1 Monday, 10 December 2007
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.14 a.m.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Registrar, could you call the case, please. Not
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. Good morning to
8 everyone in the courtroom. This is case number IT-0 -- sorry, IT-05-88-T,
9 the Prosecutor versus Vujadin Popovic et al.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. All the accused are here. Present for
11 the Prosecution, Mr. McCloskey, Mr. Vanderpuye and Ms. Soljan; and from
12 the Defence teams, I notice the absence of Mr. Bourgon, Mr. Josse, and
13 Mr. Haynes.
14 Now, I understand you have some preliminaries. We, too, have some
15 preliminaries, so let's start from there.
16 MR. VANDERPUYE: Good morning, Mr. President. Good morning, Your
17 Honours. Good morning, everyone.
18 Yes, Mr. President, we had previously submitted a motion to amend
19 the 65 ter exhibit list with respect to the witness that is now coming up.
20 The Defence had filed a response to that motion. I don't know if you want
21 us to argue this issue orally, but I think that there is a
22 sufficient-enough basis in the record to grant the relief that's
24 In addition, we do have a witness that is following this upcoming
25 witness who has a rather tight schedule in order to -- to accommodate, so
1 I don't know if you want to entertain this issue now or you want to
2 entertain it perhaps later on. But I could respond, if you would like, to
3 the Defence arguments that have been raised in response to our motion.
4 [Trial Chamber confers]
5 JUDGE AGIUS: I think the two positions, Mr. Vanderpuye, have been
6 put very clearly in the written filings.
7 Our position was last week that since Mr. Manning was due to
8 testify today, we cut short or reduce the time limit for the filing of the
9 Defence objections, and we made it clear, we believe, that anyone who
10 wished to say anything or respond to your motion would have had to do that
11 by the end of business last Friday.
12 We have had filings, as you are aware. I think the position is
13 pretty much clear in our minds, and I don't think that any further
14 comments on your part will change anything. So you --
15 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
16 There was also a Defence submission regarding the scope of the
17 testimony to be offered by Mr. Manning, which we also have responded to.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, exactly, and the same thing applies to that.
19 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: There was a time limit for you to respond. We don't
21 think it's the case of hearing any further submissions. We are going to
22 decide the two motions orally this morning before Mr. Manning comes in.
23 That's number one.
24 The other thing is last Friday, I think it was, we left you with
25 the understanding that you would be continuing discussions amongst
1 yourselves in relation to the notebooks, logbooks, and whatever the
2 documents that were discussed very briefly last time. You were supposed
3 to come back to us today, and we also were supposed to come back to you
4 today after hearing your position, respective positions, whether you've
5 come to an agreement or whether you still disagree, in which case we will
6 tell you what will happen.
7 Yes, Mr. McCloskey.
8 MR. McCLOSKEY: We all met on Friday and reached some agreements,
9 but I think we're still in the discussion stage. But we're very close. I
10 don't see -- if perhaps we can talk at the first break, I think we can
11 iron things out.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, please. Thank you.
13 So we are seized of the following Defence motion requesting
14 determination as to the admissibility of the evidence of Dean Manning.
15 This was filed by the Popovic Defence team on the 5th of November. It was
16 joint by the Nikolic Defence team, by the Beara Defence team, by the
17 Borovcanin Defence team, and then we had a Prosecution response filed on
18 the 7th of December.
19 We've gone carefully through motions and main response, as well as
20 the other filings joining in with the Popovic Defence team, and our
21 decision is as follows:
22 First of all, we have granted leave to the Popovic Defence team to
23 exceed the word limit. We are hereby deciding to deny or reject the
24 Popovic motion by stating, by affirming that Dean Manning's testimony
25 should not be restricted as sought in that motion, particularly, although
1 not exclusively, in the light of the quantity -- that in the light of the
2 quantity and the complexity of the exhumations and associated
3 documentation in this case, we consider, we believe that a witness who is
4 able to provide a comparative overview on the basis of detailed knowledge,
5 acquired over a period of time, will be of assistance to the Tribunal.
6 However, we are also deciding that Mr. Manning should not testify
7 in regard to any expert evidence which is not before the Trial Chamber.
8 We also wish to make clear that the question of admissibility of
9 any document to be tendered in the course of Mr. Manning's testimony will
10 be addressed at the end of his testimony in accordance with established
11 practice in this case.
12 That disposes of that motion.
13 Then there was a Prosecution motion for leave to amend the 65 ter
14 exhibit list with exhibits pertaining to Witness number 2, that's Manning,
15 which was filed confidentially on the 5th of December, 2007.
16 Mr. Vanderpuye, even though this was filed confidentially, I think
17 we can dispose of it publicly, can't we?
18 MR. VANDERPUYE: We can, Mr. President. Thank you.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
20 We've seen the Defence response, which was filed on the 7th of
21 December, then there was a motion on behalf of Drago Nikolic joining the
22 previous Defence response of the Popovic team, and also another one
23 forthcoming from the Beara Defence team, and finally from the Borovcanin
24 Defence team.
25 We're talking of a motion to seek leave to add to the 65 ter list
1 eight newly-received documents related to exhumations and numbers of the
2 Srebrenica missing and identified dead people, six documents developed for
3 demonstrative purposes, and the witness's 24th August 2003 report which
4 was inadvertently omitted from the original 65 ter list.
5 We agree with the Prosecution that all the proposed exhibits are
6 prima facie relevant, and we also note that, with the exception of the
7 Manning 2003 report, these were received by the Defence. They were
8 received only in the last two months, and all the exhibits have been
9 disclosed to the Defence. We are also satisfied that, at least on a prima
10 facie basis, none of the material contains any information that in any way
11 changes the nature of the Prosecution case or the substance of
12 Mr. Manning's testimony.
13 In going through the Popovic response, which has been joined by
14 other Defence teams, as already stated, we notice that almost the entire
15 list of objections raised go largely to the weight to be given to the
16 exhibits rather than whether they should be added to the 65 ter list.
17 However, we are not happy, Mr. McCloskey, with the way this has
18 been progressing, and we are concerned particularly when it comes to
19 voluminous material like we have in the present case. So in acceding to
20 your motion, in granting the motion, we are also making a reservation for
21 all the Defence teams, even those who have not filed a response, that
22 considering the limited time that they have had available to go through
23 all this material, should any one of them in due course feel the need to
24 recall Mr. Manning for further cross-examination, we are making it clear
25 that such a request, if good cause is shown by the respective Defence
1 teams, such a request will be granted. Otherwise, the motion itself is
2 being granted.
3 I'm also making it clear that what the -- the caveat that I have
4 mentioned applies mainly to the 15 exhibits that the motion refers to in
5 the first place.
6 All right. So that settles the two motions pending and responses
7 pending before the testimony of Mr. Manning. Are there any other
8 preliminary matters you wish to raise?
9 Mr. Meek.
10 MR. MEEK: Thank you, Mr. President, Your Honours. Just a matter
11 of clarification, perhaps.
12 Apparently, Your Honours have decided that Mr. Manning shall not
13 testify in regards to any expert evidence which is not before the Trial
14 Chamber already.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.
16 MR. MEEK: However, then you granted the 65 --
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Well, I haven't said "already."
18 " MR. MEEK: Pardon?
19 JUDGE AGIUS: I haven't said "already," which is not before the
20 Trial Chamber. It could be forthcoming next week through another witness,
21 for example.
22 MR. MEEK: All right. Well, one caveat, then, is that in the
23 documents which you've just granted that can be admitted, for example, is
24 a report, "Srebrenica Missing," done by the ICMP. That evidence is not
25 before this Trial Chamber, nor do I believe there will be any experts
1 called to discuss those issues.
2 So my question would simply be: How can he -- how can this
3 document come in through Manning if it's not before the Trial Chamber and
4 is not going to be before the Trial Chamber?
5 JUDGE AGIUS: If the Prosecution seeks to bring it in, introduce
6 it into the records, you just stand up and raise it at the right time, and
7 then we will deal with it at that moment; but, otherwise, I don't want to
8 jump the gun now.
9 [Trial Chamber confers]
10 JUDGE AGIUS: What we have decided is we haven't admitted any
11 documents; we've just included the list that Mr. McCloskey indicated and
12 the 65 ter list. Whether use is made of those documents or not is another
14 Yes, Mr. McCloskey.
15 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, Mr. President.
16 The reference document is an updated version of our original 65
17 ter 566, but it's my understanding Mr. Manning will not be dealing with
18 that specifically. That's a document that's assembled by our demographics
19 people, and we've heard all about that already. This is an update, So I
20 think we don't really have an issue there, as yet.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. No, this is what we meant. What we have
22 decided is the introduction or inclusion of these documents in the 65 ter
23 list. What's going to happen with them is another matter. And if there
24 are objections as to admissibility, we'll deal with the admissibility
25 issue when it arises. Okay?
1 Anything else? Mr. Manning.
2 Yes, one moment.
3 Yes, Mr. Zivanovic.
4 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Sorry. We submitted a motion for permission of
5 the Trial Chamber to -- for our military expert to be present.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. Thank you.
7 Yes, Mr. McCloskey. There are two Defence teams, Popovic and
8 Nikolic Defence team, that would like to have their military expert
9 present during the testimony of Richard Butler.
10 MR. McCLOSKEY: No objection.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: No objection. So the motions, Ms. Nikolic and
12 Mr. Zivanovic, are hereby being granted.
13 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Thank you very much.
14 [Trial Chamber confers]
15 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Thank you.
16 Anything else, Mr. Zivanovic?
17 MR. ZIVANOVIC: No, Your Honour.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Thank you.
19 Mr. Lazarevic.
20 MR. LAZAREVIC: Yes, Your Honour.
21 Well, maybe we could have done this in a different manner, but I
22 think it would be much simpler to do it orally.
23 We would also like, I mean the Defence of Mr. Borovcanin, to have
24 our expert witness present during the testimony of Mr. Butler, so maybe
25 this is a good opportunity to make a decision about all this.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. McCloskey.
2 MR. McCLOSKEY: The United States would like to have a lawyer
3 present during Mr. Butler, and maybe we can just get this all done very
4 orally and save some paper.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Maybe also, I mean, we'll come to this later on, but
6 the idea of having -- you're, of course, entitled to it. But the idea of
7 each Defence team having an expert of its own on a particular matter, if
8 it is out-stretched, we will intervene, or --
9 MR. McCLOSKEY: We don't --
10 JUDGE AGIUS: -- over-stretched, we will intervene.
11 Yes. I think you need to file a proper, because we need to know
12 why the American government, US government would like to have --
13 MR. McCLOSKEY: Thank you, Mr. President.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: I don't understand it.
15 MR. McCLOSKEY: They've always done it, and we'll explain it.
16 Thank you.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Thank you.
18 But the idea, what I said, start thinking about how to condense
19 and harmonise.
20 But I think there is no objection to the Borovcanin request, is
22 MR. McCLOSKEY: No.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. So that is also granted, although we
24 don't know who the name -- I think you still need to file something,
25 Mr. Borovcanin, even for the Registrar; and, then, perhaps you may get
1 around the table those who would like to adduce expertise, to see whether
2 you can bring forward one expert on the subject which will be common to
3 all of you.
5 [Trial Chamber confers]
6 [The witness entered court]
7 JUDGE AGIUS: Good morning, Mr. Manning.
8 THE WITNESS: Good morning, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: And welcome.
10 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: I hope you have recovered from the long journey.
12 THE WITNESS: I have, sir, yes.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: Good.
14 You'll be here testifying for quite some time, I suppose. Before
15 you start your testimony, you are required to, as you know, make a solemn
16 declaration that you will be testifying the truth.
17 Please proceed.
18 THE WITNESS I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the
19 whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
20 WITNESS: DEAN MANNING
21 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you so much, Mr. Manning. Please make
22 yourself comfortable.
23 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Ms. Soljan, I understand, will go first for the
25 Prosecution. She'll then be followed by the various Defence teams on
2 MS. SOLJAN: Thank you, Your Honours. Good morning.
3 Before I begin, I just wanted to state that we will be primarily
4 using Sanction for our exhibits today, due to the fact that the
5 photographs are primarily from very large volumes and would take a very
6 long time to show up on e-court.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay.
8 Examination by Ms. Soljan:
9 Q. Good morning.
10 A. Good morning, Ms. Soljan.
11 Q. Could you please state your full name for the record?
12 A. My full name is Dean Paul Manning.
13 Q. And what is your current profession?
14 A. I'm currently a member of the Australian Federal Police, based in
15 Canberra, Australia. I'm employed, at the moment, at the Australian
16 Federal Police Training College.
17 Q. And how long have you been working there?
18 A. I've been a member of the Federal police since 1993, and I spent
19 the last 18 months at the Police College following my return to Australia.
20 Q. Can you briefly describe your duties and responsibilities at your
21 current job for us?
22 A. I'm a senior programme facilitator on what we call "The Management
23 of Serious Crime Programme." It's an Australian-based programme which
24 deals with senior managers of serious crime both within Australia and
25 internationally. The programme is considered the elite training programme
1 for Australian managers of serious crime, and I'm responsible for running
2 the programmes, assessing the participants, and researching the subject.
3 Q. And where did you work prior to that?
4 A. Immediately prior to resuming duties with the IFP, the Australian
5 Federal Police, I worked with the International Inquiry Committee in
6 relation to the All-For Food Programme which was based in New York.
7 Immediately prior to that, I was an investigations team leader here at the
8 ICTY involved in the investigation of Croatian offences and the Milosevic
10 Q. When did you start working at the ICTY?
11 A. I commenced at ICTY in August of 1998. I immediately commenced
12 duties with the Srebrenica investigations team and remained there for four
14 Q. And what were the main duties and responsibilities of your work
16 A. It was specifically general investigative duties in support of the
17 team investigation, but also I became the coordinator of the exhumations
18 programme. We had a significantly large programme involved in exhumation
19 of a number of mass graves in Bosnia, and I became the team member
20 responsible for those exhumations and incorporating the results of those
21 exhumations into the team's investigative work.
22 Q. Can you explain, in a little more detail, what types of tasks did
23 the coordinating of all of this involve?
24 A. Effectively, we monitored the ICTY exhumations team in their work.
25 In the field, each mass grave exhumation was accompanied by a coordinator;
1 quite often, it was myself. I would also coordinate which other
2 investigators attended and review the reports that they had produced in
3 relation to those exhumations.
4 I also attended the mortuary on a very regular basis, examined the
5 work of the mortuary, and examined the artifacts, physical exhibits,
6 autopsy reports, and bodies that were brought to the mortuary, and I was
7 also responsibility for returning appropriate evidentiary material to The
9 I was also became involved at great length with the experts who
10 were producing reports in relation to the exhumations, and ultimately
11 assisted them in the preparation of their reports and in attending the
12 field, and eventually in their presentation of evidence to the Tribunal.
13 Q. When you say you assisted the experts in preparation of their
14 reports, can you explain what you mean by that?
15 A. On a number of occasions, I accompanied experts to the field to go
16 through the various gravesites or to attend the mass grave exhumations,
17 but also I provided them with data and information which was available at
18 the Tribunal or the mortuary or the field. Effectively, I had an overview
19 of all the information that we held and all the files.
20 These exhumations had continued from 1996 until 2001, so I had an
21 overview of the information available, the sites, the locations, and any
22 relevant information gleaned from previous reports.
