1 Wednesday, 12 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: Yes, good morning.
7 Madam Registrar, could you call the case, please.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is the case
9 number IT-05-88-T, the Prosecutor versus Vujadin Popovic et al.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
11 All the accused are here. From the Defence teams, I notice the
12 absence of Mr. Josse and Mr. Bourgon. The Prosecution composition, as
13 yesterday, Mr. McCloskey, Vanderpuye and Ms. Soljan.
14 Good morning to you, Mr. Manning.
15 THE WITNESS: Good morning, Your Honour.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Welcome back.
17 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Hopefully, you should be out of this room before us.
19 THE WITNESS: Thank you, sir.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Meek.
21 MR. MEEK: Good morning, Mr. President, Your Honours.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Good morning, Mr. Meek.
23 WITNESS: DEAN MANNING [Resumed]
24 Cross-examination by Mr. Meek: [Continued]
25 Q. Good morning, Mr. Manning. How are you?
1 A. Thank you, Mr. Meek. Good morning.
2 Q. Yesterday, I was questioning you and drew an objection from the
3 Prosecution about Mr. Haglund, who is your friend and who you highly
4 respect. You remember that?
5 A. Yes, I remember the conversation.
6 Q. We have in evidence the report of the Oversight Committee, and
7 it's 2D70. I don't know whether we need to put it on e-court right now.
8 Certainly, we can. It was completed November 15th and 16th, 1997. Now,
9 does that ring any bells with you? Before you started.
10 A. I'm not familiar with the Oversight Committee term. I know there
11 was a document in relation to, as you described yesterday, allegations in
12 relation to the 1996 exhumations. I'm assuming that's the same document,
13 without seeing it.
14 Q. And so you weren't aware, then, that the questions concerning
15 specific allegations, including -- included but were not limited to the
16 methods of collection and chain of custody, problems in body count and
17 possible loss of chain of custody of bones, coordination of operations
18 between anthropology and pathology, and changing the cause and manner of
19 death again after the Prosecutor had departed and had never been notified
20 of those changes.
21 You'd never heard of these allegations; is that your testimony?
22 A. Your Honours, I was aware of allegations having been made which
23 had been made prior to my arrival at the Tribunal. I was aware that there
24 was a document. I'm sure I read the document. Since that time, it's of
25 no great consequence to me. I'm sure I've read the document. I can't
1 recall it in detail now.
2 MR. MEEK: Could we turn to page 4 of that document, please.
3 Q. And, Mr. Manning, do you see it in front of you?
4 Scroll up. There you go.
5 A. It's a document which has a subtitle -- subparagraph
6 of "6", "Pre-investigative comments."
7 Q. And comment 5, have you ever heard of Clyde Snow?
8 A. Yes, I think I've met Dr. Snow.
9 Q. Okay. And you can see and you can read paragraph 5 there, that
10 Clyde Snow felt at times it was Dr. Haglund versus the UNTAES, and many
11 bodies removed in one day. Dr. Snow stated in his opinion no more than 20
12 bodies should have been exhumed in any single day. He felt Dr. Haglund
13 showed "very poor judgement," and it was lucky nothing had "blown up" as a
14 result of the procedures used.
15 Now, Mr. Manning, you know that Clyde Snow is a preeminent
16 forensic anthropologist, do you not?
17 A. I've met Dr. Snow and I've seen some of his papers. I don't know
18 his standing, but there's nothing to indicate that he is not in good
19 standing in the community, but I didn't deal with him. But certainly I
20 know that he's a pathologist and well known.
21 Q. And of course you've not read any of the transcripts of
22 Dr. Petrucelli, Dr. Baraybar, Dr. Wright, Dr. Lawrence; correct?
23 A. In these proceedings, I have read no transcripts, as I said
25 Q. And are you aware that Dr. Baraybar and Dr. Petrucelli indicated,
1 from this witness stand, that they believe Dr. Clyde Snow is a most
2 preeminent figure in the forensic anthropology world?
3 A. I didn't have access to any testimony and I hadn't discussed it
4 with anyone.
5 Q. Okay. Further, you see that he's obviously stated there was
6 sloppy science in these digs in 1996. Do you see that under paragraph 5?
7 A. Your Honours, I can see that written.
8 MR. MEEK: Okay. Now Can we turn to the next page, please. Focus
9 it on 14, please.
10 Q. This is a question that drew an objection yesterday. David Del
11 Pino, a Chilean anthropologist, stated that: "The operations were halted
12 when Dr. Haglund was away. Clothing was discarded at Haglund's command,
13 even though some contained identification. Forms were not always used,
14 and there was no delegation of authority."
15 Now, obviously you weren't there, and you can't say whether or not
16 these allegations are true or not; correct?
17 A. Your Honours, I wasn't there. I had nothing to do with this
18 document or these discussions. I would say that I reviewed all the
19 material produced from 1996 from Dr. Haglund's report. And from the
20 records that I saw, I saw nothing to indicate specific wide-ranging
21 problems. There were, as in every exhumation or every endeavour of this
22 size, some misnumbering, some mislabelling, some general errors, but in my
23 review of the material, I didn't see any glaring errors or problems or
24 issues. And, in fact, I saw some fairly detailed and comprehensive
25 records and notes produced.
1 Q. Would you agree, though, with the complaint that we talked about
2 earlier, that changing the cause and manner of death, after the Prosecutor
3 had departed, had never been notified of these changes, could be a very
4 real problem, sir?
5 A. I'm not sure I really understand the Prosecutor departing. I can
6 see the reference in the document, but I don't quite understand it.
7 Q. If I can -- I may draw an objection, but I think what they
8 indicated here was Kirschner had other pathologists working under him, and
9 they would give a cause of death and then depart, and he would just take
10 it and change it without notifying them or questioning or asking them.
11 A. Okay. Well, I'm not aware of that happening, and if you're asking
12 me if that's incorrect, I would suggest that that's an incorrect process.
13 Q. Okay. And, in fact, this committee even found -- and, again, it
14 would be under page 10. Scroll up a little bit for Roman numeral IX.
15 Do you see that discussion, sir?
16 A. Do you want me to read that section?
17 Q. To yourself.
18 A. I've read that, that part of the document.
19 Q. And even the opinions and comments by Dr. Vincent De Maio, which
20 is just a paragraph above Roman numeral IX where it states:
21 "While Dr. Kirschner's actions had the potential to invalidate or
22 at least taint the autopsy reports, the Tribunal prevented this by
23 submitting the reports back to the original physicians for their
24 certification of cause and manner of death."
25 A. I've read that section.
1 Q. And you can see that this committee was so concerned that they
2 even thought about bringing possible criminal charges or licensing charges
3 of ethical violations by Kirschner. Do you see that under IX?
4 A. Your Honour, I see discussion as possibilities or options. Again,
5 I'd like to say that I wasn't involved in this process.
6 Q. Okay. So you really can't comment because you weren't involved
7 with it; right?
8 A. Effectively, I didn't deal with these allegations, I didn't
9 discuss it with these people, so I have difficulty in providing
10 information in relation to this process.
11 Q. And wouldn't it be just logically the same, that you really didn't
12 have any involvement in the process of the ICMP and their DNA analysis, so
13 you really can't even comment on that?
14 A. Your Honours, I don't think that's the case. I used the data
15 provided by ICMP. I had attended ICMP's premises, reviewed their
16 processes, spoke to the people involved, reviewed the files, and examined
17 the data held by the Bosnian Court as well as the Bosnian Commission for
18 Missing Persons. I had no involvement with this document that you're
19 putting to me.
20 Q. Okay. And although you testified that you probably recall reading
21 that document at some point?
22 A. That's correct.
23 Q. Just like you read the things that ICMP put out; correct? "Yes"
24 or "no," so we can finish this.
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. All right. Did -- you mentioned yesterday that you had talked to
2 many people to uphold your opinion that every single person in these
3 graves died as a result of a murder or execution; correct?
4 A. Yes, I'd spoken to a number of people in relation to that.
5 Q. One of them was Dr. Petrucelli; correct?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And can you give us approximate time period, year, month, that you
8 may have talked to Dr. Petrucelli?
9 A. Your Honours, I was involved directly with the exhumations
10 conducted by Mr. Petrucelli over several months. I also dealt with him at
11 the Tribunal when he was preparing to give evidence, and I think I may
12 have seen and met and spoke with him over three years. I can't give you
13 an indication. We certainly discussed -- we certainly discussed the
14 exhumation process.
15 Q. And, again, prior to the 13th day of March of 2007, when was the
16 last time that you spoke to him about the exhumation process?
17 A. Probably the last time that I spoke to Mr. Petrucelli was perhaps
18 2002, maybe earlier.
19 Q. And you'd indicated yesterday that part of your discussion
20 concerned the cause and manner of death; correct?
21 A. Yes. Your Honours, I also indicated that I believed that was
22 contained in his report or reports, but that I would have to check those
23 specific reports.
24 Q. You weren't here, obviously you haven't read the transcript, but
25 on the 13th day of March, he was being questioned, Dr. Petrucelli, and on
1 page 8763 of this transcript, and he was asked, line 6, question:
2 "All right. Well, were you ever, in the context of your
3 professional capacity, at Ravnice, were you ever asked to provide an
4 opinion to Dean Manning about how you considered these persons to have met
5 their death?"
6 Answer: "No."
7 Is that right, Mr. Manning?
8 A. I wasn't present for the testimony, so I assume that's what
9 Mr. Petrucelli said.
10 Q. Okay. Shall we believe Mr. Petrucelli, sir?
11 A. Your Honours, I believe that that's more than possible that he
12 didn't provide an opinion. We discussed it, as I said.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Ms. Soljan.
14 MS. SOLJAN: Objection, Your Honour. Mr. Manning is not to
15 comment on this. It's characterising other witnesses' testimony.
16 MR. MEEK: Your Honour, he said yesterday under oath that
17 Dr. Petrucelli, and also today, had talked to him about the cause and
18 manner of death, the specific, and I'm asking him whether or not --
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's bring this to a close. Your question was a
20 very straightforward one, "Shall we believe Mr. Petrucelli," and
21 Ms. Soljan is perfectly right. You can't ask another witness whether,
22 according to him, we should believe another witness.
23 MR. MEEK: I was trying to refresh his recollection, Your Honour,
24 but I'll move on.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: It's better, and also I think you should come to a
2 MR. MEEK: Okay.
3 Q. Now, since you've been a police officer of 24 years and the
4 majority of those years were in Australia, frankly, I don't know the
5 Criminal Code there, but do you have something that we call in
6 America "the Miranda warnings"?
7 A. Your Honours, I'm not trying to be pedantic. I spent about nine
8 and a half years overseas in that service. Yes, we have a Miranda. We
9 call it a caution, a criminal caution.
10 Q. And when you came here in 1998 and became an investigator, were
11 there protocols in place that you learned or were told to use, as an
12 investigator, to interview suspects?
13 A. Yes, there was a process in relation to interviewing witnesses and
14 suspects that did progress and adapt as the Tribunal moved on, but there
15 was a set of instructions, and I think there still is a set of
17 Q. Okay. Do you recall part of that instruction being that if a
18 person you were interviewing was considered to be a suspect, that he
19 needed to be given certain warnings?
20 A. Yes. The process would have been that the suspect, if he was
21 considered a suspect, would have been cautioned, depending perhaps on the
22 circumstances. There are some conversations which might not be conducted
23 in that manner.
24 Q. Also, you're aware of the Rules of the Tribunal, are you not, that
25 anyone considered to be a suspect and being questioned by the OTP, that
1 that discussion must be tape-recorded or audio-recorded; are you aware of
2 that, sir?
3 A. Your Honours, I am aware of that, although I think, and I have not
4 been here for some years, that there's a clause that if it's not practical
5 or available or similar, but generally they should be recorded.
6 Q. Have you ever, sir, been taught or trained here that when you had
7 a individual who had been summonsed as a suspect, that it was appropriate
8 to tell them in their warnings that, "We believe that you are a possible
9 suspect," instead of "a suspect"?
10 A. I don't recall that.
11 Q. And you don't believe, do you, sir, that that would be correct?
12 A. It's a difficult question to answer without specific circumstances
13 or specific --
14 Q. I'll give you one, then. Individual A has been summonsed by your
15 office, and the summons says, "You are a suspect --"
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Did he interview any suspects?
17 MR. MEEK:
18 Q. Did you interview any suspects, sir, any suspects?
19 JUDGE AGIUS: In relation to this case.
20 MR. MEEK:
21 Q. In relation to this case.
22 A. Yes, Your Honour, I interviewed a number of people, some of whom
23 were suspects.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: All right, go ahead.
25 MR. MEEK:
1 Q. And suspect A has been -- and these ones you interviewed as
2 suspects had received summons, correct, to come talk to you at the Banja
3 Luka office or wherever it might be?
4 A. Individuals were summonsed to the interview process, but I can't
5 recall if that automatically made them suspects. I don't believe so. We
6 would summons individuals to attend for interview via the system that was
7 in place at the time.
8 Q. So you don't recall a time that if a person that you wanted to
9 interview, you consider him a suspect, that that was not put in the
10 summons that he received?
11 A. Your Honours, I believe that if they were a suspect, they would
12 have been given a different summons process, but again this is some four
13 or five years ago.
14 Q. And, again, if you had -- were going to interview a person who
15 you, as an investigator, knew was a suspect, would you ever tell them, in
16 their warnings, "Mr. A, you are a possible suspect and you have the right
17 to ...," whatever, after that?
18 A. Again, it would depend on the circumstances, but I could envisage
19 using the word "possible suspect."
20 Q. Why would that be, sir?
21 A. Again, given the circumstances, it could be that the person is
22 borderline, you don't even know if it's the right person. You started the
23 conversation with the person. It's difficult, without a specific
24 circumstance, to answer that question.
25 Q. All right. How many people did you interview in regards to this
1 case, sir?
