1 Wednesday, 29 April 2009
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 2.19 p.m.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Good afternoon. Mr. Registrar, could you call the
6 case, please.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Thank you, Your Honour. Good afternoon,
8 Your Honours. Good afternoon to everyone in and around the courtroom.
9 This is case number IT-05-88-T, the Prosecution versus Vujadin Popovic et
10 al. Thank you.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. All the accused are here.
12 Representation, Prosecution, Mr. McCloskey, Mr. Vanderpuye, Ms. Soljan.
13 Anyone else there? No. Defence teams, I already notice the absence of
14 Mr. Bourgon.
15 All right. I understand the Prosecution wishes to address the
17 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, Mr. President. Good afternoon.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Good afternoon. Go ahead.
19 MR. McCLOSKEY: Mr. President, we are proposing and the Defence
20 agrees that Mr. Parsons is here and that out of an abundance of caution
21 we start with him just to make sure there's no risk of him going over and
22 having to stay in for the holiday. It looks like from the estimates that
23 we shouldn't have a problem, but as you know, sometimes we get to
24 talking. So if we could start with Parsons and finish him, then Mr. Janc
25 is available afterward should we have more time.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: And Mr. Janc is also available Friday, I suppose,
2 if we need him.
3 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, he is available, and that's no problem. And
4 then I have one other preliminary.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Okay. The other preliminary you wish
6 to state now or later?
7 MR. McCLOSKEY: I can state it now.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Go ahead.
9 MR. McCLOSKEY: As you know the Popovic team has filed a motion
10 requesting three Bisina witnesses. We have looked at the B/C/S versions
11 of those statements and have no objection to those statements coming in
12 92 bis, no cross-examination. I've discussed that briefly with
13 Mr. Zivanovic, and so we can -- he seemed to be positive on that, though
14 he hasn't had any time to think about it.
15 Also with -- with Mr. Rodic, the intercept person, should we --
16 if we can see a brief statement or report on what he has to say, we may
17 very well do the same thing on that issue and just let that come in
18 through 92 bis, no cross, just --
19 JUDGE AGIUS: And Kosoric?
20 MR. McCLOSKEY: Kosoric we'd like to chat with a bit. Though I
21 would like to hear how if Mr. Kosoric is really willing to come and speak
22 with us, because we haven't had that opportunity to speak with him.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. People who know me better than you do
24 would have anticipated exactly where I was getting.
25 All right. Thank you for that information. You will mull over
1 it, Mr. Zivanovic, and if you are in agreement you will let us know as
2 soon as possible. In the meantime we haven't, of course, decided on your
3 motion, but we will be deciding soon. Thank you.
4 Yes. Can we bring in Mr. Parsons, Dr. Parsons.
5 [The witness entered court]
6 WITNESS: THOMAS PARSONS [Recalled]
7 JUDGE AGIUS: Good afternoon to you, Dr. Parsons, and welcome
8 back. Could we proceed with your solemn declaration straight away,
10 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the
11 whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, sir. Please make yourself
14 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Vanderpuye will put some questions to you and
16 we'll be doing our level best to finish with your testimony today,
17 although I don't promise.
18 Mr. Vanderpuye.
19 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President. Good afternoon to
20 you. Good afternoon to Your Honours. Good afternoon to my colleagues.
21 Examination by Mr. Vanderpuye:
22 Q. And good afternoon to you, Dr. Parsons. Indeed, welcome back.
23 As you know, you've been called back to testify for only a limited
24 purpose on our part and of course to provide the Defence with an
25 opportunity to cross-examine you in relation to your testimony. So I'll
1 have not very many questions for you and then I'll turn you over to the
2 Defence for examination.
3 If there's anything that I say that's not clear or -- just let me
4 know and I will rephrase it in a way that we can best understand one
5 another and get through this in short order.
6 You last testified over a year ago in this case. Could you just
7 briefly tell us what your position is with the ICMP.
8 A. I am the director of forensic sciences at the ICMP and oversee
9 three main divisions or areas of speciality. One is a DNA laboratory
10 system. Another is anthropological examinations and archaeological
11 excavations; and the third is a central identification unit where the
12 samples come in and identifications are made.
13 Q. In terms of your supervisory functions, do your responsibilities
14 include personally reviewing all of the forensic work that is carried out
15 in ICMP labs?
16 A. No, they do not. The details of each and every report are not
17 something that I normally review.
18 Q. And are those -- are those details reviewed -- is there an
19 apparatus or a mechanism by which those details are reviewed in the ICMP?
20 A. Yes, certainly, particularly with regard to the DNA reports we
21 have a very formal system of -- of review.
22 Q. And can you tell us just by establishment, not by name, who is
23 responsible for reviewing the laboratory work that goes on in the ICMP?
24 A. An individual associated with the genetic analysis department, an
25 individual associated with a statistical calculations and then the head
1 of the DNA
2 Q. And are all those aspects necessary in order to carry out
3 adequate and appropriate testing pursuant to the certification that the
4 ICMP has -- accreditation that the ICMP has?
5 A. Yes, the accreditation calls for formal review processes.
6 Q. Okay. Now, since you last testified are you aware of any further
7 or updated information that the ICMP has provided to the Office of the
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Okay. And in particular, can you tell us what material you are
11 aware of that has been provided?
12 A. The primary document is an update of the DNA notification list, I
13 believe it's as of January 2009, that lists the DNA match reports that
14 have been made.
15 Q. Okay. And have you provide -- has ICMP provided any other
16 documentation --
17 THE INTERPRETER: Please slow down for the interpreters. Thank
19 MR. VANDERPUYE:
20 Q. Has ICMP provided any other documentation that you can recall?
21 A. There's a list of unmatched DNA profiles as well.
22 Q. Have you had an opportunity to look at that material or review
23 that material recently?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Okay. And how recently have you reviewed it?
1 A. Well, it's -- it's extremely voluminous, so I can't say that I've
2 reviewed it in extreme detail, but I have familiarised myself with it
3 recently in the last few days.
4 Q. And how was that material provided to you?
5 A. In the same form that -- that was provided to the ICTY, in Excel
6 spreadsheets. There is an additional set of information that our -- our
7 agency has passed to the court as well, and that is the number of case
8 files that were requested that contain the actual DNA data, the
9 statistical calculations and the match reports themselves.
10 MR. VANDERPUYE: All right. If we could have in e-court, please,
11 65 ter 4497. Just for the record, Your Honours, the spreadsheet of ICMP
12 data that the witness refers to is contained in D0002768, 65 ter 4494.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Mr. Vanderpuye.
14 MR. VANDERPUYE:
15 Q. Dr. Parsons, do you recognise this document that's in e-court
16 now? And we'll go to the next page in just a moment.
17 A. Yes, sir.
18 Q. Is this a document that was provided by the ICMP to the Office of
19 the Prosecutor?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Okay.
22 MR. VANDERPUYE: And if we could go, please, to the page ending
23 630. It should be, I guess, ten pages from here in e-court.
24 Q. And do you recognise your signature?
25 A. Yes, I do.
1 Q. Okay.
2 MR. VANDERPUYE: If we could go to the next document, please.
3 That would be 65 ter 4498. Okay.
4 Q. Do you recognise this document?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And is this a document that was provided by the ICMP to the
7 Office of the Prosecutor?
8 A. Yes.
9 MR. VANDERPUYE: I'm sorry, I didn't put on the record the last
10 document, the title of the document was Summary Report Cancari Road 4,
11 BiH, ICMP site code: T-ZVO.CR04. This document reads Cancari -- Summary
12 Report Cancari Road
13 document if we could just go to page ending 315. It's page 10 in --
14 that's right.
15 Q. Do you recognise the signature on this document, Dr. Parsons?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Okay.
18 MR. VANDERPUYE: If we could go to the next document, which is 65
19 ter 4499.
20 Q. Do you recognise this document?
21 A. Yes.
22 MR. VANDERPUYE: For the record this document reads summary
23 report, Cancari Road 08, BiH, ICMP site code: T-ZVO.CR08. And if we
24 could just go to page ending 665, page 10 also of this document.
25 Q. Do you recognise your signature here?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Okay. With respect to these last three documents and the
3 spreadsheet that you referred to earlier, those were all documents that
4 were provided by ICMP to the Office of the Prosecutor; is that right?
5 A. That's correct.
6 Q. Okay. Now, with respect to the first document that you referred
7 to, that is the document concerning the identifications -- or update of
8 identifications that were made by the ICMP, did you have an opportunity
9 to review all of the material in that -- in that spreadsheet?
10 A. No, I wouldn't say I was able to review all that material.
11 There's over 10.000 line entries.
12 Q. And are you aware of any particular problems or issues concerning
13 the reliability or validity of the data that is contained in that
15 A. Fundamentally, no.
16 Q. Now, if I could, could I show you, please, 65 ter 4526. Are you
17 aware of an e-mail that was provided by an employee of the ICMP on
18 24 April of which addressed certain -- certain issues concerning this --
19 this updated material?
20 A. Yes, I am.
21 Q. And how were you made aware of that particular -- of this e-mail?
22 A. It was shared to me prior to its distribution and I've reviewed
23 it subsequently.
24 Q. Okay. And in this e-mail, as we can see under -- just near the
25 middle --
1 MR. VANDERPUYE: If we can blow that up where it says number 1.
2 It's right in the middle of the paragraph. Yes. Right there. I suppose
3 everybody can read it anyway.
4 Q. But could you tell us what the thrust of this e-mail is, what it
6 A. Okay. First of all, the -- the primary list that -- that this
7 refers to, these some 10.000 or so entries into the notification list
8 represent DNA
9 matches either of a victim sample to a family -- a set of families
10 associated with a missing person, or they're related to reassociating two
11 different parts of the same victim individual. Okay. And so it is not,
12 strictly speaking, a list of closed cases at the ICMP, where bodies have
13 been returned to the families. These are DNA match reports with high
14 statistical surety ascribe an individual name to a victim sample. So it
15 was brought to our attention as -- out of these 10.000 or so entries that
16 are either primary matches or reassociation matches that there were a
17 number of cases where there were apparent inconsistencies with regard to
18 who was listed on the DNA
19 some eight cases that required a bit of additional investigation.
20 Q. Okay.
21 A. And these -- these numbered points here reflect a number of
22 explanations as to how something like that could occur. So a primary
23 instance might be that we have a DNA
24 individual with a certain name, and then we have a set of victim remains
25 to which this sample is thought to relate.
1 Well, upon inspection, it turns out that it could be that the
2 named individual is not consistent with the set of victim remains, and so
3 I list three reasons why such an extremely rare event might -- that might
4 cause an extremely rare event.
5 Q. And the three reasons that you list are set out in this e-mail,
6 is that right, under number 1, 2, and 3?
7 A. That's correct.
8 Q. Okay. And in respect of the data that you looked at, that is the
9 most recent identification data on the spreadsheets as you've indicated,
10 are you aware that any one of these particular circumstances has in fact
11 occurred, or are these an explanation of potential or possible
12 explanations for the discrepancies that were pointed out to you?
13 A. In the cases in question, in fact we remain to identify the root
14 cause of which -- which of these three or -- or possibly another
15 explanation might be. In fact, in one case I made reference to another
16 explanation, and in one case we did determine that that was the case, and
17 that was that we have two identical twins whose DNA was exactly the same
18 between them, and therefore they were -- they were matched to the -- to
19 the same name, and as we later found out, they were the twins and we were
20 able to sort that out.
21 Q. Okay. Now, are you aware of any defects in the testing
22 procedures that were -- that are employed by the ICMP or were employed by
23 the ICMP that would call into question the reliability of the results
24 that are -- that are shown in the spreadsheet of identifications as you
25 referred to previously? That is, are you aware of any defects in the
1 testing procedures themselves?
