Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 36238

 1                           Wednesday, 24 June 2015

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           --- Upon commencing at 9.32 a.m.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Good morning to everyone in and around this

 6     courtroom.

 7             Mr. Registrar, would you please call the case.

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

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

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Registrar.

11             No preliminaries were announced.  Therefore, is the Prosecution

12     ready to call its next witness?

13             MR. TIEGER:  It is, Mr. President.  The next witness is

14     Ian Hanson.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Could the witness be escorted in the -- there seems

16     to be a problem with the audio for Mr. Mladic.  Could we first sort that

17     out.

18             Mr. Mladic, can you now hear me in a language you understand?

19     Apparently not.

20                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Does it work now, Mr. Mladic?

22                           [Trial Chamber confers]

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Can you now hear me in a language -- yes, I see that

24     Mr. Mladic confirms that he receives audio in his own language.

25             Then could the witness be escorted in the courtroom.

Page 36239

 1             MR. TIEGER:  And as the witness is entering, perhaps we could

 2     meanwhile call up 65 ter 31099.

 3                           [The witness entered court]

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Good morning, Mr. Hanson.

 5             THE WITNESS:  Good morning, Your Honour.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Before you give evidence, the Rules require that you

 7     make a solemn declaration, of which the text is now handed out to you.

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

 9     whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

10                           WITNESS: IAN HANSON

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.  Please be seated, Mr. Hanson.

12             THE WITNESS:  Thank you.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Hanson, you'll first be examined by Mr. Tieger.

14     You find Mr. Tieger to your right.  Mr. Tieger is counsel for the

15     Prosecution.

16             Please proceed.

17             MR. TIEGER:  Thank you, Mr. President.

18                           Examination by Mr. Tieger:

19        Q.   Good morning, Mr. Hanson.

20        A.   Good morning.

21        Q.   Although we are well aware by now, if you could state your name

22     for the record, please.

23        A.   Ian David Hanson.

24        Q.   Thank you.  And you are the deputy director of forensic science

25     of the ICMP; is that correct?

Page 36240

 1        A.   I am.

 2        Q.   Can you briefly --

 3             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Tieger, please pause between question and

 4     answer and the other way around.

 5             MR. TIEGER:  Of course, Your Honour.  Thank you.

 6        Q.   And that is an excellent reminder from His Honour, and I'm the

 7     offender here but we should both pause because we speaking the same

 8     language and we need to leave time for the interpretation.

 9             Can you briefly describe for Their Honours the nature of your

10     work as deputy director of forensic science.

11        A.   Yes.  Within the ICMP I manage the archaeology and anthropology

12     division.  This undertakes assistance to governments and authorities in

13     the search, excavation, and examination of missing persons.

14        Q.   And does that entail assistance with authorities in locating and

15     excavating grave-sites, mass graves, and so on?

16        A.   Yes, it does.

17        Q.   Now, I've called up 65 ter 31099.  This is your curriculum vitae;

18     is that correct?  You will see that on the screen in front of you.

19        A.   That's correct.

20        Q.   Now I appreciate that to a large extent that it speaks for

21     itself, but if could identify just a few highlights and ask you to

22     confirm them.

23             First of all, you've had 26 years of archaeological experience;

24     is that right?

25        A.   That's correct.

Page 36241

 1        Q.   And that would include approximately 16.000 hours of field

 2     investigations including many which you have supervised and directed

 3     around the world including in the Balkans, the Middle East, and Africa?

 4        A.   That's correct.

 5        Q.   You are senior lecturer or have been a senior lecturer in

 6     forensic archaeology at Bournemouth University?

 7        A.   That's correct.

 8        Q.   You have designed and managed training courses in this field?

 9        A.   That's correct.

10        Q.   And you have published and lectured extensively as reflected in

11     the CV including a book in 2008 entitled: "The Scientific Investigation

12     of Mass Graves Towards Protocols and Standard Operating Procedures"?

13        A.   That's correct.

14             MR. TIEGER:  Your Honour, I'd tender 65 ter 31099.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

16             THE REGISTRAR:  That will be Exhibit P7430, Your Honours.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Admitted into evidence.

18             MR. TIEGER:

19        Q.   Mr. Hanson, in your capacity as deputy director, were you called

20     upon to assist in the exhumation at the Tomasica site in 2013?

21        A.   Yes, I was.  We were contacted by the prosecutor's office to

22     assist, I think, on 6th of September 2013.

23        Q.   Okay.  Had you been contacted in connection with the possibility

24     of an excavation of Tomasica prior to the time it began?

25        A.   Yes, I was.  We met with the missing persons institute in, I

Page 36242

 1     recall, December 2012 where they discussed with us whether a return to

 2     that particular site was warranted given previous findings and the

 3     current information they had, and in 2013 those discussions continued as

 4     to the potential to go to that site to undertake further investigations.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Hanson, I noticed that you are now and then are

 6     looking at papers which are before you.  The Chamber is not aware of what

 7     they are, and usually we ask witnesses not to do that, and if they need

 8     to do it to tell us, and then also to tell us what you're looking at.

 9             THE WITNESS:  Fine, Your Honour.  I was just referring to my

10     report.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Fine.  That's -- it's your report which you

12     have before you.

13             THE WITNESS:  Yes.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Nothing else?

15             THE WITNESS:  Nothing else.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

17             MR. TIEGER:

18        Q.   And I should have intervened before the Presiding Judge was

19     required to do so.  I will be referring you during the course of the

20     examination to portions of your report, some of which will be shown on

21     screen, others in the interest of time we may just ask you to look to

22     yourself and confirm.  So clearly I would have asked you to refer to a

23     hard copy document in front of you and should have addressed that, but

24     it's good we have that on the record now.

25             You've just indicated the discussions that resulted in

Page 36243

 1     conclusions that could be worthwhile to further explore the Tomasica

 2     site.  Was trenching probes subsequently undertaken after that

 3     discussion?

 4        A.   Yes, I was contacted by the prosecutor's office on 6th of

 5     September, 2013, to be informed that they had undertaken probing, test

 6     trenching at the Tomasica location on the 4th of -- and 5th of September,

 7     2013.

 8        Q.   Okay.  And although it may be implicit in what you've just said,

 9     did that initial trenching on the 4th and 5th of September reveal the

10     presence of remains, human remains at the site?

11        A.   Yes, the telephone call from the prosecutor's office stated that

12     they had found human remains.

13        Q.   Can you describe for Their Honours the nature of your role or

14     assistance thereafter.

15        A.   Yes, I was asked by the prosecutor's office to assist in advising

16     on the technical aspect of the excavation - that is, the archaeological

17     works, the logistics works of excavating - and that's one of the primary

18     roles ICMP undertakes in assisting the prosecutor's office and other

19     authorities in Bosnia.

20        Q.   Paragraph 42 of your report indicates that the excavation process

21     was overseen by the deputy director of forensic sciences, yourself,

22     supported by ICMP archaeologists.  In a general manner, does that

23     accurately describe your role in connection with the excavation?

24        A.   Yes, overseeing the excavation.  And in that providing advise to

25     the prosecutor and missing persons institute and other staff on the site

Page 36244

 1     as how to proceed with those technical matters.

 2        Q.   Paragraph 43 goes on to describe the technical advice in a

 3     general manner that was rendered via recommendations based on ICMP

 4     guide-lines, procedures, archaeological best practice, and so on.  Does

 5     that fairly characterise the nature of ICMP's efforts and your own

 6     efforts regarding the excavation at the site; that is, to ensure that the

 7     best practices, proper procedures and protocols and methods were adhered

 8     to?

 9        A.   Yes, it does.

10        Q.   Paragraph 43 also goes on to discuss or describe stratigraphic

11     excavation, the delineation and recording of soil stratigraphy to

12     determine a full deposition in chronological sequence, and so on.  Is

13     that a description of the kind of information that can be revealed

14     through the adherence to the protocols and procedures you discussed; that

15     is, the unfolding of an archaeological record of what happened?

16        A.   Yes, that's the -- the standard result that can be achieved from

17     excavation using archaeological principles.

18        Q.   Can you indicate to the Court with whom you worked?  You've

19     already indicated that you were present at the request of the

20     BiH prosecutor's office.  During the course of your efforts to oversee

21     the excavation, what other officials were involved in that process?

22        A.   The missing persons institute were constantly present at the

23     excavation.  The excavation was secured by the Prijedor police, and they

24     also provided crime technicians who did the evidence numbering,

25     recording, and gathering into chain of custody.  At times, the

Page 36245

 1     court-appointed medical expert was also present; workers from the

 2     mortuary company from Sanski Most were present to assist the excavation;

 3     and latterly, the Tuzla Commemorative Centre provided a small excavating

 4     machine and driver to assist with the excavation; and ICMP staff were

 5     present as required to assist with the technical support of the work.

 6        Q.   And that can be found, I believe, at pages 4 and 5 of your

 7     report; is that correct?

 8        A.   Yes, 4 and 5 lists the participants present during the

 9     excavation.  At some dates the International Criminal Tribunal for the

10     former Yugoslavia also had a senior investigator present.  And just to

11     note at the -- on page 5 survey and archaeological data collection

12     analysis and planning, that was -- work was undertaken after the

13     excavation and involved three persons who were doing the post-excavation

14     analysis to produce plans and maps.

15        Q.   Now, Mr. Hanson, did you prepare a report about the Tomasica

16     excavation that detailed the chronology process, procedures, and findings

17     in connection with that work?

18        A.   I did.

19             MR. TIEGER:  Can we call up 65 ter 31086, please.

20        Q.   This is an 83-page document, the cover of which you now see in

21     front of you.  I can -- and we will be going through portions of that.

22     If you need to see more to identify it, I'm happy to show you.  But is

23     that sufficient to -- for you to know whether or not that is the report

24     that you prepared?

25        A.   Yes, that is my report.

Page 36246

 1        Q.   Now, in addition to the report itself, and the substance of which

 2     we will be discussing during the course of this morning, is it correct

 3     that the document also contains a number of appendices at the end of it?

 4        A.   It does.

 5        Q.   And do those include the following:  A glossary of the terms used

 6     in the report that may not be immediately apparent to the lay reader?

 7        A.   Yes, it does.

 8        Q.   A list of acronyms?

 9        A.   Yes.

10        Q.   An explanation of archaeological symbols that are used?

11        A.   Yes.

12        Q.   A list of the archaeological context found during the excavation?

13        A.   Yes.

14        Q.   Section drawings revealing the stratigraphy; that is, the order

15     and relative position of a strata?

16        A.   Yes.

17        Q.   Plans showing the distribution of the remains?

18        A.   Yes.

19        Q.   Location maps?

20        A.   Yes.

21        Q.   List of human remains found and their locations?

22        A.   Yes.

23        Q.   And references?

24        A.   That's correct.

25             THE INTERPRETER:  Kindly pause between question and answer.

Page 36247

 1     Thank you.

 2             MR. TIEGER:  And I raise those at the outset as a reminder that

 3     we have those resources as we're going through the examination either for

 4     reference by the Bench or any of the parties now or subsequently.

 5             Your Honours, consistent with case practice, I would not tender

 6     this document for admission at this time but ask that it be marked for

 7     identification pending completion of the cross-examination.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar, what number would be assigned to

 9     document to be marked for identification?

10             THE REGISTRAR:  That will be MFI P7431, Your Honours.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Marked for identification.

12             MR. TIEGER:

13        Q.   Mr. Hanson, I'd like to discuss some aspects of the report as I

14     indicated previously.

15             So setting aside the executive summary at the beginning of the

16     report, the report begins at paragraph 25 on page 9 with what appears to

17     be a short section on the background to the excavation which is followed

18     by information on the location and geology of the site beginning at

19     paragraphs 34; is that right?

20        A.   That's correct.

21        Q.   Let me ask you a little initially about the general area of the

22     site.

23             Turning to page 70 of your report, do figures 55 and 56 indicate

24     generally where Prijedor is and provide some Google Earth imagery of the

25     area?

Page 36248

 1        A.   They do.

 2        Q.   Did you also MGRS - that is, military grid reference system

 3     co-ordinates - in your report and is that contained on page 4?

 4        A.   Yes, it is.

 5        Q.   Now --

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Tieger, if you would allow me just a short

 7     observation.

 8             Yesterday we looked at aerial images of the area as well.  I now

 9     see that on page 70 that we -- this is apparently oriented north which

10     makes me conclude that what we saw yesterday with another witness was not

11     the usual south/north orientation.

12             Could the Prosecution in order to avoid that we always have to

13     turn our necks in such a direction try to always present materials in a

14     similar way; that is north up, south down, and not like yesterday where

15     it was difficult.  It is difficult for us to compare the different images

16     if they're all differently oriented.

17             MR. TIEGER:  Understood, Mr.  President.  We'll bear that request

18     in mind.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Thank you.  Please proceed.

20             MR. TIEGER:

21        Q.   Let me ask you to focus a little more closely on the specific

22     area of the site.

23             MR. TIEGER:  And in that respect, I'd call up 65 ter 31077.

24             Okay.  And I'd ask that the -- this is a general plan of the

25     Ljubija iron-ore mine.  Perhaps we could try to blow it up a little bit

Page 36249

 1     more for the benefit of the witness and the parties and the Bench.  I

 2     think it's going to be still hard to read.  Perhaps we could dispense

 3     with the key for the moment and just have it full screen and then blow it

 4     up.  All right.

