³⁸¹³⁵

Friday, 8 April 2005

[Open session]

[The accused entered court]

--- Upon commencing at 9.07 a.m.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, yes.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Before the witness comes in, I wanted to ask you to look into the following possibility: Since you planned on working four days next week, including a Status Conference, I was informed by the liaison officer that this Status Conference should go on for about an hour and that it would have to deal with a use -- with the use of time in general. However, that hour requires a great deal of procedure in transporting me here and back, et cetera, so I wanted to ask you if it would be possible to work one hour longer on one of the regular working days, or to start one hour earlier before the regular proceedings, so that I would not use hours and hours in order to get here to work for one hour only on that fourth day.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, it's difficult to extend, because as you know, the Limaj case is heard in this courtroom in the afternoon, and I'm very reluctant to use the time of the trial for the purpose indicated. I will consider it with my colleagues.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, we'll have to discuss it with the court officers, and we'll let you know before the end of the day's proceedings.

Let the witness be called. ³⁸¹³⁶

[The witness entered court]

WITNESS: SLAVISA DOBRICANIN [Resumed]

[Witness answered through interpreter]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Please continue, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson. Examined by Mr. Milosevic: [Continued]

Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Professor.

A. Good morning, Mr. Milosevic.

Q. Yesterday, you explained what you saw up in the area where you were. It was my understanding that you went on foot throughout the area. You didn't take a car. You actually walked, and you saw those trenches and everything else you described.

A. Yes.

Q. On the way, you observed what you told us about yesterday, but did you get any additional information?

A. Apart from what I said yesterday from the conversations with the policemen present, I just learned of certain elements about the course of that action that were of interest to me because they had to do with the number of casualties, the number of persons killed or, rather, the approximate number of persons killed, because no one could tell me at the time how many people were killed in the fighting. So that was what I observed.

In addition to that, I asked about the terrain itself. I asked how come they managed to get in, because there were hills all around, and at any point in time anybody could start shooting from there. That was ³⁸¹³⁷ the only observation I had. And also, I asked them about what the wooden tripod meant, things like that.

Q. After that, I assume that you went back to the centre of Racak, to where your vehicles were with the intention of leaving.

A. After that, we went to the right from that particular spot when facing the hill. We went by a facility that they told me was the village waterworks of Racak. We walked downhill, taking the village path towards the first houses in Racak. We were pretty high up before that. And then when we got close to those houses, there was strong gunfire. I noticed that those two orange vehicles belonging to the OSCE monitors were nearby. At the moment when the shooting started, they simply started their cars and went into the village. They simply got lost, as far as we were concerned. I was expecting their presence to prevent any kind of stronger gunfire or our killing, as a matter of fact. However, they left us to our own devices.

With us were perhaps five or six policemen who did take their weapons, but they didn't want to shoot. First of all, they didn't see where the shooting was coming from; and secondly, they didn't want to reveal where we were. We were hiding behind some baskets behind some houses in a yard, rather undefined houses. They weren't proper residential buildings.

At one point the gunfire stopped, and we used that opportunity to get into our vehicle, the Lada Niva, and we went into the village itself in order to get to the crossroads where the road to Stimlje was. After that, there was shooting all over the village. I could not ³⁸¹³⁸ tell where the firing was coming from because I was in this vehicle. Certainly there was a bit of fear involved, too. When we got out of the village, I can just tell you that at one moment on this village path, on the right-hand side, next to a high wall which is characteristic of Albanian villages, I saw those two vehicles parked one after the other. I did not see anyone in the vehicles. They stayed behind and we went along.

From the centre of village we turned left towards Stimlje, and when we got into a clearing, we realised that there was heavy gunfire coming from automatic rifles. I think that I heard the bullets whizzing by the car. There was a lot of gunfire coming from a mortar. I realised that because wherever we were going, there were geysers, so to speak, coming out of the sandy terrain on both sides of the vehicle. The driver of our vehicle was comforting us, saying that he'd get us out. We were all a bit afraid. After all, that is only human. At one moment, I saw that the back window was breaking and --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, the answer has gone on for such a long time that I've forgotten what the question was. I'd prefer, much prefer, Professor, short answers.

You should ask another question now.

JUDGE KWON: And sorry to interrupt, but what day is it that we are talking about? Is it the 16th?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, the 18th.

JUDGE KWON: The 18th.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Will you allow me just to say one ³⁸¹³⁹ more sentence, Your Honours?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic will ask another question, yes.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] When we were hit, we went down off the road on one side and then we arrived at the police station in Stimlje, and this completed our work in Racak.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. You said that your vehicle had been hit.

A. Yes.

Q. But no one was wounded.

A. Thanks to the fact that we had bulletproof glass, and that's what the projectile hit.

Q. When you arrived in Pristina, where did you go and where were the bodies from Racak transported?

A. From Stimlje we went directly to the Institute for Forensic Medicine because while we were at the police station in Stimlje we realised via radio communications that the truck with the bodies from Racak arrived in front of the institute. Indeed, we did find the truck with bodies there, and there was also security detail around the truck.

Q. Where did you put up the bodies?

A. In the morgue of the Institute for Forensic Medicine in Pristina, on the floor of a basement, which has a very cold floor. At the time, our refrigerators were not operating.

Q. And who decided to set up this team of experts of the Institute of Forensic Medicine?

A. Investigating Judge Danica Marinkovic. ³⁸¹⁴⁰

Q. Did you suggest to Mrs. Marinkovic who should be on the team, since this is an expert team?

A. Yes, I did make such a suggestion.

Q. And who were the members of this team of forensic experts?

A. The members of this team of experts were our top specialists for forensic medicine and the top people of the Institutes for Forensic Medicine from Novi Sad, Belgrade, Nis, and Pristina.

Q. How come experts from Belorussia were involved in the autopsy activities?

A. They came because of the problems we had before that. Volujak, Klecka, and Steska [phoen]. They were supposed to help with the autopsies from there.

Q. How many experts were from Belorussia?

A. There were two forensic doctors and there was the deputy head of their Centre for Forensic Medicine of Belorussia, and yet another person.

Q. All right. They came to investigate what happened earlier, and they happened to be there. What was their role in terms of the autopsies of the bodies from Racak?

A. They were observers only, with the right to attend post-mortems, give suggestions, and perhaps even criticise what was done if something was done wrong. They were highly engaged.

Q. When the other members of the Yugoslav team came, you said that there were experts from Belgrade, Novi Sad, Nis, that is to say experts who did not happen to be in Pristina then. When did they actually arrive?

A. The night between the 18th and the 19th of January in the very ³⁸¹⁴¹ early morning hours.

Q. Who told them what the assignment was?

A. In my office at the Institute for Forensic Medicine, investigating judge Mrs. Danica Marinkovic told us what our assignment was and told us what we were supposed to do.

Q. Who headed this forensic team?

A. Informally I headed the team. Nobody was really appointed to head the team, because I was director of the Forensic Medicine Institute in Pristina and that's where everything was happening so it was only logical for me to be the head of that team, and also I was the chief of logistics so that these proceedings would evolve properly.

Q. When did you start the autopsies?

A. On the 19th of January, 1999.

Q. So that means the following day?

A. Yes, that means the following day.

Q. Before working on the autopsies, did you have any contact with people from the OSCE? Did anyone from there contact you?

A. Yes. Mr. Pederson, who reacted very violently to the fact that we were starting our autopsies, stating that we had to wait for the team from Finland, and they were supposed to come, but only within the next few days. I informed Mrs. Danica Marinkovic about this. She consulted somebody else, I don't know who. At one moment Mr. Jankovic, who was then minister of justice called me, and asked whether this could be postponed and I told him the degree of decay was so high already that any further postponement would further hinder our findings in a major way, so we ³⁸¹⁴² proceeded with the autopsies. We rejected what Mr. Pederson said, and we agreed to start working.

Q. All right. That means that the Ministry of Justice from Belgrade intervened that you should start [as interpreted] this, and you gave professional reasons why there should not be a postponement. Did I understand you correctly?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you tell Pederson what the possibilities were for waiting for an autopsy and what could happen then?

A. Yes.

Q. Where was the Finnish team when they talked to you?

A. The Finnish team was in Helsinki.

Q. And did Judge Marinkovic contact the authorities and ask them for their opinions as to how to proceed with respect to Pederson's request?

A. No. Apart from what I've just told you, that Mr. Jankovic called me and I conveyed what he told me to Mrs. Marinkovic.

Q. And how -- what was Pederson's reactions to the decision that the autopsy should go ahead straight away?

A. He was extremely angry. He left the building. But when we started the autopsies he nonetheless did attend.

Q. What is his profession?

A. Well, I assume he's a lawyer, because after the armed conflict in Kosovo and our withdrawal he became the head of the legal department of the UNMIK administration, I believe.

Q. And when did the Finnish experts arrive? When did they join you ³⁸¹⁴³ in your work?

A. On the 22nd of January, 1999.

Q. How many autopsies did you get through before the Finnish team arrived?

A. Sixteen.

Q. And who made up the Finnish team?

A. The Finnish team was made up of Professor Dr. Antti Penttila, Kaisa Lalu, Juha Rainio I think the other man's name was. He was a crime technician, scene of crime officer, photographer, and so on. And at the head of the Finnish team was Mrs. Helena Ranta, who was a forensic dentist.

Q. All right. Professor, you explained to us a moment ago that the Finnish team and experts were in Finland when their presence was requested. I'm not challenging that at all, of course, but I would like you to explain this executive summary that we have in tab 1 from which we can see that the Finnish experts --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: Before we start going through the exhibits and in light of an earlier discussion, I should tell the Court that I think none of these exhibits was listed in the 55 -- in the exhibit list of the accused. We first received the documents half translated, half not translated 6.30 p.m. the night before last.

Now, I'm not going to take technical objection and seek to exclude all the exhibits for reasons I gave on an earlier occasion and because even if I were to succeed in excluding them now, the Court would probably ³⁸¹⁴⁴ simply postpone cross-examination and then we have a build-up of cross-examination with witnesses to return, and it's terribly inconvenient. But I would ask the Court to have in mind the difficulties again which have been created by the non-compliance of the accused with the very clear orders of the Court, to have those difficulties in mind when particular admissibility questions arise.

Mr. Saxon's going to be dealing with this witness so I will let him deal with all other administrative matters, but I think I can forecast that within the documents which you're going to be invited to admit there may be questions of expertise arising. The witness is, I think, here as a fact witness with no expert report having been served in advance, and this may be a general topic that you'll want to have in mind, bearing in mind, of course, that somebody like Helena Ranta, called by the Court, was nevertheless clearly an expert.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, what is the explanation for this very sloppy management of your case? None of these exhibits was disclosed in the 65 ter material.

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please. Microphone for the accused, please.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, Mr. Robinson, I have had very little time to collect the exhibits and everything else. Under the conditions I work, I am not able to foresee everything in advance, because parallel with the preparations, I have to collect the relevant documents. As far as translation is concerned, most of these exhibits are already in English, as far as I can see. At least the ones at the beginning. Of ^{38145 BLANK PAGE 38146} course later on, we have the other documents in Serbian, but they have also been translated, I believe, as far as I've been informed. So I don't see any obstacle to reviewing them and tendering them. And as far as the comment that Professor Dobricanin is a fact witness, yes, he is a fact witness, but it is also a fact that he himself was the head of the team who conducted the autopsies, so that his testimony here about the facts cannot be separated from the subject of his work, and it was indeed the subject of his work that was also a fact, and we have documents to bear that out here.

JUDGE ROBINSON: But if he's going to give expert evidence, then you're required to serve a notice. How many of the documents are untranslated?

MR. KAY: Can I just mention --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

MR. KAY: -- some of these documents are, of course, within the Prosecution exhibits already. A large number of them are from the Prosecution files anyway, and I doubt very much whether the Prosecutor doesn't have a single piece of paper here already.

JUDGE BONOMY: I wanted to ask, Mr. Nice: Are you saying you've not had prior access to the work of the forensic team involved here?

MR. NICE: I'm not saying that. What I am saying is we were given no notice by being on the accused's list that this was material we were going to have to deal with it. We certainly haven't had an expert report. The Defence typically identifies exhibits when they provide them to us that are on their 65 ter exhibit list, and none has been identified ³⁸¹⁴⁷ on this occasion and we haven't been able to connect any one with the other.

So, I mean, our problem, it's real problem, we are very much subject to finite resources, which we have to deploy to the best -- in the best way we can, and if we aren't given notice in advance that something's going to be relied on, we simply don't turn to it, whether we've got it or not.

JUDGE BONOMY: These no doubt all will be revealed as the evidence progresses, but the tabs do seem to jump around a little from subject to subject, and it does look like the sort of evidence that would have been very helpfully presented in the form of a written report for everyone's benefit, including in particular the benefit of the accused.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, I couldn't agree more, and indeed from the beginning have been inviting the accused through the Court to make use of provisions of 89(F) or otherwise to present material in written form, whether expert, quasi-expert, or fact evidence, in order that he might maximise the amount of evidence he can put in in the time that's been allocated to him, but he's declined all that. And I can simply reinforce the Prosecution's enthusiastic adoption of Your Honour -- His Honour Judge Bonomy's words.