23 Q. Now, what were the main objectives of the exhumations programme?
24 A. The main objectives were to locate the mass graves, exhume the
25 graves, and to identify if the graves were related to Srebrenica, how many
1 bodies were in the graves; then, through the aligned mortuary process,
2 attempt to identify the individuals, identify cause of death, injuries,
3 the gender of the individuals, and any other information that we could
4 gain to support the investigation or guide the investigation.
5 Q. And can you tell us how many exhumations were carried out by the
7 A. All the -- all the mass graves, the primary mass graves - and I
8 can explain that term shortly - were -- there was 14 mass graves. They
9 were all exhumed by ICTY. There was another 22 secondary mass graves
10 which were exhumed by the ICTY, and the remaining mass graves were handed
11 over to the Bosnian Commission for Missing Persons in 2001.
12 Q. How many exhumations have you, yourself, been present at?
13 A. I think at present, in a meaningful way, as in for some time, 11.
14 I was present at the opening of at least eight, and I also visited other
15 exhumations on an ad hoc basis. So I was heavily involved in at least 11
17 Q. Now, let's speak generally about the process of exhumations that
18 you participated in.
19 Who was the personnel present at a typical exhumation?
20 A. The exhumation team consisted, in the whole or in the main, from
21 experts from various fields. It was headed by our chief archaeologist,
22 sometimes also an anthropologist. The team was made up of
23 anthropologists, physical archaeologists, and other experts, including
24 people who were able to map the grave, survey the grave.
25 It also consisted of either former or serving police officers who
1 acted as evidence custodians and handlers of evidence, an official
2 photographer who photographed and videotaped the process, as well as some
3 support staff, including backhoe and truck driver operators and
5 Q. And when you were in the field, what was your role during an
7 A. Initially, much of the information concerning the location of the
8 graves was obtained via aerial imagery, which I had access to. I would
9 then meet with the exhumations team, and we would seek to identify where
10 the grave was. Once we had identified the general location of the grave,
11 it was de-mined and made secure.
12 Normally, a trench was put through the grave or the surface of the
13 grave was scraped off to outline the grave. The decomposition of the
14 bodies would invariably stay in the soil, and it was quite obvious where
15 the grave was; and then a systematic process of removing the soil and
16 identifying and revealing the bodies would continue.
17 The bodies would be identified via a unique number, as would any
18 other artifacts found in the grave. That would be processed by senior
19 crime officers, and the evidence would be secured. Eventually, the bodies
20 would be conveyed to the mortuary facility at Visoko.
21 When the chief archaeologist was confident that they had reached
22 the bottom of the grave and that there were no more bodies or artifacts or
23 body parts present, the grave would then be refilled and the area
25 Q. Were there protocols in place when the exhumations were being
2 A. Your Honours, a protocol was established by the -- normally the
3 chief archaeologist. They changed over some time, but a written protocol
4 was established. It was normally included in their report in relation to
5 the exhumation, and it was a protocol known to the team and to the
6 investigators. A similar protocol was established at the mortuary
8 Q. And can you illustrate, briefly, what the protocol, for example,
9 for handling of remains was?
10 A. Your Honours, the protocol dealt with every step of the
11 investigation and how evidence would be handled, including the handling of
12 bodies. It would -- and these protocols varied slightly over the years,
13 but it would indicate that a body would be identified within the grave;
14 as much of the body as possible would be uncovered; photographs would be
15 taken; various reference points taken from the body for mapping, normally
16 consisted of all the major joints and the skull.
17 If the body was able to be removed, if you like, in one operation,
18 that is, it wasn't blocked by other bodies, it would be taken from the
19 grave when it was issued a unique number, placed in a body-bag. Normally,
20 the body itself and underneath the body was metal-detected to identify
21 bullets or shell cases, and the details of all those processes were
22 recorded in field notes and in photographic logs; and then the body was,
23 as I said, stored in a refrigerated container, and periodically taken to
24 the mortuary facility.
25 There, their protocol indicated how they would handle the body:
1 Record the condition of the body, photograph it; record, photograph, and
2 examine all the clothing and artifacts from that body. It would also be
3 forensically examined by a pathologist and/or anthropologist.
4 Q. And was there similar protocol for handling of evidence not
5 directly related to the body found in the grave?
6 A. That's correct. Physical artifacts either taken from the body or
7 found within the grave were given a unique identifying number,
8 photographed and recorded, handed to the scene-of-the-crime officer; and
9 with the bodies, the artifacts and the films are treated as evidence and a
10 chain of custody process put in place. Each of those items, including the
11 bodies, were signed for when transported.
12 Q. And you mentioned earlier that the protocols varied slightly over
13 time. Why was this?
14 A. Specifically, as the process continued, better ways of doing it,
15 more efficient ways, or perhaps due to improvements in techniques, slight
16 amendments would be made. If any problems were identified, that would
17 normally be sought to be corrected in the protocol.
18 It was also the case that there were at least three chiefs of
19 archaeology involved, and they had slightly different processes which they
20 would undertake. Essentially, they were the same and based on accepted
21 standards of exhumation and examination of graves.
22 Q. And did you ever participate in the creation or the change of any
24 A. I did, and the protocols were always discussed between myself and
25 the chief archaeologist. In one instance, when Professor Richard Wright
1 commenced the work of the Tribunal, I discussed with him a change to the
2 protocol. Briefly, previously, the bodies and artifacts had been given
3 separate numbers; that is, there is a collection of numbers for the
4 artifacts and a separate collection of numbers for the bodies and body
5 parts. I felt that could lead to some confusion.
6 So following discussions with Professor Wright, he accepted that
7 we would thereafter use one set of numbers. If a body came out of the
8 grave first, that was number 1. If an artefact such as an identification
9 not connected to a body came out next, that would be number 2. A slight
10 change, but adding to the efficiency of the system. And those sorts of
11 changes were made on occasion.
12 Q. Now, with regard to evidence selection, what was the process of
13 getting evidence from the grave moved to whatever the next step was
14 supposed to be?
15 A. Following the protocols, effectively anything that was found
16 within the grave was examined by the chief archaeologist. If it was
17 something that should be collected, such as, you know, shell cases or
18 bullets or artifacts, identifications, they were automatically collected.
19 On occasion, pieces of what could be described as rubbish, car parts,
20 pieces of branch were located, and, initially, they were treated as
21 evidence. They were examined, photographed, and seized, and handled by
22 the senior crime officers. On occasion, they became quite important as
23 pieces of evidence.
24 In one particular grave, the type of rocks became important, as
25 they could be matched to another grave. And in one grave, rocks which had
1 been basically stone tools were found within the grave, and they were
2 later found in -- very similar stones were found in another grave, leading
3 to a connection. So on occasion, artifacts such as stones were considered
5 But, in any event, artifacts were seized, a photograph process
6 recorded, treated as evidence, conveyed to the mortuary where they were
7 signed for, secured, and examined.
8 Q. Were these artifacts retained by the mortuary? What happens with
9 the artifacts once they were at the mortuary?
10 A. Your Honours, the artifacts were conveyed to the mortuary, where
11 they were also secured. Because in the field it's difficult to examine
12 artifacts in detail, that examination was conducted by the mortuary. So
13 they would be cleaned, photographed, details recorded, and then they would
14 be stored.
15 The normal process would be, at either periods during the year or
16 at the end of the year, I would go through all the artifacts, physically
17 examine all the artifacts, examine the photographs and records of those
18 items, and make a selection as to what would be conveyed to The Hague.
19 Generally, blindfolds and ligatures were certainly conveyed to The
20 Hague, shell cases. Some of the artifacts would be personal effects such
21 as plastic combs or cigarette lighters. Those items were not conveyed to
22 The Hague. Clothing was not conveyed.
23 And whilst a number of identification documents were returned to
24 The Hague, we took the view that they should remain within Bosnia and be
25 handed over to the Bosnian authorities to assist in identification
1 processes. So I would also take a representative sample of
2 identification, and then I would rely on the photographs and records of
3 those items.
4 I would, on occasion, consult the team if there were items that
5 would potentially be of use, and I would then either transport those items
6 myself or they would be shipped safe-hand to the ICTY.
7 Q. Mr. Manning, did you ever participate in any collections of
8 surface remains?
9 A. No, I did not; although, on occasion, surface remains were located
10 as we started the exhumation process. So there was surface remains
11 connected to the mass grave, but I and the ICTY team did not collect
12 general surface remains. We concentrated on mass graves.
13 Q. And how long was the ICTY responsible for the exhumation of
14 Srebrenica-related mass graves?
15 A. The first Srebrenica exhumations started in 1996, and they
16 continued until 2001. At that time, the responsibility for exhuming the
17 remaining secondary graves was handed to the Bosnian Commission for
18 Missing Persons, assisted by ICMP, the International Commission for
19 Missing Persons.
20 Q. Did you participate in that hand-over process?
21 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: Could you please make
22 pauses between question and answer. Thank you.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Did you both hear that?
24 Okay. Thank you.
25 THE WITNESS: My apologies.
1 Yes, I was particularly involved in that process. I had been
2 responsible for drafting the memorandum of understanding, and in very
3 lengthy and detailed discussions with the Bosnian authorities and with the
4 ICTY management as to how we would hand over those graves.
5 Also, at that time, we had created a small ICTY team to monitor
6 the exhumations conducted by the Bosnians, and I was responsible for
7 organising that team and supporting that team in the field.
8 Q. Do you know how many graves were handed over to the Bosnian
10 A. I think it was 20 graves, in the area of 20 graves. It was all
11 the known secondary graves that we had at that stage.
12 Q. And since the hand-over, have you ever monitored any of the
13 Bosnian exhumations of graves?
14 A. Yes. We had the ICTY monitoring team in place, and I visited on a
15 very regular basis, but I was also present for several weeks at the
16 exhumation of Ravnice 2, which was conducted by the Bosnian Commission and
17 examined by the ICTY team.
18 I was also present for several days at another exhumation. I think
19 it was Cancari Road 11; and then, on occasion, whilst I was in Bosnia, I
20 would visit the ongoing exhumations.
21 Q. And based on your observations, would you say that the mandate or
22 the process used by the Bosnian Commission for Missing Persons is similar
23 as the mandate or the process used by the ICTY?
24 A. Much of the process was similar, and ICMP would staff their team
25 with archaeologists and anthropologists, but the ICTY team and the ICTY
1 process was forensically driven to collect evidence for support, to
2 support the trials. Our focus was predominately on gathering evidence.
3 The Bosnian Commission is much more focused on recovering bodies.
4 They attempt, in a very dedicated fashion, to try and recover evidence.
5 However, their primary motive for the exhumations is to remove the bodies,
6 have them examined and identified, and have the remains returned to the
7 family and loved ones. So their process is much more driven by removing
8 the bodies from the graves.
9 Q. And have there been any more recent findings of the graves, to
10 your knowledge?
11 A. Yes. I'm aware of a number of graves that have been located by
12 the Bosnian Commission for Missing Persons. I discussed those -- some of
13 those graves on a mission to Bosnia in 2005. I also went to a number of
14 those sites in 2005, and I've since reviewed records and photographs held
15 or produced by the Bosnian Commission for Missing Persons, which detailed
16 the new mass graves located. I believe it's five or six new graves.
17 MS. SOLJAN: Could I ask the usher, please, to place on e-court
18 Exhibit P03008, and if we could move to the next page, please.
19 Q. Mr. Manning, have you seen this photograph before?
20 A. Yes, I have.
21 Q. And can you please explain what it is?
22 A. I recognise the photo to be, in my opinion, a mass grave. It's
23 clear that the mess in the middle of it is human bodies, and I believe the
24 edges in that photograph would be the edges of the grave. Effectively,
25 it's something that I recognise as very similar to the mass graves that
1 I've seen.
2 Q. Do you know where this photo is from or who it was obtained from?
3 A. The photo was obtained from the Bosnian Commission for Missing
5 Q. Okay. But you, yourself, have not been at this location?
6 A. Not at this location; although, as I said, I have --
7 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Meek.
8 MR. MEEK: Thank you, Mr. President. [Microphone not activated] --
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Microphone.
10 MR. MEEK: I'm trying to oblige.
11 Thank you, Mr. President. I'm going to object to this. This is
12 obviously something that has not been dealt with before in this courtroom,
13 nor will it be dealt with afterwards. Furthermore, this witness doesn't
14 even know the location of this grave, even though he may have seen a
15 picture of it after his employment terminated with the Office of the
16 Prosecutor. I think this is the first instance of which may be many where
17 he's going past your ruling on his evidence.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Mr. Meek.
19 Ms. Soljan, what's your response to that?
20 MS. SOLJAN: Your Honour, this photo, the photos obtained by the
21 ICMP, are simply being shown to him, not for the truth, but simply to
22 demonstrate that he has reviewed them.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Meek.
24 MR. MEEK: It doesn't appear to be what she said in her question,
25 number 1, and they're not being shown for the truth of the matter. I
1 submit they are just being shown to inflame Your Honours, as professional
2 jurors, even though professional you are.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: You were on the right track until now, Mr. Meek.
4 That kind of language or statements, you shouldn't be making.
5 Sorry, Mr. Zivanovic, I apologise to you. I didn't see you.
6 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Thank you.
7 I just said that the witness was called to give his opinion about
8 these photos. It is said at the page 23 -- 24, excuse me, line 20. He is
9 called to give his opinion about his -- these photos, and he gave his
10 opinion, what he believes that these photos depicted.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Mr. Zivanovic.
12 JUDGE KWON: Before that, could you give me the exhibit number
14 MS. SOLJAN: The exhibit number, Your Honour, is P03008, and it's
15 the second page, so it's X020-3642.
16 JUDGE KWON: Okay.
17 [Trial Chamber confers]
18 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Okay. So let's start from the tail-end
19 part of Mr. Meek's submission.
20 Mr. Meek, we don't -- we hope we'll never hear again submissions
21 to the effect that being shown photos like this is intended or would
22 ultimately have the effect and that's why they are intended to be
23 inflammatory. Do you know how many dead people I have seen in my life,
24 and my colleagues, and postmortems I have assisted in my life, so come on.
25 That's number 1.
1 As for the rest, you are right. Mr. Manning has already stated
2 that he has been on-site where there were mass graves and other gravesites
3 being exhumed. I think you have every right to show him and refer him to
4 those, but I don't think you need to refer to his testimony by means of
5 reference to photos of other gravesites he hasn't been to and which he
6 cannot testify upon except by looking, I mean.
7 So let's proceed with your next question, and you are, of course,
8 by all means authorised to show him anything else with which he is
10 MS. SOLJAN: Thank you, Your Honours.
11 Q. Mr. Manning, are you -- are you aware of any new surface remains
12 findings in recent times?
13 A. I was aware from an examination of the ICMP data and --
14 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Meek.
15 MR. MEEK: I apologise. I hate to stop this testimony, but it's
16 the same objection. He's aware after the fact of the ICMP findings which
17 are -- have never been before this Chamber, and I honestly submit they
18 won't be from looking at the OTP's calender of witnesses.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Mr. Meek.
20 Ms. Soljan.
21 MS. SOLJAN: Your Honour, this is an integral part of his
22 testimony. If anything, he's summarising evidence that he has reviewed.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: And he's also already been asked about surface
24 remains and whether he's seen any.
25 MR. MEEK: Your Honour, I agree, he was asked about the surface
1 remains, and perhaps objections should have been made; however, he said he
2 didn't -- had nothing to do with the surface remains. There was a
3 negative answer to that question, that he did not participate in the
4 collection of surface remains.
