International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 7444

1 Wednesday, 4 September 2002

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 --- Upon commencing at 11.10 a.m.

5 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Good morning to everybody. May we hear the

6 case, please.

7 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning. This is Case Number IT-97-24, the

8 Prosecutor versus Milomir Stakic.

9 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: And the limited appearances for the OTP.

10 MR. KOUMJIAN: Good morning Your Honours. Nicholas Koumjian, soon

11 to be joined by Ruth Karper for the Office of the Prosecutor and I could

12 briefly explain as the Defence introduce themselves. What she is doing

13 now, she is getting some new documents I would like to briefly discuss

14 with the court

15 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: The Defence, please.

16 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honour. Branko

17 Lukic and John Ostojic for the Defence.

18 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. Two issues before we start. I have

19 to inform the parties that the Bench decided to summon, under Rule 98

20 sentence 2, Mr. Dusan Baltic for Wednesday, the 18th of September, 9.30.

21 So the input would be helpful, but in case there should be any kind of

22 hindrance for this witness, it should be left for an in-house witness.

23 But in principle, it should be the entire day available for this

24 additional witness.

25 Second, I think yesterday's hearing was not one of the highlights

Page 7445

1 of that what we have heard in the past in this case. I think the

2 expertise was not indeed, to be very diplomatic, helpful for the purposes

3 of our case, especially because not based on that what we have heard until

4 now in courtroom. To a certain extent, we had the impression to be misled

5 by the examination-in-chief having had the impression that indeed the

6 cross-check was done on the basis of viva voce testimony and admitted

7 92 bis evidence. Therefore, I have to re-emphasise that we expect that we

8 get an additional table based on the names listed in the annex of the

9 fourth amended indictment, indicating in three columns whether this person

10 was listed as missing person in the updated list of missing persons,

11 second column whether this person was declared dead by court in

12 Bosnia-Herzegovina, and third column, whether or not this person was

13 exhumed and then to add in this column where the place of exhumation was.

14 In addition, we need, no doubt, the law applicable for the decision of the

15 courts of Bosnia-Herzegovina to declare a person dead.

16 I think this will be helpful in addition, but to turn to the other

17 side, I would really ask the Defence not to overstate. Yesterday the

18 cross-examination has been extremely helpful, but on the other hand, some

19 overstatements are watering down to a certain extent these results and

20 please beware when looking to the Bench you find three professional

21 Judges. There is no jury. And please don't blame an expert witness for

22 that what was done responsible for the results of those persons having

23 made the request and not the person having worked on this issue.

24 Therefore, I hope that we come back to the climate as we were

25 acquainted with in the past already now and already today when we hear now

Page 7446

1 today's witness, Mr. ten Camp. But I had the impression that the Office

2 of the Prosecutor wants to make some remarks before we start.

3 MR. KOUMJIAN: Yes. Before I address the issue related to

4 document signatures, can I briefly just address the Court's comments

5 regarding the witness yesterday. Mr. Sebire, as he made clear, did not

6 come here as an expert on medical matters or on other matters of

7 expertise. His job, which I think he has done a tremendous job of, is

8 collecting over 20.000 pages of documents and trying to organise them in

9 some way that it would be presentable to a court of law.

10 The report, I understand Your Honour's statement about the direct

11 examination was misleading about the sources of the witness, the

12 statements of witnesses that he used, but his report makes it quite clear

13 and actually quotes the statements, the report itself, that he was not

14 using testimony, but the statements of the witness. Give the Court's

15 request, we can comply with that. I know I saw Mr. Sebire here this

16 morning working on that. He is scheduled to be out of the country on

17 Sunday, he's trying to complete that before he leaves. The one matter

18 that right now is impossible to do, is to look at the updated book of

19 missing persons. We expect that momentarily and I will ask him, I will

20 have Ms. Karper send him an email this morning and ask him if there's any

21 updated word on when that would arrive. I was originally told, I thought,

22 Monday, but now I's told that it may take until next week, but I'll find

23 out about that. As regards to the law on declarations of death, I've

24 already requested an investigator to try to obtain that. I think we will

25 have that by tomorrow, at least in B/C/S.

Page 7447

1 As to Mr. -- As for the documents that Ms. Karper just got, if I

2 could explain the source. I would be asking to have these copies of the

3 document marked and admitted as exhibits. But these documents are a

4 response received from the Republika Srpska liaison officer to a request

5 for assistance from the Office of the Prosecutor. The Office of the

6 Prosecutor requested Republika Srpska to search official records and bank

7 records for signatures of Dr. Stakic. I see that we actually have here

8 three of the pages. The response was longer, but most of the response was

9 simply letters from banks saying they have no record. Three of the pages

10 concern an application for an identity card. And my understanding is this

11 is the application that is kept, the paperwork that is kept by the

12 government office, not the card that the person carries.

13 Excuse me, that's the first page. I believe the second page is --

14 when I say the first page, it is copied front and back. So the first two

15 pages are the identity document, the second page, I believe, is a driver's

16 licence application. And the third page I don't want to guess what it is.

17 It's indicated on it that it is a request for the issuance for a passport

18 from 1999. The most important of these from our point of view is the

19 first one which contains a Latin script signature that we maintain S

20 Milomir. So I ask that these documents be marked as exhibits.

21 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: In the meantime, whilst on these documents are

22 disputed, may I ask for some assistance. On the list of material

23 submitted and the expert statement, we find table 1 no doubt with exhibit

24 numbers, table 2 also, but on table 3 there are numerous documents without

25 any court exhibit number. Are these documents already tendered?

Page 7448

1 MR. KOUMJIAN: We are trying to obtain the answer. I believe they

2 are. I believe this is the package that we obtained from Judge --

3 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Lindholm. Per Lindholm.

4 MR. KOUMJIAN: Yes, Judge Lindholm.

5 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: So all these would be included in S --

6 MR. KOUMJIAN: 35, I believe.

7 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: 35. Fine. Then let's go through the documents

8 we just received. No doubt the Defence may beforehand discuss the

9 documents with their client, if necessary.

10 We would interrupt for this purpose for five minutes.

11 MR. OSTOJIC: That is acceptable, Your Honour, since we just

12 received the documents at this moment.

13 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Then the trial stays adjourned until 11.35 a.m.

14 --- Break taken at 11.25 a.m.

15 --- On resuming at 11.44 a.m

16 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: So, let's first start with the document handed

17 over before the break. We have now to decide on the admission on

18 evidence. The document starting with 01799923, could the OTP please in a

19 language we understand, what this document and apparently following

20 document 924, backside of the same document, what it is.

21 MR. KOUMJIAN: Yes. This is the identity card filed in the name

22 of Milomir Stakic.

23 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

24 MR. KOUMJIAN: This is the identity card file in Bosnia, I think

25 we have heard testimony from Ms. Tabeau about the "maticni broj", the

Page 7449












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 7450

1 personal number and individuals are issued identity cards with that

2 number. This is the file that is kept by the officials for that identity

3 card. And it has the number, "maticni broj" on the, just below the

4 caption at the top, it has a photograph of the individual. It appears in

5 the upper left-hand side of the document, on the first page, the name, and

6 the signature of the person to whom the card is issued appears. Also, it

7 is the second line up on this particular document.

8 This ERN number 01799924 is the backside of that document.

9 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Okay. And the document was received by?

10 MR. KOUMJIAN: This document was received by Suellen Taylor

11 pursuant to an official request for assistance to the Republika Srpska,

12 was handed to the OTP by the liaison pursuant to request --

13 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: We have the original or --

14 MR. KOUMJIAN: Letter, yes. Well, we -- we can give the Court to

15 view the first copy but what is received from the Republika Srpska is a

16 copy.

17 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Was only a copy. Okay, just to know whether we

18 can work with an original or in this case since it is not necessary.

19 Objections?

20 MR. OSTOJIC: We do, Your Honour, good morning. Our primary

21 objection is twofold. One, the element of surprise. We are constantly

22 being inundated with documents that we believe are in their possession and

23 throughout these proceedings, at least in my opinion, we have been given

24 documents that these that are reported to the OTP a day or two before, but

25 I think the practice that is developing and I understand that we are

Page 7451

1 coming towards the end of the Prosecutor's case in chief, is truly

2 unacceptable to us. We cannot be given documents which purports to go to

3 the witness that today is going to testify before us. His testimony may

4 be incomplete unless he has these documents. There must be a different

5 avenue that we can accomplish this in a more timely fashion. We also

6 received today a signature or signature blocks of two pages of documents

7 which apparently this expert did. Why we weren't given these documents in

8 advance of his expert testimony I don't know, and if I can just show it to

9 the Court, if I may.

10 The Defence --

11 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: May we also have these documents, please, a

12 copy. To cut this story short, I think it is necessary to give really a

13 stern warning to the Office of the Prosecutor. We discussed this issue

14 during the break. It is not acceptable and we all have to emphasise this,

15 it is not acceptable the way the Prosecution is working in this case in

16 producing documents. And it can't be a matter of surprise. And only for

17 economical reasons, we decide to proceed nevertheless, on the basis

18 knowing very well that it might be that the witness has to come another

19 time.

20 But we have to start and we can't continue just to waste money and

21 the OTP should be aware that when they in Tribunal costs some thousand

22 dollar, I don't want to quote the exact figure, and, therefore, in

23 balancing the interests and knowing that, no doubt, the accused is aware

24 on the basis of these documents shown to us that he might sometimes

25 somewhere in the past has signed these documents, we shall proceed on this

Page 7452

1 even fragile basis.

2 Therefore these documents 01799923 is admitted into evidence as

3 S283-1 and the following ending with 924 is S83-1.

4 Let's now go to the "karton vozaca". May we hear what it is about

5 and by whom it was received and whether we have only the first copy or an

6 original.

7 MR. KOUMJIAN: This is a first copy of what was received from the

8 liaison of the Republika Srpska pursuant to an official request for

9 assistance and it is an application for driver's licence, dated, I

10 believe, March 28th, 1980 -- excuse me, I take that back. Because I see

11 there is also a date of 1995 on the bottom left. I am not sure about the

12 dating, whether the application dates 1980 and these are expiration dates.

13 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: We are discussing 01799925 and may we ask

14 whether these two documents we are discussing right now have been

15 presented to the witness.

16 MR. KOUMJIAN: None of the documents received from the request for

17 assistance were presented to the witness. They actually were received

18 over the court break and the witness was not in The Hague at that time and

19 had already completed and submitted his report.

20 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: The same objections will be on by the Defence.

21 MR. OSTOJIC: Same objections, but if permitted, and I know they

22 admitted the first document S283-1, I did have one other comment on that.

