1 Thursday, 26 January 2006
2 [Open session]
3 --- Upon commencing at 2.29 p.m.
4 [The accused entered court]
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Madam Registrar, good afternoon to you. Could
6 you call the case, please.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. This is case number
8 IT-03-68-T, the Prosecutor versus Naser Oric.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you so much.
10 Mr. Oric, can you follow the proceedings in your own language?
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Your Honours, ladies
12 and gentlemen. Yes, I can follow the proceedings in my own language.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you. You may sit down, and good afternoon
14 to you.
15 Mr. Wubben, good afternoon to you. Appearances for the
16 Prosecution, please.
17 MR. WUBBEN: Good afternoon, Your Honours, as well presenting the
18 Prosecution is Mr. Gramsci di Fazio and our case manager, Mrs. Donnica
19 Henry-Frijlink. Also good afternoon to the Defence.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, Mr. Wubben, and good afternoon to you
21 and your team.
22 Appearances for Naser Oric?
23 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Your Honours. Good
24 afternoon to my learned friends. My name is Vasvija Vidovic and together
25 with Mr. John Jones, I appear for Mr. Oric. With us are our legal
1 assistant, Ms. Jasmina Cosic.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, Ms. Vidovic and good afternoon to you
3 and your team. Any preliminaries? Yes, Ms. Vidovic?
4 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, let me just confirm for
5 the record that we do not intend to respond to the Miletic Defence
6 submission for access to confidential material in our case.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. In fact, that was the first thing I was
8 going to raise myself obviously because yesterday, of course, I imposed a
9 time limit on the Defence, the understanding in my mind was that you were
10 to take it for granted that you had exactly the same time within which to
11 respond, with less interest maybe than the Prosecution has.
12 The decision is basically ready so I will have it signed on the
13 first break and that will be it. Actually, Judge Eser is correcting me.
14 We will only have one break today as we did yesterday. Thanks to the
15 cooperation of the rest of the staff, without which we wouldn't be able to
16 do this.
17 The other thing is this, the latest in the series of Defence
18 motions, namely that asking for authorisation to inspect part of your
19 archives, the Banja Luka, I forgot the -- Mauzer archive. Yes, can you
20 respond to it orally now, Mr. Wubben, please so that we proceed with the
22 MR. WUBBEN: Please bear me a moment, Your Honour.
23 [Prosecution counsel confer]
24 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you. Your Honours, we've got the material.
25 We are going to hand it over. It's just a question of compiling it and
1 getting it and that should render the issue dealt with.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: Do you wish to comment on this, Ms. Vidovic or --
3 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, this is all right. But
4 we would like to receive a decision from the Chamber concerning this.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. So let's do it this way. We'll give you
6 until the end of business day today, that's 4.30, to file any negative
7 response or any other response that may qualify what you have just stated.
8 After that, you have how much time do you require to hand over the
10 MR. DI FAZIO: Just give me a moment, Your Honours.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Because I'm asking -- I'm asking this because to me
12 in my mind at least there is a difference between -- do you have the
13 motion here?
14 JUDGE ESER: No.
15 MR. DI FAZIO: I don't have the motion here myself either,
16 Your Honour.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: The motion is to issue an order allowing the Defence
18 to inspect the Mauzer material.
19 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: The way you have put it is that you have agreed to
21 hand over to the Defence.
22 MR. DI FAZIO: Copies --
23 JUDGE AGIUS: -- of the entire Mauzer material.
24 MR. DI FAZIO: They can have it all, everything.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Provided that's the case, but in other words I want
1 to make sure that you're not making a selection.
2 MR. DI FAZIO: No, no, no. That's precisely what they -- they can
3 have it all. And the only other thing that's raised is that there are
4 some comments about the background to this material. Of course, we don't
5 if we -- now that we've addressed you orally we haven't gone into that.
6 About us, about the Prosecution. I don't think that we really need to go
7 into that unless Your Honours want to hear from us about that but I think
8 that our providing that material settles the matter.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Now, it's clear of course. The position
10 as I put it earlier on, Mr. Di Fazio, was precisely due to the fact that
11 first I did not have an indication of whether you were volunteering to or
12 agreeing to hand over all the material and secondly, in handing over this
13 material, whether you had any reservations, any qualifications because I
14 haven't seen this material, I don't know what we are talking about, and
15 maybe there is amongst this material some documents or videos or whatever
16 that you need to address the Trial Chamber on. So I'm giving you up to
17 the end of the day. If that's enough, also until tomorrow. However I
18 wish to know more or less how much time you require, shortest possible
19 time to hand over these.
20 MR. DI FAZIO: I've checked. I've made inquiries. I haven't
21 personally checked. I made inquiries about whether or not there is any
22 material in there that would give the Prosecution any concerns. There
23 isn't, apparently.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: All right.
25 MR. DI FAZIO: That's all I want to say about that. As far as the
1 delivery of the material is concerned I'm told it can be done, effected,
2 done by Monday afternoon.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: That's fine. But there will be a decision, in other
4 words. I think it's better to have a decision taking into consideration
5 what has been stated by Mr. Di Fazio and, of course, twisting a little bit
6 the gist of your application, of your request, that the inspection will
7 consist in the delivery of the entire material. That would satisfy the
8 request for inspection. All right?
9 And it will, of course, -- the understand is that when you say
10 that you are delivering the entire Mauzer archive, that you're making that
11 statement on your responsibility.
12 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes, yes. I've made inquiries and that's what I'm
13 clearly given to understand that we are capable of doing and we'll do it.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: But please check to make sure but because you make a
15 statement here depending on the information you are receiving from others.
16 MR. DI FAZIO: That's right. I'll check and re-check again.
17 Thank you, Your Honours.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: So any further matters? No?
19 So, Professor Bilic.
20 [The witness entered court]
21 WITNESS: ESAD BILIC [Resumed]
22 [Witness answered through interpreter]
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Good afternoon to you, Professor Bilic and welcome
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: Just make yourself comfortable. We are going to
2 proceed with your cross-examination and I'm going to insist with
3 Mr. Wubben to finish today, but in doing so I must also insist with you
4 that you keep your answers as brief as possible. Otherwise you're going
5 to stay here and it will go on and on and on.
6 So Mr. Wubben.
7 MR. WUBBEN: Thank you, Your Honour.
8 Cross-examined by Mr. Wubben: [Continued]
9 Q. Good afternoon, Professor Bilic.
10 A. Good afternoon to you too, Mr. Wubben.
11 Q. I will continue my questions as I stopped yesterday and we will
12 refer to your report, page 20. You stated in your report, page 20, that
13 there must have been documents in the maintaining records of official
14 documents, you pointed out to archives, within a span of time in their
15 archiving that would not be contentious. Is that right?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Doesn't that opinion also apply to the other two groups of
18 so-called non-contentious documents related to Naser Oric and Hamdija
20 A. No.
21 Q. Why not?
22 A. Because the previous samples were close in time. There was not a
23 big time span in between, whereas in this case, there was a long time
24 period that had elapsed in the meantime of about 20 years.
25 Q. Related to the documents signed by Hamed Salihovic, did that
1 statement, that pointing out to the archives, did that form a reason that
2 you called in your report for organising to find all the non-contentious
3 documents with non-contentious signatures as evidence?
4 A. Mr. Wubben, I don't understand you. This is a legal question.
5 Q. This is not a legal question. It's a matter of organisation to
6 find and check. There is in my opinion, Professor Bilic, I quote page 20,
7 it's about, well, let me guess, the 15th line, "it should have been
8 organised to find and present to the Tribunal of the Prosecutor or the
9 Prosecutor, sorry, all the accompanying non-contentious documents with
10 non-contentious signatures and handwriting by HS as evidence, et cetera."
11 It should have been organised. Had it been organised, in fact?
12 A. Of Hamed Salihovic?
13 Q. Yes.
14 A. If this is what you're referring to, this was not organised. This
15 had to do with preparing a non-contentious sample of material.
16 Q. Thank you. A simple yes or no will do or, "I don't know"
17 or "please clarify further your question."
18 A. Yes, all right.
19 Q. Thank you, Mr. Bilic. I will now move to the issue of methods of
20 forensic examination. Professor Bilic, last Monday you stated that you
21 critically re-test all the findings you have made after examination. You
22 pointed out, and I quote, "That a person gets carried away over values or
23 undervalues certain items and that in order to reach objective and high
24 quality findings, one has to re-examine the findings. It is only at the
25 end of this that conclusions are formed which are then structured along a
1 scale of probability or possibility."
2 Do you recall such a statement?
3 A. That's not the way I said it. I said that after the entire
4 examination is over, when all the conclusions have been reached, what has
5 been obtained is re-tested. This refers to both contentious and
6 non-contentious documents. Only after this can actual conclusions be
7 presented. That's my method of work, Mr. Wubben.
8 Q. Yes. Thank you. I consider that as a second similar opinion. My
9 quotation was from a -- Monday, quarter after three in the afternoon.
10 Now, in this context, are you familiar with the phenomenon of a
11 shadow examiner when it comes to forensic analysis?
12 A. What do you mean by "shadow"? In who's shadow? What shadow? I
13 don't understand you.
14 Q. Meaning that a second expert also do the examination and the
15 findings and then only a unanimous decision will be valid on behalf of the
16 report. Are you familiar with such a shadow examiner, second examiner?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Do you agree that in order to reach objective and high quality
19 findings, it would be better to include such a second so-called shadow
20 examiner in conclusions?
21 A. Not in shadow. This should be public. He should be known.
22 Everybody should know who he is. And it's a good idea to have more than
23 one expert. However, if no other experts are available, then, of course,
24 the possibility of having someone else work as a shadow examiner is
25 reduced, but I feel that this is scientifically justified. It is only the
1 expression "shadow" that I couldn't accept because when you say someone is
2 in the shadow it means he is unofficial or semi-official or secret.
3 However, this can be ordered by the Court or the Defence. There can be a
4 second, a third, even a fourth expert. Yes.
5 Q. Professor Bilic, what I mentioned is indeed a kind of second
6 opinion but then next to you in your laboratory. So independent from each
7 other, you and that second examiner reach a conclusion and compare to each
8 other and only the unanimous conclusion is valid. Do you agree that that
9 is a better way to make analysis?
10 A. In some cases, yes, but not necessarily.
11 Q. Why not?
12 A. It all depends on whether the second expert is as able as the
13 first expert. The expert should be on the same level. They should both
14 have the same level of ability. And that is for a third party to
15 evaluate. Only two experts with the same experience and background can be
16 taken into consideration. That's my conclusion now although it need not
17 be a definite one.
18 Q. Do you mean that different experiences and background lead to
19 different opinions and conclusions?
20 A. No, not like that. There might be some differences, but the
21 conclusions would not be extremely different. Again, this has to do with
22 the ability, knowledge, and experience of the investigator. I do not know
23 what knowledge, experience, and abilities the other investigator has. We
24 are not the same, either as human beings or as investigators.
25 Q. Professor Bilic, I only spoke in this context in a theoretical way
1 because you don't have a second examiner next to you, isn't it?
2 A. I could have had. There are quite a few. But my mandate was
3 quite different. I was recruited as a single individual, as an expert. I
4 didn't think I was allowed to show this to anyone or discuss it with
5 anyone. This was confidential material. I couldn't bandy around and show
6 to all and sundry, so those were my reservations. I have quite a few
7 colleagues, assistants, good investigators in Banja Luka and Sarajevo, who
8 do a good job. There were people I trained and many of them have already
9 got their Ph.D.s, but I worked on my own, pursuant to my mandate. I work
10 conscientiously but this is the reason why I did not work together with
11 another investigator who would test and re-test my conclusions.
