1 Wednesday, 1 March 2006

2 [Open session]

3 --- Upon commencing at 9.08 a.m.

4 [The accused entered court]

5 JUDGE AGIUS: Good morning, Madam Registrar. Could you please

6 call the case.

7 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is case number

8 IT-03-68-T, the Prosecutor versus Naser Oric.

9 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you and good morning to you.

10 Mr. Oric, can you follow the proceedings in your own language?

11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours, ladies

12 and gentlemen. Yes, I can follow the proceedings in my own language.

13 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. You may sit down. And good morning to

14 you, too.

15 Appearances for the Prosecution?

16 MR. WUBBEN: Good morning, Your Honours. My name is Jan Wubben,

17 lead counsel for the Prosecution. I'm here together with Gramsci

18 di Fazio, attorney, and Dr. Fagel, the expert for the Prosecution

19 consulting us; also our case manager, Mrs. Donnica Henry-Frijlink.

20 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, Mr. Wubben, and good morning to you and

21 your team. And to you, Mr. Fagel.

22 Appearances for Naser Oric?

23 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours. Good

24 morning to the learned friends from the OTP. My name is Vasvija Vidovic.

25 Together with Mr. John Jones, I appear for Mr. Naser Oric. We have with

1 us this morning our legal assistant, Ms. Jasmina Cosic, our CaseMap

2 manager, Mr. Geoff Roberts, and our Defence expert, Mr. Bilic.

3 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, Madam Vidovic. And good morning to you

4 and your team. And to you, Mr. Bilic.

5 So any preliminaries? Yes, Mr. Wubben.

6 MR. WUBBEN: Very short, Your Honours. This morning, the expert

7 of the Prosecution, Mr. Fagel, by accident met Dr. Kerzan in the lobby.

8 They shook hands and as meeting each other and greeted each other and

9 exchanged some words.

10 JUDGE AGIUS: Exchanged some words? What do you mean?

11 MR. WUBBEN: I wasn't present at that meeting. I understood that

12 it was short, and Dr. Kerzan expressed that he was surprised that the

13 Prosecution had now -- had no questions, and the response by our expert

14 was apparently, "You did well." Then Dr. Kerzan expressed, "Well, we

15 should meet soon. That would be nice." Something like that. I'm not a

16 witness, Your Honour. And then our expert told," Well, better not," and

17 that was the end.

18 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Mr. Wubben.

19 Ms. Vidovic, are you interested in hearing more about this?

20 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour. That's quite

21 enough. Thank you.

22 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. All right. So thank you for the information,

23 for the loyalty, Mr. Wubben, and Mr. Fagel.

24 Let's bring the witness in. Any preliminaries on your side?

25 Okay. Thank you.

1 MR. WUBBEN: Your Honour, is it possible that before the cleanup

2 session, that there is a short break because Ms. Patricia Sellers would

3 like to join us.

4 JUDGE AGIUS: Exactly. And we need a short break ourselves any

5 way. Thank you.

6 But let's try and finish as early as we can today because I have

7 an emergency at home, so ...

8 [The witness entered court]

9 WITNESS: DORIJAN KERZAN [Resumed]

10 [Witness answered through interpreter]

11 JUDGE AGIUS: Good morning to you, Dr. Kerzan. We are proceeding

12 with your testimony this morning and hopefully finish. May I just remind

13 you you are testifying in terms of or pursuant to the solemn declaration

14 that you made yesterday, which you don't need to repeat today. Mr. Jones

15 will be proceeding with his questions.

16 Mr. Jones.

17 MR. JONES: Thank you, Your Honour.

18 Cross-examination by Mr. Jones: [Continued]

19 Q. And good morning, Dr. Kerzan. I hope your cold is better this

20 morning.

21 A. It's quite better, thank you very much. And good morning to you

22 too.

23 Q. I'm going to start taking us right back to a passage in Ellen.

24 I'm not sure if you have that with you. It's page 61. And the heading is

25 "clarity of expression." And it's the first paragraph.

1 And I'll just read that: "When expressing any qualified

2 conclusion it will be apparent that more than one possibility is allowed

3 for, although one is more likely than the other or others. It will make

4 the report more clear to those for whom it is written if these are spelt

5 out and the greater probability of one rather than the others is stated.

6 For instance, if the conclusion that there is a high probability that the

7 writings are by one person, the converse is that coincidental match cannot

8 be ruled out but is nevertheless very unlikely. This should be referred

9 to in the interests of clarity in the report."

10 Firstly, do you agree with what's written there?

11 A. Yes, I do agree with that.

12 Q. Now, in your report, you don't express the converse possibilities,

13 do you? For example, the P13, when you found that that was probably the

14 author of the reference in questioned signatures being the same person,

15 you didn't say that possibly they were not the same person.

16 A. Yes, I did not write that the opposite possibility because I

17 believe it goes -- that goes without saying. If you go with probability,

18 it is not -- there is always another possibility. That's why I did not.

19 It's an omission which is I don't think very important, but if you think

20 so it's probably -- I probably should have done that, as you say.

21 Q. It's to make this point really: That you did not leave unspoken

22 the possibilities that did exist that the reference and questioned

23 signatures were not by the same person. Even though those possibilities

24 exist, you didn't state them in your report?

25 A. Can we refer to the document number, just a second. P14 and P37

1 which I decided inconclusive. I explained yesterday why I decided that I

2 cannot do -- be -- really be certain. But within that positioning,

3 inclusive, I believe it is also -- it is also understood that possibility

4 exists. I believe so. I might be wrong, but I believe this exists,

5 particularly in the case of P14.

6 Q. The possibility, in other words, that the author is not the same?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Right.

9 A. But I cannot say anything about that. I do think it's

10 inconclusive. But a possibility, certainly it is a possibility.

11 Q. Thanks. We are going to come to that. For now I'll ask you to

12 point to some features of the reference samples, and so it would help

13 actually if you would put some pages of your report on the ELMO and then

14 use the pointer as well, which you should have. And I'm going to suggest

15 to you that there are some consistent and distinct features in the

16 reference samples and see if you agree.

17 Let's start with image 4, which is page 19 of your report. And

18 for the record, this is 02066403.

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. I'm going to suggest seven or so features which I suggest are in

21 this sample.

22 Now, the first is that the R is not connected to the O. And

23 perhaps you can point to that with a pointer and confirm that for us.

24 A. You mean R and O, that they are not connected?

25 Q. Yes.

1 A. Yes, I agree with that.

2 Q. There is a space between there.

3 A. Yes, here.

4 Q. Yes, thank you. Second, I suggest that the horizontal tapers at

5 the end?

6 A. Could you -- I did not understand you.

7 Q. The horizontal.

8 A. Yes, I don't have what you say on the --

9 Q. All right. Okay. The horizontal line tapers towards the end.

10 A. You mean it is getting lighter?

11 Q. Yes.

12 A. Yes, I agree with that.

13 Q. And now in the "ch" there is a dip or a kink or I'm not sure how

14 you would describe that, but I think you even pointed that out yesterday.

15 And perhaps you could point to that now, the bottom part of the "ch"?

16 A. Do you mean this one?

17 Q. Yes, the way it goes in, there is a kink; do you agree?

18 A. Kink?

19 Q. Or a - what's a better way to put it? - a dip. You see, it's not

20 fully rounded. It goes in. If you could put your pen there, we'll all

21 see. On the "ch," the bottom part of the "ch," roughly where arrow 7 is.

22 A. You mean that there is some --

23 Q. It's out of focus now. It goes in, the "ch." As it comes around,

24 it then dips inward towards the horizontal. Correct?

25 A. I don't really know what you're pointing at.

1 Q. Can you put your pen on the --

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Right. Now move it a little to the left --

4 A. You mean here?

5 Q. No, left. There. You see where it goes in.

6 A. It is within this loop, you mean.

7 Q. The loop goes like that.

8 A. It's not a loop. It's the ending of the e-u-e [phoen].

9 Q. Okay. That point, anyway, where you're pointing to.

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. That's a distinctive feature; correct?

12 A. This is quite a distinctive feature, yes.

13 Q. All right. And -- well, how would you refer to that so that we

14 can refer to it easily later, that feature?

15 A. This is not easy to say that in English.

16 Q. I'll call that a kink in the "ch," so we'll know what I mean.

17 Now also is there not - and I think you referred to this

18 yesterday - a deep penetrating closing stroke on the O which is almost

19 like a third vertical? I think you mentioned that yesterday.

20 A. That's here.

21 Q. Yeah. In fact, we can see it better on image 5 and 6 on the next

22 page even. Yes, you see it comes --

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Comes right in and it's almost like a third vertical?

25 A. And the same goes for the next --

1 Q. Yes. There is no full stop, we can agree on that, in any of the

2 reference samples. Would you agree that the, what we were calling

3 garland, the wavy bits --

4 A. Mm-hmm.

5 Q. -- are not in the nature of zigzag. They are more in the nature

6 of garlands. Would you agree with that, it's a garlanded style?

7 A. In this particular -- they differ a little bit from one to the

8 other. But I don't know what you mean by "garland." You mean what was

9 translated as a wave-like --

10 Q. Yes, Wave-like rather than zigzag.

11 JUDGE AGIUS: I think we went through this yesterday.

12 MR. JONES:

13 Q. You don't need to agree on that if you don't agree --

14 A. I don't really know what you're trying to say.

15 Q. We'll leave that feature. We've identified four or five already.

16 Do you agree that the O in all the reference samples more ellipsoid and

17 large rather than circular?

18 A. Yes. Rather than ellipsoid, yes.

19 Q. All right. And certainly it's never written "Naser Oric," is it?

20 It's only ever a surname? You don't have, as we had in one of the

21 questioned samples, two names?

22 A. Yes. As I referred to theses signatures yesterday, you can

23 clearly see that N is within the O which is a beautiful handwriting

24 feature.

25 Q. So are agreed, then, and we can go through the other images of the

1 sample signatures, but there are four or five characteristics there which

2 are in all of them. The R is not connected to the O, and you can see that

3 on images -- clearly on images 5 --

4 A. Five --

5 Q. Yes. You go to images 5 and 6, page 20.

6 A. But it's almost connected on image 1.

7 Q. It's page 20, images 5 and 6. If you could put that on the ELMO,

8 that would be helpful.

9 That again the R and the O is not connected. The tapering

10 horizontal. There is the dip in the "ch," and there is a deep penetrating

11 closing stroke on the O, and the O is ellipsoid. All the same features we

12 saw in the last reference sample; correct?

13 A. Can I have the wording on the screen too?

14 JUDGE AGIUS: Basically means we need to zoom out a little bit.

15 THE WITNESS: No, no, no. I don't have what is written --

16 JUDGE AGIUS: Oh, the transcript?

17 THE WITNESS: The transcript, yes. I would like to have both, if

18 possible.

19 JUDGE AGIUS: It's not possible in your case.

20 THE WITNESS: Okay.

21 MR. JONES:

22 Q. I can take it just one at a time then.

23 A. Yesterday I had it. That's why I --

24 JUDGE AGIUS: What does he have in the big monitor, in the -- was

25 it off yesterday as well or not?

1 THE WITNESS: No. I can have something -- it's easier if I can

2 re-read the question and ...

3 JUDGE AGIUS: Is it okay now?

4 THE WITNESS: Yes. Thank you very much.

5 MR. JONES:

6 Q. Right. And now just to check that this image is not the one we

7 just saw. Is this image 4 that we have?

8 A. This one is image 5.

9 Q. Image 5. That's also fine.

10 A. This is image -- let me see which one is that. Okay, no. Yeah,

11 sorry. Reference signature 405, so image is number 6.

12 Q. Six, okay. So taking six, which is a different one from the one

13 we looked at, again, aren't all the features there that we can do them

14 quickly but one by one, R is not connected to the O?

15 A. Just a second, please. You said six features.

16 Q. Well, we'll take them one by one. I think there -- you didn't

17 agree with garlands, so we can say seven features. And I'll count them

18 for you. Firstly, R not connected to the O; correct?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Secondly, tapering horizontal?

21 A. Mm-hmm.

22 Q. Do you agree?

23 A. Mm-hmm, yes.

24 Q. What I was calling the kink in the "ch." Do you agree that's

25 there?

1 A. Just a second. I would like to add here again. It is not a kink

2 in the "ch." It is the ending of the E.

3 Q. Okay. So we will call it the ending of the -- a kink in the

4 ending of the E?

5 A. It's not a kink. It's the ending of the letter.

6 Q. Okay.

7 A. It's not something particularly -- which has nothing to do with

8 the letter.

9 Q. Right. It's not present in any of the reference -- in the

10 questioned signatures, that's my point, and we'll come to that.

11 A. Yes, I know.

12 Q. And that's why I need to refer to it somehow. The ending of the

13 E. I suppose that's the ending of the I?

14 A. I, yes. Sorry, it's my English.

15 Q. That's fine. That feature, deep penetrating closing stroke on

16 the O, can you agree?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. No full stop?

19 A. No full stop. Could you please explain that? I didn't --.

20 Q. In the reference samples yesterday, we saw that there was a

21 punctuation mark at the end of some of the signatures as they had been

22 written with a full stop?

