Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 612

1 Wednesday, 13 October 2004

2 [Open session]

3 --- Upon commencing at 9.07 a.m.

4 [The accused entered court]

5 JUDGE AGIUS: Good morning. Mr. Registrar, could you call the

6 case, please.

7 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. Case Number

8 IT-03-68-T, The Prosecutor versus Naser Oric.

9 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you.

10 Mr. Oric, I would like a confirmation from you that you can follow

11 the proceedings in a language that you can understand.

12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I can understand

13 everything that is being interpreted.

14 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. And good morning to you. You may sit

15 down.

16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

17 JUDGE AGIUS: Appearances for the Prosecution.

18 MR. WUBBEN: Good morning, Your Honour. Jan Wubben, senior trial

19 attorney for the Prosecution team, together with Ms. Patricia Sellers and

20 Ms. Donnica Henry-Frijlink as our case manager.

21 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you. And good morning to you and your team.

22 Appearances for the Defence.

23 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honour. My name

24 is Vasija Vidovic, and together with Mr. John Jones, we appear for

25 Mr. Naser Oric. With us are our legal assistant, Ms. Jasmina Cosic, and

Page 613

1 our CaseMap manager, Mr. Geoffrey Roberts.

2 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. I thank you.

3 Before we bring in the witness, there are a few minor things that

4 I would like to point out. Number one, I signed this morning the decision

5 on the Prosecution motions to add exhibits. I would imagine it has

6 already been filed, but that doesn't depend on me. I just wanted to

7 inform you that I have signed it. Number two is you'll recall that either

8 the first or the second day of hearing dealing with the Prosecution motion

9 to submit the evidence of a particular person under Rule 92(C), we had

10 suggested to you to try and get together and see if you could agree on a

11 doctor, a medical doctor, who could possibly visit this person and then

12 report back to us on particularly whether he is in a position to

13 understood and answer questions or whether he is impaired to such extent

14 that we can proceed with the admission of his statement, previous

15 statement under 92(C). Do you have any news for us? Yes, Madam Sellers.

16 MS. SELLERS: Good morning, Your Honours. Yes, we do have news.

17 We discussed with Defence counsel briefly to explain what might be their

18 wishes in terms of looking for a doctor. They had asked that we try and

19 have a doctor that is neutral, and one possibly from Croatia or Slovenia.

20 We've contacted our field offices. We contacted the field office in Banja

21 Luka, and we'll contact the field office in Zagreb. The field office in

22 Banja Luka, the Office of the Prosecutor, has forwarded the name of a

23 neuropsychologist, neurosurgeon, and I will forward that name to the

24 Defence counsel in the proceedings today. We would like to convey that in

25 writing. I will note that that person, my understanding comes from

Page 614

1 Republika Srpska, it might not fulfil the wishes of the nationality of the

2 doctor. We have not at this point in time received back from our field

3 office in Zagreb the name of a doctor who might be of a different

4 nationality.

5 We will be asking the Defence in our letter, would they please

6 possibly consider the use of this doctor, and we will wait their response.

7 JUDGE AGIUS: Is there any particular problem with having a doctor

8 from Bosnia, from Sarajevo? I would imagine there are dozens of

9 specialised consultants - we call them consultants in my country.

10 MS. SELLERS: Your Honour, we can also inquire if a doctor can

11 come from Sarajevo.

12 JUDGE AGIUS: Because it will be less expensive and easier,

13 probably. I mean, at the end of the day, we will be dealing with

14 professional people. And I usually trust professional people.

15 MS. SELLERS: The doctor that at this point --

16 JUDGE AGIUS: Your microphone.

17 MS. SELLERS: Excuse me. The doctor that we have identified from

18 this time comes from Zvornik, and the details will be given to the Defence

19 in the course of the day.

20 JUDGE AGIUS: That's enough for the time being. And you let us

21 know of any developments.

22 The other last matter I wanted to raise relates -- did you refile

23 the motion for the subpoena, issue of subpoena testificando?

24 MS. SELLERS: Yes, Your Honour, we have filed that motion.

25 JUDGE AGIUS: You haven't received -- I mean I knew that it had

Page 615

1 been filed but we haven't received a response from you. I know that time

2 is still running. But if perhaps you can put us into the picture of

3 whether you are still thinking about it or whether you've made up your

4 mind already but haven't had time to file the response, please.

5 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we shall file our

6 response by Monday.

7 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Okay. And that's fair enough.

8 So any other preliminary matters that you would like to raise?

9 Ms. Vidovic.

10 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, today's witness will be

11 cross-examined by me, and I will need the original documents. I told

12 Mr. Jan Wubben of the OTP this, and he told me he could get them for me

13 during the break. I apologise for not stating this earlier, but I

14 understood from what the first witness, expert witness, said, that it is

15 not a problem for the Prosecutor to obtain the originals.

16 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Wubben.

17 MR. WUBBEN: No, it is not a problem, Your Honour, to obtain.

18 JUDGE AGIUS: I would imagine it's not.

19 MR. WUBBEN: But then we should know in advance, and we had then

20 on the first --

21 JUDGE AGIUS: I agree with you.

22 MR. WUBBEN: But we are glad to comply with, and we accept these

23 apologies. During the break, we will try to process that, and if we can

24 manage during -- we need some additional time, we will inform immediately

25 the Court manager.

Page 616

1 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, I thank you, Mr. Wubben, and I thank you

2 Madam Vidovic as well.

3 Anything else before we admit the witness? Okay.

4 [The witness entered court]

5 JUDGE AGIUS: Good morning to you, Dr. Koeijer.

6 THE WITNESS: Good morning.

7 JUDGE AGIUS: And welcome back.

8 THE WITNESS: Thank you.

9 JUDGE AGIUS: We will proceed with the examination-in-chief, and

10 then we'll move on to the cross-examination. My duty is just to remind

11 you that you are still testifying under oath, under the solemn declaration

12 that you entered yesterday.

13 Please, take a seat. And we will proceed.

14 Mr. Wubben, he is all yours.


16 Examined by Mr. Wubben: [Continued]

17 MR. WUBBEN: Thank you, Your Honour.

18 Q. Good morning, Mr. de Koeijer.

19 A. Good morning.

20 Q. Doctorandus de Koeijer, yesterday we addressed the first report,

21 and you led us through this table with the description of the questioned

22 documents. To be specific, the item, the type, the quality, the stamp,

23 the features, and the similarities. And then subsequently, and this is a

24 reiteration as a kind of introduction, Your Honour, you showed us in this

25 enlarged stamp of Appendix 4 of the report the various aspects related to

Page 617

1 this table.

2 And then yesterday, I should proceed on Appendix 5a, that's the

3 part where we stopped it, Appendix 5a of the report with this group of

4 stamps. And then we decided to break until this morning. And that's why

5 I would like to proceed on a follow up of questions related to these

6 pictures as shown now.

7 My first question is, and that will also reflect in the questions

8 regarding to all these stamps on the screen in front of you, Appendix 5a,

9 this first stamp, left top, how do you in your professional opinion

10 evaluate the stamp impression related to the questioned document referred

11 to under 02075807?

12 MR. WUBBEN: Your Honour, is it on the screen? Is it on the

13 monitor now?

14 Some technical problems, Your Honour.

15 JUDGE AGIUS: No, it's okay. It's a -- problem solved. Problem

16 solved. Go ahead.

17 MR. WUBBEN: Thank you. Thank you very much.

18 Q. Again, please, then, the stamp top left, how do you in your

19 professional opinion, Doctorandus de Koeijer, evaluate the stamp

20 impression related to the questioned document referred to under 02075807?

21 And please relate your observations to the aspects from table 1.

22 A. Thank you. On examining this stamp impression, we saw that it was

23 a stamp impression of reasonable quality. And we could find all four of

24 the features we highlighted on Appendix 4 in this -- present in this

25 stamp.

Page 618

1 Q. Okay. And can you clarify further, pointing out the specific

2 features.

3 A. Well, all the features mentioned in Appendix 4, features 1, 2, 3,

4 and 4, they were all found in this stamp. And they are highlighted by the

5 same type of markers. Furthermore, we saw that this stamp on overlaying

6 with the reference stamp on Appendix 4 was the correct overlay. There was

7 no mismatch.

8 Q. May I now turn to the stamp, please, on the right side, 02075809.

9 A. We also thought that this was a stamp of reasonable quality with

10 enough detail to do the comparison. We found three of the four -- three

11 of the four items, features in there which we had in the previous stamps

12 also, in the stamp on Appendix 4. And these are also highlighted on the

13 picture. Furthermore, the overlay was also correct. So there was no

14 discrepancies there.

15 Q. I will now turn to stamp 02075808.

16 MR. WUBBEN: And Your Honour, yesterday we also discussed that in

17 Appendix 4. So please allow me to consider this as a confirmation.

18 Q. And subsequently, I will turn to the next stamp. And will you

19 please, Mr. de Koeijer, reiterate the indication of the stamp.

20 A. The stamp 00926396 is a stamp on a photocopied document. It's a

21 photocopied stamp also. The stamp is of reasonably poor quality,

22 especially the centre part, although the rim is -- still has quite a few

23 details in there. So we could still find three of the features mentioned

24 on Appendix 4 in this stamp.

25 Q. Will you please give a follow up to the next stamp.

Page 619

1 A. The next stamp, 01239504, is a stamp of poor quality. It was

2 quite heavily inked, but still in the rim we could still find the features

3 mentioned -- all four of the features mentioned in Appendix 4.

4 Q. Next stamp, please.

5 A. The next stamp is stamp on document 01801583. It is of very poor

6 quality. The document itself was a fax. This distorts the stamp quite a

7 bit, and we could not find any of the features mentioned on Appendix 4 in

8 this stamp.

9 Q. Next stamp, please.

10 A. The next stamp is on Document 01801585. It is a stamp again of

11 very poor quality. Again, a fax document. And again, we could not find

12 any of the features mentioned in Appendix 4 in this stamp.

13 Q. Next stamp, please.

14 A. The next stamp is also a stamp of very poor quality. It is on

15 document 01801586. Again, a faxed document. And again, we could not find

16 any features we highlighted in Appendix 4 in this stamp.

17 Q. Thank you.

18 MR. WUBBEN: I would like to proceed, Your Honours, with Appendix

19 5b of this report, 264.

20 Q. 5b, left top, stamp starting with 01239515. Please give me your

21 observations and evaluation regarding table 1.

22 A. This is an original stamp impression of reasonable quality. We

23 found all four of the highlighted features in Appendix 4 and could make

24 quite a reasonable comparison with this stamp.

25 The next stamp, 01239520, is also a stamp of reasonable quality.

Page 620

1 It's an original stamp impression. And we could find three of the four

2 rim features in this stamp.

3 Q. Next stamp, please.

4 A. Next stamp is on Document 01239521. It is a photocopied stamp

5 impression of reasonably poor quality. We could find two of the four rim

6 details in this stamp.

7 Q. Next, please.

8 A. Next is on Document 01239522. It is also a photocopied document,

9 and a stamp of very poor quality where we could find none of the details.

10 Q. Next one, please.

11 A. Next stamp is on Document 01239512. It is a stamp -- an original

12 stamp impression of poor quality. Still, we could find three of the four

13 rim details in this stamp.

