Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 26493

 1                           Wednesday, 21 March 2012

 2                           [Closed session]

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 26494











11  Pages 26494-26542 redacted.  Closed session.















Page 26543

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12                           [Open session]

13             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Excellencies, while we're waiting,

14     I just wanted to say that you made a -- an apt observation ...

15             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, we're in open session.  Thank you.

16             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.  Just a second.  Yes, Ms. --

17             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I would just like to --

18             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff.

19             MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF:  Your Honour, as you have noticed already, we

20     have a new member on the Prosecution bench.  It is trial attorney

21     Kweku Vanderpuye, and he will lead the next witness.  And we have to

22     switch seats now while we -- I don't know whether you want to leave for

23     five minutes.  Otherwise, it will take only one or two minutes.

24             JUDGE KWON:  I think we can continue.

25             Welcome, Mr. Vanderpuye.

Page 26544

 1             MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF:  And, Your Honour, I also have one small

 2     matter and that is an e-mail that we received this morning -- all of us

 3     received this morning from Mr. Robinson asking about the Defence experts,

 4     that the Prosecution has no objections against Dr. Pasalic to attend the

 5     testimony of the Prosecution's demographic experts.

 6             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you for that information.

 7                           [The witness entered court]

 8             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, Mr. Karadzic.

 9             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I would just like to say, and I

10     would like to thank you for noticing that in the amalgamated statements

11     attention was given to the legality of actions regarding the previous

12     witness.  I am an amateur, but I believe that the Prosecution doesn't do

13     anything without a reason.  And whatever else -- whatever is included in

14     92 ter or in an examination-in-chief, I would then need to deal with that

15     particular topic in my cross-examination.  That much in lieu of an

16     explanation of why I was dealing with those topics.

17             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.

18             Please bear with us, Dr. Parsons, for a moment.  Although I note

19     Mr. Tieger is away today, but I can pose a question right now.

20             Yesterday, we received the Prosecution's order of witnesses for

21     April and its motion to amend Rule 65 ter witness list in which the

22     Prosecution seeks to withdraw 32 witnesses and designate 21 others as

23     reserve witnesses.

24             At this stage, it would be very beneficial for the Chamber to

25     hear from the Prosecution approximately as to when it expects to call its

Page 26545

 1     last witness.

 2             MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF:  Your Honour, as you have seen in the

 3     April list, these are actually the witnesses that the Prosecution intends

 4     to call for the remainder of the case, and our own estimate is -- from

 5     our internal court calendar, this would be leading us into the first week

 6     of May.

 7             Those reserve witnesses that we have mentioned in the other

 8     filing are only a precautionary measure in case something particular,

 9     what we couldn't expect, arises during the cross-examination of the

10     remaining witnesses, which is, I must say, very unlikely.

11             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you, Madam Uertz-Retzlaff.

12             Second, I see that -- good morning, Mr. Stojkovic.  We are

13     talking about another Mr. Stojkovic.

14             Mr. Stojkovic is a listed as a Rule 92 ter witness in the

15     April order of witnesses filed yet.

16             MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF:  Yes, Your Honour.  It is also -- he is only

17     listed there as a precaution when the Trial Chamber decides on the

18     pending issue at the moment.

19             JUDGE KWON:  Sorry --

20             MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF:  We do not really intend to call him, because

21     we think he should not come for the topics that the Defence had proposed.

22     But we just -- so that you have a complete picture we added him here, but

23     we hope we will not have to call him.

24             JUDGE KWON:  I understand the point.  It's clear now.

25             Then, Mr. Robinson, given that the Prosecution is wrapping up its

Page 26546

 1     case and calling its last witness sometime in early May, the Chamber

 2     would like to hear from you, or Mr. Karadzic, as to whether the Defence

 3     intends to present an oral motion for acquittal under Rule 98 bis of the

 4     Rules.

 5             MR. ROBINSON:  Yes, Mr. President, we do.

 6             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.

 7             Good morning, Dr. Parsons.

 8             I'm sorry, yes.

 9             MR. ROBINSON:  Excuse, Mr. President.  Actually, you've already

10     recognised Dr. Stojkovic, who will be with us during this testimony.  If

11     I could also, just following up on what you were discussing a minute ago,

12     request that the Trial Chamber set a deadline for the Prosecution to make

13     any bar table motions that it may make, so that by the time the

14     Prosecution's case is actually closed and we make a motion for a

15     judgement of acquittal, we will know exactly what evidence has been

16     admitted and what has not.  So we think it would be useful to have all of

17     that wrapped up so that there's no further delay when -- for us to make

18     that motion.

19             Thank you.

20             JUDGE KWON:  Could the Chamber hear from you, Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff,

21     on this issue.

22             MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF:  Your Honour, we do not think that we need a

23     deadline for doing this.  We are aware that when we close our case, that

24     we have to file by then at least the remaining bar table motion.  We,

25     indeed, plan to file a few bar table motions, in particular related to

Page 26547

 1     intercepts, but also in relation to some documentation for the

 2     municipality component of the case and, if necessary, also for the

 3     Srebrenica component of the case.

 4             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.

 5                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 6             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, if the witness could take the solemn

 7     declaration.

 8             THE WITNESS:  I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the

 9     whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

10                           WITNESS:  THOMAS PARSONS

11             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you, doctor.  Please be seated and make

12     yourself comfortable.

13             Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye.

14             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Thank you, Mr.  President.  And good morning to

15     you, Your Honours.  Good morning to my learned friends across the aisle.

16     I see a lot of familiar faces.  And good morning to you, Dr. Karadzic.

17     Let's get started.

18                           Examination by Mr. Vanderpuye:

19        Q.   Good morning, Dr. Parsons.  I know you've been here before, but I

20     just want to remind you of a couple of things.  First is to try to keep

21     your voice up and try to speak a little more slowly than you might

22     otherwise do so that the interpreters can keep up.  If there's anything

23     that I ask you during the course of your examination that's unclear,

24     please let me know.

25             Have you had an opportunity to review your testimony from the

Page 26548

 1     case of Prosecutor versus Vujadin Popovic et al, from 1 February 2008 and

 2     27 April 2009?

 3        A.   Yes, I have.

 4        Q.   And having reviewed that testimony, doctor, does it fairly and

 5     accurately reflect what you would say were you to be examined here today

 6     and asked the same questions?

 7        A.   Yes, it does.

 8             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Mr. President, at this time I would tender

 9     Dr. Parsons's prior testimony.

10             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.  That will be admitted.

11             MR. VANDERPUYE:  I will ask --

12             JUDGE KWON:  Just a second.

13             MR. VANDERPUYE:  I'm sorry.

14             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit P4636, Your Honours.  Thank you.

15             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.

16             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Thank you, Mr. President.  I will ask for

17     certain associated exhibits to be admitted.  I intend to use some with

18     him, and, so I understand it, the process is to tender them as I go and

19     ultimately decide them at the end of the testimony.  If that's all right.

20     I have a brief summary of the testimony I would like to read into the

21     record at this time.

22             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.

23             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Thank you.

24             At the time of his testimony in the Popovic et al case,

25     Dr. Parsons was the director of the forensic sciences for the

Page 26549

 1     International Commission for Missing Persons which operates a highly

 2     experienced DNA laboratory system active since 2001.

 3             In October 2007, the organisation received an ISO 17025

 4     accreditation, a significant international standard for forensic DNA

 5     analysis.

 6             The ICMP mandate is the identification of missing persons.  Its

 7     task is principally threefold.  1, to assist governments with the issue

 8     of missing persons; 2, to conduct a civil society initiative; and 3, to

 9     provide forensic assistance by providing DNA identifications.

10             Although relevant in part to the Tribunal's proceedings, the

11     ICMP's work is conducted wholly independently.

12             Dr. Parsons's responsibilities included supervising three

13     forensic science divisions, the examinations and excavation division, the

14     DNA laboratory system, the DNA identification and co-ordination division.

15             Dr. Parsons explained the nature and the reliability of DNA

16     testing generally, as well as the specific processes involving nuclear

17     STR typing, a well-established technology validated and accepted in the

18     scientific community as the standard in forensic diagnosis.  He further

19     noted that as part of its accreditation, the ICMP is subject to a formal

20     review process and technical audits.

21             Many Standard Operating Procedures, SOPs, document the DNA

22     testing processes carried out by the ICMP.  These SOPs shared with other

23     laboratories reflect fundamental science and widely used procedures.

24     Many are referenced in Dr. Parsons's methodology report which covers the

25     period from 2001 to 2008.

Page 26550

 1             Dr. Parsons testified that the International Commission on

 2     Missing Persons DNA matching procedure is robust, documented and

 3     regulated.  Match reports express the DNA tests and require a minimum

 4     threshold of statistical surety of 99.95 per cent to be issued.  Where

 5     there is presumptive evidence of identity, such as in the presence of

 6     artefacts, that threshold is 99 per cent statistical surety.  The ICMP

 7     has in place a formal system of review for all DNA reports.

 8             As of Dr. Parsons's 2009 testimony, the ICMP's data reflected

 9     6023 individual victims connected to the Srebrenica events.

10             Mr. President, that concludes my summary and I do have some

11     questions to put to Dr. Parsons.

12             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, please proceed.  After which you will deal with

13     associated exhibits at the end of your examination-in-chief.

14             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Thank you, Mr. President.

15        Q.   Doctor, beside your testimony in the Popovic case, which is the

16     basis of your evidence here, have you testified as an expert before this

17     Tribunal in any other proceedings?

18        A.   Yes.

19        Q.   And what proceedings would those be?

20        A.   Tolimir.

21        Q.   When was your testimony in the Tolimir case, if you can recall?

22        A.   I'm bad with dates, but I believe it was in 2011.

23        Q.   And did you have an opportunity to review your testimony in that

24     case prior to testifying here today?

25        A.   Yes, I did.

Page 26551

 1        Q.   Okay.  I'd like to show you, if I could, 65 ter 23671 in e-court.

 2             Do you recognise this document, Dr. Parsons?

 3        A.   I do.

 4        Q.   And what is it?

 5        A.   This would be a document that we provided information with to

 6     indicate changes that had occurred in the technical processing of the DNA

 7     laboratory over time and since my previous testimony to indicate

 8     alterations in the Standard Operating Procedures to better define what

 9     steps are presently -- were at the time presently conducted in the

10     laboratory.