I think tab 12, as an example, is something where we may find expertise being relied upon. But, Your Honours, I don't want to take any more time. We've put up with the inefficiencies or incompetence of the Defence presentation of its case, drawing to your attention the shortcomings and the difficulties it creates for us, but not seeking to ³⁸¹⁴⁸ take technical points in, as I explained yesterday, an overall philosophy of hoping that the accused can get before you what he wants to get before you if it's relevant. We can take no other position now.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, yet another example of not managing the case properly. We take into account that the Prosecution would have had in its possession many of these exhibits, and for that reason we'll allow you to proceed, but we'll take a decision on the tabs individually.

So you are referring to tab -- tab 1, an executive summary. Proceed.

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

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. I wanted you, Professor, to explain to us, since you explain the team was in Finland when the decision was made to invite the team to arrive, which meant that the team came later -- actually, when did the team arrive, several days later?

A. The 22nd.

Q. I see. The 22nd. So you started on 19th, they arrived on the 22nd, that is to say three days later was when the Finnish team arrived. Now, from this document in tab 1 we can see that the Finnish team were present in Kosovo -- that the Finns were present in Kosovo for 1998; is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, how was it that they were present to do with your professional job, that kind of thing? ³⁸¹⁴⁹

A. They came in 1998 immediately after the bodily remains or, rather, bones were found in the Klecka location. Probably their assignment and task was, of course in cooperation with our state organs, was to assist us in the identification process. However, apart from that, they started visiting the general area of Kosovo and Metohija, going to some sites and locations which didn't mean anything to me at the time. I didn't know about them. They went to Glodjani, for example, where 40 bodies were found in a lake and in the lake estuaries, and they went to the village of Drenica, what I didn't know about. They visited Gornje Obrinje, for example, another location. And in Gornje Obrinje, what was interesting was the story there that, without anybody's knowledge, any of the state organs knowing about it, they went to visit a site where allegedly some bodies had been found of dead Albanians.

I have to tell you just in a few sentences to explain that, in agreement with Mrs. Helena Ranta and the investigating judge Mrs. Marinkovic, on the 9th of December we did go to the village of Obrinje to attend the exhumation of the bodies found in that location together. When we arrived, we were provided with good security. Drenica is a very difficult area, dangerous area.

Q. I apologise for interrupting you, Professor, but on page 4 of the 11 pages of this document, of the tab, it says in the last paragraph: "On the 9th of December, 1998, after the district court of Pristina had issued a court order for exhumation, preparations at the site were under way." Is that what you're referring to?

A. Yes, that is what I'm referring to. ³⁸¹⁵⁰

Q. Well, would you go on and explain what this was all about. But I do apologise, before you do so, you mentioned the fact that they had arrived to see some bodies, dead bodies in a lake. What do you know about that? Who was that?

A. They were individuals who were kidnapped and killed in 1998, perhaps even 1997. They were in a state of decomposition, of decay, on the Glodjani area, Decani area, that generally region, and some other villages in that area, and the members of the KLA had kidnapped these people, killed them, and thrown them into the lake, Radonjic Lake. And a people from the Belgrade Forensic Institute came pursuant to orders by the district court in Pec. They examined the bodies and established the identities, I think, of about 20 corpses. 20 corpses remained unidentified and they were buried at the Piskote cemetery near Djakovica. The year before last we exhumed those bodies again, and prior to that the court or, rather, the prosecutor's office and the investigating services had also conducted an exhumation with the object of determining the identities of those bodies. In recent months we are getting in information about the identity of those dead bodies. I should like to return, if I may --

JUDGE ROBINSON: This is an entirely different incident.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I am asking questions with respect to the role of the Finnish team who was engaged in this incident that we're discussing -- well, in Racak. So the team had also been involved since 1998 on matters of this kind in the area of Kosovo and Metohija, and I would -- just wanted to hear from the professor whether there was any ³⁸¹⁵¹ characteristic traits with respect to the team's work and involvement during that time, as a witness, of course, who was an eyewitness and was on the spot at the time.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Deal with it very briefly and get back to Racak. Before you do that, I wanted to ask Mr. Nice just to remind me of the Prosecution evidence in relation to Racak. The incident took place on the 15th, and you adduced evidence as to the removal of the bodies?

MR. NICE: Whether we adduced evidence specifically as to the removal of the bodies, we adduced evidence as to the photographs -- by photographs of the position of the bodies on the day itself when they were first seen in the gully, and also, as you will remember, in the other 12 of the total 13 different sites, and then we dealt with the evidence of them being in the mosque.

JUDGE ROBINSON: How did they get to the mosque? Was there any evidence as to that?

MR. NICE: I'm not sure there was any evidence directly dealing with the movement, but I'll check into that and come back to Your Honour. I think the connection may have been inferential but I'll deal with it immediately.

JUDGE ROBINSON: To that before the professor came on the scene, and Mrs. Marinkovic, the bodies had been around for two, three days. Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The professor was very specific; he said that they saw the bodies for the first time on the 18th in the mosque. That emerges from what he said here. ³⁸¹⁵²

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Now, Professor, would you just indicate, please, any characteristic traits, anything that you consider to be characteristic from this summary, tab 1, of the Finnish expert team. You mentioned the event that took place in 1998.

A. Yes. I'll explain in a few sentences. We started out to the village of Obrinje for an exhumation, together with the Finnish team. Now, for you to be able to assess the atmosphere that prevailed and everything that took place, I'll tell you this: In addition to the expert teams, the Finnish team, we also had the ambassador, the Finnish ambassador to Yugoslavia with his wife; the minister for human rights in Finland, Mr. Kima Lahelma [phoen]; the first secretary or maybe second secretary of the German embassy in Belgrade, Mr. Ottmann [phoen]; and several other individuals whom I did not know and who, in my professional opinion, had no place to be there, to attend an exhumation of these bodies. And they never -- never in my career did people like that who were not professionals were following an order by the district court for exhumation, they never attended exhumations.

At one point we stopped on the road. There was an empty space on all sides although you could see some houses on the hill. There was deep snow. And we noticed that from both sides people were running up in -- wearing black clothes - you could see that - it was about 250 metres away, who had took up their positions on both sides of this space. I don't know --

JUDGE ROBINSON: You tell us why you said in your opinion these ³⁸¹⁵³ members -- some members of the Finnish team had no business being at an exhumation of the bodies. What was it that disqualified them?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour Judge Robinson, what disqualified them was that they were -- that the investigating judge did not issue an order for them to be present, to enable their presence and attend the exhumation. And secondly, nowhere in the world when an exhumation is being conducted outside cemeteries do you have the presence of the ambassadors of some countries, which have no role there. They have not been assigned to be there.

I'm sure that there was another problem or, rather, had it not -- I'm sure that had it been another type of judge, that you wouldn't have seen the wife of a ambassador.

So we were an exhumation team. We weren't going on a picnic. It wasn't an excursion. That's one thing.

Now, may I explain what happened after that? I'll be very short.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] When we saw that members of the KLA were running up, policemen around us received information through the radio that they were getting ready to liquidate us, and we told the Finnish team that we should get back. And after three hours of argument, we indeed went back.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Thank you, Professor. What was the role of Helena Ranta on the Finnish team, and what were the roles of the other members of the team?

A. Helena Ranta was the official head of the team of the EU-FET, the ³⁸¹⁵⁴ European Union Finnish Expert Team. She is a dental -- dentist, a dental expert, an odontologist, in fact, and other members of the team were forensic pathologists. People from the international list of top pathologists, especially one of them who is my good friend Mr. Antti Penttila. Mrs. Ranta, among that group, would hardly be the best possible choice for the head of the team, but that is a matter of politics.

Q. How did you cooperate with the Finnish --

JUDGE BONOMY: Just going back to the incident you were dealing with earlier, what was the date of that incident, Doctor?

A. The 9th of December, 1998.

JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Please, I have a -- I have a remark. It is not Antti Penttila, the name of the Finnish expert, but Antti Penttila.

Could you please repeat the question, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. I asked if you and Judge Marinkovic had earlier contacts with the European experts.

A. Yes, we did, until that incident, which was embarrassing, but it was not due to us but some other factors probably. The cooperation we had with all the professors and experts that -- who came from Finland was very good and very correct.

Q. Let us continue. On that day, on the 22nd, they arrived. You said a moment ago that until then you and your colleagues had already performed the post-mortem on 16 bodies. What was done in order to ³⁸¹⁵⁵ familiarise the Finnish experts with the already completed 16 autopsies?

A. That is correct. We had already performed 16 post-mortems. When the Finns arrived, we continued to work, together with them, in mixed teams wherein the Finnish expert would perform a post-mortem, whereas two of our people would assist. On another two bodies, for instance, our expert would perform the autopsy while the Finns would be assisting, giving their suggestions, indicating directions of examination. It was a complete full professional cooperation. We acted as one single team in every single post-mortem.

When the work was done on the 28th of January, all those bodies that we did together from 17 to 40, we returned to the 16 bodies that we had autopsied alone.

Q. Professor, I'm sorry to interrupt you. Since we have come back to the 16 bodies you autopsied before they came, did the Finns agree with your findings on those post-mortems?

A. Please let me continue what I was saying. We put all of those 16 bodies back on the table and practically repeated the autopsy on every of these 16 bodies. The professor from our team who had performed the autopsy would show his drawings, his sketches, his findings, everything that they wanted to see, and each of the findings was harmonised on the spot. And once this harmonisation of findings was completed, we would bring another two bodies, and that is how we practically re-autopsied all the 16 bodies. Not then and not later did they have any objections to our method of work.

Q. When you speak of your method of work, what was the division of ^{38156 BLANK PAGE 38157} labour among you? Could it be said that you worked as a unified single team or did you do a separate job each?

A. We worked as a united team, a mixed team according to the agreement we had previously reached at the Institute of Forensic Medicine because we thought it was the most expedient way of having the work done.

Q. Could you clarify one more thing on this issue: Does that mean that every member of both the Yugoslav and the European team, Finnish team, was familiar with every finding of every autopsy? Did the Belorussians, too, in their capacity as observers, have insight into all the autopsies?

A. Absolutely correct.

Q. Did the Belorussian experts as observers put their signatures on the findings of all the 40 autopsies?

A. Yes.

Q. On every individual post-mortem finding and on the collective summary?

A. Yes.

Q. Did the Finns sign the post-mortem findings?

A. No, they did not, although it had been agreed that they would, and their names were even typed up at the bottom of the page. However, they said when the moment came that they couldn't sign because some additional analyses were necessary.

Q. Why didn't they sign?

A. I cannot tell you that. They were probably prevented from signing. ³⁸¹⁵⁸

Q. When you say "prevented," what do you mean?

A. When we agreed they would sign, they were withdrawn from my office --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Saxon.

MR. SAXON: The witness has already answered the question, saying "I cannot tell you that." The question was, Why didn't you sign? So it seems rather unfruitful to have him continuing to speculate as to how their signatures appeared on this document or did not.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. And Mr. Milosevic, I note in any event he has said that they said when the moment came that they couldn't sign because many additional analyses were necessary. So we do have the witness giving an explanation from the Finns themselves as to why they didn't sign.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well, Mr. Robinson. I'll ask a different question.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Did the Finnish experts perform -- correction, compile their own written findings?

A. Yes. We received them on the 13th of March, 1999.

Q. Professor, look at tab 2. Is this the finding of the EU-FET, the Finnish Expert Team?

A. Yes. There were 40 of such reports, each one accompanied by a videotape. This first report, if you allow me, refers to the first body, we called Racak 1, and this number RA-17033EF is proof that it was also examined by the Finnish team. ³⁸¹⁵⁹

Q. So this is an answer to my question. This is report number 1. And in this tab we see a complete written report of the Finnish team, complete with photographs, expert analysis, et cetera. As a professional, tell us, is this the kind of complete report that is normally done in such a procedure?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, tell me, did the conclusions of our experts coincide with those of the Finnish experts on all the 40 bodies?

A. Absolutely. There are no important differences.

Q. After the completion of each autopsy, did both Yugoslav and Finnish doctors who participated in the post-mortems compare notes, so to speak, and compare their analyses?

A. We did. We compared our drawings, sketches and analyses, and you have here one of the drawings done by Dr. Otasevic, and his drawing was attached to the Finnish report. You can find it on one of the pages behind the text.

Q. Yes, we can see this drawing behind the text.

A. It is written in longhand. Those are our working notes.

Q. So you explained a moment ago that after the completion of each autopsy, both Finnish and Yugoslav doctors compared their findings. I would like to ask you now, did on that occasion both Finnish and Yugoslav doctors who were involved in the autopsies establish whether each particular detail was contained in both the Yugoslav and the Finnish report?

A. Yes, in every single case. ³⁸¹⁶⁰

Q. Did either Yugoslav or Finnish doctors abandon any of the bodies without having completely harmonised their findings?

A. No, never.

Q. Did Finnish experts perhaps write later about their work in Racak?

A. Yes, they published two expert articles. One was published in the Forensic Science International, Volume 16, of the 15th of February, 2001, signed Juha Rainio, Professor Penttila, and pathologist Kaisa Lalu, all three being members of the team who worked in Racak village.