 5        Q.   Are you able to recognise with that degree of magnification,

 6     Mr. Hanson, the area depicted?

 7        A.   Yes, I am.  I can see Prijedor and the area of the Tomasica mine,

 8     which is central to this image.

 9        Q.   Okay.  And we see Prijedor at the upper left quadrant of the map

10     the road leading downward, and can you show us with the pen that will be

11     provided by the usher where the Tomasica mine site is located.

12        A.   Thank you.  It's the area I've circled.

13        Q.   Okay.  Thank you.

14             MR. TIEGER:  Can I tender 65 ter 31077, Mr. President.  I should

15     also note that it is page 3 in the Tomasica map book which has previously

16     been marked as P7417.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Registrar.

18             THE REGISTRAR:  That will be Exhibit P7432, Your Honours.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Admitted into evidence.

20             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  And for the record, this is the marked version;

21     correct?

22             MR. TIEGER:  Yes, that's correct.

23        Q.   Mr. Hanson, had this site been excavated or probed before 2013

24     and is that discussed in paragraph 26 of your report?

25        A.   Yes.  We determined there were previous excavations, and the

Page 36250

 1     nature of that work was described in existing reports.

 2        Q.   When was the first one?

 3        A.   There had been a probe of the site in 2002 under the auspices of

 4     ICTY.

 5        Q.   And was that successful in finding remains; and, if not, why not,

 6     to the extent it was known?

 7        A.   The report states that no mass graves were found, although

 8     extensive trenching was undertaken.  It appears from examining that

 9     report the trenches were not deep enough to reach the grave or the

10     relative features of any remains that were later revealed.

11        Q.   Were further excavations undertaken in 2004; and if so, with what

12     result?

13        A.   They were.  Paragraph 27 describes this.  A grave was found

14     during further excavations in 2004.  117 cases were recovered which

15     represented a minimum of 23 individuals.  That work was stopped due to

16     rainstorms and flooding.  There was a resumption later in 2004, and the

17     site was returned to in 2006 for further excavations of the same grave.

18        Q.   Can you explain the difference between cases and minimum number

19     of individuals, please.

20        A.   A case describes a designation of evidence, and this may be a

21     body, or part of a body, it may be an artefact, or anything else that the

22     authorities at the excavation define as useful and wish to seize into

23     evidence.

24             The MNI, minimum number of individuals, this is a calculation

25     made by the anthropological assessment of remains to determine how many

Page 36251

 1     individuals may be present by counting the bones.  Where there are

 2     repeats of the same bone, such as a cranium, it indicates there must be

 3     more than one individual.  However, this technique only gives a minimum

 4     number.

 5        Q.   Okay.  With respect to the nature of the remains found there and

 6     the assessment of minimum number of individuals, was any determination

 7     made at that time about whether or not they represented all of the human

 8     remains that had initially been placed at that site?

 9        A.   From the report, it simply describes the number of cases

10     recovered and the -- and a brief summary of the excavation.  However, it

11     was known that the site linked to a secondary grave location called

12     Jakarina Kosa, which had been excavated in 2001, which I state in

13     paragraph 30.  We know from subsequent DNA analysis that cases - that is,

14     human remains from the same individual - were found in both locations.

15        Q.   And during the 2004 excavations, were only -- I think we can see

16     that from the distinction between cases and individuals, but I'll ask you

17     that:  Were only complete bodies found or were body parts, isolated body

18     parts found, and in general was there an assessment made about whether or

19     not the grave-site had been left intact or had been disturbed?

20        A.   No, the report states that bodies and body parts were recovered,

21     and it states that the site had been robbed of most of the remains after

22     initial burial with many isolated body parts found during the 2004

23     exhumation.

24        Q.   And that is linked to your previous observation about the

25     secondary site at Jakarina Kosa and the linkage between the two?

Page 36252

 1        A.   Yes, that was reported upon.

 2        Q.   Okay.  And I may ask you that later, but if you could very

 3     briefly indicate what is meant by "secondary site"?

 4        A.   Secondary site or secondary grave describes a location to which

 5     remains have been taken from a location of initial and primary intern.

 6        Q.   Was there further excavation at the same location in 2006?

 7        A.   Yes, there was.

 8        Q.   And with what results?

 9        A.   Of the two bodies and eight body parts were recovered from

10     re-excavation of the 2004 site works.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  We're now talking -- again, not about Jakarina Kosa

12     but now we're back in Tomasica?

13             THE WITNESS:  That's correct, Your Honour.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Could we always if we're talking about a

15     location to be very clear which one is referred to.

16             Please proceed.

17             MR. TIEGER:

18        Q.   And was it again assessed that the grave-site had been robbed

19     with removal of the contents?

20        A.   It was.

21             MR. TIEGER:  If we could quickly turn back to P74 -- excuse me.

22     7432.  Still there.

23        Q.   Could you indicate, if you can see it on the map, where the

24     Jakarina Kosa site is located?

25        A.   Yes, the Jakarina Kosa site is located west of the Tomasica site.

Page 36253

 1     I cannot tell from the map the exact location, but this is within this

 2     general area.

 3        Q.   Okay.

 4             MR. TIEGER:  And for benefit of the Judges there's a key, which

 5     we could revert back to if we resumed the split-screen, that indicates

 6     Jakarina Kosa by a number that is reflected in the map itself, and I

 7     believe that's number 19 in the key.  If we could go to the translation.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  In the original it's exactly the same, Mr. Tieger.

 9             MR. TIEGER:  Right.  Then perhaps we could go back quickly to

10     65 ter 31077.  Before we move, let's have this marked as well since it

11     was marked by the witness.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, the second marking now ...

13                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Tieger, in order not to scatter all the

15     information, I suggest that first we have a technical problem that it

16     may -- we may need to have the Jakarina Kosa to be re-marked.  But if we

17     do it in a different colour and then all in the same document so that red

18     marking is Tomasica and then the blue marking is Jakarina Kosa.

19             Could the usher assist the witness in marking again after the ...

20             JUDGE MOLOTO:  While we do that, Mr. Tieger, just to remind

21     you -- you said could we go back quickly to 65 ter 31077, just to remind

22     you that 31077 is this P7432.

23             MR. TIEGER:  [Microphone not activated]

24             JUDGE MOLOTO:  The unmarked version.

25             MR. TIEGER:  [Microphone not activated]

Page 36254

 1             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, please.

 2             MR. TIEGER:  And we also have the -- the document in the map book

 3     as well, so I appreciate that reminder.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Then I suggest that we admit in evidence under the

 5     same number this map now marked in red for Tomasica and in blue for

 6     Jakarina Kosa.

 7             Mr. Registrar -- and that would then be number.

 8             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit P7432.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, so the new version now with the second marking

10     on it replaces the original one.

11             Please proceed.

12             MR. TIEGER:

13        Q.   Mr. Hanson, you mentioned earlier Jakarina Kosa as a secondary

14     site and the fact that it was excavated.  That's referred to in

15     paragraph 30 of your report; is that right?

16        A.   That's correct.

17        Q.   Okay.  Can you tell us what the results of that 2001 excavation

18     were?

19        A.   It was published that 139 bodies, 259 body parts were recovered

20     from the site, with a minimum number of individuals calculated 298 based

21     on anthropology.

22        Q.   Okay.  So that 139 intact bodies, 259 body parts, and based on

23     the anthropological assessment a total of 298 -- minimum number of 298

24     distinct individuals?

25        A.   That's correct.

Page 36255

 1        Q.   Did you get any indication of how difficult or complex an

 2     investigation -- an excavation this was?

 3        A.   Yes, I did.  The site is an open-cast mine.  That's the type of

 4     mine that has many steps and is used for the extractions of ores and

 5     minerals that forms a very deep pit or excavation into the landscape, and

 6     it was on the slope and side of this mine that the excavation took place,

 7     so it was complicated and quite difficult and dangerous work.

 8        Q.   And do you know how the remains that you referred to a moment

 9     ago - that is, the minimum number of 298 - how they were covered up when

10     the site was excavated?

11        A.   It was reported to me by the MPI in the prosecutor's office that

12     they had information that an explosion blasted the rock and soil at the

13     site from the side of the mine to cover the remains.

14             MR. TIEGER:  Your Honour, can I ask that we go into private

15     session very quickly.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  We turn into private session.

17                           [Private session]

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 36256











11  Page 36256 redacted.  Private session.















Page 36257

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8                           [Open session]

 9             THE REGISTRAR:  We're in open session, Your Honours.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Registrar.

11             MR. TIEGER:

12        Q.   So, Mr. Hanson, is it correct, therefore, that it is thought by

13     persons familiar with that 2001 excavation and the site itself that not

14     all of the remains at that site have been recovered?

15        A.   That's correct.

16        Q.   Now, Mr. Hanson, the next section of the report appears to be

17     entitled: "Method," that's section 5, which begins at paragraph 42, which

18     is on page 13.  And does that cover the following:  The archaeological

19     excavation of the grave and other features?

20        A.   It does.

21        Q.   The archaeological excavation of the remains and other evidence?

22        A.   It does.

23        Q.   And the documentation and recovery of the remains and evidence?

24        A.   It does.

25        Q.   So I'd like to ask you a few questions about some of those

Page 36258

 1     aspects of the excavation.

 2             Now, in paragraph 44 at page 13, you refer to the initial

 3     trenching and discovery of multiple complete bodies lying in a deposit of

 4     mixed yellow-grey clay over which was a mixture of brown clay.  If we

 5     could turn to page 14, specifically Figure 3.

 6             MR. TIEGER:  And perhaps we could call that up in MFI 7431.  And

 7     if we could magnify the top half, please, specifically Figure 3.  And

 8     although I appreciate that Mr. Lukic can follow, that is B/C/S page 15.

 9        Q.   Does that depict the nature of the clay that you referred to in

10     the earlier paragraph, in paragraph 44?

11        A.   Yes, it does.  The excavation you can see in the foreground is

12     the initial trenching undertaking on the 4th and 5th of September 2013 by

13     the prosecutor's office and MPI.  You can see the difference there in the

14     section, that's the vertical view, you can see the lighter yellow-grey

15     clay, and distinct from that the mixed brown clay.  Above the trench, you

16     can see the machine excavating.  It's undertaken on the work on the --

17     after the 4th and 5th September to ascertain the extent of the -- these

18     deposits.

19        Q.   And the multiple complete bodies referred to in paragraph 44 were

20     found within the yellow-grey clay; is that right?

21        A.   That's correct.

22        Q.   And the mixed brown clay covered that yellow grey-clay up and

23     much of the site; is that correct?

24        A.   That is correct.

25        Q.   Now you also detail in the method section, which goes from pages

Page 36259

 1     13 to 23, the general process that followed the identification of the

 2     remains within that yellow-grey clay, but perhaps we can begin by

 3     discussing briefly what happened after the -- happened in the process

 4     after the initial indication of remains reflected in paragraph 44.

 5             So, first, just focusing on that portion of your report that

 6     deals with the excavation of the grave, was there an effort made to

 7     determine the extent of the mixed brown clay that was covering up the

 8     yellow clay in which the bodies and body parts were found?

 9        A.   Yes there was.

10        Q.   And is that reflected in paragraph 45 of your report?

11        A.   It is.

12        Q.   And just briefly, what was done?

13        A.   As we can see in Figure 3, the mixed brown clay overlay the

14     yellow-grey clay, and we needed to determine the extent of the mixed

15     brown clay; if this was a deposit covering the graves, we needed to find

16     out how extensive it was.  And two trenches and one sondage, which is a

17     wider trench, were dug in different directions from the initial

18     trenching, the initial excavation, to determine the extent of the mixed

19     brown clay, and that's illustrated in Figure 4.

20             MR. TIEGER:  And if we could scroll down the page slightly, you

21     will see Figure 4 in its entirety.  Okay.

22        Q.   And after the determination of the extent of the mixed brown

23     clay, was it -- did a stripping process then begin to get down to the

24     mixed yellow clay and the remains?

25        A.   Yes, it was discussed and agreed that the mixed brown clay should

Page 36260

 1     be removed to reveal the yellow-grey clay and anything else lying

 2     beneath.

 3        Q.   Paragraph 51 of your report indicates that the clay was removed

 4     from within the feature in spits.  What does that refer to?

 5        A.   Removal in spits is the removal of material in uniform layers so

 6     the removal can be controlled and observed so that any pertinent evidence

 7     can be gathered.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Tieger, could I ask an explanation from the

 9     witness.

10             On Figure 4, we see the first trench and the second trench and

11     the sondage depicted there.  Now in the sondage, there seems to be a cut

12     more or less.  Could you explain what that is?  You see that it's -- if

13     up would be north, it goes from south-west to north-east, it's a brown

14     line in the middle of the wide area, which is determined as sondage.

15             You see what I mean?

16             THE WITNESS:  In Figure 4, Your Honour?

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, in Figure 4.  Close to the centre.

18             THE WITNESS:  Yes.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  You see -- if -- if the usher could assist with

20     the -- with the cursor.  Yes, it's exactly there.  You see that there's a

21     brown line crossing the --

22             THE WITNESS:  Oh, yeah.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Could you explain what that is?

24             THE WITNESS:  Yes, that's simply a gap between the edge of the

25     initial trenching and the start of the sondage.

Page 36261

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  So the sondage -- yes.  And that's perhaps only 1 or

 2     2 metres?

 3             THE WITNESS:  Yes, it's about a metre.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And what's the reason why you split them up?