11        Q.   Okay.  I'll come back to that in just a moment.

12             Let me clarify first.  This was created after the methodology

13     report that was the subject of your Popovic testimony covering the period

14     from 2001 to 2008; is that right?

15        A.   That's correct.  This was intended as an update to that

16     information.

17        Q.   All right.  Let me just show you 65 ter 23672.

18             I understand that we have some problems with that one.  But can

19     you explain a little bit about the nature of the protocols that have

20     changed since the 2001 through 2008 methodology report.  Are these

21     substantive changes to the techniques, for example, that are employed by

22     the organisation?

23        A.   Well, first of all, I'd like to emphasise that they do not

24     reflect any substantial overarching change to the basic technology that

25     is utilised in the laboratory.  We continue to use nuclear STR typing as

Page 26552

 1     our predominant form of identification.  The predominant changes

 2     reflected in this document, if I remember it correctly, would relate to a

 3     new and improved extraction method for isolating DNA from degraded

 4     skeletal remains.  We continue to perform research at the ICMP to improve

 5     methodologies and we then tested and validated a new and more sensitive

 6     method for recovery of DNA.

 7             There is also some instrumentation update aspects to this where

 8     we would replace older models of instrumentation with new

 9     state-of-the-art models of instrumentation and associated changes

10     associated with that.  But really rather routine.

11        Q.   Are these kinds of protocol changes connected to any changes in

12     the platforms, for example, the nature of the types of tests that you

13     run?

14        A.   Not fundamentally to the nature of the types of tests that we

15     run.  You use the word "platform," and in many instances "platform" is a

16     word that is applied to instrumentation, so I would say that maybe our

17     platforms have changed.  That is to say, the model of instrument that we

18     run the profiles on is new.

19             JUDGE KWON:  Just a second.

20             Mr. Karadzic, can we continue or do you like to have a break till

21     your computer --

22             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Do continue, Excellency.  But I

23     cannot follow LiveNote and therefore I cannot take any notes.  The

24     computer has gone crazy.  I cannot even retrieve my own documents.

25             But I think we can continue until the break.

Page 26553

 1             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.  With your kind understanding, we'll

 2     continue.

 3             Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye, please continue.

 4             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Thank you, Mr. President.

 5             If we could just go down to the bottom of this page, all the way

 6     down.  And we can see a date reflected here, 14 February 2011.  And if we

 7     go to the next page, please.  We can see a signature.

 8        Q.   Is that yours, Dr. Parsons?

 9        A.   Yes, it is.

10        Q.   And the date of 14 February 2011, does that reflect the date the

11     document was issued or approved?

12        A.   It does.

13        Q.   Okay.

14             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Mr. President, I would like to tender this

15     document.

16             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.  This is 23671.

17             MR. VANDERPUYE:  23671, correct.

18             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.  Thank you.  That will be admitted as next

19     Prosecution exhibit.

20             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit P4637, Your Honours.  Thank you.

21             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Thank you.

22        Q.   I just wanted to show you, if I could, Dr. Parsons, a copy of

23     your curriculum vitae.  It's 65 ter 23672.

24             All right.  Do you recognise this, Dr. Parsons?

25        A.   Yes, I do.

Page 26554

 1        Q.   And can you tell us approximately up until when it -- it's

 2     current?

 3        A.   The most recent version that I have provided in support of this

 4     court was current -- I think it was January 2012, and I believe that's

 5     the document I'm looking at.

 6        Q.   Okay.  And does it reflect your current position which is

 7     director of forensic science at the ICMP?

 8        A.   Yes.

 9             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Mr. President, I'd like to tender this exhibit

10     as well.

11             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.

12             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit P4638, Your Honours.  Thank you.

13             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Thank you.

14        Q.   Dr. Parsons, have your responsibilities as director of forensic

15     sciences at the ICMP changed in any way since your testimony here in the

16     Popovic case?

17        A.   No, they have not.

18        Q.   Can you just briefly remind us of what specific entities or what

19     your responsibilities are with respect to different divisions and

20     sections within the ICMP.

21        A.   In general, my role is to direct the scientific standards of the

22     laboratory and to be responsible for the implementation of our scientific

23     quality management system that oversees the manner in which scientific

24     results are produced.  With regard to supervision of divisions within the

25     ICMP, I would refer to the nice summary that you gave just a little bit

Page 26555

 1     ago.  There are three main divisions.  One is the DNA laboratory division

 2     where samples, either blood samples or prepared small bone samples, are

 3     tested for nuclear DNA profiles and a DNA profile is obtained.

 4             A second division that I oversee is the identification

 5     co-ordination division and this is the central facility at the ICMP where

 6     samples are received either from mortuary facilities by a forensic

 7     pathologist or an anthropologist or blood samples that have been donated

 8     by family members who are seeking their missing persons.  And those

 9     samples enter the identification co-ordination division and are then

10     accessioned to the ICMP system in a manner that strips them of all

11     information that would potentially bias subsequent steps.  So they are

12     given a random number, which we refer to as a bar code, and then those

13     are sent to the DNA laboratory system in a blind manner to allow an

14     objective testing process.

15             The identification co-ordination system then plays -- division,

16     identification co-ordination division then plays an important role at the

17     other end of the process.  After DNA profiles are obtained in the

18     laboratory, those profiles are sent to the identification co-ordination

19     division where matching, genetic matching is performed.  Databases of

20     family reference DNA profiles are searched for each and every profile

21     that we get from a human remains bone sample, and in that way, DNA

22     matches are identified.  And it is the identification co-ordination

23     division that issues those match reports.

24             The third division that I'm responsible for in terms of overall

25     oversight is what was referred to as the excavations and exhumations --

Page 26556

 1     examinations division, excavations and examinations division.  We've

 2     actually since changed the name.  The function remains the same.  We now

 3     refer to it as the archeology and anthropology division.  And those are

 4     the people that provide technical assistance in the excavation of graves,

 5     the recovery of human remains, as well as the anthropological examination

 6     in a mortuary setting after those remains are recovered to assess a

 7     biological profile to determine whether the remains represent a single

 8     individual or possibly have been co-mingled to represent multiple

 9     individuals, and importantly, also in many instances provide technical

10     assistance in sampling those remains for DNA testing that are then sent

11     to the laboratory.

12        Q.   Thank you very much for that explanation.

13             JUDGE KWON:  My respect for the interpreters.  Now you can

14     continue.

15             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Thank you, Mr. President.

16        Q.   Can you tell us what the current accreditation status is of the

17     DNA laboratory system of the ICMP?

18        A.   Both the DNA laboratory system and the identification

19     co-ordination division are accredited to the International ISO 17025

20     standard through the German national accreditation agency DACH.  That's

21     the abbreviation for it.

22        Q.   And has there been any change in the protocols or procedures

23     employed by the organisation since it was accredited and since you've

24     testified in the Popovic case?

25        A.   You ask specifically about protocols, and as an accredited

Page 26557

 1     laboratory we operate strictly off of a set of procedures which are

 2     referred to as Standard Operating Procedures and those define the conduct

 3     of each of the scientists involved in the process of the DNA lab, in the

 4     matching.  And in fact, those protocols are routinely updated to reflect

 5     changes and or improvements in methodology or to accommodate, for

 6     example, a new instrumentation that requires different steps for the

 7     entry of information.  These kind of things.

 8             So there have been many changes with regard to our large battery

 9     of Standard Operating Procedures.  But, again, I would emphasise nothing

10     fundamental has changed with regard to our accreditation.

11        Q.   And do any of the changes that have occurred with respect to the

12     procedures or protocols employed by the organisation reflect on the

13     standard or the accuracy of testing procedures that took place prior to

14     the implementation of those protocols and procedures?

15        A.   The fact that we may proactively implement steps that we consider

16     to decrease the chance for human error, for example, or to increase the

17     sensitivity of a DNA extraction, those kind of things, we have no reason

18     to believe that they impugn the accuracy of previously reported results.

19        Q.   Has the ICMP carried out, for lack of a better term, spot-checks,

20     for example, of analyses that have been conducted prior to the

21     implementation of new instruments or new procedures to determine the

22     accuracy of the previously analysed results?

23        A.   Yes.  In a number of ways.  One way is from -- is through blind

24     proficiency testing in the laboratory, where the identification

25     co-ordination division in an anonymous and blind manner submits to the

Page 26558

 1     DNA laboratory samples that the DNA laboratory has previously reported a

 2     result on.  Now the laboratory receives a new sample, doesn't know that

 3     it has been previously tested, and then produces a result again.  And

 4     then, of course, within the quality management system we would check to

 5     make sure that they got a consistent result, and this is a -- it's known

 6     as an internal blind proficiency test of the laboratory.

 7             We also routinely review data generated in previous years when it

 8     relates to new matches that are being made.  So we will have the

 9     situation where reference DNA profiles may have been generated in 2004,

10     but we have now, in 2011, say, received a bone sample that's given a

11     profile that matches those reference samples from 2004.  Under those

12     circumstances we will then perform a new technical review of the family

13     reference samples that were generated previously to ensure that they are

14     up to present-day standards.  If there is any question with regard to the

15     final review process on the DNA match report, we do not hesitate to

16     retest those samples to confirm.

17             THE INTERPRETER:  Could you please slow down for the

18     interpretation.

19             MR. VANDERPUYE:

20        Q.   In the instances where you had an occasion to go back and test

21     reference samples or other samples that were obtained prior to the

22     implementation of a new procedure or protocol, have you achieved results

23     that are consistent with the previously obtained results or inconsistent

24     with the previously obtained results?

25        A.   Almost universally the results are consistent.

Page 26559

 1             Well, if I may return to your previous question and add one more

 2     instance regarding analysis of previous data and that relates to -- I

 3     mentioned earlier that we now have improved protocols for extraction of

 4     DNA from degraded skeletal remains.  And we went back to all DNA profiles

 5     from human remains samples that were generated from 2001 to 2004, the

 6     earlier days of the ICMP, and these are profiles that have not matched to

 7     family references.  So we're concerned why they may not have been

 8     matching.  The most -- the most typical reason is that we simply don't

 9     have reference samples for them to match, but we wondered if improved

10     protocols and a reanalysis of that data could make it possible for us to

11     discern additional matches within those early profiles.

