1 Wednesday, 10 July 2013
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.32 a.m.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Good morning to everybody in and around the
7 Madam Registrar, please call the case.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is case
9 IT-09-92-T, the Prosecutor versus Ratko Mladic.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
11 Unfortunately, Judge Orie's not with us this morning because of
12 urgent personal business. Therefore, the Trial Chamber will sit pursuant
13 to Rule 15 bis.
14 I guess we are supposed to carry on with the cross-examination of
15 the witness. May the witness please be called into the courtroom.
16 And while he comes in, just one little preliminary matter to
17 raise with the witness who is supposed to come, Mr. Dean Manning. Five
18 of the ten associated exhibits are very lengthy. The documents should be
19 discussed in court and not be admitted as associated exhibits, and these
20 documents are the following documents: Document with Rule 65 ter 04586,
21 and that's 65 ter 05764, 65 ter 27979, 65 ter 27980, and 65 ter 27981.
22 [The witness takes the stand]
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Groome.
24 MR. GROOME: That's understood, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Mr. Groome.
1 Good morning, Mr. Parsons.
2 THE WITNESS: Good morning.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Good morning. Just to apologise for doing some
4 other business as you were coming into the courtroom.
5 Mr. Parsons, just to remind you that you are still bound by the
6 declaration you made at the beginning of your testimony to tell the
7 truth, the whole truth, and nothing else but the truth.
8 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you so much.
10 Mr. Stojanovic.
11 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours.
12 WITNESS: THOMAS PARSONS [Resumed]
13 Cross-examination by Mr. Stojanovic: [Continued]
14 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Professor.
15 A. Good morning.
16 Q. Reading yesterday's transcript with your testimony, I wanted
17 only, before we begin, to clear up certain dilemmas that I have. Would
18 you please tell the Court from whom did you in 2007 receive accreditation
19 for your laboratories in which you do DNA matching?
20 A. The acronym for the German accreditation agency is D -- at that
21 time was DACHS, which is the Deutsche Akkreditierungsstelle. That same
22 organisation now has undergone some type of an internal name change, at
23 least as far as the acronym goes. As far as I know it is DAkkS now.
24 Q. Thank you. I'm asking you this because while running some checks
25 of my own, I received information that the organisation under the acronym
1 DAkkS, this German accreditation bureau, was established in 2009. Is
2 this information correct?
3 A. That sounds like when they changed their name, yes.
4 Q. Thank you for your assistance. Let me finish with this question.
5 Did I understand you correctly when you said that from GEDNAP you never
6 received any accreditation because they do not issue certificates for the
7 work of laboratories?
8 A. Certificates and accreditation aren't necessarily the same thing.
9 As far as I know, GEDNAP is not an accreditation body; however, when one
10 participates in their proficiency testing, one receives a letter
11 concerning the outcome which might be considered a certificate, and we
12 have received those.
13 Q. Did you receive this letter from GEDNAP in 2007?
14 A. I believe so, yes.
15 Q. Thank you. Just let me clear up one more thing. In the official
16 structure of the ICMP, is it on record that within their framework there
17 is also the Podrinje Identification Project under the acronym PIP?
18 A. Presently, no, but in the past prior to formal transfer of the
19 management of the PIP, yes, it would have been.
20 Q. Thank you for this answer. Could you also state for the record
21 when did this formal hand-over or transition of the PIP take place?
22 A. I apologise, but I don't recall that date. I would say probably
23 late 2010 or in 2011. I'm -- I really apologise for not being up on
25 Q. Thank you, Professor.
1 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Could we now call up P1716.
2 That is the summary report for the secondary grave site Cancari 04. And
3 we need page 3, both in B/C/S and in English. Thank you. We now see it.
4 Q. I would like a few clarifications on this subject very briefly
5 and then we will deal with this substance of the summary. At one point
6 we see alleged site origin, and against that line we see Kozluk, and one
7 of the next lines is estimate number of bodies, we read 189. It is
8 explained in greater detail in the text.
9 Could you just tell us briefly, who is it exactly in the ICMP
10 system who stands behind the alleged site origin?
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm not quite sure what you are saying -- what you
12 are asking, Mr. Stojanovic. Who in the ICMP stands behind the alleged
13 site origin, what does that mean?
14 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] That is correct, Your Honour,
15 bearing in mind the signatures on this document that the witness
16 identified during examination-in-chief.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: But what do you mean by "stands behind"?
18 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Who is the person in the ICMP
19 system who identifies the alleged site origin, where did they get that
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Parsons, are you able to answer that?
22 THE WITNESS: I think that I can be of assistance. First of all,
23 this is an excavation site summary of the circumstances, observations,
24 and conduct of activity with regard to the excavation of that site. As I
25 mentioned yesterday, the ICMP does not work in a vacuum. This site was
1 opened for excavation under court order, and has been identified as a
2 mass grave through a great deal of investigatory information; and that
3 information would be known to the ICMP forensic excavation team that was
4 participating in this case and I don't recall the details.
5 The type of evidence that has been involved in linking secondary
6 graves to their primary graves has to do with shared items, such as
7 recovery of the same type of ligatures, recovery of the same type of
8 blindfolds, soil analysis, other artefacts such as an abundance of glass
9 that is shared in both the primary and the secondary grave. Again, I
10 don't recall the details of this particular site. And so when they in
11 their summary report listed alleged site origin, they -- first of all, I
12 will emphasise the word "alleged," meaning the understanding at the time
13 of the excavation based on the type of evidence I referred to earlier and
14 conducted by any number of agents such as the ICTY teams and/or -- I'm
15 just looking to see under whose authority that this was excavated, I'm
16 not seeing it right here, but the court order, et cetera. There's
17 information indicating where this grave is considered to have arisen
18 from. Certainly the archaeologists are very capable of ascertaining that
19 it is a secondary rather than a primary grave, meaning that it has been
20 moved or the contents have been moved from a different place and that's
21 something that they can determine a priori from their investigations.
22 And then lastly, you raised the general issue of linkage of
23 sites. One of the predominant methods that we know one grave is linked
24 to another is that we recover different parts of the same individual from
25 one grave and the other despite the fact that they are very distantly
1 geographically located.
2 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. Thank you, Professor. Could you tell us, did any one of the
4 three persons who signed this summary report - and I can will remind you,
5 it's you, Andreas Kleiser and Sharna Daley. Can you stand by this
6 conclusion on the alleged grave-site -- alleged site origin, that is, or
7 is that information received from somebody else?
8 A. I can stand -- all three of those people can stand behind the
9 fact that that is the alleged site origin, but moreover, ICMP would be
10 able to stand behind the connection on the basis of rigorous DNA linkage
11 between that site and the Kozluk site. That information is actually not
12 part of the excavation report, but nevertheless is additional
13 confirmatory evidence that, in fact, demonstrates that that is true.
14 Q. Is there anywhere, any evidence that connects a body in the
15 primary grave in Kozluk and another part of the same body in the
16 secondary grave-site Cancari 04?
17 A. As far as I can recall, yes, but I'm not going to stand by that
18 rigidly because we have many, many DNA to DNA linkages between primary
19 and secondary grave-sites and I am almost positive that that reflects
20 these -- the linkage of these two graves, but I'm sorry, I just don't
21 have that memorised. We have that information that could be provided to
22 the Court. I don't know if there will be other testimony later on that
23 presents that type of summary information. We do have very definitive
24 linkages between primary and secondary graves and I believe that this is
25 among those.
1 Q. Thank you. I will conclude with this. When we have such
2 explicit and clear evidence, would it be necessary to include that type
3 of information in this report?
4 A. No, I don't think so. This is an excavation report, not a
5 summary report of all findings with regard to subsequent DNA testing.
6 Again, it simply lists the alleged site information here.
7 Q. Thank you. I understand that the reasons for linkage are
8 described in paragraph 39 of your summary report related to glass
9 fragments, but now you've given a different answer. And we will try to
10 find it if you tell us where, where could we find information about the
11 linkage or the evidence that permits the linking from the primary grave
12 Kozluk and the secondary grave Cancari 04?
13 A. You could request it of the ICMP. I don't have the many
14 thousands of linkages in my mind, but we have that DNA data clearly
15 tabulated. There may be other investigators who have had access to our
16 DNA information that could present evidence in that regard as well. That
17 information can be clearly detected, in fact, from the match lists that
18 have been provided and discussed yesterday where both the identification
19 of the individual and the site location is listed. We could look at that
20 at any time.
21 Q. Thank you. We will certainly check that officially and look
22 further. Could you look back again at this page. It says "estimate
23 number of bodies" in the secondary grave, 189. I don't want to take up
24 any more time, but at page 14 in B/C/S and English page 9, in
25 paragraph 35, we read that this estimate number was calculated based on
1 an entire right pelvic bone.
2 Who is the person who identified this estimate number of bodies
3 and stated that this number will be defined prior to the autopsy and the
4 examination of bodies in the morgue?
5 A. I'm going to start by simply reading paragraph 35.
6 "Preliminary anthropological observations suggest that the
7 remains were predominantly male and included young and older individuals.
8 Some identifiable traits were observed during actual recovery of remains.
9 From the archaeological record," and I insert my own words here now,
10 meaning from the observations involved in this excavation, "the minimum
11 number of individuals (MNI) has been calculated from the complete right
12 femur and gives a number of 189 individuals. This figure is tentative
13 pending final autopsy and examination in the mortuary."
14 I think that reading that is self-explanatory with regard to the
15 question that you asked.
16 Q. That's precisely what I pointed out, but could you tell us by
17 name who keeps these archaeological records and draws the conclusion that
18 it is a minimal number of 189?
19 A. That would be the individuals involved in the field team and that
20 information is kept by the ICMP.
21 Q. I want to ask you this: The facts that we just discussed that
22 indicate a linkage between the primary and secondary grave, do they
23 permit the conclusion that all these bodies or parts of bodies are not
24 necessarily from one primary grave, such as Kozluk?
25 A. If you don't mind, please repeat the question.
1 Q. Thank you. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I'll put to you this:
2 We believe that even if we get information that some of the bodies in the
3 primary grave are identical in terms of DNA profile to bodies found in
4 Cancari 04, it doesn't necessarily mean that all of 189 bodies or parts
5 of bodies at Cancari 04 come from the primary grave Kozluk. Would that
6 be correct?
7 A. Yes. The establishment of that linkage is not exclusive. It is
8 possible that bodies came from somewhere else as well, or body parts.
9 Q. Thank you, Professor.
10 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] I would now like to look at
11 P1717. That's a summary report on secondary grave-site Cancarski Put 08.
12 Page 2 in B/C/S and page 2 in English.
13 Q. Professor, in one of these lines here, it is stated that in the
14 secondary grave Cancari Road 08, the estimated number of bodies is
15 84 based on the left tibia.
16 If this is within your area of expertise, I want to ask you:
17 Does this methodological approach here based on the left tibia correspond
18 to the approach that you had in the Cancari Road -- in the Cancari 04
19 case, that is, the right femur underlying the estimate of the number of
21 A. Essentially yes. Let me explain how this minimum number of
22 individuals is arrived at, and it's really quite a straightforward
23 concept. So every person has exactly one right femur or one left tibia.
24 We have a grave that consists of mixed body parts, and you want to know
25 what is the minimum number of people that could be represented in that
1 grave via at least one body part. So what you do is look for the unique
2 body part, by that I mean the skeletal element of which an individual has
3 only one of, look for the one that is the most frequent in that grave.
4 So if there are ten right femurs, you know there are at least ten people
5 represented in there. If in that same grave there are 15 left tibia,
6 then that tibia and the femur could be from the same people, but you know
7 that there are at least 15 people in that grave. There could be more.
8 The emphasis here is on the minimum number of individuals. So it's
9 always based on the most frequently represented unique element in the
11 Q. Thank you. If you recall, following my learned friend
12 Mr. Vanderpuye's showing of the document you discussed the link between
13 the primary and this secondary grave, the primary grave being the
14 Branjevo Farm in terms of the ligatures concerned. Can we comment on it
15 briefly. In total, according to the reports shown to you by
16 Mr. Vanderpuye, there were a number of ligatures and ropes that were
17 found, the exact figure being 13. Do you recall it being shown to you
18 yesterday during examination-in-chief?
19 A. I recall seeing such a list. I don't recall any of the details.
20 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, could we briefly
21 see the document in the B/C/S, it's page 16, and in the English -- I'm
22 not sure at this point, but I believe we'll be able to find it. So
23 page 16.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Vanderpuye.
25 MR. VANDERPUYE: Good morning, Your Honour. If Mr. Stojanovic is
1 looking for the list itself, it's page 16 in this exhibit, page 23 in the
2 B/C/S, but I'm not sure if that's what he's looking for precisely.
3 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] That is correct, Your Honour.
4 Page 16 in the English, I think, and 24 in the B/C/S version.
5 Thank you, Mr. Vanderpuye.
6 The next page in the B/C/S, whereas the English page seems to be
7 the right one. Thank you.
8 Q. Professor, in this annex of your report we have a list of
9 13 cases with description with documented ligatures and pieces of rope
10 used for binding as you can see in front of you. These were found in the
11 secondary grave. Why am I asking you this? According to the report, the
12 estimated number of bodies found in the secondary grave is 84, the grave
13 being Cancari 08, 13 ligatures were found corresponding to the artefacts
14 extracted from the Branjevo primary grave. Would it be correct to draw
15 the conclusion that it could not be established that all 84 bodies from
16 the secondary grave Cancari 08 originate from the primary grave at
17 Branjevo Farm?
18 A. Well, I'll start my answer by clarifying that it is not
19 established that 84 bodies were found in Cancari grave 08, only that
20 84 -- based on this report, only that 84 I believe it was left tibia were
21 found. So we don't necessarily have complete bodies. But to get to the
22 main point of your question, it is true that based on the information
23 that you've outlined here that we cannot -- that we do not conclude that
24 they are all necessarily from Branjevo Farm.
25 Q. Thank you, Professor.
1 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] I would kindly ask to be allowed
2 to look at document number --
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Let me -- before you call the next document,
4 Mr. Stojanovic. I'm trying to understand the underlying logic of your
5 question. Is the underlying logic that because 84 bodies are claimed to
6 have been found and only 13 ligatures, therefore are you then saying that
7 all the people who were found at Branjevo Farm were bound in ligatures?
8 Therefore, if we don't -- if we only find 13 ligatures, those who were
9 not bound don't come from Branjevo Farm? Is that what we are supposed to
10 understand from that question?