23 A. You mean the dot at the end of it?

24 Q. Yes.

25 A. Yes, okay.

1 Q. And the O is ellipsoid and rather large; correct? That's a

2 feature which is present?

3 A. Yes, I would --

4 Q. Now, I suggest to you that those features are present in all of

5 the reference signatures, and rather than going through them all, if you

6 disagree, then let me know. Certainly we can look image 7 and 8. I

7 suggest that the same features are there: R is not connected to the O,

8 tapering horizontal --

9 A. May I?

10 Q. Yes.

11 A. If we go -- if we start with image 1, you will see that the thing

12 you call kink in "ch" is not present on this reference material. If you

13 agree. If you don't, then --

14 Q. Point to it.

15 A. Yes, of course. You may see that this kink, as you called it, or

16 whatever it is outside of this loop on the "ch." Do you agree with that?

17 Q. Yes. Okay. We'll agree on that for image one. Do you agree --

18 If you keep the image there for a moment, image one.

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. You agree, don't you, that the other features are there. In fact,

21 if you look very closely, the R is not connected to the O. It's very near

22 but it's not actually connected?

23 A. No, it's not connected. It starts over here lightly and then goes

24 down.

25 Q. Right. And there is a tapering horizontal?

1 A. May I just have a note here? Thank you.

2 Q. All right. Okay. I'm not going to go through all the reference

3 signatures unless we really need to. I want to move on to the questioned

4 samples, but of course we'll bear in mind those features which we've just

5 looked at.

6 Now, I'm going to -- I'm more interested in those documents where

7 you gave an opinion, but I do need to start, nonetheless, with P3?

8 A. Just a second, please.

9 Q. P3 is -- it's the image on page 22, image 9. Now, here you said

10 that -- well, you reached the conclusion of inconclusive, if one can put

11 it that way. And your explanation of inconclusive is in your report at

12 page 6: "Similarities, identical handwriting features and differences

13 between the questioned and referenced material occur with the same

14 frequency, which makes it impossible to either confirm or disprove whether

15 or not the questioned and reference signatures can be assumed to have been

16 written by the same person."

17 And, in fact, you also explain on page 5 of your report. In

18 English it's about ten lines down: "In cases where the handwriting

19 signature is found to contain the same level of identical and

20 differentiating features, it is impossible to prove whether the questioned

21 and reference handwriting signature materials are identical or not."

22 I suggest there you're talking again about your inconclusive

23 result, where you have the same numbers of similar and different features.

24 Do you agree that's what "inconclusive" means in your report?

25 A. Yes, that's one of the definitions on that.

1 Q. All right. So, in fact, in P3 when you say "inconclusive," in

2 fact what you found is as many similarities as differences to the

3 reference samples, did you not?

4 A. No. I did explained yesterday that the inconclusive in this case,

5 I decided to go to inconclusive because of the fact that this particular

6 questioned signature is a photocopy of the very bad quality, and I could

7 not see the characteristics of this -- of the signature. That was the

8 reason for inconclusive.

9 Q. Well, I'm going to come to that in a second. But doesn't that

10 mean, first of all, that your report is incomplete because your definition

11 of inconclusive doesn't provide that as a possible reason for using that

12 conclusion?

13 A. I wouldn't say incomplete, but I could have clarified this

14 matter. The matter of impossibility of actual examination. I did not

15 explain that.

16 Q. Surely, you've done tens of analyses of handwriting and signature

17 samples, and presumably you're using the same scale each time, using the

18 same working template. So is this -- this incomplete explanation, is this

19 in all the reports which you do on handwriting, or is this something which

20 has just occurred in this case?

21 A. No. This is the scale of conclusions I always use. I do not

22 change it a lot. I mean, there can be some small differences but not --

23 no. But you have to realise that in this particular case I take a look at

24 those, and usually I decline to do photocopies anyway. Photocopies are

25 not material, in my opinion, for an expert to be used for handwriting or

1 signature examination.

2 Q. All right. Well, let's look at your explanation for why you've

3 come to the inconclusive result. You say: "Since the copy is of poor

4 quality and the signature is to a large extent covered, it is my

5 conclusion that no assumption" -- and I'm afraid we do have the word, at

6 least in English, "assumption" there, "no assumption can be made

7 concerning the identity of the signature."

8 Now, I put it to you that that is not the explanation for --

9 A. Can I see my originals, please?

10 Q. Yes.

11 THE INTERPRETER: Could the speakers please break between question

12 and answer.

13 MR. JONES: Yes. We'll do that.

14 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.

15 MR. JONES:

16 Q. I was quoting from the --

17 A. Yes, I know.

18 Q. -- penultimate sentence.

19 A. I was going to your "assumption" word. In the original there is

20 no "assumption." It's a little bit of the problem with translation. I

21 didn't notice before. If I can give you a direct translation from

22 Slovenian, if you agree. I have this in the ultimate version. It's a

23 little bit different.

24 Q. Certainly, go ahead.

25 A. "The signature has also been copied," it says here, and I quote

1 now, I'm trying to do a translation. "Part of the questioned signature is

2 covered by the stamp impression, so only relatively small part is -- can

3 be seen. As the photocopy is a bad quality, and because the signature

4 is -- is covered, I think -- I think that the examination is not possible

5 and that authorship of this signature cannot be either -- neither proved

6 either" -- just a second. "Cannot be" -- "the authorship of this

7 signature cannot be established. Thank you very much." That's what I

8 said. There is no "assumption" in my report.

9 Q. Okay. That's fine. My comment is this: Firstly, yes, this is a

10 photocopy, but you've analysed copies before, haven't you? For example,

11 in Brdjanin, you've analysed copies and given conclusions?

12 A. Yes, but this was not an expert opinion. There was just a

13 guide-lines for the -- for the -- for the -- this -- yes, for the --

14 not --

15 Q. Don't worry about the Brdjanin report. That's less important than

16 this, really.

17 Yes, the poor quality consists of flecks of toner which we can

18 see. But I suggest that that doesn't impede analysis. You can see the O;

19 you can see it's more circular than the ellipsoid Os in the reference

20 sample. You can see that there is no closing stroke on the O. You can

21 see there's no -- what I was referring to as the kink in the I; you can

22 see that's not there. In fact, there are features which you could have

23 analysed and reached conclusions about. Do you accept that?

24 A. There are some features which one can see but I may -- I may very

25 much disagree with your findings on this one. Because, I mean, defining

1 ellipsoid, or round, is a difficult thing to do, and I don't see here a

2 big difference. And if we go into an analysing, but I don't want to go,

3 you could see that I think the penetration here in -- within the O is

4 quite deep. It just doesn't cover the left but the right line, so it's --

5 but, again, it's a photocopy. This is what I -- this is an assumption. I

6 can just -- well, it's guessing. That's why I did not want -- did not

7 want to go further with this examination at this time.

8 Q. All right. My point, though, is that you certainly could analyse

9 those features and you could measure angles as well, could you not?

10 A. I disagree with you. I cannot do a proper examination of this --

11 this signature.

12 Q. Okay. We can move on to P4. And that's image 10. Let's have a

13 look at P4, image 10, which is on the same page.

14 Now, here, your opinion is that the questioned and reference

15 signatures are written by the same person?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. And therefore, or because, rather, the conclusions strongly

18 support that assumption.

19 Now I want to ask you first a question, we discussed this

20 yesterday, that your practice of adding your opinion to this finding of --

21 the "strongly supports" finding is not recommended by ENFHEX. So which

22 part, in fact, should we pay attention to when we look at your analysis?

23 Should we look at "strongly supports" or should we look at your opinion,

24 or do they mean the same thing to you?

25 A. Again, I explained yesterday, the opinion consists of two things:

1 One are the findings; and then at the end of it, I give my opinion, which

2 is a subjective opinion, what we clarify yesterday. And this is the part

3 from -- going from, "Therefore, it is my opinion."

4 I would say that the main -- or the conclusion to strongly support

5 the assumption or the proposition would be right or ... so it's -- it is

6 just the -- in my point, not in yours. You yesterday put it that it is

7 illogical. But from my point of view it's that if I find filings that

8 strongly support, I can give the opinion that this is so. This is just my

9 adding of -- to clarify questions of the -- of the -- of the -- that were

10 put to me.

11 The reason for that, if I may finish that -- excuse me. The

12 reason for that is that the expert -- I could have made this definition so

13 odd nobody could understand it. I put that at the end of it just to

14 clarify things. So I don't think it's necessary to go into that each

15 time. I mean, I hope it's understandable now. I -- it's the second time

16 I'm trying to explain that.

17 Q. Certainly.

18 A. But I will do it again, if necessary.

19 Q. Certainly, no. There's -- I'll leave a pause.

20 There is no need to labour the point. It's simply this, really:

21 This Trial Chamber and us, we have to try to assess your findings.

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. And we have this phrase "strongly supports" which, of course, one

24 could contrast with weakly supports or doesn't support at all, something

25 which means something in layman's terms. And so it's really just to have

1 this confirmation from you that we can take those words strongly supports

2 the proposition and take that from your report and focus on that. That

3 means the same thing or it's detachable from your final opinion. Would

4 that be fair to say?

5 A. Yes, I think so.

6 Q. Now, when we come to this signature, you say the sole difference

7 is this full stop at the end, and you explained that by virtue of the

8 nine-year gap. Now before I proceed to that explanation, adding a full

9 stop is not insignificant, is it? It's an extra gesture and an extra

10 stroke. It's something which we can visualise quite clearly, someone

11 signing --

12 A. I know what you mean.

13 Q. -- and then [indiscernible] the spot. It's significant, is it

14 not, and rare?

15 A. I cannot -- I cannot say it's rare. It can be significant; I

16 agree with you.

17 Q. Now, have you --

18 A. But if I may -- if I may explain this dot a little more, if I

19 can? You just can't take one sample and another sample. You have to take

20 a look at all the samples. If one has a dot and the other has not a dot,

21 it means that this feature is not consistent through all of that. Do you

22 agree with that? So ...

23 Q. We see this in several questioned signatures.

24 A. Yes, I agree.

25 Q. Now, have you ever come across in the literature or in your own

1 practice someone punctuating their signature and then ceasing to do so due

2 to a lapse of time? Have you ever actually come across that or is that

3 just a hypothesis?

4 A. Well, the lapse of time has not a lot to do with that. But, yes,

5 the signatures do change and the features do change and the features can

6 be -- somebody can cease to use certain feature or somebody can add new

7 features to his signature. It's quite common, not necessary.

8 Q. Sure. Now, if you had reference samples from 1992 with no full

9 stop, you'd revise your explanation, wouldn't you? You would be more

10 sceptical about whether this was the same author?

11 A. Well, this is -- this is -- this is a hypothetical questions. I

12 don't know, because I didn't see those from 1992. If you can provide it

13 to me, I can give you an answer. Otherwise, it's difficult to answer.

14 It's clearly hypothetical questions -- question.

15 Q. Yes, it is hypothetical. But sometimes experts can answer

16 hypotheticals.

17 A. I know. It is possible, but it is not -- I can't say nothing more

18 than that it's possible, yes.

19 Q. Now, this nine-year gap between the reference samples and the

20 questioned samples is in fact a hindrance to analysis, isn't it? It's not

21 a tool which helps your analysis. Would you accept that?

22 A. Hindrance meaning limitation? Okay. Yes, it can be. There is no

23 rule what limitation is or what limitation is not. So I cannot say

24 conclusively it is a limitation, but it can be a limitation always.

25 Q. And here you've turned that limitation, have you not, into an

1 explanatory tool; namely, that the full stop disappears due to the passage

2 of nine years. So what was a hindrance or an obstacle now helps your

3 analysis; is that correct?

4 A. Should say helps not hems; is it right?

5 Q. Yes.

6 A. I wouldn't say I used an explanatory tool. It -- I pointed to

7 that possibility because the -- this is the -- the -- the feature I didn't

8 find on the -- on the reference samples. But as I said before, I believe

9 it's a small feature, and if one small feature is not there, I -- this

10 particular feature, I presumed it is the matter of this time lapse. Of

11 course, I cannot be sure about that because I wasn't there.

12 Q. And you presume that despite the fact that P158, which is also

13 from 1992, has no full stop at the end?

14 A. Yes. Actually, the fact that P158 does not have that full stop or

15 dot at the end shows me that this feature probably is not so prominent as

16 you're trying to point.

17 Q. Well, my suggestion to you on this is that what you should have

18 done to be objective is actually simply record this as a difference rather

19 than trying to find some way to explain it. Perhaps you wouldn't consider

20 it significant but simply record that it is a difference and not search

21 for some explanation. Do you agree that would be more objective?

22 A. But I did that. Are you trying to imply that I didn't point that

23 as a difference? I mean, I did point that as a difference. Your I'm

24 implying that I didn't.

25 Q. You sought an explanation for it?

1 A. Yes. I tried to find an explanation, yes. But anyway, I did note

2 it, I showed it with a different colour on my image, so it's ...

3 Q. Yes. It's arrow 11 on images 10, 14, 15, 16.

4 A. Yes, the other --

5 Q. And my point really is this: Is weren't you focussing on

6 similarities between the reference samples and the questioned samples?

7 Looking for similarities and discounting differences whenever you found

8 them?

