1 Tuesday, 11 December 2007
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.07 a.m.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Madam Registrar, could you call the
7 case, please?
8 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning --
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Sorry.
10 THE REGISTRAR: -- Your Honours. Good morning to everyone in the
11 courtroom. This is case number IT-05-88-T, the Prosecutor versus Vujadin
12 Popovic et al.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: I can assure you, there's nothing wrong with you and
14 nothing wrong with my eyesight. It was just an oversight, for which I
15 apologise, Mr. Registrar.
16 All the accused are here. The Defence team composition, I only
17 notice the absence of Mr. Bourgon. And the Prosecution is almost in full
18 force; Mr. McCloskey, Mr. Vanderpuye, Ms. Soljan.
19 The witness is already present. Good morning to you.
20 We are going to proceed with the examination -- the continuation
21 of the examination-in-chief first, and then we move to the
23 Ms. Soljan.
24 MS. SOLJAN: Thank you.
25 Good morning, Your Honours.
1 WITNESS: DEAN MANNING [Resumed]
2 Examination by Ms. Soljan: [Continued]
3 Q. Good morning, Mr. Manning.
4 A. Good morning.
5 Q. Mr. Manning, you mentioned yesterday a series of three major
6 reports that you had prepared concerning the investigation of the
7 Srebrenica-related mass graves. Do you remember the dates of those
8 reports so we can have them for the record?
9 A. The reports were presented, but were written for court
10 appearances, so I sometimes get them confused, but 2000, 2001 and 2003, I
12 MS. SOLJAN: If we could have, for the record, Exhibit P00649 on
13 e-court, please.
14 Q. Mr. Manning, do you recognise this report?
15 A. Yes. That's the cover page of the report I authored in May of
16 2000 or up to May of 2000.
17 MS. SOLJAN: And Exhibit P00648, please.
18 Q. Do you recognise this one, Mr. Manning?
19 A. That's the next report which I authored up to February 2001.
20 MS. SOLJAN: And, finally, Exhibit P02994.
21 A. And that's the third report authored up to the 24th of August,
23 MS. SOLJAN: Thank you. Can we now have P02993.
24 Q. Mr. Manning, can you please tell us what this document is?
25 A. This is the most recent report which I prepared up to the 27th of
1 November this year.
2 Q. And can we take a look at page 2 of this report, please. Now,
3 there are two main categories of numbers that appear to be cited there in
4 bold. One reads: "All Srebrenica victims identified via DNA analysis by
5 ICMP," and the number next to it is "5021", and the next is: "Srebrenica
6 victims identified via DNA analysis in mass graves," and the number next
7 to it is "4017". Can you explain what these categories mean?
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, one moment.
9 Mr. Meek.
10 MR. MEEK: Good morning, Your Honours.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Good morning.
12 MR. MEEK: Pursuant to the Trial Chamber's ruling yesterday, this
13 is all new material that they're beginning to ask this witness about.
14 This is all about the ICM -- excuse me, ICMT -- P, DNA results,
15 examinations, et cetera, which we literally, as you noticed or mentioned
16 yesterday, were diluted with these things last week. We object to any
17 testimony whatsoever from this witness, who cannot lay a proper foundation
18 concerning anything that organisation did in regards to the collection of
19 or analysis pursuant to any DNA testing.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Mr. Meek.
21 Ms. Soljan.
22 MS. SOLJAN: Your Honours, I'd like to make two points about this.
23 First of all, Mr. Manning is not testifying explaining the
24 underlying data about the ICMP or the basis that the data is found on the
25 ICMP list.
1 Second of all, related to his report -- actually, the data that
2 Mr. Manning is relying upon is that essentially an updated form of the
3 very same data that Mr. Helge Brunborg had relied upon during his
4 testimony of February 1, as well as the reports that he had issued on 21
5 November 2005 and the list of Srebrenica identified, and these have been
6 exhibits that were admitted as P02416 through Exhibits P02418.
7 Now, he discussed the ICMP data briefly in his testimony, and I
8 can also refer you to the page of his testimony at 6785 and 86, laying the
9 foundation for data. He was relying on older data. However, we actually
10 carried out a comparison --
11 THE INTERPRETER: Could counsel please slow down. Thank you.
12 MS. SOLJAN: We carried out a comparison of his data briefly
13 yesterday and found out that the data found in Mr. Manning's report
14 matches -- approximately two-thirds of the data found in Mr. Brunborg's
15 underlying report from 2005 is found in Mr. Manning's, so we're dealing
16 with the same underlying data and the foundation has been laid by
17 Mr. Brunborg.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
19 Yes, Mr. Meek.
20 MR. MEEK: Respectfully to my learned colleague, if Mr. Manning is
21 not and cannot testify and explain the underlying data from this ICMP and
22 all he wants to do is give the results and we are supposed to accept those
23 results on faith, that is specifically our objection.
24 In regards to their now argument in which I say they are just
25 trying to back-door this evidence in by saying, "Well, the demographer,
1 Helge Brunborg, had actually used as a portion of his report, which was or
2 was not objected to, as Mr. Zivanovic stated yesterday, that report is
3 highly contentious, but this is a completely separate issue, and I don't
4 believe that it would be appropriate for the Trial Chamber to say, well,
5 months ago, on a demographer -- if objections weren't made at that time,
6 the door is wide open and you waive those, we have specifically and
7 categorically objected to this type of evidence since last week with our
8 filings, and you came down with your ruling Monday, and you did say this
9 witness could summarise the testimony and evidence that's been before this
10 Chamber or may come before this Chamber of the experts, and he's been
11 doing that.
12 But now he wants to summarise and give the results of experts who
13 will never come before this Chamber, and I would obviously, Judge, argue
14 that the Best Evidence Rule applies in this case, and as Your Honours
15 perfectly put it on page 24 of your decision on admissibility of
16 intercepted communications, the Best Evidence Rule means nothing more than
17 a Chamber will expect the parties to adduce the best evidence available
18 under the circumstances.
19 Now, we've been in this trial a year and a half. The Prosecution
20 could certainly have brought these DNA experts and the collecting people
21 and everything and the people that formed the basis to come up with these
22 conclusions that they claim are conclusions.
23 I also had an e-mail requesting further information from the OTP,
24 and Lada was nice enough to e-mail me back and inform me that: As I
25 know -- or "To the extent we are aware," being the OTP, "The ICMP does not
1 make more detailed reports available to third parties for reasons of
3 We were asking for clarification on what they meant by the
4 original list. We were unclear. We were asking for the 1999 ICRC list
5 and some other matters, so the OTP well knows that this entity, the ICMP,
6 will not release detailed reports because of confidentiality, and perhaps
7 that's why they didn't want to bring them. Maybe they can't even get the
8 information, but we certainly can't.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's cut this short, because I think you've made
10 your point.
11 MR. MEEK: Thank you.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
13 Do you wish to add anything, Ms. Soljan?
14 MS. SOLJAN: Yes, Your Honour, only to say --
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Very shortly, please, very briefly.
16 MS. SOLJAN: Very briefly and slowly, indeed.
17 Only to say that the Defence have not objected to the underlying
18 data that Mr. Helge Brunborg relied on, which is the same data that
19 Mr. Manning is now relying on.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: All right, thank you.
21 Mr. Zivanovic.
22 MR. ZIVANOVIC: I would join to the submission of Mr. Meek, but I
23 would like to add that the Defence of Popovic objected to all findings of
24 Mr. Brunborg from the very start of this trial, in pre-trial stage of this
1 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. You said that yesterday.
2 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Thanks.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
4 JUDGE KWON: But before we deliberate, Ms. Soljan, you haven't
5 finished your question before Mr. Meek intervened. Can I hear out the
6 question you'd like to -- wanted to put to Mr. Manning? What's the crux
7 of your question?
8 MS. SOLJAN: The crux of my question to Mr. Manning was to explain
9 the figures on the first page of his report. There are two figures on his
10 report, and I simply wanted him to explain what they are.
11 JUDGE KWON: Because we haven't seen his report.
12 MS. SOLJAN: It was Exhibit 02993, on page 2 of the report, so I
13 was referring specifically to this page 2, and I was referring to the text
14 in bold next to which you can find the number. There are two bolded
15 lines. The first one is at the bottom of paragraph 3 and the second one
16 is right on top of the last paragraph on page 2 of the report.
17 JUDGE KWON: What we are seeing is page first, yeah, first page.
18 MS. SOLJAN: First page of the report, but effectively the second
19 page on e-court.
20 [Trial Chamber confers]
21 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. I think, Mr. Meek, Ms. Soljan and, to a
22 lesser extent, Mr. Zivanovic, we've drawn a big, big circle, only to find
23 ourselves where we were yesterday, the same point.
24 Again, once more, and I hope there won't be any more interventions
25 after this: One needs to draw a clear distinction between what are the
1 witness's own conclusions in his own report, where he relies on sources,
2 different sources, including but not exclusively on his own findings.
3 When he relies on sources that are not before this Trial Chamber, his
4 evidence, his report, is confined, is limited, to that being one of his
5 sources and nothing else. The other report on which he would be relying
6 is not being put in question, is not being introduced in the records of
7 this case.
8 So if the witness has relied on DNA analysis report by ICMP, we
9 are not taking his report to mean that he has analysed the report of the
10 ICMP to come to a conclusion as to whether it was acceptable or not
11 acceptable, but he has found the conclusions which he has adopted for the
12 purpose of his report as a source, as a source, which ultimately means
13 that that will result or translate itself in a question of how much weight
14 we will be giving to the witness's conclusions, as shown in his report,
15 when we come to that stage, insofar as in part, at least, it relies on
16 conclusions reached by others which are not before the Trial Chamber and
17 which cannot be verified.
18 I think we have made ourselves clear, and please -- Mr. Meek.
19 MR. MEEK: Thank you, Your Honour.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.
21 MR. MEEK: So to make it clear, he can rely on these reports, DNA
22 reports, but they won't be before the Trial Chamber, the methodology, the
23 analysis, how they did it --
24 JUDGE AGIUS: No, no, no. We're not--
25 MR. MEEK: -- just the final number would be; is that what you're
2 JUDGE AGIUS: Exactly. We don't have the DNA analysis or the
3 protocol used or the system or the information relating to each DNA
4 fingerprinting process that was undertaken. That is not before our Trial
5 Chamber through ICMP exercise. We may have that through other sources,
6 but insofar as these exercises, fingerprinting exercises have been carried
7 out by ICMP and referred to in his report, what we have is his adoption or
8 his adoption of the ICMP results as one of his sources, as one of his
9 sources, and nothing else.
10 Yes, Mr. McCloskey.
11 MR. McCLOSKEY: Just to alert the Court, Mr. President, when -- we
12 have never received an objection regarding the report of Helge Brunborg or
13 the DNA. There has been a difference -- they have challenged the numbers,
14 but no one -- and we looked to the record on this -- has ever objected to
15 the entry of evidence of Helge Brunborg's report or the DNA evidence that
16 it was founded on. Based on that, we have designed Mr. Manning's evidence
17 the way we have.
18 Now, if there is an objection to the underlying DNA, then it is my
19 intention to call -- to request leave of Court to call this evidence,
20 which I would hate to do. But if there is an objection, that I'm hearing
21 now for the first time in months, frankly, we will ask that we be allowed
22 to call the ICMP to be able to provide this evidence, because it's
23 fundamental to these reports, and this is the first time we've seen an
24 objection, so we've not gone that far before. But if they truly are
25 objecting to this material, we will be asking the Court to call that
2 JUDGE AGIUS: As I understand it, Mr. McCloskey, there are two --
3 let's call them impediments for the time being, but they are much less
4 than that. One is Mr. Meek's repeated objections to the introduction into
5 the evidence or into the records of this case through the evidence of the
6 present witness of reports that have not otherwise been brought before
7 this Chamber, and that's one issue.
8 The other issue, which -- that doesn't worry us in the least,
9 because I think we've made ourselves clear. It's only Mr. Meek that keeps
10 not understanding properly what we have been saying, with due respect,
11 Mr. Meek.
12 The other objection is the one raised by Mr. Zivanovic which here
13 and now, on two feet, we are not in a position to control because we don't
14 have the transcript available of what he had stated at the relative
15 moment. He maintains that with the evidence or testimony of Mr. Brunborg,
16 he had clearly and distinctly mounted an objection to the -- if that is
17 so, please verify it, and if there is a continued objection or it is
18 punctualised, then at that point in time we will consider what needs to be
19 done. But we are not in a position to control what Mr. Zivanovic had
21 As it is, I understand you to be -- to have understood his
22 objection, because some objection there must have been, in a different
23 manner than it was meant to be, so please verify that and come back to us.
24 MR. McCLOSKEY: We have spoken about this, as we always do, and
25 Mr. Zivanovic - and he will be able to explain it to you - has objected to
1 the results, I believe, as we asked for them in an agreed-upon fax
2 motion. But we have gone back to Helge Brunborg's testimony, we've gone
3 back to that part at the end of the testimony where we offered material
4 into evidence, and no one objected to anything. It's very clear on the
5 record that that wasn't objected to.
