|
Content
/ Colormap • Page 3806 • {1/118} (1)Tuesday, 30 May 2000 [Open session] [The witness entered court]
--- Upon commencing at 9.31 a.m. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Good morning, technical booth, interpreters, legal assistants, court reporters, Mr. Harmon, Mr. McCloskey, and Mr. Cayley, (10)Mr. Petrusic, Mr. Visnjic, the expert witness. Good morning, General Krstic. And good morning to you too, Mr. Baraybar. I hope you've had a good rest. Have you? Yes, very well. Let me remind you that you are still on oath and (15)you are going to be answering some more questions put to you by Mr. Cayley. WITNESS: JOSE PABLO BARAYBAR [Resumed] JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Mr. Cayley, the floor is yours. (20) MR. CAYLEY: Good morning, Mr. President, Your Honours, Mr. Petrusic, Mr. Visnjic. • EXAMINED by Mr. Cayley: [Cont'd] • Q.: Good morning, Mr. Baraybar. • A.: Good morning. (25)
• Q.: Just to remind you where we had left off
• A.: Yes. The first thing I would like to say is that as it reads there, this is an addendum. There was a miscalculation in the original report submitted in (20)1999. The error -- with an arithmetic error in the calculation of the total MNI, and the variation was between 866 in the original report to 1.883. It's a miscalculation of .9 per cent.
• Q.: Mr. Baraybar, just to absolutely clarify
(25)that, you're talking about a simple addition problem
• A.: That is correct. (5)Right. I explained yesterday how we constructed the age intervals that we can see in this table. We have three age intervals, the 8 to 12 one, 13 to 24, and 25 plus. I also explained to you yesterday that it was necessary, in order to account (10)for all individuals in primary and secondary sites, that it was to merge the minimal number of individuals between the primary sites and the linked secondary sites. This table shows all the calculations done (15)for the whole season, meaning from 1996 to 1999. I have been using all the data available to create these calculations. Therefore, the sites of Branjevo Farm that were excavated in 1996 were linked to the sites of Cancari Road 12 that were excavated in 1998. There is (20)a secondary site, and therefore a minimal number of individuals was calculated.
• Q.: Mr. Baraybar, if I could interrupt you, as
you speak about each of these individual locations,
could you use the pointer to indicate the particular
(25)primary grave that you're speaking of or the primary
• A.: Sure. The first site, the site of Kozluk, we
have heard yesterday on Professor Wright's testimony,
is a primary site. It happened to be linked to the
(5)secondary site of Cancari Road 3 that was excavated by
Professor Wright in 1998. The total minimal number of
individuals for the merged sites, for the primary and
secondary sites, is 506 individuals. Again, I would
say at least 506 individuals are represented between
(10)what was left in Kozluk and what was extracted from
Kozluk and disposed of in CR-03.
We proceed with the site of Glogova that I
excavated last year. That is linked to the site of the
• Q.: Mr. Baraybar, you stated that Hadzici sites 3 and 4 have not been linked to a primary site, but am I right in saying that they are, in fact, linked to Orahovac? (20) • A.: That is correct. The problem at the moment is that the soil analysis done by Professor Brown refers to a site in Orahovac that has not been excavated yet, that is, what we know as Lazete 1.
MR. CAYLEY: Mr. President, there's a slight
(25)problem for the figure of minimum number of individuals
• Q.: Now, Mr. Baraybar, of these individuals who -- this minimum number of individuals that you've identified, what proportion of them did you establish (5)as male and what proportion as female? • A.: I will consult my report. I don't recall the numbers offhand. One thousand six hundred and fifty-six have been determined to be male; one has been determined to (10)be a female, recovered from the site of Konjevic Polje 1; and 212 are of indeterminate sex. • Q.: What was the predominant age that you established from the mortal remains that you examined? • A.: The majority of the remains in this case, (15)1.547 are individuals of 25 or more at death. I have created a breakdown of this 25-and-more category using some specific indicators like the pubic bone I mentioned yesterday. That information still tells us that most of (20)the people are still clustered between the third, fourth and fifth decade, that the majority of the 24-and-more individuals cluster around those ages.
• Q.: Now, when Mr. Manning put together his
summary of all of the experts, he relied on your
(25)original report which had the arithmetical error in it,
• A.: That's correct. • Q.: And this Exhibit 232 replaces page 4 of your anthropological report; is that correct? (5) • A.: That is correct. MR. CAYLEY: One final point, Mr. President, for the benefit of the Court and indeed the public, this part of Mr. Baraybar's evidence has been agreed by the Defence. The reason that we have gone through it (10)is to explain what within the report appears very complex to lay some foundation. So this is an abbreviated form of what his evidence might have been if the report had not been agreed to by the Defence. • Q.: We can now move on to the part of your (15)evidence which is not agreed by the Defence, which is the exhumations report which you completed in 1999, which is Exhibit 234. A matter that arose yesterday with another witness in terms of the composition of your team, from (20)what areas of the world were your members of staff drawn? • A.: From Europe, North America, Central America, South America. That is, yes, pretty much it, yes.
• Q.: These were both anthropologists like
(25)yourself, scenes-of-crimes officers, anthropological
• A.: That is correct. • Q.: Could you explain to the Court which sites you examined between August and October of last year? (5)It might be helpful if you place the map -- that map on the ELMO. • A.: We investigated a number of sites in the location of Nova Kasaba, very close to the area where Dr. Haglund conducted his exhumations in 1996 that I (10)point to there. So it would be Nova Kasaba 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. Not so far from there, up the road, close to the intersection that goes on the road that goes to Bratunac is the site of Konjevic Polje 1, also (15)indicated there. Up the road going to Bratunac is the road -- the site of Konjevic Polje 2. And right past the village of Glogova that is not on this map, again on the road going to Bratunac, there's a number of sites known as Glogova 2, but they include many other (20)graves I will discuss later. • Q.: So although that site is known as Glogova 2, it's actually a multiple, complex grave site; that is correct? • A.: That is correct. (25)
• Q.: If we could move on to the first site, which
• A.: Nova Kasaba was exhumed between the 18th and the 21st of August last year. I was made aware by (5)investigators of the existence of alleged graves in the area of Nova Kasaba after being shown an aerial photograph of the area. • Q.: How many bodies did you assess were present in that grave? (10) • A.: Nineteen. • Q.: What was the sex of those individuals? • A.: Males. All of them were males, if I'm not mistaken. Let me check my notes again. Yes, they were all males. (15) • Q.: What was the age range of these individuals? • A.: They were all adults, again on the 25-plus range, but two of them were about 17 years of age.
• Q.: If the first photograph could be placed on
the exhibit
[sic], and in order to save exhibit
(20)numbers, we're going to use the report. It's on page
10 of your report, and I refer to the number in the
bottom right-hand corner.
Could you explain to the Judges what this
represents and the significance of your findings in
(25)this part of grave?
• Q.: Did you find any items of clothing or luggage in this grave? (20)
• A.: There's quite a lot of it, as a matter of
fact. Pretty much what you're seeing in this
photograph, these items here are items of clothing.
There was quite a lot of items of food, like
humanitarian aid food, canned food of all sorts, tuna,
(25)canned tuna, and crackers, and all those kinds of
• Q.: Did you find any items of identification on (5)this grave site? • A.: There were nine, nine items of identification, various items of identification, all of them reported in the ICRC missing persons book. • Q.: So in essence, you linked the pieces of (10)identification with individuals who had been reported as missing -- • A.: That is right. • Q.: -- by the International Committee for the Red Cross? (15) • A.: Yes. • Q.: If you can place the photograph that is on page 9, so it's one page back, which is of a skeletonised body lying in a grave, and if you could explain to the Judges the significance of this (20)photograph.
• A.: This photograph shows an individual lying on
his back with both feet close to each other and the
arms hyperextended over his head. That's one, and
another one there. However, it's important to notice
(25)that the wrists -- both wrists are almost converging
• Q.: Did you find any military paraphernalia in this grave? (10) • A.: We did not find any items that made us think of any -- of anybody dressed -- dressed in terms of clothing with military uniforms like camouflage fatigues or anything of the kind. However, we did find an individual that may have been carrying, it was close (15)to him, a 54 live round of 7.62 millimetre ammunition. That is the Kalashnikov family ammunition. • Q.: Lastly, on this particular grave, if you could show the photograph on page 11. You mentioned earlier you found an individual within the grave who (20)had a makeshift split attached to his leg. This is a photograph, is it not, that was taken shortly after the body was removed from the grave?
• A.: That is correct. In order to preserve
anything that could be lost due to transport when the
(25)body is transported to the mortuary, we took a picture
• Q.: If we could quickly move on to Nova (10)Kasaba 6. Do you have it in front of you, Mr. Baraybar? • A.: Yes. • Q.: How did you become aware of this site? • A.: Again, this alleged grave was indicated to me (15)by investigators based on an aerial photograph. • Q.: When did you exhume it and how long did it take to exhume? • A.: It was exhumed only one day, on the 25th of August, 1999. (20) • Q.: What type of grave was this and how many individuals did it contain?
• A.: This is a very different grave than the one
previously shown. This grave was dug by hand, most
likely by shovels or spades, and contained the remains
(25)of two people.
• A.: Male. • Q.: And were you able to assess their ages? (5) • A.: One of them was young, was between, I would say, 14 to 24 years of age, and the second one was again 25 plus, between, let's say, 22 and 50 years of age. • Q.: If you could show the diagram on page 14, (10)which I think is produced from the survey that Professor Wright demonstrated to the Court was taking place on every grave. Can you explain to the Judges how this image is produced and the significance of it? • A.: Well, as Professor Wright has shown before, (15)we take a lot of care in recording the position of every artefact and body found in the grave by means of electronic survey. That data from this machine can then be downloaded into a computer in order to produce a map or a sketch. That is what you see at the moment (20)and is basically a schematic representation of the two bodies, the position in which they were lying, and a number of artefacts that were recovered in association with these bodies.
