Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 36492

 1                           Tuesday, 30 June 2015

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

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

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

 6     courtroom.

 7             Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.

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

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

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Madam Registrar.

11             I'd like to use the time for at least one item on our procedural

12     agenda.  It deals with the remaining issue from the testimony of

13     Milenko Jevtevic.

14             During the testimony of Milenko Jevtevic on the 23rd of

15     February of this year, P7137 was marked for identification, pending a

16     revised English translation.  On that same day, the Prosecution informed

17     the Chamber via an e-mail that a revised translation had been uploaded

18     into e-court under document ID 0107-7905-A-ET.

19             If there are no objections and the Defence has an opportunity to

20     revisit the matter within the next 48 hours, but the Chamber instructs

21     the Registry to replace the existing English translation of P7137 with a

22     new translation and admits P7137 into evidence.

23                           [The witness takes the stand]

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Good morning, Mr. Franjic.

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.

Page 36493

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Apologies for continuing with administrative matters

 2     when you entered the courtroom.  Mr. Franjic, Mr. Ivetic will now

 3     continue his cross-examination, but I'd first like to remind you that

 4     you're still bound by the solemn declaration you have given at the

 5     beginning of your testimony.

 6             Mr. Ivetic, you may proceed.

 7             MR. IVETIC:  Thank you.

 8                           WITNESS:  BRUNO FRANJIC [Resumed]

 9                           [Witness answered through interpreter]

10                           Cross-examination by Mr. Ivetic: [Continued]

11        Q.   Good morning, sir.

12        A.   Good morning.

13        Q.   I'd like to start with 65 ter number 1D5494 in e-court.  While we

14     wait for that, I can advise that this is a transcript of the testimony of

15     a Prosecution expert witness at this trial, Timothy Curtis who was the

16     chief operations officer for laboratory services for the Bureau of

17     Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives in the US, and a member of

18     AFTE.

19             If we can have page 19 in e-court, that should correlate with

20     transcript page 14833, and we'll be starting at line 15, and I'll read

21     for you, sir, so you can get the translation.

22             "Q.  Mr. Curtis, here, we see your name and signature and the

23     name of three other persons and their signatures.  Can you tell us the

24     role that those three other persons played in the investigation and

25     preparation of this report.

Page 36494

 1             "A.  Yes, three of us were fire-arm examiners, myself,

 2     Mr. Danridge and Mr. Ols.  And the three of us did the actual physical

 3     comparisons of the cartridge cases using the comparison microscopes to

 4     identify or eliminate cartridge cases being fired in the same fire-arms.

 5     Mr. Wilson, who is on the lower right, he was our section supervisor at

 6     the time, and his role was basically to review our paperwork and make

 7     sure it was proper, following all of our procedures, and afterwards,

 8     after we'd --"

 9             MR. IVETIC:  Turn the page.

10        Q.   "... signed off on everything and he saw it was correct, he would

11     then sign.

12             "Q.  And as an example in respect of the two matches we have

13     identified for request number 5, do you know who it was that the verified

14     your own findings that there had been a match?

15             "A.  Yes, Mr. Walter Danridge verified my positive identification

16     on those two identifications.

17             "Q.  And how do you recall that?

18             "A.  After I verified it, I asked Mr. Danridge to look into the

19     microscope.  He came to the same conclusion as I did.  I took a

20     photograph, marked the front of it as you had seen, but on the back side,

21     Mr. Danridge initialled and dated the photograph to verify that he agreed

22     with my findings."

23             And if we scroll down to the bottom of this page, at line 22,

24     starting with the text, it says:

25             "Q.  The methods of analysis employed by the ATF, both the IBIS

Page 36495

 1     preliminary analysis phase and the microscopic analysis phase, were they

 2     consistent with -- or are they consistent with prevailing industry

 3     standards?"

 4             If we could turn the page.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  This was a question put to that witness at that

 6     time.

 7             MR. IVETIC:  Yes.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  You said starting with the text and you followed

 9     immediately an answer and then you say it is follows down to the page and

10     then it should be clear that it was a new question that was put to the

11     witness.

12             MR. IVETIC:  And I believe I mentioned there was a question.  I

13     don't know whether --

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Then please reread the transcript and tell me later

15     where you introduced this portion, last portion you read, by saying that

16     it was a question.

17             MR. IVETIC:  I believe line 22 of the page where the quotation I

18     start with said it was a question.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, that's what the transcriber did for you, Mr.

20     Ivetic, and that's very kind of her.  Please proceed.  And if I'm wrong,

21     then, of course, I'll verify it, if my recollection doesn't serve me

22     well, Mr. Ivetic, I'm the first one to admit that, and I may even listen

23     to the audio whether it's indeed the transcriber or whether I just missed

24     it.

25             Please proceed.

Page 36496

 1             MR. IVETIC:  Thank you.

 2        Q.   "A.  Yes.  The procedures we used back in 2000 are basically the

 3     same procedures that are following today as far as comparisons of

 4     evidence on comparison microscope and working with the IBIS system."

 5             Do you agree with Mr. Curtis that this method of analysis of

 6     marking on a photograph and having a second examiner initial the back of

 7     the photograph after verifying the conclusions is the method of analysis

 8     consistent with the prevailing industry standard for this type of review.

 9        A.   What you stated has to do with performing analyses in the

10     laboratory.  As far as our laboratory is concerned, in our lab for

11     mechanoscopic analysis, we use a different procedure.  We perform

12     comparative analysis of the disputed cartridges.  We also analyse and

13     compare the disputed cartridges as opposed to undisputed ones.  We also

14     mutually compare the disputed rounds against each other, as well as

15     disputed rounds against undisputed rounds.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Franjic, if I may stop you there.  I think you

17     missed the gist of the question.  The question was that marking a

18     photograph, a photograph made of -- through the comparison microscope and

19     have a second examiner look at it and then to initial the back of that

20     photograph, so that it is, rather, two persons closely working together

21     and recording their findings, whether that is the standard.  Because

22     there seems to be no dispute that you did more or less the same.  That

23     is, to compare the marks on disputed cartridges and known cartridges or

24     two disputed cartridges, to see whether they were fired from the same

25     weapon.  It's two persons, identifying and recording, whether that's the

Page 36497

 1     standard.

 2             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I am not familiar with that, but as

 3     in my previous testimony where I cited my first expert report, I can say

 4     again that in addition to me performing the work, the same rounds and

 5     cartridges were examined by a ballistics and mechanoscopic expert,

 6     Alija Kotarevic.  We provided a joint report, and we agreed that the

 7     seven cartridges originate from bullets fired from one and the same

 8     weapon.

 9             As for the other disputed cartridges and rounds, our opinion is

10     also provided in our expert report.

11                           [Trial Chamber confers]

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic, next question, please.

13             MR. IVETIC:  Okay.

14        Q.   If we could take a look at 1D5492 with you.  While we wait for

15     it, I can introduce it as the Code of Ethnics for the AFTE as published

16     on their official web site.

17             First of all, sir, can you tell me if you are familiar with the

18     AFTE Code of Ethnics?

19        A.   Yes.

20        Q.   Okay.  If we could turn to page 2, and if we could ... look at --

21     I apologise.  It's the next page, page 3.  And item number H at the top,

22     the third bullet number from the top where it says:  "Any and all

23     photographic displays shall be made according to accepted [sic]

24     practices, and shall not be ... altered or distorted with a view to

25     mislead the court or jury."

Page 36498

 1             Sir, do you feel that your reports which failed to provide

 2     photographic depictions of the comparison and matching analysis adhere to

 3     this provision of the AFTE Code of Ethnics?

 4             JUDGE MOLOTO:  I'm sort of puzzled which that question,

 5     Mr. Ivetic.  Obviously we didn't adhere with the situation where this

 6     witness didn't make photographs, and this rule doesn't say all

 7     investigations must be photographed but they say, where photographs have

 8     been, taken, then there must be done according to acceptable standards.

 9             MR. IVETIC:  And that is why in my question I did not state

10     affirmatively that he had not complied.  I'm asking the witness whether

11     he believes that that condition does apply, given the testimony of

12     Mr. Curtis that we just looked at.

13             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Okay.  Maybe I'll understand as we go.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Witness, could you answer the question as it was put

15     to you by Mr. Ivetic.

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This cannot be directly linked to

17     the expert report produced by myself and my colleague.  The microscopic

18     photographs were not taken using a comparative microscope to photograph

19     the markings.  The photographs that were taken were not altered.

20             MR. IVETIC:

21        Q.   Okay.  And I want to look at item number IV on this page, section

22     A or subpart A:  "No services shall be rendered on a contingency fee

23     basis."

24             In relation to the cash prizes that you have received and

25     recorded in your CV, especially the one from the federal police

Page 36499

 1     directorate "for outstanding work results," have you ever sought an

 2     advisory opinion from AFTE to determine if such cash awards for your work

 3     do not run afoul of this provision?

 4        A.   No.

 5        Q.   Now I'd like to go back to your first report, which will be P7434

 6     marked for identification, and I would ask that we look at page 106 in

 7     the English and page 65 in the B/C/S.

 8        A.   Excuse me, could I receive a copy of my report?

 9        Q.   Yes, by all means if my colleagues have it.  Just as with

10     yesterday, I don't have any problem with the witness getting it directly.

11             And so in the B/C/S, it's page 65 in e-court but I believe it

12     will be page 64 of the hard copy on the bottom, the numbering.

13             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Is that English or B/C/S?

14             MR. IVETIC:  That was for B/C/S for the witness.

15             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Do you know the page in English.

16             MR. IVETIC:  106.

17             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you.  You said that before, I missed it.

18             MR. IVETIC:  No problem, Your Honour.  It should be in the middle

19     of the page in English and the third bullet point from the bottom in the

20     B/C/S.

21        Q.   And here you identify artefact 34B as an M49 round having come

22     from a 7.9 by 57 millimetre M48 army rifle.

23             First of all, sir, am I correct that this round is commonly

24     referred to in the industry as an 8-millimetre Mauser round?

25        A.   Yes.

Page 36500

 1        Q.   And if we can now call up 1D5459, and page 3 in e-court of the

 2     same.  Sir, looking at the picture on the top of the page of a

 3     bolt-action rifle with a bayonet, is this, in fact, the M48 army rifle

 4     that you referred to in your report?

 5        A.   Yes, it is.

 6        Q.   Now, for purposes of your analysis, did you take into account and

 7     perform analysis of any other weapons that are capable of firing the

 8     8-millimetre Mauser round, 7.9 by 57 millimetres?

 9        A.   Yes.

10        Q.   Okay.  How many other weapons did you consider?

11        A.   M48, M48A, and I can't recall right now what other rifles, but --

12        Q.   Let's see if can I assist you.  Let's look at 1D5460.

13             MR. IVETIC:  Oh, pardon me.  We should probably since we looked

14     at a photograph, I would ask that we reserve a number for this last

15     document 1D5459, so that I can just get the photograph separated from the

16     rest of the documentation and then --

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar, would you please reserve a number

18     for that specific part of this document.

19             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit number reserved for document 1D5459 will

20     be D1086, Your Honours.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Madam Registrar.

22             MR. IVETIC:  And now, again, if we could have 1D5460.

23        Q.   And this is again from the Igman Unis Company and it shows two

24     types of bullets, 7.9 by 57.  Would you agree with me -- actually, let's

25     go to page 2.  That will be easier.  Whoops.

Page 36501

 1             MR. IVETIC:  I believe we're using the wrong version of the

 2     document.  There should be two in e-court one that has a corrected page

 3     2.  Because I noted that this version has two identical pages.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  But Madam Registrar couldn't know which has the

 5     correct page 2, so, therefore --

 6             MR. IVETIC: [Overlapping speakers] ... I know.  I know.  I

 7     apologise.  It's the same?  Okay.  Let's ... let me do it this way, then,

 8     sir.  Go back to the first page.

 9        Q.   And, sir, looking at the bullet that's on the left, the cartridge

10     on the round that's on the left that's labelled as a 7.957 M49 Ball,

11     would that be similar to the M49 round that we've been talking about in

12     your report?

13        A.   Yes, the round is M49 and the bullet is as we can see.  So the

14     round originated from this bullet which was 7.9 by 57-millimetres.

15        Q.   And, sir, to try to see what other weapons you might have

16     excluded, according to the manufacturer's information, the M53 light

17     machine-gun also can fire this round, is that in accord with your

18     recollection?

19        A.   M53 is a full machine-gun.

20        Q.   [Previous translation continues] ... fire this same round?

21        A.   It can fire it, but the common general characteristics are not

22     the same, compared to rounds fired from an army rifle M48.

23             In my expert report, on page 65, I state - or we state - that the

24     disputed deformed and damaged round, M49 of 7.9 by 57-millimetre calibre

25     marked as 34B may originate from a bullet fired from an army rifle M48.

Page 36502

 1     So, it may be.  I am not asserting that it was the case.

 2        Q.   And does that mean that your report excludes the possibility that

 3     an M53 fired this questioned round?

