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
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
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.
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
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?
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.
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
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
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
1 conclusions that could be worthwhile to further explore the Tomasica
2 site. Was trenching probes subsequently undertaken after that
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,
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
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
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
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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;
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
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
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
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
24 The MNI, minimum number of individuals, this is a calculation
25 made by the anthropological assessment of remains to determine how many
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
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
24 Q. And that is linked to your previous observation about the
25 secondary site at Jakarina Kosa and the linkage between the two?
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.
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]
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
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.
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]
11 Page 36256 redacted. Private session.
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
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
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
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
1 be removed to reveal the yellow-grey clay and anything else lying
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
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.
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
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
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.
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
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
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
1 ask that we move into private session.
2 JUDGE ORIE: We move into private session.
3 [Private session]
11 Page 36265 redacted. Private session.
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.
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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?
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
1 effect, is prevented from entering the grave by the dense nature of the
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
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
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.
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.
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
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
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?
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
1 deposited into the previous grave-sites and over the rest of the grave
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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
1 transpired between the placement of bodies in the grave and their
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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?
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
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?
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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?
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 --
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
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.
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
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.
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
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
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
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?
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
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
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
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
24 A. Which figures, sir?
25 Q. 139 bodies and 298 parts of bodies and the MNI of 298.
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
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
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
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:
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
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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
25 Q. Thank you. You said that anthropologists assist the mortuary
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
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?
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
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
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.
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.
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
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
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?
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?
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
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.
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;
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
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
24 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour. Thank you for
25 [Overlapping speakers].
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.