11 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour. We still
12 believe that basically all of the people who perished in Branjevo were
13 not bound by ligatures. You know that only the people on the first bus
14 arrived bound. I can explain publicly why we are pursuing this line of
15 questioning, with your leave. It is our position that we cannot arrive
16 at a conclusion on the basis of that that all of the bodies originate
17 from Branjevo and that the location where they had perished is not the
18 place of execution.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Well, that was precisely my question. So that is
20 your underlying logic. Thank you so much.
21 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] May I continue?
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Of course you may, sir.
23 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
11 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
12 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] I apologise, it is indeed under
13 seal. Thank you for your assistance.
14 Q. So, Professor, I'll resume.
15 "In very rare instances, the individual named on the DNA match
16 report may not be consistent with the mortal remains from which the
17 listed sample was taken. There are a number of reasons why this could be
18 the case, such as the following: (1) there are additional relatives of
19 the victim (such as a sibling) that are missing, but have not been
20 reported to the ICMP (this can result in a named match report being
21 issued for the wrong sibling) ..."
22 My question is this: Is this the case you discussed yesterday
23 during examination-in-chief by my learned friend Mr. Vanderpuye as an
24 example from the chart where you mention it as the fact that the body of
25 one of the missing siblings, one of the missing brothers, was identified?
1 A. Your question as it came through in the translation is confusing
2 and I'm not quite sure what point you're referring to with regard to the
3 direct examination yesterday by Mr. Vanderpuye that you would like me to
4 comment on. I would also like an opportunity before answering directly
5 any questions to read the entire letter here to clearly understand the
6 context and content.
7 Q. Thank you. With the Court's permission --
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Before the witness reads the entire letter, can
9 you re-state your question in a manner that is not confusing to him.
10 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
11 Q. I will try to put my question in a different way, Professor. The
12 ICMP representative says that these exceptions and potential mistakes in
13 the course of the work done could be caused by the fact that there are
14 relatives of the victim who are recorded as missing while not reported to
15 the ICMP. How can this cause problems in the course of your work?
16 A. Thank you. I understand that question and I will now read the
17 letter in its entirety.
18 I can proceed with a response now. And it does relate to some of
19 the comments that were made yesterday with regard to DNA identification
20 of the siblings, and we had stated that if, for example, the reference
21 samples are parents, we can determine that a particular sample from one
22 of their offspring is, indeed, related to those parents as an offspring;
23 but if there are multiple children of those parents of the same sex, we
24 are not able to distinguish among them by DNA alone.
25 So if in the course of obtaining reports of missing persons there
1 are two brothers missing but, for whatever reason, only one is reported
2 to the ICMP, as far as we know there is only one missing offspring, only
3 one missing child of these parents, his name is such and such. We find
4 an offspring of those parents as represented in human remains, and we
5 conclude that his name ought to be the person who's reported missing to
6 us. If, however, not unknown to us - let me clarify that because it will
7 come out as a double negative - if, however, unknown to us there is an
8 additional sibling missing, it is possible that we would have the
9 incorrect name on the match report.
10 I would like to address your word "mistake." I wouldn't see that
11 as a mistake. In other words, no error was committed in the testing
12 process, but that's simply one of the uncertainties associated with such
13 work in this context.
14 Q. Thank you, Professor. In item 2 it reads:
15 "There was mislabelling of the original sample cut for DNA, and
16 the DNA match report is correct with regard to the individual who is the
17 source of the sample, but the sample does not correspond to the correct
18 case (this level is often outside of the control of the ICMP) ..."
19 Could you make it clear for us what sort of potential mistakes
20 does this address?
21 A. Again, I would like to begin my answer in the context of this
22 exhibit letter where the initial sentences emphasise that the ICMP
23 considers the DNA match reports while in and of themselves extremely
24 indicative of identity, that as essentially a quality-control measure
25 prior to final identification of a body, that all evidence should be
1 taken into account. And one of the issues that is controlled for in that
2 process is that it is conceivable in any human activity for human error
3 to mislabel or misdocument where a sample came from.
4 So if there are, say, two bodies under investigation in the
5 mortuary and a DNA sample is taken from one of them and it is mistakenly
6 recorded that that DNA sample comes from a different body, a different
7 case, it's submitted to the DNA laboratory, we will find out who the
8 sample is really from by DNA if we make a match. And when we report that
9 back, we will say sample labelled such and such comes from a particular
11 In the mortuary, under this unusual hypothetical example I'm
12 giving you, they will then go open the case that corresponds to the label
13 of the sample and see that it is inconsistent with the name of the
14 individual. Let's say the named individual is 60 years old but the case
15 in question is clearly by anthropological information 18 years old.
16 They'll conclude that there has been some sort of a problem. And in this
17 case the problem was that the original sample was mislabelled so they're
18 not opening the correct body-bag where that case is stored. And in this
19 way, a small number of cases that were represented in some of those other
20 columns in the match list were detected.
21 Q. I will conclude with this document with item 3 where another
22 possibility of switch of samples is identified. Next we have three names
23 referred to in the cases where it happened specifically. Save for the
24 three names, are you aware of any other situations during the DNA
25 matching process and identification?
1 A. By "situations" in the translation here, do you mean
2 circumstances that can affect the matching process and identification?
3 Q. Precisely, Professor.
4 A. I think you would like me then to clarify the third point that we
5 raised in our letter, that again refers to the inevitable possibility of
6 human error and that relates to sample switches within the ICMP DNA
7 laboratory. This is quite analogous to the mislabelling that I referred
8 to that can take place outside of the ICMP. But within the ICMP if, for
9 example, a tube containing the DNA of a particular individual is
10 mislabelled as another individual, just simply has the wrong number on
11 it, then again we would be mixing up which case is associated with that
12 particular DNA identification.
13 And again, there is no way to avoid the occurrence of human error
14 absolutely in our work or in the work of any other forensic laboratory;
15 however, particularly -- scratch the "particularly." However, we have in
16 the case of our DNA laboratory system a very dynamic quality management
17 system that continually monitors the opportunities for such errors to
18 occur and attempts to systematically address those in preventative
19 measures. So, for example, one place where it is comparatively likely to
20 make a sample switch in the laboratory is where you're transferring the
21 sample from one tube to another tube. And -- wait, wait, I'm not done.
23 Q. I apologise.
24 A. And so we have implemented steps whereby independent witnesses
25 check the order of the tubes before and after transfer. So, as we call
1 it, an independent witness check to confirm as best as possible that
2 things have been transferred correctly.
3 So that's just a description of how we try to avoid those kind of
4 instances, but I will tell you that we have in the laboratory detected a
5 small number - I can't remember what number it is, it's probably below
6 20 - where those types of errors have been detected in the numerous
7 thousands of cases that we've done. We look for them very, very closely
8 and we correct them when they come to our attention.
9 This letter relates to a particular instance apparently, I won't
10 say the name, where one of these three possible sources of error
11 apparently was -- apparently occurred and was subsequently detected by
12 the ICMP and corrected.
13 Q. Thank you.
14 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I seek to tender
15 the 65 ter document 25220 under seal.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: No reaction from Mr. Vanderpuye.
17 Yes, Madam Registrar.
18 THE REGISTRAR: Document 25220 receives number D327,
19 Your Honours, under seal.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. Then it's admitted into
21 evidence as D327, under seal.
22 Mr. Stojanovic, I thought you had 45 minutes for today. How far
23 are you?
24 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Just one question, Your Honour,
25 and out of an abundance of caution could that be done in private session?
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: May the Chamber please move into private session.
2 [Private session]
11 Page 14143 redacted. Private session.
22 [Open session]
23 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Madam Registrar.
25 Dr. Parsons, we're going to take a break of 20 minutes. We'll
1 come back to five to 11.00. Or maybe let's just find out before we go to
2 a break.
3 Do you have any re-examination at all, Mr. Vanderpuye?
4 MR. VANDERPUYE: I actually do, Mr. President, but it should be
5 very brief, just maybe a handful of questions.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Which will take about five minutes or so.
7 MR. VANDERPUYE: I think.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: So we'll come back after the break.
9 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: We'll go for a break. You may follow the usher,
11 Mr. Parsons.
12 [The witness stands down]
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: We'll take a break and come back at five to 11.00.
14 Court adjourned.
15 --- Recess taken at 10.35 a.m.
16 --- On resuming at 10.57 a.m.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: May the witness please be brought into the
19 [The witness takes the stand]
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Vanderpuye.
21 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President. I just have a few
23 If I could have, please, P1716 in e-court, please.
24 Re-examination by Mr. Vanderpuye:
25 Q. While that's coming up, I'll just let you know, Dr. Parsons, this
1 is the summary report that was shown to you by Mr. Stojanovic during
3 MR. VANDERPUYE: And if we could go, please, to page 3 in the
4 English. I think it should be page 3 also in the B/C/S.
5 Q. With respect to this document and also the ones that were similar
6 to it, the other summary reports, I just wanted to clarify something with
7 you if I could. We can see here the reference to the estimated number of
8 bodies which you've said were a minimum number based on various forms of
9 calculating that, and then in this particular document it indicates the
10 alleged site origin as Kozluk.
11 So my question is whether the conclusion of this report as to the
12 association of this mass grave with the alleged site origin is definitive
13 or if it's prescriptive, so to speak?
14 A. Yeah, as far as I know, in fact, the conclusion just simply
15 relates to the alleged site origin and is not intended to be a definitive
16 statement of connection.
17 Q. Okay. Thank you for clarifying that.
18 The second issue I wanted to ask you about was, yesterday I had
19 asked you just before I sat down about the total number of individuals
20 that have been identified to date. And the record has you indicating
21 here that there were - and by the way for the benefit of the Chamber this
22 is at transcript page 14094, it's lines 1 through 4 - but the transcript
23 has you saying that there were 6.767 individuals identified by name and
24 in addition to that there were 124, and that I believe is on the list
25 that I presented and was admitted as P1728, for a total of
1 7.001 individuals. And I wondered if you could clarify that. I'm not
2 clear on how you came up with that total.
3 A. Thank you so much for raising this point. It occurred to me
4 yesterday that my math was wrong after I left the courtroom. So the
5 number of identified by DNA match report individuals is 6.767, as I said.
6 You've correctly represented the number of 124 of unique individuals
7 recovered from Srebrenica-related graves but unmatched to families, so
8 that's another 124. And where the mathematics discrepancy comes from is
9 that there were 110 individuals identified prior to the use of DNA in
10 2001 based on traditional methods. And I believe that that number does
11 add up to 7.001.
12 Q. Thanks very much for that clarification, Dr. Parsons. I have no
13 further questions for you. Thank you very much.
14 MR. VANDERPUYE: Mr. President, that concludes my re-direct
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Mr. Vanderpuye.
17 Mr. Parsons, that brings us to the conclusion of your testimony.
18 The Chamber wants to take this opportunity to thank you very much for
19 coming to the Tribunal to testify and to answer the questions by both
20 parties and the Judges. You are now excused. You may stand down and
21 please travel well back home.
22 THE WITNESS: Thank you very much, Your Honours.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: You're welcome.
24 [The witness withdrew]
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Is it you again, Mr. Vanderpuye, or is it --
1 MR. VANDERPUYE: No, Mr. President, I'll be ceding the floor to
2 my colleague Mr. Jeremy.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. Thank you so much.
4 MR. VANDERPUYE: If I may be excused.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: You are excused, Mr. Vanderpuye.
6 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Jeremy.
8 MR. McCLOSKEY: And myself briefly, if I could be excused, but
9 I'll be back.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: You'll be back. Thank you so much, Mr. McCloskey.
11 We'll see you when you come back.
12 MR. JEREMY: Good morning, Your Honours. I'll just position
13 myself in the --
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Absolutely, take the time.
15 Mr. Jeremy, when you are ready, you'll let us know and we can let
16 the witness come in.
17 MR. JEREMY: Thank you, Your Honours. I'm ready.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: You're ready.
19 And there are no protective measures for this witness?
20 MR. JEREMY: That's correct.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: May the witness please be brought into court.
22 [The witness entered court]
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Good morning, may I suppose, Mr. Manning.
24 THE WITNESS: Good morning, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: The Rules require that before you testify you make
1 a declaration that you will tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
2 else but the truth, and that declaration is being handed over to you.
3 Will you please make the declaration.
4 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the
5 whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
6 WITNESS: DEAN MANNING
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you so much. You may be seated.
8 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: You'll first be examined by Mr. Jeremy, who is on
10 your right, representing the Prosecution.
11 Mr. Jeremy.
12 MR. JEREMY: Thank you, Your Honours.
13 Examination by Mr. Jeremy:
14 Q. Good morning, Mr. Manning.
15 A. Good morning, sir.
16 Q. Mr. Manning, did you testify in both the Prosecutor versus
17 Popovic on the 10th to the 12th of December, 2007, and also the
18 Prosecutor versus Karadzic on the 6th of March, 2012?
19 A. That's correct --
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Jeremy --
21 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Jeremy, could you --
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: I was just going to say, Mr. Jeremy, we normally
23 start off by the witness placing his name on the record for the record.
24 MR. JEREMY: Yes, Your Honours, I apologise. Overly hasty.
25 Q. Mr. Manning, could you please state your full name for the
2 A. Your Honours, my full name is Dean Paul Manning, M-a-n-n-i-n-g.
3 Q. And, Mr. Manning, we discussed your testimony in the Popovic and
4 Karadzic cases. Have you recently had an opportunity to review your
5 evidence in those cases?
6 A. Yes, I have.
7 Q. And do you affirm the truthfulness and accuracy of that
9 A. I do, yes.
10 Q. And if you were asked the same questions today in these
11 proceedings as you were asked in those proceedings, would you give the
12 same answers in substance?
13 A. Yes, I would.
14 MR. JEREMY: Your Honours, at this time the Prosecution tenders
15 the excerpts of these two transcripts as the next Prosecution exhibits,
16 65 ter 29067 and 29068.
17 MR. IVETIC: No objection.
18 THE REGISTRAR: Document 29067 receives number P1729, and
19 document 29068 receives number P1730, Your Honours.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
21 Yes, Mr. Jeremy.
22 MR. JEREMY: Your Honours, as regards the associated exhibits,
23 I've taken note of your ruling this morning. I'll be using the
24 associated exhibits you referred to in the direct examination of
25 Mr. Manning as well as some other additional associated exhibits. So I
1 propose postponing the tendering of those until the end of the direct
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: As you wish, Mr. Jeremy.