 4        A.   Yes.

 5        Q.   Okay.  And what about an M84?  Does that also fire the same

 6     round, also a full machine-gun?

 7        A.   No.  It doesn't.  It can't, because M84 machine-gun is of

 8     7.62-millimetre calibre.

 9        Q.   Okay.  Now, getting back to the M48 Mauser-style rifle, would be

10     surprised to learn that the 8-millimetre Mauser round is considered to be

11     a round that's also used in sporting and hunting rifles?

12        A.   Yes, but it has to have a lead tip.  It has to be a soft point

13     bullet.

14        Q.   Okay.  And ... would you agree that at least since 1980 the

15     8-millimetre Mauser round that -- pardon me.  At least since 1980 hunting

16     rifles have been chambered to fire the 8-millimetre Mauser round?

17        A.   The calibre of hunting rifles is 8 by 57 millimetres, and this is

18     7.9.  According to what I know, it is dangerous to test fire these

19     bullets from hunting rifles whose calibre is 8 by 5.7 millimetres.  They

20     can be fired, but there is a danger.

21        Q.   In 1992, could the M48 be owned by civilians?

22        A.   I'm not sure, so I can't answer your question.

23        Q.   Fair enough.  If we could look at P2894 in e-court, and while we

24     wait for it, it should be a report of the Prijedor SJB dated

25     2 August 1992 and it reports on weapons confiscated from persons up until

Page 36503

 1     31 July 1992, and we see that seven M48 rifles were in the possession of

 2     the police confiscated from someone.  Would you agree with me that

 3     without further testing, we cannot exclude the possibility that your

 4     unknown M49 rounds originated from one of these seven M48 rifles?

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic, my question is whether this is in the

 6     realm of the -- of the expertise of this witness; and the second question

 7     is whether it's not -- it's -- doesn't it go without saying that if a

 8     bullet can be fired by a certain weapon and if that weapon may have

 9     been - and the witness refrained from any comment on that - in the hands

10     of civilians, that civilians then could have fired those bullets?  Just

11     on the very abstract level apart from all other matters to be considered,

12     who would have fired those weapons.

13             I never noticed also on the report that the witness considered it

14     to be within his expertise to say anything about the quality or the

15     qualification or the identity of persons firing those weapons and that he

16     limited himself - perhaps rightly so - to the analysis of the weapons and

17     the cartridges and the bullets.

18             MR. IVETIC:  Your Honours, if I may try to understand, my

19     question is based on the science that he employs and what other

20     scientists of his nature would employ that in fact to show it's not just

21     an army rifle, that other entities have that same rifle.  So there's no

22     misunderstanding when looking at the report because he calls it an army

23     rifle.  It is a rifle being used by the army or that agree

24     that [Overlapping speakers] ...

25             JUDGE ORIE:  [Overlapping speakers] ...

Page 36504

 1             MR. IVETIC:  [Overlapping speakers] ...

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  I think the witness has answered that by saying I

 3     have no -- I have no answer to your question whether it would have been

 4     in the hands of civilians, which already explains that what he calls an

 5     army rifle may not exclusively be in the hands of persons employed by the

 6     army that and's -- I think that's obvious, but I'm also looking at the

 7     Prosecution.

 8             If there's no dispute about that.

 9             MR. JEREMY:  No, there's no dispute about that, Your Honours, and

10     you know, page 11, line 18 and 19, the witness has clearly indicated that

11     he isn't in a position to say yes or no whether an M48 was owned by

12     civilians, to follow up further doesn't make sense.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  So if this witness certainly does not exclude that,

14     the Chamber of course will consider, if we're talking about weapons, who

15     may have fired those weapons.

16             Please proceed.

17             MR. IVETIC:  Thank you.  Then we can move on to ... number 32671

18     in e-court.

19        Q.   Sir, this is a document from the Prijedor police dated June 1992,

20     I believe 9 June, giving -- giving information on weapons that they have

21     available, and we see here two different variants of the M70 chambered at

22     7.62 round in total I think is approximately 966 such weapons.  Could

23     both variants of the M70 listed here fire the 7.62 by 39-millimetre

24     cartridge M67 round which was analysed by you in your report?

25        A.   M70/31 and M70/32, I'm not familiar with these two.

Page 36505

 1        Q.   Okay.

 2        A.   However, what's in dispute here are 12 rounds whose calibre was

 3     7.62 by 39 millimetres.  They could have been fired from this type of

 4     weapon which is mentioned in here.  So M70, as I've already stated.

 5        Q.   And to assist those that may not be familiar with the

 6     abbreviations as you and I.  The PAP 7.62 millimetre of which there are

 7     450 items in the inventory, is this in fact the M59/66 semi-automatic

 8     that we talked about in the previous days?

 9        A.   Yes, the abbreviation PAP stands for semi-automatic weapon or

10     rifle.

11        Q.   Okay.  And now I wish to return to your first report, P7434 MFI,

12     before we do, for the 7.62 by 39-millimetre round, would you also agree

13     with me that we have no way of knowing whose rifle or rifles fired the

14     rounds that you analysed?  We just know they came from a specific type of

15     rifle that was very widespread in its circulation.

16        A.   Yes.

17        Q.   Now, in your report -- oops, P7434, MFI, it will be page 18 in

18     the B/C/S in e-court, which means it will be the page marked 17 on the

19     bottom for you, sir, in the hard copy; and it will be page 26 in English.

20     And it will be in relation -- it will be at the top in B/C/S and the

21     second paragraph in English.  You identify a certain pistol ammunition

22     including this disputed and unfired round next to the body TOM-04-PRD

23     003.

24             Now, in your report, you state that this is a 7.65 by

25     17-millimetre round produced by Igman Konjic in 1983.  Now, with all due

Page 36506

 1     respect to you, sir, I believe you are wrong in your conclusion as it is

 2     written here.  Would you take a moment to consider and tell me if you

 3     agree with me.

 4        A.   I agree, it was a mistake.  The producer was Prvi Partizan from

 5     Uzice.

 6        Q.   Thank you.

 7        A.   Year of production, 1983.

 8        Q.   Thank you.  Now apart from that misidentification of the

 9     manufacturer, let's focus now on the round.  The 7.65 by 17-millimetre

10     round is identified in relation to three bullets you analysed for

11     TOM-04-PRD 260T.  That's at page 48 in the B/C/S, 74 in the English.  And

12     in both instances, you identified the known round as possibly coming from

13     a Zastava M70 pistol, and your findings are on page 106 in the English

14     and page 66 in the B/C/S.

15             And by my count, there's also one other disputed round of the

16     same type, 7.65 by 17 millimetres and that is in your second report,

17     P7435, MFI, in relation to TOM-04-PRD 383T and that's to be found in page

18     13 of both languages, photos 24 through 25 and, again, a Crvena Zastava

19     M70 semi-automatic pistol is identified as a possible source.

20             Now, with respect to all of these pistol rounds that you

21     analysed, I believe five in total, were they also analysed with respect

22     to known fired rounds from other pistols of the same calibre to exclude

23     them as a possible source?

24        A.   Yes, that's correct.

25        Q.   Would you agree that that analysis is not recorded in your

Page 36507

 1     written report?

 2        A.   I would.

 3        Q.   If we can turn to 1D05474 in e-court.

 4             And if we look at the photograph of what is referred to by

 5     Wikipedia as the .32 ACP is, in fact, the round we've been talking about

 6     the 7.65 by 17-millimetre pistol round commonly referred to see at .32

 7     automatic or .32 ACP.

 8             Is that the same bullet that we're talking about?

 9        A.   It is the same bullet but the manufacturer is different.

10     However, it's, in essence, one and the same bullet.

11        Q.   If we could turn to page 3 in e-court, we will see a listing of

12     prominent fire-arms chambered in .32 ACP and we see 18 models on this

13     page, starting with the Beretta M1935.  And if we turn to the next page,

14     I think we have another 26 fire-arms listed, the last of which is the

15     Zastava M70.

16             How many of these different models chambered to fire the same

17     bullet were analysed and excluded as being a possible source for the

18     rounds that you reviewed as part of your report?

19        A.   I can tell you which ones I examined, but before I do that, I

20     would like to say that we have established that the disputable bullet,

21     7.65 by 17, marked as 2, the deformed bullet and the casing, marked by

22     numbers 3 and 4, 04-PRD 260D [as interpreted] could originate from the

23     bullets fired from a semi-automatic pistol, M72, Crvena Zastava of

24     7.65-millimetre calibre.  I'm not claiming that they were indeed fired

25     from that pistol.

Page 36508

 1        Q.   [Previous translation continues] ... I understand.  That's why I

 2     said possibly can any of these other guns chambered to fire the same

 3     bullet possibly be the source of that bullet, according to your review?

 4        A.   Yes, it could be.  When it comes to bullets, it's very difficult

 5     to establish the brand, the model, and the type of the fire-arm, and

 6     especially if the fire-arm is a pistol.  It's very difficult to determine

 7     the brand, model, and type.

 8        Q.   Okay.  And so when you put in your report that it could have come

 9     from an M72 -- pardon me.  Did you say M72 or M70?

10        A.   M70.

11        Q.   Thank you.  I thought so but the transcript had M72.

12             When you say that in your report that it could have come from an

13     M70 to be entirely accurate it should have also said or several other

14     fire-arms of the same chambered calibre?

15        A.   No, the calibre would not have been the same.  The most important

16     thing is that they should have had common general characteristics and one

17     of those characteristics is calibre.  So that's what we have to say.  The

18     number of grooves, the number of lands, the breadth, the width of lands

19     and grooves, all that has to be taken into account as common general

20     characteristics.  What we have found were common general characteristics

21     which matched the bullets fired from an M70 Zastava pistol.

22        Q.   Now, earlier you said that you had looked at some of these other

23     types of fire-arms that fired that round.  Could you tell us which ones

24     you did analyse as part of your analysis and whether you excluded them as

25     potentially being the source of the fired round that -- fired rounds that

Page 36509

 1     you examined?

 2        A.   Not off the top of my head.

 3        Q.   Of those that you reviewed, did you, in fact, exclude or leave

 4     the possibility that they could have been fired from those pistols that

 5     you reviewed but which you do not remember which ones they were?

 6        A.   I excluded those.  To be more precise, we excluded them.

 7        Q.   Okay.  Now, the Crvena Zastava M70, if we could turn to 1D05475

 8     in e-court?

 9             MR. IVETIC:  And while we wait for that, I would ask to tender

10     the last one we looked at, 1D5474.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar.

12             THE REGISTRAR:  Document 1D5474 receives number D1087,

13     Your Honours.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Admitted into evidence.

15             Mr. Jeremy.

16             MR. JEREMY:  No objection to that one, but since we're at the

17     tendering phase, I wonder if, also, the previous document shown to the

18     witness and that he commented on, it would also make sense to tender

19     that, I think.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic.

21             MR. IVETIC:  That's fine.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar.

23             THE REGISTRAR:  Document 32671 receives number D1088,

24     Your Honours.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Admitted into evidence.

Page 36510

 1             MR. IVETIC:

 2        Q.   And if we look at the photograph of the fire-arm depicted here

 3     for those less familiar with them, sir, is this, in fact, the Yugoslav

 4     Zastava semi-automatic M70 pistol that we've been talking about.

 5        A.   Yes.

 6        Q.   Now, this source states for this pistol and I now quote at the

 7     bottom of the page in English:  "The M70 pistol was produced by

 8     Yugoslavian (now Serbian) arms factory Crvena Zastava as a side-arm for

 9     police and certain military officers."

10             Does that accord with your knowledge and research into this

11     pistol?

12        A.   Again, I would not volunteer an answer to this question because I

13     don't think that it is within the scope of my expertise and my testimony.

14        Q.   Okay.  Was the M70 pistol the official side-arm of several MUP

15     entities within the former Yugoslavia, most notably the Republic of

16     Croatia, both before and during the war in 1992?

17        A.   Again, I would not wish to answer that question.

18        Q.   Okay.  Do you happen to know if the M70 pistol was available for

19     sale to private citizens prior to 1992 in the former Yugoslavia?

20        A.   I think so.

21        Q.   Okay.

22             MR. IVETIC:  I would tender this document.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar.

24             THE REGISTRAR:  Document 1D5475 receives number D1089,

25     Your Honours.

Page 36511

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  And is admitted into evidence.

 2             Mr. Ivetic, it's --

 3             MR. IVETIC:  Oh, time for the break.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  10.30, time for a break.

 5             MR. IVETIC:  Okay.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Can you give us an indication as to how much time

 7     you would need.

 8             MR. IVETIC:  I think 15 minutes.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  15 minutes after the break.

10             Mr. Franjic, we'd like to see you back after the break, that is,

11     after 20 minutes.  You may now follow the usher.

12                           [The witness stands down]

13             JUDGE ORIE:  We resume at ten minutes to 11.00.

14                           --- Recess taken at 10.29 a.m.

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

16             JUDGE ORIE:  While we're waiting for the witness to be escorted

17     in the courtroom, Mr. Ivetic, I was wrong when I said earlier today that

18     it was the court reporter who said "question," because it was you

19     yourself, so therefore, I think it was on page 4, line 20, my comment was

20     wrong, and I should have thought about it before I made it.  Apologies

21     for that.

