Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 14037

 1                           Tuesday, 9 July 2013

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           --- Upon commencing at 9.34 a.m.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Good morning to everyone.

 6             Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.

 7             THE REGISTRAR:  Good morning, Your Honours.  This is case

 8     IT-09-92-T, the Prosecutor versus Ratko Mladic.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Madam Registrar.

10             Although there are a few procedural issues, the Chamber would

11     prefer to start with the examination of the witness.  Is the Prosecution

12     ready to call Mr. Parsons?

13             MR. VANDERPUYE:  We are, Mr. President.  Good morning to you and

14     Your Honours.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Then could the witness be escorted into the

16     courtroom.

17             Mr. Groome, you're on your feet.

18             MR. GROOME:  Could I ask when the Chamber would like to deal with

19     those issues so I can be sure to be here in court.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, let's try to do it at the end of the second

21     session.

22             MR. GROOME:  Thank you.

23                           [The witness entered court]

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Good morning, Mr. Parsons, I presume.

25             THE WITNESS:  Good morning.

Page 14038

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  The Rules require that you make a solemn declaration

 2     at the beginning of your testimony.  May I invite you to make that solemn

 3     declaration.

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

 5     whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

 6                           WITNESS:  THOMAS PARSONS

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Parsons.  Please be seated.

 8             Mr. Parsons, you'll first be examined by Mr. Vanderpuye.  You

 9     find him to your right and Mr. Vanderpuye is counsel for the Prosecution.

10             You may proceed, Mr. Vanderpuye.

11             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Thank you very much, Mr. President.  Good

12     morning to you again, Your Honours.  Good morning everyone.

13                           Examination by Mr. Vanderpuye.

14        Q.   Good morning to you, Dr. Parsons.  If I could just ask you to

15     please state your name for the record so we have it.

16        A.   Dr. Thomas John Parsons.

17        Q.   And I know you've been here before, but I'd just remind you to

18     try to keep your voice up, maybe allow a small pause between the question

19     and answer.  And of course, if there's anything that I ask you that's

20     unclear, please let me know and I'll try to rephrase it in a way that we

21     can better understand one another.

22             I'd like to start with a bit of your background, if I could.  So

23     I'd like to ask you, first, if you could just briefly tell us what is

24     your educational background.

25        A.   I have a bachelor's degree in physics from the University of

Page 14039

 1     Chicago.  A PhD in biochemistry from the University of Washington in the

 2     United States and extensive post-doctoral experience in molecular

 3     evolution and DNA population genetics at the Smithsonian Institution.

 4        Q.   Could you tell us a little bit about your professional experience

 5     up until you started working for the ICMP?

 6        A.   My relevant professional experience specifically in forensic DNA

 7     began in 1994 when I joined the US Armed Forces DNA Identification

 8     Laboratory that was pioneering new techniques to identify the mortal

 9     remains of missing service personnel from Vietnam.  In 2006, I joined the

10     International Commission on Missing Persons as the director of forensic

11     sciences.

12        Q.   I'd like to show you a 65 ter 25894.

13             THE INTERPRETER:  The speakers are kindly asked to slow down and

14     to pause between questions and answers for the sake of interpretation.

15     Thank you.

16             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Thank you.

17        Q.   Do you recognise what we have in e-court?

18        A.   Yes.

19        Q.   What is it?

20        A.   That is a copy of my curriculum vitae.

21        Q.   Do you recall providing this curriculum vitae, this copy of your

22     curriculum vitae, to the Office of the Prosecutor at some point in 2011?

23        A.   Yes.

24        Q.   And does it detail your previous professional employment,

25     appointments, engagements, publications through approximately 2011 to

Page 14040

 1     your recollection?

 2        A.   Yes.

 3             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Mr. President, I'd like to admit this document.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar.

 5             THE REGISTRAR:  Document 25894 receives number P1715,

 6     Your Honours.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  P1715 is admitted into evidence.

 8             Mr. Stojanovic indicated that there are no objections.

 9             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Thank you, Mr. President.

10        Q.   With respect to your curriculum vitae through 2011, from then

11     until now, has there been any substantive changes to the historical

12     information that's in this document up until the 2011?  In other words,

13     have you done anything that would cause you to change what's in this copy

14     of your curriculum vitae?

15        A.   No.  Everything that is on that copy remains relevant and

16     correct.

17        Q.   Okay.  Now, you indicated that you've done some post-doctoral

18     work.  Was that specific to DNA analysis?

19        A.   Yes, it was, both from the standpoint of statistical analysis of

20     population genetics and the recovery of DNA from highly degraded

21     biological material.

22        Q.   And prior to your testimony in this case, have you testified as

23     an expert or been so qualified before either this Tribunal or any other

24     court with respect to DNA analysis or DNA evidence?

25        A.   Yes.  I have been previously providing testimony to the ICTY

Page 14041

 1     Chamber.

 2        Q.   Do you recall what cases you testified in?

 3        A.   Popovic, Tolimir, Karadzic.

 4        Q.   Okay.  You mentioned that you were currently the director of

 5     forensic sciences with the ICMP.  How long have you been there?

 6        A.   Since March of 2006.

 7        Q.   And has that been interrupted at any point?

 8        A.   No.  I have been continuously employed.

 9        Q.   Just before I get into the details of what your work is there,

10     your duties and responsibilities, I'd like to ask you a couple of

11     questions about the ICMP itself and I'd like to start with first asking

12     you about what the ICMP's mission is.  If you could briefly acquaint the

13     Court with that.

14        A.   The ICMP was established in 2006 with the mandate to assist

15     governments with dealing with issues of missing persons.  It is an

16     independent, non-governmentally aligned body that seeks the co-operation

17     of governments in helping them to resolve all the aspects that are

18     associated with missing persons cases and societal impact.

19        Q.   Does the ICMP engage in any kind of civil society initiatives or

20     provide assistance to governments or other forensic institutions, for

21     example, with respect to DNA identifications?

22        A.   There are three primary activities that the ICMP engages in, if

23     one would class it very generally.  The first would be to assist

24     political and institutional processes for the state to accept

25     responsibility for the issues of the missing, including their

Page 14042

 1     identification.  The second would be to work with families who are badly

 2     affected by the issue of missing persons, very often supporting family

 3     organisations and encouraging them to have a voice in national affairs.

 4     And then lastly, there is extensive provision of forensic science

 5     expertise to assist with the identification of the missing as well as the

 6     recovery of the missing.

 7        Q.   If you could, could you outline the basic structure of the

 8     organisation for us?

 9        A.   In our activities in the Western Balkans, we have a primary

10     political unit that is headed by the ICMP director-general.  We have a

11     justice and civil society initiatives unit that deals primarily with

12     family issues and societal issues.  And we have a Forensic Science

13     Division, of which -- that I supervise that consists itself of three

14     different areas.  The first is archaeology and anthropology with regard

15     to the recovery and examination of human remains.  The second is an

16     Identification Co-ordination Division which accepts samples for DNA

17     testing and distributes them to the third division, which is the DNA

18     laboratory system where DNA profiles are obtained from both family

19     members of the missing and human remains that have been recovered.

20        Q.   In terms of the DNA analysis activities of the ICMP, can you tell

21     us where and what locations or areas the ICMP has been engaged?

22        A.   In the former Yugoslavia we've been engaged throughout the entire

23     country of Bosnia and Herzegovina, having numerous facilities over the

24     years and assisted at hundreds and hundreds of recovery reconnaissance

25     and exhumation activities.

Page 14043

 1        Q.   Can you tell us about -- okay.  Sorry.  Let me start again.

 2             Where is the ICMP currently engaged?

 3        A.   We are currently headquartered in Sarajevo, in Bosnia and

 4     Herzegovina.  We do work now globally, both with missing from armed

 5     conflict as well as disaster victim identification on an ad hoc basis.

 6     So we maintain offices in Erbil and Baghdad in Iraq as well now as in

 7     Tripoli in Libya.

 8        Q.   And is the organisation involved in performing DNA analysis with

 9     respect to conflicts ongoing in those areas or other things, disasters

10     and so on?

11        A.   Indeed.  We conduct DNA analysis from cases in Iraq and Libya in

12     addition to a comprehensive programme of training in archaeology,

13     anthropology, and the design and execution of an in-country DNA

14     identification capability.  With regard to disaster victim

15     identification, we have been involved in quite a number of incidents

16     worldwide.  A large ferry disaster in the Philippines.  The 2004

17     South-East Asian tsunami, Hurricane Katrina in the United States, and a

18     number of plane crashes and other incidents.

19        Q.   In conducting these activities, to whom is the organisation

20     accountable?

21        A.   We conduct our work through agreement with partner agencies, and

22     with regard to accountability, the ICMP's upper echelon of management and

23     direction is the International Commission on Missing Persons.  The

24     commissioners are notable diplomats and other societal luminaries who

25     overall direct and supervise the conduct of the ICMP.

Page 14044

 1        Q.   Can you tell us a little bit about the role and the function of

 2     the Steering Committee on Forensic Sciences Programs at the ICMP?

 3        A.   The forensic work that is conducted by the ICMP is quite

 4     sophisticated and indeed quite complex and has caused us in many

 5     instances to work at the forefront of capabilities and applications in

 6     this field.  Commensurate with that, we have sought to continually

 7     interact with other experts in the world to make sure that we are

 8     accessing the best techniques as well as make sure that our methods are

 9     well communicated to the global scientific community, understood, and

10     then also vetted as appropriate and rigorous.  One of the many tools that

11     we employ in that regard is a standing Steering Committee on Forensic

12     Science Programs that represents some dozen or so experts in many of the

13     subdisciplines where the ICMP is engaged, and they meet annually with the

14     ICMP as well as on an ad hoc basis as consultant experts.

15        Q.   And can you tell us a little bit about the advisory committee of

16     government representatives?

17        A.   I'm sorry, Mr. Vanderpuye, I'm not familiar with that.

18        Q.   Okay.

19             Does the ICMP operate independently, that is, not accountable to,

20     for example, law enforcement, police, those kinds of justice -- or those

21     kinds of justice stakeholders?

22        A.   Yes.  ICMP is an independent institution not connected with law

23     enforcement or prosecution.

24        Q.   Has the ICMP assisted in the work of the Tribunal, particularly

25     the Office of the Prosecutor, with respect to the analysis of DNA

Page 14045

 1     material?

 2        A.   Yes.  In the past we have provided information relating to our

 3     independent programme upon request from the OTP.

 4        Q.   And has the ICMP provided DNA material or reports, information,

 5     to other organisations or entities besides the ICTY or the OTP?

 6        A.   Yes, we have co-operated with the Bosnian State Court and we have

 7     co-operative agreements also with other governments, the Cyprus missing

 8     persons committee.  We do all the DNA testing with Cyprus missing persons

 9     presently.  We have worked in the past very extensively with the UN

10     Mission in Kosovo which has now been transferred to the EULEX mission

11     there, and all these agencies we share the results of our DNA testing and

12     matching.

13        Q.   You had mentioned a little bit earlier that one of the areas that

14     you were responsible for had to do with anthropological and pathological

15     analysis relative to exhumations and so on.  Is this part of the

16     Examinations and Excavations Division?

17        A.   Yes, it would be.  I have to clarify that there has been an

18     internal name change at the ICMP.  What we used to call the Examinations

19     and Excavations Division we now refer to as the Archaeology and

20     Anthropology Division, but the functional role remains the same.

21        Q.   You also mentioned the Identification and Co-ordination Division

22     as well as the laboratory system.  How many laboratories does the ICMP

23     operate currently?

24        A.   We operate two different laboratories that are involved in the

25     DNA testing process.  Both of these laboratories are involved in the

Page 14046

 1     testing of each and every sample of human remains that is submitted to

 2     the ICMP.  The first laboratory is in Banja Luka, in the

 3     Republika Srpska, where part of the testing process occurs and the DNA

 4     testing is completed in our other DNA laboratory in Sarajevo.

 5        Q.   I'd like to show you 65 ter 18814.

 6             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Okay, if we can go to the next page, please.

 7        Q.   First, do you recognise what we have on the screen?

 8             MR. VANDERPUYE:  We don't have the B/C/S, though.  We'll just

 9     wait one second while we load up the B/C/S.  It should be in e-court.

10             No, we don't have it.  Maybe we can just read into the record

11     while we're finding it what this document is.

12        Q.   Do you recognise this document, Dr. Parsons?

13        A.   Yes, I do.

14        Q.   We can see here that it's entitled:  "Summary report, Cancari

15     Road 04, BiH."  Then it says:  "ICMP Site Code:  T-ZVO.CR04."

16             Can you just explain to the Chamber, very briefly, what is a

17     summary report?

18        A.   The ICMP archaeological field team often is deployed in

19     co-operation and support of local authorities in the excavation of mass

20     graves in Bosnia and, in many instances, provides full technical

21     capabilities for state-of-the-art forensic archaeological recovery of

22     remains.  This would be a summary report on the activities of the ICMP

23     archaeological field team associated with the excavation of a grave

24     related to Srebrenica on the Cancari Road known colloquially as Cancari

25     Road 04 grave.

Page 14047

 1        Q.   Is this something that would normally come to you in the

 2     course -- in the normal course of events in your position as the director

 3     of forensic science programme?

 4        A.   Yes, I review and approve the summary reports.

 5             MR. VANDERPUYE:  What I'd like to do is to go to page -- okay.

 6     It will be page 2 in B/C/S, that will match what we have on the screen

 7     now.  Then what I'd like to do is go to page number 3 in both languages.

 8        Q.   And here we can see some information regarding the ICMP's

 9     presence at this particular excavation site, at point B in this document.

10     The text of it is actually on page 4 in the B/C/S, but before we go there

11     if we look at point A we can see that it concerns Cancari Road 04, and

12     then it refers to an alleged site origin about midway through and it

13     refers here to Kozluk.

14             Can you see that, Dr. Parsons?  It's about five or six lines from

15     the bottom of part A.

16        A.   Yes, I do see it.

17             MR. VANDERPUYE:  What I'd like to do next is to go to page number

18     12 in the English.  It should be page 11 in the B/C/S.

19        Q.   Do you recognise what we ...

20                           [Prosecution counsel confer]

21             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Page 19 in the B/C/S, please.  Okay.