4 [Trial Chamber confers]
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm sorry, may the record show that these two
6 exhibits are admitted into evidence under P1729 and P1730,
7 Madam Registrar.
8 MR. JEREMY: Your Honours, with your leave, I'd now like to read
9 a short summary of this witness's evidence, the purpose of which I have
10 explained to the witness.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. You may do so, Mr. Jeremy.
12 MR. JEREMY: In 1998, Dean Manning joined the Office of the
13 Prosecutor of the ICTY and was assigned as a team investigator in the
14 Srebrenica investigation. He subsequently became the co-ordinator of the
15 Srebrenica exhumation programme. The programme included several
16 objectives: To locate and exhume mass graves, determine if those graves
17 were related to Srebrenica, determine the number of bodies in each of
18 these graves, and attempt to identify, among other things, the
19 individuals, their gender, cause of death, and injuries sustained. As
20 co-ordinator, Mr. Manning worked closely with investigators,
21 archaeologists, anthropologists, forensic pathologists, and several other
22 professionals. He was responsible for the monitoring of the ICTY
23 exhumations and for incorporating the results of those exhumations into
24 the team's investigative work.
25 ICTY investigations [sic] were carried out between 1996 and 2001.
1 In 2001, the remaining graves were handed over to the Bosnian Commission
2 for Missing Persons, the BCMP, which was assisted by the
3 International Commission for Missing Persons, the ICMP. Any additional
4 graves after this time were subsequently located by the BCMP. Manning
5 personally visited some of these sites and reviewed the work of the
6 Bosnian Commission's photographs and records.
7 Manning and the Srebrenica investigation team identified the
8 locations of the graves using aerial imagery of disturbed soil and
9 witness accounts. After examining the data collected from the aerial
10 imagery of mass graves, Mr. Manning was able to construct a time-frame in
11 which each of these mass graves was created.
12 Mr. Manning also discusses the forensic links between the primary
13 and the secondary mass graves.
14 Mr. Manning prepared three reports in 2000, 2001, and 2003, that
15 summarised the evidence obtained from the exhumations from 1996 to 2001.
16 Subsequently, in November 1997, Mr. Manning produced an updated report --
17 forgive me, November 2007 rather than November 1997 was the latter
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yeah.
20 MR. JEREMY: Mr. Manning produced -- this updated report
21 specifically provided the number of individuals positively identified by
22 DNA analysis in Srebrenica-related mass graves. Mr. Manning's work in
23 updating this forensic evidence was subsequently taken over by
24 Mr. Dusan Janc.
25 And that concludes the summary.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
2 Yes, Mr. Jeremy, if you have any questions, you may proceed.
3 MR. JEREMY: I do have some additional questions, Your Honours.
4 Q. Mr. Manning, could you please state your current profession.
5 A. Your Honours, I'm a member of the Australian Federal Police and
6 I'm currently the senior police liaison officer for the Middle East and
7 I'm based in Dubai. I've held that position for the last three and a
8 half years.
9 Q. In your prior testimony, you state that one of your primary
10 duties as co-ordinator of the Srebrenica exhumation team was to function
11 as a liaison with the Srebrenica autopsy and exhumations project that was
12 occurring in Bosnia. Can you give a brief overview of the purpose of
13 that exhumations and autopsy project.
14 A. Your Honours, the exhumations during 1996 to 2000 were
15 predominantly linked to the Srebrenica investigation. The purpose of the
16 investigation was to locate, examine, exhume mass graves connected to the
17 fall of Srebrenica, to examine the artefacts and exhibits within those
18 graves, and to conduct autopsies of the human remains found with a view
19 to identifying the individuals as persons but also to link them to the
20 fall of Srebrenica and to the manner of their death and ultimately who
21 was responsible for those offences.
22 Q. And can you give an idea of the scale of this project?
23 A. There were in excess of 40 mass graves, both primary and
24 secondary, and to exhume a single mass grave would take many weeks, so
25 generally a month or two, and in the field would involve between 20 and
1 30 people at the mass grave site, majority of which were experts,
2 anthropologists and archaeologists, surveyors, forensic archaeological
3 surveyors, police, crime scene officers and photographers, as well as
4 logistic staff. At the mortuary in the town of Visoko, near Sarajevo,
5 there was a similar team of about 20 individuals, mostly anthropologists,
6 pathologists, forensic dentists, police scene of crime officers, and
7 logistics staff. Generally it would be a several-million-dollar project
8 each year and would involve a significant amount of effort which would go
9 for the majority of the year, and ultimately, the experts examining those
10 two phases would produce reports.
11 Q. Can you give an idea of the sort of volume of paperwork that was
12 generated by this project that -- perhaps the number of artefacts that
13 were identified?
14 A. Because you're examining a very large mass grave in the middle of
15 a remote location in Bosnia, everything was examined and photographed and
16 video recorded. The artefacts, such as shell cases or blindfolds and
17 ligatures, were treated as exhibits. We maintained a chain of
18 continuity. We made records of where the bodies were found, we logged
19 their positions, and when those bodies were conveyed to the mortuary
20 there was a similar examination of the body and artefacts. Each autopsy
21 report would generally run to ten pages. We would have tens of thousands
22 of pages of autopsy reports. Throughout the programme there was at least
23 65.000 colour photographs taken of the exhumation and autopsy process.
24 Each artefact would be examined and records would be created. So there
25 was a very significant volume of documentation and photographs produced.
1 Q. And focusing on your role within this project, how would you
2 distinguish the role that you played in the field from the roles of other
3 participants in the project?
4 A. Your Honours, I was also an investigator with the team, so I also
5 undertook interviews and witness statements and, where necessary, other
6 duties. But primarily, I was a link between the investigation and the
7 exhumation autopsy process. We had a process which went on over several
8 years and involved a rotation, if you like, of experts. I was cast to
9 look at the process and project from day one to day end and try and link
10 all that material, all that evidence, and the expert reports and the
11 documentation across that whole project and also to link what was
12 happening in the field at the exhumations or the autopsies with our
13 investigation. I also assisted the experts in -- not in preparing their
14 reports, they did that independently, but assisting them in access to
15 records, documentation, in some cases I would take the experts into the
16 field. And following the creation of their expert reports, I examined
17 those reports, provided them additional information if required, and then
18 summarised a significant number of reports from experts.
19 Q. And you mention in your previous written evidence three reports
20 dated 2000, 2001, and 2003. The summaries -- the expert summaries you
21 just referred to, are they included in those reports?
22 A. Yes, they are.
23 Q. And do those reports also contain different, separate information
24 relating to your personal, individual involvement in the exhumation
1 A. Yes, they do, Your Honours. I examined the reports and the
2 underlying data, the autopsy reports and the photographs, which had
3 formed the basis of the reports made by the experts. But because, for
4 instance, the chief archaeologist may have only been in the field for one
5 season, he would not have seen in depth the previous material or the
6 material that came after him. So I was examining all the material across
7 the board.
8 And, for instance, the exhumation project may say that -- not
9 indicate there was a blindfold on a body. So the report from that expert
10 would say that he hadn't seen a blindfold. The reason for that was
11 because of the condition of the body. On arrival at Visoko mortuary, it
12 would be examined and cleaned and they would see that there was clearly a
13 blindfold on the body. So his report, the first report, would not
14 indicate that blindfold, the second report would.
15 In that instance, I examined every single report that went
16 through the mortuary including every single blindfold and ligature,
17 physically examined each of them, and examined the records behind those
18 artefacts. Could I prove that that blindfold was indeed on the body?
19 Was it photographed on the body? Where is the photograph? Was it
20 included in an autopsy report? Was that autopsy report reflecting a
21 blindfold? Was there a physical blindfold that matched that report? And
22 the same for identifications, I would examine artefacts which had been
23 recovered from the grave and either return them to The Hague for
24 examination or return them to the Bosnian Commission for examination in
25 an attempt to identify the bodies.
1 Q. You mention in your written evidence that a decision was taken in
2 2001 to hand-over responsibility for the un-exhumed graves to the Bosnian
3 Commission for Missing Persons. Was the focus of that at the BCMP the
4 same or different to the focus of the ICTY exhumation team?
5 A. The focus was different. The ICTY project was predominantly a
6 forensic examination to provide evidence to this Court. It was
7 considered vital that the evidence be preserved, that we examined how the
8 graves were made, how the individuals came to be in the graves, and how
9 they were killed. The Bosnian Commission - who were monitored by
10 ICMP and the ICMP officers were present at the exhumations - their goal
11 was to recover the bodies and I think I'm correct in saying as quickly as
12 possible with a view to identifying the bodies. Their role was to open
13 the graves, if possible examine the evidence, but predominantly remove
14 the bodies, take them to the mortuary, and have them identified.
15 Q. And in your written evidence you state that, in 2005, you began
16 to review the work of the Bosnian authorities and the ICMP and you
17 prepared a report in November 2007 in respect to that review. Is that
19 A. That's correct, yes.
20 MR. JEREMY: Your Honours, could the Court Officer please bring
21 65 ter 05764 to our screens. This should be Mr. Manning's November 2007
23 Q. Mr. Manning, the report's now on the screen before you. Is that
24 the report that you produced in November 2007?
25 A. That's correct, yes.
1 Q. And can you briefly describe the process that you went through in
2 reviewing the work of the BCMP, also include some details about the
3 ICMP's role in that work.
4 A. Effectively, I was asked to examine the results of the DNA
5 analysis connected to Srebrenica. I went to Bosnia, visited ICMP
6 facilities, and the Bosnian Commission for Missing Persons, as well as
7 the Tuzla canton court. And what I did was examine the process of how
8 the DNA was recovered, how the process was conducted, how the
9 reassociation of bodies was conducted. But predominantly I was there to
10 seek the data, the positive DNA identifications for Srebrenica.
11 Eventually I was given access to that data. I looked at positive
12 identifications or identifications of individuals who were unique
13 individuals not yet identified. And I took that data and produced a
14 table which showed the graves that the ICTY were aware of and how many
15 individuals had been identified in those graves via DNA analysis. I
16 didn't include the names, but I included the body reference from our
17 exhumations and the DNA result from ICMP. And that provided a definitive
18 count of individuals, unique individuals, located within the graves.
19 Q. And you explain in your written evidence in the Popovic
20 transcript that in this table that you refer to there were -- an error
21 was made, a basic numerical error. Now, that's described in your written
22 evidence and I don't propose to take you back through that again, but
23 could you confirm that that's correct?
24 A. That's correct, and I noted that error and produced a document to
25 that error. As a result, not only did I examine the report but other
1 staff members from OTP examined the report to seek any other errors and I
2 don't believe there are any other errors. And that error was a mistake
3 on my part.
4 MR. JEREMY: Could we please go to page -- e-court page 27 of
5 this document.
6 Q. And, Mr. Manning, this is the first of a series of pages of data
7 that actually run until the end of this document from page 27 onwards.
8 Can you explain what this information is, please?
9 A. Your Honours, these are the data that I obtained from ICMP. If
10 you look in the case ID column, there is a case which is CSK, for
11 instance, 38. That's from the Cerska grave, primary mass grave, and it
12 indicates that a body known as CSK-38 has been identified by ICMP. The
13 second and third column contains an identification number produced by
14 ICMP. A, it indicates that there is a unique DNA profile for Cerska 38
15 and that there is a case ID for the identification of that individual.
16 And if you like, Cerska 38 has been identified as a unique individual
17 based on a DNA analysis from his remains or her remains and a sample
18 provided by family members.
19 Q. And was your work in reviewing this DNA information taken over by
20 another former ICTY investigator?
21 A. Yes, that's correct.
22 Q. Do you recall the name of that investigator?
23 A. Dusan Janc. He was an investigator with the Srebrenica team.
24 Q. Thank you. Now, you mention a mass grave, you mention the Cerska
25 primary mass grave. Can you explain what you mean by a mass grave, both
1 primary mass grave and secondary mass graves which you refer to in your
2 written evidence?
3 A. Your Honours, the archaeologist would have a strict definition of
4 a mass grave, but for the Srebrenica investigation it was effectively a
5 grave that contained multiple human remains. We could say, you know, two
6 people is a mass grave, but generally we were dealing with graves which
7 were very large, and a mass grave is a grave that contains the remains of
8 at least two people and multiple human remains. In the case of, say,
9 Glogova or Kozluk mass graves, many hundreds of individuals.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Manning, may I just interrupt a little bit and
11 I apologise if you've explained this before. What is a unique
13 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, the mass graves which were disturbed,
14 that is, they've been opened up and bodies removed, meant that the
15 individuals in the grave were broken up. So if you have an undisturbed
16 grave where the bodies are placed, you open the grave and you have
17 ten individuals. In our graves, the majority were disturbed. So you had
18 individuals broken apart, part of them in one grave, part in another, and
19 indeed part in a third. That meant that you would have what you thought
20 represented most of a body in one grave and part of -- most of what
21 represented a body in a second grave.
22 With the DNA analysis, they would say: We've checked the remains
23 and the DNA profile which is -- and I'm not a DNA expert, but the DNA
24 profile is unique to that individual. So they would then take three
25 parts of a body and bring them together. Well, even though there were
1 three separate parts, they were a unique individual, they represented one
2 DNA sample.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
4 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honour.
5 MR. JEREMY:
6 Q. Mr. Manning, you've referred to mass graves and you've explained
7 what those are. Could you also explain what you consider to be a primary
8 mass grave and a secondary mass grave?
9 A. A primary mass grave is effectively the grave in which the bodies
10 are placed at the time of or immediately after death. In the case of
11 many of the Srebrenica sites, they were actually executed at the
12 grave-site. So they're buried in a primary mass grave, and if that grave
13 is not disturbed, we could then open the grave and see the bodies as they
14 were placed in the grave or as they died.
15 In this instance, several months after the bodies were buried in
16 July of 1995, there was an operation to open many of the primary graves,
17 and they opened up those graves and they removed individuals from the
18 grave, I believe with the intention of removing all the individuals which
19 they did not do. They would then take those human remains from the
20 primary grave, transport them to a secondary grave, that is, a grave that
21 has been dug since the primary grave, put them in the primary [sic] grave
22 and seal that grave up. You then had a primary disturbed grave which
23 had -- either had most of the bodies removed or a significant part and
24 those bodies were transported to a secondary grave.