• Q.: Can you explain the particularly significant
(25)points in this diagram?
MR. CAYLEY: Just for the purpose of the record, the witness has been referring to figure 3 on page 14 of Exhibit 234. • Q.: Mr. Baraybar, if you can now move on to Nova (20)Kasaba 7, and I'll give you a moment to find the relevant page in your report. How was this grave notified to you?
• A.: Again, this is one of the graves that was
shown to me as to be present in an aerial photograph.
(25)The important feature regarding this site was that in
(5) • Q.: When did you exhume this site? • A.: This was exhumed on the 22nd of August, 1999. • Q.: And how many people did you find in this grave? • A.: Only one. (10) • Q.: And what was the sex of that individual? • A.: It was a male between 31 and 65 years of age. • Q.: Did you find anything of significance, apart from the body, within that grave?
• A.: Yes, we did. We recovered two 30-millimetre
(15)cartridges, spent cartridges. That is, there seemed to
be some part of cartridges of a large weapon, most
likely anti-aircraft or something of that kind, that
were at the bottom of this trench.
In order to clarify what I mean by "trench",
(20)this was basically a trench excavated by a front
loader, so it was a trench with a ramp. So on the ramp
at the bottom, there were two large shell casings. One
of them was smashed, as a matter of fact, by something
very heavy that ran over it. We also recovered a
(25)number of shell casings of smaller weapons, as well as
• Q.: How are you able to conclude that this grave had been dug by a front loader? • A.: A feature of front loaders when digging (5)basically any trench, whether the trench is to be used as a grave or not, is to create a ramp. Otherwise, they could not dig in. • Q.: And this feature is apparent when you exhume the grave? (10) • A.: That's correct. We also -- sorry to interrupt you. We also recovered parts of tracks of the machine, wheels of the machine, so it was quite apparent. • Q.: If we could now move on to Nova Kasaba 8. (15)How were you made aware of this site? • A.: Again, this site, the alleged grave at the time was shown to me in this aerial photograph I already mentioned. • Q.: And when was this site exhumed? (20) • A.: Between the 27th of August and the 6th of September, 1999. • Q.: And how many individuals did you recover from this grave? • A.: Thirty-three. (25)
• Q.: Were you able to establish the sex of these
• A.: Thirty-two of them were male, and one remains indeterminate. • Q.: Now, I think in this grave there were a (5)number of clusters of individuals, and if you turn to page 20 of your report, there's a photograph which represents this very clearly. Can you explain this to the Judges, please?
• A.: We recovered in this grave three clusters of
(10)bodies. The clusters were labelled in the same order
they were placed into the grave. Cluster 1 was the
first at the bottom of the grave. As a matter of fact,
you actually see that the grave again is one of these
trenches dug by some kind of front loader with a ramp.
(15)You see the ramp here and the tooth marks of the
machine, of the blade of the machine. The cluster 1 is
this one
[indicates] Cluster 2 is the one in the
middle.
You see that between cluster 1 and 2 there is
(20)spoil, so we have excavated this as a cake, so to
speak, to show you the way in -- the position of each
of the clusters in relation to each other. So if this
(5) • Q.: What is the significance of the turf or spoil between the clusters? • A.: It indicates pretty much two things. The first is that there is a time difference between the disposal of the clusters of bodies. By "time", I'm not (10)referring here to absolute time, because I cannot actually time the time elapsed between each disposal. I cannot say whether it happened in a matter of hours or days. I can't really say. And the second element is that for the length (15)of the grave and the amount of sediment between each of the clusters, that could have not been placed there by hand, but rather, again, through mechanical means. It also implies that the bodies themselves could have been lifted mechanically from another location and (20)transported to this place, and they came with a lot of dirt, as a matter of fact. • Q.: And, lastly, did you find anything else of significance in this grave which I think will become relevant later on in your testimony? (25)
• A.: Yes, I did. The first important thing is
(15) • Q.: And I think the clusters are, in fact, clearly numbered by marks that have been placed in the graves. If you could just point those out for the reference when people come back to look at this. • A.: Number 1 [indicates], number 2 [indicates], (20)and number 3 [indicates] • Q.: Thank you, Mr. Baraybar. If we could now move on to Nova Kasaba 5, and again I'll give you a moment to find your place.
MR. CAYLEY: If the witness could be provided
(25)with Exhibit 14/10, please.
• A.: This is Nova Kasaba 5, this area here. That is an area of lighter soil, an elongated area of lighter soil, some narrow lanes parallel to each other -- two, as a matter of fact, here -- and then a (10)small area of lighter soil again. In this area, literally immediately adjacent to this small area of lighter soil, is a willow tree that cannot actually be seen in this copy, but there is a tree, as a matter of fact. It is visible in the (15)original photograph, I think, if I see it here. • Q.: Could you use a marker and mark Nova Kasaba 5? Otherwise, I think we're going to lose this. And we'll provide a new exhibit to the Court and we'll re-mark this exhibit. (20) • A.: [Witness complies] • Q.: And if you could mark that as "NK-5". • A.: [Witness complies] • Q.: Please continue, Mr. Baraybar.
• A.: So all the other Nova Kasaba graves we have
(25)discussed a moment ago already marked in this
• Q.: If we could now move on to KP-1, Konjevic Polje site 1. Do you have your report in front of you? • A.: Yes. • Q.: When was this site notified to you? (15) • A.: This site was notified to me at the same time that the Nova Kasaba sites were shown to me in this photograph. Actually, it's through another photograph. • Q.: And when you speak of photographs, you're (20)speaking of aerial -- • A.: That is correct. • Q.: How long did it take to exhume this site? • A.: We exhumed it between the 7th and the 9th of September of 1999. (25)
MR. CAYLEY: And if Exhibit 15/2, Mr. Usher,
• Q.: And so as not to waste any time, I'll continue asking you questions. How many bodies were exhumed in this site? (5) • A.: Nine. • Q.: Were you able to establish the sex of these individuals? • A.: There were eight males and one female. • Q.: What were the age ranges of the males? (10) • A.: Seven of them between 25 and 65 years of age, and one between 16 and 23. • Q.: Were you able to establish the age range of the female? • A.: Yes. Between 16 and 30. (15) • Q.: Now, this exhibit in front of the Judges at the moment, this is, in fact, the site of KP-1. Can you explain to the Judges the layout of this particular grave? • A.: This grave, again, was -- contained two (20)clusters of people. Eight individuals in the first cluster and only one in the last one. • Q.: What items of significance did you find within this grave?
• A.: We recovered, again, one bag with quite a lot
(25)of items of clothing. Inside the bag was somebody's
• Q.: Did you consult an expert on that watch? (5) • A.: Yes, I did. • Q.: And what conclusions did he come to? • A.: Based on the expert report of Mr. Mills, a horologist, it seems that that combination of date and time lead us to a time between 32 and 36 hours before. (10)That would be the 13th. And if I may correct, I said Saturday, but it was actually Friday the 15th at 12.35. • Q.: Now what you're saying is the expert concluded that the watch had stopped 32 to 36 hours (15)before? • A.: That is correct. The oscillation of the wrist stopped 32 to 36 hours before. • Q.: If you can place photograph 11, which is on page 28, on the ELMO. (20)Is this exactly as you found the watch? • A.: That is correct. This is a picture taken. The watch is there. The person is lying face down. That is the picture we took before cleaning any further or altering the scene. (25)
• Q.: Were you able to conclude how the bodies were
• A.: Again, the individuals placed in the first cluster, meaning the first eight individuals, may have been brought by mechanical means, pretty much by a (5)front -- a front loader. There was some turf, some grass under the bodies pretty much as it was being scraped or taken off the topsoil. We also found some white powder. I was actually forgetting that. Some white powder such as (10)lime on top of some of the bodies and a stretcher. There was a stretcher. • Q.: Why would lime be placed on the bodies? • A.: In other -- it's my experience, at least in other settings, that there is an association between (15)quenching the smell of rotting bodies and placing lime on top of them. • Q.: In essence, to conceal their presence in the grave. • A.: That is correct. (20) • Q.: If we could now move to the last site? Konjevic Polje, which is Konjevic Polje 2. That is on page 29 of your report. Do you have that in front of you? • A.: Yes. (25)
• Q.: Was this site identified to you through
• A.: That is correct. • Q.: When was it exhumed? • A.: On the 10th of September, 1999. (5) • Q.: How many bodies did you find in this grave? • A.: Three in two graves. One grave with one and another one with two. • Q.: What was the sex of these individuals, if you were able to determine that? (10) • A.: Male. • Q.: And what were their ages? • A.: In grave 1 was a male between 31 and 71 years of age. In grave 2, two young males between 15 and 21. • Q.: Were you able to establish whether or not (15)they'd been placed by a mechanical digger into the grave? • A.: Yes. In grave 1, the body most likely was placed, again, through mechanical means. There was a pedestal of branches; turf, meaning grass; flowers, (20)literally scooped with the topsoil where he was lying. And in grave 2, at least one of the two may have been again pushed in by scraping quite a lot of topsoil and vegetation into the shallow grave.
• Q.: Do you have any other comments on that
(25)particular site?
• Q.: Now, the last site, which, I think, is the most complex site, that at Glogova. Was this site notified to you through aerial imagery? (10) • A.: That is correct. MR. CAYLEY: If the witness could be shown 161/1, Prosecutor's Exhibit. You may have it there. It's the aerial imagery of Glogova. • Q.: Mr. Baraybar, which site did you supervise (15)the exhumation over? • A.: The area marked as GL-2. • Q.: Now, has it been -- has the site GL-1 been tested for the presence of human remains? • A.: Yes, it has. (20) • Q.: And what did that test reveal? • A.: A positive. There are human remains in the location. • Q.: Now, how long did GL-2 take to exhume?
• A.: We started on the 11th of September, and we
(25)finished on the 15th of October.