12 Q. Is it true that you considered a second examiner, second
13 investigator, next to you?
14 A. No. I didn't even consider it because it wasn't in my mandate.
15 Q. In your report, page 24, you refer to the rating scale. It's
16 below in the page, around eight lines from [indiscernible]?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Isn't that clarified rating of your scale limited?
19 A. This is a very rough scale. This kind of scale varies from expert
20 to expert. There can be more or less --
21 Q. Professor Bilic, just yes or no or you don't know. Why didn't you
22 explain the whole applied scale, including the ones left?
23 A. I didn't feel it to be necessary in this case.
24 Q. Wouldn't a complete applied scale, so the ratings applied by you,
25 mean a clarification, more a clarification, and make your report more
1 transparent for the readers?
2 A. Very finely tuned scales, breaking it all up into lots of little
3 segments might be confusing, misleading. They would not give a clear
4 answer. In view of the material I had at my disposal, I did not feel it
5 necessary to say possibly, more probably, bordering on certainty, and so
6 on and so forth. I didn't feel it was required in this particular case,
7 and this is what I stated in my conclusions.
8 Q. Thank you. I turn now to P46. That's document number S-1 related
9 to Hamed Salihovic. In your report -- well, I might --
10 MR. WUBBEN: I considered, Your Honour, to call the usher to bring
11 it on the ELMO. Can we first try to do it without? Perhaps that will
13 JUDGE AGIUS: Alternatively, Mr. Wubben, if you could perhaps
14 through one of your -- the case manager indicate on a piece of paper to my
15 staff, to our staff, the documents that you may be requiring to put on the
16 ELMO so they have them prepared already. You just have to refer to them
17 and they will be on the ELMO in five seconds. P46.
18 MR. WUBBEN: We have the originals here ready to go, so that's
19 even better.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: That's even easier.
21 MR. WUBBEN: Put it on the ELMO. Thank you very much,
22 Madam Usher.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you so much.
24 MR. WUBBEN: So please show the seal, Madam Usher. Yes.
25 Q. In your report, Professor Bilic, you stated that a round seal --
1 you referred to a round seal covering the signature and that the seal did
2 indeed limit and makes more difficult analysis of the contentious
3 signature. Why did you state that in your report?
4 A. I stated that because, first of all, you don't see it with the
5 naked eye. You can however see it using instruments.
6 Q. Yes. But what about the use of infrared and U.V. and stereo
7 microscope? Doesn't that make that in fact easy? So a round seal
8 covering does not limit and makes it more difficult or you mean it in the
9 context I just take a look at it?
10 A. This is for the readers of these findings. It's quite complicated
11 to describe how you view this through infrared light, how you put filters
12 on a microscope and so on. It would only make the report more
13 complicated. But, of course, these instruments are used and it is not a
14 problem to use them. However, I put in this statement for those who are
15 simply looking at this without instruments and this is actually the case.
16 Q. And if this document was a photocopy, was it also then more
17 difficult to examine and to conclude?
18 A. Yes. It would be quite difficult, bordering on possibility. As
19 you know, in principle, photocopies make it even more difficult.
20 Therefore, you're right, Mr. Wubben, yes.
21 MR. WUBBEN: Next exhibit, please, Madam Usher, D1014. That's
22 S-2, Your Honours.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Wubben? Please go ahead
24 with your question.
25 MR. WUBBEN:
1 Q. In your report, Professor Bilic, you stated that on the first
2 page, "It's clearly visible that there is a correction in the handwriting,
3 using a red pencil, and further on, and at the same time written figures
4 in a date, a blue ballpoint pen where the number 3 is a truly amateur
5 correction into 2."
6 My question is, what do you mean by "truly amateur correction"?
7 What does it constitutes in your analysis?
8 A. This term or rather translation as amateur wasn't really adequate.
9 I said ineptly. So if the person wanted to change the year 1993, then the
10 writer should have used a blue ballpoint pen rather than a red crayon,
11 which is actually used for colouring drawings. That's the elementary
12 thing I wanted to say. I don't know how it should have been translated in
13 English. I don't know English. But that's what I wanted to say, that --
14 you can see it from there how ineptly it was done and it was in that sense
15 that I made that comment, Mr. Wubben.
16 Q. But why should it be done in blue? Can't it just be a correction
17 like any other correction?
18 A. But my question to you would be why was it done in red? And, of
19 course, we could go on with questions like that.
20 Q. M'hm. But you were the first to state that it should be in blue,
21 isn't it?
22 A. It could have been done in purple.
23 Q. And would that make the document suspicious, constitutes any
25 A. I wouldn't say that it was a forgery, but it does add to make the
1 document suspect. We were talking about suspect documents and about the
2 features, the specific features they have. I believe I gave you a clear
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Judge Eser? And then Mr. Jones.
5 MR. JONES: Just one small correction. There was a -- translated
6 as crayon, what I think should have been pencil. It's just a very small
8 JUDGE AGIUS: It's not a small matter.
9 JUDGE ESER: Professor Bilic, I have a question. If you speak of
10 inept, it was an inept correction, the question is inept in what regard?
11 I mean, if it was to hide a forgery, then it was obviously inept, but if
12 it was a pure correction that somebody realised that it was -- the year
13 was wrong, it would be even good to have it in red, to make clear that it
14 had been corrected. So inept is a little bit ambivalent characterisation.
15 Inept in what respect?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I meant to say the
17 following. If the writer wanted to correct the number, then he should
18 have erased number 3 and placed number 2 instead. This would have been a
19 proper way of doing it. In correspondence, this is something that is not
20 proper. Even if it were an official document, then the correction should
21 have been accompanied by a stamp.
22 The case was probably the following. The person wrote number 3
23 and then at a second glance realised that he had made a mistake and then
24 made this sort of correction. However, this is quite a striking, obvious
25 correction. That's what I wanted to indicate. I don't know. Perhaps an
1 adequate translation of the word in B/C/S, "nemuste," [phoen] inept,
2 sounds strange in English, but that's the way I put it, and I adhere to
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Wubben.
5 MR. WUBBEN:
6 Q. So there is no suspicious element in that, that makes us think of
7 forgery or suspicious alteration? Do you agree?
8 A. I disagree.
9 Q. So you consider this as a suspicious alteration?
10 A. Yes, yes, Mr. Wubben.
11 MR. WUBBEN: May I ask the usher for Exhibit D1013.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Ms. Wubben -- Ms. Vidovic?
13 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I wish to enter a
14 correction into the record. I heard the witness well when he said that
15 the number 3 should be crossed and that the person doing it should even
16 put his initials next to that. That's what the witness stated, and was
17 not reflected in the transcript. It can be checked with the witness, if
18 you so please.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: I think I heard him say so much. So it's not a
20 problem. We can proceed. At least I understood him to be saying so much.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You nodded. You've understood.
22 MR. WUBBEN: Madam Usher, can you please show the date on top on
23 the ELMO? Thank you very much.
24 Q. Now, this is an official document, isn't it?
25 A. Judging by all that we see, this is a official document. I did
1 not have this document, nor did I examine it. I wasn't given the document
2 by the Defence. That's all I can tell you about it.
3 Q. So this is an official document. The year 2000 and so is changed
4 in 2000 so, isn't it?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Is there a stamp with it, together with it?
7 A. There is one at the bottom.
8 Q. No. You stated earlier, prior to this, a minute ago, that there
9 should be a stamp added to such an alteration in an official document, and
10 you stated further, later on, that there should be initials. Please look
11 at me, Professor Bilic. The Defence is no need to contact for.
12 A. I'm listening to you and looking at you.
13 Q. No, you were not looking --
14 A. I am, I am looking at you. I don't need to be cautioned about it
15 all the time.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Please concentrate on the question, give
17 Mr. Wubben your answer so that we move forward.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise. I kindly ask you to
19 repeat the question.
20 MR. WUBBEN:
21 Q. My question is: Do you see initials next to this alteration, as
22 you suggested prior in your statement to the Court?
23 A. I don't see any initials.
24 Q. Does that modification, that alteration of the year, without
25 initials, in official stamp, make this document suspicious or this
1 alteration or change suspicious?
2 A. According to my methods and principles I'm governed by, I would
3 consider it suspicious, yes, because there are no initials and there is no
4 stamp. That's a rule and a principle that this is governed by.
5 Q. Let me move to P48.
6 MR. WUBBEN: Your Honour, this is document S-4 and I have a
7 question regarding the signature.
8 Q. In your report, you stated that this was a -- this is the
9 contentious, short signature. My question to you is this really a short
10 signature, shortened signature, Professor Bilic?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. What do you mean by that?
13 A. Compared to the other series of signatures, because one cannot
14 read Hamed Salihovic. You can see that there are sequences which can be
15 longer or shorter.
16 Q. Can we take a look at page -- the map, the folder, on -- in your
17 report, page 26?
18 MR. WUBBEN: May you please put it on the ELMO? And is it
19 possible also to place 27? It's just for the overview, only if it's
20 possible, Professor Bilic. It's a matter of zooming, I think. Stop,
21 stop, please.
22 Q. Now, if you take a look at all these signatures, and you might
23 even move the paper left and to the right, if you compare it with other
24 signatures, is this really, is signature S-4, is this really a shortened
25 signature compared to the others?
1 A. That's one category of shortened signatures. There are several.
2 For instance, look at S-8, S-12 A, S-9 A. It is in this context that we
3 ought to examine it. S-9 A, S-12 A, S-8 A. If you compare S-4 with
4 these, then it would fall into the category of a shortened signature,
5 because it definitely -- it's not -- is not a full version.
6 Q. I will move to Exhibit P101.
7 There are handwritten short notes and numbers in the documents and
8 you identify this as written by X1 and X2. Does that makes -- those
9 handwritten short notes, does that makes the document a suspicious
10 document in your opinion?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And does that constitute in your opinion beginning of forgery or
13 suspect of forgery?
14 A. This is a suspicious document. We've already defined that.
15 Q. But my question referred to those handwritten short notes. Do
16 those notes by themselves, do they as such constitute a forgery?
17 A. Notes do not constitute forgeries.
18 Q. Thank you.
19 A. It's put too generally that way. They cannot be called forgeries,
20 simply for being notes.
21 Q. And the notes do not by themselves does not -- do not qualify the
22 document as a forgery, isn't it, the whole document?
23 A. You seem to be guiding me through a maze. Why don't you clearly
24 state what you mean? I don't understand.
25 Q. In another way, if someone --
1 A. Mr. Wubben, I did not understand.
2 Q. Okay. Thank you for stating that. I will rephrase my question.
3 If someone or two persons --
4 A. Yes, please.
5 Q. -- did different short notes like this on a document, and you
6 later on see the document, notifying two writers, making short notes, does
7 that makes the whole document suspicious in a way like a forgery, a forged
9 A. I simply said that the document was suspicious. There are other
10 features that define a forgery because the document was typed, signed, and
11 stamped and it should not have any additions made to it. Whatever is
12 subsequently added gives rise to suspicious that something was altered.
