1 Thursday, 25 June 2015
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused not present]
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 number
9 IT-09-92-T, the Prosecutor versus Ratko Mladic.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
11 One second, please.
12 [Trial Chamber confers]
13 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber, first of all, establishes that
14 Mr. Mladic is not present in the courtroom today. He has waived his
15 right to attend a meeting, and his written confirmation of his waiver was
16 filed yesterday. Therefore, we'll continue in his absence.
17 No preliminaries were announced, which means that we could now
18 proceed with the cross-examination of Mr. Hanson.
19 Could the witness be escorted in the courtroom.
20 Mr. Lukic.
21 MR. LUKIC: And while we are waiting for the witness,
22 Your Honour, I would say that my rough estimate is about one hour.
23 JUDGE ORIE: One hour.
24 MR. LUKIC: Yes.
25 JUDGE ORIE: May I take it that in the absence of Mr. Mladic,
1 that we go back to the usual schedule, which is one hour and a half and
2 have two breaks, rather than three times one hour and three breaks.
3 MR. LUKIC: That's fine with the Defence.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then we'll proceed accordingly.
5 [The witness takes the stand]
6 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning, Mr. Hanson.
7 THE WITNESS: Good morning, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Hanson, I'd like to remind you that you're still
9 bound by the solemn declaration you've given yesterday at the beginning
10 of your testimony, that you'll speak the truth, the whole truth, and
11 nothing but the truth.
12 Mr. Lukic will now continue his cross-examination.
13 THE WITNESS: Sorry, Your Honour, I'm having trouble hearing you.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
15 THE WITNESS: I think I may be listening to the Bosnian.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, if the usher could assist and put you on the
17 right channel, which should be channel 4.
18 Can you hear me now in English.
19 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
21 Then, Mr. Lukic, if you're ready, you may proceed.
22 MR. LUKIC: I can proceed.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
24 WITNESS: IAN HANSON [Resumed]
25 Cross-examination by Mr. Lukic: [Continued]
1 Q. Good morning, Mr. Hanson.
2 A. Good morning, sir.
3 Q. Do you have your work in front of you?
4 A. Yes, I have my report.
5 MR. LUKIC: Can we go to the page 61 in English version, I think,
6 and 65 in B/C/S, please.
7 JUDGE FLUEGGE: And this is P7431.
8 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour, thank you.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: We are there, Mr. Lukic.
10 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
11 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Hanson, there's a table on this page signed
12 on the 6th of May, 2014. Under approvals, we see the name of
13 Mr. Thomas Parsons, as well as of Mr. Andreas Kleiser. We can see that
14 Mr. Kleiser is the director of policy and co-operation.
15 Please explain to us why was it necessary for Mr. Kleiser to
16 approve your report.
17 A. Director Kleiser checks and approves all reports issued by ICMP.
18 Q. One of my colleagues drew my attention to the issue of policy
19 which is apparently some cause of -- cause of some confusion. What does
20 actually director of policy and co-operation do in the ICMP?
21 A. I think you should address to Director Kleiser for his exact job
22 role, but one of his tasks is to control and check documentation
23 emanating from ICMP.
24 Q. Do you know who he reports to?
25 A. Yes, the director-general.
1 Q. [In English] And that is?
2 A. Kathryne Bomberger.
3 Q. And where is she seated?
4 A. Sorry, could you repeat your question.
5 Q. Where is she seated, where is his office?
6 A. In ICMP headquarters, in Sarajevo.
7 Q. [Interpretation] Please tell us, if you know, what is
8 Mr. Kleiser's profession?
9 A. He is a lawyer, as I understand.
10 Q. Do you know why would a lawyer need to approve your product, your
12 A. Yes. ICMP's documentation policy states all reports will be
13 checked and approved. And for these reports, scientific reports, both
14 Thomas Parsons and Andreas Kleiser check and approve. For these reports
15 that I produce, so excavation reports.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, could we go to the concrete level rather
17 than to stay in the abstract level. I take it that the core issue is
18 whether any influence was exercised by one of these persons.
19 Could you tell us, did you submit a draft and were any changes
20 suggested by the persons who approved your report?
21 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour. Thomas Parsons suggested changes
22 to and amendments to text as my director.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then perhaps we move to that, because,
24 Mr. Lukic, I think that's the relevant issue. Perhaps you could wait for
25 further questions, but Mr. Lukic may be interested in what kind of
1 changes he may have suggested. And do I understand your last answer to
2 be that Mr. Kleiser did not suggest any changes?
3 THE WITNESS: To my recollection, Your Honour, he did not.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.
5 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
6 Q. [Interpretation] Please tell us, then, what sort of changes did
7 Mr. Parsons request of you.
8 A. Some grammatical changes, typos, and clarifications of grammar
9 and technical terms so that he had a clear understanding of the report
10 content and meaning.
11 Q. Did he intervene in the gist of your work? Did he require any
12 such changes?
13 A. No, he did not.
14 Q. Thank you. Mr. Hanson, do you recall another paper of yours
15 entitled, [In English] and I will quote the title. It's: How to do
16 forensic archaeology under the auspices of large organisations like the
18 A. Yes. Yes, I do. That's a published chapter in a book.
19 Q. I will quote one sentence and ask you something about that
20 sentence. And if you want, it's not in our system, but it says:
21 "At the very worst, the evidence itself might become prejudiced
22 by dissident team members writing letters of denigration that fall into
23 the hands of the defence."
24 Do you remember this sentence?
25 MR. TIEGER: Can we have a page number, please.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger.
2 MR. LUKIC: It's not from this work. It's the other paper
3 written by Mr. Hanson and he just confirmed that he remembers it.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Have you --
5 MR. TIEGER: I have -- sorry.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Have you disclosed a copy to Mr. Tieger?
7 MR. LUKIC: I have to check that.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Because one sentence, I don't know how long that
9 contribution is.
10 MR. LUKIC: It's 18 pages.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And I think it would be fair that Mr. Tieger
12 has an opportunity to look at the context in which it was published.
13 MR. TIEGER: In fairness, I have what I believe is a copy of that
14 in front of me. I'm just looking at the moment for a page reference.
15 MR. LUKIC: It's page number 2, paragraph number 2.
16 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber doesn't have it, but please proceed for
17 the time being, Mr. Lukic.
18 MR. TIEGER: I should note it's -- it has been uploaded as
20 JUDGE ORIE: Therefore, perhaps, irrespective of whether you'll
21 tender it or not, that we have it on our screens already --
22 MR. LUKIC: Yes, yes. So can we have 1D --
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar, could we have it on our screens.
24 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tieger, could you switch off your microphone.
25 MR. LUKIC: Page 2, paragraph 2.
1 Can we all see it now?
2 Q. So, Mr. Hanson, why would you instruct that some things should be
3 hidden from the defence?
4 MR. TIEGER: What? That is a very unfair question under the
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. -- could you please quote exactly what you want
7 to put to the witness and then ask a question in relation to that.
8 MR. LUKIC:
9 Q. Paragraph 2, third line, it says:
10 "At the very worst, the evidence itself might become prejudiced
11 by dissident team members writing letters of denigration that fall into
12 the hands of the defence."
13 My understanding of this sentence is that something should not
14 fall into the hands of the defence. Is it what you wanted to say?
15 A. This line, this paragraph is written by my co-author, but I
16 believe the gist of the meaning is that information from different
17 sources going to defence may affect or prejudice evidence, not that
18 anything would be withheld.
19 Q. So you said your co-author. How did you understand this sentence
21 A. As I --
22 JUDGE ORIE: I think the witness said a minute ago: It's the
23 text of the co-author, but this is how I understand what he means.
24 That's his understanding, therefore.
25 Please put your next question to the witness, Mr. Lukic.
1 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
2 Q. In your opinion, is the meaning of this text that some things
3 should be prevented from falling into the hands of the defence?
4 A. No, it is not.
5 Q. Therefore, in your view, this sentence would then mean that
6 things should be provided or can be provided to the defence.
7 A. Yes. Will be provided.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Maybe if I can just ask one question.
9 Mr. Hanson, based on the wording of the sentence, would it not be
10 any prejudice -- would there be no prejudice if that kind of information
11 fell into the hands of the prosecution?
12 THE WITNESS: Prejudice in terms to the evidence, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Microphone not activated]
14 THE WITNESS: Yes, maybe --
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: At the very worst, the evidence might be
16 prejudiced. So would the evidence not be prejudiced if that kind of
17 information fell into the hands of the prosecution?
18 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, Your Honour, I'm not sure I understand
19 your question.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Well, the sentence does not say the evidence would
21 have been prejudiced if it fell into the hands of the parties. It says
22 "the hands of the defence."
23 Now one of the parties is the prosecution. I'm asking would the
24 same effect not arise if it fell into the hands of the prosecution?
25 THE WITNESS: I would say so, yes.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: So the word "parties" should have been the word
2 used here. Is that what I understand?
3 THE WITNESS: I think that would be a better way of phrasing the
4 sentence, Your Honour, yes.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Back to my question. Do I understand you to be
6 saying that the same prejudice would arise if it fell into the hands of
7 the prosecution.
8 THE WITNESS: Yes, evidence could be affected for all parties,
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
11 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. Mr. Hanson, however, you always see yourselves in the role of
13 someone working for the prosecution; correct?
14 A. No. No, we do not work for the prosecution. We provide
15 assistance to prosecutors, among other authorities. In Bosnia, we are
16 assisting the Bosnian government and, through one of their vehicles, the
17 prosecutor's office whom we have much interaction with, but we not
18 working for them. We are assisting the Bosnian government.
19 Q. Let's see what the last paragraph on this page has to say about
20 that. [In English] It says:
21 "None of our comments is intended to devaluate the role of other
22 forensic professionals. However, we disagree with Snow's opinion that a
23 forensic anthropologist can practice forensic archaeological work after
24 reading a few articles and perhaps attending a summer school ... more
25 experience than this is required to evaluate what went on at mass grave
1 and to bring work to a successful completion. Furthermore, it is
2 dangerous for the prosecution to present an anthropologist as an expert
3 witness about mass graves when the defence may call a stratigraphically
4 experienced archaeologist."
5 So is it true that actually here you expressed that you are on a
6 prosecution side and the danger is coming from the defence?
7 A. No. No, there's no expression there that we are working for the
8 prosecution. We provide an opinion about expert witnesses for -- that
9 might be used by prosecution and defence from the experience that we've
11 Q. When you said, "Furthermore, it is dangerous for the
12 prosecution," did you mean for the parties then again? Is it again
14 A. No, for the prosecution, and we go on to say -- make a comment
15 about what the defence may do.
16 JUDGE ORIE: The question by Mr. Lukic was whether in the
17 opposite sequence, that is, to present such evidence by -- that the
18 defence would present such evidence and then the prosecution would call
19 such another expert, whether that would be similarly dangerous.
20 THE WITNESS: I'm not sure I understand your comment,
21 Your Honour.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Well, the text says if the -- it's dangerous for the
23 prosecution to present, I would say, evidence which is not of good
24 quality, that's how I understand it, because the defence would then
25 present counterevidence to that. Now, the question was whether this is
1 just limited to the prosecution doing this, or would the same be true if
2 the defence would present evidence which can be easily or at least can be
3 contradicted by experts from the other party?
4 THE WITNESS: In this example we describe once in our -- yes, you
5 could expand that sentence and provide another example where prosecution,
6 defence are --
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Or possibly use different language as to say:
8 "Furthermore, it is dangerous for a party to present an
9 anthropologist as an expert witness about mass graves when the opposite
10 party may call ..."
11 That would be more elegant.
12 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour, I think that would be a more
13 elegant sentence.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask you, the -- we look at this
16 contribution. Was this inspired by any existing conflict of views in a
17 specific situation or is it just presented as a general explanation of
18 your work?
19 THE WITNESS: No, it's a general explanation from work drawn
20 across many examples, personal work and other examples from -- that we
21 know of or we've discussed at conferences or ...
22 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
23 Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.
24 MR. LUKIC: I would offer this document into evidence,
25 Your Honour. We need only two pages. Maybe we could only reserve the
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We reserve the number and then you take it
3 upon you --
4 MR. LUKIC: Just first and second page, yes --
5 JUDGE ORIE: -- to upload the two selected pages, inform
6 Mr. Registrar about the number under which they're uploaded, and then
7 we'll decide on admission.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Lukic, will the two pages include the first
10 MR. LUKIC: Yes, only to know which the document is in question.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar, the number to be reserved for it
13 would be?
