Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 18989

 1                          Tuesday, 11 December 2007

 2                          [Open session]

 3                          [The accused entered court]

 4                          [The witness entered court]

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

 6            JUDGE AGIUS:  All right.  Madam Registrar, could you call the

 7    case, please?

 8            THE REGISTRAR:  Good morning --

 9            JUDGE AGIUS:  Sorry.

10            THE REGISTRAR: -- Your Honours.  Good morning to everyone in the

11    courtroom.  This is case number IT-05-88-T, the Prosecutor versus Vujadin

12    Popovic et al.

13            JUDGE AGIUS:  I can assure you, there's nothing wrong with you and

14    nothing wrong with my eyesight.  It was just an oversight, for which I

15    apologise, Mr. Registrar.

16            All the accused are here.  The Defence team composition, I only

17    notice the absence of Mr. Bourgon.  And the Prosecution is almost in full

18    force; Mr. McCloskey, Mr. Vanderpuye, Ms. Soljan.

19            The witness is already present.  Good morning to you.

20            We are going to proceed with the examination -- the continuation

21    of the examination-in-chief first, and then we move to the

22    cross-examinations.

23            Ms. Soljan.

24            MS. SOLJAN:  Thank you.

25            Good morning, Your Honours.

Page 18990

 1                          WITNESS: DEAN MANNING [Resumed]

 2                          Examination by Ms. Soljan:  [Continued]

 3       Q.   Good morning, Mr. Manning.

 4       A.   Good morning.

 5       Q.   Mr. Manning, you mentioned yesterday a series of three major

 6    reports that you had prepared concerning the investigation of the

 7    Srebrenica-related mass graves.  Do you remember the dates of those

 8    reports so we can have them for the record?

 9       A.   The reports were presented, but were written for court

10    appearances, so I sometimes get them confused, but 2000, 2001 and 2003, I

11    believe.

12            MS. SOLJAN:  If we could have, for the record, Exhibit P00649 on

13    e-court, please.

14       Q.   Mr. Manning, do you recognise this report?

15       A.   Yes.  That's the cover page of the report I authored in May of

16    2000 or up to May of 2000.

17            MS. SOLJAN:  And Exhibit P00648, please.

18       Q.   Do you recognise this one, Mr. Manning?

19       A.   That's the next report which I authored up to February 2001.

20            MS. SOLJAN:  And, finally, Exhibit P02994.

21       A.   And that's the third report authored up to the 24th of August,

22    2003.

23            MS. SOLJAN:  Thank you.  Can we now have P02993.

24       Q.   Mr. Manning, can you please tell us what this document is?

25       A.   This is the most recent report which I prepared up to the 27th of

Page 18991

 1    November this year.

 2       Q.   And can we take a look at page 2 of this report, please.  Now,

 3    there are two main categories of numbers that appear to be cited there in

 4    bold.  One reads:  "All Srebrenica victims identified via DNA analysis by

 5    ICMP," and the number next to it is "5021", and the next is: "Srebrenica

 6    victims identified via DNA analysis in mass graves," and the number next

 7    to it is "4017".  Can you explain what these categories mean?

 8            JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, one moment.

 9            Mr. Meek.

10            MR. MEEK:  Good morning, Your Honours.

11            JUDGE AGIUS:  Good morning.

12            MR. MEEK:  Pursuant to the Trial Chamber's ruling yesterday, this

13    is all new material that they're beginning to ask this witness about.

14    This is all about the ICM -- excuse me, ICMT -- P, DNA results,

15    examinations, et cetera, which we literally, as you noticed or mentioned

16    yesterday, were diluted with these things last week.  We object to any

17    testimony whatsoever from this witness, who cannot lay a proper foundation

18    concerning anything that organisation did in regards to the collection of

19    or analysis pursuant to any DNA testing.

20            JUDGE AGIUS:  Thank you, Mr. Meek.

21            Ms. Soljan.

22            MS. SOLJAN:  Your Honours, I'd like to make two points about this.

23            First of all, Mr. Manning is not testifying explaining the

24    underlying data about the ICMP or the basis that the data is found on the

25    ICMP list.

Page 18992

 1            Second of all, related to his report -- actually, the data that

 2    Mr. Manning is relying upon is that essentially an updated form of the

 3    very same data that Mr. Helge Brunborg had relied upon during his

 4    testimony of February 1, as well as the reports that he had issued on 21

 5    November 2005 and the list of Srebrenica identified, and these have been

 6    exhibits that were admitted as P02416 through Exhibits P02418.

 7            Now, he discussed the ICMP data briefly in his testimony, and I

 8    can also refer you to the page of his testimony at 6785 and 86, laying the

 9    foundation for data.  He was relying on older data.  However, we actually

10    carried out a comparison --

11            THE INTERPRETER:  Could counsel please slow down.  Thank you.

12            MS. SOLJAN:  We carried out a comparison of his data briefly

13    yesterday and found out that the data found in Mr. Manning's report

14    matches -- approximately two-thirds of the data found in Mr. Brunborg's

15    underlying report from 2005 is found in Mr. Manning's, so we're dealing

16    with the same underlying data and the foundation has been laid by

17    Mr. Brunborg.

18            JUDGE AGIUS:  Thank you.

19            Yes, Mr. Meek.

20            MR. MEEK:  Respectfully to my learned colleague, if Mr. Manning is

21    not and cannot testify and explain the underlying data from this ICMP and

22    all he wants to do is give the results and we are supposed to accept those

23    results on faith, that is specifically our objection.

24            In regards to their now argument in which I say they are just

25    trying to back-door this evidence in by saying, "Well, the demographer,

Page 18993

 1    Helge Brunborg, had actually used as a portion of his report, which was or

 2    was not objected to, as Mr. Zivanovic stated yesterday, that report is

 3    highly contentious, but this is a completely separate issue, and I don't

 4    believe that it would be appropriate for the Trial Chamber to say, well,

 5    months ago, on a demographer -- if objections weren't made at that time,

 6    the door is wide open and you waive those, we have specifically and

 7    categorically objected to this type of evidence since last week with our

 8    filings, and you came down with your ruling Monday, and you did say this

 9    witness could summarise the testimony and evidence that's been before this

10    Chamber or may come before this Chamber of the experts, and he's been

11    doing that.

12            But now he wants to summarise and give the results of experts who

13    will never come before this Chamber, and I would obviously, Judge, argue

14    that the Best Evidence Rule applies in this case, and as Your Honours

15    perfectly put it on page 24 of your decision on admissibility of

16    intercepted communications, the Best Evidence Rule means nothing more than

17    a Chamber will expect the parties to adduce the best evidence available

18    under the circumstances.

19            Now, we've been in this trial a year and a half.  The Prosecution

20    could certainly have brought these DNA experts and the collecting people

21    and everything and the people that formed the basis to come up with these

22    conclusions that they claim are conclusions.

23            I also had an e-mail requesting further information from the OTP,

24    and Lada was nice enough to e-mail me back and inform me that:  As I

25    know -- or "To the extent we are aware," being the OTP, "The ICMP does not

Page 18994

 1    make more detailed reports available to third parties for reasons of

 2    confidentiality."

 3            We were asking for clarification on what they meant by the

 4    original list.  We were unclear.  We were asking for the 1999 ICRC list

 5    and some other matters, so the OTP well knows that this entity, the ICMP,

 6    will not release detailed reports because of confidentiality, and perhaps

 7    that's why they didn't want to bring them.  Maybe they can't even get the

 8    information, but we certainly can't.

 9            JUDGE AGIUS:  Let's cut this short, because I think you've made

10    your point.

11            MR. MEEK:  Thank you.

12            JUDGE AGIUS:  Thank you.

13            Do you wish to add anything, Ms. Soljan?

14            MS. SOLJAN:  Yes, Your Honour, only to say --

15            JUDGE AGIUS:  Very shortly, please, very briefly.

16            MS. SOLJAN:  Very briefly and slowly, indeed.

17            Only to say that the Defence have not objected to the underlying

18    data that Mr. Helge Brunborg relied on, which is the same data that

19    Mr. Manning is now relying on.

20            JUDGE AGIUS:  All right, thank you.

21            Mr. Zivanovic.

22            MR. ZIVANOVIC:  I would join to the submission of Mr. Meek, but I

23    would like to add that the Defence of Popovic objected to all findings of

24    Mr. Brunborg from the very start of this trial, in pre-trial stage of this

25    trial.

Page 18995

 1            JUDGE AGIUS:  Okay.  You said that yesterday.

 2            MR. ZIVANOVIC:  Thanks.

 3            JUDGE AGIUS:  Thank you.

 4            JUDGE KWON:  But before we deliberate, Ms. Soljan, you haven't

 5    finished your question before Mr. Meek intervened.  Can I hear out the

 6    question you'd like to -- wanted to put to Mr. Manning?  What's the crux

 7    of your question?