14 Q. Next one, please.

15 A. Next stamp is on Document 01239517. It is a stamp impression, an

16 original stamp impression of reasonable quality. And we could find three

17 of the four rim details in this stamp.

18 Q. Next one, please.

19 A. The next stamp is on Document 01239528. It is also an original

20 stamp impression of poor quality. We could find three of the four rim

21 details.

22 Q. And the last one on the page.

23 A. It's on Document 01839608. It is a stamp -- original stamp

24 impression of poor quality. And we could find all four rim details in

25 this stamp.

Page 621

1 MR. WUBBEN: Now, Your Honour, I would like to turn to Appendix

2 number 5c of the report 264. And I would like to turn to the first stamp,

3 top left. That's 01239544 of the Appendix with ERN number 02523878.

4 Q. Please give your professional opinion.

5 A. The stamp impression on Document 01239544 is an original stamp

6 impression and of reasonable quality. And we could find all four of the

7 rim details in this stamp.

8 Q. The next one.

9 A. The stamp on Document 01239623 is an original stamp impression of

10 reasonable quality, and we could find all four rim details in this stamp.

11 Q. And the last one in this Appendix.

12 A. The stamp on 00926461 is a photocopied stamp impression of poor

13 quality. Three of the four rim details we could find in this stamp.

14 MR. WUBBEN: This will end this Appendix, including the stamps.

15 Q. Doctorandus de Koeijer, I would like to turn now to the part of

16 your report in which you clarified your findings about tampering. So my

17 next question, that's referring to page 8 out of 10.

18 Next question will be, Doctorandus de Koeijer, apart from these

19 stamp impressions, did you also examine the questioned documents other

20 than the war diary regarding tampering?

21 A. Yes, we did.

22 Q. And how did you examine it?

23 A. We looked at a number of features. For example, we looked -- if

24 the signatures are original or not, if they were printed or possibly

25 stamped. We examined the stamps to see if they are original stamps. We

Page 622

1 examined also the documents for mechanical erasure of certain areas, also

2 chemical erasure we looked for. And just a general overview of the

3 document to see if there are any signs of tampering.

4 Q. And Doctorandus de Koeijer, what were your observations as an

5 expert when you did this examination on tampering of the questioned

6 documents apart from the war diary?

7 A. Besides the normal typing mistakes which had been corrected and

8 obvious corrections in the document, we could find no evidence of

9 tampering. I must comment on this that because we are not familiar with

10 the language on the documents, it is difficult for us to on the basis of

11 content of the document select specific areas for detailed examination of

12 tampering. So this was a difficulty in this research.

13 Q. How did you arrive to the conclusion that there is no evidence of

14 tampering?

15 A. We found no evidence of mechanical erasure, no evidence of

16 chemical erasure. We found original, written signatures with no evidence

17 of tracing. We found original stamps, and we only found some obvious

18 corrected mistakes, obvious corrections. And they were not considered

19 evidence of tampering by us.

20 Q. I will turn now to your conclusions on the stamp impressions as

21 related on page 9 of your report. What were your final conclusions? And

22 this, of course, regarding the similarities that you made as an expert

23 with a view to the comparison of the stamp impressions?

24 A. Our final conclusions were that the stamps listed in table 1 on

25 page 8 of the report, with a similarity index of 2, were probably produced

Page 623

1 by the same stamp.

2 Q. Can you please indicate what numbers you classified as such.

3 A. These are the numbers 02075807, 02075809, 02075808, 01239515,

4 01239544, and 01239623.

5 Q. So these were the similarity score of 2?

6 A. These had a similarity score of 2, which meant that these were

7 stamps of reasonable quality and had a number of features in them which

8 allowed us to come to this conclusion that they were probably stamped by

9 the same stamp.

10 Q. And what do you mean by "probably produced by the same stamp"?

11 A. By probably, we mean that we think that they are produced by the

12 same stamp, but we still have reservations because the quality of the

13 stamps were not ideal to work with. And also, we do not have the original

14 stamp which produced these impressions. And because we do not have this

15 original stamp, we cannot assess that the features which we looked at in

16 this stamp impression which we considered to be damages of some sort to

17 the rim of the stamp, that they may possibly be -- may have been there

18 from the beginning and are not true damages but features of the original

19 stamp as it was made. And if more than one of these stamps were made with

20 the same features, then, yes, we cannot rule this out at the moment

21 without examining the stamp in more detail.

22 Q. And what do you mean that it might be also produced by a copy of a

23 stamp?

24 A. It is possible to make a photograph of a stamp impression and use

25 this photograph to produce a stamp exactly the same as the stamp

Page 624












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 625

1 impression. So it is possible to just exactly copy a stamp from a stamp

2 impression. And this is very -- can be very easily done by just sending a

3 stamp impression, for example, to a specific company on the internet, and

4 a week or two later you receive your stamp back with -- which looks like

5 the stamp impression you have photographed.

6 Q. And further in your conclusions, you also mentioned that there is

7 a possibility, or do you have another comment, please, on your final

8 conclusions?

9 A. Yes. On the stamp impressions which of even less quality and

10 possibly had even less features, we concluded that they were possibly

11 produced by the same stamp. This is just a little less sure than the

12 probably. It's one step down in the letter of our conclusion scale.

13 Q. Can you please confirm the questioned stamp and the documents.

14 A. This concerned stamp 01239504, 01239520, 00926461, 01239521,

15 01239512, 01239517, and 01239528, 00926396, and finally 01839608.

16 Q. And these were all the stamp impressions you made a final

17 conclusion on, or is there more?

18 A. There were a number of stamps we found specifically on the faxed

19 documents and I think one of the photocopied documents which were to our

20 opinion insufficient for comparison. They did have some general

21 similarities, but none specific enough for us to draw a conclusion on.

22 And these were the stamps on Documents 01801583, 01801585, 01801586, and

23 01239522.

24 Q. I will turn now to the war diary as related on page 9 of your

25 report, Doctorandus de Koeijer. And my first question will be, did you

Page 626

1 also examine the tampering question regarding the war diary?

2 A. Yes, we did.

3 Q. How did you examine it? Please.

4 A. It was -- the examination is more or less the same as the

5 examination of the other documents, looking for mechanical and chemical

6 erasure, looking also for evidence of -- that portions were inserted, but

7 also we look for insertion of full pages by examining the number of pages

8 in the specific parts of the document and by examining the thickness and

9 the UV fluorescence of the different pages to see if there possibly had

10 been new pages inserted into the document. Also all the pages were

11 examined for indented writing impressions. And together with that for

12 mechanical erasures, as this method also looks for those.

13 Q. What about those inserting of pages? Because I note from your

14 report that you talk about quires.

15 A. That is correct.

16 Q. Can you further explain to the Judges.

17 A. A quire is a portion of a book sewn into the back cover. It is

18 a -- you can also call it a section. It is a bundle of pages sewn

19 together which are sewn into the back of the cover. And usually a book

20 consists of more than one quire. It's just to make the book stronger,

21 that it doesn't fall apart as easy. If you put all the pages in one

22 together, it's not strong enough. So they bundle the pages and sew them

23 into the back cover. And one bundle of pages we call a quire.

24 Q. So do I take it correctly from you that such a number of pages is

25 sealed or with a staple or a with --

Page 627

1 A. Usually --

2 Q. -- or whatever, and that such a book consists of various parts,

3 and that's the quire?

4 A. Yes, that's right.

5 Q. Please confirm and give your comment.

6 A. A quire is usually either sewn in or stapled in, and that is the

7 same for all the different quires in this book. And together, in this

8 case, five quires made up the book.

9 Q. And again, how many quires did you find in this war diary?

10 A. Five.

11 Q. And your conclusion: Were there pages inserted or not? Please

12 give me your comment.

13 A. We found that the number of pages per quire differed quite -- to a

14 large extent in these different quires. One quire had 44 pages, and

15 another quire had had only, for example, 10 pages. What we concluded from

16 this is that quite a number of pages had been removed from the book. We

17 did not, however, find any -- any evidence that any pages had been

18 inserted into the book.

19 Q. So taken out?

20 A. There were quite a few pages taken out, yes.

21 Q. Were all these pages of the diary of the same thickness?

22 A. We found that there was no -- we could not discriminate any of the

23 pages on the basis of thickness, nor on the basis of UV fluorescence

24 sense.

25 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Wubben, would you please ask the witness on what

Page 628

1 basis did he come to the conclusion that several pages had been taken out

2 of this diary.

3 MR. WUBBEN: Thank you, Your Honour.

4 JUDGE AGIUS: Before we move to other observations.


6 Q. Please, how did you come to the conclusion that some pages were

7 taken out?

8 A. This is based on the assumption that usually in books, each quire

9 has the same number of pages. And on this assumption, we based the

10 conclusion that possibly quite a few pages had been removed.

11 Q. And to finalise this, Doctorandus de Koeijer, what does your

12 professional conclusions for tampering, including this quire examination,

13 include regarding the war diary?

14 A. We could not find any definite signs of tampering on the pages

15 remaining in the war diary. If you consider removal of pages a sign of

16 tampering, then, well, there would possibly be tampering. But on the

17 pages remaining in the war diary, we could not find any signs of

18 tampering. We, again, did not consider obvious corrections present as a

19 sign of tampering.

20 Q. And in special also giving regard, attention to certain

21 corrections, corrections you notified or didn't you?

22 A. We did not make note of all the different corrections in the diary

23 as there were so many. We just went through them in our examination, and

24 of course the language is, again, a problem. So we could not identify if

25 these corrections were just normal writing mistakes or if they were

Page 629

1 evidence of tampering in this case and really trying -- but as the

2 corrections were quite obvious, we did not consider them signs of

3 tampering because it was still possible to read what was there before. We

4 just often strike through words or so you could read still what was there.

5 So we did not consider this signs of tampering.

6 Q. So that's your conclusion is clear, no definite signs of

7 tampering?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Thank you.

10 MR. WUBBEN: This finalises this part of the examination regarding

11 the first report, Your Honour.

12 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. One moment, please.

13 JUDGE ESER: Witness, I have a question with regard to the quire.

14 Is it correct to assume that if you have a quire which comes from a

15 paper factory, that quire contains a certain number of pages?


17 JUDGE ESER: And if you take one out, there should remain

18 something, some evidence that at this point, a page has been taken out or

19 at another point something has been taken out.

20 THE WITNESS: Often if pages are sewn in, if you tear out one

21 page, another one falls out, yes. And we did not -- as far as I

22 recollect, we did not find any loose pages in the diary. Often -- sorry.

23 Often we will look for evidence of pages being -- which have been removed

24 using indented impressions, examination. However, the paper in the diary

25 was of reasonably poor quality, and this does not -- well, we had problems

Page 630

1 doing this type of examination on this paper. So sometimes we did find

2 some impressions, and most often we found very little impressions. So I

3 cannot definitely say that pages were removed. This is purely based on

4 the assumption that we normally see that the number of pages per quire is

5 the same throughout the whole book.

6 JUDGE ESER: I have a second question. If you take out a page

7 after a book has been filled with writing, then it may be normal that the

8 connection between page 1 and 3 would not fit together somehow. So even

9 if you do not know the language, did you recognise any discontinuancy

10 between the contents of, let's say, page 1 and the next page?

11 THE WITNESS: I do not believe it was examined in this detail,

12 this examination was done.