9 A. Well, I would hardly agree with you, otherwise I wouldn't --

10 wouldn't decide for inconclusive with a couple of other signatures,

11 like P14, which is clearly inconclusive, or P37. I completely disagree

12 with you.

13 Q. Let's deal with P4. I suggest to you that actually there are many

14 more differences than similarities, and we've looked in the reference

15 samples of -- at six or seven of those. Do you agree here that the R is

16 connected to the O and it's connected in quite a definite way with quite

17 a --

18 A. No, it's not connected. It is not connected. It touches, but

19 it's not connected. It's the other stroke.

20 What you're looking for here is not the -- the pure image of it

21 but you're looking the stroke. You have one stroke which is O. If it

22 would go from O directly as a stroke into the R, then you would have

23 connections, but you don't. The O stops and then it is started again. It

24 can start with the -- with the -- the -- it almost touches here, O, but it

25 doesn't really. It's a bit -- a bit up --

1 Q. My point --

2 A. It's very near.

3 Q. My point is this: In none of the reference samples do we see a

4 stroke going between -- there we go. You can see there is a gap. There

5 is always a gap between the O and the R?

6 A. Yes, but this gap is not -- this gap is hardly bigger than the gap

7 on the P4. And the same goes here -- just a second. Yes.

8 Q. Sorry, we can't actually see -- there we go. Again, a big gap

9 between the O and the R --

10 A. It is a big gap, yes.

11 Q. I put to you, it's always there.

12 A. No, it's not always there. I just -- I'm showing you that it is

13 not.

14 Q. Okay. Well, we may disagree about that.

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. In terms of the horizontal line on this one, P4, it's not tapering

17 but blunt, isn't it? It's completely regular, and it doesn't taper or get

18 any narrower at the end. Do you agree with that?

19 A. Yes, I agree with that. But I do believe this is the -- that is

20 the problem of the writing utensil, as I pointed out yesterday.

21 Q. Well, do you know also what that can indicate, a blunt line? It

22 may mean slow movement and even imitated movement of someone who it

23 actually going along very slowly rather than doing a quick line?

24 A. Yes, it can, I agree.

25 Q. I'd like to refer to page 35 of David Ellen on slowly made --

1 JUDGE AGIUS: Incidentally while you're making use of this David

2 Ellen excerpts or extracts, we forgot to give it a --

3 MR. JONES: Yes, indeed, Your Honour. Thank you.

4 JUDGE AGIUS: -- An exhibit number yesterday. So this will become

5 Defence Exhibit D1023. Thank you.

6 MR. JONES: Thank you, Your Honour.

7 Q. It's this part, the last three lines, under "slowly made

8 simulations."

9 "In trying to produce a careful and slowly made free-hand copy

10 such variations in pressure" - and those are the ones referred to earlier

11 in the passage - "are difficult to reproduce. Because they arise from the

12 speed of natural movement, they cannot be produced when the hand is moving

13 slowly and is consciously controlled to imitate an unfamiliar pattern.

14 Instead, the slowly moving pen is maintained at a more constant pressure

15 on the paper, and the written line is therefore more even in width and its

16 end not tapered but blunt."

17 Do you agree with what's written there?

18 A. Yes, I agree. But you're taking one part of the David Ellen's

19 quote as a sole proposition. You have to read it all over again. You

20 should take it as a whole, and you should also take the signature itself

21 as a whole. The signature --

22 Q. I simply wanted your agreement if you agree to this, and I think

23 you have just agreed to it that's --

24 A. Yeah, I agree. But --

25 Q. -- Tapering line can be indicative of a slowly made --

1 A. But I would like to pay attention to the word "can." It does

2 not -- it doesn't say it does. It says "can." It's a bit of a

3 difference, I think, I believe.

4 Q. Yes. Of course. And did you notice that?

5 A. Yes, I did.

6 Q. That this line was not tapering but blunt?

7 Now, let's look at the I, what I was calling the kink in the I.

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. It certainly doesn't appear in the loop, does it? That's an

10 ellipsoid, regular ellipsoid loop on the "ch"?

11 A. Yes, it doesn't. It is just a moment before it, the ending of

12 the E is -- or I, sorry, I, is just before. It is -- may I point it out,

13 if I can finish it.

14 Q. Yes.

15 A. This is exactly the same, the same, the same movement of the hand

16 as it is present on the -- on the -- on the reference material. It's the

17 same movement. It can move left, right, and if I remember correctly,

18 there is also a reference signature that does not have that, if I can

19 point that out. So it is not necessary, it is not ruled that is so strong

20 to not to have possibility to have doubt.

21 Q. That is different from what is usually found in the reference

22 samples?

23 A. But it does -- it does appear in the reference sample and that is

24 important.

25 Q. Okay. Again, the O here. It's not ellipsoid and large. It's

1 actually much more round than in the reference samples; do you agree?

2 A. That is your definition. I mean, I -- define ellipsoid.

3 Q. Well, in fact --

4 A. This is quite ellipsoid, if you ask me.

5 Q. In fact, you do mathematical measurements. You could, with the

6 diameter you could in fact see, couldn't you, that that is more round than

7 the ellipsoid Os in the reference samples?

8 A. I don't see a significant difference. I didn't see that when I

9 did my examination.

10 Q. Now, let's look at the closing stroke on the O, which you called

11 yesterday a penetrating loop, and today you agreed it's sometimes almost

12 like the third vertical. Here it appears nothing like that?

13 A. On this particular signature, there is nothing like that, yes, I

14 fully agree with you.

15 Q. Right. But I put it to you that there are as many differences in

16 this signature as there are similarities and that you've picked the

17 similarities and you've ignored the differences?

18 A. No. I disagree with you.

19 Q. For the rest of this document, have you -- did you look at it for

20 signs of tampering in accordance with the third part of your mandate?

21 A. I must admit that I was very much preoccupied with the

22 handwriting, and I don't know which document that is. I do believe that I

23 didn't find any significant tampering with the document. But this is a

24 document which has I think this -- this covering --

25 Q. No. This has different changes. May I put it to you firstly,

1 just as a general matter, let's imagine there is a document which says

2 that prisoners or persons should be arrested and someone crosses out

3 "arrested" and puts "killed." That's tampering and it's pretty

4 significant tampering, because it changes the whole meaning?

5 A. Now, are you trying to imply that this happens in this document?

6 Q. I'm getting there. Do you agree with what I just put to you?

7 That that's tampering, if you change a word and change the meaning of a

8 document?

9 A. Yes. If you change the meaning of the document, it would be --

10 well, it would -- define tampering, first of all. Well, if I write the

11 document and I change it, did I tamper myself with the document? It is

12 tampering in this way. But if there is an error which is corrected, is

13 that tampering? I don't know. It's legal -- it's a legal thing here. So

14 it's --

15 Q. Let me take this one point at a time. Exactly. You have to know

16 what was written behind, and you don't know, do you, and leave aside this

17 document, the ones where there had been Tipex and changing. You don't

18 know what was written beforehand, so you can't say whether or not there

19 was tampering?

20 A. Can I just take a look at my copies, please? Because I don't know

21 which document you're referring to.

22 Q. We can stick with this document, P4.

23 A. Yes, I want to take my copy out just to take look at which one is

24 different.

25 A. What is your suggestion that it was tampered with here?

1 Q. Well, here look at 10. There is obviously something, [B/C/S

2 spoken], [B/C/S spoken] in ten has been typed over something which was

3 there before.

4 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Which image -- pardon?

5 MR. JONES: Yes, we were on P4.

6 JUDGE AGIUS: P4, yeah, that's what we have. But the image

7 number.

8 THE WITNESS: I don't have an image of that feature.

9 MR. JONES: We have to look at the document itself.

10 JUDGE AGIUS: I see. All right. Okay. Okay.

11 MR. JONES:

12 Q. Do you have the full document --

13 A. I just have photocopy.

14 Q. Just for example there, you can see [B/C/S spoken] has been added,

15 and you can see under Roman numeral II where it says [B/C/S spoken]. That

16 appears to have been typed over?

17 A. This is not a good photocopy. I don't see that, but I will take

18 it that you probably are right. It's --

19 MR. JONES: Your Honours, I will come back to this point with the

20 Skelani document. I think that's -- probably better illustrates it.

21 There is no need for the witness to --

22 JUDGE AGIUS: Up to you. But if the witness wishes to see this P4

23 in it's original form, we can make it available.

24 THE WITNESS: I'm just trying to see which document that is. I

25 cannot perform examination here anyway, so it doesn't make sense to --

1 to --

2 JUDGE AGIUS: No one is expecting you to do that.

3 THE WITNESS: I would like to hear -- to add something within

4 this -- within this -- there is -- I was given relatively short time for

5 this analysis. I usually take -- take me more than a month to do such

6 analysis, so I may have concentrated far more on the -- on those

7 signatures than on the other parts of the document. But still I don't

8 think I -- I -- I did omit a lot in this document. I don't really think

9 so. I didn't find any -- anything that was written before. I didn't find

10 this, as far as I remember.

11 MR. JONES:

12 Q. That's my point really. And it's not a criticism that you had to

13 work in a hurry. But in -- for this document and others, for this one you

14 say: "There is no visible evidence the document has been falsified, i.e.,

15 manipulated," and I'm really wondering what for you would be such a sign,

16 if you have documents where words had been scrubbed out and other words

17 written on top. How can you say that that isn't a sign of manipulation or

18 falsification?

19 A. I haven't seen any torn parts of the paper except for down --

20 what is on the -- on the -- on the lower portion which is actually -- had

21 been burned. Otherwise usually with a typewriter, you can see -- if you

22 want to erase typewriter, you would need some mechanical tool. And with a

23 mechanical tool and such a thin paper, as it was used on this particular

24 document, I believe I should have seen the torn paper fibres which I

25 didn't find. But, again, I -- I may have omitted that, but I don't think

1 so.

2 Q. We'll come back to that in a moment where there is more clear.

3 Now the signature on this document is with a fountain-pen. Do you

4 know what ink was used or what instrument to do the protocol number in the

5 top left-hand corner?

6 A. I think I write that down. Handwritten document number using a

7 ball-point pen, I wrote. But I don't remember the document itself.

8 Q. Sorry, I'm looking under P4 and I'm not seeing that.

9 A. P4, line 3: "The questioned document is a type print which

10 signature and handwritten document number using a ball-point pen."

11 This ball-point pen is referring to handwritten number. It is

12 more clear in the Slovenian version.

13 Q. Yes. Okay. Thank you. I'd like to move on to P13. We are

14 finished with that document. And that's image 11, page 23 on your report.

15 A. Just show P13. Do you agree, it's the right one?

16 Q. Yes. Yes. And one minute, please.

17 Now here you've said it's probably written by the same person, the

18 questioned signature, the same person as the author of the reference

19 samples?

20 A. Just a second, please. Just trying to close so I can see the

21 image.

22 Q. Now again this is from 1992. There is no full stop, but I take it

23 you're saying that to you that was insignificant?

24 A. Well, the fact that it's not full stop, that is consistent with

25 reference signature. Wouldn't that be so? I mean --

1 Q. Are you allowed to draw both conclusions, that that consistency

2 supports your conclusions, whereas for P4, P75, the inconsistency doesn't

3 affect your conclusions at all? Are you being consistent there?

4 A. I don't understand the question, to be honest.

5 Q. Fine, I'll rephrase it. You say, Well, this is -- there is no

6 full stop here, so that -- that's an indication that it's the same author

7 because the reference samples don't have a full stop. But that didn't --

8 the presence of a full stop didn't prevent you with P74, P75, P73 from

9 concluding it's the same person. So are actually using that as an

10 analytical tool or aren't you?

11 A. No. I just -- I'm just -- I'm just not finding this feature.

12 It's -- I don't know what you define as an analytical tool here.

13 Q. Your theory is that the full stop disappeared after nine years.

14 That's when the person -- the person had stopped using the full stop by

15 then. This is from 1992. Surely they should have been using a full stop

16 if they are being consistent with P4, P75 and the others.

17 A. No, I didn't say that. It is a feature that is not consistent

18 in -- also in 1992. That is what I was trying to say. And I actually

19 explained that before, when we discussed this full stop or dot.

20 Q. Okay. For the horizontal, it actually has a strange downward

21 sloping line at the end, doesn't it? We've never seen that before, have

22 we?

23 A. Yeah -- no, you're -- yes, I agree with that. But you have to

24 realise that -- that now you are implying that every single signature

25 would have to have all the same proportions exercised in the same way.

1 That's what you're implying. It can happen with a signature that the line

2 goes a little low, a little high and so on. That's the natural

3 variability of a signature.

4 Q. I understand that. What I'm putting to you is that wherever there

5 are differences you simply say, Well, this is due to the natural

6 variation --

7 A. This is not a difference. You said it's a difference. It is not.

8 Q. Now, here, would you agree that this is possibly not the signature

9 of Naser Oric? Or the signature the -- the author of the reference and

10 questioned signatures --

11 A. You might have noticed I have left place for this interpretation

12 within my -- within my report. I didn't phrase it that way, as you put

13 it, but, yes, I agree with you on that one. But I don't think it's very

14 likely.

15 Q. Okay. Well, on page 11 of your report as you were discussing this

16 document, you refer to "ink-stains that probably result from the use of a

17 poor writing implement."