 8            MS. SOLJAN:  The crux of my question to Mr. Manning was to explain

 9    the figures on the first page of his report.  There are two figures on his

10    report, and I simply wanted him to explain what they are.

11            JUDGE KWON:  Because we haven't seen his report.

12            MS. SOLJAN:  It was Exhibit 02993, on page 2 of the report, so I

13    was referring specifically to this page 2, and I was referring to the text

14    in bold next to which you can find the number.  There are two bolded

15    lines.  The first one is at the bottom of paragraph 3 and the second one

16    is right on top of the last paragraph on page 2 of the report.

17            JUDGE KWON:  What we are seeing is page first, yeah, first page.

18            MS. SOLJAN:  First page of the report, but effectively the second

19    page on e-court.

20                          [Trial Chamber confers]

21            JUDGE AGIUS:  All right.  I think, Mr. Meek, Ms. Soljan and, to a

22    lesser extent, Mr. Zivanovic, we've drawn a big, big circle, only to find

23    ourselves where we were yesterday, the same point.

24            Again, once more, and I hope there won't be any more interventions

25    after this:  One needs to draw a clear distinction between what are the

Page 18996

 1    witness's own conclusions in his own report, where he relies on sources,

 2    different sources, including but not exclusively on his own findings.

 3    When he relies on sources that are not before this Trial Chamber, his

 4    evidence, his report, is confined, is limited, to that being one of his

 5    sources and nothing else.  The other report on which he would be relying

 6    is not being put in question, is not being introduced in the records of

 7    this case.

 8            So if the witness has relied on DNA analysis report by ICMP, we

 9    are not taking his report to mean that he has analysed the report of the

10    ICMP to come to a conclusion as to whether it was acceptable or not

11    acceptable, but he has found the conclusions which he has adopted for the

12    purpose of his report as a source, as a source, which ultimately means

13    that that will result or translate itself in a question of how much weight

14    we will be giving to the witness's conclusions, as shown in his report,

15    when we come to that stage, insofar as in part, at least, it relies on

16    conclusions reached by others which are not before the Trial Chamber and

17    which cannot be verified.

18            I think we have made ourselves clear, and please -- Mr. Meek.

19            MR. MEEK:  Thank you, Your Honour.

20            JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes.

21            MR. MEEK:  So to make it clear, he can rely on these reports, DNA

22    reports, but they won't be before the Trial Chamber, the methodology, the

23    analysis, how they did it --

24            JUDGE AGIUS:  No, no, no.  We're not--

25            MR. MEEK: -- just the final number would be; is that what you're

Page 18997

 1    saying?

 2            JUDGE AGIUS:  Exactly.  We don't have the DNA analysis or the

 3    protocol used or the system or the information relating to each DNA

 4    fingerprinting process that was undertaken.  That is not before our Trial

 5    Chamber through ICMP exercise.  We may have that through other sources,

 6    but insofar as these exercises, fingerprinting exercises have been carried

 7    out by ICMP and referred to in his report, what we have is his adoption or

 8    his adoption of the ICMP results as one of his sources, as one of his

 9    sources, and nothing else.

10            Yes, Mr. McCloskey.

11            MR. McCLOSKEY:  Just to alert the Court, Mr. President, when -- we

12    have never received an objection regarding the report of Helge Brunborg or

13    the DNA.  There has been a difference -- they have challenged the numbers,

14    but no one -- and we looked to the record on this -- has ever objected to

15    the entry of evidence of Helge Brunborg's report or the DNA evidence that

16    it was founded on.  Based on that, we have designed Mr. Manning's evidence

17    the way we have.

18            Now, if there is an objection to the underlying DNA, then it is my

19    intention to call -- to request leave of Court to call this evidence,

20    which I would hate to do.  But if there is an objection, that I'm hearing

21    now for the first time in months, frankly, we will ask that we be allowed

22    to call the ICMP to be able to provide this evidence, because it's

23    fundamental to these reports, and this is the first time we've seen an

24    objection, so we've not gone that far before.  But if they truly are

25    objecting to this material, we will be asking the Court to call that

Page 18998

 1    evidence.

 2            JUDGE AGIUS:  As I understand it, Mr. McCloskey, there are two --

 3    let's call them impediments for the time being, but they are much less

 4    than that.  One is Mr. Meek's repeated objections to the introduction into

 5    the evidence or into the records of this case through the evidence of the

 6    present witness of reports that have not otherwise been brought before

 7    this Chamber, and that's one issue.

 8            The other issue, which -- that doesn't worry us in the least,

 9    because I think we've made ourselves clear.  It's only Mr. Meek that keeps

10    not understanding properly what we have been saying, with due respect,

11    Mr. Meek.

12            The other objection is the one raised by Mr. Zivanovic which here

13    and now, on two feet, we are not in a position to control because we don't

14    have the transcript available of what he had stated at the relative

15    moment.  He maintains that with the evidence or testimony of Mr. Brunborg,

16    he had clearly and distinctly mounted an objection to the -- if that is

17    so, please verify it, and if there is a continued objection or it is

18    punctualised, then at that point in time we will consider what needs to be

19    done.  But we are not in a position to control what Mr. Zivanovic had

20    stated.

21            As it is, I understand you to be -- to have understood his

22    objection, because some objection there must have been, in a different

23    manner than it was meant to be, so please verify that and come back to us.

24            MR. McCLOSKEY:  We have spoken about this, as we always do, and

25    Mr. Zivanovic - and he will be able to explain it to you - has objected to

Page 18999

 1    the results, I believe, as we asked for them in an agreed-upon fax

 2    motion.  But we have gone back to Helge Brunborg's testimony, we've gone

 3    back to that part at the end of the testimony where we offered material

 4    into evidence, and no one objected to anything.  It's very clear on the

 5    record that that wasn't objected to.

 6            Now, because there was no objection prior to Mr. Brunborg's

 7    evidence that showed that there was DNA in there and there was no

 8    objection after he testified, we have relied that there was no objection

 9    about DNA evidence for the testimony of Dean Manning.  And then we got

10    that 11th-hour motion that comes in, and now they're objecting to it.

11            So fair enough, if that's the ruling, but we would like, if that's

12    the case, to be able to call the appropriate people.

13            This evidence is essential to the genocide case.  This evidence

14    is -- we're no longer relying on anthropological data to determine minimum

15    numbers, and I don't want to get into it any more that.  But this is

16    essential evidence that went unobjected to, and frankly, they'll all got

17    demographics experts.  We're going to be able to have all this material on

18    cross-examination and it's all going to come into because it's crucial to

19    any demographic stuff.  So we can talk and to see if they're really

20    objecting to DNA evidence, because at this point that's going to be a long

21    process if they are, because we want that in, we want it to be given the

22    full value that the Court can give it.  And when we get these last-minute

23    objections, that's what's caused this problem.  We relied on their

24    non-objection before.  And we can get around this problem by bringing in a

25    person, and I think we can hopefully do it and still meet our time frame,

Page 19000

 1    but that's where we are.

 2            JUDGE AGIUS:  I suggest rather than lose more time on this, that

 3    you file a proper motion and we'll deal with it with urgency,

 4    Mr. McCloskey.  If you file it today, we'll make sure that we will cut

 5    down the time limit for responses and decide it by the end of the week

 6    before we leave.

 7            MR. MEEK:  Your Honours, I have to respond.

 8            First off, I think Mr. McCloskey just made our argument, and to

 9    say that he was unaware that we were objecting to this, we've been filing

10    motions all last week and joining those motions and saying that this

11    witness is not the proper witness that you would bring in these results

12    through.

13            JUDGE AGIUS:  Okay, Mr. Meek, you will get more witnesses, full

14    stop.  Let's proceed.  You will get more witnesses.

15            MR. MEEK:  Thank you, Your Honour.

16            JUDGE AGIUS:  With the result that probably the Prosecution will

17    make its case much stronger than it would have been without.

18            But, anyway, let's proceed.

19            Yes, Mr. Soljan.

20            MS. SOLJAN:  Thank you, Your Honours.

21            Can we go back to --

22            JUDGE AGIUS:  I think we did.

23            MR. MEEK:  No, Your Honour, we just have a clarification.  Perhaps

24    you could clarify your comment that with the result that probably the

25    Prosecution will have made its case much stronger than it would have been

Page 19001

 1    without it --

 2            JUDGE AGIUS:  On this issue, because obviously if there is no

 3    unopposed evidence -- if there is opposed evidence on DNA and now that

 4    point will be made clear, obviously you have opened doors for the

 5    Prosecution.

 6            I think I've been a lawyer longer than you have, and you should

 7    understand, Mr. Meek.

 8            MR. MEEK:  I should understand, Your Honour.  I think I do

 9    understand, but I think we should all understand that the Prosecution has

10    had a year and a half since the trial started, and long before, to call

11    these people if they wanted to, and they're just trying to boot-strap it

12    in.