25 MR. JEREMY: Your Honours, could we please see on our screens
1 Exhibit MFI P01481. And this is a book of aerial imagery of primary and
2 secondary mass graves. I'd like to go to page 7 of that book, please.
3 And, Your Honours, I do have this chart in a hard copy A3 size if
4 that would be of assistance to you. We will be using it a little bit in
5 the direct examination.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: It would be indeed useful, I think.
7 MR. JEREMY: Mr. Ivetic has a copy and with his permission it
8 might be helpful to provide it to the witness as well, with your
9 permission as well, Your Honours.
10 MR. IVETIC: [Microphone not activated]
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Ivetic -- no objection, thank you.
12 MR. JEREMY:
13 Q. Mr. Manning, do you recognise the document before you?
14 A. Yes, I do. I produced this document for a previous court
16 Q. And can you explain the document?
17 A. Your Honours, the document was designed to provide an overview of
18 where the mass graves were, both primary and secondary, but most
19 importantly to show the movement of bodies from primary disturbed graves
20 to secondary graves. It also indicates execution points in black. The
21 red is primary mass graves. The green dots are secondary mass graves.
22 And it also shows the area -- that the graves were confined to an area
23 from Pilica Dom in the north to Zeleni Jadar in the south, which was the
24 zone of responsibility of the Drina Corps as I understand it. And I
25 produced the map to also show why we associated primary to secondary.
1 And if you see within the rectangles the reasons why we, at that stage,
2 link the primary and secondary mass graves.
3 MR. JEREMY: Could we please see another document on our screens,
4 65 ter 04610. This is an image of the body from the Kozluk mass grave.
5 And can we rotate that to the left, please. Thank you.
6 Q. Mr. Manning, do you recognise this image?
7 A. Yes, I do.
8 Q. And in the context of what you've been saying about the primary
9 and the secondary mass graves, can you explain what we see in this
10 particular photo?
11 A. This is a photo of the Kozluk mass grave which was adjacent to
12 the Drina River. It was a primary mass grave and execution point. If
13 you see there are skeletonised remains of the victims on the middle and
14 top of the image, and you can see from the posture of many of them that
15 their hands are bound. Effectively, these men and boys were shot at that
16 site and they were shot and killed where they lay. Then the soil was
17 placed on top of that mass of bodies, so they were effectively covered up
18 and buried. When the archaeologist removed the soil, you saw the bodies
19 laying on the surface of the ground and that surface was the surface as
20 it was in 1995. And if you - and I've seen this in mass graves where
21 I've been present where I've stood within the graves - you can see to the
22 bottom right-hand side a large part of that original surface and some of
23 the bodies is missing. You can see to the far middle right teeth marks
24 in the soil, and what that clearly shows, even to me as a
25 non-archaeological expert, is that a machine has come in and taken away
1 that chunk of soil. You can see that it's taken away some of the bodies
2 and it's cut through the original surface on which the bodies lay. So
3 what you have is evidence of someone coming in after the bodies were
4 placed on the ground, after they were covered up, and taking out that
5 section of the grave and, if you like, that section of the grave was then
6 taken to a secondary mass grave. And that missing part would form part
7 of the secondary mass grave.
8 Q. And to --
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: You mentioned teeth marks. You say:
10 "You can see to the far middle right teeth marks in the soil ..."
11 You're obviously not talking about teeth marks of a human being,
12 you're talking about maybe a pay loader or something like that?
13 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour, I'm sorry. In this case, you can
14 see that a machine was used to dig that out and the teeth marks I refer
15 to are the --
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Are the machine's teeth marks.
17 THE WITNESS: Yeah, are the blades. And you can actually see the
18 teeth of the digging machine carving into the soil. And in this image,
19 when it's a bit lighter you can clearly see those teeth marks through the
20 wall of the soil.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you so much.
22 Yes, Mr. Jeremy.
23 MR. JEREMY: Thank you, Your Honours.
24 Q. Mr. Manning, just to be clear, the trench that you -- that you've
25 described that we see in the bottom right corner, that wasn't created by
1 the ICTY exhumation team?
2 A. No. They very, very carefully removed the top layer of soil, the
3 overburden, with the intention of showing what the grave looked like, and
4 you can see they've done a very effective job with the mass of bodies.
5 And imagine that soil has now been painstakingly lifted off and as they
6 did -- and I have seen this happen, as they did they say, well, this cut
7 here was filled with soil. We've removed the soil and you can see the
8 cut edges of that. So they didn't create that. The robbers, the people
9 who removed the bodies created that trench. They simply revealed it.
10 MR. JEREMY: I'd like to tender that image, Your Honours.
11 MR. IVETIC: [Microphone not activated]
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. That image is admitted into
13 evidence. May it please be given an exhibit number.
14 MR. JEREMY: 65 ter 04610.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Are you not able to switch on your microphone?
16 THE REGISTRAR: No, I am, Your Honour, thank you. Document 04610
17 receives number P1731, Your Honours.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
19 MR. JEREMY:
20 Q. Mr. Manning, I'd now like to discuss aerial imagery which you
21 make reference to in your written evidence. Can you briefly explain how
22 the exhumations team and how you in particular made use of this aerial
24 A. Your Honours, aerial imagery was provided to the OTP which was
25 effectively images of areas of disturbed soil. Initially they were
1 released by Madeleine Albright from the US government, and they showed
2 clearly disturbances. In one image of Nova Kasaba, they showed four
3 areas of disturbance which was ultimately examined and shown to be a
4 primary undisturbed mass grave. We would use those images in an attempt
5 to identify mass graves. We would go to the area depicted. For
6 instance, I would hold the image, I would look at the ground with the
7 archaeologists. For instance, at Zeleni Jadar 06, we stood on the
8 roadway depicted in the image, we looked at the image and we said: Well,
9 where is the mass grave? We think it's here. The image is distorted
10 somewhat. We think it's there. We would then identify the area, demine
11 the area, scrape off the soil, and discover the outline of a mass grave.
12 It would then be trenched to confirm it was a mass grave.
13 So they were -- they allowed us to search through the
14 country-side for suspected mass grave sites and exhume them.
15 Q. And did any of the mass grave sites that you identified on the
16 basis of this aerial imagery, were they marked or identified in any
17 particular way, and I'm thinking with tombstones or ...?
18 A. No, none of them were. And, in fact, the majority, if not all,
19 of the mass graves were in very remote areas, particularly the secondary
20 mass graves. They were in areas where the entire population had been
21 removed, all the homes had been destroyed, and they were in quite remote
22 locations. And there was no indication, by way of a sign or a post of
23 any other indication, that these were mass grave sites. In fact, the
24 majority of them were difficult to find even though we had the imagery
25 showing us where we thought they were.
1 MR. JEREMY: Your Honours, could we please see on our screens
2 again P01481, MFI. That's the aerial imagery book.
3 Q. Mr. Manning, are you familiar with this book of aerial images?
4 A. Yes, I am.
5 Q. And in the course of your investigations, were you able to
6 discern any sort of pattern, any discernible pattern relating to the
7 creation of the primary and secondary mass graves?
8 A. Your Honours, the images initially would show the creation date
9 of the primary mass graves, which was in July of 1995. Unfortunately,
10 the -- unfortunately, sometimes it would be a window, so they would say
11 on the 5th of July until the 17th of July was the available imagery. And
12 you would see on the 5th of July no mass grave was created, and then at
13 the end of that window you would see a mass grave created.
14 When they were disturbing and robbing the primary mass graves,
15 which was in September and October of 1995, at the same time they were
16 opening up the secondary mass graves. These mass graves did not exist
17 prior to the primary graves being opened up again. They would open up
18 the primary graves, transport the bodies to the secondary grave, close
19 the primary grave, and close the secondary grave. In effect, those
20 secondary graves were created as a direct result of the disturbance of
21 the primary graves as a place to place the bodies.
22 MR. JEREMY: Could we go to page 17 in e-court of this document.
23 Q. Mr. Manning, could you tell us, if you're able, what we're
24 looking at here.
25 A. Your Honours, this is a split image and that's that window of
1 available images. So on the left-hand pane is an area -- what we refer
2 to Orahovac or Lipje. So on the 5th of July, 1995, you can see some
3 ruined houses and some roadways and the thick white line is the railway
4 line. On the 27th of July, 1995, you can clearly see two areas of
5 heavily disturbed soil, which is the Lipje or Orahovac 1 and 2 primary
6 mass graves. One is at the middle bottom of the screen over the railway
7 line and one is at the top middle of the screen, top right of the screen,
8 between those two small roads, and that's a primary mass grave which I
9 was present for the opening of that grave and most of the exhumation of
10 that grave and also the examination or re-examination of the other mass
11 grave, Orahovac 2.
12 Q. You mention the grave was known as Orahovac 1 and 2 or Lipje --
13 A. Sorry --
14 Q. I see on the charts that Lipje's in a different location?
15 A. I think it was Lazete, LZ.
16 Q. Thank you.
17 A. Sorry.
18 MR. JEREMY: Can we go to the next page in this document.
19 Q. Mr. Manning, if you could again tell us what we're looking at
20 here, please.
21 A. Again, a split screen. The one on the left is the 7th of
22 September, and the one on the right, the 27th of September. So the
23 primary mass grave of LZ-01 is shown on the left-hand pane and you can
24 see that it's been overgrown and it hasn't been disturbed again from the
25 previous image, but you can see on the 27th of September or up to the
1 27th of September there's been a significant disturbance of that site.
2 And on a better-quality image you can see motor vehicle tracks and what
3 is clearly the blades of a heavy machine moving the soil around on that
4 mass grave site. And I indicate that the yellow lettering at the bottom
5 which indicates Lazete 01 and Lazete 01, both sides, was placed there by
7 Q. And the white lettering that we see, did you place that there,
8 the date --
9 A. Yeah, the black lettering in the white boxes was placed by the
10 provider of the imagery.
11 MR. JEREMY: Can we go to the next page, please, page 19.
12 Q. And, again, Mr. Manning, can you explain what we're looking at
14 A. Again a split image, exactly the same time-frame, and this is the
15 next grave across the railway line which you can see in the top left and
16 right of the image. Again, you see the very large area of disturbance on
17 the left which is then strongly disturbed on the right pane. So between
18 the 7th of September and the 27th of September, that mass grave was
19 opened up and the majority of the bodies were removed. And again,
20 clearly you can see vehicle tracks on that -- particularly on the
21 right-hand image.
22 MR. JEREMY: Could we go to page 44 in e-court, please.
23 Q. Mr. Manning, could you tell us what we're looking at here.
24 A. This is a series of images which are produced with the OTP which
25 are three separate aerial images stitched together, and they show the
1 section of road which we called Hodzici road and they show a series of
2 seven secondary mass graves, starting at Hodzici 1, and these graves are
3 circled and again the letters were placed there by myself. And they show
4 the secondary mass graves which by various means were linked to the
5 Orahovac second -- primary mass grave.
6 MR. JEREMY: And could we go to page 49 of this document, please.
7 Q. And again, once we get there, Mr. Manning, if you could explain
8 what we're looking at, please.
9 A. This is the before photo, if you like. So on the
10 7th of September, 1995, you can see a road forking and ruined houses, and
11 in that area along the Hodzici road there were no people. All the homes
12 were destroyed and all the population had left. So it was quite remote.
13 And you can see -- and the image is not so clear, but there is no area of
14 disturbance on that image.
15 MR. JEREMY: And can we go to the next page, please.
16 Q. And if you could explain what we're looking at here.
17 A. Okay, you can see the fork in the road, and what wasn't there in
18 the previous image is now two secondary mass graves, Hodzici 5 on the
19 left and Hodzici 4 on the right. Those mass graves were created, filled
20 with bodies, and in this image closed up and covered up. And they would
21 bulldoze or move the earth across a grave and completely level the soil
22 so that you would be looking at not a pile of dirt or a partial hole, but
23 a levelled field which had been disturbed.
24 MR. JEREMY: Your Honours, I would be moving on to a different
25 topic now. I wonder if it might be the right time for the break.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Indeed it will be.
2 We take a break and come back at about quarter past 12.00.
3 Mr. Manning, you may follow the usher.
4 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honour.
5 [The witness stands down]
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: We take a break and come back at quarter past
7 12.00. Court adjourned.
8 --- Recess taken at 11.53 a.m.
9 --- On resuming at 12.17 p.m.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: May the witness please be escorted into the
12 [The witness takes the stand]
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Jeremy, you may proceed.
14 MR. JEREMY: Thank you, Your Honours.
15 Q. Mr. Manning, in the previous session we were discussing your
16 November 2007 report and in relation to the DNA analysis, and you were --
17 you were asked a question about what a unique individual actually was.
18 Now, I'd like to clarify with you, is there a distinction between a
19 unique individual who has been identified by name and a unique individual
20 who has not been identified by name?
21 A. Your Honours, in terms of my 2007 report, there is, but
22 effectively the DNA simply means that that DNA is unique to a single
23 individual. And that -- I use that term particularly because of the way
24 the bodies are broken up. But in my report, the ICMP would identify from
25 the DNA profile a missing person from Srebrenica. So therefore, that
1 would be an ID of a unique individual who now has a name.
2 In that report there was also a number of individuals who
3 presented as a unique DNA profile in that -- that that profile wasn't
4 represented by any other remains. And -- but that person had not yet
5 been identified. So you had someone who was definitely an individual, a
6 collection of bones perhaps from different graves, who was definitely one
7 person but they did not yet know who that person or what that person's
8 name was.
9 Q. Okay. You mentioned earlier today shell casings and I'd like to
10 show you an exhibit, 65 ter 05154.
11 MR. JEREMY: If that could be brought to our screens, please,
12 Your Honours.
13 Q. Mr. Manning, do you -- do you recognise the image on the screen
14 before us; and if so, are you able to comment upon what we see?
15 A. Your Honours, I recognise the image. It's an individual at the
16 Kozluk primary mass grave, and I think it's a body 501 which would be
17 KK-501 or a similar number. You can see from that image a number of
18 things. One is there's a blindfold on the individual's face covering
19 their eyes. You can see part of that cloth on the back of the head. You
20 can see their arms are behind their back and I know that that individual
21 is bound. So that person is blindfolded and is bound.