14 THE REGISTRAR: Will be D1084, Your Honours.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger, there would be no objections against
17 MR. TIEGER: No, other than reserving the opportunity to consider
18 whether remaining parts of the article shed light on the submitted two
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, to further contextualise.
21 Therefore, these two pages will be admitted once uploaded and
22 Mr. Tieger could we hear from you within the next 48 hours whether you
23 would wish do add anything to it.
24 MR. TIEGER: [Microphone not activated] Yes --
25 JUDGE ORIE: You now -- where you intended to switch off, you
1 switched on your microphone.
2 MR. TIEGER: My fingers are apparently not co-ordinating so well
3 with the equipment today.
4 My response was: Yes, that's a generous period of time. Thank
6 JUDGE ORIE: That's on the record.
7 Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.
8 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour. I would like to have on our
9 screens 1D1123, please.
10 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Hanson, we see Mr. Odobasic's statement in
11 front of us which he provided to the OTP of this Tribunal in 2005.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, before I forget and before we continue,
13 the document of which you'll upload two pages, is there a B/C/S
14 translation of it?
15 MR. LUKIC: No, there is not.
16 JUDGE ORIE: There's not. Does the Defence refrain from
17 requiring a B/C/S translation in this context?
18 MR. LUKIC: The problem is that we cannot ask for B/C/S
19 translation officially. That's what we were informed.
20 JUDGE ORIE: But therefore I asked you whether you would be
21 satisfied if we would receive this evidence without a B/C/S translation.
22 MR. LUKIC: We would be satisfied just to have it in English.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Then exceptionally the Chamber will consider to
24 admit this evidence even without a B/C/S translation. Please proceed.
25 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.
1 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Hanson, are you aware of the objections to
2 the work of the ICMP made by Mr. Odobasic?
3 A. No, I'm not. I haven't seen this statement before.
4 Q. Today and yesterday, you spoke about the excavations -- or
5 exhumations in Jakarina Kosa and that was also part of your work --
6 A. No, sorry to interrupt, but that was not part of my work. I've
7 never worked at Jakarina Kosa.
8 Q. [In English] Maybe it was not translated. I said it was part of
9 your work, meaning your -- the document you provided as a contextual
11 A. Yes.
12 MR. LUKIC: We need page 2, and, actually, it's page -- 2 or 3.
13 In B/C/S, it's 3.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: In English.
15 MR. LUKIC: In English, give me one second. Page 2 in English.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
17 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.
18 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Odobasic states in paragraph 1 here that he
19 was providing the statement in a private capacity and not as the deputy
20 of Mr. Amor Masovic who is the chairman of the B and H Federal Commission
21 for Tracing Missing Persons. At the time, we know that Mr. Odobasic was
22 Amor Masovic's deputy.
23 In paragraph 7, he states:
24 "From 11th of September until 12th of October, 2001, the
25 commission exhumed a mass grave at Jakarina Kosa linked to the Prijedor
1 investigation. Investigator Nikolas Sebire from the OTP monitored the
2 exhumation. 373 bodies were exhumed, and The Hague anthropologist
3 Jose Baraybar and his team were in charge of the anthropological
4 treatment of the bodies in the Sejkovaca hall in Sanski Most."
5 Are you aware that in this report it's noted that there was a
6 case in Jakarina Kosa where it was established that there were two bodies
7 named for only one person?
8 A. I haven't seen this statement or read the report referred to, no.
9 Q. You say that you're not aware of this error reported in the
10 report on Jakarina Kosa which you cited in your own report.
11 A. You're referring here to where it states in paragraph 8: Report
12 from the Bihac Cantonal Court number KR 1-55/01?
13 Q. [In English] That's, yeah, further in the statement of
14 Mr. Odobasic, that's true. But I'm asking you whether you knew at the
15 time when you addressed this report about this report in connection to
16 Jakarina Kosa, did you know about this mistake in that report?
17 A. Which report are you referring to? The one described here?
18 Q. No. The one quoted in your work.
19 A. That was not a report. That is a published article from a
20 scientific journal by Baraybar and Gasior, 2006.
21 Q. [Interpretation] And did you use it to enter data into your own
22 report relating to Jakarina Kosa or for any other purpose?
23 A. The published article?
24 Q. [In English] Yes.
25 A. Yes, I used that for background information.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Did you rely on that when drawing your conclusions
2 on the basis of what you yourself investigated?
3 THE WITNESS: Yes -- that published article I used for background
4 information for Jakarina Kosa which is why I provided it in my --
5 JUDGE ORIE: But did you draw any personal conclusions on
6 Jakarina Kosa or did you just refer to it as something that --
7 THE WITNESS: Simply a reference. No.
8 JUDGE ORIE: If -- would any mistakes in that, would that have
9 had any influence on the conclusions you drew on the basis of your own
11 THE WITNESS: No. I wasn't aware of any mistakes within that
12 journal article.
13 JUDGE ORIE: That's not an answer to my question but ...
14 THE WITNESS: I did not, no, is the answer to your question.
15 JUDGE ORIE: It would not have influenced it if there were
16 mistakes or not because you did not rely on it as a basis for your
17 conclusions. It's just background information, if I understand you well.
18 THE WITNESS: Background information, yes.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.
20 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. Are you able to rule out today the existence of errors, such as
22 this, relating to the report or the work in Tomasica?
23 A. Errors such as ... which ones?
24 Q. That it was established that there were two bodies under one
25 name. By the ICMP.
1 A. I'm not sure where the error is you were describing, two bodies
2 under one name.
3 Q. Are you aware that Eva Klonowski -- do you know who that is?
4 A. Eva Klonowski, yes, sir, an anthropologist. Eva Klonowski.
5 Q. Who does Eva Klonowski work for?
6 A. I could not tell you who Eva Klonowski works for.
7 Q. Do you know that she worked for the ICMP?
8 A. Yes, I understand she was contracted to ICMP previously.
9 Q. In paragraph 15 of Mr. Odobasic's statement - this is page 5 in
10 the B/C/S version and probably 4 in the English version - Mr. Odobasic
11 stated that he knows or knew that Eva Klonowski made a mistake in
12 establishing the sex of one of the victims. Do you have information that
13 such errors did occur previously in the work of the ICMP?
14 A. No, I haven't -- I haven't any information about work on the
15 Jakarina Kosa cases concerning Eva Klonowski. That was before my time
16 working at the ICMP, and I haven't examined any of her work.
17 Q. Thank you. Do you know that there were errors in establishing
18 the identity of bodies, meaning that they were handed over to a family
19 and then it was established that because they were wrongly identified,
20 they had to be dug up again and given to a different family? This
21 something that we can see in paragraph 16.
22 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Can we have the next page in the
23 English version, please.
24 THE WITNESS: Yes, I don't have knowledge of this particular case
25 stated, but the issue of misidentifications is not unusual and it's one
1 that has been encountered by Missing Persons Institute and ICMP while
2 reviewing cases in the mortuaries.
3 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
4 Q. Thank you.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Could you tell us something about the frequency of
6 this happening, as far as you're aware of? Is it in 1 per cent,
7 10 per cent, 30 per cent, 0.1 per cent of the cases that you encounter
8 such mistakes?
9 THE WITNESS: The analysis and review of unidentified cases in
10 the mortuaries, Your Honour, is an ongoing process now which ICMP is
11 supporting. The classical method referred to in paragraph 16 in this
12 document is what's -- the method of identification used which uses
13 documents found on a body, clothing, personal effects, visual
14 identification methods as opposed to DNA-led identification, and there
15 are error rates in these classical methods when cases have been
16 re-checked, using DNA. This has been published upon, I believe, at -- a
17 paper in 2001. I couldn't quote the exact error rates. We know from
18 re-exhumed examples and re-checked examples that it is a consistent
19 problem and one that goes to the methods especially in the early years
20 after the conflict of how bodies were identified. And it's the checking
21 against DNA which is a very assured way of identification that is
22 highlighting these issues.
23 Unfortunately, there are misidentifications but they do occur
24 and, in fact, in an ICMP stock-taking report of last year which we've
25 provided to show the work of identification in Bosnia since 1996, one of
1 our recommendations is that the misidentifications are addressed as fully
2 as possible by Bosnia's authorities.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Do you consider them to be the result of the flaws
4 in the classical method, or do you consider it a clear lack of accuracy
5 and -- so is it rather the system or is it the bad operations that would,
6 in your view, explain these misidentifications?
7 And, again, if you could give us any -- any raw figure, not
8 precise, but are we talking about 1 per cent, are we talking about
9 30 per cent? Could you give us a little bit more, if you can, of course,
10 on that issue.
11 THE WITNESS: Yes, the system is -- there are limits when
12 anthropologists examine the remains to -- with certain cases where they
13 can assess it is male or female accurately, especially if the remains are
14 fragmented or damaged. Have in all mortuaries in Bosnia the
15 anthropologists been available to look at all the cases and check them?
16 No. Were a lot of cases identified in the early years through clothing
17 and documents without additional checks of anthropology or DNA? Yes.
18 And I understand from our published stock-taking there are 8.000
19 classical or traditionally identified cases in Bosnia which have been
20 accounted for, identified using those methods.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Without the backing of DNA -- without the backing
22 of DNA?
23 THE WITNESS: Without the backing of DNA, Your Honour. I think
24 the number of cases which have been DNA-identified is reaching around
25 15.000, but I'd refer to my director and colleague, Thomas Parsons, to
1 provide you with accurate information as to the DNA identifications.
2 JUDGE ORIE: May I take it from your answer that you're not in a
3 position to further quantify the level of such errors?
4 THE WITNESS: No, I'm not able to quantify exactly, Your Honour.
5 It does vary between sites, events. It's very difficult to identify
6 people in secondary graves where the remains are co-mingled. It's more
7 straightforward to identify people if they're graves that are
8 undisturbed, the bodies are whole. It does depend on the circumstances.
9 So from our experience, and this is an ongoing process, the error rate
10 varies very much between location and between event.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.
12 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
13 Q. Are you aware that there were cases of a body of a person being
14 identified, it's handed over to the family, the family buries the body,
15 but then the body of that person is subsequently exhumed at a completely
16 different location?
17 A. Yes, this is not an uncommon occurrence.
18 Q. Thank you.
19 JUDGE ORIE: I am afraid I do not fully understand the answer,
20 perhaps also not the gist of the question. Is it that the body is then
21 moved to another grave or is it actually establishing that it could not
22 have been the body they thought they would have buried because that body
23 then later appears somewhere else? I'm just trying to understand both
24 question and answer.
25 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour, I understood the question to mean
1 the person was positively identified later because they were exhumed in
2 another place. Yes.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, then I understand both question and answer.
4 Please proceed.
5 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
6 Q. Do you know who Mr. Vehid Sljivar is?
7 A. I don't believe so.
8 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Could we look at page 6 in the B/C/S,
9 please. And I think we see it on the screen already in the English
10 version. We're going to be looking at paragraph 24.
11 Q. In this paragraph, paragraph 24, Roman VIII, Mr. Odobasic states
12 the following:
13 "In order to hide all those pieces of information regarding wrong
14 identification, Mr. Vehid Sljivar, as an active police officer with the
15 cantonal MUP Bihac, was receiving a 500 convertible mark bribe every
16 month from the ICMP. This is a copy of an ICMP letter recommending that
17 he be hired by the ICMP. His police commissioner, Husein Jakupovic,
18 confirmed this to me. Sljivar is most probably still receiving this
19 bribe. He is still employed with the MUP Bihac and at the same time he
20 is on the payroll of the ICMP."
21 Do you have any personal knowledge about this?
22 A. No, I don't. No, I've never heard of this or I've never read
23 this before.
24 Q. Then, under item IX, we can see that Mr. Sljivar gave --
25 Mr. Odobasic gave a copy of this letter to the cantonal prosecutor in
2 And then under Roman IX, it says:
3 "This is a copy of a letter I sent to the cantonal prosecutor in
4 Bihac, Mr. Asim Dzafic, in March 2005. The letter is self-explanatory
5 and is referring also to above-named police inspector Vehid Sljivar and
6 the covering up of DNA reports."
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, the underlying documents, do you have
8 them? Because to say -- to present to this witness and to this Chamber
9 evidence saying this letter, number IX, is self-explanatory without
10 knowing what that letter is, makes it more difficult for us to assess the
11 probative value of this evidence.
12 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour. I will -- we will certainly
13 ask to receive the documents the Prosecution received from Mr. Odobasic
14 and we will be able to provide Your Honours with them.