22        Q.   Do you recognise first your name in this document?

23        A.   Yes.

24        Q.   And that's your signature that appears there as well?

25        A.   Yes.

Page 14048

 1        Q.   Would that indicate that you had read and approved this report?

 2        A.   That is correct.

 3             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Mr. President, I'd like to tender this document.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar.

 5             THE REGISTRAR:  Document 18814 receives number P1716,

 6     Your Honours.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  P1716 is admitted into evidence.

 8             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Thank you, Mr. President.

 9        Q.   I'd like to show you, Dr. Parsons, another document 18815,

10     65 ter number.  Do you recognise this document?

11        A.   Yes.

12        Q.   Okay.  And this also indicates a summary report relative to

13     Cancari Road 08 this time; is that correct?

14        A.   Yes.

15             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Do we have the B/C/S of this one?  It's coming.

16             THE REGISTRAR:  It's not yet released, but it's coming.

17                           [Prosecution counsel confer]

18             MR. VANDERPUYE:  This is a very similar document, so I guess

19     while it's -- while we're waiting on it, let me move ahead.  If we can go

20     to page number 2 in this document, we'll see much of the similar

21     information concerning the ICMP's presence at this particular excavation

22     site as well.

23        Q.   And here you can see the alleged site origin is Branjevo Military

24     Farm.  Do you see that, Dr. Parsons?

25        A.   Yes.

Page 14049

 1             MR. VANDERPUYE:  And what I'd like to do here is to go to page 10

 2     of this document, which would be for the record page 17, I believe, of

 3     the B/C/S.

 4        Q.   You recognise your signature there and your name, sir?

 5        A.   Yes.

 6             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Mr. President, I will be tendering this document

 7     as well.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar.

 9             THE REGISTRAR:  Document 18815 receives number P1717,

10     Your Honours.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  In the absence of any objections, P1717 is admitted

12     into evidence.

13             MR. VANDERPUYE:

14        Q.   What I'd like to show you in this document is page 16, please, in

15     the English and it will be page 23 in the B/C/S.  And here we can see a

16     list of associated artefacts.  Can you tell us basically what that is.

17        A.   These are artefacts that were recovered during the stratographic

18     excavation of this grave and are considered to be associated with the

19     formation of the grave and, in most instances, personal effects of the

20     victims or other objects associated with their captivity and/or death.

21        Q.   In the bottom third of this document we can see a heading

22     "Ligatures," and it indicates white cloth ligature, string ligature, and

23     so on.  Do you see that, Doctor?

24        A.   Yes.

25        Q.   I'd like to show you page number 18 in the English, and it should

Page 14050

 1     be page 26 in the B/C/S although there's not a photograph, just an

 2     indication of what's there.  And here we can see a number of items that

 3     appear to be -- well, they're denoted as cloth restraints.  Is it normal

 4     to have these kinds of photographs of the artefacts that were recovered

 5     as exemplary in a summary report?

 6        A.   Yes.

 7        Q.   Thank you.  Let me show you 65 ter 19218, another summary --

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Before we do so, could I ask what the arrows stand

 9     for?  One time we see with a blue cloth the restraints, we see an arrow

10     pointing out of apparently the objects, whereas in the one on the bottom

11     we see an arrow pointing in.

12             THE WITNESS:  Sir, I'm not absolutely positive in this instance.

13     I believe that those arrows would indicate the direction of north.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

15             Please proceed.

16             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Thank you, Mr. President.

17             I'd like to show the witness, please, 65 ter 19218.  Okay.  Here

18     we have another summary report.  If we can go to page 2 in both

19     documents.

20        Q.   Here we see the same information concerning the ICMP's presence

21     at the excavation site as well as an indication here of the alleged site

22     origin as Branjevo Military Farm.  You'll see also here an estimate

23     number of bodies here indicated as 203.

24             What I'd like to show you is page 10 in the English, it should be

25     page 14 in the B/C/S, again showing your sign-off.  Can you confirm that

Page 14051

 1     that's your name and signature that appears on this page, sir?

 2        A.   Yes.

 3             MR. VANDERPUYE:  And if we can go to page 14 in the English now,

 4     and we'll go to page 18 in the B/C/S.  We can see again a list of

 5     associated evidence.  And that extends to another page as well.  If we

 6     can go to page 15 in the English and the following page in the B/C/S, we

 7     should catch up and we'll see an entry there for -- no, I'm sorry.  We'll

 8     have to go to page 21 in the English -- I mean in the B/C/S.

 9        Q.   And you'll see here the entries for ligatures and blindfolds that

10     were recovered from this grave.  Is that right?

11        A.   Yes.

12             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Mr. President, I'd like to tender this document

13     as well.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar.

15             THE REGISTRAR:  Document 19218 receives number P1718,

16     Your Honours.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  P1718 is admitted.

18             MR. VANDERPUYE:

19        Q.   Doctor, you've mentioned that the two lab facilities and the

20     Identification Co-ordination Division Support the Forensic Science

21     Program as well as -- but let me ask you, does the ICMP also maintain

22     mortuary facilities?

23        A.   That situation has changed a bit over time, but fundamentally the

24     answer to the question is yes.  ICMP has either managed it directly or

25     seconded anthropological experts to assist at mortuary facilities in

Page 14052

 1     numerous places in Bosnia.

 2        Q.   Are you familiar with the Podrinje Identification Project?

 3        A.   Yes, that was a large mortuary facility essentially dedicated to

 4     the issue of Srebrenica that the ICMP established in co-operation with

 5     the court-appointed pathologist who worked in a dual role, both in direct

 6     co-operation and as an employee of the ICMP as well as serving an

 7     official function as a court-appointed pathologist.

 8        Q.   Is the Podrinje Identification Project, or the mortuary facility,

 9     still managed by or operated by the ICMP?

10        A.   No.  Full responsibility for the conduct of that mortuary has now

11     been turned over to state authorities.

12        Q.   Does the ICMP or has the ICMP operated blood collection centres

13     for the purposes of obtaining samples in order to conduct DNA analysis

14     against bones that are recovered from various excavation sites?

15        A.   Yes, that is a primary role of the Identification Co-ordination

16     Division, and through a number of very extensive activities, blood

17     samples obtained as small droplets of blood on a particular type of

18     preservative card have been sought and obtained from thousands of family

19     members who are reporting missing persons to the ICMP.

20        Q.   Just so that we're clear for the record, can you tell us when the

21     laboratory system at the ICMP became operational?

22        A.   Near the end of 2001.

23        Q.   And what type of DNA testing is carried out by these facilities

24     in the simplest of terms?

25        A.   Our primary method that extends to virtually all the cases that

Page 14053

 1     are of interest to this Court is the same that is referred to as DNA

 2     finger-printing and is widely used in criminal casework worldwide,

 3     including criminal offender databases.  And this is a form of nuclear DNA

 4     testing, probably the simplest way to refer to it is STR testing, short

 5     tandem repeat testing.

 6        Q.   How long has the ICMP employed this particular type of DNA

 7     testing?

 8        A.   Since the outset in 2001.

 9        Q.   With respect to the types of materials that the ICMP receives or

10     analyses, is this type of testing consistent with the industry standard

11     in DNA analysis?

12        A.   Yes, it is.

13        Q.   To your knowledge, are there better or more effective means of

14     DNA testing or analysis that are available with respect to typing or

15     matching skeletal remains or degraded skeletal remains, such as, for

16     example, mitochondrial DNA analysis or PCR analysis?

17        A.   Well, I will attempt to avoid a great deal of technical

18     explanation.  There are a number of different methods where variable DNA

19     information can be obtained from degraded remains.  One of them that has

20     been widely used on highly degraded samples is mitochondrial DNA analysis

21     or mtDNA analysis which is, in fact, more sensitive type of testing,

22     meaning you have an increased chance of obtaining a DNA profile from

23     mitochondrial DNA.  That is simply because it's a multi-copy element,

24     every cell has many copies; and therefore, it's less likely that all of

25     the copies will have degraded.  However, mitochondrial DNA is by no means

Page 14054

 1     a definitive identifier.  You can and will match multiple individuals in

 2     the population, and so it has not proven an effective means of

 3     identification in the very large number of missing persons in the former

 4     Yugoslavia.

 5             The STR testing that we use widely is, on the other hand,

 6     extremely discriminating, capable of -- to any reasonable level of doubt

 7     identifying an individual with certainty as a single individual, and

 8     moreover making that certain match through comparisons to family

 9     relatives of the missing person.

10             I would like to add one further clarification with regard to your

11     question.  You mentioned PCR testing.  Both STR analysis and the

12     mitochondrial DNA analysis involve the process of PCR, which stands for

13     the polymerase chain reaction.  It is a bedrock technique of amplifying

14     selected target regions of DNA from very, very small amounts of DNA that

15     was originally recovered.

16        Q.   I'd like to show you 65 ter 5921.  Do you recognise what's on the

17     screen in front of you?

18        A.   Yes.

19        Q.   What is it?

20        A.   It is a summary report provided to the Office of the Prosecutor

21     that gives a rough -- well, shall I say, concise overview of the various

22     methods that are employed in the DNA testing process at the ICMP

23     throughout the period of 2001 to 2008, when a number of different

24     standard operating procedures were applied as modifications,

25     improvements, and new discoveries in terms of technical capability were

Page 14055

 1     brought on line in the ICMP.

 2        Q.   I don't want to -- I'm not going to go into your report in any

 3     depth, but does it describe, generally speaking, the manner in which DNA

 4     analyses were conducted by the ICMP throughout the period that's

 5     indicated here, 2001 to 2008?

 6        A.   Yes.  A DNA scientist could review that quickly and have a good

 7     understanding of the basic methodology used in our laboratory.

 8        Q.   And you mentioned a few minutes ago -- or you referred to the

 9     standard operating procedures.  If you could, please tell the

10     Trial Chamber what the role of these standard operating procedures are

11     with respect to the DNA testing that's carried out by ICMP.  Are these

12     guide-lines?  Are these rules?  Are these regulations?  Just so that they

13     have an idea of what you're talking about in your report.

14        A.   Well, I think a useful, everyday analogy would be that this is a

15     cookbook for how one performs DNA analysis.  So it's a highly specified

16     set of instructions that the trained analysts follow.  The concept of a

17     standard operating procedure is anchored in ICMP's comprehensive quality

18     management system, where our techniques are very carefully validated

19     through control experiments and documented; and then the staff members

20     engaged in those testing procedures are formally trained and checked off

21     in those techniques and have periodic annual competency tests where their

22     work is scrutinised and evaluated.  And then they are deemed competent to

23     continue with that activity.  All of these steps relate to ICMP's

24     internationally recognised accreditation to the ISO 17025 guide-line

25     rules for laboratory science, and this is an accreditation that is

Page 14056

 1     awarded to us through the German national accreditation agency that has

 2     the acronym DAkkS.

 3        Q.   When was the ICMP awarded this particular accreditation, to your

 4     recollection?

 5        A.   The two different components were -- of the DNA identification

 6     process were awarded their accreditation at different times.  The DNA

 7     laboratory system was accredited in late 2007 and, if I'm remembering

 8     correctly, shortly afterwards, in 2008, the Identification Co-ordination

 9     Division achieved its accreditation.

10        Q.   Is the accrediting agency -- rather, does the accrediting agency

11     play a role in determining the standard operating procedures that are

12     implemented or adopted by the ICMP?

13        A.   Actually, no.  They do not specify the methods that we have to

14     use.  They do specify the documentation that regulates the conduct of our

15     testing and they do inspect our experimental validation reports that

16     demonstrate the validity of our techniques.

17        Q.   And prior to the accreditation that you received in 2007 -- or

18     rather, following the accreditation, has there been any substantial

19     change between how the ICMP conducted DNA analysis before accreditation

20     and after its accreditation in 2007?  Were new procedures adopted?  Were

21     new protocols followed?  That sort of thing.  If you can just tell us

22     generally.

23        A.   Well, generally, the field of forensic DNA analysis continues to

24     develop, and given the expertise of our staff and the novel and

25     high-throughput challenges we face, very often the ICMP is working at the

Page 14057

 1     forefront of developing and optimising techniques.  Simply put, we're

 2     essentially the best in the world at this because of our extreme

 3     experience working with this material.  So with that said, there's a

 4     continual evolution of the protocols that we use, updates to software,

 5     new models of instrumentation, various implementation of quality-control

 6     mechanisms that decrease the already low chance for some type of human

 7     error.  So yes, there have been changes continually, and that includes

 8     since our accreditation and since the methodology report that you showed

 9     earlier.

10             I would like to emphasise, though, that there was no fundamental

11     shift in methodology pre- and post-accreditation.  We performed basically

12     the same type of DNA testing to essentially the same standards before and

13     after accreditation.

14        Q.   Thank you.

15             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Mr. President, I'd like to tender the exhibit

16     that I have up on the screen in front of us, the methodology report.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar.

18             THE REGISTRAR:  Document 5921 receives number P1719,

19     Your Honours.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  P1719 is admitted into evidence.

21             JUDGE MOLOTO:  I just have one question, Mr. Vanderpuye.

22             Dr. Parsons, at page 19, lines 20, you told us that the German

23     national accreditation agency's acronym is DAkkS.  Is this something

24     different from DACH?

25             THE WITNESS:  Yes and no.  I believe that it is the same body,

Page 14058

 1     the same accreditation body that has undergone a minor change in the way

 2     they refer to themselves.

 3             JUDGE MOLOTO:  I see.  Thank you so much.

 4             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Thank you, Your Honour.

 5             If I could just very quickly before we go to the break show

 6     Dr. Parsons 65 ter 29077.

 7             THE REGISTRAR:  This document is not in e-court, Your Honours.

 8             MR. VANDERPUYE:  I understand it's on its way.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  I read from your list that it's supposed to be a

10     report entitled:  "Significant Changes to ICMP Protocols for DNA

11     Testing," authored by the witness, dated the 14th of February, 2011.

12             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Thank you, Mr. President.  That's correct.

13             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  And the footnote 2 of your list suggests that

14     this is not on your 65 ter exhibit list yet.

15             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Mr. President, I believe it was.  I requested to

16     add it in the 94 bis motion and that was granted just the other day.