 5     Why don't you just go on for the 2 metres?

 6             THE WITNESS:  In practical terms, the -- a gap was left to retain

 7     the section of the initial trench so that we could record the soil

 8     deposits without first destroying them.  We wanted to leave them so they

 9     could be protected so they could be thoroughly recorded.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.  Yes.

11             Please proceed.

12             MR. TIEGER:

13        Q.   At paragraph 55 of your report, you then indicate the initiation

14     of identification pin-pointing of the remains after a month of excavation

15     and the -- in paragraph 56, the systematic recording and recovery of the

16     bodies and other remains and evidence.

17             I just wanted to ask you if all of the mixed brown clay was

18     stripped before the identification of remains began and the recovery of

19     those remains or if that proceeded in a sequenced fashion?

20        A.   Yes, the mixed brown clay was removed from the area of the

21     initial trenching to expose what was revealed to be an extensive feature,

22     which was sub-rectangular in shape.  Within that feature, excavation of

23     further mixed brown soil revealed remains.  While the examination of this

24     feature, which was determined to be a grave, continued, the heavy

25     machinery around the grave continued to strip the mixed brown clay as we

Page 36262

 1     realised this was an extensive operation and these activities needed to

 2     be undertaken simultaneously.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Tieger, I'm sorry to interrupt, but I -- in

 4     order not to print out everything, I have the PDF file of the originally

 5     submitted report, and there's a bit of a problem because Figure 10 in

 6     that original version is followed by paragraph number 43, and then it

 7     continues again with 56 on the next page after Figure 11.  So apparently

 8     there are two versions, and --

 9             MR. TIEGER:  I apologise for the fact that the Bench

10     apparently -- is apparently the only people in the room not aware of

11     that.  We discovered that too.  The document that had been previously in

12     e-court was replaced with a properly formatted version which had been

13     provided by ICMP and Mr. Hanson.  We notified the Defence about that

14     before it was done.  Fortunately, Mr. Lukic had been working off the

15     B/C/S version which was correctly formatted, so it caused him no

16     difficulties.

17             I apologise for not ensuring that the Bench was aware of that.

18     But the version currently in e-court has the correct formatting which has

19     the paragraphs numbered in proper sequence.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Of course, we have no access to those e-court

21     new versions while preparing for the examination of the witness, so

22     therefore I worked on the old one.  And in order to avoid that, we have

23     to print out.  But it's clear now that I have to -- whenever you now

24     refer to a paragraph number that I have to adapt to the new

25     paragraph numbering.

Page 36263

 1             MR. TIEGER:  It's partly why I had been also referring to page

 2     numbers in virtually all circumstances.  But possibly with a small

 3     exception, if there's a bleed-over sentence, the page numbers are still

 4     the same.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  That has been clarified.  Thank you very much.

 6     Please proceed -- oh no, please don't proceed because we'll take a break

 7     first.

 8             Mr. Hanson, we'll take a break of 20 minutes.  We'd like to see

 9     you back after the break and you may follow the usher.

10             THE WITNESS:  Thank you, Your Honours.

11                           [The witness stands down]

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Tieger, as far as time is concerned, are we on

13     track.

14             MR. TIEGER:  Yeah.  Numerically, we are precisely on track.

15     Nevertheless, I'm going to look through my materials to see if I can

16     ensure that there's no risk of slipping over.  It's my intention to

17     adhere closely to the time-limit.

18                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

19             JUDGE ORIE:  That's appreciated.  We take a break and we resume

20     at ten minutes to 11.00.

21                           --- Recess taken at 10.30 a.m.

22                           --- On resuming at 10.53 a.m.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  The Chamber was informed that there was a scheduling

24     issue to be raised.

25             MR. TIEGER:  Yes, Mr. President.  That's correct.  And if I could

Page 36264

 1     ask that we move into private session.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  We move into private session.

 3                           [Private session]

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 36265











11  Page 36265 redacted.  Private session.















Page 36266

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8                           [Open session]

 9             THE REGISTRAR:  We're now in open session, Your Honours.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Registrar.

11             MR. TIEGER:  And, Mr. President, may I also indicate that we are

12     in process of printing out three copies of the correct version which

13     are -- which will arrive imminently and which we will --

14             JUDGE ORIE:  No, we will try to stop you there, Mr. Tieger.

15             MR. TIEGER:  Oh.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Why?  Because yesterday I instructed my personal

17     assistant not to print out the version, which I can easily consult on my

18     screen.  One copy will do.  In order to save paper, and -- because I have

19     the new version now electronically available and can work on that as

20     well.  If it's done already, then don't forget it for the next time.

21                           [The witness takes the stand]

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Please be seated.

23             MR. TIEGER:  Mr. President, I'll proceed.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, I was just looking at the new version but

25     please proceed.

Page 36267

 1             MR. TIEGER:

 2        Q.   Mr. Hanson, at page 26 of your report, we see a section entitled:

 3     "Results."  Let me ask you a few quick questions about the findings and

 4     results.

 5        A.   Yes.

 6        Q.   First of all, how long was the excavation?

 7        A.   The excavation took 79 working days.

 8        Q.   And did it reveal the presence of graves; and, if so, how many?

 9        A.   Yes.  Three separate graves.

10             MR. TIEGER:  Can we turn to page 23, Figure 17.

11        Q.   Now, in paragraph 86, which is the first paragraph under the

12     results section, you indicate a main grave, Trench 1, and a rectangular

13     grave, as the graves where remains were found, and could you indicate to

14     the Court if those are depicted in Figure 17.

15        A.   Yes, they are.  The excavations of those graves are indicated in

16     Figure 17.

17        Q.   Okay.  And perhaps we could also turn to Figure 31 at page 37.

18     All right.  And does that more precisely or accurately depict the

19     outlines of the main grave; and, if so, could you point out exactly where

20     that is found?

21        A.   Yes, that indicates the edge of the grave as recorded of the main

22     grave.  Would you like me to mark the figure?

23        Q.   Please.  Or just point it out and we'll describe it -- okay.

24        A.   [Marks].

25        Q.   That's fine.  And that's basically in the middle of Figure 31

Page 36268

 1     immediately above the title: "Edge of Grave"; correct?

 2        A.   Correct, as I've marked it.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  There are titles "Edge of Grave," but it's the left

 4     one, I take it?

 5             THE WITNESS:  Yes.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  The left one in the centre of the location.

 7             THE WITNESS:  Correct.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  The other one, I remember from the previous, was

 9     about the re-excavation of 2004.  The one more to the right.

10             THE WITNESS:  Yes, that's it.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  So it's the centre one with this title just above

12     that text.

13             Please proceed.

14             MR. TIEGER:

15        Q.   Okay.  And is it correct that the configuration in Figure 17 of

16     the main grave indicates the areas where stripping and excavation work

17     was undertaken to identify the precise outlines of the main grave?

18        A.   Yes, that's it.  The excavation trench was larger than the grave

19     because areas needed to be excavated to assist with safe work access of

20     machinery and control of water ingress into the grave during rain.

21        Q.   Now we mentioned the annexes before.  Is there an annex that

22     contains all of the cases found and their location?

23        A.   There is.

24        Q.   Is that Annex 4 at page 72?

25        A.   That's correct.

Page 36269

 1        Q.   Okay.  And does Annex 4 indicate not only the list of cases but

 2     also where they were found among the different deposits?

 3        A.   It does, yes.

 4        Q.   Now, with respect to the main grave, can we look quickly at

 5     Figure 42 at page 47.  Okay.

 6             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  The marking is still on the screen covering now

 7     the new site.

 8             MR. TIEGER:  I'm not sure how we can eliminate that marking,

 9     but -- meanwhile, because I'm not going to introduce that or we're not

10     going to mark this exhibit, this page -- fine.  Okay.

11        Q.   Does Figure 42 indicate the different deposits - that is, the 12

12     deposits for the main grave - and label them?

13        A.   Yes, it does.

14        Q.   And if we could blow that up slightly.  So those are marked 1,

15     1A, 1B, 1C, 2, 2A, and so on; is that correct?

16        A.   That's correct.

17        Q.   For a total of 12.  Now those figures represented in Figure 42,

18     what are those based on?

19        A.   Those are based on the three-dimensional survey data recorded for

20     the position of each body at the time of excavation which would were then

21     rendered as stick figures using software so that it can be -- the

22     position of each body in relation to the other can visually be seen.

23        Q.   Now, you've already indicated that Annex 4 contains a listing of

24     all the cases and the -- broken down as we saw from a quick glance at

25     Annex 4 by complete bodies, body parts, and general bones.  Does the

Page 36270

 1     report also provide numbers of complete bodies and body parts and general

 2     bones in the executive summary and conclusion?

 3        A.   It does.

 4        Q.   And does it also provide a breakdown of the totals by grave-site

 5     in paragraph 86, on pages 26 and 27?

 6        A.   It does.

 7        Q.   Okay.  Now, do those numbers precisely conform or are there any

 8     differences between the totals listed in the executive summary and

 9     conclusion and in the -- in paragraph 86 from the annex?

10        A.   They don't conform.  There where some typos.

11        Q.   Which document or which section of the report should the Court

12     look to for the definitive understanding of how many cases were

13     identified and their breakdown into complete bodies, body parts, and

14     general bones?

15        A.   A complete list in Annex 4.

16        Q.   And can you explain briefly what accounts for the difference

17     between the numbers in the executive summary and conclusion or the -- or

18     paragraph 86 from the annex?

19        A.   Yes, there were some errors in tallying - that is, counting -

20     which cases were in which deposit, and that was simply some errors in

21     tallying from the original data from the paperwork from the field and the

22     survey data.

23        Q.   And just to be clear, what kind of differences are we talking

24     about?  Large numbers or small numbers?

25        A.   No, very small numbers.  The total number of cases recorded is

Page 36271

 1     correct, the total number of bodies recovered is the same.  There is some

 2     difference between total number of body parts designated as D and the

 3     general bone cases designated as GB.

 4             MR. TIEGER:  Mr. Hanson earlier referred to the information that

 5     can be understood through the preservation of the archaeological record.

 6        Q.   Were you able to preserve the archaeological record in the course

 7     of this excavation and on that basis were you able to discern the

 8     chronology of activity related to this grave-site?

 9        A.   Yes, we were able to accurately record the archaeological record

10     and undertake an analysis and interpretation from that.

11        Q.   And is that discussed at the section entitled:  "Phases of the

12     Archaeological Record" beginning at -- at paragraph 89 on page 27 of your

13     report?

14        A.   It is.

15        Q.   Now, at paragraph 89 it indicates "the chronology of events from

16     latest to earliest are," so is it correct that there the chronology is

17     listed essentially in reverse order; that is, from the most recent event

18     to the earliest?

19        A.   It is because that is the sequence in which the archaeological

20     deposits are encountered during excavation.

21        Q.   And in your conclusion, is the sequence of events listed in the

22     order in which they actually occurred?

23        A.   Yes, the conclusion provides a chronological order to the

24     archaeological phases identified and analysed.

25        Q.   Now that seems to begin at paragraph 132 on page 52, which

Page 36272

 1     begins:

 2             "Clear phases of activity were seen in the archaeological

 3     record ..."

 4             And I want to run through those quickly with you.

 5             First of all in paragraph 132, you state that all graves were dug

 6     through the same ground surface and --

 7        A.   That's correct.

 8        Q.   And is that the -- was that the yellow-grey clay that we saw in,

 9     I believe, Figure 3 or 4 that you referred to a while back?

10        A.   Yes.  After removal of the mixed brown clay, it was revealed that

11     upper surface of the yellow brown clay formed a common surface across the

12     site through which all the graves had been dug.

13        Q.   So does that represent the landscape before -- at Tomasica before

14     the bodies were first put in there?

15        A.   Yes, it does.

16        Q.   Did you find any evidence of any mining or excavation activity in

17     that part of the site that preceded the grave construction?

18        A.   No, we did not.

19        Q.   Were you able to determine how the graves were dug; that is, by

20     what means or equipment?

21        A.   The size of the graves, the width of trenches 1 and 2, and the

22     finding of machine tool marks in the surface of the yellow-grey clay are

23     consistent with the use of heavy machinery; that is, large excavators

24     they used in construction and industry.

25        Q.   When you say the size of trenches 1 and 2, what are you referring

Page 36273

 1     to specifically?

 2        A.   The width of the trench is indicative of the width of the machine

 3     bucket used to excavate such a trench.

 4        Q.   Paragraph 133 then goes on to note that a phase of filling the

 5     graves followed.  And you mention the 12 deposits which we previously saw

 6     depicted in -- in the Figure 42.  Does the -- does 12 deposits mean 12

 7     separate periods of activity?

 8        A.   It may have done.  But from the positioning of the deposits in

 9     the bodies, I can say with confidence there are a minimum of four periods

10     of activity.

11        Q.   And how are you able to identify that from the archaeological

12     record?

13        A.   By the numbering and sequence of deposits above the deposits at

14     the bottom of the grave.  It's possible that several of the body deposits

15     could have been placed simultaneously; however, when one body deposit is

16     on top of another body deposit, they could not have been placed

17     simultaneously.  So we can say a minimum of four, but there are also 12

18     separate deposits of bodies identified.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  That answer is still not perfectly clear how.  You

20     say it's possible that several of the body deposits could have been

21     placed simultaneously.  That I understand.  However, when one body

22     deposit is on top of another -- of course, you can't put them exactly at

23     the same time but if bodies are in heaps, why -- where do you draw a line

24     between what is one deposit and what's the next deposit which is not

25     simultaneously made?