Q. Is that article in the Forensic Science International under tab 3?

A. Yes.

Q. This is an article written by the Finns; right?

A. Yes.

Q. In the last paragraph on page 2, it says: "Forensic investigators from Yugoslavia, Finland, and Belorussia took part in the examination performed in Racak." And then it says that they worked under the pressure of extreme international media -- media pressure and publicity, and then it goes on to say the same thing you explained. The findings were discussed in the spirit of genuine international agreement.

THE INTERPRETER: Mr. Milosevic is reading without having given a reference from where he's reading so it's very difficult to find.

JUDGE ROBINSON: The interpreters are having a problem. Mr. Milosevic, the interpreters are having a problem. What are you reading from?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I am reading from tab 3, from this article which was mentioned just a moment ago by Professor Dobricanin. ³⁸¹⁶¹

JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, you must ensure you have it before us before you read. Have in mind the interpreters.

MR. SAXON: Your Honour, if I can be of further assistance. At least in the English translation there are what appear to be paragraph numbers and subnumbers. So if the accused could simply tell us what paragraph number he's reading from.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you very much, Mr. Saxon. Identify the paragraphs.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] This is the last paragraph of this article which I have on only two pages. It was written, as Professor Dobricanin just said, by Drs. Rainio, Lalu, and A. Penttila from the University in Helsinki.

THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters note the interpreters have a much longer article and the passage being read is not on page 2.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. I wish to establish one thing, Professor. In the middle of this paragraph it says: "In both groups final conclusions --"

JUDGE KWON: I can't locate the passage you are reading from, so could you help us to find out the passage from English version.

THE INTERPRETER: Interpreters note it is -- we found it. It's on page 8, in the middle of the first largest paragraph.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Page 8 in the middle. All of this should have been done by you, Mr. Milosevic. Not only as a courtesy but as a function of effective management of the case.

THE INTERPRETER: It is the tenth -- tenth line from the bottom of ³⁸¹⁶² this first large paragraph. "In both groups..." is the beginning of the sentence.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I will ask Mr. Dobricanin to help me find this, because in the Serbian version I have only two pages in the translation into Serbian that I received, and this is indeed a much longer text.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. Milosevic, here, it's on page 8. Pages 7 and 8.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It says: "The autopsy findings were discussed in full professional consensus." That is what I quoted a moment ago in Serbian.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, we have found it now. I think we have found it, yes.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Finally.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. It says: "In both groups, the final conclusions were equally strong. When the number of victims is large and similar injuries are sustained, the significance of separate injuries is not always as great as it is in the investigation of homicide, suicide, or accident in a single case. More important is the entirety. Therefore, some of the victims can be investigated in less detail following a thorough investigation of some of the others. Subsequent to the investigation, Yugoslav authorities have informed the media that no grounds exist for bringing charges against any Serbian police regarding the Racak incident. The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, however, has charged five Yugoslav ³⁸¹⁶³ officials, including the president of the FRY, with crimes against humanity and violations of the laws or customs of war. The first of the seven charges is based upon events at Racak."

So, Professor, here in this article the Finns confirm that findings were equally strong and identical with those of the Yugoslav experts.

A. Yes, that is correct. And earlier in my testimony today I have spoken about this. There were absolutely no differences. And the best document confirming this is this article published by the Finns.

Q. Professor, let's just have a look at tab 3.1. It's only presented in English. "Forensic investigation in Kosovo, Experiences of the European Union Forensic Expert Team." Then it says Rainio, Karkola, Lalu, Ranta, Takamaa, Penttila.

Now I'd like to draw your attention to page 220, just a passage here. "[In English] At the conclusions on the autopsy findings concerning injuries and cause of death were discussed by the Yugoslavian, Belorussian and Finnish specialists. This was done in full professional consensus, and there was no disagreement on these issues. The working atmosphere in Pristina between the EU-FET and Yugoslavian and Belorussian forensic experts was professional, friendly and fruitful."

THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note that it's in the middle of first the column on the left-hand side.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Now I'd like to take you back to what I quoted to you from a paragraph in the indictment that has to do with Racak where -- and the ³⁸¹⁶⁴ Finnish experts here refer to it as well. Everything contained in this paragraph. Let me just have a look. Do I have it here now? Do I have it here with me?

MR. KAY: While we're looking, can we make tabs 1, 2, 3 and 3.1 exhibits?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Yes, they may be exhibited.

THE REGISTRAR: The binder will be marked as D293.

JUDGE ROBINSON: D292 -- 293? Yes.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Professor Dobricanin, it says here, I have to quote it to you once again, not to go back to the date. It says here: "The FRY and Serbian forces attacked the village of Racak after the shelling. Later the same morning the village was entered by the forces of the FRY and Serbia and they began conducting house-to-house searches. Villagers who attempted to flee from the forces of the FRY and Serbia were shot throughout the village. A group of approximately 25 men attempted to hide in a building but were discovered by the forces of the FRY and Serbia. They were beaten and then they were removed to a nearby hill where they were shot and killed."

Now, could any of your findings have indicated such an incident, the execution of people in Racak, shooting and killing them?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Saxon.

MR. SAXON: Your Honour, the Prosecution does not understand how this witness can testify to the events of the 15th of January when he has said he was not in the village at that time. ³⁸¹⁶⁵

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, I am asking the witness in view of the autopsy findings, and we established that they fully match. Both the Yugoslav and the Finnish experts are in full agreement, as the documents show, on the results of the autopsy. So could forensic expertise lead to any conclusion that these persons were shot and killed?

MR. SAXON: I must lodge another objection, Your Honour, that we have been told that this is a fact witness, not an expert witness, and if he's going to be called as an expert witness, we'd like the Rule 94 bis to be followed.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, the Chamber rules that the question is far too sweeping and generalised and it should be much more specific. You can, for instance, ask the witness whether from his findings he can speak to the cause of death of these persons, but simply to read out paragraph A -- subparagraph A of paragraph 66 of the indictment and ask the very general question that you did I think is -- will not be helpful to the Chamber.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Professor, since you personally took part in this, since you personally worked on this, can you testify as to the cause of death of these persons?

A. Yes, I can. The cause of death of those persons whose autopsies I performed and also for those persons whose autopsies were conducted by my ³⁸¹⁶⁶ Finnish colleagues, because I took active part in all the autopsies.

Q. On the basis of the facts established, on the basis of professional work that was invested in order to come up with these facts, can the assertion be claimed -- be supported or rejected that these persons were shot and killed?

A. We and our colleagues from the Finnish team wrote that there were no signs of shooting and killing, rather, of execution, because the distribution of the wounds, the pattern of the wounds and the -- and the channels where the bullets went through look quite different when compared to what happens during a different type of military activity.

JUDGE BONOMY: Can we establish, please, first of all, the source -- a source document that will show us that the Finnish team wrote that there were no signs of execution, which is what you've said. Once we get that, we can then look more broadly, but you're making very general statements now that sound to me like expertise. So can you draw my attention to a document which -- in which you both say there are no signs of execution?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I'm a witness in this case who is partly an expert witness, I believe, because what I saw as an expert --

JUDGE BONOMY: You're not here as an expert witness, and you've just written -- you've just said that the Finnish team wrote that there were no signs of execution. Now, I would like to see that document. Before you go on to another subject or justify something else you want to say, tell me where I find that document. ^{38167 BLANK PAGE 38168}

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I saw that somewhere in their documents. I cannot recall exactly, but I know that I came across that, that there were no signs of execution. And we agreed to that. It's been six years now. I really don't know. I've read a great many things. I did not prepare for all of this.

JUDGE BONOMY: Have you not -- have you not written an expert report about this?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. A report was compiled which will be shown later during this testimony. I hope that the time for that will come.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I hope so too. Mr. Robinson, I have to say that this type of objection like the one just raised by Mr. Saxon is something I don't understand at all. Professor Dobricanin is indeed a fact witness, but it is a fact that he gained the experience that he's testifying about as an expert in forensic medicine. So it is absolutely impossible to separate statements that Mr. Saxon calls expert statements - and that is no doubt true - from factual statements, because the fact witness is a person who was directly in charge of the autopsies that he also conducted. So all the facts in relation to his work are supported by written documents about what he and his colleagues did at the time.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, you may be straining the Rule, but continue. All of this could have about avoided had you produced an expert report.

JUDGE BONOMY: Well, I want to express my reservations at this ³⁸¹⁶⁹ stage about this witness being asked questions which will require the application of expertise in the absence of the Prosecution be given notice in the appropriate form of a report of conclusions that he might have drawn. There's no question here but that the evidence could be led in the proper way if the Rules were followed, and the question is whether the Prosecution are prejudiced by a failure to apply the Rules.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Proceed, Mr. Milosevic, and we'll make our determination as we go along.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I hope, Mr. Robinson, that the establishment of the truth does not work to anyone's detriment but rather to everyone's benefit.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Professor Dobricanin, in these articles that we saw in tabs 2 and 3, did the Finnish experts present their conclusions, stating that their findings coincide with those of the Yugoslav team?

A. Yes.

Q. Let us move on to specific questions now. You examined all the bodies. What was the gender of the bodies?

A. They were men for the most part. There was only one woman among them.

Q. Tell me, what was examined on these bodies?

A. When we started the autopsies at the Institute for Forensic Medicine, we took the customary forensic medicine procedure. Excuse me. First of all, the clothes and footwear were taken off the bodies. That was examined in detail. All the parts of clothing were described and ³⁸¹⁷⁰ given numbers, and then also there were tears in the clothing due to shots. All of this was dealt with with the crime technicians of the provincial SUP in Pristina, then the OSCE monitors, Mr. Pederson and another person whose name I don't remember, and later on from number 17, autopsy number 17, the members of the assistant expert team of the Finnish team was recording everything, too, and then the autopsies were proceeded with.

Q. Professor, how were the clothes examined, the clothes that they wore?

JUDGE BONOMY: Before you -- before you answer that, I now do not understand what's happening here. What's been established so far is that the conclusions that the witness reached were exactly the same conclusions as the Finnish team. The Court already knows these conclusions. So what is the next question? There's no point in going over them all again since we have the material. So what is the next point that has to be asked of the witness?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I wanted to ask him about the clothing. In tab 4, we have a list, a short list, as an example of how what they wore was described, and I'm going to ask the witness about that, what kind of conclusion can be drawn on the basis of the fact that those bodies had several layers of clothing on them.

MR. SAXON: Your Honour, just for the record, I make the same objection that I made before.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Which was what?

MR. SAXON: That if these are conclusions based on his expertise ³⁸¹⁷¹ as a forensic scientist, then Rule 94 bis should have been followed.

MR. KAY: We have photographs of the clothing.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I don't think any question arises about this, Mr. Saxon. It's factual.

Do we have a translation of this? Okay. Yes, proceed, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Professor, I asked you what conclusion can be drawn from the fact that these bodies, without exception, had several layers of clothing on them, under parts -- or different upper parts and lower parts, tracksuits, jumpers and so on.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Just a minute. Just a minute.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Saxon, the question does ask for a conclusion which, in my opinion, is an expert conclusion because I suspect that the answer will inevitably be based on experience in the past and not just on the specific facts of the present investigation. What I'd like to know is, since it's important evidence and it's evidence that it would really not be possible to take exception to if the Rules had been followed in the correct way, is how you see yourself as being prejudiced, if at all, if the evidence is allowed in today rather than, by the application of technicality, delayed for some time.

MR. SAXON: Yes, Your Honour. Let me try to explain. The Prosecution feels it would be prejudiced because central to the accused's individual criminal responsibility for the deaths at Racak is the nature ³⁸¹⁷² of the victims. And when I refer to the nature, I refer to whether they were civilians or persons who, for whatever reasons, had laid down their arms and were no longer participating in combat, or whether they were KLA soldiers. And my concern is that the question as it was posed by the accused to this witness is bringing us then very close to this very fundamental question.

JUDGE ROBINSON: We may not in any event allow him to comment on that. Even if he's an expert, it doesn't appear to me that the expertise would allow him to say whether they were soldiers or KLA.

MR. SAXON: Well --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Kay.

MR. KAY: In many respects I appreciate the Court is placed in a difficult dilemma with a witness such as this who was using an expertise at the time that he was involved with this particular area of evidence but has been called as a witness of fact.

To be frank, the Prosecution are aware of all this material. It's in their archives. They've got masses of it. They have -- they have access to all this material, and they don't really need to be put on notice about it. That is being unduly technical, and they have a number of expert advisors who use their expertise to assist them in the questioning of a witness such as this.

JUDGE BONOMY: But, Mr. Kay, where does -- I understand that point entirely and I hope you understood that my question to Mr. Saxon was framed on the basis of that understanding, but where does the sloppiness end? How do we keep some sort of orderly control over the process that we ³⁸¹⁷³ have ultimately to engage in in reaching a rational judgement in this case? And we want to do that on the basis of the best possible presentation of the evidence and that is not happening in the conduct of Mr. Milosevic's own case. So how can we be assisted unless we apply the Rules and make him adhere to the Rules?

MR. KAY: Sometimes, and I appreciated the question from Your Honour which was seeking, well, Mr. Saxon, shouldn't we really have a waiver of this issue, because you are aware yourself, as it was quite clear from his objection, as to what the parameters of these issues were and he is aware of the issues that are behind the line of questioning of the accused of the witness and that was why he made that highly technical objection, fuelled with the specifics of the issue that it goes to, because he knows it and he's aware of it.