13 It has been disturbed in one way or another. It has been tampered with,
14 and all the more so because this is a frequently recurring phenomenon on
15 all these documents, and when documents were being tampered with in this
16 way, this clearly shows that all the documents as such are suspect.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: I think it's clear enough what he is saying. Maybe
18 you're not exactly, both of you, on the same wavelength. But basically
19 what is being said is the following: If I draw up a document which is
20 typed for me, and then I sign it with my own hand, and then Judge Eser,
21 after that I have signed it, writes something on it, and it is passed on
22 to Judge Brydensholt, who doesn't know that the written notes superimposed
23 on the memo have been written by Judge Eser, he has every right to believe
24 that those were written by me. Because after all, we have a document
25 which is signed by me. So basically, I am supposedly signing to
1 everything that there is on the document. The question arises, if indeed
2 it is established that the handwritten part of that document is not
3 attributable to me, it's attributable to someone else, does that mean that
4 there is a forgery? And the answer is, he's not telling you that the
5 forgery automatically results from the fact that there are two
6 handwritings on the same document. It may result from other
7 considerations. But the fact that there are two different handwritings in
8 a document and the handwriting which is different from the signature is
9 not authenticated, it makes the document suspicious in his eyes. This is
10 what he is saying. And it should -- I mean, under normal circumstances,
11 it wouldn't raise much eyebrows because it happens most of the time but in
12 an expert's eyes, of course, if he doesn't pay attention to -- and give
13 due attention to something like that, I mean, I would be extremely
14 worried. This is the situation. I mean, he never said that the document
15 is forged in his opinion, because there is handwriting which he attributes
16 to X1. He just stated that there are two handwritings on that -- on the
17 document, one by an unidentified X1 and a signature which he doesn't agree
18 belongs to Hamed Salihovic. And it's on the basis of -- he can tell us on
19 the basis of what he reaches his conclusion as to whether there is a
20 forgery in this case or not, but I don't think he has related the forgery
21 or the alleged forgery or the suspected forgery to the fact that there is
22 a handwriting on the document apart from the signature. That's how I have
23 understood it. If I have not understood it -- if I have misunderstood it
24 completely --
25 [Trial Chamber confers]
1 JUDGE AGIUS: What is your position on this, Professor Bilic?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: The question that you've been asked by Mr. Wubben is
4 this: Does the fact that there is a handwriting on the document in
5 addition to the typed part and the signature mean that automatically,
6 therefore, this is a suspect document, that it directs your attention to a
7 suspect forgery? This is what was asked for you. I never understood you
8 to say that it is so. I understood you to say that it is a suspect
9 document. You will look at it with apprehension. That's how I understood
10 you. But if I have not understood you well, please correct me.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. That's correct, Your Honour.
12 His Honour Judge Agius understood well what I was saying and I stand by
13 what I said. It's a suspect document and now, of course, it has to be
14 examined in a special way to see how this came about and why, and then it
15 can be established whether indeed it is a forgery or not. For the time
16 being, it is considered to be suspect.
17 MR. WUBBEN: Shall I continue, Your Honour?
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Of course, Mr. Wubben. I tried to help by
20 MR. WUBBEN: In my opinion, the answer on my first question should
21 be no. And that was a simple answer. Now it is an extensive answer and I
22 appreciate that.
23 MR. WUBBEN: Please, Madam Usher, could you put on the ELMO, P19?
24 JUDGE AGIUS: The break will be at 4.00, Mr. Wubben, so you have
25 an ample 30 minutes plus. 4.00, thank you.
1 MR. WUBBEN: Thank you. May I see the signature, please, Madam
2 Usher? Okay. A little bit upper. Thank you.
3 Q. Thank you, Professor Bilic for this help. You stated in your
4 report that this is the fourth version of the short signature. What do
5 you mean by "version"?
6 A. I believe that the signatory who is purported to be Hamed
7 Salihovic wrote an inconsistent signature here. We have several versions
8 of the signature, which is self-evident. This version here carries
9 certain features that cannot be noticed in the other versions. You can
10 have a look at the map and see the versions of the signature that can be
11 found in the documents.
12 Q. Professor Bilic, can one person have different versions of
14 JUDGE AGIUS: I think he answered that question yesterday and you
15 even referred him to an extract from the -- Ellen's book.
16 MR. WUBBEN: Yes, Your Honour. I think -- I thought that that was
17 the natural variation between the same version, between the same
18 signatures, as such, with the same design. But what I'm referring to is
19 when there are versions like a shortened version and a longer versions,
20 these kind of versions.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, okay. Go ahead.
22 MR. WUBBEN:
23 Q. Professor Bilic, can a single person have different versions like
24 that, shortened, widened, initials, of course, but again --
25 A. A person can have one to two versions. If there are more versions
1 than that, then these are no longer the person's signatures.
2 Q. Why not?
3 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction, these are no longer
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The signatory normally writes his or
6 her signature consistently, always in the same way. As I said earlier in
7 my testimony, a person who has to sign hundreds of documents a day will
8 tend to shorten his signature. However, in -- if a person signs
9 documents, he will tend to have consistent signatures that will be more or
10 less the same, in terms of their length. The fact that the signature
11 varies in these documents again gives rise to suspicion because these
12 documents date from quite a short time period. Such a frequent occurrence
13 of varying signatures is not something that is normally seen. What of his
14 signatures in official documents whereas one's signature is checked, like
15 his bank accounts, his cards and so on and so forth. This complicates the
17 Q. In your report, you stated that there was a pseudo destruction.
18 What do you mean by pseudo destruction, page 14?
19 A. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. By this, and I have clearly
20 explained it here, I think you can read it, I would like it to be read,
21 then there follows a fluent fourth version. I will later give a brief
22 explanation. I don't know how it was translated but I was very precise
23 here. So, Your Honours, could this be done? We will not have time to go
24 into the explanation. So perhaps it might be best if this were read out,
25 with your permission.
1 Q. No. Out of abundance of expediting this testimony, I will drop
2 this question and I will go to the report --
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Mr. Wubben.
4 MR. WUBBEN:
5 Q. Page 30. Page 30 of your report. And this is a map in which you
6 clarified a number of differences. Now, Professor Bilic, I will wait
7 for --
8 A. Are you referring to the signatures of -- you mean these
9 signatures here?
10 Q. The signature, yes, on page 30. Please put --
11 A. Just a moment, please. You're referring to Naser Oric's
12 signatures on page 30, the map with the contentious signatures of Naser
14 Q. Yes. Put it on the ELMO, please. Madam Usher will -- I don't
15 need that exhibit any more. Only page 30. Now, can you please point out
16 the differences observed by you between the signatures S-2 and N.6, source
17 2, alleged non-contentious signature? No, it's the same page, in the
19 JUDGE AGIUS: To, page 30, please, S-2, page 30 the second group,
20 S-2 and N.6.
21 MR. WUBBEN: Simon 2, yes, and the -- right to it. That's S-2.
22 And next to it is N.6.
23 Q. Can you please point out the differences, the main differences,
24 observed by arrow?
25 A. I will ask everyone to look at the map, Your Honours, and I will
1 indicate the arrows. The most evident difference is this ending here,
2 which -- not the ending, rather, but this bulge in a fluent line here,
3 which is constantly present in all the signature, but it's lacking in this
4 signature. It's the Cyrillic letter č. I have marked it here and it's
5 missing in this signature here. The next evident difference is that
6 between this segment, the large capital O, and the next segment, the small
7 Cyrillic r. There is no line linking these two. However, in this
8 signature, they are linked. This was introduced by the writer and is an
9 element that should -- the writer introduced of his own. If you look at
10 all the signatures, you will see that this is the same in all of them.
11 Q. Professor Bilic, may I please stop you? I was only asking about
12 S-2 and N.6 for the purpose of comparing, and I will ask the usher now to
13 put on the ELMO sheet number 1.
14 I have copies available for Defence and for the Chamber,
15 Your Honour.
16 The top you are familiar with. Again, the copy of S-2 and N.6.
17 Now, what I would like to draw your attention to is the lower part, with
18 the blue frameworks. Can it be included, the whole page, Madam Usher?
19 Isn't it true that between N.6, that's on the top of the right,
20 and K-1, that's the first blue framework graphic in the middle left, yes,
21 that there are also differences, relevant differences?
22 A. This signature and this one up here?
23 Q. Yes, Professor Bilic.
24 A. No. These two signatures are the same. You have marked this
25 characteristic here, but look at the other characteristics which are the
1 same. You cannot have every characteristic on every signature, because no
2 two signatures are mathematically identical, as if they were stamped out
3 by a machine. So there are natural variations which always exist and
4 which are normal, but if you look at the entire complex of features which
5 I marked, you will see -- you can see that this -- there is no bulge here,
6 no little bulge here, but we have the other features. You can see just a
7 hint of it, but look at the other elements, look at this angle here. I
8 won't go into a very detailed analysis because it would require a lot of
9 time, Mr. Wubben.
10 Q. I'm sorry to interrupt you. The question was do you notice the
11 differences between N.6 and N.5 or, so to say, K-1?
12 A. Yes. There are differences but not relevant ones, not
13 preponderant ones which --
14 JUDGE AGIUS: That's enough. Your next question, Mr. Wubben?
15 MR. WUBBEN:
16 Q. Do you notice the differences whether it comes to the position and
17 distance of the long stroke going throughout the signature?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Do you notice the difference also in the framework of the -- the
20 blue frameworks of the other signatures shown?
21 A. Are you referring to this stroke here?
22 Q. Yes.
23 A. Running across?
24 Q. The positioning and distance.
25 A. The differences are insignificant. However, the similarities are
1 considerable. Look at this ending here.
2 Q. Professor Bilic, I can accept?
3 A. Just tapered.
4 Q. That's not my question. I'm now asking you for the differences
5 between those and that's my question, and please --
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Jones.
7 MR. JONES: Yes, it's just Your Honour the witness has answered
8 time and again there are differences but they are not significant. I
9 don't know how many times he's going to have to answer that same question.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Yes, Mr. --
11 MR. WUBBEN: If that's the answer to my question, then it is not
12 an answer to my question because the question was what are the
14 JUDGE AGIUS: He's being trying to be more specific basically
15 because then it's up to us to decide whether they are significant or not.
16 I mean, of course, we take his opinion as an expert that there are
17 significant and non-significant ones but we have a right or at least the
18 Prosecution has a right to know which are the differences. From the
19 expert's eye, at least, which is definitely wider than ours.
20 MR. WUBBEN: Before -- I hate to interrupt my colleague, next
21 time I will object against any remark or comment by my learned friend
22 when it is in the presence of the witness.
23 MR. JONES: But, Your Honour, I've never understood the rule to be
24 that any objection has to be in the absence of the witness.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Come on, yes. Anything else, Mr. Jones?
1 MR. JONES: Yes, for this exercise to be useful I trust that this
2 page will be exhibited and that we refer to each one, K-1, K-9 -- so we
3 know what ear talking about.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: I would be taking that for granted but I would be
5 very surprised if it wasn't.
6 MR. JONES: Yes. And may I, Your Honour, just say I'm exercising
7 a lot of restraint in not objecting and I think Mr. Wubben need not be so
8 belligerent when I make a simple objection.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. So, please, Mr. Jones, continue
10 restraining yourself and, Mr. Wubben, please try to be less belligerent
11 and let's move.
12 MR. WUBBEN: I thought this was an adversarial system,
13 Your Honour, and there should be no guidance of the witness anyhow.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: I have every interest in seeing this witness go
15 today because otherwise we don't have a courtroom tomorrow.