6 Now, because there was no objection prior to Mr. Brunborg's
7 evidence that showed that there was DNA in there and there was no
8 objection after he testified, we have relied that there was no objection
9 about DNA evidence for the testimony of Dean Manning. And then we got
10 that 11th-hour motion that comes in, and now they're objecting to it.
11 So fair enough, if that's the ruling, but we would like, if that's
12 the case, to be able to call the appropriate people.
13 This evidence is essential to the genocide case. This evidence
14 is -- we're no longer relying on anthropological data to determine minimum
15 numbers, and I don't want to get into it any more that. But this is
16 essential evidence that went unobjected to, and frankly, they'll all got
17 demographics experts. We're going to be able to have all this material on
18 cross-examination and it's all going to come into because it's crucial to
19 any demographic stuff. So we can talk and to see if they're really
20 objecting to DNA evidence, because at this point that's going to be a long
21 process if they are, because we want that in, we want it to be given the
22 full value that the Court can give it. And when we get these last-minute
23 objections, that's what's caused this problem. We relied on their
24 non-objection before. And we can get around this problem by bringing in a
25 person, and I think we can hopefully do it and still meet our time frame,
1 but that's where we are.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: I suggest rather than lose more time on this, that
3 you file a proper motion and we'll deal with it with urgency,
4 Mr. McCloskey. If you file it today, we'll make sure that we will cut
5 down the time limit for responses and decide it by the end of the week
6 before we leave.
7 MR. MEEK: Your Honours, I have to respond.
8 First off, I think Mr. McCloskey just made our argument, and to
9 say that he was unaware that we were objecting to this, we've been filing
10 motions all last week and joining those motions and saying that this
11 witness is not the proper witness that you would bring in these results
13 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay, Mr. Meek, you will get more witnesses, full
14 stop. Let's proceed. You will get more witnesses.
15 MR. MEEK: Thank you, Your Honour.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: With the result that probably the Prosecution will
17 make its case much stronger than it would have been without.
18 But, anyway, let's proceed.
19 Yes, Mr. Soljan.
20 MS. SOLJAN: Thank you, Your Honours.
21 Can we go back to --
22 JUDGE AGIUS: I think we did.
23 MR. MEEK: No, Your Honour, we just have a clarification. Perhaps
24 you could clarify your comment that with the result that probably the
25 Prosecution will have made its case much stronger than it would have been
1 without it --
2 JUDGE AGIUS: On this issue, because obviously if there is no
3 unopposed evidence -- if there is opposed evidence on DNA and now that
4 point will be made clear, obviously you have opened doors for the
6 I think I've been a lawyer longer than you have, and you should
7 understand, Mr. Meek.
8 MR. MEEK: I should understand, Your Honour. I think I do
9 understand, but I think we should all understand that the Prosecution has
10 had a year and a half since the trial started, and long before, to call
11 these people if they wanted to, and they're just trying to boot-strap it
13 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay, but their understanding was that there was no
14 objection, and now it's clear that there is, and therefore they will
15 proceed accordingly.
16 So Ms. Soljan, please.
17 MS. SOLJAN:
18 Q. Mr. Manning, can you explain what the two categories in bold on
19 page 1 of your report mean?
20 A. Your Honours, very briefly, the figure of 5.021 effectively
21 relates to the identification of bodies or individuals matched to either
22 Srebrenica missing reports, that is, individuals have been listed as
23 missing from Srebrenica. Those bodies were found in graves, small graves,
24 mass graves, surface remains. It also includes a figure of 758 unique DNA
25 protocols, which effectively mean a person who have yet been identified
1 but were located in Srebrenica-related graves. So, in effect, that figure
2 represents all the bodies identified as being related to Srebrenica.
3 The second figure or the second paragraph, the figure of 4.017,
4 4.017, I must indicate that that number has to be amended and I can
5 explain that later, but it's 4.017 at the moment. That represents my
6 calculation of bodies and individuals identified or represented in unique
7 DNA profiles which were found in Srebrenica-related mass graves, that is,
8 graves that we accept or I accept to be made up of Srebrenica victims who
9 were executed following the fall of Srebrenica. It does not include
10 surface remains or mass graves known to the Bosnian Commission and not the
12 Q. Now, how did you reach this number, Mr. Manning, the number of
14 A. Your Honours, effectively, I took the data provided by ICMP and
15 I -- based on my knowledge of the graves and the types of codes used, the
16 grid references, the locations, I divided those figures up into relevant
17 graves. I then, if you like, stripped away the data which was
18 representing surface remains and other graves, and I then came up with the
19 figure divided amongst all the graves, and I, in the report, represent the
20 individuals located within those graves. I then simply totalled that to
21 provide this figure of 4.017.
22 MS. SOLJAN: Your Honours, could we briefly go into private
23 session? The exhibit I need to show is under seal.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, let's go into private session.
25 [Private session]
11 Pages 19003-19005 redacted. Private session
1 [Open session]
2 JUDGE AGIUS: We are in open session.
3 MS. SOLJAN: Could I have Sanction Exhibit 2993, which is page 31
4 on e-court of Exhibit 2993.
5 Q. Mr. Manning, can you describe what this is, please?
6 A. Your Honours, this is a page from the annex to my latest report.
7 It relates to the Nova Kasaba 1996 primary undisturbed mass grave. It
8 lists the relevant case ID, protocol ID, and the ID of the ICMP. It also
9 lists one additional unique unmatched DNA profile, that is, a unique
10 individual not yet identified to a name.
11 Q. And how did you obtain this selection?
12 A. I produced this selection from the process that I previously
13 described, isolating the numbers and codes.
14 Your Honours, I have to indicate that in this document, I have
15 made an error. I have counted seven individuals in relation to this grave
16 in error. So the first seven references to "NKAS" and then various
17 numbers is actually incorrect.
18 Q. Can you explain what the error arises from?
19 A. Your Honours, in that process where I selected codes and grid
20 references and identified graves, the references that start "NKAS-1,"
21 "NKAS-2," "3" and "4" represent codes which were prepared by Dr. Haglund
22 in his first examination of the grave in 1996. I'm familiar with those
23 codes and I know that they represent the individuals that were located
24 within that mass grave. There were 33 complete bodies located within that
25 mass grave.
1 In my examination of the records, I believe that "NKAS," those
2 seven individuals, represented surface remains from the Nova Kasaba 1996
3 grave. That was an error on my part based partly on information I
4 received from Murat Hurtic and the Bosnian Commission for Missing Persons
5 and the data and records that I had examined in my 2005 mission to
6 Bosnia. I believed that there had been no other exhumations in the Nova
7 Kasaba area from the Bosnian Commission and that these codes represented
8 surface remains located at Nova Kasaba 1996. That was wrong. Those
9 records actually relate to a Bosnian Commission exhumation in the area
10 which I wasn't aware of.
11 So effectively this document should not include the first seven
13 Q. And, Mr. Manning, are you aware of any other errors in your
15 A. Your Honours, I strive to make the report as accurate as
16 possible. I apologise for this particular error. I had members of the
17 OTP, including demography and other individuals, proofread my document,
18 and I have sought to ensure that there are no other errors. I do not
19 believe there are, and this error was based on my misunderstanding of the
20 original data and the original report by Dr. Haglund. I don't believe
21 that there are any other errors, and I have tried to make the report as
22 accurate as possible.
23 MS. SOLJAN: Can we please see pages 23 and 24 of Exhibit 2993 on
24 e-court. They correspond to pages 22 and 23 in the actual document.
25 Q. Mr. Manning, can you please explain what this is?
1 A. Your Honours, this is an annex to my report. It's labelled "Table
2 1". Very simply, it's a listing of the Srebrenica mass graves that I have
3 counted the results from ICMP. You can see the mass grave name is listed
4 on the left, the appropriate site code in the middle column, and then the
5 number of identified individuals. If you see, for instance, "Cancari Road
6 1", there is no entry. Either the grave has not yet been exhumed or the
7 data is not yet available or no identifications have been made.
8 Again, I would indicate that the reference in Nova Kasaba 96
9 should read 31 individuals and not 38.
10 Q. And, Mr. Manning, I notice that on this page, you have two results
11 for Kozluk, "Kozluk" and "Kozluk surface." Can you please comment on
13 A. Your Honours, the entry that relates to Kozluk with the site
14 code "KK" and the number "328" relates to the ICTY-exhumed Kozluk mass
15 grave. Kozluk 1, 2 and 3 make up that grave, and you can see that there
16 are 328 individuals identified within that primary disturbed mass grave.
17 In my discussions with the Bosnian Commission for Missing Persons
18 and ICMP, they identified a group of further remains located at the Kozluk
19 site on the surface approximately several hundred metres from the ICTY
20 mass gravesite, and 14 individuals have been identified via ICMP's work,
21 and I would indicate I have accepted that as part of the Kozluk mass grave
22 for a number of reasons, including my discussions with Mr. Hurtic some
23 years previously in relation to areas within the Kozluk area which we felt
24 may contain further human remains. He -- based on that, I believe that
25 they exhumed those areas that I had indicated.
1 And I'd also include those remains, as the Kozluk mass grave is
2 some significant distance from the Srebrenica area and I could see no
3 other logical reason why the remains of Srebrenica victims would be
4 adjacent to a primary mass grave where victims were executed.
5 Q. And have you counted in your table any other surface remains?
6 A. No, I have not counted any other surface remains. I've counted
7 the grave at Godinjske Bare, which is not strictly one of the ICTY graves,
8 but no other surface remains have been counted. Having said that, when
9 the mass graves are exhumed, there are remains which poke through the
10 surface and there are remains which are weathered from the surface, but
11 they represent part of the mass grave. But no surface remains collected
12 by any other organisation were counted.
13 MS. SOLJAN: Can we go to the next page of the report.
14 Q. Now, there is a table 2 on this page, and it lists graves,
15 Bljeceva 1, 2 and 3, Budak and Sandici. You list the site code and the
16 number of individuals identified. Did you include these numbers in your
17 calculation of the total number of ICMP Srebrenica-related identified
19 A. I did not.
20 Q. And why not?
21 A. Your Honours, these represent significant graves which were
22 identified by ICMP and the Bosnian Commission for Missing Persons. They
23 were previously unknown to the ICTY. And whilst I reviewed the site --
24 the Kozluk Cantonal Court files and visited the majority of the sites
25 prior to their being -- or after their being exhumed, I was not present
1 and did not examine the artifacts and bodies, and on that basis I included
2 those significant numbers but did not include them in my section of the
3 report dealing with the ICTY graves.
4 Q. And going back to table 1, is then the total number of identified
5 Srebrenica persons, 4.017, a correct number?
6 A. No, again my apologies. That number has to be amended to 4.010,
7 removing the seven individuals from Nova Kasaba 1996.
8 Q. And to your knowledge, is the number 4.010 a final number with
9 respect to Srebrenica-identified persons?
10 A. Certainly not. Not only is it a conservative number from the
11 process that I employed, the number of graves being exhumed, the speed
12 with which they're now being exhumed and the significant weekly and
13 monthly increase in identifications from ICMP would indicate that that
14 number will rise and is rising as we speak. It is evident to me, from an
15 examination of the data plus the graves that I'm familiar with, that many
16 of the bodies and body parts located within the graves, even up to the
17 1998 graves, have not yet been fully examined. I would expect that figure
18 to increase significantly.
19 MS. SOLJAN: Thank you, Mr. Manning.
20 I have no more questions, Your Honours.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, ma'am.
22 Now, who's going first? Or, rather, let's control a little bit
23 the estimates again.
24 Mr. Zivanovic, you had asked for two hours, or Madam -- I'm sorry,
25 Madam Tapuskovic, how much time do you think you'll require?
1 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, it may be less than
2 two hours, because the estimate was made before Your Honours' ruling as to
3 what is included and what the witness can testify to. I believe it will
4 be within the two-hour limit.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
6 Mr. Meek, you had requested one hour?
7 MR. MEEK: Yes, Your Honour, I had, and I'll stick to that for
8 right now, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Ms. Nikolic.
10 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I think I will stick to
11 the time allotted to me. It all depends on what questions my colleagues
12 will ask who come before me.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
14 Mr. Stojanovic.
15 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we said we would
16 need about half an hour. It may be a little less than that.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
18 Ms. Fauveau.
19 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Some 20 minutes, Your Honour.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: The Gvero Defence team still determined not to
21 cross-examine this witness?
22 MR. JOSSE: Very determined.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, wise, Mr. Josse and Mr. Krgovic.
24 Mr. Haynes?
25 MR. HAYNES: I would have thought 10 or 20 minutes.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Mr. Haynes.
2 Who is going first?
3 Madam Tapuskovic. Could you please introduce yourself to
4 Mr. Manning. Thank you.
5 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Good morning to everybody in the
7 Cross-examination by Ms. Tapuskovic:
8 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Manning. My name is Mira
9 Tapuskovic. I'm a member of the Defence team of Mr. Vujadin Popovic.
10 A. Good morning.
11 Q. Thank you. You told us yesterday, and we saw this in the
12 voluminous documentation we received, that you testified before this
13 Tribunal in three other cases. Is that correct?
14 A. That is correct.
15 Q. These were the cases against Radislav Krstic, the Blagojevic case
16 and the Slobodan Milosevic case; is that correct?
