Balkan
Witness
Home

 


The Racak Massacre

 

 


International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Statement of Dr. Helena Ranta, submitted on 20 February 2003 in advance of her oral testimony

Case No.:     IT Ė 02 Ė 54 Ė T

Reference:   Order of the Trial Chamber of 27 January 2003, signed by Judge Richard May, Presiding

Dr. Helena Ranta
Department of Forensic Medicine
University of Helsinki
Finland

 Click here for more on the Racak Massacre


Introduction 

By its Order of 27 January 2003 (Annex 1), in the Case IT-02-54-T, the International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991 (ďthe TribunalĒ) ordered the undersigned, Dr. Helena Ranta, inter alia, to submit to the Trial Chamber in advance of her testimony a written statement limited to certain specific issues which include

a)     Her professional qualifications and personal experience;

b)     The scope of her instructions and the inter-relationship between the Finnish Team and other forensic teams;

c)      A brief description of the scene in Racak when the team arrived;

d)     A narrative description of the steps taken by the team to prepare their report;

e)     Who prepared the report of 17 March 1999;

f)        To whom was that report supplied;

g)     Her comment/opinion on the report of 17 March 1999;

h)      The circumstances surrounding the press interview given by the Witness on 17 March 1999 and the substance of the interview;

i)        The circumstances surrounding the undated interview given to a German television station by the Witness which forms part of Defence Exhibit D9 and the substance of the interview;

j)        A description of the developments after March 1999 leading to the preparation of the report of 21 June 2000;

k)      Her opinion as to the differences, if any, of the conclusions reached in the two reports;

l)        Her final analysis of the events at Racak; 

Moreover, the Tribunal also requested her to submit with the statement a copy of the report of 17 March 1999, or, if she no longer possesses a copy of the report, to include in the statement her recollection of its content and to inform the Trial Chamber of the distribution of that document and the whereabouts of any copies. 

Hereby the undersigned, Dr. Helena Ranta, respectfully submits her comments on these issues according to the Tribunalís Order. 

(1) a.               Her professional qualifications and experience (Annex 2) 

Concerning her professional qualifications and experience, the undersigned refers to a short selected curriculum vitae annexed to this Statement as Annex 2. Tasks, which may be of interest to the proceedings of the Tribunal, include e.g. the following tasks: 1) Member of the Identification Commission of the m/s Estonia ferry disaster, 1994; 2) Project Manager of the Finnish Forensic Expert Team (Tuzla, BiH) under the mandate of the United Nations (UNHCHR) 1996-1997; 3) Forensic Odontologist, Repatriation of Finnish soldiers killed in action during the WW2, exhumations in the territory of the Former Soviet Union, Finnish Ministry of Education, 1997-; 4) Team Leader of the European Union Forensic Expert Team (Kosovo) 1998-2000, Head of forensic investigations in Klecka, Racak and Volujak; 5) Forensic Odontologist, ICTY (Orahovac, Kosovo) autumn 2000; 6) Forensic Expert, Federation Internationale des Ligues des Droits de líHomme (Cameroon) winter 2002; 7) Senior Advisor of the Jenin Fact-Finding Team (nominated by the United Nations Secretary General) spring 2002; 8) Team Leader of Finnish Forensic Expert Team, under the Peruvian Truth and Reconciliation Commission (Peru) summer 2002. Currently, she works as a Coordinator (Disaster Victim Identification) and holds a position of Forensic Odontologist at the Department of Forensic Medicine, University of Helsinki, Finland.

For more specific information, the undersigned cordially refers to the Annex 2. 

(1) b.               The scope of her instructions and the inter-relationship between the Finnish Team and other forensic teams

The undersigned was responsible for the general leadership of the European Union Forensic Expert Team. This included, inter alia, the administration of the Team, the equipment and the negotiations with national / local authorities, and the Kosovo Albanian community, including the arrangement of necessary security measures. Being familiar with expertise and special requirements of each discipline (forensic pathology, forensic odontology, forensic anthropology and osteology, DNA profiling, toxicology, radiology, application of scientific methods in scene investigations), the undersigned also participated, when necessary, in the practical work of the experts of the European Union (EU) Forensic Expert Team. 

As a Team Leader, the undersigned received her instructions from the Presidency of the EU (in 1998, Austria; in 1999, Germany and Finland; and in 2000, Portugal). They were very general, addressing basically the tasks and the mandate of the Team. These are reflected in the decision (98/736/CFSP) of 22 December 1998 of the Council of the European Union. 