16 MR. WUBBEN: Yes. So am I, Your Honour, but I'm not the only
17 player in the field.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: I know. I know you have always cooperated,
19 Mr. Wubben and I trust you will also today.
20 MR. WUBBEN:
21 Q. If you notice the differences on this sheet number 1, the
22 differences between S-2 and N.6, cannot those differences also fall within
23 the natural variations of signatures from the same originator?
24 A. Yes. But let me ask you something, Mr. Wubben. Signatures such
25 as K-6, K-9, K-11 and K-34 --
1 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction, K-16, not 6.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I did not have these as far as I can
3 recall and I don't know where you got these from.
4 MR. WUBBEN:
5 Q. I asked a question about the appearance to you and whether or not
6 you could follow the line of my question to indicate whether or not there
7 are differences. Not more, no expert examination on the spot.
8 A. Yes. There are differences within the limits of variation, but
9 they are the same signature.
10 Q. I will now move to page 32 of your report, pointing out
11 differences between signatures --
12 JUDGE AGIUS: This document, what are we going to do with it?
13 MR. WUBBEN: I would like to tender it, Your Honour, thank you.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: And this will become Prosecution Exhibit P.
15 THE REGISTRAR: P619.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: P619. Thank you.
17 MR. WUBBEN:
18 Q. Professor Bilic, I apologise. I will move to another issue and
19 we'll not make use of page 32. Yes.
20 Yesterday, you accepted that there are variations that usually
21 occur from specimen to specimen as a normal writing variation. You
22 accepted this as basic knowledge; is that correct?
23 A. In handwriting, yes.
24 Q. And doesn't that also underline that you should anyhow try to
25 obtain as much as possible a quantity of handwriting to fulfil the need
1 for such variations?
2 A. If we are dealing with signatures, then we have to collect
3 signatures. Handwriting likewise. We have stated that.
4 MR. WUBBEN: Madam Usher, will you please put P73 on the ELMO?
5 Q. Professor Bilic, yesterday you stated that this -- that the
6 mechanical scraping or abrasion was done with an adequate implement. What
7 do you mean by that? Is this a kind of tampering?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Is it a possibility that the traditional rubber has been used?
10 A. No.
11 Q. Why not?
12 A. I did not find any microscopic traces of a rubber. These traces
13 can never vanish completely. Mr. Ellen explained this on -- I don't know
14 what page. This was done with a sharp implement, either a pen knife or a
15 razor blade or something that abrades the surface of the paper.
16 Q. And I should see that as a further clarification to your report?
17 A. Yes.
18 MR. WUBBEN: The next exhibit, please, P4.
19 Q. P4 relates to S-4 and I quote from your report, that on the
20 documents there is a physical chemical destruction evident by the traces
21 closer to the earlier analysed document, ERN 02139581. That's document
22 S-9A. Does that part of your observation mean that those documents had
23 been together?
24 A. I cannot answer that.
25 Q. Thank you.
1 MR. WUBBEN: Let's now move to the other exhibits referring to
2 photocopies, P176, P210, P213, P3, and P330.
3 Q. This is one of the photocopies, isn't it? Page 17?
4 A. Please? Yes, thank you.
5 Q. You stated in your report, Professor Bilic, that photocopies
6 without correspondent originals gave raise to suspicion and my question
7 is, isn't that out of order within the framework of a comparison report?
8 MR. JONES: Your Honour, I think that question is completely
9 obscure. I don't know how the witness can be expected to answer that.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: What do you actually mean to be asking the witness?
11 Because I don't understand it. I think I know what you mean by I quite
12 agree with Mr. Jones that it is not clear.
13 MR. WUBBEN:
14 Q. Professor Bilic, if you're requested to compare documents, to
15 analyse and to give your findings, isn't it out of order to state in your
16 report that photocopies without corresponding original give rise to
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. In the -- in your report, you mentioned, on page 18 -- you
20 mentioned, and I quote, "Although in this expert analysis the original of
21 the contentious documents are not presented, only their black and white
22 photocopies, we did conduct following the order by the Prosecutor a
23 preliminary but rather limited investigation into the typed material,
24 handwriting, handwriting, and signatures." What do you mean by following
25 the order by the Prosecution?
1 JUDGE AGIUS: I stand to be corrected, of course, but at least the
2 text that I have, and I hope this will not give rise to another motion for
3 a fresh translation, is following the request by the Defence, I have here.
4 Not by the Prosecution.
5 MR. JONES: I believe that was corrected in the corrected version.
6 That error was spotted and it was corrected.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: It should read what?
8 MR. JONES: Defence.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: That's what I have. Because I don't think you gave
10 any instructions to the -- to Professor Bilic to start with.
11 MR. WUBBEN: That's why --
12 JUDGE AGIUS: I would be very surprised to read that in -- I stand
13 to be corrected because, please, Mr. Wubben, don't misunderstand me. I
14 have the two versions, the first one and the corrected one, but this is --
15 and I don't know which I'm reading from, to be honest with you, but I
16 think I'm reading from the corrected one because that's the first one I
17 have before me. My secretary would put that before the others.
18 MR. JONES: That's correct.
19 MR. WUBBEN: Your Honour, I quoted from the first version.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: All right.
21 MR. WUBBEN: And that means that I offer my apologies. Whenever
22 you might indicate that that is again something, please trigger me for
23 that and I appreciate that.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay.
25 MR. WUBBEN:
1 Q. So I will withdraw the question, Professor Bilic.
2 A. Thank you, Mr. Wubben.
3 Q. My question is does the quality of these photocopies allow for
4 strong conclusions either positive or negative after analysis by you?
5 A. No.
6 Q. And -- but you draw the conclusion that these signatures were most
7 probably not signed by NO, Naser Oric, isn't it?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And isn't that a strong conclusion?
10 A. No.
11 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... firm conclusion?
12 A. Mr. Wubben, it is not a strong conclusion. Whatever is most
13 probably always leaves room for consideration.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: All right.
15 MR. WUBBEN:
16 Q. Thank you. In your report, you mentioned the relevant factors
17 regarding photocopies, and if I might recall them, the alleged
18 non-convenience for expertise of signatures, the modest results of the
19 analysis not allowing for a certainty and validity of results, the few
20 relevant characteristics not having been detected, and the rise to
21 suspicion and the maximum reserve for acceptance by an investigator.
22 That's correct, isn't it?
23 A. I did not use the word "maximum" but I did say there to be certain
24 reservations, and that the probability had to be stated, yes.
25 Q. And even on Monday you stated that photocopies are misleading and
1 that to carry out any subtle measurements or analysis on photocopies is
2 highly uncertain, isn't it?
3 A. Yes, that's correct. That's why the word "probability" is used.
4 MR. WUBBEN: Your Honour, it's 4.00. Shall we have a break?
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, please. I'm insisting because of the recorders
6 basically because we could stay a few more minutes. But I think we better
7 stop here for 30 minutes and we'll resume at 4.30. Thank you.
8 --- Recess taken at 4.00 p.m.
9 --- On resuming at 4.34 p.m.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Wubben.
11 MR. WUBBEN:
12 Q. Professor Bilic, will you please go to page 23, showing the map --
13 showing your map in your folder in your report.
14 I have a question for you regarding the comparison of the
15 handwriting alleged to be from Hamed Salihovic and my question relates to
16 N.5. First question: Is it a fact that a student writes neatly?
17 JUDGE AGIUS: You're certainly not referring to my student days,
18 Mr. Wubben.
19 MR. WUBBEN:
20 Q. When it comes to official documents or official filling in of
21 forms related to university, isn't it a fact, Professor Bilic, that
22 someone writes neatly, especially a student?
23 A. First of all, we must define what writing neatly means. Is it
24 calligraphy or is it writing as clearly as one can? We cannot really go
25 into the realm of aesthetics in this sphere of work.
1 Q. But writing to be read clearly, isn't that so, Professor Bilic?
2 A. Yes, yes.
3 Q. Is the alleged originator at the time 19 years old or something
4 like that?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And is he, the alleged writer, also being forced to write within a
7 lined frame?
8 A. Yes, as you can see, evidently, yes.
9 Q. And isn't there also a big difference in time between this alleged
10 non-contentious document number N.5 and the document S-12A?
11 A. This was stated also earlier, that the time that elapsed was quite
12 a long one, some 20 years. I believe we already indicated that.
13 Q. Does these factors that I ask questions about, doesn't these all
14 limit the natural variety and characteristics with a view to these
16 A. Mr. Wubben, could you please put a more specific question to me?
17 Q. Comparing these two documents and knowing these limitations or,
18 better to say, these factors, doesn't that limit the probabilities when
19 you do your analysis on those documents?
20 A. That was one of the factors I took into consideration in my
21 examination, and I said most probably he was not the writer. I indicated
22 the reasoning that you mentioned by placing that qualification.
23 Q. Professor Bilic, page 36 of your report, you concluded, under 2
24 that Hamed Salihovic most probably did not sign. Is such a conclusion
25 bordering to certainty or not?
1 A. I clearly said most probably not signed by Hamed Salihovic. Now,
2 the certainty you've been mentioning, I don't know, I believe it is for
3 the Court to decide on that.
4 Q. Given the limitations of the quantity of samples available and the
5 difference in time between the documents and the so-called -- the
6 contentious documents and the so-called non-contentious documents, isn't
7 that conclusion too strong, too firm?
8 A. I made such a conclusion in order for you, the Court and the
9 Defence, to evaluate it. But it is my conclusion. The degree of
10 certainty is something that I did not want to further weigh, and if you
11 look at page 23 and the text contained therein, it will all become quite
12 obvious to you.
13 Q. Well, that's indeed for the Court to decide. I have a question
14 related to page 26, 27, 28 of the report, Professor Bilic. In your
15 report, you stated that regarding the cross analysis of the signatures,
16 that all the signatures in the contentious documents were first mutually
17 compared. The gradual comparison proved that there is a striking
18 elementary difference.
19 Now, can you please put it on the ELMO, Professor Bilic, page 26,
20 27, 28? Is that possible to do it in a kind of visual way?
21 A. Mr. Wubben, I did as much on this map. I placed these markings.
22 Q. Yes. Professor Bilic, may I stop you --
23 A. Which bring us two into certain relation.
24 Q. I haven't put my question yet. Is it possible, Madam Usher, to
25 show more of the contentious documents, I mean zooming out instead of in?
1 Because Your Honours, I trust that you also can?
2 JUDGE AGIUS: We can follow, Mr. Wubben. We've put them all
3 spread out in front of us, but I don't think that Madam Usher can help you
4 more than that.
5 MR. WUBBEN: Okay.
6 Q. Professor Bilic, when you take the contentious signatures, the
7 three columns of the contentious signatures, isn't it true that these
8 signatures appear not to be striking elementary different? But there is a
9 common shared model, a common shared design? Do you agree with that
11 A. No. I don't agree. This may only seem so to you.
12 Q. Yes. But that's why I put to you my proposition, and you
13 disagree. My question is what about the differences that appear -- Madam
14 Usher might help me -- that appear in comparing N.10, N.10, and N.9?
15 These are non-contentious.
16 Are these two similar in appearance? Do you agree with that?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. With natural variety?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And please compare S-10 and N.11.