As a matter of presentation, it's very difficult to comment about that, and I do say that Your Honour's advance to the Prosecution was of course well-intentioned in recognising the difficulties of the situation, but in terms of the sloppiness or otherwise, that's -- that's a difficult issue for me to deal with.

JUDGE BONOMY: Very well.

JUDGE ROBINSON: We're going to take the break now for 20 minutes, and -- Mr. Saxon.

MR. SAXON: Your Honour, very briefly. I just feel compelled to verify something that Mr. Kay mentioned. Mr. Kay argues that the Prosecution has masses of this material, we have easy access to it, that the Prosecution's objection is unduly technical. ³⁸¹⁷⁴ Assigned Defence counsel are well aware that while the Prosecution may have large quantities of material and documents in its possession, finding this material and reviewing it is another matter, and this is something that has come up recently in conversations between assigned Defence counsel and the Prosecution as we have -- as the Prosecution has been trying to assist Defence counsel in reconstructing its material disclosed pursuant to Rule 68.

So the suggestion that it is simply easy and quick for the Prosecution to find some material related to a particular point of forensic expertise is simply unfounded. The suggestion that the Prosecution has a number of expert advisors, quote, who assist them with their expertise may in part be true. The Prosecution can pick up the phone or send an e-mail, perhaps, to an expert. However, we have to know before that what kind of expertise we need and what issues we have to deal with, and that is part of the problem here, that we have not been put on proper notice of that.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Saxon. We'll rule on this when we return after the 20-minute break. We will adjourn now.

--- Recess taken at 10.33 a.m.

--- On resuming at 11.02 a.m.

JUDGE ROBINSON: In the break, the Chamber examined the transcript of Dr. Helena Ranta's evidence. She, as you remember, was called as a Court witness. On pages 17726 and 27, I'll read the questions and answers: ³⁸¹⁷⁵ Question by Mr. Nice: "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. "A. At the time -- at that time, there was no indication of them being anything but unarmed civilians."

The question now is why shouldn't the accused be allowed to put the same kind of question to this witness? What stands in the way of that question being put is the absence of a report required by Rule 94 bis. It does not appear to the Chamber that that is a sufficient reason to disallow a question of the kind being put. The Chamber has considered whether there is any prejudice to the Prosecution in allowing the question to be put, and we conclude that there is no prejudice to the Prosecution and that, in the interest of fairness, the question should be put. Mr. Milosevic, I'm going to put the question, and I'm going to follow the pattern of the questioning by Mr. Nice So, Doctor, I'm going to ask you, did you find anything to indicate that these individuals were other than unarmed civilians?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, first of all, we found several layers of clothing, which indicated that the people were out in the open in the month of January, the 15th or the 14th of January, because it is not customary to be in the house wearing that kind of clothing. For four cases, if I might be allowed to say something with respect to those four individuals, four bodies, and I have taken my notes, ³⁸¹⁷⁶ based on the notes that I took when I left Pristina, may I be allowed to say something?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Racak number 7. Dark blue jacket, maroon pullover, dark green sweatshirt, light green pullover, short-sleeved T shirt, dark blue corduroy trousers, blue sweatshirt trousers, red sweatshirt trousers with a cord belt or elastic belt, dark blue socks, black rubber half boots with a zipper lined with artificial fur, and the make was Ozel, the O with the two dots over it. That was one case.

JUDGE KWON: What you are reading is tab 4, the first item on tab 4.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that's right.

JUDGE KWON: Yes.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Let us note the sweatshirt is sweatsuit.

Racak 11 had the following: Black cotton jacket, green pullover, grey-green pullover, grey pullover, maroon T shirt, short-sleeved, denim jeans, black sweatsuit trousers, long knitted underpants, made at home probably, grey, and two pairs of socks. We didn't find any shoes on that corpse.

The next number is Racak 22, RA22, and the body had as follows: Maroon cotton-lined jacket, dark blue knitted pullover, grey knitted vest, shirt, black cotton T-shirt with long sleeves, black rubber boots the same as the type I described earlier on, lined with the official -- artificial ³⁸¹⁷⁷ fur, Ozel is the make. Grey short socks, green knitted wool socks, lined jeans, black sweatsuit trousers, white long underpants. And RA24 was wearing jeans, black cotton-lined jacket, short black lined jacket -- so he had two jackets -- beige polo shirt, black and grey short-sleeved T-shirt, jeans, and blue sweatsuit trousers. People dressed like this certainly don't sit at home in the early hours of the morning which, according to information, was when this event took place, which indicates that the people were very warmly dressed and had to be outside somewhere. And the second indication of this clothing, which leads us to conclude on what I said yesterday according to my experience, is that all the external parts of the clothing, jackets and so on, were either black or dark in colour, dark brown or black or dark grey, very similar to black. And this was the colour that the Territorial Defence wore with the assignment to secure the headquarters in the villages, and a large number of KLA members who did not have sufficient numbers of uniforms to put on would wear this kind of clothing. So that was also the colour that the KLA police wore.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you. Mr. Milosevic.

JUDGE KWON: Doctor -- just a second, Mr. Milosevic.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Judge Kwon, yes.

JUDGE KWON: Dr. Dobricanin, my understanding is that the 40 victims were later all identified. Do you have the names of these four bodies, RA7 to 24?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] They exist in the list which the investigating judge Mrs. Marinkovic supplied. During the autopsy, we did ^{38178 BLANK PAGE 38179} not know the identity of these individuals. Identification process came later or parallel with our work, and all the bodies marked in this way were marked with their names and surnames in that list. I don't know, maybe I could find it. That wasn't my job, but as I say, I had it in my own notes while performing the autopsies of these four corpses. I happened to come across that. Otherwise, I do know, because I was present with the 36 autopsies, that all the individuals, all the bodies that were brought in to us had several layers of clothing on them.

JUDGE KWON: Proceed, Mr. Milosevic.

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

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Just one detail. You have just explained to us that they all wore several layers of clothing. Now, what about the injuries on the body? Did they correspond to the tears in the clothing?

A. Yes.

Q. In all cases?

A. Yes, in all cases.

Q. Thank you. We have seen here, Professor, many photographs of dead bodies in Racak. On some of those photographs of the bodies, where the bodies were when William Walker was there, for example, that was shown on several occasions in this courtroom, at least on two of the corpses we see the traditional Albanian cap, called the Keca, on the corpses' heads, skullcap.

Now, we have the photographs in tab 5. There are better quality photographs as well that were produced here in colour, but never mind. ³⁸¹⁸⁰ Here we can see Walker next to a corpse with the skullcap, and on the previous page we can see another body, and we can see that the individual was shot in the head. That's to be found in tab 5. Once again with the skullcap.

Now, as somebody with a great deal of experience in the field of forensic science in killings from firearms, how can you comment? May we have your comments on that fact. Somebody who has been hit, has fallen down, this man has been hit in the head, and yet he has a skullcap on his head. Is that possible? How is that possible?

A. Never, not in a single case throughout my entire career have I had occasion to see somebody hit by a projectile, fall down to the ground, or hit by a vehicle for that matter, or hit by a stick or stone, and I saw a lot of that in Kosovo and Metohija, never could the person have retained his cap on his head. The cap would have fallen off and would be lying somewhere around the body, depending upon the kinetic energy and force at play.

In these concrete cases, in addition to the observation and conclusion I have just made, there is another additional observation to be made, and that is this: That this man with the exit/entrance wound, which you can see quite clearly on the photograph, indicates that in such a case you would never have a skullcap remaining on the head. Even different kinds of caps or hats that have not been firmly attached to the head would have remained on the head if you were killed, wounded with a bullet or anywhere else and fallen to the ground. So this is a very shallow cap. It's a skullcap perched on the top of the head, a little towards the back, ³⁸¹⁸¹ yet more reason that it would have fallen off. That has been my experience. That has been the experience of my colleagues, and I have had occasion to discuss things like that, why the cap can or cannot fall off the head. So this is something that is absolutely established if you look at the features of that particular type of skullcap.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Whether the cap would remain on the head after being hit by a projectile, wouldn't that depend on the nature of the cap and how closely placed it was to the head? If the cap were a loose-fitting cap, then more than likely it would fall off. But if it were a tightly fitting cap, there would have been a likelihood, wouldn't there, that it would remain?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, other types of caps that are not fastened to -- under the chin or to your neck wouldn't have stayed on either if the body had fallen to the ground and hit the ground, because it falls very quickly from the force of the projectile. This cap is placed superficially on the head, lightly on the head, and even when you happen to trip and fall, the hat falls off, or the cap falls off, let alone if you're hit by a projectile or projectiles which have strong kinetic energy. The cap never remains on the head in this position. It would fall away and fall to one side or another side and would remain somewhere around the body at a certain distance which can be always the same or approximately the same.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Professor, now, all these bodies, did they all have wounds caused ³⁸¹⁸² by firearms? And I'd like to point out tab 6 to you now, point 4 of tab 6, which is a general conclusion. General conclusion in tab 6. And I'd like to draw your attention to point 4, which reads as follows -- I hope gentlemen, that you have the document. General conclusion, tab 6, paragraph 4 or point 4. It says: "On the basis of the autopsies conducted, it was established that death in all cases was caused by projectiles fired from hand-held firearms."

Now, does that mean that all the bodies you examined had wounds caused by firearms on them?

A. Yes, exclusively wounds caused by firearms, all 40 corpses.

Q. And did death ensue due to those wounds or for some other reason on any of those 40 bodies?

A. Death followed exclusively as a result of the wounds inflicted by firearms on each of those bodies. There was damage to the internal organs, the abdomen, the thorax, or the brain, the skull, cerebral.

Q. Now, were these wounds inflicted with the firearms during the person's life or after the person was dead?

A. All the wounds found on the corpses caused by firearms were administered during -- while the person was alive.

Q. I'd like to draw your attention to this same tab, tab number 6, and point 5 in the general conclusions, which says: "All injuries were pre-mortem (inflicted while the victims were alive), except in the case of six bodies which had also had the injuries that had been caused by animals after death occurred."

Do you confirm that? ³⁸¹⁸³

A. Yes. And it confirms the previous finding which means that wounds were found caused by firearms on all the bodies and on six bodies, in addition, there were injuries caused by animals that were inflicted after death at some period, that is to say post-mortem.

Q. Professor, tell us, please, how many of the bodies had just one wound inflicted by a firearm.

A. On seven of the bodies we found just one single wound, gunshot wound.

Q. Is this an overview that we find in tab 7 of what can be established for all of them? Is this the sum total of all the 40 corpses?

A. Yes.

Q. So in tab 7, you have number of wounds: One, seven -- with seven people; two wounds on two individuals; three wounds on four individuals; and so on. We can see the number of wounds per individual, or per corpse. And we can see that there is a great deal of difference. What was the largest number of wounds found on one body?

A. Nineteen wounds was the largest number of wounds found on one body.

Q. Would you tell me now, how does the number of wounds on those individual bodies fit in with the theory that the bodies -- that the people were executed?

A. This finding seems to corroborate the conclusions of my colleagues.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Saxon, yes.

MR. SAXON: Again, I would make the same objection, Your Honour. ³⁸¹⁸⁴ I don't know whether -- that this is going to the crucial heart of the matter, and he is expressing an expert opinion.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I kindly ask you to bear in mind something that ought to be obvious to everyone. This witness is testifying to his own professional work, to his own personal participation in this procedure, and he was involved in the role of an expert. He was not a policeman there. He was not an assistant or a technician. So we are here in a borderline area. We have a witness who was involved as an expert. That's one.

Second, he is not making conclusions now. He's testifying to the conclusions that were made at the time when this work was performed.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, you have presented us with an unnecessary difficulty and complication by the manner in which you have chosen to present the evidence of this witness, because if you say that he was involved as an expert, then, you see, the Prosecutor has a ground for objecting on what may be called a technical basis, that the provisions of Rule 94 bis have not been complied with.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, he is testifying to facts, to his own professional work, and he did work as a forensic expert. He did not work in some other capacity. He worked as an expert, but his forensic examination is a fact. It's part of the facts.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, you would dissolve the difference between fact and expert opinion. ³⁸¹⁸⁵ Mr. Kay?

MR. KAY: Well, he is being asked to give his opinion that he had at the time, and that is really what the accused is -- that's the way he's seeing it and presenting this argument, that it is a fact that your opinion at the time was this. And that is, I suppose, the dissolving issue that Your Honour mentioned. It's the integrity of the process.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Saxon, it's a difficult issue. It's a technical issue, but beyond the technicalities, we have to be concerned with the issues of fairness, and this witness has important evidence to give. I, for my own part, would like to hear it.

MR. SAXON: That's exactly my point, Your Honour; that this witness could give potentially very important evidence, and the Prosecution would like to be prepared to hear it if he's going to be making -- if he's going to be in this courtroom giving opinions based on the work that he did.

JUDGE KWON: It seems to me that the accused does not just understand the meaning of Rule 94 bis. He can introduce this tab 7 through this witness, but if he's going to ask the -- his opinion being based upon this document, he should have produced a report pursuant to Rule 94 bis. That's as simple as that.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: We are going to allow the witness to answer the question. It's either that he be allowed to answer the question now or that he prepare a report and come back with the report. We think that the interest of expediting the procedures requires that he be allowed to ³⁸¹⁸⁶ answer the question now.

