1 Monday, 25 January 2010
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.33 a.m.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Good morning to everybody in and around the
6 courtroom, and welcome again to all of you back from what I suppose
7 should have been a very productive but also restful break. I hope we are
8 all ready to get moving and get a very smooth ride, having got that
9 length of a break.
10 Mr. Court Officer, will you please call the case.
11 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. Good morning to
12 everyone in and around the courtroom.
13 This is case number IT-04-81-T, the Prosecutor versus
14 Momcilo Perisic. Thank you.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
16 Could we have appearances, please, for the day, starting with the
18 MR. HARMON: Yes. Good morning, Your Honours. Welcome back to
19 The Hague
21 Mark Harmon, Barney Thomas, Dan Saxon, and Carmela Javier
22 appearing for the Prosecution.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Mr. Harmon.
24 And for the Defence?
25 MR. GUY-SMITH: Good morning, Your Honours. Welcome to the warm
1 and sunny Hague. Boris Zorko, I would like to introduce to you as our
2 new case manager; he's been around these halls before. Mr. Mair --
3 Chad Mair, Tina Drolec, and we have with us today two of our interns to
4 sit in, and Mr. Alex Fielding, and Orla Cronin. I'm Gregor Guy-Smith,
5 and Mr. Novak Lukic and I are representing Mr. Perisic today.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, and welcome back to you also,
7 Mr. Perisic.
8 Just before we start with the proceedings of the day, can we do a
9 few housekeeping matters, please, two oral decisions that the Chamber
10 would like to render.
11 On the 18th of January, 2010, the Prosecution filed its
12 confidential request for change in status of certain exhibits -- I beg
13 your pardon. May the Chamber please move into private session. I'm
14 sorry; it's the fact of the holiday.
15 [Private session]
16 [Open session]
17 THE REGISTRAR: We're back in open session, Your Honours.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you so much.
19 On the 18th of January, 2010, the Prosecution filed its second
20 Prosecution filing pursuant to the Trial Chamber's decision of the
21 21st of December, 2009, regarding the outstanding documents marked for
22 identification whereby the Prosecution requests the admission into
23 evidence of six documents; namely, P1279, P1371, P1809, P2149, P2150, and
24 P2151, previously marked for identification.
25 The decision of the 21st of December, 2009, denied the admission
1 into evidence of these documents without prejudice until such time as a
2 number of conditions set out therein were met. The Prosecution now
3 submits that such conditions have been complied with.
4 Once again, does the Defence have any objection?
5 MR. GUY-SMITH: No. With the understanding that the Prosecution
6 has complied with this Court's orders, we have no objection.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you so much.
8 Well, the Trial Chamber is then satisfied that the conditions as
9 set out in its decision on the 21st of December have been met, admits the
10 mentioned documents into evidence, and orders the following:
11 1. In relation to P1279, the corresponding B/C/S and English
12 transcripts shall be attached to this exhibit.
13 2. In relation to P1371, the revised B/C/S translation shall
14 replace the one currently on e-court.
15 3. In relation to P1809, the full English translation shall
16 replace the six partial and incomplete ones currently on e-court.
17 4. In relation to P1249, P1250, P1251, for each of these three
18 exhibits the Prosecution shall re-upload on e-court the B/C/S document
19 completed with the prior-to missing page so that each shall form one
20 complete item.
21 I wish to beg your pardon. I have a problem. I realise that
22 that last paragraph 4 refers to 1249, 1250, 1251. The first paragraphs
23 refer to 2149, 2150 -- and 2150. I beg to withdraw this decision. It
24 will be re-rendered. Thank you.
25 Having done that, may I call Mr. Harmon, please.
1 MR. HARMON: Your Honour, we have one remaining witness to call,
2 and that is Mr. Garry Selsky this morning. We will not be recalling
3 Mr. Randall. I communicated to the Trial Chamber and to Defence counsel
4 the status of P600, which is a photograph that purported to come from the
5 Orahovac site. That is not the photograph of the ammunition box that was
6 recovered at the Orahovac site. It was recovered at another site.
7 Therefore, we will not recall Mr. Randall. We will limit our evidence
8 today to Mr. Garry Selsky.
9 Apologies to the Court for any inconvenience that it occasioned
10 by virtue of our submission. Same to the Defence.
11 Mr. Thomas will lead the next witness.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Am I right to say the next witness is 92 bis?
13 MR. HARMON: Yes, Your Honour.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
15 Mr. Thomas.
16 MR. THOMAS: Good morning, Your Honours.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Good morning.
18 MR. THOMAS: Before I call Mr. Selsky, who I don't intend to
19 examine, being a 92 bis witness, but he's required to attend for
20 cross-examination, Your Honours, I wonder if I could just deal firstly
21 with his -- first of all, the declaration which Your Honours have already
22 ruled is to be admitted as an exhibit.
23 The relevant P number was 1833. It was -- Your Honours ruled
24 that it was to be admitted as an exhibit following redaction of certain
25 portions. Those redactions have now been undertaken, and the redacted
1 declaration has been up-loaded into e-court. I don't know if anything by
2 way of any formal tendering of that particular document as an exhibit is
3 required, given Your Honours' ruling.
4 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Court Officer is trying to update me. I'm not
6 quite sure I'm on the same page as you are, Mr. Thomas. All I know is
7 that you've asked for Mr. Selsky to come and testify. What exhibit he's
8 coming to testify on, I really don't know. However, Mr. Court Officer
9 seems to be on the same page as you, and he wants to give us an
10 explanation which is very complicated for me as to what has happened so
11 far with respect to the e-court position of that exhibit.
12 Mr. Court Officer, please.
13 THE REGISTRAR: Thank you, Your Honour. I will try to simplify
14 my explanation.
15 The document under 65 ter number 08234, which was redacted and
16 up-loaded into e-court under 65 ter 08234A, has been assigned
17 Exhibit P1833 and has been admitted into evidence, though it still lacks
18 redacted B/C/S translation to be attached to it. That's all.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
20 THE REGISTRAR: But it's still in evidence. Thank you.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
22 Mr. Guy-Smith.
23 MR. GUY-SMITH: Yes. If I might, just for a minor point of
25 With regard to this Court's ruling concerning this particular
1 document, paragraph G of the document, it is our position, continues to
2 contain opinions and references to unnamed parties which the Prosecution,
3 in their initial submission, indicated they would strike from this
5 So to that extent, we believe that it would still be appropriate
6 that paragraph G be stricken, even in light of the ruling made by this
7 Court, because it falls within the legal understanding and the
8 undertaking made by the Prosecution as it relates to any opinions or
9 references made to unnamed third parties.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Thomas.
11 MR. THOMAS: Well, Your Honours, that may have been the position
12 of the parties, but it was not ultimately the position of Your Honours.
13 And in your decision, you stated very clearly which parts of the
14 declaration were to remain and which were to be redacted. So it was
15 purely conforming with the very specific directions contained in
16 Your Honours' decision that the present exhibit was redacted in the way
17 that it was. The Prosecution simply isn't at liberties to do otherwise,
18 Your Honour.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
20 As I said earlier, we don't have the exhibit before us, and we're
21 not here dealing with admissions of exhibits, if a decision has been
22 taken to admit a particular exhibit, it has been admitted. If anybody
23 wants to challenge that admission, we can do that at a separate stage.
24 At this point in time, we're really trying to get the witness into court.
25 MR. THOMAS: Your Honours, one matter before Mr. Selsky comes in.
1 In preparing for his evidence today, he went back through the
2 analysis that he had undertaken. In the course of doing so, he found a
3 number of errors which he has corrected by way of a further declaration
4 over the weekend that was taken in accordance with 92 bis before a
5 Registry officer yesterday. That also has been up-loaded into e-court
6 and provided to the Defence. It does no more than identify what
7 corrections he wishes to make to the numbers that are recorded in his
8 original declaration. And for the purpose of having the complete
9 picture, Your Honours, I'm seeking at this moment to tender also as an
10 exhibit the supplemental 92 bis declaration that Mr. Selsky swore
11 yesterday. That document has been up-loaded into e-court. We can put it
12 on the screens, if that will assist Your Honours. But I see my learned
13 friend is on his feet.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Guy-Smith.