Page 36274

 1             THE WITNESS:  Yes, Your Honour.  The body deposits we could

 2     differentiate because they were separated by layers of clay --

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.

 4             THE WITNESS:  So this -- we don't know -- we cannot tell from the

 5     excavation how rapidly these were placed, but definitely we can see

 6     between deposits of body layers of clay which must have been placed over

 7     each deposit.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  It's rather the separation than the one being

 9     above the other.

10             THE WITNESS:  Yes, Your Honour.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

12             MR. TIEGER:

13        Q.   Were you able to determine -- to find indications of how much

14     time may have transpired between the deposits of bodies that were

15     separated by clay?

16        A.   Exactly timings, no; however, in all the intact body deposits it

17     was noticed that the bodies were very well preserved.  There was little

18     decomposition, and this is consistent with burial quite soon after death

19     dependant upon climate, weather conditions, time of year.

20        Q.   And is that what you referred to in paragraph 83, page 24, of

21     your report in connection with the compression of the bodies and the

22     nature of the clay?

23        A.   Yes, the depth and the nature of the clay has a preventative

24     effect on decomposition.  This has been observed in many excavations as a

25     prevention of decay due to the environment within the grave.  Oxygen, in

Page 36275

 1     effect, is prevented from entering the grave by the dense nature of the

 2     clay.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Tieger it seems to me that we're now following

 4     up on a matter which was not the core of your question.

 5             The question was, as far as I understood, how much time passed

 6     between one deposit and another one; whereas, your answer focused on how

 7     long after death the deposit was made.  And that's -- these are two

 8     separate -- different things, if I understood your question well and if I

 9     understood the answer well.

10             MR. TIEGER:

11        Q.   Well, I think the witness can explain that.  In what way does

12     that factor relate to the issue of the time between the -- that the Court

13     is quite correct.

14             So focusing on the time between the deposits, which you answered,

15     my question should have been more precisely:  Do you have any indication

16     of how long bodies were in the grave before they were covered by the clay

17     material that separated them?

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, that's another question.

19             MR. TIEGER:  I agree.  I think you identified --

20             JUDGE ORIE:  We have now three questions.

21             The first one was how much time passed between the deposit of

22     bodies and then the next series of bodies being deposited.

23             The second question now is how long -- how much time passed

24     between the deposit of the bodies and the covering layer of clay.

25             And the third one, the third question, was -- well, perhaps not

Page 36276

 1     put but you addressed it, is how much time passed between death of the

 2     persons and the -- position in the grave.

 3             We have three questions now and --

 4             MR. TIEGER:  And if I can assist the witness.  I think he did

 5     answer what the third -- he provided information on the third one.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  The last one was answered -- yes, please proceed.

 7             MR. TIEGER:  And I have replaced that first question with the

 8     second.

 9        Q.   So the only question is does the -- do the factors identified in

10     paragraph 84 - that is, the compression of the bodies, the nature of the

11     clay, and the relative preservation that you found - shed light on the

12     time that may have elapsed between the placement of the bodies in the

13     grave and their covering up with the clay.

14        A.   Yes.  The preservation of the bodies would suggest that they were

15     covered after a short time.  There was no time for decomposition to take

16     place before the bodies were covered with the layers of clay.

17        Q.   All right.  In paragraph 133, you indicate that the bodies were

18     covered with clay and the grave backfilled.  Backfilling meaning what,

19     Mr. Hanson?

20        A.   The covering of the grave with material.

21        Q.   And would that have been the same material that had been removed

22     from the grave in order to place the bodies in?

23        A.   Yes, the clay we found filling the top of the grave over the

24     bodies is consistent with the material through which the grave had been

25     dug; that is, the yellow-grey clay.

Page 36277

 1        Q.   And is that what you indicate in paragraph 103 at page 34?

 2        A.   It is, yes.

 3        Q.   Similarly at paragraph 107 on page 35, you talk about trench 1

 4     filled with a deposit of mixed yellow-grey clay covering an intact and

 5     undisturbed deposit of bodies and conclude this is consistent with the

 6     material that was dug out to create the grave then being used to refill

 7     the grave.  Are both of those factors part of the archaeological record

 8     that led to the conclusion about the backfilling of the graves following

 9     the deposit of the bodies?

10        A.   Yes, that's correct.

11        Q.   Then at paragraph 135, page 53, you indicate that a phase

12     consistent with the intentional disturbance and removal of remains then

13     followed.  Okay.  And is that a way of talking about what you referred to

14     in -- earlier in another context, the robbing of the grave?

15        A.   Yes.  We recorded robbed areas of the grave where remains had

16     been disturbed.

17        Q.   Now in that same paragraph, you talked about a disturbance in the

18     main grave and rectangular grave with bodies truncated and removed, body

19     parts dispersed in and around the grave that had originated with the

20     in situ deposits of bodies, trauma observed on remains, and damage to

21     remains consistent with removal by heavy machinery, and evidence of heavy

22     machinery found in the form of tool marks.  I'd like to go through some

23     of those factors with you one by one.

24             First of all, the disturbance and truncation and removal, and in

25     that connection can we turn to page 46 and look at Figure 41.

Page 36278

 1             MR. TIEGER:  And if that can be done on the screen as well,

 2     please.  And if we could enlarge the bottom portion of the figure below

 3     Figure 41.

 4        Q.   Can you tell us, please, what that depicts.

 5        A.   Yes, in this figure, we see the outline of the grave, the bodies

 6     and body parts as found are represented as stick figures as recorded

 7     through the detailed surveying.  You have two areas marked with a dash

 8     line.  In these areas, mixed brown clay was found and numerous body

 9     parts; that is, parts of bodies.  These areas of mixed brown clay and

10     body parts went up to and stopped at the edge of the intact piles of

11     bodies which you can see numbered.

12        Q.   With respect to the presence of mixed brown clay, could we turn

13     to page 33 and look quickly at Figure 26.

14             Now, that indicates that the robbing cut indicated by arrows and

15     the mixed brown clay filling it can be contrasted with the pre-existing

16     mine waste deposits which the main grave cuts through.

17             So is that an indication of one of the robbing cuts that you saw

18     and that are shown to the archaeological record?

19        A.   Yes, it is.  That's correct.

20        Q.   Okay.  When you refer to the pre-existing mine waste deposits,

21     does that refer to the yellow grey clay into which the graves were

22     initially dug and the bodies initially placed?

23        A.   It does.

24        Q.   And is it correct that we see on the right portion the

25     yellow-grey clay running down to the bottom surface, and in the left

Page 36279

 1     portion the mixed brown clay filling that portion of the grave?

 2        A.   That is correct.

 3        Q.   Can you explain to the Court how that would have occurred?

 4        A.   The filling of the grave with the mixed brown clay, for

 5     clarification?

 6        Q.   How -- how the existence of robbing cuts is -- is reflected in

 7     the presence of mixed brown clay where there had previously been a

 8     yellow-grey clay?

 9        A.   Yes, the space between the existing yellow-brown -- sorry, the

10     yellow-grey clay within the grave and the deposits of bodies was filled

11     with mixed brown clay, and the mixed brown clay did not extend beyond an

12     edge formed of yellow-grey clay and bodies.

13        Q.   [Microphone not activated]

14             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, please.

15             MR. TIEGER:

16        Q.   Let me step back a bit and try to make the question a little bit

17     more clear.

18             The landscape at the outset, if I understood your testimony

19     correctly, is yellow-grey clay, and the graves are dug, as you explained,

20     into that yellow-grey clay, and then backfilled, as you explained a few

21     moments ago, with the same yellow-grey clay.

22             What happens then during the robbing process such that brown clay

23     is then found, and what does that in turn tell you about process that --

24     that -- tell you about that next stage of the archaeological record and

25     what happened after the graves were backfilled?

Page 36280

 1        A.   The presence of the mixed brown clay within the graves overlies

 2     the yellow-grey clay, it must have been deposited later, and it's

 3     consistent with the filling of the grave after removal of bodies and clay

 4     from those deposits of yellow-grey clay which are within the grave.

 5        Q.   When the robbing of the grave is undertaken, how does that

 6     proceed?  Are the bodies removed -- as revealed by the archaeological

 7     record, are the bodies removed one by one in a selected manner, or are

 8     they removed in another way with whatever equipment might be used?

 9        A.   The archaeological record, the evidence indicates bodies were

10     truncated; that is, cut.  Yellow-grey clay deposits are cut through.

11     This is consistent with the use of heavy machinery to remove both clay

12     and bodies from the grave, and there's nothing to indicate individual

13     removal of bodies.

14        Q.   So the clay and bodies are resumed [sic] simultaneously with

15     heavy equipment or heavy machinery and thus leaving a hole which may or

16     may not be filled; is that right?

17        A.   Yes, the archaeological record we uncovered is entirely

18     consistent with that.

19        Q.   And in this case, it was filled with the mixed brown clay that

20     had previously been covering the site?

21        A.   Yes, the mixed brown clay inside the grave was the same.  It was

22     consistent with the mixed brown clay which was covering that whole

23     landscape.  We could not discern differences in property between the

24     mixed brown clay in the grave and that above and around the grave.

25        Q.   Were you able to discern from how that mixed brown clay had been

Page 36281

 1     deposited into the previous grave-sites and over the rest of the grave

 2     area?

 3        A.   Yes.  Immediately to the north of the graves is large mound,

 4     which can be described as a hill of mine waste.  This was formed of

 5     layers of mine waste in large blocks.  The mixed brown clay layer started

 6     upon and spread from that hill of mine waste.  The type of clay, and

 7     there are some very specific inclusions in the clay, we found across the

 8     whole site within the mixed brown clay layer are also found on the hill

 9     of mine waste.  The mixed brown clay layer is, in fact, formed of several

10     smaller thinner layers which are quite parallel.  This is consistent with

11     the moving of many, many tonnes of material using bulldozers to spread

12     the material.

13             So the findings are consistent with the mixed brown clay being

14     pushed from the hill of mine waste across the whole area which acts as a

15     covering.

16        Q.   [Microphone not activated]

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Microphone.

18             MR. TIEGER:

19        Q.   And then in part filling the holes from which the bodies had been

20     removed?

21        A.   Yes, exactly consistent with that.

22        Q.   And in addition to filling the holes, how much of the mixed brown

23     clay from the hill of mine waste was eventually spread over the site to

24     cover it up?

25        A.   We calculated about 40.000 cubic metres were removed during the

Page 36282

 1     excavation.

 2        Q.   And how deep was that at certain parts?

 3        A.   Nearest to the -- the hill of mine waste, 9 metres in depth, and

 4     further away it thinned out as it spread.  At its furthest extent it was

 5     about a metre deep.

 6        Q.   Before we leave this page, I just wanted to look at Figure 27

 7     quickly.  You say in the caption it's an image looking south-east showing

 8     excavator tool marks.  These teeth impressions from the bucket of a large

 9     excavator are filled with mixed brown clay and are not weathered.

10             Beyond the relatively obvious, it is showing the presence of the

11     bucket of a large excavator.  Does that also tell you anything about the

12     length of time between the activity and the covering up of -- of the site

13     with mixed brown clay?

14        A.   Yes, the figure shows the teeth marks; that's the impressions

15     made by the metal teeth on an excavator bucket.  When they were

16     excavated, they were found to be very sharp.  By that I mean straight

17     sides and edges.  That's an indication that they were covered quite soon

18     after they were made.  If they'd been exposed for a length of time to the

19     elements, to rain, I would not expect to see those sharp edges.

20        Q.   Now, we've just focused on the -- the archaeological record and

21     what can be gleaned from it as -- through the prism of the dirt that was

22     found or the clay that was found and where it was found.  Can I now turn

23     your attention to the bodies and body parts.

24             MR. TIEGER:  And if we could go back to Figure 41 at page 46.  If

25     we could enlarge that slightly once again.

Page 36283

 1        Q.   With respect to the presence of either complete bodies or body

 2     parts, did you find a distinction between the areas within the robbing

 3     cuts and the areas of the main grave that were outside the robbing cuts?

 4        A.   Yes, I did.  Within the dash lines, that is, the areas described

 5     on the image as the robbing cuts, we have skeletonized body parts.  Some

 6     bodies at the very bottom of the grave, but nearly all body parts.  This

 7     contrasts with the other areas of the grave where we have intact piles of

 8     bodies within layers of yellow-grey clay where the bodies are complete.

 9     At the edges of those intact deposits, there are truncated bodies; that

10     is, bodies missing parts.

11        Q.   [Microphone not activated]

12             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Microphone.

13             MR. TIEGER:  Could we turn back a page to Figure 39.

14        Q.   And does that depict an example of the truncation that you

15     referred to?

16        A.   Yes, it does.

17        Q.   Did you also find body parts outside the area of the main grave

18     or the perimeter of the main grave?

19        A.   Yes, we did.  Bodies and body parts were found in the mixed grey

20     clay layers outside the grave to the west of the grave, and the points at

21     which they were found can be seen in Figure 41.

22        Q.   Can -- can you describe the -- what this reveals, what these

23     aspects of the archaeological record reveal about what happened?  In

24     short, can you tell us how this came to be: Body parts outside the -- and

25     the disparity between the complete bodies in the undisturbed areas in

Page 36284

 1     yellow-grey clay and the body parts in the mixed brown clay in the

 2     disturbed areas?

 3        A.   Yes, the truncation and trauma to bodies and removal of parts of

 4     those bodies, which are then found mixed with the clay and also found

 5     outside the grave, is consistent with removal and transport of bodies

 6     using heavy machinery.