21 A. These two.
22 Q. Are these also in their appearance the same or do they show
24 A. When you look at it with the naked eye, the differences are
25 obvious. There are not even the most basic of similarities here. When
1 you look at the entire construction of the signature from the first to the
2 last stroke, you see that Salihovic is always written on the writing line
3 whereas all the incriminated signatures are above the line. When you look
4 at signature N.11, and the other signatures, wherever there is a line,
5 they -- the signatures rest on the line, and these are some of the rules
6 that a person who is accustomed to writing his own signature will never
7 change. Look at S-10, S-11. If you take a look at it, I believe that it
8 is clearly to be seen, and the -- as it is placed here, I believe it's
9 quite obvious.
10 Q. And between S-11 and N.13?
11 A. S-11 is contentious, is a contentious signature, and as for N.13
12 and N.14, I indicated before that I considered these signatures suspect,
13 of suspicious origin, I did not take them into consideration in my
14 examination. I received these documents, I placed them on the list, but I
15 did not include them in the comparison I made. If you take a look at the
16 signatures, you will see why I did so. I merely placed them on the list
17 out of consideration for the Defence who sent them to me, but I did not
18 use them in my comparison. I did not place any markings there and I did
19 not make any indication of the fact that I used them in my examination
20 because I did not. I believe that it is enough to take a look at the
21 signature with the naked eye to see what I mean. I hope I have answered
22 your question.
23 Q. And Professor Bilic, if you take a look at S-7 on page 27 and N.11
24 on page 28, do you agree with my proposition that there is not a striking
25 elementary difference?
1 A. There are so many differences that I believe they could be visible
2 from space.
3 Q. So you don't agree with my proposition?
4 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction, from outer space.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.
6 MR. WUBBEN:
7 Q. I will move now to the following part of your report, page 30 to
9 These are --
10 A. This is a map, Mr. Wubben. It's the map. Thank you, Prosecutor.
11 Q. It's okay. Page -- your report, page 29, you refer to the -- to
12 the signatures, the contentious signatures and non-contentious signatures
13 alleged to be placed by Naser Oric, and that you -- in your opinion, the
14 signature revealed total discrepancy?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Now, I will show you a sheet and have some questions about that.
17 Please show sheet number 4. Copy for the parties, Your Honour.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
19 MR. WUBBEN:
20 Q. Professor Bilic, what do you mean with total discrepancy between
21 the compared contentious and alleged non-contentious signatures?
22 A. They are so obvious that that's why I used the expression. I
23 indicated these differences exhaustively and I only marked them to a
24 certain extent on these maps. But they are quite evident. Take a look at
25 N.5, K-16, then 23, then look at S-2, S-4, S-7. I don't know if you can
1 see them.
2 Q. Can the usher please zoom out --
3 A. They are such great differences in the general appearance, in the
4 construction of contentious and non-contentious signatures, in their size.
5 If you look at the initial stroke of this ellipsoid and then look at the
6 other ones, look at the end of the signature, ending in letter č, look at
7 the line of writing, the angle of writing, then the -- this element of a
8 full stop at the end, then the end of the signature, which is completely
9 different, this particular one, from all the other non-contentious
10 signatures. Then look at the fact that at no point in time do we have the
11 connective link between o and r that start -- at the start, because if you
12 look at the contentious signatures, they all have them. Then look at this
13 last part of the loop of the letter č. I was trying to indicate them in
14 great detail, although I did not mention every single particular element.
15 I do not normally do so. I try to merely present the most obvious ones
16 and I did so in the map, and these were decisive elements in my -- in
17 making my final conclusions.
18 Q. Professor Bilic, if my --
19 A. Yes, Mr. Wubben.
20 Q. If I put it to you that these overview of contentious and
21 so-called non-contentious documents, that they do not include a total
22 discrepancy, even if you limit the signatures, the overview of signatures
23 only to the two blue-framed one, N.5 and N.12, together with the
24 red-framework above, do you agree with me that the overall design and
25 model is the same, that there is basically the same structure and model?
1 A. No, definitely not.
2 Q. Thank you. I have another sheet for you.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Shall we give this an exhibit number, please?
4 MR. WUBBEN: Yes, please.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: This will become P620. Thank you.
6 MR. WUBBEN: Please bear me a moment, Your Honour.
7 Q. Professor Bilic, in your comparison of -- yes -- can the usher
8 please help to zoom out?
9 Professor Bilic, in your report, you stated as manifested
10 differences in the signatures, as differences in the document comparison
11 between contentious signatures and so-called non-contentious signatures,
12 the length zone of the horizontal dash in Cyrillic letters h and h at the
13 end, that's the c, the altitudinal displacement in relation to the central
14 segment of the signature. Now, my question is to you do you indicate
15 within this overview a difference between the signatures when it pertains
16 to this length zone of the horizontal dash?
17 MR. JONES: Your Honours, I don't understand the question. I
18 don't know if the witness does. Is he being asked to indicate something
19 on the ELMO?
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, he is, as I understand it.
21 Correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Wubben. The witness is being
22 referred to this sheet of paper with five specimen signatures in each case
23 with a horizontal line across the signature. He is being referred to
24 comment on Mr. Wubben's statement regarding the length of that horizontal
25 line. If I have understood the question right.
1 MR. WUBBEN: That's correct.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: If I haven't understood you right please correct me.
3 MR. JONES: Yes, because I noticed the witness keeps indicating
4 something on the ELMO.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: The witness keeps moving his pointer up and down
6 and ...
7 MR. JONES: Yes, I was under the impression he was doing what he
8 thought was expected of him.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: I'm not giving that much importance because he is
10 all the time moving.
11 Yes, Professor Bilic.
12 MR. WUBBEN:
13 Q. Professor Bilic, do you notice differences, variations, when it
14 comes to the length zone of the horizontal dash within the signatures
15 called as N.12, N.11, N.7, K-12, K-29, on the ELMO?
16 A. Yes. These strokes are not of the same length and this comes
17 within the natural variation because a writer even if he were forced to
18 write always a stroke of the same length, it is impossible. He will not
19 be able to produce the same line geometrically. And I believe that
20 suffices as an explanation.
21 Q. So when you define the length zone of the horizontal dash in your
22 report as a manifested difference between the contentious and the
23 non-contentious documents, then at the same time you indicate between
24 these signatures that such a length zone pertains to a natural variation?
25 A. Yes, Mr. Wubben.
1 Q. Thank you. I will move to --
2 MR. WUBBEN: Can this -- I want to tender this as an exhibit.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. This will become Prosecution Exhibit P621,
4 Mr. Wubben.
5 MR. JONES: Sorry, Your Honour, to raise something but for the
6 last question, it's unclear to me whether these signatures refer to the
7 signatures on this document or whether Mr. Wubben was referring to the
8 differences in the length zone of the horizontal dash in the contentious
9 and non-contentious documents. The question and answer are obscure, I'm
11 JUDGE AGIUS: I still in my mind -- I still have a suspicion
12 whether the witness understood the question well because reading it in
13 English, it is not exactly clear. But instead of making suggestions
14 myself in order to find out what he understood at least with -- from
15 Mr. Wubben's question, before he gave his answer, I will read out exactly
16 what Mr. Wubben asked you. And then you explain to me what you understood
17 by it. Question: "So when you define the length zone of the horizontal
18 dash in your report as a manifested difference between the contentious and
19 the non-contentious documents, then at the same time you indicate that
20 between these signatures that such a length zone pertains to a natural
22 Now, that's exactly what Mr. Wubben was asking. I want to know
23 for sure what Professor Bilic understood by that question.
24 What did Mr. Wubben, according to you, ask you? And you answered
25 "yes." Yes to which question?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, my answer was yes.
2 This is an element of natural variation of one and the same signature of
3 one and the same person.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. I'm going to leave it at that.
5 MR. JONES: This document, then, so that's clear.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: I'm not going to put any further questions myself.
7 MR. JONES: Otherwise, I can re-examine but --
8 JUDGE AGIUS: You can re-examine, of course, yes.
9 MR. JONES: Otherwise it's clear when he says this, he's referring
10 to this.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Stop.
12 Yes, Mr. Wubben.
13 MR. WUBBEN:
14 Q. I turn now to page 30 of your report, Professor Bilic.
15 Professor Bilic, please take a look at signature N.5, and Cyrillic
16 grapheme of the letter H stands for the B/C/S C, isn't it?
17 A. That grapheme isn't present here.
18 Q. It's page 30, N.5, yes. So the final, the last character of the
19 signature, and there is a dash through the upper loop, isn't it? Now, if
20 you take a look at that specific dash crossing the upper loop of the last
21 character -- yes, that's correct, you're pointing out the last character,
22 the loop. If you compare that character from N.5 with another signature
23 within the range of N.5, N.6, N.7 until N.12, do you notice the
24 differences between those signatures, between those known signatures?
25 A. I notice those differences that belong to natural variation.
1 Q. So not being manifested differences in characteristics on
2 comparing like the contentious signatures with the alleged non-contentious
4 A. Yes, Mr. Wubben.
5 Q. What do you mean by "yes"? That these can be indeed natural
6 variations and not manifested differences?
7 A. These are natural variations, which always exist in N.5, N.6, N.7
8 and N.8, N.9, N.10, N.1, N.11, N.3 and N.1, just as on the previous sheet
9 that you showed me containing non-contentious documents. This signature,
10 N.5, was written at the request of the Prosecution. There was a date
11 above it. NO wrote the signature on that day, as he did with the other
12 signatures. This is a series of signatures made on the same day by one
13 and the same writer. This shows the natural variation that always exists
14 with every person and every signature.
15 Q. Thank you, Professor Bilic.
16 Now I --
17 A. Thank you, Mr. Wubben.
18 Q. -- have a question regarding comparison of contentious with
19 non-contentious signatures related to Hamdija Fejzic. You found a
20 multitude of relevant differences, and I refer to page 34. What do you
21 mean by that? Is that significant with a view to the natural variations
22 within the so-called non-contentious documents or not?
23 A. What specifically, Mr. Wubben, are you asking me?
24 Q. I asked you when you indicate that you find, based upon the
25 comparison, a multitude of relevant differences --
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. -- what do you refer to? Differences within the so-called
3 non-contentious documents, natural variations?
4 A. I clearly and precisely explained those differences and listed
5 them on page 34. If you read this list, and look at the map, you will see
6 that I have indeed mentioned what these differences are.
7 Q. Page 35 of the report --
8 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment, Mr. Wubben.
9 While we are at this and we have in front of us the contentious
10 signatures and the non-contentious signatures in relation to Fejzic, when
11 Mr. Fejzic visited you and came to your office and left you the specimen
12 signatures and showed you the documents with his signature, did you by any
13 chance show him the contentious, the disputed, documents?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. I did not. My mandate was not
15 to show anybody anything.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: All right.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] He was not able even to assume what
18 this would be used for. That's my response, Your Honours, if you'll
19 accept it.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Professor Bilic.
21 Mr. Wubben, we have roughly one hour, one hour five minutes at the
22 moment left.
23 MR. WUBBEN: I'm aiming for closing within the time.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. And please leave a little bit of time to --
25 for the Defence. I would imagine there isn't much of a re-examination.
1 MR. JONES: Not much currently, about five or ten minutes.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: And do you have any questions?
3 JUDGE ESER: Perhaps one.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Perhaps one question. Roughly we are talking about
5 ten minutes, if you could spare us that.