22 But what else you can see in that image, in the colour version
23 you can see a significant amount of green glass, broken green glass
24 bottles. And if you look in the top left-hand middle corner you can see
25 a round shape which is a bottle cap. And that green glass was from a
1 dumping-ground from a bottling factory and that was all over the Kozluk
2 site. And in the bottom middle of the image you can see a shell case, a
3 7.62-millimetre shell case, and that's laying near the body's arm. So
4 you have a shell case next to the body, you have the broken green glass
5 around the body, you have the body bound and blindfolded, and executed at
6 that site in Kozluk.
7 MR. JEREMY: Your Honours, we've -- to step away from this image
8 for a moment, we discussed satellite imagery of -- or aerial imagery of
9 mass graves this morning. We have hard copies of those aerial images
10 which I'd like to provide to you, and we also have two volumes of the
11 photos of the blindfolds and ligatures also in hard copy. We'd like to
12 make those available to the Chamber. The Defence have copies of those
13 which I provided this morning.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay.
15 MR. IVETIC: And we have no objection.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you so much, Mr. Ivetic.
17 That's fine, Mr. Jeremy.
18 MR. JEREMY: And the 65 ter numbers of those, the blindfolds
19 books volume 1 and 2, 65 ter numbers 27979 and 27980, and the aerial
20 imagery book is 27981.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Are you tendering these books, as you've given
22 these 65 ter numbers, or are you just telling us what they are?
23 MR. JEREMY: I'm not tendering those right now. I will tender
24 them at the conclusion of the direct examination, Your Honours.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: You may proceed, Mr. Jeremy.
1 MR. JEREMY:
2 Q. Mr. Manning, were all of the shell casings that you have referred
3 to and the shell casings you identified in your investigations, were all
4 of those shell casings collected?
5 A. We didn't collect all the shell cases within a mass grave. We
6 took not a representative sample, but we took a number of shell cases.
7 There were often so many that you couldn't collect them all, simply a
8 logistical issue, also some were damaged. But the ones that we
9 collected, particularly those associated with a body or the surface of
10 the grave were collected by us, examined, and ultimately sent to the US
11 Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms service for examination.
12 MR. JEREMY: And, Your Honours, I'd like to tender that image on
13 the screen before us, 65 ter 05154.
14 MR. IVETIC: No objection.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Mr. Ivetic.
16 Madam Registrar, the image is admitted into evidence. May it
17 please be given an exhibit number.
18 THE REGISTRAR: Document 05154 receives number P1732,
19 Your Honours.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
21 MR. JEREMY:
22 Q. Mr. Manning, you mentioned that shell casings were transferred to
23 the US Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms service for examination. What
24 examination was requested by the OTP, by your team?
25 A. Effectively it was in two parts, but part one was to examine the
1 shell cases that we'd collected and to examine the markings on the shell
2 cases predominantly caused by the ejection of the shell from the weapon,
3 and see if we could match shell cases from not only within the grave but
4 across the primary and secondary graves, and effectively show if a group
5 of weapons were present at the exhumation -- executions. So it was an
6 examination of the shell cases to find matches.
7 MR. JEREMY: Could the Court Officer please bring 65 ter 25728 to
8 our screens.
9 Q. While this is coming up, Mr. Manning, it's an OTP information
10 report relating to shell casings that you have just discussed, in
11 particular the analysis by the ATF. Do you recognise this document?
12 A. I do, yes. It effectively matches the results ATF examination of
13 the shell cases to our grave locations. And if you see an ERN reference
14 and then a location, it effectively says the ATF provided reference
15 numbers for the shell cases which matched, and we can see in this that
16 the shell case from Kozluk matched a shell case from Cancari Road grave
17 03, a secondary grave. And it's effectively matching shell cases found
18 in primary graves to those found in secondary graves or within areas of
19 the grave.
20 Q. And are those matches pictorially represented on the image that
21 we have before us, the -- the chart of the primary and secondary mass
22 graves, the A3 hard copy?
23 A. Yes, Your Honour. I added where there were matching shell cases
24 to this diagram, and if you look, for instance, from Kozluk, you'll see
25 that it was matched by bottle labels and the green glass I spoke of and
1 also shell cases. So a shell case from the Kozluk primary grave matched
2 a shell case from the Cancari Road secondary graves.
3 MR. JEREMY: Your Honours, I'd like to tender that exhibit,
4 65 ter 25728.
5 MR. IVETIC: No objection.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: May the Registrar -- it's admitted. May it please
7 be given an exhibit number.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Document 25728 receives number P1733,
9 Your Honours.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
11 Yes, Mr. Jeremy.
12 MR. JEREMY: Could the Court Officer please bring up
13 65 ter 04586, and this is Mr. Manning's June 2000 report. And I'd like
14 to go to page 16, please, e-court page 16.
15 Q. Mr. Manning, do you recognise this chart on the screen before
17 A. Yes, I do. I produced it.
18 Q. And what does this show?
19 A. Your Honours, it shows the previous data, but rather more simply
20 in that a shell case from Kravica warehouse was matched to a shell case
21 from Zeleni Jadar 5 secondary grave and it goes to show matches between
22 primary and secondary graves. In the case of Cerska, it shows a shell
23 case within the mass grave which had been covered up, matched shell cases
24 found on the surface, but more importantly on the roadway and on the
25 north side of the road in Cerska, which provided to us corroboration that
1 the individuals were shot at that site and that the shell cases found on
2 the roadway and the road were from the weapon or weapons that killed
3 those individuals. And some of those shell cases then found their way
4 into the grave with the bodies.
5 Q. And you referred to the connection between a shell casing from
6 Kravica warehouse to the Zeleni Jadar 5 grave. Looking at the A3 image
7 that we have of primary and secondary graves, I don't see a connection
8 between Kravica warehouse and Zeleni Jadar. Can you explain why that
9 isn't pictorially represented?
10 A. Your Honours, the Kravica warehouse is an execution point where a
11 significant number of men and boys were killed. We have very strong
12 evidence that those bodies were then transported to three primary mass
13 graves, that is, Ravnice which we refer to as Ravnice 1 and 2, and
14 Glogova 1 and 2. The shell case that was found in Zeleni Jadar 5, and
15 Zeleni Jadar 5 is linked to Glogova 1 and 2, had to have come to that
16 secondary grave via the primary grave. At the time the warehouse
17 execution took place, Zeleni Jadar 5 had not been created. So I could
18 not show the movement of the bodies, in this case indicated by the shell
19 case, direct from the warehouse to Zeleni Jadar 5 because the route was
20 from the warehouse to Glogova 1 and 2, which was then disturbed and the
21 bodies were taken to a very remote location at Zeleni Jadar and placed in
22 the secondary grave.
23 Q. And looking at this table from your 2000 report which is on the
24 screen before us, I see on the top of the page it states:
25 "The examination provided that shell casings located at the
1 following areas were fired by the same weapon; that is, that the weapon
2 was either at each of the sites or the shell casings were transported
3 from one site to the other."
4 Can you explain how as part of your investigation you interpreted
5 those expert results?
6 A. Well, initially the report from the ATF had detailed numbers that
7 were not our numbers, so I had to match up the reference numbers from the
8 ATF to our reference numbers, and hence that previous document which
9 showed the links. And what, certainly to me, that means is if the weapon
10 at Kravica which was fired and a shell case ejected at Kravica, that
11 individual weapon was then fired at Zeleni Jadar 5 some several months
12 later or, as is indicated by the other evidence, the shell case was
13 transported with the bodies from the execution point to the primary mass
14 grave and then to the secondary mass grave.
15 Q. And did your investigations indicate that there were any
16 suggestions that the same weapon was present at each of those sites?
17 A. If I understand correctly, no, because, as I say, Zeleni Jadar,
18 for instance, wasn't a battle scene, it wasn't created when the original
19 executions happened. So there's no indication that the weapon was taken
20 and fired at two different locations. Multiplied by all the primary and
21 secondary graves, it's clear from the evidence that the people were
22 executed and placed in primary graves and the related shell cases are
23 taken in the removal process and placed in the secondary graves.
24 Q. I'd like to now discuss the blindfolds and ligatures you've made
25 reference to.
1 MR. JEREMY: Your Honours, could we please see 65 ter 15203
2 [Realtime transcript read in error "15023"] on our screens.
3 Q. Mr. Manning, do you recognise this document; and if so, can you
4 tell us what it relates to?
5 A. Your Honours, I produced that table or both tables, and it shows
6 the ligatures and blindfolds which were located in the Srebrenica mass
7 graves. I indicated before that a part of the process might not be able
8 to identify a blindfold or a ligature, and I was tasked with finding out
9 how many blindfolds and ligatures we actually had. So what I did was I
10 went to the mortuary and I examined every blindfold and every ligature
11 physically, and then I traced the continuity of every single blindfold
12 and ligature. So if there was a reference in an autopsy report to a
13 blindfold, I took that report, I looked for photos which substantiated
14 that, and you saw in the previous image a blindfold on a body. Then I
15 took the autopsy report, looked for the photographic logs, looked for the
16 examination by the crime scene officers, looked for the examination by
17 the pathologist. And if I was satisfied that we had a continuous chain
18 of evidence indicating a blindfold was either found on a body or with a
19 body and that it had the characteristics of a blindfold or a ligature,
20 and if I could prove that process, then I accepted that as a blindfold or
21 a ligature. If I couldn't, if there was a break in that chain, or if the
22 photograph hadn't been taken or I couldn't prove that chain, I rejected
23 that item.
24 And I produced this table, A, to show a total of the blindfolds
25 and ligatures and where they were from; and B, where they were located.
1 In the instance for ligatures, we see how many were on the wrists or
2 arms. And, for instance, in Cerska the arms would come away from the
3 body or the wrists and finger bones, phalanges, would come away, but you
4 would still see a wire loop around the forearm of the individual, the
5 bones. Some ligatures and some blindfolds were very closely associated
6 with the bodies, that is, they had fallen off perhaps at the time of
7 death or perhaps at the time of disturbance or, indeed, as we were
8 exhuming the bodies, and I noted that, particularly where the blindfold
9 or ligature was effectively on top of the body. And I also have a column
10 for ligatures loose in the grave. This is where the ligature was very
11 definitely removed by perhaps several centimetres or a metre from the
12 body but was still very clearly a ligature. It had the shape of a
13 figure eight if it was wire or cloth and it was clearly used to bind
14 someone's hands. And if I could show those characteristics, I accepted
15 it as a ligature, and I did the same thing for the blindfolds. And I was
16 extraordinarily conservative in that count. I wanted to make sure that I
17 could prove every single item across the entire time-frame of the
18 exhumations process and show that they were blindfolds and ligatures.
19 Q. All right. Let's go back to your 2007 report, please --
20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Jeremy, just for the sake of the record, what
21 was the correct 65 ter number of this document?
22 MR. JEREMY: 65 ter 15203.
23 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Because in the transcript we see another number,
24 I think it's just a typo, page 55, line 1.
25 MR. JEREMY: Thank you, Your Honours.
1 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you for that clarification.
2 MR. JEREMY: And I'd like to tender that document now.
3 MR. IVETIC: No objection.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Admitted. May it please be given an exhibit
5 number, Madam Registrar.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Document 15203 receives number P1734,
7 Your Honours.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
9 MR. JEREMY: Could we go to 04586, the 2007 report, please. And
10 I'd like to go to e-court page 115.
11 Q. Mr. Manning, you mentioned ligatures identified in Cerska. Can
12 you just very briefly tell us what we're looking at here, then we'll move
13 to some photographs.
14 A. Yes. I produced this table to show the references to the
15 ligatures from Cerska. The individuals at Cerska who were bound were
16 bound by wire and mostly steel, strong steel wire, although with some
17 electrical wire with black coating. It shows the ERN number of the item,
18 the case number which would be the body, Cerska 6 in the case of the
19 first one, and a description and location of the ligature.
20 MR. JEREMY: Your Honours, could we go to 65 ter 27980, that's
21 volume 2 of the blindfolds and ligatures book. I'd like to go to e-court
22 page 233, which is page 231 in the hard copy of volume 2.
23 Q. And, Mr. Manning, can you explain what we're looking at here?
24 What this index is? It's in a different document.
25 A. Oh, I'm sorry. It's effectively the same table. I'm showing the
1 Cerska ligatures and the -- I'm not sure if I've got the same document,
2 but it's the same -- effectively the same document.
3 Q. Same document. And in respect to both of these volumes of the
4 blindfolds and ligatures book of which this is one, are you familiar with
5 both of those volumes?
6 A. Yes, and I produced the tables based on my physical examination
7 of not only the ligatures and blindfolds, and that's every single one,
8 but also an examination of the ERN numbers, the photographs, the
9 associated autopsy reports, the associated forensic reports, and the
10 reports of the experts.
11 Q. And a series of photos follow this index in the hard copy book.
12 Are those photos of the ligatures identified in this index?
13 A. Yes, Your Honours, they are. I examined all the photographs and
14 selected a photograph to represent the ligature or blindfold. Each
15 photograph represents an individual ligature or blindfold. You'll see
16 one image will be at the grave-site, the next image may be at the
17 mortuary and shows a cleaned up ligature or blindfold, but they represent
18 one photo per artefact.
19 MR. JEREMY: Could we go to page 244 in e-court, which is
20 page 242 in the hard copy, please.
21 Q. Mr. Manning, can you explain what we're looking at here?
22 A. I'm familiar with this image, it was taken at the Cerska primary
23 mass grave in 1996. It's labelled CSK-22, and that is body 22 from
24 Cerska mass grave. You can see part of the man's sleeve with his two arm
25 bones poking through, and you can clearly see the wire ligature which was
1 around his fleshed arms, binding him to -- binding his arms. And you can
2 see that the flesh has rotted away and you can see what's left of the
3 ligature. And that was a very common process at Cerska, you would see
4 bones, arm bones circled by ligatures.
5 MR. JEREMY: Could we go to 65 ter 27979, that's volume 1 of the
6 blindfolds and ligatures book. And I'd like to go to page 239 in
7 e-court, 237 in the hard copy.
8 Q. Mr. Manning, can you explain what we're looking at here if you're
10 A. This is from the Kozluk mass grave, and you can see the partially
11 skeletonised remains of a male and you can very, very clearly see the
12 blindfold across his face, across his eyes. I examined that particular
13 blindfold. In that and many others I would see a clump of what I
14 believed to be human hair caught in the knot and they were bound across
15 the back of their heads covering their eyes.
16 Q. And were certain of the cloth blindfolds and ligatures sent away
17 for analysis?
18 A. Yes. The Netherlands Forensic Institute conducted an examination
19 of the cloth blindfolds and ligatures. It was done by Dr. Suzi Maljaars.