5 While it may be a large body of their evidence, we know that, and
6 that's why I believe Your Honour has correctly ruled that anything knew
7 and anything from the ICMP or the BCMP is new.
8 Thank you.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Thank you.
10 Yes, Ms. Soljan, do you wish to add any remain?
11 MS. SOLJAN: No. Only to remark that this is not how I understood
12 your ruling. I understood your ruling to be only in respect to experts
13 that were not in evidence. That did not cover ICMP, ICMP not being an
14 expert, as such.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: As for the ICMP, anyway. One moment.
16 [Trial Chamber confers]
17 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Now, just to make things clear, our
18 concern that we expressed earlier on, when we handed our decision, was to
19 make sure that this witness is not used to introduce in the records
20 expertise of others which is not in the record and which has-- will not be
22 What the question by Ms. Soljan to Mr. Manning amounts to has got
23 nothing to do with expertise. It was a very simple question, which refers
24 to a fact: "Are you aware, Mr. Manning, of any surface remains findings
25 in recent times?" And he is either away or he's not aware.
1 He says, "I was aware," and he was explaining to us how he became
2 aware of this, I suppose. So he should be allowed to continue finishing
3 that; and, then, if there are further objections as we go along, we'll
4 entertain them and decide them appropriately.
5 Yes, Ms. Soljan. Actually, I think you should repeat the
6 question, which I have repeated, so he can -- Mr. Manning, you can take it
7 up from where you left it.
8 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
10 THE WITNESS: Yes. I am aware of the collection of surface
11 remains, specifically from examining ICMP data; but also in my 2005
12 mission, I attended the --
13 MR. MEEK: Your Honour, I --
14 JUDGE AGIUS: Let him finish, because we still haven't gotten to
15 expertise, Mr. Meek. Please, sit down and let him finish.
16 Go ahead, Mr. Manning.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I specifically examined or sought to
18 examine the collection of surface remains with the Bosnian Commission for
19 Missing Persons and the ICMP. I visited with Mr. Morat Hutic [phoen], who
20 is based in Tuzla, and we went through his records, various maps, and
21 identified areas that surface remains had been collected from. He
22 provided me with codes in relation to the designation of those
24 I reviewed Tuzla Cantonal Court files in relation to the
25 collection of those surface remains, including the designations of those
1 areas, including some photographs. I also attended the area of some of
2 the mass graves sites identified by the Bosnian Commission, as well as
3 some of the collection areas.
4 I must say, however, the collection areas were of a very wide
5 area, and many of them were in areas which would be considered. Unsafe,
6 so I generally viewed areas where I had been advised surface remains had
7 been collected from. And as I say, the ICMP data contained codes which I
8 was able to recognise as collections of surface remains.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
10 Yes, Mr. Meek, did you wish to comment?
11 MR. MEEK: Yes, Your Honour. Thank you very much.
12 There was a comment earlier that the ICMP is not an expert. It's
13 an organisation that is full of experts, and one of the names he just
14 mentioned is an expert, I believe, pathologist. This is the information
15 that we believe that you have said is not admissible because it's new. It
16 has never been presented in this courtroom, nor will it be, nor will there
17 be any experts, pathologists, forensic anthropologists, coming from the
18 ICMP or the BCMP.
19 These are organizations full of experts, Your Honour, and they're
20 just trying to boot-strap this in, even with your ruling, and I object.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Soljan.
22 MS. SOLJAN: Your Honour, Mr. Manning's testimony in relation to
23 ICMP data has nothing to do with underlying expertise, with DNA analysis,
24 pathology reports, et cetera. All he's doing is summarising the numbers
25 through his knowledge of site names, as he's mentioned already.
1 MR. MEEK: Just briefly in response, Your Honours, when he's
2 talking about surface remains, there has to be an expert, a geologist
3 involved in that. So it's just not fair, what they're trying to say, that
4 this has nothing to do with any expertise through either one of these
5 organisations, because they're full of experts.
6 Thank you.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: Let me ask you a question, Mr. Meek. Don't you
8 think that what the witness has testified, really, is that in relation to
9 his knowledge and exploration of surface remains, he used various sources,
10 and these are the sources that he used?
11 MR. MEEK: Your Honour, I will --
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Without introducing into evidence these sources,
13 because he is not, at least until now, he is not introducing into evidence
14 these sources. He's just stated -- he's just stating how he came to know
15 about these surface remains and from where and from whom.
16 MR. MEEK: I'm, again, trying to answer your question, Your
18 I don't believe the witness has testified that he has any type of
19 expertise in surface remains, or exploration of surface remains, since he
20 testified earlier that he had nothing to do with the surface remains or
21 collection of the same.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: I never mentioned that he is giving us expertise on
23 these surface remains. Anyway, let me consult with my colleagues, please.
24 JUDGE KWON: I have a question to Ms. Soljan.
25 Ms. Soljan, you said that he's going to -- he is summarising the
1 numbers. What numbers do you have in mind?
2 MS. SOLJAN: Well, Your Honour, he has --
3 JUDGE KWON: The number of dead bodies?
4 MS. SOLJAN: Number of dead bodies.
5 JUDGE KWON: In order to reach a certain number, do you not need
6 expertise, in light of the number of bones, number of artifacts, et
8 MS. SOLJAN: Well, as his testimony will show, the analysis that
9 he carried out, the review of the data that he carried out, did not --
10 well, he will testify about the lack of it or that there was no need of
11 expertise for this. Basically, it was his prior knowledge of the
12 exhumations process carried out by the ICTY and analysis of ICMP data.
13 Very simple, ICMP data. We're not talking about --
14 JUDGE KWON: Very well. Thank you.
15 [Trial Chamber confers]
16 JUDGE AGIUS: I think so far we can proceed with this question and
17 the related line of questions, and then we'll see how it progresses and
18 decide accordingly. But there is nothing irregular so far or in conflict
19 with our previous decision.
20 So, yes, Ms. Soljan, he's given us all his sources of information
21 and what he started doing after that.
22 MS. SOLJAN: Yes. Thank you, Your Honours.
23 Q. Mr. Manning, have you recently reviewed any materials concerning
24 numbers of surface remains?
25 A. Again, I reviewed the files which had been produced by the Bosnian
1 Commission for Missing Persons, and the ICMP data contains records of
2 missing persons -- sorry, surface remains.
3 MS. SOLJAN: Could the usher place Exhibit P03007 into e-court.
4 My apologies.
5 Q. Mr. Manning, do you recognise this document?
6 A. Yes. I've seen that document before.
7 Q. Can you tell us what it is?
8 MR. MEEK: No objection. Is there an English translation of this
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Don't ask me. I don't know.
11 Ms. Soljan.
12 MS. SOLJAN: No, there isn't, Your Honour. It's just a one-page
13 short summary, but we can provide a translation during the break.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Would you be happy with that, Mr. Meek?
15 MR. MEEK: Yes, Your Honours.
16 MS. SOLJAN:
17 Q. Can you tell us what this is, Mr. Manning?
18 A. Given that it's not --
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Ms. Fauveau.
20 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Before the witness answers this
21 question, we'd like to know whether the witness speaks B/C/S.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Thank you.
23 Do you speak the Serbo-Croat language?
24 THE WITNESS: No, I do not, Your Honour, and I don't read it.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. And I take it, then, you did not prepare
1 this document yourself.
2 THE WITNESS: No, Your Honour, it was shown to me and --
3 JUDGE AGIUS: And explained?
4 THE WITNESS: -- and explained to me in English, yes.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. I think if someone needs -- if someone
6 reads out the words in that language, we can have them simultaneously
8 Ms. Soljan, you certainly know the language, so you can read that.
9 MS. SOLJAN: It says: [B/C/S spoken] [No interpretation].
10 JUDGE AGIUS: But we didn't get the translation. That was the
11 whole idea.
12 THE INTERPRETER: "The table overview of bodies exhumed collected
13 on surface by years. Exhumations and the victims pertain to 1995 only."
14 This is the understanding of the interpreters.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Not since 1995? In other words, I'm asking this
16 question. I don't understand the language, so I find it's strange if it's
17 for 1995 only, and then you have a list going to each year after that
18 until 2007.
19 MS. SOLJAN: Your Honours, it's very abbreviated. What it says is
20 the victims are from 1995, or what it is meant to convey. It has columns
21 which say "Year of exhumation"; a second column which says "The number of
22 gathered cases from the surface"; and the last column which says "The
23 number of identified who have been gathered from the surface."
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Meek.
25 MR. MEEK: Thank you, Mr. President. Might we have an indication
1 of where this document originated?
2 MS. SOLJAN: Your Honours.
3 Q. Mr. Manning, do you know where this document is from?
4 A. I understand it's --
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Before you answer, yes, Madame Fauveau.
6 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I'm not really
7 concerned about this testimony, but I find it quite difficult to know how
8 this witness, who doesn't read the Serbo-Croat language and who doesn't
9 write it, can comment on this document and can tell us where it comes
10 from; whereas, he can't even read the document.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: I don't think the two segments are mutually
12 exclusively. I mean, he could know the origin of this document, even
13 though he didn't produce it himself and he doesn't read the language, if
14 someone has shown it to him and told him this has been prepared by -- or
15 "This has been prepared by myself; I'm going to translate it to you."
16 So, yes, let's proceed.
17 Mr. Manning, who showed you this document?
18 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, this particular document was shown to
19 me by Ms. Soljan; however, I can indicate that I've seen a similar
20 versions of this document in records held at the Tuzla Cantonal Court. I
21 can't say and I don't believe it's the same document, but the same format.
22 And whilst I don't read Bosnian/Serbo/Croat, I'm familiar with
23 enough of the language to know that "godina" is year and "exhumatia" is
24 exhumation. I can make out some of those details. I have seen the
25 precursor to this document in the Tuzla Cantonal Court records.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Thank you.
2 Yes, Ms. Soljan. You still don't know who, in other words, is the
3 origin or the source of this document?
4 THE WITNESS: The origin of this particular document I believe to
5 be from the Bosnian authorities. It was contained in a file that I was
6 told was produced by the Bosnian authorities. The previous version I had
7 seen was produced by the Tuzla Cantonal Court and the investigators.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Ms. Soljan.
9 MS. SOLJAN:
10 Q. Mr. Manning --
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Meek.
12 MR. MEEK: Thank you, Your Honour.
13 So, again, all we know from this witness, it was shown by the
14 Prosecutor to him, The question of who generated it, other than the
15 Bosnian Commission for Missing Persons, is very broad, and my specific
16 question is: What -- which expert in that organisation did this, or which
17 person, and what profession were they in?
18 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. You can deal with that on
19 cross-examination, Mr. Meek. Let's proceed.
20 Mr. McCloskey.
21 MR. McCLOSKEY: I'm sorry. If I could just try to help briefly.
22 As you know, exhumations are ongoing. They're happening today.
23 Mr. Manning, in his 2005 contract, went around and learned as much as he
24 could from the authorities. He has -- we have additional information that
25 he has reviewed. This last document, for example, it's a hearsay
1 document. But if we're to keep up with the exhumations to any degree so
2 that you can see what's coming out of these graves and on the surfaces, we
3 need to rely on people like Mr. Manning and his expertise to provide you
4 with the hearsay that's out there. Otherwise, we would be bringing
5 numerous experts, which really aren't necessary. This is picking up bones
6 from the ground. This is pulling out bones from -- it's just a very big
7 crime scene.
8 So getting involved in expertise, yes, there are -- the
9 identifications are made by DNA, and that is an expertise. That was the
10 same kind of DNA work that Mr. Helge Brunborg relied on, which went in
11 unobjected. So we can come in and bring in the DNA experts, if you want
12 to see that.
13 But what Mr. Manning is doing is fundamentally what he did in
14 2005, in trying to get for you the best summary of the graves and the
15 bodies and the people. That's all this is about.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
17 Ms. Tapuskovic.
18 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours.
19 At the very outset of his testimony, the witness stated that he
20 had been engaged primarily in the collection of evidence for the purposes
21 of the criminal proceedings and for the purposes of this Tribunal, and he
22 said that once the authority for the conducting of the exhumations had
23 been handed to the local authorities from the Tribunal, the local
24 authorities primarily focused on the collection of evidence for the
25 purposes of identification in order for the families to learn the fate of
1 their missing family members.
2 Therefore, the witness has here been telling us about a document
3 which he says he doesn't know but believes to have been issued by the
4 Bosnian authorities, and says that he saw a similar document to this one
5 during his mission in Tuzla. He was in Tuzla, as he himself told us, in
6 2005. In this document, we have data from 2007.
7 We also know that in the meantime, there were recent
8 identification processes, and the information he is giving us cannot
9 correspond to the information we see in the document here today.
10 Therefore, the witness should clearly tell us when and on what occasion he
11 saw the document, and whether he was told from whom the document was
12 obtained, and he should tell us, if in any way, he participated in the
13 drafting of the data we see contained in the document.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: I don't think we need to do any of this,
15 Mr. McCloskey and Mr. Meek. I think things have been clear. He has not
16 had anything to do with the compilation of this document. He's never
17 pretended that this is the same document he saw in Tuzla, but that it is
18 on a similar concept or on a similar structure, that it was shown to him
19 by Ms. Soljan, and that he believes that this came from the Bosnian
21 So let's move with your next question, please.
22 I didn't realise it's time for the break. I think you either wait
23 and we will continue.
24 --- Recess taken at 10.36 a.m.
25 --- On resuming at 11.05 a.m.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Zivanovic, do you still wish to address the
3 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Yes, Your Honours.
4 I would just like to respond to the last submission of
5 Mr. McCloskey regarding Mr. Brunborg's testimony. Actually, he said that
6 the part of Mr. Brunborg's testimony related to DNA analysis was not
7 objected, but I just recall that all testimony of Mr. Brunborg, including
8 his report, was contested, including the DNA findings or DNA mentioned.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you for that information, Mr. Zivanovic.
10 Ms. Soljan.
11 MS. SOLJAN: Thank you, Your Honours.
12 Q. Mr. Manning, in the course of your investigations, did you
13 identify mass graves related to Srebrenica?
14 A. Yes, Your Honours. I was present at the location or
15 identification of a number of mass graves, and I was present when those
16 mass graves were defined and the start of the exhumation process. I think
17 I was present when we found the exact location of eight mass graves, and I
18 personally was involved in the location of three additional mass graves
19 predominantly using aerial imagery.
20 Q. Okay. And we'll go into that shortly. But before we do, what do
21 you mean by "mass grave"?
22 A. Your Honours, speaking as a layman, and I know the term is defined
23 by archaeologists, effectively a grave, a place where individuals are
24 buried, the normal definition is -- would contain at least two
25 individuals, the remains of two individuals.
1 We've taken the view, within the exhumations project, that it
2 would generally mean a great deal more than that. The majority of the
3 graves that we have exhumed have contained multiple bodies. I think the
4 smallest was three, the next was nine, then 33, then into the hundreds.
5 Q. And what types of mass graves have you seen?
6 A. Your Honours, we had defined two types of mass grave: A primary
7 mass grave and a secondary mass grave. And if I can explain, simply, the
8 primary mass grave is a grave where individuals were first placed
9 following their death, their execution. On many occasions, they were
10 executed at the gravesite and then their grave was sealed.
11 At some stage in the future, those graves were opened, were
12 disturbed, the contents robbed or parts of the contents robbed from the
13 grave and placed into another grave, and that grave or that type of grave
14 would be a secondary grave; that is, a grave where the bodies were placed
15 a second time.