17     Actually I have the transcript here from 13 July -- I'm sorry, from

18     5 July of this year, transcript page 13972.  But I think the exhibit list

19     was sent out before the decision was made, and that's why it doesn't

20     appear on the exhibit list.  I apologise for that.

21             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you very much.

22             MR. VANDERPUYE:

23        Q.   Do you recognise this document, Dr. Parsons?

24        A.   Yes.

25        Q.   What is it?

Page 14059

 1        A.   Essentially an addendum to the previously provided methodology

 2     report that indicated the most substantial or significant changes that

 3     had been put in place in the ICMP since that previous report, again

 4     following the type of gradual evolution and improvement in testing

 5     capabilities.

 6        Q.   And what was your conclusion with respect to this - we can go to

 7     page 2 - if you can recall?  I just wanted to show you the particular

 8     standard operating procedures you had indicated here in your report as

 9     being worthy of note in terms of the significance of the change they

10     introduced to the protocols for DNA testing.

11             MR. VANDERPUYE:  And if we can go back very quickly to paragraph

12     number 6 on the previous page.  Okay.

13        Q.   At paragraph 6 you indicate here what these particular protocols

14     were.  Were there any significant changes in terms of the reliability of

15     the DNA testing protocols as a result of these changes?  In other words,

16     are the changes that are indicated here through these three SOPs such

17     that they cast doubt on the previously existing practices or protocols

18     employed by the ICMP?

19        A.   No, they would not cast doubt on the previous reliability.  The

20     first two of the three protocols are involved with the ability to recover

21     DNA from highly degraded remains, so this would expand the range of

22     samples from which we were able to obtain a DNA profile, but it would

23     not -- it would not reflect on the reliability of samples that we had

24     previously gotten a profile from.  Some of those bone samples, using our

25     previous methodology, may not have given a profile.  So we now have a

Page 14060

 1     better means to get the DNA.

 2             Also with relation to cost and time saving, the second of these

 3     SOPs is an automated platform that is cheaper and faster.

 4        Q.   Thank you, Dr. Parsons.

 5             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Mr. President, I think it's time for our normal

 6     break.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  It is time for the break.  We'll take a break of

 8     20 minutes, and could the usher escort the witness out of the courtroom.

 9                           [The witness stands down]

10             JUDGE ORIE:  We will resume at five minutes to 11.00.

11                           --- Recess taken at 10.32 a.m.

12                           --- On resuming at 10.57 a.m.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Could the witness be escorted into the courtroom.

14             Mr. Vanderpuye, you're on track as far as time is concerned?

15             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Pretty close, but I think I am, Mr. President.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

17             Then ...

18                           [The witness takes the stand]

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Vanderpuye, you may proceed.

20             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Thank you, Mr. President.  Good morning again.

21             Mr. President, the document that I have on the screen now I would

22     like to tender, but we don't have a B/C/S translation uploaded.  So I

23     think I would ask for it to be MFI'd pending the completion of the

24     translation.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar, the number under which this

Page 14061

 1     document will be marked for identification is ...?

 2             THE REGISTRAR:  Document 29077 receives number P1720,

 3     Your Honours.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  P1720 is marked for identification.

 5             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Thank you, Mr. President.

 6        Q.   Doctor, I wanted to ask you just a few questions about the

 7     process by which matches are made and match process is undertaken, and I

 8     know that you've described a lot of this in your report.  But just in

 9     very simple terms, what is matched against what?

10        A.   Well, as previously described, we obtain STR DNA profiles from

11     human remains recovered primarily from mass graves but from many other

12     contexts as well, and we also obtain STR DNA profiles from family members

13     of the missing.  So family members come forward, report a missing person,

14     and then we obtain reference samples from those individuals, transform

15     that into DNA profiles and upload that into a very large database.  Then

16     every time we get a DNA profile from a skeletal sample, for example, we

17     run that profile against the entire DNA database representing all the

18     family members, and using genetic similarity indices are able to pick out

19     the families that match and then in the end perform a formal calculation

20     that arrives at a statistic indicating the certainty of association.  And

21     the ICMP will issue a DNA match report when that certainty reaches a

22     minimum threshold value of 99.95 per cent.  However, I would like to

23     emphasise that a vast majority of our DNA matches have a great deal

24     higher certainty than that.  Sometimes 99 point and then following that

25     would be 12 nines or eighteen 9s.  So very, very, very certain matches.

Page 14062

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Vanderpuye, could I ask the following to you,

 2     Mr. Parsons.

 3             STR, do I understand it well that you take various points on the

 4     DNA material and then the more you take, the higher the probability, if

 5     there's a full match, like with finger-prints there you need a minimum, I

 6     think, of 12 points of comparison which would have to match and of course

 7     no point of a non-match.  Is that how I have to understand the STR

 8     because you can't do the whole of the DNA but you just take how many?  Is

 9     that 13 or --

10             THE WITNESS:  In our current system it's 15 --

11             JUDGE ORIE:  15.

12             THE WITNESS:  -- and plus a different locus that tells you what

13     sex the individual was.  So your explanation was very much on target.  I

14     would just want to add that each of these 15 separate loci is independent

15     of the other ones and each of those loci can vary in the populations.  So

16     you have two copies of your DNA, one from your mother and one from your

17     father, and there's one location on that DNA that we would test.  And you

18     can have any of a number of variants on either of the maternal or

19     paternal copy.  So you may have a random match at one locus with somebody

20     else in the population of, say, 1 in 100.  But at the second locus that's

21     also 1 in 100, so now you can see that it goes up very quickly.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And you say unrelated, for example, if I would

23     compare that, I do know that it's not about the visible features, but the

24     one would be the colour of the eyes and the other thing would be

25     something totally different.  That is that the unrelated -- let's just

Page 14063

 1     assume that those are unrelated --

 2             THE WITNESS:  Yes.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

 4             Please proceed.

 5             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Thank you, Mr. President.

 6             Could I show you 65 ter 25704.  It should not be broadcast.

 7        Q.   I'll refrain from mentioning any names in this document, but do

 8     you recognise what it is, sir?

 9        A.   Yes.

10        Q.   And what is it?

11        A.   This would be a DNA match report issued by the ICMP.

12        Q.   There's just a couple of things I'd like to go over with you.  We

13     can see some numbers here.  First we see the identity and the degree of

14     familiar -- familial relationship with the person to be identified.  It's

15     a wife, a son, mother indicated.  Is that correct?

16        A.   Yes.  The indication of wife, son, and mother are three people

17     who gave blood samples and who we have typed and now compared to this

18     missing individual.

19        Q.   Okay.  And it indicates here that the DNA results obtained from

20     the bone sample are 3.84e12 times more likely if the bone sample

21     originated from an individual related to the blood references in a manner

22     as described on this report than to another unrelated individual in the

23     general population.  Is this -- first of all, could you tell us what that

24     number is, 3.84e12?  What does it stand for?

25        A.   Well, very first of all that's simply a scientific notation that

Page 14064

 1     is shorthand for that number should be 384 followed by 12 zeros -- or

 2     excuse me, 10 zeros.  And that actually represents a -- the primary

 3     statistical outcome of the DNA test and that number is the likelihood

 4     ratio.  It's not listed here on the report, but I'll just put it out

 5     there because it's actually, I think, a fairly easy concept to grasp.

 6     What this means is that we can now be 3.84 times 10 to the 12th times

 7     more certain that it is this individual than we were prior to doing the

 8     DNA test.  So in Bayesian statistics, the likelihood ratio is the factor

 9     by which you "update" your uncertainty.  You had a certain amount of

10     uncertainty to begin with, and now we're 3.84 trillion times more sure

11     than we were before about that particular hypothesis.

12        Q.   There's an indicate -- I'm sorry, let me just pause for a second.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  And I abuse that in posing one additional question.

14     The wife is not biologically related to the missing person, whereas his

15     mother and his son are.  Is that to allow you to make a comparison with

16     the other family members and especially the son or is that --

17             THE WITNESS:  Especially the son --

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

19             THE WITNESS:  -- that's right.  The son would be made up half of

20     the missing person and half of the mother, so having her information adds

21     greatly to the certainty of the match.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And this is purely the biological element of

23     all of this, I mean the fact that the missing person, at least whether

24     there's suspicion that this might be the DNA of a missing person, of

25     course there's other factors such as where he lived, that he disappeared,

Page 14065

 1     et cetera, are adding to the probability but then in a non-biological

 2     way.  Is that --

 3             THE WITNESS:  Yes, in a non-biological and also generally

 4     non-numerical way.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Thank you.

 6             Please proceed, Mr. Vanderpuye.

 7             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Thank you, Mr. President.

 8        Q.   Also, we can see another statistic at the very bottom of this

 9     document -- well, in this same paragraph in the middle of the page,

10     rather, and it says -- and it refers to the probability of relatedness,

11     as you indicated previously, 99.99999 per cent when using prior odds of

12     1 in 7.000.  Can you explain just very briefly to the Chamber what these

13     prior odds mean?

14        A.   Yes.  The prior odds relate to what I said before about the

15     concept of updating uncertainty.  So not considering any evidence apart

16     from the DNA evidence and where this bone sample came from regionally, we

17     have a prior probability, that is, before you do the DNA test, of 1 in

18     7.000.  Let me explain what that means.  Let's say I go to a

19     Srebrenica-related grave in this region and pick up a bone and you ask

20     me:  What are the chances that it's one of these 7.000 people reported

21     missing, a specific one of these 7.000 people reported missing from

22     Srebrenica?  And I would say:  1 in 7.000.  I have no additional

23     information.  So that's my prior probability.  That's what the chances

24     are that this is going to be any single named individual.

25             I then do the DNA test and we update that uncertainty by the

Page 14066

 1     likelihood ratio, which is that 3.84 times 10 to the 12th and now we are

 2     so much more sure, we started at 1 chance in 7.000 and now we're at

 3     greater than 99.99999 per cent sure.

 4        Q.   Thank you for your explanation.

 5             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Mr. President, I would tender this document

 6     under seal, yes.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar.

 8             THE REGISTRAR:  Document 25704 receives number P1721, under seal,

 9     Your Honours.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  And is admitted into evidence under seal.

11             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Thank you, Mr. President.

12             I'd like to show the witness 65 ter 27147.

13             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's note:  Could the counsel and

14     witness make a pause between questions and answers.  Thank you.

15             MR. VANDERPUYE:  We don't have -- I believe we don't have an

16     English translation of this document.

17        Q.   But what I wanted to show you is what's on the next -- pardon me,

18     page 3 of this document.

19             MR. VANDERPUYE:  And it should not be broadcast, by the way, I'm

20     sorry.  All right.

21        Q.   As with the previous document, I'm going to refrain from

22     mentioning any names in this document.  Do you recognise what this is,

23     Doctor?

24        A.   Yes.

25        Q.   And what is it?

Page 14067

 1        A.   This is also an ICMP DNA match report that has a different format

 2     than the one you showed earlier, and this one is of the format that we

 3     use presently.

 4        Q.   And in the left corner of this document, what can we see there,

 5     the box that's very badly photocopied in black?

 6        A.   Yes, that's a, as you mentioned, very poor reproduction of a

 7     documentary photo indicating what skeletal sample was tested.  In other

 8     words, that's photo documentation chain of custody.

 9        Q.   In this document we can see here a different number for the prior

10     odds.  This relates to a different event.  For the Chamber's benefit

11     that's indictment Schedule B 1.2.

12             But do the differences in the prior odds substantially affect the

13     surety level that's indicated in the match report?

14        A.   For purposes of clarity, let me again repeat that we use

15     different prior probabilities based on the number of individuals missing

16     from a particular region or event that we know this sample -- that we

17     judge this sample to be relating to.  So here we have 1 in 4.500 from a

18     different region of Bosnia, versus 1 in 7.000.  The answer is:  Does it

19     affect the outcome of the calculations?  It does by exactly the ratio of

20     7.000 to 4.500, in other words, less than a factor of 2, which is not

21     very significant compared to ten orders of magnitude or 12 orders of

22     magnitude, that is to say, 12 zeros after the number to begin with.  So

23     minor changes in the prior probability do almost nothing to affect the

24     surety of these DNA match reports.

25        Q.   In this particular document, in the paragraph that's just above

Page 14068

 1     the stamp, it indicates that there is an inconsistency on loci, it says

 2     Penta E between the alleged son and father.  And it says:  "Appears to

 3     represent a mutational event."  Can you just acquaint us very briefly

 4     with what that means in terms of either the surety of the identification

 5     or the reliability of the identification?

 6        A.   Well, first of all, this thing that is referred to as a

 7     mutational event is a rare occurrence but it's very well-known to happen

 8     in this type of testing, and the ICMP in the very high volume of work we

 9     do encounters it with some regularity.  And we take one step backward

10     with respect to biology.  If you remember, I said that these STR loci are

11     highly variable.  That's why they're good for distinguishing one

12     individual from the next.  The way that variability becomes established

13     in the population is, in fact, through mutation.  One person has one

14     thing and then one of his offspring has something different.  That's a

15     genetic mutation.  And because these STR loci mutate quickly, sometimes

16     you see them in actual casework.

17             So we have an instance here where going from the father to the

18     son we would have to invoke a mutation.  We would have to assume or

19     conclude that a mutation has occurred in order for that to actually be

20     the father of that son.  We here have a large number of family

21     references, so it's quite clear that he, in fact, is, but that there was

22     a mutation.  We know the frequency with which these mutations occur so we

23     actually are able to put that in the calculation and adjust our overall

24     level of certainty that takes into account all the matching with all the

25     family members and, additionally, the fact that there was a fairly rare

Page 14069

 1     event that had to happen that actually makes it less certainty than it

 2     would have been without the mutation.  But taken in total, it's still as

 3     certain as is listed on this report.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Could I ask you one question, you are referring to

 5     the compared materials as from the son or -- now that may not be the

 6     biological son of the person who is registered as the father.  How do you

 7     deal with that?  What's your conclusion then, that it's not that person

 8     or that -- I mean, you can draw various conclusions.