2 A. Including witnesses, between 60 and a hundred.
3 Q. Do you recall interviewing a Ostoja Stanisic?
4 A. Possibly, yes. If you could tell me what area he was employed
5 in. I think engineering?
6 Q. Yes.
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Branko Ilic?
9 A. I would have to check my records.
10 Q. Damjan Lazarevic?
11 A. Yes, I think so.
12 Q. Milorad Bircakovic?
13 A. Bircakovic. I believe so, but again I'd have to check the
14 records. They're familiar.
15 Q. Ljubo Bojanovic?
16 A. Again, possibly.
17 Q. Dragan Markovic?
18 A. Again, possible. I could check the records. If I interviewed
19 them, there was a record made.
20 Q. And if, again, the Rules of the Tribunal while you were operating
21 were that all conversations with suspects should be tape-recorded, you
22 followed that, didn't you?
23 A. I followed the rules that were in place at the time, yes.
24 Q. And so you wouldn't ever have any off-the-record conversations
25 with these suspects, would you?
1 A. Again, you would have to give me specific circumstances, but
2 generally if a person is a suspect, considered a suspect by the Tribunal,
3 that person -- the interview should be conducted on tape and recorded.
4 Q. And the reasons obviously are to protect not only the person
5 giving the statement, but the interviewers like yourself; correct?
6 A. That's part of the reason, yes.
7 Q. Okay. What are some other reasons?
8 A. If you're interviewing a suspect, to ensure that there is a
9 complete and accurate record of the conversation, perhaps to present into
11 Q. Now, do you recall on 25 November 2001 interviewing Dragan Jevtic
12 at the United Nations headquarters in Banja Luka on 25 November, 2001, a
14 A. Again, if you could tell me what unit he was in.
15 MR. MEEK: Could I have the help of the usher for just a minute
16 with the ELMO.
17 Q. Sir, while that's getting set up, can you tell us briefly, under
18 what circumstances would you have a conversation off the record with a
20 A. Your Honours, I don't believe I would. Perhaps if the accused --
21 or, sorry, the suspect had his legal counsel there and a conversation was
22 had, I would certainly make notes of any such conversation, but generally
23 I would consider it essential that it be taped, if that was possible. If
24 I didn't have the tape-recording resources open to me, I would make notes
25 and prepare a statement.
1 Q. Okay, thank you very much. Now, could you look just at that front
2 page. You can look on the ELMO or you can read it. And just go down to
3 line 19 and 20, where you say:
4 "And Mr. Jevtic, you've been interviewed before as a suspect. And
5 I'll confirm again that you're a suspect and you will be treated as such.
6 As a suspect ..."
7 And then you go on to tell him. That starts at 19. Do you see
9 A. Yes, I've read that section.
10 Q. And you say that:
11 "Anything you say will be recorded and could be used in evidence
12 in later Tribunal proceedings."
14 A. Correct.
15 MR. MEEK: Now, could we flip to the next page, please. Line 15,
16 you state:
17 "And the interpreter is Adisa ..."
18 I won't mention the name there. Strike that. Probably should
19 have struck that already:
20 "Mr. Jevtic, do you agree that prior to the interview, you had a
21 conversation with myself and Mr. McCloskey"?
22 A. Yes, I see that.
23 Q. Jevtic said: "Yes."
24 And you say:
25 "And during that brief conversation, you requested that we have a
1 conversation off tape." Correct?
2 A. That's correct.
3 Q. Okay. Now, sir, according to your testimony under oath just now,
4 you would have made notes and made a record of that; correct?
5 A. That's my testimony, yes.
6 Q. Where are your notes and then further record of that
7 off-the-record conversation with Mr. Jevtic ?
8 A. Your Honours, I've only read this page of the transcript in which
9 I say:
10 "Do you agree that prior to the interview, you had a conversation
11 with myself and Mr. McCloskey."
12 I'm not sure if I then continue to discuss that conversation and
13 that, if I did discuss the conversation, would constitute a record of that
14 prior conversation.
15 MR. MEEK: Let's just flip to the next page, please.
16 Q. Line 3, you state:
17 "That being the case, I'll suspend this record conversation and
18 the time is 16.59."
19 You also say then:
20 "Okay. This is a record conversation between Dean Manning and
21 Dragan Jevtic, resumed at 17.35"?
22 A. Yes, I see that.
23 Q. You had a 36-minute break you had an off-the-record conversation;
25 A. That's correct. By the -- by what's recorded here, we suspended
1 at 16.59 and resumed at 17.35.
2 Q. Do you recall, sir, what was the intention of going off the record
3 before this started and again for 36 minutes? What were you discussing?
4 A. I don't know what the intention prior to the commencement of the
5 interview, because I assumed, and I'm trying to recall, that they
6 said, "We would like to discuss something off the record," and then there
7 was clearly a discussion of some sort. I don't recall that conversation.
8 I would have to check any notes that I made of the conversation and
9 perhaps the rest of the interview.
10 Q. Very quickly, I'm about finished: Can you tell me, in your
11 experience in that four years, what are some of the purposes to have an
12 off-the-record conversation like this?
13 A. Your Honours, I've indicated before that if the person is a
14 suspect, that it would generally not occur. I do recall that many of
15 these people were, to put it mildly, terrified of the consequences of
16 talking to us, terrified that they would be arrested. I recall one
17 occasion a suspect hearing a helicopter outside and thinking that it was
18 coming to arrest them.
19 I don't know, I can't recall, from this brief part of the
20 conversation, what that conversation was about.
21 Q. And you would agree, sir, that many of these people who you called
22 in as suspects were terrified of the consequences of talking to you, they
23 were terrified of being arrested, and they were so terrified that they
24 were willing to shift the blame from themselves to any other person, and
25 that's normal in a criminal investigation; isn't that true, sir?
1 A. No, I don't agree with that.
2 Q. You don't?
3 A. As a complete statement, no.
4 Q. As a police officer for 24 years, you've never noticed that people
5 who you interview as suspects want to shift the blame and have a tendency
6 to minimise their culpability and point the finger somewhere else?
7 A. Your Honour, Mr. Meek's asked a question in relation to the
8 suspects in this case, and to my recollection, many of the suspects denied
9 any involvement in the crimes. And I said that some were terrified. Some
10 were arrogant, some were frightened, some were thin, tall. They were all
11 different people.
12 Q. Some lied to you; correct?
13 A. I would suspect very strongly that some lied, yes.
14 Q. And is a part of your job -- is it okay for an investigator to lie
15 to a suspect and tell them something that's not quite true to get them to
17 A. Your Honours, I conduct interviews in a fair and honest manner. It
18 is not normal to lie to a suspect or to a witness, and it's my position
19 that if I can, I will tell both suspects and witnesses the truth, if I
20 can. It is not normally my habit to lie to people in any respect.
21 Q. Thank you, sir. I appreciate it's not normally your practice to
22 do that, but from time to time I presume, with your answer, that you will
23 tell suspects certain things; you may not really have a conversation --
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Meek, Mr. Meek, stop it. We allowed the first
25 question. He's answered you. Now move to your next question.
1 MR. MEEK: Okay. Thank you, sir, thank you, Your Honour.
2 Q. Mr. Manning, were you ever involved in the -- as an investigator
3 to conduct Rule 68 compliance?
4 A. Yes, I was.
5 Q. And do you have any notes of that?
6 A. I'm sure that I made some entries in relation to Rule 68. It was
7 a huge volume of work and interviews. I know that some Rule 68 material
8 was identified by myself. There should be records, notes.
9 Q. All right. Now, would they be your notes, sir?
10 A. Your Honours, I can't recall the actual process involved, but --
11 and I don't want to mislead the Tribunal. I'm sure there was a process
12 involved where we made a record of Rule 68 or at least indicated it to the
13 senior trial attorneys and other attorneys.
14 Q. I just ask, sir, the last question is: Can you generally tell us,
15 what was the protocol, to your recollection, on the Rule 68 compliance?
16 A. If we -- if I found any material that was clearly or even vaguely
17 exculpatory, then that material should be immediately reported, recorded,
18 and the process would be that it would be advised to the appropriate
19 Defence -- the appropriate area.
20 Q. Would the appropriate parties be the Office of the Prosecutor, and
21 then from there, they would turn it over?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Okay. Were you recently contacted by another investigator here,
24 Tomasz Blaszczyk, about some documents or notes that you had that you
25 discarded and threw away right before you left in 2002?
1 A. No, I don't think so.
2 MR. MEEK: I have you mixed up with another investigator. I'm
4 I have no further questions, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Mr. Meek.
6 Ms. Nikolic.
7 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours. Good
8 morning to my learned friends.
9 Cross-examination by Ms. Nikolic:
10 Q. Good morning, Mr. Manning. My name is Ms. Nikolic, and I
11 represent the Defence for Mr. Drago Nikolic. I would like to put to you
12 several questions concerning your investigative work in the Srebrenica
13 case before leaving the Tribunal. So that's the period I'm interested in.
14 From what I understand, you were involved not only in the
15 investigation concerning exhumations, but also in the investigations
16 concerning the ballistics in relation to this case.
17 A. That's correct. Effectively, they were connected to the
18 exhumation process.
19 Q. Aside from analysing the bullet cases found at the site, was an
20 analysis of weaponry carried out as well from the units that were out in
21 the field, namely, the Bratunac and Zvornik Brigades?
22 A. Yes, that's correct, although it wasn't an analysis of the
23 weapons, as such, but the shell cases fired from the weapons, if that's
24 the inquiry you're speaking of.
25 Q. No. I'm referring to an analysis of the rifles that were taken
1 from the premises of the barracks of the Zvornik and Bratunac Brigades.
2 A. Your Honours, I was involved in an operation which seized weapons
3 from the Bratunac and other brigades. Those weapons were then test-fired
4 and the shell cases recovered from those weapons and examined by the ATF.
5 Those weapons were then returned to the relevant units. In that case, we
6 didn't examine forensically the weapon, but the shell case that was
7 produced from that weapon. Perhaps that's the same thing.
8 Q. I would like to put to you the answer you gave in the Blagojevic
9 case on page 7209.
10 I've been trying to find the documents from the batch from my
11 learned friends concerning an analysis of around 1.000 rifles that we know
12 was carried out, and I'm referring to the rifles that were taken from the
14 In answer to Mr. Karnavas' question, you said, Your Honours:
15 [In English] "In a major part of that process, we tried to
16 [indiscernible] from the Bratunac/Zvornik Brigade and other brigades or
17 units in the area of Srebrenica. Those weapons were test-fired and cases
18 were collected with the intention of comparing. That was conducted by
19 Mr. Ols and his associates. Did not recall the ultimate outcome, but I
20 understand it was unsuccessful."
21 A. Your Honours, I agree with that statement, and we are discussing
22 the same matter. To my knowledge, the test-firing produced many hundreds
23 of shell cases. They were examined, and those results were negative. But
24 I wasn't involved in that final part of the process, but I agree with you
25 that they were negative.
1 Q. [Interpretation] Or, rather, the link between the weapons from the
2 Bratunac and Zvornik Brigades and other units and the bullet cases that
3 were found on the Srebrenica mass gravesites?
4 A. Your Honours, no link was found, to my knowledge, from that test.
5 I caution that by saying something may have changed between now and then,
6 but to my knowledge, there was no link located from those weapons to those
7 shell cases.
8 Q. Thank you, sir. What I should like to ask you now concerns your
9 report, which you must have read closely, dated the 24th of August, 2003.
10 I believe Madam Soljan showed you a map yesterday which was annexed to
11 this report, but in order for you to find it more easily to follow my
12 questions, I will show you only one page of this report, which contains a
13 certain figure, so that we do not find ourselves at cross-purposes.
14 Could I have Madam Usher's assistance in giving this report to
15 Mr. Manning.
16 Before you look at this report, let me ask you this: In your
17 investigative work, while you were collecting the data for your -- today's
18 evidence, you contacted the Cantonal Court in Tuzla, did you not?
19 A. I'm sorry. Could you repeat that question?
20 Q. While you were preparing your report for today and for this
21 particular testimony, you contacted the Cantonal Court in Tuzla, did you
23 A. That's correct, yes.
24 Q. You are familiar with their work and their data, are you not?
25 A. From that -- from that visit, I was able to see the files and the
1 way they're structured. I'm not particularly familiar with the laws and
2 the processes in place in Bosnia for domestic crimes, but I -- I reviewed
3 files and became somewhat familiar with their processes, yes.
4 Q. Mr. Manning, I really do not wish to go into the domestic law;
5 only the documents that you were shown, records and so on and so forth.
6 Can we call up Defence exhibit 3D265 on e-court, please.
7 While we're waiting for the document, you'll agree with me that
8 before you, you have your report, dated the 24th of August, 2003, that you
9 prepared for your evidence in the Blagojevic case, which was provided to
10 you by Madam Usher?
11 A. Yes, I can see that document.
12 Q. Please look at the document we have on e-court. This is the
13 report which, on the 20th of September, 2004, the Cantonal Court in Tuzla
14 sent to the Demographics Section of the Prosecution with the supporting
15 material and tables.
16 Let's turn to page 2, please.
17 Please turn to page 1 of your report, where item number 8 starts.
18 I don't know how we can coordinate e-court and ELMO at the same
19 time, but perhaps Mr. Manning should take the report and place it before
20 him, while the rest of us will be following the document on e-court.
21 Page 1 of the report, 0308 -- I'm sorry, I'm giving you the ERN of
22 the B/C/S version. Page 1, starting with the paragraph: "Summary of the
23 forensic material, 2001 mass graves analysis," item number 8.
24 Mr. Manning, could you please take your findings and place them
25 before you, your report. Look at page 1 and the paragraph -- paragraph
1 number 8, that is.
2 A. Perhaps you could tell me how it starts.
3 Q. This number contains all the bodies found in the exhumations.
4 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter notes that we don't have the
5 document before us.
6 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation]
7 Q. Following that, you have a section where you have the years of
8 exhumations covering the period from 1996 to 2001, and this is the period
9 considered by your report?