In addition, the District Court of Pristina had issued a Court Order in November 1998 for investigations of alleged human rights violations in Glodjane, Golubovac, Gornje Obrinje, Klecka, Orahovac and Volujak. The results of the investigations on incidents at Klecka and Volujak have been submitted to the Yugoslav authorities, the Presidency of the EU and the Tribunal.  In January 1999, the District Court of Pristina further authorised the EU Team to investigate, together with local authorities and forensic experts including two Belo Russian experts, the Racak incident. This authorisation covered following aspects: 

-         manner and cause of death;

-          possible contributing factors to death;

-         circumstances around death;

-         identification.

The original mandate of the Team, as defined by the EU, included medico legal investigations and technical fact-finding. The nature and the content of the mandate were, at any stage, neither modified nor broadened to include any additional tasks. Specifically, no instructions or authorisation for full-scale criminal investigations aiming to produce materials for the use of possible prosecutions by legal institutions, whether national or international, were at any time given by the Presidency of the EU.

At the time, the EU Team started investigations in Kosovo, i.e. in November 1998; there were no other forensic teams in the area. 

(1)   c.         A brief description of the scene in Racak when the team arrived 

As the bodies of the deceased were transferred from Racak to Pristina when the Team arrived to Yugoslavia, the Team members travelled directly there to perform, monitor and verify the ongoing autopsies. After the completion of the autopsies, two weeks after the recovery of the bodies, the Team visited Racak on 30 January 1999. This was in accordance with the authorisation of the District Court of Pristina (see (1) b.). However, during the previous night, it had been snowing and therefore, the Team was unable to carry out any scene investigations as intended. 

Already in June 1999, the investigators of the Tribunal had encouraged the Team to perform scene investigations even at a later date. Accordingly, the first scene investigation was conducted, as preliminarily agreed with the Tribunal investigators, in November 1999 with the logistic support of the Finnish KFOR battalion. Then, the two parallel gullies, where altogether 23 victims (1 + 22) were recovered on 16 January 1999, were surveyed and forensic evidence was collected for further analysis. For details of these investigations, please see Prosecutorís Exhibits in this Case, Racak Stimlje P.156 (Tabs), Tab. 12.                       

As some issues had remained open, the second scene investigation was conducted in March 2000 at sites in the village, indicated by the Tribunal investigators during their visit to Helsinki, Finland in February 2000. For details, please see Prosecutorís Exhibits in this Case, Racak Stimlje P.156 (Tabs), Tab.12. 

The results of these two scene investigations (three copies) were submitted solely to the Tribunal on 21 June 2000, together with the Executive Summary of the Teamís work in Kosovo in 1998 Ė 2000 (Prosecutorís Exhibits in this Case, Racak Stimlje, P.156 (Tabs), Tab. 11). The Executive Summary was distributed to the members of the EU on 22 June 2000 and is available upon request. 

(1) d.               A narrative description of the steps taken by the team to prepare the report 

The preparation of the report of 17 March 1999 was completed by the members of the Team (forensic pathologists, a forensic odontologist and forensic investigators) following routine procedures applicable in Finland, with the exception, that according to internationally recognised standards, two forensic pathologists completed the autopsies and signed the protocols. 

As a Team Leader, the undersigned is responsible for the report in general. However, it should be emphasised that the contents of the report specifically is an outcome of the cooperation of the experts, referred above, under her direction. This is a routine mode of cooperation in missions of this type and guarantees the outcome of the highly professional product. The experts are specified in the report (Prosecutorís Exhibits in this Case, Racak Stimlje P.156 (Tabs), Tab. 12, vii-ix. 

(1) e.               Who prepared the report of 17 March 1999 

On this issue, see the subchapter (1) d. above. Concerning the Press Release, see subchapter (1) h. below. 

(1) f.                To whom was that report supplied 

The Team has submitted altogether five copies of the report and deposited an archival copy at the Central Archives of the University of Helsinki. These five copies were delivered to meet the agreed national and international requirements.

According to the Yugoslav legislation, one report was submitted to the Investigating Judge, Danica Marinkovic, of the District Court of Pristina. One copy was submitted to the Institute of Forensic Medicine, University of Pristina, and two copies were supplied to the Presidency of the EU (Germany). The Presidency, through its own motion, later decided to forward one of its copies to the Tribunal. Later, in autumn 2000, an additional copy was given to the Yugoslav Ambassador to Finland, Ambassador Dusan Crnogorcevic to replace the two copies allegedly destroyed in spring 1999. 