2 A. With regard to the actual DNA
4 Q. Okay. And would the explanations that you've given here for
5 these rare instances, as you've referred to them, would these kinds of
6 individualised errors impact on the overall reliability and accuracy of
7 the results that have been obtained by ICMP in respect of
9 A. In -- in some ways, yes, and in some ways, no, and that's
10 obviously something I would have to clarify. The -- the DNA match
11 reports that are contained in that list and -- indicate the DNA that was
12 obtained from a victim sample, and I would say in -- in every case,
13 regardless of these -- these very small number of cases we're discussing
14 here, even including those, the sample that was tested for DNA in fact
15 matches that family and that named individual as it is stated on the
16 match report. The problem comes in with correlating that sample to where
17 it was originally thought to have been taken from. So we have a small
18 number of cases where there was potentially, for example, a labelling
19 error when the sample was taken usually by an outside agency, not the
20 ICMP. If the proper code was not written on that to allow it to refer
21 back to the body, then there would be a discrepancy when the DNA report
22 was compared to the remains that it was written down it came from.
23 Certainly the DNA
24 sample itself is correct. It's simply due to, if you will, a clerical
25 error at some point in the process is no longer ascribed to the set of
1 remains that -- that we hoped to return to the families.
2 Q. And are there any systemic or systematic problems in -- in the
3 handling or administratively or even in the laboratory context of data or
4 samples within the ICMP that, in your view, might imperil the validity or
5 reliability of the ICMP results?
6 A. In terms of systematic problems, no. In fact, the system is very
7 carefully designed to control -- to avoid these problems, and -- and as a
8 result, in any given case the chance of a problem such as this is
9 extremely minuscule.
10 Q. I just want to ask you a couple of questions. As you mentioned
11 concerning some case files, could you tell us a little bit about that?
12 You mentioned that the ICMP had provided some case files.
13 A. I believe you're referring to -- to it a number of cases that
14 were requested by the Office of the Prosecutor to provide the underlying
16 Q. Did you oversee the compilation of this material?
17 A. That would not be a role that I would play directly, no. That
18 would be -- that requires a great deal of -- of collation of material
19 and -- and background research by the staff that actually conduct the
21 Q. Okay. And are you aware of -- are you aware of the circumstances
22 under which this material was gathered, that is, what is it -- what it
23 relates to, when it was put together, what it comprises?
24 A. Yes, I am.
25 Q. And could you tell us a little bit about that, please.
1 A. Well, having -- having had these particular cases brought to our
2 attention, we then had to access the records we have on the matching
3 processes, access the raw data on computer files in the laboratory, check
4 to see that -- that everything is included and assemble them all
5 together. An additional very time-consuming element of this process was
6 to obtain victim consent waivers. In other words, consent from the
7 family members involved in these DNA
8 profiles and their personal information released to the court.
9 Q. And were you able to obtain these consent forms or consents of
10 the victims, I should say, or relatives in all instances?
11 A. No. I believe there were a number of cases where that simply was
12 not possible. That is to say that the families refused.
13 Q. And approximately, if you know, how many case files did the ICMP
15 A. You know, I apologise, but I don't happen to know that number
16 right off the top of my head. It's around 25 or something if I'm not
18 Q. And are you aware if there were any difficulties in compiling
19 these -- this information?
20 A. Not fundamentally, no. We were able to provide the DNA
21 information for -- for all the cases and the matches that they were --
22 they were -- they were based on. In some instances, to ensure that we
23 were providing the proper information, we did -- we did actually quickly
24 retype a couple of the blood samples.
25 Q. Okay. When you say retype, you're speaking in a scientific sense
1 and not in a colloquial literal sense of actually typing as in a
2 typewriter; right?
3 A. Yes. What I'm referring to is that -- that the genetic profiles
4 from the reference blood samples were in some cases obtained many, many
5 years ago prior to 2003 or in that era, and some of the criteria were
6 slightly different for -- for how we go about designating these profiles.
7 So to be safe and conservative, we retyped them again according to
8 current-day standards and I'm pleased to report that there weren't
10 Q. Now, in terms of evaluating the reliability of the DNA analysis
11 procedures that you follow, is it possible in the absence of examining
12 electropherograms, is it possible to determine whether or not a DNA
13 analysis or procedure is a valid and reliable one?
14 A. Yes. Basically, if you have access to the raw data such as we
15 provided here, someone should be able to look at those and say they've
16 been drawn on solid conclusions.
17 I would like to qualify that, though, by saying that nothing
18 exists in a vacuum, so it -- it would also be with -- the expert
19 reviewing this material, it would also be within his knowledge that this
20 is in fact an extremely well-established, fundamental means for DNA
21 typing that has emerged as a gold standard in forensic analysis.
22 Q. And are there other factors that might reasonably be considered
23 in order to evaluate the reliability of a lab practice and the results
24 that are obtained by a particular or a given lab?
25 A. Well, yes, of course. It relates to many things. One would be
1 the -- the level of experience and training within the laboratory, and in
2 that regard, ours is one -- one of the world's most highly experienced
3 laboratory. It would go to quality control procedures that have been
4 well-devised and implemented and documented, as is currently the case in
5 our laboratory. And it would be -- it would go to accreditation
6 standards. Our laboratory is inspected very formally by outside, neutral
7 investigators to determine that our processes map onto our protocols and
8 vice versa. And then lastly, the extent to which that laboratory works
9 in concert with the -- with other workers in the field, other experts in
10 the field, in other words, the extent to which we maintain
11 state-of-the-art capabilities that are up-to-date. And we have in that
12 regard a scientific advisory board of many of the more prominent
13 scientists in the world that on a yearly basis come in and review our
14 processes and help us discuss where we are and how -- how the processes
15 fit in with the state of the art worldwide.
16 Q. And lastly, in your view, do you have any concerns regarding the
17 reliability or validity of the data that's been provided by the ICMP to
18 the Office of the Prosecutor as concerns the DNA analysis procedures and
19 the results that they show?
20 A. I don't. I think they're rock solid.
21 Q. All right. Thank you, Dr. Parsons. I don't have any further
22 questions for you.
23 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Mr. Vanderpuye.
25 Mr. Zivanovic.
1 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Ms. Tapuskovic will lead this witness.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay, thank you. I apologise. Ms. Tapuskovic.
3 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Your Honours.
4 Good afternoon to everybody in the courtroom.
5 Cross-examination by Ms. Tapuskovic:
6 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon to you, too, Mr. Parsons. I hope
7 you remember that in February last year we had an opportunity to conduct
8 a conversation, so we're going to continue that here today, but we're
9 going to talk today in line of the Trial Chamber's decision and ruling,
10 which is that your testimony will be to authenticate some new facts about
12 here, to which he -- on which he relies.
13 Now, you mentioned just now, you said there were some new
14 documents with respect to the time when you testified last year or,
15 rather, that the only new document was an updated list of missing persons
16 which was compiled, as you said, I think, in January of this year and
17 afterwards sent to the Prosecutor, to the OTP. Is that right?
18 A. Well, as I -- as I just mentioned, also we provided some case
19 files, but that is -- the list you just referred to is the primary thing,
20 yes, I think so.
21 Q. Can you tell us whether in the meantime, during the space of that
22 year, you have changed any SOP or standard operative procedure which you
23 applied in the process of establishing the identity of individuals?
24 A. The answer would be yes. We very often will modify our SOPs. In
25 this case, in quite minor ways, but it would be the case that one would
1 expect some of those to have been updated in terms of very narrow
2 procedural manipulations, for example.
3 Q. And these new operative procedures, did you send them to the
4 Prosecutor? Have you provided them? Or can I put this question a
5 different way: Have you informed the OTP that you've changed any of the
6 standard operative procedures?
7 A. Well, we certainly don't inform the OTP every time we change a
8 procedure in the laboratory, and I think that the OTP is aware that many
9 of our procedures will be updated regularly as is the case in all
10 laboratories. I think it's rather important in this context to note that
11 fundamentally the type and quality of testing that we do in the
12 laboratory hasn't changed at all. So it's not as if we've employed new
13 techniques. It's a simple change in -- in some operating procedures at a
14 very detailed level.
15 Q. If I understand you correctly, these new operative procedures
16 just promote the way in which you work without influencing the quality of
17 your work. Would that being correct?
18 A. I think that's a reasonable statement, yeah.
19 Q. Thank you. Now, since the time you testified last year, the
20 Prosecutor on several occasions disclosed to us raw material, if I can
21 use the term, or the match reports support documentation files.
22 Now, you know that the Defence of -- that the Popovic Defence,
23 and I'm a member of that Defence team, asked the ICP to provide them with
24 all the basic raw material. Asked the ICMP, actually.
25 A. Yes, I'm aware of that.
1 Q. Are you aware of the fact that the Prosecutor disclosed this raw
2 material to us relating to 30 cases and that all the cases relate to a
3 locality called Bisina?
4 A. Yes, ma'am.
5 Q. Very well. Thank you. I'm sure you're also aware that in that
6 locality a total of 39 bodies were exhumed.
7 A. I would not know that off the top of my head.
8 Q. Very well. Now, do you know that the Prosecution disclosed to us
9 30, if I can call them sets or groups of raw material for 30 out of the
10 total of 39 victims that were exhumed at the Bisina locality?
11 A. I accept that prompt to my recollection, yes. That seems
13 Q. Does your answer mean, sir, that you personally did not conduct a
14 selection, did not make a selection of which raw material of those
15 39 exhumed persons from Bisina locality be sent to the Prosecution and,
16 in turn, disclosed to the Defence?
17 A. That's correct.
18 Q. Can you tell us within the frameworks of the ICMP who was in
19 charge and responsible for making the selection of these 30 out of the
20 total of 39 Bisina cases?
21 A. Well, my previous answer reflects mostly the fact that no one at
22 the ICMP selected which ones to provide and which ones not. If I may
23 clarify. It was in regard to which ones that within the ICMP policies we
24 were able to provide by virtue of having appropriate waivers from the
25 family members involved in the case.
1 Q. Do you know whether in all the 39 cases for Bisina agreement was
2 asked from the family for disclosing information?
3 A. I believe so, ma'am, but I will say that an effort was made to
4 ask all the families. I can't -- I can't, as I sit here, assure you
5 that, for example, we had appropriate contact information for each and
6 every one, but I believe that to be the case.
7 Q. Thank you, Mr. Parsons. Now, can you tell us whether these
8 30 samples out of a total of 39 for Bisina is a sufficiently
9 representative sample to be able to -- for people to be able to make a
10 conclusion as to the correctness of the work of the ICMP with respect to
11 identification? Is that a sufficiently large sample?
12 A. The issue of -- you're asking fundamentally a statistical
13 question, I believe, and the answer to any sample-size question or issue,
14 is to what degree of certainty and what level of precision are you trying
15 to talk about. If you're asking do these 30 cases prove clearly that
16 ICMP has never made a mistake, obviously that is -- that's not sufficient
17 to be supported. If -- if the review of 30 cases is conducted, one could
18 certainly conclude that on the basis of that information that the general
19 standard of testing in the laboratory is of a very high level and there
20 is no indication within that sample for doubt as to an identification.
21 Q. The Prosecutor provided us with the complete documentation
22 relating to the exhumations at Bisina and the ruling from the
23 Cantonal Court
24 relevant material relating to the autopsy of those bodies. But tell me
25 now, please, do you know that the identification process was conducted
1 mostly in 2007 for Bisina?
2 A. I have to say in fact that I don't know when the identifications
3 were concluded. My understanding is that the DNA match reports -- the
4 finalisation of the DNA
5 cases. I would have to refer to the dates on the files, ma'am.
6 2007 seems reasonable to me.
7 Q. When I said that the Prosecution provided us with that data, I
8 meant that it was all part of the exhibits with the numbers 4510 to 4521.
9 That's information for the benefit of the rest of the people in the court
10 here. But can you tell me, please, Mr. Parsons, whether you know the
11 exact number of persons identified during 2007 and during 2008 as well?