20 I took the majority of the cloth blindfolds and ligatures to her. They
21 had been conveyed also by, I think, team leader Ruez. And then I worked
22 with her and she produced a report and I reviewed that report, which was
23 linking again blindfolds and ligatures in groups, which we then were able
24 to say they were linking primary and secondary mass graves.
25 MR. JEREMY: Could we go again to your June 2000 report,
1 65 ter 04586, e-court page 17, please.
2 Q. Mr. Manning, do you recognise this table and can you please
3 explain to us what it presents if you do?
4 A. Your Honours, I produced that table based on Dr. Maljaars'
5 report. Effectively she was able to match the colour, the weave, the
6 pattern, the type of material into groups. By examining that -- those
7 matches, I was able to produce this document, which shows a blindfold or
8 cloth ligature from the Branjevo Military Farm was indistinguishable from
9 one at the secondary mass grave of Cancari Road 12 and Cancari Road 3.
10 And again for Grbavci school and Orahovac primary mass graves to the
11 related secondary mass graves.
12 Q. And you mentioned a blindfold from Branjevo Military Farm was
13 indistinguishable from the secondary -- from a blindfold at the secondary
14 mass grave of Cancari Road 3. I don't see that as a connection on
15 your -- on the chart of the primary and the secondary mass graves that we
16 have A3.
17 A. In a similar way the Hodzici Road secondary grave linked to
18 Lipje 2 which is a secondary grave. We would not expect that connection
19 between Branjevo and the other end of Cancari road which was
20 predominantly Kozluk mass graves and the link between Hodzici road, the
21 secondary mass grave in Lipje to a secondary mass grave which is
22 connected to the dam. To me that shows one of two scenarios, one of
23 which is that the blindfolds were transported with the bodies and
24 contaminated the sites or I believe that the blindfolds came from a
25 central location and were distributed to those execution points and
1 thence to the primary and secondary mass graves.
2 Q. I'd like to now move to a different topic. On the basis of your
3 investigation into the Srebrenica-related mass graves, both primary and
4 secondary, did your investigations reveal any evidence that suggested
5 that those mass graves contained combat-related casualties or bodies that
6 were the product of combat or fighting? And if you can perhaps provide
7 some general observations and if you have any specific observations
8 related to the graves we see on the A3 chart before us, please provide
9 those as well.
10 A. Your Honours, part of the exhumation process and autopsy process
11 was to identify how these individuals died, and we were very conscious of
12 the fact that we needed to seek evidence of either the fact that they had
13 been killed in an execution or they were the result of battle casualties.
14 So that was in our mind in our examinations.
15 The evidence that we have, particularly from the primary mass
16 graves, is that individuals were not killed as a result of a battle.
17 They weren't picked up and placed in sanitary mass graves. They were
18 executed, and they were placed in mass graves in an attempt to hide the
19 bodies. And remembering, if they were sanitary graves, they should be
20 marked and they should allow after the conflict for those graves to be
21 identified and the bodies removed or at least dealt with in a different
22 manner. And to my view, the primary mass graves and certainly the
23 secondary mass graves were hidden. They were placed in areas which were
24 quite remote.
25 But if you look at, for instance, Cerska which we were discussing
1 the wire ligatures, there is 150, roughly, individuals in that primary,
2 undisturbed mass grave and a significant number of those men are bound
3 and they were shot at that location. There is evidence of them being
4 shot in that location, falling by the side of the road, and being covered
5 up. Not all the men were bound or there wasn't evidence that all the men
6 were bound, but the ones that weren't bound were in the same condition,
7 in the same process, as the ones that were bound. So I believe that the
8 evidence shows that all those individuals were killed at the same time in
9 the same manner because if they were picked up in the battle-field, you
10 would see that reflected in the way that they were placed in the grave.
11 And I'm not an archaeologist and I'm not an expert on soil or that
12 process, but if you look at it, if you pick a body up with a machine, you
13 will pick up a layer of soil and leaves and sand and dirt and whatever
14 the body is laying on. And if you place that body in a pit or a grave,
15 you will see that layer of soil and you will see several layers of bodies
16 interspersed with several layers of soil. Or if they were thrown into
17 the grave, you will see that in the posture of the bodies. So if they're
18 physically picked up and carried and placed in a grave, you will see
19 that. And what we saw in almost all the graves, particularly the primary
20 graves, is that the individuals had a consistency about them. The Kozluk
21 mass grave, we have evidence that they were placed and made to kneel
22 amongst broken glass in a rubbish pit. Many of them were bound and
23 blindfolded, and they were shot there and they tumbled forward and were
24 covered up with soil.
25 Now, not all the bodies were blindfolded or ligatured, but again
1 there is that consistency, you see that image of the bodies laying on the
2 surface of the ground and there's nothing to say, to show, that they were
3 picked up in different locations.
4 And at the execution point of Kravica warehouse, when those
5 bodies were taken to the primary mass graves, they reflected that they
6 were killed at the warehouse. There were pieces of the warehouse, there
7 were pieces of machinery, there was straw, there was evidence that
8 followed those bodies from the warehouse to the primary mass graves and
9 to the secondary mass graves. And that -- and in Nova Kasaba, 96 bodies
10 again were bound and shot in situ. And you have that consistency across
11 the graves, and we were looking for indications that these individuals
12 were killed in battle; and what we saw and what I believe to be the case
13 is that they were held captive, executed, and buried.
14 Q. You mentioned locations, you mentioned that the graves you
15 located were often in very isolated areas. Were those areas areas that
16 were connected to the route of the column as revealed by your
17 investigations, the route of the column of Muslims leaving Srebrenica?
18 A. Not at all. I don't believe that you can say that the mass
19 graves were located and the execution points are located in areas of
20 battle, except for Kravica warehouse which was clearly in the path of the
21 column. But those men were taken prisoner and they were held and then
22 executed. If you look at Kozluk, it's on the border with the Drina
23 River. It's a completely isolated location. From memory, the
24 Drina Wolves had a base a kilometre from the execution point and there
25 was no evidence of a battle in that location. The dam at Petkovci, there
1 was no battle there. Branjevo Military Farm is significantly removed
2 from the areas of conflict, as is the Pilica Dom.
3 MR. JEREMY: Your Honours, that concludes the questions that I
4 had for the witness. What is remaining is the associated exhibits that
5 I'd now like to tender and I have discussed each of those associated
6 exhibits with the witness which you identified this morning.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yeah, and some of them you've tendered. Do you
8 want to do that now?
9 MR. JEREMY: Yes, please.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Do you want to go through them?
11 MR. JEREMY: Yes.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Start by 4585, you didn't discuss that one.
13 MR. JEREMY: No, that's -- my understanding was that wasn't one
14 that you'd specifically asked me to discuss this morning. It's a shorter
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: My apologies.
17 MR. JEREMY: Okay. But that is the first associated exhibit I
18 would like to tender, just taking the list in order.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Ivetic.
20 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, we would object to the report insofar
21 as it presents second-hand reconstruction of expert testimony by a person
22 who is a lay person who is not qualified. And some of the reports, I'm
23 not sure about this one in particular, I don't think this one is as
24 problematic, but some of the reports do indicate material from persons
25 who are not listed to testify, who are not experts who will appear and
1 who we will have the ability to cross-examine, and for that reason then
2 would be uncorroborated second-hand expert testimony of a nature that I
3 think is inappropriate for this Tribunal. Thank you.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Do I understand you to be saying that that
5 objection is with respect to other exhibits, not specifically this one?
6 MR. IVETIC: I believe so, yes, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. So with this one you have no problem so it
8 can be admitted?
9 MR. IVETIC: Well, except that, Your Honour, this one also does
10 have second-hand experts, I believe they have experts who will testify --
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Fair enough. We are talking about this one right
13 MR. IVETIC: Correct.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: You have no objection to this one?
15 MR. IVETIC: Your Honour, I believe this one does have
16 information from second-hand -- from experts who will testify. Let me
17 just double-check the number 485 -- Your Honour, this one does have some
18 information from experts who are not scheduled to testify as well.
19 [Trial Chamber confers]
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm trying -- we're trying to understand your
21 objection, Mr. Ivetic, because to the extent that I understand you,
22 you're saying that that's hearsay. Hearsay is admissible in this
23 Tribunal, for starters, and specifically when you have somebody who's
24 coming to give evidence as an expert --
25 MR. IVETIC: I understand that, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: -- yeah, he would obviously be commenting on
2 information supplied by other people.
3 MR. IVETIC: And, Your Honours, the document itself also has
4 references, I believe, to items that are not experts who are coming to
5 testify. So we have third-party statements of out-of-court declarants
6 that were prepared for the purpose of trial who are not being presented
7 but are being presented through a party who did not author them. That
8 creates a problem under the rules of written evidence for this case and
9 that is the problem that we have as with respect to those experts who are
10 not appearing to testify. And counsel can correct me if I'm wrong, but I
11 believe that this document does mention soil samples which is one of the
12 experts who is not scheduled to testify in these proceedings. I would
13 leave it at that.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: If -- can we mark it for identification and then
15 you can challenge it through cross-examination?
16 MR. IVETIC: That's fine.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. Fine. 4585, marked for identification,
18 Madam Registrar.
19 THE REGISTRAR: Receives number P1735, Your Honours.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you so much. P5 -- okay.
21 And the next one was 4586, Mr. Jeremy?
22 MR. JEREMY: That's correct, Your Honours.
23 MR. IVETIC: And, Your Honours, this one also has expert material
24 that is of experts who are not scheduled to testify, so we would object
25 to the introduction of this as an exhibit at this time.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: MFI also?
2 MR. IVETIC: That's fine, Your Honour.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay.
4 Madam Registrar, it's admitted, marked for identification.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Document 04586 receives number P1736,
6 Your Honours.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
9 MR. IVETIC: 764 or 65?
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: 5765, I'm just ticking them as they appear on the
12 MR. JEREMY: Your Honours, if I can just interject to maybe
13 short-circuit some of this process and set out the Prosecution's position
14 in respect to these reports.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mm-hm.
16 MR. JEREMY: To the extent that Mr. Manning's reports summarise
17 expert evidence or evidence of experts who we are not calling, the
18 Prosecution has previously stated in a Pre-Trial Conference that we were
19 not relying on that information on the basis that we think we are
20 sufficiently covered by adjudicated facts. The two exceptions to that
21 were the cloth expert, Suzi Maljaars, and a representative of the ATF.
22 Now, our position is that notwithstanding the fact that there are certain
23 experts referred to in Mr. Manning's report who are not coming, we feel
24 that those references in Mr. Manning's report are relevant and probative
25 and should remain on the basis that they indicate to Your Honours the
1 nature of the investigation in which Mr. Manning was engaged in, the
2 sources of his material, the professionalism, and the quantity and the
3 scope and the depth of that particular investigation. And they thereby
4 allow you to assess the credibility of Mr. Manning as an investigator and
5 the credibility of the -- of the exhumations project in which he is
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Any comment to make on that?
8 MR. IVETIC: I do, Your Honour. On the one hand they say that
9 they're not relying upon them but in the second half of the sentence they
10 do want Your Honours to rely upon it. They want Your Honours to make
11 conclusions based upon it, so I don't know what their position is.
12 They've just contradicted themselves.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. Shall we go back to 5765, Mr. Jeremy?
14 MR. JEREMY: 57 --
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: You are tendering that one, aren't you?
16 MR. JEREMY: Yes, Your Honour. Did we miss out 5764?
17 MR. IVETIC: That's what I thought, Your Honour, as well. 764 is
18 next on the list.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: I must -- we must be having a different list.
20 5764 is the very last item. Anyway, let's deal with 5764.
21 MR. IVETIC: Same objection, Your Honour. I would suggest the
22 same procedure.
23 [Trial Chamber confers]
24 MR. JEREMY: Microphone, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: So 5764 is same objection. Is MFI still okay?
1 MR. IVETIC: Yes, Your Honour.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Jeremy, what is the next one -- oh, sorry,
3 before we go to the next one.
4 Yes, Madam Registrar, can you give that a number and mark for
6 THE REGISTRAR: So document 05764 receives number P1737,
7 Your Honours.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Marked for identification.
9 Yes, Mr. Jeremy.
10 MR. JEREMY: 5765 is the next one, Your Honours.
11 MR. IVETIC: Same objection. Same MFI procedure is acceptable.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Madam Registrar.
13 THE REGISTRAR: Document 05765 receives number P1738,
14 Your Honours.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Marked for identification.
16 Mr. Jeremy.
17 MR. JEREMY: 1520 -- 27979 is the next one, Your Honours. That's
18 the volume 1 of the blindfolds and ligatures booklet.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Wait a minute. You're striking 15 --
20 MR. JEREMY: Yes, sorry, 15203 has already been tendered.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. 27979, Madam Registrar -- sorry.
22 MR. IVETIC: [Microphone not activated]
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: No objection.
24 THE REGISTRAR: Document 27979 receives number P1739,
25 Your Honours.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you so much. It's admitted into evidence.
2 Thank you.
3 Yes, Mr. Jeremy.
4 MR. JEREMY: 27980 --
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: That's right, Madam --
6 MR. IVETIC: Also no objection.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: No objection.
8 Madam Registrar.
9 THE REGISTRAR: Document 27980 receives number P1740, Your
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you. And is admitted into evidence - thank
12 you very much - under that number.
13 MR. JEREMY: 27981 had been marked for identification and we
14 would like to tender that --
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. --
16 MR. JEREMY: -- as an exhibit.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: -- Ivetic.
18 MR. JEREMY: It's the aerials book.
19 MR. IVETIC: I wasn't present when it was marked for
20 identification so I don't know the reasons raised then. I have no
21 additional objections to it. We have gone through it now and we have
22 information about where it came from.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: We can admit it then.
24 Madam Registrar, it's admitted. What was the number already?
25 THE REGISTRAR: Number P1481, Your Honours.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: 1481. Thank you so much, Madam Registrar.
2 Is that all, Mr. Jeremy?
3 MR. JEREMY: That's all. Thank you very much, Your Honours.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: You're welcome.
5 Are you done with your examination-in-chief?
6 MR. JEREMY: I am. Thank you, Your Honours.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Ivetic.
8 MR. IVETIC: Yes, Your Honours.
9 Cross-examination by Mr. Ivetic:
10 Q. Good day, Mr. Manning.
11 A. Good day, sir.
12 Q. Before we begin with the questions that I have prepared for you,
13 I'd like to remind you that since we'll both be speaking English, that we
14 have to try to maintain a pause between question and answer and vice
15 versa. Is that understood, sir?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Thank you.