10 A. That's correct, yes.
11 Q. Please look at the screen, where you will see the report of the
12 Cantonal Court in Tuzla for 1996, where you have 224 bodies exhumed in
13 1996, whereas in your report you refer to at least 479 bodies. In 1998,
14 in your report, at least 895 bodies were exhumed. According to the report
15 of the Cantonal Court in Tuzla, there were 433 exhumed. For the year
16 1999, as per your report, at least three -- or, rather, 546 bodies were
17 exhumed from mass graves, and according to the report from -- of the
18 Cantonal Court in Tuzla, there were 155 bodies from 40 mass graves.
19 I don't want to go through these figures any further, but please
20 explain to me how you account for these discrepancies, particularly with
21 regard to the fact that the report of the Cantonal Court in Tuzla dates
22 from September 2004.
23 A. The numbers included in my report are from ICTY at that time
24 exhumations. They represent the bodies and body parts located in ICTY
25 graves. This document, to my reading, is data from the Bosnian
1 Commission. I don't know where these figures came from. They're talking
2 569 graves were opened. Clearly, that's significantly more than the ICTY
3 graves that I have been discussing. I can't really comment on their
4 figures; only to say my figures in my report represent the ICTY exhumed
5 graves and the MNI or minimum number of individuals assessed by Jose Pablo
7 Q. Would you please look at the document we have on our screens. If
8 you look at the second or third paragraph, where the sources are listed
9 which the Cantonal Court in Tuzla used for this 2004 report, you will see
10 Tuzla Cantonal Court records, Tuzla Cantonal Prosecutor's office record,
11 and the information received from the Missing Persons Institute, which was
12 also used as the source of information by the Tribunal; was it not?
13 A. Your Honour, I see those details. In relation to my report in the
14 Blagojevic trial, I didn't rely on records from the Bosnian authorities.
15 I based the details of that report on data held by ICTY.
16 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Could we turn to page 3 of the
17 document, please.
18 Q. We have a table here of the locations and mass graves where it
19 says: "Unidentified persons from The Hague graves and other graves."
20 We're looking at the last two columns on the right-hand side. And the
21 text above it says: "Identified: 186 bodies," on the basis of the
22 documentation from the Missing Persons Institute and UKC, and 1.078 bodies
23 exhumed in cooperation with the ICTY. According to the results provided
24 by the Cantonal Court, The Hague graves, or, rather, the graves examined
25 by the ICTY, they are related to 1.078 identified persons. Can you
1 comment on this? Can you give us any further information in addition to
2 what you've already told us?
3 A. Your Honours, I haven't reviewed this document. I would note it
4 says "1.078 bodies," not "identified bodies." These records certainly
5 don't -- aren't what I relied on, and I would have to check the underlying
6 material in relation to this. But those figures don't relate to my
8 Q. Whilst you were preparing your last two reports in 2007, in the
9 months of June and November, you only relied on the ICMP's list, did you
11 A. I relied on the ICMP data in relation to the numbers of identified
12 and the codes relating to that, yes.
13 Q. Do you know that the ICMP sent to the OTP its lists on two
14 occasions to the Demographics Section, which were --
15 THE INTERPRETER: Could Madam Nikolic please repeat the last part
16 of her question.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Did you get the interpreters, Madam Nikolic? The
18 interpreters would like you to repeat the last part --
19 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] My apologies. Thank you.
20 Q. Do you know that after the Demographics Section of the OTP
21 received lists on two occasions, that corrections and modifications were
22 made there, too, by the Demographics Section?
23 A. I'm aware that two series of data was provided and that the
24 Demographic Unit processed that data and identified some issues, some
25 areas in that material. I didn't thereafter deal with demography and
1 ICMP, but I saw the results of that.
2 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Could we please show 3D267 to the
3 witness now.
4 Q. Mr. Manning, please read out the first paragraph of this letter
5 sent on the 22nd of October, 2007, to Ms. Ewa Tabeau of the Demographics
6 Section of the OTP. Please read it out loud, since we don't have the
7 B/C/S translation in e-court, we have it only in English.
8 A. "Dear Ewa. Please find attached an Excel file that accounts for
9 the discrepancies you noted in our previous list of DNA reports relating
10 to Srebrenica. We have broken it into two sheets, one indicating listings
11 for which correction is necessary in the original list, and the second
12 indicating the explanation for the apparent discrepancy, where corrections
13 are either not needed or not possible."
14 Q. Does your knowledge on certain corrections tally with what we can
15 read in the document?
16 A. I haven't read the whole document, but I agree that there were
17 discrepancies identified by Ms. Tabeau. She dealt with ICMP. I saw the
18 results of that inquiry. I examined those results, and I believe in the
19 vast majority, the corrections were not records that affected my report in
20 any way, that is, that they were records which I did not -- did not count
21 or were related to graves and surface collections which I did not deal
23 Q. But that list was the basis for the compiling of your report, the
24 same list?
25 A. That's correct, yes, the same two lists.
1 Q. Do you know whether all the data from the list is secret, since
2 that information was never disclosed to the local authorities?
3 A. I'm aware that the ICMP provided that data on a confidential basis
4 to the ICTY. I don't know if they have released that data to anyone else.
5 Q. You also are familiar of the mission of the Commission for Missing
6 Persons or, rather, that they are mandated to equally assist the local
7 authorities and courts, particularly in keeping with the contract between
8 the ICMP and the Bosnian government in relation to the work of this
10 A. If you're talking about the Bosnian Commission for Missing
11 Persons, I'm aware that it's part of the three-entity arrangement, if you
12 like. As to their sharing arrangements, I can't comment. I believe that
13 it was envisaged as one commission.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Manning -- sorry, Ms. Nikolic, a question for
15 the witness.
16 Still referring you to this document that you see on e-court, I
17 just want to have it clear in my mind. The bottom line of that would be
18 that there would be one more in the list or one less?
19 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, Your Honour, I'm missing your reference.
20 You're talking about my 2003 report or --
21 JUDGE AGIUS: No, no, no, my apologies to you. I'm talking about
22 the document that you were referred to, being a letter from -- or an
23 e-mail from Thomas Parsons to Tabeau -- to Ewa, anyway, Tabeau at the
25 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour, I can't see the bottom of that
2 JUDGE AGIUS: Can we have it -- yes.
3 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, that entry in relation to that
4 individual, I won't -- perhaps it's not best if I comment on that, because
5 it's not one of the graves that I considered. It's the site or location
6 known as "Kravica," which wasn't an ICTY grave, so I didn't -- I didn't
7 use that data.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: But what I'm asking you, if you look at the
9 paragraph just above the details of the individual, it states:
10 "For one case, the main report was inadvertently left off the
11 list. This is indicated on the sheet, but I append here the relevant
12 information for the main case, to complete the record."
13 So would that be tantamount to adding another individual to the
14 list or revising the list by deleting one?
15 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, it would be adding one to the list. A
16 main report is the one that would be counted. The re-associations would
17 form part of that body, so that's one additional.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
19 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.
20 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note, could all background noise
21 please be kept to a minimum.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, thank you. My apologies.
23 My apologies to you, Madam Nikolic, for the interruption. Please
24 go ahead.
25 Yes, Ms. Soljan.
1 MS. SOLJAN: Your Honours, if we could just request that this
2 image be not broadcasted. Thank you.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: It has already been taken care of. Thank you.
4 MS. SOLJAN: Thank you, Your Honours.
5 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. A few additional questions, Mr. Manning. In your visit in 2005 --
7 or, rather, during that visit to Bosnia, I read that you visited the
8 Federal Commission for Missing Persons of Bosnia-Herzegovina and that on
9 that occasion you didn't meet Mr. Masovic. Did you consult the archives
10 of the Commission concerning the exhumations, missing persons, et cetera,
11 or, rather, concerning all the things that were the purpose of your visit?
12 A. I didn't consult the archives. I intended to meet with
13 Mr. Masovic, but circumstances meant that I could not. I didn't look at
14 the archives, no.
15 Q. Therefore, you are not familiar with their data, the data they
16 forwarded to the OTP concerning the missing identified people regarding
17 Srebrenica in 1996?
18 A. I don't really know what data you're speaking about, but I didn't
19 look at the archives. I, as I said, reviewed the material at the Drina,
20 at the re-association centre, and at the Tuzla Cantonal Court. I may have
21 seen some of their data. I don't know specifically.
22 Q. You will agree with me that the Federal Commission has close
23 cooperation with the ICMP as regards Bosnia, and it also cooperates with
24 all of its branches, including the PIP and the other organisations that
25 deal with such issues?
1 A. I would accept that, yes.
2 Q. A question concerning the location of the graves that you have
3 been discussing here and mentioning in your reports so far. Concerning
4 the map behind you, I think it is Exhibit 2996, what municipalities are
5 included; Zvornik and Bratunac, is it not?
6 A. Effectively, it stretches from the village of Pilica in the north
7 to below Zeleni Jadar in the south, and it may take in other
8 municipalities on the map, but effectively the area from Pilica to Zeleni
10 Q. Are you familiar with the territory of the municipalities within
11 which these locations are, and how many of such municipalities are there?
12 A. I know generally the municipalities. I'm not that familiar, but I
13 know when I'm in the Zvornik Municipality, but I don't know the boundaries
14 particularly well.
15 Q. In any case, these mass graves do not encompass more than two or
16 three municipalities, i.e., Zvornik and Bratunac?
17 A. I am aware that they are contained within the zone of
18 responsibility of the Drina Corps and that they are located throughout
19 that area. There are graves in the vicinity of Zvornik, there are graves
20 in the vicinity of Bratunac.
21 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. Could we please show
22 3D268 or 1D449. I believe we can use that one as well, if needed, and I
23 believe it was shown to the witness yesterday by my learned friend.
24 Q. Mr. Manning, do you recall this document? Ms. Tapuskovic showed
25 it to you yesterday. It is a report of the Federal Commission for Missing
1 Persons of Bosnia-Herzegovina which dealt with exhumations within a period
2 of time of 11 years, covering 10 municipalities, and they identify 4.515
4 I went through the lists in detail, and by sheer chance, you had
5 no insight into those. More than 400 persons are mentioned there within
6 the period between 1992 and 1994. Therefore, the figures do not match,
7 again, the figures being presented before this Tribunal.
8 Had you had an opportunity to look at this data before, would your
9 report have been different?
10 A. Your Honours, it would not have been different, and that is one of
11 the basic reasons why I relied on the ICMP DNA data, because it is a
12 definitive numbering of the individuals. We, in the ICTY, used an MNI.
13 The Bosnian authorities may be counting body-bags or cases. I don't know,
14 and I don't think I should comment further. But the definitive count, it
15 will be available from DNA. Any other count is an assessment,
16 particularly given that the bodies are broken up and that not all the body
17 parts are available.
18 Q. The Federal Commission for Missing Persons of Bosnia-Herzegovina
19 and the Cantonal Court in Tuzla and the rest also used the DNA analysis
20 from the same source you used; isn't that correct?
21 A. No, I don't know that from this document, and I don't know that
22 from my discussions with them. It's possible.
23 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. I have no
24 further questions.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you so much, Madam Nikolic, even for cutting
1 down your cross-examination to what you did.
2 Mr. Stojanovic.
3 We'll have a break in 10 minutes' time.
4 Cross-examination by Mr. Stojanovic:
5 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Manning. My name is Miodrag
6 Stojanovic, and together with my colleagues, we appear on behalf of Mr.
7 Ljubo Borovcanin. I just wanted to get a few clarifications concerning
8 some things from your yesterday's testimony.
9 Can you tell me, looking at this map, how many were there -- how
10 many mass graves were there in the area of Glogova village?
11 A. Referring to the map behind me, ICTY graves in the area of Glogova
12 village would be, depending on your definition, Konjevic Polje 2, Ravnice
13 1 and 2 and Glogova 1 and 2, perhaps even Cerska and --
14 JUDGE AGIUS: What we have on the screen, you need to scroll down,
15 or what appeared on the screen. I think it was a direct shot from the
17 Okay. Do you need the map any further, Mr. Stojanovic?
18 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I will have another
19 question concerning this. Therefore, I could ask that we look at the map
20 and focus on the bottom portion. It is P02996.
21 Could we go towards the bottom of the map. Yes, thank you.
22 Q. If I understood properly, Mr. Manning, under the geographic term
23 of Glogova village, we can also include the area of the mass graves you
24 termed "Ravnice 1 and 2"; am I correct?
25 A. Yes, taking it that the village of Glogova is on the area near
1 Glogova 2.
2 Q. In your report dated the 27th November 2007, inter alia, you
3 mention sub-mass graves which you termed "Glogova 7, 8 and 9". Can you
4 explain to us what the notion of sub-mass graves or subsidiary mass graves
5 means? How do you distinguish those from the basic or primary mass graves
6 of Glogova 1 and 2?
7 A. Your Honours, Glogova 2 grave is, as you saw on the aerial
8 imagery, an area that was significantly disturbed. When the grave was
9 exhumed, it was found that there were very different features within the
10 grave, and as they exhumed the grave, they would identify that area as a
11 sub-grave. As they progressed, it might turn into part of a bigger
12 grave. It might turn out to be a formation produced by the bulldozer. It
13 might turn out to be a set of tracks through the soil.
14 In the case of Glogova 1, there were very distinct sub-graves.
15 One was dug by a front-end loader and one was dug by a 360-degree machine
16 scooping into the soil, but those formed part of the whole area of Glogova
17 1 or Glogova 2.
18 We took the decision particularly that we would not attempt to
19 name the sub-graves and perhaps artificially increase the number of
20 graves. Aligned with that was the fact that those sub-graves were all
21 part of the bigger area of Glogova 1 or Glogova 2 or Kozluk, which was
22 made up of three parts of one big digging process, so that's why they
23 referred to sub-graves. And on occasion, a sub-grave might turn out to be
24 a hole dug by a machine with nothing in it.