(1) g.               Her comment/opinion on the report of 17 March 1999 

The report of 17 March 1999 includes 40 autopsy protocols (conducted, monitored or verified by the EU forensic experts), videotapes, photographs, x-rays, toxicological analyses and DNA-profiles, altogether around 1428 pages. To the opinion of the undersigned, they fulfil the internationally recognised criteria. In its work, the Team systematically applied international recommendations and highest scientific standards. Due to the fact, that the report covers only the autopsy findings at the time when reliable information of circumstances around death, due to the failure to conduct scene investigations in January 1999, was not available, the categorisation of death as recommended by the World Health Organisation (WHO) was not possible. The applicable alternatives include war and criminal homicide. 

(1) h.               The circumstances surrounding the press interview given by the Witness on 17 March 1999 and the substance of the interview 

The press conference in Pristina on 17 March 1999 was arranged by the EU Presidency (Germany). In general, members of the forensic science community are not accustomed, and they are rarely even expected, to meet the representatives of the media, which to the knowledge of the undersigned, is particularly true in the Nordic countries. Therefore, the undersigned very reluctantly agreed to participate in the press conference when it was considered important to have the Team Leader present there. This agreement was made under the assumption of the undersigned being assisted by the representatives of the Presidency and the Finnish Ministry for Foreign Affairs. 

The text of the personal speech of the undersigned, given on 17 March 1999, was also distributed as a press release on that occasion (for further details, please see Annex 3). This Press Release has, on several occasions in the media, been mistakenly also called and referred to as a report, which has caused a lot of unnecessary confusion and speculation on the matter in public discussion. 

The Press Release addressed some of the most controversial issues and statements without any accusations, focusing particularly on the obvious shortcomings in the investigative procedures performed immediately after the recovery of the bodies on 16 January 1999. In addition, the different sampling methods for gun shot residue (GSR) analysis were discussed. 

As already stated several times on different occasions, and also in the Press Release (e.g. at pages 1-2, 3 and 4), the undersigned, once more, wishes to emphasise that it does no fall within the competence of a medicolegal team to comment on issues, like who the perpetrators were, which party of the conflict they represented, or why certain victims were killed. That would have required a different kind of mandate and it would have affected to the formation of the Team. Moreover, that kind of mandate would have required the Team to be an investigative team, whose tasks would have included an estimation to whom or to which party of the conflict would a responsibility for the deaths of the recovered bodies possibly lie. The EU Team did not have that mandate and therefore, neither the Team nor its Leader did make any comments on those issues. Despite of this fact, however, in the Defence Exhibit D2 in this Case, it is erroneously claimed that the undersigned had indicated the perpetrators (for comparison, see Annex 3). 

(1) i.                The circumstances surrounding the press interview given to a German television station by the Witness, which forms part of Defence Exhibit D9 and the substance of the interview                       

The interview for the German documentary was given in Prizren in autumn 2000. Later, the undersigned has learned that her comments were included only in a short representation, shown prior to broadcasting the full documentary. Accordingly, they were not included in the final documentary. 

Having received, together with the Tribunalís Order, the Defence Exhibit 7 in this Case, the undersigned has compared the translation (from Serbian into English) provided with the Exhibit, and the German translation of the interview, which was conducted in English. As far as can be deduced, from the text translated from Serbian into English, there are some crucial errors and omissions, which give a very different impression of the views, expressed during the interview. Therefore, the undersigned kindly recommends that the translation, submitted under the Defence Exhibit 7, would not be used as a basis for discussion over this matter, because, inter alia, it would be misleading and give erroneous basis for any discussion on the matter. Accordingly, a copy of the German translation of the interview is annexed to this Statement (Annex 4). Moreover, if the Tribunal considers it necessary, the German television station concerned could possibly submit the original interview in English. 

(1) j.                A description of the developments after March 1999 leading to the preparation of the report of 21 June 2000 

For the clarification of the developments after March 1999, the undersigned wishes to refer to the Prosecutorís Exhibits in this Case, Racak Stimlje P.156 (Tabs), Tab. 11 (Executive Summary), pp. 5-6. In addition, several aspects relating to the matter are described in other subchapters of this Statement. 