 9             THE WITNESS:  Yeah, we're comparing basically two different

10     hypotheses.  It is or it is not -- there is or there is not the stated

11     biological relationship.  This number that is being reported here is the

12     conclusion that it is, in fact, the biological relationship and that that

13     is the father, even though there had to have been a mutation.  We're able

14     to take into account the fact that these mutations occur rarely, so we're

15     surprised to see it and therefore our certainty diminishes.  But taken in

16     total with all the evidence, we still are able to conclude with this

17     level of certainty that that is the missing person in question and that

18     that is his father.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Now, the categories at the top of this table

20     is ICMP 1, ICMP 2, ICMP 3, et cetera.  Are these the loci which you have

21     used?  Because you said you'd used 15, whereas I find 16 there?

22             THE WITNESS:  Yes, sir, those indicate the different loci.

23     They're not given their scientific designations here for reasons of

24     genetic privacy.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, but nevertheless I find 16 where you earlier

Page 14070

 1     told me that you thought there were 15.

 2             THE WITNESS:  There are --

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  I see 16 on this.

 4             THE WITNESS:  There are 16 listed there.  There are 15 STR loci

 5     and one that indicates sex, that's the one that has XY.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  That's the one which you referred to earlier in

 7     addition to the 15.  Thank you --

 8             THE WITNESS:  That's correct.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  -- for that clarification.  I should have listened

10     better.

11             Mr. Vanderpuye.

12             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Thank you, Mr. President.

13             The document contains a number of these reports.  I would tender

14     them at this time rather than go through each one independently.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar.

16             THE REGISTRAR:  Document 27147 receives number P1722, under seal,

17     Your Honours.

18             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Mr. President.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

20             MR. VANDERPUYE:  I think it should actually be MFI'd since we

21     don't have a translation for it, so I apologise for not raising that

22     earlier.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, one second, please.

24             P1722 is marked for identification, under seal.

25             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Thank you, Mr. President.

Page 14071

 1             I would like to show the witness 65 ter 28871, also not to be

 2     broadcast, please.  Thank you.

 3        Q.   Doctor, do you recognise what you see on the screen in front of

 4     you?

 5        A.   Yes.

 6        Q.   At the very bottom of the screen on the left in the B/C/S

 7     language we can see what appears to be copyright of ICMP or a copyright

 8     indication 2011.  Can you tell us what this document is?

 9        A.   This is a print-out from a function that the ICMP has on its web

10     site that permits privileged users to access information about cases that

11     have been submitted to the ICMP.  In this case, the privileged user would

12     be the pathologist who, under authority of the court, has submitted the

13     sample to the ICMP.  So given a password, the pathologist can log on to

14     the ICMP's web site and find out information about the status of testing

15     and matching of the sample that he submitted to the ICMP.  So we see two

16     versions, and the one on the right is simply a transcribed translation of

17     the Bosnian version that was the original.

18        Q.   Two things I wanted to ask you.  One is the -- looks like a

19     drawing or a schematic on the left of the copy in the B/C/S.  First, what

20     is that?  And the second question I have is:  We can also see an ID

21     number, an ICMP ID number.  What significance is that, if you could tell

22     us very briefly?

23        A.   Well, I believe the figure on the left is, in fact, again a poor

24     copy of a photograph showing the skeletal elements that were submitted.

25     With regard to the ID number, that is a number that the ICMP assigns to

Page 14072

 1     an individual missing person at the time that he or she is reported to

 2     the ICMP.  So when a family comes in for the first time to report a

 3     missing person, that missing person is given a sequential ICMP ID number,

 4     and now we have identified the individual to -- the missing person to

 5     whom we had earlier ascribed that ID number.

 6        Q.   Does the indication here, DNA profile obtained, have any bearing

 7     on whether or not the sample that's indicated, where we can see sample

 8     code 668-03 (DMT), does that have any bearing on whether or not there has

 9     been a DNA match to the individual that's named in the report?

10        A.   It does have a bearing because had a DNA profile not been

11     obtained, it would be impossible to match it.  However, it is also

12     possible to obtain a DNA profile from a bone sample but not to find a

13     match to the family reference database.

14        Q.   In this particular case, as we have a named individual, that

15     would indicate that there exists a match report for the DNA profile with

16     respect to the blood donors or the people indicated in the database?

17        A.   Yes, unquestionably.  The DNA match report is the primary and

18     official output of ICMP's testing process.  This web screen that you see

19     there is simply a communication method between the submitter and the ICMP

20     as a status update as opposed to the forensically validated formal

21     report.

22        Q.   Thank you.

23             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Mr. President, I would like to tender this

24     document and I have three others just like it.  If you'd like me to show

25     it to the witness, I can.

Page 14073

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, if there's no significant difference between

 2     the three -- of course, the Defence has an opportunity to compare and ask

 3     further questions.  But before we ask Madam Registrar to assign a number

 4     I would have one question.

 5             You said that it's a bad copy of a photograph we'd see on the

 6     left lower corner.  I see there various pieces of what seems to be bones.

 7     How can you be sure that all these bones are belonging to one and only

 8     one person?  That's one.  And second, how do you take the samples?  Do

 9     you take them from all the pieces or do you just choose one and for other

10     reasons conclude that they belong together?

11             THE WITNESS:  I note from the page here that this sample was

12     submitted from a pathologist by the name of Dr. Vedo Tuco, and he would

13     have been the individual responsible for forwarding that sample to the

14     ICMP.  The ICMP would take only one of those bone samples that they deem

15     the most suitable or -- that is to say, the most likely to give a DNA

16     result and that is what would have been reported.  We would not consider

17     these as separate evidentiary submissions when submitted from a

18     pathologist in this manner.  So we in this case would not second-guess

19     what he has done here but simply assume that this is all from a single

20     individual and report only on one bone.

21             If an ICMP anthropologist or someone from the Podrinje

22     Identification Project were submitting that, I would expect to see only

23     one bone.  This is an unusual submission.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, and you would have received samples from all of

25     these bones we find on this picture our --

Page 14074

 1             THE WITNESS:  No, the -- I think -- I believe that this

 2     photograph represents what was submitted by that pathologist, and the

 3     ICMP would simply choose the one of those that is the most likely to give

 4     a result.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  You would choose at what stage, when taking a sample

 6     or any sample sent to you, received by you?

 7             THE WITNESS:  Well, the fact that there are multiple bones shown

 8     in this picture again I would say is anomalous with regard to samples

 9     that are received by the ICMP.  I believe that what would have happened

10     is when we obtained the envelope that contained this sample, those bones

11     would be apparent to the ICMP DNA laboratory personnel, and that person

12     then would look at those, determine the one that is most likely to give a

13     result, and then remove a sample from that for DNA testing.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Finally, therefore, the conclusion is that one of

15     these bones matches with --

16             THE WITNESS:  That's correct.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  -- the alleged family member which gave his sample?

18             THE WITNESS:  Yes, it always is with respect to the sample that

19     was tested.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Thank you.

21             Please proceed, Mr. Vanderpuye -- no, no, we first --

22     Madam Registrar, could you assign a number.

23             THE REGISTRAR:  Document 28871 receives number P1723,

24     Your Honours, under seal.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  P1723 is admitted under seal.

Page 14075

 1             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Mr. President, I also have document 28873, 74,

 2     and 75.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Assuming that there are no objections to those three

 4     either, Madam Registrar, number for 28873 would be ...?

 5             THE REGISTRAR:  Number P1724, Your Honours.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Admitted under seal.

 7             For 28874?

 8             THE REGISTRAR:  P1725, Your Honours.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Admitted under seal.

10             For 28875?

11             THE REGISTRAR:  P1726, Your Honours.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Admitted under seal.

13             Please proceed.

14             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Thank you, Mr. President.  If I could please

15     show, and I think we'll have to do this through Sanction and shouldn't be

16     broadcast, 65 ter 29076.

17                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

18             MR. VANDERPUYE:  While that's coming up --

19             JUDGE ORIE:  I do understand that the e-court system is down

20     which causes some problems.

21             I read that the transaction for log database portal 2005 is full.

22     To find out why space in the log cannot be reused, see the log reuse wait

23     desk column in the sys database.

24             Mr. Vanderpuye, just look there and ...

25             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Shall we break?  I do have -- I mean, I do have

Page 14076

 1     two spreadsheets very quickly to go through with the witness --

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Now, from what I read, it may be that it's also the

 3     connection between e-court and the system you're using to present

 4     something.  But let's just first find out because it's rather early for a

 5     break.  We're 20 minutes away from where we were supposed to have a

 6     break.

 7             Do you have any questions for which you do not need e-court.

 8             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Actually, no, Mr. President.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

10             MR. VANDERPUYE:  I don't.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  We became dependent on the system.

12             Madam Registrar, is there any information on when the system

13     would be operational again?

14             THE REGISTRAR:  It's back now, Your Honours.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  It's back.  Then we can cautiously try again to use

16     the system.  Touch the keys with care.  My system is working again.

17             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Okay.  I'm hoping to show 65 ter 29076.  It will

18     have to come from Sanction.  Hopefully -- okay.

19        Q.   Dr. Parsons, do you recognise what we have in e-court here?

20             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  I assume it should not be broadcast?

21             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Yes, it should not be broadcast.  Thank you very

22     much, Your Honour.

23             THE WITNESS:  Yes.

24             MR. VANDERPUYE:

25        Q.   Can you tell us what it is?

Page 14077

 1        A.   This is a spreadsheet that the ICMP provided to the OTP and the

 2     Trial Chamber depicting all the DNA match reports that the ICMP has

 3     developed that we consider related to the 1995 fall of Srebrenica up

 4     until January 31st, 2013.

 5        Q.   I wanted to ask you just a few questions about how it's

 6     formatted.  What I'd like to do is just go through a couple of the

 7     categories on the top here.  We can see first obviously names, date of

 8     birth, then we see protocol ID.  Can you tell us what that is?

 9        A.   The protocol number is a number that the ICMP assigns when a DNA

10     match between a bone sample and a family is found, and it simply refers

11     to the report itself.  So it's a sequential designator of a DNA match

12     report associated with a particular individual.  If we look at the format

13     we see 9 -- on the very top one in row 2, under protocol ID we see the

14     number 9662/07 and that would be the 9.662nd DNA match report in the year

15     2007.

16        Q.   Next to that we see a case ID, and can you tell us -- let's stick

17     with row number 2.  Can you tell us what that denotes?

18        A.   That is the sample identifier.  So a bone sample has been

19     submitted to the ICMP through any number of means and that is the name

20     that we have that designates what that sample is.  The ICMP normally does

21     not have control of the naming convention, although we do have

22     recommended guide-lines to follow, and this one appears to have followed

23     those recommendations where this comes from the Kamenica or Cancari Road

24     grave 10, and then other components of this are related to either the

25     site or the skeletal element that has been sampled.  LF here should

Page 14078

 1     designate a left femur.  But in terms of what the ICMP does with the

 2     sample, we don't care what its name is except to use that to keep track

 3     of it.

 4        Q.   Are there mechanisms in place to address expectation or outcome

 5     expectations with respect to samples that are received from the mortuary

 6     for testing?

 7        A.   Yes, that goes to one of the primary strengths of DNA evidence

 8     and DNA testing is the potential for objectivity in the outcome.  So the

 9     analysts are not making subjective experience-based decisions for the

10     most part.  And what the ICMP does to maximise that objectivity is to, in

11     fact, strip that case ID number from the sample all together before it is

12     submitted to the DNA laboratory.  And this is a function of the

13     Identification Co-ordination Division.  Instead of that case ID number,

14     we assign it a unique but randomly generated bar code and that is how the

15     sample transitions its way through the DNA laboratory process.  At the

16     end of that DNA process, a profile is generated, but as far as the DNA

17     staff know, it is only associated with some random number and no

18     information about what grave it came from, what event it came from, what

19     region it came from, and certainly what family it may be associated with.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Could I ask you, is that for purposes of potential

21     bias, that if you have that information that you might be inclined to

22     link it to the most likely family member that would be available and that

23     therefore you make it more or less anonymous only with a -- that random

24     number.

25             THE WITNESS:  It addresses bias really at two levels.  One is

Page 14079

 1     that -- at the level of investigator inspection, where if the analyst

 2     knows a pre-existing hypothesis, sometimes his mental processes will

 3     superimpose on that to result in bias.  So yes, it's designed to

 4     eliminate that.  But then secondly, there's also the social concept of

 5     political bias that we encounter in the former Yugoslavia and this is

 6     designed to be able to also say:  We have no idea what "side" this sample

 7     comes from, what ethnic origin this sample comes from, et cetera.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, and therefore no one would be inclined either

 9     to positively identify a Serb, a Croat, or a Muslim, and you avoid that

10     by this?

11             THE WITNESS:  That's correct.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

13             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Thank you, Mr. President.

14        Q.   Can you tell us very quickly what is the ID ICMP?  That's

15     indicated here in column E?

16        A.   We saw that before on a DNA match report.  The ICMP ID number is

17     the number that's assigned to the missing person rather than to the bone

18     sample.  And so you will have an ICMP ID number whether or not you've

19     been identified as a missing person, and this simply indicates that this

20     is, in that row, the 8.558th person to register their family member

21     missing in our system.

22        Q.   Next we have the site name and here it's indicated Kamenica.

23             MR. VANDERPUYE:  If we could scroll over to the right of the

24     spreadsheet a little bit further we can probably accommodate a few more

25     rows.

Page 14080

 1        Q.   We see the site co-ordinates and then it says "jurisdiction," in

 2     this case BiH Federal Commission.  Can you just explain very quickly what

 3     that is?

 4        A.   That's the agency under whose authority the grave was excavated.

 5        Q.   We can see here the date of submission.  Is that the date that

 6     the report is submitted or the date that the sample is submitted for

 7     testing?

 8        A.   The report.

 9        Q.   And meaning the match report?

10        A.   Yes.

11        Q.   And the date of disappearance, we can see here in this row,

12     11.7.1995.  Can you explain what this nominal value is?

13        A.   When we obtain a report -- when families come to the ICMP to

14     report a missing person, we very carefully document a number of lines of

15     information about that missing person.  First of all, clearly document

16     his name, clearly document his relationship to the person reporting him

17     missing, clearly document his relationship to other individuals, other

18     family members who would prevent -- provide a DNA sample.  And we also

19     obtain information about the place and date of disappearance of the

20     individual, where last seen.