• A.: Yes, indeed. MR. CAYLEY: Now, if the witness could be shown 161/5, and that is the large crater. (5) • Q.: You might wish to put these two photographs on the ELMO at the same time, Mr. Baraybar, to demonstrate the point that you're making, if that's possible. Perhaps the lower exhibit could be moved up (10)and tucked under the upper exhibit. Yes. That's fine. Mr. Baraybar, if you could explain to the Judges the significance of the differences between these two photographs. (15)
• A.: In this photograph labelled as 27th of July,
1995, we see a large area of disturbance on either side
of the road. In this second photograph of the 30th of
October, 1995, we see a large crater in the area marked
as GL-2. We do not see anything similar, at least in
(20)GL-1, but it is quite clear there is a large hole in
the area of GL-2.
Also, it is indicated in the photograph the
shape, according to the photograph, of a front loader,
but what is really clear to my eyes is that there is a
(25)large hole in this area.
(5) • Q.: Mr. Baraybar, how many graves were there at site GL-2? • A.: We estimate that at the moment we may have between six and seven. There's still a section of that area to be excavated this year. (10) • Q.: Now, the simplest way to represent this to the Judges, I think, is to do a sketch of the various grave sites, and I've put some paper and a pencil in front of you. I think that a sketch is actually clearer than the diagram in your report. So if you're (15)able to do that on the ELMO, that would be helpful.
• A.: What I will draw here is the position -- the
relative position of the grave we found before the
crater that we have seen in this other photograph was
made, and I will explain all the details regarding the
(20)crater later.
The first -- and the other thing I want to
say is that the order in which I will draw these graves
is not necessarily the order in which the graves were
originally dug, because I cannot demonstrate when each
(25)one of them was dug, in which order, which one came
MR. CAYLEY: If that exhibit could be given a number, please. (5) • Q.: Were you able to establish the sex of the individuals who you've identified were exhumed from this grave? • A.: I will give you the data in a minute. I have to check in my notes. From -- yes. Some 20 found in (10)this area of the crater were determined to be male. • Q.: And the other 12? • A.: I'm almost sure they were also male. I do not have the specific data in front of me. No. As a matter of fact, yes. (15)Seven of these ones were male. So seven of GL-03 were male. And from these other ones, 20 were male as well. • Q.: And that's from the GL-02 crater? • A.: That's correct. (20) • Q.: And in GL-05? • A.: In GL-05, 82 of the 90 were male. • Q.: Were any of these individuals established to be females? • A.: No. (25)
• Q.: So the remaining numbers are of indeterminate
• A.: That's correct. • Q.: If you could place page 39 of your report -- THE REGISTRAR: Excuse me, Mr. Cayley. His (5)drawing will be 161/2/A. MR. CAYLEY: Thank you. • Q.: If you could briefly explain this photograph to the Judges. • A.: This is GL-03. We are observing the ramp in (10)the first plain here. So we are basically standing at the entrance, so to speak, of the grave. This is the ramp. You can see on this area here the tyre marks of the excavator. This area here clearly shows that the grave (15)was robbed, was sectioned pretty much into two parts. The crater I just drew is here, and this is a section that was left untouched and the bodies are still in situ there. • Q.: Now, by inference, it is obvious from what (20)you're saying about the crater is that there was this major disturbance. What conclusions did you reach about this crater? What had happened to this grave?
• A.: Well, although we cannot say what is the
order in which the graves, with the exception of GL-05,
(25)were excavated, we can say for sure that all the graves
• Q.: If you could turn to the photograph on page 36 of your report, which is GL-02, and I'd like you to comment upon the tooth marks that you've identified on that photograph. (15)
• A.: As I drew a moment ago, the GL-02 grave is a
trench primarily, so the boundaries of it would be from
here to here coming down. You see the dark soil. That
shows the outline of it, and continues like here and
goes there.
(20)In this area here, obviously the photograph
doesn't show much, the tooth marks in the wall of the
grave from the machine who actually originally
excavated the grave. So this is nothing to do with
robbing in this case. These are the marks of the
(25)machine who opened the grave in the first place, who
• Q.: Were there any particular items of interest that you found in this grave, such as ID cards? (5) • A.: Yes, there were. An important thing, since we are discussing the GL-02 grave, is that all over this area here again we found a tremendous amount -- I would say close to half a cubic metre that is quite a lot of lime or a lime-like substance. We also (10)recovered, in addition to that, a watch -- an automatic watch in the crater, in the GL-02 crater, in the robbing area, marking again Friday the 15th at 8.15. And we recovered a second watch on the ramp of GL-03 that I just showed you a moment ago marking "Saturday, (15)15", but no times, just "Saturday, 15". • Q.: Were these watches examined by an expert? • A.: That is correct. We -- Mr. Mills -- based on Mr. Mills' report, we conclude again that the time we're referring to is 32 to 36 hours prior to this (20)date, around the 13th again. • Q.: Now, as a final matter on these graves, there was a sediment in GL-03 and GL-05, and if you could place your drawing that you did back on the ELMO and explain this to the Judges. (25)
• A.: Professor Brown again took some soil samples
• Q.: Are you aware as to whether or not the Sandici area had been cultivated for maize production? (15) • A.: I do not know. MR. CAYLEY: Finally, if the witness could be shown this, rather than getting him to search for it, Mr. Usher. • Q.: Now, Mr. Baraybar, the sites that are shaded (20)in green are exhumed sites? • A.: That is correct. • Q.: And the unshaded sites are sites which have been identified but not yet exhumed; is that correct? • A.: Yes, sir. (25)
• Q.: And do all of those sites, based on the
• A.: Yes, sir. • Q.: And based on your experience, would you expect to find at least a number of bodies in all of (5)those graves? • A.: Yes, sir. • Q.: So the figure that you have given as the mean number of individuals which, as you acknowledge, is very conservative, is going to significantly increase (10)as these graves are exhumed? • A.: Absolutely. MR. CAYLEY: Your Honour, I have no further questions for the witness, so I can offer him for cross-examination. (15) JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] I think that this is a good time for a break before we continue with the cross-examination, so let us have a 20-minute recess now, after which we will resume. --- Recess taken at 10.43 a.m. (20) --- On resuming at 11.10 a.m.
MR. CAYLEY: Mr. President, if I could --
excuse me, Mr. Visnjic. It's just housekeeping. The
last exhibit that Mr. Baraybar was referring to was
Prosecutor's Exhibit 140, which was not placed on the
(25)record. And earlier the court deputy informed me that
JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Yes. Very well, Mr. Cayley. Mr. Baraybar, you're now going to answer questions put to you by Mr. Visnjic. (10)Mr. Visnjic, your turn. MR. VISNJIC: [Int.] Thank you, Mr. President. • CROSS-EXAMINED by Mr. Visnjic: • Q.: Mr. Baraybar, good morning. (15)Mr. Baraybar, the first group of questions we have for you has to do with the Nova Kasaba 04 grave site. In this grave, according to your report, 19 bodies were found. However, you isolated two bodies of males, and you determined that on average they were (20)17 years old. Is there any particular reason for this? • A.: What I have written in the report is that we have 19 adult males. Two of them, however, were or had mean ages of 17 years of age, not that all the 19 have mean ages of 17 years. Only two. (25)
• Q.: There may be an error in the translation. My
• A.: If -- I do not know if I understand the question correctly. Two individuals have been classed (5)as to have a mean age of 17 years of age, meaning they fall in the range 13 to 24 because of specific features, pretty much -- I presume -- I don't have the specific anthropology report in front of me regarding those two, but my assumption would be that a number of (10)traits in those individuals, basically in their bones, would show that they were still in the process of growth. Therefore, they have been ascribed to that age range. • Q.: Mr. Baraybar, the growth phase that you have (15)mentioned now continues until what age? • A.: Most individuals stop -- I would not say "growing", because that gives the impression that people grow like plants forever and ever, in a way. Most processes regarding the fusion of some parts of (20)the bone to another part of the bone end on average at age 21, on average. That's just a very generic explanation. We could go and refer to specific bones. But the average, let's say it stops about 21.
• Q.: In your previous report, when describing
(25)several age groups, you said that you combined the age
• A.: The reason is simply a mathematical reason. (5)In my archaeology report, I am dealing with a level of detail I am not dealing with in the anthropology report. The anthropology report refers to the whole set of numbers that have been collected over all these years. Therefore, in order to depict the distribution (10)of age of hundreds of individuals, I have to be able to include or to fit individual ages into wider ranges. That is why if I am referring only to 19 individuals, it makes much more sense, in my opinion, when reading the report of 19 individuals, to specify or to be more (15)specific regarding the ages defined for each of these individuals. If I see these 19 bodies in the -- as part of the whole of the 1.800 bodies, of course I cannot be as detailed with that and I need to just merge them. That (20)is why. • Q.: When you were working on this global estimation, in a part of your report you stated that the method used to determine the age was modified by certain standards for the Bosnian population. (25)
• A.: That is partly correct. The standard has not
(25)
• Q.: The standard you used for the Bosnian
• A.: Yes. The results of the study have been published or presented, rather, in an international (5)meeting in 1999. I presume that this investigation was done through 1998. • Q.: Bearing in mind large population migrations in Bosnia until that time, are you aware that there was a certain standard for the Yugoslav population or for (10)the population of Bosnia prior to the outbreak of the war? • A.: I am not aware of any Yugoslav standards referring to this specific technique, meaning the techniques, rather, we have used in this study. (15) • Q.: Generally speaking, bearing in mind the standard established by this investigation in 1999 and the standards that you refer to in your studies -- I'm not quite sure whether they are American standards -- anthropologically speaking, can it be said of the (20)Bosnian population that they develop earlier or quicker. Or let me put it this way: What is the difference between the two standards? Is it of substantive significance?