13            JUDGE AGIUS:  Okay, but their understanding was that there was no

14    objection, and now it's clear that there is, and therefore they will

15    proceed accordingly.

16            So Ms. Soljan, please.

17            MS. SOLJAN:

18       Q.   Mr. Manning, can you explain what the two categories in bold on

19    page 1 of your report mean?

20       A.   Your Honours, very briefly, the figure of 5.021 effectively

21    relates to the identification of bodies or individuals matched to either

22    Srebrenica missing reports, that is, individuals have been listed as

23    missing from Srebrenica.  Those bodies were found in graves, small graves,

24    mass graves, surface remains.  It also includes a figure of 758 unique DNA

25    protocols, which effectively mean a person who have yet been identified

Page 19002

 1    but were located in Srebrenica-related graves.  So, in effect, that figure

 2    represents all the bodies identified as being related to Srebrenica.

 3            The second figure or the second paragraph, the figure of 4.017,

 4    4.017, I must indicate that that number has to be amended and I can

 5    explain that later, but it's 4.017 at the moment.  That represents my

 6    calculation of bodies and individuals identified or represented in unique

 7    DNA profiles which were found in Srebrenica-related mass graves, that is,

 8    graves that we accept or I accept to be made up of Srebrenica victims who

 9    were executed following the fall of Srebrenica.  It does not include

10    surface remains or mass graves known to the Bosnian Commission and not the

11    ICTY.

12       Q.   Now, how did you reach this number, Mr. Manning, the number of

13    4.017?

14       A.   Your Honours, effectively, I took the data provided by ICMP and

15    I -- based on my knowledge of the graves and the types of codes used, the

16    grid references, the locations, I divided those figures up into relevant

17    graves.  I then, if you like, stripped away the data which was

18    representing surface remains and other graves, and I then came up with the

19    figure divided amongst all the graves, and I, in the report, represent the

20    individuals located within those graves.  I then simply totalled that to

21    provide this figure of 4.017.

22            MS. SOLJAN:  Your Honours, could we briefly go into private

23    session?  The exhibit I need to show is under seal.

24            JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, let's go into private session.

25                          [Private session]

Page 19003











11    Pages 19003-19005 redacted. Private session















Page 19006

 1                          [Open session]

 2            JUDGE AGIUS:  We are in open session.

 3            MS. SOLJAN:  Could I have Sanction Exhibit 2993, which is page 31

 4    on e-court of Exhibit 2993.

 5       Q.   Mr. Manning, can you describe what this is, please?

 6       A.   Your Honours, this is a page from the annex to my latest report.

 7    It relates to the Nova Kasaba 1996 primary undisturbed mass grave.  It

 8    lists the relevant case ID, protocol ID, and the ID of the ICMP.  It also

 9    lists one additional unique unmatched DNA profile, that is, a unique

10    individual not yet identified to a name.

11       Q.   And how did you obtain this selection?

12       A.   I produced this selection from the process that I previously

13    described, isolating the numbers and codes.

14            Your Honours, I have to indicate that in this document, I have

15    made an error.  I have counted seven individuals in relation to this grave

16    in error.  So the first seven references to "NKAS" and then various

17    numbers is actually incorrect.

18       Q.   Can you explain what the error arises from?

19       A.   Your Honours, in that process where I selected codes and grid

20    references and identified graves, the references that start "NKAS-1,"

21    "NKAS-2," "3" and "4" represent codes which were prepared by Dr. Haglund

22    in his first examination of the grave in 1996.  I'm familiar with those

23    codes and I know that they represent the individuals that were located

24    within that mass grave. There were 33 complete bodies located within that

25    mass grave.

Page 19007

 1            In my examination of the records, I believe that "NKAS," those

 2    seven individuals, represented surface remains from the Nova Kasaba 1996

 3    grave.  That was an error on my part based partly on information I

 4    received from Murat Hurtic and the Bosnian Commission for Missing Persons

 5    and the data and records that I had examined in my 2005 mission to

 6    Bosnia.  I believed that there had been no other exhumations in the Nova

 7    Kasaba area from the Bosnian Commission and that these codes represented

 8    surface remains located at Nova Kasaba 1996.  That was wrong.  Those

 9    records actually relate to a Bosnian Commission exhumation in the area

10    which I wasn't aware of.

11            So effectively this document should not include the first seven

12    references.

13       Q.   And, Mr. Manning, are you aware of any other errors in your

14    report?

15       A.   Your Honours, I strive to make the report as accurate as

16    possible.  I apologise for this particular error.  I had members of the

17    OTP, including demography and other individuals, proofread my document,

18    and I have sought to ensure that there are no other errors.  I do not

19    believe there are, and this error was based on my misunderstanding of the

20    original data and the original report by Dr. Haglund.  I don't believe

21    that there are any other errors, and I have tried to make the report as

22    accurate as possible.

23            MS. SOLJAN:  Can we please see pages 23 and 24 of Exhibit 2993 on

24    e-court.  They correspond to pages 22 and 23 in the actual document.

25       Q.   Mr. Manning, can you please explain what this is?

Page 19008

 1       A.   Your Honours, this is an annex to my report.  It's labelled "Table

 2    1".  Very simply, it's a listing of the Srebrenica mass graves that I have

 3    counted the results from ICMP.  You can see the mass grave name is listed

 4    on the left, the appropriate site code in the middle column, and then the

 5    number of identified individuals.  If you see, for instance, "Cancari Road

 6    1", there is no entry.  Either the grave has not yet been exhumed or the

 7    data is not yet available or no identifications have been made.

 8            Again, I would indicate that the reference in Nova Kasaba 96

 9    should read 31 individuals and not 38.

10       Q.   And, Mr. Manning, I notice that on this page, you have two results

11    for Kozluk, "Kozluk" and "Kozluk surface."  Can you please comment on

12    that?

13       A.   Your Honours, the entry that relates to Kozluk with the site

14    code "KK" and the number "328" relates to the ICTY-exhumed Kozluk mass

15    grave.  Kozluk 1, 2 and 3 make up that grave, and you can see that there

16    are 328 individuals identified within that primary disturbed mass grave.

17            In my discussions with the Bosnian Commission for Missing Persons

18    and ICMP, they identified a group of further remains located at the Kozluk

19    site on the surface approximately several hundred metres from the ICTY

20    mass gravesite, and 14 individuals have been identified via ICMP's work,

21    and I would indicate I have accepted that as part of the Kozluk mass grave

22    for a number of reasons, including my discussions with Mr. Hurtic some

23    years previously in relation to areas within the Kozluk area which we felt

24    may contain further human remains.  He -- based on that, I believe that

25    they exhumed those areas that I had indicated.

Page 19009

 1            And I'd also include those remains, as the Kozluk mass grave is

 2    some significant distance from the Srebrenica area and I could see no

 3    other logical reason why the remains of Srebrenica victims would be

 4    adjacent to a primary mass grave where victims were executed.

 5       Q.   And have you counted in your table any other surface remains?

 6       A.   No, I have not counted any other surface remains.  I've counted

 7    the grave at Godinjske Bare, which is not strictly one of the ICTY graves,

 8    but no other surface remains have been counted.  Having said that, when

 9    the mass graves are exhumed, there are remains which poke through the

10    surface and there are remains which are weathered from the surface, but

11    they represent part of the mass grave.  But no surface remains collected

12    by any other organisation were counted.

13            MS. SOLJAN:  Can we go to the next page of the report.

14       Q.   Now, there is a table 2 on this page, and it lists graves,

15    Bljeceva 1, 2 and 3, Budak and Sandici.  You list the site code and the

16    number of individuals identified.  Did you include these numbers in your

17    calculation of the total number of ICMP Srebrenica-related identified

18    persons?

19       A.   I did not.

20       Q.   And why not?

21       A.   Your Honours, these represent significant graves which were

22    identified by ICMP and the Bosnian Commission for Missing Persons.  They

23    were previously unknown to the ICTY.  And whilst I reviewed the site --

24    the Kozluk Cantonal Court files and visited the majority of the sites

25    prior to their being -- or after their being exhumed, I was not present

Page 19010

 1    and did not examine the artifacts and bodies, and on that basis I included

 2    those significant numbers but did not include them in my section of the

 3    report dealing with the ICTY graves.

 4       Q.   And going back to table 1, is then the total number of identified

 5    Srebrenica persons, 4.017, a correct number?

 6       A.   No, again my apologies.  That number has to be amended to 4.010,

 7    removing the seven individuals from Nova Kasaba 1996.

 8       Q.   And to your knowledge, is the number 4.010 a final number with

 9    respect to Srebrenica-identified persons?