22             We then -- I then move to -- if there is, no, there's no

23     sufficient time.

24                           [The witness takes the stand]

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic, please proceed.

Page 36512

 1             MR. IVETIC:  Thank you.

 2        Q.   Sir, in your reports, you also talk about another pistol type of

 3     ammunition, the 7.62 by 25-millimetre round and in your conclusions you

 4     say that it is similar to a known bullet fired from a Crvena Zastava M57

 5     pistol.  In the first report, P7434 MFI, we see that at page 26 in the

 6     English, page 17 in the B/C/S, in relation to TOM-04-PRD 202T and photo

 7     number 68, and we also see it at page 31 in the B/C/S, 46 in the English,

 8     photos 110 to 112 in relation to TOM-04-PRD 420T and lastly also --

 9     strike that.  Also in regard to page 56 through 57 of the B/C/S, page 90

10     of the English, photos 194 through 195, in relation to TOM-04-PRD 158T

11     and then in the second report, P7435 MFI, there is one instance of the

12     same type of ammunition being the result of your analysis and that's at

13     page 43 of the B/C/S, 38 through 39 of the English in relation to photos

14     112 and 113 in relation to TOM-04-PRD 213T.

15             Now, in relation to all these 7.62 by 25-millimetre pistol

16     cartridges, would you agree with me that the common alternate name for

17     this cartridge is to call it the Tokarev cartridge?

18        A.   It is by 25, not by 23.

19        Q.   You are correct.  Is the 7.62 by 25-millimetre cartridge more

20     commonly known or referred to as the Tokarev cartridge?

21        A.   Yes, Tokarev.

22        Q.   Okay.  If we look at 1D5456, this is again from the Internet,

23     Wikipedia.  Does this appear to be the same type of cartridge, again,

24     with a different potential manufacturer as the one we've been talking

25     about the Tokarev 7.62 by 25-millimetre cartridge?

Page 36513

 1        A.   Yes, it is the same bullet.

 2        Q.   Okay.  Now --

 3        A.   If I may, instead of bullet, it should read cartridge.

 4             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's note:  Cartridge has thus far

 5     before used in a different context as opposed to bullet.

 6             MR. IVETIC:

 7        Q.   Okay.  If -- strike that.

 8             Would you agree with me that since this cartridge started to be

 9     produced in 1930 many different fire-arms have been chambered to fire

10     this type of cartridge, I would say at least dozens ranging from the

11     Czech CZ 52, the Nagant revolver, the Sterling MK 17, the PPS-43 and the

12     entire Russian TT family of pistols.  Would you agree with me?

13        A.   Yes.

14        Q.   Did you compare samples of known rounds fired from any other

15     Tokarev chambered guns to compare to your disputed samples to see if they

16     shared any common class characteristics?

17        A.   The general characteristics of rounds fired from the

18     Crvena Zastava M57 pistol have -- are also shared by rounds fired from a

19     TT-33 Tokarev pistol.  There are different licences issued to different

20     countries and manufacturers for the same.

21        Q.   Okay.

22        A.   In our finding, we state that they may originate from bullets

23     fired from a semi-automatic pistol of Crvena Zastava make, M57, but it

24     was not stated that they originate with any certainty from an M57 pistol.

25        Q.   Okay.  If we can take a brief look at D1088 in e-court.  It's one

Page 36514

 1     of the documents from the Prijedor police that we already looked at

 2     earlier today, and I believe it's the one dated in June of 1992 listing

 3     the inventory of weapons available to that police entity.

 4             MR. IVETIC:  If it helps, that would be number 32671 of the

 5     65 ter numbers.

 6        Q.   Under the first rubric of weapons, we see the second-to-last

 7     entry of some 120, 1.62 [sic] mm TT pistols.  Would you agree that this

 8     pistol is capable of firing the round the same round and have the same

 9     characteristics as the M57?  And -- and -- that's the first question.

10        A.   Yes, I agree.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic, not entirely clear now what the first

12     question was.

13             MR. IVETIC:  Okay.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Is it that these rounds can be fired by the weapon

15     you mentioned?  That's -- was the question.

16             MR. IVETIC:  Yes.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  You confirm that.

18             MR. IVETIC:

19        Q.   Second question in the --

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Is about the characteristics, isn't it?  Because you

21     started with that.  Would you then please phrase that question so that

22     the witness can answer it.

23             MR. IVETIC:  Okay.  Let me then rephrase the original question.

24             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  To avoid any misunderstanding, we should first

25     correct the transcript.  In page 22, line 24, it should read

Page 36515

 1     7.62-millimetre TT.

 2             MR. IVETIC:  I think to address both Your Honours' points, I'll

 3     just restate the question and hopefully get it right this time.

 4        Q.   In the document, sir, we see the second to last entry of 120

 5     items listed as 7.62 mm TT pistol.  Would you agree that this type of

 6     pistol is capable of firing the same round as the M57 pistol?

 7        A.   Yes, I agree.

 8        Q.   And would you agree that the -- the general characteristics of

 9     both the M57 and the TT pistol are identical, such that they cannot be

10     distinguished on a fired round?

11        A.   The TT is a jargon or a slang name for the M57 Crvena Zastava

12     pistol.  In this document, it is stated as follows, 7.62 mm TT pistol,

13     but it is unknown what the model is.

14        Q.   Okay.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  And leave the various models different marks on the

16     basis of their general characteristics?

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] They share the same general

18     characteristics.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

20             Please proceed.

21             MR. IVETIC:  Thank you.

22        Q.   Now, Mr. Franjic, am I correct that as a result of all of your

23     investigations and analysis, you are not able to positively match any of

24     the single ammunition artefacts you examined from Tomasica as having been

25     conclusively fired by a weapon from the inventory of the VRS army so as

Page 36516

 1     to exclude all other possibilities?

 2        A.   In our written report and expert opinion, there is no marking, be

 3     it on a cartridge, round, or parts of rounds, that we ascertained

 4     positively the type, model, and make of fire-arm.  We did not say

 5     positively this or that round originates from a bullet fired from the M48

 6     army rifle of 7.9-millimetre calibre.  Instead, we stated that it may

 7     have originated from such and such weapon, if I were to use an example.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Which then also, if I understand you well, does not

 9     exclude for the possibility that these rounds were fired by weapons which

10     are available to others than the VRS, be it police, be it civilians, be

11     it whomever?

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know what kind of weapon

13     was at the disposal of the VRS or the police.  I do not have a position

14     on that issue.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

16             MR. IVETIC:  Okay.

17        Q.   Sir, thank you for your patience and four your answers.  That

18     completes my cross-examination.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Ivetic.

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Jeremy, any further questions in re-examination.

22             MR. JEREMY:  Your Honours, I don't have any further

23     re-examination, there is one matter that I think we can deal with without

24     the witness but it's related to a document that Mr. Ivetic used in

25     cross-examination.

Page 36517

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, if we can deal with it without the witness,

 2     then I'll first ask my colleagues whether they have any questions.

 3             The Chamber has no further questions for you either, Mr. Franjic.

 4     This means that this concludes your testimony in this court.  I'd like to

 5     thank you very much for coming a long way for you to The Hague and for

 6     answering all the questions that were put to you by the parties, by the

 7     Bench, and I wish you a safe return home again.

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.

 9                           [The witness withdrew]

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Jeremy.

11             MR. JEREMY:  Thank you, Your Honours.

12             So during cross-examination of Mr. Franjic, Mr. Ivetic showed him

13     a document, P2894, and that was a message from the Prijedor SJB to the

14     Banja Luka CSB reporting on weapons confiscated and it was dated the

15     2nd of August, 1992.  Now that document refers to a request that we --

16     that requested that information and we have that request in our evidence

17     collection and we think for context it would be appropriate to show that

18     to Your Honours and to tender it, and I understand from Mr. Ivetic that

19     he agrees.

20             So if we could do that now, please, and --

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

22             MR. IVETIC:  That's correct, yeah.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  I've got no idea what it is but if you just show it

24     briefly on the screen so that we know what we are talking about.

25             MR. JEREMY:  So if we could see 65 ter 10850, please.

Page 36518

 1             And this is a -- it's a memorandum from the Prijedor SJB that

 2     essentially contains the content of the request that is responding --

 3     that is responded to in P2894, so we read that the Prijedor SJB on the

 4     1st of August received a dispatch number which is the same number

 5     referred to P2894 and that that contained the following.  And then if we

 6     look at the content of the request, we see a reference to the Banja Luka

 7     dispatch number 11 May 1992 and we see the reference to a request for

 8     information regarding information on weapons, et cetera, confiscated from

 9     individuals since the beginning of the forced disarmament action

10     concluded on 31st of July, 1992.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar, would you please assign a number.

12             THE REGISTRAR:  Document --

13             JUDGE ORIE:  It should be a D number or a P number?

14             MR. IVETIC:  It doesn't matter.  The document I used already had

15     a P number so we can even add it to that existing exhibit.  It is up to

16     Your Honours basically.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  You would say that you would even consider to add

18     that to the existing exhibit but that's a bit of a problem, I think, we

19     shouldn't do it because then it's unclear what we saw at the time.  But I

20     think give it a P number.

21             And the P number would be, Madam Registrar?

22             THE REGISTRAR:  Document 10850 receives number P7439,

23     Your Honours.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  P7439 is admitted into evidence.

25             MR. JEREMY:  Thank you, Your Honour.

Page 36519

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Before we ask the usher to escort the next witness

 2     into the courtroom, it came to my mind several times during

 3     cross-examination that Mr. Ivetic was asking questions which was -- which

 4     I would have thought I had read the answer already in the report.  Has

 5     there been -- and there was no re-examination which apparently means

 6     there was nothing to question about the questions that were put to the

 7     witness in cross-examination.  Has it been endeavoured to find agreement

 8     on most of what was said or said again in cross-examination, especially

 9     many questions about what the witness could not tell us, was there any

10     disagreement about that, that is what came to my mind many, many times

11     during cross-examination.

12             Mr. Ivetic, have you tried to find agreement on what --

13     especially what the report does not establish.

14             MR. IVETIC:  Well, Your Honours, there's been -- we were always

15     available to discuss with the Prosecution issues of that nature.  With

16     the time-period that we had to do the work, try to seek experts of our

17     own, and prepare for the examination, we really didn't have time to sit

18     with the Prosecution in detail to go over these.  I would also posit that

19     even if some of these items are in agreement given the high publicity of

20     the reopening and Tomasica and the fact that this evidence was considered

21     to be crucial to the Prosecution case, it is necessary for the public and

22     proceeds to highlight and stress what the actual findings are and to see

23     what they mean actually.  So that it's very clear what the value of this

24     evidence presented by the Prosecution actually is for purposes of

25     assessing criminal responsibility.

Page 36520

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Now, if that's done in cross-examination, one

 2     could consider that if the parties even agree on it that it would become

 3     even more forceful that that exactly the limited scope of what the

 4     witness could tell us.

 5             I leave it to that, but I would like to encourage the parties

 6     again and again to see whether, instead of spending a lot of time on

 7     certain issues which seems not to be very much in dispute in court,

 8     rather, to settle those matters and use court time more efficiently.

 9             Is the Prosecution ready to call its next witness?

10             MR. JEREMY:  Yes, Your Honour.  That's Ms. Karahasanovic.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, could the witness be escorted in the courtroom.

12     And perhaps meanwhile I'll deal briefly with a matter which is a

13     remaining issue from the testimony of Janko Kecman.

14             On the 11th of May of this year, the witness testified and P7376

15     was marked for identification pending a revised English translation.

16     That's found at transcript pages 35340 to -42.  On the 9th of June, the

17     Prosecution informed the Chamber via an e-mail that a revised translation

18     had been uploaded into e-court under document number ID 0201-1673-ET, and

19     the Chamber hereby instructs the Registry to replace the English

20     translation of P7376 with the new translation and admits P7376 into

21     evidence.

22                           [Trial Chamber confers]

23             JUDGE ORIE:  When I read the transcript reference, I may have

24     misread.  It was -- it's -- well, it's not fully -- it's 35340 to 35342.

25     As always, if there's any further dispute about the accuracy of the new

Page 36521

 1     translation, the Defence has an opportunity to address the matter within

 2     the next 48 hours.

 3                           [The witness entered court]

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Good morning, madam.

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  May I take it that your name is Ms. Karahasanovic?

 7     I'd like to invite you to make a solemn declaration of which the text is

 8     now handed out to you by the usher.

 9             Mr. Usher.

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will

11     speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

12                           WITNESS:  ELMIRA KARAHASANOVIC

13                           [Witness answered through interpreter]

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.  Please be seated.

15             Ms. Karahasanovic, you'll first be examined by Mr. Jeremy.  You

16     find Mr. Jeremy to your right.  Mr. Jeremy is counsel for the

17     Prosecution.

18             Mr. Jeremy, please proceed.

19             MR. JEREMY:  Thank you, Your Honours.

20                           Examination by Mr. Jeremy:

21        Q.   And good morning, Ms. Karahasanovic.

22        A.   Good morning.

23        Q.   I'll start by asking you to state your full name for the record,

24     please.

