved from all kinds of possible contamination and
15 that the chain of proof be maintained. And I cannot answer about anything
16 that was done or not done by the Finnish team. I don't have the results
17 in terms of any possible powder discharge. That does not appear in any of
18 the reports that I was asked to check in order to verify the thesis
20 Q. Mr. Baccard, were there any scientific reasons -- are scientific
21 reasons more important than the truth that we are here to ascertain in
22 respect of this problem?
23 JUDGE MAY: I don't understand the question. It doesn't sound as
24 though it's a matter for the witness.
25 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I don't insist on that.
1 Mr. Baccard said that it was for scientific reasons that this was not
2 undertaken by taking this paraffin glove and so on. But I won't persist.
3 JUDGE MAY: The witness cannot say why the tests were not
4 undertaken. His evidence is about the unsatisfactory nature of the
5 paraffin tests, which he says is no longer acceptable amongst scientists.
6 That's all he said.
7 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes. I understand the point,
8 Your Honour, and I won't insist further.
9 Q. Now, I have some introductory questions to ask before I go on to
10 what I want to say.
11 You took note in the report of the documents you used to draw up a
12 synthesis of the report and the event in Racak specifically, and you said,
13 or, rather, as can be seen from your report, you didn't use a tape of any
14 kind; no film, no cassette, no footage of any kind.
15 Now, would a film that was filmed on that same day when the bodies
16 were found at that site, would it be useful to you for the purposes of
17 your analysis and to complete your analysis, in fact, to round it off if
18 you have the autopsy and you worked on the basis of a film and stills in
19 certain cases?
20 A. Everything depends on the type of film.
21 Q. For the 23 victims or, rather, bodies who were found in the pit in
22 the village of Racak, you did not have any documents as to the on-site
23 investigation that was conducted; is that right?
24 A. The list of documents that I used is limited, is given in a
25 restricted manner.
1 Q. The analysis of the events for what was found in the pit and ditch
2 you'd seen in November and March on the spot; is that right?
3 A. You're alluding to Racak?
4 Q. Just Racak.
5 A. The list of documents is comprised of six documents which you
6 mentioned and nothing else.
7 Q. According to the description, a number of wounds that these people
8 in the ditch received and the cause of death, such as bleeding or damage
9 of vital blood vessels and so on, one would have expected to find a lot of
10 blood, traces of blood round the bodies; is that correct? Around the
11 bodies, on their clothing, of course. That is -- that goes without
12 saying. But isn't it logical to suppose that there could be a lot of
13 blood to be found around the bodies themselves, traces of blood?
14 A. That depend on the wounds. Some wounds bleed a lot and others
15 cause internal bleeding and are not seen -- are not seen on the outside.
16 It depends on the layer of clothing and on the type of ground, and it also
17 depends on whether or not there is rain afterwards.
18 Q. So you don't know why, as soon as the bodies were removed from the
19 pit, that the soil -- a picture of the soil wasn't taken? And do you know
20 how all this was organised, the transportation of the bodies and how they
21 were transported from the ditch to the mosque? Do you know about that?
22 A. No. I have only the information that appears in the documents
23 that were given to me.
24 Q. In paragraph 1.2, you note that you used reports from the on-site
25 investigations, the crime scene examination reports. Now, did you ever
1 learn where the other five bodies were that were found, and do you know
2 that on that particular day from Racak, as it says in the Prosecution
3 documents that have been disclosed, that there were nine bodies of people
4 belonging to the KLA? Do you know about that?
5 A. I did not know that.
6 Q. Thank you. Can you tell me this: When does primary rigor mortis
7 set in? Does it set in at the moment of death itself?
8 A. No. It goes over a certain amount of time. It depends on the
9 individual himself, and it begins -- it goes in a decreasing pace. It
10 begins slowly and then it moves to completion.
11 Q. And that is to say when does the flabbiness set in and then rigor
12 mortis? The first question referred to flabbiness of the body.
13 A. Depends on how one is going to look at things. It's not an
14 overall thing. One joint begins to become rigid and then others. It's
15 something which is gradual.
16 Q. Mr. Baccard, I know full well, and I don't want to enter into
17 discussion as to what cataleptic rigidity means, but I'm interested in the
18 majority of cases. Does the body begin to become stiff in the position it
19 was found in after the flabbiness of the body set in?