23 That document is a typical document that in the territory for which

24 apparently it was filled out, it requires specifically that it be signed

25 by the authorised personnel as most official documents. We know from our

Page 7453

1 cursory review of that document immediately below Dr. Stakic's purported

2 signature is a blank of the person who should have authorised the

3 signature, so that the documents can be processed and therefore become

4 official. Likewise, we note that there - and I am not sure if this is a

5 copying issue - that there is no stamp of any official seal from the

6 entity that is distributing that. It's my understanding, although

7 limited, based upon information and belief, that the numbers that are

8 placed on the top would have been typically rejected because there is more

9 than one number that is placed -- there is 13 numbers and 13 spaces. When

10 numbers of more than one are put in a single box, it is automatically

11 rejected. And I understand that it goes to weight, but we just want to

12 make a record on the document of our objection.

13 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you, the following document ending with

14 925 is admitted into evidence for the reasons given before and the

15 reservations made there under S284.

16 And then it follows the document ending with 926. What is this,

17 please.

18 MR. KOUMJIAN: This is the request for the issuance of a passport

19 dated April 23, 1999 and as with the other two documents it was receive

20 pursuant to the same request of assistance for the liaison of the

21 Republika Srpska.

22 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: So 927 would be the backside of 926, correct or?

23 MR. KOUMJIAN: That is correct.

24 JUDGE ORIE: And once again, we have only copies available.

25 MR. KOUMJIAN: Yes. And I am asking that the first copy be

Page 7454

1 brought down for the Court to view.

2 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I think the same objections or additional

3 remarks?

4 MR. OSTOJIC: Yes, Your Honour, the same objections.

5 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: For the same reason and the same reservations

6 given before. 926 admitted into evidence as S285-1, and the next one

7 S285-2.

8 Then, out of the blue during the five minutes' break, we received

9 another set of documents and these are the ones apparently mentioned in

10 the document.

11 MR. KOUMJIAN: Yes. I believe these are -- sorry.

12 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: These are included in S235?

13 MR. KOUMJIAN: No. We have done some research on that. These are

14 the documents received from Judge Lindholm.

15 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Were they presented to the Defence?

16 MR. KOUMJIAN: They were presented to the Defence at the same time

17 they were presented to the Office of the Prosecutor, I believe. They have

18 copies of it. These documents we had thought - it is our records -- our

19 records show that they were admitted as J8 but apparently the court

20 records show only the letter from Judge Lindholm was admitted as J8.

21 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: And consequently we have to go through the

22 documents. And we have all before us table three. And on this basis, we

23 have to continue. May I ask the Defence, is it correct, did you receive

24 these documents earlier?

25 MR. OSTOJIC: We did, Your Honour.

Page 7455












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 7456

1 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Any objections as regards to the admittance into

2 evidence of these documents?

3 MR. OSTOJIC: We do Your Honour, and to preserve our right, we

4 have made an application to have the admittance of those documents, we

5 presumed they were also admitted to be resolved by the appellate court

6 respectfully, the entire search, et cetera.

7 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Yes, we are aware of this. But nevertheless,

8 for the purposes of the ongoing case and that we can work in the

9 transcript already with the exhibit numbers, please let us do the

10 following work: That we have before us table three and the documents, and

11 the first documents starting with or ending with 732 should go as J8-1.

12 And then continuing 733, -2; 734, -3; 735, -4; 736, -5; 737, -6; 738, -7;

13 739, -8; 740, -9; 741, -10; 742, -11; 743, -12; 744, -13; 745, -14;

14 746, -15; 747, -16; 748, -17; 749, -18; 750, -19; 751, -20; 752, -21

15 753, -22; 754, -23 and then it should end with this document. All in all

16 we have under J8, 23 pages available.

17 Anything else to be discussed before we can start with the

18 witness?

19 MR. KOUMJIAN: Just one thing I want to make clear. I think

20 Mr. Ostojic asked me to clarify it. The Court, Your Honours, have in

21 front of you an updated version of the report. When I say updated, it was

22 pursuant to Your Honours' request that the exhibit numbers be provided in

23 the report to make the report readable or more user-friendly. What we did

24 in order to comply with that, is we asked for an electronic copy of the

25 report, and it should be clear, I don't want anyone to misrepresent, that

Page 7457

1 these numbers, the S numbers that do appear were put in by the Office of

2 the Prosecutor and not by the witness. The witness was given a copy of

3 the version we had last night, and he took that home with him. But he did

4 not write the S numbers in, we did. In the documents that were

5 distributed in the envelope, just to be clear also, the S numbers, when I

6 met with the witness last night, we tried to write in on some of these or

7 hopefully most of these, the S numbers of the documents from which the

8 particular signatures came from.

9 But again, that was done by myself and the witness yesterday.

10 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: The document you have before you, is it already

11 with the Registry?

12 MR. KOUMJIAN: We have it copied for. It will come in through the

13 witness and we have one for the witness as well.

14 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you.

15 Is it the intention of the Office of the Prosecutor to leave this

16 for the explanation of the witness or do you want to explain it.

17 MR. KOUMJIAN: I think it would be better to explain it to the

18 witness.

19 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: To the witness or by the witness?

20 MR. KOUMJIAN: By the witness. It is his working - it is his

21 working - worksheet that he put together.

22 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Okay. Then but all the administrative matters

23 are done, this document is tendered.

24 MR. KOUMJIAN: Both of these documents we would tender or both

25 sheets, we would tender.

Page 7458

1 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Objections.

2 MR. OSTOJIC: Same objections, Your Honour, as those outlined with

3 documents that were produced today. I think as S280-1, if I am not

4 mistaken.

5 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. It was the same for the same reasons

6 and with the same reservations. Admitted into evidence as please let me

7 know the following numbers. S286?

8 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honour.

9 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: S286 and S287. Where we can read the number 2.

10 MR. OSTOJIC: Just to make a clarification, I said S280-1. It is

11 actually the objection we would like to incorporate for this document that

12 we made in connection with document S283-1.

13 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I understand what you wanted to express and

14 therefore I said with the same reservation. So I think now it is time

15 finally to come to the witness, and I heard that we have an interpreter

16 today so therefore may I ask the usher to escort both persons into the

17 courtroom.

18 MR. KOUMJIAN: What we -- I was just speaking with Ms. Karper,

19 what we propose to do if there is no objection from the Bench or from the

20 Defence, we do still have an electronic copy of this report, to add in the

21 numbers, the J8 numbers the Court just mentioned and mark that report as

22 an exhibit into evidence.

23 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: It would be helpful indeed for the parties and

24 the Bench.

25 MR. KOUMJIAN: And just to further explain when we added the -- I

Page 7459

1 will wait.

2 [The witness entered court]

3 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Good morning, both of you. Mr. ten Camp, may I

4 ask you to stand up and to give the solemn declaration.

5 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the

6 whole truth and nothing but the truth.


8 [Witness answered through interpreter]

9 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you, please be seated. And then may we

10 please hear the name of the interpreter accompanying you, and also give

11 the solemn declaration. First please your name.

12 THE INTERPRETER: My name is Sybelle van Hal and I solemnly

13 declare to perform my duties as an interpreter faithfully, independently,

14 impartially, and with full respect for the duty of confidentiality.

15 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Then the floor is open for the OTP, please.

16 Examined by Mr. Koumjian:

17 Q. Mr. ten Camp, good morning. Could you please, for the record,

18 state your name, and tell us what your current employment is.

19 A. I am C. H. ten Camp. At present I work at the Dutch Forensic

20 Institute in Rijswijk in the Netherlands.

21 Q. Thank you. Mr. ten Camp, just to remind you, because

22 interpretation is going on in four different languages, we both have to be

23 careful to speak slowly and to pause between our comments. Between

24 speakers, there should be a significant pause.

25 Sir, you mentioned your employer was the Dutch -- Netherlands

Page 7460

1 Forensic Institute. Can you tell us is that part of a particular branch

2 of the government of the Netherlands?

3 A. The Dutch Forensic Institute is part of the Ministry of Justice.

4 Q. Would it be correct or incorrect to say that you work with the

5 police or for the police?

6 A. The Dutch Forensic Institute is not a police laboratory, but it

7 does submit cases.

8 Q. Are you part of the prosecution, are you part of the prosecution

9 division?

10 A. To the best of my knowledge I am not.

11 Q. Is it correct that you actually come under the courts and not the

12 prosecutors' office?

13 A. That's correct.

14 Q. Mr. ten Camp, can you please tell the court what your education

15 experience and training is in the comparison of handwriting in order to

16 offer opinions as to the authorship of the handwriting.

17 A. I am sorry. I have a technical education, electronic education.

18 I started at the Dutch Forensic Institute in 1978 where I used my

19 knowledge of electronics for research purposes for handwriting research.

20 After about two years I was then trained as a handwriting expert by Mr.

21 Hardy [phoen] who was my supervisor at the time. The programme consisted

22 of on-the-job training, which concluded after several years with an exam.

23 And after I passed that examination, I was qualified to sign reports.

24 Since 1978 until the present, I have worked at the department for

25 handwriting investigation and do comparative handwriting investigations,

Page 7461












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 7462

1 as well as research about classical typewriter print.

2 Q. Can you give us some estimate of the amount of question documents

3 or perhaps I should say, cases regarding question documents in which you

4 have participated in a handwriting comparison?

5 A. That would be over 2000.

6 Q. Have you previously testified in courts in the Netherlands or any

7 other country?

8 A. Over the past years I have testified before a court, on a few

9 occasions, not often.

10 Q. Thank you.

11 The institute for which you work, the Dutch Forensic Institute,

12 does it have any type of certification from any official body regarding

13 the comparisons of handwriting samples?

14 A. Yes. Comparative handwriting investigation at the Dutch Forensic

15 Institute, the NFI, is performed according to a method approved by the

16 board of accreditation with corresponding systems of quality assurance.

17 Q. Sir, can you briefly explain to us what techniques are used in

18 making a comparison of a question document with handwriting to a reference

19 sample, in order to offer an opinion as to whether the same person wrote

20 both documents?

21 A. In a comparative handwriting investigation, there are four stages.

22 These four stages are listed in the annex to the report. I can list those

23 stages. They include handwriting analysis, comparison of the observed

24 handwriting characteristics, assessment of the similarities and

25 dissimilarities found and drawing the conclusion. Those are the four

Page 7463

1 phases.

2 Each of those phases can be broken down. I am not sure you want

3 me to go into that amount of detail, but it appears on page one and two of

4 the annex.

5 Q. Thank you. Perhaps I can just ask you: Did you use techniques

6 outlined in the annex of the forensic handwriting analysis in conducting

7 an analysis at the request of the Office of the Prosecutor of the

8 International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia?

9 A. Yes, I did. I am sorry.

10 Q. Sir, can you briefly comment on how your -- well, first -- sorry.

11 Can you tell us the opinions that are offered, that are reached and

12 offered to courts by handwriting examiners, such as yourself? Are these

13 opinions that can be quantified in terms of probabilities or percentages?

14 A. Results of the comparative handwriting analysis are formulated in

15 a conclusion that indicates to what extent the investigator considers it

16 likely that the questioned handwriting was produced by a certain person.

17 To this end he uses a probability scale.

18 Q. Is it possible to assign fixed percentages to that probability

19 scale, such as might be done in a DNA analysis?

