Предоставям текста на доклада на финландските експерти, който уж бил "засекретен". Дебело подчертавам следните моменти: 1. Твърдението на хамбургския професор в Берлинер Цайтунг, че не са били извършвани експертизи за нагар по ръцете на жертвите не отговаря на истината - в доклада изрично се объръща внимание каква технология е използвана и защо, както и изрично се посочва че експеризите са били правени точно на ръцете на жертвите (To remove residues from the hand, casting with paraffin has been suggested). Резултатът - не са открити следи от нагар. 2. В светлината на по-горното, твърдението на Берлинер Цайтунг че Ранта е казала пред вестника, че преди една година не са я разбрали и че тя тогава имала пред вид липсата на нагар от изстрели срещу жертвите, а не по ръцете им, е повече от нелогично. 3. В доклада на няколко пъти изрично се подчертава, че той е само един елемент от доказателствения материал, при това пред вид обстоятелствата - без претенциите за прецизност в много от съществените детайли, които нормално са обект на такива експертизи. В доклада също така изрично се посочва кой е виновен и дефакто е попречил на разследването - сръбските власти. 4. Самият характер на съдържанието и формата на доклада показват, че тезите за полтически натиск върху Ранта са неубедителни и по-скоро са поредния опит да се манипулира аудиторията. Докладът няма и не може да има претенциите на главно доказателство. Не случайно изрично се подчертава че пред вид обстоятелствата при които са събирани данните не могат да се посочат изършителите на престъплението. В същото време обаче ще напомня пак че има и други доказателства, извън компетенцията на този долкад, които определено посочват кой е извършителя. 5. Във връзка с т.4 все още не мога да разбера, кой беше този анонимен "финландец" който изтърси по-долу че Ранта била казала по финландската телевизия че върху нея е бил оказан натиск и че жертвите били бойци от АОК? Да оставим настрана че е почти абсурдно да бъдат заплашвани няколко специалисти на куп и това да не стане достояние на пресата, но след като вестник като Берлинер Цайтунг си е позволил да публикува очевидна дезинформация, силно се съмнявам че такова изказване на Ранта по финландската телевизия въобще съществува или ако съществува дали не е точно обратното по смисъл. Все пак не знам какво е нивото на владеене на езика от страна нашия финландец. Съмненията ми се подкрепят и от това че в никой от финландските новинарски сайтове на английски език и дума не се обелва въобще за интервю на Ранта, пълно мълчание по въпроса има във всички световни телеграфни агенции (ИТАР-ТАСС не съм я проверявал защото за мен не е информационна агенция), дори и Берлинер Цайтунг, където би трябвало да са заинтересувани от подкрепа на своя материал, дори и там няма нищо за такова интервю. Ще помоля г-н Иванов ако може да даде някаква информация, ако знае нещо по въпроса, или ако все пак има интервю с Ранта по финландската телевизия да направи лично той превод, ако му е възможно. За което благодаря предварително. А ето го и "секретния доклад": March 17, 1999 REPORT OF THE EU FORENSIC EXPERT TEAM ON THE RACAK INCIDENT These comments are based on the medicolegal investigations by the EU Forensic Expert Team in Pristina as locally authorized by the District Court of Pristina in accordance with the Yugoslav Law on Criminal Procedure. It should be emphasized, that medicolegal investigations constitute only a part -- but do not cover the whole spectrum -- of criminal investigations. The comments represent the personal view of the author, Dr. Helena Ranta, and should not in any manner be construed as an authorized communication on behalf of the Department of Forensic Medicine, University of Helsinki or the EU Forensic Expert Team. 1. TERMS OF REFERENCE OF THE EU FORENSIC EXPERT TEAM The EU Forensic Expert Team consisting of Finnish experts has been involved in the investigation of alleged atrocities in Kosovo since October 1998. When the Racak tragedy was discovered on 16 January 1999, the OSCE turned to the European Union for assistance. Since an EU Forensic Team was already available, it was decided that the Team should also embark on the investigation of the Racak victims. It should be emphasized that the terms of reference of the EU Forensic Team cover solely the medicolegal autopsies of the 40 victims brought to the hospital. They do not concern the full scale of criminal investigations. Accordingly, to mention one important example -- there was no possibility to conduct scene investigations at the actual site of the presumed crime -- which could have rendered important additional information concerning the manner of death of the victims. The findings by the experts are therefore based almost entirely on information derived by investigating the bodies at the morgue. Furthermore, the investigation of the bodies at the hospital was greatly complicated by the fact that the start of autopsies by the EU experts became possible only approximately a week from the estimated time of death of the victims. More importantly, there was no chain of custody by the EU forensic experts of the