17 A. That's correct.
18 Q. In your CV, we saw a remark saying that for a while you worked on
19 investigations concerning Vukovar and Dubrovnik and that you were directly
20 linked to the investigation in the case of Slobodan Milosevic. Is that
22 A. That is correct, yes.
23 Q. Thank you. Tell me, please, of the six years that you were
24 employed in the Tribunal, what period of time was devoted to work on those
25 three cases?
1 A. Your Honours, I worked on the Srebrenica case as a team member
2 from 1998 to 2002. I was then promoted to investigations team leader,
3 which is when I worked on the Croatian cases, including Milosevic,
4 Vukovar, Dubrovnik and others. And I would indicate that I also continued
5 to work on the Srebrenica case and the preparation of evidence.
6 Q. If your employment at the Tribunal terminated in 2004, as you
7 stated yesterday, you were recruited by the Tribunal and you went on a
8 mission to Bosnia in 2005; is that correct?
9 A. Yes. As I indicated, in 2005, I think it was October, I travelled
10 to Bosnia on a mission for the ICTY.
11 Q. I think it was November. We'll come back to that later.
12 And now you were recruited again by the Tribunal in 2007 to review
13 the data of the Bosnian organs and the International Commission for
14 Missing Persons; is that correct?
15 A. Your Honours, to make it clear, I have been called as a witness
16 and the preparation for my appearance, including that work, is not
17 contracted to the ICTY. So to say I was recruited is not correct. I'm
18 simply doing this as part of my appearance as a witness.
19 Q. Thank you. That is precisely what I wanted to ask you, what is
20 your status or the status of your engagement here. Since you've confirmed
21 to me that some data, such as the table that was shown a little while ago,
22 that was displayed during private session, if that is of a private nature
23 and strictly confidential, could you explain to me what was the basis of
24 your access to that data, be it concerning the federal Commission for
25 Missing Persons of Bosnia-Herzegovina, be it to the ICMP?
1 A. The specific mechanism is something that should be addressed by
2 the ICTY, but I addressed access to that data with the ICMP on my mission
3 in 2005, and I made it clear at that stage the purpose of my seeking the
4 data, and on that basis I understand it was released to me. But, again,
5 the mechanism is something to be discussed with ICTY itself.
6 Q. Thank you for your answer. However, I'm interested to learn how,
7 on two occasions in 2007, you received such confidential data from the
8 International Commission. My learned friend, Mrs. Soljan, did not put
9 forth your CV, the one created by you in June this year. Instead, she put
10 forth a CV prepared by you in November this year. If the attachments to
11 the CVs are confidential, I'd like to know and receive a clear and concise
12 answer to my question.
13 If you're assigned the status of a witness before this Tribunal,
14 how did you gain the status of a person prepared to -- or, rather, with an
15 access to confidential information of the bodies I referred to, the
16 federal commission of Bosnia-Herzegovina, the federal Commission for
17 Missing Persons, and the ICMP?
18 A. Your Honours, firstly, I don't believe I prepared two curriculum
19 vitaes, and I don't believe there's an annex to any of my CVs. And I
20 think I have answered that question. I am not contracted to the ICTY, I'm
21 not being paid. I was provided the data from ICTY via ICMP, and the
22 mechanism for doing that, as I said, you would have to discuss with ICTY.
23 I made it clear, when I discussed my intentions with ICMP and the Bosnian
24 Commission for Missing Persons, what I would do with the data and that I
25 intended to present that data or the results of that data in court.
1 Q. I apologise. Page 26, line 9, my question seems to refer to the
2 witness's curriculum vitae or his biography. I don't know whether I
3 said "biography." In any case, I meant to refer to his summary.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Madam Tapuskovic and Ms. Soljan, I have never
5 understood, and I stand to be corrected, I have never understood this
6 witness to have been summoned and produced by the Prosecution as an expert
7 witness. He's just an ordinary witness who is testifying here on his work
8 as a previous investigator with the ICTY. So I don't think the CV has got
9 anything to do with it, unless his capability, ability to perform the work
10 he did when he was an investigator with the Office of the Prosecutor is
12 [Trial Chamber confers]
13 JUDGE AGIUS: I'm being told now that it may have been a
14 translation issue, in which case I back -- okay, let's proceed, Madam
16 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. You've
17 saved some time for me.
18 Q. I still don't have your answer on how you were -- how you were
19 granted access to this confidential information to very important
20 organisations which deal with exhumations and identification of mortal
21 remains in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Let us move on.
22 When preparing your resume for November and when you were
23 preparing your resume for June, did you travel to Bosnia?
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Ms. Soljan.
25 MS. SOLJAN: Your Honour, I think I can clarify one point of
2 When Ms. Tapuskovic refers to "resume," she means "report".
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.
4 MS. SOLJAN: And it should be translated as "report."
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. This time I understood it as being so. Thank
6 you, Ms. Soljan.
7 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I'd like to thank
8 my learned friend, Ms. Soljan, for clarifying this. I am using the term
9 as it exists on all summaries or, rather, all resumes of this witness.
10 The witness prepared and what was disclosed to us was a total of five of
11 his resumes. If you look at the cover page, it is stated "resume"
12 or "summary."
13 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's not get lost or bogged down in semantics.
14 Let's proceed with the substance of your cross-examination,
15 Ms. Tapuskovic, please.
16 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. Hence
17 the confusion.
18 Q. Mr. Manning, to go back to the question: Preparing the resume in
19 June of 2007 and November of this year, for the needs of preparing the
20 resumes, did you travel to Bosnia?
21 A. No, I did not. October/November of 2005 was the only time I
22 travelled recently to Bosnia.
23 Q. From a notification prior to your testimony, we see that your
24 proofing with the Prosecutor's office was conducted on two occasions, once
25 in October and once just prior to your testimony here. The one from
1 October, did you go to The Hague for proofing or did someone visit you in
3 A. I came to The Hague.
4 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. Could we please have
5 1D421 on e-court. It is the witness's report or findings following his
6 mission in Bosnia-Herzegovina in 2005. Page 1, please.
7 Q. Will you agree with me, and I'm referring to the report, that the
8 purpose of the two-week mission in Bosnia was to collect archaeological,
9 anthropological, pathological and other forensic -- I apologise --
10 archaeological, anthropological, pathological and other forensic data
11 collected during the exhumations and autopsies after 2001?
12 A. That's correct.
13 Q. Thank you. In the biweekly period, you were supposed to process
14 the data that had to do with several different scientific branches. You
15 did spend some time with the experts there, but you are not qualified in
16 any of the aforementioned sciences that would qualify you to conduct this
18 A. Your Honours, I would agree that I'm not qualified. I have no
19 formal qualifications certainly in those disciplines. I believe I am
20 qualified to have undertaken this task and to have travelled to Bosnia to
21 gain that data, the information.
22 Q. Thank you. I will refer you to the second paragraph, although
23 they are not numbered. In any case, the second paragraph of your report,
24 which reads:
25 [In English] "The majority of information required to submit a
1 detailed report on the Srebrenica exhumations, including a definitive MNI
2 and the number of mass graves, is currently held by ICMP."
3 [Interpretation] Do you stand by this information contained in
4 your report from 2005?
5 A. Your Honours, I apologise. I can't see that paragraph on the
7 JUDGE AGIUS: Can we have the precise references so that we
8 could -- is it on e-court?
9 THE WITNESS: Yes, I'm sorry, I'm sorry.
10 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, it is, Your Honours, the
11 second sentence of the second paragraph. As I said, they were not
12 numbered. Therefore, I'll try and describe the places that I want to
13 refer to.
14 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Manning, please read that sentence as well.
15 A. "The majority of information required to submit a detailed report
16 on the Srebrenica exhumations, including a definitive MNI and number of
17 mass graves, is currently held by ICMP."
18 Do you wish me to continue?
19 Q. No. We'll progress gradually. I suppose you stand by this
20 statement made by you in November 2005, that is, two years ago.
21 A. Yes, I accept that that's a valid statement still.
22 Q. Thank you. Mr. Manning, could you please read out the following
23 sentence to us, which is actually the continuation of the one you've read
25 A. Your Honours:
1 "Unfortunately, data held by the various BiH authorities, due to
2 lack of resources or other factors, is widely spread across agencies and
3 organisations and its accuracy is difficult to assess."
4 Q. Thank you. Mr. Manning, would you agree with me that the data you
5 had at your disposal in November 2005 were received from local authorities
6 in Bosnia and that they were incomplete, not up to date, and difficult to
7 rely on?
8 A. No, I would not agree with that. A significant amount of the data
9 I received was from ICMP, and various parts of the Bosnia Commission for
10 Missing Persons, some of their records were in excellent condition, some
11 of the records were very detailed, some of the records were perhaps not
12 complete. And also, given my inability to read the language, it was
13 inaccessible to me, given the time frame. If I'd have had more time to
14 read through the information, I could have made a more appropriate
15 assessment of its accuracy.
16 Q. Very well. Thank you for your answer.
17 In the report, you mentioned your visit to the Podrinje
18 Identification Centre; is that correct?
19 A. That's correct.
20 Q. Can you tell us where the seat of the centre -- where the office
21 of the centre is?
22 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment, Mr. Manning and Ms. Tapuskovic. We need
23 to have a break now rather than when scheduled. So my apologies to you
24 for interrupting you the way I did, but we need to do that.
25 So we'll have a 25-minute break starting from now. Thank you.
1 --- Recess taken at 10.18 a.m.
2 --- On resuming at 10.49 a.m.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Ms. Tapuskovic.
4 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
5 Q. Mr. Manning, let us continue where we left off before the break.
6 The last question is something I did not receive an answer to, and
7 that is where the head office of the Podrinje project for identification
9 A. It's based in Tuzla. I know the address. I can't recall it
11 Q. Thank you. I was interested in the location. You also said that
12 you visited the centre in Lukovac which deals with re-association; is that
14 A. That's correct, and that's in the village of Lukovac.
15 Q. Can you explain to us and the Bench what re-association actually
17 JUDGE AGIUS: I think he has already explained that earlier on in
18 relation to the main site or main whatever. I mean, if it hasn't been
19 clear, you can ask a question, of course, to explain further, but he has
20 already explained it.
21 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I apologise. That
22 piece of information seems to have escaped me. Therefore, I will move
23 on. It is not essential.
24 Q. When you were at the centre -- well, at the Podrinje
25 Identification Project office, one of the key people there told you, as we
1 will see on page 9 of the same document that we have before us -- could we
2 please go to page 9 now? Thank you.
3 Please magnify the page somewhat, and let us go to the last two
4 paragraphs of the page so that the witness could read them.
5 Mr. Manning, if you can, please, read out the last sentence of the
6 first paragraph under the subheading "Podrinje Identification Project."
7 A. "Kesetovic stated he believed that most relevant records were held
8 with the Tuzla Canton Court."
9 Q. Thank you, Mr. Manning. It is not clear to us, based on your
10 report, what, in the understanding of the Podrinje Identification
11 Project's people, is the most relevant documentation.
12 A. My discussions concerned very wide-ranging aspects, but he was
13 indicating to me that the official records, the complete official records,
14 should be held by the Court ultimately as part of the coronial process, as
15 part of the issuing of official death certificates. He indicated that the
16 Court would hold not only the exhumation details, as it is a court-ordered
17 exhumation, but also the records relating to cause of death and death
19 Q. The relevant documents referred to by Mr. Kesetovic, did you have
20 the occasion to view them in 2005?
21 A. Your Honours, I went to the canton -- Tuzla Canton Court. I was
22 given access to the records that they had. Again limited by my inability
23 to read the language and working through an interpreter, I read a number
24 of court files, documents that supported those files, and photographs.
25 Some of those records included death certificates. Some of them included
1 summaries of files.
2 Q. Can you tell us whether, in each of the court files of the
3 Cantonal Court, did you see the decisions on the process of exhumation to
4 be carried out?
5 A. Your Honours, I apologise. I'm not sure if I understand the
6 question. It may help that I saw that the Court would order an exhumation
7 to be conducted, and my understanding of the process is that it was a
8 Court-directed inquiry and that the prosecutor in Tuzla was directly
9 responsible for the investigation and the inquiry in relation to the
11 Q. To go back to the question itself, did you, in each of the cases
12 at the Cantonal Court in Tuzla, did you see a decision or a ruling of a
13 competent judge on the process of exhumation?
14 A. Your Honours, I don't recall seeing that in every case, and in
15 fact I would not be looking for such a document. I recall seeing such a
16 notation, but it was not what I was seeking.
17 Q. Very well. I didn't ask you whether it was what you were looking
18 for. Rather, I wanted to know whether, when going through the files, you
19 saw decisions or rulings issued by judges on the process of exhumation,
20 but I will move on.
21 In the cases and files you went through at the Cantonal Court in
22 Tuzla, did you see any autopsy reports which would state the time of death
23 as well as the cause of death?
