¹⁷⁷⁰⁴

Wednesday, 12 March 2003

[Open session]

[The accused entered court]

--- Upon commencing at 9.06 a.m.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Nice, the witness Dr. Ranta is here. She is a court witness, the first I think that we've had in this case, and therefore I will repeat the procedure so that the accused can hear it. When she has taken the declaration, I shall invite her, if she wishes, to add anything to her statement. After that, it will be for the Prosecution, who will have up to an hour to examine her. That will be followed by examination by the accused, again up to an hour. It doesn't have to be that long, but he will have an hour available. The amici can ask questions, if they so wish, at the end of that, and then the Judges will ask any questions which they wish to clarify matters at the end. But first we should begin by exhibiting her statement, which has not been exhibited yet, of course, together with the attachments to it, and I will invite the registry to give it a suitable number, court number.

THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is Chamber Exhibit number 1.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, before the witness comes in, --

JUDGE MAY: Sorry. That will be -- for shorthand, it will be Exhibit C1. Yes.

MR. NICE: Before the witness comes in, I'm grateful to you for indicating the procedure to be adopted. It wasn't, of course, a matter of discussion, or arguments weren't advanced as to the appropriate procedure ¹⁷⁷⁰⁵ for court witnesses. May we reserve our position to make further arguments in relation to the appropriate order of questioning for perhaps other --

JUDGE MAY: I'm sorry. If it's a matter of objection, now is the time to do it. That is the procedure which we have adopted with other court witnesses in other cases.

MR. NICE: Yes, Your Honour, and I said I was going to reserve the position to make representations either in the case of this witness, if problems arise, or in relation to other witnesses if they have particular characteristics about them.

Our concern, let me make it absolutely plain, is that with this witness, if there are matters that require what would be achieved by re-examination because, for example, there hasn't been a proper and full explanation of something, it won't be available to us. But my position is that we would seek to reserve our position to argue what may be the appropriate order of questioning witnesses, particularly with other witnesses whom the Chamber may call, and I reserve my position to make representations about the possibility of asking further questions at the end of the accused's questioning if it seems to us that things have not been left in a satisfactory position.

JUDGE MAY: Well, the normal course of events, the Prosecution should go first and the accused should have the opportunity of cross-examining. That must be the right order. If there are matters unexplored which you wish to have another go at, then of course you can make the application. ¹⁷⁷⁰⁶

MR. NICE: Thank you very much.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Kay, is there anything you want to say about that procedure?

MR. KAY: No, Your Honour. In my view, you expressed it correctly as to the correct procedure.

JUDGE MAY: Thank you. We'll have the witness.

[The witness entered court]

JUDGE MAY: Yes. If the witness would take the declaration.

THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

JUDGE MAY: If you'd like to take a seat.

WITNESS: HELENA RANTA

JUDGE MAY: Dr. Ranta, thank you for coming. Could we begin by your giving, for the record, your name.

THE WITNESS: My name is Mary Helena Ranta.

JUDGE MAY: And briefly your present position and occupation.

THE WITNESS: I was originally trained dentist. Currently I hold a position of forensic odontologist at the Department of Forensic Medicine, University of Helsinki, Finland, and I'm a coordinator of the disaster victim identification activities at the national and international level, including also international missions.

JUDGE MAY: We've asked you to come here in order to clarify various documents and statements which have been made, and let me tell you what the procedure will be. The first thing is that if you wish to add anything to your statement which we have, yourself at the beginning, of ¹⁷⁷⁰⁷ course you may do so. That will be followed by examination by the Prosecution. They have been told they've got up to one hour. Followed by examination by the accused, he having the same time. And sitting beside you are the friends of the Court, the amici. They may wish to ask some questions, and the Judges may wish to ask some questions at the end to clarify any matters which aren't clear.

If at any stage you want to refer to any documents, of course do so. I notice you've got a binder there. Perhaps you could tell us what documents you're referring to when you do so we have it for the record.

THE WITNESS: Your Honour, I will only refer at this stage to the documents which have been submitted by this Tribunal to me as annexes to its order dated in late January this year.

JUDGE MAY: Very well. You may be asked about some other documents which will be put to you, but otherwise, of course refer to those documents you've brought.

Now, the first thing is this: Do you want to add anything to what's in your statement? We've all had a copy, and we've had the opportunity to read it. It's a matter for you whether you want to add anything - sometimes witnesses do - or you may prefer simply to go straight into the examination.

THE WITNESS: Your Honour, I don't think there's anything essentially I would like to add at this stage.

JUDGE MAY: Very well. Thank you. Yes, Mr. Nice.

Questioned by Mr. Nice: ¹⁷⁷⁰⁸

Q. Dr. Ranta, if we can first just set the scene and then check on one or two things you've said and then check on the materials that have been available to you.

You went into Racak how many days after the alleged killings had occurred?

A. I did not go to Racak in January 1999. The first time I went to the village or in the vicinity of the village was -- well, I passed by car. I passed Racak, the village, in late January 1999, but physically I did not enter the village and did not visit the sites where the bodies had been recovered on 16 January 1999.

The first time I was working at the village and conducting investigations at the village was in November 1999. I sent investigators of the European Union forensic expert team to visit the sites where the bodies had been recovered on January 30, 1999, but it had been snowing the previous night, so --

Q. We're going to have to use the time a little more efficiently. It's not your fault, it's mine entirely. How many days after the alleged killings were you first involved in examining the bodies?

A. That is six days after --

Q. Thank you.

A. -- the recovery.

Q. By that stage, they'd already been examined to some degree by others?

A. To my knowledge, 16 of them had been autopsied by local experts.

Q. The report prepared by those other experts was a report you were ¹⁷⁷⁰⁹ not prepared to sign; correct?

A. No. No, we were not prepared.

Q. In due course, a substantial report was prepared by yours -- by you and others, and that's part of the material that's been considered by this Tribunal through another witness, Dr. Baccard. Did you know that?

A. Yes, I am aware of that.

Q. You were then reported as having said one or two things of significance about Racak. First, it was reported that you had said -- I'll get the precise words. First it was reported that you had said at one stage the following: "You could say that the entire scene in the little valley had been staged. I am aware of that because this is actually a possibility. Our initial investigation results suggest this, as do the later forensic examinations we conducted on the spot in November 1999, and we forwarded this conclusion immediately to The Hague Tribunal." Do you remember saying something to that effect in a television interview?

A. I remember saying, and I can recall that very clearly, that as a forensic scientist, at the very beginning of any investigations, you have to be open to all possibilities, and among these possibilities you always have the possibility of a setup.

I can't recall saying that during the scene investigations that would have remained among the possibilities.

Q. By using the phrase "could have been staged," or, "the entire scene could have been staged," were you expressing anything more than the general, the philosophical possibility? Were you saying anything about ¹⁷⁷¹⁰ the probability of it being staged on this particular occasion?

A. I'm a scientist, and I have -- I had several hypotheses. I think it's very important to remember all possibilities. But when I said "could," I was not referring to any probability.

Q. Thank you. You subsequently were reported in a press article as saying the following - and Your Honours will find this in -- as an attachment to our motion to admit the documents of Dr. Ranta.

JUDGE MAY: Let us make sure -- before we go on, let us identify it. Is this the --

MR. NICE: Attached --

JUDGE MAY: It seems to be undated and I haven't got the attachment, but it's an article beginning, "Somebody has to do this job."

MR. NICE: Correct. And we go on from there one, two -- about three sheets to ERN number 03058902 at the top, and it's halfway down that page. And if we've got a spare copy, we can put it on the overhead projector.

JUDGE MAY: The witness should have it.

MR. NICE: The witness should have it herself.

THE WITNESS: Mr. Prosecutor, could you repeat the number of the page.

MR. NICE: Yes. At the top right-hand corner, it's 03058902, if you've got the same bundle of documents.

A. Mr. Prosecutor, I have that page here.

Q. Thank you. Then you were reported in a press article to this effect: "Thanks to on-site investigations and countless --" bottom of the ¹⁷⁷¹¹ screen. Thank you very much. "Thanks to on-site investigations and countless hours on the computer, she, that is Dr. Ranta, got all the facts. She now knows where the bullets were fired from, point blank, not, as the Serbs and Belorussians claim, from a distance of 200 metres. She knows how many weapons were fired, what kind of bullets were used, that the victims were shot in the clothes in which they were found, not in UCK uniforms, and that they were shot where they were found. Under the surface, investigators found a bullet along with fragments of human teeth. These tooth fragments were found to be missing from a corpse lying precisely in that location. The DNA was identical. "By the middle of 2001, Ranta had convincing proof that Racak had not been faked, but the German and French media continued to hypothesise a Western conspiracy. You can imagine this is you being quoted. You can imagine how I suffered, but I wouldn't say a word. I wouldn't influence the public."

Now, Dr. Ranta, it's right, I think, that you have never been in contact with the team in the Office of the Prosecutor dealing with this accused, as a potential witness for the Prosecution, have you?

A. No, no, I have -- I have only submitted the findings of our autopsy -- of -- from the autopsies I have submitted to the Presidency of the European Union and the results of the scene investigations have been submitted to this Tribunal.

Q. And as I've explained, they've been used and presented. Your contacts with the team prosecuting this accused have, I think, been limited to probably telephone and then written contacts with ¹⁷⁷¹² an investigator called Curtis about this article from which I've just read an extract?

A. Mr. Prosecutor, Kevin Curtis contacted me in summer 2002 in reference to this article, and I wish to make a correction which I already did in my statement which was submitted in summer 2002, and there is and on the very page which you referred to, "by the middle of 2001." It is "by the middle of 2000" instead of 2001. And I made that correction in my statement.

Q. Can I help you a little further, because having only that limited telephone and correspondence contact with Mr. Curtis, he wrote you a letter to inquire whether the newspaper article was correct. You replied to him by a letter of the 9th of August, 2002 - which perhaps that could be also displayed; it's the immediate following pages in the Court's papers - where you dealt with the article in a very detailed way, correcting indeed the reference to 2001.

As to the body of the longer paragraph that I read out, paragraph 5, you said this: "The expression 'all the facts' --" this is at the bottom of the page, please, Usher. "The expression 'all the facts' would apparently indicate that the complete sequence of events on the 15th to the 16th of January, 1999, could have been established on the basis of recovered evidence. The approximate positions from where some of the bullets have been fired could be concluded as well as the minimum number of weapons used."

And then you said, as to paragraph 6: "Should be 'By the middle of 2000.' On the basis of recovered and analysed materials, it was ^{17713 BLANK PAGE 17714} possible to conclude that the gully indeed was the site of the killings." So those were the only corrections you made, or qualifications you made to the newspaper article. May we take it that subject to those qualifications, you stand by the way you were reported in that article?

A. Mr. Prosecutor, I wish to emphasise my first reference in this statement, and the interview was delineated to the gully and therefore my comments, and that this statement is restricted accordingly to cover the investigations. I'm not referring to all the developments in it.

Q. Quite right. But as to the gully, the way you were reported, subject to the qualifications expressed in the letter to Mr. Curtis, was accurate.

A. Yes.

Q. And again so that there can be no uncertainty or confusion, apart from that correspondence with those prosecuting this accused, you've had no contact with the Office of the Prosecutor since because you've been summoned here by the Court and not by the Prosecution.

A. I have had no comment -- no connection with --

Q. Accordingly, there's been no session with any lawyer on the Prosecution side, and it hasn't been, in those circumstances, possible to explore with you other materials available to assist you in the conclusion that you've reached.

A. We have had no sessions.

Q. In those circumstances, help us, please, with this: Have you seen any contemporaneous photographs of the bodies found in the gully?

A. I have -- we have used -- the European Union team has used the ¹⁷⁷¹⁵ documentation of the OSCE as the basis for its investigations and also the scene investigations and the results, and the report only uses the documentation by the OSCE. I have seen lots of photographs, as I believe everyone in this room has seen, and I'm aware of extensive documentation by different parties of the bodies found at the gully.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Nice, before you leave the article, we ought to deal formally with it. We ought to exhibit it. Perhaps you could tell us where it's from. Remind us of that and give it a date.

MR. NICE: Yes. The article -- I'll just get the precise date of the article if I can. The article is published on the 7th of July of 2002 by Bernhard Odehnal in Weltwoche.

Your Honour, of course the papers are before the Court as an annex to our application, but I can see that they do need to be separately exhibited, and it would perhaps be appropriate to exhibit the letter of the witness to Mr. Curtis together with the article.

JUDGE MAY: What we'll do is this: We'll give the article C2 and we'll have the letter C3.

MR. NICE: Your Honour and the Court will recall that a considerable number of visual aids of one kind or another have been considered by the Chamber in relation to Racak, some of them at the hands of the accused in his cross-examination. It seems to me it would be helpful for this witness to have an opportunity to review at any event some of the photographs most considered by us, to check whether she has any comments to make on them, whether they would in any sense affect the conclusions that she's reached. ¹⁷⁷¹⁶ May she have an opportunity to do that now, as the Court will realise that it hasn't been possible for us or proper for us to approach her before? They are to be found in the Racak volumes, number 1 of 5, with Exhibit number 156, and it's tab 5, and it may be, if the usher would help me, that we could simply display them fairly rapidly for the witness so that she could see then.

JUDGE MAY: Have you any copies for her so she can have them in front of her or are you just relying on the one --

MR. NICE: The one. We're going to rely on the Court's copy, actually.

JUDGE MAY: Very well. Dr. Ranta, you're going to be shown some photographs now. You'll be told what they are. You're going to be asked, I expect, your opinion about them. You haven't seen them before, so it will be a difficult exercise for you. If you can't, you don't think you can give an opinion, just say so and it will save time. But if you can, you think you can, then of course do.

MR. NICE: If we have a look at tab 5, we can probably correlate them as we're going along. The first binder, tab 5, please. If there is any problem, I'll simply make mine available and I'll work from the screen. The better course is to use mine, and we'll locate them later. They're the photographs taken by Mr. Hendrie, if the Court recalls. We'll put them on the projector.

Q. We'll go through them quite swiftly, please, but you'll have an opportunity to see them in detail if you want to. That's a scene of the ¹⁷⁷¹⁷ gully generally. Next, please.

Further scene of the gully. Next, please.

JUDGE MAY: Doctor, if at any time you want more time with a photograph, just say so. It's awkward anyway having to look at the side.

MR. NICE: Yes. If we can find another copy, we will. Next, please.

Q. I won't ask you to trouble with that unless you want to, position of the bodies. Next, please.

And Dr. Ranta, if you'd just look at them and indicate when you're happy to move on to the next one. While you're viewing them, do you recall seeing these documents before, yourself?