15 JUDGE ORIE: You've not asked it yet?
16 MR. TIEGER: No, I have received no such request. I only saw
17 this on the notification, this particular document on the notification
18 sent to us after -- immediately after the cross-examination commenced.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
20 MR. LUKIC: But we will -- I hope we will be able to acquire
21 those documents from the Prosecution and we will tender them through the
22 bar table. Or maybe through the next Prosecution witnesses.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
24 MR. LUKIC: I'll move on.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Please do so.
1 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.
2 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Hanson, do you have any knowledge about
3 bribes by the ICMP to policemen so that they would conceal evidence and
5 A. I do not, sir, no.
6 MR. TIEGER: The witness's answer pre-empts the genuine need for
7 any intervention but that would otherwise have not been a fair
8 characterisation of what information had been previously posed to the
9 witness in the context of this statement.
10 MR. LUKIC: I suppose that the objection is moot at this moment,
11 so can I move on?
12 JUDGE ORIE: I didn't consider it to be an objection but, rather,
13 a comment.
14 Please proceed.
15 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.
16 Q. [Interpretation] Do you know who Nermin Sarajlic is, Mr. Hanson?
17 A. The pathologist of Bosnia and Herzegovina?
18 Q. [In English] Yes.
19 A. Yes, I do.
20 Q. [Interpretation] And do you know that he worked together with
21 Eva Klonowski during the period that Mr. Odobasic is talking about and
22 that together with Eva Klonowski he took the samples from the bodies for
24 A. Are you referring to the Jakarina Kosa --
25 Q. [In English] Yes [overlapping speakers] --
1 A. -- site? Yes, I understand that they worked at the excavation.
2 I do not have details about the examination and sampling and who
3 undertook those.
4 Q. Okay. Thank you.
5 [Interpretation] And did you know that Mr. Odobasic contacted the
6 ICMP directly, pointing to the errors that he presents here in his
8 A. No, I did not.
9 MR. LUKIC: Can we shortly see paragraph 28, please.
10 Q. [Interpretation] I'm actually going to start with paragraph 27,
11 which states:
12 "One of the bigger mistakes during the Bosanska Krajina
13 exhumation was that ICMP handed over the Sejkovaca hall with 1.000 bodies
14 to one incompetent physician who had never worked on such jobs. This was
15 Eva Klonowski's assistant, Nermin Sarajlic. He is the man who never did
16 one single independent autopsy or exhumation."
17 Are you aware of the work experience of Mr. Sarajlic during that
19 A. No, this is before my time at ICMP. I wasn't in Bosnia during
20 this period.
21 Q. In paragraph 28, Mr. Odobasic states:
22 "A similar letter as the one sent to the Bihac prosecutor I also
23 sent to Kathryne Bomberger, chief of the ICMP, who said that Nermin was
24 the least competent physician with the ICMP."
25 Did you ever discuss the professional qualifications of
1 Mr. Sarajlic with Kathryne Bomberger?
2 A. No, I have not discussed with Kathryne Bomberger Nermin
3 Sarajlic's competence or professional work.
4 Q. Thank you. In paragraph 30 and 31, Mr. Odobasic speaks about
5 Ana Boza, and he asserts that Ana Boza was removed from the process, from
6 the process of identification and autopsies, because the ICMP wanted to
7 hide the mistakes made at Kevljani previously by Eva Klonowski and
8 Nermin Sarajlic because Ana Boza would draw attention to those mistakes.
9 Do you have any information in relation to that?
10 A. No, no, I've never heard of this before. I've never read this
12 Q. And are you aware, is it usual, that a person who conducts the
13 autopsies also does the final identification of the victims?
14 A. Is it usual?
15 Q. [In English] Is it usual, yes.
16 A. Yes, the court-appointed pathologist is under court order to
17 complete and finalise and finish a case unless prosecutor deems
18 otherwise, I believe.
19 Q. Give me one second.
20 [Interpretation] I have just one other topic to cover with you,
21 Mr. Hanson.
22 A. Sorry to interrupt you. The paragraph you've shown,
23 paragraph 30, would I be able to point one thing out? Because you asked
24 if someone undertaking autopsy would complete the case. It says in
25 paragraph 30, physician Ana Boza. I understand she was an
1 anthropologist, so she was not a state-legislated pathologist, so as an
2 anthropologist that does not complete identifications. I just thought
3 that -- for clarification.
4 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
5 Q. Thank you. And Eva Klonowski, what is his occupation?
6 A. As I understand, an anthropologist.
7 Q. Anthropologist. So is it usual that one is replaced by another
8 so ... physician by anthropologist?
9 A. I --
10 Q. Since Eva Klonowski replaced Ana Boza according to this
12 A. I couldn't comment on this particular case, no. Do professionals
13 get replaced? If deemed necessary by authorities, I'm sure it happens,
15 Q. Thank you, sir.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: But both of them are anthropologists.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] They are both anthropologists,
18 Your Honour, as far as I'm aware.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Then I don't understand, Mr. Lukic, when you say
20 "replacing a physician by an anthropologist," because these two are both
22 MR. LUKIC: It's from the previous answer:
23 "It says in paragraph 30, physician Ana Boza" --
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, but if you look at transcript page 25,
25 line 21:
1 "Anthropologist. So it is usual that one is replaced by another,
2 so a physician by anthropologist?"
3 Is that what you meant to say or was it a slip of the tongue.
4 MR. LUKIC: My understanding was that they are of the same
5 occupation so that's how Mrs. Boza was able to be replaced with Eva
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: That's precisely my position and that's why I'm
8 asking why you give them different professions here.
9 MR. LUKIC: Because Mr. Hanson drew my attention that somewhere
10 in paragraph 30 and it's in line --
11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Line 7.
12 MR. LUKIC: Line 7, page 25, line 14, page 25, I cannot fight
13 this transcript. It's moving although I stopped it.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Move on if you don't have the answer. Thank you.
15 MR. LUKIC: Okay. I'll move on.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps since you are thinking about the next
18 Do I now finally understand that Ana Boza was a physician, not an
19 anthropologist, and that she was replaced by Eva Klonowski and Nermin
20 Sarajlic, both being anthropologists? Is that --
21 THE WITNESS: No, Your Honour. Ana Boza, as I understand, is an
22 anthropologist; Eva Klonowski, an anthropologist; Nermin Sarajlic is a
23 court-appointed pathologist in Bosnia.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, so the information here is pretty much
1 THE WITNESS: As far as I understand, yes.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please proceed.
3 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
4 Q. Mr. Hanson, we get to our last topic that was discussed with you
5 yesterday, actually.
6 JUDGE ORIE: And before we move on, I think part of the answer of
7 the witness is missing at page 27, line 7. So that needs perhaps special
8 attention when working on the transcript because the -- Mr. Sarajlic,
9 which was part of your answer, is not referred to here. And you said
10 Mr. Sarajlic was?
11 THE WITNESS: Court-appointed pathologist.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Court-appointed pathologist. Please proceed.
13 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
14 JUDGE FLUEGGE: And to add something to this confusion, in
15 page 27, line 5, the first word was not said by the Presiding Judge. Was
16 a physician not an anthropologist. The word "pathologist" is wrong.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Let's now move on.
18 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
19 Q. [Interpretation] In paragraph 119 of your report, you discussed
20 the nature of clothing and you were asked about it yesterday by the
21 Prosecution. You said that you found only civilian clothes items.
22 I wanted to ask you about weapons first. While working in the
23 field in Bosnia, did you find it common to find former fighters buried
24 alongside their weapons? Did you ever have such a case?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. How often were people buried with their weapons and where did you
2 come across such cases?
3 A. While working with the Banja Luka MPI office on a site on Mount
4 Ozren, combatants were recovered who had munitions in military pouches.
5 There were similar examples. So combatants are recovered with munitions,
6 grenades, ammunition, yes. It's a regular occurrence. It happens every
7 year, I think, as a general level of occurrence.
8 JUDGE ORIE: The question was about weapons. Your answer is
9 about munitions, grenades. Of course, you could consider them to be
10 weapons, but any rifles or pistols?
11 THE WITNESS: Fire-arms.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Fire-arms.
13 THE WITNESS: Fire-arms have been encountered, I believe, in
14 exhumations and excavations, yes.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
16 THE WITNESS: And weapons. It's not common to find fire-arms
17 such as rifles or machine-guns buried.
18 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
19 Q. Please tell us, did you ever deal with the issue of how many
20 members of the Muslim forces at the beginning of 1992 actually had
22 JUDGE ORIE: Falls this within the competence of the witness?
23 MR. LUKIC: Yeah --
24 JUDGE ORIE: Would you please --
25 MR. LUKIC: If he dealt with it, I -- that was my --
1 JUDGE ORIE: Well, he didn't --
2 MR. LUKIC: If he has any knowledge.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, could you tell us whether you have any
4 knowledge, and if so, on what basis you have that knowledge?
5 THE WITNESS: No, I have no knowledge as to the issue of how many
6 members of Muslim forces at the beginning of conflict had uniforms, no.
7 MR. LUKIC:
8 Q. Mr. Hanson, that was all we had for you at this moment. Thank
9 you for answering our questions. Thank you very much.
10 A. Thank you.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Lukic.
12 Mr. Tieger, we're at the time of a break, I think. How much ...
13 [Trial Chamber confers]
14 JUDGE ORIE: We're not yet at a point of a break.
15 Mr. Tieger, how much could you -- do you have any further
17 MR. TIEGER: I do, Mr. President. But if I understand correctly
18 that the next break is actually at 11.00, I'll finish well before then.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please continue then.
20 MR. TIEGER: Thank you.
21 Re-examination by Mr. Tieger:
22 Q. Good morning, Mr. Hanson.
23 A. Good morning.
24 Q. Yesterday you were asked by Mr. Lukic about the anthropologically
25 based assessment of the minimum number of individuals of 298 in
1 Jakarina Kosa, a matter that was raised again this morning, beginning at
2 LiveNote page 14, asked -- and then you were asked about the DNA-matching
3 efforts demonstrating linkages between Tomasica and Jakarina Kosa, and
4 you were further asked about ICMP's role and whether the ICMP labs in
5 2001 had required certifications. That was all at transcript pages 36307
6 through 308. Just a couple of questions in connection with that.
7 First of all, do anthropologically based assessments of the
8 minimum number of individuals generally result in the same number, a
9 lower number, or a higher number of individuals when those remains are
10 checked via the DNA process?
11 A. It's unusual that it's the same number simply because in so many
12 events and excavations, bodies are recovered not only as bodies but body
13 parts, single bones. So the number of cases and the anthropological
14 assessment to get a minimum number of individuals is not usually the same
15 as the total number of DNA profiles that are found to be present when
16 those remains are sampled. This can be because DNA cannot be extracted
17 from some smaller fragmented bones, cases that are separate DNA matches
18 together, so you may have DNA matches of several cases which belong to
19 one individual, so you can get a lower number of DNA profiles. Sometimes
20 you can get a higher number of DNA profiles than the minimum number of
21 individuals estimated by anthropological assessment. It's scenario
22 dependant. It's often not the same number.
23 Q. In the process of the effort to determine any linkages between
24 the remains found at Tomasica and those at Jakarina Kosa, would the ICMP
25 have conducted or attempted DNA matches on all of the recovered remains
1 from Jakarina Kosa to make that comparison?
2 A. Yes, I believe that's been undertaken.
3 Q. So those could be checked in connection with the accuracy of the
4 anthropologically based MNI; correct?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Mr. Lukic has already indicated he intends to raise that further
7 with -- apparently with Mr. Parsons or another witness, so I'll defer
8 further questions on that until that time.
9 Next, you were asked by Mr. Lukic, at transcript page 36321 and
10 there was a follow up by the Bench on the next page, about whether there
11 was evidence of an intention to remove the whole grave at Jakarina Kosa
12 or only the portion actually robbed. I wanted to ask you if it's common
13 or uncommon, if you know, to -- to find mass graves that have been only
14 partially robbed and in which bodies and body parts still remain,
15 notwithstanding the portion that had been disturbed and robbed?
16 A. Yes, it is very common to find this. And in fact, in all the
17 years of my work, I have never encountered a mass grave where all remains
18 have been removed.
19 Q. And finally, Mr. Hanson, there was some discussion this morning
20 about whether you allegedly saw your role as working for the Prosecution
21 in view of the -- of a comment in your article regarding excavations.
22 Just to put that comment or those comments in context, has ICMP or have
23 you ever been asked by a defence team to conduct an investigation of --
24 an excavation of a mass grave?
25 A. Excavation of a mass grave, no. I have been asked and consulted
1 for a defence team concerning death of multiple victims by burning, and
2 concerning a civil case with disturbance to an -- an alleged unlawful
3 disturbance of a cemetery. So I have worked with defence as a consultant
4 to private expert matters in excavation and burial.