25        A.   My name is Elmira Karahasanovic.

Page 36522

 1        Q.   Thank you.  And what is your current professional position?

 2        A.   I am currently assigned to work as the head of section for

 3     biological expertise in the federal police administration.

 4        Q.   And that's the federal police administration of which country?

 5        A.   The federal police administration of my own country, Bosnia and

 6     Herzegovina.

 7        Q.   Thank you.  Now, do you recall previously providing a copy of

 8     your CV to the Office of the Prosecutor?

 9        A.   Yes.

10             MR. JEREMY:  Could we please see 65 ter 31102 on our screens.

11        Q.   Ms. Karahasanovic, on the left side of the screen before you, do

12     you recognise this document as the CV that you provided to the Office of

13     the Prosecutor?

14        A.   Yes.

15        Q.   And does this provide details about your education, professional

16     training, and professional expertise?

17        A.   Yes.

18             MR. JEREMY:  Your Honours, I tender 65 ter 31102 as the next

19     Prosecution exhibit.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar.

21             THE REGISTRAR:  Document 31102 receives number P7440,

22     Your Honours.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Admitted into evidence.

24             For the Defence since I see no lectern so I don't know --

25             MR. IVETIC:  Me again, Your Honours.  We have no objection.

Page 36523

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

 2             MR. JEREMY:  Thank you, Your Honours.

 3        Q.   Ms. Karahasanovic, did you at the request of the prosecutor's

 4     office of Bosnia and Herzegovina prepare a forensic report dated the

 5     29th of April, 2014 relating to certain artefacts that were found in the

 6     Tomasica grave?

 7        A.   Yes.

 8             MR. JEREMY:  Could we please see 65 ter 31095 on our screens.

 9             And just while that's coming up, we also have a clean copy,

10     unmarked copy of the report and the accompanying photo documentation

11     which, with the leave of the Chamber and Mr. Ivetic's consent, I'd ask

12     the kind assistance of the usher to provide to the witness.

13             MR. IVETIC:  No problem.  And it can go straight to the witness.

14     I do not need to check it.

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

16             MR. JEREMY:  Thank you.

17        Q.   And, Ms. Karahasanovic, just looking on the screen -- on the left

18     side of the screen, do you recognise this page as the cover page of the

19     report that you -- that you just referred to?

20        A.   Yes, it's an accompanying document which was issued by the

21     federal police administration.  It was signed by its director,

22     Mr. Dragan Lukac.

23        Q.   And we have the English now.  If we could go do page 2 please in

24     each document, each language.

25             Now, Ms. Karahasanovic, on the screen before us, we see -- we see

Page 36524

 1     a letter, it's dated -- or a document dated 29th of April 2014 and we see

 2     a reference to subject, and a reference to biological, chemical and

 3     dactyloscopic forensic analyses.  Now does your expertise relate to all

 4     of these particular areas of forensic analysis or just to one particular

 5     area?

 6        A.   Only some of them, and those are biological forensic analysis.

 7        Q.   Thank you.  And below this heading, we see a reference to an

 8     order of the prosecutor's office of Bosnia-Herzegovina of the 17th of

 9     March, 2014.  Was the analysis in this report carried out pursuant to

10     this particular order?

11        A.   Yes.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Jeremy, could I ask some clarification.

13             You said your expertise is in the field of the biological traces.

14     Now, in the heading of this report, we find three categories.  That's

15     biological, chemical and dactyloscopic forensic analyses.  I saw in your

16     report that there is some dactyloscopy as well.  Do you consider that to

17     be part of the biological aspect, or a separate one?  And could you

18     clarify whether you have any specific expertise in the field of

19     dactyloscopy.

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I'm not authorised to do that.

21     I'm authorised to analyse biological traces.  That's all.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

23             Please proceed.

24             MR. JEREMY:  Thank you, Your Honours.

25        Q.   Now, Ms. Karahasanovic, below the reference to the prosecutor's

Page 36525

 1     order that we just referred to, we see a list of items and if we can also

 2     go to the next page, please, in each language.  Now within this list of

 3     items, we see a reference to gloves and on the second page here we see

 4     towards the bottom we see a reference to two gas masks and also a

 5     reference to two fire extinguishers and all of these items referred to

 6     were found in the grave during the exhumation.  Now, did you personally

 7     recover these items from Tomasica mass grave or were they provided to

 8     you?

 9        A.   No, I did not participate in the location of the material.  We

10     received the material from the prosecutor's office of Bosnia and

11     Herzegovina for further analysis.  The analysis of biological, chemical,

12     toxicological and dactyloscopic traces.

13        Q.   And the information about where the items were found, was that

14     information also provided to you by the office of the prosecutor of B and

15     H?

16        A.   No, only what is listed in the order of the prosecutor's office.

17     You have a copy of that.

18        Q.   So this information that we see here in the report that, for

19     example, a particular glove was found in the grave, was that information

20     about where the glove was found, was that conveyed to you by the BiH

21     office of the prosecutor?

22        A.   Yes, that was an integral part of their order.

23             MR. JEREMY:  Could we please go to page 4 in each document --

24     each language.

25        Q.   So, Ms. Karahasanovic, we see towards the top of the page a

Page 36526

 1     reference to what the forensic tests required to establish and we see,

 2     for example, the request that DNA traces are to be on the gloves received

 3     to be analysed, paying special attention to the analysis of the inner

 4     part of the glove.  Now, below that, we see a reference to findings and

 5     we see the subheading:  Biological and DNA forensic analyses.

 6             Now, is this particular part of the report analysis that you,

 7     yourself, personally conducted?

 8        A.   Yes.

 9        Q.   And in this section, we see reference to a number of photographs.

10     Are these photographs contained in the photo booklet that accompanies

11     your report?

12        A.   Yes, yes.

13        Q.   And we'll look at that shortly.  And if we could skip ahead,

14     please, to page 19 in the English and 18 in the B/C/S.

15             And, Ms. Karahasanovic, this is the opinion section of the

16     report.  We see the heading:  Opinion.  And we see the subheading:

17     Biological and DNA forensic report.  Does this particular part of the

18     report reflect your own personal opinion?

19        A.   Yes.

20        Q.   And if we could go do the last page, please, of the report in

21     each language.  Now, Ms. Karahasanovic, here we see a reference to

22     forensic analysis by and we see your name and a signature.  The two names

23     below that, were those the other two persons who completed the additional

24     analysis contained within this report?

25        A.   Yes.  From a colleague, the expert in dactyloscopy and the expert

Page 36527

 1     in chemical analysis, on the right-hand side, are the persons who

 2     controlled the analysis.  The person who was in charge of dactyloscopy is

 3     Muamer Kavazovic and Mrs. Iva Trezner was in charge of chemical analysis.

 4     At the bottom is signature of the head of the centre who is our chief

 5     officer and there is Mr. --

 6             THE INTERPRETER:  And the interpreter didn't hear the name.

 7             MR. JEREMY:

 8        Q.   Ms. Karahasanovic, can you repeat the final name that you

 9     mentioned, please.

10        A.   The chief of centre for the IT of federal police administration

11     of -- of Bosnia-Herzegovina, Mr. Sead Selman.

12        Q.   And was there a single person who was responsible for project

13     management for compiling this particular report?

14        A.   Yes, it was a complex project which required the expertise of

15     experts of different knowledge.  I was in charge of the whole project.  I

16     organised the entire project.  We had to start working together.  We had

17     to find the traces which would be processed in various laboratories,

18     depending on their importance and type.

19        Q.   Thank you.

20             MR. JEREMY:  Your Honours, I'd ask for the report to be marked

21     for identification at this point pending completion of the

22     cross-examination.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar.

24             THE REGISTRAR:  Document 31095 receives number P7441,

25     Your Honours.

Page 36528

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Is marked for identification.

 2             MR. JEREMY:

 3        Q.   Now, Ms. Karahasanovic, you mentioned that there was an

 4     accompanying booklet of photo documentation in respect to this report and

 5     I'd like to take a look at that now.

 6             Could we please see 65 ter 31096.

 7             And as that's coming up, Ms. Karahasanovic, was there a

 8     particular person who requested that this booklet of photo documentation

 9     be prepared?

10        A.   I wanted my findings to be accompanied by photos to illustrate

11     the material that was submitted for analysis, the way how it was

12     transported, i.e. how it was packaged, and what traces we used for

13     biological, i.e., DNA analysis.

14        Q.   And we now have that document on the screen before us.  Do you

15     recognise what you see on the screen before you as the book of photo

16     documentation that you commissioned?

17        A.   I requested a booklet of photos to be prepared.  I could not give

18     any orders.  I had to address the chief of centre, and he was the one who

19     initiated the procedure from the moment the material was received,

20     inspected, and selected for analysis, and all that is illustrated by the

21     photos that you can see on the screen.

22        Q.   Thank you.  And let's just take a quick look at one example from

23     this booklet.

24             Could we please go to page 91.  I think we can take the English

25     document off the screen, please.

Page 36529

 1             Ms. Karahasanovic, just very briefly, can you tell us what we are

 2     looking at on this page.

 3        A.   What we are looking at is some of the material that was submitted

 4     for analysis.  The marking is 60B and represents parts of a gas mask.

 5     Both these photos depict parts of a gas mask.

 6        Q.   And did -- the details of the analysis of these particular parts

 7     of the gas mask are contained in your report; is that correct?

 8        A.   Yes, and I believe that one of the following photos depicts the

 9     places from which swabs were taken for further DNA analysis.

10             MR. JEREMY:  Your Honours, at this point I'd ask that the report

11     to be marked for identification pending completion of cross-examination.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar.

13             THE REGISTRAR:  Document 31096 receives number P7442,

14     Your Honours.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Is marked for identification.

16             MR. JEREMY:  And I've no further questions in direct examination.

17     Thank you.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Jeremy.

19             Ms. Karahasanovic, you'll now be cross-examined by Mr. Ivetic.

20     You find Mr. Ivetic standing to your left.  Mr. Ivetic is a member of the

21     Defence team of Mr. Mladic.

22                           Cross-examination by Mr. Ivetic:

23        Q.   Good day, madam.

24        A.   Good day.

25        Q.   I would like to, first of all, return to P7440 that has been

Page 36530

 1     admitted.  That is a copy of your curriculum vitae.

 2             And while we wait for the English I think I can ask the question

 3     I want to ask about your biology degree that you obtained.  Did your

 4     education or course work for your biology degree include any work in

 5     forensic biology?

 6        A.   No.

 7        Q.   Okay.  And if we can turn to page 3 in the English and page 2 in

 8     the B/C/S, under training courses, it is listed you attended all the

 9     courses from the field of forensics and specialist courses from the field

10     of forensic biology.

11             If I could first ask you:  How many such courses on forensics did

12     you attend?

13        A.   At least 10 or 15 courses.  As many as I could afford, i.e., as

14     many as were paid by my institution.

15        Q.   And these courses that you attended, who were the persons or

16     entities that presented these courses?

17        A.   Some of the courses took place along time ago, so I can't

18     remember.  And as for the others, the most relevant ones took place in

19     the police centre in Zagreb called Ivan Vucetic.  One part of the course

20     on using database or CODIS took place in Washington.  I don't remember

21     the lectures as well as I do the stuff that I learned at those courses.

22        Q.   Fair enough.  Now I'd like to ask you about the other part of

23     that, the specialist courses in the field of forensic biology.  How many

24     of those type of courses did you attend?

25        A.   Forensic biology.  The course lasted six months, if you're only

Page 36531

 1     interested in DNA analysis.  And there was another course over seven days

 2     in Washington, where the topic was using databases.  And there was one in

 3     Madrid where I spent seven days at the local police centre.  We had the

 4     opportunity to look at how the material was processed from the moment the

 5     traces are selected to the final stage which is electropherogram and the

 6     verification or, rather, matching those against their database.

 7        Q.   Have you authored any journal articles on the topics of forensic

 8     biology and specifically DNA analysis, forensic DNA analysis?

 9        A.   Yes, within the INGEB seminar which was organised by the

10     Institute for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology in Sarajevo a few

11     years ago.  I participated together with my colleagues in the drafting of

12     two papers.  I also participated in the publication of an article in

13     forensic literature which is published in my country.

14        Q.   Okay.  Now I note from your CV your membership in the

15     International Association of Criminalists.  Was any type of exam or

16     verification process required for such membership?

17        A.   No.  What is required is to pass an exam to become a forensic

18     expert and that is registered in Brcko district.  Besides taking that

19     exam, you also need recommendation by your own institution which, in my

20     case, was the federal police administration, as well as the prosecutor's

21     offices of cantonal courts or the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the

22     office of the prosecutor of Bosnia and Herzegovina.  Chose to

23     recommendations are mandatory.