A. I've seen some 30.000 photographs.

Q. Very well.

A. And I have to tell this Court that the faces of these people are very familiar to me. I know their clothing. So it's very difficult to say whether I have actually seen that particular photograph. I have seen photographs very similar to that. I can recognise the faces. I can recognise even the exit and entrance wounds, and I can recognise the missing parts of a human face. So -- but having seen that particular photograph, it's impossible for me to say.

If I may continue. I have seen the drawings which are here as well.

Q. Thank you. Can we just go through them, please. Thank you very much.

A. If I am expected to say if I haven't seen one particular ¹⁷⁷¹⁸ photograph, so the photograph 0072 -- 732330 I haven't seen before.

Q. Thank you.

A. I haven't seen the following, the last three digits 331. I haven't seen 332.

Q. Thank you.

A. I haven't seen this particular photograph 333. The last three digits 339, 340, the top one and the lower magnification, I can't recall seeing this photograph before.

Q. Very well.

A. As well as 341, 342. The last three digits 348, with the belt. There are magnifications which I --

Q. Just that one, you see the one now on the screen at the moment? Have you seen this one before?

A. I have seen this victim. I have seen photographs of this victim.

Q. Can we display 354 on the overhead projector, please. 354, 355. Have you seen that before or any other photograph of that victim?

A. I can recall, yes.

Q. Thank you. And then we can see on the following photograph, can we not, a view taken of the injury or wound to that man's, the previous man's, neck, which of course required some movement of his body in order that that picture could be taken; correct?

MR. NICE: Can we go back, please. I want to focus on this, Usher.

Q. If you look at 32356, thank you. Dr. Ranta, in order to take this view of the man shown in the previous picture, 354 -- you can put 354 on ¹⁷⁷¹⁹ -- it would have been necessary for the man's body, or head in any event, to have been moved to some degree in order to take that view of his neck.

A. I assume so.

Q. Yes.

A. But I wish to emphasise that according to the impression which I have and the members of my team have, so most of the bodies must have been turned around at some stage, which is a very natural reaction for someone who enters a scene like that. So probably if someone is facing the ground, people entering the scene would have a natural tendency, and it would be human, to turn the person around to see whether he or she was alive or whether he or she was someone he knew.

Q. We can move beyond that one. The next one, 357. Go through them swiftly. 358, if we can. 359, the wound. 360, 361.

A. 359 is a close-up, a detail which I haven't seen before.

Q. Thank you. 3 --

A. And the magnification 361.

Q. Thank you. 362? 363, that is. 364, another photograph of the same.

A. Yes.

Q. 365. 366 is another --

A. I haven't seen the 366.

Q. And then we can go on to 367, 368.

A. Again, 369 is not familiar.

Q. 369 is not familiar.

A. 369, this closer look at the site is not familiar. I can recall ¹⁷⁷²⁰ the autopsy findings, of course.

Q. 370 is currently on display. Then we go to 371. 372 comes next, further up the gully, I think. 373, 4, 5, and 6. 377 --

A. 376 I can't remember seeing, 376.

Q. 377 and 8, 379.

A. They're all familiar to me.

Q. 380? And more lying as individuals, 381, 383, which we're up to there, I think.

A. They're all familiar to me.

Q. 384, 385, 386 and 7, 388, 389. And then we come to these perhaps less significant, and we can stop here. We come to the first picture, I think, of someone in a house. And since we are concerned with the gully, I needn't trouble you any further.

So, Dr. Ranta, thank you for that. I'm sorry it's taken some time, but it follows that the majority of the photographs that have been relied on by the Chamber thus far are either identical to or similar to photographs of these victims that you have seen before.

A. Yes, Mr. Prosecutor.

Q. And therefore, they are likenesses that you have taken into account in reaching the decision that you did eventually, as you made clear, to the effect that the killings occurred in the gully and that this was not a staged event.

A. My -- the results of the European Union team and which I referred -- which I have referred to is based on our scene investigations and the results of the scene investigations in relation to the autopsy findings. ¹⁷⁷²¹ And as has been discussed earlier, one has -- had to bear in mind the possibility of a setup at the very beginning. So we adopted a very systematic scientific approach to test these different approaches, not just relying on sets of photographs, not --

Q. No, no. I understand that. Dr. Ranta, there's no hint of criticism. I just need to be sure that included in the material that you relied on when following the careful process you've summarised were photographs of the kind or identical to those that have been considered by this Chamber, and the answer is that you did have such materials available to you.

A. Yes.

Q. Then I can be very brief, because time is limited. And you set out in your statement -- you set out in your statement and there is therefore no need for me to repeat particular features of your findings that confirm the fact that the bodies were killed where shown in these photographs; correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And the Chamber or others can always ask you about those, if necessary.

Now going back to look again at the history of the investigation that I summarised to you at the beginning. By the time of your arrival, most or many of the bodies had already been the subject of autopsy by the local personnel.

A. Sixteen autopsies had been conducted prior to our arrival to Pristina. ^{17722 BLANK PAGE 17723}

Q. You are aware of the suggestion that many of those bodies produced results positive to something called the paraffin test, although as we can find, I think, such findings were not actually recorded contemporaneously in their records, but that's another matter. The paraffin test was, at the time of this examination, already a very old if not out-of-date test. Would that be correct?

A. Mr. Prosecutor, that was the first time in my professional career that I ever came across the practice of applying paraffin test to detect gunshot residues.

Q. Did you conduct on the bodies you examined a different and more modern test?

A. We were informed by Serb investigators that they had conducted paraffin tests prior to our arrival, and this was an information which I received in Pristina. Now, contrary to this information, among the documentation which was submitted by this Tribunal to me, there are several references that the paraffin tests were conducted in our presence and with the understanding of the European Union team, and this is not true. We were not present at the time when these paraffin casts were made, and we were not present either when any fingerprinting was conducted, and again, it has been claimed that this occurred in our presence. This is not true.

Q. Very well. Back to the previous question, however. You conducted a different test to check whether any of the hands of those you were examining had been in contact with explosives or bullets or whatever else it is, and your test was entirely negative, wasn't it? ¹⁷⁷²⁴

A. I'm sorry, Mr. Prosecutor, but it would have been most unprofessional to conduct any gunshot residue testing on hands of the victims any more. We did not conduct them on hands.

Q. Very well.

A. We took samples of selected clothing and some pieces of bone, but it would have been a waste of time and most unprofessional to do any -- any scanning electromicroscopy EDX testing.

Q. Very well.

A. These tests should be taken three to six -- within three to six hours after the alleged firing, not a week or two weeks afterwards.

Q. Well, within the papers there may have been some ambiguity as to whether you did do these tests. You confirm that you did them, and you did them on clothing.

A. We did it on selected clothing and some separate bones, parts of bones. If I can remember correctly, it was a piece of a skull.

Q. And you found nothing to indicate contact of the kind revealed by this test?

A. These tests were all negative. I -- and if I may continue. I think it is important to mention that we did conduct some testing because of the transparency of the work which we were doing in the area.

Q. One last question on this topic. The paraffin test was something you'd never seen or heard of being used. Just how out-of-date is it or how inappropriate is it as a test?

A. I have heard that it has been used -- it was detected in 1930s, if I remember correctly. And just for the interest of -- of this Court, I ¹⁷⁷²⁵ could refer to textbooks from 1950, 1985, 1997, and 2000, and this test is mentioned here because of the historical value of the test, but it was abandoned already at the INTERPOL meeting in 1968, if I remember correctly, and it is of no scientific value because it does not indicate the presence of any gunshot residue specifically.

Q. Moving perhaps chronologically through the process of your examination of the bodies and considerations of all the materials, just to summarise the position: From all the materials you found or heard of being found at the site, you found significance in the position of cartridge cases, didn't you?

A. We recovered both bullets, bullet fragments, and cartridge cases in the vicinity of the bodies, where the bodies had been found.

Q. Spent cartridge cases being consistent with a number of locations being used to fire from; is that correct? Do I understand you correctly on that?

A. Yes, that's correct.

Q. A concentration of bullets under bodies or under the -- at the places where bodies had been found being significant for the obvious reason that that indicated they'd been killed where they fell?

A. I wish to emphasise the fact, Mr. Prosecutor, that the bullets and bullet fragments were recovered under the surface of the ground where the bodies had been recovered. So they have penetrated the ground, and the metal detectors which we used and applied in our investigations, they were adjusted to reach the depth of 30 centimetres. But due to the quality of the soil, most bullets were recovered in a depth of 3 to 5 centimetres. ¹⁷⁷²⁶

Q. Some or it may be many of the bullets found had attached to them soft tissue remnants from bodies, didn't they?

A. They carried degrading soft tissue remnants.

Q. And that has an obvious significance to it.

A. We proceeded with extraction methods to get amplifiable DNA. Unfortunately, we failed, but there are scientifically applicable explanations for that failure.

Q. You saw nothing significant in the clothing or pattern of clothing worn by the individuals you examined?

A. As a general comment, I would say that they were -- they wore several warm pullovers, and I assume that this was due to the fact that it was winter, and I assume that the heating was not appropriate at the village.

Q. You can be reminded that there were several elderly people included in those who were killed, and one woman.

A. I have no final information about how many people were killed on or around 15 January, but those -- my comments are restricted only to those 40 that were autopsied and among them there was one woman. All others were male, and among the males one was a boy, and there were several elderly people.

Q. On the clothing, you found no evidence of military or paramilitary insignia having been removed.

A. No, we didn't find any, any indication of that.

Q. And indeed, in short, you found nothing to indicate that these individuals were other than unarmed civilians. ¹⁷⁷²⁷

A. At the time -- at that time, there was no indication of them being anything but unarmed civilians.

Q. We're concerned now, of course, only with the bodies in the gully. There's been evidence given of activity elsewhere in the village and indeed the KLA commander at the time has been called to give evidence, so we've heard all about that. We're just concerned with the gully. I think you've explained this, but just in case there is any ambiguity, the bullets under the surface of the ground confirm that they fell where they were shot. The bullets penetrated the ground and stayed underneath the ground; that's right, isn't it?

A. That's my conclusion, yes.

Q. The entry and, where they existed, the exit wounds from firearm deaths were consistent entirely with these people being killed at close range or fairly close range?

A. I wish to emphasise that I'm not an expert on ballistic, and in fact, I asked several experts on ballistics what they really consider a close range or short range, so the answers are very variable. So I think I refrain from any comment. I'm referring to the surveying of the gully.

Q. Although difficult to express an opinion on this given the time at which you first saw the bodies and the fact that they were being removed, I think you are able to express a general opinion about the fact that they would appear all to have been killed at the same time.

A. The pathologists, regardless of whether they belong to the local expert team or to the European Union expert team came to the conclusion that they were killed approximately at the same time. ¹⁷⁷²⁸

Q. And the cold weather conditions at the time made it more possible to arrive at this sort of conclusion than would warm weather conditions?

A. I wouldn't comment on that. What I would say only is that the fact that both the temperature at the gully, at the village mosque, and at the department -- at the Institute of Forensic Medicine University of Pristina was close to zero contributed to the preservation of the bodies so there were no considerable post-mortem changes detectable, which then made it easier for the pathologists to conduct their work.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, I think that concludes all I need to ask the witness, given that her statement is in evidence and before you.

Q. Thank you, Dr. Ranta.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Milosevic. Questioned by Mr. Milosevic:

Q. [Interpretation] Can you hear me now?

A. Yes, I can.

Q. I won't put questions to you as to whether these people were dead or not, because that is indisputable. Do you agree that the fundamental issue here is whether these people were killed in battle or whether they were civilians and whether they were killed on that spot or whether the whole group or part of the group was brought there?

JUDGE MAY: It's not for the witness to say what the fundamental issues are. If you want to ask her about those questions, of course you can, but it's not for her to say what the issues are. That's for us to say.

THE WITNESS: I have -- I have nothing to add at this point. ¹⁷⁷²⁹

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Very well. On the 17th of March, 1990 [as interpreted], which is exactly a week before the beginning of the NATO aggression against Yugoslavia, in your report which you distributed to the journalists present at the press conference in the hall of the Assembly of Kosovo and Metohija, and this report was under an embargo until 1300 hours on that day, you wrote that this was your personal opinion and view of the events in Racak. Is this correct?

A. First I would like to correct. The press conference was held on the 17th of March, 1999, not 1990. The press conference and the press release --

Q. Yes. 1999. There was an error in interpretation. I did say 1999.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Just one thing. Have you got -- let's make sure we've all got the documents in front of us. There should be the press release, which is Annex 3 to your statement, Exhibit C1, embargo until 1300 hours, Pristina, 17th of March, 1999.

That, I take it, is the press release to which reference is made. Yes.

THE WITNESS: Your Honour, I have it in front of me.

JUDGE MAY: Very well. You were going to say about the press conference and the release.

THE WITNESS: Yes. This press release represents my personal view at the time it was released.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation] ¹⁷⁷³⁰

Q. Were you aware at the time that your statement was being used as justification for the aggression that was to take place against Yugoslavia?

A. I --

JUDGE MAY: That begs a question that it was being used. The witness can simply be asked this: Did you -- were you aware that any use at all was going to be made of your statement as has been suggested to you?

THE WITNESS: Your Honour, I'm only a forensic scientist and that's all. I don't know anything about the developments at the political level or other.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. But as a forensic scientist, you were at the head of a team, and I assume that the team finding was to have been communicated. Am I right in saying that you could not have had a team finding on which all the team members had agreed that would be identical with the opinion that you put forward?

A. The team -- teams -- the results of the team's work were submitted as the final report on the autopsies, and everything that is in the autopsy reports is reflected also in -- in this press release.

Q. Very well, then. Tell me, why did you say that this was your personal opinion then?

A. I have consulted experts on international law, and at that stage, the senior legal advisor of the European Union forensic expert team advised me to add this comment here. I understand that press releases of ^{17731 BLANK PAGE 17732} this kind usually have a reference like this.

Q. Very well. Mrs. Ranta, tell me, what does this political aspect you are now mentioning have to do with the forensic profession you are referring to?

A. I am a forensic scientist and I have no political affiliations.

Q. Very well. But are you aware, Mrs. Ranta, that this statement of yours, whether it's your personal opinion or not, was used as an alibi to conduct an aggression against a country?

JUDGE MAY: That is not for the witness to say. It's merely your supposition. It's not for her to answer. Now, go on to something dealing with her evidence.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It is for her to answer whether she's aware of it or not.

JUDGE MAY: No. No, because the question you put forward is merely a supposition on your part, part of your case. It's not for her to say.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well, Mr. May. Then I'll put questions to you instead of her.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mrs. Ranta, in your report, you said that the references of the team of pathologists cover medical autopsies of only 40 victims brought to the hospital. Is that correct? Let's speed up, if possible.