13 JUDGE AGIUS: And perhaps I could add a question now on this

14 matter before we close this chapter. And I take it, assuming that each

15 quire is precisely of the same volume or amount of pages, and assuming

16 that a normal one would contain 44 pages, I see that the fourth one, for

17 example, contains only 10, which basically means that 3/4 of the pages in

18 that segment would have been taken out.

19 If it was a question of having this quire sewn, wouldn't you have

20 been able, or shouldn't you have been able to detect the sewing be looser

21 than it would be in the first quire which contained the full amount of

22 pages, 44? If it has just been sewn, obviously if you tear out 3/4 of the

23 papers, the --

24 THE WITNESS: That is right, yes. You would expect that the

25 sewing would be looser, yes. I do not recollect if this was looked at.

Page 631

1 I'm sorry.

2 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Judge Brydensholt.

3 JUDGE BRYDENSHOLT: Could the witness describe what kind of a book

4 was this? Was it a protocol or was it something which could be used by

5 schoolchildren? How did it look? Was it with stiff binds, or how do you

6 remember that?

7 THE WITNESS: I believe it was a hardcover book, but I'm not quite

8 sure what use this book could have had. I'm not sure about this. But it

9 was -- it did have square paper. So, yes, it could be multipurpose, I

10 think.

11 JUDGE AGIUS: Perhaps, Mr. Wubben, when during the break a member

12 of your staff will be locating the originals, perhaps this could be

13 brought up again as well together with the rest so we could have a look at

14 it, please.

15 MR. WUBBEN: We will accommodate the Court, of course.

16 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.

17 Yes. No further questions?

18 MR. WUBBEN: With regard to the first report, we finalised. And

19 now I would like to turn to Exhibit Number P265, additional expert report

20 of the 19th of July. ERN number 03594719 up to 03594756. Please show the

21 witness.

22 Just checking out if it's on the screen, Your Honour, everywhere.

23 Thank you.

24 Q. My first question, Doctorandus de Koeijer, do you recognise this

25 report?

Page 632

1 A. Yes, I do.

2 Q. Who signed for this report?

3 A. This report was signed by two people, Will Fagel, my colleague who

4 signed for the handwriting examination, and myself who signed for the

5 document examination.

6 Q. And Will Fagel is -- Doctorandus Fagel you earlier referred to in

7 regard to the first report. Is that correct?

8 A. That's right.

9 Q. Why is this report made by two examiners? Is that the same

10 clarification --

11 A. Same clarification, yes.

12 Q. When did you receive the request for document examination?

13 A. The request was received at the laboratory, I read from the

14 report, the 18th of June.

15 Q. The report is of what date? Can you please confirm?

16 A. The report is of the 27th of July.

17 Q. And will you please refer to page 2 of the report and confirm the

18 date of receiving.

19 A. The date of receiving the report states 24th of July, only I think

20 this must be a typing mistake and it must be June.

21 Q. Who gave the request for examination to you?

22 A. The request for examination was given to me by my colleague, Wendy

23 Glas.

24 Q. How did you receive the documents? Were they brought to you?

25 A. I received them also from my colleague Wendy Glass after she had

Page 633

1 examined them.

2 Q. And you start working on it? As a follow-up?

3 A. Yes. After the examination by my colleague, I checked the

4 examination which she did.

5 Q. You checked it out full yourself?

6 A. Yes, yes.

7 Q. And you prepared the report?

8 A. The report was partially prepared by my colleague, and I corrected

9 the report and looked through the report and made any corrections

10 necessary and signed the report.

11 Q. And where did the report go to after you signed?

12 A. After signing the report, the report was sent to the International

13 Criminal Tribunal.

14 Q. This report shown to you is the same report you signed for?

15 A. Yes, it is.

16 Q. I will turn now to the documents for the analysis. And I would

17 like to show to you all the documents that you have received for preparing

18 this report. And now I refer to page 2 of your report, ERN number

19 03594720 when I ask your comments on the documents shown to you as

20 questioned documents.

21 MR. WUBBEN: And my first request to the usher is to show

22 questioned Document Number 21 as Exhibit P75.

23 Q. Doctorandus de Koeijer, my question is the document shown to you

24 is --

25 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

Page 634


2 Q. Doctorandus de Koeijer, I reiterate, the document shown to you, is

3 this a document that you examined and that you referred to in your report

4 as Q21?

5 A. Yes, that is correct.

6 MR. WUBBEN: My question to the technical staff, is there any

7 problem with the screen? Okay, no. Everyone can see? Thank you.

8 Q. The next document is document related Q22. That's P107, please.

9 My question to you, Doctorandus de Koeijer, is this a document

10 that examined and that you refer to in the report as Q22?

11 A. Yes, that is correct.

12 Q. Next document, P120.

13 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we cannot see the

14 documents on our screens, and the Defence would like to see the documents.

15 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. In fact, I was going to bring that up. In the

16 computer evidence mode --

17 MR. WUBBEN: Yes, Your Honour. Can we stop for a couple of

18 minutes.

19 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, certainly. But this is exactly -- I wanted to

20 point out exactly what Madam Vidovic pointed out.

21 Yes, yes, yes. The Registrar has come up with a good idea. We

22 can put the document on the ELMO, and therefore you can then view it on

23 the "video evidence" mode while they repair or make the necessary

24 adjustments. So I can see it already -- I can see it on -- the problem

25 has been fixed. I can see it on the monitor on the "computer evidence"

Page 635

1 mode.

2 MR. WUBBEN: Your Honour, in my view, what I have been

3 confirmed -- Your Honour, in my view what I have been confirmed is it has

4 not yet been fixed, as I do not see it on our screen. And I would like to

5 ask to Defence counsel if they see the Sanction, the electronical version

6 of it.

7 Again, communications, Your Honour.

8 JUDGE AGIUS: A problem of inequality of arms.

9 MR. WUBBEN: Your Honour, it seems to be solved. I'd like to

10 continue.

11 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Madam Vidovic, just to check, please, it's on

12 "computer evidence" mode. You should be able to see it on the screen now.

13 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, it's fine now. I can

14 see the document. Thank you.

15 JUDGE AGIUS: Thanks. Let's proceed.

16 MR. WUBBEN: Thank you.

17 JUDGE AGIUS: Do you want to see the previous ones as well? Do

18 you want Mr. Wubben to start from Exhibit P75?

19 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.

20 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. So let's go back to P75, Mr. Wubben. I think

21 it's better this way.

22 MR. WUBBEN: Yes. Please show the witness Document Number P75

23 related to Q21.

24 JUDGE AGIUS: There you are. You can see it on the monitor.


Page 636

1 Q. Doctorandus de Koeijer, is this a document that you examined, that

2 you referred to in your report as Q21?

3 A. Yes, it is.

4 Q. Next document, P107 related to Q22. Doctorandus de Koeijer, is

5 this a document that you examined and that you referred to in your report

6 as Q22?

7 A. Yes, that is correct.

8 Q. P120, please, related to Q23.

9 A. Yes, that is the document.

10 Q. So Doctorandus de Koeijer, to be sure, you recognise Exhibit

11 Number P120 to Document Q23?

12 A. Yes, that's correct.

13 Q. Next document, P158, please, related to Q24.

14 Doctorandus de Koeijer, is this a document that you examined and that you

15 refer to in your report as Q24?

16 A. Yes, that is correct.

17 Q. P263, please. Doctorandus de Koeijer, is this a document that you

18 examined and that you referred to in the report as Q25?

19 A. Yes, that is correct.

20 Q. P177, please. Doctorandus de Koeijer, is this the document that

21 you examined and that you referred to in your report as Q26?

22 A. Yes, that is correct.

23 Q. P179, please. Doctorandus de Koeijer, is this a document that you

24 examined and that you referred to in your report as Q27?

25 A. Yes, that is correct.

Page 637












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 638

1 Q. P198, please. Doctorandus de Koeijer, is this a document that you

2 examined and that you refer to in your report as Q28?

3 A. Yes, that is correct.

4 Q. P200, please. Doctorandus de Koeijer, is this a document that you

5 examined and that you refer to in the report as Q29?

6 A. Yes, that is correct.

7 Q. P210, please. Doctorandus de Koeijer, is this a document that you

8 examined and that you refer to in the report as Q30?

9 A. Yes, that is correct.

10 Q. P219. Doctorandus de Koeijer, is this the document that you

11 examined and that you refer to in your report as Q31?

12 A. Yes, that is correct.

13 Q. P220, please. Doctorandus de Koeijer, is this a document that you

14 examined and that you referred to in your report as Q32?

15 A. Yes, that is correct.

16 MR. WUBBEN: Your Honour, I now will turn to the document

17 examination.

18 Q. My first question is related also to your explanation yesterday,

19 Doctorandus de Koeijer. This was a kind of general introduction given by

20 you regarding an examination procedure in general that the NFI adopt to

21 examine questioned documents. This is referring to comparison of the

22 round stamp impressions, signs of tampering, microscopic examinations of

23 suspect places. Yesterday to the Judges, you gave a kind of general

24 introduction. Does that explanation of methods also apply in examination

25 of this second report?

Page 639

1 A. Yes, it does.

2 MR. WUBBEN: Then I would like if you allow me, Your Honour, to

3 take this --

4 JUDGE AGIUS: Go ahead.

5 MR. WUBBEN: -- to show Appendix 3 of the report. Appendix 3, ERN

6 number 03594735.

7 Q. It features in the stamp impression on Document 03557343. Let us

8 turn to that number and stamp. Does that number receive --

9 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment, Mr. Wubben, because we had the right

10 stamp on the monitor, but then somehow we lost it and we got something

11 else. Yeah, we have it back.

12 Can I see the ERN number to make sure that it is the same one,

13 please.

14 MR. WUBBEN: Shall I repeat, Your Honour?

15 JUDGE AGIUS: It's okay. Go ahead. Go ahead, Mr. Wubben. It's

16 all right. It's all right.


18 Q. We see this number at the end of the sentence "features in the

19 stamp impression on document." And does that number refer to the overview

20 of the reference and questioned material submitted to you and as I

21 referred to in the beginning, to page 2 of your report?

22 A. That is correct.

23 Q. How can the Judges know what reference to what questioned material

24 this number is referring to?

25 A. On page 2 of the -- in the table on page 2 of the report, the

Page 640

1 number is mentioned. And behind the number in the second column is

2 mentioned item Q25. And the description of the exhibit is mentioned in

3 the third column. So the numbers refer to the table.

4 Q. And does that method of referring also apply in appendix that

5 gives an overview of stamps and their impressions and numbers?

6 A. Yes, it does.

7 Q. Please turn now to Appendix 4, ERN number top right 03594736,

8 Your Honour. To be clear, to confirm, will you confirm that the numbers

9 seen left above each of these stamp pictures refer to the related

10 questioned documents examined by you?

11 A. That is correct.

12 Q. How did you compare the round stamp impressions on the questioned

13 documents for your examination as an expert?

14 A. We compared it in the same way as the other stamp impressions in

15 the previous case. We used in this case the stamp impression on Document

16 01239545, that is the top left stamp impression on appendix 4, as a

17 reference stamp. So not the stamp impression on Appendix 3. We

18 superimposed all the other stamp impressions on top of this stamp in a

19 digital fashion after scanning them in on the computer.

