1 Thursday, 24 February 2011
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 2.23 p.m.
5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Good afternoon. Again, our excuses for a late
6 start. We had a discussion in the Chamber which was not finalised.
7 I would like to ask the Defence what is the position in relation
8 to two exhibits I raised that two days ago? And Mr. Gajic promised us at
9 the latest, yesterday, at the beginning of the hearing to make a
11 Mr. Gajic.
12 MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, since
13 P13165 [as interpreted] and P13163 have been translated, 3163 actually is
14 a photograph, so we could lift the MFI status and have them admitted as
15 proper exhibits.
16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much. But the number was
17 translated incorrectly. The P numbers are P1362 and P1363. They both
18 will be now admitted and no longer MFI'd. Thank you.
19 Mr. McCloskey, now it's your turn with the re-examination, if
20 there are no other matters to raise.
21 MR. McCLOSKEY: No, Mr. President, Mr. Manning is ready to go.
22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: The witness should be brought in, please.
23 MR. McCLOSKEY: And I wanted to show that document which
24 apparently was not uploaded into e-court, so we'll need, it's D169, to
25 turn on the ELMO, please.
1 [The witness takes the stand]
2 JUDGE FLUEGGE: And again under seal.
3 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, please. Thank you.
4 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Good afternoon, Mr. Manning. Please sit down. I
5 would like to remind you that the affirmation to tell the truth you made
6 at the beginning of your testimony still applies.
7 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour, I understand.
8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. McCloskey is commencing his re-examination.
9 Mr. McCloskey.
10 MR. McCLOSKEY: Thank you.
11 WITNESS: DEAN MANNING [Resumed]
12 Re-examination by Mr. McCloskey:
13 Q. Mr. Manning, I just want to touch on this document again, we'll
14 try to wait a bit until we actually -- it'll come up -- should come up on
15 the ELMO. But this is the -- just to remind everyone, the letter that
16 was discussed yesterday to Mr. Masovic, the Bosnian commission on missing
17 persons. And as you recall, you mentioned remembering a letter in your
18 direct testimony so we went and looked and I just wanted to know, do you
19 know if this was the letter that you were thinking of? As you know,
20 there's many letters in these -- on these topics, and if you need to take
21 a moment to look at it, please do.
22 A. Your Honours, yes, I believe that's the document I was referring
23 to which indicated we were handing over responsibility for those graves,
24 which I note are also attached at the back.
25 Q. All right. And I just want to call your attention to a line in
1 the last paragraph, and since we don't have a translation, I'll read that
2 slowly. It's the third paragraph on the first page, the last line, and
3 it says:
4 "In order to expedite the exhumation process, the OTP now seeks
5 the assistance of the appropriate authorities (Commissions) in conducting
6 the remaining exhumations of the secondary gravesites."
7 Do you recall what we mean there by, "appropriate authorities
9 A. Sorry, Mr. McCloskey, I couldn't see that section on the ELMO. I
10 see. Yes, sorry.
11 I take that to mean the appropriate government body who would be
12 responsible for the exhumation process.
13 Q. And so do you have any recollection that the OTP was directing
14 the BiH to a particular body to handle this?
15 A. No, I don't believe so. And the wording of the document was
16 clear in that section. And, as I say, I authored the document, I can't
17 recall now many of the details, but the document was then processed by
18 the OTP and sent to the Bosnian government with a request that they take
19 responsibility from us for the exhumation of those graves.
20 Q. All right. I don't have anything further on that topic.
21 And, now, I'm sure you'll recall that General Tolimir pointed out
22 that Dr. Haglund's report had mentioned a military ID and that -- for
23 142 Cerska, and that your report mentioned some things but did not
24 mention a military ID. And I wanted to try to put some clarification on
25 that issue. As you recall, you spoke of reviewing various artifacts
1 associated with each of the Cerska bodies and -- such as documents and
2 watches, things like that. And so during that questioning I asked the
3 team to go through the collection, as you'll recall, of the some
4 2.000 photographs that came from the exhumation and autopsy process that
5 you would have been looking at and provided some of those to the Defence
6 that we thought might be relevant to this issue yesterday when we got
7 them. I doubt the Defence had time to really digest them, but I -- just
8 hopefully we can try to clarify this issue a bit to understand what you
9 were talking about.
10 But if we could first go to your report, which, it should be P --
11 now, P1825.
12 MR. McCLOSKEY: And if we could go into e-court page 102.
13 Q. I just very briefly yesterday went through some of the other
14 lists of documents from some of the other graves and would you expect to
15 find that you may have noted military document in some of the other
17 A. Your Honours, I'm sure I would have. If those documents were
18 readable, I would have listed them as what they were or what they had
19 been described by Dr. Haglund's group. So I believe in other graves
20 there is reference to military documents. I seem to recall a military
21 hospital card or a military discharge card in one of the graves. But if
22 I check through the report, I'm sure I would find references to military
23 documents as possible sources of identification.
24 Q. Okay. Let's just take a look at one example. If you can --
25 it's, I think, three or four lines down. Looking -- it's under the
1 Lazete Orahovac, I think you can see a military document. I don't know
2 if you can read that. It's --
3 A. Your Honours, I can read it. Lazete 2, body 007, and Lazete 2,
4 body 010 are listed as having a military document and a military card. I
5 think further down there's also a reference -- sorry, it's a seaman's
6 log, I assume that's a civil seaman's log, but the first two entries are
7 military card and military document.
8 Q. All right. Now, let's go back to Mr. Osmo Muminovic, who was
9 Cerska 142, which was the subject of this. That's on just a few pages
10 earlier, on e-court page 98. And what we'll see there is I think what
11 we've gone over before on the first page. If we could blow that up a
12 bit. We'll see under "identification items" for 142, we have a driver's
13 licence for Osmo Muminovic, and under "religious items" we have, for
14 Cerska 142, wooden prayer beads. Now, let me go to just these few
15 photographs that we took or that we found from the vast collection from
16 Cerska that had number 142 on them.
17 MR. McCLOSKEY: And we can now find that in 65 ter 07192 page 2,
19 Q. Now, Mr. Manning, I -- I don't know if the storage -- the way we
20 store photographs now is different than how they were stored when you
21 were looking at them, but looking at this particular image, does, as we
22 see -- can you kind of explain to us what -- do you recognise what this
24 A. I do. It's a mortuary photograph. The CSK-142 refers to the
25 abbreviation for the Cerska grave. This is body 142. It's item 12 and
1 it's item 12 A. Now, that would indicate to me that item 12 consists of
2 multiple items, and it was probably a wallet, and A is a part of item 12
3 which was found on body 142. It's a "licna" card, an identity card or a
4 driver's licence. On the top is a translation that's been done at the
5 mortuary. And I indicated that the deterioration of the documents -- in
6 this you can see that the person's photograph is missing. It's faded
7 away. Very often it was the case that when you took the item out of the
8 grave or off the body, the image would disappear as it was exposed to
9 air. We didn't have the facilities to stop that happening. And in any
10 event, as soon as it was disturbed, the document would start very quickly
11 to deteriorate.
12 Q. Is this likely the driver's licence that you were referring to in
13 your report?
14 A. I believe so.
15 MR. McCLOSKEY: Let's go to the next page, page 3.
16 Q. And again we see this is Cerska 142. And the translation up at
17 the top, what does this indicate to you this particular document is?
18 A. ID card.
19 Q. And do you remember who would have done these little translations
20 that came with the photograph?
21 A. When the item was examined at the mortuary, and I think it was in
22 the village of Kladanj at that time, it would be laid out by the
23 scene-of-crime photographer, and I believe that the translation was done
24 by -- was completed by staff employed at the mortuary.
25 Q. And we don't see an ID card listed in your identification
1 documents, just a driver's licence. Is there any significance to that?
2 A. In fact, I don't know why I didn't list that document. Perhaps
3 because the document itself is unreadable now, or when I examined it, and
4 that that information above could be used for identification purposes,
5 but that the document itself couldn't be looked at, and those details
6 obtained now, because it had deteriorated. But again, that information
7 was included in the greater volume of information for Cerska 142 and was
8 available. But I would suggest that the document itself was unreadable
9 by the time I examined it.
10 Q. Okay.
11 MR. McCLOSKEY: Let's go to the next page.
12 Q. And, well, we can see clearly a watch. Do you know what these
13 other things are from your experience?
14 A. Your Honours, this is item 9 from that same body. A watch and a
15 cigarette or a part of a cigarette pipe, and the other box is a
16 tobacco tin; they were very popular. Some of them had names inscribed in
17 them, so we used those as an identification lead. Some had patterns, as
18 I believe this one has.
19 Q. And I don't believe this material made it into the report?
20 A. No. Again, it was a summary, so I had to be brief. It the tin
21 had a name, I would have included it. If the watch was inscribed, I
22 would have included it, probably. But it was simply a summary to show
23 the possible identification avenues open to us. And also I hope that the
24 document that I produced would be of use to agencies like PHR when
25 they're examining this material for identification purposes.
1 Q. Okay.
2 MR. McCLOSKEY: Let's go to the next page.
3 Q. Briefly, what's this?
4 A. The black item I'd have to say is a wallet or something like
5 that. I'm not sure. Maybe a religious artifact, you know, in a wallet.
6 The other is a flint and steel for starting fires.
7 MR. McCLOSKEY: And let's go to the next page, please.
8 THE WITNESS: This is the wooden beads that I mentioned, that I
9 list as a possible religious affiliation. And, of course, I didn't list
10 the comb. But you can see that they're the artifacts from Cerska 142,
11 that individual.
12 MR. McCLOSKEY: All right.
13 JUDGE FLUEGGE: May I ask, are you sure that the number is
14 CSK-142 or 143? It's really illegible.
15 THE WITNESS: Your Honours, you're right. But I'm assuming if
16 it's part of the same series, and if you look at the number in the top
17 right-hand corner, it will indicate that it's the next or subsequent F
18 number. And not only that, there's a photographic log which accompanies
19 this photograph and it would say 142. I'm sure we could check that, or
20 the OTP could check, that number.
21 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Is it possible to zoom in just on that part of
22 the ... Oh, it's very difficult. This doesn't help.
23 Okay, Mr. McCloskey, please continue.
24 MR. McCLOSKEY: Could we go back to the previous page.
25 THE WITNESS: Sorry, Your Honour, that F number is a number which
1 was electronically stamped on the negatives. This was -- this was --
2 sorry, on the prints. This was film rather than digital so that as they
3 would simply stamp in order each frame. So because I can see that this
4 is 142, the next consecutive frame should certainly be Cerska 142, and it
5 related to the case. And again, there's a log that accompanies it. And
6 it's consistent in that the next item is item 11, where you would expect
7 it to go from Cerska 142, item 1, through to the end of the range of
9 Q. So could we just go to the next page again to see what you're
10 talking about. You see item 10 here, 564-21, item 11, 564-22.
11 Okay. Now, we asked -- I asked Mr. Janc to see if he could find
12 any military document that may be associated with Cerska 142, and I have
13 something I want to show you in that regard.
14 MR. McCLOSKEY: In e-court it should be 07193.
15 Q. But, Mr. Manning, I want to show you the original packet.
16 MR. McCLOSKEY: If I could have him see this original packet that
17 the records will confirm that Mr. Manning received this on 14 May 1999.
18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Yes, please hand it over. First to the Defence,
19 and then to the witness.
20 MR. McCLOSKEY: This is one of the things that I sent an
21 electronic copy to the Defence when we found it yesterday.
22 And we are still waiting for the cover page of that to come up so
23 Your Honours can see just the cover page. And, Your Honours, you may see
24 I've put a little tag on something. That's going to be showing up on the
25 screen with the translation in a minute. It's something --
1 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much. The Chamber has had the
2 opportunity to look at these documents. It may be handed over to the
4 MR. McCLOSKEY:
5 Q. And I know it's been many, many years, Mr. Manning, but take a
6 look. We can see that cover page that shows you receiving it, the
7 material, and just take your time to just flip through the material, see
8 if you can have any memory of this sort of stuff at all.
9 And if it will help your recollection, this file was found with a
10 group of five or six others which were actually of men identified on your
11 report, e-court page 96, where PHR had made DNA IDs.
12 A. Your Honours, I recognise certainly my signature on the document,
13 on the cover page, and I recognise the type of document. I can't recall
14 receiving this particular document. It is the same as thousands of other
15 packets that I received. It's a normal autopsy record from PHR for that
16 period. And I note towards the back there is a list of documents found,
17 including some details of those documents, including some handwritten
18 notes in relation to those documents, and the tracking sheet which showed
19 the processing of the body and the artifacts.
20 MR. McCLOSKEY: Can we go to the -- what should be the only other
21 page that was uploaded into e-court. I'm sorry. Page 71. The entire
22 thing is in e-court, I'm sorry. Page 71 is the one that I marked in the
23 red tab and we should have a translation with that if the system is
25 Q. And if you'll note, Mr. Manning, before this particular image in
1 the file, there's a couple of other -- appear to be photographs,
2 actually, of items that are similar or the same of some of the
3 photographs that you received from the other that we've just spoken
4 about. But just the simple -- the simple question is, we have here
5 something identified as -- that is readable --
6 A. Mm-hm.
7 Q. -- that does say "Order," and it's from the War Presidency of
8 Bosnia and Herzegovina dated 1992 to Mr. Muminovic, who was 142. And
9 it's basically sending him to be the commander of the guards guarding
10 the -- what we all remember, the big properties down at Zeleni Jadar. So
11 we may have this military document. Now, just to put you on the spot,
12 here is a military document, here is some records that you received, can
13 you -- what -- how can you -- can you explain that for us?
14 A. Your Honours, I simply can't. I don't recall physically that
15 packet and item. I note in this packet that it's in the B/C/S language.
16 But, yeah, I accept that there's a military order here and I haven't
17 included it in the document. Perhaps because it says Osmo Muminovic and
18 that's all it says, whereas on the other document I have a date of birth,
19 an address, more material to assist in identification. But I have no
20 idea why that document is not listed. It's listed in Mr. Haglund's
21 report. Perhaps I didn't list it because it really doesn't assist in
22 identifying Osmo Muminovic as much as the other one, but I have no
23 recollection of that and I apologise.