21             You made reference to the word -- you used the word "nominal,"

22     and normally that is not a nominal category, but in the case of the

23     July 1995 fall of Srebrenica we adopted a convention of designating the

24     date for events related to that general scenario as the 11th of July,

25     1995.  And the reason we did that is that there are thousands of family

Page 14081

 1     members that we have dealt with to get samples, well over 10.000.  I

 2     think it's about -- I think it's over 12.000 family members from whom

 3     we've received DNA samples.  And each one of those donors is interviewed

 4     separately.  And we have the chaos of a refugee population in and around

 5     Srebrenica, the rapidly unfolding chaotic events, and so you'll ask one

 6     family member, "When was he last seen?"  And they might say, "I last saw

 7     him on the 9th of July when we were separated."  Meanwhile, another

 8     family member may have accompanied the man into the forest to try and go

 9     over land and say, "I last saw him on the 11th of July."  So because

10     there were so many minorly conflicting lines of evidence here and because

11     the amount of work was so large in registering all these people, the ICMP

12     identification staff adopted the convention of:  We'll put the date of

13     the 11th of July as associated with this particular event.

14        Q.   Let me just ask very quickly because I want to filter this

15     spreadsheet so that I can take you -- draw your attention to another

16     area.  But here we have an indication of forest -- place of

17     disappearance, forest, Potocari.  And then we have a column indicating a

18     main case of association.  Can you tell the Chamber with respect to place

19     of disappearance what that denotes and why and also with respect to what

20     a main case is versus a reassociation so that the Chamber is clear on

21     that?

22        A.   With regard to place of disappearance, again different family

23     members were very likely to provide slightly different information about

24     where the person was last seen, and those in the end mapped on to two

25     primary groups of individuals.  One reflects the group of men and boys

Page 14082

 1     who attempted to flee Srebrenica in the days just ahead of July 11th in a

 2     large column that tried to break out over land and those were designated

 3     as forest, the person tried to make his way through the forest.  And then

 4     the other designation is Potocari, and that would reflect individuals who

 5     did not join the column of men but who instead stayed behind in

 6     Srebrenica and wound up at the DutchBat base in Potocari and then were

 7     subsequently separated from the women and eventually executed.

 8        Q.   And the main case versus a reassociation.  Can you tell us just

 9     very briefly what that is?

10        A.   Yes.  Well, one hallmark characteristic of the forensic

11     investigation of Srebrenica graves that has not yet been referred to is

12     the issue of secondary graves.  So we have the circumstance where

13     thousands of individuals were buried in the first instance in

14     July of 1995 in very large primary mass graves, so basically their entire

15     body was deposited in huge mass graves.  Subsequent to that, after the

16     passage of a number of months, those graves were exhumed by heavy

17     equipment by the perpetrators and put into trucks and taken about the

18     country-side in Eastern Bosnia and deposited then in a large series of

19     secondary mass graves.  We have in fact 39 large secondary mass graves

20     that are associated with five extremely large primary mass graves and

21     execution events.

22             A consequence of this heavy equipment exhumation of the bodies

23     months after they were initially buried caused those bodies to

24     disintegrate, fall apart, and become jumbled together, so that we're

25     dealing in many instances not with bodies but with disarticulated body

Page 14083

 1     parts and that is where we get the main case versus a reassociation case.

 2     So, for example, the anthropologist will look at a case which may be only

 3     the lower half of a body, take a sample from the femur and send it to the

 4     ICMP.  This is coming from a particular grave-site.  The ICMP develops a

 5     DNA profile, matches it against the database, and identifies the

 6     individual to whom that sample refers.  It will have been the first time

 7     we have seen this individual and that will be called a main case.  It was

 8     the first instance of a DNA match to that individual.  Months later or

 9     years later or what have you, a secondary mass grave may be -- an

10     additional secondary mass grave may be excavated and they'll find the

11     upper portion of that same individual, we'll get a DNA match there, and

12     we'll issue it as the same protocol number but as a reassociation case

13     rather than a main case.

14        Q.   What I'd like to do is to filter this list for the Cerska

15     grave-site and I'd like to ask you just a couple of questions about that.

16             MR. VANDERPUYE:  I'll need to go to row 2819.  I won't read the

17     name into the record, but I will draw the Chamber's attention to the fact

18     that it has received -- that is, the Chamber has received evidence

19     concerning the identity of this particular individual in 65 ter 29011 -

20     it was actually admitted into evidence but I don't have the P number -

21     paragraph 13, in relation to RM254's evidence.

22             But at this particular individual, if we go -- we can see date of

23     birth -- it looks like e-court has given up on us.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Were you asking to look at the other number or do we

25     go back to the -- that might cause the problem.  I think we were still

Page 14084

 1     busy with this one?

 2             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Thank you.  Thank you very much, Mr. President.

 3        Q.   We can see the date of birth here indicated.  We see a protocol

 4     ID number.  And if we go to the right of the screen in this particular

 5     row all the way, we'll see that this is a main case, all of the indicia

 6     that you've mentioned before.  Now if we could go to row 2845 we'll see

 7     another individual.

 8             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Again, for the Chamber's benefit, referenced in

 9     paragraph 13 of 65 ter 29011, the subject of RM254's evidence.

10        Q.   And here we don't see a date of birth but we see two names, both

11     with the same last name, father's name, and then we see one or another

12     person.  Could you explain what that is or why that's there?

13        A.   Yes.  First of all, I'd like to emphasise the word "or" in

14     that -- in those two names.  So we have a DNA profile from a single

15     individual and in this case we can't distinguish which of two brothers

16     this individual is, and that is a characteristic of DNA testing when you

17     have, for example, only the parents as reference samples.  You can know

18     for sure that this individual is the son of these two parents, but you

19     can't determine which of two missing siblings this might be.  The

20     person's name is simply not written on DNA.  So we can define exactly

21     what the relationship is, we can know that these two individuals are

22     brothers to each other, we can know that they're both sons of the same

23     parents, but we can't distinguish one from another by DNA.  We know we

24     have at least -- we know we have one or the other of them.  We issue the

25     DNA match report in the name of both.

Page 14085

 1        Q.   Thanks for that explanation.  Just for the record, so we don't

 2     lose this at a later point, the ICMP ID for the first individual at row

 3     2819 is 5690.  And for the siblings, it would appear at line 2845, the

 4     ICMP ID number is 13047 or 17852.

 5             I'd like to show you one last one, and that's at row 12165, it

 6     should be at the bottom of this.  Yes, we have it.

 7             MR. VANDERPUYE:  And just while I'm at it, the record should

 8     reflect that the ICMP ID for this particular individual is 2968.  And if

 9     we go all the way to the right we can see that it reflects also a main

10     case.  For the Chamber's reference, that is also referred to in

11     65 ter 29011, which was admitted, paragraph 13, relative to RM254's

12     evidence.

13        Q.   If we can unfilter this list for a moment, I'd just like to ask

14     you, Dr. Parsons, how many match reports were issued in relation to the

15     Srebrenica events in total if you have that statistic available.

16        A.   Including both main and reassociation cases, this list has

17     16.057 entries, meaning reports.

18        Q.   And how many main cases does this list comprise?

19        A.   I don't happen to recall.  I reviewed that information just

20     recently.  You can find out through sorting --

21        Q.   Okay --

22        A.   -- on the main versus reassociation.

23        Q.   Do you remember approximately how much it was?

24        A.   I believe that -- the number that's coming to my mind is 6.708 on

25     this list.

Page 14086

 1        Q.   On this list.  We can see that there's a tab here for the Zepa

 2     event.  Can I assume that that number or your recollection of the number

 3     doesn't include the match reports issued in relation to the Zepa events?

 4        A.   That's correct.  Those different tabs are exclusive lists of each

 5     other.

 6        Q.   I'd like to ask you just a couple of quick questions in relation

 7     to the last two tabs indicated on this spreadsheet, one concerning cases

 8     inconclusively associated and then cases associated to the Srebrenica

 9     events, I take it.  Can you tell us first about the cases that are

10     excluded as associated.  Generally on what basis were they excluded?

11        A.   Yes.  Well, the first very large list we saw, of course, are

12     those cases considered to be related to the fall of Srebrenica, and we

13     have, over the years, provided the OTP in different trials with that same

14     list as it grew over time.  And all the entries on this excluded as

15     associated with Srebrenica list were previously listed on the first page

16     as associated, but through additional collection of information and

17     review of this list we determined that they should not be on there and we

18     have removed them.  And that reflects I believe it is nine different

19     individuals that were previously on the list that should not have been

20     there and have now been taken off.

21             MR. VANDERPUYE:  And if we can scroll over to the right very

22     quickly.

23        Q.   The explanation for that exclusion is provided here under the

24     comments -- under the "comments" column.  Is that right?

25        A.   That's correct.  And the detail of explanation varies between one

Page 14087

 1     entry and the other, and there's always a little bit more background to

 2     these.  So I don't recall these cases specifically, but the very top one

 3     is illustrative of the type of things that could cause this occurrence,

 4     where two brothers are reported missing from the conflict in Bosnia.  One

 5     of them is reported missing from Srebrenica, the other one from a

 6     previous era, say 1992.  And remember I described earlier conditions

 7     under which DNA cannot distinguish between one sibling and the other.  So

 8     this would be an instance where we simply had a DNA match to one or the

 9     other of these siblings and then later on found out through the

10     identification process that another individual had been matched as the

11     brother associated with Srebrenica so we took the other brother off the

12     list after that finding became apparent to us.

13        Q.   And with respect to the cases --

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Vanderpuye --

15             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Yes, Mr. President.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  It's not only more than an hour ago that we started

17     our second session, but you're also getting more and more beyond your

18     time estimate.

19             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Yes, I'm trying to wrap it up as -- only because

20     there is a part of this document that I think isn't explained to the

21     Chamber which isn't necessarily self-explanatory.  But I'm happy to

22     forego -- I'm happy to skip over that.  I'll ask one other question in

23     relation to a different spreadsheet, and then we can move into

24     cross-examination if the Chamber prefers --

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes --

Page 14088

 1             MR. VANDERPUYE:  -- but I think it should be relatively fast.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  -- after you've finished, we'll certainly move into

 3     cross-examination, you can be assured of that.  No, I'm just -- I told

 4     Mr. Groome that we would most likely deal with procedural matters at the

 5     end of the second session.

 6             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Okay.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  And in view of your time estimate, I thought we

 8     would have time for that.  Now looking at the clock, I think that we

 9     should take a break now and that at the beginning of the next session

10     that -- for the witness it will mean a little bit of a longer pause, that

11     we would hear Mr. Groome or immediately after you've -- no, perhaps

12     otherwise the witness would have to sit and wait.  How much time would

13     you still need?

14             MR. VANDERPUYE:  I would just like to get an explanation as to

15     the inconclusive --

16             JUDGE ORIE:  No, I'm not asking what you're going to do.  I'm

17     asking how much it will take.

18             MR. VANDERPUYE:  I think it should not take more than ten

19     minutes.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Not more than ten minutes.  Then let's do the

21     following -- Mr. Groome, you're on your feet.  I suggest we take the

22     break now.  Immediately after the break we'll deal with some procedural

23     issues, and then you have another ten minutes to finish your

24     examination-in-chief and then we'll start the cross-examination.

25             Mr. Groome.

Page 14089

 1             MR. GROOME:  Your Honour, unfortunately I have a commitment at

 2     noon.  I can be prepared to be back and to make the procedural

 3     submissions at the end of the day.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, that's acceptable for us.  So we'd hear from

 5     you at the end of the day.

 6             We take a break -- your announced shorter break, Mr. Parsons,

 7     disappears.  We'd like to see you back immediately after the break.  You

 8     may follow the usher.

 9                           [The witness stands down]

10             JUDGE ORIE:  We'll resume at 23 minutes past 12.00.

11                           --- Recess taken at 12.02 p.m.

12                           --- On resuming at 12.27 p.m.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Could the witness be escorted into the courtroom.

14     If Mr. Mladic arrives, he can silently take his seat.

15             Meanwhile, Mr. Vanderpuye, you referred to RM254's statement of

16     the 18th of August, 1996, which you said was admitted into evidence, but

17     you referred to 65 ter number 29011.  Now, what was admitted was

18     65 ter 29080 which was -- is a similar document but not the same.  So

19     therefore your reference is now understood as a reference to 29080

20     admitted as P1690.

21             MR. VANDERPUYE:  That's correct.  Thank you very much,

22     Mr. President.

23                           [The witness takes the stand]

24             MR. VANDERPUYE:  There is one other matter, if I may.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, please.

Page 14090

 1             MR. VANDERPUYE:  The document 65 ter number --

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Perhaps I -- Mr. Lukic, it's -- or Mr. Stojanovic,

 3     it's a common feature, it happens quite often, that Mr. Mladic seeks to

 4     visit the toilet at the very end of the break and that's the reason why

 5     we want to continue.  If there's anything you would like to discuss with

 6     him once he's back, you have an opportunity to do so if at low volume.

 7             Meanwhile, we'll proceed.

 8             Mr. Vanderpuye.

 9             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Thank you, Mr. President.

10             I just wanted to advise the Chamber that 65 ter numbers 28871,

11     28873, 74, and 75, all admitted here as P1723 through P1726, were the

12     subject of Prosecution's motion to amend its 65 ter list dated 26th April

13     2013 and an addendum of 2nd May 2013.  So I just want to advise the

14     Chamber so that nobody wastes time [overlapping speakers] --

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, there was no objection against admission that

16     was indicated by Mr. Stojanovic, and therefore this is understood as

17     there be no objection against adding them to the 65 ter list.  So

18     retroactively that permission is granted.  Please proceed.

19             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Thank you, Mr. President.  I'll need back up in

20     e-court -- oh, in Sanction, the spreadsheet we were just looking at.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Vanderpuye, you have until 12.40.

22             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Thank you very much, Mr. President.

23        Q.   I was about to ask you, Dr. Parsons, about the explanation

24     concerning the inconclusively associated cases, if we could just go to

25     that tab.  And here we can see that there are a number of cases and we

Page 14091

 1     can go over to the right-hand side so we can look at some of these

 2     explanations, but can you explain, maybe in general terms since it is

 3     pretty well explicated here, what the reason for this category is.