18 Now, in relation to your employment and work for the Prosecutor
19 of this Tribunal, can you tell us precisely the last time when you were
20 employed by the Prosecution in any capacity?
21 A. That would have been the 2005 short-term mission to Bosnia, and
22 prior to that, I left the Tribunal in, I think, October 2004 and I'd been
23 employed from 1998 to 2004. And then I came back briefly in 2005 for
24 that short-term mission.
25 Q. Thank you, sir. Now I'd like to take a few moments to go through
1 some of the points on your curriculum vitae.
2 MR. IVETIC: If we can have 65 ter number 19388 in e-court. And
3 for the start, let's have page 1 of both versions.
4 Q. Sir, the first question I have for you is rather simple: Do you
5 recognise this as being a copy of your curriculum vitae that you
6 submitted to the Office of the Prosecutor?
7 A. Yes, I do.
8 Q. And if you take my word for it, we can check later when we turn
9 the page, but the second and third pages of this document identify this
10 as dating from 2003. Does that accord with your memory?
11 A. Yes, I think it was produced for the Milosevic trial. But yes, I
13 Q. Okay. Are there any substantive changes that are necessary for
14 the CV to reflect any additional work that has been performed or
15 positions held for the Office of the Prosecutor, other than just adding
16 the end date and the 2005 mission that we've already talked about?
17 A. No, I don't believe so.
18 Q. Now, looking at the first position listed as investigative team
19 leader, am I correct that the activities that you undertook as part of
20 this -- at this position included interviews of not only witnesses but
21 potential suspects or any accused?
22 A. As investigations team leader, predominantly no. I was
23 co-ordinating the activities of the team and the senior investigators
24 would conduct interviews and suspect -- and, sorry, witness statements.
25 I don't recall doing that whilst I was team leader.
1 Q. Okay. What about while you were an investigator, the second
2 item, from 1998 to 2002, during that time did you participate in witness
3 interviews, including interviews of suspects and/or accused?
4 A. Yes, I did, on a fairly regular basis.
5 Q. Now, returning to the first item on the CV we see here, you have
6 listed as your duties:
7 "Continuing investigation of high-level war crimes suspects and
8 the preparation of appropriate indictments specifically relating to the
9 Milosevic Joint Criminal Enterprise."
10 And I want to ask you to clarify this, since Mr. Milosevic was
11 charged under several joint criminal enterprises. Did you work on all of
12 them or only some of them?
13 A. The team that I led was responsible for offences which were
14 alleged to have occurred in Croatia or the territory linked to Croatia
15 during the conflict. I was not actively involved in the Bosnia or Kosovo
16 investigations, although on occasion they would overlap. And I can
17 indicate that I continued to work on the Srebrenica trial preparations at
18 that time.
19 Q. Thank you, sir. By the way, wasn't one of the joint criminal
20 enterprises alleged of Mr. Milosevic also relating to Srebrenica?
21 A. Yes, but that investigation and support for the trial was
22 conducted by a separate team. My involvement in Srebrenica was not to --
23 at that time was not to investigate it but to continue to prepare my
24 presentations and my reports for presentation in that trial as a witness.
25 Q. Thank you, sir. Am I reading this correctly, that you actually
1 assisted in the drafting or revision of indictments?
2 A. To a certain degree, yes. The indictments were formed by the
3 team. I worked to -- a senior trial attorney or, in fact, several and we
4 as a team of investigators had input into the indictments and the
5 material that supported those indictments.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Ivetic, I note the time.
7 MR. IVETIC: Oh, I apologise. Yes, Your Honour, we can take the
8 break now.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: We'll take a break and come back at 25 to.
10 Mr. Manning, may you please follow the usher.
11 [The witness stands down]
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: We take a break and come back at 25 to 2.00.
13 Court adjourned.
14 --- Recess taken at 1.15 p.m.
15 --- On resuming at 1.37 p.m.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Jeremy, I see you're on your feet.
17 MR. JEREMY: Yes, Your Honours. I just wanted to say to you that
18 the B/C/S translation of the index of the aerial -- the book of aerial
19 images, which is P01481, has been uploaded into e-court and we'd like --
20 uploaded under doc ID 07053093 B/C/S DT and we'd like to link that
21 translation to the original if we can, please.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: And I guess that was the reason it was MFI'd?
23 MR. JEREMY: I think that one -- the aerial book was --
24 previously it was MFI'd, I think, just because one page was referred to.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. Thank you so much.
1 MR. JEREMY: Thank you.
2 Madam Registrar, if you can link that translation to P1418 --
4 Mr. Ivetic, you were on -- okay, we've got to get the witness in
6 [Trial Chamber confers]
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Ivetic, while we're waiting for the witness,
8 can you give us an idea of your time estimation? I know there's been a
9 bit of a change.
10 MR. IVETIC: Yes, Your Honour, the time estimate for this witness
11 is three and a half hours for cross.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Three and a half hours, okay.
13 MR. IVETIC: Down from six, I believe.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay.
15 [The witness takes the stand]
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: You may proceed, Mr. Ivetic.
17 MR. IVETIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
18 Q. Sir, did you at any time during the course of your employment
19 with the Office of the Prosecutor have any role in either drafting,
20 preparing, or revising any of the indictments against
21 General Ratko Mladic?
22 A. I don't believe I did. I don't believe I did.
23 Q. Fair enough. And how about any of the indictments that were
24 brought by the ICTY against others for the events in Srebrenica
25 municipality in July of 1995, did you assist in or participate in the
1 drafting or revising of any of those indictments during your tenure?
2 A. Well, I was part of the Srebrenica team for almost four years, so
3 in that period I believe we amended indictments against a number of
4 individuals, and I would have been part of that process as a member of
5 the team. As team members, we would assist in that process and provide
6 information or review material to make sure it was correct as far as we
7 were aware. So, yes, I would have been part of that process. I can't
8 remember specific instances.
9 Q. With the caveat that you can't remember specific instances, do
10 you consider that you have a personal interest in seeing those
11 indictments that you assisted in amending come to fruition with the
12 conviction of persons under the same?
13 A. I came to -- I came to the Tribunal because I wish to see and be
14 part of an investigation of war crimes, and across that time I've become
15 involved in investigations directed to war crimes and seeing individuals
16 brought to this and other courts in the building. So I had a -- an
17 involvement and an interest in seeing those investigations carried to
18 their conclusion, which is in this courtroom.
19 Q. I understand as an investigator. I'm talking as a witness, sir,
20 since you are also testifying as a witness. Do you think that you have
21 or feel that you have a personal interest as a witness in seeing these
22 indictments which you assisted in drafting or amending come to fruition
23 with the conviction of persons under the same?
24 A. I don't think that's up to me. What I'm doing is presenting my
25 evidence and my information and presenting what I know before the Court,
1 and with the -- with the hope that the outcome will be based on what was
2 presented to the Court. I don't think it's correct to say I have a
3 personal interest outside of my employment or as a witness in this Court.
4 Q. Okay, sir. I see from the CV that we still have up on the screen
5 that one of the other investigations or cases you dealt with was the 1991
6 massacre of civilians at Ovcara. Did any of your work in that case also
7 relate to exhumations or was it strictly standard investigation of facts
8 or witnesses?
9 A. Again, in that instance I was the team leader, so I was
10 co-ordinating their activities. Investigators had dealt with the Ovcara
11 exhumation. It was the same team I had worked with and I visited the
12 scene, but I wasn't actively involved in the on-the-ground
13 investigations. I was co-ordinating the activities of the team of
14 investigators and analysts.
15 Q. Thank you, sir. Now, looking at the bottom half of the page that
16 we have on the screen, from 1998 to 2002, some of the activities you were
17 involved in included the establishment of working guide-lines and
18 protocols with the Bosnian Commission as well as ICMP, other NGOs, and
19 SFOR. Was this only in 2000 or did you have a role in the same type of
20 activity for any time prior to 2000?
21 A. That was specifically related to the hand-over of responsibility
22 for the mass graves to the Bosnian Commission, and that related to that
24 Q. Do you know if protocols or guide-lines existed for the work of
25 these named organisations prior to the year 2000?
1 A. Yes, I believe they had protocols. They had certainly processes
2 in place.
3 Q. Okay. Now, focusing on the Office of the Prosecutor and your
4 work there, at any time while you were employed by them did there exist,
5 first of all, any guide-lines or protocols dealing with the examination
6 of potential witnesses or suspects in the interview process?
7 A. Yes, there were a set of guide-lines.
8 Q. And how about in relation to the investigations relating to
9 exhumations? Now, I understand from your prior transcripts that have now
10 been received into evidence, there was protocols for anthropologists, but
11 I want to ask you about different protocols, specifically focusing on the
12 work done by its -- by the Prosecution's own investigators working on
13 exhumations. Were there any protocols or guide-lines for that work, sir?
14 A. The work of the investigators was, to some degree, detailed by
15 the archaeological and pathological guide-lines in that they would
16 outline some activities the investigators would be involved in. But
17 predominantly those guide-lines were on the exhumation autopsy process,
18 and we did not have specific guide-lines as to how the Srebrenica team
19 investigators would work with the exhumation autopsy teams that I can
21 Q. Now, in answering my question you have mentioned archaeological
22 and pathological guide-lines. Were those promulgated or drafted by the
23 Office of the Prosecutor or by someone else?
24 A. I'm referring specifically to the chief archaeologist, for
25 instance, Mr. Richard Wright -- or Professor Richard Wright and also
1 John Clark, the chief pathologist who had both had -- I think they refer
2 to them in their expert reports, both had guide-lines for their
3 operations and how their staff would conduct their activities.
4 Q. Okay. Do you appreciate and would agree that proper procedures
5 including chain of custody and care in exhumations and recovery of
6 artefacts are important to preserve the evidence obtained from a site and
7 safe-guard it from potential contamination or tampering?
8 A. Yes, I agree.
9 Q. Do you feel that the ICTY personnel working with you on the
10 exhumations that you were involved in accomplished the goal of taking
11 sufficient care to safe-guard and prevent tampering and contamination of
12 items removed from the exhumation sites?
13 A. Yes, I believe that's correct.
14 MR. IVETIC: Now if we could turn the page in both versions to
15 the second page of this document in e-court, and just to follow-up on my
16 promise of earlier, I think we can see at the bottom of the page -- well,
17 we could for a second there, we could see at the bottom of the page that
18 this was the 2003 CV.
19 Q. Now, I'd like to ask you about something you have here, it's the
20 third bullet point from the top of the page in English, and it says here
22 "Presented this report and other evidence in the trial of
23 Senior Bosnian Serb General Krstic who was convicted and sentenced in
24 August 2001 of Genocide and other war crimes."
25 Sir, is this you in essence bragging about obtaining a conviction
1 on a case that you testified in?
2 A. No.
3 Q. Was this one of the cases where you had assisted in drafting or
4 revising the indictment?
5 A. Your Honours, my involvement in the Krstic case was a part of a
6 team. I did a great deal of work, but so did the rest of the team. I've
7 indicated in this CV that I was involved in the case of General Krstic
8 and that he was convicted as a result of the evidence presented to the
10 Q. Thank you, sir. I think that was the answer to my previous
11 question, my question about is this perhaps one of the cases you assisted
12 in drafting the indictment. Can you remember?
13 A. No, I can't, and I suspect that the indictment was created prior
14 to my joining the team. I think we may have amended the indictment and I
15 may have had some involvement in that.
16 Q. Thank you, sir. Let me ask you this: Back in Australia, would
17 it be part of your work as an investigator or a police investigator to
18 draft and prepare indictments against suspects or is that work handled by
19 a separate prosecutor's office?
20 A. Your Honours, the Australian model sees the director of public
21 prosecutions separate to the police investigation; however, in drafting
22 their indictments or their presentations to the court, we would have some
23 input and we would be providing advice. But it's a much greater
24 separation in Australia.
25 Q. Thank you. Now, the fifth bullet point from the top in the
1 English, you describe your work on witness and suspect interviews and you
2 mention the test firing and examination of 2500 seized weapons and 5.000
3 shell casings. Now, today during your direct examination we heard some
4 talk of shell casings, but I wanted to ask you about the weapons and I
5 want to be very clear and make sure that we're understanding exactly
6 everything that you did.
7 First of all, am I correct that as part of the Office of the
8 Prosecutor investigations you had occasion to seize a certain number of
9 weapons from the VRS barracks of the Bratunac and Zvornik Brigades to
10 test fire them so as to see if they could be linked to any of the bullet
11 casings found at the various execution and burial sites?
12 A. That's correct. I was part of the team that seized the weapons
13 and I co-ordinated the test firing and the continuity of the shell cases
15 Q. And now if you could clarify for me. This CV mentions the amount
16 of 2500. Was it 2500 weapons or a thousand weapons or -- that were part
17 of the seizure and the test firing that we've talked about?
18 A. We seized over several days a large number of weapons. Referring
19 to this, I accept that it was 2500, 2.500 weapons, and that those weapons
20 that could be fired we test fired and obtained shell cases, which we had
21 ultimately tested.
22 Q. Okay.
23 MR. IVETIC: And I think the easiest way to do this is to go to
24 65 ter number 1D1113 in e-court to revisit some of the testimony from the
25 Popovic proceedings. And if we can turn to page 20 of the same in
1 e-court, that ought to correlate to transcript page 19094.
2 Q. And, sir, you can follow along as I read into the record line 8
3 through 25. And then I'll have some follow-up questions for you based
4 upon that.
5 "Q. I would like to put to you the answer you gave in the
6 Blagojevic case on page 7209.
7 "I've been trying to find the documents from the batch from my
8 learned friends concerning an analysis of around 1.000 rifles that we
9 know was carried out, and I'm referring to the rifles that were taken
10 from the barracks.
11 "In answer to Mr. Karnavas' question, you said, Your Honours:
12 "[In English] 'In a major part of that process, we tried to
13 [indiscernible] from the Bratunac/Zvornik Brigade and other brigades or
14 units in the area of Srebrenica. These weapons were test-fired and cases
15 were collected with the intention of comparing. That was conducted by
16 Mr. Ols and his associates. Did not recall the ultimate outcome, but I
17 understand it was unsuccessful.'