25 Does that assist?
1 Q. I wanted to ask you this: Can you tell us here today whether
2 those sub-graves were dug simultaneously, temporally speaking, or is there
3 a possibility that they were dug in different periods, having in mind the
4 type and depth of the pit, the type of machinery, or any other
5 characteristics you found in the field?
6 A. Your Honour, a number of the expert reports addressed that same
7 question and indicate that the graves or sub-graves were part of the same
8 process in time, very close to each other in time. If you view of aerial
9 imagery of Glogova 2, you can see all those sub-graves are part of the
10 bigger excavation which occurred at the same time. I do, however, know
11 that a grave known as "Grave L" within Glogova, there was evidence that
12 that was created several days after the creation of Glogova 1, and that
13 grave contained the body of 12 individuals bound together in pairs and
14 killed, and shot, each of them in the chest and some in the head. That
15 grave, in particular, was built -- was made some one or two days after the
16 Glogova 1 grave. It, however, was within the boundary of the Glogova 1
17 graves or grave.
18 Q. Would I be correct in saying, then, that chronologically speaking,
19 it was within a single process; that is, that these sub-graves were
20 created within the course of a few days?
21 A. That's correct. And if I could make it clearer, the Kozluk grave
22 is made up of three graves, and in fact graves 1 and 2 are -- were created
23 when the bulldozer digging grave 3, which is the larger grave, pushed the
24 soil to the side and pushed bodies to the side. So it was made in exactly
25 the same process that created the bigger grave, and it was designated as a
1 sub-grave simply for assisting in processing where the bodies came from.
2 Q. Just to clarify, you are now referring to Kozluk rather than
3 Glogova, is it not?
4 A. Yes, I was giving the example of Kozluk, which is much smaller and
5 easier to describe than the complicated graves at Glogova 1 and 2.
6 Q. Thank you. A few words about the graves you termed "Ravnice 1 and
7 2". Can you tell us or explain to us why those graves were called by
8 using the local geographical term of "Ravnice," although they were in
9 Glogova village? Ravnice, as a geographical feature, is another location.
10 A. Your Honours, the grave location was on the Hodzici Road, and on
11 our map it had the term "Ravnice" written in that area. It was simply a
12 matter of that was the name of the feature closest to the grave, and we
13 chose that name. No other reason than that. And it is not in the village
14 of Glogova, itself.
15 Q. Can we agree that in fact it is one location, one slope, where
16 bodies were found and that there was no digging of graves, but rather,
17 that some of the bodies that you found there had merely been covered with
19 A. That's correct.
20 Q. This mass grave was found undisturbed; am I right?
21 A. That's correct. Your Honours, it had not been disturbed, although
22 it was open to disturbance from natural forms. It hadn't been disturbed
23 by people.
24 Q. Since you were in the field, do you know whether the access road
25 you just referred to is something that heavy machinery could make use of?
1 A. Yes, certainly. We took a bulldozer and rather large trucks
2 through that area. Having said that, the road had clearly deteriorated
3 when we used it in 2001. I can't speak to the condition of the road in
4 1995, except from an aerial image that I've seen which indicates the road
5 is there.
6 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
7 Your Honours, perhaps this is a good time for the break.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. Perhaps you will be thinking about the
9 need for another site visit to check what you've just asked the witness.
10 Twenty-five minutes.
11 --- Recess taken at 10.30 a.m.
12 --- On resuming at 11.00 a.m.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Stojanovic.
14 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
15 Q. Mr. Manning, let us resume at the point where we were talking
16 about Ravnice mass grave. I will be putting questions to you, and then
17 you can say whether you agree or not.
18 Am I right if I say that according to the aerial imagery, the part
19 of the grave you called "Ravnice 1," where the grave was covered up after
20 30 bodies were buried there, and it was covered up by the soil taken from
21 across the road, whereas down the slope, 157 bodies were found, and this
22 was at the spot that was called "Ravnice 2," and those bodies had not been
23 either buried or covered with soil at all; would you agree with me there?
24 A. Yes, I would agree with you, although I'd have to check the
25 numbers that you quote. But, yes, I agree with you.
1 Q. I don't mind you checking the numbers, because I'm reading this,
2 but the gist of my question is: According to the aerial imagery dated the
3 17th of July, it was established that the grave was already created or was
4 being created, if I can put it that way, since it was a process, after
5 all, as you said?
6 A. The indication on the aerial image of was the soil that had been
7 taken from one side of the road, and that was present on that image. I
8 don't believe that any bodies were visible on that image.
9 Q. Would you agree that the bodies were brought there after the 17th
10 of July and thereafter as part of a process?
11 A. I don't think I can agree with that without the image in front of
12 me, but the 17th would be when -- up to when that disturbance had been
13 created. So you can say that it was created at some stage before or on
14 the 17th, from that image, but I can't say that it was created after the
16 Q. You do not exclude the possibility that the bodies, and I'm
17 referring to Ravnice 2, as you termed it, may have been brought at a later
18 stage; you do not rule out that possibility, since the land had not been
19 disturbed there?
20 A. Your Honours, I have to, in fact, exclude that possibility from
21 what I know. The grave is referred to as "Ravnice 1 and 2," but it is
22 really one grave, one collection of bodies, the only difference being that
23 the soil was placed on part of the bodies. The definition of "Ravnice 1
24 and 2" is simply based on when and who exhumed the bodies. There was
25 nothing to indicate that the bodies from one end of Ravnice to the other
1 were from different periods in time. They were consistent in the manner
2 that they were dumped and in the way they were dumped, and also they were
3 very consistent in the artifacts which had been found linking them to the
4 Kravica warehouse. That was -- material was spread right throughout the
5 grave in a relatively uniform manner. So I would have to exclude that
6 they were created on different occasions.
7 Q. In view of the findings of the pathologists involved in the
8 project, Mr. Peccerelli and Mr. Clark, can we agree that the time of death
9 of the autopsied bodies could not be established?
10 A. Mr. Peccerelli is an archaeologist, not a pathologist, but the
11 other pathologists, including Dr. Clark, did, I believe, seek to identify
12 a time of death, and one method we utilised was the self-winding watches
13 along with the aerial imagery used to create -- showing the creation of
14 the graves. I would have to check the pathology reports to see if the
15 experts had indicated specific times of death. I certainly cannot recall
16 any indication of a time of death either preceding the fall of Srebrenica
17 or significantly post-dating the fall of Srebrenica.
18 Q. We have had occasion to hear two testimonies here concerning the
19 activities involving the burial of these bodies, and these witnesses said
20 that in the Glogova mass grave, bodies found elsewhere in the areas of the
21 municipalities of Bratunac and Zvornik were buried, and they identified
22 the locations from which the bodies were taken. Is this consistent with
23 your knowledge and experience?
24 A. I can't comment on the testimony of the other witnesses. In
25 Glogova 1, grave L was created after the rest of the grave was created, I
1 think several days, but there wasn't available any other evidence to
2 indicate to me that there were other incidents or depositions of bodies.
3 And I'm trying to think of any statements or interviews to the contrary,
4 but I don't now recall of any other information which led -- which would
5 lead me to think they were put in at different occasions.
6 Q. According to the data you provided in the report dated the 27th of
7 November, 2007, the total number of bodies found in the primary graves of
8 Glogova 1 and 2 was 370. My question is: Are all these bodies bodies
9 found in the primary graves termed "Glogova 1 and 8" and "sub-graves 7, 8
10 and 9"; is that the collection that is referred to here?
11 A. Glogova 2 is -- should be considered as one very large mass grave
12 which was made up of different features. The Glogova 1 grave is a similar
13 picture. Glogova 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 are the same large mass grave
14 known as "Glogova 2." Glogova 1 stands by itself and Glogova 2 stands by
15 itself, with those sub-graves within it.
16 Q. The number of identified bodies in your November report,
17 concerning graves Glogova 1 and Glogova 2, is also subsumed by these
18 sub-graves; is that what you're saying?
19 A. Your Honours, the bodies located in Glogova 1 were located in that
20 area of the mass grave. The bodies in Glogova 2 were in that area of the
21 mass grave. And my figures, you must remember, too, are only those
22 identified by DNA, not all the bodies.
23 I'm not sure if I've answered your question.
24 Q. That was precisely my question. We're talking about identified
1 When referring to Zeleni Jadar 5 and 6 mass graves, which were
2 identified as secondary mass graves, according to the information you had,
3 are you able to say that all the bodies found in those two secondary
4 graves had been transferred from elsewhere or were there whole bodies,
5 allowing for the possibility that for some of the bodies, this was the
6 place of original burial?
7 A. There were some whole bodies within Zeleni Jadar 5 and 6, but I
8 don't believe that they could have been placed in there previously, as
9 that grave wasn't created until September/October of 1995. Had the bodies
10 been collected from elsewhere, there would have been evidence of that
11 difference in the collection of bodies, and one would expect significant
12 decomposition of the body and, from my experience, insect infestations, et
13 cetera, which would have shown a difference in the bodies. There wasn't
14 that type of difference in the Zeleni Jadar 5 and 6 secondary mass graves.
15 Q. Do you know that the partial sanitization of the terrain next to
16 the roadway was carried out in Ravne Buljin [phoen], Kamenica and Pobudje
17 and whether those bodies had been buried anywhere? Do you know if this
18 was the case after the column of the 28th Division and the related events
19 took place?
20 A. I'm not specifically aware of that. I don't know.
21 Q. Do you know whether there were bodies in and around the town of
22 Bratunac itself and where those bodies had been buried? I'm speaking in
23 relation to the events in Srebrenica.
24 A. I'm not specifically aware of bodies in the area of Bratunac. I'm
25 trying to think back as to the other evidence of killings in Bratunac and
1 at Potocari. No, I don't -- I'm not aware of that.
2 Q. Do you know whether the sanitization of the town of Srebrenica was
3 carried out and whether any dead bodies were discovered, and whether and
4 where they were buried, if so?
5 A. I assume that the dead from Srebrenica were removed. I don't have
6 any details in relation to that.
7 Q. Do you know if there exists any other primary mass grave in the
8 area of Srebrenica and Bratunac, except for Glogova and Ravnice?
9 A. Yes, I'm aware of the Bosnian Commission graves, Bljeceva, Budak,
10 the grave at Sandici, and that there are other suspect sites around
11 Srebrenica and Potocari and that the work of the Commission continues to
12 identify graves.
13 Q. You are not able to say in which of these graves bodies were found
14 that were collected from Srebrenica as a result of the sanitization
16 A. I'm -- I don't have any information in relation to the collection
17 of the dead bodies from Srebrenica.
18 Q. A moment ago, you mentioned the grave you referred to as "Sandic."
19 You did not take part in the exhumation process of this grave; is that
21 A. I did not take part in the exhumation of Sandici, no.
22 Q. This was done by the Federal Commission in August of 2004, having
23 found 17 bodies as per the report they gave you; is that right?
24 A. Yes, I accept that.
25 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I will be
1 completing my questions, but before that, could we move into private
2 session? I have a document that requires it.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, let's do that. Let's move into private
4 session, please.
5 One moment. We are not yet in private session.
6 [Private session]
11 Pages 19117-19118 redacted. Private session
17 [Open session]
18 JUDGE AGIUS: We are in open session.
19 Yes, Madame Fauveau, if you wish to repeat -- I don't think there
20 is any need for it, but let's move.
21 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] As far as I'm concerned, I don't
22 believe I need to repeat anything.
23 Can you show the witness the Exhibit 5D360, which is an excerpt
24 from the interview with Ostoja Stanisic.
25 Q. Waiting for this exhibit, can I ask you whether since May 2007
1 until your arrival here, anyone from the OTP contacted you to know what
2 happened to Ostoja Stanisic's journal, which you photocopied during this
4 A. I don't believe so. I was asked, some six or so months ago, about
5 an interview. It wasn't about a journal, and I don't recall who it was
7 Q. Here in front of you, you have part of this interview with
8 Mr. Ostoja Stanisic, and what you can see on the lower part of this first
9 page, this is his journal or logbook, and Mr. Ostoja Stanisic did show you
10 that part that was important to you. Do you see there is a response from
11 Mr. Ostoja Stanisic stating -- is in this section.
12 A. I see that, that part of the interview, yes.
13 Q. And then two lines below, Mr. Ostoja Stanisic said:
14 [In English] "14th, in the morning hours."
15 A. Yes, I see that.
16 Q. [Interpretation] Do you now remember this logbook or journal which
17 you have photocopied?
18 A. Not specifically, no. I accept that I'm indicating there I'm
19 going to photocopy or intending to. I don't have an independent
20 recollection of that. I'm sorry.
21 Q. I would like to show you now page 4 of this exhibit.
22 All along this page, you have asked Ostoja Stanisic to sign each
23 page of the photocopy made of this logbook?
24 A. Yes, I see that I say that I would have him sign each page of the
25 notebook, and I do recall -- I do recall a little bit more about that,
1 that interview. I can't remember what the journal was about.
2 Q. But later and during the interview, it seems that Mr. Stanisic
4 [In English] "The only time I had to make so many signatures was
5 when I was issuing the certificates for children at school."
6 So can we conclude, on the basis of that, that Mr. Stanisic did
7 sign each page of the photocopy of this notebook you made?
8 A. I don't have that recollection, but I can accept that, from what
9 you've said. I would have to check the copy of the journal.
10 Q. And, actually, from what we saw, Mr. Stanisic mentioned the date
11 of the 14th, in the morning, but the year is not mentioned in this
12 interview. But one may conclude that part of this notebook concerns the
13 Srebrenica events?
14 A. I would assume so, which would indicate why I was copying it. It
15 may have been of interest in another case, in which case I would have
16 accepted it for another case, but I would accept that it was probably
17 related to Srebrenica. As I say, I can't recall the journal, and I
18 apologise for that.
19 Q. I would like to show you the Exhibit 5D304. This is the notebook
20 of Mr. Stanisic, but Mr. Stanisic told us that it was dated the 17th of
21 May, 2007, page 11, and this is not the journal or the notebook you have
22 photocopied. And I believe you don't speak the Serbo-Croatian language,
23 so you will have to trust me.