• A.: I will explain to you directly -- I will read
(25)to you the differences. We are dealing, in these
(15) • Q.: Can you please tell me the standard that you have adopted, and which is based on Simmons and Associates investigation, how large was the sample used and how many cases do you need to establish such a standard? (20)
• A.: Two criteria are important in order to
establish a standard. Firstly, a sample size, of
course. But besides a sample size is the number of
individuals represented in each age range. I may have
1.000 individuals between 20 and 30. I will not be
(25)able to predict anything about individuals between 30
• Q.: According to your report, in which you provided in groups the ages for all graves, in this particular grave site, Nova Kasaba 04, it is stated (5)that five persons were in the age group between 13 and 24 and 14 in the group over 25 years of age. That is page 9 of your report. My question is: Does that mean that your report on exhumations is far more precise regarding certain graves as compared to the report on (10)the investigation of human remains? • A.: Maybe the term is not "precision", but I would call it "emphasis". It is certain that more details regarding individual graves and, therefore, individuals recovered in those graves will have much (15)more emphasis in the archaeology report than in the anthropology report. If I were to use the same emphasis in the anthropology report, my report will be hundreds and hundreds of pages long in the case of the anthropology report. That is one factor. (20)The second factor, I think, is that the emphasis of the anthropology report is not to detail or to discuss individual cases but rather to discuss it globally. It's a global presentation of how many people have been examined over these last years. (25)
• Q.: Mr. Baraybar, does that mean that in the Nova
• A.: There were individuals, let's say using now the anthropological term, no younger than 13. Those (5)people would be classed in the 13 to 24 age range. So it would be correct to say there were no younger than 13. • Q.: How many individuals were there in the group between 17 and 25? (10) • A.: In what grave? • Q.: In Nova Kasaba 4.
• A.: I can actually pick up the specific data, if
you give me just one moment.
I see what you're getting at. When we
(15)assembled the age ranges, the age ranges of 13 to 24
and 25 plus, and I said that earlier, we were combining
a number of data that was coming from different
sources, the 1996 report and all the other reports done
before. As you rightly said, in 1998, for example, the
(20)13-to-24-year interval was divided into two, into two
parts, one between 13 and 17, 18 to 24, and so forth.
In order to be more inclusive, we have merged them in
the range 13 to 24 to be just simply more inclusive.
So according to this, in Nova Kasaba 4, the range 13 to
(25)24 has or contains five individuals out of the 19.
• A.: That is correct. (5) • Q.: In your report relating to the Nova Kasaba 04 grave site, you state that traces were found of bullets? • A.: In number 4 -- could you tell me what page, please? (10) • Q.: On page 7, paragraph 2, last sentence. • A.: No. What I'm saying here is that in a few cases the presence of shotgun pellets was recorded in addition to other gunshot injuries. That refers to injuries and has been extracted, as indicated (15)previously, from the pathologist's report. • Q.: I didn't understand. So did you find shotgun pellets or traces of them? Did you actually find the shotgun pellets themselves, the buckshot, or traces of them? (20)
• A.: According to the pathologist's report, as I
raise in my report here, 11 individuals died of gunshot
wounds, while the cause of death of the eight others
was unascertained. In a few cases, the presence of
shotgun pellets, and that links to the bodies not in
(25)the sediment or anywhere else, was recorded in addition
• Q.: Do you have an explanation for these traces of shotgun pellets? (5) • A.: No, I don't. • Q.: In this grave site, you also came across an individual who had 54 bullets of a calibre of 7.62. Did this individual, if you can tell us that at all -- that is to say, was that person wearing civilian (10)clothing? • A.: I can tell you that information. Give me a moment. This information is extracted again from the pathologist's report. The individual was dressed in blue jeans, and let's say blue denim trousers -- that (15)would be the appropriate way to put it -- and a blue jacket, so jean-type jacket. • Q.: In the Kasaba 04, you also found some personal documents scattered around. Does that mean that the bodies were searched or is there some other (20)explanation?
• A.: I don't have any explanation. I can just
tell you that documents were found in the grave fill,
in most of the cases, as well as many other items of
clothing and artefacts. There were quite a lot of
(25)artefacts found.
(10) • Q.: Mr. Baraybar, do you perhaps have information on the following, although I don't think that was part of your job: The identification of individuals from that grave site? Were most of them identified, do you happen to know? (15) • A.: No, I don't. • Q.: In keeping with everything that you found in the grave site, do you exclude the possibility that the bodies in this grave site, in this grave, had been casualties during combat activities in an attempt to (20)cross the asphalt road and that they were buried in this grave later on, subsequently?
• A.: I cannot exclude the possibility. In my
opinion, however, if I may add, there's two things
important to remember. The first one is that the
(25)documents found either on bodies or lose in the grave
• Q.: Mr. Baraybar, the stretchers -- we're talking about a grave with nine individuals and only two stretchers were found; is that correct? (25)
• A.: Nineteen.
• A.: But, yes, that's correct, two stretchers. • Q.: And also found were three -- a maximum of three individuals who had had previous wounds or (5)injuries. • A.: That is correct. • Q.: Did any one of the individuals -- that is to say, on how many individuals did you find traces of shotgun pellets? (10) • A.: I do not know. You would need to refer to the pathology report. • Q.: In keeping with your conclusion that at least 19 persons, 19 persons and at least 4 were carried -- were carrying the stretcher and that 3 were injured, (15)12 people were, nonetheless, capable of engaging in combat operations. Do you agree with me? • A.: Yes. The answer is yes. However, I cannot -- I have no evidence whatsoever to make such a conclusion, but presented in that way, yes. (20) • Q.: Mr. Baraybar, I'd like to talk about the next grave site, Nova Kasaba 06, now, please. In this grave, a male individual was found, ages ranging between 14 and 24. • A.: That is correct. Yes, sir. (25)
• Q.: Bearing in mind your previous testimony where
• A.: Yes. There is no difference, as a matter of fact. In my previous testimony, what I have stated is (5)that the range we are using for calculations of the overall number of cases goes between 13 and 24. In this specific individual, the emphasis, again, in the archaeology report is much more in the description of individual cases. And according to the standards we've (10)been using and the evidence we've been finding in this case, this individual happened to be between 14 and 24. For calculation proposals, this individual will adapt to the 13 to 24 category. • Q.: You also state that four bullets were found (15)below the body of an individual, which lead to the conclusion and confirmation, according to you, that he was shot in the grave itself. My question is the following: At what depth did you find these projectiles? (20)
• A.: In general -- in general, as I said earlier,
the projectiles were found in various depths in the
sediment and under the body, which could range between
half an inch and an inch. In this specific -- in this
specific case -- I am looking through the report to see
(25)if I have stated that. Maybe I have not stated how
• Q.: In your opinion, how far would a 7.62-calibre metre lodge -- be lodged in the earth, having passed through a body? Have you got an orientation as to (10)that? • A.: I don't have a precise orientation because, in my knowledge, the factors influencing this would be the compaction of the soil. Obviously, it would be very different if somebody shot through a concrete (15)floor than if he shot through mud or if he shot through some kind of clay soil that is very compacted. The only evidence I have is based on our findings in recovering a slug of a projectile embedded in the soil. (20) • Q.: You also find 14 casings, 14 shell casings. Do you know whether these casings were identified, as well as the projectiles in this concrete case, although I know that that was not your job? • A.: I do not know. (25)
• Q.: Mr. Baraybar, according to your overall
• A.: I definitely cannot explain nor draw such a (5)conclusion. I have only bones. I don't think that anybody could really determine whether the person was dead or alive while being shot in the grave. • Q.: As an anthropologist, did you take part in determining the character of the injuries that were (10)inflicted, whether they were ante-mortem or post-mortem? • A.: As anthropologists, we do assist the pathologist in the reconstruction and assessment of injuries. However, it is the pathologist's (15)responsibility and prerogative to give an opinion about the nature of those injuries. • Q.: Thank you. My next group of questions relates to the Nova Kasaba grave site 07. In your report, you state that in this grave (20)you also found projectiles. • A.: That is correct. • Q.: During your examination-in-chief, you also stated that this grave had the character of a trench, that is to say, like a defence position. (25)
• A.: That is correct.
(5) • A.: I would say it's correct. • Q.: Does your overall image of the grave site exclude the possibility that in this trench at this position with the heavy-calibre weaponry, that there was shooting going on during combat operations and that (10)the ammunition that was found in fact represents part of those activities and operations?
• A.: I would say yes and no. If I may explain the
no part of it that would be in my opinion. I do agree
with the fact that to fire a 30-millimetre round, you
(15)cannot do that from a handgun or a rifle. It has to be
a quite substantially large gun. Therefore, those
shells found at the bottom of the trench, one of which
was smashed, as a matter of fact, could be linked to
the fact that whenever this gun in transport or
(20)carrying this gun or whatever was moving this gun may
have smashed some shell casings left behind.
However, I do not see what would be the use,
in my opinion, to fire a 30-millimetre weapon together
with a 7.65-millimetre pistol bullet. If I was firing
(25)a 30-millimetre weapon that would have a very long
• Q.: Perhaps the interpretation was not the proper one, but on page 17 of your report, we don't mention a (20)shell casing but just a bullet. No mention is made of a shell casing, which means that somebody dropped a bullet in the trench. • A.: I do not follow you. You may repeat your question, please. (25)
• Q.: On page 16. I'm sorry. On page 16 of your
• A.: In your first point, the 7.65-millimetre (15)pistol bullet is, indeed, a bullet, and is not a live round, is a fired bullet; otherwise, it would be referring to a round. It is a bullet and therefore has been fired. Then we have, on top of it, three shell (20)casings of 7.62 millimetres, and we've got two bullets, again fired rounds, of 7.62 millimetres and a jacket fragment, the part of the bullet that encases the core of the bullet, that we cannot determine from where it came. (25)
• Q.: In view of the fact that the body was found
• A.: I have really no, again, opinion about it. The answer again could be "yes". However, by the same token, I could, in my opinion, question why then those (10)fired bullets are in the sediment in close proximity to the body. But the answer to your question would be "yes". • Q.: Thank you. My next question relates to the next grave site, Konjevic Polje. I'm sorry, Nova (15)Kasaba 08, that is the next grave site. In this grave, you explained to us that you found 33 individuals who were buried in three groups, so to speak? • A.: That is correct. • Q.: Your conclusion in paragraph 3 seems to (20)indicate that the groups -- that the individuals in the first and third groups were shot in the grave itself? • A.: That is correct, yes, sir.