20 A. In handwriting analysis, percentages are not used. Percentages in

21 a conclusion of handwriting analysis would suggest a measure of accuracy

22 that would -- that is not realistic considering the inevitable subjective

23 elements in the comparison process.

24 Q. Sir, because the Court and counsel for the accused have copies of

25 your annex, I am not going to go through all of the techniques and points

Page 7464

1 that you look at in your analysis, but let me ask you: It does indicate

2 that among the items you look at are margins on the width of the writing,

3 the width of the right and left margins, the top and bottom, you look at

4 spacing between words, spacing between lines, punctuation, and grammar.

5 All of these are among the items that you look at in making your

6 comparison. Is that correct?

7 A. [In English] Yes, among that. There are some more.

8 Q. Please testify completely in Dutch, just it will confuse the

9 record. I understand you speak English.

10 Sir, can you tell us then, is your ability to reach a conclusion,

11 and particularly the probability of you making an identification of the

12 authorship of a document, is that effected by the quality and quantity of

13 the questioned documents, in other words, the amount of writing and the

14 amount of characters, words, that you have to compare to the reference

15 sample?

16 A. [Interpretation] The conclusion in handwriting comparison analysis

17 arises, depending on the number of similarities, the quality of

18 similarities and the rarity of similarities. The more material for

19 comparison we have, the better we can perform the comparison. The more

20 the questions -- the more characters in the questioned handwriting, the

21 more opportunities we have for comparison.

22 If the questioned material or the comparison material consists of

23 photocopies or reproductions, that is a limiting factor, because

24 microscopically, some items are no longer visible because of their

25 reproduction quality, as expressed in the conclusion.

Page 7465

1 We always conclude the report, if photocopies have been used with

2 the sentence that you will find in this report as well. The sentence

3 reads that no essential difference may exist between the copy before us or

4 the copy investigated and the original on which the copy is based.

5 Q. So photocopies in the questioned material diminishes your

6 probability of making an identification. Does the quality and other

7 factors in the reference material affect your ability to make an

8 identification and can you explain what the ideal is for reference

9 material.

10 A. The ideal comparison would comprise the original questioned

11 handwriting, preferably multiple signatures, and an ample quantity of

12 reference signatures of the person concerned in with the original ink

13 deposits. What is also important is that the larger the quantity of the

14 questioned handwriting, the better the opportunities for comparison

15 become.

16 Q. Is it correct that in the request of the Office of the Prosecutor

17 you received many documents and were asked to compare a signature on the

18 questioned documents that appears to be S. Milomir?

19 A. That is correct.

20 Q. Does the fact that this signature appears to contain only eight

21 letters and two letters, the I and the M are repeated, so six individual

22 letters from the alphabet only, did that affect your ability to make a

23 comparison and the likelihood that you could reach a positive conclusion

24 regarding an identification of the authorship of the document?

25 A. The quantity of writing and number of letters in a signature does

Page 7466

1 come into play at the level of the conclusion. The fewer letters or

2 patterns appear in a signature restricts the level of the conclusion.

3 Q. Going now to your actual work in this case regarding the signature

4 S. Milomir, can you explain to us and illustrate, I believe with a

5 worksheet you brought with us, what you actually did in order to compare

6 the questioned signatures with signatures which were given to you as a

7 reference sample? And first just to be clear on the record, is it correct

8 that table three contains the documents that you used with signatures as a

9 reference sample? Table three in your report on page four.

10 A. Yes, indeed. In table three there you see the signatures, the

11 reference signatures are included there but the Cyrillic signatures appear

12 in table two. In table three, they are in Latin script. Otherwise, there

13 are a few more in table four, there were reference table signatures in

14 table four in Cyrillic script which means that in effect table one

15 contains the questioned signatures, the disputed signatures.

16 Q. Thank you.

17 MR. KOUMJIAN: Your Honour, I just received a report, Mr. Ten

18 Camp's report, that we have now added the last exhibit numbers that were

19 just admitted while Mr. ten Camp was waiting to testify. So he does not

20 have it, nor do Your Honours or the Defence, but we have copies to

21 distribute to everyone, and I would also ask that the report be marked as

22 an exhibit.

23 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Objections?

24 MR. OSTOJIC: No, Your Honour, no objections.

25 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: The next available S number is, please?

Page 7467












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 7468

1 THE REGISTRAR: Number S288, Your Honours.

2 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: It is admitted into evidence as S288.


4 Q. Mr. ten Camp, if you can take a moment to briefly review that and

5 make sure that this is the report that you authored in response to a

6 request from the Office of the Prosecutor, with the exception of the

7 exhibit numbers, the S and J numbers being added by the Office of the

8 Prosecutor.

9 A. Yes, that's correct.

10 Q. You have explained to us that tables two and three and four

11 contain material you used as a reference signatures. Is it correct that

12 table one includes those documents that were given to you as the

13 questioned documents, in other words, you were asked to compare the

14 signatures on table one to see if they were written by the same person

15 that wrote the other documents in tables two, three, and four?

16 A. That's correct.

17 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Sorry. We unfortunately, we have to take into

18 account that we started this session at 11.00, and therefore, we have

19 mandatory to make a break now and the trial therefore stays adjourned

20 until 1.00 sharp.

21 --- Recess taken at 12.30 p.m.

22 --- On resuming at 1.05 p.m.

23 MR. KOUMJIAN: Your Honour, I notice that the exhibit, I believe,

24 that was marked as the report does not include the annex that was referred

25 to by Mr. ten Camp. My particular copy is -- I have marked up, but he has

Page 7469

1 one with him. May that be marked as part of the last exhibit, perhaps

2 289-1 or 288, is it?

3 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: 288, right. So may it be marked 288-1, please.

4 MR. KOUMJIAN: And just for the record, that is the annex labelled

5 from the Ministry of Justice, Netherlands Forensic Institute, forensic

6 handwriting analysis, and it consists of six -- five pages of text.

7 Q. Mr. ten Camp, I want to turn to the signatures that you were asked

8 to compare, the comparison signatures, that contained what appears to be

9 in Latin script, the signature S. Milomir. Did you prepare a worksheet

10 from the documents that you received in that group of questioned

11 documents? Can you show it to us now on the ELMO, the machine to your

12 right. We will put it on the screen. And can you explain how you put

13 this together.

14 MR. KOUMJIAN: For the record, this is Exhibit S286. I'm sorry,

15 my microphone was off. For the record, the exhibit on the ELMO is S286.

16 If we could have a view from a further distance to include more of the

17 document if possible. If the camera could zoom out. Thank you. We all

18 have our own copies.

19 Q. Mr. ten Camp, we are following along with you, but if you could

20 show on the screen how you put this together and how this assisted you in

21 making your analysis.

22 A. Yes I will. At an investigation such as this involving a great

23 many documents, it is convenient when photocopies are made of the

24 signatures concerned and are assembled in an A3 sheet of paper as I have

25 in front of me. That enables to investigator to examine several

Page 7470

1 signatures in a single glance instead of retrieving all of the documents

2 concerned from a box each time. So this is an instrument. The comparison

3 is not based on this document. It is an instrument, but the comparison

4 involves the signatures and the documents concerned.

5 And I will be happy to elucidate this chart. I have marked this

6 one at the top. This is a chart of the documents we received in the first

7 place and they were disputed, questioned. Afterwards, several signatures

8 turned out to be usable as reference material and these are framed in

9 green. The screen is not an excellent quality here, but these are the

10 Cyrillic embodiments of these signature. These five are in Cyrillic

11 script. So on this sheet, they are the reference material. You also see

12 red or orange lines, as you see here and these orange ones mean that the

13 quality of the original documents is not good for performing comparative

14 analysis.

15 Q. If I could interrupt you there for a moment. Again, when you use

16 the word "original document" you are referring to the document that you

17 received, whether that was an original signature or a photocopy or whether

18 it was a third or fourth or fifth generation copy, when you used the word

19 "original document" you were referring to what you were given by the OTP

20 as the best copy they had, correct?

21 A. I consider what I received from you as the original document. But

22 it could be an umpteenth copy, of course.

23 Q. Now you mentioned Cyrillic script signatures. Do you, sir, read

24 Cyrillic or are you very familiar with the Cyrillic alphabet?

25 A. Hardly.

Page 7471

1 Q. Thank you.

2 And you mentioned signatures that were given to you as known or

3 reference signatures. Is it correct that that was information given to

4 you by the Office of the Prosecutor? You were asked to use those as the

5 reference signatures and why they were considered reference or known

6 signatures are not part of your knowledge, you accepted those facts from

7 the Office of the Prosecutor. Is that correct?

8 A. That's correct.

9 Q. Thank you. I am sorry but when I interrupted you, you explained

10 the items with the orange line through them were those whose quality was

11 insufficient for analysis. Can you continue to explain the document you

12 have marked number one S286.

13 A. This chart of questioned signatures and a few reference

14 signatures, here I have placed additional information here. You see that

15 there is a letter L or a letter C, and the L reflects the Latin script and

16 the C reflects the Cyrillic script. Otherwise there is an O indication

17 which denotes original ink deposits of the signatures on paper or an R

18 which means a reproduction. You also see the ICTY exhibit numbers, as

19 well as the court numbers but in the latest report I received from you,

20 there are different numbers. So they are not all accurate.

21 Q. Thank you.

22 When you talk about the court numbers, you are referring to last

23 night we put on S numbers and some cases a T number, where there was not

24 an S number. Is that correct?

25 A. Yesterday evening we did indeed note the S and T numbers.

Page 7472

1 Q. And when you refer to the ICTY number, you are referring to the

2 eight digit number of the ICTY that was on the -- stamped on each of the

3 documents you received from the Office of the Prosecutor. Is that

4 correct?

5 A. That's correct.

6 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Sorry. What means T in this connection?

7 MR. KOUMJIAN: 65 ter, sorry.

8 Q. Sir, can you explain why there are certain -- there are certain

9 yellow highlighting on some of these signatures?

10 A. On the reference signatures, I have compiled a chart of them too,

11 and that's the chart that is marked two with a black circle around it at

12 the top. And the -- I have highlighted in yellow the signatures are the

13 items from the results in my investigation. I am talking about patterns

14 in the questioned signature and similar pattern in the reference material.

15 So this is an instrument for me to see where I found something.

16 It is a tool.

17 Q. Thank you.

18 Perhaps you could put that worksheet you have marked number two,

19 which we have marked out of your presence as S287, on the ELMO. And

20 before you begin, I note on the top left of this item, number S287, you

21 have again indicated O equals original and R equals reproduction. Is it

22 correct this time when you use the word "original" you are referring to

23 that the document you received from the -- well, I will have you explain

24 it. In this sense, what do you mean by original?

25 A. In this case here, I use original in my analysis to indicate that

Page 7473












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 7474

1 the signature consists of original ink deposits. The R denotes different

2 deposits that result from a reproduction process.

3 Q. Thank you.

4 And again, these are, all the signatures on number two, S287, were

5 signatures which you were instructed by the Office of the Prosecutor to

6 use as a reference material to compare to the questioned documents. Is

7 that correct?