15 MR. GUY-SMITH: Yes. In the spirit of the new year, considering
16 the state of this particular witness's testimony, we will have no
17 objection to the Prosecution's proposed correction of the previous 92 bis
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
20 MR. THOMAS: I'm very grateful to my learned friend for that
21 indication, Your Honours. The 65 ter number concerned is 08234B, and if
22 that could please be tendered as an exhibit, if Your Honours so agree.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Indeed, it may be tendered. Okay. 65 ter 08234B
24 is admitted into evidence, and may it please be given an exhibit number.
25 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honours. This document becomes
1 Exhibit P2892. Thank you.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
3 MR. THOMAS: Thank you, Your Honours.
4 Mr. Registrar, that concludes all preliminary matters relating to
5 Mr. Selsky. He can be called for cross-examination at this point,
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: He may come in.
8 [The witness entered court]
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: May the witness please make the oath, standing.
10 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the
11 whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
12 WITNESS: GARRY SELSKY
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Mr. Selsky.
14 Before you sit down, what does P stand for, Mr. Selsky, in your
16 THE WITNESS: Paul.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. You may be seated.
18 Mr. Thomas.
19 Sorry, your learned friend is on his feet. Yes, Mr. Guy-Smith.
20 MR. GUY-SMITH: I was being a bit eager, that's all.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Mr. Guy-Smith. I thought you
22 were not able to drink water seated.
23 MR. GUY-SMITH: I'll have to try and see.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Thomas.
25 MR. THOMAS: Thank you, Your Honours.
1 Examination by Mr. Thomas:
2 Q. Mr. Selsky, could you give us your full name and occupation,
4 A. My name is Garry Paul Selsky. I'm a member of the Office of the
5 Prosecutor, I'm a senior investigator, and have been since
6 September 1998.
7 Q. And you're the author of a declaration dated October 2007 and
8 also the supplementary declaration dated yesterday that have been
9 tendered in support of account of Srebrenica-related shell casings?
10 A. October 2007, yes, and yesterday.
11 MR. THOMAS: Thank you. Mr. Selsky, would you please answer any
12 questions that my learned friends may have for you.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Guy-Smith.
15 MR. GUY-SMITH: Thank you, Your Honour.
16 Cross-examination by Mr. Guy-Smith:
17 Q. Good morning, Mr. Selsky.
18 A. Good morning.
19 Q. Happy new year to you.
20 A. As well.
21 Q. You indicated that you've been an investigator since 1998, and,
22 as I understood it, a senior investigator as well. I take it that's
23 since that time as well, since 1998?
24 A. Yes. I have been an investigator since 1972 in my home
25 jurisdiction of Canada
1 Q. And with regard to your investigation as a -- in Canada,
2 domestically, what kind of investigations did you do, sir?
3 A. Everything from murder, sexual assault, to organised crime,
4 drugs, immigration and passport. In municipal jurisdictions, from
5 battery thefts to different complaints of family abuse.
6 Q. So it would be fair to say, so we don't have to detail your
7 career, that you are certainly a well seasoned and well qualified
8 investigator; correct?
9 A. I believe so.
10 Q. And in that regard, in terms of your seasoning and
11 qualifications, you understand both the methodology of investigations and
12 the importance of maintaining particular types of chronologies or, let's
13 say, sheets that indicate the manner in which the investigation's gone
14 forth; correct?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. You also, of course, understand, as a seasoned and experienced
17 investigator, the importance of memorialising all of the contacts that
18 you have made and the individuals that you have dealt with in your
19 investigation; true?
20 A. I didn't catch the word, "context "or "contacts"?
21 Q. Contacts. Individuals who you have dealt with in your
22 investigation. True?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And the reason for that being important, and by that I'm talking
25 about is the memorialisation of what I would call time, place, and
1 individual, is so that there is a clear understanding of what you've done
2 in your investigation as well as a chain of evidence, correct, among
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Chain of evidence?
5 MR. GUY-SMITH: Chain of evidence, so that we know where the
6 evidence was found and where the evidence -- and how the evidence came to
8 THE WITNESS: On evidence seizures made in the field or here, we
9 would bring it -- complete a MIF, describe the items --
10 MR. GUY-SMITH:
11 Q. I'm sorry, sir, I don't mean to interrupt you. I'm talking just
12 about generally the issue of the importance of memorialising all of the
13 participants and the dates in which things occurred. That's all I'm
14 talking about for the moment.
15 A. I understand.
16 Q. That's something that's pretty important, is it not?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Okay. Now, as an investigation becomes larger and there is more
19 evidence to seize or more evidence to investigate, that issue also
20 exponentially becomes something of greater importance because of the need
21 to make sure that the items seized are properly identified; correct?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Okay. I'd like to take -- I think you mentioned an MIF, seizures
24 went through MIF.
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. I'd like to take a -- you mentioned, I think it was MIF; seizures
2 went through MIF?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Okay. I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with that particular acronym.
5 I don't know whether the Chamber is. Could you please explain to us what
6 MIF is?
7 A. Just off the top of my head, it's just a procedure in regards --
8 electronic procedure in how we register evidence into the evidence room.
9 Q. Okay. And what does MIF stand for?
10 A. I just -- I don't have a recollection right now. I'm sorry.
11 Q. Okay. Now, with regard to your efforts in this regard, and by
12 that I'm talking about your efforts with regard to the question of the --
13 as I understand it, the identification of small-arms cartridges, what I'd
14 like to do for a moment is understand something. And do you, by any
15 chance -- if we could have P1833, which I believe is the declaration that
16 you have submitted in this regard, up on the screen.
17 MR. GUY-SMITH: Now, you can stop there for the moment,
18 Mr. Registrar.
19 THE INTERPRETER: Would the counsel please speak into the
20 microphone. Would the speakers kindly pause between questions and
21 answers. Thank you.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Guy-Smith.
23 MR. GUY-SMITH: Yes?
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Do you have the interpreter? If you put on your
25 earphones, she's asking you: One, to speak into the microphone, and also
1 that the parties, I think both of you, speak loudly and speak into the
2 microphone. I can't see what's written here.
3 MR. GUY-SMITH: All right. Can you hear me now?
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: To pause between questions.
5 MR. GUY-SMITH: Okay, thank you so much.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: To pause between questions.
7 MR. GUY-SMITH:
8 Q. Before we discuss your declaration specifically: Did you keep a
9 chronology of the documents that you reviewed with regard to your efforts
10 to determine the provenance or the identity of small cartridge casings?
11 A. I started with the Dean Manning investigations report and his
12 findings on Srebrenica, and I worked down from there.
13 Q. And I take it you have a document that reflects all of the times
14 that you have reviewed, signed OTP statements. Correct?
15 A. No, I don't.
16 Q. You have a document that indicates the chronological efforts you
17 made with regard to review of all the documents you reviewed in
18 preparation of this particular declaration; correct?
19 A. I'm sorry. Can you rephrase that, please?
20 Q. You have a document, the same kind of thing, a chronology?
21 A. No, I don't.
22 Q. Okay. And with regard to the OTP investigators that you have
23 spoken to during 2003/2007, I take it once again, based upon your
24 previous two answers, that you have no document that reflects your
25 chronology of speaking with various OTP investigators as it relates to
1 this particular issue. And once again I'm talking about the issue of
2 small-arms cartridges.
3 A. No.
4 Q. Okay. Now, if we could have your declaration up on the screen
5 now. I believe that we've just dealt with -- first of all, looking at
6 this, and perhaps we should look at the first page, and I do apologise.
7 I want to make sure this is the declaration that you take as being your
8 own, that you signed.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: If I may just interpose on that point.
10 I see that the declaration on the screen has some redactions on
11 it. I have and I believe the rest of the Chamber has been provided with
12 a hard copy which is unredacted. My question, really, is: What do we go
13 by? Do we go by what's P1833 that's redacted?
14 MR. GUY-SMITH: I believe so, yes, and I will be questioning
15 about P1833 as redacted.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
17 MR. GUY-SMITH: If we could take a look at the second page.
18 Q. I'd like you to take a look at this to see what has been admitted
19 as P1833 is, in fact, the declaration that you read and signed.