24 Q. Okay. Let's go to another topic.
25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Gajic.
1 MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I would just like to
2 direct your attention to the fact that in the report, and this is
3 something that we insisted on in the cross-examination, in Exhibit P1071
4 on page 65 in the English language, it says "military orders" in the
5 plural. Something that would indicate that there are several military
6 orders. We will agree that what we see on the screen is a military order
7 but is just one military order.
8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. McCloskey.
9 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, Mr. President. We have fully searched the
10 material, the photographs that Mr. Manning had received from PHR. That
11 was that first collection; there was no such photograph of this document
12 in it. We did find a photocopied image in this separate file and that's
13 what we have. And that's -- we've been looking for the needle in the
14 haystack and that's what we came up with. There are no other documents,
15 nor do I think it really -- I think we probably exhausted this subject
16 perhaps more than necessary. But it was an interesting topic. We did
17 find the document, so we thought it was appropriate for everyone to see
19 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I note that we have two documents on the screen
20 now. Perhaps you can clarify that with the witness, Mr. McCloskey.
21 MR. McCLOSKEY:
22 Q. Yes, Mr. Manning, His Honour is correct. Do you -- and we can
23 see this thing referred to as "membership card," and there seems to be
24 kind of a vertical separation line between the membership card and the
25 military order. Can you provide any explanation for us?
1 A. Your Honours, I don't recognise it. There were thousands and
2 thousands of documents. I would assume that I didn't list it because it
3 doesn't assist in identifying the victim. And again, my report was a
4 summary and -- but PHR were working on these documents, which is where I
5 got them from, to identify the individuals. And I don't, from memory,
6 know whether the housing co-operative is a military organisation or is
8 Q. All right. Let me go to another topic and that is the topic, as
9 we'll recall, General Tolimir said on page 10262: "Since this is Cerska
10 and since there was combat in Cerska before, is it possible that these
11 documents indicate that these victims died in an earlier period, or in a
12 period when Srebrenica fell in July of 1995."
13 And he went on and -- on page 10278, and made a similar statement
14 about this subject and stated:
15 "Since this is very important to the Court, because in 1993 some
16 people were killed in Cerska who might have been killed by other
17 perpetrators and the military documents would show this."
18 And so there's -- and I'm sure you'll remember discussing that
19 with him, the suggestion that the 142 in this grave are from victims of
20 other -- of combat or some other incident previous to that.
21 MR. McCLOSKEY: And if I could go, on that topic, to 00094 --
22 sorry, it's P94, page 223.
23 Q. Do you recall seeing any -- this is another topic but since we'll
24 on this one we'll skip to it. I'm sure we'll all remember when
25 General Tolimir went over your interview with Mr. Becirovic [sic] where
1 you'd mentioned there was -- you had an aerial photograph of executions,
2 and Judge Nyambe asked you on that same subject. Have you seen this
3 particular image before?
4 A. Your Honours, I've seen the image before. I'm not familiar with
5 the coloured additions to that image, but I'm very familiar with that
6 image of Branjevo military farm.
7 MR. McCLOSKEY: Okay. I also have a physical image,
8 Mr. President, that I would like to show the witness which is something
9 to see if he has seen this or a version of it. It's a very -- it's
10 more -- a clearer version of this electronic image.
11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Yes, please, it may be handed over, but shown to
12 the Defence as well.
13 For the record, Mr. McCloskey, what is depicted in the hard copy
14 of the photograph which is now given to the witness?
15 MR. McCLOSKEY: Mr. President, it is an identical photograph
16 of -- it's the same photograph as the electronic one but without -- I
17 don't know if we can remember, Mr. Ruez talked about this many months
18 ago. It's identical but it only has the United States' black and white
19 markings on it, without Mr. Ruez's. If you recall, Mr. Ruez explained
20 that he'd reviewed the US material and written in the material that it
21 had stated and that he -- it was also a result of the investigation. And
22 it's all part of that investigation and I just want to ask Mr. Manning if
23 that's one of the things that he might have been thinking of when he made
24 this statement to Mr. Becirovic [sic].
25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Please go ahead. But after that, the Chamber
1 would like to see this hard copy as well.
2 MR. McCLOSKEY: Absolutely.
3 THE WITNESS: Your Honours, this is the image that I'm referring
4 to, that I believe I was referring to when I spoke to the witness. Not
5 only is it marked on this document, and it says "bodies," my belief that
6 this shows bodies was particularly affected by Mr. Erdemovic's [Realtime
7 transcript read in error "Ademovic's"] testimony which I listened to
8 where he said he stood in an area on this photograph and executed the
9 prisoners and that those shapes were the bodies of those prisoners.
10 That, to me, is the closest thing that we had at that stage to actually a
11 photograph of the executions, a photograph of the murders. You can see
12 that the field is covered with bodies and that there is a mass grave
13 nearby. And when we exhumed the grave, we found a number of bodies. So
14 this is the image or images that I'm referring to.
15 MR. McCLOSKEY:
16 Q. And, Mr. Manning, perhaps you'll recall, or maybe not, that
17 Mr. Erdemovic testified that this occurred for most of the day on 16
18 July, and this photograph was taken on 17 July. Does that change
19 anything for you?
20 A. Your Honours, no, not really. This is, for me, investigating the
21 genocide, this is tremendous evidence that these men were executed.
22 Whether it happened the day before or the minute before, you see the
23 bodies next to the mass grave with the tracks of the buses and the
24 vehicles. And this is a photo of genocide having immediately taken
1 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Gajic.
2 MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I think that perhaps
3 Mr. McCloskey could clarify one thing. What we talked about in P147,
4 which is a conversation between Mr. Manning and the Witness Bircakovic,
5 is the sentence which is on page 19 and which says: We have aerial shots
6 of the executions themselves.
7 JUDGE FLUEGGE: McCloskey.
8 MR. McCLOSKEY: Precisely why I asked -- reminded him that they
9 occurred on the 16th and have asked him if they changed his answer at
10 all, and we heard his answer. So I think I've dealt directly with that
11 issue. But I have no objection to any re-cross or any questions on this,
12 of course.
13 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Are you done with this photograph?
14 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, I'm trying to signal the Registrar to get
15 that photograph up to you.
16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Could we have that here to the Bench, please.
17 And Judge Nyambe has a question.
18 JUDGE NYAMBE: Just now, Mr. Manning, you have just said that
19 "... this is tremendous evidence that there were executions ... you see
20 the bodies next to the mass grave ..."
21 Can you mark that for me on the picture on the screen.
22 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, this area is the area where the bodies
23 are. And this second area -- I'll mark that area 1. And this is the
24 mass grave. I've been to that location. It's not a very large area.
25 And the bodies were within maybe a hundred or more metres to the mass
1 grave that was visible in this image.
2 JUDGE NYAMBE: And they were still visible when you visited?
3 THE WITNESS: No, ma'am. Your Honour, I visited several years
4 later, and these bodies were collected up by machine and placed into the
5 mass grave. The mass grave was sealed and then that mass grave was
6 ultimately robbed or opened up in September and October, and the bodies
7 removed from that -- sorry, a significant number of the bodies were
8 removed from that -- from that grave.
9 JUDGE NYAMBE: Thank you.
10 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Just one clarification. I have now in front of
11 me the hard copy. It contains some entries in black and white, "piles of
12 earth," "probable bodies," "excavator digging," which are not absolutely
13 identical in their location to that one we have on the screen. And the
14 headline is not Branjevo state farm, but "Mass Burial at Branjevo Farm.
15 Donje Pilica Area, Bosnia-Herzegovina." I would like to know what these
16 black and white inscriptions are, who made them, and -- because it is
17 different from what we have on the screen.
18 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, Mr. President. I can try to remind you of
19 Mr. Ruez's testimony and I can also add, of course, as an officer of the
20 court, the -- we received aerial image from the United States in the
21 format of black and white and black and white information, and so all the
22 black and white information that you see on the one on the screen and the
23 document before you is provided by the United States. And they
24 provided -- sometimes they would put different information on that
25 material, but that is fundamentally the same image.
1 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Obviously it's the same area depicted in both,
2 but the hard copy in that is only depicted, I would say, the left side of
3 the photograph on the screen, and there's a different title on it in
4 black and white. Therefore, can I take it that these are two different
5 photos from the same location provided by the US government?
6 MR. McCLOSKEY: Mr. President, I unfortunately cannot -- I can
7 say the United States has provided different scales, different parts of
8 the same place, but 17 July photograph is -- my understanding is
9 fundamentally one photograph. You're seeing it labelled differently.
10 And the coloured labels are Mr. Ruez's version of, as he testified,
11 taking down what he recalled from the United States and his own
12 investigation, having been there.
13 As for -- unfortunately there's -- I have no information nor were
14 we ever provided any about the number of photographs, different, you
15 know, that kind of methods and procedures. But it's my understanding
16 you're looking at an image that is just marked differently or may be a
17 different scale and a different part of the same image.
18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I was just asking to have it clear on the record
19 that they are not absolutely identical.
20 Judge Mindua has a question.
21 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Yes, Witness, I would like to
22 reflect on some questions that concern this photograph. We can see
23 something that is marked at the top of the page in the top left-hand side
24 corner. We see something that says "bodies," so we're dealing with
25 bodies. However, you will agree with me that what we can see here are
1 some white and black spots and I'm not convinced whether they are bodies
2 in fact or not. Is there some responsible body or organ that would have
3 clearer images of these bodies in their possession so that I myself could
4 draw the conclusion about whether these are indeed bodies or something
6 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, firstly, if I can say, when I saw this
7 image by itself with the label "bodies," I could not accept that they
8 were bodies. They're just shapes. Personally, Mr. Erdemovic stood in --
9 sat in this court and described those shapes as bodies, and he said he
10 stood to the top of that photograph and shot those people and he gave
11 that evidence. And that convinced me that what I was seeing in this
12 image was indeed bodies.
13 But your question as to the images themselves, I'm aware that
14 they're Rule 70, and I can't provide you with, and I don't know, the
15 answers to those questions.
16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Gajic.
17 MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, on several occasions I
18 have heard and I see that it's wrong in the transcript. For example, on
19 page 18, line 12, I believe Mr. Manning was talking about Mr. "Erdemovic"
20 and not Mr. "Ademovic."
21 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Manning, would you confirm that?
22 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honours. Erdemovic. E-r-d-o-m-v-i-c.
23 Drazen Erdemovic.
24 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much.
25 Mr. McCloskey.
1 MR. McCLOSKEY: We best offer this into evidence before I forget.
2 JUDGE FLUEGGE: It will be received, this marked photograph on
3 the screen, as an exhibit.
4 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P1931, Your Honours.
5 MR. McCLOSKEY:
6 Q. Mr. Manning, in relation to the -- Mr. Ruez's conclusion that
7 these were bodies and the United States government which --
8 MR. McCLOSKEY: For Your Honours, we are certainly not suggesting
9 that it's the United States's government conclusion that proves this
10 assertion, so just so that's clear. It's one element in the case.
11 Q. Do you recall from the investigation the statements or testimony
12 of the two survivors of this mass execution?
13 A. Yes, I do, Your Honours. I can't recall the names, but I recall
14 reading their statements and listening to their testimony or to the
15 testimony of some of them.
16 Q. And that's part of the record, so I won't go into that.
17 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Gajic.
18 MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, it might have to do
19 with the translation or something, but what was done in cross-examination
20 is from P547 [as interpreted], page -- where the witness said:
21 [In English] "We have aerial images of the executions taking place."
22 [Interpretation] Which indicates that Mr. Manning told the witness that
23 they had aerial shots of the executions themselves, of the executions
24 happening. And what we're dealing with here is something completely
1 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: It was Exhibit P147.
2 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much, Mr. Gajic, but this is the
3 way the re-examination is conducted by Mr. McCloskey. And at the end of
4 the day we have to consider if everything is consistent or not.
5 Mr. McCloskey.
6 MR. McCLOSKEY: I have no objection for a request for re-cross to
7 bring up the issues, but making the argument at this point is not
9 Q. All right. Do you -- again, this is a memory test. Do you
10 remember the -- any shell casings being picked up by the investigators in
11 those early years before you got here and where they picked up shell
13 A. Your Honours, I would have to check my report, but it was
14 consistent with the shell casings being located where the bodies -- or
15 nearby where the bodies are indicated on this photograph. I'd have to
16 check the report. But it was consistent with Mr. Erdemovic's testimony
17 and the survivors' accounts.
18 Q. And just in looking at the photograph, do you -- whoops.
19 MR. McCLOSKEY: Could we go back to where it used to be so we
20 can -- could you perhaps blow that up a little bit for us in the area
21 marked "bodies."
22 Q. And we see something marked "excavator digging" which -- but do
23 you see any marks on the ground that look at all identifiable to you in
24 this area?
25 A. Your Honours, I indicated before that I could see the tracks of
1 vehicles. I was aware that the people had been brought into the farm in
2 buses and that there was heavy machinery there to dig the mass grave.
3 And I believe you can clearly see tracks leading to where the bodies are,
4 then round to the mass grave. And as I said before, based on
5 Mr. Erdemovic's testimony and what I had seen, initially I couldn't
6 accept that they were bodies because you can only see shapes, but later
7 on I certainly believed that they were bodies, and that this image and
8 that other image that you have before you are aerial images of, in my
9 opinion, an execution which has just taken place in --
10 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I was waiting for the end of the answer.
11 Mr. Tolimir.
12 THE ACCUSED: [No interpretation]
13 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. I apologise for not
15 switching the microphone on.
16 The Defence has repeatedly tried to draw your attention to a
17 relevant issue. What is being discussed here goes beyond the scope of
18 cross-examination and I don't know why this is allowed to go on despite
19 numerous well-intended comments on our part. Thank you.
20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. McCloskey.
21 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, I think I'm through with this. And it was
22 actually -- the General was correct in that it was originally designed
23 to -- for Mr. Manning to be able to tell us what meant when he was
24 interviewing or interrogating Mr. Becirovic [sic]. But, of course, it
25 was His Honour's natural interest and questions in this document and
1 whether or not they're bodies that led us to these questions, so I think
2 it's of course absolutely appropriate that it's gone this far, but
3 it's -- I have no further questions on this particular topic, and I'm
4 ready to go to the next.