20 This -- during this superimposition, we looked to see if the

21 stamps matched in general shape and form and also in detail. Furthermore,

22 we will examine the stamps with the microscope to examine the detail more

23 closely. And also to determine if it is an original stamp or a copy or,

24 for example, a printed stamp.

25 Q. Okay. Let's now turn to this Appendix 3, the features in the

Page 641

1 stamp impression on 03557343, again with the ERN number top right

2 03594735. What does your -- what does your professional opinion tell you

3 or comment you on this picture of Appendix 4 referring to that number

4 showing -- to show details of the stamp impression? Again, we are here

5 at Appendix Number 3.

6 A. This stamp impression is a -- this is a photocopy of a stamp

7 impression of reasonable quality. As we can see, still quite a lot of

8 detail, for example, in the rim of the stamp. Some of the detail is

9 missing in the middle. But in this stamp, we could identify at least four

10 specific details which we could also see in quite a few of the other

11 stamps. And they are highlighted 1, 2, 3, and 4.

12 Q. I will turn to -- sorry.

13 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment, Mr. Wubben. Because I think we need to

14 make this clear.

15 Did the witness try to find on this specimen the same distinctive

16 points or features that he identified in the previous specimen that he

17 used for the purpose of the first report? In other words, did he stick to

18 the same features, trying to find them also on one of these stamps that

19 then he used as a specimen, or not?

20 THE WITNESS: Yes, that is correct.

21 JUDGE AGIUS: That is correct. Why did you have to choose another

22 one from amongst these and not stick to the one you had used previously?

23 THE WITNESS: Because we were not asked to --

24 JUDGE AGIUS: All right, okay, I get you.

25 THE WITNESS: -- to link it to the previous case.

Page 642

1 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay, okay. I get you. All right. Go ahead,

2 Mr. Wubben.

3 MR. WUBBEN: Thank you, Your Honour.

4 Q. I will now refer to this table 1, table 1 in your report. And

5 that's the table with the aspects and columns. Earlier you clarified

6 this, page 7 of the report with the ERN number 03594725. And earlier you

7 clarified the various aspects of the column, the item, the type, the

8 quality of the stamp, the features, the similarities. Does that

9 clarification and confirmation also apply to this column -- this report,

10 sorry?

11 A. Yes, it does.

12 Q. Now, I would like to turn again to this stamp of Appendix 3 of

13 P265. Appendix 3, again. And will you then apply -- confirm to the

14 Judges what these table 1 aspects tell you about this stamp.

15 A. If we look at table 1 concerning this stamp, we see that the

16 type -- the type of document is a photocopy, that the stamp is of

17 reasonable quality, and that it has the features 1, 2, 3, and 4 visible in

18 the stamp. And we concluded from that a similarity index of 2.

19 Q. Meaning that, when I ask your professional opinion initially, you

20 will always do it from the aspects of the table?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Let's turn then to the group of stamps you examined and Appendix

23 Number 4, stamp impressions of the other questioned documents.

24 To start with, on this page, ERN on top right 03594736, you start

25 with the stamp, and left above the stamp 01239545, I would like to ask

Page 643

1 your professional comment how you evaluate as an expert the stamp

2 impression related to the questioned document referred to and what can you

3 tell us about these type and aspects referred to in table 1?

4 A. This stamp impression is an original stamp impression of

5 reasonable quality. In the stamp impression, we could identify three of

6 the four features mentioned in Appendix 3.

7 Q. And will you please proceed per stamp impression and starting with

8 the number referred to.

9 A. Okay. The stamp impression on Document 01787786 is also an

10 original stamp impression with the general aspects of the other stamps

11 examined. It is of poor quality, only we could not find any of the

12 specific parts -- damages to the rim we highlighted in Appendix 3.

13 The stamp impression on Document 02075810 is also an original

14 stamp impression of reasonable quality. We found two of the four features

15 mentioned on Appendix 3.

16 The stamp impression on Document 03557343 is a photocopied stamp

17 and is the same stamp as on Appendix 3. So skip that one probably.

18 Q. It's a confirmation.

19 A. Yes. And the stamp impression on Document 03720936 is a

20 photocopied stamp impression of poor quality. And we found two of the

21 four features.

22 The stamp impression on Document 03721234 is a photocopied stamp

23 impression, and we found two of the four features.

24 The stamp impression on Document 03721253 is a photocopied stamp

25 impression of reasonable quality. We found three of the four features.

Page 644

1 The stamp impression on Document 03721400 is a photocopied stamp

2 impression of reasonable quality. And we found two of the four features.

3 Of really poor quality, I mean.

4 The stamp impression of -- on Document 03721482 is a photocopied

5 stamp impression, very poor quality. We could not identify any of the

6 features.

7 The stamp impression on Document 03721483 is also a very poor

8 quality photocopied stamp impression, and we could identify two of the

9 four features.

10 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Before, Mr. Wubben, before he proceeds any

11 further, perhaps a simple explanation. I am looking at table 1, just as

12 you should be, sir. And in relation to the penultimate entry, that is,

13 the item with ERN number 03721482, in your testimony you said -- you

14 mentioned photocopy. Here we have ballpoint.

15 THE WITNESS: Yes, that's an error in the table. Sorry,

16 Your Honour.

17 JUDGE AGIUS: So we should replace it with "photocopy."

18 THE WITNESS: With "photocopy," yes.


20 MR. WUBBEN: Thank you, Your Honour.

21 JUDGE AGIUS: Please proceed, Mr. Wubben.


23 Q. Apart from the stamp impression, did you also examine the

24 questioned documents regarding tampering?

25 A. Yes, we did.

Page 645

1 Q. How did you examine, please, and I refer to page 7 of the report.

2 A. This was done in the same manner as the -- in the previous case,

3 looking for mechanical erasures, chemical erasure, and nonoriginal

4 signatures and nonoriginal stamps.

5 Q. What observations did you make regarding this possible tampering

6 or not of the questioned documents?

7 A. We found no evidence of tampering. And again, we did not consider

8 obvious corrections, evidence of tampering.

9 Q. How did you arrive on this conclusion, opinion of no evidence of

10 tampering?

11 A. We could find no evidence of mechanical erasure, nor chemical

12 erasure. We saw that the -- on the original documents, they were original

13 stamps, original signatures. And there was no general evidence of

14 tampering found.

15 Q. Now, I will turn to the final conclusions regarding the stamp

16 impressions. Doctorandus de Koeijer, as an expert, what final conclusions

17 did you draw with a view to the comparison of stamp impressions?

18 A. The conclusions we drew from the examination are the following:

19 The stamp impressions on the documents listed in table 1 which showed a

20 similarity index of 2, we said are probably produced by the same stamp or

21 a copy of this stamp. The examination -- the examined impressions on the

22 documents listed in table 1 with a similarity index of 1 we concluded are

23 possibly produced by the same stamp or a copy of this stamp. And the

24 impression listed on -- in table 1 by an X, similarity index of X, we

25 concluded that this -- although the stamp showed the same general

Page 646

1 features, it showed no evidence of the detailed features. And whilst we

2 would expect them to be there, given the quality of the stamp, that it was

3 possibly -- and it was therefore possibly produced by another stamp of

4 similar type without the same wear features.

5 Q. And what do you mean by this conclusion "probably produced by the

6 same stamp or a copy of the stamp"?

7 A. We mean by this conclusion that it is possible to make an exact

8 copy of a stamp impression and use this newly made stamp to reproduce a

9 stamp impression. So it can almost been not possible for an examiner to

10 identify any differences between them.

11 Q. And what do you mean by the score "possibly produced" and so on?

12 A. "Possibly produced," we mean this is the least -- the lowest level

13 of -- positive level of our conclusion scale. We mean it could be

14 produced by this stamp, but there are just a small number of features. We

15 cannot rule out that it was possibly -- that it would have been produced

16 by another stamp of the same type. And we can just -- we would need to

17 examine the original stamp to be able to come to a higher conclusion in

18 these impressions.

19 Q. Thank you.

20 MR. WUBBEN: I come to the finalisation of my questions,

21 Your Honour. But before I ask with reference to page 8, Your Honour, I

22 would like to solve my question regarding two possible -- two possible

23 typos in a number. And that's also referring to that page 8, ERN number

24 03594726. I note, Your Honour, in the second line, that's starting with

25 01239545, that that's a correct number. But when I look at the chapter of

Page 647

1 tampering, I see at that, tampering in bold, the last sentence of -- the

2 last line of that paragraph is referring to 8545. And prior to that,

3 0123. So I have a question in that regard towards the expert.

4 Q. Whether or not I'm correct, or if so, please comment, this number

5 01238545 is a typo and should be read as 9545? Please take your time to

6 compare.

7 A. Can you explain again where this mistake --

8 JUDGE AGIUS: Let me explain it in my own terms. You refer in

9 looking at page 8 of your report, the second line from the top. You have

10 in square brackets 0123-9545.


12 JUDGE AGIUS: Now, that would correspond to one of the documents

13 you have referred to earlier as having been examined by you. If you look

14 at table 1, it's the fourth one.


16 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Now, if you go down further in the page under

17 the section titled "tampering."


19 JUDGE AGIUS: There is a part called "tampering," fourth line,

20 which is the last line of that paragraph.


22 JUDGE AGIUS: You see you have 8545, which is a continuation of

23 0123. Now, there is no document in table 1 or elsewhere in this report

24 that indicates that you had at your disposal a document with that ERN

25 number. And it's being put to you that that is a typo --

Page 648

1 THE WITNESS: Typo, yes. It should be 95.

2 JUDGE AGIUS: Agreed.

3 MR. WUBBEN: And Your Honour, the same -- because I noticed two

4 typos, the same -- or similar typo might be, but it should be clarified

5 and confirmed by the witness, in the third line of the report starting

6 "examined stamp impression on Document 01" --

7 JUDGE AGIUS: Which page?

8 MR. WUBBEN: Sorry, page 8, same page.


10 MR. WUBBEN: The examined stamp impression on Document 01787786.

11 And now we go to the chapter of tampering, the third line, I see 01787768.

12 THE WITNESS: Yes, it's also --

13 MR. WUBBEN: That's the...

14 That's prior to the question, Your Honour, if you allow me to ask

15 for his final conclusions about the tampering.

16 JUDGE AGIUS: Is this your final question or do you have further

17 questions?

18 MR. WUBBEN: I will put now my question, and that -- then I have

19 only a concluding remark.

20 JUDGE AGIUS: Because we are -- have already overstepped the time

21 limit.

22 MR. WUBBEN: It will take, I guess, a couple of minutes.

23 JUDGE AGIUS: Do I have the go ahead -- I can't see behind the

24 dark windows.

25 THE INTERPRETER: Yes, Your Honour.

Page 649

1 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. And the technicians as well? Okay. Let's

2 proceed and finish.

3 MR. WUBBEN: Thank you Your Honour.

4 JUDGE AGIUS: And I thank the interpreters and the technicians.

5 Thank you.

6 MR. WUBBEN: Yes, thanks.

7 Q. Can you please give me your final conclusions as an expert

8 regarding the tampering regarding the stamp impressions.

9 A. We could find no evidence of tampering on the documents. And

10 regarding the stamp impressions, we could find a number of stamps on the

11 documents which we considered that there was -- they were probably

12 produced by the same stamp.

13 Q. You already confirmed that, Doctorandus de Koeijer. And now this

14 is the part on finalising on the tampering of the documents itself. And

15 your final conclusion is about any signs of tampering?