A. Only 40 bodies were transported, according to the information which we received from different sources, from Racak to the Institute of Forensic Medicine, University of Pristina. I am not aware of the total ¹⁷⁷³³ number of casualties during the previous week, the Thursday, Friday, because we only came to the region the following week and started working together with Yugoslav and Belorussian experts on Thursday, that is, a week after.

Q. Mrs. Ranta, my time is very limited. This was a typical question that you can answer with only a yes or no. Please don't waste my time. In your report, you said that the findings were based on information originating from the bodies in the morgue and that you had no control over the bodies and that in the Racak case things that were indispensable had not been done or had been done improperly, and this refers to gathering evidence, localising the victims, finding gunshot residues, placing bodies in body bags, and so on, and that the medical investigation cannot answer the question as to whether there had been fighting or not. This is what you stated in your report. Is that correct?

A. It is stated in the press release, and it can be found in the autopsy reports. The manner and cause of death, if it is possible to categorise those, is mentioned in each autopsy reports. So the cause of death is documented, and because at the time we had no further information about circumstances around death and no scene investigations had been conducted, the manner of death was left open.

Q. Yes. But you say - this is on the page of your report that's marked as 223380: "Moreover, a medical investigation cannot give a conclusive answer to the question as to whether there had been fighting or whether the victims died under other circumstances." ¹⁷⁷³⁴ Here you expressed your personal opinion, as you say, and you say that the medical investigation cannot provide a conclusive answer as to whether there had been fighting or whether the victims died under other circumstances. Is this correct, Mrs. Ranta?

A. Are you referring to the press release?

JUDGE MAY: What are we referring to, Mr. Milosevic?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I think I've been sufficiently clear, Mr. May.

JUDGE MAY: No, you haven't, because nobody is following. So you're not clear.

Just tell us what the document is and then we'll find it.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] On the document that you have already identified, the press release, it's called Report of the Expert Team of Pathologists of the European Union on the Events in Racak, of the 17th of March, 1999.

JUDGE MAY: Very well.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Before the aggression.

JUDGE MAY: And the passage you referred to, what page is it of that document, because we don't all have the same numbers.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, here it's on page 4 of this document, but their number is 223380.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Well, they may have those numbers, but we don't.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I will lose a lot of time with this, Mr. May.

JUDGE MAY: We've been through it before; if you're going to put ¹⁷⁷³⁵ something to the witness, a passage, you must give her the chance of reading it.

Now, is this the -- I'm looking at page 4 in our version is the last page. Is that right?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, in my set of documents it's five pages, details on the incidents in Racak. All this is in here.

JUDGE MAY: Let us go to this passage. Of course we're dealing with it in different versions it's probably the case, but on page 3 of the English, Doctor, the second paragraph begins: "The Racak events have been described as a massacre. However, such a conclusion doesn't fall within the context of the team..." et cetera. And then further down: "Moreover, medicolegal investigations cannot give a conclusive answer to the question of whether there was a battle or whether the victims died under some other circumstances. A full criminal investigation combined with interrogation of witnesses by appropriate investigative entities could shed more light..." et cetera.

That appears to be the passage you're being asked.

THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honour.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Now, Mr. Milosevic, what do you want to put to the witness?

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. You say that you were engaged exclusively in your professional forensic work, no other kind of work. Here you stated your opinion: A medical investigation cannot give a conclusive answer to the question whether there was a battle or whether the victims died under some other ¹⁷⁷³⁶ circumstances. Is this your position and do you abide by it?

A. I don't understand you. What kind of political aspect could be connected to this -- this sentence? There's no policy in this.

Q. I'm not speaking of the political aspect. I'm just asking you whether as a medical expert dealing in nothing else, as you say about yourself, are you putting forward your purely professional opinion that a medical investigation cannot give a conclusive answer to the question whether there was a battle or whether the victims died under some other circumstances? Was this your position and do you hold the same position today?

A. Medicolegal investigations as conducted by the European Union forensic expert team were at that time restricted to the medicolegal findings from the autopsies and the analysis of any evidence recovered during the autopsies. At the time of the press release, we had no other information about the -- these victims, these 40 victims that had been autopsied. So medicolegal investigation alone is not able to answer the questions like whether there was a battle or whether they died in other circumstances. There are other investigations needed to clarify these questions and, finally, it is the court that will then draw conclusions based on the evidence presented to it.

Q. Very well, Mrs. Ranta. In spite of what you have just said and in spite of your saying that medically you cannot establish whether there had been a battle, in spite of this, in your report you state that you cannot say whether there was a conflict or not, and yet you describe this as killings of unarmed civilians. How could you have said that these were ¹⁷⁷³⁷ killings of unarmed civilians when you could not have known this and when it was not your job to talk about this at all? Was this the alibi for the NATO aggression, for you to say that these were unarmed civilians?

JUDGE MAY: No. I've told you this witness is here as a scientist. She's given her answer as to that, and your putting forward your suppositions is not proper at this stage. Now, what's the question?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] My question is just what you said, Mr. May. On the basis of what kind of science did Mrs. Ranta say that these were unarmed civilians on the 17th of March, 1999?

JUDGE MAY: Let the witness answer that.

THE WITNESS: Referring to my press release, the text on the English version on page 3, I state: "There were no indications of the people being other than unarmed civilians." I didn't say anything more or anything less. No indication of the people.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Very well. Mrs. Ranta, it's quite clear. I mean, at a public press conference you said that these were unarmed civilians, and this was the alibi for the NATO aggression. Now, tell me --

JUDGE MAY: If you're going to go on making speeches, I'm going to cut this short. You either ask this question -- you either ask this witness proper questions or you're stopped altogether. Now, if you've got any questions about her evidence, you can ask it, but making your speeches is simply not going to get us anywhere.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mrs. Ranta, you gave this conclusion, I'm reading from your ¹⁷⁷³⁸ report, on the basis of the fact that the people who had been killed were not wearing uniforms, they had no ammunition in their pockets. Did you know or do you know that many of your colleagues had opportunities to see many members of the terrorist organisation UCK who had been killed and who were wearing civilian clothes, wearing no uniforms or insignia, and most -- for the most part without UCK insignia? Are you aware of this?

A. I wish to ask the accused to be more precise when saying "your colleagues." Are you referring to the members of the European Union forensic expert team?

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Specify what it is you mean.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Many doctors, professionals, observers from the European Union and so on saw many members of the KLA who had been killed while not in uniform, and there is no doubt that they were members of the KLA, just as these people were. Do you think that if someone is not wearing a uniform they do not belong to the KLA?

A. I ask the accused to be more precise, whether he's referring --

JUDGE MAY: Let us deal with it in this way: First of all, he says there were reports, he says, by your colleagues, unspecified, that members of the KLA were found who were not in uniform. And then there's a second question: Do you think if someone isn't wearing a uniform they do not belong to the KLA? So there were two questions. The first question is: Did you know about reports of people being found who were members of the KLA who weren't in uniform? Do you know about that? ¹⁷⁷³⁹

THE WITNESS: Your Honour, I wish to emphasise that there were no other forensic teams in the region at the time the European Union forensic expert team was established. So until 17 March 1999, I was not aware of any other forensic colleagues working in the region. So in that sense, my answer is no.

JUDGE MAY: Very well. The next question: Do you think if someone isn't wearing a uniform they do not belong to the KLA? I.E., do they have to be wearing a uniform in order to belong to the KLA?

THE WITNESS: I'm not an expert on military questions to say that somebody is a member of some military affiliation as such without proper documentation is worthless. They cannot. Everything is possible. I'm not thinking that membership of any military affiliation. I'm more concerned whether people who were killed, whether at the time of their killing they fulfilled the status of civilian population.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. That's precisely the point, Mrs. Ranta. How could you have established then and stated that these were civilians? On the basis of the fact that they were not wearing uniforms? Is that correct?

A. I said that there was no indication of them being anything but unarmed civilians, and this was based on the findings of their clothing and the findings of corresponding exit and entrance wounds in the clothing they were wearing.

Q. Very well. In the report of March 1999, you also say that some bodies that were found in the mosque were not wearing any footwear, suggesting that the footwear had been removed out of custom. Is that ^{17740 BLANK PAGE 17741} correct? You say here: "The shoes of some of the victims seem to have been removed, probably before they were taken inside the mosque," and so on.

JUDGE KWON: That's the first paragraph of page 3, please. "Shoes of some of the victims, however, had been taken off."

THE WITNESS: Yes. Yes. This is correct. I have stated this.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. And why were the shoes removed?

A. Your Honour, I could give several explanations to that, some of them more plausible than others. I am not aware of the religious tradition of these people. There could be one reason that, as I understand, you are not allowed to enter the mosque wearing shoes. There is another very understandable explanation as well.

Q. Very well.

A. One explanation is that people were short of clothes and shoes, so they might have taken the shoes of those who didn't need them any more.

Q. Mrs. Ranta, isn't it logical, if this had been done out of religious custom, that all those carried into the mosque would have had their shoes taken off, not just a certain number of them? Isn't it logical that their shoes were taken off because they were wearing military boots? Doesn't it seem a possibility to you?

A. I think that this question put forward by the accused can be actually answered by looking at the photographs from the sites of recovery of the bodies and comparing that with the findings of the autopsy reports and also with detailed photographs taken at the mosque. So I think based ¹⁷⁷⁴² on this photographic comparison, which is very simple to do, one can conclude then whether that explanation put forward by the accused could be relevant or not.

To my recollection, and I want to emphasise I don't know what is a military boot, but I can't recall of seeing any, any military boots that would resemble those, for instance, I have seen in Finland. They were more shoes of -- of simple winter shoes worn by people who live in the countryside in harsh conditions.

Q. Mrs. Ranta, on all these photographs here, you have people wearing military boots. Here, have a look at them. And in the report of Professor Dunjic and other professors, expert witnesses, it says that they even have markings, a "O" signifying that they were made in Germany. And here, have a look at these photographs. There you can see the military boots.

A. Your Honour, based on these photographs, I'm unable to say that they are military boots.

JUDGE MAY: Very well. Just for the record, we should be able to identify what these photographs are. Can the Prosecution help?

MR. NICE: Ms. Graham says if you give us a moment.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] You can have them.

JUDGE MAY: Did you get them, Mr. Milosevic, from the Prosecution papers, these photographs? Where did you get them from?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, yes. They're all their photographs, all of them theirs.

JUDGE MAY: Hand them back. The witness says she can't help. We ¹⁷⁷⁴³ will identify as to whether they have been exhibited or not. If not, if you want them exhibited, we'll consider doing so.

THE WITNESS: Your Honour, may I add something?

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

THE WITNESS: I can remember that particular victim, and I remember that we have documented the clothing, including the shoes. So in the autopsy report I think there should be enough information.

JUDGE MAY: It may be we can turn that up in due course.

MR. NICE: While we're finding the photograph reference, this is the first time that the accused has made reference to the documentation of someone else. It's one of the things I was concerned about right at the beginning of this morning's session. It's a reference to the report of Mr. Dunjic. The witness has not, of course, reviewed those documents for the reasons that have been made plain when I explored the limited nature of her contacts with the OTP. I don't press the issue on the Chamber, certainly not at this stage, but the Chamber may want to consider, if the accused is going to ask any further questions derived from those reports, whether she should be given an opportunity to read them in full.

JUDGE MAY: This was a small point. We're not going to have the whole report exhibited on that point. And the accused is entitled to ask questions about it.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, we'll come to those reports too.

JUDGE MAY: Just a moment, Mr. Milosevic.

[Trial Chamber confers] ¹⁷⁷⁴⁴

JUDGE KWON: Dr. Ranta, did you take a look at all of the photos that were shown to you or did you look at the first photo only?

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE MAY: Yes. We'll exhibit these if they haven't been exhibited already. Perhaps someone could find out over the adjournment.

MR. NICE: They have been exhibited, we think, tab 7 in the first volume.

JUDGE MAY: Of 156, the registrar says. So we have them exhibited and they have now been referred to. So perhaps the accused can have those back.

MR. NICE: May I just see them for interest?

JUDGE MAY: Yes, of course, and indeed the amici too should be able to see them. It's time for the adjournment. Dr. Ranta, would you help with one matter, which is this, that we've had references to a report of the 17th of March, 1999, and also references to the press release. Do we take it that in fact all there was that day was this press release, but for some reason it's occasionally been called your report?

THE WITNESS: Your Honour, there is or has been considerable confusion about this. The report, as I see a report, that is the 40 autopsy reports submitted to parties, and the press release is just a press release, and there is no additional report, any secret report or anything like that, no.

JUDGE MAY: Thank you. We'll adjourn now for 20 minutes. Would you remember not to speak to anybody about your evidence until it's over, ¹⁷⁷⁴⁵ Dr. Ranta. Thank you.

--- Recess taken at 10.33 a.m.

--- On resuming at 10.56 a.m.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, the photographs shown all come from Exhibit 156, binder 1, tab 7, or binder 2, which is the witness's report, which itself produces the photographs. Binder 2, tab 12. They are, if I may say so, selective, and by no means do they show all the pictures of all the feet, socks, shoes and otherwise. But those are the exhibit numbers.

JUDGE MAY: Thank you. Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, before I continue, I hope that it is also clear to you that at this speed or at this rate or, rather, at this slow pace, I will not be able to get through my cross-examination of this witness with the limited time that I have been given, so I hope you're going to let me have a little more time.

JUDGE MAY: Provided you make good use of the time.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well. I'll continue where you yourself left off, Mr. May, a moment ago, because you were insisting upon me explaining that on the 17th of March, 1999, it was not actually a report but that it was just an ordinary press release. And the witness herself said that it could not have been a report at that time, and that is something that is not being challenged at all. That is to say that she actually said that.

And she also said that she had a legal advisor, senior legal ¹⁷⁷⁴⁶ advisor from the European Union who suggested to her that she write what she wrote in her report, that it was her own opinion, et cetera. Now, as this could not have been a report as such and as it was compiled with a great deal of attention with the advice of a legal advisor, why then does it say on it "Report of the Expert Team of Pathologists of the European Union About the Events in Racak," on the Racak incident. So if it was not a report, why does is say "Report of the EU Forensic Expert Team on the Racak Incident"?

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Let's see what the report is. Yes. It's the heading of the press release is described as a report. Perhaps you could help.

THE WITNESS: Your Honour, before going into the title of the press release, I wish to emphasise that I was not advised by any legal representative of the European Union. I was advised by the senior legal advisor of the European Union forensic expert team, who worked for the team.

And going to the original question of the accused why it was titled report, because the report was submitted that very day, prior to the press conference, to Yugoslav authorities to the District Court of Pristina and this press conference was held afterwards. I'm sorry if there has been confusion about this press release being a report.

JUDGE MAY: Did you write the release yourself?

THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour.

JUDGE ROBINSON: How did it come about that you got this legal ¹⁷⁷⁴⁷ advice? Was it sought by you? How was it raised?