12             So we went through an exercise of investigating 1.582 unmatched

13     profiles from bones that had been generated between 2001 and 2004.  And

14     through an extremely labourious process of technical review, we found --

15     I believe it was a single instance where they -- the previous profile was

16     incorrect, according to our analysis, and we found 16 instances where

17     improved data allowed a DNA match to be found when it previously couldn't

18     be found.

19             So basically we added more genetic data to those cases and were

20     able to make a match.

21        Q.   Thank you for that explanation, Dr. Parsons.

22             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.

23             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Thank you, Mr. President.

24             THE WITNESS:  Can I inquire of the translators, am I going slowly

25     enough now?  No.  Still slower.  Okay, thank you.

Page 26560

 1             JUDGE KWON:  You are asked to speak a bit more slowly, if you

 2     could bear that in mind.  Thank you.

 3             Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye.

 4             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Thank you, Mr. President.

 5        Q.   I'd like to show you 65 ter 22858.  Mr. President, I would ask

 6     that this not be broadcast.

 7             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.  Thank you.

 8             MR. VANDERPUYE:

 9        Q.   Dr. Parsons, what I'm showing you is a group of documents

10     concerning some 58 individuals.  Can you first tell us what we're looking

11     at?

12        A.   This is a DNA match report as issued standardly by the ICMP to

13     indicate our findings with regard to a DNA match between a human remains

14     sample and a set of family reference DNA profiles.

15        Q.   Can you tell us --

16             MR. VANDERPUYE:  If we can go to the bottom of the page, please.

17     And to the left.

18        Q.   Here we have an indication of a site, a code, KTA-1/09-RZ and

19     then it has an indication here of site location.  And it says

20     "Koricanske Stijene."

21             First, can you tell us where that information comes from?

22        A.   That information is submitted to us together with the sample when

23     we receive it.

24        Q.   Immediately above the site location name we can see a bar code.

25     Is that a reference -- rather, is that the bar code reference that you

Page 26561

 1     just testified about?

 2        A.   That's correct.  The -- that's the bar code that has been

 3     assigned to this sample.

 4        Q.   And then if we look a little bit -- if we can go to the right,

 5     please, of this document.  We can see the name of a pathologist and we

 6     can see the jurisdiction BiH/MPI.  Can you tell us what that reflects?

 7        A.   The samples that we receive are under the authority of a

 8     court-appointed forensic pathologist - in this case, the individual named

 9     here - and the overarching authority that -- that allows him to conduct

10     these analyses in this instance is the Missing Persons Institute, a

11     national agency in Bosnia.

12        Q.   Okay.  And can you tell us whether or not the information that's

13     contained in this particular document is coded or uncoded?

14        A.   At the upper part of this match report are listed a number of DNA

15     profiles and that would be the genetic information that was obtained from

16     the samples in question.  This is an instance where the genetic data is

17     coded in a way that does not -- that protects the privacy of the

18     individual.  So in viewing this match report, anyone who has it is not

19     able to know the true genetic profile of the individuals involved,

20     although they are able to discern what date was obtained and also discern

21     patterns of relationships between the related individuals that are

22     represented on this match report.

23        Q.   And could you tell us in plain English what the conclusion

24     expresses here with regard to the possible identification of the

25     individual in this report?

Page 26562

 1             MR. ROBINSON:  Excuse me, Mr. President, before he does that, I

 2     would like to inquire why this document could not be broadcast.

 3             JUDGE KWON:  Is it not concerned with the identification of some

 4     family members of victims?  But probably we will be assisted by hearing

 5     from you, Mr. Vanderpuye.

 6             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Thank you, Mr. President.  Yes, there are

 7     two issues.  One is that it relates to the identification of the family

 8     members.  And the second issue is because it essentially identifies the

 9     remains, the person who was recovered from the exhumation, and at this

10     point it is unclear whether or not those family members have been

11     notified that that person has been so identified and the case closed.

12             So that's the reason why I've asked to proceed in this manner and

13     not to broadcast it although we are talking about it at least publicly.

14     And that's why I hesitate to use the names of any of the individuals

15     named in this document --

16             JUDGE KWON:  If it is to be admitted, your submission is that it

17     should be admitted under seal?

18             MR. VANDERPUYE:  I'm sorry, Mr. President?

19             JUDGE KWON:  If it to be admitted, do we have to admit it under

20     seal?

21             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Yes, Mr. President.

22             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, Mr. Robinson.

23             MR. ROBINSON:  Yes, Mr. President.  First of all, I notice the

24     document is from 2009, so I find it very surprising if the family

25     wouldn't have been notified by now that the remains of the deceased had

Page 26563

 1     been located.

 2             But apart from that issue, I don't understand why the identity of

 3     relatives is something that is -- something should be protected and

 4     people don't have protective measures in the normal situation in a

 5     domestic court.  When you have a homicide, there's no hiding from the

 6     public or making under seal the identity of relatives of the victim.  It

 7     is all part of a public trial.  And so absent any sensitive issues that

 8     could cause someone grief such as learning through these proceedings of

 9     the identity of the bones of a loved one, I don't see why, in principle,

10     why we should keep from the public this material.

11             JUDGE KWON:  So it is your argument, isn't it, that DNA

12     information can be revealed to public?  Of anybody else.

13             MR. ROBINSON:  Well, he's -- I think he has testified that this

14     document doesn't reveal the actual DNA of these people themselves.  So

15     given -- that's -- when I heard that testimony, that's what prompted me

16     to think that there was really no reason why this document could not be

17     made public.

18             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye.

19             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Thank you, Mr. President.  And I appreciate the

20     arguments that Mr. Robinson has made but I think he himself has

21     acknowledged and identified the very issue, or the crux of the issue

22     here, which is to the extent that it is not known whether or not the

23     family members of the person identified in this document have been

24     notified, this is the very reason why this information shouldn't be

25     broadcast.  Despite the fact that Mr. Robinson may find it difficult to

Page 26564

 1     believe that that hasn't happened yet.  In certain circumstances these

 2     individuals are far-flung and it's not clear what contact they have with

 3     respect to information about their loved ones, whether they can be

 4     located, and so there's a -- and there is an -- I'm sure Mr. Robinson is

 5     aware, as Dr. Stojkovic is, that there ask a formal process by which

 6     those notifications take place which involve pathologists, they involve

 7     court order, et cetera, which is something that is a little bit away or

 8     outside of the ICMP's direct remit.

 9             MR. ROBINSON:  But, Mr. President, couldn't the Prosecution and

10     the ICMP identify for us those what I would hope to be very rare

11     situations where they've had for three years the identity of a victim and

12     not notified the family members and otherwise be able to use in public

13     the remaining documents?

14             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Mr. President, I --

15             JUDGE KWON:  Why don't we leave it at that and proceed dealing --

16     dealing with these items sort of confidentially and sort it out later on.

17             But probably you can deal with Dr. Parsons during your further --

18     remaining examination.

19             MR. VANDERPUYE:  I think I can.  Thank you, Mr. President.

20             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.

21             MR. VANDERPUYE:

22        Q.   I think I was asking you about trying to express in plain

23     English, if you will, the conclusion that is expressed in this report.

24        A.   The conclusion statement communicates the strength of the DNA

25     evidence that favours the association of this set of human remains to the

Page 26565

 1     family members as listed on this report.

 2             The first number that we quote where it says the DNA results

 3     obtained from the bone sample - I won't read the number - are 42.6 e 12

 4     times more likely if the bone sample originated from an individual

 5     related to the blood references in a manner as described on this report.

 6             What that means is - in getting back to the plain English part of

 7     it - first I will -- I will indicate that the 42.6 e 12 is a shorthand

 8     notation for exponential in base 10.  So that number reflects 42.6,

 9     followed by 12 zeros.  So that would be 42.6, if I have this right,

10     trillion times - is that right?  I think that's right - more likely.  And

11     that is the number by which we are more sure of this potential

12     association after having done the test.  So there may be some prior

13     reason to suspect that this bone sample belongs to this individual.

14     Having done the DNA test, we are now 42.6 trillion times more sure.

15        Q.   Can you briefly explain to the Chamber what is meant by prior

16     odds of 1 over 4500 as we see here.

17        A.   Right.  That number, the -- the -- prior odds is the level of

18     certainty which we are updating.  So that is ICMP's estimate, in this

19     case, of how sure we were before we did the DNA test.  And the convention

20     that the ICMP uses is simply to consider the number of missing persons

21     understood to be missing from a particular region or event.

22             In this case, I -- I don't -- I can't recall where precisely this

23     comes from, but it would have been an event where we consider that there

24     were 4.500 people missing generally.  And so our prior odds were simply

25     that there is one chance in 4.500 that this bone sample would be from

Page 26566

 1     this particular individual prior to doing the DNA test, so a pretty low

 2     chance because there were so many people missing.  In considering only

 3     that number of missing people, we then did the DNA test and are

 4     42 trillion times more sure, and then when we combine that with the prior

 5     odds or the prior probability of 1 in 4.500, we get a final posterior

 6     probability of relatedness and that is the number that the

 7     99.99999 per cent value.  And that basically -- that is the number that

 8     corresponds to really how sure we are in the end that this would be the

 9     individual.

10             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Mr. President, I would offer this exhibit into

11     evidence.  Under seal.  It does contain other such match reports but I

12     don't think it is necessary to show the witness each of them.

13             JUDGE KWON:  As a sample, the sample page.

14             MR. VANDERPUYE:  I would like to actually tender the entire

15     document because it concerns 58 individuals, the identities of whom have

16     been established in relation to an event that is charged in the

17     indictment.

18             JUDGE KWON:  You're going to tender it separately or tender it

19     all together?

20             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Yes.  I think it's all one document.

21             JUDGE KWON:  So we deal with it at the end --

22             MR. VANDERPUYE: [Overlapping speakers] ...

23             JUDGE KWON:  You're not going to deal with the remainder of the

24     document.

25             MR. VANDERPUYE:  I'm not planning to deal with the remainder of

Page 26567

 1     the document.  They're all match reports concerning the one event that is

 2     indicated on this particular page.

 3             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, Mr. Robinson.

