Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 10321

 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

10     response.

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.

Page 10322

 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

Page 10323

 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

 8     (Commissions)"?

 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

Page 10324

 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

16     graves?

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

Page 10325

 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,

18     please.

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

23     is?

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

Page 10326

 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

Page 10327

 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.

Page 10328

 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

Page 10329

 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

 8     items.

 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 --

Page 10330

 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

 3     witness.

 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

24     working.

25        Q.   And if you'll note, Mr. Manning, before this particular image in

Page 10331

 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.

Page 10332

 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

18     it.

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?

Page 10333

 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

 7     not.

 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

Page 10334

 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

Page 10335

 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

25     place.

Page 10336

 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

Page 10337

 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.

Page 10338

 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

Page 10339

 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

 5     else?

 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.

Page 10340

 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

25     different.

Page 10341

 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

 8     appropriate.

 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

12     casings?

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

Page 10342

 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

Page 10343

 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

24     parties.

25             Mr. McCloskey, please carry on.

Page 10344

 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,

Page 10345

 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

24     soil.

25             MR. McCLOSKEY:  All right.  Now, on the same topic regarding

Page 10346

 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

16     stage.

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

Page 10347

 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

16     positions?

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

Page 10348

 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?

Page 10349

 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

10     report.

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;

Page 10350

 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

18     murdered.

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

Page 10351

 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?

Page 10352

 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.

Page 10353

 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

13     questions.

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

Page 10354

 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

Page 10355

 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

Page 10356

 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.

Page 10357

 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

Page 10358

 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.

Page 10359

 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

 6     again.

 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?

Page 10360

 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.

Page 10361

 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

15     exhibit.

16             MR. VANDERPUYE:  I'm glad you have them all in front of you

17     already.

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.

Page 10362

 1             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Some of these documents under seal, and the

 2     Registrar will give P numbers to all the documents and circulate a

 3     memorandum.

 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.

Page 10363

 1             The ICMP is not a law enforcement organisation.  And it operates

 2     independently.

 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

17     standards.

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.

Page 10364

 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

Page 10365

 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

Page 10366

 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

17     process.

18             And so our new DNA typing method -- DNA extraction method has

19     been validated, implemented, and -- as well as published in the

20     literature.

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.

Page 10367

 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

Page 10368

 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

Page 10369

 1     received.

 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.

Page 10370

 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

 8     perspective.

 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

Page 10371

 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

 3     identification.

 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,

Page 10372

 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

 4     committee?

 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

24     help.

25        Q.   I want to ask you a little bit about the facilities that the ICMP

Page 10373

 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?

Page 10374

 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

24     laboratory.

25             The other place where the identification co-ordination centre

Page 10375

 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

Page 10376

 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

 9     process.

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

Page 10377

 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

16     slowly?

17             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  I see everything was recorded properly.  But for

18     the interpreters it takes a long time to interpret to different

19     languages.

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

Page 10378

 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,

Page 10379

 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,

Page 10380

 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

Page 10381

 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

 7     excavations.

 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

Page 10382

 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

Page 10383

 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

Page 10384

 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

Page 10385

 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

Page 10386

 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

20     on.

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

Page 10387

 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.

Page 10388

 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

Page 10389

 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]

19     (redacted)

20     (redacted)

21     (redacted)

22     (redacted)

23     (redacted)

24     (redacted)

25     (redacted)

Page 10390

 1     (redacted)

 2     (redacted)

 3     (redacted)

 4     (redacted)

 5     (redacted)

 6     (redacted)

 7     (redacted)

 8     (redacted)

 9     (redacted)

10     (redacted)

11     (redacted)

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

Page 10391

 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

22     circles.

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.

Page 10392

 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

Page 10393

 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

 9     practices.

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."

Page 10394

 1             First, can you tell us what the number "900e 15 times" actually

 2     means?

 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

Page 10395

 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,

Page 10396

 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?

Page 10397

 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

Page 10398

 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

 6     office?

 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

Page 10399

 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

Page 10400

 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

Page 10401

 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.

Page 10402

 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;

 3     agreed?

 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

Page 10403

 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 --

Page 10404

 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

 4     examination.

 5             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you very much.

 6             Mr. Tolimir, now it's your turn to commence your

 7     cross-examination.

 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.

Page 10405

 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

Page 10406

 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

24     you.

25        A.   Well, the commission itself is made up of a number of

Page 10407

 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.

Page 10408

 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

11     missing?

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

Page 10409

 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

14     disaster.

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.