24        Q.   You are a member of the International Association of

25     Identification?

Page 36532

 1        A.   No.

 2             MR. IVETIC:  And Your Honours, Mr. Jeremy and I are close to a

 3     stipulation as to the IAE that was an instruction that you had made last

 4     week.  And I can tell you that we will have that by the end of this

 5     session as Mr. Jeremy has sent me a proposal which I agree with, so we

 6     have the information Your Honour requested as to that organisation for

 7     Your Honours' review.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  We're looking forward to it.

 9             MR. IVETIC:  And I think we're at the time for the break.  Is

10     that ...

11             JUDGE ORIE:  We're at the time of the break.

12             Witness, we'll take a break of 20 minutes.  And you may now

13     follow the usher and we'd like to see you back at ten minutes past 12.00.

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.

15                           [The witness stands down]

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Jeremy, did you by any chance forget to tender

17     the expert report of the last witness?

18             MR. JEREMY:  I did, Your Honour, together with the addendum to

19     the expert report.  P7434 and P7435 and I --

20             JUDGE ORIE:  I think I did read your mind.

21             MR. JEREMY:  Thank you.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Any objections against the expert report?  There are

23     two, Mr. Ivetic.

24             MR. IVETIC:  Yes, Your Honour.  We would object based upon

25     matters arising in cross-examination mainly there are no picture

Page 36533

 1     comparisons of the matching that was performed so that the expert report

 2     does not meet the standards that would be expected for that type of

 3     analysis to permit someone to view the same and to comment upon the same

 4     from the same -- with the same level of experience.

 5                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  And that is true for both reports, then, I take it?

 7             MR. IVETIC:  Yes.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  The Chamber will consider your objection, and we'll

 9     decide in due course.

10             We take a break, and resume at ten minutes past 12.00.

11                           --- Recess taken at 11.52 a.m.

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

13             JUDGE ORIE:  While we are waiting for the witness to be escorted

14     in the courtroom, the two reports by Mr. Franjic are tendered into the

15     evidence.  The objections from the Defence are denied.  First, no

16     rule exists that everything should be photographed.  Second, the material

17     is still in existence, and therefore it's not unfair to admit the report

18     into evidence.

19             Yes, and the numbers are P7434 and P7435.  These two reports are

20     admitted into evidence.

21             Mr. Jeremy, the photo documentation, the English version is

22     rather short in e-court.  It's two pages.  Just saying that there are a

23     lot of photographs.  However, the B/C/S version, which is the original,

24     my computer tells me that in e-court the RIV, which has got something

25     with how to produce images, is not capable of showing it to me on my

Page 36534

 1     computer.  I don't know whether there's any resolution for that.

 2             MR. JEREMY:  So your unable to see the original version on your

 3     computer.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  If I intend -- it says access violation address

 5     so-and-so and error image -- well, at least it gives an error message.

 6                           [The witness takes the stand]

 7             MR. JEREMY:  We'll look into that and in terms of the translation

 8     I think there are two substantive pages of text in the report --

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  [Overlapping speakers] ... I see that but, of

10     course, it doesn't give us access to the images.

11             MR. JEREMY:  Understood.  We'll look into that.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic, you may proceed.

13             MR. IVETIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

14        Q.   Ma'am, I now to wish to briefly discuss your employment.  If we

15     move to page 1 of the CV.  I think we can go through this rather quickly.

16             Now in the time-period prior to becoming head of the section for

17     biological expert analyses, that is to say from 1992 onwards, would it be

18     accurate to say that your work at the federal MUP still dealt primarily

19     with biological traces of evidence, and others did the forensic or

20     criminalistic work as to finger-prints?

21        A.   I have one correction to make.  I am not the head of department.

22     I am at a lower rank.  I am chief of department for biological analysis.

23     Ever since I began working for the federal police administration I have

24     been working only on biological traces analysis.  It excludes

25     finger-printing, analysis or any other sort of analysis.

Page 36535

 1        Q.   After you became chief of the department -- biology section of

 2     the forensics department of the federal MUP, did you continue to do

 3     testing and analysis yourself on investigations in addition to your

 4     administrative role as chief?

 5        A.   Yes, and that is my favourite part of the job.

 6        Q.   Thank you.  Now I wish to move to the investigation and analysis

 7     of the artefacts recovered from Tomasica.  First of all, at the time that

 8     your department received the artefacts in question, and now I'm not just

 9     referring to the subject matter of the report that Mr. Jeremy went

10     through with you, I'm also talking about the spent cartridges and bullets

11     that your office also analysed.  At the time you received these

12     artefacts, did you know that this analysis was potentially going to be

13     used as evidence in the trial against Ratko Mladic here at the Tribunal?

14        A.   No, absolutely not.

15        Q.   Now, Mr. Franjic testified that the spent bullets and cartridges

16     and that was at transcript page 36400 first went for DNA and finger-print

17     analysis before coming to him and then at transcript page 36401 to 36402,

18     he said that he did know that this was going to be used --

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic.

20             MR. IVETIC:  Yes.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Mladic should not speak at audible volume at

22     this moment or did till a second ago.  Please proceed.

23             MR. IVETIC:  To be fair, I think I'll start from the beginning

24     again.

25        Q.   Madam, Mr. Franjic testified at transcript page 36400 and the

Page 36536

 1     spent bullet rounds and cartridges received from Tomasica first went for

 2     DNA and finger-print analysis before coming to him for his analysis.  And

 3     then at transcript page 36401 to 36402 he testified that he did know that

 4     this investigation and analysis was potentially going to be used in the

 5     Mladic proceedings before the Tribunal.  How do you account for the fact

 6     that Mr. Franjic knew that it was being used for the Mladic case but you

 7     did not know it was being used for the Mladic case?

 8        A.   I have no idea what Mr. Franjic said.  What I do know is what I

 9     already said.  I didn't know because there wasn't a single sentence in

10     the order we received from the prosecutor's office of Bosnia-Herzegovina

11     that would imply that the material would be used in the trial for which

12     we are here today.  The prosecutor's office order was defined in such a

13     way that it referred to unidentified suspects.

14        Q.   Okay.  In relation to the investigation of these artefacts that

15     you did that are the subject of the report that was tendered today, was

16     there any instruction or deadline to produce quick results from the

17     analysis of the evidence?

18        A.   In the prosecution order, it was defined that the expert analysis

19     needs to be performed within 45 days.  I think - and it is my opinion -

20     that we may have used a longer period of time and that that the deadline

21     could have been prolonged, but this is what was defined in the order.

22        Q.   How did that deadline compare as to the deadlines you would

23     normally expect to receive in a case with that many artefacts to be

24     analysed?

25        A.   I think it was an objective deadline.  However, deadlines are not

Page 36537

 1     something that cannot be changed, if we put forth a request saying that

 2     we need more time to carry out analysis and provide opinion.

 3        Q.   Were the methods and methodology employed by the forensics

 4     department in this case conducted pursuant to any written protocol or

 5     procedure?

 6        A.   Yes.

 7        Q.   Are you in a position or would -- strike that.

 8             Would you mind providing a copy of that written protocol to the

 9     Court and to the Defence?

10        A.   Unfortunately, I don't have it with me.

11        Q.   I understand that.  When you go back to the federal MUP and when

12     you're in a position to have access to the written protocol, would you

13     mind, at that point in time, providing that document to the Court for use

14     of everyone involved?

15        A.   Of course, we can do that because there are procedures to be

16     followed when receiving and treating any material for expert analysis.

17        Q.   Thank you for that.  Now, as we already mentioned Mr. Franjic, at

18     transcript page 36400, he also indicated that the bags and boxes

19     containing the bullets and cartridges that he reviewed had been processed

20     for DNA and finger-print prior to him receiving them, such that they were

21     received unsealed; the seals had been broken.  Do you know who in your

22     department would have unsealed the bags and boxes containing spent

23     bullets and cartridges?

24        A.   As for the case, Mr. Bruno Franjic was working in, he was the

25     principal in that case.  He was the bearer of the case, and it was done

Page 36538

 1     separately from the case we have discussed a moment ago.  In other words,

 2     nothing was done without his knowledge.  It is standard procedure that

 3     any rounds and cartridges for ballistic analysis first need to be treated

 4     for finger-prints and taking of swabs for DNA analysis after which they

 5     are sent for ballistic analysis.

 6        Q.   Okay.  Well, Mr. Franjic didn't know who unsealed the materials

 7     in question.  Does that surprise you, given what you've just said about

 8     his role in that other investigation?

 9        A.   Mr. Franjic was under an obligation to know who was the person

10     unsealing evidence because he was the principal in the case.  I was only

11     responsibility for the case that I acted as principal in.

12        Q.   Would you agree with me that pursuant to the protocols or

13     procedure in place in the forensic department of the federal MUP there

14     should be a written record kept of the date and identity of persons who

15     take possession of sealed evidence bags and who unseal them?

16        A.   Such a log must exist in the laboratory or the centre we work at.

17        Q.   Now I want to shift focus to the containers typically it was bags

18     paper bags, I believe, which were the containers where the gloves, the

19     fire extinguisher, and the gas masks were preserved.  Was it you or

20     colleagues of yours on the team that took possession of those items and

21     unsealed the seals existing on those items prior to doing the analysis?

22        A.   Yes.  It is precisely what is depicted in the photographs

23     attached to the report where I acted as principal.

24             Please define something for me.  When you say "the sealing of

25     containers and paper bags," what do you understand by that?

Page 36539

 1        Q.   Well, let me ask you when you receive the bags did they have some

 2     kind of seal that was dated and signed, sealing the contents in the bags

 3     that were used to collect and hold the artefacts.

 4        A.   That is why I asked you to repeat.  The complete forensic

 5     material as per procedure needs to be forwarded so that it is sealed and

 6     marked.

 7        Q.   Okay.  So we're on the same page.  Okay.  Great.

 8             Now ... if we could look very briefly at P7441, MFI, and that is

 9     the textual part of the report that you just went through with

10     Mr. Jeremy, and if we can look at page 22 in the English, page 21 in the

11     e-court B/C/S, and you've already identified for us that you were the

12     principal, the person in charge of generating this report and that you

13     were in charge of organising the investigation but that you, yourself,

14     did just the biological analysis.

15             The question I have is in relation to the work of the other two

16     individuals that are listed here.  Did you have a role in overseeing,

17     verifying or controlling the work that was done in relation to the

18     finger-print or chemical analysis of your colleagues?

19        A.   No, I was not competent to act in that capacity.  At the

20     beginning of my presentation, I said that in the right-hand side corner

21     are the names of people who controlled the work of dactyloscopy analysis

22     and chemical and toxicological analysis.  In terms of dactyloscopy, the

23     person in charge it was Muamer Kavazovic.  As for the chemical analysis,

24     it was Ms. Eva Trezner.

25             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's correction:  Iva Trezner.

Page 36540

 1             MR. IVETIC:

 2        Q.   And, being the person in charge, or principal, did you have the

 3     ability to select the members of the team that would be doing this

 4     analysis or did somebody else make that selection for this particular

 5     investigation?

 6        A.   The people from the department were involved in it, in other

 7     words, myself and my colleague, both experts certified for DNA analysis.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  You may have missed the gist of the question which

 9     was whether it was you who said which experts should do the dactyloscopy

10     and chemical part or whether it was someone else who said it should be

11     Mr. A or Ms. B to do that.

12             THE WITNESS:  I do not have the right to appoint any experts.

13     The head of department assigns the case to the respective units and the

14     heads of units choose the experts who will take part in the expert

15     analysis work.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Mr. Ivetic.

17             MR. IVETIC:  Okay.

18        Q.   Now in relation to the Hatidza Muratovic, we see that they're

19     listed as a monodactyloscopy specialist which, according to my

20     understanding, it relates to the analysis of single finger-prints.  Do

21     you know if this individual acquired their specialist skill during law

22     school during their studies, or do they have any other relevant degree

23     that is not listed here?

24        A.   I don't think I'm competent to provide an answer to that question

25     because I am not senior to Ms. Hatidza Muratovic or to any other expert

Page 36541

 1     working for another department.  Our head is in charge of that.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Witness, you were asked about any knowledge you may

 3     have.  It has got nothing do with whether you are senior or not.  You may

 4     know, you may not know.  If you know, please tell us; if you don't,

 5     please tell us as well.

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As far as I know, all of my

 7     colleagues are sufficiently expert to work on the parts of analysis

 8     entrusted to them.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  But the question was - and then especially in

10     relation to Hatidza Muratovic - whether she acquires her specialist skill

11     when being educated at law school, if you know that, whether she already

12     developed her skills then?

13             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't think so.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  You don't think that she did or you don't think that

15     you know?

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] While studying, I don't think she

17     could have acquired any knowledge in terms of forensic analysis.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

19             Next question, please, Mr. Ivetic.

20             MR. IVETIC:  One more question as to Ms. Muratovic.

21        Q.   Do you know how long this colleague has been performing

22     finger-print analysis within the same department of the MUP as you?

23        A.   Between 15 and 18 years, but I'm not sure.

24        Q.   Okay.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Before we continue, Mr. Jeremy, is the Prosecution

Page 36542

 1     going to rely on that part of the expert report for which the responsible

 2     expert is not called as an expert?