Mr. Milosevic, I'm considering, though, that in future we may, in fact, order you to prepare reports where you're going to have witnesses who will be testifying as to their expertise. I'm seriously considering that.

Answer the question.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. So, Professor, let me repeat the question, because some time has elapsed since I last asked it.

My question was: How did the number of wounds on individual bodies fit with the theory that the people were executed?

A. The number of wounds would not be decisive in determining whether it was an execution or not, but the bullet path directions indicated - and we were not witnesses, I emphasise - that it was more likely that they found their deaths in the course of combat or an exchange of fire.

Q. And tell me, Professor, did you make all your findings at the time when you were performing the analysis, the examination?

A. Yes.

Q. What was the method used --

JUDGE BONOMY: Just before you move on, can I ask you this, Doctor: Have you a wide experience of finding on post-mortem that someone had been executed?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know if I understood you correctly. You mean post-mortem executed?

JUDGE BONOMY: No, no. You're giving opinion evidence about ³⁸¹⁸⁷ whether something was an execution or not, and I would like to know how many executions you've established in your experience.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, Your Honours, I never witnessed any executions, nor have I ever been absolutely certain that somebody found their death as a result of an execution. But I did meet cases in the period from 1996 to 1998 where it was obvious that a person was killed with a single burst of gunfire, and judging by the traces on the clothing, it was clear that the person was pushed against the wall. There were traces of plaster on the back. And even in this case I'm not saying that we can rule out execution only on the basis of the number of wounds, but circumstantial evidence such as bullet path directions and other things that we constantly discussed and re-discussed during the post-mortem, whether the trajectory was lateral or slanted or whatever, indicated that death was caused in the course of some sort of struggle, combat, the kind that I was aware of before I ever came to do that examination in Racak.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] May I continue, Mr. Robinson?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Professor, how -- in what way was it established whether those persons were shot from a distance or at close range?

A. Nowadays all gunshot wounds are divided into long distance and close range. There is the kind of wound that is caused by putting the gun to the head or a distance of two or three millimetres. It all depends on the type of weapon, type of ammunition, calibre, et cetera. ³⁸¹⁸⁸ We found some traces, such as gunpowder particles, that indicate that they were probably killed from a distance of one to two metres since the weapon use was an automatic rifle. Those are the elements that compared, used internationally, the distance between the body and the barrel from which the gunshot came.

Q. In the case of these 40 persons, was it established whether they were killed from a distance or from close range?

A. Apart from one or two who were killed from a distance of one, two metres, all the other bodies were killed from a distance greater than two metres.

Q. Let me come back to tab 6 --

JUDGE BONOMY: Can I ask you, is that a finding that was made at the time and recorded somewhere?

MR. KAY: Can I assist because it did arise earlier and Your Honour has been concerned about this point. If you go to tab 3, page 220 of the Finnish article in the Journal of Clinical Forensic Medicine.

JUDGE KWON: 3.1.

MR. KAY: 3.1, sorry. About 12 or 13 lines up from the bottom in the left-hand column, the paragraph beginning: "The victims had a variable number of intra-vital gunshot injuries caused by hand weapons most likely assault rifles," and then this point: "The gunshot injuries were established to be the cause of death and only one case was suspected a close-range discharge."

JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you, Mr. Kay.

THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: The long distance mentioned ^{38189 BLANK PAGE 38190} was specified as 50 to 200 metres or even 250 metres.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Professors, here in tab 6 --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Saxon.

MR. SAXON: I apologise. I'm wondering if the interpreters could explain to us what that last comment meant.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, it wasn't clear to me.

MR. SAXON: It might be an important point.

JUDGE ROBINSON: What were you -- may I ask the interpreters.

THE INTERPRETER: It was an omission from a previous answer of Mr. Dobricanin. Specified what kind of long distance.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I see.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It says here that the interpreters noted that the long distance mentioned was specified as 50 to 200 or 250 metres.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, in the interests of clarity, would you just repeat the question to which that answer would be relevant so we can have it.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right. The question had to do with point 9 of tab 6, which you had in front of you. It reads: "In all cases, traces of gunpowder explosion were not macroscopically observed (distance) except in the case of two wounds in which there was serious doubt as to the relative distance." And this is what the witness said.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Professor, can you then give the comment that you gave earlier about the distance, the long range. ³⁸¹⁹¹

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is obviously a major mistake in the interpretation. When you speak about distance, that means the distance between the mouth of the barrel and the body. We have to speak about three factors; small distance and long distance. There is two kinds of small distance; immediate vicinity and minor distance. This distance is 50 to 80 centimetres in small distances. And in long distances, it is 1.5 metres, not 100. When we are talking about these kind of deaths where we have traces of injury inflicted from afar, then the distance from the barrel is over 2 metres, not 200 metres. It's 2 to 2.5 metres. It can go up to a kilometre depending on the range of the weapon. I believe I have clarified the mistake.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Thank you.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Professor, you have just explained the professional distinctions made between a close-range shot and a shot from a distance. You said that something -- that close-range is qualified as up to 2 metres and over that distance is considered to be a shot from a distance. What was decisive in your determining whether those persons were killed at close range or not?

A. Those persons were killed from a distance, and only one or two were killed from what you could call a relative -- relatively close range of up to 150 centimetres from the barrel -- from the mouth of the barrel.

Q. Is that the distance from which the projectiles came?

A. We cannot determine that. We cannot determine that definitively. It is 1.5 to 2 metres if we are talking about close range. Everything else is considered long distance. ³⁸¹⁹²

Q. Before the aggression against Yugoslavia, and I believe you remember the statement of the American President Clinton who said that old people, women and children had been rounded up and killed, forced to kneel in the gutter and showered by gunfire, can you tell me, was there any grounds for that statement in any fact that is available?

A. Among the casualties we found in Racak, among the victims, there was 39 men and one woman. Not on a single body did we find a trace of application of any other force than gunfire, than a bullet or a projectile. So all these statements made at press conferences cannot be true.

Q. In paragraph 66 -- you just mentioned a new fact now. I mean a new fact in terms of your testimony. Here in paragraph 66 it says: "A group of 25 men tried -- attempted to hide in a building, but were discovered by the forces of the FRY and Serbia. They were beaten and then they were moved to a nearby hill, where they were shot and killed." Professor, did you say a few moments ago that it was not established that any one of the 40 examined bodies had been beaten?

A. Not on a single body which we autopsied, and that was a total of 40 bodies, did we find any traces of physical force in terms of mechanical tools of any type except for the traces that I keep referring to time and again, the traces of the projectiles fired from firearms.

Q. Can it therefore be established that it was reliably established through your professional work that not a single person who was killed had any injuries that were due to some kind of beating, because 25 men are referred to here who were beaten and then shot and killed. Would there ³⁸¹⁹³ have to be traces of any kind of blows that they had sustained before they had been shot and killed?

A. On these bodies there weren't any such traces --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Saxon.

MR. SAXON: Again, we are dealing with a point in the indictment, and it appears the witness is being asked his opinion as to what happened to the victims at Racak that day.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I think you're going too far there, Mr. Saxon. He examined the -- these persons, and he's being asked to say whether there were any traces of any kind of blows. I think he should be able to answer that.

Yes. What's the answer?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There were no traces of intra-vital wounds. There were some scratches on the skin as the body fell, and also there were post-mortem wounds due to that rodents that had gnawed at the bodies, as I already mentioned.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. How was the bullet path direction determined, from the firearms?

A. On the basis of forensic doctrines; namely, finding and marking the entry wound, finding and marking the exit wound, linking up the path from the entry wound to the exit wound, and also the other parameters measured from the heel. Sometimes people measure from the shoulder and head, but we usually measure from the heel, from the foot. And since people sometimes have footwear, then we also add the thickness of the sole. We invariably take photographs of the entry wound and the ³⁸¹⁹⁴ direction. If we did not find the exit wound, then we would follow in the autopsy until we found the projectile, and then we did that from the entry wound and all the way to the projectile and we found out which direction was taken.

At any rate, even when projectiles only tangentially touched the skin, and sometimes in part of the subcutaneous tissue, we always established what the path was.

We were not the only ones to photograph that. Everybody who was present did; the Finnish team and the OSCE observers too.

Q. In the case of bodies that have several wounds, were the wounds sustained from the same distance or from the same direction or was it shooting coming from different directions?

I would like to draw your attention to point 6 of the general conclusions in tab 6, where it says: "Gunshot wounds were localised on different parts and sides of the body and went in various directions."

A. As for the bodies, where there were several wounds the path directions were different. There were all sorts of directions. So in that case, we had to take several probes and depict in this way the path directions so as to produce a clear picture that would be registered by camera too.

In the case of bodies where there was only one wound, there would be only one path direction, logically, but in the case of several wounds we did not find that the shooting came from one direction only but different directions because we had different bullet path directions as well. ³⁸¹⁹⁵

Q. Professor, and is it possible now -- let us make an assumption in order to make the entire thing clear, because you explained that these wounds were sustained by firing that came from different directions, when a person is shot, can a person fall and in this way can it seem that the firing came from different directions when the body rotates?

A. Well, that possibility cannot be precluded. And a different part of the body can be affected as well. However, the direction cannot be different. The direction always has to be at the same height, even if there had been a rotation. If this is a body that is falling, it would be very hard to say whether the body was shot at while it was falling. Again, the path direction can be vertical in relation to the body or the wound can be sustained while the body is in a different position. This is a question of dynamics. The body that is shot at is not static.

Q. Let me put a very precise question and let's see what the answer is going to be. In the case of these bodies with several wounds from Racak, is the situation such that it is possible that the firing was coming from approximately the same direction?

A. In some cases yes, but in most cases no.

THE INTERPRETER: Could the accused please be asked to read his questions slower.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, the interpreters are asking you to speak more slowly.

Mr. Milosevic, just a minute.

[Trial Chamber confers] ³⁸¹⁹⁶

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Continue, Mr. Milosevic.

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

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Tell me now, Professor, since you explained that the multiple wounds came from different directions, in the case of these persons with multiple wounds among the dead from Racak, what was the situation in regard to the bullet path directions that were established during the autopsies? How does that fit with the assertion that these persons had been executed, shot and killed?

A. This fits into a different assertion, namely that these persons were killed in a war conflict, because when there is execution, we do not have wounds from different directions. Perhaps horizontally, but it is simply impossible that it would come from a higher altitude.

Q. Thank you. You mentioned that on some bodies traces were found and -- of post-mortem injury, that is, and in tab 6 again, you say: "All injuries were pre-mortem (inflicted while the victims were alive), except in the case of six bodies which also had injuries that had been caused by animals after death occurred." How did you establish that they were caused by animals, and how did you establish that it was after death? Was this done in a reliable fashion? Was it done applying customary forensic procedure?

A. In view of the fact that the bodies of the killed persons in Racak lay out the open or perhaps in that mosque for four days - I don't know with they were transferred to the mosque, but they had certainly been out in the open for a longer period of time - we established on the basis of ³⁸¹⁹⁷ what the edges of the bones looked like. They could have been gnawed at by rodents, bigger or smaller rodents. When we looked at the edges of the bones that we cleaned beforehand, they were there also where the skulls were badly damaged. Animals would not attack parts of the body that were covered by footwear and clothing, of course. They mostly attack parts of the body that during fighting or during a normal killing were destroyed. So then if there is subcutaneous tissue or parts of the brain that are accessible, then they gnaw at them, and they gnaw at the bones and the soft tissue. We established that with absolute certainty. Our colleagues from Finland agreed with that, and our colleagues from Belorussia. We describe that in our findings, each and every one individually, and that is an absolute truth which speaks of the fact that the post-mortem wounds were caused by animals. That is documented. We have it on all parts of the body where this happened. It wasn't a large number of bodies that had been affected in this way, but it was skull wounds mostly.

Q. All right. Were there any other post-mortem activities carried out vis-a-vis the bodies except for what the animals had caused as you said just now?

A. There was absolutely no other post-mortem activity carried out against the bodies.

Q. And one of the corpses the body is separated from the head. How did that happen?

A. This can be seen on the video footage and on the photograph. However, this is a body that I saw at the mosque. It was lying there. The head had been destroyed, but there were parts of the tissue that were ³⁸¹⁹⁸ near the body, and those were parts of the skull. When we were -- when we were separating the bones from the soft tissue - we took photographs before that, of course - and we found traces that looked like those coming from rodents, but this had to be established on pure bone tissue. Then it was separated from the other part of the head, and on that part where there were injuries, we found that. It was certainly that these were intra-vital wounds, that is to say that they happened while the person was still alive and that these were gunshot wounds.

The possibility of destruction of these projectiles and the fact that the skull is constructed in such a way that it can be blown up with a single projectile, but we are absolutely certain that the body was not cut off from the body [as interpreted].