THE WITNESS: I wish to emphasise, Your Honour, that during the whole course of our mission in the region, already starting in mid-October 1998, I felt it appropriate of having a senior legal advisor as a member of the team. He never came physically to the region, but he worked together with us all this time. And I think it is very important, particularly when working out the legal framework of missions like this, to have legal --

JUDGE ROBINSON: What I'm asking is can you give us the context in which you got the advice to say that this was your personal opinion? I mean, how did the discussion start? Was it something that you raised or was it something that he raised? In what context did it arise?

THE WITNESS: It was raised during our discussions, and I'm unable to say whether it was my own idea or whether it was an idea that came up during the discussions.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Robinson.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Then explain to me, please, if this was just talk with journalists, why your text is titled "Report," and why was it distributed prior to the press conference itself, the text that we have before us?

A. This text was distributed during the press conference, and the report was submitted prior to the press conference, the report being the autopsy reports. And I already said that it is probably unfortunate to use the word "Report of the European Union Forensic Expert Team," when it's only a ¹⁷⁷⁴⁸ press release, but it was distributed at the press conference.

Q. Yes. But are you aware -- very well. But are you aware of the extent to which the fact that you wrote the title as being "Report of the EU Forensic Expert Team" makes the contents far more serious, the contents contained on this piece of paper, and leads to certain conclusions and the creation of public opinion in general?

JUDGE MAY: If you think you can answer that, do. If you can't answer it, it may be just a comment.

THE WITNESS: If I'm allowed to explain in detail. Members of the forensic science community are not accustomed to dealing with representatives of media, and therefore I very reluctantly participated the whole press conference, and I wasn't at that time aware of the possible importance of how this paper would be entitled, whether that actually would play any role.

To my opinion, it does not, and I think it is an oversimplification to pick up one single incident and focus on that when we are dealing with a series of tragic incidents. So focusing on only one incident, in this case the Racak, gives a wrong impression of the whole developments.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mrs. Ranta, as you say that you don't give press statements, that it isn't customary and so on, do you allow then for the possibility that you were perhaps manipulated and the fact that this went under the title of the report bears that out and by placing you in the position of presenting that report at the press conference on the 17th of March? ^{17749 BLANK PAGE 17750}

A. As I already stated before, I wrote the text of the press release myself.

JUDGE MAY: What is being suggested, and you should have the opportunity of answering it and dealing with the suggestion because it's a serious one for a scientist, is that you were being manipulated. It's not specified by who. But it's suggested that you in some way were being manipulated in writing this press release. Is there any truth in that?

THE WITNESS: I was not at any stage during the preparation of this press release manipulated by anyone.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, you can help us if you're making a suggestion that this witness was being manipulated as to who it is that you say manipulated her so that she may understand fully what your suggestion is. Who do you say manipulated her?

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Well, it's like this: Do you remember that at the conference that the conference was attended by the officials of the European Union, for example, Gruber, the German ambassador, the Finnish human rights minister, Mr. Timo Lahelma, then there was the main individual of this manipulation, William Walker? I'm sure you'll remember that. So do you think and do you allow for the possibility of --

JUDGE MAY: One thing at a time. Was the press conference attended by those gentlemen?

A. The press conference was attended by Ambassador Gruber, representing the Presidency of the European Union, by Ambassador Timo Lahelma, representing the Finnish Ministry for Foreign Affairs, and ¹⁷⁷⁵¹ myself. We were sitting together, the three of us, at the podium. I was told afterwards that Ambassador William Walker was also present there, but I couldn't see him during the press conference.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. All right. You were told he was there but you didn't actually see him yourself. Fine.

Now, why did the Yugoslav medical expert team, why was it made impossible for them to attend the press conference? I don't know the reasons why they did not attend the press conference too.

A. Your Honour, I'm not in a position of answering this kind of question, because I did not organise the press conference.

Q. And who did organise it then?

A. This press conference was held at the OSCE headquarters, and it was organised as -- as I was informed, by the Presidency of the European Union in collaboration with the OSCE.

Q. All right. And with respect to that case, the incident, the press conference was attended by Ambassador Gruber of Germany but without the corresponding investigating judge and experts from Yugoslavia. How come that you as the head an institute did not present a single result from the post-mortems that are customary in cases of that kind and are presented in cases of that kind, and that is why in this report you use more a political terminology rather than professional scientific terminology? Why is that?

A. I think there are now several -- several aspects which I have to -- have to make reference. I am not able to answer the question why the ¹⁷⁷⁵² investigating judge or any representatives of the Yugoslav experts weren't present at the press conference. I wish to emphasise that they were the first ones to receive the report. Prior to the press conference, there was a submission of the report to the investigating judge, Danica Marinkovic, from the District Court of Pristina, and to the Institute of Forensic Medicine represented by Professor Dobricanin, who was the head of the institute. So they were the first to receive the report. And there was a question about why my report -- I use more political terminology rather than professional scientific terminology. My answer is that I had never thought of my terminology being political. This is the first time when I -- when I hear that. And there's not very much I can say to that. I was addressing the shortcomings in the procedures, investigative procedures. I am not aware of the political impact.

Q. So you're not aware that after that report came out, which as you say should not have been called a report, that seven days after that was when the aggression, NATO aggression against Yugoslavia started. So you don't consider that to be political?

JUDGE MAY: It's not for the witness. She can answer the questions, of course, about the press release, but she can't answer questions about the NATO intervention unless you're suggesting that she's in some way involved in it.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well. Fine. Well, that's quite obvious, Mr. May, because it's all linked up. And it was used precisely to launch the NATO intervention. ¹⁷⁷⁵³

JUDGE MAY: But you're not suggesting that this witness was in any way involved in the NATO intervention, are you? Because if you are, you should put it to her.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, that is precisely what I'm claiming, because this is part --

JUDGE MAY: Very well. Let us put that to the witness. What the accused suggests is that you were in some way involved in the NATO intervention which occurred sometime after this report. It seems to be suggested that there was a conspiracy, it seems to be what is being put, in which you were involved for NATO to intervene. Now, is there any truth in that?

THE WITNESS: Your Honour, there is no truth in that, and I wish to emphasise also the fact that the European Union team members were all of Finnish origin, Finnish nationals, and Finland is not a member of NATO.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. All the worse. But take a look at this piece of paper, please. The title of which, and I have received it with the documents, it says "Monitor, new doubts about the Racak massacre."

JUDGE MAY: Now just before we go any further, this is the document -- I'm grateful to Judge Kwon who has it. It's -- let me see. It's annexed to the report, Annex 4. Yes. We've got a translation somewhere. Let the witness have a copy of it if she hasn't already got one.

JUDGE KWON: The document you are looking at is the translation of the Annex 4 you presented. ¹⁷⁷⁵⁴

THE WITNESS: Yes.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, have it?

THE WITNESS: I have it in front of me, Your Honour.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Therefore, indicating this link, this connection which relates to the NATO aggression that followed, you can see what is quoted here. William Walker, the head of the OSCE mission, on page 2, that is, in his quotation, "It strengthened [in English] the opinion in Europe and North America as well as in the OSCE and European Union that something finally had to be done. It was the beginning of a process that eventually led to the bombing." [Interpretation] And then it -- the Monitor comments: "The dead were used, however, to silence misgivings about the sense of NATO attacks."

Therefore, does this clearly speak about the links and ties involved?

JUDGE MAY: Can you comment on that?

THE WITNESS: I'm responsible only what I have investigated myself and reported myself and said myself. I'm not in a position of saying anything about William Walker's comments, why he chose to use what he said, and I'm not able to comment on the journalists' talks either. I only speak for myself.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. But at the beginning of that same page, it says Dr. Helena Ranta, chief pathologist: "Racak was a KLA stronghold at the time. I am ¹⁷⁷⁵⁵ convinced there is enough information to suggest that there was fighting between the Serbian army and the KLA in the village. [In English] There is absolutely no doubt about that. I was also told, and was able to read reports that KLA fighters were killed that day." [Interpretation] And that's what you yourself said.

A. Yes, I have said that.

Q. And then on that same page, it goes on to say, a statement by Zymer Lubovci, KLA member, who says the following: [In English] "We saw the Serbs coming, so we took up position and opened fire. We already --"

JUDGE MAY: The witness cannot comment on what somebody else said, the KLA member, but she can of course comment on what is attributed to herself.

You accept, do you, that there was this interview with -- it was German television, was it? I may be reminded if I've got that right or wrong. Is this the transcript of a document or is it from a journal?

THE WITNESS: This is a transcript of the interview given in English.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. All right. Although this does not relate to you yourself, it says here and you said a moment ago that you were informed about it and it is linked to what you claim, that as you yourself said, it was a KLA stronghold at that time. And they go on to quote Wayne Merry, former US government advisor: "There is no doubt that the KLA cynically calculated that loss of their own civilians and portraying them as victims world-wide was a condition for getting the West to intervene militarily." ¹⁷⁷⁵⁶

JUDGE MAY: Yes. What do you want the witness to say about that? It's precisely the sort of question which I suspect she can't answer. This is all argument, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right. If we can't have that, we'll move on.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. In your findings, you speak about forensic expertise and the European Union team, forensic team. Dr. Ranta, is the truth quite the reverse, that you joined together with the Belorussian experts the Yugoslav group of experts composed of leading specialists from Yugoslavia, pursuant to orders issued by the competent investigating judge? Isn't that right?

A. The European Union forensic expert team and in the capacity of team leader, I received already on Saturday, 16 January 1999, a phone call from Yugoslav Ambassador Mr. Crnogorcevic in Helsinki, asking us as a team to conduct the investigations. And upon our arrival, we were issued a court order by the District Court of Pristina specifying our position to investigate manner and cause of death, possible contributing factors to the death and circumstances around death, and finally, identification of victims. So we were working as an independent team in good collaboration with our Yugoslav and Belorussian colleagues.

Q. Ah, fine. So from what I can see here, you didn't have any comments with respect to the work of the experts from Yugoslavia. And in your first reactions after the post-mortems found in Racak, you say that there were no substantial differences in the findings and opinions between ¹⁷⁷⁵⁷ the pathologists of Yugoslavia and Finland. Isn't that right, Mrs. Ranta?

A. I wish to emphasise that the professional work at the autopsy theatres was very smooth regardless of the national origin of the experts, and we were able to conduct the autopsies very smoothly and in a very good professional spirit. And this also extended to the forensic investigators.

Q. So there was no problem with respect to cooperation and collaboration. Why not then, if that was the case, did you not mention at the press conference or in the report, at least mention what your colleagues, members of the team stated and the facts that you were able to ascertain together, which is contrary to your claim that it was civilians who were involved, because your colleagues had occasion to see killed KLA fighters and very rarely came across uniformed persons. Usually they were persons who had no insignia or markings of any kind on them.

A. I wish the accused would be more precise in referring to the status of the victims.

Q. Yes. I'll come to that in due course, but first let's clear this up. Throughout the autopsies of the persons killed in Racak, was the representative of Finland for human rights present in the hall all the time, the First Secretary of the German embassy as well, a representative of the OSCE? Were they always present? I'm talking about the team, the Lahelma team, the First Secretary of the embassy Ottman, Michael Patterson, representative of the OSCE. Those are the individuals I mean. Is that so?

A. If we are talking about the first 16 autopsies that were conducted ^{17758 BLANK PAGE 17759} prior to our arrival to the region, I'm not able to comment who were present and who were not. What I know is that Ambassador Lahelma was not there and I'm not aware of the presence of -- of who were present from the OSCE.

If I can make right recollection of the first 16 autopsies, I believe that an OSCE officer called Eamon Smythe was present there.

Q. All right. And now with respect to what you asked me, that is the specifications, you asked me to specify with respect to the claims made by your colleagues, that is to say persons who together with you conducted the autopsies and who present information and data on the basis of which the sole conclusion that cannot be drawn is that they were indeed civilians. Quite the contrary, the conclusion that can be drawn is that they were members of the KLA.

For example, these were Professor Dunjic, Dobricanin, Tasic. You cooperated with them, did you not? So from the military boots, army boots with the "O", Austria, found on 23 individuals via the characteristic uniform or types of underclothes, the same type of underclothes, and the results of the paraffin tests which showed that 37 had shot from weapons, from firearms, 37 of the 40, according to the paraffin test results. 37 had shot from firearms. And in their reports, and I have their reports here before me, that means that --

JUDGE MAY: Now, we must have a question. Otherwise the witness is not going to be able to follow. What is the question for the witness?

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. From those reports, that is to say from the reports of individuals ¹⁷⁷⁶⁰ who cooperated and collaborated with you, was it clear that they were indeed members of the KLA and not civilians? And I have their reports here before me, both the report of Dunjic, Dobricanin, and Tasic, and these are their statements given to the opposite side over there. So these are not their personal private reports, nothing of that kind; they are the official reports given to the other side.

JUDGE MAY: Let us deal with these matters one by one. First of all for the witness: Do you know anything about these reports which have been referred to?

THE WITNESS: I have in front of me reports, 40 autopsy reports which have been most probably submitted to the investigative judge of the District Court of Pristina, Danica Marinkovic. With reference number KRI14/99. And there are altogether 40 autopsy reports. As I have already stated earlier in my statement, in my written statement prior to my testimony, these are only very general conclusions, and I'm very sorry that no further information has been included in these reports, including toxicological analysis, including ballistic analysis, and including detailed description of the entrance and exit wounds. So these are just very general conclusions. And I haven't had time now to see through them, but I can't find in the first two, and if I go further, three, so I can't find any reference to the military status of individual victims.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Therefore, in those reports, as I was saying, we can see that 23 individuals had characteristic boots made in Austria. They had the same ¹⁷⁷⁶¹ type of underclothes on, and the results --

JUDGE MAY: You've said all that. Let the witness deal with it. Have you seen these reports which are being referred to from various professors; Dunjic, Dobricanin, and Tasic?

MR. NICE: Can I help? I'm pretty sure she wouldn't have done there. As the accused has said, they were actually statements taken from those people by OTP investigators. The witness is, I think, referring to the source material for the reports that were prepared at the time. It's a document I referred to just before the break. They're available.

JUDGE MAY: You've got these statements available.

MR. NICE: They are available. But I press no solution on the Court. A time may come when the Court would want the witness to see them in full, but --

JUDGE MAY: I think, since they're being referred to, she should have the opportunity to see them.

MR. NICE: Very well.

JUDGE MAY: And we should have copies.

JUDGE KWON: I wonder if some summary of that report is included in Defence Exhibit 2.

MR. NICE: I'm not sure about that. I don't think so.

THE WITNESS: Excuse me. Something went wrong with the screen.