5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I would like to note Mr. Gajic, you gave the
6 right reference to the part of the cross-examination Mr. McCloskey is
7 referring to. It's exactly dealing with this question.
8 Please carry on, Mr. McCloskey.
9 MR. McCLOSKEY: Thank you. All right. Now, let me try to go to
10 Cerska, and that is the same, but page 62 of --
11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: You should give Mr. Gajic the opportunity to say
12 something to the last topic.
13 MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, again we have a name
14 misspelled. On page 21, line 22, it says Mr. "Becirovic," whereas I
15 think it should state "Bircakovic."
16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. McCloskey, are you referring in your
17 statement to Mr. Bircakovic?
18 MR. McCLOSKEY: [Microphone not activated] I may have mixed the
19 names up, but I --
20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Now you need your microphone.
21 MR. McCLOSKEY: I may have mixed the names up. I was referring
22 to the person on cross-examination, and I think it was Bircakovic, yes.
23 JUDGE FLUEGGE: This is really a good co-operation between the
25 Mr. McCloskey, please carry on.
1 MR. McCLOSKEY: If we could go now to P94, page 62.
2 Q. And as we wait for that, do you recall seeing any aerial
3 images -- well, there it is.
4 A. Your Honours, I'm familiar with this image. It's a split-pane
5 image, if you like, before and after. Before on the left, and after on
6 the right.
7 MR. McCLOSKEY: And just to remind the Court, I'm back on the
8 re-cross -- the re-direct subject of whether or not this -- the victim in
9 this grave was a battle casualty from prior to the Srebrenica events, as
10 I'd set out in line and page in two places.
11 Q. All right. And what -- does this image give us any indication of
12 the date the Cerska grave was created?
13 A. Again, Your Honours, it's a window. So on the 5th of July, 1995,
14 there's no disturbance at the grave-site. As of the 27th of July,
15 there's a clear disturbance. It's exactly the same area. You can see
16 the roadway down to the -- from the centre of the photo to the right
17 where the road splits. It's exactly the same area, and it shows the
18 grave which has been created, which was maybe a year later exhumed by the
19 ICTY PHR team.
20 Q. Okay. I think you had described that -- could you briefly
21 describe how -- your understanding on how the victims were shot and ...
22 A. Your Honours, there was a witness account of buses travelling to
23 the area, followed by an APC and, I believe, a heavy machine, a digging
24 machine. On examination by the archaeologists, I think
25 140-something bodies were located, underneath soil, a thin later of soil,
1 which had been taken from the side of the road. The men had been shot
2 in -- at the site and either fallen or rolled down a slight embankment on
3 the road. Soil had been scooped from the other side of the road and
4 dumped across the bodies. It was a shallow cover of soil.
5 Q. Do you see anything on this particular image that would indicate
6 any taking from soil to be used in this burial process?
7 A. Your Honours, I believe what you see is on the right-hand pane,
8 there's a large oval shape --
9 MR. McCLOSKEY: Can we blow that up, please.
10 THE WITNESS: Within that oval shape, if you look on the
11 right-hand side, a smaller rectangle, and then a larger rectangle on the
12 other side of the road. The soil has been taken from the small
13 rectangle, scooped up from the bank, and then dumped on the bodies on the
14 left-hand rectangle and then spread over the bodies. It was described by
15 Dr. Haglund as a thin layer of soil on top of the bodies. And in the
16 photographs just prior to exhumation, you can see that there are pieces
17 of clothing and, very often in mass graves, shoes on the surface or
18 partially exposed on the surface.
19 MR. McCLOSKEY:
20 Q. And have you been to this very site yourself?
21 A. Your Honours, I have. But it was exhumed in 1996 and I didn't
22 visit it until 1998. And I visited many occasions or travelled through
23 the area. All you can see now is a dirt road and a piece of disturbed
25 MR. McCLOSKEY: All right. Now, on the same topic regarding
1 battle casualties prior to this event, could we go to 65 ter 07192,
2 page 1.
3 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. McCloskey, you are asking for another 65 ter
4 number. You have used already two of those documents, 65 ter 7192
5 and -93 but you didn't tender them.
6 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, this is page 1 of, actually, 7192. So it
7 was the last one. I haven't used that yet. And I -- this should be the
8 last one.
9 Q. Mr. Manning, we see these red numbers in the right, we see
10 Cerska 142. Before we get into the image itself, what -- what is this?
11 A. It's difficult to see, but it's, I believe, an exhumation
12 photograph. It's listed as Cerska 142, the individual we've been talking
13 about. It's very difficult to see from this, but I believe it pictures
14 the body in the mass grave. I have seen this image before. I examined
15 every image taken from this grave and every other mass grave at that
17 Q. Can you make out the position of the body in this at all?
18 A. Your Honours, perhaps it's the light, but I believe the ...
19 MR. McCLOSKEY: Mr. President, can I just look to make sure he's
20 got the same image I do? It's very difficult for the witness to see it.
21 I couldn't see it.
22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: We have had such a situation earlier in this
23 trial. Yes, this would help.
24 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, very much, very much.
25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: To have another angle. Or you could please rise
1 for a moment and look more from the top.
2 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour, you can see, if I may, here is
3 the individual's foot. And the rest of the body moves up towards the top
4 of the image. Now, if you see the plastic -- the black plastic bag in
5 this area --
6 MR. McCLOSKEY:
7 Q. Better number those.
8 A. In area 2, it may be that this is an image at the mortuary. What
9 would normally happen is the body would be collected - Cerska grave was
10 particularly wet and muddy - the body would be taken to the morgue, the
11 first photograph taken would be of the body-bag laid on the floor and
12 opened up. And this may be a mortuary photograph. I would have expected
13 the label to be slightly different at the mortuary. But it shows the
14 condition of body 142 from Cerska.
15 Q. Can you make out anything related to the arms and their
17 A. Your Honours, I believe it shows the arms in a fairly classic
18 position behind the back, bound. I would have to check the image.
19 Q. All right. I think that's fine.
20 MR. McCLOSKEY: But I better tender this since we have some
21 markings on it. And I should tender the images from 07192 that we've
22 already talked about.
23 JUDGE FLUEGGE: This will be received as an exhibit. And as
24 another exhibit, this marked photograph we have on the screen.
25 THE REGISTRAR: [Microphone not activated] -- marked photograph
1 will be received as Exhibit P1932 --
2 JUDGE FLUEGGE: The microphone.
3 THE REGISTRAR: I do apologise. Your Honours, marked photograph
4 will be received as Exhibit P1932. And 65 ter 07192 will be given
5 Exhibit P1933. Thank you.
6 MR. McCLOSKEY: All right. Staying on this same topic, could we
7 go to Exhibit P1315.
8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: May I ask you, in the meantime, what about the
9 65 ter 7193?
10 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, that's the military document. That should
11 be entered as well.
12 JUDGE FLUEGGE: This will be received as an exhibit.
13 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P1934, Your Honours.
14 MR. McCLOSKEY: We need P1315. And page 15 -- 50, sorry.
15 Q. And, Mr. Manning, what is this, as far as you can tell?
16 A. This is a autopsy report produced by the physicians for human
17 rights ICTY exhumations team in the 1996 exhumations process.
18 Q. And this is the case of number 142, Mr. Muminovic, that we're
19 speaking of; correct?
20 A. Cerska 142, yes. No name at that stage.
21 Q. Correct. Okay.
22 MR. McCLOSKEY: And this is in evidence, Your Honours, but I just
23 briefly --
24 Q. This is -- is this a fairly typical description of the clothing
25 and the personal effects?
1 A. Yes. Particularly the clothing. That was a source of
2 identification, so they did try to describe the clothing as well as they
3 could. And, in fact, once the body was recovered, the pathologist looked
4 at the clothing for signs of injury, as in bullet strikes, then the body.
5 And then they removed the clothing from the body, washed it, and then
6 photographed it and described it. And in relation to the personal
7 effects, that's similar to the descriptions used.
8 Q. All right.
9 MR. McCLOSKEY: And let's go to the next page of the autopsy
11 Q. And if we look at the identification papers, we see the driver's
12 licence and we see a reference to other papers related to the military
13 responsibilities of Osmo Muminovic. Is that the material that we've seen
14 before on the screen?
15 A. Yes, I'd accept that, that it would be listed in Mr. Haglund's
16 report, it would be listed in this document, and it would be listed in
17 the photographic logs.
18 Q. And then we see the external examination, skin characteristics.
19 Nothing I want to point out there.
20 MR. McCLOSKEY: Could we go to the next page.
21 Q. We can see the description of the trauma. I won't go -- though,
22 as I realise, there is not a B/C/S version of this, so -- but we just --
23 we can see, in English, number 1 talks about damage to the pelvis;
24 number 2 is absence of facial skeleton; number 3 is fracture or loss of
25 bone fragments; number 4, something medical I don't quite understand;
1 number 5, some damage to ribs; number 6, fracture of femur of post-mortem
2 appearance; and then other damage to other parts of the body. But
3 recovered evidence, this is what I want to ask you about. Projectiles:
4 bullet, one from the right elbow; bullet, one from the left thigh; bullet
5 jacket, one from the central chest; bullets, two from the central upper
6 chest; bullet, one from the left shoulder; bullet, one from the chest
7 wall; bullet fragment, one from the left chest wall; bullet, one from the
8 left axilla. And then other evidence - the tobacco tin, the watch -
9 we've seen. And if we go to the next page, here we see at the top the
10 prayer beads and a green plastic wallet with various documents. And
11 under "cause of death," "head injury consistent with gun-shot wound with
12 injuries to pelvis, chest, and limbs compatible with fire-arms injuries."
13 Is this -- particularly these -- the presence of these bullets
14 and these injuries about the body, is that consistent with the
15 investigative theory of this being a mass execution as you've described?
16 A. It certainly is. Again, I'm not a pathologist, but it's
17 certainly consistent with what I indicated, was that these men were
19 MR. McCLOSKEY: Okay. And one last document, P01782.
20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: One moment, please.
21 Judge Mindua.
22 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Can we have the previous page
23 shown, of the document we have on our screens.
24 Witness, in reference to the part of the document dealing with
25 bullets, projectiles, mention is made of several bullets. Were these
1 bullets found on the individual himself or were they recovered in the
2 mass grave as such, in the grave-site?
3 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, from this document, which is created
4 by the pathologists in the mortuary, this indicates to me - and I've read
5 all of these documents - that they were actually physically recovered
6 from the body. In the Cerska grave, the bodies were almost completely
7 fleshed so that the bullets were removed from the flesh of the individual
8 and the bones. In this instance, "bullet 1 from right elbow" indicates
9 that that was actually physically removed from the body itself. Again,
10 the thigh, the chest, the shoulder, the chest wall, these bullets and
11 bullet fragments would be identified from x-ray fluoroscope. They would
12 be identified by the pathologist looking at the clothing and seeing a
13 hole through the clothing and then, underneath the clothing, a hole in
14 the body. The body was then -- the clothing was taken and the bullet was
15 recovered from the flesh of the individual.
16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: During the autopsy.
17 THE WITNESS: During the autopsy process. And, Your Honours, the
18 fluoroscope images, the x-ray images, would clearly show the skeleton of
19 the body, the flesh of the body, and the very bright marks of the bullet,
20 so they would know that they would need to recover those items and they
21 would describe those items in the document where they were found in this
22 case within the body itself.
23 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Yes, I was waiting for
24 interpretation. Because my calculation came down to some nine bullets,
25 so you confirm that these nine bullets were found on this one corpse?
1 THE WITNESS: Yes, I do, Your Honour. I might indicate that -
2 one, two - the item number 3, "bullet jacket 1 from central chest,"
3 indicates that the bullet had a cover and then a core, and the cover of
4 the bullet has come off. So to be completely correct, it could be that
5 that bullet jacket is a part of one of the other bullets. But certainly
6 that indicates nine bullets or parts of bullets were removed from that
7 body. Where it says "bullet jacket," that's a large part of the bullet;
8 and where it says "bullet fragment," that could be a part of one of the
9 other bullets. So at the very least you would have seven or eight
10 separate bullets within that body.
11 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.
12 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. McCloskey.
13 MR. McCLOSKEY:
14 Q. Just on that, do you recall the most common calibre of bullet
15 that was found?
16 A. Almost overwhelmingly .762. There were some unusual rounds, some
17 shot-gun pellets and the odd larger bullets, but predominantly .762.
18 Q. Right.
19 MR. McCLOSKEY: Then this one last exhibit, P01782.
20 Q. And are you familiar with this cover sheet? Thank you.
21 A. Your Honours, it's the Book of the Dead, the ICTY count of the
22 Srebrenica missing, and I note that it's from May of 2000.
23 MR. McCLOSKEY: And can we go to page 185.
24 Q. And could you look at the fourth person down.
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Is that Cerska 142?
2 A. I believe so, but I can't see the "Cerska," and you wouldn't, the
3 grave reference. I would check the BAZ number, which is an ICMP PHR
4 number, but I believe that.
5 Q. All right. And under the date and place of disappearance, what
6 would that -- what would that indicate to you as to his relationship to
7 any of these events?
8 A. That's information provided by, if you like, the last person who
9 saw him alive, and where. And indicates the 11th of July, 1995. Last
10 seen in the forests near Srebrenica.
11 Q. All right.
12 MR. McCLOSKEY: And, Mr. President, I do not have any further
14 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Manning, this concludes your examination here
15 in this trial. The Chamber would like to thank you that you were able to
16 provide us with your knowledge. And now you are free to return to your
17 normal activities. Thank you very much again.
18 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honours. I appreciate your good
19 wishes. Thank you.
20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: It's the right time for our first break now. We
21 will resume quarter past 4.00.
22 [The witness withdrew]
23 --- Recess taken at 3.45 p.m.
24 --- On resuming at 4.19 p.m.
25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Good afternoon, Mr. Vanderpuye. Is the next
1 witness ready for his testimony?
2 MR. VANDERPUYE: Good afternoon, Mr. President, Your Honours, and
3 everyone. Yes, Mr. President, the next witness is ready.