Q. What you said now in tab 9. Please look at tab 9. It's quite legible in English. You signed it, Professor Dr. Milos Tasic, Professor Dr. Vujadin Otasevic, and Professor Dusan Dunjic, and the experts from Belorussia, Kuzmichov and Levkovic. In the conclusions, in item V, it says: "Beside the shell impact, a wide range of postmortal neck wounds were found with the visible traces of animal teeth and postmortal scratches over the preserved skin. The head is practically missing except for a few broken bone parts. After the technical treatment of the skull bones and neck spine was carried out, it was confirmed the animal teeth traces existing over the cervical vertebrae."

So you established very precisely in terms of one of these cases that it was caused by animals. Is that what this document in tab 9 confirms? ³⁸¹⁹⁹

A. Yes, that is correct. These were big animals, not only mice and rats. And they simply took away parts of the soft tissue and of the skull bones. We did not find all bones on that skull, only a small part. That means that they were tearing it apart as it was a destroyed head, and they were taking away parts of the bone and soft tissue. And we found this on the edges of the soft tissue that was still there.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Gentlemen, may I just draw your attention to the following: That tabs 8, 9, and 10 have already been admitted into evidence as P156, tab 14.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Professor Dobricanin, Yugoslav experts with each of these bodies established which of the wounds caused death. Here in tab 10, we have all the reports for each individual corpse, examined corpse; is that right?

A. Yes. This is -- the reports have RA numbers 1 to 40, which means that they were all the bodies that we conducted autopsies on, that is 40 in all, with the conclusion, the cause of death, and everything to substantiate that, that the wounds were not inflicted after death, et cetera, et cetera.

JUDGE BONOMY: Doctor. Doctor, where is your detailed post-mortem report that any pathologist would prepare when carrying out a post-mortem in a case involving suspicious death?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour Judge Bonomy, all the other evidence or, rather, all the documents with the sketches are at the Institute for Forensic Medicine, and in mid-June I was forced out under ^{38200 BLANK PAGE 38201} threat of arms, together with my associates. We managed to escape through Baskvica [phoen], where nobody expected us, and took with us only what we had on our person. So the documents stayed there. I have no further access to any documents or anything else that is there.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Now, with respect to that answer, following on from it, gentlemen, I'd like to draw your attention once again to the fact, in view of your comments with respect to the exhibits, that it is very difficult for me to access documents, and I'd like to reiterate once again that I have no access to any archives. I have already pointed that out to you on several occasions. So as far as resources go, my position cannot be compared at all with the position that Mr. Nice and his associates have.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Professor --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Saxon.

MR. SAXON: Just one comment, Your Honour, that it is always up to the accused to make applications for access to archives under Rule 54 bis. So the real question is has he made such applications and what responses has he received, if any.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Quite so, Mr. Milosevic. Rule 54 bis, as you well know, is available to you.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Robinson. When I say "archives," I did not say the archives of Mr. Nice. I had in mind the archives in Yugoslavia.

JUDGE ROBINSON: That's the purpose of Rule 54 -- ³⁸²⁰²

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I am not aware of the fact that Mr. Nice --

JUDGE ROBINSON: That is the purpose of Rule 54 bis. It allows you to apply for information, to request information from states. That includes your own. Very much so.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, my associates filed a number of applications to which they didn't even receive an answer, let alone a document.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, the next step -- the next step, if they filed an application to the state and received no answer, then they should come under Rule 54 and ask the Chamber to require the states to produce the information. That's the standard procedure.

JUDGE BONOMY: Well, this is important. Did you apply for the documents that this witness might have brought here to demonstrate in detail the investigation that was carried out on each body?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Bonomy, I cannot be specific now. My associates asked for all the documents which the competent ministries and state organs have in their possession.

JUDGE BONOMY: If they do that, they won't get any. What they have to do is ask for relevant documents once you identify the issues which have to be dealt with. So you have access. You have available the facilities to obtain the material you need to present your case. As the Appeals Chamber said, you're in the driving seat.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Bonomy. Gentlemen, to economise on time, I propose that we don't go ³⁸²⁰³ through all the 40 reports and examine them but that we take tab 10 collectively, and I would like to tender them into evidence as a set of documents. But if you see fit, we can go through all 40 of them.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, we can take them as read. There is no need to go through them. Unless, of course, you wish to highlight anything in particular in relation to one.

MR. KAY: Can we add tabs 4, 5, 6, and 7 as well to the record?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, they may be exhibited.

MR. SAXON: Your Honour.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Saxon.

MR. SAXON: Your Honour, if I may, the Prosecution would like to discuss tab 5 during cross-examination with this witness. So perhaps if a decision on tab 5, its admissibility, could be held in abeyance for the time being.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Tab 5.

JUDGE KWON: Only the pictures were put to the witness in relation to tab 5, right?

MR. SAXON: Well, Your Honour, I don't want to speak for the accused or for the Defence as to how they would like tab 5 to be viewed or reviewed by the Chamber. I believe only the photographs were mentioned. I heard the name William Walker mentioned, but ...

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Well, we'll reserve consideration of the admission of tab 5 until cross-examination.

JUDGE KWON: And as for the detailed surveys and pictures, do we ³⁸²⁰⁴ not have those pictures in Racak binder, in 156? We have tab 8, 9, and 10 in tab 14 of 156, but about the pictures?

MR. SAXON: Your Honour, I can recognise two of the photographs, yes. I don't want to speak about the rest of the material in tab 5.

JUDGE KWON: I remember we have a lot of them.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic, continue.

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please. Microphone for the accused.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Professor, you have testified and we established through the documents that your -- your findings, the Belorussian findings, and Finnish findings were identical, and this is confirmed by the articles written by the Finnish pathologist; is that correct?

A. Yes, that is correct.

Q. You also observed that once you compiled your reports the Finnish experts did not sign them. Is that correct?

A. Yes, that is correct.

Q. Now, does it emerge that there was not a single reason, because as we can see there were no differences in your findings, that there was no reason for them not to sign the reports?

MR. SAXON: Your Honour, I made this objection during the first session when the witness said, "I don't know why they did not sign."

JUDGE ROBINSON: Agreed. Dealt with already. Move on, next question.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, all I wish is to establish here, and time was the key factor while manipulations were ³⁸²⁰⁵ taking place around the Racak events, that they were prevented from signing something that they fully agreed to.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Move on to another question.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well. Have I understood you correctly to say that tab 10 collectively has been accepted, admitted into evidence?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well. Fine. Thank you.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Now, bearing in mind -- bearing in mind everything that that contains, in all cases or almost all cases death resulted from wounds to the upper torso, to the head or to the thorax; is that right? Now, can you comment on that fact. May we have your comments that all the people who were killed were hit in the upper torso, that is to say the head and the thorax.

A. In view of the fact that I went to the Racak area where we were told that the conflict had taken place, the position of the body in the trenches corresponds very well to the findings of the wounds during the autopsy, because in that case the lower torso was protected, the legs and so on, the abdomen, because they were in trenches. This isn't a medical conclusion, it is my personal conviction.

Q. Now, tell us how come those who were killed were hit in their upper -- in the upper part of their body? And you noted the direction, the path, bullet path direction and the distance. How does that coincide with paragraph 66 where it says the forces of SFRY and Serbia shot at the ³⁸²⁰⁶ inhabitants all over the village who were doing their best to flee, et cetera, et cetera? We've already gone through that, how they were beaten, captured, beaten, et cetera. We've been through all that. Now, when you take all this together, add everything up, how they were hit, where they were hit, from what directions, from what distance, and all the rest, how does that coincide and compare with what it says here, that the forces were shooting at the villagers from all sides and that the villagers were trying to flee? How do you marry the two?

JUDGE ROBINSON: I will allow the question. It's very long and convoluted. And you are objecting on the basis that it's what?

MR. SAXON: That it's asking for his opinion as an expert, Your Honour.

JUDGE BONOMY: It also strikes me as possibly asking him to judge what we have to judge.

JUDGE ROBINSON: You see, Mr. Milosevic, you run into a problem when you read the indictment in that way. You read all of it, and then put a question on the basis of all what you have read. I think it would be -- it would be more acceptable to select and identify a particular area and ask the witness a particular question that is within his knowledge.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, I do hope that the question was specific and concrete. I just assumed the grounds --

JUDGE ROBINSON: It was very convoluted.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Professor, in your testimony thus far, you observed the following: ³⁸²⁰⁷ Hit in the upper part of the body. You spoke of the of hits, the different directions, the distance, the range. So taking all those elements together, bearing them all in mind, would you say that that corresponded to what it says here in paragraph 66 where it says the forces of the FRY and Serbia shot at the villagers who were trying to flee? "Villagers who attempted to flee from the forces of the FRY and Serbia were shot throughout the village." Do your findings --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, that's a final issue. That's a final issue which we have to decide.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.

JUDGE ROBINSON: You see, you have elicited evidence from him already on these matters, and that is sufficient. We will have to make a judgement, and that judgement may very well accord with your own assessment of the situation.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Professor, did you establish traces of gunpowder, or possible traces of gunpowder? Did you look at that, traces of gunpowder on the hands of the corpses you conducted an autopsy on?

A. Yes, the crime technicians did that at the Institute for Forensic Medicine, in our own laboratory, and from all the bodies, from the hands of all the bodies they took prints of what was on the hands using an adhesive foil upon which they drew a schematic of the hands themselves. This is special foil that is used for these purposes, this adhesive foil. And they found a positive reaction to nitrites in 37 cases. Positive reaction on the spots and places which correspond to the outside of the ³⁸²⁰⁸ hand, the index finger and middle finger, and the underside of the thumb. In certain cases there were very small particles of gunpowder on the palms of the hands themselves. But this kind of analysis made it possible for us to draw a conclusion that most probably those individuals had held firearms from which they had shot.

Q. Thank you, Professor.

JUDGE ROBINSON: We have to take the break now. It's past the time. We will adjourn for 20 minutes. Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: Your Honours, just in order to bring you up-to-date with your earlier inquiry, there is some positive evidence, as opposed to inferential, as to the movement of the bodies. Exhibit 208, which was a 92 bis statement of Beqiri, at page 5 deals with the movement of the bodies that had been left in his house, two or three bodies, overnight, and he says that "On the morning of the 17th, we took the bodies to the village mosque. The 24 bodies of the persons who died in the Begus Hill massacre were already there. They were brought to the mosque on the night of the 16th of January of 1999." And he was cross-examined about this by the accused, and he fleshed out the course of events, explaining how the verifiers had come on the 16th, and in the evening the villagers took the bodies to the mosque before burial.

So there is, to that extent, direct evidence in respect of the particular bodies that this person himself moved on the 17th and his direct knowledge and recounting of the movement --

JUDGE ROBINSON: That was as to 24.

MR. NICE: His direct evidence was as to the bodies in his house, ³⁸²⁰⁹ which were left in his house overnight, about three bodies, but he gives an account of the movement by the villagers of the other bodies on the night of the 16th.

Your Honour, one other point --

JUDGE ROBINSON: So that would be the Prosecution's case as to how the bodies got to the morgue.

MR. NICE: That's not the only evidence. The rest of it is the overall inferential case. And indeed, in cross-examination, as the Chamber may recall, there was no challenge to that, although the accused at one stage, I think, was asking questions suggesting that the bodies had been brought in from elsewhere in order to be left in Racak. Your Honours, before the -- can I ask one other thing. Helena Ranta came as a Court witness.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

MR. NICE: We have, at the Court's invitation, contacted her since then when some clarification was required, as you will recall. We intend of course now, in light of the clearly expert elements of this witness's evidence, to contact her again unless there is any objection from the Bench to our doing so.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. That would be -- that would be in order. And I should say that in the light of the objections that have been raised by Mr. Saxon about this evidence, that if the Prosecution feels that it has been embarrassed in any way, or prejudiced, the Prosecution may consider making a certain application. ³⁸²¹⁰

MR. NICE: Certainly, Your Honour. Well, what we're going to do is take every step to avoid having to make that application, although I can easily envisage it might be our application at least to put off the cross-examination perhaps from Tuesday to Wednesday or Thursday of next week, depending on what assistance we're able to get.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. All right. We will adjourn now.

--- Recess taken at 12.22 p.m.

--- On resuming at 12.49 p.m.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, before you continue, just to deal with the matter you raised at the beginning. We'll have the Status Conference next week Thursday morning at 8.00. If we are not finished by 9.00, then we'll continue the following week at a time to be fixed.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Robinson. Before I continue, Mr. Robinson, I wish to draw everyone's attention to one error in the transcript. It's LiveNote page 7, line 22, at 9.24. It reads: "[In English] Question: That means that the Ministry of Justice from Belgrade intervened that you should start this, and you gave professional reasons why there should not be a postponement." [Interpretation] What it should read is: "The Ministry of Justice from Belgrade intervened that you should postpone this, and you gave professional reasons why there should not be a postponement." So instead of "start" --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you for the clarification, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Professor Dobricanin, before the break, after the question that ^{38211 BLANK PAGE 38212} related to gunpowder traces, I would like to draw your attention to para 3 in tab 6, which says, and I'll ask you a couple of more questions in relation to this, it says: "Before the autopsy, the forensic service of the Pristina investigation organs took handprints on plastic film and fingerprints in the presence of OSCE verifiers and experts from Belarus." Now, would you please tell me, what method did you use, and what is the name of that method?