24 A. I did see autopsy reports. They did state cause of death, where
25 that was known. And I cannot recall the wording, but there was a
1 reference to the time of death, and I think it was directly related to the
2 fall of Srebrenica. Whether it was a time, I can't recall.
3 Q. Tell me what other potential documentation, in addition to the
4 documentation at the Cantonal Court in Tuzla and the Podrinje
5 Identification Project, did you see during your mission in 2005?
6 A. Your Honours, I reviewed documents particularly at ICMP. I went
7 through their protocol documents. I examined documentation in support of
8 their processes, the way they handled the blood and DNA samples from the
9 victims. I saw draft exhumation reports produced by ICMP, and I saw their
10 internal documentation to a fairly detailed level.
11 In a similar way at the re-association centre, I was shown their
12 documentation, I was given access to their reports and how their reports
13 were structured. I was shown the bodies as they were re-associated, and
14 relevant photographs.
15 At the Tuzla office of ICMP, I was shown the -- and run through
16 the process where a sample follows through the system and shown the
17 documentation that supports that.
18 Effectively, I looked at as much information/documentation in all
19 the centres as was possible in the time, and as much of that documentation
20 as I wanted to see was made available to me.
21 Q. Thank you. Can you tell us now whether on that occasion you were
22 able to copy some of that documentation or take it with you?
23 A. I don't believe I copied anything from the Tuzla Canton Court.
24 They are official records, and I believe we -- I recommended we seek to
25 have those records. I may have been given documentation from ICMP, but
1 not specific records, confidential records. I can't recall what copies I
2 got, but I recall that it wasn't copies of the data that was confidential
3 or the court reports themselves.
4 Q. So when you were there on that special mission, you were not
5 provided with confidential information, yet now you have told us that when
6 preparing your summaries for the year 2007, in June and November, you had
7 access to confidential information; is that correct?
8 A. To be clear, I indicated that I did not take copies of
9 confidential material, but I also believe I indicated that I was given
10 access to the material that I wished to view, including the DNA reports,
11 including the exhumation reports and including the Tuzla Canton Court
13 Q. Do you recall, to avoid going through your report and spending
14 time on scrolling up and down, that the head of the office of the
15 International Commission for Missing Persons, Madam Catherine Braunberger
16 [phoen], asked you to file an application in order to obtain the results
17 of the commission's work?
18 A. Your Honours, without checking the report, I would agree with
19 that. It was, to my recollection, an understanding that an official
20 request would be made by ICTY to have access to the data.
21 Q. That's why I'm taking you back to that same question. If you are
22 only a witness, if in 2005 you were not an employee of the Tribunal, I
23 would like to know on what basis you had access to confidential
24 information, whether in 2005 or now in 2007.
25 A. Your Honours, in 2005 I was contracted to the ICTY for that
1 period, and I was given access to the confidential data by the providers,
2 by the organisations responsible for that data. That access has
3 continued. As I have said before, the mechanism, or the document, or
4 whatever you are seeking would be best sought from ICTY.
5 I asked Ms. Braunberger for access to the material. She obliged,
6 and she indicated an official request would be required to send the
7 material to the ICTY.
8 I hope that answers the question.
9 Q. Do you know whether such an official request was sent pertaining
10 to the documentation of 2007 which has entered your reports, your
11 summaries, from June and July?
12 THE INTERPRETER: "From November," interpreter's correction, "June
13 and November."
14 A. I believe such a request has been made, but I did not make it and
15 I am no longer a member of the ICTY.
16 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. Very well. We'll move on to another topic now, from the topic of
18 your authorisation and access to confidential documents, and we'll go back
19 to the situation regarding the documents existing in Bosnia-Herzegovina at
20 the time and the authorities in Bosnia-Herzegovina, that is, data from the
21 federal commission and the Tuzla Cantonal Court.
22 Why did you mention, in the sentence we have just read out, that
23 the data available to the Bosnia-Herzegovinian organs are distributed
24 among a large number of agencies and organisations and it is hard to rely
25 on their correctness? So do you still stand by what you said in 2005 or
2 JUDGE AGIUS: I think you put that question before and he has
3 already answered it. I stand to be corrected, but I'm pretty sure you
5 Yes, Ms. Soljan.
6 MS. SOLJAN: Thank you, Your Honour. Just one more point.
7 The sentence actually does not say that it is hard to rely on
8 their correctness but simply that its accuracy is difficult to assess.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: I know, but -- thank you for that as well, but,
10 Ms. Tapuskovic specifically asked the witness to read out or to refer to
11 the particular sentence in that paragraph that we saw earlier on, and she
12 asked him whether he stood by what he had stated in his 2005 report, and
13 he did. He confirmed that he did state by what he had stated earlier.
14 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I won't
15 delve any further into that topic.
16 Witness, we will now move on to the remaining documents pertaining
17 to you. Could we please have brought up on e-court ID449.
18 Just please bear with me, Your Honours, for a moment, because I
19 have to find the document.
20 Q. Mr. Manning, could you -- could you please zoom in a little on the
21 English version, and I will read out the document to you or, rather, the
22 relevant paragraph, and you will see from the heading that the document
23 was sent by the Federal Commission of Bosnia-Herzegovina, the Commission
24 for Missing Persons. It's addressed to the Chief Prosecutor of the ICTY,
25 Mrs. Carla Del Ponte. The letter is dated the 30th of July, 2007. I will
1 read paragraph four.
2 [In English] "Also, we have no data about the cause of death and
3 identification methods for identified victims. Such information is held
4 by prosecutor's offices and courts which ordered exhumations.
5 "At this moment, we still do not have sorted and updated
6 information about the exhumed and identified victims in the whole
7 territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina, given it is only now that within the
8 Institute for Missing Persons, Central Record of Missing Person, are being
9 set up for the whole BiH."
10 [Interpretation] Tell us, Witness, while preparing for your
11 testimony while you were being proofed, was a document like this shown to
13 A. I don't recall seeing this document before.
14 Q. So you were not able to use it in your summary of June 2007, as
15 it's dated July?
16 A. I did not use this document or reference it at all or, I believe,
17 see it.
18 Q. Can you tell us whether you were aware previously of the intention
19 of the Bosnian authorities to start up a programme or a project to create
20 a central database for all missing persons?
21 A. Generally, I was aware of proposals of that nature, not
22 specifically recently.
23 Q. Can you tell us whether you know on what basis that central
24 records would function? What would be the source of information on the
25 basis of which this central database would draw up its reports?
1 A. I don't know.
2 Q. In the course of your testimony mission to Bosnia-Herzegovina in
3 2005, did you perhaps come across Mr. Hamza Zujo [phoen] or Mr. Vedo Tutso
5 A. Not that I recall those names.
6 Q. Both of them are forensic specialists, medical doctors, who
7 carried out autopsies. If you have seen the forensic reports in the
8 Cantonal Court in Tuzla, you must have seen their names, because as you
9 know, at every autopsy there has to be a medical specialist, a forensic
10 specialist present; is that correct?
11 A. I accept that. I simply don't recognise the names.
12 Q. In the course of your mission to Bosnia-Herzegovina, you only
13 visited various bodies and organisations dealing with either exhumations
14 or identification, but you did not visit mass gravesites or sites where
15 mortal remains can be found; is that correct?
16 A. Your Honours, that's not strictly correct. I visited a number of
17 sites, but the exhumations weren't in progress at that time, so I visited
18 the sites either before they had been exhumed or after, including a large
19 number of the ICTY sites.
20 Q. But you were not present at any autopsy or any procedure to
21 establish identity by means of DNA analysis?
22 A. Whilst at the re-association centre and at the Podrinje
23 Identification Project, examinations were being conducted, including the
24 selection and processing of bones for DNA analysis. Whilst I was at the
25 Tuzla and ICMP centres, I was present when examinations were being
1 conducted, when the DNA sample was being processed in their facilities,
2 and I would indicate I have also seen many hundreds, if not thousands, of
3 autopsies conducted by ICTY, including the selection of material for DNA
5 Q. Thank you for your exhaustive answer. It's clear to us that you
6 participated in many autopsies in the period of time while you were
7 contracted to the ICTY. My question was only about your mission in 2005,
8 whether on that occasion you attended any autopsies or any procedures to
9 establish identity using the DNA method. I'm asking this because I didn't
10 find any trace of this in your report of 2005. However, your answer now
11 clarifies this.
12 Could we now have brought up on e-court 65 ter document 2993.
13 While we are waiting for the document to come up, Mr. Manning, let
14 me tell you that it's your summary from November 2007.
15 This is the title page. Could we please see page 1 of the text.
16 If I have concluded correctly, Mr. Manning, after 2001, when the
17 competency to carry out exhumations was transferred from the Tribunal to
18 the Bosnian authorities - we'll call them that for short to avoid long
19 names - that meant that the Bosnian authorities dealt exclusively with
20 exhumations, and do I understand correctly that the International
21 Commission for Missing Persons dealt with other segments; they could
22 attend exhumations, but not conduct them, and they could carry out DNA
23 analysis of the mortal remains? Is my conclusion correct, sir?
24 A. That's correct, although I can't speak for ICMP as to their
25 specific mandate. My view was that they had monitored, and when I went to
1 the gravesites, they were taking a very active role in that monitoring and
2 examining of the bodies. But the mandate for ICMP, I'm not aware of in
3 that regard.
4 Q. Thank you, that suffices for me. Comparing your summaries of
5 2007, primarily the one from November, with your summaries from 2000, 2001
6 and 2003, one has to draw the conclusion that previous identifications
7 based on anthropological criteria were replaced by identification by means
8 of the DNA method; is that correct?
9 A. That is correct.
10 Q. Thank you. May we agree on a piece of information as follows: In
11 your annex -- or, rather, your summary of 2007 has two annexes which are
12 an integral part of your summary; is that correct?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. A few days after the disclosure of your summary of November 2007,
15 the 30th of November, to be precise, we received an annex which was said
16 to be an integral part of your summary. Do you know what annex I'm
17 referring to? It's a list, and it's about 200 pages long, divided by mass
19 A. I'm assuming that you're referring to individual tables which
20 relate to each one of the mass graves.
21 Q. Yes, that's the table. We have neither a 65 ter number for that
22 table -- it's just labelled "Annex," along with 65 ter document 2993, and
23 the reason I'm saying all this is that I hope this annex is in e-court,
24 and it should then be -- I would need page 27 of this annex.
25 While we are waiting for the document to be brought up, can you
1 tell me how you obtained the data contained in that annex? I assume that
2 you compiled it.
3 A. Your Honours, I compiled those tables, and you see an example here
4 from the Cerska grave. Effectively, I took that data from the ICMP report
5 and I created a table based on that data.
6 Q. Very well. Evidently, this is functioning well. This is the
7 gravesite I wanted to go through with you.
8 In answer to my learned friend's questions, you explained
9 what "case ID" means, what "protocol ID" means and what "ID ICMP" means.
10 If I remember correctly, you explained the ICMP ID, the number in the
11 column third from the left is a piece of information linked to the DNA
12 analysis; is that correct?
13 A. No. The ID ICMP relates to the internal ICMP reference number for
14 a case or a file. The protocol ID is generated by the DNA analysis. So a
15 case from ICMP would be examined, and that case would then produce a
16 result, which would be given a protocol ID.
17 Q. Very well. But regardless of that, can you tell us the
18 following: In the third column, in the tenth row, we see that for the
19 mortal remains labelled "CSK-04", we have three numbers, "8113" or "8115"
20 or "3318". And then a few rows lower down, we have two numbers for one
21 set of mortal remains.
22 Can you explain to us how this labelling, with two or three
23 numbers for a single set of mortal remains, functions?
24 A. Your Honours, conscious of not entering into discussions outside
25 my expertise, the simple explanation is that the mortal remains labelled
1 as "Cerska 4" could be one of three individuals, and the reason it could
2 be one of three individuals is that they are related. In this case, they
3 would be brothers.
4 My brother and I share very similar DNA, and it would be
5 difficult, I understand, to establish which one of us it was if they
6 didn't have all the records.
7 So in that case, they're indicating that that body may be one of
8 three closely-related individuals. And if you look at Cerska (99(K),
9 continuing down the page, those same three individuals are repeated again.
10 So it could be that those two records indicate two brothers out of three
11 have been identified.
12 Q. But if you explained that it was you who drew up this list, I
13 don't think you're going beyond the boundaries of your "expertise," in
14 quotation marks. But as we don't have ordinal numbers here, can you
15 explain, with reference to the Cerska mass grave, how many persons were
16 identified? We don't have the names here, either. And does this kind of
17 labelling increase the number of persons identified from the Cerska mass
19 A. Your Honours, it does certainly not increase the numbers. I
20 removed deliberately the identifying names from this record, and if you
21 saw the identifying name column, it would have three names, as this record
22 has three numbers. But what it represents is the body known as "Cerska
23 4", one individual, is either one of those three persons, but that one
24 individual, "Cerska 4" in my report, is certainly only counted as one
1 Q. I must admit that despite all my efforts to understand the coding
2 system concerning the number of those who died and those identified, I was
3 unable to penetrate it. But, however, I will move on.