The forensic materials and evidence, recovered and documented during the two scene investigations, were further analysed in Finland at the Department of Forensic Medicine, University of Helsinki and at the Crime Laboratory, National Bureau of Investigation. These include bullets and bullet fragments, human material found in the vicinity of or attached to them, cartridge cases, aerial photographs and surveying of the terrain for measurements, elevations and directions. The report of 21 June 2000 gives detailed information of cartridge type, calibre, batch, manufacturer, any identifiable landmarks and elementary composition. In addition, the location of each bullet, bullet fragment and cartridge case has been indicated in relation of each victim, as recovered at the gullies and in selected sites at the village by the OSCE verifiers on 16 January 1999. Metal detectors, which were used in November 1999 and in March 2000, were adjusted to reach the depth of 30 cm. The TERRA computer program was used to produce presentations, figures and terrain models of selected sites. These products can be utilised in defining possible viewing sectors at any given point at the gullies (length 65 m, width 3.5 m, depth 1-2 m) and elsewhere, since the measurements cover the total area of 170 m x 30 Ė 60 m.

For further information, see Prosecutorís Exhibits in this Case, Racak Stimlje P.156 (Tabs), Tab. 12. 

(1) k.               Her opinion as to the differences, if any, of the conclusions reached in the two reports 

First, to clarify the question, it is emphasised that the reports of 17 March 1999 and of 21 June 2000 are complementary and address different aspects of the Racak investigations. To achieve a comprehensive overview of the incident, they should be studied parallel and the findings should be connected to other materials in the Tribunalís possession on the incident. Furthermore, these two reports together cover only part of the investigations necessary for the final analysis of the events at Racak. The undersigned has held this position since the beginning of the Teamís work and it is also clearly reflected in the personal Press Release of 17 March 1999 where she stated: 

ďIt should be noted that the EU experts now have completed only a part of the overall investigations concerning the events in Racak Ė namely the medicolegal investigation of the victims.  For a more complete picture what took place in Racak a full criminal investigation into the events would be required, combining scene investigations, interrogations of witnesses and analysis of the evidence with the autopsy findings of the EU experts.Ē (See Annex 3). 

This is also a view, which the undersigned even today can fully adhere to. The later enacted scene investigations, reported on 21 June 2000, complement the autopsy reports of 17 March 1999.  However, in its Order of 27 January 2003, the Tribunal has also requested the undersigned to submit her personal view on what may have happened in Racak. Concerning this issue, the undersigned kindly refers to her views, explained in the following subchapter of this Statement.

(1) l.                Her final analysis of the events at Racak 

The Trial Chamber has considered in its Order that a written statement would be of assistance to all involved in the proceedings. To fulfil this request, at least to a certain extent, the undersigned would like to draw the attention of the honourable Judges to some specific aspects of the investigations of the EU Forensic Expert Team: 

1.      Recovery of two mandibular molars in the vicinity of bullets 2001, 2004 and 2005, under the surface of the ground at the gully, in the depth of 3-5 cm, in a position of Victim RA-24-7021F, and post mortem investigation of the Victim, including both schematic representation of the entrance and exit wounds and photographs taken on 16 January by the OSCE verifiers at the gully and during autopsy by the Team. Amplifiable DNA was extracted from one of the molars and the DNA profile was compared with that of Victim RA-24-7021F (January 1999). See Prosecutorís Exhibits in this Case, Racak Stimlje P.156 (Tabs), Tab. 12, Appendix 3 (K020436-K0202437); see also Tab. 13, Binder 4 (01089759 and 01901770), and Tab. 14 (K0212423). 

2.      Comparative examination of markings in the intact bullet recovered during the autopsy from Victim RA-33-7009F (found at the gully on 16 January 1999) and in bullet samples 2006, 2011, 2015, 2016 and 2029 (recovered at the gully in November 1999; group 3, fired from the same weapon). The individual characteristics of one rifling landmark and the rifling markings present on either side of it are a very good match for the individual characteristic markings distinguished in the photograph of the bullet. See Prosecutorís Exhibits in this Case, Racak Stimlje P.156 (Tabs), Tab. 12, Appendix 6 (K0202480-K0202483). The report of 17 March 1999, submitted by the EU to the Tribunal, includes detailed photographs of the bullet discovered and removed during the autopsy. 