 3             MR. JEREMY:  Your Honours, I think it's precedence in this case

 4     that we have reports tendered into evidence where the underlying experts

 5     are not always present within the courtroom so, for example, Dean

 6     Manning's provided a report that referred to the expert analysis of

 7     experts we didn't, in fact, call.  That's P1735.  So we feel that these

 8     parts of the report should be included in the overall report that is

 9     tendered but it's essentially a question of weight that the Chamber will

10     eventually decide to attribute to that part of the report given that the

11     expert themselves, specific experts, not being called.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, you say that it's your view that it's a matter

13     of weight.

14             MR. JEREMY:  Yes.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  No, I do understand the Prosecution's position.

16             Please proceed, Mr. Ivetic.

17             MR. IVETIC:  Thank you.

18        Q.   Now, in relation to the results of Ms. Muratovic's work, how did

19     you -- did you receive them and incorporate them into the final report or

20     did she assist in drafting the final report?  How did this document that

21     we have now in evidence originate, drawing together the conclusions of

22     three different experts?

23        A.   Each of these experts wrote their own separate reports.  My role

24     was to unify or collate their parts and mine into a joint report.

25        Q.   Do the original separate reports drafted by each of the other two

Page 36543

 1     experts still exist somewhere within the federal MUP in Sarajevo?

 2        A.   Yes.

 3        Q.   Would you be in a position - again, when you go back to

 4     Sarajevo - to obtain the same and to produce them to the Court for review

 5     by the parties?

 6        A.   Of course.

 7        Q.   Thank you.  Now I want to look at page 13 in the B/C/S and it

 8     also happens to be page 13 in the English, and I want to focus on the

 9     part that begins DNA analysis, which I believe you and I will agree is

10     the part that you know the most about, because you did the work; is that

11     correct?

12        A.   Yes.

13        Q.   Did you perform all of the work alone as to the DNA analysis or

14     did someone else assist you in any aspect of the work?

15        A.   The rules of my department state that we all take part and there

16     are very few of us there, there are only an additional three experts to

17     me.  We all take part in the individual stages of DNA analysis.  In other

18     words, we are all included.

19        Q.   When you say "we are all included," is one of those persons the

20     person who signed as controlling the work on the last page of the report

21     that we just looked at?

22        A.   Yes, yes.

23        Q.   And when you say "controlling the work," could you be a little

24     more specific about what that means?  How do they exercise that oversight

25     while the work is being performed?

Page 36544

 1        A.   We are all privy to each stage of the work in terms of applying

 2     the procedures and protocols required of certain stages.  The results are

 3     checked, and at the end of the process, all of the material is put

 4     together and discussed jointly.

 5             Let me just add that when reviewing the material, we were all

 6     included, all of us from the department, meaning myself, the three

 7     experts, and our colleague, a lady technician.

 8        Q.   Okay.  And I'd like to now look with you at 1D5860.

 9             While we wait for the same I can introduce it as being an article

10     from "Forensic On the Scene" an in-the-lab magazine from April 12, 2013

11     entitled:  Touch DNA:  From the crime scene to the crime laboratory.

12             And, first of all, I want to ask you if you're familiar with this

13     journal?

14        A.   No, I'm not.

15        Q.   If we can turn to page 4, I'd like to focus on the bullet points

16     which I will read to you and then ask some questions about.

17             And the bullet points are introduced as follows it says:

18             "In addition to lab coats and masks, how is contamination

19     detected, controlled and monitored?  Some examples which may be employed

20     are," and the first bullet point is:  "Access to the laboratory shall be

21     controlled and limited to prevent access by unauthorised personnel?"

22             Let me do it this way.  In relation to this first bullet point,

23     did your department follow this example to limit contamination of the

24     biological material being examined?

25        A.   The number one rule in my job is to make sure to prevent any

Page 36545

 1     contamination, either from a person to an object or vice versa or among

 2     the traces themselves.  So it doesn't matter what kind of contamination

 3     we're talking about.  To that purpose we use protective clothing and all

 4     the other things that we need to apply when we start working with the

 5     forensic material.

 6        Q.   I understand and I thank you for that answer, but this says "in

 7     addition to lab coats and masks, access to the laboratory shall be

 8     controlled and limited."

 9             Was that done by your department for the investigation that

10     resulted in the report that we have now seen?

11        A.   We opened the case together.  Or, rather, we opened the artefacts

12     together, not only us from the department but also all the experts that

13     would be involved in the case.  The first thing that was needed was to

14     identify all the traces that were to be used in dactyloscopic expertise

15     and then we identified those biological traces that would be processed.

16     In that, our colleague from the Department for Chemical Analysis

17     identified the material that he needed to process, and he did it after we

18     identified our material.

19             The first part of the work was team-work.  All the experts were

20     involved if they were requested to participate.  We made sure that all

21     the contamination was prevented as much as we could.

22        Q.   Let's try that again.  In relation to the taking and analysis of

23     DNA samples from the artefacts was the laboratory where that work was

24     performed controlled such that only yourself and the three other -- two

25     other individuals qualified for that work were in the laboratory.

Page 36546

 1        A.   Yes.  The department for biological expertise and especially the

 2     DNA expertise department is completely separate from the rest of the scan

 3     of forensic and IT support department in every stage of such work

 4     material is isolated prepared and when it comes to bench-mark samples,

 5     those samples are examined in a completely different and separate area.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  I think you still missed part of the question.

 7             The question very much focussed - if I understood it well,

 8     Mr. Ivetic - on whether the access to that laboratory was restricted so

 9     that no outsiders could come in.  Were there any such measures taken so

10     as to avoid that someone would have access that shouldn't be there?

11             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is precisely what I said in

12     the first part of my answer.  This department is completely isolated from

13     other departments.  The entrance to the department is protected by a

14     coded gate and only the employees have codes that allow them to enter the

15     premises of the department.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Mr. Ivetic.

17             MR. IVETIC:

18        Q.   You've talked about separation; I think that handles the next two

19     points.  You mentioned bench-mark samples.  Now this document talks about

20     "negative controls are being used from evidence examination through

21     extraction and amplification."

22             Is that the same thing as a bench-mark sample; and, if not, could

23     you please explain for us what you meant by bench-mark sample?

24        A.   The complete material and the traces that were processed for the

25     purpose of this case were disputable traces, i.e., traces about which we

Page 36547

 1     did not have any knowledge and we were supposed to establish a DNA

 2     profile based on them.  Bench-mark samples are those whose origins are

 3     known.  We know who the individuals were who provided those bench-mark

 4     samples, and the only thing that needs to be established in such cases is

 5     to establish a DNA profile.

 6        Q.   And these bench-mark samples, is one of the bench-mark samples

 7     that would be normally obtained required for every staff member or

 8     analyst dealing with DNA so as to create an elimination profile for any

 9     DNA that is discovered in evidence that might have been the result of

10     inadvertent contamination?

11        A.   Those samples are control samples.  Not only in this case but in

12     any other case dealt with by our department.  There are DNA profiles that

13     need to be checked to avoid contamination.  And what I meant when I used

14     the term "bench-mark samples" are samples taken from known individuals.

15     They were submitted for possible comparison with the DNA profiles of --

16     of disputable traces.

17        Q.   And that's what confused me.  For purposes of the analysis you

18     did here there were no bench-mark sample, were there?

19        A.   No, no.

20        Q.   Okay.  Now if we could return to P7441 MFI, and page 19 in the

21     English and page 18 in the B/C/S, this will again be in the section

22     containing the DNA findings.  And in this section and the pages that

23     follow, you reach four unique DNA profiles, one female and three male,

24     all of them NN or unknown.  Am I correct in concluding that these DNA

25     profiles would most likely belong to those individuals that wore the

Page 36548

 1     gloves, given where these samples were obtained?

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic, you talk about DNA profiles whereas the

 3     report repeatedly says partial DNA profile, which is not the same --

 4             MR. IVETIC:  I believe the first one does not --

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  "Incomplete" is still not a DNA profile.

 6             MR. IVETIC:  Agreed.  Agreed.

 7             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Irrespective of the completeness of

 8     a DNA profile, a DNA profile is a DNA profile.  This is just my remark.

 9     And when it comes to your question, whether this concerns the DNA of the

10     person who wore gloves, I can't be sure of that.  I can't say that it can

11     does concern that person.  The samples for obtaining those DNA profiles

12     were taken from the inside of the glove.  So the DNA profile in this case

13     was obtained from the inside of the glove and not from the person who

14     either wore or didn't wear those gloves.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  There seems to be some confusion again.

16             Mr. Ivetic asks you whether he is correct when he concludes that

17     if a DNA profile is taken from the inside of a glove, whether it's most

18     likely that the DNA profile would match, although you don't have any

19     comparison, would match with the person - still unknown - who had worn

20     that glove.

21             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is a possibility.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Mr. Ivetic.

23             MR. IVETIC:  Okay.

24        Q.   For a moment, I'd like to return to the spent bullets and

25     cartridges that were the subject of the report that Mr. Franjic was the

Page 36549

 1     principal of and he in his report stated that after they were received --

 2     after they went through the DNA and finger-print analysis, he then

 3     cleaned them with a solution of water, 10 per cent vinegar, and acetone.

 4     Would you agree that this treatment of those artefacts by this solution

 5     would at that stage destroy any remaining DNA and/or finger-print trace

 6     material?

 7        A.   This is the final stage of analysis.  This is ballistic analysis.

 8     And after that stage, it is no longer possible to look for either prints

 9     or DNA molecules or any such thing.

10        Q.   Well, prior to being cleaned by this solution the bullets and

11     cartridges would be I presume covered in dirt, mud, other material, how

12     does your department obtain -- or ascertain whether there is useful DNA

13     or finger-print material on those artefacts if they are covered in, let's

14     say, mud?

15        A.   When it comes to finger-prints, I wouldn't answer because this

16     falls within the scope of other people's expertise.

17             When it comes to DNA analysis, swabs were taken after

18     dactyloscopic examination from the surface of the artefacts and they were

19     treated in our further work.

20        Q.   But would you agree that that method would not gain access to any

21     trace DNA or finger-print material under the mud?  You only swab the

22     visible portions of the item, not that which is covered in mud or some

23     other substance.

24        A.   Swabs were taken from the surface, which means that it doesn't

25     really matter whether the surface was muddy and dirty or not.

Page 36550

 1        Q.   I guess I'm trying to find out does your department -- yes.

 2             MR. JEREMY:  If it assists and, you know, looking at

 3     Mr. Franjic's report, I'm happy to agree with Mr. Ivetic that it clearly

 4     states that there was no DNA or insufficient amount of human DNA

 5     molecules for further individualisation in respect to the cartridges

 6     analysed.

 7             MR. IVETIC:  Except for that which was potentially lost by the

 8     process.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

10             MR. IVETIC:  I think that's clear.  I can agree with that.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  A saying comes to my mind, Mr. Ivetic, that you

12     can't eat your cake and have it.  If you want to clean certain objects

13     and if that would perhaps remove traces, if you would not -- if you would

14     not clean it, you would not go below that dirt and -- but apart from

15     that, you would have expected more -- better results from any underlying

16     material because, as we see now, if we're talking about DNA testing, and

17     this witness does not testify about finger-printing, then it's mainly

18     that almost nothing was found and that it was not material, DNA material,

19     which could be compared, that the only thing I think that was really

20     established, that the DNA samples apart from one being from a female and

21     three from men, that it would not be the same men.  Not much more is

22     established in this report, if I understand it well.

23             MR. IVETIC:  And, Your Honours, we're mixing reports.  The issue

24     of the cleaning only relates to the cartridges not to the four unique

25     profiles.  Those relate to the gloves which is a separate issue.  And

Page 36551

 1     although [Overlapping speakers] ...

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  [Overlapping speakers] ... nothing was found on the

 3     cartridges --

 4             MR. IVETIC:  Correct.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  [Overlapping speakers] ... if I understand the

 6     report well could be prejudicial for your client.  If nothing is found,

 7     there's not much to be established contrary to the interests of your

 8     client.

 9             MR. IVETIC:  Your Honour, the Defence would say for purposes of

10     all three reports nothing is prejudicial to our client is found.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  As a matter of fact, that's, of course, the reason

12     why I earlier indicated that I was slightly surprised that there was no

13     agreement on -- especially on what was not established because not much

14     has been established.  And if we would focus on that, that might be an

15     efficient use of our time.

16             Please proceed.

17             MR. IVETIC:  Thank you.

18        Q.   Now, I'd like to look at page 15 in the English and 15 in the

19     B/C/S, and this is the part of the report that you were the principal of,

20     done by colleague, the finger-printing specialist.

21             From -- first of all, from your work in being the principal and

22     organising the investigation and the drafting of this report, did you

23     reference or consult any reference materials or publications relating to

24     the process of seeking finger-print trace evidence from the interior of

25     gloves before signing this report?