• Q.: Also, your conclusion in paragraph 4
indicates that clusters 1 and 2 were mechanically
(25)removed from an unknown location and disposed of in the
• A.: That is correct too. • Q.: It seems to me that there is something illogical there. If cluster 1 was mechanically removed (5)from an unknown location and then buried in the grave, why was that same cluster shot at in the Nova Kasaba 8 grave itself?
• A.: Well, I have not stated the answer to that
question because it will be too much to speculate. But
(10)in my opinion, if I may, I would speculate regarding
this in order to answer the question.
There are two things that need to be taken
into account. If I'm saying that the bodies were
transported mechanically, it's because we have physical
(15)evidence linking turf, meaning grass, under the bodies
as if they've been scooped. That is a fact. There is
no interpretation linking that fact to anything else.
So my interpretation goes, then, to the mechanical
removal of the bodies. That is number 1.
(20)Number 2, I have never said in any point in
time whether the people were scooped alive or dead
because I cannot make that interpretation. Again, if
somebody has bullets under the body embedded in the
ground, I am only saying that the person may have been
(25)shot while in the grave. I am not saying whether the
• Q.: Mr. Baraybar, at what depth below the bodies were the projectiles found? Do you have that fact?
• A.: Let me look for it in the report. It only
(20)says here that three to four bullets and one jacket
fragment -- that's referring to cluster 1 -- were found
embedded in the bottom of the grave. Again, I would
say that by "embedded", I mean the bullet was literally
stuck in the ground, in the soil, below the depth of at
(25)least half an inch or over a centimetre to an inch.
• A.: Let me rephrase, only for the sake of understanding, to see if I understand your question. What you suggest is that in wartimes, a burst of fire (15)may be open against an individual that is already placed into a grave for some reason. I just need clarification on that. • Q.: Yes, yes. • A.: The answer would be, no, I am not acquainted (20)with that information you have produced. However, in my opinion again, I would say that if somebody opens a burst of fire against a body lying on a grave, it is because that person suspects that the individual may still be alive. (25)
• Q.: My next question relates to the Konjevic
• A.: Yes, sir. • Q.: The existence of this white powder, could it (5)be an indication that it was scattered in order to prevent possible disease from spreading? • A.: It is, in my opinion again -- I cannot answer this question if I don't give an explanation for it. It is, in my opinion again, lime, in general, is placed (10)in graves in any country in the world primarily to quench smell more than to prevent disease, as far as I know. I don't really see what disease-preventing capabilities lime has for that matter. • Q.: Does lime itself have a smell? (15) • A.: Lime, in itself, does not have a smell such as the one that it's trying to quench, no. • Q.: In that connection, is it a fact that most of the bodies were transported mechanically, by mechanical means? At least that is what I gather from your (20)report. • A.: That is correct, at least those to be buried first, the first eight.
• Q.: One of the reasons -- I'm not just referring
to this grave but the others too. Most of the bodies
(25)were transported mechanically to the grave sites; is
• A.: We have evidence that in some instances, as I have put in my report, some bodies or some groups of bodies were transported mechanically to the location (5)where they were buried, that is correct. • Q.: Could one of the reasons be fear of infection or -- could one of the reasons be fear of infection, or the unpleasant stench, could that be one of the explanations? (10) • A.: That would be one of the explanations for burying the bodies, not for them being transported mechanically, if I understand correctly. • Q.: My next question -- just a moment, please. There's another question I have to ask. (15)Does lime, in contact with water, emanate a particular smell? • A.: Yes, it does. • Q.: Thank you. My next question relates to the Konjevic Polje 2 grave site. According to your (20)finding, this grave was dug by hand? • A.: That is correct. Both graves were dug by hand. • Q.: But still there are traces that the body was mechanically put into the grave? (25)
• A.: That is correct for grave 1 and maybe for one
• Q.: Is this grave an instance of the kind of speculation we referred to earlier on as to the reasons for putting bodies into the grave by mechanical means? (5) • A.: I do not know. However, I would like to clarify this issue a bit more. In my report, I say that the grave in grave 1, for example, was dug by hand, and that individual may have been placed there through mechanical means (10)because it was lying on a pedestal of turf, branches and some flowers. What I'm not saying in my report, however, is when the hole in which the body was placed was open -- in other words, a hole becomes a grave by putting a body in it. I do not know and there's no way (15)I can know whether the hole was simply a hole and has been there for a long time and then a body was placed in it later. So that just helps to clarify, in that specific case, that I'm not trying to infer when -- or why, rather, or to speculate why, if I open a grave by (20)hand or I dig a grave by hand, why I put in a body mechanically. I cannot really speculate on that.
MR. VISNJIC:
[Int.] Mr. President,
I have several more questions for the witness, but I am
looking at the time. I don't know whether it might be
(25)advisable to have a break now.
MR. VISNJIC: [Int.] Another ten (5)minutes or so, Mr. President. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Ten minutes or so? I think we should have a break then. So we're going to have a 20-minute break now. (10) --- Recess taken at 12.17 p.m. --- On resuming at 12.37 p.m. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Mr. Visnjic, you may continue, please. MR. VISNJIC: [Int.] Thank you, (15)Mr. President. • Q.: Mr. Baraybar, let us go on to the next grave site, Glogova. In view of the global impression you have of this grave site, would you agree that there were several burials in that grave? (20) • A.: That is correct. Yes, sir. • Q.: Do you have any idea as regards the time when those burials took place?
• A.: No. No, I don't. From the direct
examination of the graves, I do not have an impression
(25)of the time. Having said that, I do have an impression
• Q.: Regarding this grave and in view of the (5)bodies recovered, can it be said that bodies were brought to this grave from several locations? • A.: That is actually possible for any grave, including this one, yes. • Q.: In your report, you said that a person was (10)found with a Baretta pistol on him. • A.: Yes, that is correct. • Q.: Could you tell us how that individual was clothed? • A.: Yes. Based on the pathology report again -- (15)it's in my notes -- he was dressed with a black leather jacket, green tartan shirt, olive-green T-shirt, and brown trousers. • Q.: Could this be described as civilian clothing? (20) • A.: Yes. • Q.: In this grave, a group of bodies was found with traces of scorching. Is that correct?
• A.: It is correct. I think that we should tell
the Court that we're referring to GL-05 specifically,
(25)yes.
• A.: No, I don't. I guess that that matter will be dealt with when the pathologist -- with the pathologist's testimony. (5) • Q.: In this grave, a certain quantity of lime was also found, as was the case in the previous graves. • A.: That is correct. • Q.: Would you say that there was a particular reason for this? (10) • A.: I do not know what is the reason of putting the lime there. I just know that there was quite a lot of it, as much as -- I would say almost a cubic metre. Quite a lot of lime. • Q.: Mr. Baraybar, within the framework of your (15)studies and investigations, you managed to obtain a global overview of virtually all the graves. • A.: That is correct. • Q.: If the existence of lime could be a reason for concealing a grave, how would you explain that in (20)the case of secondary grave sites lime is mostly absent, with the exception of Zeleni Jadar 5?
• A.: I would need to answer your question in my
opinion, because I have never discussed that issue in
any of my reports.
(25)In my opinion, lime is not a means of
MR. VISNJIC: [Int.] Mr. President, I have no further questions. Mr. Baraybar, thank you for your detailed answers. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Thank you (20)very much, Mr. Visnjic. Mr. Cayley. MR. CAYLEY: I have only a few questions, Mr. President. • RE-EXAMINED by Mr. Cayley: (25)
• Q.: First of all, Mr. Baraybar, in your
MR. CAYLEY: If the witness could be shown Exhibit 140, and specifically page 00950927. • Q.: Mr. Baraybar, I want you to concentrate on the diagram on the extreme right of that page, which is (10)the Orahovac/Lezete 2 and then linked to Hodzici Road 3, Hodzici Road 4 and Hodzici Road 5. When you wrote your report in December of 1999, were you aware that examination of shell cases and blindfolds and ligatures had linked Orahovac/Lezete (15)2 with the secondary sites at Hodzici Road 3, Hodzici Road 4, and Hodzici Road 5? • A.: No. The only evidence that I have used for those links, as called in my report, have been the pollen and soil analysis. (20) • Q.: So you were not aware of that subsequent evidence that's been discovered since your report? • A.: No, sir. • Q.: I'm sorry. Since the writing of your report, you're not aware of that new evidence? (25)
• A.: No, I'm not.
• A.: No, I'm not. • Q.: Can you explain what you mean by "mean age of (10)17"? • A.: "Mean" is a measure of a central tendency. In other words, if I have an individual that, according to my analysis, is between -- let's just take a hypothetical example -- between 20 and 30, I would say (15)that its mean age is 25. I am not saying, however, that he is 25. He is somewhere between 20 and 30. The problem is that in terms of writing a report, if I am to explain or refer to ranges all the time, it would be extremely confusing. In that case, it's basically why (20)I'm using a mean age of 17 years of age. • Q.: So am I right in saying that explains why, in your anthropological report, you used age ranges, but in order to make a more realistic presentation in your exhumations report, you used a mean age of 17? (25)
• A.: That is correct, and the mean age -- the mean
• Q.: Thank you. If I could refer you to page 11 of your report, and this is simply a clarification, you state that a young adult male, in the second paragraph (5)of that page of your report, was found with 54 7.62-millimetre live rounds. Were they actually found on his person or were they found nearby to the body? • A.: As far as I recall, they were in close association to the body. I'm not making any reference (10)here, although I can check my notes if you give me a minute. Yes. The bullets were in close association. There's no mention of a pouch, there's no mention of anything. They were not, let's say, a metre or ten (15)centimetres away from the body. They were on the body. Therefore, they are associated to the body. I am not saying, however -- that's why I have not stated here -- that the body was carrying that, because there was found no carrying case or bag or anything. It was (20)simply associated to the body.