A. We use the method called, I believe incorrectly, the paraffin test to examine, that is to test for residue of gunpowder explosion, that for presence of nitrates present in gunpowder. It's called the paraffin test because paraffin was used. It would be tested on a gauze solution. However, we used self-adhesive foils that bear a drawing, a sketch of the hand, to be able to test for the presence of nitrate residue. That is a method that is widely used, not only in our country but is still used in many places in the world, and perhaps there is a more advanced technology that could more exactly determine the presence of these particles.

Q. Very well, Professor. Is this paraffin test regularly used in our country?

A. Certainly. We don't use any other methods currently.

Q. What is the degree of reliability, and what compounds are tested with this method?

A. What is tested is the presence of nitrates which are integral parts of gunpowder. However, some other substances can also produce a positive reaction.

Q. How many bodies in Racak presented a positive result in this test? ³⁸²¹³ And based on what you say, this test could indicate that the persons in question fired from weapons.

A. Nitrate residue was found on 37 bodies out of 40.

Q. On what body parts?

A. Mainly on those parts which you could expect to present this residue if they fired from weapons; the upper part of the hand, around the fingers, the index finger and the middle finger, and maybe some other parts of the hand. That is the usual distribution of gunpowder particles. Some were present on the palm itself, in smaller quantities. A particle would be found on the palm of the hand, for instance.

Q. You mean they were found on 37 out of 40 bodies?

A. Yes, on all the 37.

Q. In case of a positive result, is such a finding reliable? Is it certain?

A. Determining the presence of nitrates using Diphenylamine, which is the substance used in this method, does not necessarily mean that nitrates originate from gunpowder. Nitrates are present in other things such as artificial fertiliser, sometimes tobacco, and sometimes human urine if such urine is found on the hands. So that this method indicates the possibility of nitrates originating from gunpowder explosion, but it does not necessarily have to mean that.

Q. You are a university professor and you certainly follow our own and international literature on the subject. What do scientists say on this method of the paraffin glove or the paraffin test? Do you have any examples to give us? ³⁸²¹⁴

A. There have been numerous debates about whether the paraffin glove, or more correctly the paraffin test, is a method that can be used on persons suspected of having used a firearm. I found in one magazine - Evidence Technology Magazine it's called - the issue of April 2004, a description of a method which they call a very good method and is called ISID, Instant Shooting method Identification. What is meant are gunpowder particles. And it describes that the principal substance used for examination is Diphenylamine, the same substance used in the paraffin test. That's what they call it, although I wouldn't call it the paraffin test. They explain that SEM test takes much longer, Scanning Electron Macroscopy -- Microscopy, and ISID seems to be much better because it is much cheaper, very good for using on the ground. It is the method of choice. And in 90 per cent of the cases it is very good for comparison. And the results correspond in a high percentage of cases with the results obtained by other tests. They recommend this test to all forensics to be used in field work, and based on that it seems that the use of Diphenylamine is still a method that is good and can obtain reliable results.

Both tests are used to determine the presence of nitrates. Although the use of Diphenylamine differs in minor ways, the objectives of both methods are equal.

I have to say that in the provincial SUP of Pristina when I worked there in 1997 -- sorry, 1987, 1988, 1989, I heard in a workshop organised by somebody from Paris where these matters were discussed widely that this Diphenylamine method had been rejected. We didn't know then that a method ³⁸²¹⁵ would be found using metal particles to determine the exact distance of gunshots.

Q. Tell me, is it in tab 16, this document that refers to this new test, "New field-test kit for gunshot residue doubles for both presumptive and evidently testing." The heading is "Instant Feedback." In your practice as forensic expert, did you have occasion to frequently come across the use of this paraffin glove test?

A. Yes. While I worked in the criminal investigation technical service of the provincial SUP, I frequently performed the test and various experiments for the purposes of courts, and even later we used tests using Diphenylamine and comparison with tests on the clothing versus the wound, and there were cases when the test would come up negative. It could be for two reasons: First, because the person did not indeed use firearms, or because they washed their hands very well after that, or because no gunpowder particles stuck to the hand, for various reasons. A positive test, however, never turned out to be wrong in my career and always corresponded with other later findings during the investigation.

JUDGE ROBINSON: In the -- may I ask the witness a question. In tab 16, which has the information on the new ISID-1 test, the Instant Shooter ID kit, it says it offers dual benefits, instant results in the field plus assurance of reliability delivered by SEM, the SEM test. May I ask the witness, what is the SEM test, and more specifically, whether that was -- whether that compares with the test which was used in Yugoslavia, the paraffin, or this in advance, another ³⁸²¹⁶ test which is in advance of the paraffin test?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour Judge Robinson, that is the Scanning Electron Microscopy test. It requires a scanning electron microscope, which proves the presence of microscopic particles barium, nitrate, metal particles found in projectiles themselves. When a projectile, a bullet, goes through the barrel, it carries with it metal particles and this method helps determine the distance from which a shot was fired. However, this test, ISID, is a test for the presence of gunpowder, nitrates precisely, and it uses Diphenylamine, which is also used in the paraffin test that we used in Pristina. So it's practically the same test with minor variations. For instance, we use the sulphuric acid to dilute Diphenylamine, and they use a different acid, but both tests are geared at determining the presence of gunpowder particles. For instance, in their case, in their method, they sometimes can find pollution by other articles, such as fertiliser. But both tests are used to prove the presence of nitrates. Nitrates are present in gunpowder, but -- and the whole issue is to determine whether they are really from gunpowder or from some other substance, perhaps, such as urine or fertiliser.

JUDGE ROBINSON: So historically the paraffin test predates the SEM, which also predates the ISID.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Historically the paraffin test has been present since 1933. I believe it was Gonzales in Mexico City, a researcher in the police of the Mexico City, who first used this test. Afterwards -- of course, we all know that it is not specific and selective ³⁸²¹⁷ as a test, but it indicates the possibility that the person tested has used firearms.

After this test, the SEM method was developed. However, it requires highly advanced technology and very expensive equipment in order to be used. Some of my colleagues from the Institute of Forensic Medicine in Nis experimented with it, but nowhere in the world is the SEM method used first. Some other method is used to start with. This method, ISID, published last year in this magazine is completely the same method using Diphenylamine, and you get a result showing the presence of bluish particles. The only difference is that they use a kit and we use it on the spot with solutions containing sulphuric acid.

JUDGE BONOMY: Can I be clear on one thing, Doctor. You haven't used this ISID test?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, because it was published last year.

JUDGE BONOMY: Secondly, am I right in thinking that the article is in fact written by the chief executive officer of the company that markets the kit?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour Judge Bonomy, you're quite right possibly, because the price is mentioned here of both tests, so probably it is an attempt to market the test, the kit, because the price is -- and it says that the SEM method is a very expensive method, and indeed it is quite costly. So to have such a costly test on the spot for your regular policemen and police tests is difficult. ³⁸²¹⁸

JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Professor, you said that the origin of nitrate indicating that the person has shot from a firearm can also be from artificial fertiliser, for example, the nitrate can come from there. Is it possible that on the 15th of January persons would have artificial fertiliser traces on their hands?

A. Well, I think that anybody who hears this knows that in January there is no farming, no work in the fields done, and that artificial fertiliser isn't used in the month of January.

Q. A moment ago you said that in all cases that you know about in practice when you established a positive result for the paraffin glove test, that later on this was confirmed again by the other investigations and examinations, and that you always ascertain that it was indeed a person who had shot from a firearm.

A. Yes, that is right. When we found the necessary distribution of gunpowder particles.

Q. When you say distribution of gunpowder particles, you mean on the characteristic parts of the hand where they were found; is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, in all these cases was it found on these characteristic places on the hand?

A. Yes.

Q. Thank you. Tell me now, please, whether by applying the paraffin glove test are particles of nitrate taken away from the surface of the hand, removed from the surface of the hand, and after you take away the ³⁸²¹⁹ paraffin glove, can you find traces of the nitrate and apply a different method afterwards?

A. Well, very frequently certain particles do remain, although most of them are removed with the paraffin glove. But of course you won't have every single particle stuck to the hand with the same force, so it is possible that once you remove the paraffin glove traces of nitrate are still found stuck to the surface of the hand. Not in the same quantity, let that be noted. Not in the same amount.

Q. Which means that there is little likelihood that once this is removed you will find some more particles?

A. Yes, it is sometimes possible, although the percentage is negligible.

Q. Now, in view of your profession, did you have a chance of listening to the testimony of Mrs. Helena Ranta here in The Hague?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you know that during her testimony Mrs. Ranta challenged and questioned the value of the paraffin test when it came to - what's it called? - Diphenylamine, yes Diphenylamine, that's what I mean.

A. Yes, I do know that. And that is why I gave you a length -- I went to Interpol and told you everything I told you a moment ago by way of explanation. If you need additional explanation, I shall be happy to provide it.

Q. Professor, Mrs. Helena Ranta questioned and challenged the value and worth of the test. Your personal opinion -- you have a different personal opinion. Do I understand you correctly? ³⁸²²⁰

A. Well, yes. Helena Ranta did challenge the value of the test, allegedly relying to Interpol recommendations dating back to '68. It was a recommendation by Interpol in 1968 that one should apply the test with caution and that it should be replaced by more reliable tests, where possible. A reliable test with respect to nitrates has still not been found, a completely reliable test. There is always that little bit of possibility that it is not 100 per cent exact, especially with non-combustible particles. But if according to one's experience you use it according to the technology you have available, of course in our country we don't have the possibility of using these more sophisticated means.

I have been following the developments of Interpol and in America the tests with Diphenylamine, the paraffin test as it's called, so that this recommendation that was made was probably accepted only by those countries who have highly sophisticated technology and centres where they could exclusively apply scanning electron microscopy methods or this latest new method. The paraffin test is still used in America.

Q. Now, this test of the paraffin -- the paraffin glove test, you explained to us that in our country it was used on a regular basis, that it is the customary test. Do you know whether it is used in many countries in the world or just some?

A. I said a moment ago that it is used in a large number of countries throughout the world, even in the United States, which is the most highly advanced economic country. They don't use the SEM scanning electron microscopy test, but they use the Diphenylamine test, and this is proof of ³⁸²²¹ -- this latest advancement is proof of that because it still used the Diphenylamine.

Q. Right. Now --

JUDGE ROBINSON: May I just have a clarification. You say it is used in the United States, which doesn't use the SEM but used the something or other, it's missing from the transcript, test and this is proof -- Diphenylamine. So what, do they use both -- does the United States use both the paraffin test and the Diphenylamine?

JUDGE BONOMY: It's the same.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Just clarify that for me.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, briefly, I will. You're talking about working in the field, on the ground, on a terrain. You have to clear things up quickly, you have to investigate, so you need fast methods which give you the possibility of drawing certain conclusions which need not be absolutely correct. It is only after that in the second stage do you apply the more sophisticated methods, which are administered by those who have them. Now, in countries that don't have them, they continue to work the way we do. And you must understand that we're a poor country, that we have no other possibility of applying anything else except the method that we apply, and there are quite -- very many countries similar to ours in the world.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Professor Dobricanin, did Helena Ranta -- well, she held a press conference with respect to the events in Racak, did she? ^{38222 BLANK PAGE 38223}

A. Yes.

Q. And what was that?

A. That was on the 17th of March, 1999, at 1300 hours. Or perhaps an hour earlier, I'm not quite sure there.

Q. Did you attend that press conference?

A. None of us attended the press conference. We were prohibited from attending the press conference.

Q. So you didn't attend because you were prohibited from attending the press conference, not for any other reason?

A. Yes, only for that reason. We were not allowed to attend the press conference.

Q. Were you given any reasons why you were prohibited from attending?

A. No reasons were provided. It says here that there was an embargo on the 17th of March, 1999, at 1300 hours, on the report itself.

Q. Very well. Now, that report she presented on the 17th of March, 1999, at 1300 hours, and we'll find that in tab 11. Otherwise, this same tab, tab 11, is Exhibit C1. It is a Court exhibit. Tab 3, it was.

JUDGE KWON: It is annex to the witness statement of Dr. Ranta. I have with me the English version.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Very well. Now, Professor Dobricanin, you have the Serbian version of this report by the forensic team in Racak in tab 11. Can you comment on this report by the European Union expert team in Racak?

A. Yes.

Q. Would you do so, please. May we have your comments. ³⁸²²⁴

A. The title itself, it is a report of the Forensic Expert Team of the European Union on events in Racak, and then in paragraph 1 they say: "The said comments represent the personal opinion of the authors of the report and must not be interpreted in any other way which would allow it to be understood that it was an official report in the name of the Department of Forensic Medicine of the University in Helsinki or the expert team of the European Union." So this must be understood as personal, a personal opinion on the part of Dr. Helena Ranta, because that's what she says herself.

THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters note that they do not have the text in English.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The whole report --

JUDGE KWON: It is on the ELMO, so find out the relevant passage.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Are the interpreters in a position --

THE INTERPRETER: Yes, thank you, Your Honour.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Continue. And perhaps you'd just tell us, since you have been asked to comment on it, which is very general, Mr. Milosevic, I'd much rather have specific questions, but if you are going to comment on it, just let us know what particular paragraph and what page, for the benefit of the interpreters.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have in front of me the Serbian version. I don't have the English version before me. But in the Serbian version --

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. It's at the very beginning, the first paragraph. ³⁸²²⁵

A. Well, that is the title of the document, and you referred to the first paragraph.

Q. The first paragraph, yes. The EU Forensic Expert Team, et cetera, et cetera, and at the end of the first paragraph we have the following sentence: "The comments represent the personal view of the author, Dr. Helena Ranta, and should not in any manner be construed as an authorised communication on behalf of the Department of Forensic Medicine, University of Helsinki, or the EU Forensic Expert Team."