 4             MR. ROBINSON:  Yes, Mr. President.

 5             I don't think it is really necessary for them to go through each

 6     of the 58, so it's okay.

 7             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.  Yes, that will be admitted.

 8             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, 65 ter 22858 shall be assigned

 9     Exhibit P4639, under seal.  Thank you.

10             JUDGE KWON:  And given the time, if it is convenient, we'll have

11     a break.

12             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Thank you, Mr. President.

13             JUDGE KWON:  We'll break for an hour and resume at 1.30.

14                           --- Luncheon recess taken at 12.31 p.m.

15                           --- On resuming at 1.31 p.m.

16             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye.

17             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Thank you, Mr. President, Your Honours, good

18     afternoon.

19             If I could have in e-court shown to the witness, please,

20     65 ter 22860.

21        Q.   Dr. Parsons, what I'm showing you -- first of all, do you

22     recognise what this document is?

23        A.   Yes, I do.

24        Q.   In this particular instance, we can see a case number

25     KOR031003-1.

Page 26568

 1             MR. VANDERPUYE:  And, again, this concerns the

 2     Koricanske Stijene, which, as I mentioned, for Your Honours' benefit, is

 3     referred to the indictment, Scheduled Incident B 15.6.

 4        Q.   And how would you describe -- or, rather, what is this document,

 5     Dr. Parsons?

 6        A.   This is also a DNA match report generated by the ICMP.  It looks

 7     different than the version that you showed before the break.  It is

 8     simply an older format was that was in use at that time.

 9             MR. VANDERPUYE:  If we could just go down to the bottom of the

10     page for a moment.

11        Q.   Here we see the date, 24 November 2004.  Is that consistent with

12     the format that this particular report is in?

13        A.   I would be -- I would have no reason to consider it inconsistent.

14        Q.   Thank you, Dr. Parsons.

15             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Mr. President, I would tender this exhibit as

16     well.  This one concerns four individuals related to the same incident.

17             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, Mr. Robinson.

18             MR. ROBINSON:  Yes, Mr. President.  I don't know if this is being

19     offered to be tendered under seal, but I just happened to notice that in

20     the Mrdja indictment it lists all the victims of Koricanske Stijene,

21     including the one whose profile was admitted under seal before the break.

22     So I think that the possibility of announcing someone's remains have been

23     found when it wasn't already known that they were victims of this

24     incident is non-existent, so these should not be admitted under seal but

25     admitted for public consumption.

Page 26569

 1             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye.

 2             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Mr. President, and perhaps my colleague is under

 3     a misimpression.  There are a couple of issues that attend to this

 4     question.  One is the privacy interests of the individuals whose blood

 5     samples have been analysed.  And then there are the interests of

 6     obviously the victim that has been identified.  And then there are also

 7     privacy interests as regards the relationship between those individuals

 8     who have submitted blood samples, between -- among those individuals, I

 9     should say, and the victim.

10             So it is not clear to me that even if a notification has occurred

11     or even if it is known, the identity of a victim, that it is necessarily

12     known among the donors who gave blood to identify that victim what the

13     status among them is, and so I don't know that Mr. Robinson's arguments

14     actually obtain, notwithstanding the fact that the identity of the victim

15     is known.

16             MR. ROBINSON:  Well, again, Mr. President, I think that in

17     domestic proceedings these matters are all public and it's only -- and

18     even in this Tribunal something is not supposed to be in closed session

19     unless it is in the interests of justice and it is presumed that all of

20     our proceedings are to be open.  And I don't think that a fact that the

21     an individual is related to another individual who has died implicates a

22     privacy interest such that we should close the proceedings and make that

23     information not available to the public.

24             JUDGE KWON:  I take it that -- it was my understanding that,

25     Mr. Vanderpuye, you would deal with that issue with Dr. Parsons in -- in

Page 26570

 1     your -- in the course of your examination-in-chief.

 2             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Yes, I'm happy to do that, Mr. President.

 3             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.

 4             MR. VANDERPUYE:

 5        Q.   Dr. Parsons, if you're able, can you articulate, for the benefit

 6     of the Trial Chamber and for the Defence, the reasons why there may be

 7     privacy interests with respect to the publication of these reports?

 8        A.   The principle reason is the one that you proffered a little while

 9     ago, relating to our knowledge of family notification.  It does not seem

10     appropriate to the ICMP to have the potential that a family member will

11     learn of the fate of their loved one through viewing public court

12     proceedings here.

13             Moreover, with reference to several instances where domestic

14     court proceedings have been referred to, I would suggest that this is a

15     slightly different context with regard to perception on the part of

16     victims and victims' family, with regard to their own personal security.

17     And from that standpoint, it would seem that there's a privacy issue with

18     regard to having participated in a process that would identify their

19     loved one, and, moreover, potentially be entered into a criminal

20     proceedings such as this one here.

21        Q.   Is it possible that the information that's contained in a report

22     such as this may reveal a familial relationship or the lack thereof

23     between donors for the purposes of identifying a particular victim?

24        A.   In the instance where even coded genetic data is listed on the

25     DNA match report, there is a potential for genetic relationships to be

Page 26571

 1     revealed, and we would consider that to be private information to that

 2     family.

 3        Q.   Thank you, Dr. Parsons.

 4             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Mr. President, if there are additional

 5     questions, clarifying questions you'd like me to ask, I'll be happy to

 6     pose them as well.

 7             JUDGE KWON:  Mr. Robinson, given the information given by

 8     Dr. Parsons and following the practice of other Chambers, we'll admit it

 9     under seal.

10             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit P4640, under seal, Your Honours.

11     Thank you.

12             MR. VANDERPUYE:  If I can please show the witness 65 ter 22859 in

13     e-court.

14        Q.   This is a document, Dr. Parsons, that concerns 38 individuals

15     identified in relation to the incident of which I previously spoke

16     concerning the Koricani cliffs.  First, can you tell us what we're

17     looking at here?

18        A.   This is yet another type of DNA match report that is issued by

19     the ICMP.  However, this particular document would be an internal DNA

20     match report that we use for purposes of final review.  Blacked out in

21     the lower left of this document are a series of signature lines that

22     would represent the responsible scientists who are involved in the final

23     review process and the genetic data that is present on this report that

24     here has appropriately been blacked out would -- would represent the

25     genuine and authentic data that we consider to be private data.

Page 26572

 1             MR. VANDERPUYE:  If we can go to the next page, please.

 2        Q.   Here we have another report similar to the one that we saw in the

 3     previous exhibit.  Is this also consistent with the style or the format

 4     of the report that you referred to previously as an earlier iteration?

 5        A.   Yes, it is.

 6             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Mr. President, I would similarly tender this

 7     document under seal.

 8             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.  That will be admitted under seal.

 9             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit P4641, under seal, Your Honours.

10     Thank you.

11                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

12             MR. VANDERPUYE:  I would like to show the witness, and I believe

13     this also should not be broadcast, 65 ter 23660.

14             I think this has to be displayed in Sanction, so I'm not --

15             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.

16             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Thank you very much.

17        Q.   Dr. Parsons, do you recognise what we have on the screen before

18     you?

19        A.   I'm sorry, I do not.  It says "E-court surrogate sheet," does it?

20        Q.   Ah, okay.  We'll have to adjust that for you, I think.

21             Do you have the exhibit in front of you now, Dr. Parsons?

22        A.   Yes, I do.

23        Q.   All right.  And what is it?

24        A.   This is a list of DNA match reports that have been issued by the

25     ICMP from the period of November 2001 to August 2011, representing DNA

Page 26573

 1     match reports considered by the ICMP to be related to the fall of

 2     Srebrenica in 1995.

 3        Q.   Thank you very much.  And we can see that it's split up into

 4     several different tabs.  One relating to Srebrenica event, Zepa event,

 5     and then there's a tab for cases inconclusively associated and cases

 6     excluded.  What I'd like to do is to just go briefly into the Srebrenica

 7     event list, for you to indicate to the Trial Chamber what's in there,

 8     what the various designations are.  So if we can just go into that page.

 9     I think we have it right on the first, and we can see obviously some

10     names, date of birth, and then protocol ID.  Can you tell us what that

11     means briefly?

12        A.   The protocol ID is an internal number assigned by the ICMP that

13     simply relates to the DNA match report itself.  So we can consider it the

14     number associated with the DNA match report.

15        Q.   Is it unique to a particular sample match or to an individual?

16        A.   It is unique to that sample match, to that match report.

17        Q.   Next to that we see case ID.  Can you tell us what that is?

18        A.   That is the designation that came with the sample to the ICMP as

19     an identifier of that sample.

20        Q.   As we move a bit -- and that is unique to the sample, let me just

21     ask before we move on to the next column?

22        A.   Yes, it is.

23        Q.   If we could move to the right side a little, we can see ICMP ID.

24     Can you tell us what that is?

25        A.   That is a number also internally assigned by the ICMP, but in

Page 26574

 1     this case, it refers to the reported missing person.  So it's specific to

 2     that individual that was reported to us.

 3        Q.   And I think we can see an example of that in rows 7 and 8, where

 4     we have the same individual named with a common ICMP ID and then we have

 5     a site name next to that.

 6             Can you see that?

 7        A.   Yes, I can.

 8        Q.   If we go over to the right of the screen a little bit more, I'd

 9     like -- a little bit more.  I'd like to ask you explain a couple of

10     things here.  We see jurisdiction.  What does that refer to?

11        A.   That is the agency under whose authority that grave-site where

12     the sample came from was excavated.

13             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Can we go a little bit more to the right.  A

14     couple more columns.

15        Q.   Here we have the place of disappearance and the protocol ID.  The

16     place of disappearance here we have on this particular frame

17     alternates -- well, not alternates, but contains Potocari and forest.

18     Can you explain what that means?

19        A.   These are the designations that the ICMP has listed as a result

20     of interacting with the families who reported these individuals missing

21     as to their last reported -- as to their place of disappearance.  In

22     association with the fall of Srebrenica in July 1995, there were two

23     major events involving victims.  A large column of men in the days

24     preceding July 10th and 11th, trying to escape over land from Srebrenica

25     toward Tuzla, and those individuals that were involved in that -- in that

Page 26575

 1     action would be listed as missing from, quote/unquote, forest.  And then

 2     there was another set of men and boys, almost exclusively but not

 3     entirely exclusively, that remained in Potocari at the DutchBat facility

 4     and other environs and that were subsequently disappeared -- subsequently

 5     became missing and were reported by the family members to have remained

 6     in Potocari at that time.