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. Now, in fact, isn't that a well-known phenomenon of -- known as

20 blobbing or a gloop [sic]? And I can refer to Ellen just to show I'm not

21 inventing these terms. It's on page 12 of Ellen. Ink lines -- and it's

22 the last two sentences. "When a ball-point pen changes direction to form

23 a curve, it may deposit excess ink immediately after making the curve.

24 The positions of these goops in the writing line can indicate the

25 direction of the pen."

1 And then figure two shows these goops. And we can see: "Note: A

2 striation crossing from the inside of the curve to the outside and the

3 goop after the pen has completed the curve."

4 That's, in fact, what we are looking at, isn't it? It's not a

5 bad -- it's not a poor writing implement. It's a well-known phenomenon

6 of blobbing or glooping [sic]?

7 A. Again, you have to -- you have to read all the -- the -- the --

8 this part of his -- of his -- of his -- in his book. Of course, it can --

9 it can be that, but it also can be the matter of the -- of the writing

10 utensil. And I believe, because I -- I was thinking about that when I was

11 analysing that, but one of those is pretty good, is shown on the very

12 beginning of the -- of the line, as you may see here, and that this -- as

13 you say, as it's said here goop, indicates that is a problem of the

14 writing -- of the writing utensil. When the person put the pen on the

15 paper, the excessive ink goes out. So whenever -- and the other goop,

16 which is on the top of the -- of this -- of this -- of O, is on the

17 point -- is in the point -- on the point where the -- because of the

18 nature of the loop, the writing utensil slows down, and then when it slows

19 down again, the excessive deposit of ink can happen. But, again, I say

20 can, or may have. It's not something which is necessary.

21 Q. All right. So you're familiar with the features of writing with a

22 ball-point pen, and I think you told us yesterday that a signature is

23 executed differently with a fountain-pen than with a ball-point pen, in

24 terms of pressure?

25 A. No. You can see because of the pressure, the pressure can be

1 lighter with a fountain-pen. It is the -- the lines are different. The

2 lines are more smooth. They do not -- they do not change when -- when the

3 pressure is lesser -- is lesser. They don't change so much. I think I

4 explained that yesterday.

5 Q. Yes. You agree that there is a difference in the pressure used,

6 just to summarise, or do you not agree?

7 A. The pressure is a bit different, but the pressure is not an

8 absolute thing here. The pressure exercised within the signature changes

9 all the time. One line is stronger, the other is less strong. Using a

10 fountain-pen you don't have to -- to -- to put more pressure -- so much

11 pressure as you use when you use -- when you use a ball-point pen, because

12 the ball-point pen is a different utensil. But, of course, the dynamics

13 of this should exist in -- I mean, exists in all of them, but it also --

14 with a fountain-pen or some other writing utensils, but with a

15 fountain-pen it's not as easy detectable, as a fountain-pen has liquid

16 ink. That's what I was talking about yesterday.

17 Q. Right. Which is just to anticipate, isn't it, you didn't have any

18 reference samples of signatures made with a fountain-pen?

19 A. Yes, unfortunately I didn't have.

20 Q. Shouldn't that have made you more cautious in your conclusions

21 about signatures made with a fountain-pen?

22 A. I think I was very cautious anyway.

23 Q. Let's look at this document, still with P13, about the question of

24 manipulation. Did you not notice that there it was an imprint of the

25 word "Oric" on the document, a concave impression on the document and

1 perhaps -- sorry, please go ahead.

2 A. No, I did not.

3 Q. And perhaps actually the witness should be provided with the

4 original, if that's possible.

5 JUDGE AGIUS: If you could put it on the ELMO.

6 MR. JONES:

7 Q. Yes. If you looked at the left-hand corner -- sorry, the

8 left-hand side, it's sideways to the text?

9 A. Can you point that to me? I don't --

10 Q. Sorry, if we move it back a bit. Now if we stop there. Do you

11 see where --

12 A. Just tell me where.

13 Q. Yes. Do you see [B/C/S spoken], the bottom line?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Now, go down from there and see, a -- what's written

16 perpendicularly, you'll see an O. Yes, there you go. It's right there in

17 Cyrillic. Very faint but --

18 A. There may be something, but to be honest, I don't see --

19 Q. So you didn't see that?

20 A. I-- I --

21 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's do it, because I have examined this document

22 before myself, and I think it will be easier if he holds it in -- if he

23 holds the document in his hands.

24 THE WITNESS: Oh, yes, there is. I agree.

25 JUDGE AGIUS: All right? It doesn't show clearly if you put it on

1 the ELMO, but if you look at it with your naked eye --

2 THE WITNESS: I agree.

3 JUDGE AGIUS: -- you can see.

4 MR. JONES:

5 Q. And you didn't notice that there was a water-mark on that document

6 either, did you, I take it?

7 A. No, I did not.

8 Q. So you never held this document up to the light when you were

9 analysing it?

10 A. Well, actually, I did, but I was looking to the -- the signature.

11 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please speak closer to the

12 microphone?

13 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Usher, can you hear me from here? We --

14 either the witness needs to come forward nearer to the microphones or the

15 other way, we move the microphones nearer to him.

16 THE WITNESS: I'll come closer.

17 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. And, again, please allow a little short

18 pause between question and answer.

19 MR. JONES: Yes.

20 Q. You were working in quite a hurry, were you not?

21 A. Yes. That's why I concentrated because the first question was

22 signatures and on the -- on the hearing on the 2nd of February, I got

23 impression that the signatures are the main -- the main part of this

24 examination. I did very much -- very much concentrate on the signatures,

25 and ...

1 Q. All right. And did you actually even leave time for retesting? A

2 few days to cool off and then go back to your conclusion?

3 A. Yes. To the signatures, yes, I did. I did -- I left the stuff

4 aside completely and then come back to it. I mean, I don't have it with

5 me, but I can give you a complete way I worked. I have that back home.

6 Day by day, even hour by hour, what I -- how I did that, because that's

7 how the notes are taken.

8 Q. Yes. No, believe me, the way -- we believe you 100 per cent so

9 that's not an issue.

10 I'd like to turn to P14 now, which is image 12, and in fact it's

11 on pages 23, 24 and 25.

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. Of course we looked a lot at this document yesterday. You said

14 inconclusive in relation to this document?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. And at the same time you said that it matches only in some

17 features of reference signatures. That's page 12 of your report. But in

18 fact there are quite a few differences, aren't there, from the reference

19 signatures?

20 A. Well, the main difference apart from the fact that this is -- this

21 particular signature is executed with seven strokes, which is quite

22 significant, the main thing is, I believe, in this -- in this part when

23 they actually -- I is completely missing, actually. There is only this

24 part here seen which is basically a full stop between lines.

25 Q. There is also variations in the angles of slant, aren't there, and

1 it's -- which are outside those of the reference signatures?

2 A. A little bit, not very significantly. It's quite near but not a

3 lot.

4 Q. Let's go to the more significant features. People usually do

5 their signature with the same number of strokes?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. And so extra strokes may therefore be indicative of someone trying

8 to simulate or forge the signature and not doing it well; correct?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. And then you even pick up in your report on what you call

11 a "exceptionally unusual feature," and that's set out on page 12 of your

12 report. In fact, that may be the one you just referred to.

13 A. What is exceptionally unusual.

14 Q. Is the pause of the writing implement at the "ch."

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. But then you offer two explanations. One is the malfunctioning

17 ball-point pen, or: "It is also possible that a template was used to

18 produce the signature."

19 Now, I want to be clear --

20 A. Can I go just to the originals?

21 Q. Yes, of course.

22 A. If I may. So it will come easier. 14.

23 Q. It's the very -- it's the penultimate sentence. "It is also

24 possible that a template was used."

25 A. Yes. Just to check what I wrote in Slovenian.

1 Q. Yes. And what you've marked there is actually an imitation or a

2 forgery, isn't it, in other words. A person doesn't use a template to do

3 their own signature?

4 A. Yes. As I said, it -- this could be so, yes.

5 Q. Isn't that explanation, template, more likely, given that you have

6 these extra strokes?

7 A. Well, this was a very difficult part of this examination.

8 Precisely this signature. I was trying to be cautious not to be wrong,

9 but I think there is a -- it is possible that certain -- certain

10 limitation of the writing situation can result in that. Although to be

11 honest -- to -- to think about it, that's why -- that's why I didn't say

12 it is a falsified signature, but that is a quite strong possibility

13 anyway. I couldn't establish it for sure because you have only this one

14 but very strong full stop.

15 Q. So --

16 A. Usually -- may I finish, please?

17 Q. Yes, of course.

18 A. Usually with the signatures written by template, usually you would

19 see more of those. The simplification of this signature is quite high,

20 comparing to all the others, either questioned or reference signatures.

21 Would you agree with that, I think, it's quite simplified.

22 Because of the simplification, one can also think that it's

23 possible something was going wrong while writing this -- this signature.

24 That's why I decided to go to inconclusive. But I fully agree with you,

25 this signature can be forged. It can.

1 Q. So why did you not conclude that the questioned and reference

2 signatures were probably not written by the same person?

3 A. I just explained that to you, didn't I?

4 Q. Well, let's take it step by step, then. You conclude, and this is

5 what you say: "Because no conclusion can be made with certainty, the

6 result of the examination is inconclusive."

7 I put it to you that's a very strange thing to say, because in

8 your analysis result scale you have no problem with expressing

9 probabilistic conclusions; you're okay with saying probably written,

10 probably not written. There are not certain conclusions there and yet you

11 make them. So it's -- that's not the reason, I suggest, that you've gone

12 for inconclusive. It's for some quite other reason.

13 A. And which reason that may be, if I may ask you?

14 Q. That you were avoiding at all costs ever saying that the signature

15 was possibly or probably not that of the author of the reference samples.

16 A. No. I disagree with that with you. But to be completely honest,

17 I did a lot of thinking about this signature. This signature is quite of

18 a problem, and it's really difficult to come to any conclusion. So I --

19 that's the reason why I go to the inconclusive. But anyway, it's very

20 strange -- a strange one.

21 Q. All right. Let's also look at page 24 and 25 of your report where

22 you draw -- you drew attention to some of these anomalies. And since you

23 mentioned yesterday -- we don't need to go over the ones which you've

24 already identified. But are there not, along with extra strokes, classic

25 indications of imitation, namely double lines, double strokes on the O,

1 first of all? And you can -- if you need, you can take a magnifying glass

2 and look closely at the O?

3 A. No, I won't do that, it's quite unprofessional. But I didn't see

4 that.

5 Q. You disagree that actually there are double lines on the O that's

6 been drawn over more than once --

7 A. Where can you find them? Can you indicate where you see them?

8 Q. Well, on the O.

9 A. Yes, on the O. Which part of the O?.

10 Q. The outside.

11 A. Apologies, but the O is all outside. It's a loop. Which part of

12 the loop, if you can --

13 Q. I'll try and indicate to you. Can you see --

14 A. I believe you're referring to this part, right?

15 Q. Yes, and slightly further down.

16 A. Over here.

17 Q. Yes.

18 A. Yeah. That's -- that's when I was -- analysed that under the

19 microscope, it's actually the line that usually goes inside of the loop.

20 This lines here.

21 Q. And did you also notice -- well, yes, you have an arrow pointing

22 to it, and I'm afraid we can't see the number on the ELMO.

23 A. Which one --

24 Q. That extra beginner stroke on the R.

25 A. Yes, this extra beginner stroke, what --

1 Q. Number 4.

2 A. Yes, I know which one. But you're pointing to this. The extra

3 beginner stroke as I -- I fully described, and I've shown it also on the

4 image 12B, I think. That is the one. I showed you the upper portion of

5 that, because the -- the fact that this R starts down with this is not the

6 problem. The problem is that it's -- it's not connected, this stroke is

7 not connected to the R. It's an extra stroke, actually. That's my

8 problem.

9 Q. Well, my suggestion to you, and I think we've probably looked at

10 this document enough is that the differences in fact dominate rather than

11 the similarities between this signature and those of the reference

12 signatures. Do you agree with that?

13 A. I wouldn't say they dominate, but they are quite significant. You

14 were talking beforehand on I think P4 about the fact that there are the

15 same number of similarities and dissimilarities and that it should go to

16 the inconclusive. In this case, the similarities and the dissimilarities

17 would be on [indiscernible]. But what worries me in this particular

18 signature is the fact that it has this blunt full stop, which is the main

19 problem from my point of view, and this extra stroke.

20 Q. All right. I'm not going to ask to you do analysis in the

21 courtroom because you made clear you wouldn't do that. But did you notice

22 that the writing at the top doesn't align the right-hand -- if you see

23 [B/C/S spoken] doesn't align with [B/C/S spoken] West Srebrenica on the

24 left-hand side? Did you notice that? Did you look for that?

25 A. This is document number P?

1 JUDGE AGIUS: That's P37.

2 MR. JONES:

3 Q. P14.

4 A. P14. Just let me. I see no -- I don't see that.

5 Q. I can lend you a ruler, if you would like, and you can see whether

6 they actually align.

7 A. I don't know. I don't really know what your implying.

8 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's stick to the signature business, Mr. Jones.