10       A.   Certainly not.  Not only is it a conservative number from the

11    process that I employed, the number of graves being exhumed, the speed

12    with which they're now being exhumed and the significant weekly and

13    monthly increase in identifications from ICMP would indicate that that

14    number will rise and is rising as we speak.  It is evident to me, from an

15    examination of the data plus the graves that I'm familiar with, that many

16    of the bodies and body parts located within the graves, even up to the

17    1998 graves, have not yet been fully examined.  I would expect that figure

18    to increase significantly.

19            MS. SOLJAN:  Thank you, Mr. Manning.

20            I have no more questions, Your Honours.

21            JUDGE AGIUS:  Thank you, ma'am.

22            Now, who's going first?  Or, rather, let's control a little bit

23    the estimates again.

24            Mr. Zivanovic, you had asked for two hours, or Madam -- I'm sorry,

25    Madam Tapuskovic, how much time do you think you'll require?

Page 19011

 1            MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, it may be less than

 2    two hours, because the estimate was made before Your Honours' ruling as to

 3    what is included and what the witness can testify to.  I believe it will

 4    be within the two-hour limit.

 5            JUDGE AGIUS:  Thank you.

 6            Mr. Meek, you had requested one hour?

 7            MR. MEEK:  Yes, Your Honour, I had, and I'll stick to that for

 8    right now, Your Honour.

 9            JUDGE AGIUS:  Ms. Nikolic.

10            MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I think I will stick to

11    the time allotted to me.  It all depends on what questions my colleagues

12    will ask who come before me.

13            JUDGE AGIUS:  Thank you.

14            Mr. Stojanovic.

15            MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we said we would

16    need about half an hour.  It may be a little less than that.

17            JUDGE AGIUS:  Thank you.

18            Ms. Fauveau.

19            MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Some 20 minutes, Your Honour.

20            JUDGE AGIUS:  The Gvero Defence team still determined not to

21    cross-examine this witness?

22            MR. JOSSE:  Very determined.

23            JUDGE AGIUS:  Thank you, wise, Mr. Josse and Mr. Krgovic.

24            Mr. Haynes?

25            MR. HAYNES:  I would have thought 10 or 20 minutes.

Page 19012

 1            JUDGE AGIUS:  Thank you, Mr. Haynes.

 2            Who is going first?

 3            Madam Tapuskovic.  Could you please introduce yourself to

 4    Mr. Manning.  Thank you.

 5            MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Good morning to everybody in the

 6    courtroom.

 7                          Cross-examination by Ms. Tapuskovic:

 8       Q.   [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Manning.  My name is Mira

 9    Tapuskovic.  I'm a member of the Defence team of Mr. Vujadin Popovic.

10       A.   Good morning.

11       Q.   Thank you.  You told us yesterday, and we saw this in the

12    voluminous documentation we received, that you testified before this

13    Tribunal in three other cases.  Is that correct?

14       A.   That is correct.

15       Q.   These were the cases against Radislav Krstic, the Blagojevic case

16    and the Slobodan Milosevic case; is that correct?

17       A.   That's correct.

18       Q.   In your CV, we saw a remark saying that for a while you worked on

19    investigations concerning Vukovar and Dubrovnik and that you were directly

20    linked to the investigation in the case of Slobodan Milosevic.  Is that

21    correct?

22       A.   That is correct, yes.

23       Q.   Thank you.  Tell me, please, of the six years that you were

24    employed in the Tribunal, what period of time was devoted to work on those

25    three cases?

Page 19013

 1       A.   Your Honours, I worked on the Srebrenica case as a team member

 2    from 1998 to 2002.  I was then promoted to investigations team leader,

 3    which is when I worked on the Croatian cases, including Milosevic,

 4    Vukovar, Dubrovnik and others.  And I would indicate that I also continued

 5    to work on the Srebrenica case and the preparation of evidence.

 6       Q.   If your employment at the Tribunal terminated in 2004, as you

 7    stated yesterday, you were recruited by the Tribunal and you went on a

 8    mission to Bosnia in 2005; is that correct?

 9       A.   Yes.  As I indicated, in 2005, I think it was October, I travelled

10    to Bosnia on a mission for the ICTY.

11       Q.   I think it was November.  We'll come back to that later.

12            And now you were recruited again by the Tribunal in 2007 to review

13    the data of the Bosnian organs and the International Commission for

14    Missing Persons; is that correct?

15       A.   Your Honours, to make it clear, I have been called as a witness

16    and the preparation for my appearance, including that work, is not

17    contracted to the ICTY.  So to say I was recruited is not correct. I'm

18    simply doing this as part of my appearance as a witness.

19       Q.   Thank you.  That is precisely what I wanted to ask you, what is

20    your status or the status of your engagement here.  Since you've confirmed

21    to me that some data, such as the table that was shown a little while ago,

22    that was displayed during private session, if that is of a private nature

23    and strictly confidential, could you explain to me what was the basis of

24    your access to that data, be it concerning the federal Commission for

25    Missing Persons of Bosnia-Herzegovina, be it to the ICMP?

Page 19014

 1       A.   The specific mechanism is something that should be addressed by

 2    the ICTY, but I addressed access to that data with the ICMP on my mission

 3    in 2005, and I made it clear at that stage the purpose of my seeking the

 4    data, and on that basis I understand it was released to me.  But, again,

 5    the mechanism is something to be discussed with ICTY itself.

 6       Q.   Thank you for your answer.  However, I'm interested to learn how,

 7    on two occasions in 2007, you received such confidential data from the

 8    International Commission.  My learned friend, Mrs. Soljan, did not put

 9    forth your CV, the one created by you in June this year.  Instead, she put

10    forth a CV prepared by you in November this year.  If the attachments to

11    the CVs are confidential, I'd like to know and receive a clear and concise

12    answer to my question.

13            If you're assigned the status of a witness before this Tribunal,

14    how did you gain the status of a person prepared to -- or, rather, with an

15    access to confidential information of the bodies I referred to, the

16    federal commission of Bosnia-Herzegovina, the federal Commission for

17    Missing Persons, and the ICMP?

18       A.   Your Honours, firstly, I don't believe I prepared two curriculum

19    vitaes, and I don't believe there's an annex to any of my CVs.  And I

20    think I have answered that question.  I am not contracted to the ICTY, I'm

21    not being paid.  I was provided the data from ICTY via ICMP, and the

22    mechanism for doing that, as I said, you would have to discuss with ICTY.

23    I made it clear, when I discussed my intentions with ICMP and the Bosnian

24    Commission for Missing Persons, what I would do with the data and that I

25    intended to present that data or the results of that data in court.

Page 19015

 1       Q.   I apologise.  Page 26, line 9, my question seems to refer to the

 2    witness's curriculum vitae or his biography.  I don't know whether I

 3    said "biography."  In any case, I meant to refer to his summary.

 4            JUDGE AGIUS:  Madam Tapuskovic and Ms. Soljan, I have never

 5    understood, and I stand to be corrected, I have never understood this

 6    witness to have been summoned and produced by the Prosecution as an expert

 7    witness.  He's just an ordinary witness who is testifying here on his work

 8    as a previous investigator with the ICTY.  So I don't think the CV has got

 9    anything to do with it, unless his capability, ability to perform the work

10    he did when he was an investigator with the Office of the Prosecutor is

11    questioned.

12                          [Trial Chamber confers]

13            JUDGE AGIUS:  I'm being told now that it may have been a

14    translation issue, in which case I back -- okay, let's proceed, Madam

15    Tapuskovic.

16            MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.  You've

17    saved some time for me.

18       Q.   I still don't have your answer on how you were -- how you were

19    granted access to this confidential information to very important

20    organisations which deal with exhumations and identification of mortal

21    remains in Bosnia-Herzegovina.  Let us move on.

22            When preparing your resume for November and when you were

23    preparing your resume for June, did you travel to Bosnia?

24            JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, Ms. Soljan.

25            MS. SOLJAN:  Your Honour, I think I can clarify one point of

Page 19016

 1    translation.

 2            When Ms. Tapuskovic refers to "resume," she means "report".

 3            JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes.

 4            MS. SOLJAN:  And it should be translated as "report."

 5            JUDGE AGIUS:  Okay.  This time I understood it as being so.  Thank

 6    you, Ms. Soljan.

 7            MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I'd like to thank

 8    my learned friend, Ms. Soljan, for clarifying this.  I am using the term

 9    as it exists on all summaries or, rather, all resumes of this witness.

10    The witness prepared and what was disclosed to us was a total of five of

11    his resumes.  If you look at the cover page, it is stated "resume"

12    or "summary."

13            JUDGE AGIUS:  Let's not get lost or bogged down in semantics.

14    Let's proceed with the substance of your cross-examination,

15    Ms. Tapuskovic, please.

16            MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.  Hence

17    the confusion.

18       Q.   Mr. Manning, to go back to the question:  Preparing the resume in

19    June of 2007 and November of this year, for the needs of preparing the

20    resumes, did you travel to Bosnia?

21       A.   No, I did not.  October/November of 2005 was the only time I

22    travelled recently to Bosnia.