• Q.: Since you've been asked in your
cross-examination to exclude a number of possibilities,
and I don't want you to speculate, can you exclude the
possibility that those rounds of ammunition were thrown
(25)on top of the body after the body was put into the
• A.: I cannot. • Q.: If we could now move to Nova Kasaba 8 and page 20 of your report, you were asked a number of (5)questions about bullets -- deformed bullets that were found under a number of bodies, and you state in your report that the three bullets, the 7.62-millimetre bullets, were found in the soil deformed. Question: Is it right that when bullets pass (10)through bodies and hit flesh or bone, that they deform or flatten? • A.: In general, yes. • Q.: And by deforming or flattening, does that reduce the distance that they can travel once they have (15)left the body? • A.: In most cases, that is correct. • Q.: You were asked -- and this is really my final question in respect of Nova Kasaba 4 -- whether you could exclude the possibility that the individuals in (20)that grave were killed in combat, and your answer was, in essence, that you could not but that there were a number of factors which went against drawing that conclusion. Do you recall? • A.: Yes, I do. (25)
• Q.: Based on your knowledge of that grave,
• A.: No, I can't. (5) MR. CAYLEY: Thank you. Mr. President, I have no further questions for the witness. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Thank you very much, Mr. Cayley. (10)Judge Fouad Riad has the floor. • QUESTIONED by the Court:
JUDGE RIAD:
[Int.] Thank you,
Mr. President. (15) • A.: Good morning, Your Honour.
JUDGE RIAD: I've been listening very
carefully to your testimony. I have a general
question, in fact, related to the cross-examination and
to what our Prosecutor has just asked you.
(20)When you were asked by the distinguished
Defence counsel if some casualties could have happened
during combat, your answer was, "No," and you gave
reasons. You said that some carried stretchers, some
were reported missing by the ICRC, some had dressings
(25)of previous wound shots. Does this apply to all the
• A.: Your Honour, regarding the first example,
(5)that is, Nova Kasaba 4, as I said, we recovered 19
individuals and two stretchers. Three individuals were
with some kind of dressing. One of them specifically
had a splint. They wear different items of clothing
and other objects.
(10)In this specific case, the only military
element, if I can call it in another way, although I'm
speculating because we would need to define what
military items are, the obvious military item would be
the live rounds that were found in the grave.
(15)In the grave of Glogova as well, we found a
pistol, a loaded pistol being directly carried, not put
in the grave but carried by an individual.
In general terms, I do not recall any other
obviously military elements such as camouflage
(20)fatigues, khaki trousers, gun holsters or other
elements of military paraphernalia that were found in
the graves, helmets. The range would be limited.
So the answer is, basically, we have only --
we can not exclude -- I cannot exclude to a hundred per
(25)cent the fact whether they would be military casualties
JUDGE RIAD: You also mentioned that one of the bodies had bullets almost on the body. Now, if a body is thrown in a grave dug, would he fall with the bullets over him? (10) • A.: No. The 54 bullets we were referring to in the case of Nova Kasaba 4 were four groups of bullets placed on a -- on a clip. So it was a package of bullets in there. I do not know -- the bullets were not, let's say, spread all over the body. There was a (15)tight package of bullets, because bullets were in these clips, held in a clip. So they were not thrown, they were in a package. The issue is whether the body was carrying those bullets. I cannot say for sure. What I have (20)said is there was no bag, there was no suitcase, no backpack, no nothing in which the bullets were found. So the body was here, and the bullets were literally attached to the body. JUDGE RIAD: With a belt? (25)
• A.: No.
• A.: No. JUDGE RIAD: Thank you very much. • A.: You're welcome. (5) JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Thank you very much, Judge Fouad Riad. Judge Wald has the floor. JUDGE WALD: Thank you. Mr. Baraybar, you mentioned that in one of the graves, I think it was (10)Konjevic Polje 1, there was a body of a woman, and I believe that was the only identified woman found in all of the graves that you included in your report. Was there anything at all unusual or anything, from your point of view, that would explain (15)the presence of that lone woman in the grave?
• A.: Your Honour, there is no -- again, my
evidence does not allow me to speculate as to why she
was there. However, there's something I can definitely
comment upon, and it's the fact that from the remains
(20)that have been classified as undetermined by different
causes, either, because they were very fragmented,
there were tiny pieces, none of them, the ones that
were more or less complete, showed female features or
obvious features of a female.
(25)The interesting factor here is that during
• Q.: Was there anything in that relatively small (20)grave site to suggest that the female had been -- had met her death in any different way than the males?
• A.: I again would leave comments on the cause of
death of the female to the chief pathologist. I am
going through my report. Well, apparently she was
(25)shot. The pathologist would be able to explain that
JUDGE WALD: Okay. My second question deals with the phenomenon that's been so extensively discussed of those bodies that you found in a few (5)different sites where at least you said in the beginning they would be consistent with the person having been shot when they were already in the grave, although other possibilities were discussed. Could you tell, from the evidence that you (10)look at, if that were true, if that possibility that you first mentioned were true, that the body was shot while in the grave, that these bodies had been tossed into the grave and then shot or that they had actually been, as it were, ordered into the grave and then shot (15)while they were still active and upright?
• A.: Your Honour, one of the individuals in
grave 2 in the site of Konjevic Polje 2, KP-02, may
answer this question. This body happened to have three
7.62-millimetre bullets embedded in the grave floor
(20)under the body. One was below the waist, at the chest
level, and the right shoulder. In both cases, the
second body in the same grave has also a bullet under
the chest.
I wrote in my report here that according to
(25)the pathologist's report, the cause of death of both
JUDGE WALD: Okay. My last question to you
is: In the final part of your direct-examination, you
(25)were shown Exhibit 140, which showed the sites that
• A.: I do not know. JUDGE WALD: Okay. • A.: I could not comment on that. (10) JUDGE WALD: All right. Thank you. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Thank you very much, Judge Wald. Mr. Baraybar, I also have a few questions for you, at least five brief questions, in actual fact. (15)You talk about -- you talked about American standards, Bosnian standards for calculating age. Now, even for the American standard, does it require -- how shall I put this? -- continuously examines in order to maintain the viability of the standard? (20)
• A.: Up to a certain extent that is correct.
Beyond that, I would tell you that if a sample is large
enough and representative -- more than large -- large
and representative, that would be the right
combination. The standard can stand on its own. Some
(25)adjustments would need to be made if the sample is
JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] These same statistical operations, are they applied to perform the (5)adaptations of the American norm to the Bosnian standard or are there different operations to do this? • A.: No. It is the same -- it is basically the same operation. As I explained, the features to be observed remain the same. What changes is the number (10)of individuals that share those features. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] In applying the standard, let us say Bosnian, have you maintained the same criteria throughout, for numerous observations or did you change the criteria? (15) • A.: No. When we made -- we were made aware in 1999 of this study, what we have done is we have changed the ranges, not the observations, of the previous years. Well, not the previous years. I correct that. Only of 1998, because 1996 was already (20)presented as a report. So we have left the observations, and we have just changed the age ranges to make them more accurate, more close to reality.
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] With
respect to the age groups, these ranges that you
(25)adopted, do they have any connection with the stages of
• A.: No. The standards we have discussed are only (5)to age -- adult individuals in a post-development time. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] I have another question for you. You compiled your report, and of course you make a report in order to answer certain questions (10)posed. You don't do an academic report, but you do a report according to the needs. Now, can you tell me what the questions were that guided you, that the people seeking answers asked you? That is to say, what was the objective of your answers and response either (15)in the report itself or the research applied?
• A.: It primarily was to establish a demographic
profile of the population we were dealing with. So the
questions asked, basically, by the investigators would
be how old they are, how many they are, and what sex
(20)they are. Other things have also been performed, such
as stature estimation. However, stature is something
less linked to the Prosecution than to humanitarian and
identification matters.
We have also been recording, in addition to
(25)that, any other features; for example, if somebody may
JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] We have made a series of speculations, which is quite acceptable in my mind if you have an expert witness, of course. It is a little difficult to distinguish the (10)result of the observation and the opinion of the expert himself, and entering into that realm, I should like to ask you the following question. We have already associated mechanical resources used, and the smell, and possible disease. (15)Can we associate the use of mechanical resources to rapidity, the need to be quick, and organisational needs and requirements?
• A.: In my opinion, I think we can, and I'll give
you some examples.
(20)In every -- take the issue of the lime or the
alleged lime, the white substance. At least on two
occasions, meaning the Glogova sites, the amount of it
has been far beyond what one person can actually
carry. A cubic metre is a substantial amount. So
(25)again unless we have 1.000 people bring a small bag, it
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] Thank you
very much, Mr. Baraybar. I think that you have
answered all our questions and queries from the Bench,
the Prosecution, and the Defence, and this concludes
(25)your testimony, I think.
MR. CAYLEY: Yes, Mr. President. If I could (5)apply for formal admission of Exhibit 220, which is the curriculum vitae of Mr. Baraybar; Exhibit 224, which is a photographic copy of a male pelvic bone; Exhibit 225, which is the female pelvis; 226, which is the skull; 227, which is the calculation of the minimum number of (10)individuals; 229 is the same diagram but where it involves a primary and secondary site; 230, which is the table of age distribution for long bones; 231, a table of age distribution of long bones; 232 is an addendum to the anthropological report; 233 is the (15)anthropological report; 234 is the exhumation report, and then the final exhibit is the sketch that Mr. Baraybar did, which is Exhibit 161/2/A. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Mr. Visnjic, any objections? (20) MR. VISNJIC: [Int.] No, Mr. President. None.