16 A. We could find none.

17 Q. None insofar as you refer to in that chapter of the tampering?

18 A. That's right.

19 Q. Can you please confirm those numbers, please, and if possible,

20 without the typos.

21 A. I just need to correct.

22 We could find no signs of tampering on the documents numbered

23 01787786, 02075810, 01239545, 03557343, 03720936, 037412 --

24 JUDGE AGIUS: 72, I have.

25 THE WITNESS: Sorry. 03721234, 03721400, 03721482, and 03721483.

Page 650












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 651


2 Q. Last question, Doctorandus de Koeijer. As an expert, do you have

3 anything on behalf of the Judges to add to your testimony you gave today

4 or yesterday with a view to your examinations?

5 A. No, I have nothing to add to this.

6 JUDGE AGIUS: Before -- and then perhaps you can give the answer

7 when we reconvene. I noticed that in this report, you have a further and

8 final part titled "authenticity of the questioned documents" in which you

9 state "the questioned documents examined did not contain any specific

10 features that allowed us to establish authenticity with any degree of

11 certainty," which of course I understand. But I don't see a replication

12 of that in the previous report. The previous reports ends with the part

13 dealing with tampering and does not include such a conclusion. Do we take

14 it that in the case of the previous documents, you could establish on the

15 basis of the features that you examined and that you found that you could

16 establish authenticity on any degree of certainty? Or do you reach the

17 same conclusion?

18 THE WITNESS: Reach the same conclusion.

19 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. I think with that, we can break. I will

20 give you, because you need to get all these documents ready, 30 minutes.

21 And then we will reconvene at 5 minutes past 11.00. Thank you.

22 --- Recess taken at 10.36 a.m.

23 --- On resuming at 11.10 a.m.

24 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Wubben, do you have any further questions

25 for the witness?

Page 652

1 MR. WUBBEN: No, thank you, Your Honour. Meanwhile during the

2 break, we were able to find the originals, a member of my team. And Your

3 Honour, as you know, I myself don't handle originals because there is this

4 chain of custody, so when we hand this over now during this Court session

5 to the court manager or to the Defence, I want to confirm for the record

6 what happened because that's part also the chain of custody as well

7 sign -- everybody from my team should sign for it when they consider

8 these documents.

9 JUDGE AGIUS: I wouldn't have any objection if the person who is

10 the -- has got the ultimate custody of the documents could have come up

11 and said for herself and state here in the courtroom would have made

12 everybody's life easier. But it's -- anyway, whichever way you prefer it,

13 Mr. Wubben.

14 MR. WUBBEN: I prefer it -- my way is to prefer to hand it over to

15 the court manager by our case manager who handled it for the last.

16 JUDGE AGIUS: All right, okay.

17 MR. WUBBEN: I have myself no questions.

18 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Okay. MR. WUBBEN: Myself, no

19 questions, Your Honour.

20 JUDGE AGIUS: Can we just have a look at the diary before. P84,

21 it is, the diary. The original, I mean, not the copy of it. It's P84.

22 [Trial Chamber confers]

23 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Usher, could you come here, approach the...

24 It's 5158, 5157, this is loose. And we'll ask him a question. And then

25 this piece of paper here, here, 66, 5166, this part over here, we are

Page 653

1 going -- here, we are going to ask him questions. Okay. I think you

2 better go straight.

3 Madam Vidovic, allow us to clarify this before we proceed with

4 your cross-examination.

5 I recall hearing you say in the course of your testimony that when

6 you examined that diary, there were no loose pages. Forgive me if I am

7 finicky, but these something happen to me all the time. The first page I

8 opened in that diary happened to be a loose page. Do you recall having

9 come across that loose page when you examined the diary? That's my first

10 question.

11 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, a number of pages we took out

12 ourselves --

13 JUDGE AGIUS: I see.

14 THE WITNESS: -- to examine them for indented impression writing.

15 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. That explains the first one.

16 Now, if you look more or less at the same part where you are,

17 there is a piece of paper jutting out.

18 THE WITNESS: Yes. Which would indicate a torn --

19 JUDGE AGIUS: Exactly. I want you to state that it does indicate

20 a page may have been torn where that piece of paper is.

21 THE WITNESS: Yes, that is correct.

22 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Now if you turn to 66, again, there you see a

23 piece missing.

24 THE WITNESS: Yes, that is correct.

25 JUDGE AGIUS: And would that indicate anything to you?

Page 654

1 THE WITNESS: That would indicate that there is a page -- there

2 should be a page on the opposite side of the quire which is, again,

3 missing. So a number of pages have been torn out of the document.

4 JUDGE AGIUS: And if you keep on turning in the part where there

5 is no script, you see again that piece of paper missing. Would that

6 indicate anything to you?

7 THE WITNESS: That, again, here, a page has been torn out of the

8 document.

9 JUDGE AGIUS: Does it have an ERN number there? Could the witness

10 please specify the ERN number.

11 THE WITNESS: The ERN number is 02115171.

12 JUDGE AGIUS: And the previous one where there is a piece of paper

13 that seems to be missing, torn? 66.

14 THE WITNESS: Here, I think.

15 JUDGE AGIUS: 66 I think, or something like that.

16 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, this page, 02115166 is almost falling

17 out because the previously mentioned page has been removed, and they

18 are -- they were together, joined together.

19 JUDGE AGIUS: How many pages did you yourself or your assistant

20 remove for analysis purposes?

21 THE WITNESS: We removed three pages.

22 JUDGE AGIUS: And do you have a record of those pages?


24 JUDGE AGIUS: Would you give us the numbers, please.

25 THE WITNESS: That is 02115064. No, sorry. This is not correct.

Page 655

1 I just need to find the... I'm sorry, Your Honour. We did not -- I think

2 we did not remove the pages to do the examination, but the book was held

3 on the instrument in a certain way. So as far as I can see, because the

4 pages mentioned here which we examined more closely for indented writing

5 is 02115065, which is still remaining in the book, and also 64, and it's

6 also still remaining in the book. So we examined them on the instrument

7 like that. So the pages which are loose are the ones which were loose

8 already.

9 JUDGE AGIUS: All right.

10 Yes, Judge Eser.

11 JUDGE ESER: I have an additional question: Although you are not

12 an expert in handwriting but have to do with text and the documents, if

13 you go to those pages or those places where the page may be missing, can

14 you make any statement with regard to the type of writing, whether there's

15 a change in the type of writing from one page to the other? Whether a

16 sentence may be unfinished, or on the other page there maybe start with an

17 unfinished sentence?

18 THE WITNESS: One of the pages which was missing is a blank page,

19 so I can't say anything about that. One of the other pages, there is a

20 page missing between 02115157 and 02115158. I cannot draw any conclusion

21 on if there's a discontinuance in there. There is a little bit more space

22 still remaining at the bottom of 5157, but we see that on quite a number

23 of pages. So I cannot conclude that there's a discontinuance in that

24 area.

25 JUDGE ESER: Very well.

Page 656

1 JUDGE AGIUS: I think at this stage, we can hand you over to

2 Madam Vidovic for her cross-examination.

3 Madam Vidovic.

4 Cross-examined by Ms. Vidovic:

5 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Mr. de Koeijer. I'm sorry if I

6 don't pronounce your name properly. Because I'm not very talented for

7 languages. If I made a mistake, I'm truly sorry.

8 Dr. de Koeijer, when examining these documents, you had the task

9 inter alia of establishing whether the stamps on the controversial

10 documents come from the same source and whether the controversial

11 documents are originals or photocopies. Is that correct?

12 A. That is correct.

13 Q. You came to the conclusion that 14 documents that were given to

14 you for your examination in accordance with P264 is your report of

15 February 2004, and also four documents that were given to you in

16 accordance with your report from July 2004, which is P265. These were

17 also originals.

18 As for the other documents, you said that they were photocopies.

19 Isn't that right?

20 A. I cannot -- I'm not certain about the 14 because I would have to

21 count through this. But we did conclude that a number of documents were

22 original and a number were photocopies. I would have to check if it was

23 14 exactly.

24 Would the Court want me to check this?

25 Q. That is what it says in your report. If you wish, you can check

Page 657

1 that.

2 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. I suggest you go ahead and check,

3 Mr. de Koeijer.


5 If I count the number of documents in table 1 on page 8 of the

6 February report, I come to more than 14 original documents. I'm not

7 sure...

8 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation]

9 Q. Very well, sir. Dr. de Koeijer, how many documents did you

10 establish were originals, according to this report?

11 A. According to this report, from the table, there is 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,

12 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 documents were considered to be

13 originally -- were not considered to be photocopies or thermal faxes. Not

14 all of these contained stamps, though. Of these 17, 3 --

15 Q. Yes.

16 A. -- 4 -- 4 were without stamps. And one had a different stamp.

17 Q. Very well. I'm going to put some questions to you now that have

18 to do with the originals. Do you believe that when examining documents,

19 it would be useful, or rather it would have been useful had you examined

20 the type of paper that was used, the type of ink that was used for the

21 stamps?

22 Yesterday, when you told us about your career, you said quite

23 clearly that you were an expert for ink. Isn't that right?

24 A. I am a document expert, and one of the things we do is ink

25 analysis. And to come to your first question, in this case, it is useful

Page 658

1 to examine the paper and the ink if there is enough -- if you have access

2 to reference documents of which are nonquestioned, which contain -- which

3 are possibly made from the same paper or the same ink or if you have a

4 reference to other knowledge about the paper which is being used in that

5 country in that period of time, and the ink which is being used by the

6 specific people drawing up these documents. We did not have this

7 knowledge; and therefore, we did not consider that paper examination or

8 examination of the ink would give us any more knowledge about the -- about

9 these documents.

10 Q. So it is correct that you did not think that this kind of

11 examination would have provided you with more information?

12 A. That is correct.

13 Q. Dr. de Koeijer, isn't it correct that the trace of a pen, for

14 example, penetrates paper over time, and then perhaps in that way or in

15 some other way the age of a document can be established?

16 A. Establishing the age of a document on the basis of written entries

17 is a big question still in document examination, whether or not this is

18 possible. There are a number of techniques for establishing the age of a

19 document. One is to analyse an ink and compare it to a database on inks

20 to see which date -- what the date of introduction of this ink was. A

21 second -- but then you need to have access to a database on these inks.

22 A second way is if you have a very fresh document, you can analyse

23 the amount of solvents still left in the ink. And this may tell you

24 something about the document still being fresh or it being older. It is

25 not -- to my knowledge, not possible to analyse the ink and determine the

Page 659

1 specific age of a document because if a document has been lying, for

2 example, in the sun for a few hours, it will age a few years due to the

3 heat and exposure to UV light. Therefore, by determining -- by analysing

4 the ink, you cannot determine exactly when a document has been made. You

5 can only -- if you have reference to a database on inks say it could not

6 have been made before this date, if this ink -- specific ink is in that

7 database and the date of introduction of the ink is in the database also.

8 Q. Did you try to get this kind of database? Did you make any effort

9 to establish the age of the documents through any one of the techniques

10 that you are familiar with?

11 A. No, we did not.

12 Q. Very well, Dr. de Koeijer. If a stamp was affixed later, after

13 something had already been written on the document, this would affect the

14 authenticity of the document, wouldn't it?