5 MR. TIEGER: That's all I had, Mr. President. Thank you.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
7 Mr. Lukic, have the questions in re-examination triggered any
8 need for further --
9 MR. LUKIC: No, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE ORIE: -- questions?
11 Mr. Hanson, this therefore then concludes your evidence. I'd
12 like to thank you very much for coming to The Hague and for having
13 answered all the questions the parties have put to you and the Bench has
14 put to you. And before I wish you a safe return home again, I'll first
15 see whether Mr. Tieger, who is on his feet, his microphone activated,
16 whether he is an obstacle to releasing you.
17 MR. TIEGER: It's only the matter of tendering MFI P7431 into
18 evidence and I thought that should be done before the witness leaves.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
20 Mr. Lukic, the expert report.
21 MR. LUKIC: No objection, Your Honour.
22 JUDGE ORIE: No objections. P7431 is admitted into evidence.
23 I now, Mr. Hanson, can release you. I wish you a safe return
24 home again.
25 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE ORIE: You may follow the usher.
2 [The witness withdrew]
3 [Trial Chamber confers]
4 JUDGE ORIE: Rather than to have the next witness called, I would
5 rather use the next six minutes to deliver a decision on behalf of the
6 Chamber and then start with the examination of the next witness after the
8 MR. TIEGER: Yes, Mr. President. And before we leave, either now
9 or just when you complete your remarks, I just wanted to add one matter
10 regarding something Mr. Lukic had raised in cross-examination.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Let's start with that first.
12 MR. TIEGER: Okay. With respect to the documents associated with
13 the statement of Mr. Odobasic that Mr. Lukic said he would seek from the
14 Prosecution, they've all been previously disclosed to the Defence.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Well --
16 MR. TIEGER: I have the ERNs in front of me now if that's of
18 JUDGE ORIE: You can give them to Mr. Lukic if he wishes to. Of
19 course, it's a pity that they could not be included in the examination of
20 the witness because then the Chamber would also have known what the
21 documents were about on which Mr. Odobasic apparently has given his
23 MR. TIEGER: Well, as I say, there was no obstacle that I can see
24 in doing so. They had already been disclosed and -- along with the
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
2 Mr. Lukic, it would assist the Chamber if it would have had such
3 documents available.
4 We -- I'll now deliver a decision of the Chamber, a decision on
5 the expertise of Dusan Dunjic, with regard to his analysis of Prosecution
6 expert reports authored by several experts, including John Clark,
7 Christopher Lawrence, and William Haglund.
8 On the 30th of March of this year, the Defence filed a
9 confidential notice of disclosure of Dusan Dunjic's expert report
10 pursuant to 94 bis of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence. The
11 Prosecution filed its notice pursuant to the same rule on the 24th of
12 April, submitting that while it does not challenge the expert status of
13 Dunjic or the relevance of his report, it does not accept the conclusions
14 of his report and therefore wishes to cross-examine him.
15 With respect to the applicable law concerning expert evidence,
16 the Chamber recalls and refers to its 19th of October, 2012, decision
17 concerning expert witness Richard Butler.
18 On the basis of Dunjic's curriculum vitae and considering that
19 the Prosecution does not dispute Dunjic's qualifications as a forensic
20 expert, the Chamber is satisfied that he has specialised knowledge and
21 expertise, and that such knowledge and expertise may be of assistance to
22 the Chamber in assessing the expert evidence presented by the Prosecution
23 during its case in-chief.
24 With regard to the Prosecution's request to cross-examine the
25 witness, the Chamber notes that the Defence plans to call Dunjic to give
1 evidence. The Prosecution will therefore have the opportunity to
2 cross-examine him.
3 Based on the foregoing, the Chamber decides, pursuant to
4 Rule 94 bis, that the Defence may call Dunjic to testify as an expert
5 witness and that he shall be made available for cross-examination by the
6 Prosecution. The Chamber defers its decision on the admission of the
7 report to the time of the testimony.
8 And this concludes the Chamber's decision.
9 We have a few minutes left until 11.00. I'll use them to deal
10 with two short items.
11 I'd like to put the following schedule matters on the record. On
12 the 12th of June of this year, following consultation with the parties
13 and the Registry, the Chamber informed the parties that it would sit from
14 Tuesday, the 7th of July, through Friday, the 10th of July, instead of 6
15 through 9 July. On the 17th of June, following consultation with the
16 parties and the Registry, the Chamber informed the parties of a revised
17 sitting schedule for Friday, the 10th of July. That day, we'll start at
18 11.30 and we'll have sittings until 1400 hours. We'll then recommence at
19 3.00 in the afternoon and adjourn at half past 5.00. Of course, the
20 normal schedule for breaks in between sittings will be maintained. The
21 Chamber is grateful for the co-operation of the parties and the Registry
22 in this matter.
23 This concludes the scheduling matter.
24 Last item I will deal with, deals with the status of
25 Exhibit P7198.
1 On the 22nd of May, 2015, P7198, an intercept, was admitted into
2 evidence and placed under seal.
3 On the 22nd of June of this year, the Chamber informed the
4 parties that it considers that the status of P7198 should be changed to
5 public and invited them to submit their objections, if any, within two
6 days. This can be found at transcript page 36162.
7 The Chamber has not heard of any objections from the parties, and
8 hereby, therefore, instructs the Registry to lift the confidential status
9 of P7198.
10 We take a break, and we resume at 11.30.
11 --- Recess taken at 11.00 a.m.
12 --- On resuming at 11.32 a.m.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Is the Prosecution ready to call its next witness?
14 MR. JEREMY: Good morning, Your Honours. Yes, we are;
15 Mr. Franjic.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Could the witness be escorted in the courtroom.
17 [The witness entered court]
18 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning, Mr. Franjic, I assume. Before you
19 give evidence, the rules require that you make a solemn declaration. The
20 text is now handed out to you.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will
22 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
23 WITNESS: BRUNO FRANJIC
24 [Witness answered through interpreter]
25 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Franjic. Please be seated.
1 Mr. Franjic, you now can hear me in a language you understand,
2 Mr. Franjic?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Franjic, you'll first be examined by
5 Mr. Jeremy. You find him to your right. Mr. Jeremy is counsel for the
7 Please proceed.
8 MR. JEREMY: Thank you, Your Honours.
9 Examination by Mr. Jeremy:
10 Q. And good morning, Mr. Franjic.
11 A. Good day.
12 Q. If we could begin by you stating your full name for the record,
14 A. Bruno Franjic.
15 Q. And, Mr. Franjic, what is your current professional position?
16 A. Head of the Department for Ballistics and Mechanoscopy at the
17 Section for Ballistic and Mechanoscopic Expert Analysis, Forensic and IT
18 Support Centre, Federal Police Administration, and I'm a Sarajevo
19 court-sworn criminology expert.
20 Q. Thank you. And, Mr. Franjic, I'll ask you to perhaps speak a
21 little bit more slowly just to ensure that your answer is fully captured
22 on the record. Thank you.
23 Now, sir, do you recall previously providing a copy of your CV to
24 the Office of the Prosecutor?
25 A. Yes, yes, I did so.
1 MR. JEREMY: Could we please see 65 ter 31101 on our screens.
2 Q. Sir, do you recognise the document on the screen before you?
3 A. Yes, I do.
4 Q. Do you recognise this to be your CV?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And does this detail your education, professional training, and
7 professional experience?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Now, on this issue of past experience, could you very briefly
10 inform the Court about your military experience during the war between
11 1992 and 1995.
12 A. From the 6th of April, 1992, until the 6th of April, 1995, and
13 then from the 6th of April until the 1st of October, 1995, and the 2nd of
14 October, 1995, until the 20th of August, 1996, I was a member of the
15 Croatian Defence Council in Novi Travnik.
16 Q. Okay. Thank you.
17 MR. JEREMY: Could we please go to page 3 of the English of this
18 document and page 2 of the B/C/S.
19 Q. Now, sir, referring your attention to the section headed:
20 "Membership," we read that -- that you've been the only -- that since
21 September 2002, you've been the only representative of the countries of
22 the former Yugoslavia who is a member of the Association of Fire-Arm and
23 Tool Mark Examiners.
24 Could you, again very briefly, explain to the Court what this
25 association is.
1 A. This is an association which has as its members experts who
2 analyse traces of fire-arms and traces of tool marks. These experts come
3 from over 50 countries of the world, and they are based in the
4 United States, the association is based in the United States.
5 First, I joined as a provisional member in 2002 and then from
6 2008 I became a permanent member. The only one from the countries of the
7 former Yugoslavia. And I co-operate with all the members of the
8 association, AFTE.
9 Q. Thank you.
10 MR. JEREMY: Your Honours, I tender 65 ter 31101 as the next
11 Prosecution exhibit.
12 MR. IVETIC: The Defence has no objections.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
14 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit P7433, Your Honours.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Admitted into evidence.
16 MR. JEREMY:
17 Q. Sir, did you, at the request of the prosecutor's office of
18 Bosnia-Herzegovina, prepare a report dated the 7th of May, 2014, that
19 included ballistic analysis of certain shell casings and bullets?
20 A. Yes.
21 MR. JEREMY: Your Honours, could the Court Officer please bring
22 65 ter 31093 to our screens.
23 Q. Now, sir, do you recognise the document on the screen before you
24 as the cover page of the report that we just referred to?
25 A. I recognise it, yes.
1 MR. JEREMY: And, Your Honours, at this point I would propose to
2 provide the witness with a colour hard copy of his report. Mr. Ivetic
3 has seen a copy. I understand he has no objections to it being provided
4 to the witness.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Then please seek the assistance of the usher to --
6 MR. JEREMY: Thank you.
7 JUDGE ORIE: -- have it handed out to the witness.
8 MR. JEREMY: If we could go to page 2 in the B/C/S and 3 in the
9 English, please?
10 Q. Sir, on the screen before us, we see a page that in the middle
11 part has subject: "Ballistic DNA and finger-print forensic analysis."
12 Does your expertise cover all of these areas or just one?
13 A. Only some.
14 Q. And is it the ballistic part of the report that your expertise
16 A. Yes, it does.
17 Q. And very briefly in relation to the DNA and finger-print analysis
18 part of the report, can you recall whether the report reflects any useful
19 findings in respect to that particular analysis?
20 A. From what I know, no.
21 Q. Now, below the subject header, we see a reference to an order for
22 forensic analysis first dated the 14th of March, 2014, and another
23 dated -- a supplemental order dated 7th of April, 2014.
24 These orders were from whom?
25 A. It was sent by the prosecutor of the prosecutor's office of
2 Q. Now, towards the bottom of the English page and in the second
3 paragraph in the page of the B/C/S, we read that it was ordered that a
4 ballistic mechanoscopic - if we go to the next page in English, please -
5 and other analysis be conducted of the cartridges and rounds found on the
6 scene of the exhumation in the territory of Prijedor municipality,
7 Tomasica mass grave, and the rounds found during the autopsy and
8 examination of the bodies in the Sejkovaca KIP hall. And then we see a
9 list of items below that.
10 Now, sir, did you personally seize the items analysed in this
11 report or were they provided to you by somebody else?
12 A. I did not find these objects. They were submitted to me along
13 with orders for expert analysis issued by the B and H prosecutor's
15 Q. Now, below this, we see an itemised list of, firstly, cartridges
16 and with an indication of where they were found and the marking given to
17 them. And if we go to the next page, please, in each language, we see a
18 reference to bullets fired and parts of bullets and where those bullets
19 were found in the Sejkovaca morgue. And we see a reference to a date,
20 and we see that they're linked to a particular body number.
21 Now, all of this information, was that provided to you by
22 somebody else?
23 A. Yes. The information was given and presented in the expert
24 report on the basis of what was cited in the requests for the expert
1 Q. And that request for the expert analysis came from, as you've
2 already mentioned, the prosecutor of Bosnia-Herzegovina; correct?
3 A. Yes.
4 MR. JEREMY: Could we please go to page 10 in the English and 6
5 in the B/C/S of this report.
6 Q. Now --
7 MR. JEREMY: And if we can focus on the bottom part of the page
8 in the English, please.
9 Q. Sir, we see a reference to an order for forensic analysis and
10 what that forensic analysis is aimed at establishing. Below that, we see
11 a number of points. I'll just focus on two. The first is the -- that
12 the analysis should establish the following: The calibre of the supplied
13 cartridges and rounds and the type of weapon they were fired from; and,
14 secondly, whether those -- the characteristics of those supplied rounds
15 and cartridges match.