Page 36552

 1        A.   For the umpteenth time, I'm going to say that I am not a

 2     finger-printing expert.  When it comes to check whether there were

 3     papillary line traces or not.  I didn't participant in that.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic, we're coming close to the time where we

 5     have to take a break --

 6             MR. IVETIC:  Okay.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  And I'd like to raise a brief matter in one or two

 8     minutes.

 9             MR. IVETIC:  That's fine.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Witness, we'd like to see you back after 20 minutes.

11     You may now follow the usher.

12             THE WITNESS:  Hvala.

13                           [The witness stands down]

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Tieger, you're on your feet.

15             MR. TIEGER:  Just a quick scheduling inquiry for Mr. Ivetic and

16     perhaps for the Bench in connection with the next witness.  So it's

17     principally a matter of how much time may remain with the cross and

18     whether or not we can excuse the next witness for the remainder of the

19     day.

20             MR. IVETIC:  It should be close.  I'm thinking approximately half

21     an hour remaining.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  That wouldn't make it useless to keep the next

23     witness on stand by.

24             What I wanted to raise in ...

25                           [Trial Chamber confers]

Page 36553

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, of course, it depends on how much you would

 2     have in re-examination.  If you say I need another ten or 15 minutes in

 3     re-examination then, of course, the next witness could be --

 4             MR. JEREMY:  Yeah, Your Honour, at this point, I have no

 5     re-examination.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, that's clear.

 7             Mr. Jeremy, when I earlier asked you whether the Prosecution

 8     would rely on a part of a report which was not -- where the author of

 9     that part of the report would not be called as an expert, you referred to

10     practice in this case, especially you referred to Mr. Manning.  Now if I

11     read page 14156 of the transcript, if I read the following and the

12     question starts the previous page:  "Do those reports also contain

13     separate, in fact, relating to your separate individual involvement in

14     the exhumation project?

15             "Yes, they do, Your Honours.  I examined the reports and the

16     underlying data, the autopsy reports and the photographs which had formed

17     the basis of the reports made by the experts but because, for instance,

18     the chief archaeologist may have only been in the field for one season,

19     he would not have seen in depth the previous materials or the material

20     that came after him so I was examining all the material across the

21     board."

22             And then it's how it continues.  That's pretty different from the

23     situation we find with this witness, and I just wanted to ask you again

24     whether it is on the basis of that one example which you mentioned and of

25     which I read only a very small portion which gives a totally different

Page 36554

 1     picture as far as the involvement of Mr. Manning in the reports of others

 2     is concerned.  Whether you still take the position that the practice by

 3     this Chamber in relation to Mr. Manning would justify that we would rely

 4     on the dactyloscopical part of report and the chemical part of the report

 5     where this witness repeatedly said that she can't give any answer about

 6     it.

 7             MR. JEREMY:  Well, Your Honours, I take the point that the

 8     situations are different to an extent.  The witness has told us that she

 9     had an overview supervisory role in pulling the report together.  I

10     accept that she's been very clear about the limits of her expertise.

11     Although I think the position of the Prosecution is that those parts of

12     the report should still be included because they relate to the

13     thoroughness and the integrity of the investigation conducted by the

14     witness and her colleagues, although, again, I accept that -- or it's the

15     position of the Prosecution that it will be a question of weight to which

16     the Chamber chooses to put on those parts of the report when we don't

17     call the underlying experts.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  The Chamber will consider the position.

19             We take a break --

20                           [Trial Chamber confers]

21             JUDGE MOLOTO:  On the same point, Mr. Jeremy, while she did tell

22     us that she was -- took -- she -- she participated in a supervisory

23     position the detail of that supervision related to her collating the

24     reports without being able to comment on any of the parts that she didn't

25     author.  So, really, it was not supervisory; it was just collating.

Page 36555

 1             MR. JEREMY:  Yes, I accept that Your Honour, that it was a

 2     supervisory role in terms of collating different aspects of the report.

 3             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  We'll take a break and resume at 25 minutes to 2.00.

 5                           --- Recess taken at 1.13 p.m.

 6                           --- On resuming at 1.36 p.m.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  While we're waiting for the witness to be escorted

 8     in the courtroom, Mr. Jeremy, the Chamber decided that it will not rely

 9     on the dactyloscopy part or the chemical part of the report co-authored

10     by this witness, unless the other authors would be called as experts.

11             They were not on your list, and if I say the Chamber will not

12     rely on it, it still would be a question what there is at all to rely on.

13     That's rather limited.  And that's true, both for Prosecution and

14     Defence, as far as we can see it now.

15             MR. JEREMY:  Thank you, Your Honours.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic, you'll keep this in mind when continuing

17     your cross-examination, I take it.

18             MR. IVETIC:  I will, Your Honours and I will eliminate some

19     questions, but I think some questions still are necessary to determine

20     the methodology use, and the intent behind the investigation to the

21     extent it may taint the results of other parts of the investigation,

22     whether proper methodology was used.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, I can imagine that you want to explore the

24     intent of the investigation, whether the methodology -- unless you have

25     good reasons to believe that the methodology was adapted for any purpose

Page 36556

 1     to that, but then please put that in clear questions to the witness.

 2                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 3                           [The witness takes the stand]

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic, you may proceed.

 5             MR. IVETIC:

 6        Q.   Now, Madam, in response to my prior question before the break you

 7     said that you are not authorised, my simple question was did you look at

 8     any reference materials regarding the process of seeking finger-prints

 9     from the interior of gloves as part of this investigation?  Either you

10     did or you didn't.  Surely you know whether you did or didn't

11     irrespective of your expertise.

12        A.   Yes, yes, I did.

13        Q.   Okay.

14             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Sorry, could we get the answer again.  Is it I did

15     or I did not.

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I did.  I did review part of

17     material whereby it was sought to confirm whether any finger-prints were

18     present.

19             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.

20             MR. IVETIC:

21        Q.   Let me just make sure that we're not misunderstanding.  Are --

22     when I use the words "reference material" I mean books, journals and

23     other work done by others talking about the process, not the actual

24     investigation that you -- that your -- that your lab did.  Is your answer

25     yes, I did, does it relate to outside material that others drafted about

Page 36557

 1     the field or about -- or it does it relate to material that your

 2     colleagues in a laboratory provided?

 3        A.   My answer had to do with the following.  I reviewed the part of

 4     the report that had to do with the identification of the presence of

 5     finger-prints on the material forwarded to us.

 6        Q.   Okay.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  But the question was whether you consulted any

 8     articles, books, instructions, whatever standards of -- did you -- for

 9     the finger-printing, did you consult any of such materials?

10        A.   My answer is no.

11             MR. IVETIC:  Now we're clear.

12        Q.   Now in the photographs that we have on the screen it would appear

13     that the tips of the fingertips of the latex or plastic rubber gloves

14     have been cut open by scissors.  In other cases you worked on within the

15     federal MUP is it the normal procedure for the forensic department to cut

16     open the fingers of gloves to seek the presence of and to analyse

17     finger-print trace evidence as was done in this case?

18             JUDGE MOLOTO:  But it is a fact that these are cut or just what

19     you suspect?

20             MR. IVETIC:  I believe that the description says that they were

21     cut.

22             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Is that so?  Okay.

23             MR. IVETIC:  [Overlapping speakers] ...

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Incisions were made on the gloves, in the area of

25     fingers and on the sides.  That's what the report says.

Page 36558

 1             JUDGE MOLOTO:  [Overlapping speakers] ... but your question is

 2     premised on the belief that they were cut.  So can we --

 3             MR. IVETIC:  Yes.

 4             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Sure, incision is something else, yeah.

 5             Thank you, Mr. Ivetic.

 6             MR. IVETIC:

 7        Q.   Are you in a position to answer my question?  As to the work done

 8     by your department in prior cases, are always incisions made to cut open

 9     the fingers of gloves to analysis them for finger-print trace evidence?

10        A.   I can only discuss this case where I worked as a member of the

11     team.  That is to say, together with other experts.  In this case, no

12     cuts or incisions were made to the finger part of the glove.  It was the

13     entire glove that was cut on the side in order for us to be able to

14     examine the inside of the glove.

15             In the order from the prosecutor's office from Bosnia-Herzegovina

16     it was stated that particular attention should be paid to the inside of

17     the gloves.

18        Q.   Okay.  Now, madam, the literature I've looked at for this type of

19     review, in those instances, the gloves are left intact when reviewing.

20     Would you be surprised to learn that?

21        A.   The only way to access the tips of fingers is to cut the glove

22     across the side.  It was the decision of the experts engaged in

23     finger-print analysis.

24        Q.   So they made the decision.  That's fine.  We'll leave that for

25     them then.

Page 36559

 1             Now if we turn to ... if we turn to the next page in English and

 2     in B/C/S, we see at the end of the day that only two of the glove

 3     artefacts were reviewed and they were subjected to a method of

 4     cyanoacrylate in a fuming chamber.  As a biologist would you agree that

 5     exposing the artefacts to cyanoacrylates would destroy any remaining

 6     biological or DNA evidence that might exist on those artefacts?

 7        A.   I would agree with you, but it was preceded by taking samples for

 8     DNA analysis.  In other words, after the gloves were treated for

 9     finger-printing, no further biological traces analysis was conducted.

10        Q.   And does that not then prevent another expert from

11     double-checking that work if no further DNA samples could be taken?

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic, could you be very precise on what work

13     you mean.  Do you mean the taking of a sample or do you mean to repeat

14     the DNA analysis of the sample taken by the swabs?  Which of the two do

15     you mean?

16             MR. IVETIC:  To take a DNA sample from the artefacts and to

17     analyse that DNA sample.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  I think the witness was implicitly answered that

19     question by saying that it would destroy any remaining DNA traces.

20             Is that well understood, Witness?

21             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  And my follow-up question would be:  Would the swab

23     still be available to --

24             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] [Previous translation continues]

25     ... yes.

Page 36560

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  [Previous translation continues] ... repeat DNA

 2     testing from that sample already taken before the object was treated in

 3     the way you described it for finger-print --

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No swab can be taken after such

 5     treatment of a glove in the respect of that kind of dactyloscopic

 6     analysis.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  But the originally taken samples, they are

 8     still existing?

 9             Could you -- you are nodding, but could you speak.

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes.  They are preserved as

11     isolates.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

13             Please proceed, Mr. Ivetic.

14             MR. IVETIC:

15        Q.   Now I want to move to the gas masks that we talked about.  If we

16     can look at P7441, MFI, page 17 in both languages, and it's going to be

17     paragraph 1.  Paragraph 1 at the bottom in the English and in the B/C/S.

18     And in describing the mask it says here:  "Drab olive rubber masks such

19     as those used by the JNA as military equipment."

20             Now, and we saw the photograph earlier in direct examination.

21     Now, one of the tasks for the analysis recorded at page 4 of this report

22     was to determine the model and manufacture of the mask.  What steps or

23     research were undertaken to fulfil this task of determining the model and

24     manufacturer of the mask.

25        A.   The page you are referring to and the paragraph in question makes

Page 36561

 1     part of the expert analysis conducted by the department for chemical and

 2     toxicological analysis.

 3        Q.   Okay.  So is the answer you do not know what steps were taken to

 4     determine the model and manufacturer of the mask?

 5        A.   No.  I was only able to read it, like you did.

 6        Q.   If we can turn to your proofing note rather quickly, 1D5867, in

 7     paragraph 4, it says that you told the Prosecution:  "Asked about the

 8     reference to the JNA in para 1 on page 17 of the English version of the

 9     expert report ... the witness indicated that this part of the report was

10     prepared by a colleague (referenced in the report), but believed this JNA

11     reference was intended to function as an example of who might have used

12     the drab olive rubber mask referred to in this paragraph?"

13        A.   Yes, that is accurate.

14        Q.   And are you now telling us that the chemical analyst is the one

15     who inserted this reference to a military equipment mask usually worn by

16     the JNA?

17        A.   As an expert, I wouldn't interpret this sentence in that sense.

18     The sentence in question is as follows:  Such as ones used as the

19     military equipment of the JNA.  So it provides for the possibility that

20     they might have been used as part of -- or part of JNA equipment.  It is

21     not an assertion.  It is a possibility.  At least that's how I see it.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic, to the extent you'd like to make the

23     point that it was not compared with the Panamanian army or the Korean

24     army.

25             MR. IVETIC:  [Overlapping speakers] ... no that's not the

Page 36562

 1     purpose.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  [Overlapping speakers] ... that it was focussed,

 3     therefore, especially on this army for an example, then that point would

 4     be clear.  If you have another point to make, please do so.

 5             MR. IVETIC:

 6        Q.   As the principal in charge of this report and having in page 4 of

 7     that report an instruction to determine the make and manufacturer of the

 8     masks in question, would you have expected your colleague to check and

 9     confirm if, in fact, there's only one manufacturer of such masks in the

10     former Yugoslavia and whether they produced the same masks for both army

11     and civilian use, according to the literature from 1960 through 1995.

12        A.   Yes.

13        Q.   And as you sit here, you do not know whether he did that research

14     and confirmed those facts that I've just presented to you?