12 A. I do not.
13 Q. But the number can be established, can it not, through the tables
14 and the tracking charts that -- issued by the ICMP; right?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. In the proceedings so far, on two occasions we introduced these
17 tracking charts.
18 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] And for my colleagues they are
19 Exhibits P3488 and 3D461. The first tracking chart which I mentioned is
20 dated March, and the second dates to August 2008.
21 Q. Tell me now, please, Mr. Parsons, in these tracking charts, among
22 other things, you show the number of samples, blood samples, taken up
23 until the date when the tracking chart was issued; right?
24 A. Is it possible to review these documents, refer to them as I
1 Q. Certainly.
2 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours --
3 JUDGE AGIUS: By all means. By all means, Mr. Parsons --
4 Dr. Parsons.
5 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour, for your
6 assistance. It was indeed my intention to pull them up on e-court. So
7 may we have document number 1D1376 now, please.
8 Q. Mr. Parsons, in this document, which is on our screens, we have
9 collected several tracking charts which you sent to the Prosecution and
10 the Prosecution disclosed to the Defence, and I'd like to ask us to zoom
11 down to the bottom of the document now, please, to see what it says
13 Now, Mr. Parsons, can you see that here on the document it says
14 that it was issued -- or, rather, that the information was updated on the
15 20th of February, 2009?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Thank you.
18 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we go back to the top of the
19 document now, please, the beginning of the page. Thank you.
20 Q. Could you answer my question now, please, Mr. Parsons, and it was
21 whether in these tracking charts we see the total number of blood samples
22 collected and the total number of bone samples collected.
23 A. I believe that is correct. The second block of -- of rows don't
24 specifically state bone in a number of the instances, but that is -- my
25 understanding is that is what it refers to.
1 Q. Very well. Thank you for your answer. Now let's go to the last
2 page of this document, please, if we may. We have here six tracking
3 charts, and we put them in chronological order.
4 I'd like to ask you now --
5 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Or, rather, may we zoom down the
6 document and see the date at the bottom, please.
7 Q. Mr. Parsons, can you see there that it says that this document
8 was issued on the 27th of March, 2009?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Thank you. Now, not to go back to the first page again, the
11 first column -- or one of the columns tells us how many DNA reports were
13 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, we can keep the document
15 Q. If we go underneath the third thick black line, you'll see a
16 column which says "Total number of reports." Can you see that, sir?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. I hope you'll take me at my word and believe me if I say that
19 we've done a mathematical report for the total number of reports between
20 the first and last tracking chart that I've shown you. We arrive at a
21 figure of 2.144 DNA
22 Now, do you know that on an annual level that would be a
23 reasonable figure or is that not relevant as far as your work is
25 A. Remind me of the time period we're talking about here? I know I
1 just looked at those dates, but I appreciate if you could refresh me.
2 Q. Certainly, Mr. Parsons. The two tracking charts that I've just
3 shown you incorporate the period of one year, one year exactly, perhaps
4 with a day or two give or take, but as far as I can see from the
5 documents, the tracking charts are issued on a weekly basis. Am I right
6 in saying that?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Thank you. So, Mr. Parsons, we're dealing with the period of a
9 year plus or minus two or three days, and I don't think that's important
11 Now, to go back to my question. Do you know that the number of
12 issued DNA
13 tracking charts that I've shown you?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Thank you. Now, Mr. Parsons, these figures indicate the total
16 number of DNA
17 is roughly 2.000 DNA
18 identifications, because a figure of 2.000 DNA reports does not mean that
19 2.000 persons were positively identified.
20 A. The exact answer to the question is no, I can't tell you that,
21 but I'm willing to put forward that a vast majority of them would have
22 been. The only time we issue non-positive DNA reports is in response to
23 presumptive identifications and we've had a few of those, a few requests
24 for those. It's listed here actually.
25 Q. Yes, I understand that. Thank you, but you haven't told me
1 whether the number of reports reflects the number of positive
2 identifications at all, and would that be 2.000?
3 A. So I would like to ask you, please, to clarify what you mean by
4 an identification. I think I see the nature of your question, but you're
5 distinguishing a DNA
7 Q. I don't use the terminology that you use, that's quite certain,
8 but I'll try and simplify what I actually want to ask you to see if you
9 understand what I'm getting at. If we have 2.144 DNA reports, the
10 reports on identification, are they also of that number or a lesser
11 number? Did you have as many or less?
12 A. Let me -- let me address a number of issues that I think get to
13 what -- what you're -- what information you're interested in receiving.
14 A DNA
15 considers in practice to be an identification would be the closure of a
16 case by identification authorities of which ICMP is not one, and -- and
17 the repatriation of that victim to the family.
18 In -- a reason why the number of identifications as defined the
19 way I just said, remember I said closure of a case, in other words, the
20 entire case has been solved and considered to be resolved and then handed
21 over to the families, the reason why that number can be smaller, and in
22 many instances in Srebrenica is smaller than the number of DNA match
23 reports, is that it relates to the issue of the secondary graves and the
24 extreme fragmentation of the victims. As you're aware, there were --
25 primary mass graves were exhumed and buried into a series of secondary
1 mass graves where the victims become fragmented and commingled, and
2 therefore, entire bodies are not recovered at once from these graves. So
3 we may get a DNA
4 but the pathologist in question, who isn't in that role part of the ICMP,
5 would not want to close that case, would not want to go to the family
6 until additional portions of that individual had been identified, and
7 that's one of the biggest challenges with the Srebrenica case, and that's
8 why there would be a difference in those numbers.
9 Q. Thank you. That means that over that period of time you have
10 about 2.000 DNA
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Thank you. Let us now dwell for a while on the tracking charts.
13 What you see now on your screen is third column from the bottom entitled
14 "Cases Closed." Can you see this -- this column, Mr. Parsons?
15 A. If we could please scroll -- go down a little bit in the document
16 so I can see the bottom. You said the third row, I think you mean ...
17 Q. Mr. Parsons, this is now the third column from the top. It says
18 "Cases Closed," 2.790 [as interpreted].
19 A. I'm sorry, now we have to go back to the top of the document.
20 I -- you said third from the top. No. I'm sorry.
21 Q. It was on your screen at that point.
22 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Can you please scroll it a bit
23 more and let's leave it exactly at the top.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Vanderpuye.
25 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President. I'm sorry to
1 interrupt my colleague, it's just that the transcript reflects the number
2 of 2.790. If it's corrected to 3.790 it would be easier for Dr. Parsons
3 to find.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Mr. Vanderpuye, for that.
5 THE WITNESS: I do see the entry you're referring to. I
6 apologise for the confusion.
7 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. Very well, Mr. Parsons. Can you tell me what is the significance
9 of this term "Cases Closed"? What does it mean?
10 A. That is when the pathologist in charge of the case, that would be
11 a court-appointed pathologist by the BiH national authorities, issues a
12 death certificate and returns the -- the remains to the family members.
13 Q. Tell me, please, in your updated list of identifications marked
14 P4494, did you in any way represent in any of the columns which
15 particular case has been afforded the status of a case closed, that is to
16 say, that the authorities of Bosnia-Herzegovina have handed over the
17 remains of the deceased to the family, or in other words, that the death
18 certificate was handed over to the family.
19 A. That information you just referred to is not listed in that -- in
20 the notification list of DNA
21 Q. Thank you. We'll go back now again to the Bisina cases, because
22 that's the only site for which we have full information provided in this
23 raw material. Therefore, we are going to focus on Bisina a little more.
24 You told us that only for Bisina, as far as I understood, sought
25 additional consent from the families, and that you attached them, and we
1 received them along with the material; is that correct?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Did you perhaps seek the consent for some other sites, not only
4 for Bisina?
5 A. Not specifically retroactively with regard to provision to the
6 court. However, our current consent forms, since well over a year now -
7 I apologise, I don't remember the date - now have provision for the
8 families when they provide a blood sample to give consent in the
9 beginning for provision to the court. So we do in fact have quite a
10 number of people -- well, it's not a huge number, but multiple family
11 members have already given consent to have their data released to the
12 court. But for the majority of the time that the ICMP has been in
13 operation, when we collected the blood samples we did not have provision
14 at that time for them to provide consent, and therefore we had to go back
15 retroactively in these cases and specifically request it, and it's a very
16 delicate undertaking in terms of contacting the families.
17 Q. Yes, but after reviewing the documents relating to the Bisina,
18 that is to say, the raw material provided to us by the OTP, we saw that
19 in 30 cases -- or out of the 30 cases, consent of families members was
20 provided in 11 cases, that is to say, from the families living abroad.
21 For example, in the case of Sekovic 04, from Holland, from the USA
23 This tells me, Mr. Parsons, that this wasn't so problematic at
24 all, particular in view that all these consents were obtained in January
25 and March 2009.
1 A. The fact that we have gone to the effort to find the location of,
2 reach out to and contact people and obtain consent from people living
3 throughout a wide number of nations, in fact attests to what great effort
4 it did require and the amount of work that we had to go to in order to,
5 at this late time, provide information that has been requested.
6 Q. I presume that you have been informed that Mr. Popovic's Defence
7 team applied directly to the ICMP last year with a request for the entire
8 raw material relating to Srebrenica to be disclosed. Were you aware of
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. In order not to call up this document in e-court for the sake of
12 time saving, do you remember that in your response, although your
13 response was signed by someone else, not yourself, I think that was
14 Mr. Andreas Kleiser, if I pronounce his name correctly, it was said that
15 the obtainment of consent from family members had begun in 2007; is that
17 A. That was when our forms were modified so that people that we
18 initiated contact with at that time or later would automatically be asked
19 if they wanted to provide waivers. We did not attempt to -- any
20 retroactive means to contact any of the other family reference samples,
21 the many, many thousands of family reference samples, to go back to them.
22 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, can we now see in
23 e-court document 1D1371, but can we please not broadcast this document
24 because it contains the name of a person.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Ms. Tapuskovic. That's exactly what we
1 will do. No broadcast.
2 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.
3 Q. This is an excerpt from Exhibit 4494. It is made up of four
4 documents that relate to the hospital in Srebrenica, but for the purpose
5 of our discussion, I only need page 4 of the document. So can we please
6 now move to page 4.
7 Mr. Parsons, do you recognise the DNA report issued by the ICMP?
8 A. I recognise that as an ICMP DNA
9 know that one by -- by specificity.
10 Q. Mr. Parsons, during our conversation today, for the sake of the
11 protection of the integrity of the victims we are going to refrain from
12 using any names. We shall, rather, use only numbers. However, if there
13 are any names shown in the documents, we shall try not to broadcast them
14 for the same reasons that I just explained to you.
15 Let us now just move to the bottom of the document -- or, rather,
16 the last paragraph there. Since this is very small print, I'm going to
17 read it out to you, Mr. Parsons.
18 "[In English] This record is privileged and confidential and
19 shall be used in legal proceedings only for the purposes of
20 identification unless otherwise authorised with the written consent of
21 living person to which the record refers."
22 [Interpretation] While we still have this document on the screen
23 Mr. Parsons, you will see that this particular DNA report was issued in
25 A. Noted.
1 Q. Thank you. My colleagues have drawn attention to me that I
2 omitted the first sentence, and it's very short. I'm going to read it
4 "[In English] This record is established by the ICMP for the
5 sole purpose of identifying the mortal remains of missing persons."
6 [Interpretation] What follows in this paragraph that I read out,
7 which is apparently in the form issued by the ICMP, it says that this
8 document can be used in legal proceedings for the purpose of
9 identification. In these proceedings, we are conducting the procedure of
10 identifying the victims relating to Srebrenica. Tell me now, then, why
11 is it necessary to obtain a separate consent of the family when this
12 document clearly shows in 2005 that this document can be used in legal
13 proceedings for the purpose of establishing identities?
14 A. I would like to preamble my answer to that by reading the final
15 sentence in that paragraph that we've -- we've read the other parts of so
16 far. That would be:
17 "Other restrictions may apply. If in doubt, contact ICMP for
18 further information."