bodies from the moment of death until the time the investigations started on 22 January 1999 in Pristina. What may or may not have happened to the bodies during that time is difficult to establish in connection with the autopsies with absolute certainty. It should be noted that the EU experts now have completed only a part of the overall investigations concerning the events in Racak -- namely the medicolegal investigation of the victims. For a more complete picture of what took place in Racak a full criminal investigation into the events would be required, combining scene investigations, interrogation of witnesses and analysis of the evidence with the autopsy findings of the EU experts. The original mission of the EU forensic experts was authorized to investigate in an impartial and independent manner, sites of alleged killings of civilians in Kosovo, i.a. in Glodjane, Golubovac, Gornje Obrinje, Klecka, Orahovac and Volujak. The investigations concerning Klecka and Volujak, initiated last year, are to be completed by the end of March 1999 when the DNA analysis will be available. Thereafter, the Team will as soon as possible resume preparations for the investigations with respect to Glodjane, Golubovac, Gornje Obrinje and Orahovac. The first crucial step that one would normally expect to be implemented at any alleged crime scene would be the isolation of the area and the exclusion of unauthorized access. The scene should then be photographed and videotaped, any evidence be collected and victims localized and marked at site. This step should also include sampling for a gunshot residue (GSR) analysis. Victims should then be placed in individual body bags for transport to the morgue. With respect to Racak none of this was done at all -- or was done only partially or improperly. Therefore, important information at the site may have been lost. 2. DETAILS OF THE RACAK INCIDENT According to various sources of information, the incident in Racak most probably took place on or around 15 January 1999. The EU forensic experts only started working in Pristina on 22 January when the bodies had already been brought to the morgue. The Team therefore has no first hand information on the events at Racak. Concerning the site of the events and the circumstances surrounding the deaths of the victims the Team has to rely entirely on the information from the OSCE/KVM and EU/KDOM observers who visited the site on 16 January 1999, and from reports in the media. According to these sources altogether some 45 bodies were found in Racak. Yet, only 40 were taken to the Department of Forensic Medicine, University of Pristina to be investigated. Based on the information obtained from the KVM and KDOM observers the total of 22 men were found in a gully close to the village of Racak. They were most likely shot where found. Most of them have been turned over at some stage. The rest of the victims were found at or close to the village and had either been turned over or moved after death into houses in the village. The more time elapses, the more difficult it usually becomes to establish the assumed time of death. When the Finnish experts had the possibility to start investigations, more than a week had already passed since the discovery of the bodies at Racak. However, the temperature both at the mosque in Racak, where the bodies were first brought, and at the Pristina hospital morgue was close to O C, which has contributed to their preservation. Most that can be said is that the victims appear to have died approximately at the same time. Most of the victims wore several warm jackets and pullovers. No ammunition was found in the pockets. It is likely that no looting of the bodies has occurred, because money (bank notes) was found on them. The clothing bore no identifying badges or insignia of any military unit. No indication of removal of badges or insignia was evident. Based on autopsy findings (e.g. bullet holes, coagulated blood) and photographs of the scenes, it is highly unlikely that clothes could have been changed or removed. Shoes of some of the victims, however, had been taken off, possibly before the bodies were carried inside the mosque. Among those autopsied, there were several elderly men and only one woman. There were no indications of the people being other than unarmed civilians. The Racak events have been described as a "massacre". However, such a conclusion does not fall within the competence of the EU Forensic Team or any other person having participated solely in the investigation of the bodies. The term "massacre" cannot be based on medicolegal facts only but is a legal description of the circumstances surrounding the death of persons as judged from a comprehensive analysis of all available information. Thus, the use of this term is better suited to be used by organs conducting criminal investigations for the purpose of initiating legal proceedings. Moreover, medicolegal investigations cannot give a conclusive answer to the question whether there was a battle or whether the victims died under some other circumstances. A full criminal investigation combined with the