20 Do you recall, on the 26th of November, 2009, being in the
21 presence of the Registrar with Mr. Harmon and signing a declaration?
22 A. Yes.
23 MR. GUY-SMITH: Could we go to the next page.
24 Q. And looking at the next page, it says:
25 "Declaration by a Person Making a Written Statement Pursuant to
1 Rule 92 Bis."
2 Do you recall being present when this document was executed?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And that is your signature where it says "Witness's Signature";
5 correct, sir?
6 A. At the bottom, yes, left-hand side.
7 MR. GUY-SMITH: Could we go to the next page, please.
8 Q. You will note on the next page there are a number of areas that
9 have now been blackened or redacted, and I trust that as you look at the
10 document, you'll be able to make a determination whether or not this is
11 the declaration that you did, indeed, execute. And looking at the first
12 page, do you recall this language?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And could we go to the second page just to make sure that that's
15 your signature, sir.
16 MR. GUY-SMITH: I think we've gone the wrong way. I think we
17 need to go the other way.
18 Q. And looking at the bottom of that page, is that your signature,
20 A. Yes, it is.
21 Q. Excellent. And now if we could return to the first page of the
22 declaration, itself, which should be back one page. And if we could
23 focus on paragraph 3(A).
24 As I understand what you actually did here, was it you retrieved
25 3.638 small-arms cartridges or shell casings in the OTP evidence vault;
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Okay. Now, with regard to that statement, just going that far,
4 no further, when did you do that?
5 A. At the end of August 2007 and throughout the first two weeks of
6 September 2007.
7 Q. Now, with regard to that particular activity, I take it that the
8 evidence vault is a place that you do not have free access to, but,
9 rather, it's a place where you have to sign -- you have to sign for the
10 actual evidence to take it out so there's a record of what's been in the
11 evidence vault and what's been taken out. Is that correct?
16 Q. Okay. Is there a record or sheet of some sort that indicates
17 when you visited the evidence vault for purposes of engaging in this
18 particular exercise, so that if we were to look, we would see a document
19 that establishes the time that you said that you were there in August,
20 that you came in on a certain date?
21 A. I don't know of such a document.
22 Q. You didn't sign such a document?
23 A. No.
24 Q. So you could go into the evidence vault whenever you wanted to;
25 is that fair?
1 A. No. I had to make contact with Susan Artega. She had the keys
2 to the vault. She had the keys to different areas. And she retrieved
3 the items off the exhibit shelves, she removed the bags to a table or a
4 cart area that we used, and she took the exhibits back to those
6 Q. Okay. Could you give us just an example -- since from what I
7 understand you can't give us a date specific, could you give us an
8 example of how this process worked? Did you call her up on the phone and
9 say, Hello, Ms. Artega, I'm coming by today and I would like to see the
10 following evidence?
11 A. Yes, we had -- I had given her a list of ERN numbers in regards
12 to the shell casings and asked her if she could make a list of those.
13 Subsequently, I would call her and make arrangements to meet on the third
14 floor of the Office of the Prosecutor, and she would either be there or I
15 would meet her at the vault door. And we would go into a portion of the
16 vault area that is used for examination purposes.
17 Q. Okay. And when you got into the portion of the vault area that
18 is used for examination purposes, once again I take it, because I'm not
19 sure as to what occurred, but I take it what happened was that she had
20 brought with her a number of sealed envelopes that contained the actual
21 physical evidence that you were going to examine. Is that correct?
22 A. The exhibits were in boxes, in bags, five, six metres from where
23 we were working. So she would go to that location, retrieve a box or a
24 bag of cartridge casings, and give it to us, and we would identify it via
25 the ERN number.
1 Q. Okay. I understand that the only thing that you have not
2 responded to is the issue of the evidence -- the actual physical evidence
3 being sealed, that it came to you in a sealed fashion, so that when you
4 obtained it, it was in a pristine position. By that, I mean that it
5 wasn't open and available for rummaging about?
6 It's a question, sir.
7 A. I'm sorry.
8 Q. Was it sealed? When you got the evidence, was it sealed, in a
9 sealed box, bag, container?
10 A. Some of the boxes I observed her breaking a seal. Some of the
11 boxes were opened. Some of the large plastic bags that she took from the
12 shelves were sealed, and some of the bags were unsealed.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: If I may just interrupt a little bit,
14 Mr. Guy-Smith.
15 MR. GUY-SMITH: Sure.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Selsky, at page 18 on your screen, line 6, you
17 say: "... and give it to us." Now, this is, I think, Ms. Artega who
18 would give it to "us." Whom were the "us"? With whom were you in the
19 vault room?
1 A. No, just the --
2 Q. My question is: Did you ever have him vetted, sir?
3 A. No.
4 Q. Thank you. Now, in 2007, when you indicated you retrieved 3.638
5 small-arms cartridges or shell casings, could you tell me, how did you
6 count them? And I mean, by that, did you have a computer or some form of
7 manner of counting these shell casings? You do it by hand and go one,
8 two, three, four, five?
9 A. Yes.
12 A. And Susan Artega was within eyesight of us and participating in
13 some of the counts, not all of them.
14 Q. I'm sorry, I missed that.
15 A. Excuse me. In some of the counts, she was right there. Other
16 times, she was walking -- or at a small table near us, or walking to the
17 shelf area to get another exhibit.
18 Q. Okay. And now I take it that those working notes, and by that I
19 mean simply the pieces of -- let me ask you this: Did you do this on a
20 piece of paper?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Memorialise the number of shell casings?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And you retained that piece of paper, I take it?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. You have that piece of paper today?
2 A. Not here.
3 Q. But you do have it?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. With a date on it?
6 A. I don't believe there's a date on there.
7 Q. Oh. And after you -- after you counted up the shell cartridges,
8 you came up with this total number, is that correct, of 3.638?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Okay. Now, I want to continue. You said that, with the same
11 paragraph, which is paragraph 3(A), that they were seized by OTP staff
12 between 1996 and 2001. Now, did you personally seize any of these items
13 of evidence?
14 A. No, I did not.
15 Q. The first time that you came in contact with these items of
16 evidence was in August of 2007, when you engaged in your counting?
17 A. No. I had completed an examination of some of the same exhibits
18 in 2004.
19 Q. Oh, okay. When you say "some of the same exhibits," I take it
20 there's some document that you have in your possession that shows the
21 correlation between that which you exhibited in 2004 and that which you
22 exhibited in 2007. Is that correct?
23 A. I don't have the exact correlation, but there's two documents
24 that I have: One that was completed in November 23rd of 2004 and this
1 Q. And the one that was completed in November 2004, is that a -- is
2 that a document for which you also wrote a declaration? I'm sorry. Are
3 the efforts that you engaged in in 2004 ultimately memorialised in a
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Okay. And was that a declaration that was also done for purposes
7 of investigation of this case?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And in 2004, when you engaged in those efforts, that you
10 examined, as I understand it, some of the same items of evidence;
12 A. I just did a -- a sampling of different bags in a collection of
13 casings that came from Srebrenica.
14 Q. When you say that you did "a sampling of different bags ... of
15 casings that came from Srebrenica in 2004," could you -- did you
16 memorialise what bags you took what shells out of for purposes of this
17 sampling that you engaged in?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Okay. And you have those records?
20 A. I have a spreadsheet, yes.
21 MR. GUY-SMITH: Okay.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: For my own edification, Mr. Selsky, when you say
23 you did "a sampling of different bags in a collection of casings that
24 came from Srebrenica," do I understand you to say that you have not
25 looked at each cartridge out of the 3.638, you have not looked at each
1 one of the 3.638 shell cartridges?
2 THE WITNESS: The two inspections varied, Your Honour. The first
3 one in 2004 was a sampling where we looked at specific -- each cartridge
4 from a bag of evidence that was taken from Srebrenica, and it was a
5 random sampling.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: When you say it was a sampling and you looked at
7 each cartridge, then you confused me.
8 THE WITNESS: Yes, but there was just copious amounts of
9 cartridges in boxes and bags in the exhibit vault, and we just took a
10 sampling to determine if -- what type of shells, casings, there were
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: And just so that we understand exactly what you
13 mean by "sampling," my question to you is: Do I understand you to say
14 you did not examine each cartridge of the 3.638? You examined a few out
15 of several bags?