6 MR. WUBBEN: Okay.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you for cooperating, Mr. Wubben.
8 MR. WUBBEN: You're welcome, Your Honour.
9 Q. Page 34, you're referring to a general visual perception of the
10 handwriting and the signature?
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Where exactly.
12 MR. WUBBEN: That's the first bullet, Your Honour, on page 34.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Thank you, Mr. Wubben.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
15 MR. WUBBEN:
16 Q. Now, this general visual perception, is that a relevant
17 difference, Professor Bilic?
18 A. One can see the difference if one looks carefully at the
19 signatures. On the left-hand side are S-1, S-2 and S-3 and, if you take a
20 closer look, not just a superficial look, you will have an impression of
21 these signatures, just through normal looking you can see that and you
22 will gain an impression indicating that these are not the same signature,
23 that these are different signatures.
24 Q. I can take it -- sorry?
25 A. Both from each other and -- that is what I meant by the first
1 statement you read out. So the first step is simply to look at something
2 closely, to perceive it and to gain an impression. That is the starting
4 Q. If I put it to you, Professor Bilic, that these signatures are
5 showing in general similarities, do you agree with that proposition?
6 A. The forger attempted to leave that impression but he was not
7 successful. He probably had a specimen of the uncontested signature and
8 tried to imitate it. However he was not successful in imitating it.
9 Q. The question whether it is forgery or not, isn't that up to the
11 A. I established by my investigation that there is an absolute
12 difference between the contentious and non-contentious signatures. This
13 signature is absolutely forged by unsuccessful imitation of a specimen of
14 the authentic signature of this man, Hamdija Fejzic. I abide by that and
15 Their Honours will decide and evaluate for themselves. However, as an
16 investigator, it's up to me to state this.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: I think it's clear enough. You still wish to.
18 MR. JONES: It was simply that it was a rhetorical question by Mr.
19 Wubben, and my submission would be that this expert certainly --
20 JUDGE AGIUS: He's not deciding for us, for sure.
21 MR. JONES: He can certainly give testimony as to whether someone
22 appears to have been trying to forge it or whether it was totally
24 JUDGE AGIUS: That's why he is here for.
25 MR. JONES: Absolutely. Thank you, Your Honour.
1 MR. WUBBEN: Thank you.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: Go ahead. I mean, definitely Professor Bilic never
3 gave the impression that he's arrogating for himself.
4 MR. WUBBEN:
5 Q. Do you agree with my proposition, Professor Bilic, that the basic
6 graphic structure of these signatures overall are referring to the same
8 A. I cannot assert that, no.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: I wish to make this clear in my mind at least. I
10 would like to. Which signatures are you referring to, the basic --
11 MR. WUBBEN: All the signature, Your Honour, all the signatures on
12 page 35.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: Are referring to the same model.
14 MR. WUBBEN: Yes.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: But I still don't understand you. Do you agree with
16 my proposition that the basic graphic structure of these signatures
17 overall are referring to the same model? Which model?
18 MR. WUBBEN: They are sharing the same model, if that's more
19 clear, Your Honour, I would like to change my question.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Pattern? Do you mean pattern rather than a model?
21 Because a model is something which you are comparing to which you use to
22 make a comparison with. So this is why the confusion.
23 MR. WUBBEN: Same structure or appearance.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Appearance, all right. Appearance, pattern, all
1 MR. WUBBEN:
2 Q. Isn't it true, Professor Bilic, that these signatures, page 35,
3 share the same appearance?
4 A. Are you referring to the contentious or the non-contentious
5 signatures, Mr. Wubben?
6 Q. All the signatures on page 35.
7 A. No, by no means.
8 Q. In your report, page 34, Professor Bilic, you referred to the
9 formation of the italicised Latin graphemes. That's the third bullet.
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. What do you mean with that statement?
12 A. I refer to the way in which the writer shapes them, creates them.
13 You can see that when you look at each of these graphemes on the
14 contentious and uncontentious specimens, especially in the case of the
15 grapheme z and the final č. One writer forms them in one way, and the
16 second writer in a completely different way. It's especially
17 characteristic that in these signatures, there is no dot on the j, and if
18 you look at the end, the final stroke, and then if you look at the loop in
19 the j, you see the way it is shaped and created is quite different. If
20 you look at the initial f, it's -- on the right-hand side, it's always
21 linked up to what follows, and it's not on the left-hand side. Then if
22 you look, there is a curve here and a loop there. Also, the construction,
23 this one has strokes which are superfluous, whereas the other one does
24 not. You see, there are many more strokes on the left-hand side than
25 there are in the signatures on the right-hand side, so the construction of
1 the signature, its structure, is quite different. These are only the most
2 prominent, the most glaring, differences.
3 Q. Do you agree with me that it can be a matter of time that these
4 signatures showed those differences that you pointed out? I refer now to
5 the development of a signature within the use by the same originator.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: In other words, the question is, do you allow for
7 the possibility that the difference between the contentious and the
8 non-contentious signatures that you see on the monitor now could be
9 attributable to the lapse of time that passed between the first set and
10 the second set of signatures? Roughly we are talking about ten years.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] By no means. This is absolutely a
12 forged signature of Hamdija Fejzic.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. And I don't think you're going to change
14 that, Mr. Wubben.
15 MR. WUBBEN:
16 Q. Professor Bilic, if you take a look at the non-contentious
17 signature on page 35 only, do you notice the differences between those
18 signatures, those so-called non-contentious signatures?
19 A. Only those differences which fall within the natural variation
20 which is always there in the case of anybody's signature, yours, mine or
21 anybody else's.
22 Q. If you take a look especial to the signatures, can you point out
23 the differences yourself, Professor Bilic?
24 JUDGE AGIUS: We are talking of the three signatures on the left,
25 S-1, S-2, and S-3.
1 MR. WUBBEN: No, no, no the non-contentious.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: N.4, N.3 and N.5 all right.
3 MR. WUBBEN:
4 Q. Professor Bilic, can you point out any differences that you
6 A. Are you referring to N.4, N.3, and N.5, Mr. Wubben?
7 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.
8 MR. WUBBEN:
9 Q. Yes, Professor Bilic.
10 A. These are natural variations.
11 Q. That's not my question?
12 A. As I've already stated.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: You're being asked to point them out, not to comment
14 on them. Yes, those three. The differences. Please point out to us or
15 to Mr. Wubben the difference that you see between those three signatures,
16 irrespective of whether they are natural variations.
17 Q. Or don't you notify any differences?
18 A. I told you, yes. There are differences falling within the natural
19 variation, but now to search for them in this way, I don't want to go into
20 that now.
21 Q. Why don't you want to get into that now? Don't you see them?
22 Don't you notify them? Please tell me.
23 A. Well, show me these differences, if you can see them.
24 Q. No, my question is to you: Will you please show me the
25 differences between the signatures? You're the expert.
1 A. The -- there are no differences at the expert level, although
2 there may be at the visual level, which is part of the natural variation.
3 On the expert level, as far as I'm concerned, there are no differences.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: That's his answer. I wouldn't intervene. I don't
5 know if Mr. Jones wants to but I would suggest that he stays where he is
6 and we move ahead. He's told you, I mean, from the professional expert
7 point of view, he doesn't see any differences. If you want him to
8 pinpoint the visual ones, which he attributes to a natural variation you
9 have, of course, every right to do so and I will certainly not stop you.
10 MR. WUBBEN: Then I will proceed on that.
11 Q. Professor Bilic, will you please point out the visual differences
12 that you refer to as natural variations?
13 A. In the grapheme J, the lower part, I'll show you the differences
14 which are certainly the result of natural variation. Here. Then the
15 final part, there is spontaneous variation in this part here.
16 Q. Can you please nominate that --
17 A. Here. Also --
18 Q. Professor Bilic --
19 A. -- the diacritic, the placing of the diacritic, yes.
20 Q. I apologise. You are pointing out indeed and I appreciate it but
21 will you please, the second one, after the J, you pointed out a second one
22 but you did not comment what you were pointing out. That's for the
23 record, you see, because we could follow you by pointing out but for the
24 record it's not --
25 A. The formation? Yes, Mr. Wubben, I understand. The formation of
1 the lower loop, if you follow the stroke here, you can't see it up here,
2 those are variations, but it's a grapheme written by one and the same
3 person. And then you can observe in the initial stroke, here and here,
4 that there is variation. It depends on how this initial stroke was
5 started. Every signature comes into existence at a particular point in
6 time. That's why variations exist and have to exist. If you're still
8 Q. I'm still interested.
9 A. In this part here, here and here, but all within the limits of
10 variation of signatures written in a certain time sequence, in a certain
11 place. These differences do not predominate when one makes one's final
12 conclusions. Otherwise the conclusions would have to be different.
13 Q. And these are all the variations, the differences, that you can
14 point out? Or are there more, Professor Bilic?
15 A. Yes, Mr. Wubben. Probably there are more, but I showed the most
16 striking ones.
17 Q. And did you include also, when you take a look at N.4, there is,
18 after -- in the middle, there is something that appears to be an I and an
19 E at the end. That's before the -- prior to the last character. Do you
20 see? Can you point it out with your -- can you point it out,
21 indicating --
22 A. Are you referring to this.
23 Q. Yes, there are two characters?
24 A. We have that here as well.
25 Q. These --
1 A. I have it here and there, these two segments, but then we have
2 something in the middle signature we don't have in the others. These all
3 come under natural variation. That is why we have forensic document
4 examination which calls for this sort of observation. We are not looking
5 for mere similarities or dissimilarities. They have to have been created
6 as part of a sequence of strokes.
7 Q. And do you also notice the difference at the last character
8 between those three signatures?
9 A. I would not wish to go into these differences any more. One can
10 see them clearly. Again, this comes under natural variation, that we have
11 something in one signature that we don't have in the other. They are not
12 that striking or, rather, they are irrelevant for the final conclusions.
13 MR. WUBBEN: Please bear me a moment, Your Honour.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.
15 MR. WUBBEN: I try to modify my questions in order to keep within
16 the limit of time, Your Honour.
17 Q. Page 34, you refer in bullet number 7, the length of the signature
18 is a relevant difference, isn't it, Professor Bilic?
19 A. It depends on the signature, but it's a general difference that
20 can be noticed quite easily.
21 Q. But isn't it true, Professor Bilic, that the length of the
22 signature on page 35 are broadly speaking the same?
23 A. No. Nor can it ever be.
24 Q. I have a question regarding the 12th bullet on page 34. You
25 indicated the difference of the vertical diacritic marks in small
1 italicised letters G and T?
2 A. Yes, Mr. Wubben.
3 Q. Does a vertical diacritic marks in C not change from dash in 1992
4 towards a period in 2004 or 2005? Can it be a natural variation in time?
5 A. This is a highly personalised feature, immanent to a writer.
6 That's why I attach so much weight to it. When you take a look at the
7 grapheme č in the non-contentious signatures, take a look at how the
8 diacritic icon is placed. With the contentious signatures it is not a č
9 but a š, in Latin script. It reminds one more of a š rather than ač.
10 You see, this is the shape of the š in Latin script, whereas here these
11 are the dots that Mr. Wubben asked me about. When you look at this one,
12 this one it reminds one of the grapheme š. When you look at its shape it
13 does not really look like ač, č which comes from Fejzic. Mr. Wubben,
14 this can be easily observed. Whereas here, there is not a single
15 diacritic on the letter j.