MR. NICE: We have two available. The third is on its way. Dobricanin and Dunjic are here. I'm not, may I say at once, proposing or inviting the Court to admit them as evidence. They aren't witnesses we would necessarily rely on and have certainly made no effort to call, but ¹⁷⁷⁶² statements were nevertheless taken from them and served on the accused in accordance with our duties of disclosure.

JUDGE MAY: Dr. Ranta, just have a brief look at those two, if you would.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, while the witness is looking at the reports, let me make use of the time. Mr. Nice said that they had no intention of tendering these documents as evidence, for obvious reasons and that is the reports show that these people were not civilians but members of the KLA, using firearms. And I ask that these three statements taken by the other side be tendered into evidence during this cross-examination.

JUDGE MAY: Our usual rule and one which I would have thought applied here is that we do not admit witness statements unless under particular rules. If you want in due course to call these witnesses to give their evidence, of course you can do so. But uncross-examined material is not usually admitted.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well. Then let us proceed.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Tell me, please --

[Trial Chamber confers]

MR. NICE: Two copies of the statement of Tasic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have here Dunjic's, Tasic's, and Dobricanin's statement to which I referred.

THE WITNESS: Your Honour?

JUDGE MAY: Yes. ¹⁷⁷⁶³

THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, but it would take much longer to read through these witness information sheets. They contain a lot of information which of course is familiar to me, but to answer any questions put forward by the accused based on these is, unfortunately, impossible for me just by short reading.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, of course. Let us see whether there are any other questions about them and see if you can answer them or not. Mr. Milosevic, is there anything else you want to ask about the statements?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Everything is in the statements. They speak for themselves. If I go into details, you will deny me the time. But in Dunjic's report, for example, it says these military boots on 23 persons. As you can see, they were not able to take these boots off because had they removed the footwear because of religious custom, they would have removed the footwear of all the persons. But they removed only the footwear of those wearing military boots. They were unable to take off the underwear showing their military status.

JUDGE MAY: Very well. Now, we are not going to admit these statements. They are not evidence. They become evidence if the witness comes here and is cross-examined.

Now, that has been, throughout, our ruling. The only circumstances in which we will admit a statement are, first of all, if it's admissible under the Rules, particularly 92 bis, and secondly, if there is an agreement or waiver on both sides that the document should be admitted. These have not been subject of such a waiver. They will not be ¹⁷⁷⁶⁴ admitted.

You can call the witnesses when it comes to your case, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.

JUDGE MAY: I'm sorry to interrupt you. We ought to consider the time. You've now had well over the time. Let me just consider.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE MAY: Yes. We'll give you another 20 minutes.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] That is not enough, Mr. May.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, just concentrate on what it is that you want to put. Concentrate on your main points and let's move on.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, this is my main point: For example, the witness herself said here what it says in the reports that I've mentioned, which you won't accept, but you will accept what the witness herself said, that the Serbian investigators carried out the paraffin test. It says here that out of 40 of them, 37, according to that test, had used firearms.

JUDGE MAY: You could put that. Just a moment. She's given evidence about the test, but of course you can put something to her.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mrs. Ranta, do you know that the paraffin test is officially used in Yugoslavia, and not only in Yugoslavia but in many other countries as well?

A. I already said at the very beginning today that this was the first time ever I came across the use of paraffin test in reality, in practice. ¹⁷⁷⁶⁵ I was aware of this test but only as an historical test which is always mentioned in the textbooks. If this test is still in use in Yugoslavia, I strongly recommend the forensic investigators to adopt more specific and reliable tests.

And I wish to emphasise also that, according to common internationally recognised procedures, the gunshot residue test should be taken within 3 to 6 hours after the alleged firing or use of firearms. To my understanding, if these paraffin casts were taken, they could have been taken on Monday, that is two days after the recovery of the bodies, which already is too late.

Q. So much the greater value of the findings, because gunpowder residues were found on the hands of 37 out of 40 of those killed. Isn't that correct, Mrs. Ranta?

A. To be precise --

MR. NICE: That doesn't reflect what the statements say, if he's quoting from the statements. The Chamber -- I don't think the Chamber has --

JUDGE MAY: We've given them back, but what does it actually say?

MR. NICE: Well, it's made clear that this is a nonspecific and old method of indicating gunpowder. It goes on to say that finding of nitrates, which is what this test reveals, on anyone is a nonspecific method and does not mean that gunpowder was present. It's on page 9 of 14 in Dobricanin, and it's possibly also worth observing, in light of what the witness has said, that Dobricanin makes it clear that these conclusions were not added to their own findings. These findings, I beg ¹⁷⁷⁶⁶ your pardon, weren't added to their written conclusions, he said, because they didn't have time. But it's all in this paragraph.

JUDGE MAY: Very well. Very well. But nonetheless, the accused is entitled to put his case to the witness.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mrs. Ranta, you say that the test can be of doubtful quality because it was done two days later, but you drew conclusions on the basis of an investigation, one of which was carried eight months later and another 14 months after the events in Racak. And in the meantime, the place had not been guarded and nobody knows what happened there. Isn't it correct that the first investigation that you know of was carried out only in November and the second one a few months after that?

A. Now, I'm sorry to say that the accused is confusing issues that are irrelevant to each other. If we are talking about the gunpowder residue analysis, as the accused started, so I wish to emphasise once more that this test is unspecific for gunshot residue. It can show the presence of any oxidizing agent but it is not specific to nitrocellulose. So any oxidizing agent can give a positive reaction when paraffin and subsequently the diphenylamine dye is added. That for the first part. When I'm talking, or when we move to the scene investigations which were conducted, as the accused pointed out, yes, several months after the recovery of the bodies, we are talking about quite different type of investigations. We are talking about surveying the area where the bodies were recovered. I would imagine that this wouldn't have changed ^{17767 BLANK PAGE 17768} too much.

We are also dealing with forensic evidence which was detected under the surface of the soil, evidence which included bullets, bullet fragments, cartridge cases, human material. This is very different to gunshot residue analysis.

Q. Please, let's speed things up. We'll come to this. But do you agree with what your colleague Juha Rainino wrote in his Ph.D. dissertation where he says, in connection with Racak, that the answer to many questions lies in the realm of politics and that no answers can be expected from forensics experts? This is on page 94 of his thesis, which I have here.

So despite some expectations, the political key question --

JUDGE MAY: Who is this gentleman you're referring to? A Ph.D. student, is it?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Juha Rainino, Department of Forensic Medicine, University of Helsinki, Finland.

JUDGE MAY: And when -- when are we talking about for the date of this -- have you got a date for this dissertation?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Helsinki 2002, academic dissertation approved by the faculty of medicine, University of Helsinki, to be presented for public discussion in the auditorium of the department of forensic medicine of the University of Helsinki at 12 noon 4th of October, 2002. Juha Rainino.

JUDGE MAY: Are you familiar with this dissertation?

THE WITNESS: I'm very well aware of this because Dr. Juha Rainino ¹⁷⁷⁶⁹ was one of the members of the European Union forensic expert team, and I'm a co-author in most of the articles published in that Ph.D. thesis, so I'm very familiar.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. That's why I'm asking you. My question is: Do you agree with his position? I do not consider it disputable that this is the doctor that this is known to the witness, but he says: "So despite some expectations, the political key question of the Racak incident could not be answered on the basis of the autopsy findings. Any attempt to do so would have revealed weak judgements."

A. I think this has already been made clear during this cross-examination, that forensic evidence as such has nothing to do with politics.

Q. Very well. But the doctors from the Finnish team published a professional article. You know about this article, I hope. Juha Rainino, Dobricanin, and Penttila, [In English] Department of Forensic Medicine, University Helsinki.

A. Yes, I'm aware of that. If I remember correctly, it's one of the first papers in the thesis.

JUDGE MAY: It's been produced here. I think, if it's the same one, it's Exhibit D2, which we've marked for identification only. Yes.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Just let me quote on page 8 of their article. They say: "Determinations [In English] for events, their political and moral meanings or the connection of victim to political or other organisations ¹⁷⁷⁷⁰ are questions which lie beyond the scope of forensic science. This should be realised by the authorities and also by the forensic scientists themselves."

[Interpretation] I hope that this is not in dispute.

A. Before we go any further, Defence Exhibit 2 marked for identification is an article by Professor Dobricanin and his co-workers.

JUDGE MAY: It may be there's an error. It may be that there's a different article being referred to.

THE WITNESS: Determinations for events --

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Milosevic. You've read that part out. What do you want the witness to answer?

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. So as far as I understand it, on the basis of your analysis, it cannot be established, and you cannot claim that these were civilians.

A. I'm sorry, I don't have the article which the accused is referring to. But I recognise the wording, "this should be realised by the authorities and also by the forensic scientists themselves" because this is the discussion we have been running at our department.

Q. Very well. Since your main claim is that these people were shot there, did I understand this correctly, that they were executed? The spot.

A. I never used the word "executed." I have always said that they -- they were most probably killed where found. And this was the text from the press release on 17 March, I think.

Q. Very well. But if there was -- please let me draw your attention ¹⁷⁷⁷¹ to the same article, page 5.

A. I'm sorry, I don't have this article.

Q. Well, I'll quote the sentence to you and you will remember it, and then you can either confirm or reject what it says here. I'm quoting from the article. The title is graphic table 4, Combination of Gunshot Injuries. "The number of gunshot wounds --"

JUDGE MAY: I think if you're going to put this, the witness must have a copy of what you're putting, and we don't seem to have got it here.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'm just reading out the sentence, and the witness will certainly recall it. She must have read this.

JUDGE MAY: No, she can't possibly recall everything that's said. She's entitled to have the document in front of her. You can read it out and then you can put it to her.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Of course. I just wanted to read this first and then I will give it to the witness. There's no problem. It says here: [In English] [Previous translation continues]... gunshot wounds varied between 1 and 20. [Interpretation] Number of gunshot wounds varied between 1 and 20. One wound was found in six cases, and over 16 wounds in two cases."

Mrs. Ranta, does this indicate that there was a battle there? Someone was hit with one bullet, somebody else with 16? This could not have been any kind of execution.

JUDGE MAY: Before you answer, you'd better see the document. Mr. Milosevic, let the witness see the document.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Let me just add that it says here, ¹⁷⁷⁷² [In English] [Previous translation continues]... "analysis could not be carried out by UFET." That is your team.

[Interpretation] Well, look here. Look at this report here. I hope you will recognise it. I have even marked some of the quotations or, rather, all the ones I've read, and there are some that I haven't had time to read out, but I have to save time.

A. As an answer to your question concerning the number of gunshot wounds, so this is just repetition from the autopsy reports. And the autopsy reports, as I have pointed out earlier, does not give enough evidence to answer the question of the circumstances around the death of these people. It only tells how they died. But they had been fired. Not about the circumstances around death.

JUDGE MAY: There was another passage which the accused referred to, "analysis could not be carried out by the EU team." He may have marked the passages for your comment. If you can't find it, just say so.

THE WITNESS: This article is restricted to the autopsy findings, and detailed ballistic analysis could not be carried out by the European Union forensic expert team, yes, that is true. During the autopsies, the access of my investigators to any forensic material discovered and removed during the autopsies was restricted to the forensic investigators from the District Court of Pristina. So we were not able to take high-quality photographs, for instance, of all the bullets. And that makes it very difficult to compare the photographs taken during the autopsies with the photographs taken then of the forensic material recovered during the scene investigations. But, as I have pointed out in my statement, there were -- ¹⁷⁷⁷³ there was one photograph which could be compared from the autopsies with identified landmarks.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Let me ask you now, Mrs. Ranta, to look - and let's put it on the ELMO - a passage from your colleague's thesis showing the angles at which --

JUDGE MAY: Return the article to the accused and we'll see what the next point is.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Look at all the angles. From above, from below, from the front, from all sorts of angles that these people were hit. And doesn't this show that these people were shot in battle? Does this show this or not?

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

THE WITNESS: There is no need to show me these because I have given instructions how these should be produced with the use of computer programmes. So I'm very familiar with what.

And this -- the question as to the angles, so I think it's quite clearly stated in the article already, that without any further information about the circumstances around death, the categorisation of death is not possible.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. So the categorisation of the circumstances of death is not possible based on a forensic analysis. Is this what you said? Did I understand you correctly?

A. The categorisation of manner of death as defined by the World ¹⁷⁷⁷⁴ Health Organisation is not possible.

Q. Very well.

JUDGE MAY: Return that to the accused.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. You spoke of a scene investigation which was carried out many months later and on the basis of which you produced a report, your new final report. Was this investigation attended by forensic archaeologists in order to determine whether the terrain had been changed, whether earth had been brought there or dug up and so on and so forth?

A. This scene investigation, which was conducted in November 1999, was planned to investigate different hypotheses around the death of these people which we have been discussing about.

For us as a scientific team, it doesn't -- it wasn't important whether we found something, because the absence of evidence would also have been important. It is the question of systematic approach by excluding one hypothesis after another.

I didn't think of forensic archaeologists particularly at the time of scene investigations, because we were still working as a European Union forensic expert team. And at the time we did these investigations, we had no forensic archaeologist on our team either.

Q. All right. Thank you. That's what I asked you. So the scene investigation-- that is to say the incident took place in January, the scene investigation was in November, that makes it exactly ten months. Do you know that nobody provided security for the terrain during those ten months and that therefore nobody can guarantee that where you conducted ¹⁷⁷⁷⁵ your investigations was the same scene that existed at the time the incident took place? Would that be true, Mrs. Ranta?

A. We had the opportunity of comparing photographic evidence from the site of recovery of the bodies in January 1999 to the scene investigations conducted in November.

Q. All right. Now, as we've cleared that point up, tell me this, please: On page 9, under J of your statement, you speak about traces on site which were found after the soil and surroundings were investigated. That means ten months later. So ten months later, you found something that you did not see on the first day or, rather, the bodies weren't seen on the first day either, it was only when Walker arrived with 30 journalists. But what was not found on that first day was found ten months later.

Is it true that you in fact with those traces and remnants are dealing in a field for which you were not competent, because this is work reserved for ballistics and forensic archaeologists exclusively and professionals close to that field of expertise?

A. I'm sorry, I didn't quite catch the point. I wish to refer to the report from scene investigations, and particularly page 9 in the report of scene investigations which were submitted to the Tribunal. And I understand that this has been filed as evidence in this case. Am I correct, Mr. Prosecutor? Yes.

So instead of referring --

MR. NICE: It's been filed. We'll find it for you, and the tab reference. ^{17776 BLANK PAGE 17777}

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. All right. But my question then is as follows: In view of the fact that this is not part of your job, it is a job for ballistics and forensic archaeologists, how come you claim that they are civilians? Where did you get the freedom to do so? And that the place of the killing was actually the gully? You even state that people were killed close, too, at close range. How are you able to claim that?

JUDGE MAY: I think the witness has answered the question. Is there anything you want to add? We've been over this.