23       Q.   From a notification prior to your testimony, we see that your

24    proofing with the Prosecutor's office was conducted on two occasions, once

25    in October and once just prior to your testimony here.  The one from

Page 19017

 1    October, did you go to The Hague for proofing or did someone visit you in

 2    Australia?

 3       A.   I came to The Hague.

 4            MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.  Could we please have

 5    1D421 on e-court.  It is the witness's report or findings following his

 6    mission in Bosnia-Herzegovina in 2005.  Page 1, please.

 7       Q.   Will you agree with me, and I'm referring to the report, that the

 8    purpose of the two-week mission in Bosnia was to collect archaeological,

 9    anthropological, pathological and other forensic -- I apologise --

10    archaeological, anthropological, pathological and other forensic data

11    collected during the exhumations and autopsies after 2001?

12       A.   That's correct.

13       Q.   Thank you.  In the biweekly period, you were supposed to process

14    the data that had to do with several different scientific branches.  You

15    did spend some time with the experts there, but you are not qualified in

16    any of the aforementioned sciences that would qualify you to conduct this

17    task?

18       A.   Your Honours, I would agree that I'm not qualified.  I have no

19    formal qualifications certainly in those disciplines.  I believe I am

20    qualified to have undertaken this task and to have travelled to Bosnia to

21    gain that data, the information.

22       Q.   Thank you.  I will refer you to the second paragraph, although

23    they are not numbered.  In any case, the second paragraph of your report,

24    which reads:

25            [In English] "The majority of information required to submit a

Page 19018

 1    detailed report on the Srebrenica exhumations, including a definitive MNI

 2    and the number of mass graves, is currently held by ICMP."

 3            [Interpretation] Do you stand by this information contained in

 4    your report from 2005?

 5       A.   Your Honours, I apologise.  I can't see that paragraph on the

 6    screen.

 7            JUDGE AGIUS:  Can we have the precise references so that we

 8    could -- is it on e-court?

 9            THE WITNESS:  Yes, I'm sorry, I'm sorry.

10            MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, it is, Your Honours, the

11    second sentence of the second paragraph.  As I said, they were not

12    numbered.  Therefore, I'll try and describe the places that I want to

13    refer to.

14       Q.   [Interpretation] Mr. Manning, please read that sentence as well.

15       A.   "The majority of information required to submit a detailed report

16    on the Srebrenica exhumations, including a definitive MNI and number of

17    mass graves, is currently held by ICMP."

18            Do you wish me to continue?

19       Q.   No.  We'll progress gradually.  I suppose you stand by this

20    statement made by you in November 2005, that is, two years ago.

21       A.   Yes, I accept that that's a valid statement still.

22       Q.   Thank you.  Mr. Manning, could you please read out the following

23    sentence to us, which is actually the continuation of the one you've read

24    out?

25       A.   Your Honours:

Page 19019

 1            "Unfortunately, data held by the various BiH authorities, due to

 2    lack of resources or other factors, is widely spread across agencies and

 3    organisations and its accuracy is difficult to assess."

 4       Q.   Thank you.  Mr. Manning, would you agree with me that the data you

 5    had at your disposal in November 2005 were received from local authorities

 6    in Bosnia and that they were incomplete, not up to date, and difficult to

 7    rely on?

 8       A.   No, I would not agree with that.  A significant amount of the data

 9    I received was from ICMP, and various parts of the Bosnia Commission for

10    Missing Persons, some of their records were in excellent condition, some

11    of the records were very detailed, some of the records were perhaps not

12    complete.  And also, given my inability to read the language, it was

13    inaccessible to me, given the time frame.  If I'd have had more time to

14    read through the information, I could have made a more appropriate

15    assessment of its accuracy.

16       Q.   Very well.  Thank you for your answer.

17            In the report, you mentioned your visit to the Podrinje

18    Identification Centre; is that correct?

19       A.   That's correct.

20       Q.   Can you tell us where the seat of the centre -- where the office

21    of the centre is?

22            JUDGE AGIUS:  One moment, Mr. Manning and Ms. Tapuskovic.  We need

23    to have a break now rather than when scheduled.  So my apologies to you

24    for interrupting you the way I did, but we need to do that.

25            So we'll have a 25-minute break starting from now.  Thank you.

Page 19020

 1                          --- Recess taken at 10.18 a.m.

 2                          --- On resuming at 10.49 a.m.

 3            JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, Ms. Tapuskovic.

 4            MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

 5       Q.   Mr. Manning, let us continue where we left off before the break.

 6            The last question is something I did not receive an answer to, and

 7    that is where the head office of the Podrinje project for identification

 8    is.

 9       A.   It's based in Tuzla.  I know the address.  I can't recall it

10    offhand.

11       Q.   Thank you.  I was interested in the location.  You also said that

12    you visited the centre in Lukovac which deals with re-association; is that

13    correct?

14       A.   That's correct, and that's in the village of Lukovac.

15       Q.   Can you explain to us and the Bench what re-association actually

16    is?

17            JUDGE AGIUS:  I think he has already explained that earlier on in

18    relation to the main site or main whatever.  I mean, if it hasn't been

19    clear, you can ask a question, of course, to explain further, but he has

20    already explained it.

21            MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I apologise. That

22    piece of information seems to have escaped me.  Therefore, I will move

23    on.  It is not essential.

24       Q.   When you were at the centre -- well, at the Podrinje

25    Identification Project office, one of the key people there told you, as we

Page 19021

 1    will see on page 9 of the same document that we have before us -- could we

 2    please go to page 9 now?  Thank you.

 3            Please magnify the page somewhat, and let us go to the last two

 4    paragraphs of the page so that the witness could read them.

 5            Mr. Manning, if you can, please, read out the last sentence of the

 6    first paragraph under the subheading "Podrinje Identification Project."

 7       A.   "Kesetovic stated he believed that most relevant records were held

 8    with the Tuzla Canton Court."

 9       Q.   Thank you, Mr. Manning.  It is not clear to us, based on your

10    report, what, in the understanding of the Podrinje Identification

11    Project's people, is the most relevant documentation.

12       A.   My discussions concerned very wide-ranging aspects, but he was

13    indicating to me that the official records, the complete official records,

14    should be held by the Court ultimately as part of the coronial process, as

15    part of the issuing of official death certificates.  He indicated that the

16    Court would hold not only the exhumation details, as it is a court-ordered

17    exhumation, but also the records relating to cause of death and death

18    certificate.

19       Q.   The relevant documents referred to by Mr. Kesetovic, did you have

20    the occasion to view them in 2005?

21       A.   Your Honours, I went to the canton -- Tuzla Canton Court.  I was

22    given access to the records that they had.  Again limited by my inability

23    to read the language and working through an interpreter, I read a number

24    of court files, documents that supported those files, and photographs.

25    Some of those records included death certificates.  Some of them included

Page 19022

 1    summaries of files.

 2       Q.   Can you tell us whether, in each of the court files of the

 3    Cantonal Court, did you see the decisions on the process of exhumation to

 4    be carried out?

 5       A.   Your Honours, I apologise.  I'm not sure if I understand the

 6    question.  It may help that I saw that the Court would order an exhumation

 7    to be conducted, and my understanding of the process is that it was a

 8    Court-directed inquiry and that the prosecutor in Tuzla was directly

 9    responsible for the investigation and the inquiry in relation to the

10    deaths.

11       Q.   To go back to the question itself, did you, in each of the cases

12    at the Cantonal Court in Tuzla, did you see a decision or a ruling of a

13    competent judge on the process of exhumation?

14       A.   Your Honours, I don't recall seeing that in every case, and in

15    fact I would not be looking for such a document.  I recall seeing such a

16    notation, but it was not what I was seeking.

17       Q.   Very well.  I didn't ask you whether it was what you were looking

18    for.  Rather, I wanted to know whether, when going through the files, you

19    saw decisions or rulings issued by judges on the process of exhumation,

20    but I will move on.

21            In the cases and files you went through at the Cantonal Court in

22    Tuzla, did you see any autopsy reports which would state the time of death

23    as well as the cause of death?

24       A.   I did see autopsy reports.  They did state cause of death, where

25    that was known.  And I cannot recall the wording, but there was a

Page 19023

 1    reference to the time of death, and I think it was directly related to the

 2    fall of Srebrenica.  Whether it was a time, I can't recall.

 3       Q.   Tell me what other potential documentation, in addition to the

 4    documentation at the Cantonal Court in Tuzla and the Podrinje

 5    Identification Project, did you see during your mission in 2005?

 6       A.   Your Honours, I reviewed documents particularly at ICMP.  I went

 7    through their protocol documents.  I examined documentation in support of

 8    their processes, the way they handled the blood and DNA samples from the

 9    victims.  I saw draft exhumation reports produced by ICMP, and I saw their

10    internal documentation to a fairly detailed level.