4 We will go back to Exhibit 2993 again. It is a 65 ter document,
5 and the number is 2993. Let's go to page 1, please.
6 Mr. Manning, you provided an explanation about the difference
7 between 5.021 persons, including 758 findings that are exclusively related
8 to Srebrenica -- basically, I wanted to ask you about the 758.
9 The 758 findings represent 758 individual body parts which do not
10 match or overlap. Is my conclusion correct?
11 A. In a way, it is correct. It may not be body parts. 758 either
12 complete bodies or small bones have been tested for their DNA, and that
13 DNA is unique across all the records held by ICMP. So whether it be one
14 small bone or a complete body, they represent individuals. The only
15 difference between them and the rest of the figures is that no one has yet
16 placed a name against those individuals. But they represent individuals
17 that are not accounted for in the identified group.
18 Q. In any case, out of the 758 exclusive samples, there is no mutual
20 A. If I understand your question, no, there is no duplication. If
21 you like, if you took the figure of 5.021, of that 5.021, unfortunately
22 758 of those bodies are not yet known by a name, but they are all
23 individuals, 5.021 individuals, some of whom have names.
24 Q. Yes. Therefore, we have 5.021 sets of mortal remains, and we have
25 4.000 --
1 THE INTERPRETER: Could the counsel please repeat the figure.
2 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. ... names; is that correct?
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Ms. Tapuskovic, have you heard the -- okay.
5 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Certainly, Your Honour, I'm just
6 trying to clear my table.
7 Q. I will repeat my question, Mr. Manning. That means that we have
8 5.021, according to your summary, according to the data received from the
9 International Commission. There are, again, 5.021 mortal remains that
10 have to do with 5.021 individuals. However, we have only 4.263 first and
11 last names?
12 A. Yes, that's correct, but remembering some of the individuals could
13 be one of more than one person, and they are provisionally given an
14 identification, 1 of 3 or 2. But the DNA, unique DNA ones have no -- they
15 have no name connected whatsoever, but, yes, you're right.
16 Q. Thank you. The way I understand the process of identification, it
17 has to do with establishing a first and a last name concerning a
18 particular set of body remains. Is that correct?
19 A. Yes, ultimately.
20 Q. If, when talking about the 758 cases, we have a situation in which
21 these mortal remains are not linked to any particular person with a first
22 and last name, then it is my opinion that those cases are considered as
24 A. Yes, I accept that.
25 Q. Thank you. In your report, on the next page, this being page 2 of
1 the report - could we please have that placed on the screen - you've
2 already made a correction, saying that the figure is not 4.017 identified
3 persons by using the DNA method and that the figure, rather, is 4.010.
4 And you also provided an explanation as to how that error occurred.
5 As regards the 4.010 you mentioned, you said that those
6 identifications were accepted by the International Criminal Tribunal. In
7 several places in your summaries, the phrase is mentioned, the distinction
8 between the identifications accepted by the International Tribunal and the
9 data that was at the disposal of the International Tribunal. In brief,
10 can you tell us what the need was in order to have the final number of
11 victims and identified victims to make that distinction, since it seems
12 that certain authority lay with the International Tribunal and the rest
13 was with some other bodies?
14 A. My apologies, Your Honour. I don't think I understand the
16 Q. You're right, it was somewhat multilayered. My question is this:
17 What is the difference between the figure of 4.010, and from now on we'll
18 refer to the 4.010 victims that were accepted by the International
19 Criminal Tribunal as stated in paragraph 6 of your report -- or, rather,
20 your summary from November 2007 -- since we don't have the paragraphs
21 here, we should go back to the previous page. It is the last paragraph of
22 that page.
23 Can you read this, Mr. Manning? Please read out loud the first
24 sentence from the ultimate paragraph of page 1 of your summary.
25 A. "The minimum number of individuals identified via DNA analysis by
1 ICMP in mass graves known and accepted by the ICTY to contain only
2 individuals executed following the fall of Srebrenica is 4.117 [sic],
3 which includes the 758 unique Srebrenica-related DNA records which have
4 not yet been matched to a missing person. See Annexure A, Table 1, for a
5 listing of these graves."
6 Q. Thank you. You can see that in the second row, you mention the
7 figure concerning the mass graves and that the figure is known and
8 accepted by the International Tribunal. Why the distinction between the
9 accepted and known to the International Tribunal? Why isn't all the data
10 in your report comprehensive as per data received from the ICMP?
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Ms. Soljan.
12 MS. SOLJAN: Your Honour, I want to point out that the figure that
13 is known and accepted by the ICTY refers to the mass graves, not to the
14 victims, as per the text.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you for that clarification.
16 Yes, Ms. Tapuskovic.
17 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I'd like to thank my learned
18 friend for this clarification. I merely read out paragraph 6:
19 [In English] "Individuals identified by DNA analysis by ICMP in
20 mass graves, known and accepted by the ICTY."
21 [Interpretation] My question is this: Why is there a distinction
22 between the data known to the Tribunal and at the disposal of the Tribunal
23 and the data that was at the disposal, be it in terms of numbers or
24 locations, of the International Commission?
25 A. Your Honours, the last paragraph and the previous paragraph differ
1 in the fact that the previous paragraph relates to not only surface
2 remains, which the ICTY did not collect, but also mass graves and single
3 graves which were exhumed or excavated by the Bosnian Commission for
4 Missing Persons. I indicate that the ICTY were not present during those
5 examinations. We didn't collect the surface remains. So I make the
6 distinction that the somewhat smaller figure of 4.010 indicates bodies
7 removed from mass graves known to the ICTY directly connected to
8 Srebrenica. That is not to say -- and clearly it doesn't say that the
9 other graves aren't connected to Srebrenica, as the victims have been
10 identified directly to Srebrenica. However, they were not graves that the
11 ICTY exhumed or processed or conducted the autopsy of the bodies. That's
12 why I make that distinction.
13 Q. Thank you. Obviously, there is a problem concerning the mortal
14 remains of those people found on the surface and the rest, and to us it is
15 an important item when assessing a total number of those killed. Would
16 that be correct?
17 A. I disagree with you that there is a problem concerning the mortal
18 remains collected on the surface. I'm not indicating that there is any
19 problem. I'm indicating that the ICTY and myself was not present or did
20 not monitor or did not deal with the collection of those remains. This is
21 a report produced by myself. I wasn't present during the collection of
22 that material, and that's why I make that distinction.
23 Q. But in your summary from November of this year, you mentioned
24 Kozluk as a mass grave and you mentioned Kozluk as a place where surface
25 remains were found. I believe today it appeared on page 13 of the
1 transcript. I cannot recall exactly. In any case, it was said that the
2 surface remains were a few hundred metres away from the mass grave; is
3 that correct?
4 A. That's correct.
5 Q. In annexure B, since we agreed that your summary from July has two
6 integral tables, plus the long document in the annex, if we look at the
7 last page of the 65 ter document 2993, which is your summary for
8 November -- let us please go to the last page of the document. Not of the
9 annex, but the last page of the summary itself.
10 I will tell you right away what page it is. It is page 24. Thank
11 you very much. One more page, this one being the penultimate one, this is
12 page 23. I need page 24. Thank you.
13 Mr. Manning, here you enumerate all locations at which surface
14 remains were found; is that correct?
15 A. It's not correct to say "all locations." These are the locations
16 that were either able to be described to me or were given a grid
17 reference. If you consider that individual bones may have been collected,
18 significant bones may have been collected in various areas over many, many
19 years, I didn't represent those collections. This represents the surface
20 remain locations that Mr. Hurtic and the Bosnian Commission were able to
21 detail to me or that I could see from the Canton Tuzla Court reports.
22 Q. You visited the Cantonal Court in Tuzla in 2005, and this was
23 created in November 2007. In the meantime, did you have the new
24 information from the Cantonal Court, and how did you receive that
25 information, since you said that since 2005 you didn't go back to Bosnia?
1 A. Your Honours, in relation to that list of areas where human
2 remains were collected, I did not update that information. I would
3 suggest and strongly suspect that further surface remains were located in
4 further areas.
5 Q. You do not specify any numbers of those exhumed, since you use the
6 same term, "exhumation" as regards those bodily remains collected at the
7 surface as well; isn't that correct?
8 A. I didn't include numbers, and I don't believe I referred to the
9 collection of surface remains as an exhumation.
10 Q. Tell me this, then: At page 5 of your summary from November
11 2007 -- let us please go to page 5. That is not the page. The next one.
12 Thank you.
13 Here, in the summary, you use a number of -- a number pertaining
14 to individuals who were identified, together with the data from 2007, and
15 you say here that 14 individuals were identified; is that correct?
16 A. Fourteen individuals were identified at the KOZ surface
17 collection, yes.
18 Q. That means that in November, for that gravesite alone or, rather,
19 for those surface remains, you had a total number of those identified.
20 And as for the rest, although you say that it does not include all
21 gravesites, and for the 18 referred to in the attachment, you did not have
22 a total number of those exhumed or identified?
23 A. Again, Your Honours, I'm not quite sure of the question. I
24 previously stated why I had included the Kozluk surface remains. I had
25 dealings with the Bosnian Commission in relation to these prior to their
1 location. I had indicated to Mr. Hurtic that I believed that there may be
2 other remains in that area and that this collection, I believe, is a
3 direct result of those discussions and his determined work in that area.
4 I'm sorry, I don't understand the question.
5 Q. My question was: Why is it that in relation to the other surface
6 remains from the 18 locations, there were no figures mentioned pertaining
7 to those identified or exhumed?
8 A. I did not include figures for the surface remains collections and
9 identify where they had been located. I simply included those in the
10 figure -- in the larger figure in relation to surface remains. Again, I
11 was more familiar or very familiar with the ICTY material, and the surface
12 remains were collected perhaps in an area of many square kilometres. They
13 are indicated as areas collected. I couldn't find more specific data, and
14 I felt that it was more appropriate to concentrate on the ICTY graves and
15 reference the number of surface remains identified.
16 Q. Thank you. Let us move on to your summary from November 2007.
17 We'll begin with individual gravesites in order to try and clarify some
19 It is Exhibit 2993. I'm interested in the Konjevic Polje
20 gravesite, which is on page 8 from the top.
21 This is Konjevic Polje 1, Konjevic Polje 2. That's fine.
22 One can see here that according to the information you received,
23 identification was carried out for three individuals; is that correct?
24 A. That's correct.
25 Q. Very well. However, if we take your finding from June, your
1 report from June, we don't have its 65 ter number. Therefore, I wanted to
2 ask the usher to take this hard copy and place it on the ELMO.
3 Mr. Manning, please check first whether the document on the ELMO
4 is indeed your summary from June. You can pick it up and make sure
5 whether it is the document.
6 A. I recognise that document as my report from June of this year.
7 Q. Regarding Konjevic Polje 2, it is stated that in June of 2007,
8 there is a total number of seven individuals who were identified. My
9 question is this: How is it possible that in June 2007, you provide us
10 with a piece of information that seven individuals were identified, and
11 then in November of 2007, which is five months down the road, you say that
12 three individuals were identified in total? Can you explain that?
13 A. Your Honour, in fact that should have read, to my recollection,
14 "2 individuals." It's a typing error from "2" to "7." And I can
15 indicate that I was present during the whole exhumation of Konjevic Polje
16 2 and there are three individuals, complete
17 bodies within that grave. I was aware of that, and I have not only
18 located that grave but was present during its exhumation, so that is a
19 typographical error. It should have been at that stage two individuals.
20 Later it was three individuals, which accounts for all the remains within
21 that grave.
22 I'd also indicate that it was my belief and hope that this report
23 from June would certainly be superseded by the data from ICMP, new data,
24 and that a new report would be produced.
25 Q. Tell me now, Mr. Manning, it turns out that neither in your
1 summary of June or in your summary in November is the number correct?
2 A. I'm sorry, you said the summary in November was not correct?
3 Q. I showed you both summaries. One, you have on your screen.
4 That's the one of November 2007. And in that column for Konjevic Polje,
5 you have three victims. I put on the ELMO a document where it says that
6 seven individuals were identified. What I would like to know now,
7 according to what you said, that is, that these were two persons, which
8 piece of information is correct, because it seems to me that in neither of
9 your two summaries is the data for Konjevic Polje 2 correct.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: I think that has been clarified. He said that in
11 what we see on the screen now, that's what he has on the ELMO, that "7"
12 should be corrected to "2." That's a typographical error. The subsequent
13 summary that you referred to earlier on mentions three. So first it
14 should read "2" in this document, and then it reads "3" in the subsequent
15 one, and that's it. I mean, "2" could become "3." "7" could never become
17 If you want to pursue it further, please do, by all means, but I
18 think it's clear enough.
19 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I would not pursue it any
20 further. I would only ask the following:
21 Q. When in October of this year you had your proofing with our
22 learned friends, and during your proofing just before your testimony, did
23 you go through the entire material which was subject to my learned
24 friend's examination-in-chief?
25 A. During the proofing session with Ms. Soljan, I went through a
1 considerable amount of material. I don't think we went through, in great
2 detail, this report. We spoke of the other graves, the links, the
3 evidence that's been presented, and I showed her what I showed the Chamber
4 in relation to the ICMP data and what I did. I don't recall going through
5 this report in huge detail. I certainly read it, personally, and went
6 through material myself.