THE WITNESS: I hope that Mr. Prosecutor would be able to produce the document I wish to refer, because it has been filed as evidence in this case.

MR. NICE: I think it's tab 12 of binder 2 of Exhibit 156. But since the witness hadn't got so far to as say as what it was she was --

THE WITNESS: I was referring to page 9, scene investigation in November 1999.

MR. NICE: Yes. That's the correct document.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Has she got that?

THE WITNESS: I have, yes. I have my own copy.

JUDGE MAY: You have it.

THE WITNESS: Yes, I have my own copy.

JUDGE MAY: We have copies.

THE WITNESS: I wish to emphasise the list of participants. Myself in the capacity of a team leader and the presence of altogether six forensic investigators. One senior investigator and then five individual ¹⁷⁷⁷⁸ investigators, and their special expertise is quoted there. We had an expert on topography. That is the surveying of the terrain. We had an expert on documentation. Finally, we had an expert on ballistics and two additional for documentation. And this was a team that we considered appropriate to conduct scene investigations. To include a forensic archaeologist, I don't think that it would have brought any additional value to this investigation, particularly which I have totally forgotten to include in my curriculum vitae is that in fact I have participated during three summers also archaeological excavations in Finland.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Yes, all right. Mrs. Ranta, could you answer the next question: If the projectiles were found under suspicious conditions ten months later, let it be said, near a body or immediately underneath a corpse, does that then imply that those persons were in a lying-down position or, rather, in combat position, which further indicates that they had been killed in combat? How else would the projectiles have been found underneath their bodies? My question is the following, actually: Is it impossible that the projectiles and parts of projectiles were to be found underneath the bodies or immediately around them if they had been shot standing up? Because the projectiles passing through the bodies would continue their trajectory through their propulsory motion and therefore would be found quite a long way away from the body, very often quite a long way away unless they are stopped by any obstacle. Is that right or not? ¹⁷⁷⁷⁹

A. This question would require about a lecture of four or five hours to answer -- to give a comprehensive answer. What I'm referring and emphasising once again is that we did not find the -- the bullets and bullet fragments under the bodies because we were not there when they were found. We are only referring to bullets and bullet fragments that were recovered underneath the surface of the ground. So -- and some -- and some of them taking and tearing off also human material with them. I find it extremely difficult to figure out how these bullets and bullet fragments could have penetrated the ground had they been fired in the distance of hundred or 200 metres. It's impossible.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, your time is almost up. You've had nearly three-quarters of an hour longer than you were originally allotted, so you must finish in the next two minutes, and we'll then have the amici's questions and we'll adjourn.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It is absolutely impossible for me to conclude my cross-examination in two minutes' time.

JUDGE MAY: You have two minutes.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have several more very important questions.

JUDGE MAY: All right. Ask two of them.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I have -- I'll tell you. Let me just look it up. I have another 30 questions, in fact.

JUDGE MAY: Very well. Pick the two most important ones.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I can't pick them, Mr. May, so I'll take them in their order, because I can't work in that way. ¹⁷⁷⁸⁰

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. You mentioned a number of cartridges near the bodies and ascribe them to the attackers. Isn't it more realistic that they might have belonged to people who were fighters themselves and who in that gully and on the edges of the gully, that they were in a sort of trench and waited in an ambush? How would the attackers have chargers or batches of the weapons? Isn't it more logical to ascribe this to that belonging to the people fighting there and who were killed on the spot?

A. I have never referred to who -- who the perpetrators were and who had fired these weapons. All I have been saying is that we found forensic evidence in the form of bullets and bullet fragments and in the form of cartridge cases and that we were able to tell the origin of this ammunition and that human material was attached to some of the bullets.

Q. Mrs. Ranta, you know full well that human tissue, once the bullet enters the ground, is cleaned by the ground and soil, and after eight months you couldn't have any human remains. That is quite nonsensical. But let me ask you this --

JUDGE MAY: Just a moment. If you're putting that it's nonsensical to a scientist, you should put it clearly. Ms. Ranta, it is being suggested that what you're saying is nonsensical in this connection. Would you like to answer that?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Please, Mr. May --

JUDGE MAY: No. Let the witness answer. You'll get your extra question. Don't worry about that.

THE WITNESS: I wish to refer to my statement which has been ¹⁷⁷⁸¹ submitted to all parties present here, submitted on 20 February 2003. And I'm referring to page 11 where I in detail describe the recovery of identifiable human material in the form of two mandibular molars in the vicinity of defined bullets under the surface of the ground in a position where victim RA-24-7021F was recovered in January. Also I refer to the post-mortem investigation of the victim, including both schematic presentation of the entrance and exit wounds and photographs taken by OSCE verifiers and during the autopsy. We were able to extract amplifiable DNA from one of the molars and the DNA was compared to that of the victim, and the DNA profiles did match. The other type of human material which I was referring to was soft tissue material, and we did all the efforts to extract identifiable DNA from that. And I have discussed this as well in my statement, telling that, unfortunately, we were not able to do that. And I also give some possible explanations to that.

This, to my knowledge, is the first time ever that attempts like this have been conducted. Whether it's nonsense scientifically, I don't think that is a justified statement on that. I think scientifically, and a scientist has to try everything in his or her power to complete the task that has been entrusted to him or her, and this is what we did in this case.

We know very well that the degradation of human tissue varies on different factors, including the humidity, including the variation in temperature, including the Ph value, the acidity of the soil, et cetera. But I think it was correct to try also with this partly degraded human ¹⁷⁷⁸² soft tissue remnants, to try to extract DNA.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Yes. But you are speaking in principle about an attempt that proved fruitless; isn't that right? It was not successful.

A. It was not successful in that case. And I have also given explanations why it may have failed, and they are all scientific facts that I have given as explanation: The presence of enzyme inhibitors, no enzyme inhibitors in the bullets; the possibility of DNA destruction by the variation of temperature; and thirdly, the enzymic activity of the soil bacteria. They are all scientific facts.

Q. Well, we're not having a scientific discussion here, but very well.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, there is a judgement by the court in Pristina which tried a particular individual, and Judge Gajvan [phoen] took part, and Besim Kelmendi, the president of the council, Amnisa Bellart [phoen], and so on. This was an international construction of some kind, and I have the entire judgement here.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. But for you, Mrs. Ranta, a question: Are you aware of the forensic report that was handed over in that trial? Dr. Peter Markestein is the author of the report in that particular case, and very precisely in the judgement, 133 paragraph, it states that the exact distance of the firing of a shot cannot be ascertained. The exact range or distance was not able to be ascertained on the basis of the autopsy. And then he goes on to state, in paragraph 165 of the judgement, ¹⁷⁷⁸³ that court in Pristina assesses, and as you can see it was made up of judges of different nationalities, that Haris Bajrami, and Bestan Dositi [phoen], Nasmet Mahuti [phoen], those three men, that the bullets were shot by a group of policemen situated on a hill south of the area, that is to say, from a considerable distance.

Now, this Dr. Peter Markestein, I don't know if you've heard of Dr. Peter Markestein. I have not myself, but --

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, it is very difficult to follow all this. Is this anything to do with Racak, first of all?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It does have to do with Racak because Mrs. Ranta claims in her report that the people were killed from close range, from close to. Whereas this judgement, which refers to Racak where a forensic expert once again, in this case Peter Markestein, gives precise assertions to the effect that the exact distance at which a shot was fired cannot be established. And for the three persons, the judgement on these three persons, that it was ascertained that a group of policemen had done the shooting and that they were situated up on a hilltop. So I'm presenting this to challenge the claim that they were killed at close range, close to. And I would like to support my claim that --

JUDGE MAY: Just one thing at a time. This is a case, is it, which concerns the shooting at Racak? Can we understand that?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Of course. The judgement relates to it. It is the District Court in Pristina, and a case is being tried with respect to Racak.

JUDGE MAY: Very well. ¹⁷⁷⁸⁴ Do you know anything about this, Dr. Ranta?

THE WITNESS: The original question of the accused was whether I was aware of this forensic report. I haven't seen it. I was aware that there was a trial at the District Court of Pristina. And as to the forensic expert quoted here, I also -- I have met him in Pristina.

JUDGE MAY: Well --

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE MAY: I suppose you haven't got -- have you got that in English or is it just in Serbian?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have it in Serbian, but I am sure that there is a copy in English, because it was foreign judges. So it must have been in English, because none of these foreigners knew Serbian.

JUDGE MAY: Can you help with this one?

MR. NICE: Not immediately. I can research the matter.

JUDGE MAY: Could you. We'll adjourn for 20 minutes. Mr. Milosevic, we'll give you time to clarify this matter. If possible, we'll get hold of the judgement and we'll see if it can be exhibited or not, if there is any objection to it be exhibited. We will then give you another ten minutes because of the importance of this evidence to you, but beyond that we won't go.

Mr. Tapuskovic, have you got any questions arising out of this?

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I think I'll be able to be of assistance to the Trial Chamber, if I might say so, to dwell on professional issues. So I should like to ask the Court's indulgence ^{17785 BLANK PAGE 17786} and give me a little time, and I will try and be as brief as possible.

JUDGE MAY: Very well. We will adjourn now. Twenty minutes.

--- Recess taken at 12.23 p.m.

--- On resuming at 12.47 p.m.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: The transcript of the trial has been located. It's in English. Can I explain the position by reference to an exhibit that you already have, 94, tab 73. If I throw it on the overhead projector, you'll take the point immediately.

The trial concerned the death -- and you'll remember this exhibit, it was shown through General Drewienkiewicz, I think. And I put on a red sticker. The sticker identifies the area of the gully. The victim in this murder trial's name was Hajrizi Bajrami, and you will remember that this map has a key running down the left-hand side, and beside the left-hand red sticker on the key you will see the name of this victim Hajrizi Bajrami, and the place where he was killed was not the gully at all. It's further down, below the red sticker, at site number 2, and I think it's number 3 of number 2.

So that whatever the evidence that the accused is referring to relates to, it doesn't relate to anything in the gully. I have found -- or, rather, to be precise, those assisting me have, with great speed and efficiency, found not only the transcript but the evidence of Peter Markestein, and I think that's the person with whom we are concerned. I haven't yet located his report, and at the moment, on scanning the transcript of his evidence, I can't find a passage that ¹⁷⁷⁸⁷ relates to the topic asked of by the accused. I'll carry on looking.

JUDGE MAY: Very well. Yes, Mr. Milosevic. You've got another 10 minutes. If there is anything more you want to ask about this, we can consider admitting the court record and the judgement.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I quoted point 133 of the judgement, where it says that the exact distance was not able to be ascertained on the basis of the autopsy, the distance at which the shot was fired. And what Mr. Nice is talking about refers to point 165, where it says that it was from the Vrelo hill, to make things clear.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mrs. Ranta, as you're talking about firing at close range, and your colleague says that this cannot be ascertained, on page 13 of your own report, you speak of the following, and this in connection to the ammunition found during the investigations. This is contained in sub-item 8, I believe, on page 13 of your statement, and you say that Yugoslav manufacturers, and you mention IK (Igman Zavod Konjic), do you know that Konjic is to be located in Bosnia-Herzegovina and that Konjic is a town which was not under the control of Republika Srpska throughout the war and conflicts?

And secondly, do you know that in different ways, among other ways, by looting and so on, members of the terrorist organisation, the KLA, came and used the ammunition which was produced by Yugoslavia, manufactured in Yugoslavia? So can we at all, on the basis of all this, claim that those shots were fired, bullets were fired by the Yugoslav or, rather, the Serb policemen on the basis of what you say, that the ¹⁷⁷⁸⁸ manufacturers of the ammunition that was found on the site were from IK manufacture -- manufactured by IK (Igman Zavod Konjic) and the Titova Uzice factory?

A. In this point 8, I'm just stating that the manufacturers of the ammunition recovered, they originated from these two manufacturers. And looking in detail of the loading year or its approbation as pointed out in the head stamp of each cartridge case, they -- there's a wide range of the loading years. So I'm not referring in any way to the war or were they during the war, anything like that. This is just the way the ballistics expert already referred to earlier wrote the report which has been submitted to this Tribunal as an annex to our results from the scene investigations.

As to the precise location of these factories of these manufacturers, I haven't made any effort to localise them. And I'm not drawing any conclusions as to who fired the shots. I have never indicated the perpetrator or perpetrators in any of these cases, because it would have been -- such a comment would have been inappropriate, because we were not mandated to investigate the question of guilt, we were only mandated to investigate the death of people who were found killed.

Q. Very well. Fine. Now, tell me, in view of the fact that this is a question which relates to your profession directly, how do you explain the following phenomenon: That some bodies were found in that gully, the one you mention, and that they were leaning with their backs on the ground and their hands and legs were partially raised in a bent position? They were up in the air. How do you explain that? Doesn't that indicate that ¹⁷⁷⁸⁹ the bodies were brought in from somewhere else and placed at that scene? Yes or no.

A. I'm only referring to the photographic evidence as documented by the OSCE on the day of the recovery of the bodies. And this has been the basis of our documentation.

I have not commented on the position of the bodies in any other relation but the possibility of turning over the bodies so that the faces would be exposed. That's all I have said.

Q. All right. But they say that on the spot -- or, rather, that the findings from the scene and projectiles were compared to photographs carried out and made by the Finnish experts during the autopsy; is that right?

A. We combined the photographs of the OSCE, and that was the basis of the scene investigations, and we had our own autopsy reports so that the bullet paths could be compared based on that, that's all.

Q. All right. But I assume you know, because you're a forensic expert, that there are no photographs which can be used in the sense of ballistic comparison and correlation and identification of bullets, of projectiles and weapons.

A. The photographs made by OSCE were used to localise, to give the approximate location of each body at the time of the recovery of the bodies. And when we did conduct our scene investigations, the area which we covered by metal detectors and by surveying the terrain was much larger, being some 170 metres in length. And if we think about the recovery of the bodies at the gully, they were found at the length of some ¹⁷⁷⁹⁰ 65 metres, if I remember correctly.

The width of the area we covered varied from 30 to 60 metres, depending on the elevations at the gully.

Q. All right. And were you -- do you know about the findings of the ballistics experts mentioned in the judgement I quoted a moment ago? And that is paragraph 140, or item 140. That's where that is contained. And they say that individual injuries could even have occurred from ricochetted bullets and could cause injury on those bodies of the type that existed.

A. If we are thinking about the quality of the ground and the soil at the gully, there is really a danger for ricochetting. About the results from the scene investigations, I wish to emphasise that we are only talking about the bullets and bullet fragments that were discovered underneath the surface of the ground, sometimes having human material attached to that. I don't think that ricochetting could occur in that way.

Q. But a moment ago I understood you to say that you did not establish that it was human tissue but that you attempted, as a scientific challenge, to arrive at that result but that the attempt was unsuccessful. That's what I understood you to say. Is that right or not?