19 With that as a preamble, I would like to go back to -- more
20 specifically to your question with regard to legal proceedings only for
21 the purpose of identification.
22 Well, it turns out that the -- the identifications that the ICMP
23 strives to make are -- or strives to assist in making are legal
24 identifications as determined by the death certificate. So our aim here
25 is to provide assistance so that the families can have legal closure with
1 relation to the identification of their loved ones.
2 Within the ICMP's understanding and within -- within the sense of
3 the ICMP's policies and the way -- and policies that are absolutely
4 necessary to conducting our work, we would view the -- the legal
5 proceedings of this court to be related to criminal prosecution, not to
7 At any rate, that is the distinction with which -- which we
8 clearly make. That sentence, when it was written, was -- was directed
9 toward legal processes solely associated with identification and not with
10 criminal prosecution.
11 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] But can we now see in e-court
12 Exhibit 1D1394. And I also would kindly ask this document not to be
13 broadcast either.
14 Q. Mr. Parsons, do you recognise this document?
15 A. Well, the ICMP has had a number of different form formats in
16 time, and I note that this is in the local language of the former
18 Q. Yes, it is. I agree with you. That is why I asked you,
19 Mr. Parsons, if you recognised the document, because there's no
20 translation of this document. This is a consent of family members of the
21 donor from the Haradinaj case in which the ICMP -- or, rather, the OTP
22 provided a full set of raw data at the request of the Defence.
23 I'm going to read out to you, and I hope the OTP will not object
24 to this, so that you understand what is written in this document.
25 "International Commission for Missing Persons, ICMP, is working
1 on the collection of blood samples from family members from the persons
2 missing in the recent conflict in the former Yugoslavia. From these
3 samples the ICMP will extract and process DNA data and register them on
4 the database only for the purpose of assisting the process of
5 identification. We are going to abide by strict rules of preservation or
6 safeguarding of data or -- and any use of these samples for other
7 purposes will not be allowed. The DNA donors will -- the identity of the
9 If in the Haradinaj case the genetical material, confidential
10 material was disclosed, which is part of the so-called genetic privacy,
11 at the request of the Defence, this kind of consent of the donor's family
12 member is actually disclosed, tell me, then, why is it a problem to
13 disclose the same documents relating to Srebrenica that contain this kind
14 of raw data without going into this complex procedure that you explained
15 to us and that was subsequently implemented on the 30 Bisina cases?
16 A. In the cases provided for the Haradinaj prosecution that you
17 refer to, we went to exactly the same extensive efforts to retroactively
18 obtain consent from the family members for exactly the same reasons.
19 Q. Tell me, Mr. Parsons, if we review the issue of privacy and why
20 these data are not divulged, can you tell me precisely what is the reason
21 for this data not to be disclosed -- or, rather, why are you refusing to
22 disclose them without additional consent? What particular reason of
23 privacy warrants this?
24 A. Well, there are two reasons at different levels. The first level
25 seems quite clear. It's because, as we've just read in this document
1 you've shown, we've already assured the donors that it would be used for
2 no purpose. We've specifically assured individuals that it would not be
3 used for that purpose. We are then obligated to stand by our previous
5 The reason we established the policy for that is that the ICMP
6 needs to have the trust of the families. What we want to do is to have
7 as many families as possible have recourse to the human rights element of
8 being able to receive their loved ones back and know their fate, and
9 therefore we want them to be able to participate in the process without
10 being afraid that they might be involved in some sort of a criminal
11 prosecution that they might otherwise not want to have anything to do
12 with. They may not have interest in, they may be frightened of the types
13 of things going on here, but they still want their loved ones back, and
14 so the ICMP wanted to establish policies to permit us to do our work for
15 the purpose of returning their family member to them without them being
16 concerned that it would draw them in potentially without their explicit
17 consent into proceedings related to -- such as those in this courtroom.
18 Q. Mr. Parsons, your job stems from a war that engulfed this region,
19 and crimes were committed on both sides. Can we then conclude that one
20 of the reasons for the protection of privacy is that perhaps the
21 possibility has been ruled out that some of the individuals whose
22 identity is being established have perhaps been declared war criminals by
23 the other warring party?
24 A. I think it's conceivable that one might argue that that would be
25 a component of some justification. I don't recall it having been a
1 factor in our own considerations. So the answer that I gave you
2 previously, I think, is both -- is the sufficient basis and the primary
3 basis with which we made that policy.
4 Q. Is it possible that these genetical information is kept
5 confidential because they open up possibilities for determining that some
6 blood relations actually are nonexistent?
7 A. I'm -- I'm fairly confident that the answer to that question is
8 yes, but I think we need to -- to clarify what you meant by the question.
9 Maybe if you could take another -- another try at it, or phrased slightly
10 differently, or expand on it more clearly, please.
11 Q. In administrative and legal terms, certain persons are considered
12 blood relatives, but once it reaches the stage of DNA matching, it turns
13 out that they are not actually related to each other.
14 A. I think -- I think I do know the sense of your question. Let me
15 just -- just give a clarification that I'm comfortable with and then you
16 can -- you can let me know if I'm addressing the correct issue.
17 When one obtains genetic samples from family members, in this
18 case as reference samples to assist with the identification of their
19 loved ones, one obtains information about what the real genetic
20 relationships are amongst those family members, and sometimes the actual
21 genetic relationships are not those that are either reported to us or
22 believed by the families, and a common -- to give an example that will
23 clarify what I'm talking about is sometimes, as we all know, there are
24 issues of nonpaternity, for example, and those can become apparent in the
25 course of our work, and that in fact is an extremely good reason why we
1 maintain absolute control over the privacy of the genetic information.
2 Q. Thank you for this answer. Mr. Parsons, let us now go back to
3 the Bisina cases and the raw material supplied to us.
4 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Therefore, I would kindly ask
5 document 1D1334 to be shown in e-court and not to be broadcasts.
6 This is a large document, some 80 pages, and it's a complete set
7 of raw material pertaining to SEK 040 case.
8 If we can zoom in on the upper part.
9 Q. Sir, do you see the line which says "Case number"? There is a
10 marking, VIS
11 (Zmax). This B, I suppose, means -- stands for body?
12 A. I don't know. That's the -- the case number is simply a site
13 code that is assigned outside of the ICMP.
14 Q. But since this is something that appears on a regular basis on
15 all ICMP's identification lists, I'm interested in this letter B after
16 the figure 4. I'm not asking you about the site code. I understand that
17 this is absolutely none of our business.
18 A. I apologise. I may have misspoken. I meant the case number is
19 assigned outside of the ICMP system. I have no information of certainty
20 to provide you with regard to that B or any other information in the case
22 Q. Well, perhaps it's my fault, Mr. Parsons, and I wasn't precise in
23 my question. This B after the 040, does that -- is that B for body?
24 Does that mean that it's a body?
25 A. Ma'am, I don't know.
1 Q. Very well.
2 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] May we move on to page 2,
3 please. Thank you.
4 Q. In the lower left-hand corner, in the black rectangle, black box,
5 there you'll see the sample that was taken from the body of a person who
6 has the markings 040 B, and according to all our information, this is a
7 tooth taken for DNA
8 exhumation, and we'll look at that in just a moment?
9 Now, when DNA
10 please, whether I -- or tell me whether I understand the process.
11 There's an initial examination. Then you conduct a statistical
12 information and then a final examination; is that right?
13 A. I'm sorry, those terms are not specific enough for me to quite
14 understand what you're -- I'm not able to say yes or no to that question
15 as stated. Are you speaking about levels of review of the -- of the
17 Q. Possibly those are levels of review of findings. I'm looking at
18 the documents that I have in front of me, but let's move on to the next
19 page of this document.
20 The next thing we have is the decoded DNA report.
21 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] May we scroll down so we can see
22 the bottom of the document better.
23 Q. Now, here, Mr. Parsons, where the signatures are, we have
24 "Statistical calculation," "Initial review ," "Statistical review," and
25 "Final review."
1 A. Yes, ma'am.
2 Q. That's what I was referring to, those stages.
3 Tell me now, please, Mr. Parsons, are these reviews conducted by
4 the same people or different people?
5 A. In general, different people.
6 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, perhaps this is a
7 good moment to take the break.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: I didn't stop you before precisely to let you
9 finish the chain of questions.
10 We can have a break of 25 minutes now. Thank you.
11 --- Recess taken at 3.48 p.m.
12 --- On resuming at 4.18 p.m.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Ms. Tapuskovic. Are we nearing the end?
14 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour. I think I'll
15 need the whole of the next session to complete my examination of
16 Professor Parsons.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. Is there anybody else cross-examining
18 this witness? Okay. Go ahead, please. Thank you.
19 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
20 Q. Mr. Parsons, can we continue where we left off? I was asking you
21 about the difference between the initial review, statistical review, and
22 final review, and I asked you whether these reviews are conducted by the
23 same person.
24 A. Different persons, ma'am.
25 Q. Are these reviews conducted simultaneously or at different
2 A. Sequentially, ma'am.
3 Q. Thank you. I asked you about the B and the number 040, and you
4 said you didn't know what that stood for. Do you know what the marking
5 BP stands for that is placed along with the numbers linked to certain
7 A. I know what it means when the ICMP uses them in some cases. I
8 don't know what it means unless I know that the ICMP has sampled the
9 remains according to a recent SOP. I don't believe it's the case that
10 the ICMP did any sampling here, so I will say -- I will not provide any
11 opinion as to what B or BP means in this case.
12 Q. Can you tell us, and we'll have to move the document to the left
13 slightly for the next question, can you tell us, Mr. Parsons, in that
14 black box, the first line says BIS
15 Do you know what this Zmax 1 stands for, means?
16 A. The same answer applies.
17 Q. Thank you, Mr. Parsons. Now, you said that you provided the ICMP
18 latest list of identified persons in February this year to the
19 Prosecution, and if we look at that list, which has about 10.600 entries,
20 you will see that almost every second or third entry has some markings in
21 the case ID. The B, it has the B or a BP or F or Z -- rather, Z. So how
22 is it possible if you supply this list and if you deal with
23 identifications, you don't know what these letters stand for and they're
24 to be found on most of the entries in the list?
25 A. Very simple answer. Those are simply the names of the samples
1 that come to us. The ICMP didn't give those names. They could be any
2 number of things. In fact, in the experience of the ICMP, you can
3 imagine virtually any type of sample code. We simply do not dictate or
4 take responsibility for what the samples are named when they come to us.
5 They could have been named Bob and Bob would be written on that list.
6 Q. Mr. Parsons, I remember when you were testifying last year that
7 we dealt with methodology and the work of the ICMP and the application of
8 the standard operative procedures, SOPs, and as far as I remember, there
9 was a standard operative procedure which related to the cleaning of teeth
10 and bones; is that right? Do you agree?
11 A. Yes, ma'am.
12 Q. It's difficult for me to accept your answer when you say that you
13 don't know how your institution marks a sample, which, for example, can
14 mean a tooth sample.
15 A. Ma'am, our institution does not mark those. They come to us from
16 outside agencies. We handled the plane crash in Cameroon. They had
17 their own code system. We simply call it what it was called when it was
18 given to us.
19 Q. Tell me, please, who then does the case ID, assigns the case ID?
20 A. Typically and probably in this case I would imagine it's the
21 pathologist who perform the sampling.
22 Q. And who assigns the protocol ID?
23 A. That is definitely an ICMP number. We assign that.
24 Q. So then I conclude that it is the -- that the ICMP is also
25 assigned by the international commission.
1 A. I'm sorry, I didn't understand that question.
2 Q. We have three types of annotations in each of the list of
3 identified persons, the case ID, and you told us about that. You said
4 you can't define who assigns this. Then you said for the protocol ID,
5 which determines -- which is determined by your international commission,
6 and then there is the ICMP ID. So is it the international commission
7 which assigns an ICMP ID as well?