16 Q. But the question, Professor Bilic --
17 A. Yes, Mr. Wubben?
18 Q. But the question is: Doesn't the development in time of around 12
19 years count for that? Could it be?
20 A. This would not be possible because one develops one's handwriting
21 and signature earlier on in life and it becomes a personalised,
22 idiosyncratic model, especially when it comes to diacritics that are
23 placed quite automatically, rapidly and spontaneously. In no way can the
24 lapse of time affect that. Besides, ten years earlier, he was not a
25 child, and handwriting is something consistent for life, when a person
1 develops one's writing style it remains there for life. There can be some
2 slight modifications but I can, for instance, recognise my grandfather's
3 handwriting when he was at the age of 40 as easily as when he was at the
4 age of 90.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
6 Mr. Wubben.
7 MR. WUBBEN:
8 Q. A finalisation of the signature also pointed out as a difference,
9 doesn't that also develop in time, let's say of around 12 years?
10 A. That's not the case. The end part of one's signature again
11 depends on the writer. The contentious signatures have a totally wrong
12 ending. They do not belong to the writer. You can see that. It's very
13 different. This end part of the signature has nothing to do with the
14 lapse of time. Again, it is an automatic stroke. Otherwise, experts
15 would find themselves in a lot of trouble, if they weren't able to rely on
17 Q. Even given the differences between N.4, N.3, and N.5, Professor
19 A. These are the differences that we defined earlier, the result of
20 spontaneous variation. We have this dotted with N.3 and N.4. N.5 it's
21 slightly different but then again if we looked at hundreds more
22 signatures, we would find the natural variation. Sometimes we come across
23 the end part which is not the one that we would expect. However, there
24 are other elements that point to the conclusion.
25 Q. Thank you.
1 A. For instance, in N.3 and N.4, we can find other features that
2 bring us to the conclusion that this isn't really different. This isn't
3 something else.
4 Q. Thank you, Professor Bilic.
5 A. Thank you, Mr. Wubben.
6 Q. I will now come to the end of my questions, and I will in special
7 now refer to the photocopies you examined. We already addressed that
8 issue but I want to point out something via a sheet, an overview of the
9 photocopied signatures.
10 MR. WUBBEN: Can you please put sheet number 5 on the ELMO,
11 Madam Usher?
12 Q. Professor Bilic, you examined photocopies, photocopies of
13 photocopied documents, and you commented on it. I have some questions
14 regarding the signatures, referring to signatures S-5, S-8, S-9, S-11,
15 S-13. Do you agree that when we take a look at S-5 and S-8, those two
16 signatures, that it's very difficult to examine these signatures with a
17 view to the beginning part, that it's hardly to define the beginning part
18 of the signature that disappeared under the seal? Do you agree with that
19 proposition, Professor Bilic?
20 A. It is not that visible, as this is a photocopy. That's why one
21 must place a caveat in relation to this one. I marked some of them,
22 Mr. Wubben, because I wanted to show that some of these signatures are
23 very different. They show a writing style unto themselves, each of them.
24 Q. I'm sorry, Professor Bilic. My question was: Do you agree or do
25 you not agree that part of the signature is not visible, the beginning
1 part, and that that makes it difficult to examine that part of the
2 signature that disappeared, do you agree or not?
3 A. Yes, I agree.
4 Q. Do you agree or not with my proposition that the signature S-9,
5 S-9, the -- does not show enough details that are visible?
6 A. The photocopy is quite poor. One cannot really see the signature,
7 but it is enough to see this cross line. In the middle one cannot see
8 much but we see the ending which is quite visible, and the horizontal
9 stroke. I marked it. One can also see how the ellipsoid of the grapheme
10 O is formed, although we cannot see what is contained there. It being a
11 photocopy, we can only guess what is there or not. I marked one striking
12 feature, the dot, and the horizontal line, and then also the part where
13 the O grapheme is formed and where it is closed and then -- let me find
14 something else. The ending of this signature --
15 Q. Professor Bilic --
16 A. Yes, Mr. Wubben?
17 Q. I apologise. My question is simple yes or no or I don't know. Do
18 you agree that there are not enough details visible within this signature?
19 JUDGE AGIUS: I suppose for the purpose of a comparison?
20 MR. WUBBEN: For the purpose of a comparison, yes. Thank you.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: Is that what you had in mind, Mr. Jones.
22 MR. JONES: It's sufficient for --
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.
24 Yes, Professor Bilic, could you please answer that question?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, it was. Thank you,
1 Your Honour, I'll try to answer.
2 MR. WUBBEN:
3 Q. Signature S-11, do you agree or not that in that signatures, there
4 are no details of a writing movement in the central part following the O,
5 the first character?
6 A. One can see parts of it only. Are you referring to there section
8 Q. Yes.
9 A. One can discern them partly. However, the impression of the stamp
10 has covered them. But it's the ending that's quite interesting here.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: We are not interested in that unless Mr. Wubben is.
12 MR. WUBBEN:
13 Q. And doesn't the same apply for S-13?
14 JUDGE AGIUS: Basically what it means is, is it correct that
15 looking at S-13, you necessarily come to the conclusion that there aren't
16 enough visible details, sufficient for a comparison? Yes or no? Would
17 you agree with that?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. There were details in relation
19 to which I gave my conclusion, which was that of most probably. That was
20 as far as the photocopy would allow.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Wubben.
22 MR. WUBBEN:
23 Q. Thank you, Professor Bilic. Now, in your report you stated that,
24 and I quote page 17, "In principle, photocopies are not convenient for a
25 comprehensive and serious professional expertise of handwritings,
1 signatures, seals, seal imprints, et cetera." You also stated, "The
2 modest results obtained through the analysis of the documents photocopied
3 by versatile copying techniques as such do not allow for certainly and
4 validity of results." You stated that. Is that correct?
5 A. We are going back to that. We have already defined that earlier
6 when we were discussing photocopies, and we said the gist of this. I'd
7 like to see that again on page 18. I don't want to reiterate what was
8 already stated.
9 MR. WUBBEN: Page 17, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: 17.
11 MR. WUBBEN: Under 4, Your Honours, photocopies, the third line
13 Q. So you agree that --
14 JUDGE AGIUS: He's basically confirmed what he has already
15 testified on that. He doesn't wish to add any more. That's what he's
16 telling you.
17 MR. WUBBEN:
18 Q. That's why I just as an introduction to my following yes, asked
19 for a yes or no, and if you can confirm that, does the quality of these
20 copies then allow for such a strong conclusion, either positive or
22 A. The quality of photocopies, in what context do you mean? I
23 received documents that had been photocopied several times. I didn't even
24 know how many. They had so many traces of cartridge on them that I
25 believed them to be photocopies of photocopies of photocopies. That's why
1 I cannot judge their quality. I cannot speak in terms of the quality of a
2 photocopy. Depends on the photocopying machine, its quality and
3 resolution, and so on.
4 Q. Professor Bilic, when we discussed the quality of what was visible
5 or not on the signatures, S-5, S-8, S-9, S-11, and 13, when we discussed
6 those, and when you agreed upon differences I pointed out -- correct me,
7 not differences. When I pointed out lacks of what was visible or not,
8 doesn't that mean that you are not allowed to draw such a strong
9 conclusion, positive either or negative?
10 A. I presented my conclusive finding at the level of most probably.
11 It is for the Trial Chamber to assess that.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: But what is being suggested to you is that the poor
13 quality of these photocopies shouldn't have led you to come to that
14 conclusion or that level of conclusion. This is what is being suggested
15 by Mr. Wubben. Do you have an answer to that?
16 Am I right, Mr. Wubben?
17 MR. WUBBEN: Yes, Your Honour.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Because if I'm not interpreting you well, please
19 stop me or correct me.
20 MR. WUBBEN: You're right.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: He's suggesting to you that you should never have
22 come to that sort of conclusion looking at the poor quality of these
23 photocopies. What's your answer to that?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I arrived at that
25 conclusion with great responsibility. When I saw the original contentious
1 documents I did not take the photocopies into consideration any longer.
2 That was my conclusion. I could have placed it as probable but that was
3 the degree of the scale that I used, and I leave it for Their Honours to
4 assess that.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Wubben.
6 MR. WUBBEN:
7 Q. Shouldn't your conclusion, then, rather be not possible to give a
9 JUDGE AGIUS: He's answered that question. I think you better not
10 press it any further because we will be losing time, Mr. Wubben --
11 precious time, I would rather say. He's answered that. He's told you. I
12 mean, I came to that conclusion with all responsibility, that he's
13 assuming or re-assuming.
14 MR. WUBBEN: Thank you, Your Honour. That was my last question.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you so much. Yes, let's give it a number,
16 sheet number 5 will become P622.
17 MR. JONES: Yes, Your Honour, I was wondering if number 3 was
18 given an exhibit number.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: No they were all given exhibit number, sheet number
20 3 is 621. Sheet number 4 is 620. Sheet number 1 is 619.
21 MR. JONES: I'm obliged, Your Honour.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. I don't think I've made a mistake. The
23 Prosecution case manager can correct me. I repeat, 619 is their sheet
24 number 1. 620 is their sheet number 4. 621 is their sheet number 3, and
25 622 is their sheet number 5. In my record. If I have got it wrong, then
1 I apologise.
2 MR. WUBBEN: Confirmed, Your Honour.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Thank you. Re-examination.
4 MR. JONES: Yes, sorry, Your Honour, I was just wondering how long
5 I have.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: You have about -- Judge Eser has got three questions
7 so please try to limit yourself to about ten minutes.
8 MR. JONES: Right. Okay. That will be ample, thank you.
9 Re-examined by Mr. Jones:
10 Q. Professor Bilic I have just a few questions for you and most of
11 them you can answer pretty shortly, I imagine.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: That's a suggestion that you do answer them shortly.
13 MR. JONES: Yes.
14 Q. Now, at the beginning of --
15 A. Thank you.
16 Q. At the beginning of cross-examination you were asked questions
17 about your membership of any international associations et cetera. You'll
18 recall that. I just have two or three questions in that regard. Firstly,
19 have you ever done analysis?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Document and handwriting analysis for international prosecutors in
22 the state court in Bosnia?
23 A. Yes, I have, quite a few.
24 Q. Thank you. You were asked about whether you had passed
25 proficiency examinations and I believe you told us, it's just for
1 confirmation, that in order to be a member of the commission for forensic
2 examination of documents before the war you had to pass an official state
3 examination as an expert; is that correct?
4 A. Yes, that's correct.
5 Q. And as far as you not being a member of any international
6 association is concerned, is it actually possible in Bosnia-Herzegovina,
7 practising in Bosnia-Herzegovina, to be a member of an international
8 association at present?
9 A. At present, no, although I would wish it to be so. We still have
10 difficulties with organisation. So for the time being, no.
11 Q. Right. So it's nothing to do with you as an expert that you're
12 not a member of an international association. That's true of all experts
13 in Bosnia-Herzegovina, correct?
14 A. That's right. Not even here in the Netherlands or in England or
15 in Belgium, not all of them are members. This isn't defined that far. It
16 is up to a person to be certified and then you have to have the
17 institution issuing the certificate, whether it's the state court, the
18 Supreme Court or some other institution.
19 Q. Yes. Thank you.
20 Now, you also told us that you wrote instruction manuals on
21 document examination for an institution but I'm not sure if you mentioned
22 the institution. For which institution did you write instruction manuals?