16 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, in 2004 we took a sampling of our ERN
17 bags, okay. And when we just took this bag and then randomly took
18 another bag, we would look at what was the content of each bag and how
19 many casings there were, and what decriptives they were. So we might go
20 past ERN 8 or A00-01234 and we might take A00-01235 and miss an exhibit
21 bag. In the 2007, we asked for a number of ERN ranges, and when we
22 looked in each bag, we examined each shell individually. And at times we
23 looked at the bottom of the shell with a magnifying-glass because there
24 was corrosion. They came from excavation sites, so there was rusting of
25 some of the cartridges. So when the shell, at the bottom, when it
1 wasn't -- the case markings weren't visible, we would discard that item
2 and we wouldn't -- we wouldn't guess or we wouldn't make any further
3 examination of it. We would just discard it -- or not discard it, but
4 put it to the side with the collection that we had been going through.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Is your short answer that you did a sampling in
6 2004, but in 2007 you looked at each one of the 3.638? That's your short
8 THE WITNESS: Yes.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
10 Thank you.
11 MR. GUY-SMITH: Thank you, Your Honour.
12 Q. Now, with regard to your 2004 findings, and I'm now looking at
13 paragraph D of your declaration, if we could scroll down so you can see
14 it, I take it that part of what you were just discussing with His Honour
15 is contained in the very first sentence, in which you said that you tried
16 to determine what factory engraving marks were present and what year they
17 were manufactured. If you couldn't get that information, then you didn't
18 include that in your sampling? Correct? I'm asking if that's correct.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Thomas.
20 MR. THOMAS: I'm sorry, Your Honours. My friend may have simply
21 misspoken or he may be at cross-purposes, and I just wanted to clarify
22 something for the record.
23 He prefaced his question by saying that In relation to your 2004
24 findings, and then he quoted from the declaration.
25 MR. GUY-SMITH: I'm sorry, I meant 2007. I misspoke, and thank
1 you very much, Mr. Thomas.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
3 Yes, Mr. Guy-Smith.
4 MR. GUY-SMITH:
5 Q. With Mr. Thomas' correction, let me repeat my question. With
6 respect to your 2007 findings, you looked at each shell casing to
7 determine what factory engraving marks were present and what year were
8 their manufacture. If you found some that you were not able to make that
9 determination, then you took them out of the equation; correct?
10 A. No, they were still in the count, but they -- they weren't
11 identified as a PPU 1993 or PPU 1994, or as the schedule indicates; it
12 was just another shell that we -- we also didn't count a PPU shell from
13 1989 or 1979.
14 MR. GUY-SMITH: Sure, okay. I'm sorry, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: I was just going to say: How many of the shells
16 did you find that were not identifiable by a PPU?
17 THE WITNESS: We didn't specifically record that information,
18 Your Honour, as it was -- it wasn't in our finding, it was just put
20 MR. GUY-SMITH:
21 Q. We'll come back to that, the statement "it wasn't in our
22 finding." I'm not sure I understand exactly what you mean by that, so
23 we'll come back to the issue of those that you put aside.
24 But just for purposes of just trying to get at some understanding
25 here of the process that you did engage in: As of November of 2007, you
1 examined 3.638 seized shell casings; correct?
2 A. According to my affidavit or my declaration yesterday --
3 Q. No, no, I'm not talking about your declaration yesterday. I'm
4 talking about what you did in 2007. That's what you said you'd done;
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Okay. Now, if I understand your testimony correctly, that means
8 that you had the opportunity to look at, examine, all of the shell
9 casings that you'd examined in 2004, plus some additional number;
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Okay. Now, the declaration that you just recently filed, whose
13 number, I believe, is P2892, indicates that there are an additional six
14 shells; correct?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Okay. And so between the time that you signed your declaration
17 in 2009 and over the weekend, you determined that you were shy by six
18 shells, correct, six shell casings?
19 A. I looked at the MIF, the exhibit report numbers, and in the lines
20 listed, I noticed the discrepancies. And at that time I notified
21 Mr. Thomas of my findings on Friday late afternoon, when I visited the
22 same vault with Susan Artega, the same individual that gave me the
23 exhibits before, and we examined each bag to make sure that that count
24 reflected the same count that the MIF -- the exhibit report had
25 indicated, and I made my corrections thereafter.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: So would that be a convenient moment?
2 MR. GUY-SMITH: Oh, I'm sorry. Yes, it would.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: We'll take a break and come back at 11.00.
4 Court adjourned.
5 --- Recess taken at 10.31 a.m.
6 --- On resuming at 11.02 a.m.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you. Mr. Guy-Smith.
8 And just to give everybody a forward warning, given the fact that
9 we started 30 minutes late this morning, this session will end at 12.00
10 so that we go back to our normal times.
11 MR. GUY-SMITH: Thank you for that, Your Honour.
12 Q. Mr. Selsky, continuing with your declaration, paragraph D, that
13 is, you've indicated the shell casings were predominantly manufactured
14 from the Prvi Partizan Uzice, PPU factory, at Uzice, Serbia
15 A. Are you referring to paragraph D?
16 Q. Yes.
17 A. Okay. Yes.
18 Q. Okay.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: I probably have a problem with English here. When
20 you say "predominantly manufactured from," are you suggesting that they
21 were partially manufactured from that factory and partially from another,
22 but the predominant manufacturing took place at this factory?
23 THE WITNESS: Exactly, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: And not talking about numbers?
25 THE WITNESS: No.
1 MR. GUY-SMITH: Thank you.
2 Q. Following up on the Judge's question, did you make a
3 determination on -- when you used the term "predominantly" here, did you
4 make a determination of what other places the shell casings were
5 manufactured in?
6 A. There was other markings that related to a factory in Konjic.
7 Q. I see that you're looking at the screen, so I take it you're
8 getting that information from your declaration.
9 A. Yes, I'm refreshing my memory from it.
10 Q. Okay. But just so we're clear, you don't have an independent
11 memory of this examination process that you went through, and you're
12 relying on your declaration for purposes of refreshing your memory with
13 regard to, now, the specific issue as to where the shell casings, in your
14 estimation, were manufactured; correct?
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Thomas.
16 MR. THOMAS: I have to object, Your Honour. That's a compound
17 question where the first half asserts or suggests that he does not have
18 an independent memory of this examination process, and it ends with
19 "turning to the specific issue as to where the shell casings were
20 manufactured." These are two different things, Your Honours, and I don't
21 want that answer to be interpreted as suggesting that Mr. Selsky doesn't
22 have an independent memory or recollection of this examination process.
23 MR. GUY-SMITH: Well, I appreciate Mr. Thomas' testifying with
24 regard to Mr. Selsky's memory. Mr. Selsky's asked the question, he's
25 clearly a seasoned investigator, and he can answer the question in the
1 manner that he sees fit.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you. But do you accept that the question
3 was compound?
4 MR. GUY-SMITH: I do not.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Well, I'm sorry, the question is compound. First
6 of all, you have no independent memory; secondly, you are relying on your
7 declaration for purposes of refreshing your memory.
8 MR. GUY-SMITH: With regard to the specific issue of the
9 manufacturing, which is what I'm referring to.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: So it's two -- there are two -- more than one
12 MR. GUY-SMITH: It's qualified --
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: You can take it a step at a time.
14 MR. GUY-SMITH:
15 Q. Do you have an independent memory of where the shell casings were
17 A. All of them?
18 Q. The question is: Do you have an independent memory?
19 A. No.
20 Q. Thank you. Now, with regard to Prvi Partizan Uzice, do you know
21 where -- do you know where that was independently? Did you independently
22 investigate that area? Did you go to the factory?
23 A. No.
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. I see.
7 A. And Kasimir Pikos [phoen].
8 Q. Okay.
9 A. An investigator.
10 Q. And Kasimir Pikos is an investigator?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Now, with regard to the Partizan factory, in terms of the
13 analysis that you were engaged in, did you make any determinations with
14 regard to the relationship that the Partizan factory had with the
15 Government of the Republic of Srpska
16 A. No.
17 Q. Did you make a determination about any contracts that existed
18 between the Partizan factory and the Government of the
19 Republic of Srpska
20 A. No.
21 Q. Did you make any determinations about any contracts for
22 production of ammunition made between the VRS and the Partizan factory?