9 MR. JONES: All right. I could --

10 A. I can believe you, but you have to realise this is a very old -- I

11 know the type of the typewriter, and I know the problems of these

12 typewriters. This is the typewriter produced by the Olympia, either

13 Olympia [indiscernible]. I believe the former ones we had a lot of them

14 in former Yugoslavia, and we had a lot of problems but they were old so

15 this could -- I've typed misalignment quite often. But if you say, I

16 would -- if you say that there is a misalignment, I won't disagree with

17 you because I can't say it's not there.

18 Q. Well, let's move to P37.

19 A. Yes.

20 MR. JONES: Your Honour, I assume the break is at 10.30.

21 JUDGE AGIUS: 10.30, yes.

22 MR. JONES:

23 Q. Now, P37, if you give me one moment.

24 A. That one, right?

25 Q. Pages 12, 13 of your report. And again this document you say that

1 it matches the reference signatures only in some features. And, again,

2 there are differences, big differences, are there not? Firstly, as you've

3 noted, the signature is larger than the reference one?

4 A. Yes, but the proportions are not different.

5 Q. Now, I'm going to suggest to you that the features we saw in the

6 reference samples are all different in this signature, and I can take it

7 quickly.

8 First do you agree the horizontal line is not tapering but solid

9 and in fact it even has an additional squiggle at the end?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. All right. There is a stroke connecting the R to the O, there is

12 a line connecting the R to the O, there is no gap between the O and the R?

13 A. Yes, there is no gap there.

14 Q. The -- what I was referring to as the kink in the I is not

15 present?

16 A. No, because it's so simplified. It's -- this part of the

17 signature is very badly seen, and I've shown it on the other image.

18 Q. And again, the finishing stroke on the O is in fact even outside

19 the O, whereas on the reference samples it's always a deep line going

20 inside?

21 A. Yes. But it's the -- do you agree that it's the --

22 Q. Sorry, you're agreeing that it's outside?

23 A. Yes. And I'm asking you if you agree that it is deeper.

24 Q. I'm afraid you can't ask me questions.

25 A. I do apologise for that.

1 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Jones is correct. Please try to --

2 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I didn't want to be -- I just

3 wanted to point out whether it is nevertheless quite deep down, if ...

4 MR. JONES:

5 Q. Certainly.

6 A. If you agree, it's just a matter of expression.

7 Q. Yes, that's fine. Point taken.

8 A. Thank you.

9 Q. And then the fifth feature you've drawn attention to in your

10 diagram 13A, which is on page 25.

11 A. Mm-hmm.

12 Q. That shows a pause, doesn't it?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Now, with all these differences, if you were being fair, if you

15 were being objective, would you not say that this is probably not the same

16 author as the author of the reference signatures rather than again going

17 for inconclusive?

18 A. Well, the deciding, the question which is not only related to this

19 signature, deciding that somebody is certainly not rules out the fact that

20 person can either -- but I will go back to this particular signature

21 later. This is just theory.

22 Sorry. The fact is that a person can or has to -- to amend

23 something to the signature due to the different things, different

24 circumstances, am I too far from this? And then the other thing is

25 somebody can try to conceal his -- his -- his signature by exactly trying

1 to do something like that. Although not to say that I'm implying that

2 here. I don't think that happened here. I don't think.

3 It is possible that the writing implement did have problems.

4 Otherwise there is a blunt stop, like there. But I cannot rule out the

5 possibility that this happened because of the different circumstances. I

6 don't know the circumstances.

7 In this P37 and P14, I think the P14 was discussed just a second

8 ago, those two signatures are very problematic, and that's why again with

9 both of them I went into the inconclusive because I cannot conclude

10 either, either propositions.

11 Q. So this one, this is possibly not by the same author as the

12 reference signatures?

13 A. Again, as I said with P14, that is a certain possibility, yes.

14 MR. JONES: Your Honours, I'm coming to the next document, P73.

15 Perhaps that's a good time for the break. I apologise I'm taking slightly

16 longer than predicted, but in fact I think I'll be finished in 15 to 20

17 minutes after the break.

18 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you so much, Mr. Jones.

19 I thank you, Dr. Kerzan. Please take the opportunity of having a

20 rest.

21 We will have a 25-minute break, if you don't mind, and then we

22 will have the final questions and then we have another break. Thank you.

23 --- Recess taken at 10.26 a.m.

24 --- On resuming at 11.04 a.m.

25 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Jones.

1 MR. JONES: Yes, thank you, Your Honour. We just have six more

2 documents to go through.

3 Q. Firstly, we are going to look at P73.

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. But I've got a couple of questions about P73, P74, P75 generally,

6 because they have certain similar features.

7 A. Mm-hmm.

8 Q. And it's just two basic points for the record. Firstly, these

9 three documents all purportedly bear the signature of Hamdija Fejzic. And

10 it's an obvious point, but just to confirm, you haven't analysed that

11 signature and you can't tell us anything about that its authenticity or

12 otherwise?

13 A. Yes, of course. I did not -- I was instructed on February 2nd not

14 to do that, and I certainly didn't.

15 Q. All right. And the second preliminary point, and again it's an

16 obvious one, but I take it you didn't carbon date any of these documents,

17 and so as to the purported dates when they were signed, you can't tell us

18 anything about whether they were, if it was signed by the purported

19 author, whether it was in 1992 or 1993 or 1994 or 1995 and simply

20 back-dated. That's not something you can help us with?

21 A. No, of course not. And on the other hand, you cannot do that by

22 carbon dating, because it's a 60 years time-frame which is in question

23 then if we -- with carbon dating you can't do that. It's a archeological

24 thing, not a forensic.

25 Q. Yes, absolutely. So even where you --

1 A. No, I have no idea.

2 Q. You can't reach a conclusion, you have no idea when it was signed?

3 A. No, I can't.

4 Q. Now, P73, and I'm going to make a conscious effort to go very

5 slowly because I know it was very difficult for the stenographer this

6 morning. P73 is page 13 of your report and it's image 14.

7 A. I put it --

8 Q. Yes, thank you. On page 26. And again I'm going to put it to you

9 that the five or six features which I pointed out on the reference samples

10 are all different here. First, can you confirm that the horizontal line

11 is not tapered but it's blunt; in fact, it even ends in a blob?

12 A. I cannot confirm that completely. There is a blob at the end, but

13 you can see in the middle right where the arrow number 7 points to it that

14 it gets lighter. So at the end of it is a blunt -- is a more of a stop,

15 but it again -- it is getting lighter so the dynamics is present here,

16 dynamics what you're talking about, if I made myself clear.

17 Q. Yes.

18 A. If I'm not, just --

19 Q. The tapering earlier on but it doesn't, the end isn't tapered, the

20 end of the line is not tapered?

21 A. No. The end, it was tapered but then it stopped. So, yes.

22 Q. And you could probably see more clearly with your instruments, but

23 can you confirm that the R is not connected to the O -- oh, sorry. The R,

24 on the contrary, is connected, that there is actually a line connecting

25 the two?

1 A. Yes, I would say that I agree with that. It touches. It's not

2 connected. Again, it's a difference saying connected or it touches.

3 Q. Okay. It touches?

4 A. It's quite a big difference.

5 Q. Again, looking at the -- what I was referring to as a kink in

6 the I, that's not -- that doesn't appear in the loop, does it? The loop

7 is clear and continuous and there is no kink?

8 A. It's just before likeness on at least one of the reference

9 signatures.

10 Q. And again, I put it to you that the O is actually more circular

11 than ellipsoid?

12 A. No. With this one I disagree.

13 Q. And the closing stroke is not deep and penetrating. It's --

14 A. It's here. It's finished somewhere here, so it's quite deep.

15 Q. Does it in fact finish there, or does it in fact finish earlier

16 on?

17 A. No, I think somewhere here. But have to look at it through the

18 microscope to be confirmed. But I think it finishes right -- around this

19 line.

20 Q. So it's not particularly deep.

21 A. Relatively, I would say. Doesn't go very, very down.

22 Q. And, of course, there is the dot which you've marked with

23 arrow 11?

24 A. Yes, obviously.

25 Q. Now, on this document, you've told us yesterday that you didn't

1 notice or didn't look for the mark -- sorry, where Skelani has been placed

2 on this document, and I don't propose to dwell on it. Do you have the

3 photocopy of the whole document?

4 A. Yes, I have. Let me just wait for --

5 Q. I simply want to put this to you: That firstly you don't know

6 what was written beforehand, do you, behind Skelani?

7 A. No, I don't.

8 Q. And secondly, I suggest to you that if you don't know what was

9 written beforehand you can't say whether there was manipulation or not.

10 Do you agree with that?

11 A. No. I can't say whether it is not -- it is or not a manipulation.

12 Q. Right. Because on page 13 of your report you said: "There is no

13 visible evidence of falsification or manipulation on the document."

14 Now, is that correct, or would it be better to say that it's not

15 something which you in fact addressed in your report?

16 A. I would say I did not address that in my report thoroughly.

17 Q. All right. Thank you.

18 A. I mean, your criticism here is in place.

19 Q. It's not a criticism. It's just a clarification for the report.

20 Thank you.

21 We can move on to P74, and that's image 15.

22 And if it seems I'm labouring the points about these differences,

23 I'm coming to the point in a moment with this document. But would you

24 agree again the horizontal line, not tapered but blunt?

25 A. It ends bluntly. But, again, there are visible, visible tapering

1 before it ends, so there is uncertain end.

2 Q. Okay. I'm just talking about the end.

3 A. Okay.

4 Q. There is a tail or a stroke which means that the R and the O

5 touch, the R and the O are touching?

6 A. I think it's -- I don't think it touches but it's extremely near.

7 It is just -- it's badly -- it's hard to see but it's started here and

8 they are so near but it's extremely small gap. This gap is not very

9 significant in this case, but there is a small, smallish gap.

10 Q. So there is actually a left-hand stroke on the R going from the O

11 before it then goes -- before it's drawn. There is a stroke going away

12 from the O and then it goes down into the rest of the document?

13 A. You mean this initial stroke in R?

14 Q. Yes.

15 A. Yes, it is initial stroke in R exists. Of course.

16 Q. Again, the kink in the "ch" is not present. You would say it's to

17 the left?

18 A. It's a bit to the left.

19 Q. It's not in the loop; that's my point.

20 A. It's not in the loop, no.

21 Q. And, again, the closing stroke in the O is not particularly deep,

22 not like on the reference samples?

23 A. Well, not all the reference samples is so deep, but it's relative

24 deep. It penetrates for approximately one-third or even -- approximately

25 one-third of the loop, so it is -- this is, from my point of view, deep.

1 Q. But it's not almost like a third vertical?

2 A. Not in this case, not. But it touches this vertical.

3 Q. All right.

4 A. It doesn't overlap it but it touches for approximately.

5 Q. Now I'm sure you appreciate with these points I'm making, there

6 are two points really. Firstly is whether the reference samples and the

7 questioned samples have these features in common. But there is another

8 point which is what I want to take up with you now, which is that if the

9 questioned samples all have the same characteristics, in other words, if

10 there are similarities between the reference samples which don't exist

11 vis-a-vis the reference samples, that can be indicative of a forger making

12 the same mistakes in his simulation. Do you agree with that?

13 A. Can I re-read your question?

14 Q. It's a long question. Tell you what, it's easier if I simply read

15 from Ellen who expresses it much better. And that's page 54 of Ellen.

16 A. I think I know what you're going to quote.

17 Q. It's the section "identification of the writer of simulations."

18 It says: "Free-hand simulations of a signature made by one person will

19 generally be found to be consistent with each other, differing both from

20 the copied signature and simulations of the same genuine signature made by

21 other people. This is not only because the copier may leave evidence of

22 his own writing but also because people appear to be consistent in the way

23 they copy writing and the errors they make."

24 Do you agree with that proposition, first of all?

25 A. Yes, but may I just make a note now, because I would have to

1 comment on this one.

2 Q. Yes. Then before you answer, I just want to carry on with Ellen.

3 On page 36 we are directed to figure 5 where we see simulations, as it

4 happens, and the figure there states: "On the right-hand side of the

5 picture a genuine signature is shown. On the left are two attempts at a

6 free-hand simulation made by three different people."

7 It says: "Note, one, the inaccuracies; two, the poor line

8 quality; and three," three is what I'm interested in, "the similarities of

9 the deviations and the genuine letter D within each pair."

10 And so that's the point, isn't it, when someone imitates a

11 signature, they tend to make the same mistakes when they do so. And feel

12 free to comment at length, if you wish.

13 A. Yes. I will not comment very much at length. I anticipated that

14 question. It's -- therefore, it's a very good point, but if that was to

15 be consistent, you wouldn't expect that on P158 the dot would be missing.

16 It is highly unusual that a forger would miss such a thing that he used on

17 another samples. And the same goes with the missing initial stroke in R

18 on P75.

19 So I don't think that your point really is -- I disagree with your

20 point. I'm just pointing on the fact that they are showing quite the

21 opposite.

22 Q. I understand that. But aren't you now attributing a significance

23 to the full stop which earlier you deemed insignificant?

24 A. I just mentioned that part. I did not put any -- it can be

25 significant. I don't think how significant -- I don't want to comment on

1 that, but I'm just pointing to that fact, because you're also pointing to

2 the things that can or cannot be significant. It is not the matter of

3 significance at this point. I'm just pointing to the particular features.