7 Q. To conclude --
8 MS. SOLJAN: If I may, Your Honour, with respect to the June
9 report that Mr. Manning has just made a clarification about, if my
10 colleague would go to the annex that is also an integral part of that
11 report, at R064-3970 and R064-3972, there is additional evidence to show
12 that Mr. Manning was aware of the number of the people in the Kozluk -- in
13 the Konjevic Polje 2 grave.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
15 MS. SOLJAN: And that's two people.
16 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I wish to thank my
17 learned friend for her explanation, but as we agreed at the beginning of
18 today's session, that the witness can only speak of the numbers and final
19 results he obtained from the documentation of the International
20 Commission. Those are the numbers I'm using, the ones indicated in his
21 summary of June and of November, those two summaries.
22 If one looks at the annex --
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Stop, stop. I'm stopping you because in relation to
24 this particular grave, he said it loud and clear that he personally has
25 personal knowledge of this and was not relying on the information or
1 sources -- or other sources. I can't repeat his exact words, but we can
2 find them about three pages up. He was present even during the
4 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Very well, Your Honour. I'll
5 move on. I'll now deal with the next burial site.
6 We're now on page 8. Could we please move to page 12. Thank you.
7 Q. Here, we mention a gravesite called "Hodzici Road 1-Snagovo number
8 4". Could we please zoom in on this so the witness can read a sentence
9 us. The first paragraph, under the subheading "Hodzici Road 1- Snagovo
10 4". Can you read it? If you can see it, I'll read it.
11 [In English] "This site was exhumed in 1998 under the direction of
12 ICTY Chief Archaeologist Professor Wright. It was the view of Professor
13 Wright that this site appears to have been dug as a grave and then not
15 [Interpretation] The next paragraph reads as follows.
16 [In English] "The Bosnian Federal Commission for Missing Persons
17 indicated this grave, renamed Snagovo 4, was exhumed between 6 and 24
18 November 2006. No information as to remains located or DNA testing of
19 those remains is currently available."
20 [Interpretation] Mr. Manning, if you spent so much time visiting
21 sites and were familiar with the gathering of forensic data, could you
22 please explain to us how it's possible that Professor Wright, who
23 testified here as an expert witness, states that the grave was dug but not
24 used, and yet it says here that exhumation was carried out from that grave
25 in 2006? Did you attempt to check this discrepancy between these two
1 statements in these two paragraphs of your summary?
2 A. Your Honours, it was the view of Professor Wright that that grave
3 had not been used. I examined that grave with Professor Wright. It was
4 the first grave on the road and was at quite an angle from the road, and
5 it was filled with water and overgrown. It was his view that it had not
6 been used because of the logistics of entering the grave with a truck.
7 During those discussions, it was very evident to both of us that
8 we would still need to exhume that hole and confirm that it was or was not
9 a mass grave.
10 In handing over that grave to the Bosnian authorities, I indicated
11 to them Professor Wright's view and said, and I do recall this
12 specifically, that that grave may contain some human remains and should be
13 examined. In a similar way to Zeleni Jadar 2, which we believed had been
14 completely robbed, I explained to them that they should, nonetheless,
15 examine that grave. And this is the situation here, that they have
16 examined that grave and found it did contain human remains.
17 Q. But you mentioned Zeleni Jadar 2 now. In your summary of
18 November, on page 16 you said that in Zeleni Jadar only small numbers of
19 bodies were found of various persons. Do you remember that?
20 A. Your Honours, I remember that, and again Professor Wright examined
21 that grave, he did not exhume it, and he said that he found -- and I
22 believe to not misquote him, I think he found scattered or uncommon human
23 remains within the grave. That was not to say that there was not some
24 human remains left in that grave, and indeed he indicated that there were
25 but that they were scattered and low in number.
1 Q. I'll take you back to what you stated and what was mentioned in
2 your summary of November.
3 Can we see page 16, please, to see what it says precisely about
4 Zeleni Jadar.
5 And while we are waiting for the page to come up, could you tell
6 me the following: You mentioned in that section that there was no --
7 there were no data from the Bosnian Federal Commission on these remains,
8 which means that you don't know the dates when the exhumation was carried
9 out, whether or not autopsies were conducted, nor is the DNA analysis
10 known. Can you tell us how, then, you were able to enter in your finding
11 that it turned out that in the Zeleni Jadar gravesite, there were body
12 parts of several different persons, if no DNA analysis was conducted?
13 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Ms. Soljan.
14 MS. SOLJAN: Your Honour, first of all, it's unclear which Zeleni
15 Jadar mass gravesite my colleague is referring to. And, second of all, if
16 it is to Zeleni Jadar 2, then there is in fact a date of exhumation noted
17 in Mr. Manning's report.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: I don't know what you had in mind, Madam
19 Tapuskovic. Which Zeleni Jadar?
20 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I said it was Zeleni
21 Jadar 2, and I did mention that, but it wasn't on the record. When I
22 asked page 16 to be shown, that referred to Zeleni Jadar 2, because on
23 page 57, in line 25, I referred to that, reminding the witness that he
24 mentioned the Zeleni Jadar 2 gravesite. So it's only a matter of the
1 Q. With reference to Zeleni Jadar 2, Mr. Manning, it says the
3 [In English] "This secondary disturbed mass grave in part was
4 examined in part on the 6th of October, 1998, by the ICTY Chief
5 Archaeologist Professor Wright, with sparse but multiple body parts
6 observed. It was apparent that the grave had been disturbed and the
7 bodies removed to an unknown location or an unknown tertiary grave."
8 [Interpretation] The second paragraph, not the next but the second
9 one or the following paragraph:
10 [Previous translation continues] ... [In English] "Missing persons
11 indicates this grave was exhumed between 14 and 27 June 2007. No
12 information as to remains located or DNA testing of those remains is
13 currently available."
14 [Interpretation] Mr. Manning, bearing in mind this statement of
15 Professor Wright's that sparse body parts were observed and that no DNA
16 testing was done, how did you come to the conclusion that these were the
17 mortal remains of several different persons?
18 A. Your Honours, I wasn't present on the day the examination was
19 conducted. However, I was present subsequent, a day or two later, and I
20 spoke to Professor Wright about that grave and we went to that grave and
21 discussed it. What he told me was that there were sparse human remains
22 within the fill of the grave and that they were not from a single
23 individual; that is, that there were bones or parts of bones which clearly
24 came from more than one individual. But he was -- his view was that that
25 grave had been robbed and that the majority of the bodies had been taken
1 from that grave. It lies very, very close to a small river and was always
2 flooded when I saw it.
3 And, again, in a similar fashion to the Hodzici 1 grave, we were
4 aware that it would need to be exhumed at some stage to confirm that view.
5 Q. Thank you, Mr. Manning. While we're on the same page of your
6 summary for November 2007, at the very top of the page we see it
7 says "Liplje 8". Do you see that, Mr. Manning?
8 A. Yes, I do.
9 Q. And here you state:
10 [In English] "This grave is located nearby the Liplje 7 grave and
11 was exhumed by the Bosnian Federal Commission on Missing Persons on an
12 unknown date and monitored by ICMP. The Commission indicates the remains
13 of one individual were located within the grave.
14 "No information related to DNA testing of those remains is
15 currently available."
16 [Interpretation] Mr. Manning, yesterday you told us that a mass
17 grave is a grave with at least two bodies in it; is that correct?
18 A. That's correct.
19 Q. This grave, Liplje 8, is a grave where only one body was found,
20 and yet it's included in the part of your report that deals with mass
21 graves; is that correct?
22 A. It's included in the whole report, and I would indicate that I
23 call it a grave.
24 Q. Could you tell me on what you base the information that the mortal
25 remains of one person are at all linked to Srebrenica, if no DNA test was
1 conducted and if it was not established whether the name of that person is
2 on the missing persons list?
3 A. Your Honours, I can indicate that the reason I included Liplje 8
4 was because it was noted by the Bosnian Commission that there were eight
5 Liplje graves. I included it as a reference to make sure there was no
6 confusion in relation to why there was seven or eight grave names in that
7 area. I don't indicate that the remains were connected to Srebrenica. I
8 indicate that there is a grave in the Liplje series which is
9 labelled "Liplje 8", and no results have yet been obtained from the
10 examination of the single individual from that grave. I included that
11 data for completeness.
12 Q. Thank you, Mr. Manning. You told us yesterday, during your
13 examination-in-chief, that while you were a member of the ICTY, the
14 Bljeceva gravesite had not yet been discovered; is that correct?
15 A. Effectively, yes. It may have been indicated, but it wasn't --
16 wasn't shown to be a grave.
17 Q. In your summary, when explaining the information you received
18 concerning Bljeceva 1, you said that in the Tuzla Cantonal Court you
19 received information that this grave did not refer to Srebrenica. Do you
20 remember that?
21 A. Your Honours, I think the information was that it contained bodies
22 in addition to the bodies from Srebrenica, that is, it's a mixed grave.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Ms. Soljan.
24 MS. SOLJAN: Your Honours, if my colleague could refer Mr. Manning
25 to the particular page so he could read it. Thank you.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Ms. Tapuskovic, if it is necessary, but I don't
2 know that it is necessary.
3 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I do have the
4 references. I just wanted to see whether the witness can remember this,
5 because the witness's memory is excellent and he has a very good command
6 of all the information relating to the gravesites and graves.
7 It's on page 18 of this report, and the gravesite in question is
8 Bljeceva 1. The second paragraph:
9 [In English] "Tuzla Canton Court Prosecution file KTA672/04
10 relates to this grave and indicates that this grave also contained the
11 remains of bodies unconnected with the fall of Srebrenica."
12 [Interpretation] Is that what it says in your report, Mr.
13 Manning? Can you tell us, as the title of all your summaries, all five of
14 them from here to here [indicates] refers to the Srebrenica investigation,
15 could you tell us why this grave, Bljeceva 1, is included in your summary?
16 A. The Bljeceva 1 mass grave, which is not an ICTY mass grave,
17 contains the remains of 39 individuals positively identified via DNA
18 analysis as being missing following the fall of Srebrenica. It contains
19 persons from Srebrenica as well as perhaps unconnected bodies.
20 Q. Yes, but that's not what it says in your report. You didn't say
21 that some of the bodies are perhaps unconnected. You just say that you
22 received information in the Tuzla Cantonal Court that this gravesite was
23 unconnected to Srebrenica.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.
25 MS. SOLJAN: Objection, Your Honour. This is not what this text
2 JUDGE AGIUS: You are right.
3 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
4 We will now talk about the surface remains, but I don't know, Your
5 Honour, whether it's time for a break or not. I have some seven or eight
6 minutes left.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Then we can have the break now. Thank you.
8 --- Recess taken at 12.29 p.m.
9 --- On resuming at 12.58 p.m.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Ms. Tapuskovic.
11 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
12 Q. Mr. Manning, we will deal with one mass grave that is of interest
13 to me. You remember the Nova Kasaba mass grave, I suppose.
14 A. Yes, I do. There are two mass graves at Nova Kasaba.
15 Q. Yes, thank you. One is Kasaba 1996 and the other, Kasaba 1999; is
16 that right?
17 A. That's correct.
18 Q. During the exhumations at that mass grave, Professor Harlund [as
19 interpreted] was involved, if I remember correctly, in 1996. Am I right
20 in saying that?
21 A. The Nova Kasaba 1996 graves were exhumed by Dr. Haglund,
23 Q. Thank you for that correction. Here, we could hear Professor
24 Haglund, who confirmed to us and to the Chamber, that it was an
25 undisturbed primary gravesite. Is that correct?
1 A. That's correct.
2 Q. Could you confirm to us that inside, complete sets of bodily
3 remains were found and not partial sets? Those were complete bodies found
4 in the Nova Kasaba 1996 mass grave?
5 A. That's correct.
6 Q. Thank you. Mr. Haglund confirmed that there were 33 complete
7 bodies taken out of that mass grave. Is that correct?
8 A. That's correct.
9 Q. According to your report or, rather, your summary from May 2000 --
10 and I would kindly ask for the usher's assistance, since later on we'll
11 have to have another document on the screen in order to be able to
12 compare, and this way, we'll be able to move along more quickly.
13 I am interested in the pages which have highlighted portions on
15 Do you agree with me, Mr. Manning, that what is on the ELMO is
16 your summary from 2000?
17 A. That's correct.
18 Q. We are looking at the page which mentions Nova Kasaba, and you
19 stated there that in 1996, there were 33 complete bodies exhumed from the
20 Nova Kasaba grave, all of whom were male?
21 A. That's correct.
22 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: Thank you. I would kindly ask the usher to take
23 another document from me.
24 Q. Mr. Manning, if we said that the exhumation of the Nova Kasaba
25 gravesite 1996 was carried out by Mr. Haglund and that he compiled a
1 report and he expressed his view on the procedure he had undertaken before
2 this Tribunal, can you tell us, how is it that in your summary in June,
3 there is a figure of 35 bodies, and in the previous one from the year
4 2000, you mentioned 33, especially bearing in mind that Professor Haglund
5 himself said that there were 33 bodies?