4 I just want to bring two matters to your attention. The first is
5 with respect to the re-direct examination of Dr. Helge Brunborg. As you
6 recall, it was last Thursday, I had indicated that we intended to conduct
7 a re-direct examination of him. Having reviewed the record quite
8 carefully and discussed with my colleagues on the team, we've decide that
9 a further examination of Dr. Brunborg is not necessary.
10 So unless the Trial Chamber has certain important issues which
11 requires him to be brought back for the Trial Chamber, I'd ask at this
12 point for him to be discharged, if that's necessary in a formal way. I
13 understand also that General Tolimir has completed his cross-examination
14 of Dr. Brunborg as he indicated previously.
15 [Trial Chamber confers]
16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: The Chamber appreciates your reconsideration of
17 the situation in respect of Dr. Brunborg. I think it is very fortunate
18 that he must not travel the third time to The Hague. Thank you very much
19 for that.
20 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President. The second issue I
21 wanted to raise is with respect to the witness that's going to testify
22 today. I've been in contact with Mr. Gajic, in particular concerning a
23 document that was brought to our attention by Dr. Parsons and it concerns
24 an independent review of the technical processes related to the
25 DNA processes used by the ICMP and its a report that's dated
1 April 14th of 2010. I obtained a copy of that report from Dr. Parsons,
2 which I sent to Mr. Gajic the very day that I got it. It is in the
3 process of being translated. A partial and incomplete translation - I
4 shouldn't say partial; a draft, rather - and incomplete translation was
5 sent to Mr. Gajic just within an hour or so ago. And we are in the
6 process of trying to translate it.
7 I understand that we are -- that the Defence is prepared to
8 proceed. They will obviously need to evaluate this document. And to the
9 extent that they might require additional time to do so or to have Mr. --
10 Dr. Parsons return, we are certainly fine with that. But I am prepared
11 to proceed with the direct examination, and I think that a fair amount of
12 cross-examination can be accomplished notwithstanding -- notwithstanding
13 their recent -- that is, the Defence's recent receipt of this document.
14 I should add, also, that it's not on my exhibit list. I have no
15 intension to elicit information concerning this document from the
16 witness. So I think I'll leave it to Mr. Gajic if he chooses to respond,
17 but I've discussed it with him in advance of the sitting this afternoon.
18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Could you clarify one thing: What kind of report
19 is this? Is it an update of a previous report of the witness?
20 MR. VANDERPUYE: It's not a report by the witness or of the
21 witness. It's a report that concerns issues relating to the
22 identification of the remains, in particular of Avdo Palic, as you know
23 whose death is charged in the indictment in this case. As I understand
24 it, there was a delay in the identification, the DNA identification, of
25 remains that were ultimately associated with Colonel Palic of a number of
1 years, that the ICMP evaluated those remains at an earlier time but was
2 not able to declare a match to donor samples that it had, but was
3 ultimately able to do that upon reviewing those -- that file and a number
4 of other files. This is a report which basically examines the
5 circumstances of that delay. And so I think it is -- it's a reasonable
6 report for the Defence to have in order to examine the witness on that
7 specific issue, but as I said, I'm not intending to elicit any
8 information concerning it, so I don't think it prejudices the Defence as
9 far as the examination -- as far as the cross-examination in response to
10 the examination-in-chief.
11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Who is the author of this report?
12 MR. VANDERPUYE: It's an independent commission of experts. They
13 are listed as follows: Dr. Ingo Botic [phoen], head of the human DNA
14 unit of the federal criminal police office. It says, I believe it's
15 Wiesbaden, Germany. Dr. Cecelia Crouse, chief scientific officer,
16 forensic sciences division and forensic biology unit manager at the
17 Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office, Palm Beach Florida, United States --
18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Perhaps it's not necessary to put all the names
19 now on the record.
20 MR. VANDERPUYE: All right.
21 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I just wanted to know which institution published
22 this or created this.
23 MR. VANDERPUYE: Right. It's not an institution. It's a
24 commission of experts that prepared this -- this independent review of
25 the circumstances surrounding that identification.
1 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you. But who set up this commission?
2 MR. VANDERPUYE: I don't know who set up the commission. I know
3 that the commission was established solely for this purpose. I believe
4 that the ICMP had an input in creating the commission, but I don't know
5 particularly who set it up or the mechanism by which it was set up.
6 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you. This, is, I think, enough. We have
7 your information.
8 Mr. Gajic, what is the position of the Defence?
9 MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, you might have had an
10 opportunity to see our list of exhibits that we plan to use with this
11 witness. This report is 1D597, and we will most certainly use it during
12 the cross-examination of this witness. Unfortunately, we still do not
13 have a translation, which makes preparation a little difficult. And the
14 report is some 26 pages long, so it's not short by any means, and it has
15 many technical terms. So for a layman, it's rather difficult to
16 understand. So we will need the assistance of the witness to be able to
17 interpret what exactly this report says.
18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I don't see any need to discuss it any further or
19 to make any decision. We will see how the Prosecution and then later the
20 Defence will proceed with this report.
21 The witness should be brought in, please.
22 Mr. Gajic.
23 MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] My apologies, Mr. President. The
24 Defence would just like to note that we will not ask for the witness to
25 come a second time, so to come back in a month or two. However, if
1 necessary, we will just ask for patience by the Trial Chamber and to
2 allow us perhaps a little more time than what was originally envisaged.
3 But we would like to have a continuous cross-examination. That's -- all
4 I wanted to say.
5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: This is always appreciated, not to call a witness
6 again, indeed.
7 MR. VANDERPUYE: Mr. President, I also wanted to add that I
8 learned from Dr. Parsons, I believe it was yesterday or the day before,
9 that this document was provided by the ICMP to the Office of the
10 Prosecutor quite some time ago. It was provided to the Office of the
11 Prosecutor, as I understand it, in June of 2010. Due to some
12 communication error or some inadvertence in our office, the document was
13 never provided to our team, this is, the Tolimir Prosecution team. I was
14 able to find the document in our file, so I can confirm that it was sent
15 and it was received, but it wasn't obviously brought to our attention,
16 which is why we're in this conundrum now.
17 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you. We are waiting for the witness.
18 [The witness takes the stand]
19 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Good afternoon, Dr. Parsons. Welcome to the
20 Tribunal. Would you please read aloud the affirmation on the card which
21 is shown to you now.
22 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the
23 whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
24 WITNESS: THOMAS PARSONS
25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much. Please sit down.
1 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
2 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Vanderpuye is now conducting the
3 examination-in-chief for the Prosecution.
4 Mr. Vanderpuye.
5 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President. Good afternoon to you
7 Examination by Mr. Vanderpuye:
8 Q. Good afternoon to you, Dr. Parsons.
9 A. Good afternoon.
10 Q. Before we get started, as you and I speak the same language, I
11 just want to remind you to try to speak a little more slowly than you
12 would otherwise and allow a pause in between question and answer so that
13 the interpreters can accurately interpret and translate what we say to
14 everyone in the courtroom.
15 A. Agreed.
16 Q. And if there's anything that I ask you that's not clear, as has
17 been known to happen from time to time, just let me know and I'll see if
18 I can rephrase it in a way that we can better understand one another.
19 The first thing I want do is I want to ask you about your prior
20 testimony. Do you recall having testified in the case of Prosecutor
21 versus Vujadin Popovic at el. on the 1st of February, 2008, and again on
22 the 27th of April, 2009.
23 A. I do.
24 Q. And have you had an opportunity to review the entirety of your
25 testimony before coming to court today?
1 A. Yes, I've read the material.
2 Q. And having read the material, Dr. Parsons, can you confirm, does
3 it accurately and fairly reflect essentially what you would say were you
4 to be examined here today and asked the same questions?
5 A. Essentially, yes.
6 Q. Now, is there any material difference in what you would say today
7 than what you've said previously concerning the matters which were --
8 concerning the subject matter of your testimony?
9 A. Basically not. There are -- there were some issues regarding the
10 questioning, where it took us some time in the courtroom to understand
11 what was being gotten at, and I would understand them more quickly today
12 but I would materially give the same answer at the end.
13 Q. Okay.
14 MR. VANDERPUYE: Mr. President, at this time I would move to
15 enter into evidence 65 ter 6720, which is a transcript to be entered
16 under seal. And 65 ter 6721, which is a public version of Dr. Parsons's
17 prior testimony.
18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Both transcripts will be received as exhibit, the
19 first one under seal.
20 MR. VANDERPUYE: I would also move --
21 JUDGE FLUEGGE: One moment, please.
22 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
23 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P1935 under seal and Exhibit P1936,
24 Your Honours.
25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Go ahead, please.
1 MR. VANDERPUYE: [Microphone not activated] ... I would also move
2 to enter the -- I'm sorry. I would also move to enter into evidence,
3 Mr. President, the associated exhibits that were admitted through
4 Dr. Parsons in his prior testimony. This is 65 ter 06722 through
5 65 ter 06727, 65 ter 05748, and then 65 ter 06728.
6 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I think it's not necessary to read all these,
7 just the last one in the list, the second part of the list. It should be
8 65 ter 05773; is that correct?
9 MR. VANDERPUYE: Oh, okay. I understand you have it all -- you
10 already have it in written form. Okay. Sorry. 65 ter 06722 through
11 65 ter -- P00211 which is -- through 05773.
12 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Exactly.
13 MR. VANDERPUYE: Okay.
14 JUDGE FLUEGGE: The other one -- the last one is already an
16 MR. VANDERPUYE: I'm glad you have them all in front of you
18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Indeed. Can you indicate if there are any
19 documents without a translation yet?
20 MR. VANDERPUYE: I believe that there are quite a number of
21 documents without translations, Mr. President, particularly --
22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I think we will deal with that with an internal
23 memorandum. They will be received. But those who have no translation
24 yet, they will be marked for identification pending translation.
25 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
1 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Some of these documents under seal, and the
2 Registrar will give P numbers to all the documents and circulate a
4 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you very much, Mr. President.
5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Please go ahead.
6 MR. VANDERPUYE: I do have a very brief summary of Dr. Parsons's
7 testimony that I'd like to read into the record just to familiarise the
8 Court with the basic substance of his testimony.
9 If I may proceed?
10 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Yes, please.
11 MR. VANDERPUYE: Dr. Parsons is the director of forensic sciences
12 for the International Commission for Missing Persons, which operates a
13 highly experienced DNA laboratory system, active since 2001. In
14 October 2007, the organisation received an ISO 17025 accreditation, which
15 is one of the most significant international accreditation standards
16 governing forensic DNA analysis.
17 The mandate of the organisation is the identification of missing
18 persons. And its task is principally three fold: One, to assist
19 governments with the issue of missing persons through governmental
20 relations and that is to work with governments to establish laws and
21 policies and to hold them accountable for the problem of the missing.
22 Two is to conduct a civil society initiative to mobilise family groups
23 and provide them with the ability to meet and with the -- to meet and
24 with funding so that they can have a voice in the government. And three
25 is to provide forensic assistance by way of DNA identification.
1 The ICMP is not a law enforcement organisation. And it operates
3 As director of forensic sciences at the time of his testimony,
4 Dr. Parsons was responsible for, among other things, supervising three
5 forensic science divisions within the organisation. In particular, the
6 examinations and excavations division, which conducts anthropological and
7 pathological analysis; the DNA laboratory system, which handles DNA
8 typing, in order to match DNA profiles obtained from bone to blood
9 samples; and the DNA identification and co-ordination division, which
10 establishes links between samples and genetic data.
11 Dr. Parsons testified regarding the DNA testing procedures and
12 protocols applied by the ICMP. He explained the nature and the
13 reliability of DNA testing in general as well as the specific processes
14 applied by the ICMP. In particular, Dr. Parsons underscored that the
15 ICMP applies nuclear STR typing, which is a technology that is validated
16 and accepted within the scientific community, fully meeting industry
18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Would you please slow down a little bit.
19 MR. VANDERPUYE: Yes.
20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Go ahead, please.
21 MR. VANDERPUYE: It is an extremely well established standard
22 that has emerged in forensic diagnosis. He noted also that it is a
23 technology widely used in both the United Kingdom and in the
24 United States. In addition, as part of its accreditation, the ICMP is
25 subject to a formal review process and technical audits are carried out.
1 Several standard operating procedures document the manner in
2 which the ICMP carries out its DNA testing. These standard operating
3 procedures reflect established fundamental science and procedures shared
4 with other DNA laboratories. Many of them are expressly referred to and
5 explained in Dr. Parsons methodology report, covering the period from
6 2001 through 2008.
7 Dr. Parsons noted that there have been minor procedural changes
8 over time relating to changes in the primary instrumentation that's used
9 to newer more sensitive equipment. While this increased the success
10 rate, that is, the ability to extract DNA, it did not affect the
11 fundamental reliability of the techniques applied.
12 The ICMP's DNA matching procedure is robust, documented, and
13 regulated. In essence, this is the process of comparing the DNA taken
14 from a bone sent to the ICMP for testing against the database of DNA
15 profiles obtained from blood samples provided by donors. The issuance of
16 a match report, which is simply the result of a DNA test, requires a
17 minimum threshold of statistical surety of 99.95 per cent. In cases
18 where there is presumptive evidence of identity, for example, such as the
19 presence of artifacts, match reports are issued with 99 per cent
20 statistical surety.
21 The ICMP also has a formal system of review for all DNA reports.
22 Dr. Parsons testified that the ICMP does not issue death certificates;
23 rather, local pathologists deal with this process. As such, a case is
24 considered closed when the court-appointed pathologist by the Bosnian
25 national authorities issues a death certificate and returns the remains
1 to the family members.
2 Nevertheless, as of his 2009 testimony, 6.006 individuals
3 connected to Srebrenica-related mass graves had been identified through
4 ICMP's DNA identification efforts.
5 That concludes my summary, Mr. President. And I do have a number
6 of questions yet to put to Dr. Parsons.
7 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Go ahead, please.
8 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
9 Q. Dr. Parsons, it's been almost two years since you testified last
10 here. Can you tell us, what are some of the more significant things
11 you've been doing since you testified last?