8 A. That's correct.

9 Q. Can you explain to us now how you actually made that comparison in

10 this case? And I am asking you to concentrate only on the Latin script

11 questioned documents S. Milomir, your comparison with those with the known

12 documents.

13 A. What happens in the comparative analysis is that first we look at

14 signatures that have the same general pattern and you see in the

15 signatures on page one, the questioned signature, that you see certain

16 patterns. And these patterns, as well as the entire design of the

17 signature recurs in the reference material on page two, specifically on at

18 the left of that sheet. To the right, you see signatures legible as

19 Stakic Milomir or only Stakic. That is a different design of signature.

20 In the comparative analysis, we examine the movement sequence of

21 the different patterns of which the signature is comprised as well as the

22 speed and fluency with which they are written and the coordination in the

23 writing movement and with similarities, this means that the similarity

24 should be within the variation of the reference signatures.

25 Q. Sir, I think one can note that in the questioned document

Page 7475

1 signatures, that there is some variation. Can you comment upon the

2 significance of variations in signatures in various documents? Is this

3 common? Does it have any significance in you in reaching conclusions

4 regarding both the authorship and whether or not a signature is bona fide

5 or -- well, perhaps we will save that until we find those terms. Bona

6 fide and mala fide. First can you comment on the significance of

7 variations.

8 A. Every individual places a signature or writes text varies, with

9 respect to the handwriting. In our discipline, we assume that nobody can

10 write exactly the same way, so there is always some variation. And some

11 people's handwriting varies more than other people's handwriting and

12 signature. And in this case, if I examined the signatures questioned, the

13 Latin model on sheet one, I see variations but they are not unusual.

14 The signatures are fluent and as for the signatures in original

15 ink deposits, they appear to have been made fluently. I don't see any

16 characteristics of disguise or other signs of forgery. As for the

17 photocopy signatures, they are a bit harder to gauge. Because not all the

18 details of fluency in the lines and line formation are identifiable any

19 more. But in this case, the variations within the signatures are

20 sufficiently homogenous to compare them with the reference signatures.

21 Q. Thank you.

22 In the interest of time, I am not going to ask you to define bona

23 fide signatures and mala fide signatures, since that is discussed on page

24 four of the annex to your report. But let me just ask you, did you find

25 any evidence that would lead you to a conclusion that the questioned

Page 7476

1 documents on table one included mala fide signatures, that is, an

2 imitation signature, a pseudo imitation signature, a fictitious signature,

3 or pseudofictitious signature?

4 A. In the signatures from the documents in table one, I did not find

5 any indications suggesting the forms of signatures you just mentioned so

6 no traces of prior practice, erasure, or signs that they were traced, they

7 are good to the best that I can judge based on the original ink deposits.

8 As for the ink signatures where the quality is insufficient and I

9 have indicated those on sheet one with the orange lines, I cannot judge

10 those. I have disregarded those because I am unable to judge them.

11 Q. In your worksheets one and two, S286 and S287 we have some

12 portions of the signatures highlighted. Can you just explain why you

13 highlighted these various portions of the signature?

14 A. Once again, these are my notes and I use the highlights to

15 indicate where the forms correspond with the similar forms in the

16 reference material. So that's sheet two. But once again, for me, it is

17 only a tool.

18 Q. Thank you.

19 So we come now to the conclusions that you reached regarding the

20 Latin signatures, that is, the S. Milomir signatures. And I believe that

21 those are listed beginning on page six of your report. Is that correct?

22 A. The conclusions are on page seven, where I see them.

23 Q. Thank you. I was referring to the results, but let's go right to

24 the conclusions. Perhaps you can explain the difference between the

25 section results and the section conclusions.

Page 7477

1 A. The results indicate what I found, whether I found similarities or

2 differences or whether I observed other matters of importance for the

3 comparative analysis. You will find all that under the heading,

4 "results."

5 MR. KOUMJIAN: Perhaps with the permission of the court, if I

6 could just read the results at least for the Latin script signatures into

7 the record.

8 Q. Sir, is it correct that the results in the first paragraph under

9 results that you reached the following conclusions: "Latin script

10 signatures, comparison of question with reference signatures: When

11 comparing the questioned signatures in Latin script, with the

12 corresponding reference signatures, similarities were observed in the

13 order, shape, and proportions of the various graphic elements that can be

14 distinguished within these signatures though there is some variation in

15 the quality of these similarities when looking at the questioned

16 signatures individually. As for the signature on document 0633814, S106,

17 which was treated separately because it is not clear whether it is written

18 in Latin or Cyrillic script, similarities with some of the Latin script

19 reference signatures have been found in the initial part of the signature,

20 interpretable as a letter S. In the remaining part of this signature,

21 however, differences were observed from the Latin as well as from the

22 Cyrillic reference signatures."

23 And were these your conclusions from examining the questioned

24 reference signatures in Latin script and those would be, correct me if I

25 am wrong, those signatures on S286, the first worksheet, table with

Page 7478

1 worksheet one?

2 A. Would you please repeat that.

3 Q. Were these the results of your analysis from examining the

4 questioned reference signatures in Latin script, that is, those signatures

5 that are on worksheet number one, that we looked at a few moments ago in

6 Latin script?

7 A. That's correct.

8 Q. I want to move now to the conclusions regarding these Latin script

9 signatures. Starting from the bottom, from the reverse, is it correct

10 that you formed the -- you reached no opinion as to the writer of the

11 reference signatures on document S106, that is 0633814?

12 A. That's correct. We did not -- we were unable to reach a

13 conclusions to whether the signature marked S106, whether or not it was

14 written by the writer of the reference signatures material.

15 Q. And I am trying to locate that signature on your worksheet.

16 A. [In English] It would help you if you look on your monitor. It is

17 the one on the top.

18 Q. Thank you, indicate the top right.

19 MR. KOUMJIAN: And for the record, Your Honour, I think this is

20 one that we had previously indicated that we thought was a "Za". Thank

21 you. And also just to make the record easier for everyone to read, I will

22 just read the title of that document in the translation, S106, is entitled

23 "To all commercial and social enterprises, subject, introduction of the

24 permanent operational duty.

25 Q. Now, moving on to the next group of opinions regarding a large

Page 7479












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 7480

1 group of documents. Is it correct, sir, that you reached the conclusion

2 that the writer of the reference signatures possibly wrote the questioned

3 signatures on the following documents, and you list them. I am only going

4 to read into the record the S numbers. S68, S64, S175, S71, S72, S82,

5 S70, S77, S66, S178, S179, S172, S75, and S69. Was that your conclusion

6 regarding these documents?

7 A. That's correct.

8 Q. In the annex that you attached, you explained what the conclusion

9 "possibly" means. Is that correct?

10 A. That is correct.

11 Q. The corrected -- your conclusion possibly, and I am reading from

12 page 4, the third paragraph, second sentence, "the conclusion possibly

13 means that the findings of the examination are consistent with the

14 proposition that the disputed material was produced by the suspect in

15 question. But that no combination of writing characteristics typical of

16 the suspect was noted to warrant it conclusion probable or stronger."

17 Do you agree that that is a correct definition of the significance

18 of your conclusion that these documents were possibly written by the

19 author of the reference documents?

20 A. That's correct.

21 Q. Is it correct then that there is a significant difference between

22 a conclusion that you can offer no opinion and a conclusion that the

23 writing was possibly written by the suspect?

24 A. Could you repeat the question please.

25 Q. Is there a difference then between a conclusion of no opinion, and

Page 7481

1 a conclusion that the suspect possibly authored the questioned documents?

2 A. Yes, there is a difference. In an analysis, we were unable to

3 give an opinion, it is usually because of several factors. And the

4 conclusion possibly means that there are some points of similarity that we

5 have observed, which, while not sufficient to justify the conclusion

6 probably, there is a difference between the conclusion "no opinion" and

7 "possibly."

8 Q. Finally, you reached the conclusion, the writer of the reference

9 signatures probably wrote the questioned signature on document P0038333,

10 that is S173. Can you show us on the worksheet where that document S173,

11 that signature appears?

12 A. On the chart number one, you will see at the right, at the extreme

13 right, a reproduction of this signature. And this signature on the

14 original document was there in original ink deposits. So that provides a

15 stronger basis for comparison.

16 MR. KOUMJIAN: For the record, perhaps that document could briefly

17 be put on the ELMO. I have a copy of it. That is the document regarding

18 the signatures for the SDS bank account and I would just like the witness

19 to identify which of the signatures that appear on that page that he used

20 as the questioned signature.

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is this signature.

22 MR. KOUMJIAN: Indicating what appears to be S. Milomir, below

23 what appears to be Dr. Kovacevic's signature. Thank you.

24 Q. Now, I want us to go over to the last exercise that you did, and

25 that was making a comparison between certain Latin script signatures. And

Page 7482

1 is it correct that we discussed last night that there may have been some

2 miscommunication regarding the exact instructions for that task?

3 A. That's correct.

4 Q. But, can you please tell us the instructions as you understood

5 them, what you understood, and what exercise you went through in making

6 that comparison, the conclusions of which are under item number three of

7 conclusions.

8 A. What I examined was whether the signatures as they are listed

9 here, I examined whether they contained similarities to the two signatures

10 listed at the bottom of the text. I assumed the -- that the largest

11 number of signatures were written by one person. Based on this

12 assumption, I then compared those signatures with signatures S179 and

13 S172. And I conclude that this group of signatures was probably written by

14 the person who placed the signatures S179 and S172 as well.

15 MR. KOUMJIAN: And for the record, Your Honour, I believe Your

16 Honours have these documents before you, but S179 was the document

17 entitled in the translation, "Supplement to the minutes," and there was a

18 signature on the lower right of that document. And the translation

19 indicates the authenticity of the statement as certified by, and then the

20 signature - excuse me - then typed Milomir Stakic and then a signature.

21 And I could -- I don't know if it is necessary.

22 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Could it please also be put on the ELMO.

23 THE REGISTRAR: The colour copy?

24 MR. KOUMJIAN: Yes, please. And also then if you could take up at

25 the same time, S172.

Page 7483

1 Q. Can you show us, first showing you S179, which is the signature

2 that you used in making this comparison?

3 A. That's this signature.

4 MR. KOUMJIAN: Indicating again what appears to be S. Milomir and

5 the signature on the right-hand side of the document. And now if you

6 could be shown S172 which is entitled for the record in the translation,

7 record sheet handwritten and what appears to be "Stakic Milomir, attended

8 the Prijedor Municipality Assembly meeting on," handwritten "04/01/1991"

9 and it is printed signature and a signature below that.

10 Q. Can you point out the writing you used for the signature in

11 comparison in this exercise on S172.