23 A. No.
24 Q. Did you examine at any point in time any documents that would
25 establish a financial relationship between either the Republic of Srpska
1 and by that I mean the government, or the VRS with regard to the issue of
2 the ordering and payment by those entities for ammunition?
3 A. No.
4 Q. With regard to the next sentence in your declaration, in D, you
6 "There was a small percentage from Igman Konjic," then it says,
7 "YK (UK) factory at Konjic BiH which was taken over by HOS Croatian
8 forces in 17 April 1992
9 So before we go any further, I take it that those cartridges, in
10 your examination of them, had some kind of markings upon them. Correct?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Do you know who was using those cartridges, and by that I mean
13 what side of the conflict?
14 A. I'm unaware.
15 Q. Okay. With regard to the -- with regard to the issue of the PPU
16 cartridges, those that you were able to identify as PPU cartridges, were
17 you able to make a determination as to which side of the conflict was
18 using those cartridges, or did you find that cartridges were something
19 rather fungible? And by that I mean that all sides used what was
20 available to them, however they could get their hands upon them?
21 A. I'm unaware.
22 Q. Okay. Now, your conclusion here that there was a small
23 percentage from Igman Konjic is based upon your examination of those
24 cartridges. And by that I mean there was some kind of a grey marking
25 upon them. True?
1 A. Yes.
2 MR. GUY-SMITH: Okay. If we could turn the page and go to the
3 next page.
4 I'm sorry, before we do that -- excuse me, Mr. Registrar.
5 Q. Before we do that, the last indication in D is:
6 "The cartridges with the engraved markings are described as
8 Correct? And I'm going back to what you said in paragraph D, the
9 last thing you said in paragraph D. And let's pull it back for you so
10 you know I'm not pulling the wool over your eye. Right:
11 "The cartridges with the engraved markings are described as
13 And then we go on to the next page; correct?
14 A. Yes.
15 MR. GUY-SMITH: Okay. Let's go on to the next page. Thank you
16 very much.
17 If you could just go from where it says "I" just to where the
18 first redaction is, I would appreciate it, and enlarge that part for the
19 gentleman. No, up. Wrong part; up. Yes. Down so he can see the whole
20 thing. Have the screen go down a little bit just so we can see a little
21 bit. Perfect. Thank you so much.
22 Q. Now, you've indicated, using designations I, II, III, then IV,
23 and V, those cartridges that have engraved markings on them; correct?
24 A. I'm sorry?
25 Q. You've used, for purposes of describing those cartridges that had
1 engraved markings on them, those that are designated I, II, III, IV and
2 V; correct?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Now, help me here, if you could, please. Where, on this chart,
5 are those cartridges that you were referring to previously, which are the
6 small percentages from Igman Konjic which apparently had the designation
7 of YK upon them; where are those?
8 A. They aren't indicated in there.
9 Q. How many of them were there?
10 A. I can't recall.
11 Q. I see. Now, those cartridges were cartridges that were
12 apparently cartridges dated -- having the date of 1992; is that correct?
13 A. I can't recall.
14 Q. I see. Is there a reason why those cartridges are not contained
15 in this chart when you indicate, in paragraph D, the following:
16 "The cartridges with the engraved markings are described as
18 And it is -- from what I understand your answer to be, that you
19 have clearly deleted, redacted, or left out, whatever word you choose to
20 adopt here, sir, cartridges that were from the Igman Konjic factory?
21 A. They didn't fall in the time-frame from 1993, 1994, and 1995.
22 Q. I'm sorry, I don't know what that means, They didn't fall within
23 the time-frame 1993, 1994, 1995. These were cartridges that were found
24 at the sites by the investigators; correct?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. You earlier said -- and page 25, line 21, I said we'd get back to
2 this. Your language was -- this was in response to a question by
3 Judge Moloto:
4 "I was just going to say," this is the Judge, "how many of the
5 shells did you find were not identifiable by a PPU?"
6 And your answer was:
7 "We didn't specifically record that information, Your Honour, as
8 it was -- it wasn't in our finding. It was just put aside."
9 Now, you then, at a point in time, mentioned that you did not put
10 into your findings any cartridges that may have been identified in 1979
11 or 1989?
12 A. Correct.
13 Q. Now, did you find cartridges of 1979 and 1989?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Those were cartridges that were found in the sites that are the
16 subject matter of your declaration, sir?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. How many?
19 A. I can't recall. I didn't count the ones that we set aside and
20 that I didn't record in my findings here that dealt with 1993/1994.
21 Q. Okay.
22 A. They were in the count, but they weren't counted specifically as
23 25 from 1969 and so on throughout the years.
24 Q. Did you have any discussion with your fellow investigators about
25 the import of the date of the ammunition, what significance the date of a
1 shell casing might have?
2 A. The date 1993 to 1995 was related to the indictment period, and
3 that's what specifically we looked for.
4 Q. In your capacity as a senior investigator here for many years,
5 sir, you're well aware of the fact that substantial amounts of ammunition
6 that pre-dated 1993 was used throughout the region by all sides, were you
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. As an investigator, I take it it's your position, and I'm asking
10 the question sincerely, that that information is not critical to an
11 understanding of what was occurring with regard to any possible
12 responsibility or liability of individuals, in terms of transferring
13 ammunition or other material?
14 A. I'm sorry, I don't grasp your question.
15 Q. Wouldn't you agree with me, sir, that ammunition that was
16 produced before 1993 is critical to an understanding of the liability or
17 responsibility of those individuals who are charged with, among other
18 things, the delivery of materiel?
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Thomas.
20 MR. THOMAS: Objection, Your Honour. That calls for an opinion
21 on the part of the witness, who is also not the trier of fact in this
23 MR. GUY-SMITH:
24 Q. As a senior investigator, let me rephrase --
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Who was also not a trier of fact?
1 MR. GUY-SMITH: He's -- I believe he's objecting that I'm
2 invading -- I'm asking him to invade the providence of the Chamber, and
3 I'm more than happy to rephrase the question.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm grateful to you for the explanation.
5 MR. GUY-SMITH:
6 Q. In your estimation, was the presence of ammunition that pre-dated
7 the indictment period, in the very sites that were part of your
8 declaration, of any import?
9 MR. THOMAS: Same objection, Your Honour.
10 MR. GUY-SMITH:
11 Q. Do you believe that the absence of ammunition, identified
12 ammunition, pre-1993 -- let me rephrase that.
13 Would you agree with me that your report is incomplete, inasmuch
14 as it fails to identify pre-1993 ammunition that was found at the sites?
15 A. Your Honour, I was tasked to examine the shell casings and look
16 for the shell casings that were manufactured from the period
17 1993 to 1995. And that was my task, and I effected it as best I could.
18 Q. Okay. With regard to that response, I take it that was the same
19 task that you had from the very beginning of this endeavour. That was
20 the same task you had in 2004; correct?
21 A. Yes.
22 MR. GUY-SMITH: Okay. Could we have 1D07-0356 up on the screen,
24 Q. Considering your last answer, Mr. Selsky, this is your
25 declaration from 2004. And, first of all, let's take a look at it just
1 to make sure that you recognise it.
2 MR. GUY-SMITH: If we could scroll down. And if we could go to
3 the next page.
4 Q. If you could look at the bottom, is that your signature?
5 A. Yes, it is.
6 Q. And do you confirm that this is the declaration that you executed
7 in 2004?
8 A. Yes, it is.
9 MR. GUY-SMITH: Okay. If we could go back to page 1.
10 And with Mr. Perisic's indulgence, because one of these is now
11 in -- I don't know if we can do this, if we can do a split screen and if
12 we can have up on the screen right next to that his declaration in 2007,
13 which would mean that we would have to have the Serbian off for a moment.