16 MR. JEREMY: If we can skip forward to page 11, please, in the
17 English and 6 in the B/C/S. Yeah, so we can stay on the same page in the
19 Q. Now, sir, we see a section headed "Findings" here. And perhaps
20 we can go to the next page in the -- in each language, and, sir, while we
21 are a doing that, if you could just very, very briefly give a overview of
22 what this findings section contains.
23 A. This is the ballistics expert analysis that is contained in this
24 part of the report.
25 Q. And this contains the details of the analysis that you conducted
1 within the report; is that correct?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And we'll shortly look at the opinion section in the report. Is
4 that opinion section based on this -- these findings that you reflect
5 here in this section of the report?
6 A. Yes. On the basis of analysis and findings, the final opinion is
7 provided of the results of the expert analysis.
8 Q. Let's skip forward now to that final opinion.
9 MR. JEREMY: If we could go to page 102 in the English, please,
10 and 64 in the B/C/S. If we could go to the bottom of the page in the
11 B/C/S and immediately on the -- the preceding page in the English is a
12 reference to opinion. I don't think we need to go to it.
13 Q. And seeing this heading of -- now, sir, we read here about a
14 number of matching shell casings there, their calibre, and the conclusion
15 that you draw about the specific type of weapon that they were fired
16 from. Now --
17 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Should we go to the top of the page in English?
18 MR. JEREMY: Yes, please. Thank you, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE FLUEGGE: No, just the same page but to the top of it.
20 Thank you.
21 MR. JEREMY:
22 Q. Now, sir, on the basis of your previous answer, do I take it that
23 you, in drawing the conclusions about the matches between the different
24 cartridge casings, you provide more detailed reasons for the basis on
25 which you make those findings in the findings section of your report. Is
1 that correct?
2 A. Yes.
3 MR. JEREMY: And, Your Honours, I would for the record refer you
4 to page 20 to 21 of the English and 14 to 15 of the B/C/S.
5 Q. Now, sir, throughout the report, there are references to disputed
6 cartridges or bullets. What does "disputed" mean in the context of this
8 A. In a ballistics analysis, a disputed bullet or a round is
9 understood to be all traces, all bullets and rounds of unknown origin.
10 Q. So these are the references to the bullets and the rounds that
11 you were provided with and upon which you performed your analysis?
12 A. Yes. Disputed cartridges and disputed bullets.
13 Q. If we can go to the next page in just the B/C/S, please, and,
14 sir, we see a reference here to three different clusters of cartridges
15 and within each cluster you make your conclusion that they were fired by
16 the same individual weapon.
17 Now, we see the reference to firstly seven cartridges, then six
18 cartridges and then five cartridges. Now combining these different
19 cartridges, how many weapons did you conclude that those 18 cartridges
20 were fired by?
21 A. From seven different fire-arms.
22 Q. Now -- and we'll discuss those fire-arms shortly. But if we move
23 on and we see the last point on this page refers to 50 disputed rounds,
24 nine disputed pieces of round, and eight disputed bullet jackets, and
25 16 pieces of bullet jackets, and then they're itemised in more detail.
1 MR. JEREMY: If we can skip forward to the end of this particular
2 entry, which should be page 105 in the English and 66 in the B/C/S.
3 Q. Now, sir, in this section you refer to -- you refer to the
4 bullets analysed, you refer to their calibre, and then towards the end of
5 this paragraph, you draw a conclusion in relation to the class of
6 fire-arms in which you think that these -- the bullets were fired. And
7 the language that we read is that these bullets "could be" from bullets
8 fired from and then you list the weapons.
9 Now, with reference to this word "could be," to your knowledge
10 and on the basis of your experience, are you aware of any other weapons
11 that you think these bullets could have been fired in?
12 A. Based on many years of experience, I have been working as a
13 ballistics expert for the past 18 years, I don't have any information
14 that the disputed rounds or fragments of rounds could have originated
15 from bullets fired from any other kind of fire-arm, other than those that
16 are noted in the findings and the opinion of the expert report.
17 Q. Thank you. Now below this section, you refer to a handful of
18 different calibre of bullets to the 7.62 by 39-millimetre bullets that
19 you've just discussed in the last section, and you link certain pistols
20 to those bullets that you identify.
21 Now, below that, we see --
22 MR. JEREMY: If we go to the next page, please, in -- just in the
24 Q. You basically list a series of bullets and parts thereof that
25 were unsuitable for analysis.
1 Now, combining the shell casings and the different calibre
2 bullets that were suitable for analysis, how many different types of
3 weapons did you conclude that those were used in?
4 A. Judging by the cartridges, seven types of fire-arms were used of
5 7.62 by 39-millimetre, of that calibre. At least one fire-arm was of a
6 pistol, 7.62 by 25-millimetres' calibre. Then there was a pistol of
7 7.62 millimetres. And there was one type of weapon, 7.7 by
8 57 millimetres' calibre.
9 Q. And you've -- according to your analysis, what weapon was most
10 frequently linked or what type of weapon was most frequently linked to
11 the shell casings and the bullets that you were able to analyse?
12 A. The Kalashnikov automatic rifle or the Crvena Zastava automatic
13 rifle, models M70 or light machine-gun M72, and semi-automatic rifle or
14 the PAP produced by Crvena Zastava, M59/66. Its calibre is 7.62 by
15 39 millimetres.
16 MR. JEREMY: If we could go to page 110 in the --
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic.
18 MR. IVETIC: If I could just intervene. We may want to check the
19 answer to the last question. There was a weapon identified as 7.7 by
20 57 millimetre. I'm not sure that that is --
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] 7.62 times 39.
22 MR. IVETIC: It's in the prior question. It's line 7 of page 46.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Witness -- is that a line which starts with the
24 pistol, Mr. Ivetic?
25 MR. IVETIC: Yes, Your Honour, and then talks about a weapon.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could I -- I read to you and ask you to
2 complete that answer.
3 You said:
4 "Then there was a pistol of 7.62 millimetres. And there was one
5 type of weapon ..."
6 And could you repeat what you referred to as the calibre of that
7 one type of weapon?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] 7.62 times 17 millimetres. 7.65,
9 needs to be corrected, times 17. And 7.9 times 57.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please proceed.
11 MR. JEREMY: Thank you, Your Honours. If we could go to page 110
12 in the English, please, and the last page in the B/C/S of this report.
13 Q. And, sir, when we -- I think you're already there. Do you see
14 your signature on this page, below "forensic analysis by"?
15 A. Yes, I do.
16 MR. JEREMY: Your Honours, consist with case practice, I won't
17 tender the report at this point, but I would ask for it to be marked for
18 identification, pending completion of the cross-examination.
19 MR. IVETIC: No objection.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
21 THE REGISTRAR: That will be MFI P7434, Your Honours.
22 JUDGE ORIE: MFI'd for the time being.
23 MR. JEREMY:
24 Q. Now, sir, we only have a few minutes remaining, but after
25 producing your first report, did you subsequently provide a second report
1 dated the 7th of July, 2014?
2 A. Yes, I did.
3 MR. JEREMY: Could we please see 65 ter 31094. And with the
4 assistance of the usher, we also have a hard copy of that for the witness
5 that Mr. Ivetic has also seen.
6 Q. Now, sir, while that's coming up, is this report essentially --
7 the second report, was that essentially the same as the one that we just
8 looked at in terms of structure and content except that the items
9 analysed are different shell casings and bullets from the Sejkovaca
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And did you apply the same methodology in preparing this report
13 as you did in the previous report we looked at?
14 A. Yes, I did.
15 Q. And the report is now on the screen before you. Do you recognise
16 that as this second report that you provided?
17 A. Yes, I do.
18 MR. JEREMY: Could we go to the last page in each language,
20 Q. And, sir, we see a reference to attachments and we see a
21 reference to one particular calibre cartridge casing, another calibre
22 cartridge casing, and then 148 bullets and bullet fragments. Does
23 that -- are those the items that you analysed in this report?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And do you see your signature -- or your typed signature there?
1 Your name.
2 A. I see it.
3 Q. And can you briefly comment on the fire-arms that you concluded
4 that these shell casings and bullets were fired by? And in particular,
5 were they generally the same as those that you identified in the first
6 report or were they different?
7 A. Yes, the weapons are the same as in the first report, as in the
8 first expert report.
9 MR. JEREMY: Your Honour, again, I would not tender this
10 document, but I'd ask for it to be marked for identification, pending
11 completion of the cross-examination.
12 JUDGE ORIE: The additional report is marked for identification
13 under what number, Mr. Registrar?
14 THE REGISTRAR: MFI P7435, Your Honours.
15 JUDGE ORIE: And keeps that status for the time being.
16 MR. JEREMY: Thank you, Your Honours. That concludes my
18 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Jeremy.
19 Mr. Ivetic, are you ready to cross-examine the witness?
20 MR. IVETIC: Will be in just a second, Your Honours.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
22 Mr. Franjic, you'll be cross-examined by Mr. Ivetic. You find
23 Mr. Ivetic standing to your left. Mr. Ivetic is a member of the Defence
24 team of Mr. Mladic.
25 Please proceed.
1 Cross-examination by Mr. Ivetic:
2 Q. Good day, sir.
3 A. Good day.
4 Q. I'd like to begin by taking another look at your curriculum
5 vitae, which has been accepted now as P7433. And while we wait for that,
6 you testified today as to the time-periods that you were a member of the
7 HVO. Could you please tell us what your specific rank and role were in
8 the HVO.
9 A. At first, I was a private as part of anti-aircraft defence. Then
10 I commanded a platoon of anti-aircraft defence. Next, I commanded a
11 battery of anti-aircraft defence. Then I was a desk officer for
12 personnel affairs of the 4th Light Artillery Rocket Regiment in
13 Novi Travnik, Vitez.
14 Q. And in relation to the time-period that you spent in the HVO, did
15 any of your duties involve any type of forensic ballistic review of
17 A. No.
18 Q. Now I would like to ask you a few questions about the AFTE that
19 you talked about, the Association of Fire-arm and Tool Mark Examiners.
20 In regards to the process for becoming a member, did you complete
21 the online training and examination modules or did you attend in person?
22 A. No, I did not. Based on my references and based on the submitted
23 papers and expert reports, I was first admitted as a temporary member as
24 of 2002 and then a standing or regular member as of 2008.
25 Q. Okay. If we could turn to page 3 in the English and page 2 in
1 the B/C/S, this will be the part of your CV had a relates to your
2 membership in the AFTE. And during this time-period that you've now
3 detailed for us that you were a provisional member of the AFTE, you were
4 already employed by the federal MUP in Sarajevo as a forensic expert
5 examining trace evidence including ballistic review of weapons and
6 ammunition; is that correct?
7 A. Yes, it is.
8 Q. Did any aspect of your duties at the federal MUP change upon your
9 receipt of regular member status at the AFTE?
10 A. No.
11 Q. Now, I have not seen it in the CV, so can I conclude that you're
12 not a member of the IAI, the International Association of Identification?
13 A. No, I am not.
14 Q. And you're not an accredited member of a European Network of
15 Forensic Institutes, are you?
16 A. The Centre for Forensic and IT Support of the Federal Police
17 Administration is a member of the European Network of Forensic
19 Q. Thank you for that. Now during the time-period that you were at
20 the federal MUP in Sarajevo, did you actually perform field-work yourself
21 at on-site investigations or was all of your work analysing that which
22 others had gathered in the field?
23 A. As part of my regular tasks, I also visited crime scenes as an
25 Q. Okay. Now --
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, if you wouldn't mind. You asked about
2 the IAI, the International Association of Identification.
3 Witness, are you familiar with that organisation?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] By its name only.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Because I would like to know what kind of
6 identification this association deals with. "Identification" is a rather
7 general term. Are you aware of -- is it fire-arm identification or is it
8 identification in a more general sense? Do you know?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm not certain. I think it is
10 identification in general, although I am not certain.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. If the parties in any way could agree on what
12 the IAI is, in terms of whether it's specifically focused on fire-arm
13 identification or any other kind of identification, that would assist me
14 in better assessing the answer of the witness.
15 Please proceed.
16 MR. IVETIC:
17 Q. Now, in relation to this part of your CV, you have yourself
18 listed as being the "registered permanent court expert" in a number of
19 Bosnian courts for ballistics.
20 The question that I have for you is: First of all, how does one
21 become a registered permanent ballistics expert for the court?
22 A. Under the Law on Experts in the Federation of BiH, the federal
23 Ministry of Justice issues a call for expression of interest in order to
24 make a roster of permanent court experts in different areas. When one is
25 applying, one needs to submit references. It includes published papers,
1 recommendations by prosecutors and judges or educational institutions.