12 A. Well, of course we've been continuing in a highly energetic
13 programme of scientific technical assistance to the identification
14 process in the former Yugoslavia, state of Bosnia. Continuing our work
15 with high throughput DNA analysis and comparing bone samples, DNA
16 profiles obtained from bone samples of victims, to large databases of
17 family reference blood profiles in order to make matches, and this keeps
18 us very busy.
19 Moreover, a principal element of my job is to make sure that we
20 stay current with best practices and advancements in the field. And when
21 improvements in methodology become -- when we become aware of
22 improvements in methodology, either through the scientific literature or
23 our own experimentation, we'll validate those procedures and implement
24 them into our casework.
25 So in terms of the biggest changes we've made, one is, I think
1 you've referred to earlier, just having to do with the state-of-the-art
2 instrumentation. The companies that make these high-tech instruments
3 release improved models, and we have followed along with developments in
4 that field, so we've validated new sets of instruments. It doesn't
5 materially change the nature of the testing very much.
6 Another thing that has been among the biggest changes is a new
7 DNA extraction method that we have developed from bone samples that we've
8 been able to demonstrate provides a greater likelihood of successfully
9 obtaining a DNA profile from a bone sample.
10 And I'll just give a moment of background to say that these
11 samples have been environmentally challenged. They're beneath soil,
12 mixed in with other grave -- with other bodies in the grave, a lot of
13 microbial activity, et cetera, and this is -- this can degrade bone --
14 the DNA surviving in with the bone sample, so it's important to have
15 chemical techniques that are very effective at removing the surviving DNA
16 molecules from the bone matrix, making them available to the testing
18 And so our new DNA typing method -- DNA extraction method has
19 been validated, implemented, and -- as well as published in the
21 Q. All right --
22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: May I remind you to speak a little more slowly
23 because it is very difficult for the interpreters to catch everything
24 what you are saying.
25 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir, I will try.
1 MR. VANDERPUYE:
2 Q. I will try to revisit some of these issues a little bit more in
3 detail as we go along. But, first, I'd like to put -- I'd like to show
4 you what's marked here as 65 ter 7190. This is a copy of your CV.
5 MR. VANDERPUYE: I don't think we have a translation of this yet.
6 We do? Okay. Great.
7 Q. I think this is a copy of your most recent CV. Do you recognise
8 that, Dr. Parsons?
9 A. Yes, I do.
10 Q. And just in terms of your responsibilities with the ICMP, are
11 they fundamentally the same or have they changed in any way from what
12 they were when you last testified?
13 A. They are fundamentally the same.
14 Q. In terms of your activities -- let me pause for a moment. In
15 terms of your activities with the organisation, can you tell us have you
16 engaged in any new conferences, written any new papers that are reflected
17 on your CV?
18 A. Yes, there are a number of additional publications since we last
19 would have met, and those would be listed much further down in the
20 document, where publications are listed. With regard to conferences and
21 that type of professional outreach, I would comment that the ICMP is very
22 much a player in the global forensic community. We very frequently
23 attend professional conferences, both to present our work as well as to
24 be sure that we are staying up with the recent developments in the field.
25 I routinely attend meetings of the European Network of Forensic Science
1 Institutes where, again, we are -- we work very closely with our
2 colleagues, so that our work is very well known in its details and
3 actually is very highly regarded internationally as among the most
4 successful human identification programmes.
5 Last year at the American Academy of Forensic Science meetings in
6 Seattle, we presented a mini-symposium of 12 separate scientific lectures
7 to a large audience, detailing all aspects of the scientific work we do
8 with regard to the 1995 fall of Srebrenica and subsequent identifications
9 and investigations that we have performed. And this was -- this was
10 extremely well received by the scientific community.
11 Q. And have you participated in authoring or reviewing articles
12 concerning the identification processes that the ICMP has engaged in
13 since the time that you last testified?
14 A. Yes. I would have to check the CV to recall the number of those.
15 But, yes, that's the case.
16 Q. I don't want to go through that because I can -- I'm going to
17 move to admit it into evidence, Mr. President, if that's all right.
18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Vanderpuye, I tried to figure out if it's in
19 your list of documents to be used. I doubt it is.
20 MR. VANDERPUYE: I haven't actually -- I'm sorry, I have it
21 listed here as the fourth item in the first category of -- the third item
22 in the first category of material, Mr. President.
23 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
24 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I was just updated by the Registry. I had a
25 previous list and not the current one. Thank you. This CV will be
2 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P1937, Your Honours.
3 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you.
4 Q. Dr. Parsons, is the ICMP's role limited to the identification of
5 the missing as a result of the conflict in the former Yugoslavia or is it
6 more expansive than that? If you could tell us a little bit about that.
7 A. Yes. As a result of the unparalleled success that we have
8 demonstrated in our work in the former Yugoslavia, we have become more
9 globally involved in mostly DNA identification efforts. So we currently,
10 or in the past, have responded to requests for assistance in a number of
11 global events, such as the South-East Asian Thailand tsunami. We
12 performed victim DNA typing on all samples related to Hurricane Katarina
13 in the United States. We've assisted INTERPOL in large-scale DNA
14 identification with regard to a ferry sinking in the Philippines. And we
15 have been contracted by the Government of Chile to assist in the human
16 rights violation missing persons casework regarding disappearances in
17 1973. As examples.
18 Q. And in respect of the ICMP's involvement in those particular
19 areas, has it always been limited to the subject matter of forensic DNA
20 testing or does it participate in these efforts in other capacities?
21 A. Well, yes. In fact, in these proceedings there tends to be an
22 emphasis on the forensic aspects of ICMP's work and the DNA typing, but
23 ICMP is not fundamentally a forensic organisation. We have a great deal
24 of experience in assisting governments with many facets of taking
25 responsibility of the issue of missing persons.
1 So from that standpoint, for example, the ICMP was invited to
2 perform a comprehensive analysis of the missing persons issues in the
3 country of Colombia, and we sent our teams of experts to look at those
4 issues, including forensic issues such as anthropology and DNA
5 identification but also covering aspects of civil society, victim's
6 rights, legal structure, accountability, reparations, that type of thing.
7 All these are areas where the ICMP has a great deal of expertise and
9 Q. Now, you may have heard me mention, during the course of the
10 summary, about -- concerning your prior testimony that the ICMP is an
11 independent organisation. Can you tell us a bit about that. Can you
12 tell us, first, a little bit about how the organisation came into being.
13 A. The ICMP was established in 1996 through a joint initiative at a
14 G7 Conference. So it's a product of a international initiative that was
15 originally, I think, championed foremost by former president Bill Clinton
16 of the United States. And that -- so that's how the ICMP became
17 established, specifically with a mandate for the former Yugoslavia.
18 In the course of our work, we are, indeed, a fully independent
19 entity, independent of any government and certainly independent of any
20 corporation or external influence. The ICMP is overseeing in broad
21 stroke by a set of prominent commissioners; the current chairman --
22 chairperson of the ICMP, of the commission, is James Kimsey, an
23 international philanthropist, if you will. And a number of other
24 prominent international individuals make up the commission.
25 We enjoy diplomatic privileges and immunities in our headquarter
1 agreements in Bosnia and therefore are able to provide assurances of data
2 protection and independence as we -- as we go through our work for
4 Q. Does the ICMP have what might be called a steering committee with
5 respect to forensic sciences in particular?
6 A. Yes. Almost since the inception of the forensic programmes, the
7 ICMP has, again, sought to ensure maximal transparency as well as advice
8 from leaders in the field. So early on, this body was referred to as a
9 scientific advisory board. And I became familiar with the ICMP because
10 of my role on the scientific advisory board. At that time I was the
11 chief scientist of the DNA identification lab of the United States Armed
12 Forces and came to sit on the scientific advisory board, where experts in
13 the fields of anthropology, forensic archaeology, pathology, statistical
14 analysis, DNA typing, and those kind of things would meet on an annual
15 basis at the ICMP for a multi-day exposure to the overall system. They
16 were able to see everything we do and ask questions and evaluate. And we
17 would pose our greatest challenges to this group and seek their advice on
18 how we could best -- best meet the challenges that we're facing.
19 This advisory group has now referred to differently; we call it
20 the Forensic Science Steering Committee, but it does continue to meet to
21 this day.
22 Q. Can you tell us a little bit about what the advisory committee or
23 government -- or of government representatives is, if you know, as
24 concerns the role of the ICMP in government-related affairs?
25 A. I'm sorry, I'm not quite sure what committee you're referring to,
1 if it's different than the one I've just referred to.
2 Q. Yeah, I'm referring to a different committee. Denoted as the
3 Advisory Committee of Government Representatives. Is there such a
5 A. Sir, I'm not aware of a committee that goes by that name.
6 Q. Okay. And in terms of the role of the Steering Committee, does
7 that have anything to do with the kinds of cases that the ICMP becomes
8 involved in? Or is that determination made at another level or by
9 another body?
10 A. No, the Steering Committee, the Forensic Science Steering
11 Committee is wholly advisory and it doesn't really play a role in the
12 type of engagements the ICMP would or would not be involved.
13 Q. Can you tell us a little bit about the process by which the
14 decision to engage in one area or another is made in the ICMP, that is,
15 whether you're involved in a plane crash in Cameroon, whether you're
16 involved in Katrina, a ferry sinking in the Philippines, and so on, how
17 is that determination made?
18 A. It almost always refers back to our general mandate of assisting
19 governments with regard to the issue of missing persons. And we would
20 typically respond at the invitation of a government for assistance. And
21 in instances, I'll say also, that we have made offers of assistance - for
22 example, with regard to Katarina - and our capabilities, we would -- we'd
23 make ourselves available and then the government would then request our
25 Q. I want to ask you a little bit about the facilities that the ICMP
1 operates. Where, currently, are your facilities located?
2 A. The headquarters and primary DNA testing laboratory is in
3 Sarajevo, Bosnia. Another forensic unit is the identification
4 co-ordination division, and that's located in Tuzla, Bosnia. We have a
5 component of the DNA laboratory system housed in Banja Luka in the
6 Republika Srpska of Bosnia. And all the samples that are tested for DNA
7 also go through a process in that specialised Banja Luka facility.
8 Associated with the ICMP for a long time has been a facility also
9 in Tuzla called the Podrinje Identification Project. This is a mortuary
10 facility where remains specific to Srebrenica are stored and evaluated,
11 and that is headed by a court-appointed forensic pathologist with
12 official capacity in the Bosnian court system. And he in the past has
13 also been a member of the ICMP, basically wearing two hats. And this
14 PIP, we call it, Podrinje Identification Project, was established by the
15 ICMP but in very recent months has been fully transferred in authority
16 over to the Bosnian national authorities, although we do continue to
17 provide technical assistance through the action of some of our expert
18 forensic anthropologists and other staff.
19 Q. Does the ICMP maintain regional offices in Belgrade and Pristina,
20 if you know?
21 A. I believe that the Belgrade office is no longer in operation, but
22 we do have an office in Pristina.
23 Q. And during the course of the identification processes that took
24 place with respect to the Srebrenica missing, at any point did the ICMP
25 maintain a region office in Belgrade, if you know?
1 A. Yes, we did. Not only a region office, but we had a division of
2 our DNA laboratory system in Belgrade that assisted primarily with some
3 of the DNA typing from family reference samples.
4 Q. Approximately how many DNA laboratories does the ICMP operate?
5 A. Presently we have just two that are involved in the DNA process;
6 that's the DNA laboratory in Banja Luka in Republika Srpska and the main
7 laboratory in Sarajevo.
8 Q. And with respect to the identification co-ordination division
9 that you referred to, can you tell us, does that operate from one of the
10 DNA facilities, or is that a separate facility? If you could just
11 explain what its role is and how it's situated in the organisation.
12 A. It is a separate facility from the DNA laboratories, but it's
13 absolutely integral in the process. The identification co-ordination
14 division is located in Tuzla, and that is the facility where all samples
15 that we obtain are received by the ICMP. Bone samples that have been
16 submitted from the graves, from whatever external submitter, as well as
17 blood samples that are received from family members of the missing, enter
18 the ICMP system at the identification co-ordination division. And
19 they're immediately stripped of any identifiers regarding where they come
20 from and entered into an electronically tracked barcoded system so that
21 all processes downstream, in terms of the DNA laboratory testing,
22 et cetera, are done in a fully objective and blind manner. So all
23 samples appear identical with regard to their processing in the
25 The other place where the identification co-ordination centre
1 plays a very strong role is that after the DNA laboratory system has
2 performed a test and obtained a profile associated with either a victim
3 or a family reference sample, those DNA profiles are submitted to the
4 identification co-ordination centre where sophisticated computer matching
5 is done that finds a relationship between the victim bone sample and a
6 family reference sample. And it is the identification co-ordination
7 division that then generates the DNA match reports that indicate a strong
8 statistical association, thereby essentially naming the individual from
9 whom a bone sample comes from.
10 Q. All right. Well, I'll have you walk us through the
11 identification process in a just a moment. With respect to the mortuary
12 facilities that you refer to, can you tell us how many mortuary
13 facilities are involved in the ICMP's DNA identification efforts? As
14 relates to Srebrenica missing, in particular, if you can distinguish
15 between them.
16 THE INTERPRETER: Can the speakers please make a pause between
17 question and answer for the sake of the interpreters. Thank you.
18 MR. VANDERPUYE:
19 Q. Maybe I can repeat my question. I'm sorry about that. With
20 respect to the mortuary facilities, can you tell us how many are involved
21 in the process -- in ICMP's DNA identification process concerning
22 Srebrenica related?
23 A. Presently, the ICMP operates only a single mortuary facility with
24 direct relevance to Srebrenica, and that's the PIP facility I mentioned
25 earlier. Historically, additional facilities have been involved, both
1 under ICMP control and under control of other agencies, such as the ICTY
2 itself, involved in the exhumation process. The ICMP in previous years
3 operated a facility near Visoko and also had a specialised subset or
4 sub-unit of PIP called the Lukavac Reassociation Centre. And that was
5 located in the town of Lukavac, which is very close to Tuzla in Bosnia,
6 and was a specialised facility for examination of extremely fragmented
7 and co-mingled remains that were -- that had been exhumed from secondary
8 mass graves that pose a very serious challenge to an identification
10 Q. If you would, I'd like you to walk us through the process of
11 identification in a bit of a nutshell because part of it is in your prior
12 testimony. But can you tell us, basically, how the process starts.