 7        Q.   Okay.  And how is it that body parts end up outside the grave?

 8        A.   This is consistent with bodies removed and then dropped when the

 9     mixed brown clay and -- mixed with the mixed brown clay, when that is

10     then being bulldozed over the site.

11        Q.   And turning quickly to Figure 40 at page 46, is that an example

12     of the truncation of body parts resulting from the process you describe?

13        A.   Yes, it is.  That's quite typical.  It's a lower left leg with a

14     foot in a sock and shoe with damage and breaking of the leg bones.

15        Q.   Now, with respect to these dispersed body parts, was the

16     investigation able to link various body parts found within the grave to

17     body parts found outside the grave through DNA analysis?

18        A.   Yes, it was.

19        Q.   Okay.  And similarly was it able to identify the links or

20     associations between body parts found at Tomasica and body parts found

21     elsewhere?

22        A.   Yes, it was.

23        Q.   And where else were parts of an individual person's body

24     truncated and found at the Tomasica site also found?

25        A.   The Jakarina Kosa site from remains recovered in the 2001

Page 36285

 1     excavation.

 2        Q.   Now going back to the conclusions section of your report, at

 3     paragraph 136, you then indicate that the whole area was then covered

 4     with a thick layer of mixed brown clay, et cetera.  That's what you spoke

 5     about before, I take it, in connection with the presence and source of

 6     the mixed brown clay that came from the hill of mine waste?

 7        A.   Yes, that's correct.

 8        Q.   And if we could turn quickly to Figure 32 at page 30, does that

 9     reflect the distinctive clay inclusions that you referred to that enabled

10     you to identify the source of the mixed brown clay that covered the

11     entirety of the site?

12        A.   Yes.  On the right, you see some very distinct colours of clay.

13     These were recovered from the hill of mine waste.  The larger pieces on

14     the left are taken from the mixed brown clay as examples across the site

15     and may contain these distinct clay types, but "homogenized" is the word

16     I use.  It's mixed.

17             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Are you referring to Figure 23?

18             THE WITNESS:  Figure 22, Your Honour.

19             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Figure 22.  Thank you.

20             MR. TIEGER:

21        Q.   Mr. Hanson, I believe you mentioned earlier in connection with

22     Figure 41 depicting the areas of disturbance in the undisturbed areas

23     that within the areas of disturbance you found skeletonised body parts

24     for the most part?

25        A.   That's correct.

Page 36286

 1        Q.   And is that in contrast to the preservation or relative

 2     preservation of the complete bodies found in the undisturbed areas?

 3        A.   It is.

 4        Q.   And is that a further indication of the disturbance; i.e., the

 5     robbing of those areas within the dotted lines?  And if so, explain

 6     quickly why that is.

 7        A.   It is.  Skeletonisation of remains occurs where they have contact

 8     with soil and oxygen.  The dispersal of these body parts within the clay

 9     is an indicator that where the ground was disturbed, oxygen was then

10     available in the soil for decomposition to occur and the contact of body

11     parts with soil so hastens decomposition.  The intact parts of bodies are

12     compressed one on top of the other, and by being in a mass of bodies the

13     compression prevents oxygen entering, which is why you have such a vivid

14     contrast between the two areas.

15             MR. TIEGER:  If we could turn to Figure 38 at page 44, please.

16             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Did you say 48?

17             MR. TIEGER:  Figure 38 at page 44.

18        Q.   I wanted to look at that image in connection with paragraph 118

19     above it where you say bodies were for the most part clothed, some body

20     parts and bones were not associated with clothing, some with fragmentary

21     clothing.  Hair, soft tissue, and skin survived in many bodies in the

22     main grave piles.

23             You indicate in the caption to the figure the image shows

24     preservations of bodies within body deposit too in the main grave.  They

25     were compressed together preventing decomposition.

Page 36287

 1             You've already addressed the issue of compression and the effect

 2     of the clay on -- and -- and the relative timing of covering up in

 3     connection with the preservation of the bodies.

 4             I wanted to ask you a quick question about the clothing before we

 5     break, and that is:  Did you identify the nature of the clothing, the

 6     personal effects found on the bodies as a result of this relative

 7     preservation; and is that addressed in paragraph 119, which is a long

 8     paragraph, at page 51?  That is, the second paragraph on page 51.

 9        A.   Yes.  The intact bodies were clothed.  They had personal effects.

10     There were documents with bodies, jewellery, money, everyday items

11     normally carried on a person.

12        Q.   Was there anything unusual about the clothing?

13        A.   No.  As observed during excavation, normal civilian attire seemed

14     to be what bodies were wearing.

15        Q.   Did you find any military uniforms or other items associated with

16     military activity during the excavation?

17        A.   No military uniforms or other items associated with military

18     activity were observed during this excavation.

19             MR. TIEGER:  Mr. President, I see we're at the time for the

20     break.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, you're coming closer to your two hours

22     Mr. Tieger.

23             MR. TIEGER:  I realise that, and we will meet that deadline.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  We'll then take a break first.

25             We'd like to see you back there 20 minutes.

Page 36288

 1             THE WITNESS:  Yes, Your Honour.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  You may follow the usher.

 3                           [The witness stands down]

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  We resume at ten minutes past 12.00.

 5                           --- Recess taken at 11.51 a.m.

 6                           --- On resuming at 12.13 p.m.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Could the witness be escorted in the courtroom.

 8                           [The witness takes the stand]

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  You may proceed, Mr. Tieger.

10             MR. TIEGER:  Thank you, Mr. President.

11        Q.   Mr. Hanson, I just want to ask you briefly about two remaining

12     related areas in your report, and those concern entomological or insect

13     factors identified during the course of the excavation.  The first is

14     referred to at both paragraphs 103 and paragraphs 116.

15             So first paragraph 103, page 35, you state there are no

16     indicators as to how long the grave was open while it was being filled,

17     although the preservation of the bodies and the lack of blowfly pupae

18     cases suggest body piles were covered rapidly after being put in the

19     grave.

20             And then at para 116 at page 43, you explain that further noting

21     there was a noticeable absence of the pupae of blowflies among the

22     bodies, and explained that one might expect to find those if the bodies

23     had been exposed for days in high season when blowflies were active.

24             And I take it that was, as seems to be indicated in

25     paragraph 103, another indication of the length of time that might have

Page 36289

 1     transpired between the placement of bodies in the grave and their

 2     covering?

 3        A.   Yes, there was a lack of blowfly pupae observed during the

 4     excavation.  Depending on time of year, flies would lay eggs quite

 5     rapidly, and it's common in excavations where bodies that have been

 6     supposed for sometime before burial to find these pupae.  None were

 7     observed during the excavation that I'm aware of.

 8        Q.   The second entomological factor is found at paragraph 116 at page

 9     43 and is associated with Figure 37, and that's the identification of a

10     beetle, which you indicate is the Necrodes Littoralis.  And can you

11     quickly explain to the Court the significance of the finding of that

12     beetle in the grave?

13        A.   Yes.  These beetles were observed.  It was not known what they

14     were.  They were found between compressed bodies.  On contacting

15     colleagues, experts at the Natural History Museum in London, they

16     identified from a photograph the species and indicated that to me and

17     indicated it's a species active between a certain time of year between --

18     normally between April and October.  They were found within blankets in

19     between bodies which is in -- consistent with them having come to the

20     grave with the bodies.

21        Q.   And is it also correct that the information about those beetles

22     is that they don't burrow into the ground?

23        A.   Yes, that information was also provided to me by the Natural

24     History Museum.

25        Q.   Okay.  So further limiting the period of time when they would

Page 36290

 1     have entered the grave to the -- and the manner in which they would have

 2     entered the grave; correct?

 3        A.   Yes.

 4        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Hanson.

 5             MR. TIEGER:  Mr. President, Your Honours, I have no further

 6     questions.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Tieger.

 8             Mr. Tieger, you earlier referred to paragraph 103, page 35.

 9             MR. TIEGER:  That is obviously incorrect because 103 is on page

10     34.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  That's why I'm asking you what to look for.

12             MR. TIEGER:  Thank you for that.  And I'll check the reference

13     to -- I presume the paragraph identification was the correct identifier,

14     but I'll double-check the reference to make sure it wasn't meant to be,

15     for some reason, something on page 35, but I don't think so.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  I'm just trying to find the flies on page -- in

17     paragraph 103, and I fail to find them there.

18             Witness, could you assist where you deal with the

19     entomological -- the first entomological issue that Mr. Tieger raised;

20     that is, the presence of pupae of that fly.

21             MR. TIEGER:  I might be able to assist, Mr. President.  It does

22     turn out that page 35 is correct, but it's paragraph 106.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  106.

24             Yes, Witness, you said -- in this context you said that this --

25     you would expect, depending on the season, you would expect the pupae of

Page 36291

 1     this blowfly to be present if the bodies would have been exposed for a

 2     longer period of time to open air.

 3             THE WITNESS:  Yes, Your Honour.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Could you tell us what seasons would you expect

 5     them, what seasons would you not expect them or to expect them to appear

 6     later, if it is within your expertise?  Because I noticed that you mainly

 7     reproduced what others told you.  If you're confident to tell us

 8     something about it, please do so, but then also explain to us why you

 9     consider yourself in a position to answer that question, and if not

10     please tell us.

11             THE WITNESS:  Yes, Your Honour.  No, I'm not an entomologist.  I

12     do not have entomological expertise but observe in graves the evidence

13     encountered, and it's frequently observed that -- to find blowfly pupae

14     when bodies have been interred in the spring through to autumn season

15     when temperatures are higher.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, so you refraining from any expert opinion about

17     that but that's what you observed in the past, that such pupae were found

18     in that season of the year?

19             THE WITNESS:  Yes, Your Honour.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  That's --

21             Mr. Lukic, I hardly dare to ask you whether you're ready to

22     cross-examine the witness but.

23             MR. LUKIC:  I would say I'm not.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic, yes, that's the reason why I didn't ask

25     you in view of the recent developments.

Page 36292

 1             Mr. Lukic, you have an opportunity now to cross-examine the

 2     witness --

 3             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Hanson, Mr. Lukic is standing to your left, he's

 5     counsel for Mr. Mladic, and he may have questions for you.

 6             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

 7                           Cross-examination by Mr. Lukic

 8        Q.   Good afternoon, Mr. Hanson.

 9        A.   Good afternoon.

10        Q.   We will not from the problem with the overlapping since I will

11     pose my questions in B/C/S, so you don't have to be mindful of any

12     pauses.

13             [Interpretation] In your report on page 5, you stated all the

14     people who were present including Mr. Paul Grady, an investigator of this

15     Tribunal.  Could you please tell us what Mr. Grady's role was?

16        A.   I understand he was liaising with the prosecutor's office about

17     the investigation of the Tomasica site.

18        Q.   And did you have any contacts with him?

19        A.   Yes, he was present during the excavation when the discussion was

20     ongoing about what was being found and how to undertake the work.

21        Q.   And did you get any tasks from Mr. Grady?

22        A.   Tasks from Mr. Grady?  No.  My co-ordination on what to undertake

23     at the site was undertaken in co-ordination with the prosecutor's office

24     and missing persons institute.

25        Q.   So who issued the tasks from the Office of the Prosecutor?

Page 36293

 1        A.   The representative of the prosecutor's office who was there on a

 2     day-to-day basis Eldar Jahic, so the discussion on how to proceed with

 3     the excavation was had between him, the missing persons institute staff,

 4     and myself, or my ICMP staff if I was not present.

 5        Q.   So you worked for the prosecutor's office of the court in

 6     Bosnia-Herzegovina and not for the Prosecutor's Office for this Tribunal;

 7     is that right?

 8        A.   Yes, I was called, and ICMP was called to assist and provide

 9     technical advice by the Bosnian prosecutor's Office, state prosecutor's

10     Office.

11        Q.   We will come to your co-operation with the missing persons

12     institute in Bosnia and Herzegovina.  Are you aware that according to

13     Mr. Karahasanovic's work, it was established that some evidence from the

14     field arrived in bags that were not closed?

15        A.   From the field, you mean the Tomasica excavation site?

16        Q.   [In English] Yes, that's right.

17        A.   To which location?  You said bags arrived --

18        Q.   To the location where Mrs. Karahasanovic worked.

19        A.   Karahasanovic.  Who is she, sir?

20        Q.   If you don't know, that's -- I'll move.

21             [Interpretation] Are you aware that artefacts from the field were

22     sent for examination in open bags?

23        A.   I was not aware of that, no.

24        Q.   Had that been the case, would that mean that protocols on work in

25     the field were not adhered to?

Page 36294

 1        A.   I understand the chain of custody of all the evidence was

 2     undertaken by the crime technicians in Prijedor police, so I couldn't

 3     really comment on what happened to the evidence once it was under their

 4     custody.

 5        Q.   I'm going to repeat my question.  Would the fact that the

 6     artefacts from the field arrived for examination in open bags mean that

 7     protocols about the work in the field were not adhered to?

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Tieger, you're on your feet.

 9             MR. TIEGER:  The problem with that question is the one identified

10     by the witness, that there's a gap between the two.  And the witness --

11     and the question ignores that.  So there's one issue about what the

12     protocol in the field were, there's another issue about what the

13     conditions of the bags may have been when they arrived at a place that

14     the witness is unfamiliar with, and he tried to indicate that what

15     transpired in between in connection with organisations that are not

16     identified for his benefit that he can't comment on.  I think in those

17     circumstances, it's not exactly a fair question.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. --

19             MR. LUKIC:  My question is of a more general nature, whether that

20     would -- that would be in contradiction with protocols.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Well, now you are phrasing the question in a

22     more general way, protocols.  Earlier you said protocols on work in the

23     field, whereas you then said something about when they arrived.