During the autopsies in January 1999 in Pristina, the Teamís access to any foreign objects, including bullets and bullet fragments, discovered and removed from the bodies, was restricted. The chain of custody over the recovered materials was limited to police investigators from the Office of the Investigating Judge, Danica Marinkovic, of the District Court of Pristina. Therefore, at this stage, the comparisons of any recognisable landmarks must rely on photographs taken during the autopsies by the EU Team. It should be emphasised that during autopsies, the photographs by the EU experts, were not taken under the assumption of them being later part in any legal proceedings. Unfortunately, the summarised autopsy reports of the local and Belo Russian experts (See Prosecutorís Exhibits in this Case, Racak Stimlje P.156 (Tabs), Tab. 14,  (K0212400-K0212439) do not contain the ballistic analysis. The Investigating Judge can make these bullets and bullet fragments and photographs of them available. Providing the chain of custody can be confirmed, comparisons with those, recovered by the Team in November 1999, can be performed at any time, if the Tribunal so will decide. 

3.      Vitality of entrance and exit wounds of the victims, i.e. they were inflicted during lifetime or around death, was documented during the autopsies.  See Prosecutorís Exhibits in this Case, Racak Stimlje P.156 (Tabs), Tab. 13, Binders 3-5, RA01-RA40; compare also to Tab. 14 RA1-RA40 (K0212400-K0212439). 

4.      Distribution of bullets and bullet fragments recovered at the gully in November 1999, in relation to the positions of the victims, subsequent grouping and elementary analysis. See Prosecutorís Exhibits in this Case, Racak Stimlje, P.156 (Tabs), Tab. 12, Appendix 1 (K0202349 and K0202365), and Appendix 4. 

5.      Distribution of cartridge cases recovered at the gully in November 1999, and subsequent grouping. See Prosecutorís Exhibits in this Case, Racak Stimlje (Tabs), Tab.12, Appendix 1 (K0202328, K0202348, K0202364), and Appendix 4. 

6.      Distribution of bullets and bullet fragments recovered in the village in March 2000, in relation to Victims RA39-7010F, RA-37-7013F and RA-38-7014F, subsequent grouping and elementary analysis. See Prosecutorís Exhibits in this Case, Racak Stimlje (Tabs), Tab.12, Appendix 2 (K0202404), Appendix 4. 

7.      Distribution of cartridge cases in the vicinity of Victims RA39-7010F, RA-37-7013F and RA-38-7014F, recovered under silt in March 2000 and subsequent grouping. See Prosecutorís Exhibits in this Case, Racak Stimlje (Tabs), Tab. 12, Appendix 2 (K0202410), Appendix 4. 

8.      Manufacturers of the ammunition recovered during scene investigations in November 1999 and March 2000. The cartridge cases carry the head stamp of one of the two Yugoslav manufacturers: IK (IGMAN ZAVOD, KONIC) or PPU (PRVI PARTIZAN, TITOVA-UZICE). The former appears written in Latin as well as Cyrillic letters. The latter appears written in only Cyrillic letters. The head stamps are marked also with the cartridge-loading year or its abbreviation. See Prosecutorís Exhibits in this Case, Racak Stimlje (Tabs), Tab. 12, Appendix 4. 

These are issues of facts. It is the task of the honourable members of this Tribunal to consider what value, as establishing circumstances, these facts may have and weigh whether these facts together, and also together with other materials which the Tribunal may have in its file in this Case, may assist the Tribunal in forming the probable picture of the circumstances at the time the persons, found at the gully and in the vicinity of the village, lost their lives. 

The wounds, documented during the autopsies, were inflicted when the persons were alive. There were no implications or signs of their bodies having been mutilated or fired post mortem, i.e. later after the moment they had lost their lives. 

The recovery of anatomically definable parts of a human body, located underneath of a certain body at the gully, which parts also were documented missing in the autopsy by the Yugoslav experts, together with the facts of the vitality of the wounds and of the matching DNA profiles show that the Victim RA-24-7021F had been shot at the gully. Thus, the minimum of one of the documented shots, tearing off part of the lower third of the face and penetrating the ground, must have been fired at short distance. 

During the scene investigations, soft tissue remnants were recovered, attached to the bullets. Attempts were made to extract amplifiable DNA from the bullets with no success (see Prosecutorís Exhibits in this Case, Racak Stimlje, P.156 (Tabs), Tab. 12, Appendix 3 (K0202435)). The failure may be due to 1) the degradation of DNA by enzymes, originating from microbes in the soil, 2) degradation by temperature variation (repeated freezing and thawing) and/or 3) inhibition of enzymes used in the extraction of DNA by known enzyme inhibitors, like copper, present in the bullets. However, the location of these remnants, attached to the bullets, coincides with the location of the bodies at the gully. See Prosecutorís Exhibits in this Case, Racak Stimlje, P.156 (Tabs), Tab. 12, Appendix 1 (K0202349). 