2 There is also a written test, as well as an interview with an expert
3 commission. If all of these criteria are met, the expert is then
4 appointed as permanent court-sworn expert for the area of the BiH
6 The procedure has been in place since 2009. Before the law
7 existed, the cantonal ministries of justice and cantonal courts appointed
8 permanent court-sworn experts covering the areas of specific cantons.
9 That's how things are done in the Federation. Different procedures are
10 in place in Republika Srpska, as well as in the District of Brcko.
11 Q. Is there any oversight by the AFTE regarding either appointment
12 of or the work of someone who is a registered permanent court expert for
13 ballistics in any of the state courts of BiH?
14 A. No. But it is considered an exceptional reference.
15 If I may add, in the US, when there is a tender for experts to be
16 appointed in the field of ballistics examination and tool marks, an
17 important item in one's CV is membership of AFTE.
18 Q. Now, I want to focus on the work of a registered permanent court
19 expert. What is that? Does the court call you to assess evidence
20 presented by the prosecution or the defence for the court, or do you
21 provide ballistic testimony for one of the parties, either the
22 prosecution or the defence?
23 A. A permanent registered court expert in the Federation of BiH may
24 be engaged by the prosecution or by defence, as well as by the court. He
25 or she may be tasked with drafting a report and providing opinion in
1 specific areas of expertise.
2 Q. Are you able to estimate or break down for us the percentage of
3 criminal cases where you have served as a ballistics expert for the
4 prosecution, the defence, and the court, those three that you've just
6 A. Usually, as part of the cases I cover in my day-to-day job in the
7 Centre for Forensic and IT Support, in terms of producing reports and
8 expert opinions, as a rule, most such cases come from the prosecution and
9 law enforcement agencies covering the area of Bosnia-Herzegovina. To
10 date, I carried out over 2.000 such expert analyses.
11 As for defence, roughly speaking, I worked on 30 to 40 cases as
12 an expert. And between 10 and 20 cases for the courts of
14 Q. Thank you for that.
15 MR. IVETIC: If we could turn to the first page of your CV in
16 both languages.
17 Q. At the top as part of your personal information we see listed:
18 "Court-sworn criminology expert - subfield of ballistics and
20 Is this anything different from the registered permanent court
21 expert status that we've been talking about, or is it just another way of
22 expressing the same thing?
23 A. It's just a different way to explain the same thing.
24 Q. Now, who is that would pay your fee or salary for the work that
25 you perform as either a -- as a registered permanent court expert?
1 A. I am paid by the party that engaged me as the permanent
2 registered court expert.
3 Let me explain. If it is done ex officio as part of my work in
4 the Centre for Forensic and IT Support, via law enforcement agencies,
5 prosecution sends a request for work to be carried out. In that case,
6 I'm not paid separately. If we are to appear as witnesses summoned by
7 the court concerning expert analysis, ex officio, based on court
8 decisions, we are awarded compensation for the expert work carried out
9 and for providing oral or written report in order to clarify any expert
10 analysis results.
11 If we are engaged by the prosecution as permanent court experts,
12 following a written report on the basis of our expert analysis, the
13 prosecution pays the expert. If the defence engages us as permanent
14 court experts, they pay. They pay -- give us the compensation for the
15 expert work carried out. If we are engaged by the court as permanent
16 court experts, then the court bears the costs and pays out compensation
17 for the expert work carried out.
18 Q. Thank you for that explanation. Now, apart from your work in
19 the -- yes.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, I noticed the following. You asked
21 about the witness describing the occupation as a court-sworn criminology
22 expert. Now that surprised me to the extent that criminology is usually
23 about behavioural sciences, rather than technical sciences. I see in the
24 original that where reference is made to -- no, let me withdraw that.
25 Witness, do you have any specific knowledge in criminology
1 understood as the study and analysis from a behavioural point of view of
2 crime and criminal activities?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I do, but I think it was
4 mistranslated. It wasn't criminology but criminal sciences.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Because I see in the original, I see
6 "kriminalstickih" and "kriminalistika," and the one is criminology, the
7 other one is at least translated as criminalistics which I understand to
8 be forensic science. I'm a bit confused by the terminology. But I do
9 understand that you do not present yourself as an expert in the
10 behavioural study of crime and -- and its purely on the criminal -- the
11 forensic science aspect that you consider yourself to be an expert?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Precisely.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Then perhaps the translation should be
15 MR. JEREMY: Yes, Your Honours. We'll make sure that's done.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
17 MR. IVETIC:
18 Q. Now, sir, apart from your work in the federal MUP and in the
19 courts of Bosnia-Herzegovina, have you ever been called upon to render
20 expert opinions in criminal investigations or cases that arise in other
21 jurisdictions or for other law enforcement agencies?
22 A. Only if it had to do with forensic analysis ballistics.
23 Q. And have you actually had occasion to work on an actual case
24 dealing with forensic analysis ballistics arising -- dealing with a
25 different jurisdiction other than Bosnia-Herzegovina?
1 A. Yes, I have.
2 Q. Approximately how many times?
3 A. Through Interpol we would receive requests to compare traces,
4 meaning rounds and cartridges. We would be sent the replicas for our
5 expert analysis and to carry out a comparison to see if they -- those
6 rounds and cartridges were possibly fired from the same fire-arm that we
7 had in our database of disputed rounds and cartridges that were found on
8 crime scenes committed by unidentified perpetrators where fire-arms were
9 used; namely, to check whether they were fired from any of those
10 fire-arms. Then -- there were a number of such cases where we did the
11 forensic analysis. There was one case of homicide of the deputy director
12 of the Montenegro MUP police. His name was Slavoljub Scekic, and this
13 crime happened in Montenegro.
14 Q. Okay. Then if we can look at page 4 in the English and page 3 in
15 the B/C/S of your CV --
16 JUDGE ORIE: And before we do that.
17 Could I ask you to explain exactly what you meant by replicas?
18 In this context, is that cartridges and rounds fired by known weapons, or
19 is it anything else?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] These would be rounds and
21 cartridges which were fired from unidentified weapons that were found at
22 crime scenes in European countries, so replicas would be made. There is
23 a special method used to make a silicone replica of a round or a
24 cartridge that would contain identical traces, the same on -- on the
25 disputed or an undisputed round or cartridge, and they would be then
1 suitable to use for identification and expert analysis.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, you started your answer by saying:
3 "These would be rounds and cartridges which were fired from ..."
4 Did you say "an identified weapon" or did you say by
5 "unidentified weapons"? Now the question again is not --
6 Did you want to say that these were rounds fired by an identified
7 weapon, a known weapon, a weapon which was found, or an unidentified
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] An unidentified fire-arm.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yeah --
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] And if I may. If I may just add,
12 that we would receive the undisputed round and cartridge which were fired
13 from a known fire-arm that would be found and were used by different
14 perpetrators of crimes, and then perhaps some European labs did some test
15 firing, after which they would receive definite rounds and cartridges
16 which were not in dispute. Then these would be sent to us for an expert
17 analysis so that we could compare them with our database of disputed
18 rounds or cartridges.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you for this clarification.
20 Please proceed, Mr. Ivetic.
21 MR. IVETIC:
22 Q. If we could look at page 4 in the English and page 3 in the B/C/S
23 of your CV. It says here that you are a lecturer at the public -- at the
24 Public Institution for the Centre for Education of FBiH Judges and
1 The first question I have for you is: What is the topic or
2 subject matter of your lectures to judges and prosecutors?
3 A. Primarily ballistics and mechanoscopic expert analysis. I was
4 appointed as a trainer at a public institution, the Centre for the
5 Education of Judges and Prosecutors of the Federation of
6 Bosnia-Herzegovina, regarding criminal and legal sciences, so I hold
7 trainings primarily from the area of my own expertise: Ballistics and
9 Q. And do you have occasion to lecture to sitting judges in whose
10 courtrooms you appear to testify as an expert witness on these same
12 A. Primarily it's ballistics, not so much from the area of
13 mechanoscopy. Also the processing of the crime scene; that's another
15 Q. And so if you could just clarify: Is your answer, yes, you do
16 lecture to sitting judges in whose courtrooms you appear but only
17 primarily in relation to ballistics, not so much from the area of
18 mechanoscopy, and not so much the processing of the crime scene? Is that
19 an accurate recitation?
20 A. And processing of the crime scene, yes.
21 Q. So ballistics and the processing of the crime scene you do.
22 A. That is -- that is correct. That has to do with ballistic
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, I'm still a bit uncertain whether
25 apparently the core of your question is sufficiently understood and
2 When you are teaching, are among those you are teaching, are
3 there also judges who are sitting in cases where you would appear as an
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Ivetic.
7 MR. IVETIC:
8 Q. Now, I see it's absent on the CV but I'll ask you: Have you ever
9 offered any such lectures to the Criminal Defence Section of the State
10 Court of BiH or any defence counsels in Bosnia-Herzegovina?
11 A. I'm sorry, I didn't understand the question.
12 Q. Let me try to simplify it. Have you ever offered to provide
13 lectures to the OKO, the Criminal Defence Section, of the State Court of
14 BiH on these topics?
15 A. I don't offer my training to anybody. I do give lectures upon
17 Q. Have you been invited to lecture the OKO, the Criminal Defence
18 Section, of the State Court of BiH?
19 A. No. As far as I know, no.
20 Q. Have you ever been invited to lecture defence counsel or any
21 defence counsel organisation?
22 A. At the 12th consultations of judges and prosecutors of the
23 Association of Judges and Prosecutors of the Federation of Bosnia and
24 Herzegovina, which was held in Neum in 2012, I think it was. I'm not
25 sure now. And these were attended also by judges and prosecutors from
1 Republika Srpska, the District of Brcko, as well as lawyers. I gave a
2 lecture and presented my published scientific paper that was published in
3 the paper Pravo i Pravda, which is the professional publication of judges
4 and prosecutors.
5 MR. IVETIC: If we could now turn back to page 1 in both
6 languages --
7 JUDGE ORIE: In order to fully understand, you said in Neum your
8 lectures were attended by judges and prosecutors from Republika Srpska,
9 the District of Brcko, as well as lawyers. Did you refer to lawyers as
10 lawyers in private practice or lawyers being defence counsel? What
11 exactly did you mean by "lawyers"?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Lawyers, defence attorneys.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Please proceed.
14 MR. IVETIC:
15 Q. If we could turn to page 1 of your CV in both languages, I would
16 like to take a step backwards in time of sorts and focus a little bit on
17 your education.
18 It is listed here that you attended mechanical engineering
19 schools in both 1983 and 1991. Are those the years that you started your
20 studies or the years that you earned degrees from those institutions?
21 A. The years that I completed my studies.
22 Q. Okay. During the course of your tenure studying at either of
23 these two institutions, did you have occasion to study any course work in
24 the field of criminalistic, ballistic fire-arm or tool mark examination?
25 A. No. No, I did not.
1 Q. Could you tell us what was the exact name of the -- exact title
2 of the degree you earned from Zenica.
3 A. Mechanical engineer.
4 Q. Okay. Now, I see the Faculty of Criminology, Criminalistics and
5 Security Studies associated with the year 2011. Again, is this the year
6 that you obtained your degree?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. How long in total was the time you spent completing your studies
9 so as to earn a degree?
10 A. Out of about 20 or 30 of us who were enrolled originally to Ph.D.
11 studies, applied criminal studies or forensic studies, I was the second
12 one to earn a master's degree. Within a year and a half, I think that's
13 how long it took.
14 Q. Now, I note that your work as a police expert starts in 1997, and
15 we see that on the next page in English while it's on the same page in
16 the B/C/S. This is both before you obtained your degree from the
17 University of Sarajevo and also before you became a provisional member of
18 AFTE. Can you please identify for us what schooling or course work or
19 degrees you completed prior to 1997 that qualified you to act in the
20 capacity of an expert for traceological testing in the MUP as of 1997.
21 A. According to the categorisation of the Department for the
22 Forensic Sciences, a forensic sciences expert for traceological testing
23 and later an expert for testing for use of -- traces of use of fire-arms,
24 it was always the case that a person who applied for these types of jobs,
25 for these types of analyses, needed to have a university degree, that
1 they completed the Faculty of Mechanical Engineering or the IT faculty
2 or from the Department of Physics, that they have two years of experience
3 in the field. Not necessarily in the field of ballistics and
4 mechanoscopy. The requirement was also that according to the plan and
5 programme of studies, they were trained in the theory and practice by
6 senior colleagues who had been professionals in the field for a long
7 time, qualified experts, i.e., for ballistics and mechanoscopy.
8 I was exceptionally lucky because in this period, I was trained
9 by two experts with many years of experience. They are both deceased
10 now --
11 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, I think you explained that in your CV, how
12 lucky you were in this respect, so therefore we've read that.