 4        A.   Yes.  Very briefly, either the evidence is contradictory or mixed

 5     regarding whether it should be considered as related to the fall of

 6     Srebrenica or not.  Here we -- one instance would be different

 7     information from different members of the family because we did have

 8     that -- that disagreement, we weren't comfortable putting it in the first

 9     very large list.  Here we have -- I'll make an example, also from row 8,

10     where it says:  "Person killed before the fall of Srebrenica remains

11     known to be buried at the hospital location in Srebrenica," so I -- we

12     would leave it to any observer to conclude whether that is associated or

13     not.  That's why it's not in the original list.

14        Q.   And the information -- sorry, let me just take a pause for a

15     second.

16             The information that you received in relation to determining

17     whether or not a case was inconclusively associated or excluded as

18     associated from the large list of match reports concerning Srebrenica, is

19     that information derived from external sources?

20        A.   The primary source of that information comes from the families

21     themselves that report the person missing, but we do take into

22     consideration really kind of all that we know about it.  So in some of

23     the excluded cases, they were excluded primarily because they came from

24     grave-sites that would be inconsistent with being missing from

25     Srebrenica.

Page 14092

 1        Q.   I'd like to show you another spreadsheet, that's --

 2             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Yes, I'd like to tender this document first.

 3     Thank you.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar.

 5             THE REGISTRAR:  Document 29076 receives number P1727,

 6     Your Honours.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  P1727 is admitted into evidence under seal.

 8             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Thank you very much, Mr. President.

 9             I'd like to show the witness 65 ter 29078.

10        Q.   Can you see that in the screen in front of you, Dr. Parsons?

11        A.   Yes.

12        Q.   It's entitled:  "Srebrenica unmatched DNA profiles to June 7th

13     2013," and then it refers to reassociation profiles list.  Can you just

14     tell us as succinctly and briefly as possible what this list shows?

15        A.   Well, we previously were looking at a very large list of

16     individuals that had been identified through DNA matching from profiles

17     from the graves.  Here is a list in -- shown in two columns of DNA

18     profiles that were obtained from graves considered to be related to

19     Srebrenica, both by ICMP and the ICTY, but they have not been matched to

20     family members, presumably and almost certainly because we do not have

21     family reference samples for them to match.  So these are unidentified

22     DNA profiles that clearly indicate the presence of a new and unique

23     individual.  We just don't know who it was, but he came from one of the

24     Srebrenica-associated graves.  And then we have in the left-most column,

25     the designations in blue, those are the unique individuals.  And then to

Page 14093

 1     the right, associated with that are additional body parts that match the

 2     first person.  So we see in rows 3 and 4, just for example, both the blue

 3     and the red profile come from the same individual.  So that unknown

 4     individual is then found in two parts.  Then we go down to the next set

 5     of three rows, 5 through 7, and we have three different parts of the same

 6     individual, again unmatched as to family member but representing a unique

 7     individual associated with Srebrenica.  And there are 124 unmatched

 8     individuals represented in that list.

 9        Q.   Okay.  Thank you very much for that explanation.

10             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Yes, I'd like to tender this exhibit as well.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar.

12             THE REGISTRAR:  Document 29078 receives number P1728,

13     Your Honours.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  P1728 is admitted into evidence.  There are no names

15     on it, no need to have it under seal, Mr. --

16             MR. VANDERPUYE:  That's correct, Mr. President, no need to have

17     it under seal.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  This will be a public document.

19             Please proceed.

20             MR. VANDERPUYE:

21        Q.   Now, with respect to this list of unmatched DNA profiles and the

22     larger list of matched DNA profiles, is it fair to say that each profile

23     of a main case refers to an individual?

24        A.   Yes, it is.  So we would have -- in terms of the total number of

25     individuals from the first list, I think we said 67 -- 6.708, I can also

Page 14094

 1     report the current value because that list is as of January.  As of early

 2     June there were 6.767 individuals identified by name in addition to the

 3     124 unidentified here, for a total of 7.001 individuals, distinct

 4     individuals, known by DNA to have been recovered from these graves.

 5        Q.   Right.  Thank you very much for that explanation in the update.

 6             Just one last question, and that is:  In your opinion, is the DNA

 7     identification matching process that's been undertaken by the ICMP and

 8     currently undertaken by the ICMP reliable to a high degree of scientific

 9     certainty?

10        A.   Absolutely.

11        Q.   Okay.

12             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Mr. President, I have no further questions of

13     the witness at this time.  Thank you very much, Mr. President.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Vanderpuye.

15             Mr. Stojanovic, are you ready to cross-examine the witness?

16                           Cross-examination by Mr. Stojanovic:

17        Q.   [Interpretation] Professor, good afternoon --

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Parsons, you'll be cross-examined by

19     Mr. Stojanovic.  Mr. Stojanovic is counsel for Mr. Mladic.

20             THE WITNESS:  Understood.  Thank you.

21             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation]

22        Q.   I will try, Professor, to go very briefly over certain topics

23     that remain after the examination-in-chief.

24             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] And I would like to call up in

25     e-court P1723.  This is a document under seal, Your Honours.

Page 14095

 1        Q.   What I wanted to ask, Professor, you said in response from the

 2     Chamber that from the photograph that we see the mortal remains were

 3     provided to you by the pathologist and you take samples for DNA profiling

 4     from the appropriate parts.  It is said here that this was done by

 5     Dr. Vedo Tuco.  Is he an employee of the ICMP?

 6        A.   No.

 7        Q.   Is he an employee of the Podrinje Identification Centre?

 8        A.   No.

 9        Q.   How is he involved in this entire process as a provider of this

10     kind of information for your analysis?

11        A.   He is one of the state court-appointed pathologists that is

12     authorised to perform autopsies, issue death certificates, and in that

13     responsibility submits samples also to the ICMP.  He works in Tuzla at

14     a -- at the commemorative centre there.

15        Q.   You do not oversee his work?  I suppose you have no way to

16     supervise him?

17        A.   That is correct.

18        Q.   Also, you in the ICMP are not concerned with the issue whether

19     the mortal remains that were photographed were really the mortal remains

20     of one body.  It is Dr. Vedo Tuco who does that, isn't it?

21        A.   In this particular case, I would answer in the affirmative.  But

22     in general, we are concerned with that issue and our anthropologists are

23     involved in a great number of these cases and, in fact, may have assisted

24     Dr. Tuco on many occasions to make that -- to make that determination.

25        Q.   Thank you.  And another question that follows from the

Page 14096

 1     examination-in-chief.  In the status of the Podrinje Identification

 2     Centre, who is the founder of that centre?

 3        A.   ICMP established that centre.

 4        Q.   Does the centre in Tuzla have a laboratory that is also used for

 5     DNA matching?

 6        A.   No.  All the DNA work is done by the ICMP, not at PIP, Podrinje

 7     Identification Project.

 8        Q.   You mentioned a man who worked for the ICMP and is now working at

 9     the Podrinje Identification Project.  What kind of profile of specialist

10     is he?

11        A.   He is also a court-appointed forensic pathologist who has managed

12     the Podrinje Identification Project throughout the entirety of its

13     existence and he's a highly experienced forensic pathologist who conducts

14     autopsies and has extreme familiarity with osteology and physical

15     anthropology as well.  His name is Dr. Rifat Kesetovic.

16        Q.   Apart from Dr. Rifat Kesetovic we have seen in these reports

17     another name, namely Dr. Zdenko Cihlarz.  Am I right, and if so, what is

18     his status in the entire process?

19        A.   That is correct and he is also a court-appointed pathologist.

20        Q.   Could you assist me on this, Professor.  When you spoke about the

21     organisation that verifies the work of laboratories like yours, I have

22     before me data obtained from an organisation whose acronym is GEDNAP, a

23     German organisation.  Is that the same one that we talked about when you

24     used the acronym DAkkS?

25        A.   No, that's a completely different organisation.  The GEDNAP group

Page 14097

 1     is involved in providing proficiency tests where they send samples to

 2     different laboratories, and these samples have known and expected

 3     results.  And it's part of the quality control exercises of a laboratory

 4     to conduct testing on those and see if they get the same result as

 5     GEDNAP.  So GEDNAP is not actually an accreditation body of any kind.

 6     They simply provide these known samples and report on the results.  I

 7     will say, though, that ICMP also participates in GEDNAP proficiency

 8     testing.

 9        Q.   Is GEDNAP a body who can also issue ICMP with a certificate for

10     the work of laboratories?

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Stojanovic, I heard the witness say a minute

12     ago:

13             "So GEDNAP is not actually an accreditation body of any kind ..."

14             Which seems to answer your question.  Unless I misunderstood you.

15             THE WITNESS:  You understood correctly.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

17             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.  Then I did not

18     understand this quite well.

19        Q.   You obtained accreditation in 2007, as you said.  Now, before

20     2007, were you involved in DNA matching?

21        A.   Yes, since 2001.

22        Q.   From 2001 until 2007, ICMP did not have accreditation for the

23     work of its laboratories; is that correct?

24        A.   Yes.

25        Q.   Could you tell us, how many DNA matches were done by your

Page 14098

 1     organisation between 2001 and 2007 before receiving accreditation?

 2        A.   No, but the answer would be quite many -- because I simply do not

 3     recall that exact number.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Are we talking in the hundreds?  Are we talking in

 5     the thousands?  Could you give us a rough estimate?

 6             THE WITNESS:  Definitely talking in the thousands.  As you -- you

 7     saw that list for Srebrenica alone was 16.000 match reports.  So, yeah,

 8     very many reports were issued prior to 2007.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  So we're even talking close to the tens of

10     thousands?

11             THE WITNESS:  I think so, yes.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

13             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

14        Q.   Would you kindly tell us how many verified accredited

15     laboratories does ICMP now have in Bosnia-Herzegovina?

16        A.   Well, our DNA laboratory system and our Identification

17     Co-ordination Division are both accredited.  The DNA laboratory system is

18     involved in two facilities, one in Banja Luka and one in Sarajevo, and

19     the Identification Co-ordination Division is in Tuzla.

20             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  May I put one additional question to you,

21     Dr. Parsons.  When was this accreditation system established?

22             THE WITNESS:  Sir, I'm not quite sure, but I would beg leave of

23     the Court to comment on that general topic insofar as the issue of

24     forensic laboratory accreditation in the field of forensic DNA testing

25     has been quite evolutionary.  At the time that the ICMP began in 2001,

Page 14099

 1     very, very few labs worldwide were accredited to the ISO standard.  As

 2     the field progressed, there was more and more laboratories thinking about

 3     doing that.  I was a member of the European Network of Forensic Science

 4     Institutes in 2006 and 2007, while the ICMP was making the determination

 5     if we should go after accreditation.  And the European Network of

 6     Forensic Science Institutes did a trans-Europe survey of criminalistic

 7     forensic DNA laboratories to determine how many were accredited, and at

 8     that time it was less than 30 per cent of all practicing forensic

 9     laboratories.

10             However, to put the evolution in context, at that time fully

11     50 per cent of the ones that were not accredited were also in preparation

12     for applying for accreditation, which can take years.  And it was at that

13     time that the ICMP decided that we ought to also, now that this was --

14     this accreditation movement was becoming more de rigueur for quality

15     management systems, we decided to go for it ourselves.  So there is no

16     great change in the quality of ICMP's work pre-and post-accreditation,

17     nor were we in any way exceptional with working without accreditation at

18     that time.

19             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you very much for that answer.

20             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] In the context of the same

21     question, could we please look at 1D1110.

22        Q.   And we need to look at paragraph 1 on page 3, Professor.  And

23     before that, just glance at the cover page because it's about GEDNAP.

24             Thank you.  Now let us move to page 3, paragraph 1.  I

25     highlighted the passage that I want to ask you about.  It says here that

Page 14100

 1     the system to which you will belong, and I quote:

 2             "... must comply with the generally accepted state-of-the-art

 3     which means that the system must not only be proven to be reproducible

 4     within the developing laboratory but must also be reproducible in other

 5     equally qualified laboratories."

 6             I ask you now:  Would you accept that a scientifically valid

 7     principle is reproducibility in other equally qualified laboratories?

 8        A.   Can you clarify for me, please, what this document is?

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  I would like to ask you an additional question,

10     Mr. Stojanovic.  You're talking about the system.  Now, on the previous

11     page I read that it is about basic principles of the blind trial system,

12     that is apparently the system adopted by GEDNAP to -- Mr. Mladic, low

13     volume.

14             So the witness asked to know what the document is, and my

15     question is:  When you refer to the system, page 3, to be clear on what

16     system that refers to.  And if I could read the title of the document, it

17     is the:  "GEDNAP German DNA Profiling Group Blind Trial System," and it

18     exists of 16 pages which, as far as the index on the first page is

19     concerned, seems to describe the system GEDNAP is using for its

20     activities.

21             Anything to add, Mr. Stojanovic?

22             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] That is correct, Your Honour.

23     And if I may, maybe that should have been the first step, we could look

24     at page 2, introductory remarks, that perhaps provide the answer.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Then, as a matter of fact, I would suggest that you

Page 14101

 1     look first at page 1 where there is an index of what follows.  And then

 2     perhaps slowly move it so that the witness can gain an impression of what

 3     the document is about.

 4             If you're ready to move below 3.1, please indicate so that you

 5     can see the following.

 6             THE WITNESS:  Yes, I'm ready.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Could we move.  Yes.

 8             Mr. Stojanovic, please proceed.

 9             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation]

10        Q.   Professor, I think I'm going to ask you again.  From the passage

11     that I've read out to you, would you accept that the reproducibility of

12     results from one laboratory to another as the scientifically valid

13     principle.

14        A.   As a very general answer to your question, I would say that

15     demonstration of reproducibility is one element of an overarching quality

16     management system that should be taken very seriously and implemented to

17     the extent possible.  In fact, the existence of the GEDNAP blind trial is

18     to permit participating laboratories with an opportunity to test

19     results -- to test samples that have already been tested in qualified

20     laboratories.  Therefore, by participating in the GEDNAP trial, they are

21     offering a means by which to comply with this element of a quality

22     management system and that's the very rationale for the reason that we

23     participate in the GEDNAP programme.