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] These
documents have therefore been admitted.
Now we should like to thank you,
(25)Mr. Baraybar, for coming here, for your cooperation
THE WITNESS: Thank you.
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] Thank you
too. (10) JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Mr. Cayley, what are we going to do now? We have a problem. We have had two breaks. Perhaps it's a bit much to go on until 2.30, and perhaps we could now have a quarter of an hour break and then go on working until 2.30. (15)What do you have for us, Mr. Cayley? MR. CAYLEY: We do have another witness for the Court, Mr. President. We have a forensic pathology, as you could probably predict. His examination-in-chief will be longer than an hour; not (20)much longer than an hour, but certainly longer than an hour.
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] In that
case, perhaps I could ask the registrar to have the
witness brought in. We will have a 15-minute break,
(25)and then we will resume with the witness's testimony.
--- On resuming at 1.37 p.m. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] I think (5)that we have Dr. John Clark with us. Good afternoon. You're going to read the solemn declaration, which the usher is handing to you, please. THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the (10)truth. WITNESS: JOHN CLARK JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Please be seated. Dr. Clark, I think you are familiar with proceedings in the courtroom, so I'm sure you will be (15)quite at ease. For the moment, you're going to answer questions put to by Mr. Cayley. Mr. Cayley, your witness. MR. CAYLEY: Thank you, Mr. President. • EXAMINED by Mr. Cayley: (20) • Q.: Dr. Clark, before we begin your evidence, something that we have spoken about, you and I are both speaking English. • A.: Yes.
• Q.: Between us are banks of highly-skilled
(25)interpreters, but because we speak the same language,
• A.: Yes. • Q.: Your name is John Clark; is that correct? • A.: Yes. • Q.: You were born on the 5th of September, 1951? (10) • A.: Yes. • Q.: You're British. You're a Scotsman, in fact. • A.: Yes. • Q.: You've a bachelor's degree in medicine and surgery from the University of Aberdeen? (15) • A.: Yes. • Q.: You are, by profession and specialisation, a forensic pathologist? • A.: Yes. • Q.: Now, I think you've lectured in forensic (20)pathology at the Universities of Aberdeen, Sheffield, and Glasgow, and you're currently teaching at the University of Glasgow. • A.: That is correct, yes.
• Q.: Am I right in saying that the University of
(25)Glasgow has one of the major academic departments in
• A.: Yes, that's right. • Q.: You're a fellow of the Royal College of (5)Pathologists; is that correct? • A.: Yes. • Q.: Could you explain to the Court what that means. • A.: Essentially, any doctor in the United Kingdom (10)wanting to qualify as a pathologist has to pass an examination set by the Royal College of Pathologists. So I have passed that. After a certain period of time, one is made a fellow of the Royal College. • Q.: Indeed I think you're now the chairman of the (15)panel of examiners of the Royal College of Pathologists. Is that correct? • A.: In the speciality of forensic pathology, yes. • Q.: You're also the secretary of the British Association of Forensic Medicine. Can you explain to (20)the Judges what that role entails?
• A.: That's a national association of forensic
pathologists. It includes just about all forensic
pathologists in the United Kingdom. We also have many
members from other countries. We meet, have academic
(25)meetings twice a year and other activities, and I'm the
• Q.: Now, apart from your academic duties, can you describe to the Judges your profession obligations, like how many autopsies you perform every year, the (5)geographical extent of your forensic pathology specialisation? • A.: Carrying out post-mortems is, in fact, the largest component of my work. I carry out probably 350 to 400 post-mortem examinations every year. That (10)is involving a very wide range of deaths, from natural disease but including a substantial number of homicides and other suspicious deaths. My work involves working for the legal authorities in a large part of Scotland, the main (15)population of Scotland in the Glasgow region, and occasionally elsewhere. • Q.: Now, for the sake of the public -- the Judges are familiar with the type of work that you do -- what is a pathologist, first of all? (20)
• A.: A pathologist is a medical doctor who,
amongst other things, carries out post-mortem
examinations on people who have died to try and find
out why they have died. A forensic pathologist, in
particular, is someone who deals with people who have
(25)died in suspicious or criminal circumstances.
(5) • A.: Well, I have substantial work with the Tribunal both in Bosnia and in Croatia. I have also carried out a post-mortem examination in Pakistan on a chief of the army general staff, and last year I was briefly in Kosovo carrying out post-mortem examinations (10)on two Albanians who had been allegedly shot by British soldiers. • Q.: Now, Dr. Clark, I'm not going to go through the whole of your curriculum vitae. It speaks for itself in terms of your work, your publications, and (15)indeed your international work. I would simply offer it to the Court as Exhibit 235. Now, I think I'm right in saying that you worked on the Srebrenica investigation in connection with your autopsy work as a pathologist in 1996; is (20)that right? • A.: No, not in 1996, 1998 for the first time. • Q.: Sorry, in 1998. And then you assisted as a pathologist? • A.: Yes. (25)
• Q.: In 1999, I think you were the chief
• A.: Yes. • Q.: Now, you have in front of you, I think, your report from that season. We'll be referring to it. (5)It's going to be Prosecutor's Exhibit 236. Do you have a copy in front of you? • A.: I do. • Q.: Very briefly, because it's a matter that has arisen before, who worked for you and with you in the (10)mortuary in the 1999 season? • A.: It was quite a large team of individuals, pathologists, anthropologists, technicians, a radiographer, scenes-of-crime officers, and other assistants. They were drawn from many different (15)countries of the world. In fact, we had nineteen countries represented. MR. CAYLEY: If Exhibit 238 could be placed in front of the witness. • Q.: Or, indeed, if you have it, Dr. Clark, with (20)you. Sir, these represent a pretty good cross-section of member states of the United Nations. Staff were drawn from all of these countries who worked with you? (25)
• A.: Yes.
• A.: It worked very well. Obviously, everyone had their own medical-legal backgrounds and were used to carrying out examinations in different ways. But we (5)had a fairly common standard, and everything did work very well. • Q.: Now, if we can move on to the operation at the mortuary, and if you could -- I know it's covered in your report, but if you could describe firstly to (10)the Judges briefly how you received bodies and parts of bodies into the mortuary. • A.: Well, I think the bulk of the evidence you've heard so far has been related to the grave sites. The bodies were removed from the graves and put in (15)individual body bags. These were then stored in a refrigerator at the site. Regularly, that refrigerator was brought down to the mortuary. The bodies were transferred from it into a large refrigerated room in the mortuary. This was all carefully logged, and the (20)bodies were stored in the room until the post-mortem examination. • Q.: To your knowledge, and if you're aware, was the chain of custody or evidence in respect to the bodies closely monitored by members of the staff? (25)
• A.: Yes, including myself. We all took part in
• Q.: If you could explain briefly to the Judges how the mortuary operated, so the process that you went through, and the pathologists that worked for you, in (5)actually examining the body and making a report on the cause of death.
• A.: Briefly, the body would be removed from the
refrigerator and the numbers logged on various
worksheets.
(10)The first step in examination was to
fluoroscope the body. This is a form of X-ray which
just scans over the whole body and is looking for
fragments of metal and particularly bullets. This has
two uses. It indicates that there are bullets present
(15)in the body, which is -- and we can make a permanent
record of that on a printout, and secondly it assists
us knowing exactly where it is in the examination, and
we can then find it all the more easily. That's the
first step.
(20)Then the bodies are taken to the examination
tables themselves, and various procedures are then
carried out, including photography, both at the start
and during the examinations. We removed the clothing,
and this was washed -- subsequently washed, and we
(25)described it in detail later on. We removed any
• Q.: Can you just place on the ELMO Exhibit 237. Now, this is an example of an autopsy report that you (5)completed. We'll talk about it in more detail when we come to the relevant site. Did you review all of the autopsy reports that were produced by pathologists working with you? • A.: Yes. I should perhaps just say, because this (10)doesn't look particularly impressive -- there's a lot of scoring out -- this is the rough copy which we completed, and it comprises about eight or nine pages. It's recording all the details, et cetera. And then the final report typed up is what you see on the front (15)page, two- or three-page report. So that's how it ends up. At the end of the season, I went through all the reports and extracted various bits of information and analysed them and put them into this final report, which is presented here. (20) • Q.: So essentially your report is a comprehensive summary of all of the autopsy reports from the 1999 season? • A.: Yes.
• Q.: Now, Dr. Clark, in your report, you address
(25)the limitations of pathology evidence in this type of
• A.: Obviously, we were not dealing with ideal
conditions and ideal bodies; certainly not the sort of
(5)bodies that we, as pathologists, normally deal with.
Primarily, this was because these were bodies which had
been dead for a number of years, had decomposed very
badly, and had been disrupted for various reasons. So
that made things difficult, for a start.
(10)If I can just concentrate on perhaps four
specific areas of difficulty and how we approached
them. The first one was actually recognising that
something that we found was an injury and that it was
an injury caused in life.
(15)In a person who's died recently, when we
examine the body looking for injuries, we can tell that
injuries happened in life because of various reactions;
bleeding, swelling, bruising, et cetera, on the body.
And that allows us to say that that is an ante-mortem
(20)injury. Clearly, when a body is decomposed or there
are no tissues left at all, then we don't have that
evidence. And in the vast majority of cases here, all
we were left with was the skeleton and just injuries to
bone.
(25)Now, an injury to bone will look exactly the
• Q.: Now, Dr. Clark, even taking into account all
(25)of these limitations that you rightfully identify, how
• A.: The vast majority died of gunshot injuries. • Q.: If you could place Exhibit 195 onto the (5)overhead projector. That's correct. That's the one. Just to orient the Court and the public, what is represented by the orange shading on these particular sites? • A.: That is the grave site I was involved in. So (10)the main one was Kozluk, Nova Kasaba, the two Konjevic Polje graves, and finally Glogova. • Q.: And these are the sites on which you acted as the chief pathologist. • A.: Yes. (15) • Q.: Now, if we could move now to Kozluk, and you might wish to turn to the relevant page in your report to assist your recollection, how many whole or largely complete bodies did you examine from this site? • A.: We found 292 whole or largely complete (20)bodies, and there were an additional 233 body parts. By "body parts," I'm meaning what it says really, part of a body but perhaps a forearm or some leg bones or a few ribs. Just a fairly small part of the body.