 7        Q.   Generally where does this information come from for the purposes

 8     of this list, for ICMP purposes?

 9        A.   It comes from the detailed interactions that we have with family

10     members at the time that we take the information that is needed from them

11     to register a missing person and to obtain related types of information

12     that we would capture.

13        Q.   Protocol ID.  Can you tell us what that means?

14        A.   Again, that's the -- that's the protocol number that is

15     associated with the DNA match report and -- and there are basically two

16     kinds of protocol numbers.

17             One is a main number which is -- if we look at the top of list --

18     this list, 9662-07, that would be a main case.

19             If we drop down a little bit, we can see a protocol number with

20     an R as a suffix and that would be -- that would indicate a sample that

21     has been reassociated to a previously identified sample from that same

22     individual.

23        Q.   And we can see on the far right column the designations of main

24     cases and reassociations.  Is that what you are referring to?

25        A.   That is.

Page 26576

 1        Q.   All right.  I'd like to go over to the cases inconclusively

 2     associated, and here we have very similar entries.  Can you, first of

 3     all, explain very briefly what this designation is, inconclusively

 4     associated cases?

 5        A.   Well, this is a small number of DNA match reports which based on

 6     the information we have may very well be associated with the Srebrenica

 7     event.  But there's a possibility that they are not.  So we have

 8     separated them out into -- into a separate sheet.

 9        Q.   And the possibilities -- the limited possibility that they may be

10     associated with the Srebrenica event in this -- in this particular

11     instance shows up in what types of examples, can you give us?

12        A.   Well, I'm not in a position to recall the details of all these

13     cases, but I'll give you a simple example of the kind of thing that would

14     put someone on this list.

15             And that would be in the instance where we have related missing

16     persons.  So let's say we have two brothers that are both reported to us

17     as missing, and one of these brothers is reported missing as associated

18     with Srebrenica and the other from some event separate from Srebrenica,

19     maybe happened several years before the 1995 event.

20             Now, if we only have, for example, parents as family reference

21     samples for these two siblings, then the DNA information we get actually

22     does not allow us to distinguish which sibling is which.  If we get a DNA

23     match from just one of them, we don't know which one it is.

24             Now if we had children as references from that individual, then

25     we would be able to tell; but if we have only parents, the only thing we

Page 26577

 1     would know is that this individual is an offspring of these parents and

 2     we wouldn't know which is which.

 3             So here we will have someone that has been identified as either

 4     the one brother or the other brother possibly therefore associated with

 5     Srebrenica, or possibly not, depending on which of the two siblings it

 6     is.

 7        Q.   And can you tell us -- if we can go to the right side of this,

 8     rather, we can see that this particular spreadsheet contains information

 9     or explanations, rather, concerning the disposition of some of these

10     inconclusively associated cases, yes?

11        A.   It does.

12             MR. VANDERPUYE:  I'd like to go now to the cases excluded tab and

13     again we can go all the way to the right of the screen since it is

14     substantially similar in form.  And we have some explanations as to this

15     designation.

16        Q.   In these circumstances, first, can you tell us what excluded

17     cases comprise?

18        A.   All right.  In order to be listed as one of these 11 cases that

19     have been listed as excluded from Srebrenica they would have had to

20     previously been on one of the other two lists.  They would have had to

21     either previously been on the list of Srebrenica cases or on the list of

22     inconclusively associated with Srebrenica.

23             So an example here of how someone could arrive on this list, we

24     would imagine the exact scenario that I mentioned before with two

25     siblings, one reported missing from Srebrenica, the other reported not

Page 26578

 1     from Srebrenica.  And if an identification has been concluded on one of

 2     the siblings from a Srebrenica -- a known Srebrenica-related grave, we

 3     then can infer, having identified the other one as well, that he is not

 4     associated with the Srebrenica and therefore he has been migrated into

 5     this category.

 6             Now I'll mention also that the list that we put together for

 7     Srebrenica associated is based in one primary instance on the information

 8     that we get from families, but there's a great deal of additional

 9     cross-checking that goes into our process.  And moreover, we have

10     generated and produced a number of versions of these lists over the years

11     and presented them to Defence and to the Prosecution and the Court.  In

12     the course of doing so, we did identify a very small number of cases that

13     were previously on the Srebrenica list that -- that we felt should not be

14     added.  Having gone through this list now multiple times over years,

15     we've not found any additional ones that we feel it were mis-categorised

16     and we have this set of 11 now, that -- that were previously on one of

17     the two lists that we feel should not be on.

18             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Mr. President, I'd like to tender this exhibit.

19             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, Mr. Robinson.

20             MR. ROBINSON:  Yes, Mr. President.  We don't have any objection

21     to the exhibit being admitted, but returning once again to the issue

22     of -- of the public nature of this, I understand this is to be admitted

23     under seal.  But I'm wondering if we can admit at least some of the

24     information on this chart publicly.  And the reason for that is that we

25     have now the submission by the ICMP that there are all these people who

Page 26579

 1     have died during the Srebrenica events.  What if -- and they don't -- if

 2     these names are not public, what if there is somebody sitting in

 3     Salt Lake City, Utah, whose name is on this list and says, Wait a minute,

 4     there's a mistake here, I didn't die.  Or what if there's a family member

 5     who sees the name of somebody who they know died in 1992, or somebody who

 6     was with somebody in the fights in the forest in Srebrenica who knows

 7     that the person was not a victim of an execution, these people can come

 8     forward if the list of victims is public and we can know exactly, this is

 9     a way of testing publicly the evidence that the ICMP stands behind.  But

10     if this is under seal, then we're deprived of that opportunity.

11             So I understand why DNA coding and perhaps some family

12     relationships might be otherwise under seal, but the names of the

13     victims, in our view, ought to be part of the public record.

14             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye.

15             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Thank you, Mr. President.

16             I'm quite certain that there is a Srebrenica list of missing and

17     dead individuals associated with Srebrenica that is part of the 94 bis

18     record at least in these proceedings, perhaps associated with the

19     testimony of Dr. Tabeau or Dr. Brunborg, and I think Mr. Robinson perhaps

20     would be aware of that.  So I don't know that it's necessary for this

21     particular list to be tendered publicly insofar as the information that

22     Mr. Robinson is seeking concerning the victims of the Srebrenica events

23     is accessible to him, and it is in fact, as I understand it, available

24     publicly in other proceedings as well.

25             Perhaps I can be -- perhaps Mr. Robinson can correct me, but in

Page 26580

 1     terms of the list of victims being public, there's no problem with that.

 2     The problem is the DNA identification of those victims and that's

 3     another -- that's a completely different issue.  To the extent that this

 4     list can be redacted, there's no problem, as I understand it, with making

 5     available publicly the names of each and every one of the victims that

 6     are on this list.

 7             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, Mr. Robinson.

 8             MR. ROBINSON:  Yes, Mr. President.  I think if we could arrive at

 9     some kind of public redacted version of this document, that would be a

10     good solution.

11             JUDGE KWON:  Is your submission limited to this exhibit or ...

12             MR. ROBINSON:  Well, no, my submission is actually for all of the

13     exhibits that are going under seal.  To the extent that the information

14     can be publicly available without compromising the interests that the

15     Trial Chamber has identified, we would like that to be the case.  Because

16     we think this is part of the scrutiny of the ICMP's work that is

17     important.  So to the extent that their work can be in the sunshine, as

18     it were, we are in favour of that.

19             JUDGE KWON:  Can I hear from you, Mr. Vanderpuye, again, with

20     respect to all the other ICMP reports that we have so far admitted under

21     seal.  In relation to producing a public redacted version.

22             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Mr. President, with -- in respect of all of the

23     other documents that we have under seal, the problem with producing a

24     public redacted version of those documents would entail essentially

25     removing all the familial relations that underlie the particular

Page 26581

 1     identifications.  I don't know if it is possible to just list them on the

 2     spreadsheet and that might be perhaps the most effective way to do it.

 3     And these are of the victims but not necessarily of the donors and the

 4     family members that led to the identification of those victims.

 5             But fundamentally the problem is this, is that by associating

 6     those names or the particular names with the ICMP, we are in fact

 7     revealing that they have been identified by DNA analysis which, of

 8     course, presents the same issue as concerns the identification of these

 9     individuals by the ICMP in relation to the events at Srebrenica or

10     wherever the case may be.

11             So the problem is fundamentally the same, and that is that the

12     notification of the family members hasn't been established so that

13     they're not finding out for the first time that their loved one is

14     showing up in multiple graves spread out all over Eastern Bosnia for the

15     first time through these proceedings.  That's the crux of the issue and

16     that is not really mitigated in any way by the redactions.  But I'm sure

17     that some solution can be worked out with the Defence that would satisfy

18     them and also protect the interests of those relatives who have yet to be

19     notified.

20             I reiterate that the fact that one relative may have been

21     notified does not mean that every other relative who has contributed

22     blood to identify a victim has been so notified, and that's really what

23     we're trying to protect against, the harm to those people from

24     discovering the fate of their loved ones in this way.

25             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, Mr. Robinson.

Page 26582

 1             MR. ROBINSON:  Yes, Mr. President.

 2             The Prosecution started off this presentation by saying that the

 3     information was -- identity of the victims was already publicly available

 4     in the reports of Brunborg and others, so I don't understand.  If the

 5     identity of the victims is already publicly available, why is there a

 6     problem now with not making that information available here?

 7             MR. VANDERPUYE:  I think Mr. Robinson knows that there is a

 8     combination of individuals who are missing.  There are a combination of

 9     individuals who have been identified forensically by pathology reports

10     and other artefact evidence.  And there are those individuals who have

11     been identified by DNA analysis.  What we're talking about here, strictly

12     speaking, are those individuals who have been identified through the DNA

13     process as opposed to having been identified by some other means as a

14     victim of these crimes.  That is essentially the issue.

15             If somebody is on the ICRC list as missing, they're missing.  If

16     they they've been identified through a DNA process, they're dead.  And

17     there's a big difference between those two positions as concerns

18     individuals who have not been notified as to the fate of their loved

19     ones.