6 A. Your Honours, I think I may have answered this already. This is
7 my previous report from June. It carries the same error that I had in the
8 November report. The "NKAS" which I took to be Nova Kasaba surface
9 remains, is included. At that stage, there were 35 individuals. It is
10 the same error that I made that I pointed out in relation to Nova Kasaba
11 1996 graves in my final report.
12 Q. Since we mentioned that yesterday and you were explaining
13 something, and during the proofing you also commented on the topic of how
14 that mistake occurred, but explain me this, please: How is it possible
15 that in two successive summaries of yours, you enter a figure which is not
16 correct and which does not tally with your previous report or with
17 Professor Haglund's report, because you made your first report according
18 to Mr. Haglund's report?
19 A. Unfortunately, that's the nature of an error. I made a mistake.
20 I included the Nova KAS bodies in error, even though I knew that there
21 should be 33 bodies in that grave. I took them to be surface remains that
22 had been located by ICMP during the examination of the 33 bodies. On
23 occasion, a body will be collected and then, on examination of the DNA, it
24 will be discovered that the remains comprise more than one person; they
25 are co-mingled or mixed remains. That's what I took to be the case here.
1 And, again, the reason that the numbers are wrong is that I made an
3 Q. Why didn't you explain in detail Mr. Haglund's findings, since to
4 a certain extent you were present during the operation and procedure; why
5 didn't you explain it in more detail, why didn't you try and separate the
6 two? No matter how you put it, the figures don't match. Yesterday you
7 told us it should be seven sets less than 38. We arrive at a figure of
8 31, therefore. Haglund's report and your first report mention 33, and
9 there is mention of individual remains. Haglund speaks of mortal remains
10 in terms of a full skeleton or a full body of the deceased person.
11 My question is this: Is there any fabrication of data regarding
12 all cases pertaining to Srebrenica?
13 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Ms. Soljan.
14 MS. SOLJAN: Your Honours, Mr. Manning has already made an
15 explanation multiple times, and to say "fabrication" is simply not
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Let him answer it. I think he is in a position to
18 answer that question.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
20 Absolutely not, in any of the data, in any of the records, in any
21 of the processes that I've seen or been involved in, has there been any
22 suggestion of wrongdoing. I've explained that I made an error, and I'll
23 perhaps try and show you.
24 In the June report, 35 individuals. That increased in the
25 November report because more bodies were identified. You asked me
1 Mr. Haglund or Professor Haglund says 33 individuals, and remembering I
2 wasn't there in 1996, and I say 31 based on the ICMP data. I explained to
3 the Chamber that I have been very conservative in my collection of those
4 numbers, and in fact there are two individuals found in the Nova Kasaba
5 grave who are not included in the DNA reports from ICMP, or the
6 information is recorded, but because of circumstances, I've discounted two
8 In effect, the ICMP and my count is conservative and less,
9 certainly in this case, by two than it should be.
10 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. Can you tell us more about the circumstances because of which
12 those two people were not taken into account after DNA analysis?
13 A. There's a significant amount of data and information involved. I
14 recall that there was one Nova Kasaba 1996 entry in the data from ICMP,
15 and for some reason, perhaps a typographical error in the grid reference
16 or something else, led me to make a decision that I wouldn't include it.
17 I wanted to be very accurate, despite my error, as accurate as possible.
18 So if I saw some data that I wasn't completely happy with, I would say, "I
19 will not count that individual."
20 And as to the final individual, it may be that that DNA result has
21 not yet been processed or it's been processed and it wasn't made available
22 to me, in the same way that there were two bodies in the Konjevic Polje
23 grave at one stage, identified through DNA. However, I knew, to my own
24 knowledge, that there were three bodies in that grave. Had the third not
25 then been examined, I would have only reported on the two that were
2 Q. I have to interrupt you, Mr. Manning. We're not discussing
3 Konjevic Polje. I would like us to focus only on Kasaba.
4 Based on whose authorisation did you decide that some persons,
5 after DNA analysis, be not included on the list, or, rather, in the table,
6 to be more precise?
7 A. The report was my report. I made that decision, and I produced my
8 report based on my work, knowing that it was a conservative piece of work.
9 Q. Is there a possibility that the two bodies for which you still
10 haven't told us whether they were identified or not, that they had nothing
11 to do with Srebrenica whatsoever?
12 A. Those two bodies were interned with the other 31 Srebrenica
13 victims, I believe 27 of whom were ligatured with wire, with steel wire.
14 They were placed in the same grave with those 31 completely identified
15 individuals, and there was evidence that some of those individuals were
16 executed in that mass grave. So to my belief, those two individuals that
17 I have not counted, remembering I was counting ICMP DNA data, are
18 certainly Srebrenica-related victims located in the Nova Kasaba 1996 mass
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Please bring your cross-examination to an end, Madam
22 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Certainly, Your Honour.
23 Q. Tell me, please, who found those mortal remains in the mass grave
24 at Nova Kasaba, who discovered them, and based on what information did you
25 arrive at your conclusion? What information did you have that led you to
1 conclude what you did?
2 A. If I can just check, did you say "Nova Kasaba"?
3 MS. SOLJAN: Your Honour.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.
5 MS. SOLJAN: If the question could be asked in a way so that --
6 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Nova Kasaba 1996, yes. We've
7 been talking about Nova Kasaba all along, Nova Kasaba 1996.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, my apologies. I wasn't with
9 the Tribunal in 1996. From an examination of the records, I understand it
10 was located via aerial imagery by Jean-Rene Ruez, the former team leader
11 for the Srebrenica team, and that a Mr. John Gerns was present during that
12 occasion and he was an expert employed by the Tribunal, and it was located
13 directly from aerial imagery and probing and testing of the soil.
14 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have no further
15 questions for the witness. Thank you.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
17 Who is going next? Mr. Meek?
18 Mr. Zivanovic, mic -- okay.
19 Your microphone, Mr. Meek, is still not on.
20 MR. MEEK: Thank you, Your Honour.
21 Cross-examination by Mr. Meek:
22 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Manning. How are you?
23 A. Thank you, sir.
24 Q. My name is Chris Meek, and I'm one of the attorneys for Ljubisa
1 This morning, sir, on page 14, line 6 and 7, when speaking of the
2 figure of 4.017 bodies, you stated that:
3 "That is, graves that we accept or I accept to be made up of
4 Srebrenica victims who were executed following the fall of Srebrenica."
5 You remember that testimony, sir?
6 A. Without checking it, yes, I remember that.
7 Q. Now, can you tell me who the "we" is? You say "we" or "I accept."
8 A. The material I was referring to is my report, so that's why I
9 added the "I." But the graves that I speak -- I spoke of are accepted by
10 the Prosecution of the ICTY and, without meaning to be facetious, by
11 previous Trial Chambers in relation to the evidence that had been
12 admitted. So I'm speaking of graves that we knew were ICTY graves, if you
13 like to call them that, which contained victims from Srebrenica, and that
14 those victims were executed, murdered.
15 Q. Okay. Sir, can you tell this Trial Chamber and me, please, what
16 is your definition of "executed"?
17 A. These individuals were murdered. They were taken into fields and
18 they were shot, they were lined up and shot. They -- from the testimony
19 of witnesses, they -- other victims saw this happening. And then when the
20 victims who weren't killed immediately called out for assistance on some
21 occasions from some graves, they were killed.
22 My definition of "execution" is these men were murdered in a
23 brutal fashion.
24 Q. And, sir, could you enlighten me as to whether or not execution is
25 a cause of death or a manner of death?
1 A. I'm not sure of the semantics, but I would suggest that they were
2 executed; therefore, that was the manner of their death. They were --
3 their cause of death, in a forensic sense, would be gunshot wound or
4 explosive blast, et cetera. They were murdered.
5 Q. So I take it, then, that you do know the difference between cause
6 of death and manner of death.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: He's answered your question. He did distinguish
8 between one and the other.
9 MR. MEEK:
10 Q. Now, with the figure of 4.017 that you originally started out
11 with, you now have a figure of 4.010; am I correct?
12 A. That is correct, yes.
13 Q. And again this is based nearly solely on the ICMP's DNA results
14 that you're testifying about?
15 A. The figure of 4.010 is based on the data provided by ICMP, yes.
16 Q. Okay. You also stated just very recently in your testimony, when
17 asked by my colleague as to why there were different numbers of bodies in
18 certain graves found by one forensic anthropologist who's testified here,
19 for example, and yet in your reports, you have a different number. Do you
20 recall that question-and-answer session?
21 A. Yes, I do.
22 Q. And I believe you answered that:
23 "Unfortunately, that's the nature of an error."
24 Do you remember that?
25 A. That was specifically in relation to my error in relation to Nova
1 Kasaba 1996.
2 Q. Correct.
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And you made an error?
5 A. That's correct.
6 Q. And that affected the numbers; correct?
7 A. That's correct.
8 Q. And since we can agree, can't we, that you have -- that you're not
9 a forensic anthropologist -- correct?
10 A. That's correct, yes.
11 Q. You're not a forensic pathologist; correct?
12 A. Correct.
13 Q. You have no expertise or schooling in DNA testing, do you?
14 A. I have a layman's view of DNA testing.
15 Q. So would you agree with me that you cannot tell the Trial Chamber
16 that no errors were made by the ICMP during these past five, six years
17 with their DNA testing which resulted in your figures coming out of your
18 mouth in this courtroom today?
19 A. Your Honours, I can't speak for ICMP.
20 Q. Okay.
21 A. I can add that I examined the process that they undertook and I
22 saw the fail-safes that they have in place, but I can't speak to the data
23 from ICMP, only that I worked with that data.
24 Q. So you allow that if the ICMP, all the folks working there and
25 doing the DNA analysis, made mistakes or made errors, that that would
1 certainly affect these numbers you're speaking of; correct?
2 A. Your Honours, I'm loathe to enter into hypotheticals in relation
3 to ICMP. I'm not speaking for ICMP.
4 Q. As a human being, if you made an error that resulted in a
5 difference in number, if they made an error in their DNA testing, it would
6 also logically result in a different number; correct?
7 A. Logically.
8 Q. Okay. Going back to the figure of 4.010, as amended, can you tell
9 the Chamber approximately how many of these 4.010 died in a legitimate
10 military action, such as in the forest or elsewhere, as has been
11 identified by the OTP expert Richard Butler?
12 A. It's my belief that the individuals located within these graves
13 were killed, were murdered, and that they were not killed in the forest in
14 battle and placed into these graves; that these people were killed,
16 Q. Okay. And, again, that's your assumption; is that what you said?
17 That's your belief or assumption; correct?
18 A. Your Honour, there is nothing in the graves that would indicate --
19 and nothing in the information that I've seen, the records that I've seen,
20 to indicate contrary. I will accept that we do not know the cause of
21 death of many of the individuals, some of the individuals within those
22 graves. However, I believe there is sufficient evidence to say that those
23 individuals in those graves were murdered.
24 Q. And then again you base that exactly on what? Specifically, what
25 do you base that opinion on?
1 A. Your Honours, I base that belief on the expert reports, in which
2 experts state that individuals were killed in situ within the mass graves,
3 on the fact that there are significant numbers of individuals bound and
4 blindfolded, the witness and survivor testimony, including the testimony
5 of Mr. -- well, individuals who have presented evidence before this
6 Chamber, and also on the -- my own knowledge of the consistency of the
7 graves. I saw, at great length the collections of bodies within the
8 graves. I saw and spoke to the experts about that consistency. It wasn't
9 the case that there were 12 individuals bound in one corner of the grave
10 and 10 individuals laying down in uniform in another part of the grave.
11 Those bodies and those graves were uniformly consistent and that they
12 showed people had been killed.
13 Q. Which grave or graves are you speaking of now, sir?
14 A. Your Honour, I was asked a general question. I'm speaking
15 generally of the graves. But in Nova Kasaba 1996, individuals were
16 executed, were killed. There was evidence in Nova Kasaba 99 that
17 individuals were killed within the grave. There's evidence in Konjevic
18 Polje 2 and Konjevic Polje 1 that individuals were killed within the
19 grave. There's evidence in Cerska that individuals were killed within
20 that grave. There's evidence -- very, very strong evidence at Branjevo
21 military farm that individuals were executed at that site. There's
22 evidence that individuals were executed at Kozluk at that site and also at
23 the dam at Petkovci. I'm not sure if I missed anyway. And the Godinjske
24 Bare execution was indeed filmed.
25 Q. Are you speaking of the Red Beret execution that was filmed?
1 A. It was the video presented in the Milosevic case. I believe it
2 was the Scorpions.
3 Q. Scorpions. Let me ask you this: Just back on page 68 or 69,
4 because my runs over from page -- onto line 26, when you were speaking
5 under cross-examination on the Nova Kasaba graves, your answer at line 28,
6 which, Your Honours, it may be page 62 at line 3, you stated that:
7 "I believed 27 of whom were ligatured with wire, with steel wire,
8 they were placed in the same grave with those 31 completely identified
9 individuals, and there was evidence that some of those individuals were
11 Do you recall that testimony within the last half hour?
12 A. I recall that testimony, and if I may correct, there were four
13 sub-graves with the Nova Kasaba 96, so I was wrong there.