24        Q.   Thank you.  Is there any other laboratory that checked the

25     results you obtained by matching the samples that you've discussed today?

Page 14102

 1        A.   In the Hurricane Katrina disaster in the United States with

 2     the -- for the state of Louisiana, we provided DNA testing on all the

 3     victim samples that were done in that incident response.  The

 4     United States authorities decided to have two laboratories independently

 5     test all of those samples, and so we were involved in a very large

 6     real-life disaster and degraded DNA testing project where there was full

 7     duplication of results.  We got exactly the same results as the other

 8     internationally recognised laboratory that was involved in this process,

 9     with the exception of one result, where very energetic investigation

10     proved that the ICMP result was the correct one and that the other

11     laboratory had made an error.

12        Q.   Professor, do you have such reports of the verification by other

13     laboratories in terms of their results that you have obtained?  Are they

14     available for the scientific community to view as well as for our team in

15     this case?

16        A.   The Hurricane Katrina undertaking I just referred to was in no

17     means a quality-control exercise, so, no, we would not have such a

18     document.  However, the GEDNAP blind trials that we participate in do

19     have a letter acknowledging the results of the trial, so those would be

20     available.

21        Q.   Thank you.  When you mentioned the laboratories in Sarajevo and

22     Banja Luka, up to what level on -- of work in the overall process is the

23     Banja Luka laboratory involved forwarding their results to be continued

24     in terms of the work to be performed by the laboratory in Sarajevo?

25        A.   That has changed over time.  In the early years, the Banja Luka

Page 14103

 1     laboratory was involved in full DNA testing independently.  In the

 2     last -- since just about 2006, however, in the interests of uniform

 3     mechanisms, uniform quality-control procedures, and cost and time

 4     efficiency, we changed so that there was a single operating procedure for

 5     all samples, and the work conducted by the Banja Luka laboratory now is

 6     constrained to the bone sample cleaning, the bone sample decontamination,

 7     and the bone sample grinding prior to chemical extraction, and that is a

 8     very specialised set of physical and chemical manipulations that makes a

 9     lot of sense to have in a dedicated facility.  So they do the steps I

10     just referred to on every bone sample as a specialised facility and then

11     send them on for further processing on to Sarajevo.

12        Q.   In the overall process at any point in time, are the services of

13     the Banja Luka laboratory relied on?

14        A.   I just indicated what the Banja Luka laboratory does for each and

15     every sample.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Could I see whether there may be some confusion

17     there.  You explained the change in the system since 2006.  It may be

18     that Mr. Stojanovic would also like to know whether you would rely on

19     other activities done by the Banja Luka laboratory before 2006.

20             THE WITNESS:  That -- if that's the case, that does clarify.

21     Thank you.  And the answer is:  Yes, there are profiles in our DNA

22     matching database that were derived wholly in the Banja Luka laboratory

23     prior to that switch in procedure.

24             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation]

25        Q.   Thank you.  I will repeat my question, as I believe there was a

Page 14104

 1     problem in terminology.

 2             My question was:  In the overall process at any point in time,

 3     are the services of the Tuzla laboratory relied on?

 4        A.   Okay.  With regard to Tuzla, that has also been an evolutionary

 5     process.  The Identification Co-ordination Division is housed in Tuzla

 6     now and is not involved in the DNA testing procedure.  They are an

 7     accessioning and matching specialised function.  However, in the early

 8     years of the ICMP, the Tuzla centre had a DNA laboratory that was

 9     involved in conducting bone profile DNA testing.  So -- and, excuse me, I

10     apologise, a correction is they were involved in testing the blood

11     samples that came from the family references.

12        Q.   That is why I wanted to ask you the following.  Before 2006 and

13     after 2006, did they conduct analysis of blood samples in their

14     laboratory that are to be relied on for the purposes of matching to

15     obtain identification?

16        A.   "They" meaning the Tuzla laboratory?  The answer is yes, but when

17     I say "relied upon," I don't mean blindly relied upon.  For every DNA

18     match that is issued, there is a full technical review of the data.  So

19     we don't blindly use the profile that comes from the Tuzla laboratory; we

20     independently analyse the genetic electropherograms to make sure that

21     they comport with current-day, quality-control standards.  And if there

22     is any question about anything, whether it comes from the Tuzla

23     laboratory or anywhere else, those samples will be promptly retested in

24     the Sarajevo DNA laboratory.  I would like to emphasise that testing from

25     blood samples is comparatively very routine compared to the much more

Page 14105

 1     difficult work that we do on bone samples.  So it's a trivial undertaking

 2     to repeat that test if necessary.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Could I ask you to explain the word "genetic

 4     electropherograms."

 5             THE WITNESS:  I'm just collecting my thoughts to try to give a

 6     useful but not too technical answer.  The DNA profiles are obtained by

 7     selectively recovering or amplifying - you can use the two words

 8     interchangeably - small fragments of DNA that differ in size.  These STR

 9     loci are variable insofar as they have variable lengths.  And in order to

10     determine that length, the fragments of DNA that have been recovered are

11     put on a laser machine and separated by size, and that process is known

12     as electrophoresis.  The DNA molecules migrate through a matrix that

13     separates them by size, the laser causes them to be detected.  And so

14     when I referred to the genetic electropherograms, what I mean is the

15     output of the instrument that allows you to detect peaks that correspond

16     to fragments of particular lengths and then you can easily translate that

17     into the genetic profile in question.

18             I hope there was some clarity to that answer.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, perhaps I may not have understood the full

20     hundred per cent, but at least it gave me an impression.

21             Please proceed, Mr. Stojanovic.  You may have understood the full

22     hundred per cent.

23             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.  Only partially,

24     Your Honour.  There is a lot to be learned on my part.

25        Q.   Professor, was the Tuzla laboratory certified and accredited at

Page 14106

 1     any point in time to conduct that work?

 2        A.   No, that was prior to any decision to seek accreditation.

 3        Q.   Would I be correct if I said the Tuzla laboratory to date has no

 4     necessary certification, at least not in the sense of what you have for

 5     Banja Luka and Sarajevo?

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Could I -- before the witness answers the question,

 7     could you, Mr. Stojanovic, explain what you mean by "necessary

 8     certification," because I understood from the answers of the witness that

 9     the certification system is on the basis -- is on a voluntary basis,

10     although developing strongly among the -- in the field of where these

11     laboratories are working.

12             What do you mean by "necessary" --

13             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, you're completely

14     correct.  I do not see it as obligatory.  However, having in mind what

15     the professor said, which is that scientific verification also included

16     the use of the necessary standards needed to obtain verification, in that

17     regard I wanted to ask whether the Tuzla lab has such certificate.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Could you please answer the question, Witness.

19             THE WITNESS:  Yeah, I realise it's a little bit difficult to

20     follow the entire process, but let's -- I think we can simplify greatly

21     by the following explanation:  There is presently, and has not been for

22     many years, a DNA laboratory in Tuzla that is affiliated with the ICMP.

23     I referred earlier to some blood DNA profiling that was done by the Tuzla

24     laboratory, but I think it was in 2004 - I apologise, I could be

25     misremembering - that that laboratory was not sustained anymore at all.

Page 14107

 1     The ICMP does have a facility in Tuzla.  It is not a DNA laboratory.  It

 2     is where the Identification Co-ordination Division is housed, and that is

 3     the sample collection, sample accessioning, and DNA matching facility.

 4     There is no DNA laboratory.  It's all computers.  But that ICD,

 5     Identification Co-ordination Division, facility in Tuzla is fully

 6     accredited by our ISO 17025 process, the same as the laboratory system.

 7             So from the beginning of the DNA extraction to the match report

 8     at the end, involving processes both within the laboratories and in the

 9     Identification Co-ordination Division, that process is fully accredited

10     since 2000 -- early 2008.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Could I ask one additional question.  Are the

12     samples preserved?

13             THE WITNESS:  Yes, sir.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  All the samples, both from the -- taken from the

15     remains found in the graves and of the family members?

16             THE WITNESS:  The family members, certainly.  The samples from

17     the grave it is a bit variable.  Sometimes we will consume the entire

18     sample.

19             So the way it normally works - I don't think you got a good view

20     of it - is that a body-bag will come in from the field where it has been

21     exhumed from a grave.  ICMP anthropologists and archaeologists will do a

22     very good job of making sure to the best as they are able to do in the

23     field of removing a part that is only part of a single individual.  It

24     may not be a complete body because it is not even there, but the idea is

25     not to mix it together with other body parts.  There are limitations on

Page 14108

 1     how accurately you can do that in the field.  If it's done inexpertly,

 2     you can make a huge mess of a bad problem.  But what happens is

 3     anthropologists in the mortuary facility will open the bag, take the

 4     remains out, wash them, very carefully scrutinise them, and determine

 5     whether there's a single individual represented or multiple individuals

 6     represented.

 7             Then in order to answer whatever questions they have in mind

 8     about co-mingling and fragmentation and as well as get an identification,

 9     they'll cut a small sample of bone, and that is what was sent to the DNA

10     lab typically.  We almost never see what was shown in that photograph

11     with multiple bone samples.  Then depending on the size of that sample

12     and what was available for the anthropologist to take, we may or may not

13     use all of that.  Normally we would have enough left over for a reserve

14     and we would save that but sometimes we use the whole thing.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Could you give us an indication approximately in how

16     many cases what percentage you would have used all the material and

17     therefore the material not remaining available for a new test?

18             THE WITNESS:  My intention in putting this estimate forward is to

19     be as helpful as possible, while I really have to say it's going to be

20     very rough, but I would say we probably retain material in 75 per cent of

21     the time at least.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

23             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation]

24        Q.   Thank you for your assistance.  I will conclude with this topic.

25     Professor, you mentioned a European Network of Forensic Science

Page 14109

 1     Institutes.  I wanted to ask you this:  Does the ICMP maintain any kind

 2     of professional relationship with this European network?

 3        A.   Yes, we do, actually in a rather unique manner.  Formally

 4     constituted that European network involves police laboratories, but

 5     because we're kind of a unique organisation with regard to our mandate

 6     but also because of our prominence in the field, I was invited to be a

 7     regular contributing guest member.  So ICMP has kind of a special status

 8     with ENFSI, that's the acronym, E-N-F-S-I.  And we regularly attend the

 9     meetings, we're regularly asked to provide updates, and in fact we

10     perform training programmes under the auspices of ENFSI.  We have a

11     number of instances where we have put on multi-day training programmes

12     for forensic sciences scientists around Europe to come in and learn the

13     specialised and difficult techniques that we do.

14             We also assisted the Montenegrin police in developing techniques

15     for bone DNA extraction through co-ordination with ENFSI.

16        Q.   Are you, the ICMP, a member of the ENFSI network?

17             JUDGE ORIE:  The witness has told that he participated as a guest

18     member.  Mr. Stojanovic, it's always good to listen to the answers and

19     not only to the question.  Please proceed.

20             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I understood the

21     Professor say that he participated in the work, but what I wanted to know

22     whether the ICMP is a member of the professional organisation, as the

23     organisation.

24             THE WITNESS:  No, we are not one of the police laboratories that

25     is capable of being a member of ENFSI.

Page 14110

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  The witness earlier referred to the special status,

 2     Mr. Stojanovic, which I would not use as an expression for ordinary

 3     membership.  Please proceed.

 4             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.  Your Honour, perhaps

 5     it is a good time to tender the document we relied on, which is 1D1110.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Vanderpuye, no objection?

 7             MR. VANDERPUYE:  No objection, Mr. President.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar.

 9             THE REGISTRAR:  Document receives number D326, Your Honours.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  D326 is admitted into evidence.

11                           [Trial Chamber confers]

12             JUDGE ORIE:  I checked with my colleagues, Mr. Stojanovic, but

13     where you said you relied upon it, you were relying on a totally

14     different exercise.  You asked the witness questions about it, where

15     it's -- as far as we are aware of, a proficiency developing system is

16     something quite different from the testing of DNA material in the field.

17     But since the parties apparently agree on relevance, the Chamber has

18     admitted it into evidence.  Please proceed.

19             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.  Is this

20     a good time for the break as I am about to change topics, or should I

21     continue?

22             JUDGE ORIE:  No, I think it's a good time for a break.  Could you

23     give us an indication as to how much time you would still need after the

24     break and perhaps even tomorrow?

25             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] I estimate - and I cut it, given

Page 14111

 1     the fact that this is a live testimony - I believe I'll need another

 2     hour.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, which means that we cannot finish today.

 4             We already -- this already to inform you, Mr. Parsons, that we

 5     would very much appreciate your presence tomorrow but not for a very long

 6     time.

 7             We take a break and we'll resume at a quarter to 2.00, after the

 8     witness has left the courtroom.

 9                           [The witness stands down]

10             JUDGE ORIE:  We take the break.

11                           --- Recess taken at 1.21 p.m.

12                           --- On resuming at 1.46 p.m.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Could the witness be escorted into the courtroom.

14             Mr. Vanderpuye, Mr. Groome is there so I'd like to reserve the

15     last 10 to 15 minutes, depending on how much time Mr. Groome would need.

16             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Mr. President, I just wanted to alert the

17     Chamber that we have the B/C/S translation of P1720, MFI'd.  The ERN, the

18     document ID number is 06796805-B/C/ST.  And we would ask that the court

19     officer link the translation so that we can admit it at this time.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, leave is granted to link the translation to

21     P1720, and P1720 is admitted into evidence.

22                           [The witness takes the stand]

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Stojanovic, I suggest that we -- again,

24     Mr. Groome would -- how much time would you need?  I have a few matters

25     as well.

Page 14112

 1             MR. GROOME:  I think ten minutes would take care of my

 2     submissions.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Ten minutes.  Then we have to stop not any later

 4     than 2.00 today to deal with those matters.  And since we cannot conclude

 5     the testimony of the witness anyhow today, that doesn't make that much of

 6     a difference.

 7             Mr. Stojanovic, you may proceed.

 8             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

 9        Q.   Professor, I should like to move on to issues related to DNA

10     methodology and its reach, its scope.  Would you agree that DNA

11     methodology could be useful for the reassociation of fragmented mortal

12     remains?