20             MR. ROBINSON:  Well, Mr. President, our position we would like

21     the -- the list of people who the ICMP has identified through DNA

22     evidence as deceased from the Srebrenica events to be public, and if

23     there is some problem of notification, perhaps we can give the ICMP

24     30 days, or whatever, to notify those people before it is made public.

25     But otherwise, they're shielding from scrutiny and from the possibility

Page 26583

 1     of exculpatory evidence coming forward if that list is not available to

 2     the public.  So I think we have to balance the necessity of notifying

 3     people - and there's been a long time to be able to do that - versus the

 4     public trial and the public interest in testing the ICMP's results.

 5             JUDGE KWON:  Let's leave the matter for some time and limit our

 6     discussion to this document which is in front of us.  Because,

 7     Mr. Vanderpuye, you indicated it may be possible that -- to produce a

 8     public redacted version of this one.

 9             What would remain?

10             MR. VANDERPUYE:  The names.

11             JUDGE KWON:  Only the names.

12             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Just the names.

13             JUDGE KWON:  And the ICMP comment will disappear as well.

14             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Yes.  In fact, the association with the ICMP

15     would disappear.

16             JUDGE KWON:  Uh-huh.

17                           [Trial Chamber confers]

18             JUDGE KWON:  In order to make a more informed decision, the

19     Chamber would prefer to have written submissions from the parties.

20             So we proceed, putting them under seal for the moment.

21             Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye.

22             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Thank you, Mr. President.  I have --

23             JUDGE KWON:  Did we give the exhibit number for this?

24             MR. VANDERPUYE:  No.

25             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, that will be Exhibit P4642, under seal.

Page 26584

 1             And it is my understanding, Mr. Vanderpuye, that you are going to

 2     produce a public redacted version of his -- Mr. Parsons's testimony in

 3     Popovic testimony.  There are two versions, I take it.

 4             MR. VANDERPUYE:  You're right, Mr. President.  You're right.  I

 5     had offered for admission his prior testimony.  P4636 should be under

 6     seal.

 7             JUDGE KWON:  And then we'll admit his public redacted version as

 8     Exhibit P4643.

 9             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Thank you very much, Mr. President.  I have just

10     a couple of questions left for Mr. Parsons.

11             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, please proceed.

12             MR. VANDERPUYE:

13        Q.   Dr. Parsons, could you, if you know, can you tell us how many

14     individuals appear in the ICMP match report list, the spreadsheet that

15     I've just shown you, that are associated with the Srebrenica events,

16     through -- current through August of 2011.

17        A.   That list represents 6.530 different individuals.  That are on

18     the main Srebrenica list.

19        Q.   And when you say represents individuals, do you mean named

20     individuals, or does this correspond to the number of individual DNA

21     profiles?

22        A.   It corresponds to named individuals with the caveat that

23     sometimes we can't distinguish, for example, between siblings.  But those

24     would be named individuals as opposed to unmatched DNA profiles.

25        Q.   Can you approximate or do you know how many unmatched DNA

Page 26585

 1     profiles relate to that particular exhibit through August of 2011?

 2        A.   From graves identified to us by the ICTY as being related to the

 3     fall of Srebrenica, we, in addition to these identified individuals, have

 4     unique DNA profiles representing 166 additional people.  We haven't been

 5     able to identify them, but we know that they are victims and we know that

 6     they are uniquely represented by their DNA.

 7        Q.   Can you tell us what the most current information you have

 8     available to you is as concerns the number of individuals that are

 9     associated with the Srebrenica event?

10        A.   Just the day before yesterday, we forwarded to Defence and the

11     Office of the Prosecutor an updated list of identical constitution to the

12     one that we just described, and in that list we have now made some

13     additional matches and that number is 6.606 individuals.

14        Q.   Does that include uniquely identified DNA profiles or just named

15     individuals?

16        A.   That is exclusive of the unmatched unique profiles I mentioned

17     earlier.  So the total number of individuals whose fate is known through

18     DNA would be the sum of those two, 166 plus 6.606, and if my math is

19     correct, that is 6.772 individuals known by DNA as associated with those

20     graves.

21        Q.   One last question, Dr. Parsons.

22             Could you tell the Trial Chamber if the ICMP is charged with or

23     responsible for notifying family members as to the disposition of their

24     relatives?

25        A.   No.  The ICMP does not notify family members.  That the job of

Page 26586

 1     the court-appointed pathologist.

 2        Q.   Thank you, Dr. Parsons.  I have no further questions at this

 3     time.

 4             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you, Mr. Vanderpuye.

 5             Shall we deal with associated exhibits.

 6             First, I'd like to hear whether there is any objection from the

 7     Defence first.

 8             MR. ROBINSON:  No, Mr. President.

 9             JUDGE KWON:  65 ter 4119, I take it this is his expert report.

10             MR. VANDERPUYE:  411 -- I'm sorry, Mr. President, bear with me

11     one moment.

12             JUDGE KWON:  Methodology report 2001 to 2008.

13             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Then it is, yes.

14             JUDGE KWON:  We would rather admit it as his expert report, not

15     as part of associated exhibits.

16             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Correct.

17             JUDGE KWON:  65 ter numbers 21043 and 21191.  I think those two

18     files were dealt with during the course of cross-examination in the

19     Popovic case, but I wonder there are English translation for those

20     reports.

21             Further, in case of 21043, I can say it forms an indispensable

22     and inseparable part of the transcript, but with respect to the other,

23     i.e., 21191, I'm not sure if it forms an inseparable and indispensable

24     part because Dr. Parsons merely confirmed what that document is about and

25     offered no other comment.  So in order to admit that document, probably

Page 26587

 1     you need to go through the document or leave it to the Defence.

 2             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Mr. President, I will leave that to the Defence.

 3     I don't think that it is material to a fair understanding of his prior

 4     testimony.

 5             JUDGE KWON:  But about the English translation of 21043.

 6             MR. VANDERPUYE:  I have to apologise.  I don't know what the

 7     status of that is.  I will have to check it at this time.

 8             JUDGE KWON:  We will mark for identification for the time being.

 9             And we'll not admit 21191 as part of associated exhibits.

10             And lastly, 23659 seems to be a bit different one from that was

11     dealt in the Popovic.  Because in the Popovic document, it is described

12     as an 80-page document but now it is 120 pages long.

13             So could you deal with that.

14             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Yes, I can explain that.  In the Popovic -- and

15     I think it's just an error.  In the Popovic transcript it dealt with the

16     same individual but it dealt with a case file relating to a different

17     match of a different body part.  In this particular instance, I think

18     23659 deals with the matching of a body part of a sample -- the

19     predominant sample of which was a tooth.  And I think in the Popovic case

20     it was just -- it was another part of the individual.

21             But in either event, I have not used it with this witness.  I

22     don't know that it is material to the Popovic testimony either, except

23     for he identified a couple of pages in it, which I think the Trial

24     Chamber can reasonably glean from the transcript.  So I don't think that

25     needs to come in either.  As it is --

Page 26588

 1             JUDGE KWON:  So you're not tendering it.

 2             MR. VANDERPUYE:  That's correct.

 3             JUDGE KWON:  That's fine.  We'll not admit it then.

 4             And we didn't deal with it -- by saying you have no objection,

 5     you would not object either to the addition of several documents to the

 6     65 ter list.

 7             MR. ROBINSON:  That's correct, Mr. President.

 8             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.

 9             Then that's it.  With the exception of those two documents,

10     everything will be admitted and be given numbers in due course.  While

11     we're marking for identification, pending English translation with

12     respect to 65 ter 21043.

13             Thank you.

14             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Thank you, Mr. President.

15             MR. ROBINSON:  Mr. President, before the cross-examination

16     begins, I'm wondering if I can just ask the Prosecution for clarity

17     whether or not it's the Prosecution's case that this total number that's

18     given by Dr. Parsons today, 6.530, are the number of victims of crimes

19     for which Dr. Karadzic is being held accountable or whether they

20     represent a number of people including those who died in combat in the

21     Srebrenica events.

22             JUDGE KWON:  Would you like to respond, Mr. Vanderpuye?

23             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Thank you.

24             Thank you, Mr. Robinson.  It is the Prosecution's position that

25     the victims that are indicated in this list are the victims of the

Page 26589

 1     crimes, mass executions, that are charged in relation to the Srebrenica

 2     events.

 3             You may hear other evidence in this case that explains a few of

 4     those victims, but I would say that our position is that, for the most

 5     part, the vast majority of those individuals, they are victims of

 6     executions as charged in the indictment.

 7             MR. ROBINSON:  Thank you very much.

 8             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, Mr. Karadzic.

 9             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

10                           Cross-examination by Mr. Karadzic:

11        Q.   [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Mr. Parsons.

12             I hope that you can hear me and I think perhaps it would be good

13     if you, yourself, come closer to the microphone.

14        A.   I can hear.

15        Q.   Thank you.  After you worked at the Smithsonian museum, you were

16     employed -- or you got a job in the US military; is that correct?

17        A.   I was a contractor for the United States Armed Forces DNA

18     Identification Laboratory, not a member of the military.

19        Q.   And you were working on the same kind of work, DNA

20     identification; is that correct?

21        A.   Yes.

22        Q.   Thank you.  How many years did you work in the military?

23        A.   I was associated with the AFDIL, A-F-D-I-L is the acronym,

24     laboratory for 14 years.

25        Q.   And did you have any connections with that lab when you were

Page 26590

 1     working at the Smithsonian and what exactly was your job in the

 2     Smithsonian?

 3        A.   I did not have connections with the AFDIL laboratory when I was

 4     at the Smithsonian.  At the Smithsonian Institution, I was a DNA

 5     scientist studying evolutionary biology and population genetics.

 6        Q.   Thank you.  And as for those 14 years, you had a contract with

 7     the military.  You were employed there and you worked in that lab; right?

 8        A.   Correct.

 9        Q.   Thank you.  Please, during that period of time, were you asked to

10     come and testify before a court of law as an expert?

11        A.   No, I was not.

12        Q.   Then you moved to ICMP; right?

13        A.   Correct.

14        Q.   Thank you.  Throughout that period, before you came to the ICMP,

15     were you an expert before a court of law?