8 A. The ID number and the protocol number are both internally
9 generated tracking numbers for our own purposes.
10 Q. Well, if you don't know what the case ID is composed of, how do
11 you know what type of identification it is in each specific case?
12 A. I don't know what you mean by "what type of identification."
13 Q. How do you know from the documents you have and the documents I
14 showed you whether it is a procedure of identification for main case or
16 A. That has to do with how the DNA
17 if we obtain a sample and we photo document what it is, in this case it
18 is quite obviously a tooth, and we have a unique identifier for that.
19 That's the case number. We don't care what it is. There is no
20 restrictions on what that is. We obtain a DNA profile for that and then
21 we compare it to the family references. If we get a match and a -- a
22 determination that that sample relates to the family, then we call that
23 the main case, because we have now put a name on a DNA -- on a sample
24 that's been given to us. If we subsequently find another part of the
25 same individual, we call that a reassociation, because that reassociates
1 to a case that has previously been identified as well.
2 So the first time we identify it it's the main case, and any
3 additional parts of the same individual that are discovered, that are
4 identified by DNA
5 Q. But you told me a moment ago that from this document, the one I
6 showed you, that you cannot establish whether it's a tooth or some other
7 bodily part. Now you say it's a tooth. So how come you concluded that
8 this is a tooth? On the basis of what I told you; right?
9 A. No, ma'am. There's a picture of a tooth there in the photo
10 documentation of the evidence.
11 Q. Very well. Now, tell us, Mr. Parsons, the document that you have
12 before you, what does it represent?
13 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] And could we zoom out so we
14 could see the whole document, please. Thank you.
15 THE WITNESS: You would like me just to describe in general what
16 this is and its purpose, et cetera?
17 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]
18 Q. Yes.
19 A. Okay.
20 Q. Tell me what type of document this is. Yes, precisely as you put
22 A. This is an internal ICMP DNA
23 sort of the summary of the findings with regard to this case, and so what
24 we have at the very top is the sample number as it was supplied to us.
25 Again, nothing to do with our choosing or any requirements as to its
1 content. The BIS
2 Beneath it is a code that we have associated with that sample for
3 our own tracking purposes, so that's just what it gets called as it goes
4 through the laboratory system in the computers. And then to the right of
5 that is the DNA
6 depicted by a series of numbers that relate to things called alleles, and
7 at any rate, we type these two alleles for each of 16 different locations
8 in the DNA
9 reflect the findings of the electropherograms that are in the -- in the
10 full data reports that you've received.
11 Beneath that in the next block are additional individuals --
12 relate to additional individuals who are the reference families in
13 this -- reference family members in this case. So we have a match for
14 this sample on a particular named individual, and then that person's wife
15 and three sons that were provided as references for that missing
16 individual. Their genetic profiles are also listed there.
17 And then -- so that's kind of the primary set of information by
18 which the DNA
19 photograph in the lower left. That represents one of the photo
20 documentation pieces. It's just a way to indicate that we track
21 carefully what we get in and what it relates to. And then a conclusion
22 statement to the right that describes the results of the DNA statistical
23 analysis that tells us the statistical surety with which the named
24 individual can be associated with those family reference samples in the
25 manner indicated on this report.
1 Now, I mentioned at the outset of all of that this is an internal
2 -- ICMP internal DNA
3 that is used for -- to complete a review process. So there are a number
4 of levels of review. First is the signature by the individual who found
5 this match by performing the DNA
6 it into the system. The next is the person who then took the information
7 as represented on here and perform the statistical calculation. The
8 third individual signed there, it says initial review, is the person --
9 so -- at the end of those two analyses really all the work has been done.
10 So there is no more information to be generated in the case, but we have
11 two additional levels of checking to review.
12 So then we would have an initial review where someone looks over
13 everything to say, yes, it's -- it's in order. I've -- I've checked it.
14 It's right.
15 We have statistical review which is a second person independently
16 pulls the data in and regenerates the statistical calculation. This
17 is -- this is the numerical part of it and compares it to the previous
18 result. When that level of review is completed then it goes to one of
19 the senior members of the laboratory, and that person reviews all the
20 information and then -- and then signs that it appears to be correct.
21 And so after this is done, then -- then this internal report goes
22 back to the identification coordination division, which then generates
23 a -- a DNA
24 distribution, and the primary difference between the internal one and the
25 externally distributed one is that in the external copy the DNA
1 information is scrambled in a way to protect genetic privacy.
2 I apologise if that was a lengthy answer.
3 Q. Very well. You gave -- provided us with a detailed explanation.
4 Tell me now, this DNA
5 it coded or not coded?
6 A. The one on the screen is not coded. That would be the internal
7 one that we look at for -- so that we can check everything.
8 Q. So if on this uncoded internal report -- well, if we look at it,
9 you mentioned the allele, and if relook at the seventh and eighth box, we
10 have a D18 gene, S51. Can you see that?
11 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] If we can zoom into the upper
12 left-hand corner, please.
13 Q. Can you see that Mr. Parsons?
14 A. Yes, ma'am, I can.
15 Q. Now, let's go to the electropherogram two pages on in this same
17 If we look at the fourth group of these peaks here, we'll see
18 that it says 15, 18, and 20. That's the group, 15, 18, 20; right?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Could you tell me -- well, on the previous page in the report,
21 the uncoded report, you saw that in the fourth locus, in the allele, we
22 have numbers 00.00. So may we just go back two pages to the document we
23 were looking at earlier on.
24 And can you tell me, please, why the values of this gene 8 -- let
25 me read the exact number, D18S51, which in the electropherogram are
1 marked by 15, 18, and 20, have not been included in this report?
2 A. Strictly speaking, I think I have to answer no, that I could not
3 tell you that, but what I can do is tell you what -- some general reasons
4 why those alleles would -- why alleles are sometimes marked 00. And the
5 reason I just don't feel like it's proper for me to be more specific is
6 that I would have to look at more of the genetic information in this
7 case, but -- but let me take -- take an attempt to -- to describe the --
8 the type of considerations that going on here and the types of things we
9 might see.
10 What the 00 means is that the genetic information at that locus,
11 this D1 8, et cetera, was not deemed by the ICMP to have been accurately
12 recovered to the level of scientific surety that we are comfortable with.
13 So when you deal with these degraded skeletal remains that have been in
14 harsh environments for long periods of time, it becomes a very
15 specialised type of DNA
16 degraded over time. So the DNA
17 attacked by microorganisms, et cetera. So because the DNA has been
18 fragmented, sometimes it's difficult to recover the information to make
19 these allele calls. So one has to have quite conservative guidelines to
20 make sure that if you -- if you see it and you call it, that you're
21 positive that -- that's what it is.
22 So in this case if we could jump to the -- the next allele -- the
23 next picture that shows the electropherogram.
24 Q. Mr. Parsons, but I'd like to dwell on the particular
25 electropherogram that we were looking at?
1 A. Yes, ma'am. I just asked that that be put up.
2 Q. If you say that the values expressed here, that is to say,
3 15, 18, and 20, if those are the values with those peaks from the
4 electropherogram for the gene that I mentioned were not transferred to
5 the internal report where it says 00, in fact we don't have a match
6 between the electropherogram data and the DN report data. They don't
8 A. No, ma'am, that's not the way to consider it at all. As I said
9 before, we have very conservative guidelines for determining a genetic
10 profile, and if we decide that we're not sufficiently sure about a
11 particular genetic designation, we say we don't know and that's what the
12 00 means. The -- the criteria that we employ have not been met and
13 instead of adding that genetic information to the case, we -- we -- we in
14 a conservative manner say we didn't obtain that information. So any
15 strength that that genetic information would add to the case is not going
16 to be accessed.
17 So -- so it's not that there's a discrepancy. It's that we say
18 we don't know what it is. It's perfectly consistent with being a 18 and
19 20. You'll -- or a 15 and a 20, for example, with relation to that
21 Now what I'm not prepared to do is start discussing the precise
22 circumstances under which that determination was made by the DNA
23 analysts, because I don't have enough information in front of me. I
24 would need to go through the entire case file and take a fair amount of
25 time. But what I would say is that I think it's very likely -- if you'll
1 please bear with me, I'm going to speculate briefly to -- to -- in order
2 to give you an example of the types of reasons why we would want to be
3 conservative in a case like this.
4 We see three numbers on this electropherogram at this case. We
5 see a large 15 and a large 20. Normally one sees only two alleles at a
6 particular locus but there's an additional little bump called an 18 that
7 is presumably some sort of minor artefact or very possibly an extremely
8 minor contaminant that is -- just managed to pop itself up above the
9 background here. So because that introduced just a little bit of
10 uncertainty with relation to the 15 and the 20, we said, you know what?
11 We believe it's a 15, 20. I'm speculating here, but I think it's very,
12 very likely that -- that the correct genotype would be a 15 and a 20, but
13 because that 18 popped its little self in there, we decided to be extra
14 conservative and not take advantage of the additional information
15 provided by the 15 and the 20.
16 These type of -- by the way, I would like to back this discussion
17 up by saying these types of considerations, while possibly difficult to
18 follow in the courtroom with my discussion, are absolutely standard
19 interpretation issues in the DNA
20 in circumstances like this is -- is a conservative practice consistent
21 with forensic best practices.
22 Q. And those circumstances, Mr. Parsons, are that at that point in
23 time for the gene you cannot provide any certain data, as you've
24 explained to us; is that right?
25 A. That's correct.
1 Q. Thank you, Mr. Parsons. Now, let's move on, and we'll stay with
2 this document. Just remember the date, please, on this electropherogram.
3 Just remember that date in the upper right-hand corner where it says the
4 14th of September, 2006. Right, Mr. Parsons?
5 A. Okay. I note that.
6 Q. Now in the middle at the top we see that it says August the 31st,
7 2006. Can you see that, Mr. Parsons?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Fine. Now, the date and hour on the right-hand side in the
10 right-hand corner, does that mean when the printout was made of this
11 electropherogram? Is that what it denotes?
12 A. Ma'am, I don't actually perform these manipulations in the
13 laboratory and I'm sorry to say I can't give you a definitive answer on
14 that. I think what you just said is correct.
15 Q. Thank you.
16 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we now please move to
17 page 36 of this document.
18 Q. Mr. Parsons, can you look at the top right-hand corner. The date
19 is 23rd of March, 20 -- and because this is a bad photocopy, we can't see
20 the year.
21 If we saw a minute ago that the DNA report, the internal report,
22 was compiled in 2006, if we look at the calendar, the 23rd of May --
23 March could only be in 2009. Does that indicate that this document, this
24 printout, was made again on the 23rd of March, 2009?
25 A. Well, I think it's rather inconvenient that we can't see those
1 two numbers, but I think it is a possibility, yes.
2 Q. Thank you.
3 MS. TAPUSKOVIC [Interpretation] Can we now move to page 64.
4 Q. What you see in front of you is Worklist number 1, dated the
5 19th of February, 2009. Can you see that, Mr. Parsons?
6 A. Yes, ma'am.
7 Q. If we look somewhere in the middle of this page --
8 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] And if we can please zoom in the
9 middle part of the document so that we can see the letter B.
10 Q. You see the marking B08, B09, and B10. Have you found them,
11 Mr. Parsons?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. After each of these markings, B08, B09, B10, there's a code
14 number, 0007422, 0007421, and 0007420. These are the codes assigned to
15 the relatives by the ICMP relative -- laboratory. These are the wife and
16 two sons of the victim SEK 03.
17 If we look at the date, which is the 19th of February, 2009
18 right in saying that these samples for these relatives, the wife and two
19 sons, were analysed again on the 19th of February, 2009?
20 A. That's correct.
21 Q. Thank you. When we were looking at this large document
22 containing raw data relating to SEK 04, we saw that the initial
23 statistical and final review were carried out in 2006. Can you explain
24 to me the need for additional analysis for these three relatives to be
25 carried out on the 19th of February, 2009, given that there was already
1 an intention on the part of the OTP to disclose to us the raw material
2 relating to the Bisina site?