24 Can we come back to the first page, please.
25 Here, there is a Cyrillic word "Ostoja," which is Mr. Stanisic's
1 name, his first name.
2 Can we now move on to page 2.
3 Here we have his complete name, "Ostoja Stanisic" in the Cyrillic
5 Can we now show page 3 of the document. Can we have the whole
7 Here, you can see that there is no signature, and we can look at
8 the whole -- flip through the whole notebook, and there is no signature on
9 any page. Can you accept that this notebook is not the one you have
11 A. Remembering, if you will, that I would have had the photocopies
12 signed, not the notebook. So if this is the notebook, and I don't
13 recognize it, it would be consistent that it wasn't signed. I would have
14 asked for the copies to be signed.
15 Q. But concerning the notebook of Ostoja Stanisic you have
16 photocopied, you did not take the original copy. He kept the original
17 copy. This is the reason you made photocopies?
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Ms. Soljan.
19 MS. SOLJAN: Your Honours, I object. Mr. Manning has indicated
20 that he does not recall the specific interview and whether this is the
21 specific notebook.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Ms. Fauveau. I think Ms. Soljan is right.
23 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] He said he does not remember the
24 notebook, as such, but he didn't say that he does not remember whether he
25 made photocopies or took the original. I don't know. Maybe I can repeat
1 my question.
2 Q. When you take notebook, did you make photocopies on site, when you
3 took the original notebook from a suspect or an accused or a witness, did
4 you make photocopies on site?
5 A. Your Honours, that might vary, but in this circumstance, from
6 reading the brief section of the interview, I would believe that I had
7 copied it then and there, because I asked him to sign it, and he wouldn't
8 have signed the original book that he had. I would not have asked him to
9 sign that. I would have asked him to sign the photocopies that I would
10 have kept and taken presumably back to The Hague. So his -- I would
11 expect his notebook not to be signed; however, the photocopied pages to be
13 Q. Can you tell me what you did with the photocopies signed by
14 Mr. Stanisic?
15 A. No, I can't, because I don't recall. But had I taken those
16 copies, I would have conveyed them back to The Hague, entered them into
17 evidence. Generally, I wouldn't even -- if on further review they weren't
18 considered of evidentiary value, I would probably still have entered them
19 into evidence as part of the collection of material from that interview,
20 and they would have been stamped and placed into the Evidence Unit,
21 Evidence Section.
22 Q. And just in order to know whether this has any probative value,
23 you should have used an interpreter or a translator?
24 A. Again, I can't recall the specific circumstances, but, yes, when I
25 was first shown the notebook, I would have asked the interpreter to
1 explain what it was to me. When I returned it into evidence, part of that
2 process is to say, "We need a translation," and perhaps that could have
3 been done verbally or perhaps it would have been, "This document needs to
4 be translated. Please place it in the system and have it translated."
5 And then I would review or someone would review the English version.
6 Q. If you -- had you made photocopies of this newspaper
7 [as interpreted] signed by Mr. Stanisic, would you agree that these
8 photocopies should be somewhere in the OTP's office, a signed photocopy?
9 A. Yes, I would expect them to be somewhere within the Tribunal. I
10 assume you're indicating that they're not. I have no knowledge whatsoever
11 of that.
12 Q. Actually, we did not get them. That's the only thing I can tell
13 you. I cannot tell you whether they are in the Prosecutor's office or
15 Now, I have another question for you concerning something my
16 colleague has asked you. He talked about non-recorded conversations.
17 That was on page 13 and 14 of today's transcript. And you said that when
18 part of the conversation was not recorded, you would take notes of the
19 conversation. When the conversation was recorded, for instance, a
20 conversation with a suspect, and when, for whatever reason, the recording
21 was stopped, would that part that had not been recorded -- would you have
22 taken notes of that part of the conversation not recorded?
23 A. Generally, yes, I would have, and I think I indicated that
24 before. There are circumstances where I might not. It might be that a
25 person was providing some information in relation to some confidential
1 information. I would probably still record details of that conversation.
2 It might be that they asked me not to make notes. I would probably still
3 make notes at a later time. If I did, those notes would form part of
4 the -- the material that I put into evidence. If it was of a very
5 confidential nature, it might be placed into Rule 70 within the Tribunal
6 or similar. But generally I would take a note of the conversation or I
7 would note that the conversation occurred and what it concerned.
8 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Thank you very much. That's all, I
9 have no more questions.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, madame.
11 I have left the Pandurevic Defence team. Mr. Haynes.
12 Cross-examination by Mr. Haynes:
13 Q. Good morning, Mr. Manning.
14 A. Good morning, sir.
15 Q. The burial sites which you investigated were divided up by your
16 team into the northern sites and the southern sites; that's correct, isn't
18 A. Not really. That's just an artefact of where they are on the
19 map. We didn't generally refer to them as the northern sites or the
20 southern sites.
21 Q. Well, you'll forgive me. I'm referring back to the evidence we
22 had from Mr. Ruez at the very start of this trial where he did divide them
23 in that way. But for my purposes, when I talk to you about the northern
24 sites, I'm talking about the sites within the municipality of Zvornik.
25 You understand what I'm talking about?
1 A. Yes, I do, but would you be able to specify which graves or I
2 can --
3 Q. You can turn around and look at the map, but I'm talking about
4 Orahovac, Petkovci, Kozluk and Branjevo.
5 A. That being the primary graves, and the secondary from Cancari Road
6 and upwards?
7 Q. I'm only concerned about the primary graves.
8 A. Yes, I accept that.
9 Q. And we can go to some aerial images if you want, but will you
10 accept from me that the excavation or re-excavation of those primary
11 graves, those four primary graves, all took place between the 7th and the
12 27th of September of 1995?
13 A. Without checking the imagery, I would accept that the disturbances
14 of the primary and then the secondaries was in September and October, so I
15 can accept that, but -- unless we need to check.
16 Q. Perhaps you better have them.
17 Can we have P1724 into e-court, please.
18 I'm sorry. These photographs take quite a long time to come up.
19 And this is Orahovac or Lazete, as I think you referred to it at
20 the time of the investigation, and I think these aerial images, you would
21 accept, show a further disturbance of the earth between the two dates
22 which the image providers have placed on the photograph, the 7th and the
23 27th of September, wouldn't you?
24 A. Yes, I accept that. There also may be other aerial images that
25 have later dates, but I doubt that there would be an earlier date than the
1 7th of September.
2 Q. Well, what I'm going to suggest to you is that all of the images
3 that have later dates relate to sites in a different area of Bosnia.
4 But can we go to P1747, please.
5 I think you looked at this when Ms. Soljan was asking you
6 questions, and you told us that the photograph on the right, the 27th of
7 September, showed that the ground there had been disturbed, according to
8 the aerial image. Is that right?
9 A. That's correct, yes.
10 Q. So if we take the logical conclusion, not disturbed on the 7th of
11 September, but disturbed by the 27th?
12 A. Yes, I accept that.
13 MR. HAYNES: And, lastly, can we go to P1763.
14 Q. Again, I can't remember whether Ms. Soljan showed you this
15 photograph when you gave evidence-in-chief, but I hope you'll agree that
16 on the left we see some disturbance of the area but, on the right, greater
17 disturbance by the date that the image provider has put on the photograph,
18 the 27th of September?
19 A. Yes, I accept that.
20 Q. So in a certain state on the 7th of September, but, according to
21 your analysis of this photograph, re-excavated by the 27th; is that right?
22 A. Certainly disturbed by the 27th. That process may have continued
23 after the 27th, but that image shows the grave being significantly
24 disturbed between those periods.
25 Q. Can I take it from the answers you're giving me that you are
1 happy, as it were, to interpret these aerial images, that you're happy to
2 look at them and state what you think they show?
3 A. Your Honours, I certainly am not an interpreter of aerial
4 imagery. Looking at this as a simple photograph, with some knowledge of
5 the lay of the land, I can see clearly that in one image to the other,
6 there is a significant difference. And I know that the marks on the soil
7 there correspond to many of the marks on this image. But I'm not an
8 interpreter of aerial imagery, but as a layman, I can certainly see that
9 within those images.
10 Q. That's not an accidental question, Mr. Manning, because of course
11 we're going to come to some images in a minute where the image providers
12 have put their own commentary on it.
13 Were you ever briefed by the image providers as to who had
14 interpreted these photographs, how they had done it, and by what method,
15 using what techniques?
16 A. Your Honours, I'm conscious that this is or was Rule 70 material.
17 I'm not sure to what level I can discuss that aspect.
18 Q. Answer this question: Did you ever meet anybody who had
19 interpreted these photographs?
20 A. I'm not trying to be --
21 JUDGE AGIUS: This last question, you can answer.
22 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, as I say, I wasn't sure of the status
23 of the images. I never spoke to or dealt with anyone who actually
24 interpreted the images or put those markings on the images.
25 MR. HAYNES: Thank you.
1 Q. I'd like you then to look, please, at P1801, and this is the
2 fourth of the sites in the northern area, Branjevo.
3 Now, you did see this before, and this is a photograph on which,
4 according to you and Mr. Ruez, in fairness, there is some commentary
5 placed by the image providers, and by that I mean it says: "Excavation
6 activity," and on the left-hand side it says: "Newly excavated trench,"
7 with an arrow, and then there's a blown-up section in the middle: "Backhoe
8 and front loader."
9 I take it from your previous answer that other than what is
10 written on there, nobody's ever told you how they came to the conclusion
11 that this aerial image showed excavation activity, have they, by which I
12 mean nobody from the image provider?
13 A. I had a conversation with some people who provided this. It's a
14 difficult question to answer, in that if they had access to this image and
15 they saw the machines and the trenches, then that would indicate that they
16 knew there was excavation activity.
17 When these images were presented to me, that was labelled on them,
18 and the provider may have said, "And this shows the trench being dug."
19 The basis for their knowledge of that would have been their knowledge of
20 the image or further down the line.
21 Q. I don't mean to be pedantic, but I wonder if you could just
22 therefore explain the answer you gave at line 17 to 19:
23 "I never spoke to or dealt with anyone who actually interpreted
24 those images or put those markings on the images."
25 A. Exactly. I dealt with the next person in the chain. But did I
1 have a conversation with those people? Yes. And to be clear, some of
2 those people may have done that work, conducted that inquiry. I didn't
3 know that.
4 MR. McCLOSKEY: Mr. President, we're now at a point, as
5 Mr. Manning has said, where he has talked to someone related to the
6 provider, and that information is protected by Rule 70. And I think
7 that's well understood.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: But I don't think he's going beyond that.
9 MR. McCLOSKEY: No, I don't think he has, either. It sounds like
10 we're on our way --
11 JUDGE AGIUS: We are getting there, yeah, exactly.
12 Mr. Haynes.
13 MR. HAYNES:
14 Q. Let's just concentrate on the image for a while, shall we,
15 Mr. Manning? In the box in the center of this image, there is a
16 horseshoe-shaped track around the farm buildings, isn't there?
17 A. Yes, there is.
18 Q. And at the top of that horseshoe, there are some farm buildings;
19 do you agree with that?
20 A. On the left-hand side of the image and at the bottom, yes.
21 Q. Thank you for the clarification. And we can see going off, as it
22 were, not quite at a tangent, but at a 45-degree angle to the horseshoe,
23 some tracks. You would agree that they're tracks? You told us the other
24 day that they're tracks, and that's presumably something you interpreted
25 and nobody else.
1 A. That track moves from the center of the image to the top left or
2 towards the top left, and I interpret those, from looking at a photograph,
3 as vehicle tracks, yes.
4 Q. Thanks. Now, in the enlarged image, we can see that on the far --
5 well, as we look at it, at the top of the long side of the horseshoe,
6 there is a little collection of objects which somebody has decided to call
7 a backhoe and front loader; is that right?
8 A. Yes, I can see that.
9 Q. I mean, looking at it yourself, and we do have a facility to
10 enlarge it, is there any way you can tell that that's a backhoe and front
12 A. Looking at that image, no.
13 Q. Would you like us to enlarge it a few times to see if it helps?
14 A. I've gone through that process myself. I believe it shows what
15 looks like a vehicle. I can't say that it's a backhoe or a front loader.
16 Q. That's very, very honest of you, Mr. Manning.
17 Now, if we go over to the left-hand side, the image provider has
18 placed there a little commentary box saying: "Newly excavated trench,"
19 and do you take that, like me, to be the rather thin, whitish line that's
20 running about north-northwest just between the trees and the ploughed
22 A. I, in fact, take that to be the greater area. When you dig a
23 trench, you take the soil from that trench and generally put it on the
24 side, so that's what I think we're seeing is a trench in shadow and the
25 spoil from that trench, but again that's just me looking at a photograph.
1 Q. Okay. Well, let's move on, shall we?
2 Can we have a look at P1800. Thank you very much.
3 You'd agree the same area but from a slightly different angle and
4 what appears to be a lower trajectory?
5 A. It's the same area, Branjevo Military Farm.
6 Q. Okay. But not as high as the other image, not so far above it, it
7 seems. And do I understand your evidence correctly that the yellow
8 writing we see on that image would have been placed upon it by somebody
9 from the Office of the Prosecutor?
10 A. That's correct.
11 Q. Somewhere, presumably, there's a copy of this image without that
12 yellow writing on. Have you seen one like that?
13 A. Yes, I have.
14 MR. HAYNES: Thank you. Now can we go to the horseshoe again,
16 Q. Top of the horseshoe, just about where the track comes in, do you
17 see an object or a vehicle there?
18 A. Are you talking of the road that runs from the top of the image to
19 the horseshoe, as you call it?
20 Q. Yes. It's just in the bottom left-hand quadrant of the crossroads
21 there. You can see it, can't you? Can you see what appears to be a
22 vehicle of some substance there?
23 A. I'm assuming that you mean where the top part of the horseshoe
24 meets that road. There looks to be something there. It could be a
25 vehicle. It could be facing the join in the road. I'm not sure.