20 A. I don't think I really understand that question. There may have
21 been an interpretation problem regarding that question.
22 THE INTERPRETER: Limpness of body, the interpreter's note.
23 A. I understand the general nature of this question. There is a
24 period after death, a period of several hours where the body can be moved
25 before that rigidity sets in. That rigidity then starts incompletely,
1 then more completely. From the point that that rigidity has set in, any
2 moving of the body is going to break something. If you try to dress or to
3 undress a body, you can break that rigidity at the level of a joint and it
4 will not reappear. I don't know if that was the thrust of your question.
5 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. But when death occurs and the first stage sets in, the limpness of
7 the body, then the body cannot move at all if it is limp or flabby.
8 A. I think there is an interpretation problem of your question. I
9 don't know whether the interpreter understands your question fully,
10 because after death, there is no movement.
11 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would like most
12 if it were possible for Mr. Baccard to take a look at the film and then I
13 could ask him about that afterwards.
14 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Let him see the film. Yes.
15 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] We have two minutes of it, a
16 two-minute extract. It is Exhibit 95, this extract. It was used with
17 Witness Drewienkiewicz, but we've already prepared it and given it to the
18 technical booth.
19 [Videotape played]
20 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] That's all. I will now, of
21 course, go from one photograph to the next.
22 Q. But as at the end we've seen this exhibit, and as you are also a
23 ballistics expert, this was found on the spot, this film, or this object
24 was found there. Could you tell us what it is? Is it a bullet, a casing?
25 This film has already been seen in this courtroom, and it is the only
1 object found on the spot. Could you tell us what it is, what you just saw
2 at the end of the film?
3 A. I want to correct something. I'm not a ballistics expert nor an
4 expert in munitions. I am an expert in lesional ballistics and I'll
5 explain what that is, but that does not authorise me to give an opinion on
6 projectiles or weapons which are part of another speciality which is not
7 mine. Lesional ballistics is the science and the study of the movement of
8 projectiles --
9 JUDGE MAY: I think we have the point, yes.
10 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I would now like to ask for this
11 photograph to be shown to the witness, Dr. Baccard. Could it be placed on
12 the ELMO, please.
13 JUDGE MAY: Yes.
14 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]
15 Q. If this man was killed on this spot, this hand, after deathly
16 limpness, could be raised in this way or not? And he had three wounds and
17 also his brain was injured in this particular case. That is true.
18 A. I didn't get an interpretation of that.
19 JUDGE MAY: Could you quickly, Mr. Tapuskovic, say it again and
20 we'll get an interpretation. It's to do with the hand. That's the point
21 you want to make.
22 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]
23 Q. After this deathly limpness which necessarily sets in, is it
24 possible for a hand to be raised in this way if this man had been killed
25 here rather than being brought there from some other place?
1 A. In order to answer the question -- I can't answer that.
2 Examination of rigidity is done on a case-by-case basis. In the analysis
3 of this photograph, one cannot know whether there is an obstacle or some
4 other kind of support on which the hand is resting, or whether this
5 forearm was not wounded, or it might be fractured. So it is very
6 difficult to interpret the rigidity on a photograph. One can interpret a
7 wound or analyse a colour or form which really is part of visual
8 diagnosis, but rigidity requires movement of the body, manipulation of the
9 body, so one cannot answer that question.
10 Q. Dr. Baccard, I am a layman, but believe me, I have been doing this
11 for many years. So if it is inevitable after death for the body to go
12 limp, then the hand simply dropped by the body and they can no longer be
13 raised after rigidity except in the case of very serious brain injuries.
14 The hand goes rigid in the position that it was in the moment limpness
15 sets in, or death. So you are denying that. It is possible, you're
16 saying, that he died on that spot and that his hand could be raised in the
17 way we see it on this photograph?
18 A. I am not denying anything, I'm not affirming anything, I'm simply
19 saying that one cannot interpret the rigidity in a photograph.
20 Q. You saw the film, and on the film too, the situation is identical.
21 A. I saw the film, yes.
22 Q. It is a film made the day when the bodies were discovered on that
23 spot, and you're claiming that it is possible, at the moment of death,
24 when limpness sets in, for somebody to be in this condition and to go
25 rigid and to remain like that, together with seven other bodies who were
1 found further up in that trench?