16 I'm also aware or believe that there is a tertiary grave which, by
17 simple definition, bodies were removed from a secondary grave and placed
18 into an unknown grave, which would be a third-level grave.
19 MS. SOLJAN: Could I please get on Sanction Exhibit P01899.
20 Q. Mr. Manning, can you comment on what this picture represents?
21 A. Your Honour, I'm quite familiar with this image. It's a
22 photograph of the Kozluk mass grave which was exhumed by the ICTY.
23 Effectively, it shows a number of things. Clearly, there are bodies on
24 the surface. I'm aware that the posture of those bodies -- of some of
25 those bodies indicate that their wrists were bound. It's clearly evident
1 that their wrists were tied, and I have examined the ligatures and autopsy
2 reports relating to those bodies.
3 If you like, the bodies are laying on the surface of the soil as
4 it would have been when they were first killed and placed in the grave,
5 and then they were covered with soil. That soil's been removed to expose
6 that photograph that you see.
7 If you look to the bottom right of that photograph, you see a
8 trench dug through the normal or previous surface of the grave. That
9 trench appears to have been dug by a machine, as there are machine teeth
10 marks in the wall of the grave, they're evident, and what that shows is
11 that at some stage that area has been removed from the grave.
12 So, effectively, some process has come along which has removed
13 part of the bodies from that grave after they were initially buried. To
14 us, that's an indication that that grave was robbed. The term means that
15 the contents were taken from the grave.
16 You can see that some of the bodies in that image have been
17 bisected, have been cut, and parts of those bodies have been removed.
18 Q. Thank you. And in relation to this picture, what would -- what
19 would a secondary mass grave that you have seen look like, in terms of
20 positioning of bodies?
21 A. In this image, you can see the bodies mostly fully articulated, in
22 that they are all together. It's clear that they are -- have fallen down
23 or are laying down, and you can discern the individual bodies.
24 Generally, in a secondary grave, you will see that the bodies are
25 jumbled up. They have been placed there predominantly by machine, and
1 that has meant that the bodies have tumbled together, many body parts, and
2 that many of the bodies have been broken up. Generally, a secondary grave
3 will show a great deal of disturbance of the bodies.
4 Q. Thank you. Now, how did you go about identifying mass graves?
5 A. Predominantly, either witness or survivor accounts we used, and I
6 must caution that I wasn't at the Tribunal in 1996 or 1997 when a number
7 of the graves were located. But without testimony or witness or survivor
8 account, we relied heavily on aerial imagery provided by the US
9 government. We would look at that imagery, attend the corresponding area
10 of Bosnia, and examine the area with an archaeologist, attempting to
11 locate the grave and hopefully locate the remains of at least two
12 individuals to show that it was a mass grave.
13 Q. And, specifically, what kind of information did aerial imagery
14 provide you with?
15 A. The images normally contained a date and an approximate time, as
16 well as a label, normally a location. We would know from that the general
17 area. We would compare that to a map.
18 On some of the aerial imagery, you also had some indications
19 placed there by the provider, but generally you had a roadway or a
20 location, a disturbed piece of earth which was clearly visible, and a
21 heading on the photo as to where the general location was.
22 Q. And did aerial imagery alone allow you to identify the graves as
23 Srebrenica graves?
24 A. The imagery did not, specifically; however, it did provide a date
25 range for when the graves were created. Effectively, those images showed
1 that they were created at or around the time of the fall of Srebrenica.
2 MS. SOLJAN: Thank you. Now, if I could have on Sanction Exhibit
4 Q. Can you tell us what this is, Mr. Manning?
5 A. This is a section of a map. It shows the area of the Kozluk
6 primary mass grave. In fact, with the assistance of OTP staff, I had
7 placed that circle around the Kozluk grave in previous testimony.
8 MS. SOLJAN: Could we go on to the next exhibit, P01761, please.
9 Q. Can you describe what this image represents?
10 A. Your Honours, this is a -- one of the aerial imagery which was
11 provided to us. It's a two-pane image. It shows, on the left, the Drina
12 River to the left and top of the image, and a date, the 5th of July. It
13 shows an area in Kozluk which I'm familiar with, and you can see the
14 roadway and certain features.
15 On the image on the 17th of July, on the right-hand pane, you see
16 that same area and some very obvious signs of physical disturbance of the
17 soil and what I believe to be, or know to be from the location, a trench
18 and various disturbance of the soil.
19 MS. SOLJAN: Could we go to the next image, please, Exhibit
21 Q. What does this image demonstrate?
22 A. Your Honours, it is again a split pane, a two-pane view. On the
23 left is a 7th of September image showing those areas of disturbance; and
24 on the 27th of September, you see a further disturbance of that area. In
25 effect, the previous areas have been significantly increased and
2 Q. And what is the significance of that image?
3 A. That image shows the opening of the primary mass grave at Kozluk
4 and the -- effectively, the removal of the bodies -- some of the bodies
5 from those graves. You can see clearly on that image track marks from
6 vehicles, where heavy machinery has moved the earth and created a
8 MS. SOLJAN: Thank you. Moving on to Exhibit P01797, please.
9 Q. Can you describe what this represents, please?
10 A. This is again --
11 Q. You can comment on that as well. That's fine. Thank you.
12 A. Again, this is a location map. It shows the mass grave, the
13 primary disturbed mass grave at the place called Petkovci Dam. It was
14 referred to by various names, but the Dam at Petkovci or Petkovci Dam.
15 MS. SOLJAN: And can I could have the next photograph. That would
16 be P01746, please.
17 Q. Can you comment on this picture, please?
18 A. This is again a split-image view from aerial imagery. On the left
19 is a shot from the 5th of July, 1995. It shows the earthen wall of the
20 dam. If you look to the left of the image, the water would be to the left
21 of that image, and you can see various access roadways.
22 MS. SOLJAN: And the next image, P01747.
23 JUDGE KWON: 65 ter number of the map, Ms. Soljan?.
24 MS. SOLJAN: Oh, it's P01744.
25 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Ms. Soljan.
2 THE WITNESS: Your Honours, the right-hand pane shows exactly the
3 same area, and you can see on that it's the 27th of July. You can see a
4 disturbance in the soil, in the rock fill of the dam wall. The markings
5 on that image were placed there by the provider. Effectively, what that
6 shows is the creation of the Petkovci Dam mass grave, in the earthen of
7 the dam, and that was the area that was later exhumed by the ICTY.
8 MS. SOLJAN: And if we could go to the next image, which is
10 Q. Can you comment on that, Mr. Manning, please?
11 A. This again shows the two views. Again, the water is on the left
12 of the photo, and it's the disturbance of that grave, that mass grave,
13 between the 7th of September and the 27th of September, 1995. Whilst the
14 image is perhaps difficult to see, in the original it's clearly evident
15 that that area of disturbance has been dug up, re-disturbed, and the soil
16 placed back on top of the mass grave.
17 Q. And the significance of that is?
18 A. On exhumation by ICTY, the mass grave at the dam was found to
19 contain very few human remains, very many small parts of human remains.
20 This image and the resultant exhumation shows that the bodies contained in
21 this mass grave were removed and taken to another or other sites.
22 MS. SOLJAN: Can we now go to Exhibit P01797, please.
23 Q. Can you tell us what this is, Mr. Manning?
24 A. This is another location map. It shows the area of the Branjevo
25 military farm. The Drina River is on the right, and the Kozluk mass grave
1 would be below these images -- this image.
2 MS. SOLJAN: And the next image, P01799.
3 THE WITNESS: This image is familiar to me. It is the Branjevo
4 military farm. It shows, amongst other things, the mass grave which was
5 created at that site. It shows a great deal of vehicle tracks. It shows
6 some of the locations of buildings, the places where pigs -- a pig farm,
7 and it shows what I believe to be bodies in the middle of the left of the
9 MS. SLOJAN:
10 Q. Are you familiar with who made the markings in yellow on this
12 A. The markings were produced, as I recall, by the former Srebrenica
13 team leader, Jean-Rene Ruez, and placed on the image. I must also point
14 out I've been to that location on a number of occasions and am familiar
15 with those buildings.
16 MS. SOLJAN: Can we go to Exhibit P01723 -- my apologies, Exhibit
18 Q. Can you comment on what this image represents?
19 A. This shows, effectively, the same area with the pigsty on the --
20 sorry, the pig farm on the right of the image, where that road comes down,
21 and it shows the mass gravesite. This photograph, along with others,
22 indicate the disturbance of that primary mass grave, which was again
23 opened up and a significant number of the bodies and remains were removed
24 from that grave, and then the grave was re-sealed. You can also see
25 various vehicle tracks in that image.
1 Q. Can you indicate for the Trial Chamber when this image is dated?
2 A. This image is dated 21 September 1995.
3 Q. What is the significance of that?
4 A. That is the date range, if you like, when many of the primary mass
5 graves were opened; when many of the secondary mass graves were created;
6 and over the next several weeks, the primary graves were robbed of their
7 contents, placed into the secondary graves; and then both sets of graves
8 were sealed until ICTY or ICMP and the Bosnians opened them up again.
9 MS. SOLJAN: And Exhibit P01801.
10 Q. Can you tell us what you see in this image?
11 A. This image is dated the 27th of September, 1995. It shows exactly
12 the same area of the Branjevo military farm. I indicate that the small
13 box and comments are provided, placed on the image by the provider, but
14 shows the primary mass grave in the process of being opened and robbed and
15 sealed. It's part of that process that occurred over several weeks in
16 September and October of 1995.
17 Q. Thank you.
18 MS. SOLJAN: If we could now go to Exhibit P01719, please.
19 Q. Can you tell us what this is, please?
20 A. This is another location map of the mass grave at Orahovac. You
21 can see that the Dam at Petkovci is at the top middle of that image. The
22 Orahovac grave, there's two mass graves there, primarily disturbed mass
23 graves, and it was also referred to as "Lazete," so it has two names, if
24 you like.
25 MS. SOLJAN: Thank you. The next Exhibit is P01721.
1 Q. Can you tell us what this image shows?
2 A. Your Honours, this is another split-pane view of the Orahovac 1
3 and 2 mass graves. The first pane on the left is 5 July 1995. The top
4 line in the image is a road. The line in the middle, the straight line in
5 the middle is, a railway track. You can see that there is no significant
6 disturbance in the area.
7 On the 27th of July, 1995, in the other pane, you can see two
8 areas of disturbance; one near the roadway and one on the other side of
9 the railway line. They are the mass graves of Orahovac 1, near the
10 roadway; and Orahovac 2, near the railway line. I was present for the
11 exhumation of both of those graves, certainly the second half of Orahovac
13 MS. SOLJAN: Thank you. If we could have the next exhibit,
14 P01723, please.
15 Q. Can you comment on this, Mr. Manning, please?
16 A. This image shows the Orahovac-Lazete 1 mass grave. The image on
17 the left is taken on the 7th of September, 1995. It shows the original
18 primary mass grave. And on the image on the right, taken on the 27th of
19 September, 1995, it shows the clear disturbance of that site. This series
20 of photographs show that grave being opened and robbed and eventually
22 Q. Thank you.
23 MS. SOLJAN: And the next exhibit, P01724.
24 THE WITNESS: This is the corresponding grave on the railway line,
25 Lazete-Orahovac 2, taken on the same day; and it shows again the 7th of
1 September, the original disturbed area, which is a primary mass grave; and
2 then the disturbance and robbery process of that grave around the time of
3 the 27th of September, 1995.
4 MS. SOLJAN: Can we go to Exhibit P01648, please.
5 Q. Can you tell us what this is, Mr. Manning?
6 A. This is a location map showing the Zeleni Jadar secondary mass
7 graves. These are all secondary mass graves. They're south of the city
8 of Srebrenica, and it shows the graves spread across various roadways.
9 Again, this image was created by myself.
10 MS. SOLJAN: And Exhibit P01649.
11 Q. Can you comment on this, please?
12 A. This is a compilation of two aerial imagery. It shows the Zeleni
13 Jadar graves 1 through to 6. I, with the assistance of others, created
14 this image. I would point out that at Zeleni Jadar 1 is, in fact, two
15 graves, and that should be Zeleni Jadar 1A and Zeleni Jadar 1B.
16 MS. SOLJAN: And going on to P01650.
17 Q. Can you comment on this?
18 A. Again, this is a split image. It, in fact, shows Zeleni Jadar 1,
19 which we knew about early on; and then Zeleni Jadar 2 is also -- sorry, 1B
20 is also visible, which we discovered or probed at a later date.
21 But effectively, again, it shows the 7th of September, 1995, no
22 disturbance; on at least the 2nd of October, 1995, a disturbance which has
23 created a mass grave, a secondary mass grave.
24 Q. Thank you.
25 MS. SOLJAN: And Exhibit P01651, please.
1 Q. What does this represent?
2 A. This is another split aerial image. On the left, you have the two
3 graves created at least on the 18th of October or roundabout. On the
4 right-hand pane, on the 20th of October, you can see a disturbance, a
5 further disturbance of those two graves, indicating that those graves have
6 been filled in.
7 I was present when Zeleni Jadar 1B was located, and we located the
8 remains of multiple human beings within that secondary mass grave.
9 Q. Thank you.
10 MS. SOLJAN: Can we go on to Exhibit P01652.
11 Q. Can you please describe this image?
12 A. This is another split image. The original is clearer; but in the
13 middle of the image, you have the roadway. To the bottom right -- sorry,
14 to the bottom of both images, you have the Zeleni Jadar River.
15 On the 24th of August, 1995 pane, you can see the areas not
16 disturbed; and on the 2nd of October, 1995 pane, you can see clearly a
17 disturbance and a large trench is visible, and that's the Zeleni Jadar 2
18 secondary mass grave.
19 Q. And for the record, could you just indicate where the Zeleni Jadar
20 2 disturbance can be seen?
21 A. On the right-hand pane, you can see the -- perhaps in the middle
22 right of that image, and it's labelled by the yellow marker "ZJ-2".
23 Q. Thank you.
24 MS. SOLJAN: Could I have the next exhibit, P01653.
25 Q. And, again, can you describe what you see on this image?
1 A. Another split image. On the left is the same view, Zeleni Jadar
2 Road and River. It's taken on the 20th of October, 1995, and shows the
3 Zeleni Jadar secondary grave. On the pane on the 23rd of October, 1995,
4 you can clearly see evidence that that has been disturbed and the grave
5 has been sealed up sometime between the 20th of October and the 23rd of
6 October. And, again, the grave is marked by a yellow arrow and "ZJ-2".
7 Q. Thank you.
8 MS. SOLJAN: The next exhibit is P01654.
9 Q. Can you please describe this image?
10 A. Again, a split image, and it shows the next grave in the Zeleni
11 Jadar series.
12 On the 7th of September, 1995, there's no disturbance visible. On
13 the 2nd of October, 1995, you can clearly see an area of a mass grave
14 which has been created, and it's marked "ZJ-3".
15 MS. SOLJAN: The next image, P01655.
16 Q. Can you comment on this one, please?
17 A. This is a single image. It shows the same area on the bow of that
18 road where the Zeleni Jadar 3 mass grave is located. So on the 20th of
19 October, 1995, that area had again been disturbed and sealed up. In
20 effect, the mass grave was closed up.
21 MS. SOLJAN: And Exhibit P01656.
22 THE WITNESS: This image is a split pane but it's a little bit
23 different, in that they are on top of each other.