4 Q. All right. Do you accept the possibility that what we have here

5 is a free-hand simulator trying to copy the signature of Naser Oric but

6 making the same habitual and even unconscious possibly mistakes each

7 time? And I'm referring to these six or seven differences which I keep

8 pointing out.

9 A. Well, as I said, I disagree with your six or seven differences.

10 And I explained that there is no -- there are differences in execution of

11 those -- those signatures we are talking about, signatures I think from

12 P73 to P158, those four, I think they are, am I correct here?

13 Q. Yes. Well, let's look at P75. We can move on to that now,

14 because I suggest that with maybe one exception that the same differences

15 are there.

16 Again, the horizontal is not tapering?

17 A. It is. Excuse me, it is.

18 Q. All right. We can disagree there. That the -- in this case,

19 certainly I concede the R is not touching the O. We can see that?

20 A. There is a gap, yes.

21 Q. The third line on the O is not like a third vertical?

22 A. No, it's not deep here. But I would like really to point to the

23 fact that the initial stroke of R is missing - this is quite important

24 here - in this particular signature.

25 Q. And, again, the kink in the I is not within the loop. You would

1 say it's to the left, and you're indicating that on figure 37, I think?

2 A. May I just, once again, comment on that kink? That fact that

3 those kinks are out would be very important in my report if there wasn't

4 at least one reference signature with such a feature. If I didn't find

5 any reference signatures with that feature, I would fully agree that kink,

6 as you call it, is important feature. But as there is one, I -- I went

7 not to decide that this is so important to draw conclusion from that. If

8 I made myself clear. I --

9 Q. Yes. So one is like that in the reference samples but seven are

10 not?

11 A. Yes. But this fact that one is shows the variability of

12 signature. So if we have very probably, if we have more signatures, there

13 would be more of them, not all but more. Okay?

14 Q. Yes. Do you also agree P75 is quite a bit smaller, if you compare

15 it, for example, with P14, it's -- P14 is huge by comparison?

16 A. I think I wrote that P14 is very big so ...

17 Q. This is quite a bit smaller, isn't it, and there is no reason why

18 is it should be small. There is no particularly confined space in which

19 it is to be written?

20 A. It's relatively small. Most of them are relatively small, I would

21 say.

22 Q. Okay. And then -- well, you dealt with Srebrenica, the

23 manipulation there -- well, not manipulation; I apologise. I suggest it's

24 a manipulation or might be but it's not something which you've analysed?

25 A. I can't comment really on that.

1 Q. Now, we can move on, I believe, to P158.

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. And we have dealt with the absence of a full stop, so I won't

4 dwell on that. But, once again, I will go through these differences which

5 I submit are there. Horizontal is ending bluntly not in tapering end?

6 A. Yes. In this case I agree with you.

7 Q. The -- what I've been calling the kink in the I is to the left of

8 the loop; it's not inside it. Again, I accept your explanation, but do

9 you agree?

10 A. I agree. But, again, I refer to my explanation of the one before.

11 Q. The R touches the O. There is that initial stoke stroke on the R?

12 A. Yes, it does, of course.

13 Q. The finishing stroke on the O isn't like a third vertical?

14 A. Now, can I comment on that? It's not like a third vertical. It's

15 a little bit outside but it's relatively deep. The importance here is

16 that it goes deep inside. And that's what I wanted to point out here.

17 It's relatively deep. It goes almost half of the letter O now.

18 Q. And I won't use the term "garlands," but in terms of the waves,

19 the waviness, do you say that matches the reference samples?

20 A. Yes. In the way the hand moved, I think so.

21 Q. So for you the similarities predominate despite these differences

22 which I pointed out between this and the reference samples?

23 A. Yes, I think so.

24 Q. If we look at this document, even the below the signature line it

25 says "Nasre Oric," which I believe is practically a dirty word in B/C/S?

1 A. I wouldn't know that.

2 Q. Right. Well, let me put it this way: If my name is John, my

3 first name, if I were to sign something which is written J-h-o-n, I'm sure

4 I would correct it, I'm sure you would correct it if your first name were

5 miswritten. Does that reflect -- do you reflect on that in your analysis,

6 or is that not something you take into account?

7 A. No, I don't -- I don't find that very important. And if you ask

8 me personally, my name was so often misspelled that I don't take -- care

9 about that anymore.

10 Q. That's perhaps a feature of the name rather than anything else.

11 A. Yes, but I didn't pay any attention to that. I didn't find that

12 important.

13 Q. If I suggest to you that P158, P73, 74, 75, P4, they all have

14 consistent similarities between each other, and those are all consistently

15 different from the reference samples. Do you have any comment on that?

16 A. Well, they are quite similar but as I have already noted, there

17 are also differences which would be probably inconsistent with the

18 proposition that it was a free-hand forgery. I find -- I do not find

19 the -- consistently different features. There are some features which can

20 be interpreted as different, but they are within the -- within the

21 variations of the -- of the reference samples, in my opinion.

22 Q. All right. I think we can look briefly at P210.

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. That's on pages 16 to 17 of your report. And, again, this is

25 inconclusive. And I think your suggestion is again that's because it's a

1 copy or because the stamp partly covers the signature; is that correct?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Isn't the reality that there are actually a lot of differences

4 between this signature and the reference samples?

5 A. As the photocopy covers a lot of significant -- a lot of -- or

6 some of the -- of the features of this signature, I cannot comment that.

7 It can be but I can't see them. I can't really say there are or there are

8 not. It is the material which is completely unsuitable for examination.

9 I mean, or it would be more guessing like than proper examination. That's

10 why I did not want to go deep into the -- into that. The same with I

11 think P3, too. P3, I think it's also the photocopy.

12 Q. Very well. We can move on to P269, finally.

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. And I submit to you that this is, if you forgive the expression,

15 there is a joke to say that this could possibly or to consider this could

16 possibly be the same as the reference signature by the author of the

17 reference samples. It's a completely different signature, isn't it?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. And you've never seen this signature in any of the reference

20 samples, have you?

21 A. No. This signature is executed completely differently, if I may

22 just --

23 Q. Yes.

24 A. And it is impossible to make any comparison. It is like if you

25 write a word in cursive and in block capitals. That's the difference.

1 It's incomparable. That is the -- perhaps I shouldn't write inconclusive.

2 I should write incomparable. It's not possible to conduct any

3 examination. But I find this signature in the fact that it's written with

4 the name and surname odd, within the realm of all the signatures we are

5 dealing with here today.

6 Q. Right. Didn't you explain yesterday when you were explaining when

7 your conclusions strongly support the assumption that the questioned and

8 reference signatures are not written by the same individual, you said that

9 might happen, for example, where someone comes along and just knows the

10 name and does a signature, purported signature of that name, and it

11 doesn't correspond at all to the signature of that individual. Shouldn't

12 you have said here this is not written by the same person?

13 A. No. Because I don't see any features because of the facts. If

14 that was not -- if that was the originals, I perhaps could have reached

15 that conclusion. I fully agree with you on that one. But it is the facts

16 I see no features. It's completely different. And as I said, it's

17 incomparable. So if it's incomparable, I cannot be conclusive on

18 anything, if I made myself understandable here.

19 Q. Yes. You did also suggest yesterday as one possibility that this

20 document, since it was sent to Sarajevo, that that might somehow explain

21 this difference. And you'll recall yesterday I asked you about it being

22 important for purposes of banks, et cetera, to actually maintain the same

23 signature in order for that to be recognised. Now, surely your

24 explanation cuts both ways: That if something is sent to Sarajevo, that's

25 all the more reason why you should have a recognisable signature?

1 A. Well, now, what you're referring to, my answers yesterday, this

2 was as was clear yesterday also, it was my speculation. It was not

3 something I can prove or disprove in any way. But in certain situations,

4 like, for example, on wills, you see people that are having a short --

5 short -- short signatures that will -- that they will use a longer

6 version, or they will use a name and surname. But, of course, this is

7 speculation. This particular signature is, as I explained already, out of

8 the order of all the others. Because it is a fax it is against the

9 doctrine of the forensic handwriting examination to go into the

10 identification process. But it is out of any of the -- of the other

11 signatures we are dealing with, either questioned or reference. So ...

12 Q. That's clear. Two final matters. Yesterday I read from a passage

13 in Ellen on subjectivity and how the personality of the examiner has an

14 influence. I put it to you that your approach, your subjectivity, which

15 everyone has, but it's such that you've tended to minimise the differences

16 between the reference and the questioned signatures and to exaggerate and

17 dwell upon the similarities. That's my suggestion to you firstly.

18 A. Well, I disagree with you.

19 Q. All right. And secondly I put it to you that P4, P73, P74, P75

20 and P158, among others, but those are the ones where you've given your

21 opinion that they are signed by Naser Oric, that those were not signed by

22 him, not then or ever, and that your opinion is mistaken and that I ask

23 you whether you accept the possibility that your opinion is mistaken, that

24 you're wrong when you say that those are the same signatures.

25 A. Can I answer this question at length?

1 Q. Yes.

2 A. I always accept possibility that I'm wrong. It would be -- I

3 think it's impossible to state somebody is right, complete 100 per cent

4 right. I think my opinion was prepared with caution and with knowledge

5 and the experience I have and the method which is appropriate for that.

6 But I cannot rule out the possibility of being wrong. Everybody makes

7 mistakes, so -- but this is a matter of doctrine in my opinion. I cannot

8 rule out that possibility whatsoever. I wouldn't even dare to say there

9 is 100 per cent, if I saw the accused, because I don't know to -- there is

10 no certainty in any way in this way. That's what I wanted to stress here.

11 MR. JONES: I thank you very much. No further questions.

12 THE WITNESS: I would like to thank you for your questions too.

13 It was the thoroughest examination I have ever been to. Thank you very

14 much. It was very interesting.

15 JUDGE AGIUS: Dr. Kerzan, your testimony ends here because we

16 don't have any questions for you either. I wish to thank you on behalf of

17 the Trial Chamber for having, first of all, accepted to do this work for

18 us and for having carried it out in a timely fashion, and last but not

19 least for having also come over and testified.

20 Before you leave this courtroom, apart from thanking you, I also

21 wish you a safe journey back home.

22 THE WITNESS: Thank you very much. And I would also like to thank

23 the Honourable Court that they -- that you appointed me. It was a real

24 honour for me to the opportunity to work for you.

25 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you very much. Thank you

1 [The witness withdrew]

2 How long a pause do you require, Mr. Wubben?

3 MR. WUBBEN: Around 30 minutes would be fine.

4 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Because I have this problem. I had a burst

5 water-pipe in my apartment first thing this morning, at 6.00 this morning,

6 and I need to attend to it. So and I have a plumber plus security

7 accompanying me to my apartment to have this job done at 1.00. So --

8 MR. WUBBEN: Your Honour, we try to support in that respect that

9 we will be within 15 minutes.

10 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. 15 minutes would bring us -- then we

11 should finish this matter. Or else we adjourn it until tomorrow. I mean,

12 that's the other possibility. Until tomorrow morning.

13 MR. WUBBEN: I would rather prefer not. I can't speak for the

14 Defence but I rather prefer to finalise it.

15 MR. JONES: I was also wondering, Your Honour, whether some of

16 these issues could be regulated even through e-mails and through the legal

17 officer and -- outside the Court.

18 JUDGE AGIUS: They possibly could. But anyway, let's have the

19 15-minute break and see what we can -- but I will try to leave here not

20 later than quarter to 1.00.

21 Thanks.

22 --- Recess taken at 11.35 a.m.

23 --- On resuming at 11.53 a.m.

24 JUDGE AGIUS: So before we embark on the -- this short exercise, I

25 as Presiding Judge, I have a statement to make for the record only.

1 Otherwise, we wouldn't need to go into any details. But the Trial Chamber

2 will not be calling any witnesses of its own. This decision was taken by

3 majority. The majority of us decided so, with Judge Eser dissenting. So

4 that goes on for the record.

5 Now, there is some cleaning -- housekeeping exercises that we need

6 to do. Let me go -- yes, I see Mr. Wubben standing.

7 MR. WUBBEN: Yes, Your Honour, Thank you. It's for the record

8 that my team is now extended with Ms. Patricia Sellers and

9 Mr. Jose Doria. Thank you.

10 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, Mr. Wubben.

11 Let's start from here. The reason why we sort of suggested this

12 special exercise is that you know, of course, that as we go along we are

13 always digging up into our records to make sure that everything is in

14 order by way of exhibits, that CDs are working, function properly, DVDs

15 the same, and so on and so forth. And as we went along, of course, and as

16 we go along, we start discovering some shortcomings. I'll start with the

17 first one. Way back on the 21st of February, or, rather, we have been

18 expecting the 94 bis statement of Dr. Zoran Stankovic, which has never

19 arrived.

20 Yes, Ms. Sellers?

21 MS. SELLERS: Your Honour --

22 JUDGE AGIUS: We had granted this, as you will recall.

23 MS. SELLERS: Yes, Your Honour. In discussing this with the team

24 members we realised that, and we will be able to present this to the Trial

25 Chamber, and I will have to ask for a P number for that.

1 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Okay. So that will be dealt with at a

2 later stage.

3 MS. SELLERS: Yes, Your Honour. I believe we do have the copies

4 here and we could hand them up at this stage.