16        A.   No.

17        Q.   Thank you.  Now, I would like us to go back to Srebrenica.

18             When did you exactly transfer to the ICMP?

19        A.   The year was 2006.  I believe the month was March.

20        Q.   Thank you.  And you received some basic information there.  Did

21     you receive any information in terms of the number of different locations

22     that are involved in the events in Srebrenica that were investigated by

23     the ICMP?

24        A.   Yes, of course.

25        Q.   So how many locations were involved?

Page 26591

 1        A.   Well, first of all, I don't recall precisely, but it depends also

 2     on what you refer to as an investigation.  ICMP has been involved in many

 3     reconnaissance efforts to investigate the potential for mass graves or

 4     other remains recoveries.  We have attended thousands of sites throughout

 5     the former Yugoslavia in the course of our work.  And the number of large

 6     mass graves associated with Srebrenica that we have investigated over the

 7     course of time has been 91.

 8        Q.   And what about ICMP and all of Bosnia-Herzegovina?  How many mass

 9     graves were investigated throughout Bosnia-Herzegovina?

10        A.   We've responded to over 3.000 separate investigations,

11     representing hundreds of mass graves.  I don't have a precise value.

12     And, again, it depends upon your definition anyway.

13        Q.   Thank you.  Can you define this for us:  The graves that you

14     investigated, were they mass graves only, invariably?

15        A.   No.  We have any number of types of contexts from which we

16     recover human remains.  They could be single graves.  They could be

17     surface remains.  They could be remains that are found in wells or

18     natural depressions, river courses, any number of different environmental

19     contexts.

20        Q.   Thank you.  Let me try now to respond to your request to define

21     investigations.

22             Is it correct that ICMP deals with anthropological and anatomical

23     investigations after excavations and exhumations, then DNA, DNA

24     profiling, and identification, as a whole?  Identifying the witness --

25     the victims, that is.

Page 26592

 1        A.   Yes to everything you said except for the fact that the ICMP does

 2     not -- is not competent to make legal identifications.

 3        Q.   Could you explain that?  Who does that?  And what is the role

 4     in -- of the ICMP in all of that?

 5        A.   The ICMP assists the government in Bosnia with the forensic

 6     analysis but it is the job of court-appointed forensic pathologists,

 7     officials of the Bosnian government, to issue death certificates.

 8        Q.   Uh-huh.  I see.  Is my understanding correct, that the

 9     pathologists that you engage, you, as the ICMP, do not necessarily have

10     to be those that will assist with legal identification, that will take

11     part in legal identification?

12        A.   All the pathologists that we work with are the court-appointed

13     pathologists.

14        Q.   What is incorrect that -- out of all the things that I said?  The

15     pathologists that are court-appointed, were they appointed for

16     participation in the work of the ICMP?  Were these pathologists given to

17     you in the process of legal identification?

18        A.   No, sir, because the process of legal identification is not our

19     remit.  We provide forensic assistance to those pathologists who are in

20     that official capacity.

21             So the simple answer is that those pathologists are not part of

22     the ICMP.

23        Q.   Thank you.  And the first part -- and I assumed that you

24     confirmed that the ICMP deals with anthropology and analysis, that kind

25     of investigation.  Who does that for you, in addition to archaeologists?

Page 26593

 1     Is this also done by pathologists?

 2        A.   In addition to forensic archaeologists, the ICMP has maintained a

 3     variable sized number of staff that are expert in anthropological

 4     examination and so we do have world-class subject matter expertise

 5     representing both the fields of forensic archeology and forensic

 6     anthropology who work directly for us and also assist the pathologists

 7     and work under the authority of the pathologists.

 8        Q.   Thank you.  Can you tell us who is the ICMP answerable to?

 9        A.   The ICMP is an international organisation originally established

10     in 1996 as -- at a G-7 conference in Lyon, France, as a multinational

11     initiative largely put forward initially by President Bill Clinton,

12     then-president of the United States.  The commission itself represents a

13     chairman of the commission that is appointed by traditionally the

14     US Department of State, but then maintains a number of additional

15     commissioners who represent the governing body of the ICMP and these are

16     diplomats and politicians and that type of thing.

17        Q.   Ah-ha.  So who is it that supervises the work of the ICMP?  The

18     State Department?

19        A.   No, not the State Department.  It's the commission itself that is

20     the mantle under which ICMP works.  So it's the board of commissioners,

21     which, in fact, has international representation.

22        Q.   Ah-ha.  So how is the ICMP financed?

23        A.   We have funding from a wide range of governmental donors and a

24     very, very small number of private foundations.  The latter contribute

25     very, very small amount, but typically it is governments who are

Page 26594

 1     interested in the progress of peace and reconciliation in Bosnia who fund

 2     our work.

 3        Q.   Ah-ha.  All right.  Let us now look at this.  Which governments

 4     are these?

 5        A.   The list total over time I believe exceeds 20 different

 6     governments.  And, I'm sorry, but I won't be able to give you a

 7     comprehensive list.  By memory, that is.

 8        Q.   Thank you.  Can we expect to receive this list by tomorrow?

 9     Because we shall certainly be continuing tomorrow.

10        A.   I don't see any impediment to my receiving that information prior

11     to tomorrow.

12        Q.   Thank you.  From a professional point of view, is there a

13     scientific authority that checks the work of the ICMP?  From a

14     professional point of view, who is the ICMP answerable to?

15        A.   Well, first and foremost, is the international accreditation

16     process that was described in earlier testimony by which we are -- are

17     inspected with great rigor by technical specialists as well as quality

18     management specialists, who review all aspects of our SOPs and in

19     addition review the conduct of our scientists in the course of performing

20     their actions in comparison to those written SOPs.

21             There are many other components that -- that give rise to the

22     validity of ICMP's results by virtue of expert exposure.  One of those is

23     our steering committee on forensic sciences and this is something that

24     has been empanelled at the ICMP for many years.  In fact, I was

25     originally on that panel before I joined the ICMP as its forensic science

Page 26595

 1     director.  And this is a group of approximately 12, sometimes it -- it

 2     varies around that number, world famous forensic science experts who are

 3     given full exposure to ICMP's methods, assist us with evaluating our

 4     policy, work with our staff to understand what we do, how we do it, and

 5     the -- the -- immense challenges that we face.  And the primary purpose

 6     of this forensic sciences steering committee, which meeting at least

 7     annually, is to make sure that we are staying abreast of developments in

 8     the scientific field and that we are bringing the best science that we

 9     can to bear on these issues.

10             We have also engaged in a number of testing situations where the

11     work that we have done has been duplicated by other laboratories, and

12     to -- to achieve concordant results.

13        Q.   Thank you.  Excellent.  You brought me to my next question.  Your

14     samples, are they checked somewhere else, according to the double-lined

15     method, and, if so, where, and on the basis of which methods?

16        A.   The samples in the former Yugoslavia that are the subject of this

17     proceedings are not duplicated -- duplicate tested elsewhere.

18        Q.   Thank you.  What about this committee?  Is that a private

19     association or is it somebody's property?  The committee that supervises

20     you professionally.

21        A.   No, it is not incorporated in and of itself outside of the fact

22     that these are experts, renowned experts in the field that have agreed to

23     assist the ICMP by serving on an advisory committee.  This is a very

24     common type of thing with organisations or efforts facing uniquely

25     complex or difficult processes.

Page 26596

 1             In the World Trade Centre identifications being performed in

 2     New York City, they empanelled a series of scientific advisors very

 3     similar to the one that I'm describing at the ICMP.  In fact, I served on

 4     that World Trade Centre advisory panel as well.

 5             The Armed Forces DNA Identification Laboratory for the United

 6     States also has a science advisory board made up of basically volunteer

 7     premier scientists who make themselves available to assist in that

 8     manner.

 9             So it's a model that is widely used and is extremely beneficial

10     to the efforts that are involved.

11        Q.   Thank you.  Now I have to go back to this again.  Who is the ICMP

12     answerable to?  Or is it sovereign?

13        A.   I don't have an answer that would expand on the answer that I

14     previously gave you.

15        Q.   Thank you.  Who was in charge of verifications and possible

16     investigations of possible misconduct or abuse committed by the ICMP or

17     its departments?

18        A.   There is no agency that investigates misconduct or abuse by the

19     ICMP.

20        Q.   Thank you.

21        A.   However, I will hasten to add that a critical component of

22     accreditation relates to the veracity of our results and the quality by

23     which the laboratory operates and the standards of its staff.  Our

24     quality management system, which you have a copy of, contains a great

25     deal of detail relating to the steps that we take to guarantee the

Page 26597

 1     extremely high quality of our results to include ethical standards of the

 2     staff to which they are trained and held accountable internally, as is

 3     the case in virtually all such organisations, as to again the ethical

 4     conduct and proper operation of this forensic accredited laboratory.

 5        Q.   Thank you.  If somebody objected to your work, who could they

 6     report you to?  Who could initiate a procedure?

 7        A.   Well, they could certainly come directly to us and we would

 8     feel -- depending on the merit of the inquiry respond appropriately.

 9     Transparency and accountability is extremely important to us, to the

10     ICMP, and throughout our existence we have gone to great measures to try

11     to answer such questions exactly as that.  And that's the basis of the

12     scientific advisory board.  We frequently bring scientists in to go

13     through our laboratories.  We are very open about our methodology and we

14     are considered globally as essentially the world's leader in this type of

15     work.

16        Q.   Or, to be more specific, there is no way of checking your work.

17     Partners have to trust you; right?

18             JUDGE MORRISON:  Dr. Karadzic, that is not right.  That doesn't

19     flow from the witness said.  He said, in fact, if you analyse it, quite

20     the opposite.

21             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] But may I ask the witness:  How

22     come we report them to them?  If there was any abuse, we report them to

23     them.  Are they going to say that we are right?  Are they going to

24     investigate?  Are they going to say that we are right?  Are they going to

25     say that they had not worked properly or that there had been abuse on

Page 26598

 1     their part?

 2             JUDGE MORRISON:  Dr. Karadzic, I don't think asking me questions

 3     is going to elicit the answer that you want.  It might be a useful idea

 4     to ask the witness.

 5             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Excellency, I asked you

 6     whether I could put this question to him.