24             If you would please explore that in detail, what protocols

25     applied for this witness and whether he has any knowledge of protocols

Page 36295

 1     that may have applied to subsequent stages of the investigation, and

 2     whether he would then consider such a thing to happen to be in violation

 3     of either the protocol in the field or any other protocol he is aware of.

 4     If you would explore it in that way, then I think we would get to the

 5     information you are seeking and at the same time it would -- Mr. Tieger,

 6     it would meet your concerns, if I understood them well.

 7             MR. TIEGER:  Yes, Your Honour.  I mean, there's -- that sounds

 8     like a procedure that will work.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Let's proceed that way in a very precise manner.

10             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

11        Q.   [Interpretation] Mr. Hanson, the protocols that you adhered to,

12     do they assume that artefacts that are to be sent for examination are

13     packed and closed?

14        A.   On the Tomasica site, ICMP and myself were not in control of

15     chain of custody or handling of evidence once it came from the grave.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  That's not an answer to the question.  Yeah, you say

17     the protocols you adhere to.  Now, did the protocols which applied on

18     from finding artefacts up to leaving your custody, did they say anything

19     about them to be put in closed bags or in a closed container?

20             THE WITNESS:  The site removal of evidence from the grave was

21     undertaken by crime technicians helped -- with the bodies helped by ICMP

22     staff.  The procedure the crime technicians took to handle the evidence

23     and package it were not part of what ICMP did.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Now, irrespective of whether ICMP did it, if

25     you would have done it, would there have been certain protocols to put

Page 36296

 1     them in bags and to close those bags?

 2             THE WITNESS:  Yes, Your Honour.  The standard procedure for

 3     handling evidence in chain of custody is to make sure it is properly

 4     packaged, labelled, and sealed.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  That's just a first step but ...

 6             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  And perhaps you could ask, Mr. Lukic, whether the

 8     witness observed what was done by those who were not bound by these

 9     protocols, but -- so that we have a factual basis for any follow-up.

10             Please proceed.

11             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you.

12        Q.   [Interpretation] You said that the technicians were in charge of

13     the bags and the packing of the artefacts.  Who were they supervised by?

14        A.   I understand an inspector from the Prijedor police, the

15     prosecutor's office representatives.

16        Q.   When you say "representatives of the prosecutor's office," you

17     mean the prosecutor's office of the state court in Bosnia and

18     Herzegovina; is that correct?

19        A.   Yes.

20        Q.   Is it correct that a number of graves were opened at the same

21     time?

22        A.   Yes, that is correct.

23        Q.   Are you aware of the recommendation of the commission from

24     San Antonio not uncover more than one grave at the same time?

25        A.   San Antonio Commission?  No, I don't think I'm familiar with

Page 36297

 1     that.

 2        Q.   So you did not follow the instructions of the San Antonio

 3     Commission because were not aware of the commission; is that correct?

 4        A.   As you describe it, the San Antonio Commission, no, I do not know

 5     to which you refer.

 6        Q.   Thank you.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Could I ask you, is it because Mr. Lukic is not

 8     precisely enough describing such a commission, or have you ever heard

 9     about a commission which was referred to or linked to by whomever with

10     San Antonio, or do you say San Antonio Commission doesn't ring a bell at

11     all?

12             THE WITNESS:  That's it, Your Honour.  It doesn't ring a bell

13     with me, San Antonio Commission.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

15             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

16        Q.   Mr. Hanson, how long did you work on this particular case, the

17     Tomasica case?

18        A.   In the field or overall?

19        Q.   [In English] In total, yeah.

20        A.   In the field?

21        Q.   In total.

22        A.   Ongoing from the 6th of September through to April 2014, and then

23     with report-writing, then into May 2014.

24        Q.   [Interpretation] Thank you.

25             JUDGE MOLOTO:  I can assume that September was 2013.

Page 36298

 1             THE WITNESS:  September 2013, Your Honour, yes.

 2             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.

 3             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

 4        Q.   Could we now look at paragraph 4 of your report, please.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Before we do so, could I ask one follow-up question.

 6             Witness, questions were asked about the packaging of artefacts,

 7     whatever was found.  Did you ever observe that artefacts found were not

 8     packed in -- in a way as you would have done it?  So I'm not asking you

 9     as an expert now but just on whether you observed any of such thing?

10             THE WITNESS:  I did not, Your Honour.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

12             Please proceed.

13             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

14        Q.   In paragraph 4 of your report, you say that 371 cases of human

15     remains were recovered.

16        A.   Yes.

17        Q.   Could you please explain to us exactly what that is, what the 370

18     cases of human remains was?

19        A.   That includes all bodies, body parts, and cases of -- known as

20     general bones.  That's loose bones collected from the main grave.

21        Q.   And this last category, does that have anything to do with the

22     cases that you discussed and that you were asked about earlier?

23        A.   Yes.

24        Q.   And these cases, are they connected to any names or do they just

25     have numbers?

Page 36299

 1        A.   At the time of collection, they're given evidence numbers.

 2        Q.   And then later, they were connected to the bodies, if I

 3     understood you correctly?

 4        A.   Each body or body part or piece of evidence identified is

 5     provided with an evidence -- a sequential evidence number.

 6        Q.   After the exhumations, was it the case that some bones were left

 7     over that were not connected to any particular body?

 8        A.   Within the graves and within the mixed brown soil, loose bones

 9     and fragments of bones were found, and they were collected within these

10     cases designated GB.

11        Q.   [In English] GB, you mean general bags?

12        A.   General bags, yes.

13        Q.   [Interpretation] Later, each one of those loose bones that were

14     not associated with a body, was it given a number?

15        A.   Do you mean at the excavation?

16        Q.   [In English] At the end of the process.

17        A.   I do not know.  So what happened to the general cases and how

18     they were dealt with, the general bones case, how they're dealt with in

19     examination, I do not have that information.

20        Q.   Fair enough.  Thank you.

21             [Interpretation] I'm just going to have one more question in this

22     connection.  Do you know anything about the final list of names of

23     missing persons in Bosnia and Herzegovina?

24        A.   The final list of persons missing in Bosnia-Herzegovina.  You

25     mean a national list, sir?  Or related to --

Page 36300

 1        Q.   [In English] On a national level.

 2        A.   On a national level, I know there is a list undergoing

 3     verification, a CEN list.  Other than that, I do not have any

 4     involvement.

 5        Q.   [Interpretation] Thank you.

 6             Could we look at a Figure 41, please.  You spoke about that

 7     several times today.

 8             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Which page?

 9             MR. LUKIC:  I'm trying to locate, Your Honour.

10             THE WITNESS:  46, Your Honour.

11             MR. LUKIC:  46.  Thank you.

12        Q.   [Interpretation] This illustration, this figure, could you please

13     tell us how much of the Tomasica grave was actually robbed or disturbed?

14        A.   In volume, I would say 30 to 40 per cent.

15        Q.   Thank you.  I'd like to go back to paragraph 8 now; page 2.

16     There, you say:

17             "A thick deposit of mixed brown clay was excavated from which 17

18     cases of remains were recovered."

19        A.   Yes.

20        Q.   What kind of cases of remains are they?  Which parts of body?

21             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Would that be page 7 and not 2?

22             MR. LUKIC:  It is page 7.  I stand corrected.  Thank you.

23             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.

24             THE WITNESS:  These cases from the mixed brown clay were bodies,

25     body parts, and cases of general bones.

Page 36301

 1             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

 2        Q.   Were you able to ascertain the minimum number of bodies there may

 3     have been?

 4        A.   From the mixed brown clay?  We were not.  We passed the cases for

 5     examination at the mortuaries to determine those numbers.

 6        Q.   Therefore, they were supposed to do the matching between the

 7     remains referred to here and other sets of remains or complete bodies.

 8        A.   That's correct.

 9        Q.   The people working at the location, were they also supervised by

10     you?

11        A.   The ICMP staff?  Yes, they were.  And in my absence, by a deputy.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Could I just seek clarification.

13             Mr. Lukic, you asked whether the matching would be done between

14     the remains referred to here and other sets of remains or complete

15     bodies, and the witness says:  "That's correct."

16             But have you excluded on purpose the matching within that set of

17     cases which --

18             MR. LUKIC:  By omission.  I could say by omission.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  By omission.  May I take it that that would be a

20     possible matching exercise as well, that certain cases within that group

21     of 17 would have given a match?

22             THE WITNESS:  Yes.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

24             Please proceed.

25             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Can I have a follow-up question.

Page 36302

 1             If it's a piece -- is matched with a complete body, it can't be a

 2     part of that body, could it?  Because the body is complete.

 3             MR. LUKIC:  My understanding that still complete body can miss a

 4     bone or two.

 5             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Then it's not complete if it misses a bone.

 6             MR. LUKIC:  But I'm not an expert.  Maybe the witness --

 7             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Well, there's a problem with your question.  If a

 8     body is complete, it misses nothing; therefore, there's no point in

 9     comparing it to anything else.  So that question doesn't make sense to

10     me.

11             MR. LUKIC:  I would try to clarify with the witness, Your Honour.

12             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.

13             MR. LUKIC:

14        Q.   Mr. Hanson, you heard doubts Honourable Judge Moloto has.  Can

15     you explain and enlighten us on this issue, if you know?

16        A.   Yes, Your Honour.  A case may be designated a body but it may not

17     be complete, so it may be missing a lower part of a leg, for example, it

18     may be missing a hand, so it gets the case designation of body.  If a

19     lower leg is found that is then matched through DNA and other techniques,

20     it's reassociated to that body.

21             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Based on my understanding of your definition of

22     case a little earlier, then it becomes impossible or it cannot happen

23     that a case is a body?  Because as I understand you, if I'm correct, a

24     case is a part of a body.

25             THE WITNESS:  A case can be a body, it can be a body part; that

Page 36303

 1     is, a lower leg.  It could be one bone.  A case is what is found as one

 2     distinct set of evidence.

 3             JUDGE MOLOTO:  And that would include a complete body that

 4     doesn't miss anything?

 5             THE WITNESS:  Yes.  So --

 6             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Okay.

 7             THE WITNESS:  -- some of these bodies which have soft tissue are

 8     complete, there's nothing missing from them.

 9             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Okay.  Then I have a better understanding of what

10     you mean by "case."

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.

12             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

13        Q.   [Interpretation] It we look at paragraph 17, which is on the next

14     page, for clarification, and for the purposes of the record, you say

15     there that:

16             "Entomological evidence indicates the last bodies may have been

17     put into the graves between April and October."

18             What year?

19        A.   We do not know which year.  The evidence from the excavation

20     provided a chronology and sequence of events but no finite dating by

21     year.

22        Q.   In paragraph 20, you explain that the bodies were examined and

23     recorded and transported to Krajina Identification Project, KIP, at

24     Sejkovaca mortuary.  Sejkovaca is in Sanski Most, which is the

25     Federation; correct?

Page 36304

 1        A.   Yes, sir.

 2        Q.   Is that a well-equipped mortuary?

 3        A.   By common standards, I would say it's not a well-equipped

 4     mortuary, no.

 5        Q.   Who elected that mortuary and not, for example, the one in

 6     Banja Luka?

 7        A.   I don't know the answer to that question, sir.

 8        Q.   Thank you.  In paragraph 25, which is on the next page, you

 9     state -- [In English] actually, two pages ahead.  Okay.  Next page in

10     B/C/S.

11             [Interpretation] You say:

12             "According to the information provided to ICMP in 2006, the

13     Tomasica mine complex site was believed to have originally contained 100

14     to 200 individuals who died on or around the 20th of July 1992 in the

15     Brdo area.  There was further information that persons who died at the

16     Keraterm camp around the 24th of July 1992 were also buried at the site."

17             Did the work carried out by you confirm any of this, or is this

18     that you simply present as information you learned from someone else?

19        A.   Yes, that information was present in the report, ICMP excavation

20     report from 2006.  The excavation 2013, which I report upon in my report,

21     provided no information that I know of about bodies from the Brdo area or

22     Keraterm camp, the excavation.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Mladic should not speak aloud.

24                           [Defence counsel confer]

25             THE WITNESS:  That is, perhaps can I clarify.  What I mean is

Page 36305

 1     that I gathered no information during the excavation related to origin of

 2     the bodies found within the graves.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  And that's because you didn't identify them by name

 4     or by person?  That was not part of your task?

 5             THE WITNESS:  That was not part of my task, Your Honour, during

 6     excavation.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 8             Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.

 9             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

10        Q.   Therefore, did you not double-check this piece of information

11     provided by the institute for missing persons to ICMP about the

12     possibility of 8- to 900 bodies that may have been brought to the site

13     between May and July 1992?

14        A.   This background information is coming from the reports --

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Mladic should not speak aloud.  And that's now

16     the second time, Mr. Mladic.

17                           [Defence counsel confer]

18             JUDGE ORIE:  And if I may give you, Mr. Lukic, as guidance, that

19     if a report, which one would expect to clearly state if some

20     identification or if some verification would have been done, if it's not

21     in the report, this Chamber, as a starting point, will take it that such

22     verification has not taken place.  Especially here.  It's just reported

23     as this is information.  And if there would have been a verification, I

24     take it that the witness would have mentioned that in his report.  This

25     is -- may save some time.