11            In a similar way at the re-association centre, I was shown their

12    documentation, I was given access to their reports and how their reports

13    were structured.  I was shown the bodies as they were re-associated, and

14    relevant photographs.

15            At the Tuzla office of ICMP, I was shown the -- and run through

16    the process where a sample follows through the system and shown the

17    documentation that supports that.

18            Effectively, I looked at as much information/documentation in all

19    the centres as was possible in the time, and as much of that documentation

20    as I wanted to see was made available to me.

21       Q.   Thank you.  Can you tell us now whether on that occasion you were

22    able to copy some of that documentation or take it with you?

23       A.   I don't believe I copied anything from the Tuzla Canton Court.

24    They are official records, and I believe we -- I recommended we seek to

25    have those records.  I may have been given documentation from ICMP, but

Page 19024

 1    not specific records, confidential records.  I can't recall what copies I

 2    got, but I recall that it wasn't copies of the data that was confidential

 3    or the court reports themselves.

 4       Q.   So when you were there on that special mission, you were not

 5    provided with confidential information, yet now you have told us that when

 6    preparing your summaries for the year 2007, in June and November, you had

 7    access to confidential information; is that correct?

 8       A.   To be clear, I indicated that I did not take copies of

 9    confidential material, but I also believe I indicated that I was given

10    access to the material that I wished to view, including the DNA reports,

11    including the exhumation reports and including the Tuzla Canton Court

12    files.

13       Q.   Do you recall, to avoid going through your report and spending

14    time on scrolling up and down, that the head of the office of the

15    International Commission for Missing Persons, Madam Catherine Braunberger

16    [phoen], asked you to file an application in order to obtain the results

17    of the commission's work?

18       A.   Your Honours, without checking the report, I would agree with

19    that.  It was, to my recollection, an understanding that an official

20    request would be made by ICTY to have access to the data.

21       Q.   That's why I'm taking you back to that same question.  If you are

22    only a witness, if in 2005 you were not an employee of the Tribunal, I

23    would like to know on what basis you had access to confidential

24    information, whether in 2005 or now in 2007.

25       A.   Your Honours, in 2005 I was contracted to the ICTY for that

Page 19025

 1    period, and I was given access to the confidential data by the providers,

 2    by the organisations responsible for that data.  That access has

 3    continued.  As I have said before, the mechanism, or the document, or

 4    whatever you are seeking would be best sought from ICTY.

 5            I asked Ms. Braunberger for access to the material.  She obliged,

 6    and she indicated an official request would be required to send the

 7    material to the ICTY.

 8            I hope that answers the question.

 9       Q.   Do you know whether such an official request was sent pertaining

10    to the documentation of 2007 which has entered your reports, your

11    summaries, from June and July?

12            THE INTERPRETER:  "From November," interpreter's correction, "June

13    and November."

14       A.   I believe such a request has been made, but I did not make it and

15    I am no longer a member of the ICTY.

16            MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]

17       Q.   Very well.  We'll move on to another topic now, from the topic of

18    your authorisation and access to confidential documents, and we'll go back

19    to the situation regarding the documents existing in Bosnia-Herzegovina at

20    the time and the authorities in Bosnia-Herzegovina, that is, data from the

21    federal commission and the Tuzla Cantonal Court.

22            Why did you mention, in the sentence we have just read out, that

23    the data available to the Bosnia-Herzegovinian organs are distributed

24    among a large number of agencies and organisations and it is hard to rely

25    on their correctness?  So do you still stand by what you said in 2005 or

Page 19026

 1    not?

 2            JUDGE AGIUS:  I think you put that question before and he has

 3    already answered it.  I stand to be corrected, but I'm pretty sure you

 4    did.

 5            Yes, Ms. Soljan.

 6            MS. SOLJAN:  Thank you, Your Honour.  Just one more point.

 7            The sentence actually does not say that it is hard to rely on

 8    their correctness but simply that its accuracy is difficult to assess.

 9            JUDGE AGIUS:  I know, but -- thank you for that as well, but,

10    Ms. Tapuskovic specifically asked the witness to read out or to refer to

11    the particular sentence in that paragraph that we saw earlier on, and she

12    asked him whether he stood by what he had stated in his 2005 report, and

13    he did.  He confirmed that he did state by what he had stated earlier.

14            MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.  I won't

15    delve any further into that topic.

16            Witness, we will now move on to the remaining documents pertaining

17    to you.  Could we please have brought up on e-court ID449.

18            Just please bear with me, Your Honours, for a moment, because I

19    have to find the document.

20       Q.   Mr. Manning, could you -- could you please zoom in a little on the

21    English version, and I will read out the document to you or, rather, the

22    relevant paragraph, and you will see from the heading that the document

23    was sent by the Federal Commission of Bosnia-Herzegovina, the Commission

24    for Missing Persons.  It's addressed to the Chief Prosecutor of the ICTY,

25    Mrs. Carla Del Ponte.  The letter is dated the 30th of July, 2007.  I will

Page 19027

 1    read paragraph four.

 2            [In English] "Also, we have no data about the cause of death and

 3    identification methods for identified victims.  Such information is held

 4    by prosecutor's offices and courts which ordered exhumations.

 5            "At this moment, we still do not have sorted and updated

 6    information about the exhumed and identified victims in the whole

 7    territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina, given it is only now that within the

 8    Institute for Missing Persons, Central Record of Missing Person, are being

 9    set up for the whole BiH."

10            [Interpretation] Tell us, Witness, while preparing for your

11    testimony while you were being proofed, was a document like this shown to

12    you?

13       A.   I don't recall seeing this document before.

14       Q.   So you were not able to use it in your summary of June 2007, as

15    it's dated July?

16       A.   I did not use this document or reference it at all or, I believe,

17    see it.

18       Q.   Can you tell us whether you were aware previously of the intention

19    of the Bosnian authorities to start up a programme or a project to create

20    a central database for all missing persons?

21       A.   Generally, I was aware of proposals of that nature, not

22    specifically recently.

23       Q.   Can you tell us whether you know on what basis that central

24    records would function?  What would be the source of information on the

25    basis of which this central database would draw up its reports?

Page 19028

 1       A.   I don't know.

 2       Q.   In the course of your testimony mission to Bosnia-Herzegovina in

 3    2005, did you perhaps come across Mr. Hamza Zujo [phoen] or Mr. Vedo Tutso

 4    [phoen]?

 5       A.   Not that I recall those names.

 6       Q.   Both of them are forensic specialists, medical doctors, who

 7    carried out autopsies.  If you have seen the forensic reports in the

 8    Cantonal Court in Tuzla, you must have seen their names, because as you

 9    know, at every autopsy there has to be a medical specialist, a forensic

10    specialist present; is that correct?

11       A.   I accept that.  I simply don't recognise the names.

12       Q.   In the course of your mission to Bosnia-Herzegovina, you only

13    visited various bodies and organisations dealing with either exhumations

14    or identification, but you did not visit mass gravesites or sites where

15    mortal remains can be found; is that correct?

16       A.   Your Honours, that's not strictly correct.  I visited a number of

17    sites, but the exhumations weren't in progress at that time, so I visited

18    the sites either before they had been exhumed or after, including a large

19    number of the ICTY sites.

20       Q.   But you were not present at any autopsy or any procedure to

21    establish identity by means of DNA analysis?

22       A.   Whilst at the re-association centre and at the Podrinje

23    Identification Project, examinations were being conducted, including the

24    selection and processing of bones for DNA analysis.  Whilst I was at the

25    Tuzla and ICMP centres, I was present when examinations were being

Page 19029

 1    conducted, when the DNA sample was being processed in their facilities,

 2    and I would indicate I have also seen many hundreds, if not thousands, of

 3    autopsies conducted by ICTY, including the selection of material for DNA

 4    analysis.

 5       Q.   Thank you for your exhaustive answer.  It's clear to us that you

 6    participated in many autopsies in the period of time while you were

 7    contracted to the ICTY.  My question was only about your mission in 2005,

 8    whether on that occasion you attended any autopsies or any procedures to

 9    establish identity using the DNA method.  I'm asking this because I didn't

10    find any trace of this in your report of 2005.  However, your answer now

11    clarifies this.

12            Could we now have brought up on e-court 65 ter document 2993.

13            While we are waiting for the document to come up, Mr. Manning, let

14    me tell you that it's your summary from November 2007.

15            This is the title page.  Could we please see page 1 of the text.

16            If I have concluded correctly, Mr. Manning, after 2001, when the

17    competency to carry out exhumations was transferred from the Tribunal to

18    the Bosnian authorities - we'll call them that for short to avoid long

19    names - that meant that the Bosnian authorities dealt exclusively with

20    exhumations, and do I understand correctly that the International

21    Commission for Missing Persons dealt with other segments; they could

22    attend exhumations, but not conduct them, and they could carry out DNA

23    analysis of the mortal remains?  Is my conclusion correct, sir?