3 A. Yes, ma'am, I can. When Mr. Vanderpuye first started asking me
4 some questions, he asked about the -- the provision of these -- of these
5 full data reports and if there had been any question -- any issues that
6 arose in putting them together, and if I remember correctly, I answered
7 that there were some cases where the previous genetic information that we
8 utilised was done so long ago that it didn't conform well to current-day
9 standards in the laboratory. As you know, we're presently highly
10 accredited, et cetera. And so in an abundance of caution and to provide
11 the court with the best information we could about the correctness of the
12 result, we went back to actually check again to make sure that those
13 previous profiles were genotyped correctly.
14 What I didn't add in response to that question because of sort of
15 the pace of things here was that there were also a small number of those
16 blood profiles, which we were not able to locate from that period of time
17 and in light of the fact that we had difficulty in pulling forward the
18 genetic -- the electropherogram from that time, which we do view with
19 some concern, we did go ahead and take all the blood samples relevant to
20 these Bisina cases and retype them to confirm that the previous results
21 we had found are correct and to provide that information to you in lieu
22 of those that we weren't able to recover.
23 Q. Am I right to conclude that on that occasion when you decided to
24 disclose the Bisina raw material felt the need to check the accurate --
25 accuracy of all the information that you obtained a few years before?
1 A. Given that for reasons we're not exactly sure of -- in some of
2 these cases we weren't able to provide the information to you, we
3 certainly did decide that the best thing to do would be to type them
4 again to permit the accuracy of the match itself to be assessed using the
5 highest standards possible in DNA
6 Q. Mr. Parsons, you were preparing with the OTP for your giving
7 evidence, and as I can see from this paper, you met with them on the
9 A. Yes, ma'am.
10 Q. In the course of your preparations for today's testimony, you
11 stated the following, inter alia, this has been stated in the proof
13 "[Previous translation continues] ... [In English] Some of the
14 data gathered in respect of the Bisina-related case files, part of the
15 raw data could not longer be located. Several of these files were
16 complied [sic] by the DNA
17 somewhere around 25 per cent of cases, for example, an electropherograms
18 of one of the donors may not have been located."
19 [Interpretation] From this work list number 1, can one see that a
21 and 7420, the wife and two sons, and the reasons were because you were
22 not able to locate their electropherograms, so that is to say, the
23 previously taken raw samples or raw material.
24 A. I don't have memorised which cases -- which instances this would
25 apply to and which it would not, but what you just said is perfectly
1 consistent with what -- what did happen in a number of cases and I
2 wouldn't doubt at all that that is what happened with these.
3 Q. On page 48, line 17, you said that certain things from the moment
4 when either blood or bone samples were taken, circumstances changed in
5 the interim period and certain new SOPs came into force. Can you tell
6 me, please, whether these new SOPs could have provided you with different
7 results or do you absolutely confirm that the results are identical?
8 A. In the case of the Bisina samples when we did type them again we
9 compared them to the genetic information that was used in the preparation
10 of the match report, and it confirmed without change any of the -- all of
11 the matches.
12 Q. Tell me, please, does this story about misplaced raw material
13 happened also in case of other sites or is this uniquely the case with
14 the Bisina site?
15 A. We're reviewing what we can do to recover that information, but,
16 no, we wouldn't -- we wouldn't say that it's restricted only to the
17 Bisina cases. It relates to work that was done in Tuzla around the 2003
18 era, and we -- we're currently attempting to determine the extent to
19 which we can't find these samples, that is to say, the electropherograms.
20 It has to do with the changeover of a computer platform, and so there
21 might be an informatic solution to this, but we're looking into it.
22 Q. Do you know approximately how many new re-examinations and how
23 many repeated DNA
24 A. For the Bisina case we did all of the blood samples. And this
25 problem having recently come to our attention, we haven't addressed it
1 with -- we haven't specifically addressed this question with additional
3 Q. So you don't know that the same problem exists regarding some
4 other sites. Of course, we are talking about Srebrenica.
5 A. Yes, ma'am, that's a possibility.
6 Q. Tell me, sir, when did you first identified this problem
7 time-wise? When did you realise that the problem with the Bisina raw
8 material and their storage in or on computers existed?
9 A. I can't give you a date, but it's somewhere, I think, around
10 February or March in the process of compiling this information for you.
11 Q. You mean February or March this year?
12 A. Yes, ma'am.
13 Q. Thank you. You said yourself that the issue here is the storage
14 of data on computers, and that was the cause of the whole problem.
15 Usually we used to receive from the OTP all the information relating to
16 the exhumations, excavations, autopsies, and identifications, and we
17 received all this information in electronic form. Now, in the case of
18 Bisina, we also received the material in an electronic form.
19 Can you tell us, why did you disclose this as hard copies?
20 A. I don't remember discussing an alternative. I think we felt like
21 that was what was -- what was desired. There's no particular reason why
22 it couldn't have been provided electronically.
23 Q. I asked you about the previous document, the one that contains
24 electropherogram, and I asked you about the date in the upper right-hand
25 corner, and you told me it was possible that it was the date when the
1 printout was made. Can you tell me, is there any difference between the
2 information visible in a computer data file and the information that one
3 can see in a printout?
4 A. Yes, there can be, mm-hmm.
5 Q. Does that mean, Mr. Parsons, that the printout shows in its top
6 right-hand corner only the date when this individual document was
7 printed, but we cannot see when the exact processing of the DNA material
8 was done?
9 A. If you'll recall, I suggested some uncertainty as to what that
10 date meant, and I apologise. I don't know if that's the date that that
11 was printed or whether it was the date that the analysis was run. That
12 was -- that was the level of uncertainty I had.
13 Q. Can you tell me, do you know does the printout show when this
14 data file was generated, when the analysis was conducted? Does the
15 printout show that at all or can it just be seen in the electronic form?
16 A. Can we look at the page again?
17 Q. By all means, Mr. Parsons.
18 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Let us go back. I think that
19 was page 5.
20 Q. I asked you about the date in the top right-hand corner, and I
21 asked you whether that was the date when this electropherogram was
23 A. Yes. Thank you for putting it back up. I'm sorry, it doesn't
24 help me know whether that's the print date or whether that is the -- the
25 date that the Genotyper analysis was done. I think it was the latter,
1 but I'm sorry because I'm not the one that handles these. I just don't
2 know the answer to that question. That is a question that the ICMP knows
3 the answer to, the DNA
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Dr. Parsons, the second line below the date
5 14 September 2006
6 then there is 3.7 that I can read, possibly it could be 3. something
7 else. Does that mean anything to you?
8 THE WITNESS: Yes, it does. That is simply the software
9 programme that converts the raw data into a form that can be digitalised
10 in terms of these peaks. So that's just an internal instrumentation
11 software programme.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Thank you.
13 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] May I continue? Thank you,
14 Your Honours.
15 Q. If we can now go back to page 36 that we saw a while ago and I
16 asked you a question about it.
17 My question was as follows: The first line at the very top
18 indicates the date, and we concluded that the date was the
19 24th of February, 2009. It says "Check Kornelia [as interpreted]" and
20 the date in the right-hand corner is March 23rd. Am I right to conclude
21 that the analysis has been carried out by someone called Kornelia in
22 February 2009 and that the printout was made on the 23rd of March of the
23 same year?
24 A. I have to confess that I personally don't know exactly the answer
25 to that. Something like that is extremely reasonable.
1 Q. Thank you, Mr. Parsons. We shall now move to a new topic. When
2 you receive a DNA
3 compiled, you then notify the family of the result; is that correct?
4 A. No, ma'am. The ICMP does not notify families. That's a function
5 that has to be conducted within the legal system of Bosnia, and that's --
6 relates -- our reports exit the ICMP when they are handed over to the
7 pathologist who is actually in charge of determining identity and issuing
8 death certificates and interfacing with the families.
9 Q. But if we go back to page 1 of this document -- in fact, page 3.
10 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] If I can have it, please. And I
11 would kindly ask this not to be broadcast.
12 Q. You can see in the left corner that it says "Possible identity."
13 Can you tell us why this has been phrased like this, "Possible identity"?
14 A. Well, forensic scientists like to be extremely circumspect, and
15 so we use the word "possible" even when there's the minutest fraction of
16 a statistical chance that it might be -- might not be true.
17 So in the conclusion statement of the -- of the match report, we
18 have the probability of relatedness is greater than 99.9999. We don't
19 feel it's the ICMP's job to say that a level of certainty of 99.999, et
20 cetera, equates to identity. We turn this report over to the pathologist
21 and let him make that conclusion.
22 Q. Very well. But to whom do you forward your reports? Is it the
23 Cantonal Court
24 that you actually forward the results of your analysis to the competent
25 authority of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
1 A. My understanding is that that goes through the -- the
2 court-appointed pathologist, and then it's up to him to integrate it into
3 the system.
4 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we please now call up
5 document 1D1347 in e-court, please. We have a translation of this
6 document as well, and can this be shown to the witness, please. Thank
8 Q. This is the cover page of the document obtained by the Popovic
9 Defence team, and it is a letter that came from Republika Srpska.
10 Enclosed hereto is the letter of -- I apologise. My mistake -- of the
11 Bosnian Institute for Missing Persons that used to be called the
12 Federal Commission for Missing Persons.
13 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we now move to page 2,
15 Q. Sir, if you could be so kind to read this letter first so that
16 you can learn what it says. Or, rather, it would be maybe easier for me
17 to read this for the Bench and for all the parties in the courtroom.
18 "Further to your memorandum of the above number and date, we
19 hereby inform you that the institute has details of 3.214 identified
20 victims of genocide buried in the Memorial Complex in Potocari and
21 168 identified victims buried in several local Muslim graveyards.
22 "We also have information that the DNA laboratory in Tuzla
23 completed the preliminary identification of about 2.000 other victims who
24 have still not been identified by their next of kin.
25 "The DNA
1 identification of these victims, but since only parts of their skeletal
2 remains have been exhumed, mainly from so-called secondary mass graves,
3 it was not possible to reassemble and complete the skeletons.
4 "In some instances parts of the same victim have been found in
5 five different mass graves, and skeletons have been (incompletely) put
6 together from ten different bags.
7 "It is therefore impossible to answer the question of how many
8 victims from Srebrenica killed in July 1995 have been exhumed so far."
9 Mr. Parsons, here a local authority, that is the Institute for
10 Missing Persons, speaks about preliminary identifications, and they say
11 that there were about 2.000 preliminary identifications not yet
12 recognised or acknowledged by members of the families of the victims of
13 the events in Srebrenica.
14 What connection can there be between the figure here, 2.000 for
15 the preliminary identifications, with the preliminary identifications
16 that you conduct in your Institute for Missing Persons?
17 A. Well, I believe that largely they're speaking about the same
18 thing. So again the issue of case closure that I addressed earlier has
19 come up here, and the pathologists like to return the -- the remains to
20 the families. That's what they mean by identified by the families. They
21 take the case to the family and present it and turn it over. They only
22 do that once all the parts of the body have been found from the different
23 graves, and we haven't exhumed all the graves yet. So we will have
24 instances where we've made DNA
25 been discussing, those were the DNA
1 correspond to cases that have been closed because not all the remains
2 have been found. It's very common phenomenon.
3 I don't know about this value of 2.000 or how they calculated it
4 there, but as we've noted previously in the proceedings today, there's a
5 large difference between the number of individual DNA match reports and
6 the number of cases closed, and it's exactly the same phenomenon they're
7 describing. The number of -- of individuals, names that we have from
8 Srebrenica graves that correspond to match reports is greater than the
9 number of closed cases by around 2.000, if I'm not -- or more. I'd have
10 to look at the numbers, but that's consistent with what we saw earlier.