Page 36306

 1             Please proceed.

 2             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.  But still I deemed it

 3     necessary to clarify with the witness.  Since we have it in the report.

 4     I have to check whether it was --

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  No.  If the report says Mr. A told me that he bought

 6     a red car yesterday, and if there's nothing else in it, then the Chamber

 7     will take it that that is what that witness heard and that he has not

 8     verified neither the colour neither the day of -- well, if you would have

 9     to check everything or if you have to -- what is not in the report, if

10     you would have to seek verification that what is not the report didn't

11     take place, unless there's any specific reason to believe, but your

12     questions in relation to paragraph 25, reading the report as a whole,

13     make it clear that it was not within the task of this witness to verify

14     that.  And if he would have done so, it may be -- it -- one would not

15     expect it not to appear in the report, and if it's not in the report,

16     it's not there for us.

17             Please proceed.

18             MR. LUKIC:  Your Honour, the Prosecution whose witness

19     testified -- testifies for them had necessity to clarify some things, so

20     I think that we are on -- entitled to clarify certain things from the

21     report as well, especially -- I was not clear.  If this was maybe --

22             JUDGE ORIE:  I gave you the guidance how this Chamber operates,

23     Mr. Lukic, and then use your time as you wish.  But if there are more

24     important matters to be dealt with, then that might be preferable.

25             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

Page 36307

 1        Q.   [Interpretation] In paragraph 28, Mr. Hanson, you state that:

 2             "Between the 14th of June and 30th of June 2006 the excavation

 3     continued at the same location ..."

 4             You also state that the Una-Sana cantonal police crime

 5     technicians took custody of all evidence.

 6             Perhaps a matter of clarification.  The Una-Sana cantonal police

 7     is part of the Federation police force; correct?

 8        A.   I couldn't tell you the answer to that.  But, again, this

 9     paragraph is quoting from the 2007 report that I used for reference in

10     this background section.

11        Q.   Again, my question is:  Who decided that evidence was to be kept

12     in the Federation, which is to say outside of Republika Srpska where it

13     had originally been found?

14        A.   I can't answer that question, sir.  The contents of this

15     paragraph are in reference to the 2007 report I am quoting.

16        Q.   Thank you.  In paragraph 30, you say that additionally the

17     Jakarina Kosa secondary grave had been excavated in 2001 under the

18     auspices of the ICTY and that a total of 139 bodies and 259 body parts

19     were recovered, and the MNI of 298 was established based on

20     anthropological examination.  Did you have any participation in this

21     exercise or does it also come from the 2006 report?

22        A.   I did not participate in that, sir.  The information is from the

23     published article of 2006 by Baraybar and Gasior.

24        Q.   In the sentences following, you say:

25             "Subsequent DNA matching demonstrated linkages between cases from

Page 36308

 1     the Jakarina Kosa and Tomasica graves.  Identifications have been made

 2     for cases recovered from Tomasica and Jakarina Kosa by MPI based on ICMP

 3     DNA match reports."

 4             What was the role of the ICMP in this process, and did you play a

 5     role?

 6        A.   No, I did not play a role in any of the DNA identification.  ICMP

 7     supports the MPI Bosnia authorities in undertaking identifications using

 8     its DNA laboratory facilities.

 9        Q.   Where is the laboratory located?

10        A.   ICMP's facilities are based in Sarajevo, Tuzla, and Banja Luka.

11        Q.   Do you know where the analyses were conducted?

12        A.   From these cases from 2001, no, sir, I couldn't inform you of

13     that.

14        Q.   [In English] And 2006?

15        A.   No, that -- I wasn't involved in 2006 excavation.

16        Q.   [Interpretation] Do you know whether in 2001 and 2006 the ICMP

17     laboratories for DNA analysis possessed the required certifications?

18        A.   You would have to address that, I think, to my colleagues within

19     ICMP who have their expertise in DNA and laboratories.

20        Q.   [In English] Thank you.  We'll do so.  Thank you, sir.

21             [Interpretation] May we conclude, then, that you do not know what

22     made the laboratories conclude on the figures and what procedures they

23     used?

24        A.   Which figures, sir?

25        Q.   139 bodies and 298 parts of bodies and the MNI of 298.

Page 36309

 1        A.   Undertaken by anthropological examination?  No, I was not

 2     involved in those examinations.

 3        Q.   We can see in several instances in your report that there is

 4     information which you had not worked on and you are unable to explain.

 5     Why did you then include such information in your report?

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic, could you please clearly state where the

 7     witness does so so that the Chamber also can check in the context whether

 8     there could be any doubt as to whether the witness - because that's the

 9     issue - is apparently leading information, hiding that it is information

10     that he just got from others or where -- could you please be specific in

11     that question?

12             MR. LUKIC:  I don't think that I said that he -- this gentleman

13     was hiding anything, but I did ask him, for example, let's say

14     paragraph 30, why is this included in his report.  Obviously he has no

15     knowledge.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, that's, indeed, what you're suggesting, that

17     there's no knowledge.

18             MR. LUKIC:  Yes.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Could you please be specific.  I withdraw whether

20     it's misleading or not.  But at least mixing up information he has gained

21     himself with information he received from others and why that's done,

22     could you be precise.

23             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

24        Q.   My question is this:  Can it be gleaned from your report what are

25     the matters you personally were involved in as opposed to parts of the

Page 36310

 1     work carried out that you were not involved in?

 2        A.   Yes.  The paragraph you've referred to in the background section.

 3     It's standard in our reports to provide a background which is the

 4     information already available before the undertaking of work.

 5        Q.   [In English] Thank you.  That clarifies the issue, I hope.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic, I'm looking at the clock.  If it would be

 7     a suitable moment for a break --

 8             MR. LUKIC:  Yes, Your Honour.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  -- we'll take that break now.

10             Witness, we'd like to see you back in 20 minutes.  You may follow

11     the usher.

12             THE WITNESS:  Yes, Your Honour.

13                           [The witness stands down]

14             JUDGE ORIE:  We resume at 30 minutes past 1.00.

15                           --- Recess taken at 1.10 p.m.

16                           --- On resuming at 1.31 p.m.

17                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

18                           [The witness takes the stand]

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

20             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

21        Q.   [Interpretation] Mr. Hanson, do you know who Milutin Misic is?

22        A.   Yes, I do, sir.

23        Q.   When you said that you contacted members of the institute for

24     missing persons of Bosnia and Herzegovina, did your contacts go through

25     him or through Mr. Amor Masovic?  Regarding the work on Tomasica, when

Page 36311

 1     you talk about paragraph 31, for example.

 2        A.   The initial discussion which included discussion about the

 3     Tomasica site was undertaken and arranged through Dusan Pavlovic, who's

 4     the exhumations department head at MPI.  In December 2012, we had a

 5     general meeting with staff from MPI offices all across Bosnia to discuss

 6     ways to better the search for finding graves, and it was the field

 7     officers from the MPI Bihac office who raised at that general meeting the

 8     Tomasica site and whether there was potentially more work to do there.

 9        Q.   In the same paragraph, paragraph 31, you say that deep trenching

10     by MPI and the prosecutor's office staff was conducted on the 4th to 5th

11     September of 2013.  Do you know how the staff from the MPI and the

12     prosecutor's office carried out this trenching?

13        A.   No, I was not present on those dates.  I'd received a phone call

14     from Eldar Jahic stating they'd undertaken trenching and had uncovered

15     human remains.

16        Q.   Could you kindly repeat the name because it was not recorded in

17     the transcript.

18        A.   Eldar Jahic.

19        Q.   [In English] Is it correctly spelled on your screen?  Can you

20     check it?

21        A.   My screen is blank.

22             JUDGE MOLOTO:  It's the second name on page 5 of the report, sir.

23     You can find it there.

24             THE WITNESS:  Yes, that corresponds to the spelling in my report.

25             MR. LUKIC:

Page 36312

 1        Q.   Thank you.  [Interpretation] Did you write this report?

 2        A.   Yes, I did.

 3        Q.   Are you able to explain to us why at the end of the

 4     paragraph your name is mentioned in the third person singular?

 5        A.   Yes, that's simply a self-description.

 6        Q.   I'm sorry, I didn't understand.  Did you refer to yourself in

 7     this way throughout the report or not?

 8        A.   No, I believe that's the only instance.

 9        Q.   Paragraph 42 of your report, can we look at that, please.  When

10     we're talking about the method and the archaeological excavation of the

11     grave and other structures, you say that the excavation process was

12     overseen by the deputy director of the forensic sciences for archaeology

13     and anthropology at ICMP, supported by ICMP archaeologists.  Are you able

14     to give us the names of these persons?

15        A.   I am deputy director for forensic sciences for archaeology and

16     anthropology, and the names of the archaeologists are listed.

17        Q.   Yes, it's all right.  I was just interested in this very first

18     point.  Again, we have the third person singular.  So I was confused as

19     to whether you wrote the entire report or only just sections of it.

20        A.   No, I wrote the entire report, and where necessary I described my

21     own title and name.  For clarification.

22             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Could we please look at paragraph 71

23     now.  [In English] In B/C/S, it's page 24.  Should be page 22.

24        Q.   [Interpretation] In the -- this paragraph, it states --

25             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's note:  This is not the right

Page 36313

 1     paragraph.

 2             MR. LUKIC:  [No interpretation]

 3             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  We don't receive interpretation.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  And the interpreters initially had some problems, I

 5     think, with the paragraph.  Is it clear now?  Could you then repeat your

 6     question.

 7             MR. LUKIC:  It's paragraph 71.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  71.  Yes.  Could you repeat your question?

 9             MR. LUKIC:  Yes, Your Honour.

10        Q.   [Interpretation] "The properties of each case were recorded on

11     body forms to aid the pathologists and mortuary team during later

12     examinations.  All remains were transported to the Sejkovaca mortuary in

13     Sanski Most under the direction of the court pathologist."

14             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's note that our numbering of

15     paragraphs does not correspond to what Mr. Lukic has read.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic, could have you a look at paragraph 71.

17     Of course, in the B/C/S, I do not know whether it is --

18             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's note:  We do have it on the

19     screen now but not on our hard copy.  We apologise.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Is it possible that the interpreters were provided

21     with the same wrong hard copy as the Judges were initially and could then

22     instead of printing it out for us could you immediately take care that

23     the interpreters have the right paragraph.

24             MR. TIEGER:  The Court is correct about that.  The interpreters

25     received copies last week.  And as it turns out, I guess we printed those

Page 36314

 1     out for the benefit of the booth.  We'll distribute those now.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  The interpreters' booth will be provided with an

 3     accurate copy corresponding with what is now on our screens, both in

 4     English and B/C/S.

 5             THE INTERPRETER:  We can read out paragraph 71 now because we see

 6     it on the screen, Your Honour.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 8             Mr. Lukic.

 9             THE INTERPRETER:  "Any evidence found on a body remained with the

10     body after initial examination so that it could be dealt with during the

11     mortuary examination, unless the prosecutor deemed it necessary to remove

12     it for evidential purposes.  Such evidence was not always noted or

13     observed by ICMP staff."

14             JUDGE ORIE:  And now your question, Mr. Lukic.

15             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

16        Q.   Are you able to tell us who decided whether it -- what was

17     necessary to be removed from the body?  Was that the prosecutor or was it

18     the ICMP staff?

19             JUDGE MOLOTO:  The answer to that question is in the paragraph 71

20     that you just read, Mr. Lukic:

21             "... unless the prosecutor deemed it necessary ..."

22             MR. LUKIC:  Maybe I wasn't clear, but my question was more who --

23     who decided and allow the removal.  So if the prosecution deems something

24     necessary doesn't mean that he has the power to remove it.  Maybe he has

25     to ask somebody.  Maybe I wasn't clear enough.

Page 36315

 1             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Let's clarify it that way.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  So your question is on what authority --

 3             MR. LUKIC:  Authority, yes, Your Honour.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  -- the prosecutor could decide that it was necessary

 5     to remove evidence for evidential purposes from a body.

 6             Could you answer that question, please.

 7             THE WITNESS:  On what authority the prosecutor?  No, I couldn't

 8     answer that question for you.

 9             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

10        Q.   You said in the paragraph that the ICMP staff did not always

11     observe or record such evidence.  Do you know who kept the records about

12     the evidence and the chain of custody?

13        A.   The crime technicians, I believe, kept the evidence logs.

14        Q.   You believe so or you know so?

15        A.   I believe.  I was not present at the excavation every day, but

16     that was the protocol.

17        Q.   And was it customary for the ICMP to be informed about the

18     removal of evidence?

19        A.   No, it was not.

20        Q.   And could we agree that you don't know how the procedure actually

21     went on?

22        A.   You mean on a day-to-day basis, how the evidence was dealt with

23     when examined after taking from the grave?  No, ICMP wasn't involved with

24     in looking at the cases once they came from the grave and before they

25     went to the mortuary.

Page 36316

 1        Q.   [In English] Thank you.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Could you, nevertheless, give us examples of what

 3     was, for example, as far -- because you make these observations so you

 4     must have some knowledge about incidents where this happened, could you

 5     tell us anything about the frequency of such incidents and could you give

 6     us one or two examples of what kind of material was separated from the

 7     bodily remains?