14 Can we do that? That would be P1833.
15 Q. In paragraph B of your 2004 declaration, you indicate what
16 endeavours you went through, which is similar to paragraph D of your 2007
17 declaration. As a matter of fact, I think that it would be fair to say
18 that apart from the number of seized items in 2004, the number being
19 1.579, and in 2007 the number being 3.638, that the language of these two
20 paragraphs is substantially similar, if not identical. One of the places
21 where there's a distinction being that in 2004 you indicated "seized
22 casings" in paragraph B, and in 2007 you indicated "seized shell
23 casings." But apart from that, the language is the same; correct?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. With regard to the identification of those shell casings that
1 were engraved, there is, I would hazard to say, a marked difference in
2 the information that you presented in 2004 from that which you presented
3 in 2007. And by that I mean looking at the 2004 declaration, under B(i),
4 you have "PPU, 1994, 1993, 1992, and pre-1992"; correct?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. That information does not exist in your declaration in 2007;
8 A. Some of it does.
9 Q. Okay. With regard to the pre-1993 information, that information
10 has been excised from your declaration in 2007; correct?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. With regard to the next entry, that being B(ii) in your 2004
13 declaration, none of that information is contained within your
14 declaration in 2007, is it?
15 MR. GUY-SMITH: And if we could turn the page of the 2007
16 declaration to the next page, that may be of some help to Mr. Selsky.
17 THE WITNESS: No.
18 MR. GUY-SMITH:
19 Q. Okay. Now, with regard to the information contained in your 2004
20 declaration at B(ii), you indicated to us that you were tasked with the
21 responsibility of looking for, if I'm not mistaken, evidence that covered
22 the indictment period that includes the years 1993 --
23 THE INTERPRETER: Would the counsel please speak into the
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Please speak into the microphone.
1 MR. GUY-SMITH: Sure.
2 Q. You were tasked with the responsibility of looking for, if I'm
3 not mistaken, evidence that covered the indictment period that included
4 the years 1993 and 1994. Correct?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Am I correct that in the following -- that with regard to your
7 declaration in 2004, under B(ii), the years 1994 and 1993 would fall
8 directly within the indictment period and directly within the
9 responsibilities for which you were tasked?
10 A. Is that a question, please?
11 Q. It certainly is.
12 A. Can you rephrase it, please?
13 Q. Sure. Am I correct that with regard to your declaration in 2004,
14 under B(ii), the years 1994 and 1993 would fall directly within the
15 indictment period and directly within the responsibilities for which you
16 were tasked?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Thank you. Moving on, that information is not contained in your
19 declaration in 2007; right?
20 A. Yes, and it's my recollection that I don't believe we found any,
21 but I don't know why it wasn't included in that 2007 declaration,
22 Your Honour.
23 Q. Well, now you've said two things. Now you've said you don't
24 believe you found any, and you don't know why it wasn't included. When
25 you say that you don't believe you found any, when you made this
1 declaration, you made this declaration, I'm assuming, in good faith and
2 certainly telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth
3 with regard to what you'd done. And since these are engraved markings,
4 they clearly are things that you found, aren't they, sir?
5 A. Which declaration are you talking about?
6 Q. 2004.
7 A. I can't recall the actual numbers that we noted in regards to
8 (ii) 1994, 1993, 1992, and pre-1992, Your Honour.
9 Q. Okay. Well that's distinct from the statement that you've just
10 made, Mr. Selsky, which is, "And it's my recollection that I don't
11 believe we found any," isn't it?
12 A. Correct.
13 Q. Thank you.
14 Moving on to B(iii) of your 2004 declaration, if I'm not
15 mistaken, the entry of "322 92," "322 92" is not contained in your 2007
16 declaration; correct? The other two items are.
17 A. Can you just --
18 Q. Sure. If you take a look at your declaration, 3(iii), you see
19 the numbers "10 94," which I believe is represented in your 2000 [sic]
20 declaration under (iii) as "10 94." And there's a comment; it says
21 "324 94," which I believe is included in your 2000 [sic] declaration
22 under IV. And the last one, "322 92," has gone missing. It's not in
23 your 2007 declaration, is it, sir?
24 A. It's -- no, it's not there.
25 Q. Okay.
1 MR. GUY-SMITH: With -- if we could have the next page of
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Just before we do that, what would you like to do
4 with 1D07-0356?
5 MR. GUY-SMITH: I haven't done anything with it yet. I'm moving
6 to the next page, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm sorry.
8 MR. GUY-SMITH: I'm moving to the next page.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm sorry.
10 MR. GUY-SMITH: Could we turn to the next page? That would be on
11 the right-hand side of the screen. The other one. Yeah. If it's of
12 difficulty, I can do this another -- thank you.
13 Q. Okay. Now, I'd just like to look at the very first two lines --
14 just the very first two lines: "Total number of ammunition examined,"
15 I'm sorry, and then it says under that pre-1992, "1277;" right?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Now, going to your -- that's good. Now, going to your
18 declaration in 2007, I don't see any indication of the number of pre-1992
19 ammunition totals. Do you?
20 A. No.
21 Q. Now, with regard to the -- with regard to the numbers that you
22 have supplied us with as related to the 2007 declaration, you indicate,
23 out of the total number of shell casings examined of 3.638, you found the
24 following shell casings were from the years as below described, which
25 comes to a total number of 546, if my math is correct, which means there
1 is a balance of some 3100 -- well, a little bit less, actually, 2900-plus
2 shell casings that I am assuming are pre-1992 shell casings. Is that
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Why didn't you put that figure in? Not important?
6 A. I can't recall right now.
7 MR. GUY-SMITH: If I could have a moment, please.
8 [Defence counsel confer]
9 MR. GUY-SMITH: I thank the Chamber's indulgence. I will not be
10 moving 1D07-0356 into evidence, and I have no further questions at this
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
13 Questioned by the Court:
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Selsky, in response to my question earlier,
15 you said that the words "predominantly manufactured from
16 Prvi Partizan Uzice" meant that it was partly from there and party from
17 another factory. Which other factory contributed to the manufacture of
18 those that were manufactured predominantly by Prvi Partizan?
19 A. The one from Bosnia
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm not quite sure. Did you understand my
22 A. Yes.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: What was my question?
24 A. What was the proportionality of the totality of the casings.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: No, you've misunderstood my question.
1 A. Sorry.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: You said to me -- the word "predominantly" doesn't
3 refer to numbers, it refers to the manufacturer. Now, you say, if I may
4 quote verbatim from the 2007 declaration, you say:
5 "The shell casings were predominantly manufactured from the
6 Prvi Partizan Uzice PPU factory in Uzice, Serbia."
7 A. Then I didn't grasp your question properly, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: I have still not put my question yet.
9 A. The first time you asked me that, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: And I asked you, What do you mean by
11 "predominantly"? Do you mean -- the first time I asked you was, Do you
12 mean by the word "predominantly" that the manufacture was done at more
13 than one factory, but the bulk of the manufacturing took place at Prvi.
14 And you said, Yes. And my question now is: What is or what are the
15 other factories which contributed to the manufacture of those shells that
16 were predominantly manufactured by Prvi Partizan Uzice?
17 A. I didn't ask -- answer your question --
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Correctly.
19 A. -- Correctly, Your Honour.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: You want to correct that?
21 A. Yes.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you. What did you understand me to be
23 asking you? You understood me to be saying the majority of shells came
24 from Prvi?
25 A. Yes, and that's my finding and my understanding.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Now, if by the word "predominantly" you meant the
2 majority, then I've got to go back and ask you the same -- the question
3 slightly differently now in order that we are on the same page.
4 A. I'm sorry.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: That's fine, that's fine. According to this
6 declaration, what is the total number of the PPU 1993 to PPU 7.9 that you
7 have on page 2? You've got "PPU 1993, 79," "PPU 1994, 299," and then
8 "10 94, 109," and then 38 through 20. What's the sum total of that?
9 A. I didn't add it up. Just --
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Please add it up right now.
11 A. May I have a pen and paper, please. Thank you. 545,
12 Your Honour.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: 545. Would 545 be the majority of 3.638?
14 A. No, but in total that's what our findings were of all the shells
15 we looked at.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: I don't know what you mean by "totality" in
18 A. Of all the 3.000 somewhat shells we looked at, predominantly the
19 shells came from or had the markings of PPU; with different years.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: But it's 545. We've just added now. It's 545.