13 Please proceed, Mr. Ivetic.
14 MR. IVETIC:
15 Q. In relation to these two individuals that you credit with
16 training you, am I correct that neither of them would have been members
17 of AFTE?
18 A. That is correct, they were not. They were not members, no. At
19 that time, we didn't even know that that association existed.
20 Q. Okay. Looking -- looking at your CV, I see an entry under
21 occupation for 1999 as an associate in English; in B/C/S it says [B/C/S
22 spoken] at the Faculty of Criminology.
23 Am I correct that this does not relate to you receiving any
24 additional education from -- or result in a degree from the Faculty of
25 Criminology? You were just sort of an assistant?
1 A. From 1999 until today, including this year in May when I was
2 engaged to do that, as an expert associate where second-year students
3 attend my lectures in forensic science.
4 Q. Okay. Now, we have previously talked about your status as a
5 registered permanent court expert and from the CV we see that that was
6 2001. Does that mean from the time-period of 1997 through 2001 you were
7 not a court-appointed expert in ballistics while doing your work with the
8 federal MUP?
9 A. No. I think from 2002, I became the permanent expert, court
10 expert for the Central Bosnian Canton.
11 Q. Yes, thank you for that correction. Now I want to move to
12 page 10 in English and page 7 in B/C/S, and these are some courses that
13 you attended offered by American law enforcement agencies. And am I
14 correct that the first time you attended a course offered on the specific
15 topic of ballistic and mechanoscopic analysis of bullets or cartridges
16 was May of 2009?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. How long did that course last in May of 2009?
19 A. One week in a forensics laboratory in Madrid.
20 Q. And these other courses that are listed here that relate to other
21 criminal forensics work, what can you say about how long these courses
22 lasted, in terms of number of days, weeks, et cetera?
23 A. The first course in May 1998 lasted two weeks. Then in 2000, the
24 specialist course on gathering evidence and processing of the crime
25 scene, Federal Bureau of Investigation and IPTF, it lasted for two weeks
1 in Doboj. Then November 2000 in the United States, I think that lasted
2 three weeks. May 2002, the course for court-sworn experts in giving
3 testimony and ICITAP, that took three days. And then December 2003,
4 investigation of the crime scene of an act of terrorism, I think that
5 took about two weeks. And then May 2009, the course in Madrid that took
6 one week.
7 Q. If we could turn to page 11 in the English and page 8 in the
8 B/C/S, here you identified awards you have received, including cash
9 prizes that you received from the federal MUP for "special efforts and
10 achievements." Were these cash prizes because your work as an expert was
11 resulting in arrests and convictions on the cases that the federal MUP
13 A. I don't think so, no.
14 Q. Then what was the basis for these cash prizes?
15 A. For overall work performance. There are few cases that require
16 expert testimony in investigations by the federal Ministry of Interior.
17 Mostly these would be Ministries of Interior of the cantons in the
18 Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
19 Q. Okay. So were these cash prizes for work resulting in arrests
20 and convictions in the Ministries of Interior of the cantons of the
21 Federation of BiH?
22 A. Yes, there is that, within the overall scope of my work.
23 JUDGE ORIE: The question, Witness, is whether you were rewarded
24 for your work resulting in arrests and convictions. Was it or was it
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't have that piece of
2 information so as to be able to say whether it was the case. It included
3 my overall work. It probably played a role, but my superiors would have
4 an answer to that.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
6 Mr. Ivetic, I'm looking at the clock.
7 MR. IVETIC: Oh, are we there? That's fine.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
9 Witness, we'd like to see you back after the break. We'll take a
10 break of half an hour. You may follow the usher.
11 [The witness stands down]
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, we've now listened for some 50 minutes
13 to every single detail, at least to a very detailed questioning, about
14 the CV. The Chamber certainly would be assisted by also here questions
15 and answers in relation to the report the witness wrote, and you are --
16 it's our guidance that you perhaps give -- start giving from now on
17 priority to that, rather than to end up at a level of questioning as what
18 buildings in Madrid the witness was in during that course or other
19 details which may not shed much additional light on what the testimony
20 has given the Chamber until now. Unless, of course, there's any specific
21 matter which you say that sheds really some different light on it, and
22 then you're -- it's suggested that you then deal with that directly and
23 very much focused.
24 MR. IVETIC: Your Honour, I can assure you the three hours that I
25 have allocated to the witness include significant time going through the
1 report and the opinions of the two reports. But I believe in terms of
2 assessing the expertise of the witness whom we have challenged as an
3 expert, it is necessary to go through this vague information that is in
4 the CV that does not allow one to actually appreciate what is listed,
5 whether it's significant experience or less significant experience.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You reached a level there which may not assist
7 the Chamber in a significant way, and this is not - and that's the reason
8 why we listened to it for 50 minutes - it's not to say that you should
9 not test the expertise of the witness.
10 We take a break, and we resume at 1.30.
11 --- Recess taken at 1.02 p.m.
12 --- On resuming at 1.31 p.m.
13 [The witness takes the stand]
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, you may proceed.
15 MR. IVETIC: Thank you. I'd like to finish up with just my last
16 few questions in regard to the CV. If we could have the same page on our
17 screens. Mine has gone blank. Should be page 8 in the B/C/S and 11 in
18 the English still.
19 JUDGE FLUEGGE: It's P7433.
20 MR. IVETIC: Yes.
21 Q. And I want to ask you about the cash award you received in
22 December 2005 from the director of the FUP which it says is the
23 equivalent of an average salary paid out in the Federation of BiH.
24 Now, first I want to make sure I understand this. The FUP is the
25 Federal Police Directorate; is that right?
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jeremy.
2 MR. JEREMY: Just so the record is clear, I think it is the
3 average monthly salary.
4 MR. IVETIC: That was going to be my next question, but okay, if
5 that's ...
6 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, could you answer the question whether the
7 FUP is the Federal Police Directorate.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, it is.
9 MR. IVETIC: I read the wrong one. I apologise. If we could
10 scroll down in the English, the one for June 2010, the cash prize in the
11 amount equivalent to an average salary paid out in the FBiH.
12 Q. Now you've told us who the FUP director is. Could you tell us
13 what the value of this cash amount was? What kind of salary is it,
14 yearly, monthly, daily?
15 A. The average salary in the Federation of BiH now stands at around
16 830 or 840 convertible marks. This was 30 per cent of that average
17 monthly salary in the Federation.
18 Q. Okay. Now, for the entry for June 2010, it says "for outstanding
19 work results." Would that be in relation to your work as a ballistic
20 expert on investigations for the police or for the Bosnian court?
21 A. At that time I was head of Department for Ballistics and
22 Mechanoscopic Expertise. This award came my way for the overall job
23 performed in the last year, on the day commemorating Police Day, on
24 1 July, in the Federation.
25 Q. Okay. Now, in reading your reports, I have noted that at times
1 the artefacts that you examined were said to be contained in cardboard
2 boxes, other times they were said to be contained in PVC bags, and still
3 other times in paper bags. Can you tell me, sir, why it is that such
4 varied methods were utilised to store and transport artefacts that were
5 to be subjected for ballistic review?
6 A. You would need to ask the forensic technicians and the persons
7 who carried out securing and packaging of these rounds and cartridges.
8 Q. Can you tell us anything about where and how the artefacts were
9 stored prior to being sent to be examined by you?
10 A. I cannot answer that question. I don't have any information
11 concerning storage.
12 Q. Okay. Let me try to short-circuit this.
13 MR. IVETIC: If we could have in e-court 1D05493.
14 Q. Sir, this is an information report received from the Prosecution
15 relative to the proofing with you. And in item number 2, it says:
16 "The witness briefly described the chain of custody process
17 applied to the items discussed in his reports (65 ter number 31093 and
19 So what I'd like to ask you, sir, is: What does this mean? What
20 aspects of the chain of custody of those artefacts are you in a position
21 to talk about and that you did talk about with the Prosecution?
22 A. The procedure of receiving orders to carry out expert analyses
23 and to receive artefacts that need to be analysed as per such orders in
24 the Federal Police Administration go as follows. Documents are first
25 sent to the registry centre of the Federal Police Administration,
1 following which the director initials the documents and contacts, in this
2 case, the Centre for Forensic and IT Support. The desk officer in charge
3 of trace -- tracing data from the said centre receives all such
4 documents, including the orders to carry out analysis as part of the
5 Federal Police Administration. And here I have to say that the centre --
6 Q. If I could just interrupt. Thus far, you've been talking about
7 documents and orders. My question was in relation to the chain of
8 custody of the artefacts that you analysed prior to coming to you. What
9 can you tell us about the chain of custody of those artefacts, not the
10 documents or the orders.
11 A. This includes the order and artefacts to be analysed. They go
12 hand in hand.
13 The desk officer for tracing in the Federal Police
14 Administration -- and I have to say that the Centre for Forensic and IT
15 Support is separate from the Federal Police Administration, it at a
16 distance of 3 or 4 kilometres away. The Federal Police Administration is
17 in Tito Street or Mehmed Spaho Street in Sarajevo; whereas the Centre for
18 Forensic and IT Support is at Vrace, on the premises of the police
20 The tracing desk officer of the Centre for Forensic and IT
21 Support takes over the documents and artefacts for analysis, forwards
22 them to the premises of the Centre for Forensic and IT Support, and
23 they're under his control, together with the order for analysis. Such
24 material is then taken over by a person or persons designated by the
25 chief of the Forensic and IT Support Centre as those who are supposed to
1 carry out the expert analysis.
2 After such analysis is completed by the person or persons in
3 charge of carrying out analysis, together with their written findings and
4 opinions of expert analysis, it is all handed back to the desk officer
5 for tracing and then forwarded to those who ordered or requested that the
6 analysis be conducted.
7 Q. From your answer, my understanding is that you do not have any
8 information as to where and how these artefacts are kept or preserved
9 prior to their arrival at the registry of the police, nor do you know who
10 would have access to them. Am I correct in that understanding?
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: He answered that question earlier.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I don't know.
13 MR. IVETIC:
14 Q. Okay. Then I'll move on.
15 Now, when you received the boxes and bags filled with artefacts
16 that you performed the analysis on, when you received them, were these
17 boxes and bags containing artefacts for your analysis sealed in any way?
18 A. Yes, they were.
19 Q. Okay. And was there a signature or stamp on the seal?
20 A. Some had that; others did not.
21 Q. Were all the seals dated?
22 A. All such packaging contains the number of the case, the number of
23 the exhumed corpse and date, as well as trace designation.
24 Q. Okay. I understand what you're saying about the "omot" or file
25 folder, but I'm talking about the vessels in which the artefacts were
1 contained, the PVC bags, the paper bags, and the cardboard boxes. Were
2 those sealed and dated? Did each of those seals have dates?
3 A. They did contain a date. But when we discuss sealing, if you
4 consider evidence tape a seal, they did not have that. They were simply
5 stapled by a stapler.
6 Q. Did you have to record anywhere in documentation your act of
7 unsealing the bag or box in question and removing the artefacts for your
9 A. Please repeat. I did not quite understand.
10 Q. When you unsealed a bag or a box to remove an artefact and
11 perform your analysis of it, did you have to sign anywhere or make a
12 written record of that act of when you unsealed the evidence bag and
13 removed the artefact.
14 A. At page 5 of my expert report dated the 7th of May, 2014, one of
15 the remarks states the following:
16 "Before carrying out ballistic analysis, the disputed cartridges
17 have previously been examined for DNA and finger-print tracing."
18 This means that before I examined the cartridges, they had been
19 previously been analysed for DNA and finger-print traces. Therefore, I
20 do not have any information concealing the unsealing of cartridges.
21 As for the rounds and parts of rounds, based on the photographs,
22 you can see how they were packaged when it comes to these disputed rounds
23 and fragments of rounds.
24 Q. And as to those disputed rounds and fragments of rounds, did you
25 have to record anywhere in an evidence log your act of unsealing the
1 container they came in before performing your analysis?
2 A. No, I did not.
3 Q. Now, what exactly did you know about the artefacts that you
4 analysed at the time that they're submitted to you for analysis?
5 A. Based on the orders for analysis, I knew that some traces had
6 been found in graves during exhumations; whereas others were found during
7 the autopsies carried out at Sejkovaca on certain corpses marked by the
8 numbers contained in the said orders for expert analysis.
9 Q. So is it then correct that you only knew what was contained in
10 the -- strike that.
11 You knew that this related to the Tomasica mass grave, correct,
12 when you received the artefacts for your analysis?