24 The top pane, marked "7th of September, 1995," shows the Zeleni
25 Jadar roadway. Clearly, there is no disturbance in that area. On the
1 bottom image, on the 12th of October, 1995, you can see two areas of
2 disturbance marked as "ZJ-4" and" ZJ-5". The ZJ-5 grave, or Zeleni Jadar
3 5 grave, I was present when that was open in 1998 and present for some of
4 the exhumation of that grave.
5 Q. Thank you.
6 MS. SOLJAN: Exhibit P01657, please.
7 THE WITNESS: This single image, taken on the 18th of October,
8 1995, shows those two graves, those two secondary graves which have been
9 sealed, and those images are marked "ZJ-4" and" ZJ-5".
10 Q. Thank you.
11 MS. SOLJAN: And Exhibit P01658.
12 THE WITNESS: This is again a split image. On the 7th of
13 September, 1995, no disturbances visible; and, in fact, on the original,
14 it's clearer. On the 27th of September, 1995, on the right-hand pane, you
15 can see a clear trench has been excavated, and it's marked as "ZJ-6". I
16 was present to identify and locate that grave and present when it was
17 opened and during parts of the exhumation of that grave.
18 MS. SOLJAN:
19 Q. Thank you.
20 MS. SOLJAN: And Exhibit P01659.
21 THE WITNESS: Again, the same area in a split pane. The 12th of
22 October, on the left, shows the trench clearly visible; and on the right,
23 on the 18th of October, 1995, clearly that trench has been filled in, and
24 you can see vehicle marks and features. I was able to view many of those
25 features when we examined the grave prior to opening it.
1 MR. SOLJAN:
2 Q. Thank you. Now, Mr. Manning, during the course of your work at
3 the ICTY, did you actually have a chance to review all of the aerial
4 images and topographic marks that are in the exhibit list, including the
5 graves of Cerska, Cancari, Hodzici, and Liplje?
6 A. Yes, I did. I'm very familiar with those aerial imagery and maps
7 and other charts related to those graves; and, in fact, I produced many of
8 the markings on those items.
9 Q. What type of information were you able to glean from the aerial
10 imagery concerning the graves, in summary?
11 A. Effectively, we were provided with the date and sometimes the
12 approximate time that those images were taken. We're able to see the
13 clear disturbance, see where it was located, use that as an aid in
14 locating the actual grave.
15 We're also able to see, in many instances, a similarity in
16 construction of those graves prior to them being filled in, and it also
17 provided location of other features, which helped us identify where the
18 graves were.
19 Q. Thank you.
20 MS. SOLJAN: Your Honours, in the interests of saving time, unless
21 you prefer otherwise, I do not propose to actually show the remaining
22 aerials and topographic maps that are listed on the exhibit list, but I
23 will be seeking to tender them.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Any of the Defence teams wish to comment on that?
25 Mr. Zivanovic.
1 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Not at this moment.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: Proceed as you wish.
3 MS. SOLJAN: Thank you, Your Honours.
4 Then, for the record, the exhibits -- these exhibits are exhibits
5 related to the Glogova 1 and 2 dossier, which are Exhibit numbers P01605
6 and P01608 to 1611; the ones relating to primary graves Cerska, P01640 and
7 1642; relating to secondary graves of Cancari, P01842 to 1869; Hodzici,
8 P01821 to 1832, as well as 2168; and, finally, P01833 to 1840 for the
9 Liplje dossier.
10 Q. Now, let's turn briefly to the map that you have at hand --
11 MR. MEEK: Not an objection, but she was speaking kind of quickly
12 and there's at least five different sites that did not show up on the
14 JUDGE AGIUS: That can be remedied later, provided -- the
15 important this is that you are aware which ones he was talking about. If
16 you have any doubts, Mr. Meek, we can ask Ms. Soljan to repeat the names,
17 at least, without the need to refer to the exhibit number.
18 We have Glogova, we have Cerska, Cancari, Liplje --
19 MS. SOLJAN: And Hodzici.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: -- and Hodzici. So there is only one missing.
21 Go ahead.
22 MS. SOLJAN: Let's turn briefly to the map, which is to Exhibit
24 Q. Can you tell us who created this?
25 A. This map in this form was created by the OTP. It's based almost
1 completely on a very similar map that I produced for previous trials. I,
2 with the assistance of other OTP staff, produced the base maps, then added
3 the markings and the symbols; and on this map, there are additional graves
4 identified from -- since my previous testimony.
5 Q. Thank you. And can you please describe what this map represents?
6 A. Your Honours, it effectively shows the area where the mass graves
7 have been located. It shows the north and the south, and it lists every
8 primary mass grave that we're aware of and every secondary mass grave. It
9 labels those graves, primary mass graves, in red. It also shows execution
10 points of Pilica Dom and Branjevo military -- sorry, and Kravica
12 It also shows the red lines which link some of the primary and
13 secondary graves, and the reason we link those graves are in text within
14 that arrow. And on the southern side, the southern end of the map, in a
15 similar manner, it identifies primary mass graves, secondary mass graves,
16 and the links between those graves.
17 It also shows the -- some graves which were identified by the
18 Bosnian Commission for Missing Persons and ICMP.
19 Q. Thank you. Could you, for the Trial Chamber, indicate the name
20 for the primary graves that are on this map?
21 A. On the northern edge of -- end of the map, you have the primary
22 mass grave of Branjevo military farm disturbed; Kozluk, which is
23 disturbed; the dam near Petkovci, which was also disturbed; Orahovac 1 and
24 2, also known as Lazete 1 and 2, which were also disturbed. That's to the
25 north of the map.
1 The southern part of the map, you have the understood sites at
2 Cerska, Konjevic Polje 1, Konjevic Polje 2, Nova Kasaba 1999, Nova Kasaba
3 1996, Ravnice 1 and 2, and Glogova 1 and 2.
4 Q. Of that --
5 JUDGE AGIUS: What about Sandici?
6 THE WITNESS: Your Honours, Sandici is a grave identified by the
7 Bosnian Commission, and I have been to that location but wasn't present or
8 involved in that.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: I asked because you left it out.
10 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
12 MS. SOLJAN:
13 Q. And of the primary graves in the southern location, are any of
14 them disturbed?
15 A. I'd indicated the undisturbed graves. The disturbs graves are
16 Glogova 1 and 2. The rest of the graves, including Ravnice, Konjevic
17 Polje 1 and 2, Cerska, and Nova Kasaba, both Nova Kasabas, are undisturbed
18 primary mass graves.
19 Q. Thank you. And can you also name all the secondary mass graves or
20 mass grave clusters and connect them to the mass graves you've just
22 A. If you look at the northern top-most part of the map, you have a
23 collection of secondary mass graves on the Hodzici Road. They are 1
24 through 7. Three of those graves connected directly to Orahovac 1 and 2.
25 You also have a collection of graves along the Liplje road, Liplje road.
1 Those graves, initially, were Liplje 1 to 4, and Liplje 7 has since been
2 located by the Bosnian Commission for Missing Persons.
3 I indicate that I had visited that site prior to its exhumation
4 with Mr. Murat Hutic. Those graves were connected or -- sorry, Liplje 2
5 was connected to the primary grave at the dam near Petkovci.
6 You also have a considerable number of graves along the Cancari
7 Road, 1 through 13. Some of those graves on the eastern side are
8 connected to the Kozluk primary mass grave; that is, Cancari 3 and Cancari
9 2. And on the other end of the Cancari secondary mass graves, we have a
10 connection from the Branjevo military farm to Cancari Road 12.
11 On the southern part of that map, you have a connection from the
12 execution point at Kravica warehouse to the primary undisturbed mass grave
13 at Ravnice 1 and 2, and you also have a connection to the disturbed
14 primary graves of Glogova 1 and 2.
15 Down at the bottom of the map is the Zeleni Jadar mass graves, 1A,
16 1B through to 6. They're secondary graves. We have a connection from the
17 Glogova mass graves to Zeleni Jadar 5 and 6.
18 Also shown on that image are graves identified by the Bosnian
19 Commission for Missing Persons, Bljeceva 1 and 2 and 3, and Budak, as well
20 as the mass grave of Sandici. I have visited Bljeceva 1 and 2 and Budak
22 Q. Thank you.
23 MS. SOLJAN: Now could I please have Exhibit P00649 on Sanction,
25 Q. Can you tell us what this is, please?
1 A. This is a topographic map produced by, I believe, commercial
2 satellite imagery. It shows the area in the south of the map behind me,
3 and it includes or travelled from the Kravica warehouse to the left of
4 that image, to Ravnice 1 and 2 mass gravesite, down to Glogova 1 and 2 in
5 the middle right of that image. I'd indicate that the distance between
6 Kravica warehouse and Glogova 1 and 2 is approximately eight kilometres.
7 It also shows, in the insert at the top left, the Sandici mass
8 grave identified by the Bosnians; but also in that image, there's a white
9 spot which is the Sandici meadow, where individuals were collected prior
10 to execution at the Kravica warehouse.
11 Q. Thank you.
12 MS. SOLJAN: And can I now have -- for the record, this was
13 actually Exhibit P02996, and the next exhibit I'd like to see is P00649.
14 Apologies. For the record, that was P02995, and the next exhibit will be
16 Q. Can you comment on this, please, Mr. Manning?
17 A. Your Honours, this is a chart which I produced and presented in
18 previous testimony. It lists, at the top of the image, primary mass
19 graves. You'll see that at least Ravnice 1 and 2 were not included, as
20 they weren't known at that time.
21 Along the bottom of the image are some secondary mass graves. The
22 lines on that image indicate where there are links between the primary
23 graves at the top and the secondary graves at the bottom, and they list
24 those -- the reasons why we know that those graves are linked.
25 Q. And although we'll go into more detail about that shortly, can you
1 just list the reasons?
2 A. Basically, we were able to link the graves via shell case
3 examination; from soil and pollen samples; from the examination of cloth,
4 blindfolds, and ligatures; and also from artifacts such as bottle labels
5 and broken green glass or parts of building material.
6 JUDGE KWON: The exhibit number for this?
7 MS. SOLJAN: Your Honours, this is P00649.
8 JUDGE KWON: Page number?
9 MS. SOLJAN: The page number is 14 -- sorry, 15. The ERN is
11 JUDGE KWON: Could you check it out later on?
12 MS. SOLJAN: Will do, Your Honour.
13 Q. Mr. Manning, in your experience as investigator on multiple mass
14 gravesites, was it possible to determine whether the executions had taken
15 place at the gravesites, themselves?
16 A. Your Honour, at many of the sites, we had -- or some of the sites,
17 we had survivor testimony, and I'm sure the Chamber has heard testimony
18 from other individuals. But also we were able to see that clearly
19 individuals had been shot in the location of the mass grave. It was
20 possible to see that from the position the bodies had fallen or were
21 laying. Some individuals had fallen forward. Some individuals had a
22 posture which indicated that they had fallen.
23 And during the examination, we would examine the body. You would
24 see injuries to the body, or to the clothing, consistent, to my view, with
25 injuries; and then you would examine underneath the body and often locate
1 bullets in the soil or in other bodies corresponding to those injuries.
2 That, to me and to the experts in their reports, indicated that
3 those individuals had been killed in situ, in place. It is also instances
4 where it was clear that individuals had been shot and had crawled or moved
5 away, and there is a specific instance at the Kozluk grave where that is
7 MS. SOLJAN: Could we please have Exhibit P020 --
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Meek.
9 MR. MEEK: Thank you, Mr. President. I'm sorry to interject.
10 The witness has already testified in the past five minutes or so
11 that several of these gravesites were done by the BCMP, not the ICTY; and
12 now he just testified about the experts and their reports.
13 Now, if any of these experts and their reports have not been
14 before this Trial Chamber or are not coming before this Trial Chamber, I
15 think that evidence is, under your ruling, inadmissible; and, perhaps, he
16 could point out if any of these experts that he just referred to were
17 experts from the ICMP or the BCMP.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: He hasn't said that they were from those sources.
19 Yes, Ms. Soljan, would you like to comment on the objection --
20 MS. SOLJAN: I can --
21 JUDGE AGIUS: -- or ask questions to the witness straightaway?
22 MS. SOLJAN: I can ask questions, Your Honour.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Then go ahead.
24 MS. SOLJAN:
25 Q. Mr. Manning, who made the observations regarding the killings in
2 A. Your Honours, I was referring specifically to Dr. William Hagland
3 in his exhumations of the 1996 exhumations; Dr. Richard Wright in his
4 later examinations from 1998 onwards; Mr. Jose Pablo Baraybar from the
5 ICTY; and I believe, from recollection, Mr. Freddie Pecurelli [phoen],
6 also from the ICTY. I was not referring to experts from any other
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. Yes, let's proceed.
9 MS. SOLJAN: Can we go to the next exhibit on Sanction, which is
11 Q. Mr. Manning, can you comment on what this represents?
12 A. This is an image from the Kozluk mass grave exhumation. I'm
13 familiar with this image and also the autopsy report and related evidence
14 reports in relation to this body.
15 You can see, from this image, that the man's hand is grasping the
16 stems of a bush. When this grave was exhumed, the man was found to be
17 holding that bush still, and his hand had to be pried away from that bush.
18 What that indicates is that he had to have been alive at that stage. It
19 also indicated a time reference, because that bush - and I'm conscious of
20 moving outside my area of expertise - grows in Bosnia at that time.
21 But, effectively, it shows the man was alive when he grasped that
22 bush. He was then covered up and buried, and the ICTY removed the soil
23 and exposed that image.
24 Q. Thank you. Now, when you investigated primary graves, did you
25 ever consider the possibility that bodies were brought to the primary
1 graves rather than actually killed in situ; in other words, that they were
2 not executed there?
3 A. Yes. We certainly considered that issue; and, in fact, the
4 primary graves at Ravnice and Glogova showed clear evidence that the
5 bodies had been taken there and dumped there. It was -- it wasn't
6 evidence that those individuals had been executed there; except in a
7 sub-grave within Glogova 1, there was evidence of individuals having been
8 tied up and executed in situ. That was 12 individuals. But the majority
9 of the bodies in Ravnice 1 and 2 and Glogova 1 and 2 appeared to have been
10 dumped into those graves.
11 Q. Thank you. Now, when a grave is initially identified, what are
12 some of the factors that indicate whether a grave has been disturbed or
13 tampered with?
14 A. When the grave is first examined, they, the experts, take
15 meticulous care to reveal the layers of soil, and they strip away
16 subsequent layers. It becomes evident, even to my layman's eyes, where
17 there is a difference, a disturbance in the soil. You could see that
18 quite clearly.
19 On some mass graves which were undisturbed, there was a clear
20 indication of the grave outline in fluid which had leaked from the bodies;
21 and if that had been disturbed, it was clearly obvious. But the
22 disturbance was also obvious in the way the bodies were presented, in
23 parts that were missing. A secondary grave would be a grave in which
24 there's a -- the bodies are more broken up, more entangled, and a
25 predominance of body parts.
1 Q. Thank you.
2 MS. SOLJAN: Now, turning back to Exhibit P01899.
3 Q. In light of what you were just saying, can you just explain
4 indications of disturbance, as you saw them?
5 A. Again, in this image, it's quite clear that a section of the grave
6 has been removed. A significant number of bodies have been missed or left
7 behind, but you can see that the original surface layer has been cut into.