2 A. I'm not asserting that. I'm simply stating that the study of
3 rigidity cannot be made from a photograph.
4 Q. Would you please look at this photograph too. Could it be shown
5 to Mr. Baccard. It was a drastic head injury, and below the head, on the
6 ground, there is no trace of blood.
7 A. I don't know whether or not there are blood traces. The
8 photograph does not make it possible to state that.
9 Q. Could Mr. Baccard please look at this photograph as well.
10 JUDGE MAY: Yes, see the next photograph, yes.
11 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. I have the same question for the next five cases. Is it possible
13 for bodies, after limpness, to go rigid in this position if they were
14 killed on this spot?
15 JUDGE MAY: The witness has answered that. He has said it's not
16 possible to say.
17 Dr. Baccard, is there anything you want to add to your answer in
18 light of the photographs you've been shown?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour. Looking at the
20 photograph, I'm wondering whether one could see -- I'm asked a question as
21 to whether or not there was blood. But in the lower right corner of the
22 photograph, really, I can't think that one can just analyse a photograph
23 very, very quickly, just like that.
24 As regards the position of this person, the only thing that one
25 can assert is that, once again, it is impossible, scientifically, to state
1 whether we are dealing here with rigidity, because this is diagnosis which
2 is something that is done through touch. We can merely say that this
3 person has the forearm -- the forearm is across the thorax, and this could
4 be for reasons -- this can be explained by several reasons. But one
5 cannot simply assert that that person is showing cadaverous rigidity on
6 the upper part of his arm.
7 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I am insisting on
8 one single problem. I will not insist any further, but I would like
9 Mr. Baccard to look at this very carefully. I have only one more
10 photograph to show Dr. Baccard.
11 JUDGE MAY: Show him it.
12 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] It is this photograph.
13 Q. Is it possible, after limpness, for the body to be in this
14 position? After first going limp, to be found in this position?
15 A. It's only when one looks at the outside appearance of that body
16 that we can come to that conclusion. Looking at a photograph, this is too
17 fragmentary, too partial for one to be able to say whether that person was
18 lying on the side and whether for the examination it was turned over on
19 its back. We do not know in what position it was. It seems here that
20 there is a blood trace around the head, subject to any reservations that
21 may be made, so one could think that that person might have been on his
22 side. But these are really questions which I can deal with but for which
23 I cannot answer on the basis of -- on criteria which deal with rigidity.
24 That's not something that one can state on the basis of photographs.
25 Q. When life ceases and deathly limpness sets in, how can a body be
1 turned? How can the body turn around? Isn't this a sign that the body
2 or, rather, the person was killed somewhere else and then brought there to
3 that spot?
4 A. Not necessarily. There might have been movements in the death
5 throes. We do not know whether the body fell in a position in which it
6 was in not balance and that, over time, or as the person was dying it
7 might have shifted. We don't know whether animals came by the body. I
8 don't know. We can make observations on the crime scene because then we
9 could check the various things around the body but when looking at the
10 photographs, we're not going to answer those questions.
11 Q. But here there are no traces of any animals having contact with
12 these bodies --
13 JUDGE MAY: The witness --
14 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]
15 Q. -- in the cases of all these bodies with the hands raised.
16 JUDGE MAY: The witness has said he cannot assist further. He's
17 assisted as far as he can. The time now is quarter to.
18 Mr. Ryneveld, do you want this witness to come back tomorrow for
20 MR. RYNEVELD: I had just two very brief one-word questions, but I
21 can --
22 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Mr. Tapuskovic, you've had the time which has
23 been allowed. You've made your points, and the witness has answered them
24 as best he can.
25 Yes, Mr. Ryneveld. Two very quick questions.
1 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I haven't had a chance to put the
2 most important thing to the witness.
3 JUDGE MAY: No, I'm sorry. You've had your time. You've had
4 three-quarters of an hour. You knew your time was limited. What is the
5 final question you want to put?
6 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] The question is linked to a
7 photograph on which it can be seen that three bodies were first separated
8 and then suddenly placed together.
9 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Put it to the witness. If he's got a different
10 answer, it will be a change.
11 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] This is the first photograph.
12 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Let's have the second one.
13 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] And then another photograph where
14 we see the bodies together.