 Similar inferences can also be derived e.g. from the comparison of the distribution of bullets and bullet fragments, recovered at the gully in November 1999, to the positions of the recovered victims. The concentrations of located bullets were underneath and in the vicinity of the bodies at the gully. Moreover, another inference may be derived from the fact, that during the scene investigations of the gully, concentrations of bullets and bullet fragments were not located elsewhere than where the bodies were recovered and in their imminent vicinity. It has to be emphasised that as the surveyed area was 170 m x 30-60 m, had there been other use of weapons, one would expect to detect other concentrations of bullets and bullet fragments. The absence of those in the soil elsewhere is another fact, which may also be taken into consideration. 

The analysis of the located bullets and bullet fragments and their subsequent grouping may give an estimate of the minimum number of weapons used at the gully. 

Furthermore, another inference may be derived from the locations of concentrations of cartridge cases. They indicate that the persons firing the weapons were in the vicinity of these concentrations. The grouping of the cartridge cases may also give another estimate of the number of weapons fired at the site. 

For the evaluation of these inferences, bullets and bullets fragments discovered and removed during the autopsies, currently in the custody of the investigators from the office of the Investigating Judge, Danica Marinkovic, of the District Court of Pristina, could be analysed and compared with the bullets recovered during scene investigations by experts in ballistics. 

The terrain models of the gullies can be utilised to investigate viewing sectors at any given point and for evaluation of the statements of the possible witnesses. These models may also assist while estimating the possible value of inferences, which can be made from the issues, mentioned above. When so utilised, one has to bear in mind that the models were constructed omitting the vegetation at the site. Therefore, the impact of thorny bushes, which line the gully and reach the height of 1-1.5 m, thus restricting the movement and the viewing sectors in the area, has also to be taken into consideration. 

Similar inferences can be made of the distribution of the bullets and cartridge cases, recovered during scene investigations in March 2000, in relation to Victims RA39-7010F, RA37-7013F and RA38-7014F. 

However, the undersigned strongly emphasises that it is not for her kind of expert to consider and evaluate the possible weight of these comments and to decide which impact these possible inferences could have. These comments by the undersigned are submitted to the Tribunal under the obligation of the Order of 27 January 2003, where the Tribunal has ordered the undersigned to present her analysis of the events at Racak. 

2.                     The request to submit with the statement a copy of a report of 17 March 1999 

As mentioned earlier in this Statement, the report of 17 March 1999 included the autopsy reports and videotapes without any summary. It has already been submitted to the Tribunal and was included as Tab. 13, Binders 3-5 to the Prosecutorís Exhibits in this Case, Racak Stimlje, P.156 (Tabs). 

As also stated above, the Press Release containing the personal speech, which is apparently, the document intended in the Tribunalís Order of 27 January 2003, para 2, has erroneously been considered in the media and public discussions as another report. For clarification, please find the Release as Annex 3, and see also subchapter 1. h) above. 

Accordingly, the undersigned kindly requests a clarification on this matter. As there is no other report than the report of 17 March 1999, which is already in the file as explained above and as the mistakenly in the press named ďreportĒ, which is actually a press release, is enclosed to this statement, the undersigned cordially asks the Tribunal to confirm that there is no need to provide another copy of the report of autopsy protocols, which a) are as explained already in the file (see Prosecutor's Exhibits in this Case, Racak Stimlje, P 156 Tab. 13, Binders 3-5); and b) were even submitted as photocopies to the undersigned by the Tribunal itself, together with the Tribunalís Order of 27 January 2003 in the Case No. IT-02-54-T. 

As during the developments, which led the Tribunal to order the undersigned to testify at the Tribunal, many issues became public before the undersigned was officially informed (or even had received any copies) of the Tribunalís decisions, thus causing much unwanted pressure from the media, the undersigned kindly asks the Tribunal to ensure that her written Statement will remain confidential, as also stated in the Tribunalís Order of 27 January 2003, point 4, until such time as she gives her oral testimony and that no press releases of its contents would be released by the Tribunal before she has given her oral testimony.

Helsinki, on 20 February, 2003

Helena Ranta
Team Leader
European Union Forensic Expert Team in Kosovo 1998-2000

ANNEXES

Annex 1          The Tribunalís Order of 27 January 2003 (4 pages)

Annex 2        A short curriculum vitae of Dr. Helena Ranta (3 pages, PDF)

Annex 3          A Press Release of 17 March 1999 (4 pages)

Annex 4          The interview for the German documentary, given in Prizren in autumn 2000 (7 pages, PDF) In German and English