8 So that must have happened after the grave was initially created and the
9 bodies were placed on it. That significant section of grave, of soil
10 matrix, of bodies and body parts, is not present in that image. It has
11 been taken somewhere else, and that process created the secondary mass
13 Q. Thank you.
14 MS. SOLJAN: Now, turning to Exhibit P0674, ERN number X006-4514,
15 page 35.
16 Q. Mr. Manning, have you seen these images before?
17 A. These are images from the report by Professor Richard Wright. I'm
18 very familiar with the report and the images, and I indicate that I was
19 present when, if not all the photographs were taken, most of them were
20 taken, and I'm familiar with what they depict.
21 Q. Can you indicate for the Trial Chamber what they depict?
22 A. Particularly, the image on the left shows marks left in the base
23 and sides of the grave. You can clearly see teeth marks from a machine, a
24 bucketed, heavy machine. That's on the walls at the middle rear of the
25 image. You can also see those same scrapings on the floor of the -- of
1 the grave. They're actually compacted grey soil. This is the Glogova 1
2 mass grave.
3 And if you look on the right-hand pane, the third pane, you can
4 clearly see vehicle tracks, heavy machinery tracks, in the base of the
5 grave or in the soil surrounding the grave. I saw numerous instances of
6 these markings, and I saw the archaeologists as they revealed these
7 markings and developed them so that they could be photographed in this
9 Q. And is there any indication of what kind of device had been used
10 on the bodies or in the graves that you're seeing right here?
11 A. The imprints of the machine were so obvious and so easily measured
12 and photographed. We established, through investigative measures,
13 comparing the dimensions of the teeth, the bucket, the wheels, the
14 dimension between the wheels, that it was a front-end loader or an
15 excavating machine; and in one instance, it was identified as an Ult
16 220, "Ult" being a manufacturer's name, and all the characteristics of the
17 Ult machine were represented in those markings within the grave.
18 Q. And what is the effect of the removal process on the bodies in the
19 primary graves and the evidence associated with those bodies?
20 A. If you have a primary undisturbed mass grave, you remove the soil
21 and you have predominantly complete bodies normally laid out in a pattern
22 where you can easily discern the bodies. If those bodies are then broken
23 up and removed from the grave, and transported over rough roads in the
24 back of vehicles, trucks, and dumped into another pit, and then that pit
25 is compacted around them, not only do you spread the human remains and
1 evidence across two sites, you significantly disrupt the bodies,
2 significantly delaying identification, cause of death, and any of the
3 other investigative processes that we'd hope to gain evidence from.
4 You, in doing so, very effectively delayed the exhumation of the
5 bodies. It takes a great deal more time to exhume a secondary mass grave
6 than an undisturbed primary mass grave.
7 Q. Thank you. Now, in the course of your work as an investigator in
8 the exhumations project, did you have a chance to observe the majority
9 of -- the gender of the majority of the victims in the graves?
10 A. Your Honour, part of the process of examining the bodies,
11 particularly at the mortuary, was to try to identify the gender, so I was
12 present during those examinations and discussed them with the ICTY
13 experts. Effectively, we were able to identify a single female in the
14 collection of bodies at that time. So from all the bodies and body parts
15 that we had, we had identified one female from the Konjevic Polje 1 mass
17 Q. And was it possible to determine the age of the victims in the
19 A. Again, the process at the mortuary was to try and identify the
20 bodies and give them an age range. I'm aware that different methodology
21 was used, and I had discussed that with the experts; but, effectively,
22 they were able to place them into various age groups: Some quite young,
23 12 years of age and up; some quite old, in 80s and 90s.
24 But from the information available, the majority of the victims
25 were in the middle-age range, say 20 or 30 to 50. The majority of those
1 bodies were in that range.
2 Q. Thank you. And for the graves that you investigated, can you
3 briefly indicate what the main findings were regarding the cause of death?
4 A. The main cause of death, as indicated by the pathologist and
5 anthropologist, was gunshot injury, gunshot wounds. There were a
6 significant number of cases where they could not determine cause of death.
7 There were other smaller groups which had been defined as "blast injury,"
8 and others from blunt-force trauma. The majority, however, had been shot;
9 and as I say, in a significant number, there was no cause of death
11 Q. And why was this? For the last part, why was no cause of death
12 ascertained for a significant number?
13 A. From my experience, viewing the remains and being present at the
14 mortuary, on a number of occasions, significant parts of the body would be
15 missing. The pathologist, therefore, could not give a definitive cause of
16 death, if there wasn't life-threatening injury to other parts of the
18 Also, it's evident to me that if an individual is shot and the
19 bullet doesn't strike a bone, when we examine the skeleton, because the
20 flesh has been removed, the track of that bullet is not visible. So it
21 could be that the individual was shot in a soft-tissue area and not in a
22 bone, and we couldn't see that. Again, I'm not a pathologist, but that
23 was clearly evident to me in looking at the bodies.
24 Q. Okay. And, generally, how were you able to tell that the bodies
25 were from 1995 and not from some other time?
1 A. We, of course, relied on the creation date of the mass grave, that
2 the graves had been created in July of 1995, or had been created
3 thereafter in September and October 1995. So they couldn't pre-date 1995,
4 in July.
5 We also -- we also looked at identification material found amongst
6 the bodies. We would find identifications indicating the individuals were
7 from Srebrenica, and often we would find those identifications indicating
8 the person was recorded as missing from Srebrenica in the ICRC Book of the
10 There were also other links which indicated a strong connection to
11 Srebrenica, and therefore the time, including Dutch newspapers from 1995,
12 Dutch medical military rations, Dutch artifacts, as well as artifacts
13 which linked individuals to Srebrenica itself or to Potocari.
14 Q. And, in fact, how were individuals linked as being from
16 A. A number of items were located which had indications that they
17 were connected to Srebrenica. I recall an artificial leg which was bound
18 by a tape marked "Feros Srebrenica," which I know to be a factory in
19 Potocari, in the Srebrenica area. I've visited that factory and seen the
20 tape in that factory. Similarly, a group of photographs were bound
21 together by that tape.
22 We found, I think it was in the Zeleni Jadar mass grave, a watch,
23 a commemorative watch, which had markings in the B/C/S language indicating
24 Srebrenica, I think it was "Ten years, Srebrenica," and as I say, again
25 indications of connection with the Dutch-Bat, or Dutch Battalion, at
2 MS. SOLJAN: Can we please take a look at Exhibit P0622, page 66.
3 Q. Mr. Manning, can you comment on what this is, please?
4 A. This is an image from one of the reports relating to the ICTY
5 exhumation process, and it shows a set of prayer beads. It's one of the
6 mortuary photographs, one of the evidentiary photographs, and it shows a
7 prayer bead. Looking at the image, it's from Pilica, which is the
8 Branjevo military farm. In each of the graves, or in a majority of the
9 graves of the graves, we found similar items which had indicated an
10 affiliation with the Muslim religion. We small copies of the Quran,
11 Quranic verses, and items which were clearly linked to the Muslim faith.
12 MS. SOLJAN: And can we also take a look at also P0622, but page
14 Q. Mr. Manning, can you comment on what this is?
15 A. Again, this is an image from an ICTY expert report. In the top
16 pane, you see what I know to be a [indiscernible], an identification
17 document. It's again from the Branjevo military farm exhumation, and
18 normally you can see that there's a photograph on the right-hand pane of
19 the booklet; and on the left would include date of birth, place of birth,
20 residence, and other details. Often, that would include the place
21 Srebrenica or similar.
22 The bottom pane shows some of the material which would be often
23 collected from the bodies. The majority of the bodies had
24 identifications, wallets, and personal photographs and paperwork. This
25 image shows some of those things: A Red Cross letter and photographs and
1 other material. This is a mortuary photograph showing how the evidence
2 was processed, photographed, and documented as well.
3 Q. Thank you. In relation to religious artifacts you had mentioned
4 before, did you ever recover any religious artifacts which were not
5 related to the Muslim faith?
6 A. Your Honour, we did not recover any item which gave a clear
7 indication of any other faith. Clearly, some faiths would use prayer
8 beads. From our examination of those beads, there was nothing to indicate
9 they were from any other religious except Muslim, Islam, and we found no
10 other indications of any other religious affiliation.
11 Q. Now, when an ID was retrieved from a grave, such as an ID we just
12 saw, what was the next step you took in order to identify the body?
13 A. If we found an identification on a body or on a body part, the
14 body would be removed and processed. The body would be taken to the
15 mortuary, examined by a pathologist/anthropologist, the clothing would be
16 taken and cleaned, the body would be prepared for examination.
17 Whilst that was happening, the artifacts located with the body,
18 such as the license or identifications, it would be examined by
19 scene-of-crime officers. That would give us an indication of perhaps the
20 identification of that individual.
21 However, many of the individuals carried more than one
22 identification. It was apparent to me that they had collected other
23 identifications. I can surmise why. But that process then continued with
24 an examination of the postmortem records, trying to match them against the
25 identification document, and antemortem records provided by the family,
1 which may assist in identifying that individual.
2 The identification documents were really just a guide to try to
3 identify the individuals from the physical characteristics at that stage
4 of the bodies. At that stage, DNA was not heavily used.
5 Q. So do you know how many persons were actually identified on the
6 basis of ID or in a forensic manner?
7 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Meek.
8 MR. MEEK: Your Honour, I object to the form of the question
9 because I'm not sure whether if the question goes to one specific side or
10 all sides, number one.
11 And, number two, the last answer had to do with DNA, which was
12 utilised only by the ICMP and the BCMP; and as part of your earlier
13 rulings, that evidence would not be admissible.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Do you wish to comment, Ms. Soljan?
15 Thank you, Mr. Meek.
16 MS. SOLJAN: Your Honour, there was no reference to expertise. He
17 simply mentioned the word "DNA." And, furthermore, I can reinstate my
18 question so as to specify the graves.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, please. I think the first point by Mr. Meek is
20 a very valid one. The second one, I don't know where he got it from, but
21 let's proceed.
22 MS. SOLJAN:
23 Q. From the ICTY-exhumed graves, how many forensic identifications
24 were made on the basis of ID or any other forensic data or evidence?
25 A. I believe up to the time I gave evidence in the Blagojevic-Jokic
1 trial, it would have been less than 100 for all the graves. It was a very
2 low number of identifications which had been made from presumptive
3 identifications based on physical characteristics.
4 And to indicate to the Chamber, there was some DNA analysis
5 conducted by the ICTY and by the Physicians for Human Rights, the PHR
6 organisation. So part of that grouping of identifications also relied on
7 DNA examinations, but predominantly there were very few identifications
8 possible or made up until the process initiated by ICMP.
9 Q. And based on your experience, could you tell why it would have
10 been so difficult?
11 A. I indicated before that many of the individuals had multiple
12 identifications. The family's information in relation to the bodies, if
13 the individual had a wooden leg or an artificial leg, then that would
14 significantly narrow it down. So the families would provide a description
15 of stature or physical features and even clothing, but often that wasn't
16 sufficient in any manner to narrow down the search.
17 It was also made more difficult because the bodies had been broken
18 up. It was very difficult to identify a torso and a set of legs or a part
19 of an individual where you couldn't establish how tall that person was or
20 how big that person was or if they did have an injury to an arm or a bone.
21 Effectively, the breaking up of the bodies and the deterioration
22 of the clothing and the physical artifacts significantly delayed any
23 identification, not using a more definitive method such as DNA.
24 Q. At the time you testified in Blagojevic, what was the number of
25 individuals found or exhumed from graves?
1 A. Based on the estimates by Jose Pablo Baraybar, it was, from all
2 the graves that we had exhumed and examined the bodies, 2.570. I'm
3 certain that's the correct number, but it may be necessary to check my
4 records, but 2.570.
5 Q. Thank you. We'll go into more detail in this report and the data
6 regarding the individuals or the number of individuals exhumed.
7 Just generally still, can you tell us whether there had been any
8 evidence in any other graves that you'd exhumed that the -- that there
9 were soldiers commingled with civilians inside the graves?
10 A. We didn't find any significant number of uniforms to indicate
11 military forces. We also did not find equipment in -- to indicate
12 military forces. We did find some material and some very limited numbers
13 of, say, a camouflage shirt or a military jacket.
14 No, to my recollection or knowledge, no individuals were found in
15 a complete uniform. One pistol was located in the belt of an individual
16 at Glogova. He wasn't wearing military clothing, and that pistol was in a
17 loaded condition. I understand a grenade was found in 1996 in the sleeve
18 of an individual. But apart from that, we did not find evidence of
19 military artifacts or clothing amongst the dead.
20 Q. Thank you. Now, with respect to the linkage of primary to
21 secondary graves, what factors go into making this identification or this
23 A. I'm sorry. Could you restate the question?
24 Q. I could. How were connections between primary and secondary
25 graves determined forensically?
1 A. It was part of the process to see if the graves were, indeed,
2 connected. We could see that they had been exhumed, a primary grave had
3 been opened and the contents taken, and we had secondary graves.
4 Initially, there were indications from physical artifacts, such as
5 broken green glass present in the primary grave and present in the
6 secondary grave, but not in the area around the grave; shell cases, an
7 examination of shell cases to match the weapon that had fired them from
8 the primary to the secondary grave; and also an examination of the soil
9 samples within the primary grave and the secondary grave, as well as
10 specific artifacts that were obviously connected.
11 Q. Are there any other methods for identifying connections between
13 A. If you found part of an individual in a primary grave and part of
14 an individual in a secondary grave, the same individual, and you could
15 prove that that person was a whole body at one stage, clearly that would
16 be a link that part of the body was in the primary grave, part of the body
17 was in the secondary grave; a very strong link.
18 Q. Okay. And have you, yourself, analysed all these various manners
19 of identification of primary-to-secondary graves?
20 A. Yes, I have, and I was involved in the process of collecting the
21 evidence, of dealing with the experts, such as Dr. Tony Brown, in
22 connecting soil samples and taking him to various locations, and also in
23 providing him information.
24 I also collected and examined the green glass fragments and the
25 bottle labels from Kozluk and Cancari, as well as a very detailed
1 examination of the Kravica warehouse, the Ravnice 1 and 2 and Glogova 1
2 and 2 mass graves, and the physical connections between those sites, as
3 well as the Zeleni Jadar secondary graves.
4 Q. And so one of the methods used for identifying the connection
5 between graves that you mentioned was blindfolds and ligatures. How were
6 they used to determine this connection?
7 A. Your Honours, there are a number of cloth blindfolds located
8 within the graves, as well as cloth ligatures. They were all collected
9 and examined, and I, along with others, conveyed those cloth blindfolds
10 and ligatures to the Netherlands Forensic Institute where Dr. Susie
11 Maljaars examined those cloth pieces, and she was able to group them into
12 groupings that were very similar, that were indistinguishable from each
14 It was obvious to me that there was a great similarity between the
15 cloth blindfolds and ligatures. She, using a scientific examination of
16 the cloth, the colour of the weave, the fabric, the density, et cetera,
17 was able to show that many of the cloth ligatures represented in the
18 primary grave were exactly the same as cloth ligatures and blindfolds
19 represented in the secondary graves.
20 Therefore, there was a strong connection between the blindfolds
21 which had originally been in the primary grave and then had been
22 transported to the secondary grave.
23 Q. Thank you.
24 MS. SOLJAN: And can we get Exhibit P00649. This would be page
25 15, or ERN 0095-0917.
