Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 36328

 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

 6     courtroom.

 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,

Page 36329

 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]

Page 36330

 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.

Page 36331

 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

11     work?

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

Page 36332

 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

17     UN.

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.

Page 36333

 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

19     1D5491.

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.

Page 36334

 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

 5     circumstances.

 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

20     then?

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.

Page 36335

 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.

Page 36336

 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,

 9     yes.

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

Page 36337

 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

10     had.

11        Q.   When you said, "Furthermore, it is dangerous for the

12     prosecution," did you mean for the parties then again?  Is it again

13     misstated?

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

Page 36338

 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

Page 36339

 1     number.

 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

 9     page?

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

16     admission?

17             MR. TIEGER:  No, other than reserving the opportunity to consider

18     whether remaining parts of the article shed light on the submitted two

19     pages.

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

Page 36340

 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

 5     you.

 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.

Page 36341

 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

10     part.

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

Page 36342

 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.

Page 36343

 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

10     work?

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.

Page 36344

 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

Page 36345

 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

Page 36346

 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

Page 36347

 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

Page 36348

 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

Page 36349

 1     Bihac.

 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.

Page 36350

 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

 4     data?

 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

23     analysis?

24        A.   Are you referring to the Jakarina Kosa --

25        Q.   [In English] Yes [overlapping speakers] --

Page 36351

 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

 7     statement?

 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

18     period?

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

Page 36352

 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

11     before.

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

Page 36353

 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

11     statement?

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,

14     yes.

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

21     anthropologists.

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:

Page 36354

 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

 6     Klonowski.

 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

17     question.

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

25     confusing.

Page 36355

 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.

Page 36356

 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

21     uniforms?

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 --

Page 36357

 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

16     questions?

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

Page 36358

 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

Page 36359

 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

Page 36360

 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.

Page 36361

 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

 7     break.

 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

17     assistance.

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

22     statement.

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

25     statement.

Page 36362

 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

Page 36363

 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.

Page 36364

 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.

Page 36365

 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

 6     Prosecution.

 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,

13     please.

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.

Page 36366

 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.

Page 36367

 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.

Page 36368

 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

15     covers?

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

Page 36369

 1     Bosnia-Herzegovina.

 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

14     office.

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

25     analysis.

Page 36370

 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

18     B/C/S.

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

Page 36371

 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

Page 36372

 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

 7     report?

 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.

Page 36373

 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

23     English.

24        Q.   You basically list a series of bullets and parts thereof that

25     were unsuitable for analysis.

Page 36374

 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.

Page 36375

 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

Page 36376

 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

10     morgue?

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,

19     please.

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?

Page 36377

 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

17     examination.

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.

Page 36378

 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

16     munitions?

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

Page 36379

 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

18     Institutes.

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

24     expert.

25        Q.   Okay.  Now --

Page 36380

 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,

Page 36381

 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

 5     Federation.

 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

Page 36382

 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

 5     mentioned?

 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

13     Bosnia-Herzegovina.

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

19     mechanoscopy."

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?

Page 36383

 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

Page 36384

 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

14     reviewed.

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?

Page 36385

 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

Page 36386

 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

 8     weapon?

 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

25     Prosecutors.

Page 36387

 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

 8     mechanoscopy.

 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

11     topics?

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

14     topic.

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

23     analysis.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic, I'm still a bit uncertain whether

25     apparently the core of your question is sufficiently understood and

Page 36388

 1     answered.

 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

 4     expert?

 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

16     invitation.

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

Page 36389

 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.

Page 36390

 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

Page 36391

 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?

Page 36392

 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

Page 36393

 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

12     investigated?

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

25     not?

Page 36394

 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

Page 36395

 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?

Page 36396

 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

Page 36397

 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

18     31094)."

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,

Page 36398

 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

19     academy.

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

Page 36399

 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

Page 36400

 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

 8     analysis?

 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

Page 36401

 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

Page 36402

 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

 6     testing?

 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?

Page 36403

 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

Page 36404

 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

Page 36405

 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?

Page 36406

 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

 8     now.

 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

Page 36407

 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

Page 36408

 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

14     affirmative.

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

18     question.

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

Page 36409

 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

Page 36410

 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

18     courtroom.

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

Page 36411

 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

23     expectation.

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

Page 36412

 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.