 8             THE WITNESS:  Yes.  Once the body was put a body bag, put on a

 9     stretcher, and carried from the grave, it was placed down.  The crime

10     technicians, prosecutor, and MPI then together looked through the body,

11     examine it more closely.  They were looking for personal effects and

12     documents, I think, that related potentially to the identifications of

13     the persons.  Checks, of course, were also made for safety reasons to

14     make sure there was nothing dangerous upon the bodies such as munitions,

15     because during the excavation we're not certain as we find each body as

16     to its nature and properties.  So I think typically that's the type of

17     thing that was undertaken with a recording of documents and any personal

18     effects found on the bodies.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  In your recollection, was this a frequent

20     thing to happen or -- I mean, was it once out of ten or was it quite

21     often that it happened?

22             THE WITNESS:  When I was present on site, I think it's quite a

23     frequent thing.  Every -- every case was checked.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Thank you.

25             Please proceed.

Page 36317

 1             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Could we look at paragraph 79 now,

 2     please.  It's two pages on.

 3        Q.   Here, you state the following.  I quote:

 4             "Exposed remains were lifted after recording and surveying by the

 5     anthropologists.  Some remains designated as general bones and found

 6     during excavation in the mixed brown clay were moved for numbering and

 7     recording, so that excavation could continue."

 8             Let me ask you this first:  Who moved these artefacts?

 9        A.   The general bones?

10        Q.   [In English] All artefacts that were mentioned in this paragraph.

11        A.   Some of the --

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Is the word "artefact," would you include bones as

13     artefacts?  Because it's my understanding of the English word "artefact"

14     that it's something made by man rather than grown by nature.  And

15     therefore, could you please indicate, Mr. Lukic, where in paragraph 79

16     you find a reference to artefacts.

17             MR. LUKIC:  I'm sorry, I will use English then.  Human remains.

18     My understanding might be wrong.  I would mark artefact everything, bones

19     and man-made artefacts.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, I'm not a native English speaker, but I tried

21     to at least to explain how I understand the word "artefact," and I didn't

22     hear any objections to that until now, so ...

23             Please proceed.

24             MR. LUKIC:  I could easily accept that I'm not an English

25     speaking person either, and I don't have perfect understanding of English

Page 36318

 1     words, so, please.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Judge Moloto confirms that my understanding of the

 3     word "artefact" is correct.

 4             Please proceed.

 5             MR. LUKIC:  Then we have to abide by that.

 6        Q.   So, Mr. Hanson, these human remains recovered, who would remove

 7     them?

 8        A.   After recording, the anthropologists assisted the mortuary

 9     technician staff to put the body in the body bag, and then it was carried

10     from the grave by the mortuary technician staff.

11             If I'd just add to that, the general bones found during the

12     excavation in the mixed brown clay, often these were found after they'd

13     been moved; that is, the heavy machinery clearing the clay would expose

14     bones where they would be observed once they'd been moved onto the spoil

15     heaps, and the mortuary technician staff and the anthropologists were

16     observing that work.  In that instance then, those remains were put into

17     a general bag and collected by area because they're in effect toward --

18     they were already moved and disturbed.  And the putting into those

19     general bags, that might be done by the anthropologists.

20             Normally, the mortuary technicians upon finding those remains

21     would call an anthropologist to confirm that they were human remains and

22     that they should be put in a general bag.  Those general bags were

23     collected and put with the other body bags and then checked in the normal

24     way.

25        Q.   Thank you.  You said that anthropologists assist the mortuary

Page 36319

 1     technician staff.  Those mortuary technician staff were employed by whom?

 2        A.   The Sanski Most mortuary company.

 3        Q.   [Interpretation] The general bones marked as co-mingled bones as

 4     part of remains this remains, is it --

 5             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's note:  Could Mr. Lukic kindly

 6     repeat his question.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Could you --

 8             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

 9        Q.   Does it involve cases as well?

10        A.   Yes, one -- a general bone case, it is a case of evidence.  It

11     may come -- combine a single bone or several bones recovered from the

12     same general area.

13        Q.   In the course of your work, were you warned against such cases

14     possibly creating problems in determining the number of people who died?

15        A.   No, the -- the designation of the general bones body or body part

16     is really to understand how they can be collected as cases of evidence at

17     the site.  How many individuals may be represented within the bones

18     within a general bag case is determined in the mortuary.  If several

19     bones are found loose in an area, it -- we cannot tell if they're from

20     one individual or multiple individuals.  That's -- the examination of

21     that case to determine if it is one or more persons is undertaken in the

22     mortuary.

23        Q.   As an ICMP employee, did you possibly hear of criticisms

24     involving such cases that make it more difficult to determine the overall

25     number of those who were killed in Bosnia-Herzegovina?

Page 36320

 1        A.   No, it's always difficult because the number of cases recovered

 2     in the field is not necessarily representative of the number of

 3     individuals determined under examination, simply because in many

 4     occasions grave-sites the remains are mixed and the team working in the

 5     field does not have the ability to determine how many individuals might

 6     be present within the cases recovered.  Often remains of more than one

 7     individual are recovered in one case because the bones are fragmented or

 8     mixed up, and at site you cannot tell which bones necessarily belong to

 9     which individual when they are loose.

10        Q.   My question was simply whether you heard of criticisms to that

11     extent.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, that was not your question, Mr. Lukic.  Your

13     question was, at least as it was translated to us, whether the witness

14     heard of criticisms involving such cases that make it more difficult to

15     determine the overall number of those who were killed in

16     Bosnia-Herzegovina.

17             MR. LUKIC:  Exactly, Your Honour.  [Overlapping speakers] ...

18             JUDGE ORIE:  [Overlapping speakers] ...  That's a rather wide --

19             MR. LUKIC:  If he actually heard criticism.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  But what then followed is pretty

21     incomprehensible, such cases that made it more important.  So I think

22     that the witness tried to best of his abilities to answer the question.

23     But if you want it ask the question whether he heard of any criticism

24     about the work done by the ICMP, then the witness may be able to answer

25     that question.

Page 36321

 1             Can you, Witness?

 2             THE WITNESS:  Your Honour, criticism of ICMP using these

 3     designations, no.  Within the anthropological community in North America,

 4     SWGANTH, which is an anthropological collective which is producing

 5     standards of work, I know there is discussion about whether to use these

 6     nomenclatures of body, body parts, general bag.  That discussion involved

 7     the potential to bias examinations, and I know this because the standing

 8     operating procedure SWGANTH produced I contributed to, but I know of no

 9     criticism that it makes identification or the number of individuals

10     determined more -- more difficult, because the subsequent examination is

11     very detailed and separate from the field collection activity.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.

13             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

14        Q.   There was some mention of paragraph 103 today where you mentioned

15     the moving of bodies.  I'm interested in knowing whether bodies were

16     moved only from parts of the grave or were there attempts to move the

17     grave as a whole without the job ever being completed?

18        A.   I think I understand the question as was the whole of the grave

19     moved or parts it.  The evidence is consistent with just a part of the

20     grave being moved within those areas I designated as within the robbing

21     cuts which are within the dotted lines in Figure, I think, 41.

22        Q.   [In English] 41, yes.  Thank you.

23             JUDGE MOLOTO:  That's when also you mentioned some 30 to 40

24     per cent of it being moved.

25             THE WITNESS:  Yes, Your Honour.

Page 36322

 1             JUDGE MOLOTO:  So this question has been answered already.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Now the part of the question that may not have been

 3     answered yet is whether you were able to conclude whether attempts were

 4     made to move the grave as a whole.  That's -- I don't know whether it's

 5     within the realm of your expertise, but did find anything that would give

 6     us a clue as to whether the intention went beyond a partly removal of the

 7     grave?

 8             THE WITNESS:  No, Your Honour.  There were areas of the grave

 9     which are not disturbed.  So the whole was -- there's no evidence that

10     the whole grave is disturbed simply because portions of the grave appear

11     undisturbed.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And there's no evidence which would shed some

13     light on whether it was ever intended to remove the whole grave?

14             THE WITNESS:  No, not from the evidence we have.  A part of the

15     grave disturbed and that's it.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

17             Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.

18             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

19        Q.   I don't know whether this falls within your field of expertise,

20     but I will put the question nonetheless.  Please tell us if you are

21     unable to answer.

22             In the course of your work, were you ever able to conclude why

23     only 30 to 40 per cent of the grave was moved?  Was there any erosion of

24     the soil, was there effect of water?  Why was only a part of the grave

25     moved?  Do you have an explanation, based on your position?

Page 36323

 1        A.   Yes, the areas disturbed are quite distinctive.  They're very

 2     different from the areas that were undisturbed.  As to why the rest of

 3     the grave was not moved, I can't give you an answer.

 4        Q.   [In English] Thank you.  Sorry for bothering you with this kind

 5     of question but I had for some other purposes.  Thank you.

 6        A.   Okay.

 7        Q.   [Interpretation] Let's look at paragraph 113 next.  It is item

 8     6.3, "Nature and Distribution of Artefacts and Physical Evidence."

 9     6.3.1, "Types of Evidence."  You say there:

10             "Several types of physical evidence were recovered from the

11     excavation area both within and without the grave ..."

12             And then you enumerate identity card, documents, watches.  You go

13     on to say:

14             "These relationships were recorded by the police, prosecutor, and

15     MPI.  Several examples were noted by the ICTY investigator.  35 evidence

16     items of this kind were collected."

17             Who controlled the process?

18        A.   The evidence collection process?  The prosecutors and the

19     crime-scene technicians.

20        Q.   But not you, for the most part?

21        A.   No, no, we did -- ICMP did not control any evidence collection.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Witness, paragraph 113 was read to you.  I have some

23     difficulties in understanding "both within and without the grave," where

24     I would expect both within and outside.  Is -- could you assist me in

25     understanding your language?

Page 36324

 1             THE WITNESS:  Yes, Your Honour.  "Without" is outside the grave.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Thank you.

 3             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

 4        Q.   A reference was made today about entomological evidence dealt

 5     with by paragraph 116.  We saw the image of a beetle.  Did you have any

 6     relevant experts in that field as part of your team?

 7        A.   No, there were no entomologists present.

 8        Q.   In paragraph 120.  Page 54 in the B/C/S and it should be 52 in

 9     the English version.

10             JUDGE MOLOTO:  51 in the English version.

11             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

12        Q.   [Interpretation] It is 6.5, "Observations Relevant to Assisting

13     With Identifications."  Paragraph 120 reads as follows:

14             "There are a number of circumstances associated with this site

15     and the recovery effort that have the potential to assist with

16     identification."

17             In bullet point 1, you say:

18             "After the initial deposition, the grave was later intentionally

19     disturbed with removal of remains to other locations, with the known

20     location being Jakarina Kosa."

21             Except for Jakarina Kosa, what were the other locations, if you

22     can tell us here today?

23        A.   I know of no other locations.  What I mean by this sentence is

24     the remains are not present on the Tomasica site.

25        Q.   Thank you.  This is an answer to my question.

Page 36325

 1             Let's look at paragraph 127 next, under the heading:

 2     "Conclusion."  There, you refer to a main grave.  You say that:

 3             "An irregular squared shape was excavated.  It was 3 metres deep,

 4     18 metres in length, and 10 metres wide, from which 371 cases of human

 5     remains were recovered."

 6             When is a final determination made in terms of how many people

 7     were found?

 8        A.   How many people found.  In the mortuary after examinations and

 9     receiving of DNA results and other analysis.

10        Q.   So the process is completed after your stage of the work;

11     correct?

12        A.   Yes.  So we're recovering identifiable -- of course, there is a

13     recognised cases of remains as defined as cases of evidence.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic, it's approximately the fourth or the

15     fifth time that this witness, apart from describing it very clearly in

16     his report, explains this to us.

17             Witness, we'll have to adjourn for the day.  We'd like to see you

18     back tomorrow morning at 9.30 in this same courtroom.  You may now -- but

19     before you leave this courtroom, I'd like to instruct you that you should

20     not speak or communicate with whomever about your testimony, irrespective

21     of whether that is testimony given today or still to be given tomorrow.

22             You may now follow the usher.

23             THE WITNESS:  Thank you, Your Honour.

24                           [The witness stands down]

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic, before we adjourn, there may be two

Page 36326

 1     matters.  First, I'd like to know whether you're on track as far as time

 2     is concerned.

 3             MR. LUKIC:  Yes, I am, Your Honour.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 5             MR. LUKIC:  Probably I will finish him before than I estimated.

 6     I estimated four hours.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And could you give us an indication then as to

 8     how much time you'd still need?

 9             MR. LUKIC:  At this moment?  Maybe I will be able tomorrow

10     morning because I have to go through all the questions.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  You mean to tell us tomorrow morning in the

12     beginning of the session?

13             MR. LUKIC:  Yes, yes.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, we'd like to hear that from you.

15             Is there any other matter to be announced?

16             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.  Yes.

17             Mr. Mladic waived his right to be present tomorrow at the trial,

18     and he signed his waiver, so we just want to inform Your Honours that we

19     will proceed without Mr. Mladic tomorrow.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, we'll then proceed, Mr. Mladic having waived

21     his right to be present, because he knows that he has the right to be

22     present and to attend Court and has chosen tomorrow not to use that

23     right.

24             MR. LUKIC:  Yes, Your Honour.  Thank you for

25     [Overlapping speakers].

Page 36327

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  And I see Mr. Mladic nodding in the affirmative

 2     behind you.

 3             Then we'll receive later that confirmation of the waiver, the

 4     written confirmation.

 5             We adjourn for the day and we'll resume tomorrow, the 25th of

 6     June, 9.30 in the morning, in this same courtroom, I.

 7                            --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.16 p.m.,

 8                           to be reconvened on Thursday, the 25th day of

 9                           June, 2015, at 9.30 a.m.