12 A. That is this signature.

13 Q. Thank you.

14 MR. KOUMJIAN: Thank you. I am finished with the documents.

15 Q. Now, Mr. ten Camp, you have discussed a little bit about the craft

16 of handwriting analysis, and what you do, and you have discussed the

17 limitations on the present exercise based upon the quantity and quality of

18 both the questioned and reference documents that you have received. In

19 your experience in working, is it correct that you have worked on many

20 cases where the authenticity of documents is in question, is an issue for

21 the courts?

22 A. That's correct.

23 Q. And is it correct that handwriting analysis is one tool that can

24 be of assistance in determining authenticity but that other factors, such

25 as location where documents were found or the source of the documents, the

Page 7484

1 circumstances under which they were found, even the contents of the

2 documents and other surrounding circumstances all affect authenticity but

3 are outside of the science that you practice of anaylsing the handwriting?

4 A. Comparative handwriting analysis, I am talking about the

5 Netherlands in this case, comparative handwriting analysis figures in

6 penal cases as well as civil cases and is certainly one of the tools, in

7 combination with other tools, such as the findings from investigation to

8 convince the court whether somebody has or has not written something. You

9 mentioned other cases. We don't deal with other factors concerning this.

10 We use the handwriting primarily with respect to the document and possibly

11 the content of the text. But we have somebody who is specialised in text

12 analysis.

13 MR. KOUMJIAN: Thank you Mr. ten Camp.

14 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. May we proceed with the

15 cross-examination immediately?

16 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

17 Cross-examined by Mr. Ostojic.

18 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. ten Camp. My name is John Ostojic and

19 together with Branko Lukic we represent Dr. Milomir Stakic. I am going to

20 ask you a series of questions here today and I would appreciate, to the

21 extent possible, that you clarify some points for me.

22 My first question to you involves the probability scale that is

23 identified within your report and the annex that is attached to your

24 report. Is it correct that in the field of forensic handwriting

25 comparative analysis, examiners utilise different probability scales, as

Page 7485












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 7486

1 opposed to one probability scale as identified in your annex?

2 A. That's right. Abroad, outside the Netherlands, there are experts

3 or institutions which use other formulas as to the probability scale. But

4 regarding the NFI, this is the one we use. But you are right in saying

5 what you say.

6 Q. Just so that I understand it, how do I determine, as a lay person,

7 which probability scale I should utilise, one from a different country or

8 the one that is offered by the Netherlands?

9 A. I don't know either.

10 Q. Are you familiar with what the probability scale is for examiners

11 who study and are considered to be experts within the field of comparative

12 handwriting analysis in the United State?

13 A. Well, I read something about it, indeed, and I have met with

14 colleagues who work in America in the field, but I don't know exactly how

15 they work out their formulas.

16 Q. Thank you.

17 If I can just direct your attention to page 4 of your annex,

18 specifically III.II.I, which is the probability scale. I have a couple of

19 questions on that, if you don't mind on that. I am just waiting for the

20 translation in the different languages to get caught up.

21 Within this probability scale, there seems to be six specific

22 levels that can be utilised by an examiner such as yourself in conducting

23 this comparative analysis, correct?

24 A. Yes, that's correct.

25 Q. The opinion of possibility and the opinion of no opinion, is that

Page 7487

1 a hybrid between, again looking at the probability scale, is that a hybrid

2 between the levels of probably and probably not?

3 A. Would you mind repeating the sentence or your question.

4 Q. We know that within the probability scale that you utilised, there

5 are six specific levels for purposes of reaching a conclusion. In

6 addition to that, as the article suggests and as you have opined here

7 today, there are two additional levels, at least, identified "possibly"

8 and "no opinion". My question to you, sir, is, is it fair to place those

9 two additional categories the "possibly" and "no opinion" and consider

10 them as a hybrid in between the six recognised levels, namely, probability

11 and probably not?

12 A. No.

13 Q. Can you place it, sir, the two that you have just distinguished

14 for us, "possibly" and "no opinion," within any category of those six

15 levels that you identified in the probability scale?

16 A. There are various degrees that I mentioned here in the scale. The

17 concept of "possible" and "no opinion" do not belong in the scale. That's

18 why we provide a separate explanation of what we mean by those concepts

19 and how we reach them but it is not possible to place them within the

20 various degrees of the probability scale.

21 Q. Fully understood. Thank you.

22 With respect to the category "possibly" that you reference, it

23 states that within this article that "no combination," and I am

24 emphasising the word "no," so "no combination of writing characteristics

25 typical of the suspect was noted to warrant the conclusion probable or

Page 7488

1 stronger," correct?

2 A. That's correct.

3 Q. Just so that I understand when it states "no combination of

4 characteristics are noted" that means absolutely none, correct?

5 A. That's correct.

6 Q. When I ask you a couple of questions that, specifically,

7 combination of characteristics with respect to your third conclusion and

8 opinions in this case, but to try to somewhat logically go through it, we

9 will go back to some questions that I have, generally speaking, and then

10 we will go back to the specifics of your report. Okay?

11 A. Fine.

12 Q. Generally speaking, the way I read your report, your first project

13 was to take table number one, which I think have been referenced as the

14 disputed signatures, and you compared it to table number three, which were

15 the so-called recognised signatures correct?

16 A. [In English] Yes, that is right, but also with table two and table

17 four, if necessary.

18 Q. Well, maybe you could explain it to me. I thought your first

19 task, if you will, was to compare the Latin script, the Latin signatures

20 as they are identified in the category of disputed signatures, identified

21 on table one, and not to include any of the Cyrillic signatures, whether

22 disputed or recognised, as you called it, and simply compare the Latin

23 signatures disputed with the Latin signatures recognised?

24 A. That's correct, sir. I apologise.

25 Q. No, there is no need.

Page 7489

1 Now, within your conclusions, if we can just direct your attention

2 to that, and I have it on page six. I am not sure what copy you are

3 necessarily working with. The Latin script signatures, you have placed

4 them when you made this comparative handwriting analysis, in three

5 categories, correct?

6 A. Which page do you find that on?

7 Q. I have it under page six but I'm not really sure. There are many

8 copies. It is the first paragraph of your conclusions. I think the one

9 you are looking at is a modified -- is not the same one I am looking at.

10 Page seven of one copy and page six of these other two copies. They are

11 all the same, basically I think.

12 A. On page seven, I have the conclusions, in my copy. Do you want to

13 speak about that page?

14 Q. Yes, I am going to ask you a question specifically for your first

15 conclusion which deals with the --

16 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone. Microphone, please.

17 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Microphone.

18 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you.

19 Q. Sir, I am going to ask you questions specifically in connection

20 with that, the Latin signatures disputed versus recognised. That being

21 your first task, you reach a conclusion with respect to those documents

22 that you analysed and reviewed, you came up with three separate

23 categories, correct? Let me walk you through it. One the category of

24 probably, the other category of possibly and the other category of no

25 opinion, correct?

Page 7490

1 A. That's correct.

2 Q. Now, with respect to the documents that you reviewed in making

3 this comparative analysis from disputed and recognised signatures, is it

4 fair to say that there is only one document in that entire set of

5 documents that you analysed that you could, with any certainty, conclude

6 that it falls within the recognised six levels as identified in your annex

7 and it falls within the category of "probably." Correct?

8 A. Yes, that's correct. That's the only one where I said it was

9 probable.

10 Q. Within the category of probable, is there any -- strike that.

11 Within -- thank you.

12 Within the level of probably, are there any degrees to which you

13 can quantify for us that it had a higher probability or a lower

14 probability or do you have no opinion in that regard?

15 A. I can't tell you whether it is more probable or not because you

16 have the various sequences. I can only say it is probable. I can't say

17 anything more about it.

18 Q. But can you give us an opinion as to whether or not that signature

19 that appears on S173 of the first section of your conclusions, whether it

20 was -- strike that. I apologise, Mr. ten Camp.

21 Now, with respect to the second section of your conclusions on

22 paragraph number one, you conclude that those items listed and the

23 reference signatures, possibly was the conclusion, correct?

24 A. That's correct.

25 Q. Now, the Office of the Prosecutor asked you a couple of questions

Page 7491












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 7492

1 regarding your, respectfully, narrow focus of documents for purposes of

2 authenticity. Would it be of any interest to a handwriting comparative

3 examiner, such as yourself, to know whether there has been any claims as

4 to whether or not the documents that you are being asked to review are in

5 some fashion suspect?

6 MR. KOUMJIAN: Objection. Irrelevant to this case, because there

7 has been no evidence that they are suspect.

8 MR. OSTOJIC: It is a hypothetical question. We are not saying

9 that they are and we wouldn't -- thank you.

10 Q. You may answer, I believe.

11 A. Would you mind repeating the question.

12 Q. I will try, thank you.

13 Does it matter to a -- generally speaking, sir, would it matter to

14 you as a handwriting comparative examiner to know whether there is any

15 underlying dispute as to whether the documents given to you, specifically

16 within this second category of conclusions number one, that they are in

17 some way alleged to be suspect?

18 A. For me, as an examiner, it doesn't make any difference whether a

19 document is a questioned document or whether it is another document. I

20 only look into comparing the signatures or the writing.

21 Q. These documents that you identify as possibly being written by an

22 individual, should they not, sir, retain their identification of being

23 documents that are at least, in your view, based upon your appendix, not

24 considered probable and not even considered within the six levels that you

25 identify in your probability scale?

Page 7493

1 MR. KOUMJIAN: I am sorry. Objection because I don't think it is

2 an understandable question. At least I don't.

3 MR. OSTOJIC: I worked on it. I can restate it if the Court

4 wishes.

5 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Please restate your question. I think the

6 direction is would it be identical with probably not as the next category.


8 Q. But if I may just ask another question in that vein just to

9 clarify. Would you take, sir, those signatures that appear in this

10 category of possibly written by a suspect and when you compare the

11 signatures within that category, would it be a failure to conclude that

12 any of these signatures, with respect to themselves would be able to

13 somehow make the probability scale that you attach in your appendix, and

14 specifically, I will direct your attention to the conclusions, sir, that

15 you reach on paragraph three of your conclusions, wherein, in my

16 interpretation at the very least, you took those possibly written

17 signatures, and compared two of them with the remaining ten or so, and

18 concluded that there was a probability that those within themselves are

19 somehow signatures by a suspect?

20 MR. KOUMJIAN: I have the same objection, unless the witness

21 understands it. The question is, would it be a failure to conclude, etc.

22 I don't understand what a failure to conclude is.

23 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Yes, in addition, I would ask the Defence not to

24 do the typical German mistake with all these long sentences. If you could

25 have some short interpretable sentences, it would facilitate all our work.

Page 7494

1 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Your Honour. May I proceed?

2 Q. Mr. ten Camp, you list these possible signatures. Can you tell us

3 more probably true than not, whether the signatures that appear on this

4 document page six, under the second indentation of conclusion number one,

5 can you tell us, more probably than not, whose signatures those are, based

6 upon your comparative analysis?

7 A. The signatures, the reference signatures, that is, are possibly

8 written by the one who has written the questioned signature.