21 A. Yes, from the years 1993/1994, but there was other years
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: You see, actually I would like to deal -- I will
24 deal with the question of years later, because I've got a problem with
25 that, too, based on your declaration. But for now, when you say the
1 words "predominantly manufactured from," you meant the majority; I do not
2 understand how 545 can be a majority of 3.638. This is what is in your
3 declaration. I can only deal with what's in your declaration.
4 A. Yes.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: But I'm saying: How does anyone come to say the
6 predominant product came from Prvi Partizan if only 545 came from there
7 out of a total of 3.638?
8 A. It was my understanding, when I was referring to the word
9 "predominant," I was dealing with the 3.000 in total, not just the exact
10 finding of, you know, 545, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. I think the record will just have to show
12 that we don't understand each other on that one.
13 A. I'm sorry.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: I still don't understand your answer.
15 But talking about the years, and I know that you've been asked
16 extensively on the question of years here, pre-1992, pre-1994, the last
17 sentence in your declaration of 2007, on the first page, says that:
18 "Cartridges with the engraved markings ..."
19 But before I get to that, before I ask you that, after dealing
20 with the Prvi Partizan Uzice, you say:
21 "There was a small percentage from Igman Konjic YK (UK)
23 That's from BiH. I guess you determined that by the markings and
24 engravings on those shells, that they came from Igman Konjic.
25 A. Yes, and that they were pre-1993.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Right.
2 Q. Right.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Fair enough. Now, the problem is this next
4 sentence -- this last sentence on this page says:
5 "The cartridges with the engraved markings are described as
7 The sentence does not say that "cartridges with engraved markings
8 and dating post-1992 are described as follows:"
9 Therefore, there isn't a basis, in the sentence as written, for
10 excluding pre-1993 casings. Do you agree with me?
11 A. Yes.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: My question is: Why would they have been excluded
13 if there is no such basis for their exclusion in your declaration?
14 A. I was tasked with determining if --
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: You haven't told us your task in this document.
16 All you have told us that one of your duties had been to investigate the
17 case against Momcilo Perisic, who was chief of General Staff of the
18 Army of Yugoslavia
19 examining casings that were found in the Srebrenica killings of -- I must
20 be sure -- I mustn't use an unredacted document when we have a redacted
22 Can we go to the first page of the right-hand side, please? No,
23 that's not it, that's not it. On the left-hand side. The first page of
24 that document that's redacted on the screen, please. Thank you.
25 Okay. On this one, can we enlarge it a little bit, please.
1 Thank you.
2 In trying to determine your task from this declaration, sir, we
3 are referred -- we see that you say here:
4 "I previewed signed OTP statements, documents, and spoke to OTP
5 investigators during that period. I note my findings. I retrieved 3.638
6 small-arms cartridges or shell casings in the OTP evidence vault that
7 were seized by OTP staff between 1996 and 2001 from execution sites and
8 primary and secondary burial sites in the Srebrenica area, BiH."
9 From that, the only impression I can get is that you're
10 investigating the whole thing that you are talking about there.
11 A. I understand your point, Your Honour, and I should have made it
12 much more clear in my declaration.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you so much if you accept that you should
14 have made it much more clearer in your declaration. Thank you for the
16 Now, my last question: If you could just take us through your
17 declarations and tell us the significance of the writings that you've got
18 there, you know. And I am assuming that "PPU 1993" means that it comes
19 from the Prvi Partizan Uzice and it was manufactured in 1993. Is that
20 what it means?
21 A. That's my understanding, but I don't have any expertise in that
22 area, Your Honour.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: What would then "10 94" mean?
24 If you go to the second page of the left-hand side, for the
25 benefit of the witness.
1 A. Your Honour, I can answer that. I -- we looked at that portion
2 or that stamp, and I wasn't able to answer that through talking with the
3 investigators, and I relied on our trial team to call in an expert for
4 that type of information.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: And, therefore, you can't say that "10 94" comes
6 from PPU?
7 A. No.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Similarly, "324 94" you can't say comes from PPU?
9 A. No.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: What does "PPU 7.9" mean?
11 A. It's the 7.9 calibre, Your Honour.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: So we don't know what year of manufacture these 20
13 were -- what is the year of manufacture of these 20?
14 A. No.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: We cannot say they are post-1992, nor can we say
16 they are pre-1993?
17 A. Correct.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you. I guess that clarifies me on those
19 little markings.
20 Any re-examination, Mr. Thomas?
21 MR. THOMAS: Very briefly, Your Honours, thank you.
22 And if we could please have -- in fact, we may have it on the
23 screen already. If we could have page 1, please -- sorry, the previous
24 page of the declaration that's on the left-hand side of the screen,
25 please. And if we could have paragraph D enlarged, please,
1 Mr. Registrar.
2 Re-examination by Mr. Thomas:
3 Q. Now, Mr. Selsky, I want to take you back again to the statement
4 of yours that the shell casings were predominantly manufactured at
5 Prvi Partizan.
6 You examined something in excess of three and a half thousand
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. All right. Of those three and a half thousand casings, was there
10 a marking that most of them bore?
11 A. "PPU."
12 Q. All right. Were they just from 1993 or 1994, or were they from
13 other years as well?
14 A. From the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, and early 1990 markings,
15 Your Honour.
16 Q. If we go to the next page in your declaration, please. In the
17 bottom section of numbers that we've already discussed, the section that
18 adds up to 545, you have included listings for PPU 1993 and 1994. You
19 see that?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. You've already given us your explanation as to why you limited
22 your description to 1993 and 1994, but do we take it that there were a
23 significant number of PPU shells that you observed with markings of 1992
24 or earlier?
25 A. Yes, and that's where I derived predominantly from there was a
1 high percentage; 60, 70 per cent.
2 Q. Do I understand, then, that if you add that figure to what we
3 have there, the 545, that you get more than half of 3.600 odd?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. All right.
6 MR. GUY-SMITH: Excuse me. I think your math might be off.
7 Apart from the fact that it's leading, so the record is clear here, I
8 don't know how we get to the "more than half." I just think your math
9 might be off, Mr. Thomas.
10 MR. THOMAS:
11 Q. You've used the word "predominantly"?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. You've explained to us that in using that word you were
14 attempting to convey that more than half of these 3600 shells were
15 manufactured by Prvi Partizan; is that right?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. On the page that we see, page 2 of your declaration, you have
18 listed only 1993 and 1994 entries and some selected others from PPU which
19 add up to 545; is that right?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Well, three, at least, of those relate to PPU; is that right?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Do I understand that what you have excluded from that list is
24 anything that bore the marking of PPU 1992 or earlier?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. All right. When you add what --
2 MR. GUY-SMITH: Excuse me. I don't believe that that's an
3 accurate statement of his testimony.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Thomas.
5 MR. GUY-SMITH: I believe it would be accurate to say that he
6 excluded anything that did not have a 1993 or 1994 marking upon it, but
7 whether it would be PPU or otherwise would not be accurate.
8 MR. THOMAS: Sorry, Your Honours, I don't understand my friend's
9 objection. I'm asking him if that's what he excluded. I'm not quoting
10 any testimony back to him. I'm asking him if that's what he did.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: You should be asking him what did he exclude,
12 rather than telling him what it is you think he excluded.
13 MR. THOMAS:
14 Q. What did you exclude? In relation to PPU, because that's all I'm
15 interested in at the moment, what did you exclude from that list that we
16 see on the screen on the moment?
17 A. The pre-1992 shell casings.
18 Q. All --
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Pre-1992 or pre-1993? In other words, did you
20 exclude 1992 as well?
21 THE WITNESS: Yes.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: So it's pre-1993?
23 THE WITNESS: Yes.
24 MR. THOMAS:
25 Q. Are you able to tell us whether any of those pre-1993 shells also
1 had "PPU" on them?
2 A. Yes, and I estimate that approximately 60 to 70 per cent of the
3 casings that we examined of the -- that totalled 3600 casings were
4 from -- had the markings "PPU" on them.
5 Q. Okay. And was your examination in 2007 at the request of the
6 Prosecution team?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And were you asked to look for particular things?
9 A. Yes. The ammunition that was manufactured by the PPU factory in
10 the indictment 1993 to 1995.
11 MR. THOMAS: All right. Thank you, Your Honours. Those are my
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
14 MR. GUY-SMITH: Your Honour, I have one question which is
15 occasioned by the question that you asked, but I'm more than happy to
16 wait until you ask first, because --
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Let me ask first.