14 Q. Were you telling the truth -- were you speaking the truth then?
15 A. Certainly. There were individuals killed within that grave.
16 There was evidence of that, and a significant number were ligatured,
17 indicating that they were also killed.
18 Q. And it is still your position that each and every body was a
19 result of an execution rather than a result of being shot by enemy fire,
20 shrapnel, shelling, or a grenade, or suicide, or having even been shot by
21 their own -- members of their own army when trying to escape?
22 A. Your Honours, it's my evidence that those individuals within those
23 graves were murdered and were not killed as a result of other causes, as
24 you say, military action.
25 Q. And you mentioned earlier that and you're speaking with experts.
1 Can you tell me, please, the name of these experts that you were referring
3 A. You might have to help me with the context of that. "Experts" in
4 relation to ...
5 Q. You said you had reviewed reports of experts in this case to come
6 to this conclusion. Page 74, line 16, you said:
7 "I based that belief on the expert reports in which experts state
8 that individuals were killed in situ within the mass graves, on the fact
9 that there were significant number of individuals," and so forth.
10 Which expert reports did you rely on, sir?
11 A. Your Honours, specifically Dr. Haglund's report. I don't know the
12 reference number, but it related to his exhumation of significant graves
13 in 1996. Professor Richard Wright's exhumations in 1999 and continuing
14 into 2000. Mr. Jose Pablo Baraybar, Mr. Freddie Petrucelli [phoen], I
15 believe, makes that same observation in his Lazete exhumations, but I
16 would have to check that, and also the reports of the chief pathologists
17 of the ICTY. I would caution that those reports are multi-volume and many
18 thousands of pages, but certainly the exhumation reports I've mentioned
19 include those words.
20 Q. And besides those experts which this Trial Chamber has heard
21 testify, are there any others you can think of, sir?
22 A. Any others that I can think of that indicate that --
23 Q. That reports you relied on.
24 A. Your Honours, clearly in the reports that I've presented and my
25 evidence, I've relied on, I think, in excess of 50 separate individuals
1 and their multi-volume reports, including Professor Brown, Suzie Maljaars,
2 Dr. DeBruijn, Martin Als [phoen], et cetera, et cetera. They all lead me
3 to make the statements in relation to the people being murdered.
4 Q. Sir, I remember in your earlier testimony, I believe it was
5 yesterday, you spoke about when you were actually involved in some of the
6 exhumations during your four years as an investigator and how important it
7 was to make sure that the items found in and around the graves, such as
8 prayer beads, identifications, ID cards, should be kept logged in
9 [indiscernible]; is that correct?
10 A. That's correct, yes.
11 Q. And were you aware that when Dr. Haglund was doing these digs,
12 that he was accused of doing just the opposite, throwing away ID cards,
13 throwing away those types of personal items, sir?
14 MR. McCLOSKEY: Objection. That's a misstatement of the
15 evidence. He was not accused of throwing away ID cards.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Meek.
17 MR. MEEK: Your Honour, I believe that the San Antonio report
18 directly indicated that was one of the complaints against Dr. Haglund.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: I don't recall that particular issue being put to
20 him. In any case, I stand to be corrected, of course, because I can't
21 pretend to remember his testimony or your cross-examination at the time.
22 I know that you had referred to that report on several occasions, but this
23 particular incident, as such, I don't think it was put to the witness.
24 Anyway, I stand to be corrected, and if anything, if we need to
25 discuss this, it will not be in the presence of the witness.
1 MR. MEEK: Well, if we're going to discuss it, then let's have the
2 witness leave, because --
3 MR. McCLOSKEY: The witness probably knows the answers. Maybe we
4 can save some time.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: If you know the answer, Witness, then please go
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I was aware of some
8 allegations in relation to the 1996 exhumations. I can't now recall in
9 what report or volume they were. I would reject that suggestion, knowing
10 Dr. Haglund and seeing his work, I would reject that he would incorrectly
11 handle evidence. I can't say anything more. I can think of circumstances
12 where something might be destroyed or not utilised if it was in such a
13 condition as to not be usable, but I would be very surprised if
14 Dr. Haglund had mistreated evidence in any way.
15 MR. MEEK:
16 Q. Sir, surprised as you might be, if his co-workers accused him of
17 such activity, I suppose that would even surprise you more?
18 A. I don't know who accused him of that. I can't say that I would be
19 surprised, because I don't know the individuals. I do know Dr. Haglund,
20 and I do know his reputation.
21 Q. Okay. And you were working for the OTP as an investigator when
22 they had the San Antonio -- when the San Antonio report was generated. Do
23 you recall that, sir?
24 A. I don't believe so. I joined the OTP in August of 1998. My
25 dealings with Dr. Haglund then commenced in relation to his preparation
1 for the Chamber in relation to Krstic and his reception of his reports.
2 You would have to check the date of that document.
3 Q. Of his report?
4 A. Of your Antonio report.
5 Q. The Antonio report. It was either 1998 or 1999, but before
6 tomorrow I'll find out for sure.
7 So you say you've had dealings with Dr. Haglund, and may I ask
8 you, were those personal dealings, or over the telephone, or by e-mail, or
10 A. Since 1998, I dealt with Dr. Haglund in person, over the
11 telephone, internet, fax, et cetera, over several years. Subsequently, we
12 both lecture at a international training course for war crimes
13 investigators, and I have spoken to him at length at those courses. And
14 I've also attended a conference at which he spoke.
15 Q. Are you aware, Mr. Manning, that after his digs in 1996 and after
16 the fiasco that caused the San Antonio conference and subsequent report,
17 that Dr. Haglund was never employed in the field again by the Office of
18 the Prosecutor here?
19 A. Your Honour, to describe Dr. Haglund's work as a fiasco is
20 completely wrong, and I'm not aware that he was not further employed by
21 ICTY because of that. And, in fact, he provided evidence to subsequent
23 Q. Yes, he did.
24 A. I reviewed Dr. Haglund's work, and to describe it as a fiasco is
1 Q. Well, he, himself, described it, and I know you're not an
2 American, but being from Australia, have you ever heard of a three-ring
4 A. Your Honours, I've heard the term.
5 Q. And you know what it means; correct?
6 A. Effectively.
7 Q. And it's slang; is it not?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And what does it mean? Tell us what it means.
10 MS. SOLJAN: Objection, Your Honour. Where is this going?
11 MR. MEEK: I'll show you where it's going. I'll rephrase the
13 JUDGE AGIUS: I don't know what it means, anyways. I would be in
14 a better position to assess the objection raised after I've heard an
15 explanation of the meaning of the term.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I preface it with the
17 fact that I'm Australian, so I may have a different understanding.
18 It's something that's either out of control and happening all
19 around you all at the same time, and it's literally a circus with three
20 rings, everything happening at once.
21 MR. MEEK:
22 Q. Out of control, that's correct. And that's not far off from the
23 American definition of that, but I just wanted to know if you personally
24 knew that Dr. Haglund, himself, described his team in 1996, during that
25 time period on these excavations, as a four-ring circus.
1 A. I wasn't aware of that.
2 Q. Now, when I said "fiasco" earlier, I didn't mean just Dr.
3 Haglund. Were you aware of a pathologist working for the Office of the
4 Prosecutor back then named Dr. Kirchner?
5 A. I think it's -- William Kirchner, Bill Kirchner?
6 Q. Yes.
7 A. I've not to my recollection met Mr. Kirchner or Dr. Kirchner.
8 Q. He was in the field and was a pathologist for the Office of the
9 Prosecutor when Bill Haglund was also on the site?
10 A. I'll accept that Dr. Kirchner or Mr. Kirchner worked for the ICTY
11 in some profession. I would have to check through the reports to make
12 clarification of that.
13 Q. Now, you'll agree with me, won't you, that the ICMP deals only
14 with identification and does not deal with manner or cause of death;
16 A. Yes, they deal with the identification of the human remains.
17 Q. Thank you. And since you're a former police officer and
18 investigator, might I ask you, what expert from the OTP identifies, upon
19 which you rely, that the cause and manner of death was a result of
20 execution, if any?
21 A. I'm a serving police officer. I've already answered that
22 question, I believe. The expert reports that I spoke about were experts
23 from the OTP.
24 Q. Did you read all the testimony from this case of Wright,
25 Dr. Wright, Dr. Haglund, Baraybar, Petrucelli?
1 A. From this proceeding, certainly not.
2 Q. Did you read any of them?
3 A. From this proceeding, no.
4 Q. And, again, how long were you a police officer in Australia before
5 you came here in 1998?
6 A. I joined the federal police in August of 1983. I remained a
7 serving police officer on leave during the whole period that I've been at
8 the Tribunal and also in New York, so effectively I've been a police
9 officer for 24 years.
10 Q. And from looking at your resume, you've been in various fields of
11 law enforcement, such as homicide; correct?
12 A. That's correct.
13 Q. Robbery?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Narcotics?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Were you ever an undercover agent?
18 A. No.
19 Q. Did you ever run undercover officers?
20 A. On an ad hoc basis. We had not a programme in those days, and I
21 would be loathe to continue answering questions in relation to our
22 activities back in Australia.
23 Q. Okay. Now, being a police officer for 24 years and having worked
24 murder details, for example, do you believe and agree with me that a
25 pathologist must be independent and objective when coming to the manner
1 and cause of death?
2 A. Yes, as should the -- as should the police investigator.
3 Q. Okay. And would you also agree with me that a pathologist must
4 maintain that independence and objectivity, and that neither Defence
5 counsel nor a prosecutor should be allowed to assist or encourage them in
6 the cause or manner of death?
7 A. If you're asking if a Defence counsel or Prosecutor should be
8 allowed to assist or encourage in the cause or manner of death, no.
9 Q. Thank you very much. We have a few minutes. Just briefly tell
10 the Trial Chamber why you believe that. And I believe it, too.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's move to your next question, Mr. Meek.
12 MR. MEEK:
13 Q. You're aware of -- are you aware of testimony in this case,
14 because in one of your prior answers you mentioned testimony in this and
15 other cases involving Srebrenica; correct?
16 A. I'm aware of testimony in the other Srebrenica cases, and clearly
17 there's been testimony in this case. I haven't read any transcript.
18 Q. Are you aware of any testimony that has been presented that
19 indicated that when this column of Muslims was -- 28th Division was moving
20 from Susinari [phoen] towards the free area, that there were individuals
21 who -- in the ABiH Army that were military who were committing suicide?
22 A. I recall reading a witness statement, I think it may be one, but a
23 witness statement which indicated that there was a suicide -- I think it
24 was two brothers had committed suicide, and it may have been a further
25 statement of some other suicide.
1 Q. And are you aware, from your knowledge of the testimony in this or
2 other Srebrenica cases, that the members of the ABiH Army who were among
3 the column moving through the woods towards the free territory, many of
4 them had simply taken off their military clothes and put on civilian
5 clothes and left with the column?
6 A. I'm not aware of that as testimony.
7 Q. And since you really have no -- or you can't tell us, because you
8 lack the expertise, as to the manner and cause of death of each of these
9 alleged 4.000 bodies that you say were in the graves, isn't it fair,
10 sir -- isn't it a fair statement that the only thing that you can really
11 say with certainty would be that those bodies that you discovered or that
12 were discovered with blindfolds and ligatures are the only ones that you
13 could say were executed beyond reasonable doubt?
14 A. I have to disagree, and I think I've answered that question
15 before. I believe that the people located in those graves were murdered,
16 executed, killed. Homicide. I believe that and I accept that.
17 Q. And does that come also from the DNA tests from the ICMP?
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Don't answer this question, because he's already --
19 Mr. Meek, you have already stated that ICMP do not go into the cause of
20 death, so let's move to your next question, please.
21 I don't think there is time for it in any case.
22 Have you finished your cross-examination or --
23 MR. MEEK: I don't think so, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. So we'll continue tomorrow.
25 Yes, thank you. I think you can leave the courtroom. We'll
1 continue tomorrow. Thank you so much, Mr. Manning.
2 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
3 [The witness withdrew]
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. McCloskey, briefly please.
5 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes. Can we get an estimate of the remaining
6 time, because we really, of course, want to finish up Mr. Kingori and
7 this -- frankly, this type of exploratory cross-examination is I don't
8 think very valuable to the Court.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: How much more time do you need, Mr. Meek?
10 MR. MEEK: I'd say 20 to 30 minutes, Judge.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: And, Ms. Nikolic, do you still require your 45
13 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] I'll try and complete my questioning
14 within that time frame, Your Honours, but it may be less, I hope.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Stojanovic.
16 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we will take about
17 20 minutes.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: And then you have Miletic and Pandurevic, between
19 them 30 minutes, so there you are.
20 Okay, thank you.
21 I still suggest that you try and sit down together to see and work
22 out the schedule for Kingori.
23 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, Mr. President.
24 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.47 p.m.,
25 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 12th day of
1 December, 2007, at 9.00 a.m.