interrogation of witnesses by appropriate investigative entities could shed more light on the circumstances prior to and at the time of the death. It should be noted that especially persons not familiar with criminal investigations may have a natural tendency to interpret some observations made at the site of the tragedy as signs of post-mortem mutilation. These, however, are most likely related to animal activity -- such as stray dogs, which are in abundance in the area, and other wild animals -- or traces on the dead bodies caused by the high pressure of projectiles. No indication of tampering or fabrication of evidence was detected. Traditionally, a paraffin test has been used in gunshot residue analysis (GSR). To remove residues from the hand, casting with paraffin has been suggested. This test lacks specificity, however, and at the Interpol meeting in 1968 it was officially stated that it no longer should be used. The most successful technique to date for the analysis of GSR analysis is without doubt the Scanning Electron Microscope with an Energy Dispersive X-Ray Analyzer (SEM-EDX). Only this method has the ability of determining the metallic content without concern about environmental contamination. With the SEM-EDX, the sample is virtually unaffected by the analysis and can be re-examined, if necessary, many times. The sample for the GSR analysis is collected by means of a tape-lift taking into consideration routine precautions (contamination). Paraffin test was for the above reasons not used by the Finnish Team. Test samples for SEM-EDX were taken and they proved to be negative. 3. CO-OPERATION BETWEEN ORGANS AND TECHNICAL ARRANGEMENTS At the professional level, the Team experienced no problems in collaboration with Yugoslavian or Belorussian pathologists. After a demonstration autopsy, all agreed upon common methods and procedures. Furthermore, local criminal and autopsy technicians contributed to the cooperative working atmosphere. The Team was able to complete its investigations without any outside pressure put upon it in Yugoslavia or elsewhere. In Finland, the presence of media in autopsy theatres is unacceptable. Prior to initiating the autopsies it was agreed that media coverage should be minimized. Nevertheless, the Head of the Pristina Institute of Forensic Medicine, Professor Dobricanin, allowed television teams and photographers to enter the premises. When asked, he confirmed that this was in accordance with his instructions. Confusion has been caused by statements and premature conclusions drawn by local experts while the investigations were not completed. In Finland, on-going investigations are not commented upon. After the completion of the autopsies in January, the Serbian and Belorussian pathologists decided to draw up common reports summarizing their findings. The Finnish Team declined to sign these which was erroneously interpreted as disagreement on the findings between the local experts and the Finnish Team. The view of the Finnish Team is that no professional conclusions on the basis of the autopsies should be made without a comprehensive analysis of the data gathered from the corpses. The analysis and tests were conducted at the Helsinki University Department of Forensic Medicine only after the Team returned from Kosovo. Therefore, arriving at conclusions or signing of reports in January would have been premature and thus out of place. Bearing in mind the complex nature of the investigations, it is the view of the Finnish experts that nothing could have been achieved by unnecessarily speeding up procedure. The involvement of the Team began after 16 autopsies had already been performed by local pathologists. With respect to these corpses, the EU experts were in the position only to verify that the work had been done properly. There was no information available from the scene of the alleged crime at the time when autopsies were being performed, which further complicated a systematic approach. All histological, toxicological, and DNA analysis had to be performed afterwards in Helsinki. For safety reasons films had to be developed in Helsinki. All radiographs were digitized and incorporated into a data base. In all, more than 3000 photos were taken and 10 hrs of video film taped. There is a court order by the Investigative Judge authorizing the Team to conduct the medicolegal autopsies. According to Yugoslav law, the autopsy reports will therefore have to be handed over to the District Court of Pristina. A copy of the autopsy reports will also be conveyed to the Department of Forensic Medicine, University of Pristina. The European Union Presidency will be notified of the results of the investigations accordingly. It should be emphasized that the medicolegal investigations undertaken by the EU forensic experts constitute only part of the normal investigation of alleged crimes. Comprehensive picture over the sequence of events in Racak can only be achieved by combining the medicolegal findings of the EU Forensic Team with other possible information from different sources eventually available at a later stage. (end text)