15 A. It is for us not possible to determine when the stamp has been

16 placed on the document, if it was placed directly after signing the

17 document or if it was placed a year later, for example. To answer your

18 question, for me, it's not exactly possible to answer this question

19 because I don't know what the standard procedures were for applying these

20 stamps to the documents, if it was done directly after signing or if there

21 was some space in between, and who had access to these stamps. If only

22 certain people had access to these stamps, then maybe -- well, then, the

23 presence of such a stamp may indicate some kind of authenticity. I'm not

24 sure about this. I cannot really say something about it.

25 JUDGE AGIUS: I think -- I will approach the problem, if you don't

Page 660

1 mind, Madam Vidovic, in a different manner.

2 If today, I write or I have typed a letter on the -- a piece of

3 paper and I just sign it, I don't put any stamp on it, and I release this

4 paper so it is available or made available to others, and then tomorrow

5 someone draws my attention to the fact that I have not put the stamp on

6 this paper and I put the stamp on the same document that I released today,

7 do we have -- would you say that the second one is -- because now it bears

8 a stamp, it makes either the first or the second nonauthentic, or both

9 documents remain authentic? That's number one.

10 Number two is this: If I write a letter which I forget to sign

11 and then Judge Brydensholt tomorrow puts his stamp on that document, would

12 that alter the authenticity of or affect the authenticity or not? I mean,

13 these are the instances that I think you need to deal with and explain to

14 us. Because the question was somewhat tricky. If there is a stamp fixed

15 to a document not at the same time when this document was produced, does

16 that render the document nonauthentic? This was the question. And I

17 think you need to answer that.

18 THE WITNESS: I believe that in both cases you are still dealing

19 with the same document and you're still dealing with an authentic

20 document. I'm not sure if the authenticity of this document will be

21 recognised by the governing bodies who use these documents. They may

22 require a stamp being present to determine its authenticity. But as I am

23 not aware of the regulations around -- about this matter, I cannot say

24 much, anything about this.

25 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Judge Eser.

Page 661

1 JUDGE ESER: May I follow up this question: Is there a difference

2 between the factual authorship of a document and the validity of a

3 document? For instance, refer to a stamp which is needed to consider this

4 document as valid with regard to some governmental purposes, does this

5 impair the authorship of the document? Or let me put it this way: If

6 somebody has written a letter, and another person is putting a stamp on

7 it, does this change the authorship of the letter?

8 THE WITNESS: No, no, certainly not.

9 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Sorry for interrupting you, Madam Vidovic.

10 You may proceed. Thank you.

11 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, in connection with

12 this topic, I would like to clarify one point.

13 Q. In our system, a stamp is very important. What I was getting at

14 in my question was if somebody adds a stamp four or five years after the

15 creation of a written text, are there any techniques that can be used to

16 establish this fact?

17 A. To my knowledge, there are no techniques to establish this fact.

18 There are some techniques available to establish if a stamp impression was

19 possibly put there before the signature or after the signature on the

20 basis of crossing lines between the stamp and the signature. But there

21 are no techniques available to my knowledge to ascertain if a stamp has

22 been placed -- impression has been placed one or two years later on a

23 document.

24 Q. Very well. Thank you. Dr. de Koeijer, did you examine the

25 original documents for fingerprints?

Page 662

1 A. No, they were not examined for fingerprints.

2 Q. Do you feel that this would have been the best way to really show

3 that a certain person held that document in their hands?

4 A. This could be a way to prove this depending on how many people

5 have handled the documents since then without protection.

6 Q. Yes. But we are now speaking of a professional chain of custody,

7 the handing over of original documents, and people who during that

8 professional work have to use gloves. Today, we heard that there is a

9 special department in the Office of the Prosecutor where these originals

10 are held and protected. And also, I am aware that it is the practice of

11 this Tribunal in many cases to handle documents in gloves.

12 Therefore, have you at least tried to make an effort to examine

13 the documents for fingerprints? And if not, why not?

14 A. At the Netherlands Forensic Institute, it is -- we do not

15 standardly examine documents for fingerprints because it is also

16 detrimental to the document. The document is -- you put the document into

17 a chemical bath. Therefore, we only do this if we are specifically asked

18 to do this. And we were not asked in this case to examine the document

19 for fingerprints. Therefore, we do not -- we did not do this.

20 Q. Doctor, I will now put a few questions in connection with the

21 reference material. Dr. Fagel yesterday had reference materials, and

22 these were undisputed signatures by the accused which he used to compare

23 with the questioned signatures. You saw that part of the report. Isn't

24 that correct?

25 A. That is correct, yes.

Page 663












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 664

1 Q. You did not have any undisputed impressions of the original stamp?

2 A. No, we did not.

3 Q. Instead of this, you compared whether the stamp impressions on the

4 questioned documents originate from the same source.

5 A. That is correct.

6 Q. In fact, you selected one of the samples examined, which is also

7 in dispute, and used it as reference material?

8 A. That is correct.

9 Q. Is this a correct method providing reliable results?

10 A. The selection of a random stamp impression from the questioned

11 material and, hence, the comparison to all the other stamp impressions is

12 a normal way of doing this type of comparison. The -- we selected the

13 reference stamp on the basis of a certain quality of the stamp. And after

14 an initial examination of the different stamps, looking at the different

15 details in the stamp, we selected one which showed all the details we

16 wanted to address, and then compared all the others to this same stamp.

17 In this way, we could find quite a few similarities between these stamps.

18 This does not mean that we are dealing with an original stamp. So we

19 cannot say this.

20 JUDGE AGIUS: I don't think you are on the same wavelength. The

21 point that Madam Vidovic tried to make with you is the following: If you

22 are given a number of documents bearing a stamp and you are told that all

23 these documents are questioned precisely because of the allegation that

24 the stamp is a fake or a forged one, should you proceed with the

25 examination of those stamps choosing one of them at random and compare the

Page 665

1 others with it when you are being told at the same time that we are not

2 accepting any one of them because according to us they are all fakes, or

3 should you have first asked the Office of the Prosecutor, who commissioned

4 you, to see if there were other stamps identical or similar on documents

5 that were not contested with which then you could have proceeded to make

6 the comparative analysis?

7 THE WITNESS: That depends on the question, Your Honour. If the

8 question is are we dealing with original stamps and we have an original

9 here, can you compare them to that original, noncontested stamp

10 impression, then yes, of course, then we would need to have the -- this

11 original, noncontested stamp impression.

12 In this case, we were asked to -- if the stamps came from the same

13 source, if all the different questioned stamps came from the same source.

14 To do this, we can examine each stamp and compare it to all the different

15 stamps and then do the same for the next one. Or we can also take one

16 stamp and compare every stamp to this one stamp. And if we see the same

17 features, then we can say something about the common origin of these

18 stamps. So, of course, we would prefer to have reference material which

19 is not contested. But we were not given this in this case. Hence, we

20 thought there would be -- there was none.

21 JUDGE AGIUS: But you didn't ask --

22 THE WITNESS: We didn't specifically ask, no.

23 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

24 Q. In your report of the 25th of February 2004, Exhibit P264, under

25 the heading "results," - would you please refer to page 03523858 - you

Page 666

1 explained --

2 A. I do not have this report.

3 JUDGE AGIUS: You need to hand Exhibit P264. It's page 7 of that

4 report, sir.


6 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation]

7 Q. You explained that you compared round stamp impressions on the

8 questioned documents with photographs of the stamp impressions taken by a

9 digital camera, and that these were digitally superimposed with the image

10 of the stamp impression on the questioned document. Is this correct?

11 A. This is correct, yes.

12 Q. And there are two questions that follow from the explanation of

13 this method. First, on page 03523860 of your report, that is Exhibit

14 P264, in the conclusions, you stated - can you please take a look at these

15 conclusions - it should be mentioned that a copy of the stamp including

16 characteristic details can be made quite simply by photographic methods

17 and that this limits the conclusions that can be drawn by comparison of

18 the stamp impressions.

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. This means that your conclusions are also limited. Isn't that

21 correct?

22 A. That is correct.

23 Q. The second question that arises from your conclusions,

24 Dr. de Koeijer, is the following: If, for example, a forger had in his

25 hands a confiscated stamp which the forger used on all the questioned

Page 667

1 documents, your conclusion would be that all the stamp impressions come

2 from the same source. Isn't that correct?

3 A. That would be correct, yes.

4 Q. Thank you. So far, we have discussed the originals. Now I have a

5 question about the copies. In your conclusions, you mentioned that when

6 looking at the documents in order to establish whether there were any

7 signs of tampering, you also carried out an infrared luminescence

8 examination as well as using some other techniques. This examination

9 cannot be carried out on photocopies. Reliable results cannot be obtained

10 in this way with photocopies. Is that correct?

11 A. It can be carried out on photocopies, only you would not expect to

12 find any latent entries on photocopies. So we -- in effect, we -- I think

13 we did not examine the photocopies in this same manner because infrared

14 luminescence technique is mainly used for original documents in trying to

15 find latent traces on original documents.

16 Q. Yes. This was a question related to your general knowledge of

17 these documents. So, as far as I can understand, you said that in order

18 to arrive at a reliable conclusion by using infrared luminescence

19 examination is not possible. It's not possible to reach a reliable result

20 using this method in this way.

21 A. I'm not sure what you mean. You mean if we are examining

22 photocopies, then infrared luminescence is not a technique which gives a

23 reliable result? Do you mean this?

24 Q. Yes. I'm not saying that you used this method to look at

25 photocopies. I'm simply asking generally whether infrared luminescence

Page 668

1 examination of photocopies can yield reliable results.

2 A. It depends -- it can yield reliable results if, for example, there

3 are -- on the photocopies we have earlier ballpoint written entries which

4 may have been erased. But if you just examine purely a photocopy with

5 only toner on a document, infrared luminescence is not a method you would

6 use for that. So in that case, it would not give you reliable results,

7 no.

8 Q. Very well. Thank you. You have answered my question.

9 Let us now go back to the reference material 02075808. That's

10 P73, the stamp impression you used as a reference and which you marked Q3

11 in your report.

12 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Would the usher please put this

13 document on the ELMO.

14 I would also like to ask the usher to put -- above this, I would

15 like to ask the usher to put above this Appendix 4 to the report of the

16 25th of February 2004, page 03523875, which contains a large impression of

17 the reference stamp from Document Q3. Could you please put them on the

18 ELMO one above the other. Yes, like this, or one next to the other,

19 whichever way.

20 Q. And please take a good look at these two stamps. I wish to draw

21 your attention now to the list in your report of February 2004 on page

22 03523859 which follows the results. And would you please look at line 4

23 which refers to Document 02075808 and which describes the quality of the

24 stamp. You said "reasonable" which has been translated in my language as

25 "quite good." But it could also be translated in other ways, such as

Page 669

1 reasonably acceptable.

2 Please look at Q3, P73. It seems to us that the stamp on your Q3

3 does not look quite good or acceptable or reasonable. So what is this

4 about?

5 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Before you answer the question, Mr. Wubben, I

6 recognised you before, but it's not in my style to interrupt the question

7 when it's still going on unless it is obvious that it is going astray.