18 "A. Your Honours, I agree with that statement, and we are
19 discussing the same matter. To my knowledge, the test firing produced
20 many hundreds of shell cases. They were examined, and those results were
21 negative. But I wasn't involved in that final part of the process, but I
22 agree with you that they were negative."
23 First of all, sir, do you stand by this prior testimony as being
24 both truthful and accurate as to the matters contained therein, such that
25 you would so testify today if asked these same questions?
1 A. Yes, I believe so.
2 Q. And now you'll see the reason for my confusion. Your CV mentions
3 2500 rifles, yet in Popovic there was talk of 1.000 rifles. Can you tell
4 me which one is right or is -- are they both right, perhaps?
5 A. Well, I'm not referring to a thousand rifles. I can't now recall
6 the number, but it was very significant. If I recorded in my CV 2.500 in
7 2003, I accept that. We seized the weapons that we believed appropriate.
8 Ultimately, we took them to a firing range. Some of them could not be
9 fired; many could. We fired as many as we could. And I accept that
10 there were would have been 2.500 weapons and we conducted a test firing
11 process ultimately that was negative. No weapons were linked to shell
12 cases from the mass graves.
13 Q. Thank you. Now, if we could return to your CV, which is again
14 65 ter number 19388 in e-court.
15 MR. IVETIC: And if we could return to page 2 of the same in both
17 Q. And, sir, working back -- backwards in time now, at the time when
18 you were a detective-sergeant from 1997 to 1998, am I correct that during
19 that time-period your police work in Australia dealt with internal
20 matters and did not deal with investigation of any crimes committed by
22 A. Effectively my job was to investigate police officers, but it was
23 somewhat wider in that I could investigate other government agencies.
24 And if an allegation concerned, for instance, drug dealing, we would
25 investigate the drug dealing and the officer alleged to be involved. So
1 on occasion, we would investigate other people, but predominantly
2 internal investigation -- serious internal investigations against police.
3 Q. Okay. During that time-period - again, we're discussing just
4 1997 through 1998 - did you have occasion to participate in any
6 A. No.
7 Q. And moving, again, backwards in time, during 1994 through 1996 as
8 a senior detective, did you at that time have to participate in any
9 exhumations of suspected or actual graves?
10 A. I can say no and indicate that I -- prior to coming to the ICTY I
11 was involved in one exhumation, which was a removal of a body from a
12 customary grave to another grave. It wasn't a criminal investigation. I
13 was there as an oversight from the legal point of view.
14 Q. Fair enough. Did you have occasion to work with any
15 archaeologists or anthropologists as to their work on mortal remains of
16 suspected crime victims during the time-period that you were employed as
17 a member of the Australian police force at any capacity?
18 A. No, I did not.
19 Q. And now the same question as to pathologists or medical coroners.
20 Did you have occasion to work with them at any time while you were a
21 member of the Australian police?
22 A. From about 1985 until I came to the Tribunal in 1998, I was
23 involved in a significant number of investigations of sudden death and/or
24 murder and suicide. I attended, if not a hundred, tens of autopsies, and
25 that was part of my general duties and to deal with pathologists related
1 to that examination, that investigation.
2 Q. Thank you.
3 MR. IVETIC: If we could turn to the next page in both versions
4 of this document.
5 Q. The last thing I want to ask you about on this document is the
6 relevant training and education, and you have here listed ICTY internal
7 induction and training courses. How long was this training?
8 A. I can't remember the initial training. I think it was only a
9 week, but that was in 1998. And we also undertook some training during
10 the following years, and I also was instructing on interview techniques
11 and witness interviews later on in that period.
12 Q. Did any of the training that you undertook at the ICTY deal with
13 exhumation investigations?
14 A. Not in great depth, but I do recall some examination of the --
15 what I think would have perhaps been Orahovac and Cerska, but not in
16 great depth, no.
17 Q. Okay. And what about chain of custody protocols, were those
18 covered in your induction training at the ICTY?
19 A. To my knowledge, yes.
20 Q. Okay.
21 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, I'd seek to tender 65 ter number 19388
22 into evidence at this time.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Jeremy.
24 MR. JEREMY: No objections, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: It is admitted. May it please be given an exhibit
1 number, Madam Registrar.
2 THE REGISTRAR: Document receives number D328, Your Honours.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
4 Yes, Mr. Ivetic.
5 MR. IVETIC: Thank you, Your Honours.
6 If we can call up the Popovic transcript again, that's
7 65 ter number 1D1112, and page 24 of the same in e-court, which should be
8 underlying transcript page 19017.
9 Q. And, sir, in relation to the questioning about your 2005 report,
10 which has been marked for identification in this case, you were
11 questioned as follows, and I will read -- and you can follow on from
12 line 7 through to line 21.
13 "Q. Will you agree with me, and I'm referring to the report,
14 that the purpose of the two-week mission in Bosnia was to collect
15 archaeological, anthropological, pathological, and other forensic -- I
16 apologise -- archaeological, anthropological, pathological and other
17 forensic data collected during the exhumations and autopsies after 2001.
18 "A. That's correct.
19 "Q. Thank you. In the biweekly period, you were supposed to
20 process the data that had to do with several different scientific
21 branches. You did spend some time with the experts there, but you are
22 not qualified in any of the aforementioned sciences that would qualify
23 you to conduct this task?
24 "A. Your Honours, I would agree that I'm not qualified. I have
25 no formal qualifications certainly in those disciplines. I believe I am
1 qualified to have undertaken this task and to have travelled to Bosnia to
2 gain that data, the information."
3 Sir, do you stand by this prior testimony as being both truthful
4 and accurate as to the matters contained therein?
5 A. Yes, I do.
6 Q. And would you so testify again the same way if asked these same
8 A. I believe so, yes.
9 Q. Now, I presume that when you came to the Prosecution in 1998,
10 that you were handed over material information by your predecessors in
11 investigations; is that accurate?
12 A. The team provided briefing material, and I was briefed by the
13 team leader and the team members, yes.
14 Q. You say "by the team leader and the team members," do you recall
15 the names of any of these individuals?
16 A. The team leader at the time was Jean Rene Ruez. I certainly
17 received a briefing from him. The trial attorney involved in that case
18 at the time was Mr. Peter McCloskey. I received a briefing from him and
19 also I discussed the case, reviewed the material, and read material from
20 the case.
21 Q. Okay. Was one of the persons that briefed you Jan Kruszewski?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Now, in your reports authored in 2000, 2001, 2005, and also 2007
24 which summarise the findings of various experts in relation to various
25 mass grave sites, you talk about several that are based on the work of a
1 Dr. William Haglund. Did you have a chance to work with him or was he
2 someone that predated you at the Tribunal?
3 A. Your Honours, I didn't work on an exhumation with Dr. Haglund,
4 but I did deal with him extensively in preparation for his reports and
5 his appearances in court, and I also dealt with him in a process outside
6 the Tribunal where he was part of a training team for war crimes
8 Q. Would you consider that the work of Dr. Haglund was central to
9 the exhumations that had been performed by the Office of the Prosecutor
10 in the years prior to your arrival to the Tribunal?
11 A. Dr. Haglund conducted the autopsy -- sorry, the exhumation and
12 autopsy process in 1996 for Srebrenica, so yes. And in 1997 it was
13 another team. In 1998, some exhumations were conducted prior to my
14 arrival by Professor Wright, and thereafter I dealt with Professor Wright
15 and others.
16 Q. And I know -- you and I both know which sites we're talking
17 about. Let's make it clear for the Judges who might not know the
18 material as well as we do. Am I correct that the -- when you say
19 "related for Srebrenica," am I correct that Dr. Haglund performed the
20 work on the graves at Cerska, the Nova Kasaba 1996 location, Orahovac 2,
21 which is also called Lazete 2, and Branjevo Farm, which is also called
23 A. That's correct, yes.
24 Q. And in addition to working on Srebrenica-related graves, is it
25 correct that Dr. Haglund also worked on graves in other parts of the
1 Balkans, including relating to Ovcara?
2 A. Yes, I believe he was involved in Ovcara.
3 Q. Okay. Now, in your reports there is an organisation identified
4 Physicians for Human Rights or PHR for short. Can you tell me if I'm
5 correct that they were a partner or co-sponsor alongside the Office of
6 the Prosecutor for some of the exhumation and autopsy work that was
7 conducted in the years prior to your arrival at the Tribunal?
8 A. I confirm that there was a joint team of ICTY and PHR that
9 conducted the 1996 exhumations for Srebrenica. I'm not sure about 1997,
10 but thereafter, at least for Srebrenica, it was -- PHR were an NGO we
11 dealt with and not a partner.
12 Q. Did you ever have occasion to work with personnel from PHR,
13 Physicians for Human Rights, in the course of your duties as a member of
14 the Office of the Prosecutor?
15 A. Your Honours, I did -- I sought information from PHR. They
16 provided identification documentation. They provided access to the -- to
17 some family members, and I dealt with PHR on and off for several years
18 mainly based in their office in Tuzla.
19 Q. Thank you. Now I'd like to go over something with you.
20 MR. IVETIC: It's 65 ter number 1D1114 in e-court. And if we
21 could focus on the first page and the top of that page for the moment.
22 There we go. Now hopefully we can read it.
23 Q. Sir, the preamble of this document says that:
24 "At the request of the United Nations International Criminal
25 Tribunal and the Office of the Chief Prosecutor located in The Hague,
1 Netherlands, a panel of forensic anthropologists and pathologists was
2 convened at the office of the Bexar County Medical Examiner, San Antonio,
3 Texas, from the 14th to the 19th of November, 1997."
4 And then it lists the members of the panels and names some five
5 forensic practitioners present and two absent. It also identifies both
6 attorney Peter McCloskey and investigator Jan Kruszewski as being
8 Now, you identified both Mr. McCloskey and Mr. Kruszewski as
9 persons who briefed you when you came to the Tribunal. Were you briefed
10 as part of your training and introduction to the Tribunal and your
11 preparation for work --
12 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Please slow down. Please slow down, Mr. Ivetic.
13 MR. IVETIC: I apologise.
14 Q. Now, you have identified both of them as individuals who briefed
15 you when you came to the Tribunal. Did either of them inform you of this
16 panel that had met from the 14th to the 19th of November, 1997, in
17 San Antonio, Texas?
18 A. Your Honours, I can't remember a specific briefing. I was aware
19 of the issue. In fact, I thought rather than Jan Kruszewski, it was
20 Asif Syed who was involved with Mr. McCloskey, but I was aware generally
21 that there were a number of allegations and that those allegations were
22 investigated. And thereafter I had little or nothing to do with that
24 Q. Okay. And when you say that you are aware of a number of
25 allegations, would those be allegations relating to the work of the joint
1 OTP/PHR exhumations teams in 1996 under the reins of Dr. Haglund and
2 Dr. Kirschner?
3 A. I believe the allegations were in some respects personal in
4 nature about Dr. Haglund and there were allegations that some autopsy
5 reports had been altered and I understand that was fully investigated.
6 And as I say, I didn't have any involvement in that process. I have been
7 asked about that in court.
8 MR. IVETIC: If we could turn to the second page of this
10 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Ivetic, you mentioned the name of Dr. Haglund
11 and a second name, and that is, in my view, not properly recorded.
12 MR. IVETIC: Dr. Kirschner. And perhaps I should ask the
14 Q. You and I both know about Dr. Kirschner. Are we talking about
15 the same person, William Kirschner or Bill Kirschner.
16 A. Yes, I know Dr. Kirschner.
17 Q. And I believe that's K-i-r-s-c-h-n-e-r.
18 And Dr. Kirschner was the pathologist working under Dr. Haglund;
19 is that accurate?
20 A. I believe so, yes.
21 Q. Now, here under II on the document we have the specified task,
22 and it talks about members of the teams that were interviewed and it
23 lists a number of individuals. And there on the bottom of the screen we
24 can see the name of Dr. Haglund and Dr. Kirschner. Do you recognise the
25 names of the other persons listed here as persons who would have worked
1 on ICTY exhumations predating your employment with the Prosecutor?
2 A. Yes, I recognise some of them.
3 Q. Did you have occasion in the dealings with PHR personnel to deal
4 with any of the persons who are listed here?
5 A. In dealing with PHR, I don't believe so. No, I don't believe so.
6 I mainly dealt with the director of PHR in Tuzla, whose name escapes me.
7 Q. That's fair enough, sir.
8 MR. IVETIC: If we can go to the next page of this document in
10 Q. At the bottom of the page, the part that says:
11 "Even within their own country there are differences in
12 investigation and autopsy techniques, interpretation of findings, and
13 differences between professional disciplines, pathology, anthropology,
14 criminal investigatory practices -- procedures, and evidence collection.
15 There was also a potential, if not real, conflict between the UN and PHR
16 personnel as well as variations on legal opinion for cause and manner of
17 death. There was an attempt to use the Minnesota Protocol, a
18 standardised form for the autopsy recording which was developed in the
19 early 1980's."
20 Now, sir, are you familiar with the Minnesota Protocol?
21 A. No, I'm not.
22 Q. Do you know if the Minnesota Protocol was utilised in the
23 exhumations work that you would have participated in that followed 1998
24 and onwards?
25 A. I don't believe so, not called the Minnesota Protocol.
1 Q. One more question before we take the break. How about the
2 so-called Istanbul Protocol for preserving evidence as to torture or
3 cruel and inhumane treatment? Was that forensic protocol employed
4 successfully in the exhumations and investigations that you were involved
6 A. I don't recall the protocol being referred to as the Istanbul
7 Protocol, no.
8 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, we're at the time for today's break.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Mr. Ivetic.
10 Mr. Manning, unfortunately we can't finish with you today.
11 You'll have to come back tomorrow morning. Before you leave, just to
12 warn you that you may not talk to anybody whosoever about the testimony
13 you have given or still to give until you are formally excused from
14 further testifying.
15 THE WITNESS: I understand, Your Honour. Thank you.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you so much. You will come back here
17 tomorrow morning at 9.00 in the morning, courtroom III -- 9.30, I'm
18 sorry, Mr. Manning.
19 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honour.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: 9.30 tomorrow morning, this courtroom, tomorrow,
21 the 11th. You may follow the usher.
22 THE WITNESS: Thank you, sir.
23 [The witness stands down]
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: We stand adjourned to 11th of July, 2013,
25 Courtroom III, 9.30 in the morning. Court adjourned.
1 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.16 p.m.,
2 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 11th day of
3 July, 2013, at 9.30 a.m.