15        A.   No.

16        Q.   If we could just briefly look at 1D5855, and if we could go to

17     page 2, this is a reference material on Yugoslavian-make equipment and we

18     have here two very similar looking olive-drab masks.  One the M1, the

19     other, the MC1.  One military, one civilian.

20             Did your colleague ever mention to you in the -- in the process

21     of preparing his report that there existed a civilian model of a mask

22     that resembled a military model of a mask?

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Jeremy.

24             MR. JEREMY:  Your Honour, I think the witness has been clear in

25     that she doesn't know what research was conducted by her colleague in

Page 36563

 1     respect to this mask.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  The question is whether in preparing the report your

 3     colleague said something about a civilian version of such a gas mask.

 4     Did he say anything about that?

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Mr. Ivetic.

 7             MR. IVETIC:  Okay.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  But the point being that the focus has been on

 9     military equipment in this area and that other alternatives are not

10     sufficiently explored.  If that's your point you'd like to make - and I

11     earlier presented in a rather limited way, foreign and local, now it's

12     army, non-army - that point is clear.

13             MR. IVETIC:  Thank you.

14        Q.   Now, in your report, the last part that I want to discuss with

15     you is the extinguisher which is identified as being a Pastor make, and

16     if we can have the photographic documentation which I believe is P7442,

17     at page 105 of the B/C/S.  Now, it's hard to see from the photographs in

18     the documentation, are -- are these what would be referred as 6-kilogram

19     capacity extinguishers manufactured by Pastor in Zagreb?

20        A.   What I can answer is as follows.  The two gas extinguishers were

21     forwarded for forensic analysis as marked in the prosecution order, they

22     were produced by Pastor and their respective numbers were one and two.  I

23     only relied on such data to ascertain the existence of any biological

24     traces on the items.  As you can read from my part of the report, any

25     other designation or detail was something that was performed by the same

Page 36564

 1     colleague who wrote the part of the report that had to do with the masks.

 2        Q.   But in performing your review you actually had the physical

 3     extinguisher in your possession.  Is it a 6-kilogram or is it a larger

 4     container?

 5        A.   Yes.  I really didn't weigh them.

 6        Q.   If we could just briefly look at 1D5858, this is an ad --

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic, the Chamber will not rely on 6-kilogram,

 8     yes or no.

 9             MR. IVETIC:  I think --

10             JUDGE ORIE:  I think I earlier indicated that, most important is

11     that the witness identified that the photographed extinguishers as the

12     one she examined on the presence of biological traces and that's what

13     seems to be most relevant at this moment.

14             Please proceed.

15             MR. IVETIC:  Thank you.

16        Q.   Now, Madam, this, is an advertisement for an automobile equipment

17     company that lists a 6-kilogram Pastor extinguisher as being equipment

18     for a -- for trucks.  Did your colleague doing the analysis of the

19     extinguisher at any point in time make any determination that this type

20     of extinguisher was used for any type of specific vehicles?

21             JUDGE ORIE:  If you know, Witness.

22             MR. IVETIC:

23        Q.   If you know, yeah.

24        A.   I don't think so.

25        Q.   Okay.  Madam, I thank you for answering my questions.

Page 36565

 1             MR. IVETIC:  Your Honours, I'm glad to say I'm done and I'm at

 2     the 30-minute mark so hopefully we can finish with the witness today.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Ivetic.

 4             Mr. Jeremy, any further questions for the witness.

 5             MR. JEREMY:  No, Your Honour.  Only to tender the report and the

 6     photo documentation.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, we don't need the witness for that.

 8                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Karahasanovic, this concludes your testimony in

10     this court.  I'd like to thank you very much for coming a long way to

11     The Hague and for answering all the questions that you were put to you,

12     by the parties, put to you by the Bench.  I wish you a safe return home

13     again, and you may follow the usher.

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.

15                           [The witness withdrew]

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Jeremy, the numbers that were assigned were?

17             MR. JEREMY:  P7441 to the report, and P7442 to the accompanying

18     photo documentation, both MFI.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic.

20             MR. IVETIC:  Your Honour, apart from not relying upon the

21     material that was done by the other experts, the position of the Defence

22     is that, given that we are unable to challenge and cross-examine those

23     experts to determine why their portions of the report were written in the

24     way that they were, we are unable to get to the truth of the matter of

25     the methodology that was employed, why it was employed, and what the

Page 36566

 1     intent behind the investigation was.  Which would have a bearing on the

 2     weight that Your Honours would place upon any evidence arising from the

 3     investigation.

 4             So we believe that in order for these reports to be tendered,

 5     irrespective of whether you're going to rely upon the findings of the

 6     experts, those other two experts should be made available to the Defence

 7     to cross-examine on the record and to thus provide that missing detail as

 8     to why portions of the report were undertaken in the manner that they

 9     were undertaken which these -- which this witness of the Prosecution

10     chose to present was unable to address.

11             Thank you.

12             And, further, I note that I forgot to tendered 1D5855 which I

13     would tender at this time.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Let's first deal with that.

15             Any objection, Mr. Jeremy?

16             MR. JEREMY:  No objection to that, Your Honour.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar, 1D5855 would receive number.

18             THE REGISTRAR:  Number D1090, Your Honours.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Admitted into evidence.

20             Any response, Mr. Jeremy.

21             MR. JEREMY:  Just simply to say, Your Honours, that I think

22     Your Honours are in a position to assess the methodology employed by the

23     witness in respect to parts of the report in which she authored.  I'm not

24     sure I quite understand Mr. Ivetic's reference to the intent of the

25     investigation, although I would note that the order from the prosecutor

Page 36567

 1     requesting this analysis be conducted has been provided to the Defence,

 2     and Mr. Ivetic has chosen not use it.

 3                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic, your objection to admission is denied,

 5     which means that P7441 and P7442 are admitted into evidence.

 6             And I refer to what is already on the record, that the Chamber

 7     will not rely on the -- any findings related to the dactyloscopy and the

 8     chemical examination of the materials.

 9             Is the Prosecution ready to call its next witness?

10             MR. JEREMY:  We are, Your Honours.  Mr. Clark.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Could Mr. Clark be escorted in the courtroom.

12                           [Trial Chamber confers]

13                           [The witness enters court]

14             MS. D'ASCOLI:  Good afternoon, Your Honours.  The Prosecution is

15     ready to call the next witness.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Which would be Mr. Clark.

17             MS. D'ASCOLI:  Yes.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Good afternoon, Mr. Clark.  The -- you testified

19     before in this case.  You've made a solemn declaration that you'd speak

20     the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

21             THE WITNESS:  Indeed.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  I'd like to remind that you that solemn declaration

23     is still binding upon you when now giving further evidence.

24             THE WITNESS:  Yes, of course.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Please be seated.

Page 36568

 1             THE WITNESS:  Thank you.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Clark, you will only be with us for a very short

 3     time and for a longer time tomorrow.  You'll first be examined by

 4     Ms. D'Ascoli, and not as a surprise for you, she is counsel for the

 5     Prosecution.

 6             THE WITNESS:  Indeed.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, please proceed.

 8             MS. D'ASCOLI:  Thank you, Your Honour.

 9                           WITNESS:  JOHN CLARK [Recalled]

10                           Examination by Ms. D'Ascoli:

11        Q.   Good afternoon, sir.

12        A.   Good afternoon.

13        Q.   Although your name has been mentioned already, could you please

14     state your full name for the record.

15        A.   John Clark.

16        Q.   And what is your current profession?

17        A.   Well, I'm a forensic pathologist.  I'm in a semi-retired state at

18     the moment but I'm still a forensic pathologist.

19        Q.   Thank you.  Sir, you testified as an expert before this Tribunal

20     in a number of cases.

21        A.   Yes.

22        Q.   Including this case before this Trial Chamber?

23        A.   Yes, that's right.

24        Q.   Do you recall providing a copy of your curriculum vitae to the

25     Office of the Prosecutor when testifying as an expert in this case in

Page 36569

 1     September 2013?

 2        A.   Yes, I did.

 3             THE INTERPRETER:  Kindly make pauses between questions and

 4     answers.  Thank you.

 5             MS. D'ASCOLI:  If can I please have -- call up P2256.

 6        Q.   Sir, once the document -- here it is.  Sir, do you recognise the

 7     document now on the screen?

 8        A.   Yes, I do.

 9        Q.   Is this a copy of your curriculum vitae?

10        A.   It's a copy of the curriculum vitae at that time, yes.  Obviously

11     there have been a number of minor changes since then, but nothing --

12     nothing substantial.

13        Q.   Can you please tell us any update to this CV.

14        A.   It says at the beginning my current position was as a full-time

15     research student now.  That is rather on hold at the moment because of

16     other commitment and other work I have been asked to do which is included

17     work for the International Criminal Court in work in Africa.  So that has

18     rather put things on hold.  But that's really the main -- there's various

19     other minor roles which have slightly changed but it's substantially the

20     same CV.

21        Q.   Okay.  And by now, you have been a forensic pathologist for about

22     30 years; correct?

23        A.   Yes.  30 or more years, probably 33 now.

24        Q.   Okay.  Sir, before we continue I note that you have a folder in

25     front of you.  Can you please tell the Court what you have in there.

Page 36570

 1        A.   I have three documents.  One is the report which I produced for

 2     the courts on the Tomasica cases.  The second one is a table, a lengthy

 3     table, with lots of details of the individual cases which was the basis

 4     of the -- the report.  And thirdly is a short summary document which

 5     summarizes the findings in the main table.

 6             MS. D'ASCOLI:  Your Honour, the Prosecution would ask that

 7     Dr. Clark is allowed to use -- to refer to this document and the Defence

 8     can, of course, inspect this documents.  We didn't have time to do it

 9     beforehand.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Let's first ask the witness whether, especially the

11     summary, whether you'd -- would give it for inspection to the Defence if

12     they would like to see it.

13             THE WITNESS:  I assumed that they had already seen it.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  If it's a summary already disclosed to the

15     Defence.

16             MS. D'ASCOLI:  Oh, yes, it is one of the three documents that

17     will be tendered as part of Dr. Clark's evidence.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  If is all disclosed material and if it will be

19     tendered into evidence, then the only thing the Chamber would ask you is

20     to make clear when you are consulting those documents and when you're

21     giving your testimony from pure recollection.

22             THE WITNESS:  Yes, I will.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Then, please proceed.

24             MS. D'ASCOLI:  Thank you, Your Honours.

25        Q.   Sir, did you at the request of the Office of the Prosecutor of

Page 36571

 1     this Tribunal prepare a report dated the 21st of April, 2014 on the

 2     autopsy findings from the human remains recovered from the Tomasica mass

 3     grave in 2013?

 4        A.   Yes, I did.

 5             MS. D'ASCOLI:  Could the Court Officer please bring up

 6     65 ter 31090.

 7        Q.   Sir, while this is coming up, can you describe the nature of your

 8     role or assistance in the post-mortem examinations of the bodies

 9     recovered from the Tomasica grave-site.

10        A.   My role was a little different from my previous roles in

11     connection with this court.  Previously I was in an official role as the

12     chief pathologist.  This was an informal role, this time, for Tomasica.

13     I was particularly interested in this area really from more a research

14     point of view, and I approached the pathologists, the local Bosnian

15     pathologist to see if I would be able to learn of the findings at some

16     stage.  But more than that, they invited me to actually take part in the

17     work.  They very much welcomed that and my past experience.  The ICMP,

18     International Commission on Missing Persons, as did ICTY.  So I took part

19     in the post-mortem examinations, a very active part, physically engaged

20     in the post-mortems, along with the two local pathologists,

21     Dzevad Durmisevic and Nermin Sarajlic.  And it was all a very

22     co-operative exercise; we shared findings, showed each other things.  I

23     took my own notes and photographs, they took their own similar notes and

24     photographs.

25             They will have produced individual autopsy reports for each case

Page 36572

 1     as was their official role.  I did not do that but instead produced the

 2     table, the big -- the thick document which I have submitted, which really

 3     is a -- a kind of general summary of all the autopsy findings.

 4        Q.   Thank you, Dr. Clark.

 5             MS. D'ASCOLI:  Your Honours, I see the time.  Maybe it a good

 6     time to break.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, it is a good time.  Although very quickly,

 8     Mr. Clark, that we have to adjourn already.

 9             THE WITNESS:  That's all right.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  We will adjourn for the day, and we'll resume

11     tomorrow, the 1st of July - yes, I always have to think about whether the

12     month has 30 or 31 days - the 1st of July, 9.30 in the morning.  But

13     you're excused only after I have instructed that you should not speak or

14     communicate in whatever way, with whomever it may be, about your

15     testimony, whether the little bit of testimony given today or still

16     testimony to be begin tomorrow, but it also includes previous testimony

17     given in this case.

18             THE WITNESS:  Yes, I fully understand that.  Yes.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, then you may follow the usher.

20             THE WITNESS:  Thank you.

21                           [The witness stands down]

22             JUDGE ORIE:  We adjourn, and we resume 1st of July, 9.30 in the

23     morning, in this same courtroom, I.

24                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.16 p.m.,

25                           to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 1st day of July,

Page 36573

 1                           2015, at 9.30 a.m.