24       A.   That's correct, although I can't speak for ICMP as to their

25    specific mandate.  My view was that they had monitored, and when I went to

Page 19030

 1    the gravesites, they were taking a very active role in that monitoring and

 2    examining of the bodies.  But the mandate for ICMP, I'm not aware of in

 3    that regard.

 4       Q.   Thank you, that suffices for me.  Comparing your summaries of

 5    2007, primarily the one from November, with your summaries from 2000, 2001

 6    and 2003, one has to draw the conclusion that previous identifications

 7    based on anthropological criteria were replaced by identification by means

 8    of the DNA method; is that correct?

 9       A.   That is correct.

10       Q.   Thank you.  May we agree on a piece of information as follows:  In

11    your annex -- or, rather, your summary of 2007 has two annexes which are

12    an integral part of your summary; is that correct?

13       A.   Yes.

14       Q.   A few days after the disclosure of your summary of November 2007,

15    the 30th of November, to be precise, we received an annex which was said

16    to be an integral part of your summary.  Do you know what annex I'm

17    referring to?  It's a list, and it's about 200 pages long, divided by mass

18    gravesite.

19       A.   I'm assuming that you're referring to individual tables which

20    relate to each one of the mass graves.

21       Q.   Yes, that's the table.  We have neither a 65 ter number for that

22    table -- it's just labelled "Annex," along with 65 ter document 2993, and

23    the reason I'm saying all this is that I hope this annex is in e-court,

24    and it should then be -- I would need page 27 of this annex.

25            While we are waiting for the document to be brought up, can you

Page 19031

 1    tell me how you obtained the data contained in that annex?  I assume that

 2    you compiled it.

 3       A.   Your Honours, I compiled those tables, and you see an example here

 4    from the Cerska grave.  Effectively, I took that data from the ICMP report

 5    and I created a table based on that data.

 6       Q.   Very well.  Evidently, this is functioning well.  This is the

 7    gravesite I wanted to go through with you.

 8            In answer to my learned friend's questions, you explained

 9    what "case ID" means, what "protocol ID" means and what "ID ICMP" means.

10    If I remember correctly, you explained the ICMP ID, the number in the

11    column third from the left is a piece of information linked to the DNA

12    analysis; is that correct?

13       A.   No.  The ID ICMP relates to the internal ICMP reference number for

14    a case or a file.  The protocol ID is generated by the DNA analysis.  So a

15    case from ICMP would be examined, and that case would then produce a

16    result, which would be given a protocol ID.

17       Q.   Very well.  But regardless of that, can you tell us the

18    following:  In the third column, in the tenth row, we see that for the

19    mortal remains labelled "CSK-04", we have three numbers, "8113" or "8115"

20    or "3318".  And then a few rows lower down, we have two numbers for one

21    set of mortal remains.

22            Can you explain to us how this labelling, with two or three

23    numbers for a single set of mortal remains, functions?

24       A.   Your Honours, conscious of not entering into discussions outside

25    my expertise, the simple explanation is that the mortal remains labelled

Page 19032

 1    as "Cerska 4" could be one of three individuals, and the reason it could

 2    be one of three individuals is that they are related.  In this case, they

 3    would be brothers.

 4            My brother and I share very similar DNA, and it would be

 5    difficult, I understand, to establish which one of us it was if they

 6    didn't have all the records.

 7            So in that case, they're indicating that that body may be one of

 8    three closely-related individuals.  And if you look at Cerska (99(K),

 9    continuing down the page, those same three individuals are repeated again.

10    So it could be that those two records indicate two brothers out of three

11    have been identified.

12       Q.   But if you explained that it was you who drew up this list, I

13    don't think you're going beyond the boundaries of your "expertise," in

14    quotation marks.  But as we don't have ordinal numbers here, can you

15    explain, with reference to the Cerska mass grave, how many persons were

16    identified?  We don't have the names here, either.  And does this kind of

17    labelling increase the number of persons identified from the Cerska mass

18    gravesite?

19       A.   Your Honours, it does certainly not increase the numbers.  I

20    removed deliberately the identifying names from this record, and if you

21    saw the identifying name column, it would have three names, as this record

22    has three numbers.  But what it represents is the body known as "Cerska

23    4", one individual, is either one of those three persons, but that one

24    individual, "Cerska 4" in my report, is certainly only counted as one

25    person.

Page 19033

 1       Q.   I must admit that despite all my efforts to understand the coding

 2    system concerning the number of those who died and those identified, I was

 3    unable to penetrate it.  But, however, I will move on.

 4            We will go back to Exhibit 2993 again.  It is a 65 ter document,

 5    and the number is 2993.  Let's go to page 1, please.

 6            Mr. Manning, you provided an explanation about the difference

 7    between 5.021 persons, including 758 findings that are exclusively related

 8    to Srebrenica -- basically, I wanted to ask you about the 758.

 9            The 758 findings represent 758 individual body parts which do not

10    match or overlap.  Is my conclusion correct?

11       A.   In a way, it is correct.  It may not be body parts.  758 either

12    complete bodies or small bones have been tested for their DNA, and that

13    DNA is unique across all the records held by ICMP.  So whether it be one

14    small bone or a complete body, they represent individuals.  The only

15    difference between them and the rest of the figures is that no one has yet

16    placed a name against those individuals.  But they represent individuals

17    that are not accounted for in the identified group.

18       Q.   In any case, out of the 758 exclusive samples, there is no mutual

19    overlap?

20       A.   If I understand your question, no, there is no duplication.  If

21    you like, if you took the figure of 5.021, of that 5.021, unfortunately

22    758 of those bodies are not yet known by a name, but they are all

23    individuals, 5.021 individuals, some of whom have names.

24       Q.   Yes.  Therefore, we have 5.021 sets of mortal remains, and we have

25    4.000 --

Page 19034

 1            THE INTERPRETER:  Could the counsel please repeat the figure.

 2            MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]

 3       Q.   ... names; is that correct?

 4            JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, Ms. Tapuskovic, have you heard the -- okay.

 5            MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Certainly, Your Honour, I'm just

 6    trying to clear my table.

 7       Q.   I will repeat my question, Mr. Manning.  That means that we have

 8    5.021, according to your summary, according to the data received from the

 9    International Commission.  There are, again, 5.021 mortal remains that

10    have to do with 5.021 individuals.  However, we have only 4.263 first and

11    last names?

12       A.   Yes, that's correct, but remembering some of the individuals could

13    be one of more than one person, and they are provisionally given an

14    identification, 1 of 3 or 2.  But the DNA, unique DNA ones have no -- they

15    have no name connected whatsoever, but, yes, you're right.

16       Q.   Thank you.  The way I understand the process of identification, it

17    has to do with establishing a first and a last name concerning a

18    particular set of body remains.  Is that correct?

19       A.   Yes, ultimately.

20       Q.   If, when talking about the 758 cases, we have a situation in which

21    these mortal remains are not linked to any particular person with a first

22    and last name, then it is my opinion that those cases are considered as

23    unidentified.

24       A.   Yes, I accept that.

25       Q.   Thank you.  In your report, on the next page, this being page 2 of

Page 19035

 1    the report - could we please have that placed on the screen - you've

 2    already made a correction, saying that the figure is not 4.017 identified

 3    persons by using the DNA method and that the figure, rather, is 4.010.

 4    And you also provided an explanation as to how that error occurred.

 5            As regards the 4.010 you mentioned, you said that those

 6    identifications were accepted by the International Criminal Tribunal.  In

 7    several places in your summaries, the phrase is mentioned, the distinction

 8    between the identifications accepted by the International Tribunal and the

 9    data that was at the disposal of the International Tribunal.  In brief,

10    can you tell us what the need was in order to have the final number of

11    victims and identified victims to make that distinction, since it seems

12    that certain authority lay with the International Tribunal and the rest

13    was with some other bodies?

14       A.   My apologies, Your Honour.  I don't think I understand the

15    question.

16       Q.   You're right, it was somewhat multilayered.  My question is this:

17    What is the difference between the figure of 4.010, and from now on we'll

18    refer to the 4.010 victims that were accepted by the International

19    Criminal Tribunal as stated in paragraph 6 of your report -- or, rather,

20    your summary from November 2007 -- since we don't have the paragraphs

21    here, we should go back to the previous page.  It is the last paragraph of

22    that page.

23            Can you read this, Mr. Manning?  Please read out loud the first

24    sentence from the ultimate paragraph of page 1 of your summary.

25       A.   "The minimum number of individuals identified via DNA analysis by

Page 19036

 1    ICMP in mass graves known and accepted by the ICTY to contain only

 2    individuals executed following the fall of Srebrenica is 4.117 [sic],

 3    which includes the 758 unique Srebrenica-related DNA records which have

 4    not yet been matched to a missing person.  See Annexure A, Table 1, for a

 5    listing of these graves."