11 Q. But when we look at the letter, it was compiled on the
12 8th of August, 2008, and I'm sure you will agree with me when I say that
13 the Institute for Missing Persons established by the government of
14 Bosnia-Herzegovina as an official organ of that -- of that state
15 recognises only 3.214 identifications at that point in time, plus 168
16 which were buried in individual grave -- graves. Do you agree with me
18 A. I agree with that, that's what's indicated in this letter. I
19 don't know what information that this particular director accessed in
20 order to put that number on this piece of paper.
21 Q. He is the director of the institute, the founder of which is the
22 Government of Bosnia-Herzegovina, but do you agree with me that means
23 that in 2.000 cases - it says approximately or about 2.000 - the next of
24 kin did not accept the identification; right?
25 A. They have not been presented with the identification.
1 Q. I'll read this again, what it says again. I can't find it. I
2 can't find the place where it says that. Yes. "2.000 victims who have
3 still not been identified by their next of kin," whereas the preliminary
4 identification has been completed.
5 Now, do you agree that in this case the next of kin do not accept
6 the identification because, as it says here, only individual body parts
7 were found, not the complete body?
8 A. No, I wouldn't assume that's the meaning here. Now I want you --
9 we need to understand that I don't know what went into the writing of
10 this letter, and I don't know what went into the translation of this
11 letter, but my -- my experience and understanding of the situation here
12 is that in the cases that he's referring to where they have not been
13 identified by the next of kin, what that refers to is cases that have not
14 been taken to the families because the cases are not complete yet.
15 What happens is we get a DNA
16 individual, and the families at this point are not systematically
17 notified at that time of that because it is so extremely traumatic for
18 them. There's been a long history of how these cases are handled in
20 to present evidence of the dismemberment of their loved one when what
21 they really want is to be able to close the case on the entirety of the
23 Q. With all due respect to the emotions of the next of kin and
24 families in situations of this kind, you have not denied today that in a
25 certain number of cases the families do not accept the identification,
1 quite simply.
2 A. I deny that -- that I believe it is a number anything close to
3 the 2.000 referred to in this paper or that that's what he had in mind
4 when he listed that. I -- there are certainly in the history of the many
5 thousands of cases that have been handled where the families have denied
6 identifications for a wide range of reasons. One of the most common is
7 that we have mothers that are unwilling to accept the notion that their
8 loved one is dead regardless of whatever evidence is given to them. But
9 the number of cases where -- where families have denied identifications
10 is extremely small relative to any of the numbers that -- that we have
12 Q. Very well. We have here in this document that that figure is
13 about 2.000, and we'll leave it to the Trial Chamber.
14 Now, I'm going to move on to another area, Mr. Parsons. We have
15 received in electronic form a list of identified persons which is under
16 P5494, and Dusan Janc, the investigator, has talked to us about that.
17 Even in Exhibit P3517, dated November 2008, we see that the table of
18 identified persons was made up in different colours. One colour was
19 grey, another colour according to Dusan Janc was green or greenish, one
20 was pink, and one was orange. Now, did you notice on that list that
21 there were different colours which demonstrate certain things?
22 A. I just want to make sure I know what we're referring to. What is
23 the Exhibit P3517?
24 Q. I apologise to you, Mr. Parsons. I wanted to provide the
25 references for the Trial Chamber and the other participants in the
1 proceeding. They're exhibits with that number, and they are updated ICMP
2 data which we received from the Prosecutor. So one is -- when I said
3 3517, it's an updated list dated July 2008, but we'll come back to the
4 latest list -- let's go back to the latest list.
5 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] And may we ask the usher's
6 assistance here.
7 Your Honours, with your permission, I'd like to show this list
8 that we received yesterday to the witness. Thank you.
9 JUDGE KWON: Or we can use the sample page, 4493.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Depends on whether she is going to refer only
11 generally to the document or whether she has specific pages, multiple
13 I don't know what you have in mind, Ms. Tapuskovic.
14 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I'd just like to have it noted
15 that different colours were used and then we'll continue with e-court.
16 Thank you, Your Honours.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: We can take up Judge Kwon's suggestion, of course.
18 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I don't mind what
19 page it is. We'll get to that in due course. Thank you.
20 Q. I'd just like to ask you, Mr. Parsons, whether this table is
21 multi-coloured, because we can't see that on e-court.
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. That's all I needed to establish with that document. We won't
24 need it any more.
25 Now, yesterday we heard testimony from Mr. Dusan Janc, an
1 investigator of the ICTY OTP, and on page 71 of the transcript yesterday
2 he said that the colours had certain meanings. The green colour or
3 greenish colour, and I would rather say that it's pink or yellow, but
4 never mind, he said that they were marked cases of when the families were
5 not informed about the identification, that they were not notified of the
7 I'll tell you exactly what Mr. Janc said. 913:
8 "[In English] So if you see the colour, the entries in this
9 colour, that means that the relatives of this particular individual,
10 individual have not been informed about the result of -- of the DN
12 [Interpretation] Can you confirm that that is what this colour
14 A. No, I can't. I don't know what that colour -- what the colour
15 scheme relates to.
16 Q. We were also told that the orange colour scheme represents the
17 new identification compared to the previously disclosed and updated list
18 of identified persons. Is that something you're aware of?
19 A. No, I don't know what the colours indicate or who generated them.
20 JUDGE KWON: According to the witness we heard yesterday, he said
21 that the colour was generated by the ICMP.
22 THE WITNESS: Okay. Thank you.
23 JUDGE KWON: If you take a look at the monitor, you can see it in
25 THE WITNESS: Yeah. I'm sorry, nevertheless, I personally
1 don't -- don't know that.
2 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. Regardless of that fact, I have to continue my questioning along
4 those lines, because I met Mr. Janc during preparations for his
5 cross-examination, and this took place on the 16th of April this year,
6 when he, in talking to me, told me that that's what the colours denoted
7 but that you are far more competent and better placed for me to ask you
8 that. So you then confirm that you don't know what these colours mean at
10 A. Ma'am, I do apologise but that's the case, yeah.
11 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Just a moment, please. May I
12 just take a moment to confer.
13 [Defence counsel confer]
14 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I'll have to skip over my next
15 group of questions. Is this the right time for the break or not yet?
16 JUDGE AGIUS: If my colleagues agree, by all means. Twenty-five
17 minutes from now. Thank you.
18 --- Recess taken at 5.28 p.m.
19 --- On resuming at 6.02 p.m.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Ms. Tapuskovic. Will you -- will you leave us
21 time for Mr. Janc or not?
22 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I think I'll need
23 about half an hour to complete my examination of Mr. Parsons, maybe even
24 40 minutes.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Ostojic.
1 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Mr. President. I may have five, ten
2 minutes, but I'm still working on trying to figure something. I just --
3 to have an explanation from Dr. Parsons --
4 JUDGE AGIUS: So let's put it like this. Mr. Vanderpuye, please,
5 you need to decide whether you're going to retain here Mr. Janc or
6 whether you're going to send him back to his hotel. Oh, he will be here.
7 Yes, yes. He's here anyway. But I don't -- it's still already it's past
8 5.00 -- 6.00, and if he doesn't need to stay here, he might as well go
10 MR. VANDERPUYE: We would prefer that, Mr. President.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. This is why I'm asking you.
12 MR. VANDERPUYE: Yes.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: So at least we don't keep him here waiting
15 The other thing is you leave ten minutes for Mr. Ostojic.
16 Otherwise, between you, you can take the whole session. I don't know if
17 you have -- or you're contemplating any re-examination.
18 MR. VANDERPUYE: I am contemplating it, but I don't think at this
19 time that I have any.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Keep contemplating it.
21 Yes, Ms. Tapuskovic.
22 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
23 Q. Mr. Parsons, we'll try and speed up to leave some time for the
24 next team. I'd just like to go back for a moment to your proofing
25 session with the Prosecutor, which took place on the 27th of April, and
1 I'll read out a sentence that you said -- or, rather, the OTP conveyed to
3 "[In English] The witness indicated that he would agree that the
4 examination of electropherograms is necessary for scientific evaluation
5 or verification of DNA
6 raw data is not necessary to such an evaluation. Statistical models can
7 be generated to determine error rates in the data examined."
8 [Interpretation] I just have one brief question linked to what
9 you said there. Tell me, please, then, what would the number of
10 electropherograms be that you would need to analyse -- how many would you
11 need to analyse to have the right statistical model for establishing
12 certain error rates in compiling the DNA report?
13 A. Well, first of all, I don't think it relates to the number of
14 electropherograms but, let's say, the number of -- I think the relevant
15 question is the number of full case files that would have to be reviewed
16 in order to establish the -- the rate of -- of error that is detected
17 through such review. So the -- if the question is could there possibly
18 be a single mistake in the entire match list, that's a completely
19 different statistical question than saying it's clear that at least
20 90 per cent of these -- these samples are correct. Not samples, I mean
21 of these match reports are correct.
22 And there are statistical -- there's a whole branch of statistics
23 that relates to sampling, and you can do things like -- it's called
24 confidence interval from zero proportion. In other words, if you look
25 for something in a certain sample size and you never see it, that is to
1 say, if you review 30 DNA
2 have no evidence for any errors, but on the other hand, it could be that
3 there are errors at some rate that wasn't possible to be detected. And
4 you can -- you can do some calculations on -- that give you some numbers.
5 But -- but again, you need -- you need to define the operational
6 question. Are you asking whether any given match report is correct?
7 Then it's the review of that report that determines it. If you're asking
8 how many potential errors are there in 10.000 matches, to distinguish the
9 number between 0 and 1 you'd need to look at a huge number, in fact, all
10 of them. So, you know, if the question before the Court is, is every
11 single one of these things correct, I guess one would have to agree that
12 you'd have to look at them all.
13 Q. Thank you. We'll now move on to another area.
14 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] And for that may we have called
15 up on e-court document 1D1330, and to be placed on Sanction, because it
16 contains the names of identified persons.
17 Q. The quality of this scanned document is not very good, but
18 anyway, Mr. Parsons, this is an excerpt from your ICMP list of -- and
19 persons identified from March 2009 in Excel. We have the Bisina
20 locality. The document is two pages long.
21 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] May we zoom in so that we can
22 see the first name and last name and markings for the person in lines 6
23 and 7.
24 There are two entries there. Unfortunately, we can't see line 7.
25 Maybe we'll move into private session for a moment, please, Your Honours,
1 because I'll have to state the names because they're not clearly visible
2 on the document?
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Sure. Let's go into private session for a short
4 while, please.
5 [Private session]
12 [Open session]
13 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment. Yes, we are now in open session.
14 Thank you.
15 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
16 Now, may we have called up on e-court the following document,
17 which is 1D1392.
18 Your Honours and Mr. Parsons, this document has not been
19 translated. It was taken over from the Prosecution Exhibit P4511, which
20 is rather large exhibits so we extracted this document for ease of
21 manipulation, and it is an exhumation for the Bisina locality.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: I'm being informed that it is not in e-court, in
23 which case you can hand a hard copy to the witness.
24 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Then we can go to P4511, to
25 page 35 of that document, Prosecution exhibit. Page 35, according to our
1 records. No, that's not the document. I do apologise, Your Honours.
2 Unfortunately, the document has not been translated because it's
3 a very long document, but I hope the Prosecution would [indiscernible] if
4 I say that this is the records on exhumation from the Tuzla canton and
5 the cantonal prosecutor's office, and the date is 2008. May we go to the
6 ERN number which is 706, the last digits of the ERN number 706. That's
7 the right page.
8 Q. Sir, you'll see here that in this exhumation paper it was noted
9 that the exhumed bodies were the bodies under number BIS 01 SEK 038, and
10 it was observed that the body was complete, and you can recognise the
11 038 B mark there, annotation, if nothing else. Can you see that,
12 Mr. Parsons?
13 A. It looks like the third entry from the bottom. Yes.
14 Q. Yes, that's right.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: [Overlapping speakers] ... on the ELMO, or are you
16 happy with how we are proceeding?