9 Q. I understand that is your opinion. Can you, sir, based upon a

10 reasonable degree of certainty tell us whether or not, I know possibly you

11 can, but can you tell us upon a reasonable degree of certainty as to the

12 probably or not whether those are the signatures of the person identified

13 as being those of the recognised signator?

14 A. I maintain what I said. The signatures to be found under the

15 first conclusion, namely, that they are possibly wroted -- written by

16 those who signed the reference signatures. I maintain that.

17 Q. And you can't give us anything stronger other than possibly,

18 correct?

19 A. No.

20 Q. Then in the third category within the conclusions of section one

21 on page six of your report, you have one document that you have

22 referenced, that you have no opinion on, correct?

23 A. [In English] That's correct.

24 Q. Now, I would like to discuss it if I may the second section of

25 your conclusions, the Cyrillic script signatures. And I would like for

Page 7495

1 you, sir, to look at table number two of the signatures that were

2 photocopied and categorised. It's on your right-hand side. The two with

3 the circle in the middle of the page. Yes, sir. Yes, do we have it?

4 Yes, do we have it?

5 A. I am looking.

6 Q. Thank you.

7 On that document which I think is marked as S287, on the lower

8 right-hand side, there is a Cyrillic signature that appears. Do you see

9 that?

10 A. Which one? Do you mean this one?

11 Q. Yes, the lower right-hand side. Yes.

12 A. Yes, I can see that.

13 Q. With respect to that signature, I have a couple of questions. One

14 is: The reproduction seems to be, at least for my purposes, adequate. Do

15 you agree or disagree?

16 A. Rather good, reasonably good.

17 Q. I agree with you, not that it matters, but if we could have the

18 actual exhibit, S225, Your Honour, placed on the usher --

19 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: On the ELMO, please.

20 MR. OSTOJIC: Placed on the ELMO by the usher. Thank you,

21 Your Honour. My apologies to the usher.

22 Q. And now, sir, just so the record is clear, we have Exhibit S255,

23 which seems to be the signature portion of the document that refers or is

24 identified in S287, lower right-hand corner, correct?

25 A. This is the signature on S225.

Page 7496

1 Q. Now, two questions in connection with this document, if I may.

2 Why on table three in your report under that specific exhibit number S225,

3 you state that the quality of reproduction is poor, when in fact, we are

4 in agreement, it looks pretty good. How do I reconcile that?

5 A. I am not sure whether I have seen this document or not.

6 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Could Defence counsel please indicate in which

7 table --

8 MR. OSTOJIC: Table three, Your Honour.

9 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Table three.

10 MR. OSTOJIC: It is under -- would you like the ICTY Exhibit

11 number which is I think they're ERN numbers or?

12 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: So you make reference to page three of the

13 report, right?

14 MR. OSTOJIC: Correct, Your Honour. Three lines from the bottom.

15 MR. KOUMJIAN: I am sorry, page three of the report, three

16 lines -- page three of the report I have has only three lines, is that

17 correct?

18 MR. OSTOJIC: No. We have so many reports --

19 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: You are making reference to the materials

20 submitted, page three. There, on the third last line, S225.

21 MR. OSTOJIC: Just for easy reference, because there's three

22 copies that are going -- apparently being utilised. It is on table three.

23 And if we look at table three, it is the third from the bottom on table

24 three.

25 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Yes, but opposed to the results, we are now

Page 7497












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 7498

1 working with the material submitted on page three of the same document?

2 MR. OSTOJIC: Yes, Your Honour.

3 Q. Mr. ten Camp, I just wanted to see how we can reconcile this. Why

4 do you identify under this document which has been identified as S225, why

5 do you state that it is poor reproduction quality?

6 A. At any rate I did not look, I did not examine this reproduction.

7 Q. Why not, if I may ask? If your second task was to make a

8 comparative analysis of the Cyrillic scripts as you identified in your

9 report, did you omit to use Exhibit S225?

10 A. I used a similar document, but not this one. I cannot, therefore,

11 tell you -- I can't tell you out of my head what was the quality of the

12 reproduction of the document that I used.

13 Q. By looking at Exhibit 225 now, and looking on Exhibit 287 which is

14 your chart with the two in the middle of it, you have or someone has a

15 little arrow on that document, do you know what that means, on the bottom

16 right-hand side?

17 A. It means that when I first saw the document, I didn't know exactly

18 whether I was to deal with the document that was left of the document of

19 the one that was right, on the right-hand side of the document.

20 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I think I just recently and Judge Vassylenko

21 identified the problem. Because we can find copies of the same document

22 twice. If the usher could please present to the witness and on the ELMO

23 the documents we see ERN number 195472, where the signature is readable,

24 and 191347 where it is evidently not readable. This is one copy which

25 apparently is the one used on this comparative sheet number two, and then

Page 7499

1 opposed to this, please show us the other. On the right-hand side,

2 please. The signature on the right -- yes. Opposed to this, this indeed

3 is a poor quality.

4 MR. OSTOJIC: I agree with Your Honour, but if I can just be

5 permitted a little latitude to just explain --

6 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: No doubt. I am just trying to find out why the

7 expert came to the conclusion of poor quality.


9 Q. On the sheet that, Mr. ten Camp, you prepared with the signatures,

10 specifically Exhibit 287, with the two in the middle of it, you utilised

11 the copy, the good reproduction, right? I mean you copied it, you

12 catalogued it on the lower right-hand side of your exhibit, correct?

13 A. As far as this signature is concerned, I received it as reference

14 material, however, I was trying to explain to you that first I didn't know

15 exactly which signatures I was to analyse in the left lower corner.

16 Because there was one left and another one in the right-hand side. So in

17 the beginning when I received the document, that wasn't known to me and

18 that's why I put this remark in. Because in the left-hand corner, the

19 reproduction is pretty poor, and as to the right-hand signature, that

20 seemed to be reference material from Mr. Stakic, that is of rather good

21 quality. But I think that if I mention poor reproduction, that relates to

22 the whole document and also to the left-hand side signature.

23 Q. Well, the document that you identified here, and have placed in

24 the purported recognised signatures of Dr. Stakic, that document, and

25 believe you me, Mr. ten Camp I don't understand to purport to know the

Page 7500

1 Cyrillic script any better than you do, but that signature and document

2 seems to identify a Milorad Stakic and not Dr. Milomir Stakic. If, in

3 fact, as an expert, had you analysed the complete name, both last name and

4 first name, I think you will note that there are other characters, namely

5 letters, that appear in this signature, that do not appear in any of the

6 other signatures that you have cataloged here on S287.

7 MR. KOUMJIAN: Your Honour, there is no question on that statement

8 by counsel.

9 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: It is indeed a statement and no reason to

10 answer.


12 Q. Mr. ten Camp, help me out with this. I mean, you're the expert,

13 shouldn't you have been able to, at least, identify that the signatures

14 don't even come close to the signatures that are identified by the OTP as

15 being recognised or even those that are identified as disputed, if it is

16 true that the signature that appears on S225 is that of another

17 individual?

18 A. I didn't ask whether the -- which was the reference and which was

19 the questioned material.

20 THE INTERPRETER: Would the witness repeat the question -- his

21 answer, please.

22 MR. KOUMJIAN: Mr. ten Camp, there was a request that you repeat

23 your answer. The interpreter did not get it.

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] When I received material, I ask what

25 is the reference material and what is the questioned material. When I

Page 7501

1 receive reference material of which I think the signature looks different

2 from the other one, then it is quite possibly a variation of a different

3 signature.

4 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: [Previous translation continues]...of what we

5 are discussing, the usher was kind enough to present two documents of the

6 compilation of documents admitted into evidence as S235 and, of course, my

7 question goes to the OTP. Which of these documents were, indeed, provided

8 to the expert? Because none of the ERN numbers within S235 can be read on

9 table three, page three of this document -- of this report.

10 MR. KOUMJIAN: Well, what I have, Your Honour, is that S225 is the

11 ERN number 02017198. And that was what you --

12 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Yes, but you can see and apparently there is a

13 flaw with all these documents that there are mentioned -- it is mentioned

14 in the last column, two copies. But we have only one ERN number in the

15 second column.

16 MR. KOUMJIAN: If Your Honour recalls, these are items that were

17 taken from Dr. Stakic at the time of the arrest, by Mr. O'donnell. The

18 documents Mr. O'donnell indicated, he prepared a form, an IFF form, and

19 the documents were given to the Evidence Unit. When we asked for the

20 search warrant for the order to have the Detention Unit searched at that

21 location, these documents had not yet received an ERN number. The ERN was

22 put on through the efforts of Suellen Taylor throughout the course of this

23 trial. So we did have copies and the court and the Prosecutor had copies

24 and apparently both were provided to the witness without the ERN number

25 and with the ERN number. And my recollection could be wrong, but I

Page 7502

1 believe that Mr. ten Camp was first provided with the documents when we

2 first had them, without the ERN number. And then either Mr. Dupas or Mr.

3 Dupas would have provided to him, one of the investigators, a copy with

4 the ERN number. That is my best belief of how he received two copies of

5 the exact --

6 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: So it seems to be undisputed that this readable

7 document where we have a copy on this comparative sheet number two, was

8 the basis for the work of the expert and no doubt this was one of the

9 documents seized during the arrest of Dr. Stakic.

10 MR. KOUMJIAN: That's correct, that it was this document. The

11 quality of the copy that he got, because we are all dealing with copies,

12 first the item would be printed from key file, which is where it is

13 scanned, and then likely copied to give him one. I cannot tell you what

14 the quality of that copy was he received -- either of the copies that he

15 received.

16 Perhaps I can explain further. Maybe I shouldn't, but, Mr. Ten

17 Camp, I believe has with him -- he first received copies and then he

18 received actual - he could correct me during his testimony - he received

19 the best copies. He received the items from the Evidence Unit that we

20 had. So he would have for many of these documents, the actual item, chain

21 of custody from the Evidence Unit. But again, we never had -- or the

22 original of this document or the first copy that the OTP had was one of

23 those returned to the Detention Unit, which they indicate they returned to

24 the accused. Mr. ten Camp --

25 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Nevertheless, it seems to be quite clear.

Page 7503












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 7504

1 Because when we have an in-depth look on this comparative sheet, we can --

2 it is difficult, but, indeed we can identify in parenthesis, 02017198,

3 that was ERN number given to this document and though there should be no

4 longer any doubt what document was the basis for the work of the

5 interpreter. And we only know that there was an additional given of this

6 copy of this document given to the expert which indeed has had poor

7 quality. Probably this is the reason why it is mentioned here was poor

8 reproduction quality, but, of course, it is not for you to go on with

9 questions related to this indeed readable signature and the meaning for

10 the outcome of the report.


12 Q. Mr. ten Camp, thank you. Sorry for the brief discussion. With

13 respect to this third conclusion. We've now completed conclusion number

14 one and that is the Latin scripts being compared or analysed by you,

15 namely, the recognised versus disputed text, as identified, and now we've

16 gone through the Cyrillic script. And the third conclusion, sir, or the

17 third category that you examined, seems to be based on several

18 assumptions. In fact, on the first sentence under the category number

19 three of conclusions, you state that you are making an assumption that the

20 following signatures were all written by one person.

