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
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.
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
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.
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
1 preliminary analysis phase and the microscopic analysis phase, were they
2 consistent with -- or are they consistent with prevailing industry
4 If we could turn the page.
5 JUDGE ORIE: This was a question put to that witness at that
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
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
25 Please proceed.
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
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
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."
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
24 In relation to the cash prizes that you have received and
25 recorded in your CV, especially the one from the federal police
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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
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] ...
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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?
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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,
25 A. My name is Elmira Karahasanovic.
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
23 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
24 THE REGISTRAR: Document 31095 receives number P7441,
25 Your Honours.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
25 Q. Madam, Mr. Franjic testified at transcript page 36400 and the
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
25 A. I think it was an objective deadline. However, deadlines are not
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
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
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?
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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?
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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.
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
7 MR. IVETIC: Except for that which was potentially lost by the
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
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
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?
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
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
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]
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
25 MR. IVETIC: [Overlapping speakers] ... no that's not the
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
25 They will have produced individual autopsy reports for each case
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,
1 2015, at 9.30 a.m.