8 MR. WUBBEN: And I agree, Your Honour. It was not to interrupt

9 but to draw your attention to the fact that I had a question because when

10 Defence counsel referred to this table 1, page 8 out of 10, ERN number

11 03523859, she referred to, and she may correct me if I am wrong, to the

12 fourth line of it, and then I quote "0207580" and then according to her it

13 is -- it is 8. But -- and I know --

14 JUDGE AGIUS: She asked -- Madam Vidovic asked for P73. So what

15 we need to establish is whether the first of the two documents we see on

16 the ELMO, that is the complete document with the stamp, small stamp at the

17 bottom, is P73 or not. It's not whether it's on line 4 or line 5 on page

18 8 of the report, but whether we are seeing P73 or not on the screen.

19 That's number one.

20 And secondly, then I think we need to confirm, and according to

21 the report it is confirmed, whether the imprint and impression on Appendix

22 4 which we also see on the screen is indeed a replication of the one --

23 the stamp on the other document, and the question is whether he confirms

24 in his judgement that this is a reasonable impression. This is the thing.

25 But if you think that the first of these two documents is not P73, then of

Page 670

1 course please do tell me.

2 MR. WUBBEN: What I would like to confirm to you that she -- she

3 mentioned the document with the number on the next line, that's the fifth

4 line, 5808, and that line was -- 58 -- fourth line -- 09. And when she

5 confronted the expert with it, that might lead to some confusion of

6 course, and that's what I would like to clarify. And I know it's --

7 JUDGE AGIUS: Do you have any confusion in your mind?

8 THE WITNESS: No, no.

9 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. That solves it. The expert doesn't have any

10 confusion in his mind.

11 So please do confirm to me because I can't see from here that the

12 first of the two documents, the one which is the complete document, is

13 indeed P73. Usher, could you confirm that to me, please.

14 THE WITNESS: Yes, it is P73.

15 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. So now perhaps it's the case of

16 answering the question. Madam Vidovic is putting it to you that you

17 should not have come to the conclusion maybe that this is a reasonable

18 impression, which in her language has been translated as "quite good."

19 THE WITNESS: The stamp impression you can see on the screen here

20 from P73, is -- if I had received it in that quality, I would not --

21 surely not say it was a reasonable impression. But this is a multiple

22 generation photocopy. On the original document, however, it did seem to

23 us a reasonable impression with quite a bit of detail. In some areas it

24 was a bit darker than other areas, where details were smudged. But in the

25 areas we were addressing and the centre area of the stamp, it had enough

Page 671

1 detail for us to call it a reasonable quality stamp.


3 Madam Vidovic.

4 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] This is the reason why I asked for

5 the originals to be made available to us during this cross-examination.

6 Could the original document be put on the ELMO, please. I'm referring to

7 Q3. [In English] It is P73.

8 JUDGE AGIUS: I think, Registrar, you have to move by the ERN

9 number. It's 02075808.

10 Once I had to deal with the biggest bank fraud cases we've had in

11 my country. I was Defence counsel at the time. And we went through the

12 most boring exercise in my life examining various bank documents in that

13 case that were alleged to have been forged, banks -- documents of another

14 bank, nothing to do with this bank. So you can imagine how much I am

15 enjoying myself today. Still, it is very important, especially in a case

16 like this.

17 I would suggest you leave it in the pocket, Madam.

18 Now, I'm afraid you have to take it out of the pocket. Sorry.

19 So, now, could we have the camera zoom in on the... Okay. Yes,

20 and we have it focussed now. I don't know if you want to proceed with

21 your question, Madam Vidovic.

22 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] I would just like to ask the usher

23 to move this part of the page -- I mean, I would like to see the document

24 in its entirety, please. That's what I'm saying.

25 JUDGE AGIUS: All right.

Page 672

1 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, thank you, Your Honour. Of

2 course, we had to clarify these matters because the copies that we have

3 truly indicated something that is quite different from what we actually

4 see on the original now. Thank you.

5 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. And that's the problem with

6 multigenerational photocopying that we have to live with.

7 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation]

8 Q. This question pertains to the originals. Now, in connection with

9 something similar, I would like to ask you for certain clarifications that

10 have to do with copies.

11 Could the usher please place on the ELMO the document that was

12 marked by the expert as Q2. That is 02075809.


14 MS. VIDOVIC: P74, yes.

15 [Interpretation] Yes, it is P74.

16 JUDGE AGIUS: I would make available both of them straight away

17 because we probably need both of them.

18 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes. Yes, we will be needing them.

19 Also, we will need the original -- rather, no, not the original. Yes,

20 actually, yes, the original.

21 JUDGE AGIUS: It's 5809.

22 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation]

23 Q. I would like to clarify the following: Can it be seen that on the

24 document underneath the last name where the last letters are, the last

25 letters of the signature can be seen. But then, a part of a word can be

Page 673

1 seen, A-S-E-R. At least, that's what we saw on the copy of the document

2 that we received.

3 A. That is correct. And also --

4 Q. Yes, yes.

5 A. -- the portion of a capital N can also be seen.

6 Q. Yes. Yes. We were interested in the following: When the stamp

7 was enlarged, especially when only a section of it was enlarged, the one

8 that your colleague looked at, how come the letter A cannot be seen

9 underneath the signature?

10 I would now like to draw your attention to page 03523867, which is

11 annex 2 to your report. And part of the stamp was enlarged as well as the

12 signature of Mr. Oric. In the upper right-hand corner underneath your

13 document marked as Q2, it can be seen that these letters are simply not

14 there. Can you please place this on the ELMO, too.

15 JUDGE AGIUS: Before you answer, yes, Mr. Wubben.

16 MR. WUBBEN: Am I correct that the expert didn't reply to the

17 question?

18 JUDGE AGIUS: No, he hasn't replied to the question, no. But I

19 thought she was following it up and then he would give one -- she didn't

20 even give him the chance to reply actually, so I take it she was expecting

21 him to reply to both at the end.

22 MR. WUBBEN: Thank you, Your Honour.

23 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, these questions are

24 interrelated, so ultimately they boil down to a single question.

25 JUDGE AGIUS: That's how I took you to be proceeding actually.

Page 674

1 But I don't know. I hope it was -- I am right.

2 THE WITNESS: To answer this question, there are two things: One

3 is this part is the -- is an appendix for the handwriting report, and the

4 second part is also what I can see here on the document, it's also

5 probably a multigeneration copy where the light details will be lost in

6 the copying process. So I would need to see the original appendix from

7 the report to identify if on this appendix these details are visible or

8 not.

9 JUDGE AGIUS: Now, I don't know if the original report is

10 available. Is it handy now? Is it available now or not? Do we have the

11 original report? Yes. So I think it can be handed over to the witness.

12 He will look at the appendix.

13 You need to look, sir, first at page ERN 03523867, which is

14 Appendix 2.

15 THE WITNESS: On here, you can clearly see --

16 JUDGE AGIUS: We need to put it on the ELMO, then.

17 THE WITNESS: You can zoom into this.

18 On this original, you can clearly see that there are still -- the

19 letters are there. So it's again, multigeneration copying which is losing

20 details.

21 JUDGE AGIUS: Modern technology seems to be against you,

22 Madam Vidovic.

23 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. But that is

24 certainly something that I had to clarify.

25 JUDGE AGIUS: Certainly, certainly. And I will let you go on as

Page 675

1 much as you like because these things definitely need to be clarified.

2 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] I would now like to ask the usher to

3 place on the ELMO the appendix to the report of July 2004, which is P254,

4 I believe.

5 JUDGE AGIUS: No, 265.

6 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] 256, I'm sorry.


8 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. Page 0359 -- [In

9 English] The second one.

10 JUDGE AGIUS: I see, I see.

11 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we've consulted just

12 now, and we are probably going to reach the same conclusions in respect of

13 the copies as well. We wanted to see the same things on the copies. So

14 now I'm going to withdraw this question. The situation is much clearer to

15 us now. I just wanted to clarify this particular matter, both in respect

16 of the copies and the originals.

17 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Madam Vidovic.

18 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation]

19 Q. I would like to put some other questions to you now that have to

20 do with the examination of documents in general terms. At this moment, it

21 is not going to refer to the war diary.

22 On page 03523859 of the report dated February 2004, which is P264,

23 you came to the conclusion that there is no proof of any tampering with

24 the documents concerned, except that in the war diary the customary

25 corrections were found. Yes, of course, I'm going to make it possible for

Page 676












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 677

1 you to follow me.

2 Have you found the relevant part of the report?

3 A. Yes, I've found the relevant part. And you are specifying to the

4 war diary or to the other documents?

5 Q. No, of course I'm going to ask you about the war diary afterwards

6 as well, but now I'm talking about other documents. And you said that it

7 was only in the war diary that the usual type of corrections were found as

8 well as in the documents that were typewritten. So you meant typos.

9 As far as these other documents are concerned, your assertion is

10 that you found only corrections that were typewritten or rather you refer

11 to typographical errors. Is that not right?

12 A. These corrections could be either handwritten corrections or

13 typewritten corrections. But if they were clearly visible corrections, we

14 did not consider them tampering.

15 Q. All right. The difference between corrections and malicious

16 tampering, or rather forgery, in other words, depends on many factors,

17 including the content of the document involved. Isn't that right?

18 A. That is correct, and this is also why I addressed this matter

19 earlier, that because we do not understand the language we could not

20 examine these for content.

21 Q. Yes, we'll get to that. I'm going to give you an example. Paul

22 killed Mark. If I change this, and if I say "Peter killed Mark," then

23 that can be a correction. But it can also imply malicious tampering with

24 obvious consequences. Isn't that right?

25 A. That is correct.

Page 678

1 Q. Yes. You explained yesterday that you do not speak any one of the

2 languages from the territory of the former Yugoslavia. But I wonder

3 whether you could have found someone from the area who speaks one of the

4 languages who could have helped you while working on the analysis. Did

5 you try to find such a person?

6 A. We did not try to find such a person. We thought that if -- well,

7 people from this Tribunal would be able to interpret these documents and

8 their value, and then point us out which areas if there were specific

9 areas we needed to look at. And this was not done. So...

10 Q. So you could not conclude at all whether something had been

11 corrected on the basis of the context of the document itself. Right?

12 A. No.

13 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] I would now like to ask the usher to

14 place Document 02075808 on the ELMO, again, marked as Q3.

15 Q. This is your report from February 2004. That is P73 yet again.

16 I would like to draw your attention to point 7. Could you please

17 zoom in. The last word is "Skelana." Could you please focus on the word

18 itself, Skelana. That is the last word in the sentence under number 7.

19 Could you please zoom in on that. Yes, yes.

20 Then I would like to ask you the following: Could you please

21 place on the ELMO another document. But I'm just going to tell you that

22 Skelani is the name of a municipality in Bosnia-Herzegovina which is

23 mentioned in this indictment, too. Here in the text it has to do with a

24 certain person Ahmo Tihic, or rather his area of responsibility.

25 Could we have Q5 placed on the ELMO next to this. The number is

Page 679

1 01239504 of your mentioned report. That is Prosecution Exhibit P4. I

2 would now like to draw your attention to item 5 in this document. Could

3 you please zoom in on item 5, number 5. It says "TO Biljeg, Ahmo Tihic."

4 So it's the same person, and his area of responsibility is referred to.

5 Yes, yes.

6 Please take a look at this, Ahmo Tihic, TO Biljeg. Could you

7 please look at item 7 in the previous document yet again, please, Q3. The

8 word "Skelana," could you please zoom in on that, the last sentence of

9 item 7. Skelani, could you please zoom in on that. Could that please be

10 in the centre, yes.