21 A. If I did indeed make that assumption.

22 Q. Tell me how extensive the assumption was if you relate it to the

23 six level categories within the probability scale.

24 MR. KOUMJIAN: I am sorry, Your Honour. I don't see how the

25 witness can answer a question. He said he assumed it was true. I don't

Page 7505

1 see how the probability scale is at all relevant to that.

2 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Yes, probably the question may be rephrased,

3 whether or not one could use also this six levels of probability for this

4 number three category.


6 Q. Would the witness be kind enough to answer the Court's question.

7 A. Excuse me. Would you please repeat the question.

8 Q. I'm sorry. I can restate it. I tried to just facilitate it.

9 When you made the assumption, Mr. ten Camp, that the signatures were all

10 written by one person under section three of your conclusions, did you

11 utilise, in formulating your assumptions, any of the levels within the

12 probability scale that we have been discussing?

13 A. No.

14 Q. So it is fair to state that your assumption was not that there is

15 high probability that these signatures are all the same, or that there was

16 probability that the signatures are all the same, or that the signatures

17 were probability bordering uncertainty, correct, none of those three?

18 A. It was an assumption, and I stated in the report that it was an

19 assumption, and in the report I have also stated that the signatures are

20 highly consistent, combined with natural variations. That's why we made

21 that assumption.

22 Q. What you are doing is, sir, when you took all those signatures

23 that you identified under category conclusion number three, you analysed

24 those signatures, and you found that those signatures possibly can fall

25 within the recognised signatures, when you made that comparative analysis,

Page 7506

1 and now in essence for category three, you take those same possible

2 signatures, and you withdraw two from the sample given by the OTP, and

3 have merely compared two of the possible signatures you opine on section

4 one, and conclude on section three that those two probably are the same of

5 those that previously you identified as being possible, correct?

6 A. The first time I identified possibly with the reference material

7 of Mr. Stakic and in this case, I explored a group of questioned

8 signatures. So perhaps the first time in the first analysis, has nothing

9 to do with the probable finding in the second investigation, second

10 analysis.

11 Q. So it is not logical, or it is not a logical extension to state

12 that signatures that you have identified as not falling within the

13 category of the probability scale, and are merely possibly related to the

14 recognised signatures, how is it logical to identify any of those

15 signatures as having any probability or be able to fall within any of the

16 six categories in the probability scale? I am sorry, I am just not

17 following it logically.

18 A. I performed two investigations. One investigation of the

19 questioned Latin signatures and the reference material for reference

20 signatures. That was part one of the analysis, and that revealed that one

21 signature had probably been authored by the author of the reference

22 material in the other signatures, below, this was possibly the case for

23 them. Next the question was asked and that concerns the third analysis,

24 which is entirely separate. The question was whether I could compare two

25 signatures with several other signatures. And based on that, I concluded

Page 7507

1 that the group of signatures indicated on your page six and my page seven,

2 that they were probably authored by the person who authored S179 and S172.

3 Q. Just a couple more. I know we are pressed for time, and then I

4 can conclude my cross.

5 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I think we have to continue later and we are

6 really already 15 minutes overtime now. I am awfully sorry, but we have

7 to make a break now until 3.15.

8 --- Recess taken at 2.45 p.m.

9 --- On resuming at 324 p.m.

10 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Please continue with the cross-examination.

11 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

12 Q. Mr. ten Camp, just a couple of questions on the probability scale,

13 if I may. Have you ever, sir, worked with a scale which includes

14 categories of "with certainty" and then another category that is

15 identified commonly with the field of forensic handwriting analysis,

16 "absolute certainty" and the additional two converse to those two levels

17 are "certainty not" and then "absolutely not." Are you familiar with

18 those categories?

19 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: The witness has already answered that question

20 stating that this scale is the one used in the Netherlands and that abroad

21 one uses different scales, so it doesn't help.

22 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you.

23 Q. Mr. ten Camp, may I ask you when you analyse documents for the

24 justice institute or your employer, are the documents utilised in both

25 criminal -- strike that. Are the issues presented to you in both criminal

Page 7508

1 and civil proceedings?

2 A. Mainly criminal proceedings.

3 Q. And is it correct then that in those criminal proceedings you also

4 utilised this annex attached as an exhibit and it is these six probability

5 scales that you utilise in the criminal proceedings, as opposed to another

6 probability scale?

7 A. In all comparative handwriting analysis that we perform, this

8 annex is added to the report we issue with this list of degrees of

9 probability.

10 Q. One final area if I may cover with you. During your direction

11 examination, you testified regarding the following, and I think you stated

12 in summary, if I may, sir, that there were few characters or letters that

13 an examiner has to evaluate, the more restrictive the level of conclusion?

14 A. That's correct.

15 Q. And in this case, obviously or at least -- maybe I shouldn't say

16 obviously. Strike that.

17 In this case --

18 THE INTERPRETER: Please speak closer to the microphone.

19 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you.

20 Q. In this case, sir, you actually have very few characters to deal

21 with correct?

22 A. Enough for the conclusions I reached.

23 Q. I agree and thank you for that.

24 However, so that I understand, if the fewer characters or letters

25 that an examiner has to evaluate, the more restrictive the level of the

Page 7509












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 7510

1 conclusion, to what extent are the conclusions that you provided us

2 restricted or no?

3 A. The number of characters or elements of which a signature is

4 comprised is sufficient to reach a conclusion, as I mentioned here,

5 probably and even most probably if we had had more reference signatures or

6 more originals of them. So the number of letters or elements of which the

7 signatures comprised, especially the Latin version, would have enabled a

8 stronger conclusion as well.

9 Q. Mr. ten Camp, on behalf of the Defence, we want to thank you for

10 your clear report and your testimony here. We appreciate it. Thank you,

11 sir, very much. Dank u wel.

12 A. Thank you. And you're welcome.

13 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Any additional questions by the OTP, please.

14 MR. KOUMJIAN: Yes, Your Honour, I have two areas to cover. And I

15 can only think of the first one and perhaps I will cover that and then

16 think of the second.

17 Re-examined by Mr. Koumjian:

18 Q. On the second worksheet S287 you were asked a line of questions

19 regarding the signature on the lower right which is from the document

20 S225, is it correct that you did not use this signature in your analysis

21 as one of the reference signatures?

22 A. In comparing the signatures in Cyrillic script, this signature

23 hardly came into play.

24 Q. So would it be correct that this signature S225, did not affect

25 the conclusions you reached about the Cyrillic, and particularly, about

Page 7511

1 the Latin signatures?

2 A. The signature S225 was one that I used only for comparison with

3 signatures in Cyrillic script, and this signature hardly affected the

4 conclusion I issued. As for the signatures in Latin script, this

5 signature is hardly usable because it contains shapes that do not appear

6 in the signatures in Cyrillic script.

7 Q. Thank you.

8 A. I apologise. Excuse me. That appear in the signatures in Latin

9 script was what I meant to say.

10 Q. Thank you.

11 The last area I wish to cover concerns the third conclusion in

12 your report on the last items under "conclusions" in which you talked

13 about comparing the signatures of the questioned documents and those are

14 all those signatures are contained on worksheet number one, S286. Is that

15 correct?

16 A. Would you please indicate once again which signature on worksheet

17 one.

18 Q. My question was, in section number three, you compared S68, S64,

19 S175, S71, S72, and S82, and actually as I am reading that, we see that

20 you are writing them in the order that they appear in the worksheet

21 starting from the left hand column working down and now to the middle

22 column S70, S77, S76 and then excluding again the copies that you found

23 were too poor to contribute to the analysis, S178 and S75, and you

24 compared those to the signatures -- well, first you looked at those as a

25 group. You were asked some questions about that on your

Page 7512

1 cross-examination.

2 I would like to compare those signatures within worksheet number

3 one, the questioned documents with your initial exercise where you

4 compared them with the reference signatures on worksheet number two. And

5 I am concentrating only on the Latin signatures, which I believe appear on

6 that worksheet.

7 Is it correct that on the left-hand side of the worksheet number

8 two you have all the signatures that appear to be S Milomir and on the

9 right-hand side as the name of Stakic in different forms, Stakic Milomir,

10 simply Stakic, Stakic M.

11 A. The questions that you have asked, could you please ask them

12 individually because I have lost track of the flow.

13 Q. Thank you.

14 Would it be correct to say, state first, on worksheet number two

15 that you have separated on the reference signatures, the signatures that

16 appear to be S. Milomir on the left-hand side of that document, and the

17 other forms of the signature of Stakic on the right-hand side?

18 A. On the left of the page, there are indeed signatures of which the

19 realisation varies with respect to the signature on the right side of this

20 form. And in comparing them, I used both designs, both models. But there

21 are two or three models that appear on sheet number two.

22 Q. Okay. I am sorry, but I am trying to ask just a question leading

23 up to another question, and I am not doing it very well. Let me try

24 again.

25 Just the signatures that are S. Milomir, is it correct that these

Page 7513

1 are grouped on the left-hand side of your worksheet, as a first step?

2 A. That's correct.

3 Q. Is it correct that in those reference signatures, S. Milomir, you

4 did not have any originals, these are all reproductions?

5 A. The signatures on the left-hand side of the page, that is,

6 S. Milomir, they are all photocopies or reproductions.

7 Q. Thank you.

8 Now, if we go to the questioned documents, the group that you were

9 comparing, doing an internal comparison of in your third conclusion, is it

10 correct that if we look at those questioned signatures and eliminating

11 those that you put the orange line through because of the poor

12 reproduction, that we have in the first column starting from the left,

13 one, two, three, four, five, originals; in the second column we have five

14 originals; in the third column we have one original; and in the very last

15 column we have one original S. Milomir signature, which is the third box

16 up?

17 A. That's correct.

18 Q. Giving what you told us earlier about the difficulty and the

19 advantages of comparing originals as opposed to copies, did this assist

20 you in making this internal comparison of the signatures on worksheet one,

21 did the fact that they were many original signatures on this worksheet

22 make it easier for you to make an internal comparison?

23 A. That did not necessarily facilitate the comparison, but it did

24 enhance the efficiency, because you can see more in such a signature.

25 Q. Thank you.

Page 7514

1 MR. KOUMJIAN: I have no further questions.

2 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you, Mr. ten Camp. May I first point out

3 that the Bench is extremely grateful for your expertise given and, in such

4 a short period of time, from domestic jurisdiction I am not acquainted to

5 receive this report in such a very short period of time. But let me go

6 into three details.

7 Questioned by the Court:

8 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: When you draw your conclusions, do you make a

9 distinction between handwritten text and signatures?

10 A. Not ordinarily.

11 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Make reference to this sheet called "forensic

12 handwriting analysis," page four where on the top III.II, drawing the

13 conclusion, you find III.II.I, "handwritten text," opposed to III.II.II

14 "signatures". What is the reason for this distinction?