15 Q. Can this happen? Can something like this happen, for bodies to
16 move unless somebody moved them? Were those bodies moved after this first
17 photograph was taken? Because the difference is obvious.
18 A. I don't know. I cannot answer in respect of photographs. The
19 only thing I can say is that it does seem that for the first two people
20 these are the same people and the respective positions of the bodies is
21 different in both photographs. Having said this, I cannot assert whether
22 or not the bodies were moved after death.
23 Q. Isn't this evidence that somebody interfered with these bodies?
24 A. I -- it's not for me to answer that question. I can only give
25 opinions as to the photographs, and I have a very limited opinion in
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 respect of these photographs which have been submitted.
2 JUDGE MAY: No. The witness has given his opinion.
3 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. I just wish to thank
4 you. But this is such a serious and complex problem. There are many more
5 photographs like this that, for a case like this, we amici should be
6 allowed the opportunity to draw attention to some other such factors.
7 JUDGE MAY: You've had every opportunity, and time, as you know,
8 is limited.
9 Yes, Mr. Ryneveld. Two questions, please.
10 MR. RYNEVELD: I will take one.
11 Re-examined by Mr. Ryneveld:
12 Q. Sir, with respect to Dubrava, you were asked by Mr. Tapuskovic
13 concerning what you described as blast injuries, whether or not those
14 injuries could have been caused by something like a bomb. I believe you
15 answered that it could. My question to you is this: Would the injuries,
16 the blast injuries, also have been consistent with, for example, a grenade
17 being thrown in a small room?
18 A. Yes. This type of wound is compatible with any type of explosion
19 which would create pressure in the immediate environment. And if the
20 victim were in that immediate environment, there would be that kind of
21 lesion. The example would be a bottle of gas which explodes or an
22 automobile explosion or an explosion in a kitchen with a gas stove, one
23 can find that kind of lesion. Even with aerosol cans. In very, very
24 close areas, there can be that kind of effect of the explosion.
25 Q. So I understand the answer is it could be a bomb but it could also
1 be any one of a number of these other things that you've mentioned
2 including, say, a grenade?
3 A. Absolutely. With any type of thing that could explode.
4 MR. RYNEVELD: Those are all the questions I ask. I only ask one
5 further thing, Your Honour; that if Your Honour is dismissing this
6 witness, we would simply indicate that provisionally we may -- after I
7 speak to Dr. Baccard, once he's dismissed now, provisionally we may ask
8 him to be recalled on the Cirez binder after I'd had an opportunity to
9 discuss it with him.
10 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Well, we're not dismissing the witness. We're
11 thanking him for attending and we're telling him he's free to leave, which
12 he is.
13 Dr. Baccard, thank you for your attendance. You are free to go.
14 If the Prosecution ask for you to come back, of course we'll consider it.
15 But, Mr. Ryneveld, I must say we don't encourage you. If you can
16 deal with the matter in some other way rather than having the witness come
17 back, then it should be done.
18 MR. RYNEVELD: Yes, Your Honour.
19 [The witness withdrew]
20 MR. NICE: Tomorrow's witnesses, problems with dealing with
21 witnesses many of whom have already given a lot of their time and are on
22 limited availability. Of the three witnesses remaining to be heard this
23 week it was hoped, it's clear that I'm only going to be able to get
24 through two, if those two, it will be Baton Haxhiu tomorrow. He's a bis'd
25 witness, as it were. There's a small additional bis'd statement coming,
1 one paragraph of which directly deals with the accused.
2 JUDGE MAY: He's the journalist.
3 MR. NICE: He is indeed, yes.
4 JUDGE MAY: We will admit him under 92.
5 MR. NICE: It may be that one paragraph of the additional would
6 have to be dealt with, but you'll see it when it comes through this
7 afternoon. Then after that, I'll take Mr. Merovci and I'll deal
8 with him as swiftly as I possibly can, given to the degree to which there
9 is overlap.
10 JUDGE MAY: So no K5.
11 MR. NICE: Almost certainly not. It's quite easy for him to be
12 brought back here. He's very cooperative and the logistics are easier for
13 him than for some.
14 JUDGE MAY: Very well, we will adjourn now. Apologies to Trial
15 Chamber I for late finishing.
16 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.52 p.m.,
17 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 23rd day of May,
18 2002, at 9.00 a.m.