5 JUDGE AGIUS: Well, if you can do that, let's do it.

6 MS. SELLERS: Yes.

7 JUDGE AGIUS: Thanks. And what number shall we give this, please,

8 Madam Registrar?

9 THE REGISTRAR: This will be P623, Your Honour.

10 JUDGE AGIUS: So this statement will become P623, all right?

11 MS. SELLERS: Thank you, Your Honour.

12 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you. You will recall, because this was also

13 a matter of one of the very last motions that we dealt with, that we were

14 promised by you a revised English translation of P84 and P598. What's the

15 position?

16 MS. SELLERS: Your Honour, the position on that is that, I

17 believe, several weeks ago we did try to ask at that time period for P598

18 to substitute the copy we found that had included two pages that were

19 missing in the original. And if I correctly recall the position, we

20 thought that we would have to give it P598.1 or another number. At that

21 point in time, I believe the Defence objected to it, wanted to look at the

22 original. The Defence has had a time granted to them where they did

23 review the original of the document and that is why the Prosecution would

24 now say that we would like to move the complete document that we would

25 refer to as P591 into evidence. And I've been informed by Defence counsel

1 that they had some comments on the matter.

2 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Ms. Vidovic?

3 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, first of all, we do not

4 accept that document P598, or, rather, the pages that the Prosecution

5 wants to tender today, that they form part of P598 at all. You'll

6 remember me talking about it the other day, and we have it on the record,

7 and, for the sake of the time, I don't want to dwell on it any more.

8 Because I had my suspicions about the fact that these pages did

9 not in fact form part of the exhibit, I asked the other time to be shown

10 the original. The Prosecution handed me a photocopy of a similar exhibit,

11 I would say, which in any case was not at all a photocopy of P598. It

12 differed greatly from what is now being offered for admission. P598 was

13 an exhibit with precisely numerated pages, whereas the P598 that was shown

14 to our witness had only page numeration from 5 onwards. In dealing with

15 our witness, D005, this document started from page 1. Again, I claim that

16 these are two different documents and these pages should not be mixed up

17 in this way. This prompted me to ask for an inspection of all the

18 Prosecution documents that became exhibits marked with P.

19 I apologise, I was trying to save time and went too speedily.

20 I do not wish to dwell on it today. I inspected the documents,

21 and as a result I have very important data to present to the Trial

22 Chamber, and I hope that we will submit it to this Trial Chamber within

23 seven days, as part of our filing, and it is quite interesting to see that

24 on many occasions the Prosecution does not have -- or, rather, I will not

25 go into that today.

1 What I wish to say, furthermore, is that I saw something that had

2 to do with P598. Evidence unit, in the presence of two OTP members,

3 Mr. Berikoff and a forensic technician, showed me what they thought was

4 the original of P598, and that was not the same copy that was shown to me

5 as the original here in the courtroom. In fact, it was a photocopy of

6 this very document that was shown to our witness as P598. This is what

7 they have listed as the original.

8 We oppose any attempt to add subsequent pages to this exhibit

9 because, simply, this is not one and the same exhibit. We have had this

10 exhibit for years, and I know what I'm saying because we have

11 double-checked that. We will refer to that in our filing. This was no

12 way of proceeding to do it right now. This should have been dealt with at

13 the time when we had the witness here. They want to prove with this

14 document that Kemo Mehmedovic was member of the Potocari unit, which

15 cannot be found at all in P598, and none of the witnesses were shown that.

16 This is not a proper way of proceeding, to add to the existing exhibits

17 without putting these pages to the witnesses.

18 JUDGE AGIUS: But the exercise -- I don't want to hear any more on

19 this. The exercise that we are going through today is not to receive

20 submissions on the admissibility or otherwise of these documents. I just

21 stated in the beginning that we have on record that at one time, without,

22 of course, prejudice to the submissions that have been made by the Defence

23 on P598 and these extra two pages with the variations of reference number

24 and with or without, et cetera, that you had promised to come forward with

25 a revised English translation of same, and we are still expecting that.

1 So this is precisely what we are addressing now. We would like to know

2 when we would be in a position to have -- or when you would be in a

3 position to provide us with these translation, of course keeping

4 completely unprejudiced the position of the Defence in relation to any of

5 these documents or parts thereof.

6 MS. SELLERS: Your Honour, we do have those revised translations

7 today. We can hand them up to the Chamber, and we will reserve any

8 arguments, responses to Madam Vidovic, whether it be in writing or whether

9 the parties should contact each other to discuss it.

10 JUDGE AGIUS: All right.

11 Then in relation to P127 and 279. Now, on the face of it, these

12 two exhibits really are -- consist of the same document. However, they do

13 have different ERN numbers and different dates. We need a clarification

14 from you, from the Prosecution, on this, and how you expect these two

15 documents to be treated.

16 MS. SELLERS: Your Honour, the Prosecution would ask that you

17 accept P279, with the ERN number 00520764 to 00520765, as the

18 Prosecution's exhibit. We received, in essence, the same document twice,

19 and that is why it came to have two different numbers. But would you

20 please now refer to that evidence as P279.

21 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Do you have a position on this, in case

22 -- before I close on this part, Ms. Vidovic?

23 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I really have to review

24 the translation, and I cannot give my response to that at this time.

25 We've already had similar experience.

1 JUDGE AGIUS: All right.

2 MR. JONES: I think that's maybe a different point. We need to

3 just check that, I think, on P127.

4 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, exactly. Let me make our position clear. The

5 fact that we have now received this declaration from the Prosecution does

6 not mean that automatically we therefore strike off from the record P127.

7 That will remain there. We take it, however, that when there may be

8 reference to this particular document, you will be referring to it as P279

9 from your part. That's how I take it.

10 MS. SELLERS: Yes, Your Honour.

11 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Now, this document that has been

12 circulated now, starting with "Pale" at the top, this is P84 or what is

13 it?

14 MS. SELLERS: Your Honour, that is what we will be referring to as

15 substitution for P598.

16 MR. JONES: And, Your Honour, that we oppose vigorously. We say

17 that's not P598 at all.

18 JUDGE AGIUS: So this is -- I've marked mine as P598 with a

19 question mark and "opposed" in brackets or "objected."

20 All right. P328 and 329. These are the -- you know what they

21 are. You will recall that quite recently, basically on the 13th of

22 December, parts of these exhibits were replaced by new sets, or the

23 Prosecution sought to replace parts of these exhibits with new sets, and

24 on the 1st of February, again we faced the same situation. The

25 Prosecution sought to produce new sets and have them admitted instead of

1 the previous ones.

2 I don't need to go back to the discussion. I recall the

3 discussion, the debate, that we had here. But we decided then, for

4 various reasons, that the two sets would co-exist with the original ones,

5 for various reasons. You can refer to the transcripts of the two

6 sittings, 13 December and 1st of February.

7 I am being told that parts submitted in December are the same as

8 the ones submitted in February. So we would like to know from your part,

9 Ms. Sellers or whoever, what is your position on this and what you are

10 actually tendering and seeking to replace.

11 MS. SELLERS: Your Honour, I would draw the Trial Chamber's

12 attention to what was tendered in February as being a complete set, and I

13 would therefore ask that the Trial Chamber and also Defence counsel

14 disregard what was tendered in January, which tried to make some of the

15 rectifications of what had been tendered in December, and if we would now

16 just concentrate on February as having been the complete set.

17 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Of course, asking the Defence to

18 disregard, it's up to them to do that or not to do that. In the meantime,

19 we need to make it clear that since we ultimately have to reach our

20 decisions, the various sets will co-exist, will continue to co-exist. In

21 other words, we will decide what the position is in due course after

22 having received any submissions that the Defence might have on this

23 matter, also because there may ultimately be the need to make comparative

24 analysis between one and the other, if that comes into question.

25 MS. SELLERS: Your Honour, might I interrupt you for one second?

1 I believe when we handed up the English translation of what we are

2 referring to to facilitate our task here as P598, do we need to ask for a

3 number for that?

4 JUDGE AGIUS: Exactly. I'm coming to that. In fact now,

5 particularly since you seem to lay emphasis on the February filings, or

6 exhibits, they have to be renumbered, or, rather, they have to be

7 numbered, given a new number. You will recall that previously, when we

8 had the first set sought to be replaced, we had put -- given them P328.1

9 and 329.1. Now, the February ones will become P328.2 and P329.2.

10 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

11 JUDGE AGIUS: You want a new number for them? All right. Which

12 would be what? What number do you require from us?

13 THE REGISTRAR: This will be P624, Your Honour.

14 JUDGE AGIUS: So these will become P624 and -- both of them? Both

15 of them. So the whole set, the whole collection of CDs supposedly sought

16 to be replacement of P328 and 329, right, will become P624.

17 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

18 JUDGE AGIUS: I would prefer it that way, but I would require to

19 know which set becomes 624 and which set becomes 625. No, leave it.

20 Ms. Vidovic, would you be able -- and Ms. Sellers, would you be able to

21 live with this one new number for the whole CD set that was filed in

22 February?

23 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, yes, Your Honour.

24 MS. SELLERS: Your Honour, we would. It would be easier, I think,

25 with the two numbers and one would know when they are in old P329 that --

1 JUDGE AGIUS: But you would have to indicate which ones would be

2 624 and which ones would be 625.

3 JUDGE ESER: I think two numbers would be better.

4 JUDGE AGIUS: Yeah, I agree too.

5 MS. SELLERS: Your Honour, I'll check and see if we could indicate

6 that. That just might be a very --

7 JUDGE AGIUS: So let's put it like this: Then one set which seeks

8 to replace P328 will be P624; and the other set which seeks to replace

9 P329, and 329.1 obviously, will be P625. And that will become so when you

10 have indicated which ones, of course, with all due notice to --

11 information to --

12 MS. SELLERS: Certainly, Your Honour. We'll circulate that both

13 to Defence and to the Registry and Your Honours.

14 MR. JONES: Your Honour, can we go back to P598? We are extremely

15 unhappy about what's being done here. It's one thing to offer up what

16 purports to be a new English translation, but we see there is a Bosnian

17 with it, and this, again, is a different exhibit.

18 JUDGE AGIUS: Don't worry, Mr. Jones. Let them file what they

19 want for the time being, and then, if there are submissions, we will come

20 to the submissions later.

21 MR. JONES: Could we not call it P598, then? Because this is a

22 different document, and it's too late for the Prosecution to tender new

23 exhibits, and they are trying to tender a new exhibit.

24 JUDGE AGIUS: If it's a new exhibit, we won't allow it, unless

25 there is a special request for that. That's the procedure.

1 MR. JONES: So may I just say on the record that if you compare

2 the English to P598, you'll see it's not the same.

3 JUDGE AGIUS: You just make a submission, and if the submission

4 ultimately leads us to consider that as a new document, Prosecution

5 seeking to admit a new document when their case has actually ended, then

6 you know what the procedure is. I'm not teaching anyone here.

7 MR. JONES: Thank you. I was just worried that by being given

8 that number, it was becoming an exhibit surreptitiously.

9 JUDGE ESER: I must say I do not understand this point because we

10 have requested --

11 JUDGE AGIUS: The translation of the existing P98 [sic], but if

12 it's a different P98, then we are talking of a different document. This

13 is what is being --

14 P456.

15 MS. SELLERS: Your Honour, might I clarify this? Excuse me for

16 interrupting. The translation -- okay -- is a translation of the document

17 that would be the new P598. I don't want in any way to disagree at this

18 point with what Defence counsel is saying and probably Judge Eser also.

19 There is the new P598 which has no number because it's been in discussion

20 now for several weeks, and this was the English translation of what would

21 be the new P598.

22 JUDGE AGIUS: But a translation is a translation. It's not the

23 document.

24 MS. SELLERS: Absolutely right, Your Honour. Therefore we now do

25 not have a document that goes with the translation.

1 JUDGE AGIUS: What Mr. Jones is saying is that this is not a

2 translation of the existing P98 that you are offering but something in

3 addition to that, which would make it a different document.

4 MS. SELLERS: Your Honour, I'm agreeing to the extent that this is

5 a translation of what we are calling the complete 598 that we sought to

6 substitute. I don't want to belabour any submissions but just to make

7 sure we are clear administratively of what this is.

8 JUDGE AGIUS: But deal with it amongst yourselves, and then, if

9 necessary, we will give you a hearing on this.

10 P456. I'm told that you need to provide us with pages 8 and 9 of

11 the statement.

12 MS. SELLERS: Your Honour, we have that now, and we would be

13 willing to hand that up.

14 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. So pages 8 and 9 of P456. Okay.

15 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

16 JUDGE AGIUS: So we are also being given, for the record, the

17 translation of P84. All right.

18 Let's move.

19 P561. Now, the problem, this I have mentioned on several

20 occasions before, and ultimately we had agreed that we will know at some

21 point in time what the situation would be. P561 corresponds to P458,

22 according to our record. You need to clarify whether the whole logbook is

23 tendered as P458, or not.

24 MS. SELLERS: Your Honour, I believe that we should now refer to

25 it as P561.

1 JUDGE AGIUS: I think you made that statement before.

2 MS. SELLERS: Yes.

3 JUDGE AGIUS: But if you have submissions on that, Madam Vidovic,

4 please come forward later on, okay?