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I continue, Your Honours?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In the last paragraph of the Serbian version, third line from the bottom, it says the following: "There was no possibility for carrying an on-site investigation at the actual location for which it was -- which it is assumed that the crime took place which could give significant additional information linked to the manner in which the victims lost their lives."

And that is something that I fully endorse and support, and that is what I said myself, that it was absolutely necessary to secure the site, for the scene of crime to be secured and to start out with the position of the bodies to see the position in which they lay, and that is the most important thing that you have to do, to get there straight away for forensic investigation and for any other investigation into the death of one or more persons.

I'm not going to comment on the other portions of her report. I'd just like to refer to her conclusion, or one of her conclusions on page 5, ³⁸²²⁶ in actual fact, of the Serbian text. It is the second paragraph. It says: "Previously, the paraffin test was traditionally used to analyse the remains of gunshot residue (GSR)." That is not true. The residue of gunshot -- gunshot residue includes many other elements. So the paraffin test is just used to establish the presence of nitrates in the residues of gunshot or gunpowder explosions. This test is not specific enough. The test lacks specificity. However, at the Interpol meeting in 1968 it was officially stated that it no longer should be used. It might have been recommended, but what other alternative was there? I don't know whether they gave any other alternative. Then she goes on to say the scanning electron microscope, with an energy dispersive X-ray analyser, SEM-EDX, is used to determine the metal component and not the other particles, and then she says with respect to cooperation, that it was good cooperation. She calls us or refers to us as "local" pathologists. That is rather pejorative. And on another page she says that I allowed television crews -- you'll find that on page 6, paragraph 2 -- to enter into the premises and to take photographs of what they needed. I did not allow that. I gave no such permission, but from the media centre on probably in agreement with the observers, I really don't know, I was informed that a CNN television crew, not a Yugoslav television crew but a CNN television crew, was arriving which had been given permission to film the mood around and not at the institute itself, the work itself, but they did turn up and they stayed there for ten or maybe less minutes and then left. So that was the only team that entered the Institute for Forensic Medicine, and those images by that team have been put on the Internet, and ^{38227 BLANK PAGE 38228} there's a man holding an X-ray picture up that can be seen on that footage, and so on. No corpses were shown on it at all. So that -- bearing in mind the complex nature of the investigation, the Finnish experts are of the opinion that nothing would have been achieved by unnecessarily speeding up the process. The team included itself in the work, et cetera, et cetera. So whenever you're dealing with serious problems of this kind in Kosovo, and Kosovo is a part of Serbia and the Balkans where many events came to pass, many things happened, it is extremely important to obtain speedy preliminary results which in certain cases represent final results as well. If you think along those lines at that time and given that part of the territory, to think along those lines was not allowed because there was great threat that loomed -- loomed above the Albanians and the Serbs. I don't want to separate the people, they all suffered a great deal in that war, so I don't want to distinguish between the two. There was a great unfortune, great misfortune, and there was an even greater one in the form of the invasion and bombardment of the territory. So what we had to do was establish the truth so the truth could be an element as to whether sanctions should be taken or whether they should be given up.

We as pathologists or forensic experts from the state of Serbia considered that we had to work speedily, and there was no professional reason that -- to prevent us from going ahead, because on the 28th in the evening, we had our own conclusions ready and the preliminary conclusions by our colleagues which they wanted to sign, then they didn't want to sign ³⁸²²⁹ - once again I don't want to enter into the reasons for that - but Mrs. Helena Ranta states that histological, toxicological DNA analysis should have been done in Helsinki. In forensic medicine you never carry out histological toxicological and DNA analysis in cases where you have known corpses. These were corpses which were identified in the course of our work. So they were identified bodies which means that no additional histological, toxicological or DNA analysis was necessary. You undertake histological and toxicological analyses if you suspect that there has been poisoning. Here there was never any suspicion of people being drugged or poisoned. Therefore, these reasons that were stipulated for delaying a final report are absolute -- absolutely do not hold water. I agree that many photographs were taken. They took more than 3.000 photographs and ten hours of video footage, and our crime -- scene of crime officers took 18.000 photographs, several hundred videotapes. Unfortunately, the videotapes and part of the photographs that were taken have been lost for all time, and even the report by the Finnish team which belonged to Mrs. Marinkovic, her copy was also destroyed in the bombing of the district SUP in 1999. It seemed that somebody made haste to destroy them as soon as possible.

Now, I don't wish to comment any further on the findings. I would just like to give my own conclusion, if I may.

Mrs. Helena Ranta was refuted by doctors, specialists in forensic medicine, distinguished professors from the Finnish team itself who were -- who absolutely agreed or were in correlation with our findings. Her personal opinion is her own personal opinion. She is a forensic ³⁸²³⁰ odontologist and she allowed herself to say that it was a case of unarmed peasants.

I have finished, Your Honours, to say what I wanted to. Thank you.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Time to finish the narrative. Next question, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Professor Dobricanin, can we briefly summarise by saying that your views differ from those of Mrs. Ranta and their views -- or her views also differ from the views of her colleagues as expressed in various articles in FAC magazine, for instance?

A. It is absolutely correct.

MR. SAXON: We don't have these articles in front of us. We'd like to know which articles and where they are.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, the first part of the question, I think he's able to answer, that his views differ from those of Mrs. Ranta. As to whether her views also differ from the views of her colleagues expressed in various articles, Mr. Milosevic, those articles are not here.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I understood that it is given in tab 2 and 3, actually.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. I don't know if you have it in front of you, Mr. Dobricanin.

A. Yes, I do.

JUDGE ROBINSON: What specific views of her colleagues were you referring to which differ from hers? ³⁸²³¹

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, as far as I was able to see from what is written here, this confirms that all findings and all professional views were identical between Yugoslav, Finnish, and Belorussian experts, that there were no differences whatsoever, because the fact that the Finnish experts did not sign that first report can be construed as meaning that some difference was later established to account for their reservations. However, it was later established that there was no difference at all and that the findings were absolutely identical. And the professor indeed confirmed that the findings were identical on all 40 bodies. It even says here in particular --

JUDGE BONOMY: Which is it in, either of tab 2 or tab 3, that is said specifically that Helena Ranta has contradicted?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, what the professor just quoted puts a question mark over a number of her observations which do not coincide at all with the views published by members of her own team.

JUDGE BONOMY: I am afraid that statement is meaningless to me. I need to know what it is in either tab 2 or 3, that's stated in tab 2 or 3 that she has since refuted in some way.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, none of them writes explicitly that the views of Helena Ranta are incorrect. It is by comparing their views as expressed with the views expressed by Helena Ranta that we can see there is a difference. I never said that they wrote that her views were inaccurate. They certainly didn't.

JUDGE ROBINSON: [Previous translation continues] ... Mr. Milosevic to the witness that Helena Ranta's views differed from the ³⁸²³² professor's, and the Finnish team were in agreement with the professor's views.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Is that so, Professor?

A. Yes, that is so.

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

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Professor Dobricanin, you subsequently wrote your own article about your experience from Racak. What is it that you have written? We have under tab 12 an article that is entitled "Racak Case, Forensic Medicine." We have an abstract, both in English and Serbian, written by S. Dobricanin, S. Matejic, M. Milosevic, and V. Jaksic.

A. This article has been read out to all forensic doctors in Serbia in Niskabanja [phoen] at a workshop sponsored by the Association of Forensic Medicine of Yugoslavia. It has been published in the magazine of our association. I cannot give you the exact date. The article refers to the comprehensive forensic view of our work at the institute, and it is an indication of something. It is an appeal of sorts. It says: "Racak case - forensic medicine in service of policy." Forensic medicine certainly should not be in the service of any country, any administration, any police or other agency, and all of us experts from our country, from Belorussia, from Finland, absolutely agreed about that.

Helena Ranta is quoted in the article, in the part where she says that the victims were probably unarmed peasants as indicated by forensic ³⁸²³³ findings. That is not our task. It is certainly not the task of somebody who specialises in only one branch of forensic medicine, namely odontology, to speak about findings that relate to identification or to raise matters about possible poisoning or the necessity for toxicological or other reports, et cetera. She can certainly not speak for all members of the team, nor has she at her disposal all the elements of the forensic examination. And even in this article published in the Forensic Science International magazine, she has not signed as one of the authors. She was a member of the team, and she was competent in her particular field of specialisation, just like everybody else. This is an article that was designed to explain to the international public and primarily to our own doctors what exactly was found on our -- on those bodies and what was the result, and we wrote in our conclusion that there was no need for politicians to be involved at all and that the establishment of -- a team for only -- from only one country cannot be the best way to handle this case.

THE INTERPRETER: Could the professor please repeat the last sentence.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Professor, the interpreters are asking you to repeat the last sentence.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I will. I will, Your Honour. We drew the attention of the readership that the involvement of politics in forensic work can sometimes lead to what happened to us in Racak; namely, that the Racak case became eventually the trigger for the bombing of Serbia. ^{38234 BLANK PAGE 38235}

JUDGE KWON: Before going further, I find this article identical with the one we had already exhibited, which is D2, being the Praxis Medica, which has been published in 2001, while the index of this says that it is published on 29th of September, 2000, and it is published by Forensic Medicine Service. Maybe the date of 29 of September is the date when the conference was held.

Am I correct, Doctor?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You are right, Judge Kwon. This was read on the 29th of September before the section for forensic medicine of Serbia and the Association for Forensic Medicine of Yugoslavia. This article was published in Praxis Medica, which is a specialised magazine of the medical school of the university in Pristina. It has been read. It cannot be published in two different magazines. It was published only in our expert magazine called Praxis Medica.

JUDGE KWON: So what we have in front of us is just rewriting of that article in both languages.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As it was published and printed in that magazine and as it was read out at the workshop. This is the original, in fact the photocopy of the article.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, I simply notice the time and I have about 45 seconds or a minute of procedural matters to raise. I thought I'd mention it now.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, I take it that you have concluded your examination or do you have more of this witness? Because we're about ³⁸²³⁶ to adjourn.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Just a few more questions. I have just a few more questions and I will be very brief.

JUDGE ROBINSON: We can't continue beyond a quarter to.

JUDGE KWON: I also have to make a correction. D2 has been marked for identification.

JUDGE ROBINSON: So I'll allow Mr. Nice to make -- to raise his point and then you will have to continue next week.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, what I say is not just for the Court's assistance but also that the accused might listen to it and attend, because the evidence that this witness has now given, despite all the warnings, for example more recently in Gojovic about compliance with the orders, despite all those warnings this is plainly straightforward expert evidence that is being given, and a considerable quantity of it on a material issue. We will do our best to be able to deal with this next week. If we're able to, it will no doubt be at the inconvenience of others who put the service of the Tribunal high on their list of priorities, but I can't guarantee it. Thus the accused may want to know that he may come on Tuesday and find that our application is to adjourn, whether to Wednesday or Thursday or another week. I hope it won't happen. I think it will not be necessary, but I certainly must allow for that possibility.

Your Honour, the second point arising from the same general consideration is this: There's been reference to the interposing of the witness Jasovic. The understanding of my learned friends the assigned ³⁸²³⁷ counsel, and it maybe the accused, is that the Court has given permission for that witness to be called, query when. The application to call the witness hadn't been made and I am likely both to resist the application to call that witness, and even if leave is given to call him, then I may have to seek an adjournment. Again, if leave is given I shall do everything I can to deal with him immediately. It may be necessary for me to seek an adjournment in respect of him. Accordingly, the accused should know that there is a possibility that on Tuesday there will be an application to adjourn and that he will need another witness if his time is not to be wasted. And in view of the fact that all the procedural problems we are facing are caused by his failure adequately to deal with orders of this Court, if time is wasted I would ask that he be warned that it will count as his time and will not be counted against anybody else.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, those points are fair. Have another witness on stand-by for Tuesday, for Tuesday morning, in the event that an application is made for an adjournment and in the event that the application is granted.

We will adjourn now until --

MR. NICE: Mr. Saxon has been asking me several times to remind the Court to admonish witnesses about non-communication. I think it's something that has been overlooked occasionally recently and it's my error not to have picked it up and then dealt with it with it when I have been reminded of it myself.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. It is a warning that was given consistently during the Prosecution case. ³⁸²³⁸ Professor, we are going to adjourn. During the break you are not to discuss your evidence with anybody, and that includes the accused.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] In relation to this comment by Mr. Nice, I hope everybody here understands perfectly clearly that it is actually Mr. Nice who initiated the calling of Mr. Jasovic. He was the one who indicated his presence in The Hague, and you just approved that I may call him and prepare him from -- for testifying the next day. So it was really not in my hands. I had absolutely no clue that he would be appearing.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I don't want to continue this. We'll adjourn and we will deal with these matters next week, Tuesday.

--- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.48 p.m., to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 12th day of

April, 2005, at 9.00 a.m.