13 A. Yes, I did. In the introductory part of the expert report, it is
14 specified that expert analysis was ordered for cartridges and rounds from
15 the scene of exhumation at the location of Tomasica mass grave, as well
16 as the rounds found during autopsies of those corpses.
17 Q. Was the investigation into Tomasica, including your analysis of
18 artefacts believed to be bullets and cartridges, considered a
19 high-profile case for your office?
20 A. No.
21 Q. Were there any instructions issued for quick results for -- from
22 your investigation and analysis?
23 A. No. We were given a deadline of 45 days, pursuant to the order.
24 In my opinion, it was not a short one, a short deadline.
25 Q. Did you know at the time that were doing the analysis that your
1 results were going to be potentially used at this trial before the ICTY
2 against General Ratko Mladic?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Were the methods that were employed in this case by your office
5 following any specific pre-existing protocol established for such
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Okay. Are the methods that were employed in this case in accord
9 with what is recommended in literature and training manuals in the
10 industry of ballistic forensic review of fire-arms and tool marks?
11 A. Yes, they are.
12 Q. At the time of performing your review and analysis of bullet and
13 cartridge artefacts, did you consult or review any literature available
14 for this class type and manufacture of ammunition to identify any
15 difficulties in making accurate identifications or factors that might
16 produce false positive results?
17 A. Yes, I did.
18 Q. Okay. Have you recorded anywhere what literature you consulted
19 in performing your analysis which provided this type of information?
20 A. No, I have not.
21 Q. Would you mind preparing such a list and providing to the Court
22 to be provided to the Defence?
23 A. Yes, sure.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask -- does your recollection, is that
25 sufficient to produce a reliable list of what literature you consulted?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'd rather not off the cuff.
2 MR. IVETIC: I was rather thinking when he returns back to his
3 office that he provide one. I didn't expect him to do one right now on
4 the spot.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. You think you can do that? You commit
6 yourself to making a list. Do you have sufficient information to
7 reconstruct --
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can undertake that obligation.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please proceed.
10 MR. IVETIC:
11 Q. Were any interim reports, worksheets, or bench notes maintained
12 as part of the review that your office performed in this case? And just
13 so we're clear, my understanding of bench notes are that they would be
14 notes, diagrams, drawings, and annotations to diagrams or drawings
15 drafted and maintained by the analyst and any reviewer in the course of
16 performing their review that are used to help draft the final report.
17 A. My colleague, the expert, and I, who produced the first report,
18 the one of 7 May 2014, together with me, that was Alija Kotarevic,
19 engineer, expert for ballistic and mechanoscopic analysis, the two of us
20 made notes concerning the first expert report. We also photographed,
21 either Mr. Kotarevic or I, the artefacts, based on which we drafted the
22 written expert report.
23 As for the second expert report, which is an amendment dated the
24 7th of July, 2014, I did all the work myself, including notes and
25 photographs. Inter alia, that material was used in drafting the written
1 expert report.
2 Q. Would have you a problem turning over all of those notes,
3 drawings, photographs to the Court to be provided to the Defence of both
4 the first report and the second report?
5 A. It's up to the Court to decide.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps it is, but the question was whether you
7 would have any problem in providing that material.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As far as I'm concerned, there is
9 no problem. It's up to the Court to decide.
10 JUDGE ORIE: You've answered the question of Mr. Ivetic.
11 Please proceed.
12 MR. IVETIC: If we could call up in e-court P7434, marked for
13 identification. And if we could turn to page 68 in the B/C/S and
14 page 110 in the English.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Could we have the right English page.
16 The witness can read it. Perhaps you already formulate your
17 question, Mr. Ivetic.
18 MR. IVETIC: Okay.
19 Q. I could perhaps use the time to even shortcut that, perhaps.
20 You've already mentioned your colleague, Mr. Kotarevic, who
21 assisted you in the drafting of this report. Is he a member of AFTE?
22 A. No, he's not.
23 Q. When you say you worked together to do the report, did you
24 supervise or double-check the work he did?
25 A. We worked together on the whole case. No single round or
1 cartridge was examined whereby we worked separately. At any given point
2 the two of us worked together.
3 Q. Okay.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, I think the witness said and wrote that
5 he was the only member from the former Yugoslavia in the AFTE.
6 Therefore, I don't understand the question. Although the witness has
7 answered it but --
8 MR. IVETIC: Oh, you mean the prior question?
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
10 MR. IVETIC: Okay.
11 Q. Now, if we -- let's stick to the first report for now. Can you
12 tell us approximately how long it took time-wise for you to perform all
13 the analyses which are reflected in the report; that is to say, how much
14 time you spent on average in the examination and analysis of each
15 disputed artefact?
16 A. I can't answer that question because I don't know the exact time
17 for each of the artefacts that were to be analysed. I don't know how
18 much I spent for one -- on one cartridge, on another cartridge, on one
19 round or another round. We took as much time as was needed in order to
20 be able to provide an opinion.
21 Q. Now, when you say the two of you worked simultaneously together,
22 does that mean that you did the work together or you were in the same
23 place together doing work on different artefacts? Were you working on
24 the same artefacts simultaneously or were you just working at the same
25 time in the same location on different artefacts?
1 A. We were in the same room and working on the same artefact.
2 Regardless of whether it was a round or a cartridge, we worked together
3 on each individual artefact submitted for analysis.
4 Q. Okay. Now, in relation to the methodology employed, let's look
5 at page 101.
6 MR. IVETIC: It's on the bottom in English and then goes on to
7 page 102. And in B/C/S it's page 64 in e-court. And we have two B/C/S
9 So we see on 101 it says: "Opinion." If we can go to the next
10 page in the English and if we can also go to the next page in the B/C/S,
11 it will be clear.
12 Q. In this section where you start giving your opinions and
13 conclusions about various of the disputed bullets analysed, including
14 that they were fired from the same fire-arm, in this section, unlike the
15 prior sections, you do not have any photographs or photomicrographs of
16 the comparisons nor any description of what unique identifications led
17 you to believe that they were fired from the same fire-arm. Could you
18 tell us why you did not choose to include photograph comparisons for this
19 part of your report as to the positive matches that you found?
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, I think we first have to seek to clarify
21 what exactly the report in this respect means.
22 When you write both in relation to the seven disputed cartridges
23 and then in relation to the six cartridges and -- where you say that
24 these cartridges were fired from the same weapon, did you mean the same
25 individual weapon or did you mean to refer to a type of weapon, not
1 necessarily to be the same individual weapon?
2 Could you first answer that question.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I can.
4 There were 18 cartridges that were 7.62 by 39 millimetres. A
5 comparison was carried out of all the cartridges, and it was established
6 that seven of the disputed cartridges and bullets, 7.62 calibre times
7 39 millimetres, marked as 8B, 9B, 36B, 38B, 42B, these were cartridges
8 found during exhumation, and from corpse number TOM-04-PRD-390-T and also
9 TOM-04-PRD-350-D, they originate and were fired from one and the same
10 fire-arm, an automatic rifle of the Kalashnikov type of different models
11 and manufacturers, either a Russian, Romanian, Bulgarian, East German
12 manufacturer, or from an automatic rifle, Crvena Zastava make, M70 model
13 or M70A, M70A1, AB1 and so on and so forth.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Just to be sure, are you saying all those cartridges
15 came from one weapon, one weapon either of type A, B, or C, but still one
16 individual weapon?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes. That is correct. These
18 seven cartridges came from one fire-arm. One fire-arm.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Please proceed.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] And then -- all right. And then
21 these six disputed cartridges, 7.62 calibre by 39 millimetres, marked as
22 37B, 44B, 45B, 47B, 49B, and 56B, come also from one and the same weapon.
23 One fire-arm.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And you were able to identify the type of that
25 fire-arm, where you were not able to do so in relation to the seven
1 cartridges which came from the same weapon but could have been a weapon
2 of type A, B, or C. Then you've answered my question.
3 Please proceed.
4 MR. IVETIC:
5 Q. Now, sir, for this type -- sorry.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If I may just add something. We
8 have five more disputed cartridges of bullets of 7.62 by 39 millimetres'
9 calibre --
10 JUDGE ORIE: It's -- I think your report is clear that those five
11 cartridges were from bullets which were fired by different weapons,
12 although you would know which type of weapon they would have been,
13 although not the same individual weapon. I see you're nodding in the
15 Please proceed, Mr. Ivetic.
16 MR. IVETIC:
17 Q. I know we're at the end of the day but I'd like to ask one more
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. For this type of analysis that you've described, I would expect
21 to see -- and to be actually correct it would be a photomicrograph, since
22 it would be taken on a microscope, of a side-by-side comparison of
23 striae, lands, grooves. Who made the decision not to include a
24 photographic or photomicrographic distinction of the comparisons that led
25 to you make these conclusions of matching artefacts, that is, matching
1 bullets or matching cartridges?
2 A. I decided. If I may say that here you said that it was wasn't
3 explained what these markings were on the basis of which the
4 identification was carried out. And then you can see on page 13 and
5 page 14 of the written report where it says, among other things,
6 regarding these seven disputed cartridges, by microscopic examination and
7 mutual comparison of the cartridges regarded -- regardless of general
8 common characteristics that manifest in the form of a common shape and
9 mutual distribution of markings of the striking pin, the ejector, the
10 cartridge extractor, and the case cover, common individual
11 characteristics were found which manifest in the form of a common micro
12 relief or micro ridges within the traces of the ejector, the breach
13 phrase and the case cover.
14 Q. My final question for today: Would you agree with me that your
15 report drafted like this, without depictions of the photomicrographic
16 analyses or comparisons, does not permit any other expert to review and
17 verify your findings based upon the report alone?
18 A. I agree in a part. But I want to say that just on the basis of
19 photographs, another expert could not form their opinion. I wouldn't be
20 able to form my own opinion on the basis of photographs, photographic
21 evidence, which were made by another expert until I myself examine and
22 compare the cartridges physically.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, could I ask one follow-up question. Is the
24 material still available so that if another expert would wish to put the
25 cartridges under a microscope and see whether your conclusions are
1 accurate, yes or no, would that material still be available?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. The analysis findings are
3 submitted to the prosecution or the prosecutors of the -- of
4 Bosnia-Herzegovina, together with all the artefacts, the rounds,
5 cartridges, shell casings, that were the subject of my expert analysis,
6 and at any point, one could ask to have access to them.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And under controlled conditions to verify
8 whether another expert would come to the same conclusions.
9 Then we have to adjourn for the day.
10 Witness, I instruct you that you should not speak or communicate
11 in whatever way with whomever about your testimony, whether that is
12 testimony you've given today, or written down in your report, or
13 testimony still to be given on -- next week because we'll not sit
14 tomorrow. And we'd like to see you back on Monday, and that would be
15 Monday the - let me see - 29th.
16 MR. IVETIC: 29th.
17 JUDGE ORIE: 29th of June, 9.30 in the morning, in this same
19 Mr. Tieger.
20 MR. TIEGER: Just remind the Court that Monday was reserved for a
21 witness whose testimony was fixed for that date. We weren't sure exactly
22 how long it will take based on the Defence estimate but the indication
23 was most of the day at least.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Therefore I stand corrected, Witness. It may
25 be that you will continue to give your evidence only later on that Monday
1 or even not on Monday at all and only then on Tuesday. Please follow the
2 guidance to be given by the Victims and Witness Section in this respect.
3 If you have understood this all inclusive my instruction to you, you may
4 now follow the usher.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I understand.
6 [The witness stands down]
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Stojanovic.
8 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Just one moment, Your Honours.
9 In view of the planning for the schedule on Monday, since we had agreed,
10 according to our internal schedule, that I should prepare for the witness
11 who should come on Monday, we planned to take about two hours, and I
12 believe that our cross-examination is not going to take that long. It
13 will be a bit shorter. So, at the moment, I think we will need up to
14 about an hour and a half. So perhaps we are -- on the basis of that,
15 able to plan the time more precisely.
16 JUDGE ORIE: And examination-in-chief of that witness would take
17 how much time approximately?
18 MR. JEREMY: I understand the estimate is 30 minutes,
19 Your Honours.
20 JUDGE ORIE: 30 minutes. Which means that there is a fair chance
21 that we would continue to hear the evidence of Mr. Franjic later on
22 Monday morning, and VWS is therefore -- is hereby informed of that
24 With apologies for the late conclusion to all those assisting us,
25 the Chamber adjourns for the day and will resume on Monday, the 29th of
1 June, 9.30 in the morning, in this same courtroom, I.
2 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.22 p.m.,
3 to be reconvened on Monday, the 29th day of June,
4 2015, at 9.30 a.m.