15 A. Because signatures are usually brief written expressions that, at

16 least in the Netherlands, are largely unreadable. And they may involve

17 other problems because especially signatures are subject to forgery,

18 whereas handwritten texts usually are not. That's why we devote

19 additional attention to the signatures.

20 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: So is it a correct understanding to state that

21 you categorised the words before you as a handwritten text opposed to a

22 signature because it is closer to the categories of handwritten text than

23 of signatures you are acquainted with here in the Netherland?

24 A. Signatures containing elements that are recognisable as letters

25 are can be compared as texts.

Page 7515

1 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: The second point, it was already mentioned

2 several times, but to be quite clear, on the same page it reads, the

3 conclusion "no opinion" indicates that a comparative handwriting

4 examination could not be carried out. Is this word "no opinion" equal

5 with the words "niet bruikbaar" in your working sheets?

6 A. No that's not completely identical. The statement "not usable"

7 means that the quality is insufficient to perform any analysis, whereas

8 with "no opinion" if you continue reading in the annex, you see exactly

9 what "no opinion" means on page four. "Not usable" is a remark to me

10 personally to indicate that the signature does not lend itself to a

11 worthwhile comparison.

12 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Yes. I was just quoting from this paragraph

13 three. So, therefore, we have two different categories, "niet bruikbaar,"

14 and no opinion, because for other reasons an examination could not be

15 carried

16 out. Is this correct?

17 A. The statement "not usable" is not a conclusion. It is not done a

18 conclusion from handwriting analysis. I evaluate whether a signature is

19 usable if the quality is that poor, then I can't use it at all, it is not

20 a conclusion of the handwriting analysis.

21 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you for this. And then let's go one step

22 forward. The Defence quoted already from the part of the definition of

23 the conclusion "possibly" where it states "no combination of writing

24 characteristics typical of the suspect was noted to warrant the conclusion

25 probable or stronger," but the definition starts, "the conclusion possibly

Page 7516

1 means that the findings of the examination are consistent with the

2 proposition that the disputed material was produced by the suspect in

3 question." No doubt you used the two parts for your conclusion of this

4 definition.

5 A. Excuse me. Would you please repeat the question. Or at least

6 perhaps you could decompose it.

7 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I am making reference to paragraph three under

8 III, to drawing the conclusions that you find the definition in sentence

9 two, what it means, that a conclusion is possible. And I, preparing the

10 next question, wanted to make reference to the first part that you, in

11 addition to the second part of the definition you also based your

12 conclusion "possibly" on this part of the definition saying that the

13 findings of the examination are consistent with the proposition that the

14 disputed material was produced by the suspect in question. Correct?

15 A. That's correct.

16 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: May we now turn to working sheet one and two.

17 Could you please give us the reason why on certain parts of signatures you

18 highlighted parts of the signature in the yellow colour? What is the

19 reason for this?

20 A. As you already said on page two or on sheet number two, we see

21 reference signatures and on sheet one we see mainly questioned signatures.

22 When I compare, I examined the shapes that correspond with each other and

23 extract the information from those shapes, and if they correspond, then I

24 consider this a similarity. What I have highlighted in yellow, those are

25 the references where I have found the similarities in the reference

Page 7517

1 materials. So it is a tool for me to highlight in yellow where I find the

2 similarities or the points of similarity.

3 It was not my intention for these results to be used at this

4 session but I did not object to their request from the officer that they

5 be used. But these highlights that I have added are rather personal.

6 They are purely a tool for me to see where I found what.

7 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Would it be correct to state that this work was

8 done for the purpose to come to the conclusion "no opinion," "possible,"

9 or "probable"?

10 A. Yes, indeed.

11 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. The third area of your conclusions

12 in the report may I first ask: We have a column of documents in

13 conclusion number three. And before we can read on this assumption that

14 the following signatures were all written by one person when we find this

15 column. When comparing this column with the column under number "1," I

16 was surprised to find, for example, the first document where you came to

17 the conclusion "probably," not included in number three. And the other

18 way around, from the first column, the last, the second last and the third

19 last where you came to the conclusion "possibly," are not included in

20 column three.

21 Why this distinction?

22 A. Your first question as to why document S68 on the top column was

23 rated as "possible" and as "probable" in the bottom column is because I

24 compared the documents in the top column with other signatures than the

25 documents in the bottom column. That's the answer to your first question.

Page 7518

1 And with the second question, I need to take a look and see why

2 numbers S172 and S75 do not appear in the second column, that was your

3 question. Was that your question?

4 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: S179, S172, S69, and S173 do not appear in the

5 column under point three.

6 A. If I may repeat, S179, S172, S69, and you mentioned one more.


8 A. 173. That one. I will take a look. The signature S179 in the

9 top column, I used that for comparison with the bottom column, because you

10 see in the two lines beneath the bottom column you see S179 indicated. So

11 I did use that in my comparison and the same holds true for S172.

12 As for S173, I don't know why that signature is not in the bottom

13 column, but I think I omitted it because that signature has already been

14 attributed to the other reference signatures with the conclusion of Mr.

15 Stakic. And that leaves one, that is S69. S69, 4309. I have got it over

16 here.

17 At S69, at the top of page seven, I wrote that the quality of the

18 reproduction was insufficient to perform good comparison, that's why we

19 omitted it. I described that there to be [In English] might be left out

20 because of its poor reproduction quality.

21 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you for this clarification. The next

22 question goes to the OTP.

23 What about the additional material you provided early this morning

24 before the witness entered courtroom? Do you want to include this

25 material? Do you regard it as necessary?

Page 7519

1 MR. KOUMJIAN: I didn't include it for two reasons: First,

2 because it was just provided to the Defence, it wouldn't be fair to them;

3 second, because I had not provided it to the expert, and it obviously

4 would take him some time; but third and probably most important, it itself

5 is another photocopy. If I had an original, I certainty would have liked

6 to have shown that to him. But it would just be another photocopy S.

7 Milomir signature to be added to the reference material, and I don't think

8 it is of better quality than the photocopies we already have and the

9 reference material on the second worksheet.

10 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: May I ask the Defence, do you agree that it is

11 not necessary to ask for an additional comparative analysis on the basis

12 of these additional four photocopies you contested this morning?

13 MR. OSTOJIC: Yes, we agree, Your Honour.

14 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. May I then ask Judge Fassi-Fihri do

15 you have any additional questions? Judge Vassylenko? No additional

16 questions. Well then it remains for me to thank you very very much for

17 this fast and exhaustive work, and indeed, did assist us in coming once

18 again one step closer to the truth. Thank you. You are excused.

19 May the usher please escort the witness and the translator, once

20 again, also my thanks to the so-called chicotte interpretation.

21 MR. KOUMJIAN: Before the witness packs it up, we did ask if he

22 could leave his copy of the annex so we could mark that as an exhibit. I

23 don't think the Registry has that. We gave it a number earlier.

24 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: We gave it a number -1. Thank you.

25 [The witness withdrew]

Page 7520

1 We then can proceed in one language less, which I hope will

2 facilitate the remaining period of time. But may I first hear from the

3 OTP what is now finally envisaged for tomorrow?

4 MR. KOUMJIAN: Tomorrow we do have the civilian witness, however,

5 that witness is arriving tonight. It would be our request to have time to

6 speak to that witness tomorrow morning, because the witness I think will

7 not be at the hotel until probably after 10.00. If we could start with

8 her at 11.00. If Your Honours would like to use the time before that, I

9 have a couple of suggestions. I wasn't clear yesterday or I am not clear

10 at the moment, Your Honour mentioned the Judges' questions for Mr. Sebire.

11 He could be here tomorrow.

12 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Indeed, we can start then with Mr. Sebire

13 notwithstanding that it remains for Mr. Ostojic to complete the

14 cross-examination later, because for tomorrow, he is excused on the basis

15 of mandatory dates abroad. So, therefore, it would be -- it would

16 facilitate our work if we could start at 9.30 with Mr. Sebire, and may I

17 ask what about incoming documents? Do you -- do we receive all the

18 documents forming the basis of other reports and not yet tendered today?

19 This would be the --

20 MR. KOUMJIAN: Thank you, Your Honour. On the worksheet that was

21 offered, I don't think we marked that as an exhibit. The gazette-ed

22 worksheet. There were some documents that were not in evidence that Your

23 Honour indicated, for completeness, we should do that. We have those here

24 today.

25 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Could it please be distributed so we could

Page 7521

1 prepare for tomorrow.

2 MR. KOUMJIAN: I would also indicate that Ms. Karper is checking

3 now with Mr. Corin, the author of the linguistic or document analysis

4 report, he returned to the Netherlands yesterday or returned to work today

5 in any event. He is finalising his report. I spoke to him this morning.

6 I hope we can give a copy right now before we leave court, to the Defence

7 of his report. Again, I would ask them once they read it and Your Honours

8 get a copy, it would be my intention to proffer the report as an exhibit

9 without calling Mr. Corin, unless that's objected to. Ms. Tabeau has

10 indicated her report would be available Monday. The updated version of

11 the book of missing persons, the latest information is that it will be

12 available in electronic form. I am not quite sure what electronic form

13 that means. I am not sure if it's text that can be printed, or if its a

14 database, but we'll find out when we receive it.

15 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Would it be possible that we receive a list 7

16 for these documents just recently obtained?

17 MR. KOUMJIAN: That should take about ten seconds more and then we

18 will have list 7.

19 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: It serves the purpose that we can, if the OTP

20 needs additional time for the preparation of the witness or proofing of

21 the witness, that we can go through the procedure of admission or not

22 admission of these documents into evidence.

23 MR. KOUMJIAN: Yes. And if I could remind the Court, I am sure it

24 won't make me popular, but I don't think we completed the reading of all

25 the documents from list six, either.

Page 7522

1 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I ask the parties whether they wanted to have

2 read out the one or other documents until I got no answer, therefore I

3 regarded it as sufficient because these were the documents found out by

4 the Bench as being worthwhile to be read out, but if there are additional

5 requests by the parties, please do so.

6 So for tomorrow, we would start with Mr. Sebire, then turn to list

7 7, and then hopefully come to the witness and let's wait and see. I don't

8 want to ask for any kind of estimates because no doubt we will run out of

9 time. And possibly then we proceed with the witness on Friday.

10 Anything else?

11 MR. KOUMJIAN: I forgot one other --

12 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Anything else, may I first ask, anything else

13 prepared for Friday?

14 MR. KOUMJIAN: No. But one other matter for tomorrow that is

15 prepared is Ms. Korner is coming with Ms. Sutherland and she would like to

16 address the Court regarding the deliberations, as I understand it. I

17 don't know how long that will take.

18 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: That is no surprise. Any other issues to be

19 raised by the Defence for today?

20 MR. OSTOJIC: No, Your Honour.

21 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Then the trial stays adjourned until 9.30 a.m.

22 tomorrow.

23 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at

24 4.07 p.m., to be reconvened on Thursday,

25 the 5th day of September, 2002, at 9.30 a.m.