1 Q. Mr. Manning, can you comment on what this is?
2 A. This is a page from a report that I produced. It indicates the
3 result of Ms. Maljaars' examination of those cloth blindfolds and
4 ligatures. When she returned to report to us, the items were identified
5 by the Netherlands Forensic Institute numbers. I then matched those
6 numbers with the numbers that we knew them; by, and then, using her
7 report, I produced this chart which showed the links that she had
9 In the top of the image, the Branjevo military farm primary mass
10 grave is linked to the Cancari Road 12 and Cancari Road 3 secondary grave.
11 The Graboski [phoen] School, where a number of blindfolds were located, is
12 matched to Hodzici 4, and Orahovac-Lazete 2 is matched to Hodzici 4, 5,
13 and 3.
14 There's also an indication of a match between Hodzici 4 and Liplje
16 Q. Thank you. Now, just turning back to the actual manner in which
17 the ligatures and blindfolds were obtained, what was the protocol for
18 handling the blindfolds and ligatures? What happened to them once they
19 were identified?
20 A. During the exhumation process, the blindfolds particularly
21 identified on the heads of individuals, or close by the individuals, and
22 the ligatures would be normally still present on the wrist, those items
23 would be collected up with the body when it was exhumed, placed in the
24 body-bag, photographed and recorded at the site, then conveyed to the
25 mortuary at Visoko, where they would be again photographed. They would be
1 then examined by the pathologist in situ, if possible.
2 I saw that a number of the blindfolds had holes in them, which
3 corresponded to injuries to the skull of the individual. They would
4 examine them and the body. They would then be removed from the body,
5 cleaned, examined, recorded, photographed, treated as evidence; and then
6 they would be ultimately returned to The Hague, where we conveyed them to
7 the Netherlands Forensic Institute for examination.
8 Q. And have you had an opportunity to examine all the blindfolds
9 identified in the exhumation process, ICTY exhumation process, yourself?
10 A. As part of my preparation for giving evidence and producing a
11 report, I examined every physical artefact and photograph produced by the
12 exhumation process, including every blindfold and every ligature. I
13 examined them physically. I examined the associated records, including
14 the photographic logs, the autopsy reports, the field notes, and the
15 photographic logs and photographs of those images.
16 I went through trying to identify what was a blindfold, what was a
17 ligature. And because of the movement of the material within the grave,
18 some of those items would slip off or become disassociated from the body,
19 and I would examine those with the intention of establishing whether they
20 could be considered blindfolds and ligatures.
21 In that process, I discounted a large number of blindfolds and
22 ligatures which were either damaged to the point where we couldn't confirm
23 that they were blindfolds and ligatures, or there was a significant gap in
24 the recording of where they were located and how they were processed.
25 MS. SOLJAN: Okay. Could we please get Exhibit P02994. It's ERN
1 X016-7719, page 12 for e-court purposes.
2 Q. Can you indicate to us what this is, Mr. Manning, please?
3 A. This is a table from my report previously presented to the trial.
4 It relates to the primary and secondary mass graves. I created the table,
5 and I based the figures on information that I had sought from either ICTY
6 expert reports, our own internal information, or data collected from the
7 exhumation/autopsy process.
8 It shows the graves, the designations --
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Meek.
10 MR. MEEK: Mr. President. Thank you very much.
11 I would just like to know if we are again staying with the --
12 JUDGE AGIUS: ICTY?
13 MR. MEEK: -- ICTY reports only; if not, I would just like to
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Could you please put that question to the witness,
16 and then we'll break and continue on this document afterwards.
17 MS. SOLJAN:
18 Q. Mr. Manning, this chart, what specific exhumation process -- or
19 when was it created?
20 A. It was created prior to my dealings with ICMP. The information I
21 referred to and contained is all from ICTY expert reports and my
22 examination of the records held by the ICTY.
23 Q. Thank you.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's have the break now, and we will continue
1 Thank you.
2 --- Recess taken at 12.32 p.m.
3 --- On resuming at 1.00 p.m.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. McCloskey, has Mr. Kanguri [phoen] arrived in
5 The Hague?
6 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, Mr. President, I am told he has made it, and
7 he's in good spirits.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Thank you.
9 Ms. Soljan.
10 MR. McCLOSKEY: Mr. President, could I perhaps save some time on
11 some issues?
12 Ms. Soljan is about to go into some DNA results. It's my
13 understanding that these are the same kind of results that came in under
14 Mr. Brunborg, but they are just more updated. Now, that may run into your
15 ruling a bit, because I don't know if you've determined it's DNA results.
16 It's, you know, based on expert work, but it's the same material we relied
17 on with Helge, and we were hoping not to bring in the DNA expert and how
18 they did their DNA and all that.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. But what's the witness supposed to say on
21 MR. McCLOSKEY: Well, as you'll find out, he fits it into his -- I
22 think, as you can see, he's dealt with anthropology science to determine
23 minimum numbers, and now he is assisted by the DNA results from minimum
24 number of individuals. He'll explain that.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Let's play it by the ear as we go along, and
1 we'll see how far we can go on that.
2 Ms. Soljan, have you finished with the previous document?
3 MS. SOLJAN: No, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: I see. No, because I saw it disappear from the
5 screen. Okay. We have it back.
6 MR. SOLJAN: [Microphone not activated]
7 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
8 MS. SOLJAN: Thank you.
9 Q. If I could point your attention to the two columns
10 stating "Blindfolds" and "Ligatures," could you please comment on those
12 A. Your Honour, those columns represent an account of the blindfolds
13 and ligatures which I had conducted by examining the material. I have set
14 that out in two columns, one to show the blindfolds, where they were
15 located; and one to show the ligatures and in which mass graves they were
16 located; and then they're simply totalled at the bottom of the screen.
17 Q. Okay. And what is the total number of blindfolds that have been
18 located via ICTY exhumations?
19 A. 448 blindfolds in total.
20 MS. SOLJAN: Could we please get Exhibit P0265/99, page 91 -- 99.
21 Q. Can you indicate what this is, please?
22 A. This is an image taken at the Visoko mortuary, and you can see the
23 body-bag in the background.
24 It's of an individual who has code named "LZ2B41"; that is, Body
25 41 from the Lazete-Orahovac 2 primary mass grave. Very clearly, you can
1 see across the victim's eyes a blindfold, a cloth blindfold. This is one
2 of the blindfolds that was examined by Ms. Maljaars and myself, and it is
3 very typical of the type of blindfold used; the colour, the width, the
4 weave, the pattern, and that similarity is what was used to connect some
5 of the primary to secondary graves.
6 MS. SOLJAN: If we could go back to Exhibit P02994, please.
7 Thank you.
8 Q. Now, can you comment specifically on the ratio, or not the ratio,
9 but what you found to be characteristic of graves -- blindfolds and where
10 the blindfolds were found in the largest numbers?
11 A. Your Honours, if you look at the table relating to blindfolds, a
12 very significant number were found at Orahovac 1 and 2. From evidence
13 presented to this Chamber, those two executions and graves were occurring
14 at the same time; and for this exercise, I would treat them as the same or
15 very similar incidents. So there's a lot of blindfolds at Orahovac 1 and
17 And if you see that Hodzici 3 and 4 also have a significant number
18 of blindfolds when you consider that they are secondary graves.
19 Orahovac-Lazete 2, again you see you see Hodzici Road 5 has a significant
20 number of blindfolds. In Kozluk and its related secondary graves, a
21 number of blindfolds are located in Kozluk, and a correspondingly high
22 number of blindfolds located in a related secondary grave. I think that
23 shows a pattern that matches up those two graves or those two types of
25 Q. And was that represented on the map as one of the factors linking
1 the Orahovac to Hodzici graves?
2 A. Effectively, yes. It predominantly was based on Ms. Maljaars'
3 work, showing the direct links, but you can also see that numerically it's
4 also reflective of a connection between those two graves or two types of
6 Q. Thank you. And moving on to the next column, the column
7 titled "Ligatures," can you briefly take us through that column also?
8 A. Again, it's an account of ligatures. You can see the majority of
9 ligatures were found at the Kozluk primary mass grave. Again, a high
10 number of ligatures were found at the secondary mass grave, Cancari Road
11 3. The next higher was at Branjevo military farm with a consistently high
12 number at the secondary grave. The Cerska understood primary grave had 48
13 of the 150 individuals were bound. And in the Nova Kasaba 96 grave, 27 of
14 the 33 individuals were also bound.
15 In those two sets of graves, the binding was wire, predominantly
16 steel or steel and plastic-coated wire, where the majority of the other
17 graves were cloth or string or rope.
18 Q. Thank you.
19 MS. SOLJAN: Can we look at Exhibit P02063, page 118.
20 Q. Mr. Manning, can you indicate what this photograph represents and
21 from which -- what grave it represents?
22 A. This is a mortuary photograph again. It is a part of an
23 individual from Kozluk 3 primary mass grave. It's marked as "Body 719".
24 You can clearly see the cloth ligature around the wrist of the individual.
25 The other arm or wrist of the individual is not visible, but you can see
1 the loop which would have gone through the wrist -- or gone around the
2 wrist, I'm sorry.
3 My examination of these ligatures showed that they would normally
4 be looped around the wrist several times and then tied quite tightly. You
5 can see in this image that the loop has been expanded out, if you like.
6 So it was probably a double loop before the photograph was taken.
7 MS. SOLJAN: Can we go on to Exhibit P02066, page 86.
8 THE WITNESS: This image shows those wire ligatures I was
9 discussing. This is the person's hands tied behind his back. You can see
10 his coat, his clothing. The wire ligatures in this instance was clearly
11 very; tight, and on removal, you could see again that double loop for the
12 wrists. Sometimes they were bound in two loops around the wrist and then
13 tied off, various combinations, but this is an example of a wire ligature.
14 MS. SOLJAN: And moving on to Exhibit P02066, page 61.
15 THE WITNESS: This image is another mortuary photograph. It shows
16 a ligature taken from a Nova Kasaba 96 body. It's Nova Kasaba Sub-grave
17 2, Body 4, and it's Item 1 taken from that body, and it's a wire ligature.
18 It's a plastic-coated wire similar to speaker wire; and, again, it formed
19 loops around the wrists of the individual.
20 MS. SOLJAN: And, Your Honours, Exhibits 2063, 2064 -- well,
21 beginning with P02063, 2064, 2065, and 2066, all contain -- are binders of
22 photographers of ligatures. Again, in the interest of time, I don't
23 propose that we go through the blindfolds and ligatures, but I do intend
24 to also tender them into evidence.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. Do any of the Defence teams want to know
1 exactly which documents Ms. Soljan is referring to, or can we proceed?
2 Let's proceed.
3 MS. SOLJAN: Thank you.
4 Q. Mr. Manning, besides using the ligatures and the blindfolds as a
5 manner for establishing the link between primary and secondary graves, was
6 there any other significance to the location of blindfolds and ligatures?
7 A. I'm sorry, Ms. Soljan. I don't think I understood the question. I
8 think it's my fault.
9 Q. I will rephrase it. What does -- the fact that a body has
10 ligatures or blindfolds on it, what does that indicate in the process of
11 the investigations?
12 A. My apologies. Clearly, the bodies that were ligatured and
13 blindfolded, and in many cases they were both, both bound and blindfolded,
14 is a clear indication that they were murdered. And as I said before, a
15 number of the blindfolds had what was clearly bullet wounds through the
16 material and into the head of the victim. These were people who were
18 Q. Thank you. Now, you'd also indicated that another method --
19 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: Could you please pause
20 between question and answer. Thank you.
21 MS. SOLJAN: Apologies.
22 Q. You had also indicated that another method of linking primary to
23 secondary graves was through shell casings. Can you briefly explain how
24 this was done? Did you participate in the collection and gathering of the
25 shell cases, first of all?
1 A. Yes, I did, Your Honours. I collected shell cases both from the
2 mass graves and the collection at the Visoko mortuary. I was also
3 involved in having them shipped to the Alcohol, Tobacco, and Fire-arms
4 Agency in the United States for examination.
5 Q. And were you able to link primary and secondary graves based on
6 the shell casings?
7 A. Yes. We were able to link the primary and secondary graves. I'm
8 familiar with this process and have used it previously to coming to the
9 ICTY, but I'm not a ballistics expert. However, the markings on the shell
10 cases, when they are ejected from a weapon, are unique. They can be
11 examined under microscope. They were examined by the ATF and shown --
12 some shell cases were shown to be fired by the same weapon, although they
13 were in separate graves; that is, a primary and a secondary grave.
14 So either the same weapon was fired at the primary grave and then
15 again fired at the secondary grave, or the shell cases were collected from
16 the primary grave and conveyed to the secondary grave.
17 And on examination at the ATF, they produced a report which they
18 forwarded to myself, and I examined that report and produced a table in
19 relation to the findings from that report.
20 MS. SOLJAN: Let's go to Exhibit P00 -- sorry, P01912.
21 THE WITNESS: This is an image from the Kozluk mass grave. It
22 shows a body. I believe it to be Body 501. The body is blindfolded, and
23 the posture of the body indicates that it was also bound. But more
24 importantly, you can see in the foreground, just near the arm, a shell
25 case, a 7.62 shell case. That is the sort of material that we would find
1 in the grave, in this case the primary grave. We would find that material
2 in the secondary grave, collect them, process them, and then they would be
3 compared by the ATF.
4 Q. And for the record, Mr. Manning, could you just indicate where the
5 shell casing is located in this photograph?
6 A. If you look at the middle, perhaps left, of the image, below the
7 arm of the body is a cylindrical object, and it's facing, say, from --
8 diagonally across the page.
9 Q. Thank you.
10 MS. SOLJAN: Now, going back to Exhibit P00648.
11 Q. Can you please indicate for the Trial Chamber what this chart
13 A. This is a chart I produced for one of my reports. It is based on
14 the work of Martin Als [phoen] from the ATF, and it essentially shows
15 where a shell case was located in more than one location.
16 At the top of the diagram, Kravica warehouse and Zeleni Jadar 5
17 indicates a shell case was found at the Kravica warehouse execution point.
18 Another shell case was found at Zeleni Jadar 5 secondary mass grave, and
19 that those shell cases were fired was from the same weapon.
20 With the Cerska entry below that, it shows the Cerska grave; shell
21 cases located within the grave; matched shell cases on the surface, on the
22 roadway, and on the other side of the roadway. This is significant, in
23 that there is evidence that individuals were shot at the gravesite at
24 Cerska, and that's consistent with the shooting being -- taking place at
25 the site.
1 Below that is the Lazete or Orahovac gravesite, and again shell
2 cases found at the gravesite are linked to shell cases found at the three
3 secondary graves, Hodzici Road 3, 4, and 5.
4 The dam surface, this is the Petkovci Dam, or the Dam at Petkovci.
5 Shell cases found on the surface were also found within the grave.
6 Kozluk primary mass grave, shell case found there matched the
7 shell case found at the secondary Cancari Road 3 mass grave.
8 Q. Thank you.
9 MS. SOLJAN: And for the record, Your Honours, this is Exhibit
10 P00649 at page 16.
11 Q. Mr. Manning, you also indicated that green glass was another
12 artefact or another manner of linking up primary and secondary graves.
13 Can you briefly explain how this was done?
14 A. The primary mass grave at Kozluk was in a rubbish dump, the area
15 next to the Drina River. Within and around that grave was a very
16 significant amount of broken green glass bottle and bottling factory
17 labels. It was effectively throughout the site.