17 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I think this is fine,
18 Your Honours. I think the witness can find his way.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: One other thing. Please decide, Ms. Tapuskovic,
20 since this document, according to you, has not been yet translated,
21 whether you would require the translation of the full document or only of
22 the part that you are using. You don't need to give the decision now,
23 later, because as you know, we MFI
24 you're using one page from the document, it's of course different from
25 using the whole document or wanting the whole document to be tendered
1 into evidence.
2 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. We'll
3 bear that in mind.
4 Q. Now, if you look at the document, two rows down you will see that
5 another body was exhumed and it is 040, and once again it says "Complete
6 body." Can you see that?
7 A. Yes, ma'am. Sorry.
8 Q. Thank you.
9 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Now, on e-court may we call up
10 document 1D1388, and on Sanction once again. There's an English
11 translation of the document as well.
12 Q. Sir, you have here a record on establishing identity issued by
13 the University Clinical Centre of Tuzla. Can you read out what it says
14 in the upper right-hand corner, the identification number, please.
15 A. BIS
16 Q. Thank you.
17 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Now on e-court, please, the next
18 document, 1D1389, also --
19 JUDGE AGIUS: I want to know whether this is being broadcast or
20 not, because do have names here. It's not being broadcast. Okay.
21 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honours.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Keep it that way, please. Thank you.
23 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I would kindly ask the witness
24 to focus on the name in this document.
25 Can we please now see document 1D1389. And it shouldn't be
1 broadcast as well.
2 Q. In order not to mention any names, can you please read the
3 identification number in the top right-hand corner.
4 A. There are two apparently, BIS 01 SEK 038 B and BIS
6 Q. Thank you.
7 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we please now see in e-court
8 1D1366, without it being broadcast.
9 Q. Can you see this document, sir?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. If you look at item 3, we're not going to read out any names,
12 number 3 contains the name that we read before, and it says here that
13 it's body SEK 038 and SEK 040. Do you agree with me?
14 A. That is what it says here, yes.
15 Q. Can you tell me when we compared the names before that we were
16 talking about different persons? That is what we discussed while we were
17 in private session.
18 A. I recall that there were two people on the list, we were looking
19 at two names, but I don't know how they correspond to these sample names,
20 I'm sorry.
21 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, can we please go
22 into private session once again?
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, by all means.
24 THE WITNESS: It might be a little helpful if I could --
25 [Private session]
11 Pages 33468-33473 redacted. Private session.
25 [Open session]
1 JUDGE AGIUS: Please go ahead.
2 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Mr. President, again.
3 Cross-examination by Mr. Ostojic:
4 Q. Sir, thank you. As you may remember, my name is John Ostojic. I
5 have a couple questions that I would like you to assist me, perhaps, in
7 MR. OSTOJIC: If we could have P4500 up in e-court, please.
8 Q. As it's coming up, sir, I'll just tell you the caption of it. It
9 says "Tracking chart for Srebrenica cases."
10 MR. OSTOJIC: And I think out of the abundance of caution, we
11 should not broadcast this document and then we can decide later once he
12 tells me about --
13 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Registrar will attend to that.
14 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you.
15 Q. Sir, are you familiar with this document?
16 A. Yes, these tracking charts are regularly prepared.
17 Q. Was this tracking chart actually prepared by ICMP?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Okay. Now I have a couple of questions in connection with this
20 tracking chart. If you look at the different sections there, what I
21 don't understand, briefly, is the centre -- where it says in the centre
22 of the page, "DNA
23 section which starts with "Cases closed," "Open cases" and then "Pending
24 cases"; do you see that?
25 A. Yes, sir.
1 Q. Where -- how do you define cases closed, where you have the
2 number 3.825?
3 A. This would be dependent upon information from outside of the
4 ICMP, and these tracking charts are not official products -- I just want
5 to make a slight disclaimer. These are not official products of the ICMP
6 Forensic Sciences Section in terms of relating to our forensic
7 accreditation, et cetera. So the closed cases is information that comes
8 from us from the pathologists, where we ask the question, of these -- of
9 these match reports we've provided, how many of these have been closed?
10 That is to say, how many -- how many have the pathologists taken to the
11 family, issued a death certificate, et cetera.
12 Q. And the same, what is the definition for open cases, where we
13 have 1.800?
14 A. I would presume --
15 THE INTERPRETER: Please pause for the interpreters and repeat
16 the last question, thank you very much.
17 MR. OSTOJIC:
18 Q. Sorry, sir. I know you're anticipating and I was rushing, and I
19 apologise for that. The same question with respect to this row, open
20 cases, where it reflects 1.800. How is that defined?
21 A. I would assume that's the total number of cases minus the cases
22 closed minus the pending cases.
23 Q. I did the math, actually. It doesn't come out right, but we'll
24 look at it a little closer, but I'd like to show you now 1D1347 which was
25 shown to you previously this evening. Keeping in mind these two figures
1 if you don't mind. So again it's 1D1347.
2 My learned friend was showing you this document earlier today. I
3 believe it's letter that you looked at with some numbers in English which
4 talked about specifically the number of unidentified being 2.000
5 approximately and the other number, by memory --
6 MR. OSTOJIC: I think it's the next page on that document if I
7 recall. And I don't think we should broadcast this either. Thank you.
8 Q. You remember that the 3.214, I believe? Do you see that? What
9 you have in your tracking chart that ICMP does, is that information that
10 you obtained from this document as well?
11 A. No, we wouldn't have got it from this document, no.
12 Q. So this document has -- is not reflected anywhere in your
13 tracking chart; correct?
14 A. Not specifically, no.
15 Q. Okay let's go back then to P4500. And if you look -- keeping
16 this figure of 3.124 in mind, if you look at your -- in the row under
17 "Totals," do you see that in the bottom portion? I think you might have
18 to scan -- or go a little lower. There it is. The total section there
19 says number of closed cases and then it says number of bodies buried and
20 then in parentheses it has in the row 3.297 and then in parentheses 3.234
21 in Potocari. Do you see that?
22 A. Yes, sir.
23 Q. Well, what is that the total of? How do you, like, add all these
24 things up and come up with that?
25 A. Let me sort through this for a few moments, if you would.
1 Q. Of course.
2 A. Is there a way we can zoom out so that I can see the whole
3 document? Maybe one in from there? Yeah.
4 Q. And while you're looking at it, if I could draw your attention to
5 one --
6 A. Please.
7 Q. -- other thing, maybe you could help us. If you look at the --
8 on the first section where it says "Blood sample status," I had a
9 question on that. The third row which talks about number of missing
10 individuals represented by the blood samples collected you have 7700
11 plus, and then if you go to the third section there which talks about DNA
12 reports and it talks about individuals represented 6.023, and just if you
13 could help me reconcile that.
14 A. That one's easy, fortunately.
15 Q. Great.
16 A. Do you want me to turn --
17 Q. You can?
18 A. -- to that one now?
19 Q. [Overlapping speakers]
20 A. The first number, which is in the third row, where it says the
21 number of individuals represented by the blood samples --
22 Q. Mm-hmm.
23 A. -- that is simply the number of missing persons for which at
24 least one family member has provided a blood sample. So they -- they
25 reported this individual missing and gave us a blood sample and we have
1 that for that number of people, 7.789.
2 Q. Why wouldn't that be the same number for individuals represented?
3 A. Because this is -- because this is DNA match reports. That --
4 that information has nothing to do with who's been matched and who
5 hasn't. That's just our database.
6 Now we go down to DNA
7 reports are when we've arrived at some genetic conclusion. So in this
8 case we -- the individuals represented number means that we have obtained
10 there are at least 6.023 people represented. So we've typed many bones
11 from the same individual but out of all these -- these 11.000 reports, it
12 involves 6.023 different individuals.
13 Q. Okay.
14 A. As victims.
15 Q. Okay. And now have you looked, then, in that section where it
16 says "Cases closed" and "Cases open," how come they don't reconcile the
18 A. Okay. I think the basic answer is going to be is that the ICMP
19 doesn't -- doesn't have custody of -- does not maintain -- does not have
20 access to accurate information about cases closed. Its -- it's -- the
21 part that I was able to give you a clear explanation of, those are our
22 numbers. Whether the state pathologist has closed the case, there's no
23 formal mechanism that is in any way associated with our forensic
24 department that notifies us with certainty when the case has been closed
25 or not.
1 So I think -- I don't -- I can't make sense of the closed versus
2 non-closed numbers, and I think the answer is that that's soft
3 information and it -- I think we should revise these tracking charts.
4 These are not formal forensic documents. They're something that's been
5 put together to kind of keep track of talking point sort of things and I
6 would -- I would not stand by those numbers, nor might they add up --
7 Q. Would the same --
8 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment, Mr. Ostojic.
9 MR. OSTOJIC: Sorry.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: In other words, to have to clear in my mind, what
11 you're saying is that technically the ICMP doesn't open and close
12 cases --
13 THE WITNESS: That -- that --
14 JUDGE AGIUS: -- that's someone else's job, and you rely
15 presumably on the information you receive from that entity as to how many
16 cases are still open, how many cases are closed.
17 THE WITNESS: That's exactly right, sir.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
19 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Mr. President.
20 Q. And with respect to being medically certain on this data
21 provided, if we look at the section which is highlighted with totals,
22 would your answer be the same also, that we shouldn't rely on that based
23 upon any certainty? The number of closed cases as well as the numbers of
24 bodies buried? Do you see that?
25 A. Yes. Particularly the cases closed one fits into the set of
1 numbers that I -- I can't give you a good explanation of.
2 Q. That's all I have. Thank you very much.
3 A. Thank you.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you. Are you still contemplating,
5 Mr. Vanderpuye, or have you finished your contemplation?
6 MR. VANDERPUYE: I've finished my contemplation, Mr. President.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: No questions.
8 MR. VANDERPUYE: I have no further questions. Thank you.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Dr. Parsons, the Trial Chamber is
10 extremely grateful for your patience and acceptance to come here and give
11 evidence. We appreciate that. We also wish you a safe journey back
13 THE WITNESS: Thank you very much.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: We've still got ten minutes. Documents.
15 Mr. Vanderpuye.
16 MR. VANDERPUYE: Mr. President, I think we've just sent our list
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. It hasn't reached us as yet.
19 MR. VANDERPUYE: Okay.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: If you want to postpone it until Friday, I have no
22 MR. VANDERPUYE: I can tell you -- I can tell you right now.
23 They are 65 ter 4494, 65 ter 4497 through 4499, and 65 ter 4526.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Any objections, Ms. Tapuskovic?
25 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: No objections.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. Documents you wish to tender?
2 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I would be grateful,
3 Your Honour, if you would allow me to do that by Friday.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Thank you.
5 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: In relation to the Prosecution documents, any
7 objections from any of the other Defence teams? We hear none, so they
8 are admitted. And on Friday you come back to us also on that particular
9 document which is still untranslated to tell us whether you wish to have
10 it translated into its entirety or just sample pages from it,
11 Ms. Tapuskovic.
12 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I apologise but I
13 was focusing on what the record said linked to the exhibits proposed by
14 my learned friend Mr. Vanderpuye, and I see there -- well, I'm looking to
15 see if there's a separate document that wasn't on the list so I'm afraid
16 I didn't hear your question. I do apologise. Could you repeat your
17 question, please?
18 JUDGE AGIUS: My question is you will tender your documents on
19 Friday. In the meantime, since one of them, you yourself explained that
20 it still is not translated. You will need to tell us on Friday whether
21 you wish it to be translated in its entirety or only insofar as the
22 sample page or pages that you make use of from it. All right?
23 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. Yes,
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. Tomorrow is a national holiday here,
1 and -- which is also observed by the Tribunal, so we will reconvene on
2 Friday. Thank you. In the morning. Yes, in the morning.
3 [The witness withdrew]
4 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 6.54 p.m.
5 to be reconvened on Friday, the 1st day of
6 May, 2009, at 9.00 a.m.