13 You've mentioned that somebody will come in and report a family member
14 missing. Can you tell us what happens following that.
15 A. Well, there are basically two lines to the process. One
16 involving recovery examination, sampling, and DNA typing of victim
17 samples that come from, generally speaking, mass graves. And the other
18 relating to the family reporting of family members that are missing and
19 the provision of blood samples in order to make identifications. So I'll
20 spend just a few sentences to expanded on both of those. And I'll start
21 with the family reference sample collection.
22 This is a result of a huge programme of outreach by the ICMP to
23 make it known to the families that are -- have people missing from the
24 conflict that they can participate in the identification of their loved
25 one by registering this person as a missing -- their loved one as a
1 missing person with the ICMP and providing blood samples that allow us to
2 generate DNA profiles. So this is done in a very, very large manner. We
3 currently have some 70.000 family reference blood samples relating only
4 to the state of Bosnia, and these reflect the report of missing of some
5 23.000 missing persons in the state of Bosnia. And this has been a
6 process that is implemented by a great deal of communication to the
7 families, the organisation of family groups, providing them with
8 information, and understanding from them, in the course of dialogue, what
9 their needs are and what their situation is. So I'm just trying to
10 indicate that we have a great deal of interaction with families and that
11 has been the basis for the extreme success we've had in obtaining so many
12 samples from missing persons.
13 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Again, I would appreciate if you could speak more
14 slowly. It's very difficult to follow.
15 THE WITNESS: Sir, would you like me to repeat any of that more
17 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I see everything was recorded properly. But for
18 the interpreters it takes a long time to interpret to different
20 THE WITNESS: All right. So when the blood samples are obtained
21 from the family with appropriate genetic -- with appropriate consent to
22 provide those samples, and assurances that they will be used only for the
23 purposes of identifying their loved ones, those samples are then typed
24 for a DNA profile and entered into a missing persons DNA profile
25 database, also associated with information regarding how that individual
1 is related to the victim and other contact information regarding the
2 family members and the missing persons.
3 MR. VANDERPUYE:
4 Q. You mentioned that an individual would come in and essentially
5 report a family member missing as a result of a massive outreach
6 programme by the ICMP. Do you know at -- whether at the time that
7 individuals are reported missing to the ICMP, or is there any screening
8 process to determine whether or not these individuals have reported
9 missing family members to other organisations such as the ICRC or any
10 other agencies operating in Bosnia?
11 A. There is a great deal of overlap between individuals that are
12 reported to us as missing and the lists that are maintained by
13 organisations such as the ICRC, yes. The -- the unique distinction of
14 our database is its linkage to blood samples and therefore genetic
15 samples. So for each person we have in our database, we also have
16 genetic profiles associated with family members from that individual.
17 Q. You mentioned that there was a great deal of overlap. Is that to
18 suggest that the list that the ICRC might have is not co-extensive with
19 the list that the ICMP may have?
20 A. That's correct. There has not been a formal process of
21 reconciliation of those lists. And furthermore, they exist for slightly
22 different purposes. Ours is primarily designed with regard to the
23 ability to identify these missing persons.
24 Q. With respect to the collection of blood samples you indicated
25 that, relevant information concerning the donors' relation to the victim,
1 is taken down, can you tell us - and we'll get to this, I think, a little
2 bit more when we talk about the type of testing you do, but, generally,
3 what kind of relationship are you looking for between a donor and a
4 victim in order to make a reliable DNA match or identification?
5 A. Well, the most useful donor reference sample comes from a
6 first-degree relative, such as a mother or a father or an offspring.
7 Other combinations of relatives can also be quite definitive for an
8 identification. And we get many different pedigrees, if you will, that
9 we use. So in many instances we may have a mother and two siblings.
10 Ideally is a father and a mother, and that is essentially sufficient to
11 be certain you'll make an identification. And then other constellations
12 of relatives can be quite sufficient for making a DNA match.
13 One thing to understand is that whether one can find a match of
14 suitable -- of sufficient statistical surety depends on the genetic types
15 of the family involved. Now, we look at a number of different
16 independent nuclear DNA loci - these are simply different positions
17 within the chromosomes of an individual - that vary independently of one
18 another. And at any one of these locations you can have a type - I can
19 expand on that later, if need be - but that type can either be common in
20 the population or very rare in the population. So if a family has types
21 at a particular genetic locus - that's one of these positions I'm
22 referring to - that's very rare, then it's going to be easier to identify
23 the loved one of that individual because he will share that rare type.
24 So we'll have some instances -- all this is to say, we'll have
25 some instances where a mother, based on the genetic types that she has,
1 as well as her offspring, will allow, basically, a certain
2 identification, 99.9999999 per cent surety, and other instances where, if
3 this type -- if this family is mostly common genetic types, where the
4 mother may not be sufficient in and of herself to allow us to be even
5 99.95 per cent sure, and that's why we always attempt to get multiple
6 family members as possible.
7 Q. You mentioned the collection -- well, I should say, rather, the
8 analysis of bone samples, which are, for all intents and purposes,
9 extracted from exhumed bodies. Can you tell us a bit about the process
10 by which these bone samples come to your lab, and then, separately, about
11 what happens to the bone samples once they get to your lab.
12 A. Well, the bone samples can come to our lab from any number of
13 means. For the purposes of the Court, it's probably most useful to focus
14 on what is the vast, vast majority of our cases, which would be human
15 remains exhumed from mass graves of various sizes. With regard to
16 Srebrenica, very often these mass graves are very large. And also are
17 what are known as secondary mass graves, where the assemblage of
18 individuals has been moved from the primary grave and trucked off to a
19 different site and then reburied again in a clandestine site.
20 So with regard to samples received by the ICMP, they could come
21 from remains that were exhumed by the ICTY in early years, post-conflict.
22 They could also come, and this is a very common category, from
23 exhumations where the ICMP played a role in the process. So we have
24 teams of highly expert forensic anthropologists and forensic
25 archaeologists, and around the period of 2000 or so, the ICMP began to
1 provide technical assistance at exhumations. So the process would be
2 mediated -- the official process of an exhumation would be through a
3 court order and the action of a joint exhumation project. And this is a
4 system put in place by the Office of the High Representative in 1996
5 whereby the Bosnian Croat Federation Missing Persons Commission would
6 work together with the Republika Srpska Missing Persons Office to conduct
8 So in the case of Srebrenica, where the ICMP became involved in
9 technical assistance, the site would be opened up through this joint
10 exhumation process, where the primary team involved would be the
11 Bosnian Croat Federation Missing Persons Commission, and they would be
12 conducting the auspices of the excavation, supervised in most instances
13 by a representative of the Republika Srpska office, as well as by
14 security provided 24 hours a day by the Republika Srpska Police.
15 In many of these instances, the ICMP has provided a wide range of
16 technical assistance. But in many instances, full technical assistance
17 with regard to the conduct of forensic archeological excavation, where
18 state-of-the-art methods of stratographic recovery of human remains were
19 applied with positional -- electronic positional data collection, to
20 maintain a very solid archive of all the human remains and evidentiary
21 material that was removed from the site.
22 And one of the things that's very important in exhuming these
23 complex mass graves, particularly the secondary mass graves where the
24 bodies have become fragmented and co-mingled by this movement process, is
25 the application of anthropological expertise so that you don't just go in
1 and pull out a whole pile of bones. You go in and you remove the
2 portions of individuals that are articulated in a way so that you don't
3 make the grave a greater jumble than it already is. So --
4 Q. Let me just -- if I could, I'm sorry. I just want to ask you,
5 you mentioned the Office of the High Representative and its role as
6 concerns joint exhumation, the joint exhumation process. Could you just
7 tell what the Office of the High Representative is to your understanding,
8 just so that we have a clear record on that matter.
9 A. Well, I beg the Court's indulgence in my lack of expertise
10 regarding the political structures. I will admit to really being mostly
11 a scientist. But my understanding of the Office of the
12 High Representative is that this is a body that has been established by
13 the Peace Implementation Council, I think it is. At any rate, it's an
14 international representative that is in place to basically -- as a result
15 of the Dayton Peace Accords, if I'm correct. And please, I don't know
16 this in detail. But this is a body with high powers, high administrative
17 powers, in Bosnia that is capable of executing administrative authority
18 in time of need. Generally, the political system in Bosnia is designed
19 to operate itself, but this is a mechanism by which the international
20 community in association with the peace accord has an administrative
21 oversight role that they can exercise. And that's the best I can do with
22 that answer. I'm sorry.
23 Q. Thank you. In terms of the sample -- the samples that are
24 received by the ICMP, is the ICMP responsible, does it have any
25 influence, over the way these samples are marked or labelled, and in
1 particular in respect of their relationship to any mass grave in
2 particular or any exhumation site in particular?
3 A. The general answer to that question is no. Depending on who is
4 involved in the process of sampling -- of examining the remains and
5 sampling them for DNA, we would get any type of labelling convention. It
6 is the case that the ICMP itself has conventions that it prefers to see
7 applied, and we would encourage people to use those. And when the entire
8 process is under our control, these very widely-applied nomenclature
9 systems for sample labelling.
10 Q. In a nutshell, does the ICMP operate, at least the forensic
11 laboratories, operate as would a laboratory that was conducting an
12 ordinary blood test, for example? If somebody went to see their doctor
13 and blood was drawn and it was sent off to be tested, does it operate
14 along similar principles?
15 A. Well, insofar as we conduct an accredited, uniform, and highly
16 regarded testing -- expert testing system, I think that the overall
17 process would operate very much like that. That there's a biological
18 sample that requires a scientific analysis to be performed on it and
19 samples are submitted and then a test result is turned back.
20 I won't --
21 Q. Is there any selectivity on the part of the ICMP in terms of the
22 samples that it receives? In other words, does it have any influence
23 over the source or type of samples, bone samples, that it receives to
24 compare against the donor blood profiles that it receives?
25 A. The ICMP does have influence over what it receives but does not
1 always have control over what it receives. There are many instances
2 where the physical remains that are recovered from the graves are
3 transferred to ICMP facilities, and the anthropological examination and
4 DNA sampling takes place within our control there. And under those
5 circumstances, we have highly evolved sampling protocols that are
6 designed to minimise the amount of DNA testing necessary, while
7 maximizing the ability to properly re-associate disassembled remains.
8 So what that means is that we have a standard operating procedure
9 on recommendations for sites on the skeleton that should be sampled for
10 DNA. And we've made those -- that standard operating procedure widely
11 available and encouraged people to use it. Many times we receive
12 material that we feel likely has not really followed our standard
13 operating procedures.
14 So the worst-case scenario is someone opens a body-bag and sees
15 hundreds of bone samples in there and will indiscriminately start
16 sampling those and submitting them for expensive and laborious DNA tests.
17 So ideally, this would be moderated by someone with a great deal of
18 anthropological expertise that could determine the minimum number of
19 people involved in this incident that they're reviewing, and sample DNA
20 in a way that is most highly effective. That doesn't always occur. So
21 we don't -- no, we don't always have control over what we do receive or
22 how it's labelled.
23 Q. Now, as far as the testing process is concerned, ultimately, in
24 many instances, you find or declare a match, and we'll get into what is
25 required in order to declare a match a little bit more precisely. But
1 you heard, perhaps, in my summary my reference to your prior testimony
2 distinguishing between the finding of a match and the closing of a case
3 that is normally handled by a pathologist. I wonder if you could
4 expanded on that a little bit so we understand what the difference is
5 between those two things.
6 A. As I mentioned earlier, with regard the DNA typing process, we
7 operate a completely objective and blind system. So the samples come to
8 us without any information where they came from, who they may be related
9 to, and that applies both to the bone samples as well as the blood
10 samples. They are immediately stripped of any such identifiers. So we
11 then have an objective process of establishing a DNA profile and then
12 doing computer matching. And we may have, let's say, a mother and two
13 daughters have provided blood samples to help us try to identify that
14 woman's missing son. We obtain a bone sample and generate a DNA profile
15 and compare that to tens of thousands of family reference blood samples.
16 We'll get a computerized score that says, There is similarity in
17 some very interesting ways between the DNA profile from this bone sample
18 and these donors relating to missing persons. And so we'll get a ranked
19 list of possible associations. So lo and behold, this bone sample will
20 have a high score, suggesting it may be maternally related to this woman.
21 And then right below it, there'll be a high score suggesting that there
22 may be a sibling relationship between one of the daughters, and likewise
23 for the other sibling.
24 Having then been alerted to this possible association by virtue
25 of computational indices that I won't belabour further, we then take all
1 the genetic information specifically for that missing person, in other
2 words, we take, together, the mother's DNA profile and the two siblings'
3 DNA profile and put it into a standard genetic kinship calculation with
4 the genetic profile from the bone sample.
5 Q. I just want to ask you to slow down a little bit because you've
6 got some very technical terms in there and I'm not sure how easy they are
7 to interpret.
8 A. So it is this final calculation that tells us the statistical
9 strength with which this bone DNA profile can be considered to be related
10 to the those family reference profiles in the way that this missing
11 person has been stated to be related to those. In other words, what's
12 the strength of the evidence that this bone sample came from the missing
13 person for whom they provided a reference sample.
14 And again, the system that we use can provide astronomical levels
15 of support for that. Our minimum surety for issuing a DNA match report
16 is 99.95 per cent sure. That means -- that can be translated into more
17 every day terms, I suppose, by saying that there is one chance in 2.000
18 that this individual's DNA profile would have come from an unrelated
19 individual instead of the person that we have issued the DNA match report
21 But I want to go back and emphasise that that is our minimum
22 threshold, one chance in 2.000 that this is an erroneous random match
23 instead of the real match. Many times, instead of 99.95 per cent we
24 would have 99., say, ten 9s or twelve 9s or something like that. So
25 instead of one chance in 2.000, in a great majority of our cases it would
1 be more on the order of one chance in a hundred billion.
2 MR. VANDERPUYE: I'd like to show you, while we're on this topic,
3 65 ter 6273A. We'll need not to broadcast this document. 6723A.