• Q.: I think the figure of 292 actually represents
(25)the number of people that were originally in that
• A.: No. I'm sure there were more individuals, yes. Two hundred and ninety-two is certainly a minimum number, and most of my calculations are based on the (5)292, because it's only with the largely complete bodies that one can make reasonable interpretations. • Q.: Indeed, the anthropological conclusions on the number of individuals would be different from the figures that you have here, because you are the (10)pathologist dealing with bodies essentially? • A.: Our main remit was to look, to examine the bodies for injuries rather than count the numbers. • Q.: The people that you examined from Kozluk, in life what kind of people were they? (15) • A.: Well, we know that they ranged widely in age, potentially from as young as 8 to potentially as old as 85. In Kozluk, the bulk of the people were over 25, and as far as we could determine, all were male. They were not a uniformly fit group of people, and a (20)significant number had physical disabilities or some evidence of chronic disease. For instance, and it's on -- • Q.: It's Prosecutor's Exhibit 239 is that photograph, Dr. Clark. (25)
• A.: This is a photograph of somebody's elbow
MR. CAYLEY: And the witness, for the purposes of the record, is referring to Exhibit 240. • A.: There were other people. Somebody had a (15)glass eye. One man had a big plate inside his skull. He'd obviously had previous surgery. Somebody had evidence of open-heart surgery, coronary artery bypass surgery. Several had old fracture -- bony fractures. One man had an inhaler, Celbutimol [phoen] inhaler for (20)asthma and there were a number of other deformities and illnesses. • Q.: What other items did you find on the bodies that you examined, Dr. Clark?
• A.: We found various personal possessions, simple
(25)things, spectacles, cigarettes, cigarette lighters,
• Q.: If you could place Exhibit 241 onto the ELMO, which is the next exhibit that you have in front of you. (5) • A.: Yes. • Q.: Can you describe to the Judges what this represents, this photograph? • A.: We found a significant number of the individuals had blindfolds around their heads; and (10)more, even more had ligatures around their hands; and some had both. This is an example of somebody with a blindfold. It's a skull. You can see the nose here, the eye sockets here and here, and this cloth blindfold (15)tied around the head. • Q.: What percentage of the bodies that were examined by you and your team had blindfolds? • A.: We found them in 44 individuals. That's about 13 per cent of cases. (20) • Q.: Now, you also mentioned that a number of the bodies had ligatures. And if you could place on the ELMO the next Exhibit, which is 242. What comments do you have about this photograph, Dr. Clark? (25)
• A.: Well, we found ligatures in 140 people.
• Q.: Now, Dr. Clark, you stated earlier that the vast majority of the bodies that were examined by you (15)and your team had gunshot injuries. What proportion of the bodies at Kozluk had gunshot injuries? • A.: We found definite gunshot injury in 89 per cent of the victims. • Q.: And could you establish from where those (20)individuals, from which direction those individuals had been shot?
• A.: We could establish, in a certain proportion
of cases, which direction they had been shot in, and
particularly in looking at injuries to the head and the
(25)trunk. And looking at that, we found most often people
• Q.: Now, if you could place the next exhibit, which is 243, and if you could explain to the Judges what is represented in this photograph. • A.: This is a very typical gunshot injury, (10)typical of many that we found. It's a gunshot injury to the side of the skull. This is the front of the skull, the eye socket here, the cheekbone going back here, and the ear sits roundabout here. So this is a gunshot injury. When one has a circular hole in the (15)skull, it is an entry hole. It has caused tremendous structuring of the skull, these various lines you can see going over here and up at the top. The skull has been stuck together, glued back together again to reconstruct it, but a typical gunshot injury. (20) • Q.: Could you and your colleagues establish the type of weapon that had been used to create these gunshot injuries?
• A.: To our view, all these injuries were typical
of high-velocity rifle weapons. We based that both on
(25)the extent of the damage, the fragmentation of the
• Q.: To give you an example of a high-velocity weapon here, we're talking about military assault (5)weapons such as AK-47s or their variants? • A.: Yes, that's right. • Q.: What was the average number of shots per body where you could actually identify that somebody had been killed by gunshot injury? (10) • A.: In Kozluk, it was 2.3, so people had been shot, on average, between two to three times. • Q.: Were you able to establish in any cases that people had been injured by something other than gunshot prior to death? (15) • A.: We found two people with bandages along with the skeleton, which did suggest previous injuries, probably soft-tissue injuries. One of these was on somebody's hand and one was on their legs. • Q.: Was there any other evidence -- and I know (20)you've already stated that there are certain limitations in this field -- of blunt-force injury to any of the bodies that you saw?
• A.: Yes. Even allowing for these limitations and
expectation of crushing injuries in the grave, we found
(25)some people with fractures of the face and the shoulder
• Q.: If Exhibit 244, the next exhibit, could be (5)placed onto the ELMO. Could you explain to the Judges what is represented on this exhibit? • A.: Well, this is an interesting case. This is the man, the same man who had the rigid leg, which I showed you earlier, and who would have walked (10)undoubtedly with a limp with a very straight leg. He only had one injury on his body, and that was a gunshot wound to his other foot. Now, this was a relatively intact body with all parts present and with the skin still present, so we could say fairly surely that this (15)was the -- this appeared to be the only gunshot injury on the body, and we would not say that he died from that. It would be unusual for somebody to die from a single gunshot wound to the foot. We could not find out why he died, and one could only speculate as to (20)what may have happened. • Q.: Is it possible, in your opinion, that he may have been placed alive into the grave? • A.: I think that's entirely possible.
• Q.: How would he have died in those
(25)circumstances?
• Q.: If now, Dr. Clark, you could place (10)Prosecutor's Exhibit 245, which is actually two exhibits, first of all the photograph, and there's a larger version of that next to you. MR. CAYLEY: This is an exhibit, Your Honours, that was previously addressed by Professor (15)Wright. • Q.: Now, Dr. Clark, were you able to identify the autopsy reports in respect of each one of these numbered bodies in this grave? • A.: Yes. (20) • Q.: If you could go through each one, and if it's possible -- I know you've done a little sketch which -- would it be easier for you to have that in front of you? • A.: Yes. I have it, yes. (25)
• Q.: I think the bodies are numbered, so I think
• A.: Yes. We're really speaking about these five
bodies here, here, here, here, and here. And if I deal
(5)with them from right to left, it was interesting just
generally that these were all young men. No one was
over the age of 35, in our estimate, and some perhaps
as young as 12. So the age range in all of them was 12
to 35.
(10)This one at the end, 65, he was found face
down, and he had a probable single gunshot wound to the
back of his neck, or to his neck, rather.
Number 61, he was found with a ligature
partly around his wrists. He had three gunshot
(15)injuries, one to the back of the head and two to the
legs.
Body 81, he had no obvious bony injuries, but
we did find a bullet inside his ribcage, with staining
of the bone, suggesting that the bullet had been
(20)genuinely lying there. And the pathologist felt that
that was sufficient evidence to suggest that he died of
a gunshot wound of the chest.
Number 82 had two gunshot injuries, one to
the upper chest and one to his left leg. The cause of
(25)death there was felt to be a gunshot wound to the
• Q.: Dr. Clark, the autopsy report that we previously put into evidence is, in fact, from the (10)Kozluk site. Is there anything that you would wish to add from that report or there is nothing in it that -- • A.: No, it is a very typical example. I chose it because it was fairly untypical -- because it was typical, and there is nothing really more to say. (15) • Q.: If you could place page 12 of your report onto the ELMO, and this is really for the benefit of the public as well, and this gives quite a neat summary of your findings. • A.: I don't know if that's in focus or not. (20) • Q.: Yes, that can be clearly seen. Do you have any particular comments on that summary? • A.: No. I'll read it, if you wish. MR. CAYLEY: Mr. President, would you like it read? (25)
• Q.: If you could read out your summary of
• A.: It's a summary of findings from Kozluk. It's a very large grave site. It had been extensively robbed, but it still contained 292 bodies and 233 body (5)parts. All the victims were apparently male, mostly over the age of 25. Several had old injuries, disabilities, and chronic disease. Blindfolds were found in 13 per cent of bodies, and ligatures in 41 (10)per cent. Eighty-nine per cent of the victims had gunshot injuries, most having been shot either once or twice, but some as many as seven times. The largest number of shots were to the trunk, with the head and legs next, although the commonest final cause of death (15)was gunshot injuries to the head. There were bandaged wounds on two people, suggestive of injuries suffered sometime earlier. There was extensive cutting out, in fact, in many bodies and parts missing. This is the post-mortem (20)damage we spoke about. And the cause of death remained unascertained in a substantial number of people. Some clearly died from causes other than gunshot wounds.
• Q.: Dr. Clark, you're using a lot of medical
(25)terminology, and I wonder, for the sake of the public
• A.: I use only two terms, "post-mortem" and "ante-mortem". Others still use "pari-mortem". (5)"Post-mortem" remains anything occurring after death. "Ante-mortem" is anything occurring before death. MR. CAYLEY: Mr. President, we're now going to move to a new site, so I don't know if you want me to continue -- I know the interpreters have been (10)working very hard -- or whether you wish to conclude at this point. It is entirely up to you. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Yes. I think it is preferable, for it's almost 2.30, so it would be a better idea to resume tomorrow so as to not (15)interrupt the sequence of the testimony. Therefore, Dr. Clark, we expect you to come again tomorrow, please. So we'll be here tomorrow at 9.30. --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at (20)2.26 p.m., to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 31st day of May, 2000, at 9.30 a.m. |