A. The attempt to extract amplifiable DNA for DNA profiling was unsuccessful.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, you must now bring this examination to a close. You can ask two more questions.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right, Mr. May. I'm going to ¹⁷⁷⁹¹ ask you one question first. Because Mrs. Ranta built into her report, to her findings, the results of those subsequent on-site investigations that took place eight and 14 months later, and reports on those investigations is something that I do not have, I haven't been given them, could you please tell me, as Mrs. Ranta did incorporate them into her report, when will I be given a chance to cross-examine the witness about those particular reports, that is to say the reports she incorporated into her report? Or if I cannot cross-examine her, who should I cross-examine with respect to these subsequent investigations, that is to say the ones taken -- carried out 10 and 14 months later?

JUDGE MAY: Mrs. Ranta, have we got all the reports which you made? Have they all be turned handed over to the Prosecutor?

THE WITNESS: I have handed over the report of scene investigations conducted in November 1999 and in March 2000, and these are the results which I have been referring to in my written statement which I have submitted.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. And all the documents have been exhibited or disclosed. May we be sure about that.

MR. NICE: Binder 2, tab 12, is headed "Report of Scene Investigations in November 1999 and in March 2000."

JUDGE MAY: That is Exhibit 156.

MR. NICE: Yes.

JUDGE MAY: It's been exhibited. It's been exhibited for some time. Now, if you want to ask the witness two more questions, you can, Mr. Milosevic. You will then have had two hours and more in ¹⁷⁷⁹² cross-examination.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, but as the witness, Mr. May, did not take part in those scene investigations, who is it who I'm able to cross-examine with respect to those reports?

JUDGE MAY: If there is some matter you wish to cross-examine about, you may make an application to us and we'll look at it, we'll consider it. But let us finish our examination of this witness.

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mrs. Ranta, you said in your report that the people involved here were civilians. I have a photograph here. Do you know how the KLA marked the grave of one of those, as you call them, civilians? Here it is clearly seen that it was a member of the KLA, and the tombstone of that person, their member who was killed.

JUDGE MAY: The witness cannot answer that unless -- Have you been to a cemetery? Have you seen these graves?

THE WITNESS: Your Honour, I have visited Racak -- the cemetery which is close to the village, in 2001, I believe.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Well, then let the witness -- let the witness see what it is you want to show.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] You can see it too and the witness can be shown it as well. It can be placed on the overhead.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, let us see it. What is it supposed to represent, so we understand?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It represents the grave of that KLA ¹⁷⁷⁹³ fighter who was killed in Racak and which the KLA visibly marked with its own insignia and signs and his name and the date of death, the 15th of January. So those are one of those civilians, as they claim that they were civilians or, rather, unarmed persons.

JUDGE MAY: I have no doubt we can in fact track this down because it's not disputed that there were some KLA members killed, but not, of course, that they were in the gully. We will see -- we will see what the witness says. Can you help us with that at all, Dr. Ranta?

THE WITNESS: I haven't seen this.

JUDGE MAY: You haven't.

THE WITNESS: No, I haven't. But, Your Honour, may I add something? The accused said that since I did not participate the scene investigations. I did participate both scene investigations, in November 1999 and in March 2000, and I had planned them together with my investigators.

JUDGE MAY: Very well. Thank you. Hand the photograph back. Yes. Mr. Tapuskovic.

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, Mr. Tapuskovic.

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. It is very difficult to focus on professional issues alone, but I'll do my best. Questioned by Mr. Tapuskovic:

Q. [Interpretation] Mrs. Ranta, in your brief CV, you state some things related to your expertise and expert knowledge. And as I can see here, you're a doctor of dentistry, that you were the mentor of five dissertations, microbiology and other subjects as well; is that right? ^{17794 BLANK PAGE 17795}

A. Yes.

Q. Could you just tell me, please, whether you had expert papers or expert knowledge in the field of criminal science, ballistics, or forensic medicine, legal?

A. I have publications both in forensic odontology, in forensic medicine, in ballistics without being an expert on ballistics. And it has already been -- some of the publications where I'm a co-author have been included and discussed here today.

In addition to that, I have also published other scientific papers which cover my expertise in connective tissue diseases, molecular biology, microbiology, electromicroscopy, and some also in international humanitarian law.

Q. Thank you. According to your statement, the one we're discussing here today and the one you're stating your views on, you dealt first and foremost in teamwork, equipment, negotiations, and the necessary security measures involved. That's what your work entailed as well; right?

A. As a team leader, I had a very great variety of tasks during this investigation.

Q. Yes. I understand. However, I see from your report specifically as you write here, the representatives of the European Union at no point issued any instructions or authorisation for more detailed criminal investigation. Is that right?

A. Yes, that's right.

Q. Is it also correct that on 30th of January, 1999, some 15 days after the event took place, that you asked for authorisation from the ¹⁷⁷⁹⁶ Yugoslav authorities to go to the site but that you were prevented from doing so by the snow? Otherwise, that there were no other obstacles.

A. The team members visited the village of Racak on Saturday, and that must have been the 30th, yes. January 30 in 1999. And as I pointed out earlier, yes, it had been snowing.

Q. That's why you couldn't do your job there?

A. It was physically impossible.

Q. Thank you. In your report of the 17th of March, 1999, which has already been discussed here, you say the following, and do you agree that that is what you said then: "The first key move that would normally be expected in any crime scene," as you say, "would be the isolation of the area and the exclusion of unauthorised access. The scene should then be photographed and videotaped, any evidence be collected, and victims localised and marked at site. This step should also include sampling for gunshot residue and so on. Because this was not done, important information at the site may have been lost."

Do you agree with this in view of the fact that not everything that should have been done was done on the spot, that this could have led to loss of very important information?

A. As I said, important information at the site may have been lost. That's all I said, and I -- I still adhere to this comment.

Q. Please, in view of this, my time is very limited so I will show you only a few photographs. This is from the Prosecution documents, tab number 6, Racak number 1, where you can see 12 persons who lost their lives. If you would please look at this photograph and then I will put a ¹⁷⁷⁹⁷ question to you in connection with it.

Have you ever seen this photograph before?

A. Again, I wish to emphasise that I have seen so many photographs of this particular scene. Whether this is exactly the same which I have seen, I can't tell you, but I recognise all the bodies that are exhibited here from the gully. I have a recollection that I haven't seen the people standing behind there at the top of the page. I probably have only see a photograph with the legs. But otherwise, yes, this is familiar to me.

Q. My question is the following: These are bodies photographed on that day on the spot. After the bodies were lifted up and if only the place had been photographed, would we now be able to say, because of the blood traces, that there is no doubt that this is where these people bled to death? If you look at the photograph, you can see no traces of blood around the bodies lying there.

A. Your Honour, just by looking at the photograph of this quality, I don't want to make any conclusions or any suggestions as to the presence or absence of blood.

Q. Perhaps you misunderstood me. What I'm trying to say is the following: This photograph is something on the basis of which, if the indictment is correct, some 12 people lost their lives. After the corpses were lifted up on that day, after the representatives of the OSCE had been there, had the place been photographed and all of them had been hit with at least four or five bodies [as interpreted], would we be able to see the situation underneath the bodies? But this was not done.

A. We are coming to the shortcomings of the initial steps in the ¹⁷⁷⁹⁸ investigations, and I have also pointed out the problem that the bodies were not documented at the site and given individual numbers and that they were not then packed in individual body bags. Had there been police officers at site, had there been exclusion of unauthorised access, anything is possible, but today here, I can't say yes, probably the photographs would show the presence or absence of blood. What I would like to say in this connection is this is only photograph, and there are several photographs which can be examined, photographs that are of better quality, and there the possibility of blood or its absence can be confirmed.

One of the reasons why I sent my investigators to Racak when we had completed the autopsies was to go to the gully and, if possible, take soil samples. Because those soil samples, remembering that it was cold, could have been used for at least an attempt, a scientific attempt to extract amplifiable DNA and possibly compare the DNA profiles with those which were performed during the autopsies.

Q. One more question in this connection, and if you can answer, please do so. If you can't, then please say so. There are 12 bodies here of people who lost their lives. There's no blood around. You know how human blood behaves when people are hit with many bullets. You can see no traces of blood around here, and blood should have spattered all over the place. There should have been traces of blood on the bodies. Can you answer this or not?

A. Sir, I would like to refer to the autopsy reports where there's detailed documentation of clothing of these people, showing plenty of ¹⁷⁷⁹⁹ coagulated blood.

If we go back to the fact that these people were wearing several warm jackets, the fact that there are no spillings to be seen here is, I think, quite natural. And as I said, this can be verified from each individual autopsy protocol of these 12 people.

Q. Thank you. But please, maybe you misunderstood me, but thank you. What I would especially like to draw attention to with these questions, and I think this would be very useful to the Chamber, and all of this is in 1L, paragraph 1L of your report consisting of eight points, after which you conclude that these are matters of fact.

And if we start from item 1, you say that there is a connection between the body and the bullet, as you say. Is this correct?

A. Starting from point 1, you're referring to page 11 in my statement, I assume. I'm saying that the two mandibular molars, they were recovered in the vicinity of three bullets.

Q. Yes. Yes, I fully agree. This is very precise, and I accept this. I have no comment on this. But in this case, you were able to prove that this man lost his life on that spot; is that correct?

A. As stated later in this paper. So I just look at the precise wording here.

Q. Just please confirm that this is correct. That's all I'm asking you. I'm not challenging what you established here.

A. I have stated that this particular victim had been shot at the gully, bearing in mind that the wounds were inflicted during lifetime or when the people were still alive or at around death. ¹⁷⁸⁰⁰

Q. But in item 2, you are embarking on an assumption. You are comparing the bullet recovered in the body of the man who lost his life and the bodies later found during the scene investigation. So there is no direct link between the bullets found in the body and the bullet found much later on.

So the bullet is similar to the bullets found later.

A. This detailed information is included in the report of scene investigations which has been filed as evidence in this case, and it is Annex 6, entitled "Comparative Ballistics."

As I already pointed out earlier, the chain of custody of the bullets during the autopsies was restricted to the investigating judge or, more precisely, to forensic investigators from her office. So we were only able to take photographs of the bullets. Those bullets which we recovered --

Q. Mrs. Ranta, I'm not challenging what you established. Please. I have to bear in mind the time.

What I'm saying is that you did not establish a direct link here between the bullets found later on the scene but in the bullet recovered from the body. This was done only indirectly. The bullets were similar. Is this correct or not?

A. The bullets bore identical landmarks and identifiable landmarks, and this comparison was made by expert on ballistics.

Q. That's what I'm asking you. I'm just asking you to confirm this. So in two cases, you drew this kind of comparison. Then we come to points 3, 4, and 5, and these again are connected to assumptions of ¹⁷⁸⁰¹ yours. Now we have two persons, and we can no longer say that you were able to establish a direct link between the bullet recovered from the bodies and the traces found on the scene.

A. Excuse me, are you referring to point 3? This is about the vitality of the wounds? Yes.

Q. I'm not challenging this, no. But from this, we cannot see anything specific linked to someone who might have lost his life on that spot except that the wounds were received during the person's lifetime.

A. This is a general finding from the autopsies and refers also to one of the hypotheses which we have discussed today, and that was the possibility of the scene being set up.

Q. And 4 and 5 are also points linked to hypotheses; is that correct?

A. Points 4 and 5 state just that we can look at the distribution of bullets and bullet fragments recovered in November 1999, and in point 5 that we can look at the distribution of cartridge cases recovered at the gully. This is just the result of our investigations.

Q. Well, now, all these questions were put to you because I wanted to ask you something about point 6 and 7. This refers to people who lost their lives in the village. They have nothing to do with the gully. Is this correct?

A. Yes, that's correct.

Q. Are these the three persons we can see in this photograph?

A. The answer is yes.

Q. Now look at photograph number 2. They're all together on this photograph. But on this other photograph they are marked precisely with ¹⁷⁸⁰² the numbers you have in your report, and here they are separated with quite a distance between each corpse. Are these the same three persons here?

A. To my vision, yes, they are.

Q. How do you explain, then, this sort of movement or shift? You said in your report that there were no traces of any -- any setup, as you said.

A. Your Honour, the photograph which was first shown to me - I'm referring to this one - is the one which we have used in our documentation and also in our subsequent scene investigations. And this same scene is theoretically presented here, having these three victims with the sternum as a reference point located exactly at these sites.

JUDGE MAY: Any question of trying to set that scene up?

THE WITNESS: It's quite clear that the body at the top must have been moved at one stage. I don't know who has taken this photograph. And as I said, we have used the photograph which was first shown to me as our reference, because this is the OSCE documentation which was handed over to us.

JUDGE MAY: In any event, this is not the gully. This is somewhere else in the village.

THE WITNESS: In fact, this is close -- very close to the village, but it's not inside the village itself.

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. The next point you explained here concerns the time when these people may have lost their lives, and you said it was approximately at the ^{17803 BLANK PAGE 17804} same time. But in your report, you wrote in your report of the 17th of March, 1999, the most that can be said is that it seems that the victims died at approximately the same time. At approximately the same time.

A. Yes.

Q. If you said this then, can you now answer my question, in view of the time when the autopsies were carried out, the most that can be said that they lost their lives at approximately the same time, what would that mean? Within a few hours of each other? On the same day? Can you approximate this time span?

A. No, Your Honour, I can't.

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I will be quick, but I have to go back to a question. And if you will allow me, I would like to tell you something that has to do with the practice before the Yugoslav courts in the cases of blood crimes. Allow me to say that I have been a lawyer -- an attorney-at-law for 40 years and that I have participated in hundreds of murder cases as Defence counsel, and we have never had a case in which a paraffin cast was not made. When the paraffin cast is made, this is considered to be indisputable evidence that the accused perpetrated the murder.

Q. So I would like to ask you, although in other places paraffin casts are no longer used, if the most eminent experts of Yugoslav forensic science told you that they took paraffin casts and that in 37 out of 40 cases there were traces of gunpowder particles on the hands, why didn't you deal with this problem and introduce it into your report in some way? Because this was said by people who are sworn expert witnesses in courts. ¹⁷⁸⁰⁵

A. We have discussed about the gunshot residue analysis here in quite a lengthy way. I have referred to textbooks, and as I said, I was very surprised to meet people and to hear that the paraffin casts were in use. As you, sir, have pointed out, it has been used and it is still in use in Yugoslavia. It is a method, as I said, of no scientific value, and I'm referring to modern textbooks. And since INTERPOL has abandoned this test already in 1968, if I remember correctly, so I would strongly recommended the re-evaluation of any tests for gunshot residue which are used now in your country.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, sometimes risks associated with counsel expressing matters of opinion and fact, and I've been considering in advance whether we really should be assisted by a document in my hands. And in light of what Mr. Tapuskovic has said, I think you should be. There was a request for assistance sent to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia last year in relation to their use of the paraffin test. I have the answer in three pages before me, and it may be now it's a document that you should look at.