4 I don't believe we have a translation of this document, so I'm
5 going to tell the Defence what it is. It is a case file relating to a
6 body which was exhumed in connection with Bisina, a mass grave-site, and
7 it relates to body number 40. You'll see at the top of the document an
8 indication of BIS, Bisina, BIS, 01 SEK, which I believe is Sekovici. And
9 then you'll see 040 B (f). And you'll see the name of the individual
10 this relates to.
11 THE WITNESS: Mr. Vanderpuye, may I interject for just one
12 moment. It occurs to me that in the discussion I've had so far with
13 regard to the DNA match report, that I haven't yet answered your previous
14 question regarding the difference between a DNA match report and case
15 closure. If that's something you'd like me to do now, that would be
16 fine. Or if you think it would be more useful to go through this, that
17 would be fine as well.
18 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you for that. I hadn't realised that, and
19 I appreciate you pointing that out.
20 Q. If you can explain it relatively briefly, we can do that. Or we
21 can go through this first. So if you can explain it briefly, let's do
22 that first.
23 A. Well, I think that thematically it might make more sense to go
24 ahead with that explanation.
25 Q. All right.
1 A. So I gave what may have been an unfortunately long-winded
2 explanation of the DNA match report, but it is that match report that
3 then is sent back to the submitting pathologist from whom we originally
4 obtained the bone sample. Or today, we actually route that through the
5 Bosnian national agency called the Missing Persons Institute, who now has
6 authority for missing persons issues in Bosnia, and they provide that to
7 the pathologist. But in effect, the result of the DNA test, in the form
8 of a DNA match report, is sent back to the individual who has the
9 remains. And as I just said, the strength of the identification is
10 astronomically high on the DNA report but that person will then get the
11 information on the missing person that the DNA match report says this is
12 and ask, Is this consistent with the biologically determined age, sex,
13 and stature of the remains? Is it consistent with what we know about the
14 circumstances of this person's disappearance? In other words, was he
15 recovered from a Srebrenica-related grave and had been registered as
16 missing by the family members in association to the Srebrenica event?
17 That type of circumstantial evidence.
18 If there is any clothing, personal artifacts, or other
19 characteristics of the case that the families could identify or would
20 help them accept the identification, then the pathologist makes a
21 determination, based on the scientific evidence from the DNA match report
22 and all the other information that's available to him, that would allow
23 him to exercise his legal authority to conclude an official
24 identification and issue a death certificate.
25 In the case of Srebrenica, in virtually all cases, this is done
1 by Dr. Rifat Kesetovic at the Podrinje identification process [sic].
2 It's a facility that is a long-time partner of the ICMP. And that
3 would -- that case closure then would also be the trigger for handing the
4 identified body back to the family members and involve, indeed, their
5 review of the case, will be present the to them. So that's difference
6 between a DNA match report and case closure.
7 Q. Would it be fair to say that a DNA match report pays a part in
8 the ultimate declaration of death, closure of a case, by the pathologist?
9 A. Yes, absolutely.
10 Q. And for the purposes -- for ICMP's purposes, identification
11 purposes, you've indicated that the minimum threshold for surety in an
12 identification is 99.95 per cent.
13 A. That's correct.
14 Q. What I'd like to show you is --
15 MR. VANDERPUYE: I think maybe we should go into private session,
16 Mr. President, just so we avoid any inadvertent mention of names.
17 JUDGE FLUEGGE: We turn into private session.
18 [Private session]
12 [Open session]
13 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session, Your Honours.
14 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much. But we can't continue at
15 this point in time. We must have our second break and then we will
16 continue. We resume at quarter past 6.00.
17 --- Recess taken at 5.45 p.m.
18 --- On resuming at 6.16 p.m.
19 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye, please carry on.
20 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
21 Q. Mr. Parsons, where we left off, I was asking you -- sorry. Where
22 we left off, I was asking you how you know that this is a document that
23 was sent off to the pathologist. And you were about to answer.
24 A. Yes, I understand I can use this pen to indicate things on the
25 screen. I'll try that. But the reason I'm able to see immediately, it
1 relates to these -- can you see my -- the cursor moving?
2 JUDGE FLUEGGE: The court usher should assist you to enable you
3 to mark some parts of this document .
4 THE WITNESS: There we go. So it just seems easier to refer to
5 this area that I'm outlining here. And here, this is a representation of
6 the genetic profile of the individuals on this match report. And the way
7 I can tell that this is one that we would be submitting externally to the
8 pathologist in question is that these genetic types here are actually
9 coded in a way that allows you to see how -- see what the relationships
10 are amongst the individuals on this match report but not to actually know
11 the genetic profile of the individual. And we do this for reasons of
12 genetic privacy, genetic protection of the family members.
13 MR. VANDERPUYE:
14 Q. Let me show you the next page.
15 MR. VANDERPUYE: Oh, I should tender this document,
16 Mr. President. The marked version.
17 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Yes, it would be more helpful if we have an
18 explanation of the two circles. Perhaps they could be marked with --
19 uh-oh, now it disappeared. Could you please encircle these two columns
20 again. And if you could perhaps add a number 1 to the first one,
21 number 2 to the second one, and indicate what is depicted in the two
23 THE WITNESS: So I'm going to call them the coded genetic profile
24 of the victim, that means the skeletonised remains; and, 2, the coded
25 genetic profile - GP, genetic profile - of a family member.
1 JUDGE FLUEGGE: That's fine.
2 THE WITNESS: And there are additional ones below that I haven't
3 circled that are the same.
4 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Yes, of the family members. Thank you very much.
5 THE WITNESS: You're welcome.
6 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Vanderpuye tendered this, and it will be
7 received, this marked document.
8 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P1938, Your Honours.
9 MR. VANDERPUYE:
10 Q. Just before we go to the next page, Dr. Parsons, you can see on
11 this page at the bottom left-hand corner, a reference sample is
12 indicated. And just for the sake of brevity, is that the sample -- a
13 photograph of the sample that was tested in relation to this case?
14 A. Yeah, that's -- yes, that's the photo documentation of the bone
15 sample in question.
16 Q. Is that done in every case?
17 A. Yes.
18 MR. VANDERPUYE: If we can go to the next page, please.
19 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Just forever the record, the marked page is
20 received under seal.
21 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you very much, Mr. President.
22 Q. Dr. Parsons, briefly, can you tell us what we have here?
23 A. This is a different version of the DNA report which is internal
24 to the ICMP and contains uncoded genetic profiles. So the numerical
25 entries in the cells there are those that would indicate to a geneticist
1 what the real genetic profile of the individual is. As I mentioned
2 before, we do not distribute that. Also, just distinguishing this sheet
3 is a number of signature lines along the very bottom, and those reflect
4 stages in a formal review process where, after the report is generated,
5 it's then sent back to the DNA laboratory and all the data is, you know,
6 examined de novo and then a signature indicates that it's correct. And
7 the statistical calculations, for example, are also duplicated. So this
8 is a form of redundant review that is typical of forensic reporting
10 Q. With respect to the statistical surety that's indicated of,
11 statistical surety of relationship between the sample and the family
12 members that's indicated in this report, could you just tell us or walk
13 us through what that is as briefly as you can.
14 MR. VANDERPUYE: If we can blow up the section that follows the
15 word "conclusion" near the bottom the page so that we can see it more
16 clearly. Yeah, that's good.
17 Q. Okay. And hear it reads, for the benefit of the Defence because
18 I don't think we have a translation of this. It says:
19 "The DNA results obtained from the bone sample BIS 01 SEK
20 040 B (f) are 900e 15 times more likely if the bone sample originated
21 from an individual related to the blood references in a manner as
22 described on this report than if the bone sample originated from another
23 unrelated individual in the general population. The probability of
24 relatedness as described in this report is greater than 99.99999 per
25 cent, when using prior odds of 1/7.000."
1 First, can you tell us what the number "900e 15 times" actually
3 A. Yes, that's a notational shorthand for an exponential in base 10.
4 So that means that 900 times 10 to the 15th. Which in turn means --
5 which, in turn, is a shorthand for adding an additional 15 zeros after
6 the 900. And that number, translated into language, if I'm not mistaken,
7 would be 900 trillion.
8 Q. And the prior odds of 1 in 7.000, can you tell us what that is?
9 A. Yes, I can. And I would like to do that by referring back to
10 that original 900 trillion number. It's not stated here, but I'll simply
11 define it, that that number is the likelihood ratio. And the likelihood
12 ratio is the result of the DNA test. And the -- within the formalities
13 of forensic statistic, what a likelihood ratio is - please bear with me;
14 it's a simple concept - is the factor by which one is more sure after
15 having done a test than you were before. So there may have been some
16 previous suspicion that this bone sample derives from this individual.
17 Having done this DNA test, we're now 900 trillion times more sure than we
18 were before.
19 How sure we are in the end depends on how sure we were before we
20 did the test. Because we know we're 900 trillion times more sure; how
21 sure were we before? Well, that's where the prior odds come in; that's
22 what that means. And in this case we considered that there was 1 chance
23 in 7.000, before doing any DNA test, that this bone sample was this
24 individual. And where we get that number is, at that time there was an
25 estimate of 7.000 people missing from the Srebrenica event, we knew that
1 this came from a Srebrenica-related grave, and so the prior odds, without
2 doing a DNA test, that it's this particular named individual is only 1 in
3 7.000. When you update that uncertainty by 900 trillion times, you wind
4 up being 99. a lot of nines after there.
5 If you'll note, the report says its greater than 99. and then
6 there are five 9s. Actually, there are more 9s in the real number; we
7 don't bother to list them on our reports.
8 Q. Thank you for that explanation, Dr. Parsons. And I'd like to
9 show you --
10 MR. VANDERPUYE: Yes, I'd like to actually tender the whole file,
11 and it's 65 ter 06723A, Mr. President.
12 JUDGE FLUEGGE: And I take it this is -- I'm not sure about that
13 because I have not an updated list, that it was on your last list; yes?
14 MR. VANDERPUYE: Yes, Mr. President, I apologise that you don't
15 have an updated one.
16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: There's no reason for your apologies. That was
17 perhaps a mistake in our office. It will be received.
18 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P1939. And I understand this should
19 be under seal.
20 MR. VANDERPUYE: Yes.
21 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Indeed under seal.
22 THE REGISTRAR: Thank you.
23 MR. VANDERPUYE: I have one other document that I'd like to show
24 Dr. Parsons and that's 65 ter 7191. This also should not be broadcast.
25 Mr. President, because this is a spreadsheet with multiple tabs,
1 we are going to have to display it through Sanction so that the witness
2 can see it in e-court. Can we proceed with that, Mr. President?
3 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Yes, of course. Go ahead, please.
4 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you.
5 Q. Dr. Parsons, do you recognise what this is?
6 A. The sheet I'm looking at appears to be a title sheet that is not
7 one that I'm familiar with, but it refers to -- ah, here we go. I'm
8 sorry, I was looking at a different document. Yes, indeed. This is the
9 cover sheet of an Excel file that the ICMP provided to your office.
10 Q. And does it relate to the matching reports that were generated in
11 the process you described through ICMP's DNA matching efforts?
12 A. Yes, that's what it is.
13 Q. And if I could go to the first tab. Well, you can see a series
14 of tabs here: One is entitled, "Srebrenica event"; another entitled,
15 "Zepa event"; the third is, "cases inconclusively associated"; and
16 there's a fourth tab indicating, "cases excluded as associated."
17 Have you had a chance to review, generally, this file?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Okay. And with respect to the Srebrenica event, if we could just
20 go to the first page of this, and maybe we can -- well, we can probably
21 go through it. I just want to go briefly through the -- some of the
22 captions here which you may be able to explain to the Trial Chamber.
23 Let's pick the first entry here. Here we have a "date of birth" and then
24 we have what's called "protocol ID."
25 Can you tell us, basically, what a protocol ID is?
1 A. Well, yes. So each of the horizontal entries relates to an
2 individual DNA match report that has been listed. So, actually, the
3 first column contains the name of the individual to whom the DNA match
4 report relates. And then, more specifically, your question about the
5 protocol ID, that is simply an internal ICMP tracking number that
6 uniquely identifies the DNA match report in question.
7 Q. And if we go to the next column, "case ID," can you tell us what
8 that is?
9 A. That's the -- the name of the sample, if you will. That's the
10 coded information that is the identifier of the sample as it was received
11 by the ICMP.
12 Q. And is that the sample name that is given -- and we can see in
13 the photograph of the other case file that I showed briefly, the one that
14 indicated body 040 Bisina, Sekovici, is that the type of information that
15 we see here?
16 A. Yeah, without that match report, that's the number that would be
17 listed in that column.
18 Q. Okay. And here -- and then next to that, in column E, we have
19 "ID ICMP." What's that?
20 A. That's another internal ICMP number that simply relates to the
21 missing person. So the protocol ID is a unique identifier of the match
22 report itself, and the ID ICMP number is the number that's associated
23 with that reported missing person.
24 Q. Now, we can see after the ID ICMP we have a site name and we have
25 "site co-ordinates," "jurisdiction," and then "date of submission." Can
1 you tell us what the date of submission is?
2 A. That's the date upon which the ICMP issued to an external agent
3 the DNA match report.
4 Q. Following that, we have the "date of disappearance" and the
5 "place of disappearance." And from where does the ICMP obtain this
7 A. That information is obtained from family members who have
8 reported the missing person.
9 Q. Following that we have, in the last column, the type of report.
10 And here in the first entry we have a "main case," as distinguished from
11 what we can see four lines down as a "re-association." Can you briefly
12 outline the difference between the two for the Trial Chamber.
13 A. If there's a main case listed, that means that's -- that DNA
14 match report is the first instance under which we have made an
15 association between a bone sample and that missing person. In contrast
16 to a re-association case where we have now found a second bone sample
17 also relating to that same missing person.
18 Q. Now, we can see there's a tab for the Zepa event. Here on this
19 page we can see certain items or certain individuals highlighted in a
20 kind of a pinkish colour. Can you tell us what that means in the context
21 of this chart?
22 A. Yeah, this chart is the most recent of a series of such charts
23 that we have provided to the -- to your office. And the ones that are
24 highlighted on my screen - it's a bit beige compared to the grey - those
25 are samples that are new, you know, the match reports that are new since
1 the last time we had presented a list to you.
