Bogoro Victims Scars Examined

An expert witness this week told the trial of alleged Congolese warlords Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo that scars from victims claiming to have been attacked in Bogoro could have been caused by bullet wounds.

Dr Eric Baccard, who specialises in forensics and wound ballistics, said he could not confirm that wounds were definitely caused by bullets but said in statements that “no clinical argument can exclude the hypothesis of a scar related to a bullet wound”.

Baccard examined victims in 2005, two years after the attack on the village of Bogoro in the Ituri region of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, DRC, in which some 200 people were killed.

Katanga and Ngudjolo are standing trial at the International Criminal Court, ICC, for their alleged role in the attack. The two men are charged with ten counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity including rape, pillaging, murder, and enlisting child soldiers under the age of 15.

Baccard testified about his examination of three anonymous patients who all claimed to have been injured during the attack. He told the court that the scars he examined were “consistent with the date” of the incident in February 2003 “that is, the scar was no longer developing in any way and this means that this was a scar that was two to three years old”.

One of the victims, identified only as Patient 249, had an oval-shaped scar on the left calf, according to Baccard’s testimony. He said that although the injury had clearly been operated on, the scar indicated that “such a wound is consistent with a wound by a bullet”.

“This is indeed a conclusion drawn on the basis of my experience with wounds that had similar clinical developments,” Baccard said.

In another case, identified as Patient 287, the witness also noted that the victim’s injury was of a “surgical nature” and that the wound was also consistent with that from a bullet.

“It is consistent with surgical operation which itself could have been made necessary by a bullet wound,” he said.

During the cross-examination, Andreas O’Shea, defence for Katanga, questioned the expert witness’s objectivity. Baccard is employed by the Office of the Prosecutor, OTP, as the coordinator of forensic activities, and Ngudjolo’s defence suggested that Baccard’s position could mean he might “support the success of the prosecution”.

When asked, hypothetically, if he would be willing to testify for the defence instead of the prosecution, Baccard replied, “I’m not used to this kind of question, and I must say I’m at a loss.”

“We have no consideration for having one thesis or another prevail,” he said in relation to his method of medical assessments. “That is totally foreign to medical ethics.”

Baccard said he was “uncomfortable” answering questions related to the perception that his testimony might be biased because of his role in the OTP.

“I am willing to answer any questions that come under my skills as an expert,” he said.

Baccard’s cross-examination will continue after a three-week recess. The proceedings resume on April 19.

Emily Ponder is an IWPR intern in London.