11 Dr. de Koeijer, isn't it obvious that something else was

12 typewritten underneath Skelani because you can still see the traces of

13 different lettering.

14 A. Yes, yes, something else has been typewritten under there.

15 Q. Yes. Are you aware of the fact that the areas of responsibility

16 of this person were changed by changing the names of these two areas? For

17 example, if we say -- let me try to explain this. If, for example,

18 somebody says that Dr. de Koeijer's area of responsibility is The Hague,

19 and then somebody erases that and says the Netherlands, do you agree that

20 this is a substantial difference or change?

21 A. It would be a substantial difference, yes.

22 Q. You agree that this kind of analysis of such substantive

23 differences is something that you did not deal with because you do not

24 know the language?

25 A. That is correct.

Page 680

1 Q. Let us go back to the war diary now. That is P84. You tried to

2 see whether there were erasures or whether there were page insertions and

3 changes of that kind, and you said that ultraviolet luminescence did not

4 indicate any significant differences. Today in response to the questions

5 put by the Honourable Judges, you explained the importance of having such

6 pages taken out.

7 Please, is this unauthorised tampering with documents? If pages

8 are taken out, can this affect the contents of the document in a

9 substantive way?

10 A. It can certainly affect the content of the document. And we

11 cannot assess what was on the pages taken out and if it was truly

12 tampering or if it was in the due course of business.

13 Q. Yes. But you cannot conclude something that would be the exact

14 opposite either, right?

15 A. No, that is correct.

16 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

17 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] P84, page 02115053. I can help you.

18 Perhaps I can give you the page. It is part of the exhibit involved.

19 Q. In your conclusions, you said that you carefully examined the war

20 diary, especially some of its pages. Please, can --

21 JUDGE AGIUS: [Previous interpretation continues]...

22 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Could we please have this placed on

23 the ELMO.

24 Q. Could you please show the document in its entirety first. Can we,

25 if possible, see the entire page first. Yes. That includes the

Page 681

1 beginning.

2 So please look at the upper part of the page first, and then

3 something that can be seen here underneath the letters. That is the date

4 when the session was held, and then the agenda is written out. Can you

5 please lift this a bit. Yes. A bit further up, please. Could you please

6 put it up and then move it down slowly.

7 I may be a layman in this field, but it seems evident to me that

8 this handwriting underneath the number does not correspond to the

9 handwriting above. I know that your colleague compared the handwritings,

10 but I know that you also signed these findings. Did you or your colleague

11 or your team that worked on this, did you deal with the question of

12 handwriting and the persons who wrote this diary? This is a very

13 important matter in these criminal proceedings.

14 A. I -- to my knowledge, the war diary was not examined for

15 handwriting. And I need to check that in the report.

16 Q. Why is it so? Why did you not do that? Because this is one of

17 the basic analyses that can be carried out as far as written documents are

18 concerned.

19 A. I think to do sensible handwriting analysis on a document like

20 this, you will first need to know what is exactly stated in the document,

21 and which areas should be addressed. And this -- these questions were not

22 asked the Institute.

23 Q. So in other words, the Prosecutor did not ask you to do that?

24 A. That's right.

25 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. I have no

Page 682

1 further questions.

2 Just an additional question by my colleague, if you allow him to

3 put the question.

4 [Defence counsel confer]

5 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] This is actually a suggestion given

6 by my colleague.

7 Q. I presented a document to you with the word "Skelani." Do you

8 still abide by your conclusion that there were no unauthorised

9 interventions in the diary in spite of what I showed you just now?

10 A. I cannot state that this change was unauthorised or authorised. I

11 have no knowledge about this.

12 Q. Couldn't you have used a person from the territory of the former

13 Yugoslavia to assist you in this endeavour? Because I know that there are

14 thousands of such people here, including people who are very professional.

15 A. We could have used someone with the knowledge of the language, and

16 I think if we had someone like that, it could have been -- helped us quite

17 a bit. Only we -- on receiving the documents, we imagined that they had

18 already been gone through in detail by people from the -- investigators

19 from the Tribunal, and they would ask us if there were specific areas for

20 us to look at on the basis of content. But we did not get any questions

21 to look at specific areas based on content.

22 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Very well. Thank you, Your Honours.

23 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, Madam Vidovic.

24 It's time for a break, unless I get an indication from you that

25 you have got a very short re-examination. I haven't checked with

Page 683

1 Judge Brydensholt and Judge Eser whether they have any questions. I've

2 got one question here, and one year.

3 How long do you need?

4 MR. WUBBEN: Very short.

5 JUDGE AGIUS: Very short. So may I suggest to the staff, the

6 interpreters and the technicians that we proceed. We should conclude in

7 less than five, ten minutes, and then we can call it a day instead of

8 having a break and then resuming and sitting only for about ten minutes in

9 any case.

10 MR. WUBBEN: Your Honour --

11 JUDGE AGIUS: I can't see beyond the windows.

12 THE INTERPRETER: Yes, Your Honour.

13 JUDGE AGIUS: And the technicians okay. And it's okay with the

14 rest of the staff in the courtroom? Okay.

15 So re-examination, Mr. Wubben.

16 MR. WUBBEN: I confirm to you that we will be short, but we would

17 like to raise a limited small issue after that. You asked me --

18 JUDGE AGIUS: It's okay. We should be finished in ten minutes

19 anyway.

20 Re-examined by Mr. Wubben:

21 Q. With a view to the word "Skelani" you had been shown a document,

22 Q3, in your collection. I don't know if you need again to have that on

23 the ELMO. Could it also be a typewriting error correction?

24 A. That could indeed be a typewriting correction. I would...

25 Q. Next question -- I just check. Yes, it could indeed be.

Page 684

1 Can you further confirm to me when the question arose about the

2 corrections that had been done in the documents itself, that's the

3 question related to the first report, that means that P264, first report

4 of February 2004, and there was the specific question in which you

5 concluded, if I'm correct, "I could not conclude at all corrections on the

6 basis of the document itself," related to this example of Paul killed Mark

7 and Peter killed Mark and the change.

8 A. I'm not sure what --

9 Q. Let me put it in another way: Can you confirm that on the

10 reports, you indeed did an examination for direct signs of mechanical or

11 chemical erasures found?

12 A. Yes, we did.

13 Q. And that conclusion remains also after this cross-examination?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. There was this example about a forger who used a confiscated stamp

16 on all the documents, and that the conclusion would be that the stamp

17 impression came from the same source. Well, when a conclusion in that

18 case would be -- in that example would be that the stamp impression came

19 from the same source, then when I compare it to the final conclusion of

20 your report, there is no such a conclusion. Is that true?

21 A. In our report, we conclude that certain stamps were possibly or

22 probably made by the same stamp. And by "the same stamp," we mean the

23 same source.

24 Q. Does that mean, and correct me if I'm wrong, that in that example

25 of a forger using a confiscated stamp, that that example does not apply to

Page 685

1 your conclusion?

2 A. No --

3 Q. I mean, in the conclusions in your reports.

4 A. We did not assess if all these stamps were -- if all these stamps

5 were forgeries made from the same stamp or if they are all genuine made

6 from the same genuine stamp. And I think that is what was addressing --

7 we were addressing here. We cannot make this difference between all

8 stamps coming from one forged stamp or all stamp impressions coming from

9 one genuine stamp.

10 Q. But if your conclusion would be when it comes from one stamp, only

11 one stamp, if your conclusion would be then that it is a stamp impression

12 from the same source, then again looking to the two reports with a nuanced

13 conclusion, you might. But I'm not an expert. You might conclude, so

14 that example doesn't apply to this.

15 MR. JONES: I think the witness has answered the question. I

16 don't know where my learned friend is going with this. It's in any event

17 a very leading question if indeed there is a question at the end of it.

18 JUDGE AGIUS: Let him answer the question. Maybe he will make it

19 more clear.

20 THE WITNESS: I -- I believe you may be inferring that there's

21 both a -- there are two different stamps and one is a forged stamp and one

22 is a true stamp, and they are both on the -- that we cannot mix these

23 or -- what we're saying is all the stamps we examined in -- or most of the

24 stamps we examined come from one source in more or less degrees. What

25 we're not saying, if this source is the original stamp or if it's a

Page 686

1 fraudulently made stamp, and we cannot say this. We cannot address this

2 question because we don't have reference material with original stamps.

3 MR. WUBBEN: That answers my question. Thank you.

4 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay, thank you.

5 Judge Brydensholt.

6 Questioned by the Court:

7 JUDGE BRYDENSHOLT: Yes, I have only one question. That is

8 regarding the kind of cooperation between Dr. Fagel and yourself. We have

9 learned that among the signatures - I'm referring to question 6, there's

10 one which is not similar to the others. It is different. In such a case,

11 do you then collaborate so that you then take an extra examination

12 regarding the stamp on that document? The same goes the other way around.

13 We have here Q22, questioned 22, where you have said this is not -- this

14 doesn't seem to be the same stamp. Does that then as a consequence have

15 that you examine the signature once more? Or isn't that there, that kind

16 of cooperation between you?

17 A. No. In this case, it was -- there was no collaboration between

18 the two examiners. Sometimes, in some cases, it is done that if certain

19 conclusions will enhance each other, then we will try to make this clear

20 to the Court in our report. In this case, it was not done.


22 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Dr. de Koeijer. There are no further

23 questions from the Bench, by basically means that your testimony comes to

24 an end here. On behalf of Judge Brydensholt, Judge Eser, and my own

25 behalf I would like to thank you, first, for having done all this work for

Page 687

1 the Office of the Prosecution, and also for having come over and testified

2 for two days before this Tribunal these last two days.

3 Madam Usher will escort you out of the courtroom, and you will be

4 provided with all the assistance you require to return back. Thank you.

5 THE WITNESS: Thank you very much, Your Honour.

6 JUDGE AGIUS: We don't require the witness.

7 [The witness withdrew]

8 JUDGE AGIUS: The Registrar is on tenterhooks in case the chain of

9 custody becomes contaminated. He wants to return back the earliest

10 possible, essentially now, all the originals that were consigned to him

11 earlier on.

12 MR. WUBBEN: Yes. We note for the record that we are now being

13 handed over, at least, a group of documents to my case manager.

14 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Wubben is doubting or putting in doubt

15 whether you have handed back every single document that you had received

16 before, Mr. Siller.

17 MR. WUBBEN: Now, Your Honour, now you're referring to your former

18 life as a lawyer, but I tell you what I observed. Nothing more than that.

19 JUDGE AGIUS: You had a final point to make.

20 MR. WUBBEN: Yes, Your Honour. I would like to give the floor to

21 Ms. Patricia Sellers.

22 JUDGE AGIUS: Ms. Sellers.

23 MS. SELLERS: Yes, Your Honour, I have a subject to bring up

24 concerning witness protection. I would ask that we go into private

25 session. I'll be informing the Defence at the same time that I'm

Page 688

1 informing Your Honours.

2 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, let's go into private session for a while,

3 please.

4 [Private session]

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

Page 689











11 Page 689 redacted. Private session.















Page 690











11 Page 690 redacted. Private session.















Page 691











11 Page 691 redacted. Private session.















Page 692

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 12.47 p.m.,

23 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 14th day of

24 October, 2004, at 9.00 a.m.