18 When we examined the related -- or the secondary mass grave of
19 Cancari 3, we located green glass fragments within the grave, which were
20 indistinguishable from those found at Kozluk; and, more importantly, there
21 were no other green glass fragments around the area. So the only green
22 glass fragments and bottle labels were found within the grave itself,
23 forming a strong link to the Kozluk mass gravesite.
24 I'd indicate that the bottle labels indicated the Vitinka bottle
25 factory, which was a kilometre from the Kozluk mass gravesite.
1 MS. SOLJAN: Can we take a look at Exhibit P02063 at page 218.
2 Q. Can you comment on this image, Mr. Manning?
3 A. This is a victim in a Kozluk mass grave. You can see the
4 blindfold across the eyes. More importantly, in this process, you can see
5 the broken green glass around the individual. It's somewhat difficult,
6 given the colouration of this film, but the glass in the top right-hand
7 corner and the glass to the left top, and also around the body, is broken
8 green glass from bottles. As I say, it's unfortunate this image is a
9 little bit blue.
10 MS. SOLJAN: And going on to the next image, P02063, page 25.
11 THE WITNESS: This shows, again, the mass grave with significant
12 amount of broken green glass behind the body. You can see it's a rubbish
13 dump, and that in this case the body is just up against that broken glass,
14 which is, in fact, green.
15 MS. SOLJAN:
16 Q. Thank you.
17 MS. SOLJAN: And, finally, Exhibit P02063, page 36.
18 THE WITNESS: You can see quite clearly in this image the pieces of
19 broken glass, particularly in the right top-hand corner and just near the
20 arm of the body. You can see that it's fragmented green glass, and this
21 was -- was so obvious within both graves, including the bottle factory
22 labels, to provide a very positive link between the two graves.
23 MS. SOLJAN:
24 Q. Thank you. Now, another factor that you had mentioned as linking
25 primary and secondary graves is also soil and pollen analysis. Could you
1 tell us a little bit about that?
2 A. The ICTY engaged Professor Tony Brown from the University of
3 Exeter, who collected soil and pollen samples from the mass grave and
4 surrounding the mass grave. On occasions, when he wasn't able to attend,
5 the archaeology team collected samples for him from various parts of the
6 grave, and he then examined those soil and pollen samples.
7 And based on his work, I was able to provide a definitive link
8 between the soil type that was in the primary grave and the soil type that
9 was in the secondary graves, indicating that the soil type in the
10 secondary grave was foreign to that area but was the same as the primary
12 I'd indicate I assisted Professor Brown significantly in his
13 collection of soil samples and also in the preparation or the provision of
14 data for his report relating to the mass graves.
15 Q. And as a result of this analysis, does -- does this -- is this
16 analysis reflected with respect to the graves depicted on this map?
17 A. Yes. Where we had a positive soil sample link, I've indicated on
18 the map. If you look at Kozluk and Cancari Roads 3 and 2, you see that
19 I've indicated there to be a soil and pollen sample, which provides a link
20 between those graves, and I've done that for the other graves as well,
21 where a soil sample has been linked.
22 Q. Thank you. Now, Mr. Manning, did you also examine evidence found
23 at execution sites?
24 A. Yes, we did. We collected evidence from the various execution
25 points, particularly the Pilica Dom and the Kravica warehouse. I was very
1 much involved in the examination of the Kravica warehouse. I was there
2 several years whilst we were exhuming the Glogova 1 and 2 and Ravnice 1
3 and 2 graves.
4 Q. What type of evidence was collected? Let's begin with the Kravica
5 warehouse. What type of evidence were you collecting at the Kravica
7 A. Prior to my commencing with the ICTY, the United States Naval
8 Criminal Investigation Service had attended the Kravica warehouse and the
9 Pilica Dom, and they had taken a large number of samples from the walls
10 and ceiling of the buildings. These were samples of what appeared to be
11 blood and tissue, and also what appeared to be explosive residue. As I
12 say, they collected significant numbers of samples from both the warehouse
13 and the Pilica Dom.
14 They produced a report in relation to collection, and I conveyed
15 the samples of blood and explosive to the in the Netherlands Forensic
16 Institute and had dealings with staff there in relation to the examination
17 of that material. They produced reports in relation to those
19 Q. And besides blood samples and explosive residue samples, was there
20 any other material collected or observed at the warehouse to indicate that
21 there was a crime scene?
22 A. Particularly at the Kravica warehouse, there was clear evidence of
23 blood and human hair on the walls of the warehouse. There was a very
24 significant number of bullet strikes to the warehouse, both externally and
25 internally. There were a number of grenade fly-off leaders, grenade
1 release leaders, found outside the building.
2 Initials examinations by Dr. Hagland had also found a significant,
3 a small but significant, number of human skeletal remains, small pieces of
4 bone. Also, on my examination of the warehouse, we collected parts of the
5 structure of the warehouse; the walls, the panelling, the decorative
6 concrete fins of the building.
7 Q. And how were the walls significant to your investigation?
8 A. The walls of the warehouse are insulating foam sandwiched between
9 concrete, and they're painted in different colours in different coats. We
10 saw, within the Glogova 1 and 2, Ravnice 1 and 2, and Zeleni Jadar 5 and 6
11 graves, pieces of that construction, pieces of masonry with foam between
12 the two concrete sides. We also saw pieces of the decorative fin of the
13 building, and also pieces of the door frame and steel work within the
15 Q. Was there anything else that you found at the warehouse?
16 A. Significantly, the sign or one of the signs above a small door on
17 the eastern side of the warehouse was a sign in Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian
18 which was an advertising sign, and it was made from foam lettering which
19 had been painted. A piece of that foam lettering, indistinguishable from
20 the foam at the warehouse, was found at the Ravnice gravesite, and it was
21 possible to see where that piece of foam fit into the existing damaged
22 sign at the warehouse.
23 Q. Thank you.
24 MS. SOLJAN: Can we take a look at Exhibit P001565.
25 Q. Can you comment on this picture, Mr. Manning?
1 A. This is an image of the Kravica warehouse, looking from the
2 roadway which runs from Konjevic Polje to Bratunac. It's taken in winter,
3 and it's foreshortened because of the angle. But if you look at the right
4 of the photo, down to the first small door in the middle of the image,
5 that's the section of the warehouse that was specifically examined by the
6 Naval Criminal Investigation Service and our subsequent examinations. The
7 sign I was speaking of is above that door. You can see some writing above
8 the first door there in the middle.
9 If you move to the right of the image, there's two windows and
10 then a very large opening. That was the front door, front gate, of the
11 Kravica warehouse, and that is where the missing insulated wall and
12 decorative fin and door frame was removed from the building and partially
13 placed in the mass graves.
14 Q. Thank you.
15 MS. SOLJAN: Can we look at Exhibit P001568.
16 Q. Can you comment on this image, please?
17 A. I recognise this to be an image of the Kravica warehouse interior.
18 You're looking at the far wall from the large opening. You can see a
19 window in the top right-hand corner, and I've examined this area in great
20 detail, this building in great detail. You can clearly see blood, hair,
21 and other tissue all on the walls and ceiling of this building, along with
22 what looks like explosive residue and explosive patterns on the wall.
23 Q. Thank you. Now, moving on to the investigations carried out at
24 the Pilica Dom, can you briefly indicate what kind of evidence was
25 collected there?
1 A. In the same manner, the Naval Criminal Investigation Service
2 collected blood and tissue samples from the walls, the stage area, and the
3 floor. The Pilica Dom is a community hall, and they also collected
4 samples of explosive residue from areas which were clearly the seat of
6 MS. SOLJAN: Let's take a look at Exhibit P001 -- P01811.
7 Q. Can you please indicate what the photograph depicts?
8 A. This photographs shows the Pilica Dom. It's looking slightly to
9 the side. The front of the building is to the left of the photograph, and
10 the road, the main road, would be in front of the entrance there at the
11 left of the image.
12 MS. SOLJAN: And Exhibit P00 -- P01817.
13 THE WITNESS: This is the interior of the Pilica Dom. You can see
14 again blood and tissue on the walls. You can also see damage to the floor
15 in a V-shaped pattern. This is believed to be the seat of an explosion,
16 and that sort of area is where they collected the explosive residue traces
18 Q. Did you review the reports which analysed both the Pilica Dom as
19 well as the Kravica warehouse evidence, particularly regarding explosive
21 A. Yes, I did.
22 Q. And did you, yourself, have a chance to see these -- to see this
24 A. I physically examined the collection of the evidence that was
25 collected by the Naval Criminal Investigation Service and then conveyed
1 that to the Netherlands Forensic Institute; and, then, on completion of
2 their examination, returned that evidence to the Tribunal.
3 Q. Thank you. Now, Mr. Manning, you have documented the results of
4 the exhumations that the ICTY has participated in, have you not?
5 A. That's correct.
6 Q. And can you tell us, how many reports in all have you prepared?
7 A. I prepared three major reports relating to the exhumation and
8 autopsy process and the related scientific examinations of evidence. I
9 also had prepared a statement presented in the Milosevic trial, the
10 Srebrenica section of that, and I have produced a report in relation to
11 the exhumations, which was just completed recently.
12 Q. Thank you. Now, with respect to the reports that you produced
13 while you were still working at the ICTY, what type of information did you
14 rely upon in preparing those reports?
15 A. A significant amount of the information I gleaned from the
16 examination and summary of the ICTY experts, but equally a large
17 proportion of the information was gained by myself from an examination of
18 the ICTY data and records or my examination of the physical artifacts,
19 such as the blindfold and ligatures, such as the photographic and evidence
20 collection notes in relation to exhibits and artifacts, the location of
21 the mass graves, when and how long they're exhumed for.
22 Basically, it was a combination of an examination of the expert
23 reports and an examination of the data held by the Srebrenica team and
25 Q. And would you say that your review of expert data was consistent
1 with what you were observing in the field?
2 A. Very much so. The reports were written by experts that I had
3 dealt with and discussed through the process of exhumations, the findings,
4 but also they were consistent with the evidence that we were finding in
5 the artifacts and also corroborative of witness and survivor accounts.
6 Q. And what types of data is contained in your reports that goes
7 beyond expert reports; in other words, what would have been what just you
8 personally would have seen or done?
9 A. Again, it's in relation to where the graves were, when they were
10 exhumed, how long that process took, what artifacts were available to show
11 the links between graves, how many blindfolds were located, where were
12 they located, how many ligatures. Also, the identifications that had been
13 located amongst the bodies had been examined, but no correlation of those
14 identifications to the bodies in the graves had been made.
15 I produced an annex which listed the identifications, what they
16 were, where they were found. I also included an annex in relation to
17 where religious artifacts were found and what those religious artifacts
18 were. And, in a similar way, examining the photographs to identify
19 artifacts which could assist in linking, and also I presented details of
20 the examination of the Sevar [phoen] meadow suspected execution point,
21 which I had conducted the examination with an archaeologist, and I
22 presented those details in the report as well.
23 Q. Now, would it be correct to say that in each one of the reports
24 produced up until 2003, you also indicated the number of individuals found
25 in the graves?
1 A. That's correct. I also indicated the age and gender and other
2 details taken from expert reports; but I indicated, in that report or
3 those reports, the MNI, the minimal number of individuals, which was a
4 calculation produced by significantly Jose Pablo Baraybar, the chief
5 anthropologist for the ICTY.
6 MS. SOLJAN: And could we go to Exhibit P02994, please, page 12.
7 Q. This is already a familiar image to you, Mr. Manning, but can you
8 tell us, first of all, where this chart is from or where this chart is
10 A. Again, this is from my 2003 report. There's a previous version
11 from another report which had the then current information. This was
12 produced in one of my forensic reports for presentation to the Court.
13 Q. And can you clarify, explain what the total numbers under the
14 columns "MNI (linked)" and "MNI (unlinked)" mean?
15 A. The numbers represented there were provided by Jose Pablo
16 Baraybar; and, if you like, the MNI (linked) column is his calculation of
17 the number of bodies, based on an anthropological assessment of bones that
18 were present in each of the graves. It says "linked" because if you count
19 the number of bones in a primary graves and then you count the number of
20 bones in a secondary grave that are connected, you can have to count the
21 bones together, and that's what he did.
22 The next column shows the raw numbers, if you like, before he used
23 his process of linking primary to secondary graves; and then they are
24 totalled at the end.
25 Q. And as of 2003, how many identified bodies were there, therefore,
1 in relation to the ICTY-conducted exhumations, or exhumations conducted
2 between 1996 and 2001?
3 A. At the time when I produced this table, we had identified, as in
4 these were individuals not identified as a name, we had identified the
5 remains of 2.570 individuals within all those primary and secondary mass
7 Q. Thank you for that clarification. Now, since this report, you
8 have also created a new report. Can you tell us what the purpose of this
9 report is?
10 A. Specifically, it was to give an update on the number of graves,
11 when they had been exhumed, by whom, and provide a brief summary of all of
12 the graves. Previously, my reports had indicated the graves that we knew
13 of then. So part of the reason for doing the report was to show which
14 graves had been exhumed, when and by whom, and the current state of
15 knowledge in relation to those graves.
16 The second part was to provide an updated number of the number of
17 individuals or victims identified within those Srebrenica-related mass
18 graves. I used data provided -- simple-number data provided by the ICMP,
19 and produced a report and table detailing which graves had which numbers
20 and a total of identified individuals or bodies or victims.
21 Q. Was there any other basis for information contained in your report
22 besides the ICMP data?
23 A. No. In fact, in creating the report, I had a bit of a quandary as
24 to whether I should try and count different things. I decided I would
25 only use the ICMP data, even though I'm aware that other identifications
1 have been made outside the ICMP DNA data, that is, the presumptive IDs
2 that were made early on, some of the ICTY DNA results, and identifications
3 made in a presumptive manner by PHR.
4 So, effectively, I knew that this number would be conservative and
5 not include some numbers identified through another process. I took the
6 view that I would only use one source of data, and that would be ICMP data
7 provided to me.
8 Q. So the method by which you prepared your latest report is
9 different as compared to the reports you had written previously?
10 A. To a degree, in that I examined -- well, I took the data that they
11 had and matched it to our primary mass graves, but in a very similar
12 manner I did the same thing with the ICTY expert reports and the
13 information provided by Jose Pablo Baraybar.
14 Q. Were there any particular skills required for the creation of this
15 report, any expertise?
16 A. I don't know if it's correct to say "expertise." I think it's
17 more correct to say "knowledge." I have probably a very deep knowledge of
18 the graves and where they're located, and the data that supports that and
19 behind that, but effectively it would have been relatively straightforward
20 for someone else to go through the numbers and divide them up into the
21 primary and secondary mass graves.
22 The issues perhaps would be that I know them quite well and I know
23 what the grid references and locations and what someone would expect to
24 find from those graves; and the fact that Kozluk is actually three graves
25 but we treated it as one, and it should be treated as such; and that
1 Ravnice is two graves but should be treated as one. So, effectively it's
2 my knowledge of the whole situation from 1996 until 2001.
3 MS. SOLJAN: Thank you.
4 Your Honours, I'm not going into a new set of questions, and I
5 think it may be more prudent to stop.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. How much more time do you envisage your
7 examination-in-chief requires?
8 MS. SOLJAN: Your Honours, I do not think more than half an hour.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. All right, so we'll reconvene tomorrow
10 morning at 9.00.
11 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.45 p.m.,
12 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 11th day of
13 December, 2007, at 9.00 a.m.