2 Q. I want to just draw your attention to the last two tabs which are
3 "cases inconclusively associated" and "cases excluded respectively."
4 Now, with respect to the cases that are inconclusively associated, can
5 you tell us what that generally means?
6 A. Well, yes. A little bit of background here, if I may. These
7 lists relating to match reports for Srebrenica have been brought together
8 at the request of the ICTY. These are not normally -- this is not a
9 product of the ICMP accredited forensic programme, in other words, we
10 don't generally make these lists ourselves. So in the past we have
11 provided, as I mentioned before, a number of lists to you. As time has
12 gone by, we've obtained additional information about some of these cases
13 that were previously -- that were listed on previous lists. And in this
14 instance we've made some -- a number of corrections to the previous list
15 or categorised some cases differently to increase the clarity of what's
16 going on here.
17 So the predominant means by which a match report and an
18 individual's name will be included on any of these lists is that the
19 family has reported that individual as missing as a result of the fall of
20 Srebrenica in July of 1995. And that was the criteria under which we
21 assembled this list to provide to you.
22 As a result of additional information and/or additional
23 investigation, this most recent list that we've provided to you contains
24 these additional categories that -- that we hope to clarify. In
25 describing those, it actually might be easiest, if you don't mind, if we
1 could refer to the tab that says, "cases excluded as associated."
2 Q. All right. We can do that.
3 A. And if we could tab over to the right, where we have the
4 "ICMP comment." So what we have here, on this entire tab, is six cases
5 that the ICMP no longer considers to be related to the Srebrenica event
6 and a brief comment that indicates why that -- why we believe that now,
7 in contrast to having included it before.
8 The explanations for those get a little bit complicated. I mean,
9 they're clear to me, but it requires a bit of discussion about it. But
10 to give you an idea of the types of things that come into play, I think
11 it's necessary for me to talk a little bit about one as an example.
12 So let's look at the very first one listed here, where the ICMP
13 comment is, "two brothers missing," and by that we mean reported missing
14 to us, "one reported missing from July 1995, the other from 1992. The
15 one from 1995 has been identified on a Cancari case." That means a case
16 coming from a grave known to be associated with Srebrenica. And
17 therefore this one should be from the other brother who wasn't reported
18 missing from 1995 but from 1992.
19 Underlying this, a point that will help in the understanding is
20 that DNA, under many circumstances depending on the reference samples
21 involved, cannot distinguish between siblings. So if you have only the
22 parents or one parent and some siblings as references, you can't -- if
23 there are multiple other siblings missing, the DNA, based on those
24 references, won't be able to distinguish which sibling is which. So the
25 DNA match report is actually issued in two names. We have two siblings
1 reported missing to us. The DNA doesn't tell us which is which. And so
2 we've put both of their names on the match report. We know it's one of
3 them; we can't tell which it is.
4 In this case, we've actually -- we've had two brothers reported
5 missing. Both names are on both match reports, but one of them comes
6 from a grave known to be associated with Srebrenica. So by a process of
7 elimination, we've now cleaned a list and pulled that one off because the
8 second sibling is not associated with -- was not reported as associated
9 with Srebrenica so he's been removed from the list.
10 I would be happy to clarify that more, if there's any questions.
11 MR. VANDERPUYE: I would like to tender this document,
12 Mr. President.
13 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I would like to put a question to the witness in
14 relation to, I think it was column E. Perhaps we can go back there. The
15 ID ICMP column. And further to the left, please. Yes. No, I think we
16 need another page. Perhaps the first one that was ... Yes, thank you.
17 We see the name listed three times in the line 5, 6, 7. I don't
18 want to read out the name. We have identical ID ICMP numbers in column E
19 but different entries in the case ID. I would like to invite you to
20 explain that for me so that I have a better understanding of that.
21 THE WITNESS: It's my pleasure. What we can't see on the screen
22 right now, and we would see if we went over to the right, is -- okay.
23 Here we go. Except I can't ... Can someone remind me, please, which of
24 the rows we're talking about? You said it was 4, 5, and 6?
25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I think it was 5, 6, 7.
1 THE WITNESS: Actually, let's say -- it looks to me like 6, 7,
2 and 8, all in the name of a single individual with a single ID ICMP;
4 JUDGE FLUEGGE: 5, 6, 7. We can't count. But I'm referring to a
5 specific number, and this is identical in three columns.
6 THE WITNESS: Yes, on the screen that I'm looking at, these are
7 rows listed as 6, 7 and 8. On the one I'm looking at. But I think we're
8 talking exactly about the same thing.
9 So let's scroll to the right briefly; we don't need to overdo
10 this. But, indeed, with regard to the type of report, we have, for these
11 three different listings all relating to the same named individual, we
12 have a main case and two re-associations.
13 So now let's go back to the left where we can all -- where we can
14 visualize everything.
15 So these three match reports relate to three different samples
16 that were submitted for DNA testing to the ICMP. In the one that's
17 listed as the main case, that was the first sample that was seen to match
18 to the family members of this particular missing person who is designated
19 by ID ICMP as number 3175. Two of the other samples were submitted
20 independently and then also were different body parts of the same
21 individual. So we have three different body parts that have been sampled
22 for DNA, all of which derive from the same individual and therefore have
23 the same ICMP ID number.
24 JUDGE FLUEGGE: But found in different graves; is that correct?
25 I see the one column to the right, Cancari, Kamenica, and
1 Cancari, Zvornik it should read, I think.
2 THE WITNESS: Well, yes. I think that these were not from
3 separate graves. I don't have definitive information, but the reason I
4 say that is because of the case ID number just there on the screen. They
5 all relate -- they all come from CR-05. And by convention, that would be
6 the Cancari Road grave number 5. So I can see how there's a little
7 confusion about the site name. Actually, both Cancari and Kamenica are
8 alternate names, really, for the same place, and so this would be an
9 instance of when the information was recorded on the sample submissions
10 sheet in one instance somebody wrote Cancari in the other instance they
11 wrote Kamenica. But by looking at the sample codes there, the case ID,
12 it looks to me very much like those are all three from the Cancari Road 5
13 grave. And they would be different fragments of the same individual that
14 recovered -- not able to be associated with each other by traditional
15 means but were all recovered from that secondary, co-mingled, and
16 fragmented grave.
17 MR. VANDERPUYE: Mr. President, you might also notice that the
18 site co-ordinates for the entries that are listed are identical for all
19 three entries.
20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much. That clarifies the
21 situation in the entries.
22 This document will be received as an exhibit.
23 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
24 JUDGE FLUEGGE: As Exhibit P1940, Your Honours.
25 MR. VANDERPUYE: I understand that we will submit this under --
1 on a CD, and it should be under seal as well.
2 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Under seal, indeed.
3 MR. VANDERPUYE: Mr. President, that concludes my direct
5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much.
6 Mr. Tolimir, now it's your turn to commence your
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. Hello to
9 the witness. And regardless of the fact that we are close to the end of
10 the day, I hope that the proceedings will end with God's will and not as
11 I wish. I wish you a pleasant stay here and my greetings to you on
12 behalf of the Defence.
13 Cross-examination by Mr. Tolimir:
14 Q. [Interpretation] My question relates to part of your report, and
15 it's this: When Mr. Vanderpuye, on page 48, provided information about
16 you, he said that you were director of forensic science
17 International Commission of Missing Persons. Is it a forensic science
18 centre? And why is it called a forensic science centre if you're
19 unrelated to any court?
20 A. Well, it's not a forensic science centre, nor is it called a
21 forensic science centre. I am the director of a division within the ICMP
22 that is called the forensic sciences division, and so I have oversight
23 over the conduct of forensic science as conducted by the ICMP.
24 We conduct scientific investigations according to the norms of
25 forensic science and therefore that's what our division is called.
1 Furthermore, as we can see in today's proceedings, the results of our
2 findings are very much related to legal processes, and it seems entirely
3 reasonable to me to apply the word "forensic." Moreover, we are
4 accredited as a forensic institution.
5 Q. Thank you. Can you tell us why, then, there is no department
6 that would be connected to and responsible for certain information as in
7 this case when you are working for the International Tribunal? Why do
8 you not have somebody who's going to be responsible to this Court if you
9 are presenting us with this information?
10 A. I don't know if it's a translation issue, but I don't really
11 understand your question. Responsible for certain information? I'm
12 responsible for the testimony I'm giving here today.
13 Q. Thank you. I'll ask my question again. If you have a team that
14 works in Bosnia for the purposes of this Tribunal and you said that they
15 were located in Tuzla or in Sarajevo, then how is it that you did not
16 assign a certain person who would be responsible to this
17 International Tribunal for work that it does for the Tribunal, if the
18 whole organisation, as such, is not answerable to the Court? Thank you.
19 A. The work that the ICMP conducts is not for the purposes of this
20 Tribunal. We do not do work for the Tribunal. We identify individuals
21 to turn them back to their family members, to turn the family members --
22 to turn the loved ones back to the family members, and to assist the
23 government in Bosnia for taking responsibility for the multifaceted
24 issues associated with missing persons. In the conduct of our work, it
25 has become apparent to this Court that the results of our work have some
1 relevance, it seems. And it is in that capacity that we have shared our
2 information and it brings me here today.
3 Q. Thank you. Are you here because you wanted to be here, are you
4 here because it's your own decision, or were you invited here by an organ
5 that is related to this Tribunal?
6 A. We have been asked to provide information by the Office of the
7 Prosecutor in support of the Tribunal and we agreed.
8 Q. So you were engaged by the Tribunal. Then why is there no person
9 who is responsible to this Tribunal for what it does and for the reports
10 that it submits? That's what I'm asking you. Why do you not want to be
11 held responsible for what you're reporting on and for your own work?
12 Thank you.
13 A. Your allegations, the basis of your question, doesn't have any
14 standing. I'm responsible for what I report here. Why would you say
15 we're not responsible? I don't understand what you're talking about.
16 Q. Thank you. Could court proceedings be initiated against you for
17 the findings that you get by matching samples with DNA and the results
18 that you submit to the Court? Thank you.
19 A. I don't know.
20 Q. Thank you. On page 42 of today's transcript, I believe it was
21 line 5, Mr. Vanderpuye, the Prosecutor, asked you who supervises the work
22 of the commission. Could you tell the Court who monitors the reports
23 that the commission produces and which are submitted to courts. Thank
25 A. Well, the commission itself is made up of a number of
1 commissioners that take responsibility for the conduct and existence of
2 the ICMP. With regard to monitoring of the forensic quality of our
3 reports, I would refer again to some of the quality control initiatives
4 that have been previously covered, particularly with regard to our
5 international accreditation of our scientific processes.
6 Q. Thank you. Please tell me, for the work that you do, are you
7 responsible to your employer, to the commission, or to the institution
8 for which you are working? Thank you. To who are you responsible
9 judicially, in terms of judicial sanctions? Thank you.
10 A. I'm responsible to my employer, the International Commission on
11 Missing Persons.
12 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I would like to state for the record that on page
13 42 of today's transcript, other than you just put on the record,
14 Mr. Vanderpuye didn't ask anything because he was at that point reading
15 the summary. This is a difference. And the summary is not in evidence.
16 Please carry on.
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. You are
18 right. Based on what Mr. Vanderpuye said, I asked my question regarding
19 the monitoring of the work, whether it was the employer or the organ
20 commissioning the analysis.
21 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
22 Q. My question is this: To whom are you responsible after you
23 complete your work? Is it the body that financed you, your employer, or
24 whoever it was that commissioned you to do the work? Thank you.
25 A. Well, it depends on what part of our work you're referring to.
1 The work that is conducted at grave-sites is done so under court order of
2 the Bosnian State Court. And the recipients of our DNA match reports, I
3 have been -- are court appointed -- state appointed pathologists who are
4 authorised to submit samples to us and to whom we release reports.
5 Q. Thank you. I will give an example. On page 47, I believe it was
6 line 10, you said that you were engaged because of the tsunami that
7 occurred and during Hurricane Katarina. My question is this: Who
8 engaged you to search for missing persons there and do your findings
9 match the causes for why these people went missing? And I apologise, in
10 your findings, did you describe the causes why a certain person went
12 A. You've asked about our engagement in the tsunami and I'll begin
13 with that. As a result of the tsunami in 2006, I believe it was, there
14 was a large international effort to respond to this horrific natural
15 catastrophe that affected the citizens of multiple countries. So
16 forensic teams from many nations were deployed on site, in this case to
17 Thailand, which was undertaking a major response to recover and identify
18 the people -- the thousands of people that were killed there. And under
19 the authority of the Thai national police, whose actual jurisdiction this
20 was, multinational forensic teams became involved to pull together to try
21 to make the recoveries and the identifications. As a result of this
22 major international effort, the ICMP was invited to assist based on our
23 expertise with regard to this kind of difficult samples, and we generated
24 victim profiles and provided DNA match reports in a very, very similar
25 manner to that I've described here. We did not make any statements or
1 conclusions relating to cause of death.
2 In the case of Hurricane Katarina, the responsible authority that
3 requested our assistance --
4 Q. Thank you. The first example was sufficient, just because of
5 time. Since you've now determined the cause of the disaster, you say it
6 was a natural disaster, were you sure that it was a natural disaster, or
7 was it some other disaster caused by a human factor, since there is no
8 return wave in a tsunami? There is a strike wave in case of tsunamis,
9 and there was a return wave there. So how did you conclude that it was a
10 natural disaster?
11 A. The ICMP does not have an opinion on whether a tsunami was a
12 natural disaster or not. I leave that for a more general expertise. I
13 think most people in the world consider a tidal wave to be a natural
15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: At least it was an occurrence in the nature.
16 We have to adjourn for today. We are at the end of today's
17 hearing. We will resume tomorrow at 9.00 in this courtroom.
18 Sir, I have to remind you that it is not allowed to have contact
19 with either party during the adjournment.
20 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
21 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I wish you a good stay. And we adjourn.
22 [The witness stands down]
23 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 6.58 p.m.,
24 to be reconvened on Friday, the 25th day
25 of February, 2011, at 9.00 a.m.