Amongst other answers that they give is that in the concrete situation in Racak were no conditions to check whether there was any contamination that could have resulted in a positive test. More materially, they go on to answer, does the very government, this: That the test was carried out in accordance with the criteria which are described in all forensic textbooks in the world, and it was stressed every time, "use is not of conclusive, only of indicative value."

JUDGE MAY: Well, I mean, Mr. Tapuskovic can't give evidence. If ¹⁷⁸⁰⁶ he wants to, he will have to go into the witness box to do it and we can't take any notice of what counsel says. But of course if he wants to make assertions of various sorts, he can do so. And he asserts that this is the test they use. It may be that you can -- we could consider that document if you want to put it before us at some stage.

MR. NICE: I'll have copies made.

JUDGE MAY: But let us try and move on. We must finish this, Mr. Tapuskovic.

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, I will, Your Honour. This is not an assertion on my part. I simply asked why the experts in the Finnish team did not take this into consideration. That's all I'm saying.

JUDGE MAY: You got your answer.

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] And I will conclude with a question in connection with the report of the 17th of March, 1999, where it says that there were no insignia or any signs that might indicate that these were persons who took part in fighting and that there were no signs that these people were anything but unarmed civilians. Your Honours, I would ask Mrs. Ranta, since she looked at everything very carefully, I have information that in the case of 24 persons, there was evidence as to what they were wearing. They were wearing three or four layers of clothes, both on the upper and lower part of their bodies. So these are 24 persons. I have selected only a few, and I would like Mrs. Ranta to look at one single case. This is Exhibit RA-37-004F showing what this person was wearing and whether this raised any doubt. There was a necklace here with a KLA insignia on it. Did she ¹⁷⁸⁰⁷ see this, as she was unable to conclude that this person belonged to that organisation on this basis?

There are four or five layers of clothing, both on the upper and lower parts of the body.

Q. Didn't this give rise to any suspicion? Does this show that these people spent a long time outside their homes, maybe in the trenches, and that's how they had to dress in view of the circumstances in which they lived? Also had a cartridge belt.

A. I beg your pardon. The cartridge belt.

Q. Yes. And also KLA insignia.

A. Your Honour, I'm not familiar with the ornaments worn by members of the KLA or any other people. To me, this does not indicate anything. It is just an ornament.

As to -- as to the -- you refer to this as a cartridge belt.

Q. Please have a look at everything on these photographs. I don't want to make any comments. But you can see that this man was wearing five layers of clothing on the upper part of his body and something similar on the lower part of his body. Is that how a person dresses if they're living at home and they go out only when something like that happens, what happened in that place?

JUDGE MAY: This isn't a matter for the expert, it's a matter for us. In due course it will be part of the evidence we'll have to consider when these matters are due for consideration.

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, you will recall that I asked the last two witnesses in connection with Racak how they left ¹⁷⁸⁰⁸ their houses, and they said that they left their houses dressed the way they were dressed when they entered this courtroom. My question is: Does this way of dressing show that someone is spending a long time outdoors, probably sleeping in their clothes, living in trenches or in the mountains? So doesn't this give rise to such suspicions?

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Tapuskovic. We hear your argument. You can put it to us in due course.

Now, thank you very much. Ms. -- I'm sorry. Dr. Ranta, Judge Kwon has some questions. Questioned by the Court:

JUDGE KWON: Yes, Dr. Ranta. You earlier confirmed that you had said to German television that: "Racak was a KLA stronghold at the time. I'm convinced that there is enough information to just suggest that there was fighting between the Serbia army and the KLA in the village. I was also told about that."

How did you come to know that and when? By whom were you told?

A. At the time of Racak, I was in Helsinki, and I was contacted by several people telling information. I remember recalling about the casualties at Racak on Friday, the 15 January 1999, and if I can remember correctly, they were official reports of the OSCE and there were also reports from the information office that I can't give you the precise name of this information office, but it was an official office of the -- of Yugoslav authorities in Pristina, reporting about casualties at Racak.

JUDGE KWON: Thank you. And before that comment, also you commented like this: "I realise one could say that the entire scene in ¹⁷⁸⁰⁹ the little valley had been staged. I am aware of that because this is actually a possibility."

My question is this: After that, you said, "Our initial investigation results suggest this as do the later forensic examinations." What did you mean by this then? Why did you say that?

A. That is not correct. I can't recall of saying exactly that, because our forensic investigations did not point out to the setup of the gully. Instead, to the contrary.

JUDGE KWON: That's all I'd like to ask. Thank you.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, the document that was passed up to us from the Federal Ministry of Justice, some parts of it the answers seem to be general, but others seem to relate specifically to Racak. Now, the particular answer that you cited, and it was stressed every time that its use is not of conclusive but only indicative value, it's not clear to me whether that is in relation to Racak. What is "every time" I have a reference to?

MR. NICE: I can do no more with this document than refer to the questions to which the answers are responsive. You will probably be familiar with the somewhat formal system of requests for assistance. The questions went out in the way that you will see, and -- we, I believe they went out in the way that you will see on the document unless the ministry truncated the questions for the purposes of the answer. And Racak appears nowhere in the question but clearly appears in the answer at the top of page 2 for the first time.

I have taken it that the remainder of the -- there's a question ¹⁷⁸¹⁰ further down about Racak, which you'll see two-thirds of the way down the page. I would have thought that the answers are pretty well Racak focused, but if you look in the middle of page 2, you'll see the total number of tests conducted in Kosovo in 1998 and 1999, then refers to the impossibility of giving a precise answer, and then because of the problems of the bombing --

JUDGE ROBINSON: The letter is actually in response to a letter from -- from the OTP --

MR. NICE: Yes.

JUDGE ROBINSON: -- with a particular number. Perhaps it would have been helpful to see that letter --

MR. NICE: Yes, we can find --

JUDGE ROBINSON: -- to see exactly what was requested.

MR. NICE: Yes. But I think if you look at the middle of the second page, the answers are probably general, focusing on Racak when the person drafting the letter thought it appropriate to do so, or in response to the one question that is Racak specific. But we'll get hold of the original questionnaire and see if it takes the matter any further.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE MAY: We need -- let's deal first of all with that letter. We obviously need the original letter to go with it and then we'll consider whether to exhibit it or not.

I'm sorry to keep you, Dr. Ranta, for these technicalities. But other point is the judgement.

MR. NICE: Judgement, yes. We can't find -- we can find decisions ^{17811 BLANK PAGE 17812} in our file, but they don't match the judgement that the accused has been referring to with numbered paragraphs, so we're a little bit confused at the moment.

JUDGE MAY: It may be sensible if we return to that, if you would look tonight and see if you can find it.

MR. NICE: Yes. One of my colleagues may be able to deal with that tomorrow.

I have to bring to your attention - I don't want to keep Dr. Ranta here - as a matter of administration, we're likely to be running out of evidence this week.

JUDGE MAY: Let's first of all thank Dr. Ranta for coming and say that you can go, but your evidence is concluded.

[The witness withdrew]

JUDGE MAY: I would add, for the record, that the registry have located the last photograph which the accused had put to the witness, of the grave, and it is Exhibit 156, tab 9.

THE REGISTRAR: It's binder 1, Your Honour.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, the position -- if I can speak, seeing the pressure of time we'll be under because of the next use of this courtroom, so if I can speak while the witness is gathering up her materials, without discourtesy to her.

We are in difficulties over filling tomorrow and Friday because originally this witness was notified, and I'm not quite sure by whom, as being likely to occupy two days. It wasn't by us. But more particularly because the witness arranged for Friday at the last minute simply pulled ¹⁷⁸¹³ out. We're at that stage of the case where we don't have a sort of collection of crime-base witnesses who we can suddenly call on to come in. We've tried everyone we can, including those for whom the Chamber has already ruled cross-examination of otherwise 92 bis evidence is appropriate, but we can't --

JUDGE MAY: Which witness is not coming?

MR. NICE: Rousseau. Not coming on Friday. We hope coming in due course.

JUDGE MAY: So we have the remainder of the current witness, who will take not very long, I wouldn't think.

MR. NICE: No. One more witness tomorrow, and then probably, and unless things have changed since we were last speaking to those who were trying to find witnesses, and Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff's expression suggests to me that optimism will be misplaced, no more witnesses this week. There is, of course, a certain amount of time that can be taken in discussion of 92 bis issues, and although I shan't be here, Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff knows all about that and can deal with it.

JUDGE MAY: Just let me interrupt. Would it be sensible, since Mr. Kay is here tomorrow but not on Friday, to deal with things in this way: To hear this witness, to deal with as much Rule 92 bis witness evidence as we can tomorrow, and to deal with the remaining witness on Friday, if that's going to be possible?

MR. NICE: Yes.

JUDGE MAY: If there's going to be time for that witness on Friday. We can discuss it tomorrow, but I suggest we look at it in that ¹⁷⁸¹⁴ way.

MR. NICE: Certainly. Certainly the present witness ought to be concluded as soon as can be. She has young family, I think. I'm asked to press the Chamber, by one of my colleagues, Mr. Groome in particular, in respect of the application for witnesses to be added to the list. The problem there is, and I'll give you the list of three of them, we've got them time tabled, but if we are to meet our disclosure obligations, assuming they are to be added to the list, we have to have first the decision to add, and then we have to serve the material.

JUDGE MAY: Perhaps you could let us have that through the senior legal officer, the three that you have in mind. I know the application. It is in hand. It relates to quite a number of witnesses, but if you indicate those --

MR. NICE: Certainly. I'll give the six to your staff immediately.

This point is also made: There is outstanding since the 5th of February the application for adjudicated facts.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. We have not dealt with that. This is for Bosnia.

MR. NICE: Yes. Can I explain why we are pressing you to consider it? A very similar but not I think identical motion having been granted in another case, and there's some linked documentation that you may wish to consider, if that application is granted in whole or part, that will affect the number of other 92 bis witnesses that we would need, so that in order to make sure that we don't get the cart before the horse, it's ¹⁷⁸¹⁵ probably sensible, if I can respectfully suggest it, to deal with that issue as soon as may be, and then we'll be able to know precisely the degree to which we need to trouble you with 92 bis applications for Bosnia.

JUDGE MAY: This is Bosnia, and at the moment we're trying to finish Croatia.

MR. NICE: That's right. And there are also two witnesses for Croatia in there as well who would be affected.

Now, I know that Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff is also concerned about the 92 bis witnesses for Dubrovnik. She can probably better explain this tomorrow herself, but I think that four can be dropped but that the remaining 92 bis witnesses are witnesses who in respect of whom the amici raise no objection to their being fully bis'd, so our position would be that we would ask to retain and rely on those witnesses but we will be in a position to make concessions -- well, concessions, reductions from the list that will help.

JUDGE MAY: We will deal with all that tomorrow. Is there another case coming in? Just a moment.

Well, we've got a little time then because it's not until 3.00, but we ought to finish today.

In a moment, Mr. Milosevic. We will deal with those matters tomorrow, including everything to do with Rule 92 bis. We will give consideration to the adjudicated facts as soon as may be, and you will give us the three witnesses and we will certainly consider possibly oral orders in relation to that. ¹⁷⁸¹⁶

MR. NICE: Six witnesses.

JUDGE MAY: Six witnesses. Yes.

MR. KAY: I will be in a position to complete the Dokmanovic filing that we were going to make in relation to the transcripts, testimony from the Dokmanovic trial. That could be dealt with tomorrow if the Trial Chamber had sufficient time to deal with the pleadings.

JUDGE MAY: We'll have to look at that. It may not be in the sense that we will have just got your submissions and it may be rather difficult to deal with them.

The -- Mr. Milosevic, I'll hear you in one moment, but while we're dealing with administrative matters, we should mention those for next week: On Monday, there is a video-conference link. That will have to take place at 9.00. Yes, for Monday. We'll have to start. I think the registry were making, the arrangements require us to start at 9.00 with that particular witness.

MR. NICE: And I've already made my respectful suggestions about the advantages of pre-reading his material and considering the maps. It's always somewhat difficult to handle physical exhibits with a videolink, and the greater the familiarisation with the materials. The statement is a 29-page statement. It is, if I may say so, in compliment to those who took it, it's an easy read because it tells an interesting, or gives an interesting account.

JUDGE MAY: Very well. Thank you. Now, Tuesday -- perhaps we'd better go into private session briefly for this.

[Private session] ¹⁷⁸¹⁷ Page 17817 - redacted - private session

¹⁷⁸¹⁸

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[Open session]

THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.

MR. NICE: The accused and everybody has a list of witnesses for next week's four sitting days. There may be an application to re-order them for reasons that I'll come to if it becomes necessary.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I just wanted to comment on what Mr. Nice brought up, a proposal on their part with, as he says, facts, adjudicated facts or whichever way he put it. I have to say that for the first time I have seen a nonsensical thing of this kind, because every legal court in the world tries persons and not facts. And if -- although your court is illegal, I nevertheless understood that you delved in this type of activity towards persons and not vis-a-vis facts, and therefore we cannot accept any facts as being adjudicated from cases and ^{17819 BLANK PAGE 17820} trials in which it is doubtful if -- of the interests of the persons concerned.

JUDGE MAY: I'm going to stop you. I'm going to stop you for this reason: We're not dealing with that now. We will give you the opportunity to address us when we've further considered that motion. We will have a hearing day on it.

Mr. Kay, are you here next week to be able to deal with that?

MR. KAY: Yes. The only day I'm not here is Monday.

JUDGE MAY: It won't be Monday. Next week -- we will deal with it next week, and you'll have the opportunity then.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] And just one more question I wish to raise: I've just heard that the list and witness order will be changed once again. I should like to be told today what the order of witnesses will be for tomorrow, the day after, and for next week as well, please. As of now, I know that we're going to continue the witness we've already started with. That's no problem. But that will be a short time. What happens with the rest of the time?

JUDGE MAY: Then -- we shall then go on to deal with the arguments about the witnesses under Rule 92 bis, of which we have a large number to deal with from Croatia, in particular the Dubrovnik witnesses whose numbers I read out yesterday.

Yes.

MR. NICE: The list is intended to be -- I intend to follow the list unless it's necessary to advance one particular witness. If that becomes necessary, I'll notify the Court on Monday. And that is -- I ¹⁷⁸²¹ always get number wrong. I'll tell the -- I'll tell your staff and they can tell the accused which one may be moved up on the list.

JUDGE MAY: Very well. We will adjourn now. Tomorrow morning.

--- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.00 p.m., to be reconvened on Thursday, the 13th day of March, 2003, at 9.00 a.m.