18 Taking you back to my questions, Mr. Selsky, would it then be
19 fair to say, according to this declaration, the total number of PPU shell
20 casings that are post-1992 is 378; that is, 545 minus 109, 38, and 20?
21 THE WITNESS: No, Your Honour, it's in -- the totality of the
22 number is of 3.644.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sorry. I would like you to please listen to my
24 question and make sure you understand my question.
25 THE WITNESS: Please.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: My question is: Is it fair to say, according to
2 this declaration, the total number of PPU shell casings that are
3 post-1992, that is, the ones that you decided to take into account here,
4 is 378?
5 THE WITNESS: Oh, I stand corrected, Your Honour. I didn't grasp
6 your question again.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: That's 545 less 109, 38, and 20.
8 THE WITNESS: Yes.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: In other words, 299 plus 79 is 378?
10 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: So that is the number that you were interested in,
12 that you were tasked to look for. Post-1992 PPU, 378?
13 THE WITNESS: And any -- you know, any casings that related to
14 the period. And that's why we noted the 10 94, and the 324 94.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. Okay. Thank you so much, except that we
16 don't know where they come from, those, the 10 94 and the 324, we don't
17 know which factory they come from.
18 THE WITNESS: Yes.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. Thank you.
20 Further cross-examination by Mr. Guy-Smith:
21 Q. The question that I then had was using the figure 3.638, in
22 recognising what you said to His Honour with regard to the 378 casings
23 that have been identified for the years 1993 and 1994 as coming from the
24 PPU, that figure, 378, represents 10.4 per cent of the total number of
25 shell casings that are involved in your declaration; correct?
1 A. Yes.
2 MR. GUY-SMITH: Thank you.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Thomas, I guess you have no questions arising
4 from the questions of --
5 MR. THOMAS: I --
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Before I do so, before I ask you that question,
7 just one question from the Judge.
8 JUDGE PICARD: [Interpretation] I have only one question to ask to
9 be quite sure about the figures you have given. Among the casings you
10 have examined which had no markings, did these casings or cartridges
11 which had no specific mark or were they too damaged so that you couldn't
12 see any specific markings?
13 THE WITNESS: Excuse me. Most of the shell casings that we
14 examined had markings of some -- the older they were, the more difficult
15 they were to examine. And if we could not readily note that they were
16 from the 1993 to 1995 period, we counted them, but we set them aside and
17 they weren't included in the 1993 to 1994 portions. There was a few
18 shells that we couldn't -- because of rust and contamination, we couldn't
19 tell what factory or what type of markings, but those were rare to find.
20 The other markings were somewhat visible, using the magnifying-glass, to
21 determine the year. If it was pre-1993, we didn't waste much time and we
22 set it aside.
23 JUDGE PICARD: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.
24 MR. THOMAS: No questions, sir, thank you.
25 MR. GUY-SMITH: None, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Mr. Selsky. That brings us
2 to the conclusion of your testimony. We want to thank you for coming in
3 to testify. You are now excused. You may stand down.
4 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
6 [The witness withdrew]
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Would this be a convenient time to take a break?
8 We'll take a break and come back at half past. Court adjourned.
9 --- Recess taken at 12.06 p.m.
10 --- On resuming at 12.31 p.m.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: If we could start with revisiting the decision
12 that we withdrew this morning, the oral decision. It's supposed to be in
13 open session. We are in open session. I just have to re-read it all
14 over again, because we withdrew it in its entirety this morning.
15 On the 18th of January, 2010, the Prosecution filed its second
16 Prosecution filing pursuant to the Trial Chamber's decision of the 21st
17 of December, 2009, regarding the outstanding documents marked for
18 identification, whereby the Prosecution requests the admission into
19 evidence of six documents, P1279, P1371, P1809, P2149, P2150, and P2151,
20 previously marked for identification. The decision of the
21 21st December, 2009, denied the admission into evidence of these
22 documents, without prejudice, until such time as a number of conditions
23 set out therein were met. The Prosecution now submits that such
24 conditions have been complied with. And the question to the Defence was:
25 Has the Defence any objection to the admission of these documents?
1 MR. GUY-SMITH: And the answer is, no, with the understanding
2 that the Prosecution has complied with the Court's order.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Mr. Guy-Smith.
4 And the Trial Chamber is satisfied that the conditions it set out
5 in its decision of the 21st of December, 2009, have been met; admits the
6 mentioned documents into evidence, and orders the following:
7 1. In relation to P1279, the corresponding B/C/S and English
8 transcripts shall be attached to this exhibit.
9 2. In relation to P1371, the revised B/C/S translation shall
10 replace the one currently on e-court.
11 3. In relation to P1809, the full English translation shall
12 replace the six partial and incomplete ones currently on e-court.
13 4. In relation to P2149, 2150, and 2151, for each of these three
14 exhibits the Prosecution shall re-upload on e-court the B/C/S document
15 complete with the required missing page so that each shall form one
16 complete item.
17 Okay, thank you so much.
18 Mr. Harmon.
19 MR. HARMON: Your Honour, with the admission of those six
20 documents into evidence, we rest our case.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
22 Mr. Lukic, I seem to recollect that the Defence indicated that
23 they would be in a position to deliver to the Prosecution their witness
24 lists of the Defence within 48 hours of the Prosecution resting. Today
25 is Monday. Wednesday, they shall be delivered?
1 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] We are going to meet our obligations
2 by Wednesday, Your Honour.
3 Can we have enough time granted to us, please, by the end of the
4 day? We just have a problem with technical uploading. But, of course,
5 we are going to stick to the dead-line that you are going to give us. We
6 have a technical problem with uploading documents in e-court, and we are
7 literally working on that day and night. What we would like is to have
8 all documents accessible to the OTP straightaway as soon as we give the
9 list. Thank you.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Mr. Lukic, with the caveat
11 that it is not a dead-line set by the Chamber; it's a self-imposed
12 dead-line by the Defence.
13 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour. If you recall, the
14 original decision was the 15th of December, and then you made a decision
15 in writing, as a matter of fact, that Mr. Harmon would tell us when his
16 case is completed, and then within 48 hours we would have to provide our
17 list and our documents. It has to do with your decision in writing,
18 dated the 8th of December. I may be mistaken. I don't know exactly.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Point taken. I won't take the matter any further.
20 Thank you so much, Mr. Lukic.
21 And then to what date shall we then postpone? Are we starting
22 the Defence case on Thursday or on Wednesday? If we give you the whole
23 day, then we start the Defence case on Thursday?
24 MR. HARMON: I have a suggestion, Your Honour.
25 I have been told by Mr. Lukic that there are approximately 60
1 witnesses and a thousand documents. We obviously need to have time to
2 review those. May I suggest that the Court schedule a conference, either
3 a 65 ter conference or a pre-Defence conference. Shortly after receipt
4 of the documents from the Defence, we will be in a better position to
5 inform the Court a number of things relating specifically to compliance
6 with Rule 65 ter, and give Your Honours some insight into our position.
7 But without that at hand, it's difficult for us, at least, to contribute
8 to a meaningful selection of the date.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: And can we schedule that conference for Thursday?
10 Is it possible to do that? Are you --
11 MR. HARMON: Well, it -- I understood Mr. Lukic to say that there
12 may be some difficulty in uploading this and he will comply, but I don't
13 know if compliance is Wednesday at 5.00 in the afternoon or 8.00 -- 10.00
14 in the evening. May I suggest Friday?
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Friday?
16 MR. GUY-SMITH: I think probably with all the considerations that
17 will go into this, Mr. Harmon's suggestion is a good one and that we
18 schedule a 65 ter conference for Friday. That will give us the time to
19 make sure that we can do the best we can to get all the things up-loaded,
20 with all the difficulties we have, and it will give the Prosecution time
21 to review our documents and make whatever determinations they deem
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. We then come back to court on Friday. And
24 if it is Friday, then that's Friday, the 29th. That's in Courtroom I.
25 That's at 9.00 in the morning.
1 Court adjourned.
2 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 12.40 p.m.
3 to be reconvened on Friday, the 29th day of
4 January, 2010, at 9.00 a.m.