23 A. I wrote them for the purposes of forensic officers, how to obtain
24 these documents or material to be examined, how to properly preserve them,
25 and how to hand them over for analysis. I produced this official manual
1 for the purposes of the police only. I am currently writing a manual for
2 Judges and court staff because they lack basic knowledge from the field.
3 Q. Thank you. And I will ask you to keep your answers as short as
4 possible because we want to finish very shortly.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.
6 MR. JONES:
7 Q. Would it be correct then when you talk about this manual being for
8 forensic officers, that that was for the Ministry of Interior?
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Answer yes or no, please, Professor Bilic.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
11 MR. JONES:
12 Q. And sorry that this would also require a yes or no answer because
13 you might want to say more, but is the fact that there was a war in
14 Bosnia-Herzegovina, did that have an influence on how much you were able
15 to publish and how much were you able to develop professionally?
16 JUDGE AGIUS: I think he stated that in his answer.
17 MR. JONES: I'll move on then.
18 Q. You don't have to answer that question.
19 A. Yes, that's right.
20 Q. Good. Now, if I can just ask you one thing in your report, if you
21 go to page 5, and it's a reference to non-contentious documents by Hamdija
22 Fejzic, and you recall being asked about this. I just want to ask you
23 about N.3?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. N.3 is a sales contract and it's mentioned there, municipality
1 court in Visoko. Now, is it correct or not that for the Court to certify
2 a document like that, that in fact the person has to appear in court and
3 prove they are who they say they are?
4 A. Yes, yes.
5 Q. Thank you. Now, you were asked -- I'm going to have to refer to
6 the transcript although you may not be able to refer to this but for the
7 rest of us it's page 29, lines 4 to 5. You were being asked about S-2, so
8 that's a contentious sample of Hamed Salihovic. And you were asked by
9 Mr. Wubben, "If you noticed the differences on this sheet number 1, the
10 differences between S-2 and N.6, cannot those differences also fall within
11 the natural variations of signatures from the same originator?" You said
12 yes and then you went on to give an answer which was incomplete. Let me
13 simply ask you this: Is your conclusion still or not that S-2 is probably
14 not written by or signed by Hamed Salihovic?
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Professor Bilic, you're not looking at S-2. You're
16 looking at S.2 but you're referring to S-2 and not --
17 MR. JONES: Yes, S-2.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: The Salihovic signatures. Do we have it?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Excuse me.
20 MR. JONES:
21 Q. Yes.
22 A. Yes, please go ahead, sir.
23 Q. Yes. Now, as far as S-2 is concerned, does your conclusion remain
24 or not that this is probably not the signature of Hamed Salihovic?
25 A. Yes, yes.
1 Q. All right. Thank you.
2 I also want to ask you, you were asked a lot of questions about
3 the natural variation and you explained natural variation within the
4 non-contentious sample. Did you actually -- did you find any natural
5 variation as between the contentious samples and the non-contentious
6 samples for Hamed Salihovic or Hamdija Fejzic or Naser Oric? Did you find
7 differences which could be explained purely by virtue of natural
9 A. In all the non-contentious documents of Hamdija Fejzic, Naser Oric
10 and Hamed Salihovic, in their non-contentious signatures.
11 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction, signatures, not
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There are natural variations. This
14 cannot be said for the contentious documents. That's quite a different
16 MR. JONES: I think that's clear.
17 Q. In fact, a number of -- you've been asked to look at a number of
18 features in these different signatures during the course of
19 cross-examination. Has what's been shown to you, asked of you, has that
20 caused you to change any of your conclusions at all as stated in your
22 A. By no means. I absolutely abide by the conclusions I provided on
23 page 36.
24 Q. All right. Thank you. I just have one last question, I believe.
25 I'll refer us all to page 54, lines 12 to 13 of the transcript.
1 I'll read it for you Professor Bilic, and it refers to the signatures of
2 Hamdija Fejzic. And you said, and this is perhaps a general remark, you
3 said, "And then you can observe in the initial stroke here and here that
4 there is variation. It depends on how this initial stroke was started."
5 I want to ask you something about that, about how someone starts a stroke.
6 Now, as far as Hamdija Fejzic is concerned, did you in fact see how he
7 started his stroke and how he performed his signature physically because
8 he did it in front of you?
9 A. Yes. I did see that, and it was extremely important to me. You
10 have observed this very well, yes. I did pay attention to that when he
11 was writing in front of me.
12 Q. Thank you.
13 MR. JONES: No further questions.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, Mr. Jones. Judge Brydensholt hasn't
15 got any questions. Judge Eser?
16 Questioned by the Court:
17 JUDGE ESER: Just a question that came up since you have been
18 asked with regard to membership of national organisations and other
19 organisations, because you gave a very global statement when you told us
20 that you were no member of an international organisation or association,
21 did you only have official organisations in mind or did it also apply to
22 any private societies or organisations or associations?
23 A. I was referring to official associations and organisations. In my
24 country, we have two professional associations. In Republika Srpska and
25 in the federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. I'm a member of both. But
1 we don't have anything else yet. I would like to be a member of an
2 international organisation, but I don't know how. I have a lot of
3 knowledge and experience and I would like to cooperate with colleagues
4 from other countries in my field of expertise.
5 There are associations of private experts in Great Britain and the
6 USA. Depends on the country. Differs from country to country. I haven't
7 gone into how they register themselves or -- but I --
8 JUDGE AGIUS: I think that's clear enough.
9 JUDGE ESER: My main question I have is the following: When it
10 comes to the non-contentious documents with regard to Hamed Salihovic, you
11 had listed on pages 3, 4, in total, 14 documents, but if I look to the
12 map, which is on pages -- what is it? Page 26 to 28, I only find seven
13 signatures of non-contentious signatures. Is there a reason why you only
14 gave seven signatures out of 14, which -- documents which are listed?
15 A. Thank you, Your Honour. I will respond. Had I put there all 14
16 signatures there, it would have been overcrowded, so I made a selection.
17 Had I included more signatures, it would have been perhaps overcrowded. I
18 simply selected at random from the entire map these signatures. This does
19 not mean I did not analyse the other signatures, but to make the map
20 easier to look at and understand, I didn't include them all in it. I
21 chose these at random. And I think I have the right to do that as an
23 JUDGE ESER: When it comes to Hamdija Fejzic, you listed there 12
24 documents -- I mean four and five with different signatures, and I only
25 find three documents that are listed. Is there a reason? Would it be a
1 problem of overcrowding, I guess?
2 A. The principle was the same. There are only three contentious
3 ones. I would have had to reduce them in size, but the principle of
4 selection was the same. All the non-contentious signatures were looked at
5 and I put these in the map for purposes of illustration. The map is not
6 meant to include every signature that was looked at. This is a selection
7 which, in my view, helps one to visualise and observe what is relevant and
8 on the basis of what the conclusions were made. That's my method of work.
9 Sometimes you can have more than 50 non-contentious documents but if all
10 of them were included in a map it would be overcrowded. The purpose of
11 the map -- I think I've tried to explain it.
12 JUDGE ESER: Okay. Now if you would like me to ask you to compare
13 the signatures of Naser Oric and the signatures of Hamed Salihovic, and
14 from a visual appearance, from a visual appearance, would you agree that
15 the differences with regard to Naser Oric's signatures are not as great as
16 the differences with regard to the Salihovic signatures? If you look at
17 them at first appearances with regard to Salihovic, the differences appear
18 a little greater than with regard to Naser Oric? Is that a correct
19 impression of mine?
20 A. That is a correct impression, Your Honour, and you have this
21 impression because the contentious signature has more strokes. It appears
22 larger. It creates more of an effect, as compared to the writing in the
23 contentious signatures of Naser Oric, which visually appear shorter, with
24 fewer strokes. Your impression is correct and this shows that you have
25 noticed what I wanted you to notice.
1 JUDGE ESER: Thank you.
2 MR. JONES: Your Honour, may I ask a question arising out of the
3 questions asked.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's hear your question.
5 Further examination by Mr. Jones:
6 MR. JONES: It's only one question.
7 Q. His Honour Judge Eser was asking a moment ago about impressions,
8 about his impression that there was a greater difference in the Oric
9 signatures and you said "Yes, visually there is that appearance because
10 there are fewer strokes." In fact, is there a greater real difference
11 between the Oric contentious signatures and the non-contentious than
12 between the Salihovic ones or a lesser difference? Can you just comment
13 on that, please?
14 A. Yes, I will comment on it. There is a far greater difference
15 between the contentious signatures of Oric than in the case of the
16 contentious signatures of Hamdija Fejzic. One can see that by simple
17 visual observation of the maps. His Honour Judge Eser has pointed that
19 JUDGE AGIUS: He mentioned Fejzic but I think it was Salihovic.
20 JUDGE ESER: Salihovic, yes.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Are you referring to Fejzic or
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Salihovic.
24 JUDGE ESER: I wanted to compare Salihovic and Oric.
25 MR. JONES: I can put the question one last time. I can make it
1 nice and clear.
2 Q. Is there actually any greater difference between the contentious
3 Salihovic signatures and the non-contentious Salihovic signatures than
4 there is between the non-contentious Oric and the contentious Oric
5 signatures? That's the question?
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Jones, you are limited only to the visual
7 aspect, because that was Judge Eser's -- Judge Eser was limiting himself
8 to the visual appearance.
9 MR. JONES: Yes, I'm concerned whether the visual appearance
10 actually amounts to a real difference in expert terms.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Of course not.
12 JUDGE ESER: That was not my question.
13 MR. JONES: Right.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: Never entertained that.
15 MR. JONES: As long as that is understood.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Thank you.
17 Professor Bilic, I can't tell you how happy I am that we've made
18 it in time to send you back home and not keep you here waiting any
20 I think I need to thank you, Mr. Wubben, first and foremost for
21 having cooperated so much today but, of course, also to the Defence team.
22 Together we have been able to manage this.
23 You will receive all the assistance you require, Professor Bilic,
24 to facilitate your return back home, and our usher will accompany you
25 out -- escort you out of the courtroom. On behalf of Judge Brydensholt,
1 Judge Eser, myself, and also on behalf of the Tribunal, I wish to thank
2 you for having come over, and last but not least wish you a safe journey
3 back home.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: So before we wind up, in -- during the sitting, I
6 sent a message to the Defence to more or less get a feedback as to whether
7 definitively we will be hearing the evidence of Colonel whatever his name
8 is, I know his name but I prefer not to mention it. Yes, I know it. I'm
9 avoiding mentioning it. On Wednesday, as suggested. The idea that I get
10 back from the Defence is that they will be able to confirm later on,
11 possibly tomorrow. But that the indications are still there.
12 MR. JONES: Yes, there are knows indications and we will
13 communicate with your legal officer tomorrow.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. In the meantime I have signed also, before
15 coming in for the second session, the Mauzer thing, the Mauzer motion, in
16 line with your prior statement and making it operative until Monday. In
17 other words, you're expected to deliver. And we will, of course, be
18 working on the rest this weekend, anxiously waiting for the various
19 responses due Tuesday. All right? Thank you.
20 I wish you all a happy weekend. And I understand you will be
21 going to Berlin to authenticate the signature.
22 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honour.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. So that is being taken care of as well.
24 Thank you.
25 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 6.20 p.m., to
1 be reconvened on Wednesday, the 1st day of February,
2 2006, at 9.00 a.m.