1 Q. I mean, it's in precisely the same position as the object that
2 somebody called a backhoe and a front loader in the previous photograph,
3 isn't it?
4 A. I don't -- I don't know. I would have to compare the two. I
5 would also say that from my experience in using those images, because of
6 the angle, some things can be foreshortened. We had some difficulty in
7 locating the graves on occasion, because on the image it looked to be next
8 to a tree; in fact it was some several tens of metres away. But I didn't
9 recognise a backhoe or a front-end loader on that, but then I didn't on
10 the other image.
11 Q. Thank you. I'm having to ask you this because we're not going to
12 hear from the person who made that determination, so you and I are going
13 to have to do our best, and the Tribunal as well.
14 Can we have a look at P1798, please.
15 Now, this is not an aerial image. This -- well, it's not an
16 aerial image in the sense that it's not one that's been provided subject
17 to Rule 70. I'm guessing that this is a photograph taken from a
18 helicopter in which probably Mr. Ruez was flying, and it looks like it was
19 taken in winter.
20 Can you help us as to when the photograph was taken?
21 A. You're right that it was Mr. Ruez in a Black Hawk helicopter. It
22 was perhaps at the end of 1995 or early 1996, in the winter, but from
23 memory I can't recall the exact date. There is another photograph where
24 the helicopter lands at the military farm.
25 Q. Thanks very much. It's not the clearest of photographs, but
1 you've been to Branjevo Farm, and in that horseshoe we can see some fairly
2 substantial objects that look like vehicles. One's red and one's green,
3 so far as I can see. Can you see them?
4 A. I can see shapes. I can't, from that, say that they're machines.
5 And I'm trying to recall when I visited.
6 Q. Well, that's why I pointed out that you'd been there. Were there
7 pieces of substantial farm equipment parked in that area of Branjevo Farm
8 when you went there?
9 A. I don't know. It wasn't used as a pig farm. I don't believe -- I
10 can't remember. I don't want to -- I don't want to say that I can or
11 can't recall.
12 Q. Can you see other vehicles on the road there and around that yard
13 area in that photograph?
14 A. I can see what looks like two vehicles on the road approaching the
15 horseshoe, I think a blue and another colour. I can't say that the red
16 and the green or blue further on is a vehicle. I would accept that it may
17 be. My recollection of the farm was that it wasn't being used.
18 MR. HAYNES: And, lastly, can we have a look at P1802, please.
19 Q. And on this image, Mr. Manning, I'm really interested in you
20 concentrating on the area at the edge of the wood, just where the ploughed
21 field begins, and the white markings we can see all over the soil there.
22 I mean, pretty much precisely similar to what's shown in the image of the
23 27th of July, aren't they?
24 A. I'm sorry. You're going to have to be more specific as to what
25 area you're talking about. You're still talking about the U-shape, the
2 Q. No. I'm talking about the area towards the left-hand bottom
3 corner of the image, where the forest meets the ploughed field, the area
4 which was said to have been evidence of recent excavation.
5 A. Yes, the gravesite, yes.
6 Q. We can see there's a similar white line there, similar white areas
7 on this image which appears to have come from a similar sort of recording
8 device as the image from the 27th of July. Would you agree with that?
9 A. This is an aerial imagery -- aerial image, the same as the
10 previous one.
11 Q. And would you agree that the area that we are concerned about
12 looks pretty similar to the way it did in the aerial image of the 27th of
14 A. It looks similar, yes. I can't tell, from this image, if there's
15 any significant difference, particularly given the quality of the previous
16 image, but I accept that that same area has a disturbance.
17 Q. Now, as I've said, Mr. Manning, we're not going to be privy to the
18 techniques or expertise of the person who interpreted the photograph of
19 the 27th of July, but would you agree with me that on the basis of
20 comparing it with other images we've got of Branjevo Farm, the suggestion
21 on the image of the 27th of July that it shows excavation activity is, at
22 best, [Realtime transcript read in error "inclusive"] inconclusive and
23 possibly even fanciful?
24 A. No, I can't agree with you. I believe that there is a disturbance
25 on that image, and it corresponds to the location of the mass graves that
1 was exhumed in 1996.
2 Q. It's only the date I'm worried about. Could it have happened by
3 the 17th of July?
4 A. I'm sorry, you -- I've missed you. This image on the 17th of July
5 shows a disturbance.
6 Q. And it's a disturbance that was found to exist on the physical
7 earth; is that right?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And the image of the 27th of July shows no greater or better
10 disturbance than this image shows?
11 A. I don't think we can say that, but that there is a disturbance on
12 the soil here on the 17th of July.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: Before you continue and before we forget about it,
14 line 20 on the previous page, page 62, "inclusive" should
15 read "inconclusive."
16 MR. HAYNES:
17 Q. Thank you. I'm going to move on from this, Mr. Manning, because I
18 did promise I wouldn't be very long with you.
19 What technique did the ICMP use in calculating the MNI?
20 A. They probably didn't. My definition of "MNI" is "minimal number
21 of individuals," which is a term used by the anthropologists specifically
22 involved in a process of counting skeletal remains. ICMP may have used
23 that method in their work. I only dealt with the DNA-based results, which
24 wouldn't be, in my view, described as a minimal number of individuals as a
25 specific term.
1 Q. Even when you are using DNA as a means of investigation, it's
2 important to have a basis for calculating MNI, isn't it?
3 A. Perhaps if we use the term "minimum number" rather than "minimal,"
4 which it's pedantic, but I understood that to be a process used by the
5 anthropologists. But a minimum number of individuals, yes.
6 Q. Because, let's be perfectly honest, quite a lot of the bodies
7 recovered were actually only parts of bodies, weren't they?
8 A. That's correct, yes.
9 Q. And unless you have a basis for excluding parts of bodies being
10 counted twice, you can never rule that out, even with DNA, can you?
11 A. You can never rule out what, specifically?
12 Q. Well, a question was put to you the other day by Ms. Tapuskovic,
13 where she showed you that in relation to numbered bodies that were part of
14 the ICMP results, there were three potential identities. Do you remember
16 A. Yes. We were talking about what I understood to be related
17 individuals, brothers in this case, or sisters, I assume.
18 Q. Well, possibly, but equally it could be that where those
19 identities appear more than once in that schedule, it's because different
20 parts of the same body have been recovered, which would naturally have DNA
21 related to that family, wouldn't it?
22 A. With the cases where there was two or three or more possibilities,
23 you have to remember that the DNA protocol would be unique, so you would
24 say that that DNA protocol, whether it be one whole body or ten of that
25 same body's body parts, is unique. It could be that that individual is
1 one of three people, but the key to the uniqueness of the record is that
2 that is a DNA protocol number. If the second brother was tested, he would
3 have a different protocol number, and they would still say that he could
4 be one of his siblings.
5 Q. Precisely. But the converse is equally true, isn't it, that the
6 arm could throw up the DNA that was related to one family, and then a leg
7 could be found which threw up the same DNA, and we cannot rule out the
8 possibility that what is being found are two parts of the same body and
9 they're being recorded twice; that's why we need an MNI calculation?
10 A. I'm not an expert in DNA, but I can see that that is wrong in
11 respect of the fact that the DNA protocol is unique, even if it was the
12 arm of one brother and the leg of another. The difficulty then lies in
13 matching it to the blood sample provided by the family. That is where the
14 uncertainty as to who it is comes into it.
15 But that arm would come up with a specific type of DNA, and the
16 leg from another individual, even be it his brother, would be again
17 completely different. If you then tried to match those two to the blood
18 sample from the mother or father, you would be able to say, and I'm not an
19 expert, that they are related, that they come from those parents or that
20 parent. But, again, the arm would be unique, and so would the leg. If
21 it's the same body, they would come up with the same code of DNA and be
22 put together.
23 Q. And that's why we see on that schedule different ICMP numbers
24 throwing up the same possibility for the identity, isn't it?
25 A. The same -- the same body throwing up that possibility, but not
1 the same ICMP number. The ICMP protocol number would be different.
2 Q. I think we're going to have to agree to differ on this, but let me
3 move on.
4 Were you aware of the standard used for calculating MNI by
5 Mr. Baraybar?
6 A. Yes, I'm very familiar with the process, as far as a layman can
7 be. Right through the process, I assisted him in his calculation by
8 providing him data.
9 Q. And were you aware that the standard used for assessing MNI by
10 Mr. Baraybar was different from that used by Mr. Haglund?
11 A. I can't recall, and I'm not even sure if Mr. Haglund produced an
12 MNI. He may have done, and I wasn't involved in that process with
13 Dr. Haglund.
14 Q. So in the course of bringing together all these figures, three
15 different standards have been used for calculation, haven't they;
16 Mr. Haglund's, Mr. Baraybar's and the DNA ICMP basis?
17 A. No. In my earlier three reports, it was specifically based on the
18 work of Mr. Baraybar, and he may have used -- and indeed he did use
19 records from the 1996 exhumations. My final report for this testimony
20 relies solely on DNA and does not mingle or mix any other counting
21 method. It just relies on the DNA process conducted by ICMP.
22 Q. Now, I just want to turn very briefly to one last topic, which I
23 hope I can do in the next ten minutes.
24 We were talking about the aerial images a little while ago. Did
25 you ever see an aerial image of an execution actually in process or taking
2 A. No, I did not.
3 Q. And insofar as your involvement in the investigation was
4 concerned, did that actually involve you in the physical exhumation of
6 A. I actively participated in the process, but I didn't -- I took a
7 view that I wasn't an archaeologist. I didn't dig, I didn't remove
8 bodies. I certainly carried them. And, generally, if there was an item
9 of interest in the grave, they would call me, they would show me the
10 item. We would discuss it. They would remove it, they would process it.
11 But I was actively involved in that, and once it was recorded it may be
12 that I took possession of the artefact and conveyed it specifically, and
13 then I dealt with them at the mortuary as well.
14 Q. And you've been at pains, I think particularly when Mr. Meek was
15 cross-examining you, to emphasise how fair, honest and objective you were
16 in conducting interviews with the very many witnesses and suspects you
17 interviewed. That's correct, isn't it?
18 A. I explained to Mr. Meek that that's the way I conduct my duties.
19 Q. Would you agree with me that it's part of your interviewing style
20 to make the suspect or witness perfectly aware of the material at your
22 A. Your Honours, again this is quite general, but if I am in a
23 position to tell the suspect certain things, I will. That's not to say
24 that if I have a piece of information, that I will tell that person that I
25 have that information. I indicated I wouldn't lie, but it's not always
1 the case that I would tell them everything that I knew or everything that
2 I had. But, again, that's being very general.
3 Q. And what is a lie? Is a lie saying something that's untrue,
4 knowing that it's untrue?
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Ms. Soljan.
6 MS. SOLJAN: Objection, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Haynes.
8 MR. HAYNES:
9 Q. You told Mr. Meek yesterday that you remembered interviewing a man
10 called "Milorad Bircakovic." I'm going to show you his interview in a
11 minute so that you can remind yourself of it.
12 Do you remember what position he held within the Zvornik Brigade?
13 A. Not specifically. It could have been engineering or it could have
14 been security. I'd have to check.
15 Q. He was a driver. Does that jog your memory? He was a driver for
16 a man called "Milorad Trbic".
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And do you remember the interview sufficiently well to recall
19 whether he was one of those people who was terrified by the process he
20 found himself within, such as you've told us earlier today?
21 A. I don't believe so. I remember vaguely the interview. If I read
22 the interview, I'd certainly recall now. And if someone was in that
23 state, I would generally -- generally reassure them and say that they had
24 been summonsed. If they asked me if they were going to be arrested, I
25 would say, "No." I would have to read the interview for Mr. Bircakovic.
1 Q. I mean, I'll tell you just before I show you the interview, he was
2 interviewed as a suspect. Do you recall what basis you had for treating
3 him as a suspect?
4 A. No, I don't.
5 MR. HAYNES: Can we have a look at 7D702 in e-court, please.
6 Q. Rather confusingly, Mr. Manning, the first page of this interview
7 is page 2, but life's like that sometimes, and I just want you to have a
8 look at page 2.
9 And the first two or three replies, it's plain from that, isn't
10 it, that Mr. Milorad Bircakovic was unrepresented during the course of
11 this interview, he had no lawyer with him?
12 A. Yes, he indicates he doesn't have a lawyer, and then I discuss him
13 seeking a lawyer.
14 Q. Do you recall whether he was told at any stage what, in fact, he
15 was suspected of?
16 A. Yes. He was told that, and I say that from not a recollection,
17 but I cautioned him. I then would have said he was suspected of
18 involvement in the Srebrenica crimes and perhaps detailed what that was.
19 That's generally what I would do. I would -- I would explain to him what
20 we were interviewing him about.
21 Q. And Srebrenica crimes, that would mean genocide, presumably, would
23 A. It would mean the Srebrenica investigation. It could be any part
24 of the crimes committed, including the re-burial process.
25 MR. HAYNES: Now, I'd like us to go to page 19, please, and
1 conveniently, it's the same in both B/C/S and in English.
2 Sorry, it's been pointed out to me that because it's page 2, it's
3 actually page 18, I think. There we are. It's "19" on the top of the
5 Q. And this is what you said to him, and I think you agree with me
6 it's fairly typical of the way you introduced interviews. Can you see
7 about a third of the way down the page, you say:
8 "I'm going to ask you questions about the killings and about
9 organisation for killings of many thousands of men.
10 "Firstly, I want you to understand some things. We have part of
11 witnesses to the killings, we have survivors who were part of the
12 executions, who were shot at, we have aerial images of the executions
13 taking place, we have seized records from the Zvornik Brigade and the
14 Bratunac Brigade, and we've had many people from those brigades and the
15 Drina Corps interviewed. We have your MP logs.
16 "What I want you to understand is that it's very important for you
17 to tell the truth. If you try and hide what happened or hide your part in
18 what happened, or your knowledge of what happened, I can prove that you
19 are lying. And I want you to understand that this is your chance to tell
20 the truth here now.