13        A.   Yes.

14        Q.   Can the DNA method help us establish the time of death of the

15     person whose DNA profile is being analysed?

16        A.   Generally, no.

17        Q.   Would the DNA method that you use be able to help us establish

18     the way and the cause of death?

19        A.   Not directly.

20        Q.   Would it be possible for a person who is properly identified in

21     your laboratory using the DNA method to have died in another period, not

22     July 1995?

23        A.   Yes.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Stojanovic, I think that the evidence of the

25     witness is pretty clear about what his tests have resulted in.  Now to

Page 14113

 1     put a long list of questions to the witness, such as whether the DNA

 2     tests could identify whether it was when the person died might not be

 3     very useful because the Chamber will limit itself to what the DNA testing

 4     in the opinion of this witness has told us.  So therefore, could you

 5     please keep this in mind when putting further questions to the witness.

 6             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation]

 7        Q.   Professor, does ICMP have in its possession autopsy reports for

 8     the bodies whose DNA samples you analysed?

 9        A.   We may have some copies, but officially, no, we don't retain

10     those.  The ones from PIP would be held there; and that's no longer an

11     ICMP facility, but we have very strong interactions with that facility

12     all along.

13        Q.   Would you tell us where physically we could access autopsy

14     reports for these bodies?

15        A.   I apologise, I don't have that information to provide to you.

16     Autopsies themselves are the purview of the forensic pathologists, not

17     the ICMP scientists.

18        Q.   Would it be correct to conclude that it was precisely on the

19     basis of the conclusions of the forensic pathologists and the autopsy

20     reports that the cause of death could be established with greater

21     certainty for the bodies that you identified?

22        A.   Well, I have to delve into the details just a little bit on that.

23     Many of the skeletal -- many of the remains that are dealt with from

24     Srebrenica and other areas of Bosnia are essentially fully skeletonised,

25     which does bring their examination and analysis into the realm of the

Page 14114

 1     field of forensic anthropology as opposed to pathology per se.  By that I

 2     mean most of the true forensic expertise applied to the examination and

 3     analysis comes from the work of ICMP anthropologists, and those skeletal

 4     reports are part of a forensic management database that the ICMP

 5     maintains.  And in many instances, trauma is recorded by ICMP

 6     anthropologists if those are the cases that they have been involved in

 7     examining.  So when I say many instances, I mean thousands where they

 8     would, for example, note a bullet-hole on the back of the skull or

 9     shattered bones consistent with a blast or a high-velocity projectile.

10             Those anthropology reports then are often used in conjunction

11     with or condensed in the autopsy reports that are maintained by the

12     pathologist.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Stojanovic, I don't know whether there's any

14     translation issue, yes or no, but your question was whether the

15     conclusions of the forensic pathologists and the autopsy reports, that on

16     the basis of those that the cause of death could be established with

17     greater certainty for the bodies that you identified.  I never understood

18     that Mr. Parsons was involved in establishing the cause of death, but

19     rather with the identification primarily of the identity of the bodily

20     remains.  So therefore, the greater certainty compared to what, greater

21     certainty than what?

22             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I asked that

23     because I understood the professor as saying that within the ICMP there

24     were also forensic pathologists and anthropologists, who also took part

25     in analysing the cause of death.  If my understanding is incorrect, then

Page 14115

 1     the question was superfluous.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Which still doesn't answer my question:  Greater

 3     than on the basis of what?  On the basis, you mean, of witness

 4     testimonies or is that what you compare it to?

 5             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] That is right, Your Honour.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Although I did not understand that this was the

 7     subject of the specific testimony of Mr. Parsons today but rather of

 8     other departments of the organisation -- well, you have clarified your

 9     question.  Is -- do you like -- would you like to add anything,

10     Mr. Parsons, to your previous answer on a question which was not entirely

11     clear to me.

12             THE WITNESS:  I don't think so.  Thank you.  I'd be happy to

13     follow-up to additional questioning if I could be of more assistance.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Stojanovic, please proceed.

15             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

16        Q.   I'll put the question in this way, Professor.  Does the ICMP

17     conduct any investigation into the time and place of death of the persons

18     for whom you do DNA matching and profiling?

19        A.   I would have to say yes, starting from the very basic premise

20     that we don't work in a vacuum.  We've already seen examples of

21     excavation reports that profile in great detail the contents and

22     characteristics of both primary and secondary graves.  Moreover, many of

23     our scientists previously worked on ICTY teams and were very well

24     apprised of the evidentiary context in which our work occurs, to include

25     aerial evidence that showed these various sites not existing as graves

Page 14116

 1     prior to a particular time and then being created as graves after a very

 2     narrow window of time.

 3             So we know where we're working.  We're able to see the

 4     characteristics of the sites.  We're able to see the conditions of the

 5     bodies coming out of them.  Our anthropologists document physical trauma,

 6     skeletal damage consistent with cause of death, and assist the

 7     court-appointed pathologist at reaching these conclusions.  All these --

 8     all this background is the context in which the DNA identifications where

 9     we put exact names to the victims of these incidents.  So yes, we have a

10     great deal of investigation.  We gather evidence, we document it, and it

11     becomes part of the historical record.

12        Q.   Could you please help me understand this.  Do the results

13     obtained by the ICMP in themselves provide any information about the

14     cause and manner of death?

15        A.   I would say that when an ICMP physical anthropologist is

16     examining a set of skeletal remains that has a bullet-hole in the back of

17     the head, that they are actually providing information about the cause

18     and manner of death.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Stojanovic, I'm sorry to interrupt, but we need

20     to deal with a few procedural matters.

21             Mr. Parsons, if we would not have done that, it would not have

22     saved you because we would not have finished anyhow.  We would like to

23     see you back tomorrow morning at 9.30 in this same courtroom.  And I

24     would like to instruct you that you should not speak or communicate in

25     whatever way with whomever about your testimony, whether the testimony

Page 14117

 1     you gave today or the testimony still to be given tomorrow.

 2             THE WITNESS:  Very good.  Thank you.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  You may follow the usher.

 4                           [The witness stands down]

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Groome, before I give you the ten minutes you

 6     asked for, I have the following matter to deal with first.

 7             The Prosecution's 28th motion to admit evidence pursuant to

 8     Rule 92 bis was discussed recently and we had not received any response

 9     by the 6th of June.  On the 8th of July, the OTP stated that it will not

10     object to a request for an extension to respond, and the Defence was

11     granted until the 9th of July, which is today, to ask for an extension.

12     We have not heard from the Defence yesterday.

13             MR. LUKIC:  We did not have time this morning, Your Honour, but I

14     can respond to the 28th and the 29th.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

16             MR. LUKIC:  Do you want me to do it now?

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, if it can be briefly done.

18             MR. LUKIC:  I believe it can.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, please do so.

20             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you.

21             We have reviewed our records and located those filings, which we

22     unfortunately have not yet reviewed with the aim of preparing a response.

23     With everything else going on, they could not be processed particularly

24     with the manner in which they were served upon us, in multiple e-mails,

25     out of order, with no name of the motion in the subject, that needed to

Page 14118

 1     be downloaded and manually sorted.  Hence, we require additional time,

 2     particularly in light of the currently pending and filed urgent

 3     Prosecution motions pertaining to several of the Prosecution experts that

 4     are coming up in the next week -- few weeks that have been filed and

 5     which we have been attending to.  Including in this is the one that

 6     Your Honours have advanced the dead-line for the -- for to be the

 7     10th of July, 2013.  We know that there are another four such Rule 92 bis

 8     motions for which extensions have been or will be filed and for which we

 9     are already working on the responses.  Two of those already have a

10     court-ordered new due date.  That means that that is a lot already on our

11     plates.  We thus ask for 30 [Realtime transcript read in error "three"]

12     days for the 29th -- 28th motion from today's date and 45 days from

13     today's date for the 29th motion's response.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Is there any specific --

15             MR. LUKIC:  Yes.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  -- any specific explanation for the three days for

17     the one and 45 days for the other?

18             MR. LUKIC:  We need something in between to work on the second

19     one when we finish the first one.  Because the first one is, I think,

20     more than 400 pages.  And the -- and it's really -- or maybe the second

21     one.  I'm not sure now.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  You're asking for three days' extension of

23     time --

24             MR. LUKIC:  30 days.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  30 days?

Page 14119

 1             MR. LUKIC:  Yes.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  I understood three days.  Then we misunderstood you.

 3     That's 30 days for the one.  We'll consider it.

 4             Any response by the Prosecution at this moment?

 5             MR. GROOME:  Other than to note our continued position with

 6     respect to these applications.  We don't oppose any time that the Chamber

 7     believes is reasonable.  With respect to what sounds like a problem with

 8     the motion itself, if Mr. Lukic speaks with me after court today, I will

 9     see that he has the full and correct version of the application.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Then we'll consider it and we'll let you know.

11             Then, Mr. Groome, we have ten minutes left so that you can make

12     your -- any submissions on matters, I take it the matters we -- the

13     Chamber raised yesterday.

14             MR. GROOME:  Yes, Your Honour.

15             Yesterday the Chamber posed several questions to the Prosecution

16     and I will answer them now.

17             First the Chamber asked whether it would be possible to file all

18     92 bis, 92 quater, and bar table motions by the 30th of August.  The

19     answer is that we are endeavouring to do this and reasonably expect that

20     we will with the exception of one motion.

21             There are, however, two categories of bar table motions that we

22     will not be able to.  The first we await the Chamber's decisions on a

23     number of 92 bis and 92 quater applications that have already been filed.

24     There will be additional 92 bis and quater filings in the coming weeks.

25     In many of these applications, the Prosecution tenders associated

Page 14120

 1     exhibits.  If the Chamber rejects the 92 bis or quater application in its

 2     entirety or in part by excluding some of the associated exhibits, the

 3     Prosecution may consider it necessary to tender these documents in bar

 4     table motions.

 5             The second category of possible bar table motions after the 30th

 6     relates to those witnesses who are scheduled to testify after that date.

 7     It is our intention to tender documents through some of these witnesses.

 8     Of course, if they are rejected, we may consider it necessary to tender

 9     them in a bar table motion.

10             The next query the Chamber made of the Prosecution yesterday

11     related to the volume of applications that are still to come as well as

12     some additional information about them.

13             With respect to 92 bis applications, the Prosecution will be

14     filing with the next -- within the next several weeks and in any case

15     prior to August 30th, nine 92 bis motions, one for the Sarajevo

16     component, two for the municipality component, and six for the Srebrenica

17     component.  The Chamber will have seen numerous assignments by the

18     Registrar of Legal Officers to officiate the attestation of 92 bis

19     witness statements.  That process is underway and is expected to be

20     completed sometime in September.

21             We have in the past notified the Chamber of our intention to not

22     adduce the evidence of 29 witnesses in reliance on this Chamber taking

23     judicial notice of previously adjudicated facts.  We did this most

24     recently on the 19th of June.  As noted in that filing, we are

25     considering whether prudence requires us to make 92 bis applications with

Page 14121

 1     respect to several of these witnesses.  Although we have not come to a

 2     final view, I think it is likely that we will file such applications for

 3     several of them.

 4             With respect to 92 quater, the Prosecution still has to file

 5     motions for ten witnesses who are unavailable, two for Sarajevo, two for

 6     the municipalities, and six for the Srebrenica component.

 7             With respect to bar tables, the Prosecution anticipates filing

 8     two additional bar table motions this week.  One motion with respect to

 9     ten audio tapes or excerpts from ten audio tapes recovered from

10     Mr. Mladic's home.  The second, a bar table of some documents related to

11     the municipality of Foca.

12             With respect to other potential bar tables, we are working on

13     seven additional bar table motions.  The first one tendering a modest

14     number of videos.  The second, a municipality bar table motion that will

15     consist of several hundred documents.  Third, a military document bar

16     table motion which will several hundred documents.  We have already filed

17     a bar table motion with respect to UN reports and Resolutions.  We will

18     be supplementing that with another UN report bar table once we have

19     received the necessary translations.  CLSS indicates that they will have

20     these translations completed after the break.  The Prosecution will also

21     be filing a bar table motion specifically for documents from the

22     Sarajevo-Romanija Corps.  The Prosecution is planning to file this bar

23     table motion prior to the break.

24             The sixth bar table motion will contain several categories of

25     documents related to the Sarajevo component.  We anticipate that that

Page 14122

 1     will not be ready for filing until September.  The Prosecution also

 2     anticipates filing a bar table motion for the Srebrenica component of a

 3     modest number of documents.

 4             In addition to all of the motions referred to already, there are

 5     an additional two.  The Prosecution will be moving to add a witness to

 6     its witness list with respect to our proof on the Sarajevo component of

 7     the case.  The 92 bis motion for that witness is being prepared in tandem

 8     and will be filed immediately after the Chamber decides on our

 9     application.  The Prosecution will also be making a motion to add several

10     documents we recently received relevant to the proof of death component

11     of our case.

12             The final question put to the Prosecution related to our filing

13     in relation to the expert Reynaud Theunens.  The Chamber informed the

14     Prosecution that it would set a dead-line for the 26th of July for that

15     filing.  Yesterday morning I received a near final draft of our response.

16     It is a filing that I consider of some importance and we will work to

17     finalise our submission before the end of tomorrow.

18             With respect to the reports of other experts, I assure the

19     Chamber that the Prosecution is working diligently to finalise them as

20     quickly as possible and to file them with the Court.

21             And, Your Honour, I can answer any specific questions the Chamber

22     may have about my submission.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Groome, not only in view of the time but also in

24     view of the magnitude of information provided to us, I think we first

25     need more time to digest all the information you've given us before we

Page 14123

 1     are able to put any additional questions.

 2             Now may I take it that, Mr. Lukic, that you may need more time as

 3     well to -- if you want to respond or make any submissions on what the

 4     Prosecution just said?  I would not expect you to do that within the next

 5     one and a half minutes.

 6             MR. LUKIC:  I'm grateful for that, Your Honours.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 8             We'll adjourn for the day and we will resume tomorrow, Wednesday,

 9     the 10th of July, at 9.30 in the morning, in this same courtroom, III.

10                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.14 p.m.,

11                           to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 10th day of

12                           July, 2013, at 9.30 a.m.