 7             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 8        Q.   So here goes.  I'm putting the question now.  Does that mean that

 9     I could not report any abuse to anyone but you?

10        A.   Well, you could report allegations to whoever you feel like

11     reporting allegations to.  Credible allegations would be taken quite

12     seriously by the ICMP, up to and including the level of the

13     commissioners.  And in fact, we responded to questions and inquiries

14     very, very often.  There are also a myriad of swirling allegations that

15     can be found anywhere on the internet about virtually anything associated

16     with these crimes and the situation, and those we don't necessarily

17     respond to.

18        Q.   Thank you.  Since the State Department appoints the chief

19     director, what is the responsibility and influence of the

20     State Department in the sense that I've been putting my questions in?

21        A.   State Department does not have any formal responsibility for the

22     conduct of the ICMP.  It is a substantial donor to the ICMP, and the fact

23     that that support continues is representative, I believe, of their

24     contention and belief that the work we do is extremely beneficial to the

25     peace and reconciliation process in Bosnia and other parts of the former

Page 26599

 1     Yugoslavia.

 2        Q.   Thank you.  Did I understand this correctly:  As for the use of

 3     your findings, it is very important to have a certificate?  An authorised

 4     institution should provide you with a certificate?

 5        A.   Well, I described the fact that we are internationally

 6     accredited.  I don't know what type of a certificate you're referring to.

 7     We have an accreditation certificate.

 8        Q.   Who did you get it from and when?

 9        A.   The German national accreditation agency called the

10     Deutsche Akkreditierungsstelle.  And the DNA laboratory system was

11     accredited in October of 2007 and the DNA matching component was

12     accredited about nine months later.  That's the identification

13     co-ordination division.

14        Q.   So up until 2007, and nine months after that, so 2008, you worked

15     without accreditation; right?

16        A.   That's correct.  When I joined the ICMP in 2006, there was an

17     increasing movement in forensic laboratories around the world to include

18     criminalistic laboratories working for the police to seek international

19     levels of accreditation.  Actually, at that time, it was not particularly

20     common for laboratories working in forensic DNA analysis to be

21     accredited.  And there was a study by the European Network of Forensic

22     Science Institutes.  This is an organisation of laboratories that work

23     together and address issues like requirements for accreditation,

24     et cetera.  A survey was taken at the same time that the ICMP was

25     evaluating whether to take the steps toward accreditation what the

Page 26600

 1     percentage of criminalistic laboratories in Europe were that were

 2     accredited to the ISO 17025 standard, and 70 per cent of the laboratories

 3     at that time that were practicing within the criminal justice system were

 4     not accredited to that standard.

 5             It was noted, however, that many of them were working toward that

 6     accreditation, and this is an evolution of the quality assurance

 7     standards typical of the field.  And it was at that time that the ICMP

 8     determined that we would also seek accreditation.  We didn't change how

 9     we did our work, but we took the steps required to put it under the

10     mantle of a formally constituted quality management system and, moreover,

11     to adhere very carefully to a set of documentation that exceeded what we

12     had before.

13             So primarily our work in becoming accredited related to - I'm

14     sorry, I must slow down - related to making sure that all our procedures

15     were very carefully documented and that the staff was -- the staff's

16     training, apart from their pre-existing expertise, which was world class,

17     that their training was documented in the standardised way, and that

18     competency assessments that were -- are regularly put in place and

19     monitored continuously.

20             Now this was a very easy process for the ICMP and many

21     laboratories seeking this level of accreditation will take years to do

22     it, but, in fact, the ICMP was very well prepared to take those steps

23     toward accreditation because our procedures were so robust and our staff

24     was so well trained.  So it was a very short period of time, actually,

25     to -- to formally accredit both of the aspects of the DNA identification

Page 26601

 1     process.  That does not mean that our work that was conducted previously

 2     would be invalid.  In fact, it remained among the best work being

 3     performed in the world at that time.

 4        Q.   Thank you.  It seems to me that the interpreters would like us to

 5     speak slower so I shall try to do that and I kindly ask you to take that

 6     into account as well.

 7             So some international body or committee or whatever would be

 8     checking your methodology.  Do you agree that when you appear as a court

 9     expert witness, the Defence has the right to see not only what your

10     methodology is but also the results involved and the correctness of those

11     results?

12        A.   The ICMP considers that it is a reasonable request on the part of

13     Defence to be able to examine representative case work by the ICMP.

14        Q.   And do you obtain material yourselves or do you receive samples

15     for testing from pathologists?

16        A.   We obtain our samples in a number of ways.  In many instances, it

17     is the latter that you just said, which is pathologists who are handling

18     the case cut samples from the remains and submit them to us directly.  In

19     other instances, the ICMP has seconded staff members assisting directly

20     in the mortuary facility that is under the court-appointed pathologist's

21     control.  In those instances, ICMP anthropologists will often perform the

22     sampling and examination of the skeletal remains in accordance with the

23     world-class subject matter expertise and those would be submitted to the

24     ICMP.  They are submitted under the authority of the court-appointed

25     pathologist, but, in fact, the technical manipulations are conducted by

Page 26602

 1     ICMP anthropological staff.

 2        Q.   Thank you.  Do the pathologists receive any kind of return

 3     information; and, if so, in what form?

 4        A.   The official product of the ICMP DNA testing and matching

 5     operations are the DNA match reports which were the subject of previous

 6     testimony.

 7        Q.   Thank you.  Are these reports coded?

 8        A.   When submitted externally, yes, they are.

 9        Q.   And the pathologist who sends the sample, does he receive return

10     information in the form of a coded report or coded findings?

11        A.   Yes.

12        Q.   And is there any reason for proceeding in this way?  Why is this

13     coded?

14        A.   Those reasons have already been addressed.  Would you like me to

15     repeat them?

16        Q.   Well, I'm not talking about publishing these.  I am asking

17     whether this Defence could receive uncoded profiles, pherograms, simply

18     checkable profiles that are not confidential?

19        A.   Well, you've changed subjects as near as I can tell.  First, you

20     were asking about pathologists and now you're asking about Defence.

21             Could you clarify, please.

22        Q.   First you said that whenever going outside of the institution,

23     it's coded.  So you even code it to the pathologist who sent the sample

24     in.

25             So I'm asking the reasons for that.  You said that you already

Page 26603

 1     talked about that.  So now I'm asking you this:  Does the Defence have

 2     the right to receive the materials in order to look at them without the

 3     material being coded?

 4        A.   The ICMP --

 5             JUDGE KWON:  Before you answer, doctor.

 6             Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye.

 7             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Thank you, Mr. President.  I'm not sure in what

 8     context Dr. Karadzic has put the question.  If he is referring to the

 9     Defence's rights in terms of a legal obligation, then obviously this is

10     not the appropriate witness to put it to.  If he is referring to it in a

11     more colloquial way, as in could the Defence obtain this material, then I

12     think it would be an appropriate question.  So I would just ask for a

13     clarification as to in what context he means because he has made prior

14     reference to when you come here to testify does the Defence have this

15     right, and that is a purely legal question which I don't think

16     Dr. Parsons in his expertise has the competence to answer.

17             JUDGE KWON:  Without delving into that legal detail, can you

18     answer the question, Dr. Parsons?

19             THE WITNESS:  I think I can give a helpful comment and that is

20     that the ICMP, in the interests of transparency and a recognition of the

21     desirability of the Defence to be able to examine primary scientific

22     data, is willing to make available to Defence case files containing the

23     raw and uncoded data in the event that family members have given their

24     specific consent to release that information, and we are willing to take

25     extraordinary steps to make that available.

Page 26604

 1             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

 2        Q.   So you have a database; is that correct?  DNA database.

 3        A.   Correct.

 4        Q.   And is this database specifically for Bosnia and Herzegovina,

 5     unique to Bosnia and Herzegovina, and is it stratified in any way?

 6        A.   No, it is not unique to Bosnia-Herzegovina.  We have come over

 7     the years on the basis of our success in identifications in Bosnia and

 8     other parts of the former Yugoslavia to have a more global mandate for

 9     our work.  And our database is then constituted of a number of different

10     projects from around the world relating either to mass fatalities in

11     association with transportation incidences, natural disasters, or other

12     instances of human rights violations from other contexts, such as

13     South Africa or Chile.  And indeed, the database is compartmentalised, if

14     you will, with regard to those different projects.

15        Q.   And are you able to tell us, please, whom this broader mandate

16     came from?  Who give you this broader mandate?

17        A.   In 2003, we returned to the governments that were involved in

18     establishing ICMP and presented them with the concept of an expanded

19     mandate on a case-by-case basis as appropriate to engage in these other

20     types of activities, and the agreement was forthcoming that under the

21     oversight of the ICMP commissioners, that this would be an acceptable

22     expansion of our mandate.

23        Q.   And does that refer to the countries whose governments issued

24     that agreement or does that apply to all the countries in the world?

25        A.   No.  The ICMP has not been authorised by any type of a vote or a

Page 26605

 1     resolution that encompasses all the countries of the world.

 2             When we do provide assistance to other governments, those are

 3     going to be based on agreements with that government as well.

 4        Q.   And do you also apply to tenders or make offers in a commercial

 5     kind of situation whenever there are identification jobs required?

 6        A.   No.  The ICMP does not consider itself to be a commercial DNA

 7     laboratory.  So in general, we do not respond to tenders.  An exception

 8     to -- what might look like an exception to that is transpiring right at

 9     the moment with regard to a request for proposals that have been put out

10     by the United Nations in association with the identification efforts of

11     human rights violations from Cyprus.  And they put out a request for

12     proposals, which includes information for how much it would cost if the

13     ICMP or whatever responding agency would undertake that work.  But -- and

14     in fact we are providing that information.  Also, when we work for --

15     when we work in support of Chile, we have provided them with information

16     regarding how much it costs us to do a DNA test and that is among -- that

17     something that they cover as a fee.  But we are not a commercial entity

18     in the market of DNA testing.

19             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, Mr. Karadzic, we'll stop here.

20             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

21             JUDGE KWON:  We'll -- hearing is adjourned.  And we'll resume

22     tomorrow morning at 9.00.

23                            --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 3.02 p.m.,

24                           to be reconvened on Thursday, the 22nd day of

25                           March, 2012, at 9.00 a.m.