21 "I have personally exhumed the bodies of thousands and thousands
22 of men and boys from Kozluk, from the Branjevo Military Farm, from the dam
23 above the factory in Karakaj from the Pilica Dom, from the Kravica
24 warehouse, and from Orahovac, and as I said, I want you to answer
25 questions about that."
1 Why did you tell him all that?
2 A. Clearly, I'm indicating to him that we had a substantial amount of
3 information, that it was in his interest to tell the truth. Clearly, I
4 was conducting an interview. I suspected, as many of them did, that he
5 would lie, and I was trying to give him as much information as possible
6 that we had.
7 Now, I must make comment on two points. I wasn't present for the
8 exhumations at those graves. And you asked me about the aerial imagery of
9 executions, and clearly that's not correct. When I spoke about the aerial
10 image of executions, in the Branjevo Military Farm photographs you can see
11 what I believe and know to be bodies, and I take that as a valid comment,
12 that that image shows bodies that have been executed. And I don't know
13 why I indicated that I personally exhumed those bodies, knowing that I
14 wasn't there in 1996. I would say that I haven't checked this interview
15 against the record, the actual tape, but I accept the majority of what was
16 said there. I can see that there are one or two words missing, but I
17 accept that I said those things.
18 Q. Do you understand the word "hyperbole," Mr. Manning?
19 A. Yes, I do.
20 Q. Would that fairly summarise your claim that you had personally
21 exhumed thousands and thousands of men and boys?
22 A. Not from those graves, but I have personally been involved in the
23 exhumation of thousands of men and boys from Srebrenica mass graves.
24 Q. Had you by the 13th of March, 2002?
25 A. I'd been involved in that process since September/October of 1998,
1 when the Zeleni Jadar 5 mass grave was opened, and in that intervening
2 time I was involved in the exhumation of a number of graves, yes.
3 Q. I mean, you agreed with me earlier, didn't you, that this sort of
4 passage as an introduction to an interview is not unusual for you?
5 A. I think in that instance it may be unusual. I can't remember the
6 circumstances as why I felt it appropriate to go into so much detail with
7 this individual. Perhaps because he was a lower-level individual. I
8 didn't perhaps want him to lie and incriminate himself in that lie.
9 Perhaps I wanted to show him that there was a wealth of information
10 available. I don't know that that would be a normal, representative
11 interview conducted by me.
12 Q. I mean, using the same adjectives that you used to Mr. Meek, would
13 you describe that passage as fair, honest and objective?
14 A. Given the fact that I said Branjevo Military Farm and Pilica Dom,
15 Kravica warehouse, that's not correct, but, yes, the rest is. We had a
16 significant body of evidence. I was trying to state it as strongly as I
17 possibly could so that this individual would understand that we had a
18 wealth of information and evidence. And as I say, "It's your opportunity
19 to tell the truth."
20 Q. I'm going to finish with this: Do I understand what you're saying
21 correctly, you thought the best way of getting Milorad Bircakovic to tell
22 the truth was to tell him some lies?
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Ms. Soljan.
24 MS. SOLJAN: Objection, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Why?
1 MR. HAYNES: Let's have a break.
2 MS. SOLJAN: Inappropriate.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Why?
4 MR. HAYNES: I didn't follow that, but we'll have a break and I'm
6 MS. SOLJAN: Well, it's argumentative.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's have a break, 25 minutes.
8 --- Recess taken at 12.32 p.m.
9 --- On resuming at 1.02 p.m.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. For the record, both Mr. Josse and Mr. Bourgon
11 are present in the courtroom.
12 Mr. Haynes.
13 MR. HAYNES: The problem is, with ending your cross-examination
14 just before a break, is you realise you've forgotten one or two things,
15 but it shouldn't take more than two minutes. So with your leave, can I
16 ask the witness two or three more questions?
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Can we split the difference 50/50?
18 MR. HAYNES:
19 Q. Mr. Manning, we were just talking about interviewing witnesses and
20 suspects. I take it that whether you were interviewing a witness or a
21 suspect, you would regard it as thoroughly bad practice for the interview
22 to take place whilst the both of you were consuming alcohol?
23 A. Yes, I would agree with that.
24 Q. Thank you. Now, moving on, in amongst the many figures you've
25 given us, are you able to give us a figure for the number of bodies that
1 were found, as it were, above ground, on the surface?
2 A. The figure of -- or the number of surface remains is incorporated
3 into the remainder of the Bosnian graves and surface remains. I didn't
4 calculate a specific -- specific number in relation to surface remains
5 specifically because it was difficult to identify exactly where the bodies
6 were located and when, as a collection of surface remains. So,
7 effectively, the surface remains are also -- would also include the other
8 smaller graves or graves exhumed by the Bosnian Commission.
9 Q. Thank you. And, lastly, are you aware of the basis upon which the
10 ICMP receives its funding?
11 A. I understand that they're funded mostly by donations, but that's
12 the extent of my knowledge. I think Queen Noor of Jordan is involved.
13 There are several notable figures involved, and I think a US politician of
14 some repute was also involved. I can't remember his name.
15 Q. And did you understand that the funding it receives may or is
16 based on sentences of local and international courts?
17 A. No, I'm completely unfamiliar with that.
18 MR. HAYNES: Thank you, Mr. Manning.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Mr. Haynes.
20 Is there re-examination?
21 MS. SOLJAN: Only about five to ten minutes, Your Honours.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay, thank you. Go ahead.
23 Re-examination by Ms. Soljan:
24 Q. Mr. Manning, can you remind the Trial Chamber, has a connection
25 been made between the primary grave of Branjevo Military Farm and a
1 secondary grave?
2 A. Yes, Cancari Road 12.
3 MS. SOLJAN: Could I please ask the usher to put on e-court
4 Exhibit number P01801. Thank you.
5 Q. Mr. Manning, can you indicate for the Court what date this image
6 is taken on?
7 A. The image is marked "27 September 1995".
8 Q. And just briefly, can you describe what is on this image, what you
9 see on the image?
10 A. It's the Branjevo Military Farm. It's the area of the pig farm,
11 vehicle tracks through the field, and the mass grave at Branjevo Military
12 Farm, also known as "Pilica."
13 MS. SOLJAN: Thank you. Could I please have Exhibit P01869. Thank
15 Q. Mr. Manning, can you indicate what the date of this image is?
16 A. The 2nd of October, 1995.
17 Q. And can you please describe what the image depicts?
18 A. Effectively, it's the Cancari Road 12 secondary mass grave, and
19 you can see that the tracks leading to the grave and there are vehicle
20 tracks around the grave. It would indicate to me that the grave has been
21 sealed up.
22 MS. SOLJAN: And can we have image P01868 on the screen, please.
23 Q. Mr. Manning, what is the date of this image?
24 A. This image is dated 27 September 1995.
25 Q. And can you describe what it depicts?
1 A. It shows the Cancari 12 secondary grave, and you can clearly see
2 vehicle tracks, what I previously described as a mound of soil next to a
3 trench on the 27th of September, 1995.
4 Q. And what is the significance of this mound of soil?
5 A. It would have come from either the trench itself or be on top of
6 the trench.
7 Q. And what does that mean about the grave?
8 A. In this image, it looks to me that the grave is opened, but it
9 could be that it's being -- been filled in. The lack of vehicle tracks
10 indicate that it's been built.
11 MS. SOLJAN: Thank you. Can we go to image P01610. And this is
12 the last image, Your Honours.
13 Q. Mr. Manning, earlier in cross-examination with Mr. Stojanovic, you
14 were discussing a certain number of graves. Can you indicate to us what
15 this image represents?
16 A. This image shows, on the right-hand side of the road, "GL-1", the
17 primary disturbed mass grave, and on the left near the marking that
18 says "GL-2" and "Front loader" is part of the GL-2 mass grave.
19 Q. Thank you. And can you, in a little more detail, explain to the
20 Trial Chamber the various sub-parts of the grave that you had been
21 discussing with Mr. Stojanovic?
22 A. If you look at the GL-1 grave, you can see what looked like to be
23 vehicle tracks and soil pushed in a direction. As the grave was robbed,
24 there was a significant movement of earth. That feature you see in the
25 middle of the grave, where those tracks and movements of earth go in a
1 upwards-to-the-left direction, perhaps would have been treated as is
2 separate grave feature by the archaeologists when they dug the grave, so
3 that may have been - and I can't recall - designated grave H. If you look
4 further up to the top right, you see another shape in that grave. Again
5 that would be designated as grave B, perhaps, and in that way they were
6 able to identify the features within the grave as they operated and
7 continued to expand their view of the grave.
8 But if you look at it, it's all part of one grave and there are
9 features within that grave. I'd indicate that the grave L that I spoke
10 of, with the 12 individuals, was next to the house at the bottom of the
11 GL-1 photograph, and that was distinct and separate, but very close to the
12 other graves that were there.
13 MS. SOLJAN: Thank you, Mr. Manning.
14 I have no more questions, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
16 Judge Kwon?
17 Mr. Manning, we don't have any further questions for you.
18 Yes, Ms. Tapuskovic.
19 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I would
20 have two questions for the witness arising from re-examination, with your
21 permission, of course.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: If they arise out of the re-examination, yes, of
23 course. Go ahead.
24 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour, they do arise
25 from re-examination, namely, from the photographs shown to the witness. I
1 will not be going back to the photographs. Rather, I will only use the
2 photograph that we have at present on our screens to save time. Thank
3 you, Your Honour.
4 Further cross-examination by Ms. Tapuskovic:
5 Q. Mr. Manning, I've got two questions to put to you in relation to
6 this photograph, where we see these labels, "GL-2" and "GL-1" in yellow.
7 Can you tell me, who placed these two yellow labels, "GL-2" and "GL-1"?
8 A. I did.
9 Q. Thank you. You placed them here because, based on the photograph,
10 you can recognise the location at hand; is that right?
11 A. Yes. I was involved in the exhumation and identification of both
12 those graves. I knew where they were, and I'm indicating which graves
13 they are.
14 Q. In relation to the photograph we are looking at now, you also have
15 a label in this white rectangle where it says "Front loader." Can you
16 tell me who placed this label here?
17 A. That was placed there by the provider of the image.
18 Q. In order not to go back to the other photographs, as it takes time
19 to call them up, do all the photographs shown to you by Madam Soljan and
20 which have labels, have all of them been obtained from the same provider,
21 the provider that gave you these photographs?
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. McCloskey.
23 MR. McCLOSKEY: That's not appropriate under the Rule 70, to
24 determine which providers we get material from.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Tapuskovic.
1 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I may have
2 misspoken. I didn't want to hear from the witness who the provider was.
3 My question was whether the other photographs, images, shown to us during
4 the re-examination by Madam Soljan were also placed -- those labels,
5 whether they were also placed by the same provider. I don't want to go
6 into who the provider is. I only want to know whether the same labels
7 were placed by the same provider on the other photographs, images.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: I think the objection focuses on the use of -- or
9 your use of the word "same." I think the proper way to put the question
10 is whether the indications on the map which are in white, like we have
11 here on this present photo, were put by the provider, not necessarily by
12 the same provider, because that would just go into what Mr. McCloskey is
13 objecting to.
14 MR. McCLOSKEY: Mr. President, I'm thinking about that now, and
15 I'm thinking about the authorisation, and I think the provider stands
16 behind all these photographs. So that question is okay, now that I think
17 about it. I apologise. I'm just -- we're just getting close.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. So basically you have a stipulation there,
19 and you don't need to put the question. You have a stipulation from the
20 Prosecutor, lead counsel for the Prosecution in this case, so there's no
21 point in pursuing the same question.
22 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. Yes, I
23 am clear now, I should be using the term "provider," but can I get my
24 answer from the witness?
25 JUDGE AGIUS: I don't think you need an answer from the witness.
1 You have a confirmation of what you want to know from Mr. McCloskey,
3 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Very well. I still have one
4 question left for the witness.
5 Q. Does the same form of indications in white also apply to the
6 indications of dates, when it comes to these same images?
7 A. Your Honour, in these images the yellow text was placed on there
8 by myself. The white text, the label and the date was placed by the
9 provider. In effect, the yellow is mine; the rest is not.
10 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
11 Your Honours, I have no further questions.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Ms. Tapuskovic.
13 That concludes your testimony. We don't have any questions for
14 you from the Bench.
15 Mr. Manning, I wish, on behalf of the Trial Chamber, to thank you
16 very much for having come over to give testimony. And you have a long
17 journey back home, and we wish you a safe journey.
18 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honours.
19 [The witness withdrew]
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. We will postpone the exhibits till later, and
21 we start with Kingori.
22 [The witness entered court]
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Good afternoon to you, Mr. Kingori.
24 THE WITNESS: Good afternoon, sir.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: And most welcome. We are about to start your
1 testimony, which will continue in the forthcoming days.
2 Before you do so, you're required by our Rules to - you are
3 familiar with this - to make the solemn declaration. Please read out the
4 text, and that will be your solemn undertaking with us.
5 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the
6 whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
7 WITNESS: JOSEPH KINGORI
8 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, sir. Please take a seat and make
9 yourself comfortable.
10 We've got about 20 minutes or 22 minutes to go. Mr. Thayer will
11 go first.
12 Please, Mr. Thayer, I know that you have asked for about three
13 hours. Try to limit it as much as you can. Our idea is that we try and
14 finish the complete testimony of this witness by Friday.
15 MR. THAYER: Mr. President, I will do my best. I've already cut
16 the examination down. I'll try to keep it as short as possible.
17 Examination by Mr. Thayer:
18 Q. Good afternoon, sir.
19 A. Good afternoon, sir.
20 Q. Would you please state and spell your name for the record?
21 A. My name is Lieutenant-Colonel Kingori, and I spell the last name
22 that is Kilo-India-November-Golf-Oscar-Romeo-India.