5 So P570. Again, I had mentioned this -- yes, Ms. Vidovic?

6 Please, if you have submissions on it, I'd like to reserve them for later

7 so that we finish this exercise today. All right?

8 P570. You had promised us a long time ago the B/C/S version of

9 this document. Supposedly it was ready and readily available at the time

10 but we never got it.

11 MS. SELLERS: Your Honour, it's readily available today, and we'll

12 hand it up now.

13 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. So in the meantime while this is being

14 distributed, let's proceed.

15 P586 and P589.

16 MS. SELLERS: Yes, Your Honour. We can also hand up the English

17 translation for P586 and 589.

18 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Thank you. So this has been attended to.

19 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

20 JUDGE AGIUS: So all of them except the one which is already

21 marked form part of P589.

22 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

23 Yes, P600, 605 and 607. Of course, we are fully aware that there

24 were objections from the Defence in regards to what was sought.

25 Let me go through it. When these exhibits were first tendered

1 on 29/11 of last year they were not complete. The OTP tendered on the

2 13th December new sets of these exhibits. Mr. Jones, on the record,

3 objected to the new sets being tendered and we had ruled as follows: We

4 expect to hear back from you, Mr. Jones, if you have an objection, when I

5 say, Mr. Jones, if you have an objection about having these three

6 documents replacing the previous ones, for the time being, of course, the

7 previous ones will remain in the record and the matter will become final

8 when we meet again in January.

9 The Defence needs to clarify now whether they object or not to

10 these new sets of exhibits replacing the previous ones or not so that we

11 can take a decision.

12 MR. JONES: Yes, Your Honour. We maintain our objections and for

13 the reasons stated on the day. I believe I gave some of our reasons, and

14 we maintain our objection.

15 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. So the position is for the time being

16 they will co-exist. All right?

17 MS. SELLERS: Thank you, Your Honours.

18 JUDGE AGIUS: P377. Prosecutors, on the 22nd of October, that's

19 very early when we had just started the case, the Prosecutor submitted a

20 map which was given Exhibit number P377. The Defence objected to the

21 markings contained in the document. Upon instruction, our instructions,

22 the Prosecution withdrew the map and declared that it would be providing a

23 new copy without comments.

24 The new copy has never reached us, or at least that's the

25 impression that we have. And the map from the Registry's binder is marked

1 as never having been submitted. There is one, in other words, but it

2 doesn't seem to have been submitted.

3 So you need to provide us with the replacement of P377 without, of

4 course, the markings which had formed the basis of the Defence objection.

5 MS. SELLERS: Your Honour, today we can hand that map out, having

6 removed the -- as a matter of fact, the names of the attack sites, I

7 believe.

8 JUDGE AGIUS: I'm grateful for that.

9 Now, I turn on to you. There isn't much in your case and some

10 things I know you will need to attend to --

11 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

12 JUDGE AGIUS: So just for clarity and precision: The new

13 documents relating to P600, 605 and 607 which we have now decided will

14 co-exist and not replace, okay, will be 600.1, 605.1 and 607.1, all right?

15 Thank you.

16 Thank you for this. It's P377.

17 All right. Now, D38, Madam Vidovic or Mr. Jones, please feel

18 free, would it be possible to have D38 in CD format?

19 MR. JONES: Yes. I believe for these matters we are working with

20 the AV unit and we need to get copies from that unit as we are unable to

21 change from DVD to CD.

22 JUDGE AGIUS: Me too.

23 MR. JONES: So we are working with the AV unit on that matter and

24 as well as the next one which concerned D200, D702, 703, D866 and D870.

25 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Okay. I appreciate that, and I'm grateful to

1 you, Mr. Jones.

2 MR. JONES: Thank you.

3 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

4 MS. SELLERS: Your Honour, if I might clarify, our impression was

5 that the prior map had attack places and dates on it and that's what was

6 removed.

7 JUDGE AGIUS: Do you object to the fact that there is that

8 arrow --

9 MR. JONES: No.

10 JUDGE AGIUS: -- showing the -- all right. Okay. Thank you.

11 So D271, 698 and 699. We are still waiting for the appropriate

12 CDs, Mr. Jones.

13 MR. JONES: That we are endeavouring to do as soon as possible.

14 JUDGE AGIUS: P590, 605, 655.

15 MR. JONES: D590, D655 --

16 JUDGE AGIUS: 590, 605, 655.

17 MR. JONES: Yes. Again, that's something which we will have to

18 provide in the coming days.

19 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. I appreciate that. And I'm grateful.

20 MR. JONES: We are checking the matter in D690 as well as D597, so

21 I can't actually provide you with information. We are working on it.

22 JUDGE AGIUS: That's okay.

23 MR. JONES: And I believe the issue under D960 is something for

24 the Trial Chamber to clarify; is that correct?

25 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, the exhibit number came out wrong on the

1 transcript but I wanted to inform you of this. From the transcript from

2 the 5th of December. It appears D967 when it should have appeared as

3 D960. All right? So for the record, we are making this statement. And

4 you take notice of it accordingly.

5 D1008.

6 MR. JONES: Yes. And that, too, we need to -- this is V0003971, I

7 think, and we need to see which part we used and then to work out the

8 technical part of that.

9 For the last matter, I can say that we would maintain that these

10 exhibits should be kept under seal, so I'm skipping down one, but they

11 concern -- well, I needn't say what our position is, that they should

12 remain under seal, and if you would wish me to address you on that, then I

13 certainly can do. But that's our position.

14 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. And with regard to D1012, I would like

15 also to state that on the 23rd of January, the OTP objected to this

16 exhibit. The objection came out wrong in the transcript. And needs to be

17 clarified accordingly for the record. So we are making that statement.

18 Yes, Mr. Wubben.

19 MR. WUBBEN: Yes, Your Honour. The -- what had been stated in the

20 transcript was correct. I listened to the audio tape what was

21 expressed -- what had been expressed by me came out using a wrong word.

22 What was trying to say is that at that day and the previous day we

23 expressed that we contest admittance of the report and focus our

24 argumentation on the label of non-contentious documents used in the report

25 by Professor Bilic, but there is an exception of the eight K documents,

1 because we admit that these are known signatures. So these that's --

2 that's what is meant.

3 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Thank you.

4 We had exchanged some debate on whether it would be possible for

5 you to agree on providing the Trial Chamber with a list of military

6 acronyms; let me call them like that. Last I heard was that you had not

7 ultimately come to an agreement. So do I take it that we will not be

8 receiving this from you?

9 MR. WUBBEN: No, Your Honour. We copied you on the letter we sent

10 to the Defence, and the Defence finally in their response disagree. So we

11 have to solve this matter whenever in the closing --

12 JUDGE AGIUS: No, no. So what I mean to say is that there is no

13 document containing agreed upon military acronyms before us; correct?

14 MR. WUBBEN: Right, Your Honour.

15 MR. JONES: I just wonder if Your Honour has a copy of our letter

16 in response.

17 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, I had the full correspondence on it. And

18 obviously we did not intervene because this is ultimately something that

19 you either agree upon or disagree upon.

20 MR. JONES: Yes.

21 JUDGE AGIUS: We can't force it.

22 MR. JONES: It was just so you knew our reasons.

23 JUDGE AGIUS: We can't force it on anyone. The only option that

24 we have is to appoint an expert ourselves but that would take ages.

25 All right. The other thing is that you had given an indication

1 again, and of course we cannot ask you more than what I'm going to say,

2 that you would be coming forward probably with a kind of a document

3 dealing with the contested documents. We just wanted to know whether this

4 is still in the pipe-line.

5 MR. JONES: Yes.

6 JUDGE AGIUS: Whether you still intend to do it.

7 MR. JONES: Yes, we will be filing it.

8 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Okay. I also wanted to confirm to you

9 that this would not count for the purpose of page limitation for the final

10 brief, in other words. All right? It will be completely separate.

11 Other thing is this: No one has asked us from -- for an extension

12 of the existing page limits for the final briefs. If you have an

13 intention of putting such an amount, please come forward the sooner the

14 better, all right?

15 MR. JONES: Just to say, Your Honour, yesterday we discussed

16 briefly with the Prosecution whether we would have a common position on

17 requesting an extension, because we would be seeking that, and we will

18 take that up with the Prosecution and get back to you as soon as possible.

19 JUDGE AGIUS: I'm grateful if you come to some kind of agreement

20 between you on this. It will be much better, much easier for us.

21 So more problems?

22 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

23 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. They will be placed permanently on seal, yes.

24 The last documents on that list will be placed on seal.

25 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

1 JUDGE AGIUS: In Sweden they train their staff well. I'm being

2 asked to mention the documents one by one for the record. It's D221

3 to D224, both included. D226 to D228, both included. D231, D778, D786 to

4 D790, both included.

5 Yesterday I made a brief announcement saying that there will be a

6 change, dramatic change, in the formation of the Prosecution team, and

7 that we had received notice that Mr. Wubben will be leaving this Tribunal.

8 Actually, it's only a few days ago that we learnt of Mr. Wubben's imminent

9 departure, not only from this case but from the Tribunal, and admittedly I

10 must say this came somewhat as an unpleasant surprise to us.

11 After serving for four years in the OTP, the Office of the

12 Prosecutor, in this Tribunal, Mr. Wubben will be returning to pastures

13 already familiar to him, namely, the Dutch prosecutor services, the

14 Openbaar Ministerie, in a more senior position than he held before. On

15 the 22nd of this month, he wrote a courteous farewell letter in which he

16 said: "It will be sad to say farewell to the OTP and to the challenges of

17 the Prosecution as of the 17th of March," still more than three weeks for

18 him to enjoy advocacy.

19 "It is also sad to have to leave at the closing stage of this

20 case but there is no doubt that the qualities of the team, including new

21 lead counsel, will ensure the continuation of the Prosecution, at the

22 required professional level.

23 "I am pleased," said Mr. Wubben, "that I will be still in a

24 position to complete the filing of the closing brief on the 17th of March.

25 And then he continues: "In the coming weeks, I will thus be fully

1 available as lead counsel. I look forward as well to meeting you in

2 court. The contact with you all have been no doubt will be in the weeks

3 to come a pleasure and a privilege."

4 A pleasure and a privilege. Indeed, Mr. Wubben, this is also the

5 feeling of this Bench in your regard. For us it was a pleasure and a

6 privilege to work with you in this case in your capacities as lead counsel

7 for the Prosecution. You've had the benefit of having at your disposal a

8 very good team of lawyers and other assistants whom you have inspired and

9 managed so well. You have worked very hard in this case, and it must not

10 have been easy for you to adapt from the Dutch system to the ICTY system,

11 which is a hybrid one with some peculiar procedures of its own.

12 You have been honest, meticulous, and your loyalty towards the

13 Trial Chamber has been conspicuous. Most importantly, you have succeeded

14 in steering the Prosecution case in what at times were pretty troubled

15 waters, and you did so with honesty, dignity and dexterity.

16 When you leave this Tribunal on the 17th of March, almost all the

17 work of the Prosecution in this case, including, as you said, the filing

18 of the final brief, would have been concluded. We thank you for this and

19 for having, throughout, made it possible for this Trial Chamber to adhere

20 to its time schedule as much as possible.

21 Mr. Wubben, it is always sad to say good-bye to someone like you

22 in particular, after having lived this case together for a year and four

23 months. But that has become inevitable now. So we bid you farewell and

24 good-bye, Mr. Wubben, and we also wish you every success in your new

25 venture in the Openbaar Ministerie. We have no doubt that just as this

1 Tribunal benefited from your previous experience as a Dutch prosecutor,

2 during your stay here, the Dutch prosecutor services, the Openbaar

3 Ministerie, to which you are now returning, will benefit greatly from the

4 experience you must have gained in these last four years in the Tribunal's

5 Office of the Prosecutor. Consider this to be your legacy, Mr. Wubben.

6 The OTP's loss is the Openbaar Ministerie's gain. And with this, we bid

7 you farewell.

8 You will be succeeded as lead counsel in this case by Trial

9 Attorney Patricia Sellers, who was worked along your side in this case

10 from its very beginning, and who we heartily welcome and congratulate. We

11 are sure that she will continue to steer the case, the Prosecution case,

12 professionally, with the same honesty, the same dignity and the same

13 loyalty as you have shown, Mr. Wubben.

14 We wish you good luck and every success.

15 Yes, Ms. Vidovic.

16 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, if I may, I would like

17 to add a sentence on behalf of the Defence team and on behalf of our

18 client, Mr. Naser Oric. We would like to thank Mr. Wubben for the

19 cooperation that he extended to us, and we wish him all the best in his

20 life and in his future career.

21 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you so much, Ms. Vidovic.

22 And with that, I think we can adjourn. If -- as I said, if you

23 require more pages for the final briefs, please let us know in good time,

24 and if you have any queries in relation to the rest of the proceedings, as

25 they are scheduled to progress, please also come forward, and we'll try to

1 be as cooperative as we can. We will be, of course, working here, all of

2 us, and at your disposal anxiously waiting for the final briefs, which

3 from previous experience I can say are of extreme, extreme importance for

4 the Judges, for the trial Judges.

5 I thank you.

6 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 12.40 p.m.

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25