23 Q. And how old are you, sir?
24 A. I'm now 50 years in August this year.
25 Q. And where were you born and raised?
1 A. I was born in Kenya, in Moyale District, and that is where I was
2 raised until I went to Nairobi in 1977 to look for a job.
3 Q. And let me just briefly review your military service history.
4 You joined the Kenyan Air Force in 1997 and retired this past --
5 I'm sorry, 1977, and retired this past August at the rank of colonel; is
6 that correct?
7 A. That's correct, Your Honour.
8 Q. And what is your current assignment or work?
9 A. Currently, I'm deployed in Nairobi as the acting director of the
10 National Disaster Operations Centre.
11 Q. Now, your service in the former Yugoslavia began in 1994, when you
12 served as an UNMO team leader in Erdut until approximately March of 1995;
13 is that correct, sir?
14 A. That's correct, Your Honour.
15 Q. Would you just briefly describe any training that you received to
16 be an UNMO upon your deployment?
17 A. First and foremost is that before going to -- for the deployment
18 in the former Yugoslavia, we had a brief in Nairobi concerning what we
19 were expected to do when we got to the operational area. And when we
20 arrived there, that is, in Zagreb, we were trained on various issues that
21 we were going to handle when we were in the field, and that training took
22 about two days, and that involved a lot of things, that is, first aid,
23 things to do with crater analysis, things to do with the reporting, the
24 normal military observer type of reporting, and all that.
25 Q. Now, sir, in March of 1995, you were assigned to Sector Northeast
1 UNMO headquarters as a member of Team Srebrenica; is that correct?
2 A. Yes, that's correct, sir.
3 Q. Where were your offices located?
4 A. In Srebrenica, our offices were located in the PTT building. That
5 was -- I think it was either a postal building or something like that, but
6 that is where our headquarters were.
7 Q. And where were you quartered or billeted?
8 A. We were having our billet in the same place. That is where we
9 were sleeping, that is where we had our offices, and that is where we were
10 doing all our things, like even washing, cooking and all that.
11 Q. And, briefly, would you describe what your team's duties and
12 responsibilities were as UNMOs in Srebrenica?
13 A. Military observers have, you know, various duties that they are
14 assigned to, but mainly it's to monitor and report any violations to the
15 ceasefire agreement, that is, VCFAs, VCFAs, and also bring the warring
16 factions to an understanding, to bring them together, hold meetings
17 regularly with them in the side, and then so that you can convey whatever
18 you told from this side to the other side and vice versa so you can bridge
19 the differences that hold them apart, and then you can bring them together
20 to an agreement and to a situation whereby they can live together and as
21 one family.
22 Q. Now, you mentioned reporting violations of the ceasefire
23 agreement. Was part of your duties investigating reports of violations?
24 A. That is true, Your Honour.
25 Q. And can you describe what you would do in connection with those
2 A. Now, whenever we went out in case we are told that there is a
3 violation somewhere, we go out in the field, then get the report from the
4 locals or -- so that, I mean, even ourselves, we can see if it is maybe a
5 crater which has hit a certain area, we'll go see the place where the
6 craters hit, analyse the size of the crater, and also the detail that
7 concerns how or where -- from which direction that that shell could have
8 come from, and then get the grid references for the -- so that we can be
9 able to report to the UNMO headquarters through the normal channels. Or
10 if it was maybe some people was injured, we would go there, see them,
11 interview them, and record all the statements from them so that we can be
12 able to transmit the same to our headquarters through the normal channels.
13 Q. Sir, when you perform these crater analyses, would you use any
14 special equipment for that?
15 A. Your Honour, there was special equipment that we were using, and
16 we had them, and that first and foremost you got to -- the crater, when a
17 crater is formed, it forms in a definite pattern, especially if it has hit
18 a hard surface. It forms in a definite pattern that you'd be able to
19 identify, according to what we had been taught, where the shell could have
20 come from, the general direction of the origin of the shell. Then, with
21 the equipments that we had, you could place them there, on the shelling --
22 on the hole itself, and then that is the crater, and then be able to
23 measure and know the size or the calibre of the shell.
24 Then you go to the shell, so the fragments that you have there.
25 Then you could be able to check with the documents that we had, because we
1 had a book that carried all the types of weapons which were in that
2 general area. Then you could be able to tell the kind of or the calibre
3 of the weapon. From that calibre, you can be able to identify the range,
4 because all those details are in the book. You can identify the range of
5 that particular weapon. If it is a 155, maybe two and a half kilometres,
6 that is the range. Then from there, you can go to the map that you
7 already have, then try to locate, with the direction that you got from the
8 way the shell landed towards that -- where the source you think could have
9 been, then when you put the two and a half kilometres or so, you be able
10 to identify the general area where the shell could have been launched
12 Q. Now, sir, could you just briefly describe the reporting system
13 that Team Srebrenica used?
14 A. Our reporting system was just like any other UN military observer
15 teams, in that we had, as a team, to report to our sector headquarters,
16 that is, UNMO's sector headquarters, United Nations Military Observers,
17 not UNPROFOR. So when we report to the UN Military Observer headquarters,
18 that is, sector headquarters, they would now report to the UNMO
19 headquarters in Zagreb, and that is -- that was the normal -- the normal
20 pattern. In fact, we had a very clear way of reporting, and our hierarchy
21 was very definite, in that we still had our own senior military observer
22 in the sector and the chief military observer in the UN headquarters in
24 Q. And your Sector Northeast headquarters was located where, sir?
25 A. Your Honour, it was located in Tuzla.
1 Q. Now, how important was the accuracy of the information that you
2 put in those reports?
3 A. The reports that we used to make definitely were accurate, and
4 that is one of the qualifications of UN military observers, in that the
5 details of whatever they report had to be as accurate as possible. In
6 fact, if there was to be any error, it was actually unforgivable, so we
7 had to make sure the details we put in there were very accurate. That is,
8 when we go out there to maybe check any VCFA and we find any, we will take
9 the task of interviewing the people who were around there. We'd also make
10 an effort to ensure that the leadership in that particular area, you know,
11 is interviewed, and also even people on the other side, that is, the
12 opposing side, is also interviewed so that they can also give us their
13 story from their perspective, and then so that whatever we're reporting is
14 something which is as true as possible.
15 Q. Now, how would you indicate, if at all, the different sources of
16 this information and whether or not something was able to be confirmed by
17 you or another member of your team, or where there was something that was
18 not confirmed?
19 A. What it is, Your Honour, is that in most cases we are the ones who
20 are doing the investigations, but in case we got maybe a rumour or
21 information from a source that maybe is not that reliable, but for the
22 purpose of writing the report we've got to include that because maybe it
23 could turn out to be true, we always put the initials "NCBU" to mean not
24 confirmed by UNMOs, in that that is what we have had, but for sure we are
25 not the ones who found it, we have just been told. So it would be taken
1 the way it is, and later on you could find out maybe it's true, but if you
2 have not confirmed it, we must indicate it's not confirmed by UNMOs.
3 Q. Now, would you just briefly name, to the best of your
4 recollection, the contacts in the Muslim military leadership that you had
5 in Srebrenica?
6 A. In Srebrenica, Your Honour, the contacts that we had mainly were
7 through Mr. -- the Chief of Staff. That was Mr. Ramiz, and also his
8 intelligence officer. I can't remember his name very well, but there was
9 an intelligence officer. But Ramiz and this intelligence officer were our
10 main contacts with the Muslims.
11 Q. And did you ever meet anybody that you understood was the
12 commander of the local military presence?
13 A. Your Honour, the -- I never met anyone that was in charge, only
14 that when I arrived there, that is, in early April, I was told that there
15 was someone who was in charge of the army called Mr., I think, Oric, yes,
16 Naser or Jaser Oric or something like that, but for sure I never met him
17 because by the time I arrived there, he had already left the enclave and
18 his whereabouts were unknown.
19 Q. When you met with Mr. Ramiz -- and do you recall his last name,
21 A. Yeah, his -- Your Honour, his last name was "Becirovic."
22 Q. When you met with Mr. Becirovic or the intelligence officer, where
23 would you do that?
24 A. We would meet either at the PTT building -- in fact, most of the
25 time, we were meeting at the PTT building, but at times, though it was
1 very -- I think it was only once that we met at the opstina, but that was
2 only once. Most of the time we were meeting at the PTT building, at the
3 top. Yeah, that's all.
4 Q. Did you ever visit or see what was told to you was the
5 headquarters of the local military presence?
6 A. As far as I know, there was -- there was no local headquarter of
7 any military people there, that is, the Muslims. There was just a
8 communications centre, a small communications centre in that same
9 building, but there was no headquarters, as such.
10 Q. And do you recall ever being present in that military -- in that
11 small communications centre? Sorry.
12 A. Yes, Your Honour, I was there.
13 Q. How many times, and can you recall anything about it?
14 A. I can remember we had some meetings there, and one of the meetings
15 is when just before -- just before the place was shelled and also even
16 during the shelling is the time we had a meeting with the CO Dutch-Bat
17 there, and also another meeting that we held with the LO Dutch-Bat in the
18 same place, that is, in the communications centre.
19 Q. And, again, do you recall anything about the centre? Was it a
20 room, was it a floor; do you recall any details at all?
21 A. The thing I remember is that it was a small room. It was just a
22 small room with some communication equipments, that is, HF, VHF radios,
23 and nothing much, nothing you can call a proper communication centre.
24 Q. What were the topics of your meetings, just generally, sir, with
25 these Muslim military representatives?
1 A. This could vary from time to time, but mainly they were calling us
2 for meetings only when they had been attacked by the -- by the BSA, and
3 especially when their people were coming back from Tuzla to bring goods
4 that they had gone to buy there so that they can sell to the people, and
5 mainly is -- if we suspected that these attacks were being caused by maybe
6 disagreements between the two, because in most cases when they were going
7 out, they had to agree with the BSA so that they could be given a safe
8 passage to go out, bring back their goods and all that, but in case there
9 was a disagreement, they were ambushed, they were harmed, and then after
10 that, maybe they would call a meeting and say that they were beaten by,
11 you know, by the BSA. So that's the only time that they used to call us
12 for a meeting.
13 Q. Did you ever receive complaints from any other source about
14 shelling or attacks into the enclave?
15 A. Well, there were a lot of complaints. I think that was normal.
16 In fact, we couldn't stay for long without some complaints coming from the
17 Muslims concerning an attack somewhere, in a certain village, and
18 especially the Bandera Triangle area, which was somewhere to the -- I
19 think to the west or somewhere, and also even in the most of the other
20 villages you could hear attacks, and then, you know, there are complaints
21 that a certain village has been shelled, a certain village there was some
22 shooting from the BSA side, and we would go out that way to investigate
23 that case.
24 Q. And how often would you verify those complaints, sir?
25 A. Your Honour, most of the time we could verify. When we arrived
1 there, we could find people who were injured. You could find where a
2 shell has landed. It has exploded and you can see the place. The
3 shrapnel, most of them are there, you can be able to see them. You can
4 even identify the type of weapon used, the injuries on the people, the
5 destruction on the buildings or something like that. You know, you could
6 be able to verify that actually an attack occurred.
7 Q. And did these locations and individuals appear to you to be
8 military or civilian?
9 A. I didn't get your question well. Are you talking about the ones
10 who attacked or the ones who were attacked?
11 Q. The ones who were attacked that you were visiting and performing
12 your investigation.
13 A. Your Honour, the persons who were attacked were normal villagers.
14 In fact, they were not military at all. As far as we could verify, they
15 were not military, and so their targets were actually civilian targets.
16 Q. Did you have interpreters on staff with whom you worked?
17 A. Your Honour, we did. We had two interpreters who are Muslims,
18 that is, inside the enclave, and we had one who was a Serb from outside
19 the enclave. That is, he was staying in Bratunac, so whenever we wanted
20 him, we could be able to get him. We could call him on radio, get him,
21 arrange for a meeting, and then whatever we wanted, we would discuss in
22 his presence or through his effort.
23 Q. Now, with respect to the Muslim interpreters, do you know or do
24 you have any idea how long they had been working as UNMO interpreters
25 prior to working with you?
1 A. Yeah. When I arrived there, I found these guys there, that is,
2 the two, Amir and Hasan, and those guys had been there for quite some
3 time, at least around three years or so, and that they could give me
4 stories of some Kenyan officers who were there, you know, prior to my
5 arrival there. That was about two to three years or so. And so I had
6 reason to believe that they had been there for about a minimum of three
7 years or so.
8 Q. Now, you referred to a Serb interpreter a moment ago. Do you
9 recall the interpreter's name?
10 A. Oh, that is someone I cannot forget. His name was Petar.
11 Q. And do you recall the names of any Serb military representatives
12 with whom you met with any regularity?
13 A. Your Honour, there was one that -- who was our main contact with
14 the -- with the BSA military establishment, and that was Major Nikolic.
15 This one was the main contact, and he's the person we met nearly -- nearly
16 always. And whenever we wanted to pass something, he's the guy that we
17 always arranged meetings with, Major Nikolic.
18 Q. Were there any other Serb officers whose names -- or whose name
19 you recall?
20 A. Yeah, there were others, there are others that I happened to
21 meet. Of course, most of them, I cannot remember their names, but at
22 least I can remember there was Colonel Vukovic, there was Colonel, I
23 think, Tricic [phoen], there was -- you know, during my entire stay there,
24 there were people I met. And there was a legal officer, one -- that is
25 during the war. That is the one who told me that he's a legal officer,
1 and his name, Fatim Watamir [phoen] or something like that. I can't
2 remember very well.
3 Q. Okay. And we'll get to that in a little while, but just focusing
4 on prior to the July attack, sir, had you met this Colonel Vukovic prior
5 to the attack in July?
6 A. Your Honour, I had. I met him before.
7 MR. THAYER: And we'll leave it there for the day, Colonel. Thank
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Colonel, thank you. We'll continue tomorrow.
10 Thank you, everyone. We'll reconvene tomorrow at 9.00 in the
12 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.45 p.m.,
13 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 13th day of
14 December, 2007, at 9.00 a.m.