 6       Q.   Thank you.  You can see that in the second row, you mention the

 7    figure concerning the mass graves and that the figure is known and

 8    accepted by the International Tribunal.  Why the distinction between the

 9    accepted and known to the International Tribunal?  Why isn't all the data

10    in your report comprehensive as per data received from the ICMP?

11            JUDGE AGIUS:  Ms. Soljan.

12            MS. SOLJAN:  Your Honour, I want to point out that the figure that

13    is known and accepted by the ICTY refers to the mass graves, not to the

14    victims, as per the text.

15            JUDGE AGIUS:  Thank you for that clarification.

16            Yes, Ms. Tapuskovic.

17            MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I'd like to thank my learned

18    friend for this clarification.  I merely read out paragraph 6:

19            [In English] "Individuals identified by DNA analysis by ICMP in

20    mass graves, known and accepted by the ICTY."

21            [Interpretation] My question is this:  Why is there a distinction

22    between the data known to the Tribunal and at the disposal of the Tribunal

23    and the data that was at the disposal, be it in terms of numbers or

24    locations, of the International Commission?

25       A.   Your Honours, the last paragraph and the previous paragraph differ

Page 19037

 1    in the fact that the previous paragraph relates to not only surface

 2    remains, which the ICTY did not collect, but also mass graves and single

 3    graves which were exhumed or excavated by the Bosnian Commission for

 4    Missing Persons.  I indicate that the ICTY were not present during those

 5    examinations.  We didn't collect the surface remains.  So I make the

 6    distinction that the somewhat smaller figure of 4.010 indicates bodies

 7    removed from mass graves known to the ICTY directly connected to

 8    Srebrenica.  That is not to say -- and clearly it doesn't say that the

 9    other graves aren't connected to Srebrenica, as the victims have been

10    identified directly to Srebrenica.  However, they were not graves that the

11    ICTY exhumed or processed or conducted the autopsy of the bodies.  That's

12    why I make that distinction.

13       Q.   Thank you.  Obviously, there is a problem concerning the mortal

14    remains of those people found on the surface and the rest, and to us it is

15    an important item when assessing a total number of those killed.  Would

16    that be correct?

17       A.   I disagree with you that there is a problem concerning the mortal

18    remains collected on the surface.  I'm not indicating that there is any

19    problem.  I'm indicating that the ICTY and myself was not present or did

20    not monitor or did not deal with the collection of those remains. This is

21    a report produced by myself.  I wasn't present during the collection of

22    that material, and that's why I make that distinction.

23       Q.   But in your summary from November of this year, you mentioned

24    Kozluk as a mass grave and you mentioned Kozluk as a place where surface

25    remains were found.  I believe today it appeared on page 13 of the

Page 19038

 1    transcript.  I cannot recall exactly.  In any case, it was said that the

 2    surface remains were a few hundred metres away from the mass grave; is

 3    that correct?

 4       A.   That's correct.

 5       Q.   In annexure B, since we agreed that your summary from July has two

 6    integral tables, plus the long document in the annex, if we look at the

 7    last page of the 65 ter document 2993, which is your summary for

 8    November -- let us please go to the last page of the document.  Not of the

 9    annex, but the last page of the summary itself.

10            I will tell you right away what page it is.  It is page 24.  Thank

11    you very much.  One more page, this one being the penultimate one, this is

12    page 23.  I need page 24.  Thank you.

13            Mr. Manning, here you enumerate all locations at which surface

14    remains were found; is that correct?

15       A.   It's not correct to say "all locations."  These are the locations

16    that were either able to be described to me or were given a grid

17    reference.  If you consider that individual bones may have been collected,

18    significant bones may have been collected in various areas over many, many

19    years, I didn't represent those collections.  This represents the surface

20    remain locations that Mr. Hurtic and the Bosnian Commission were able to

21    detail to me or that I could see from the Canton Tuzla Court reports.

22       Q.   You visited the Cantonal Court in Tuzla in 2005, and this was

23    created in November 2007.  In the meantime, did you have the new

24    information from the Cantonal Court, and how did you receive that

25    information, since you said that since 2005 you didn't go back to Bosnia?

Page 19039

 1       A.   Your Honours, in relation to that list of areas where human

 2    remains were collected, I did not update that information.  I would

 3    suggest and strongly suspect that further surface remains were located in

 4    further areas.

 5       Q.   You do not specify any numbers of those exhumed, since you use the

 6    same term, "exhumation" as regards those bodily remains collected at the

 7    surface as well; isn't that correct?

 8       A.   I didn't include numbers, and I don't believe I referred to the

 9    collection of surface remains as an exhumation.

10       Q.   Tell me this, then:  At page 5 of your summary from November

11    2007 -- let us please go to page 5.  That is not the page.  The next one.

12    Thank you.

13            Here, in the summary, you use a number of -- a number pertaining

14    to individuals who were identified, together with the data from 2007, and

15    you say here that 14 individuals were identified; is that correct?

16       A.   Fourteen individuals were identified at the KOZ surface

17    collection, yes.

18       Q.   That means that in November, for that gravesite alone or, rather,

19    for those surface remains, you had a total number of those identified.

20    And as for the rest, although you say that it does not include all

21    gravesites, and for the 18 referred to in the attachment, you did not have

22    a total number of those exhumed or identified?

23       A.   Again, Your Honours, I'm not quite sure of the question.  I

24    previously stated why I had included the Kozluk surface remains.  I had

25    dealings with the Bosnian Commission in relation to these prior to their

Page 19040

 1    location.  I had indicated to Mr. Hurtic that I believed that there may be

 2    other remains in that area and that this collection, I believe, is a

 3    direct result of those discussions and his determined work in that area.

 4            I'm sorry, I don't understand the question.

 5       Q.   My question was:  Why is it that in relation to the other surface

 6    remains from the 18 locations, there were no figures mentioned pertaining

 7    to those identified or exhumed?

 8       A.   I did not include figures for the surface remains collections and

 9    identify where they had been located.  I simply included those in the

10    figure -- in the larger figure in relation to surface remains.  Again, I

11    was more familiar or very familiar with the ICTY material, and the surface

12    remains were collected perhaps in an area of many square kilometres.  They

13    are indicated as areas collected.  I couldn't find more specific data, and

14    I felt that it was more appropriate to concentrate on the ICTY graves and

15    reference the number of surface remains identified.

16       Q.   Thank you.  Let us move on to your summary from November 2007.

17    We'll begin with individual gravesites in order to try and clarify some

18    things.

19            It is Exhibit 2993.  I'm interested in the Konjevic Polje

20    gravesite, which is on page 8 from the top.

21            This is Konjevic Polje 1, Konjevic Polje 2.  That's fine.

22            One can see here that according to the information you received,

23    identification was carried out for three individuals; is that correct?

24       A.   That's correct.

25       Q.   Very well.  However, if we take your finding from June, your

Page 19041

 1    report from June, we don't have its 65 ter number.  Therefore, I wanted to

 2    ask the usher to take this hard copy and place it on the ELMO.

 3            Mr. Manning, please check first whether the document on the ELMO

 4    is indeed your summary from June.  You can pick it up and make sure

 5    whether it is the document.

 6       A.   I recognise that document as my report from June of this year.

 7       Q.   Regarding Konjevic Polje 2, it is stated that in June of 2007,

 8    there is a total number of seven individuals who were identified.  My

 9    question is this:  How is it possible that in June 2007, you provide us

10    with a piece of information that seven individuals were identified, and

11    then in November of 2007, which is five months down the road, you say that

12    three individuals were identified in total?  Can you explain that?

13       A.   Your Honour, in fact that should have read, to my recollection,

14     "2 individuals."  It's a typing error from "2" to "7."  And I can

15    indicate that I was present during the whole exhumation of Konjevic Polje

16    2 and there are three individuals, complete

17    bodies within that grave.  I was aware of that, and I have not only

18    located that grave but was present during its exhumation, so that is a

19    typographical error.  It should have been at that stage two individuals.

20    Later it was three individuals, which accounts for all the remains within

21    that grave.

22            I'd also indicate that it was my belief and hope that this report

23    from June would certainly be superseded by the data from ICMP, new data,

24    and that a new report would be produced.

25       Q.   Tell me now, Mr. Manning, it turns out that neither in your

Page 19042

 1    summary of June or in your summary in November is the number correct?

 2       A.   I'm sorry, you said the summary in November was not correct?

 3       Q.   I showed you both summaries.  One, you have on your screen.

 4    That's the one of November 2007.  And in that column for Konjevic Polje,

 5    you have three victims.  I put on the ELMO a document where it says that

 6    seven individuals were identified.  What I would like to know now,

 7    according to what you said, that is, that these were two persons, which

 8    piece of information is correct, because it seems to me that in neither of

 9    your two summaries is the data for Konjevic Polje 2 correct.

10            JUDGE AGIUS:  I think that has been clarified.  He said that in

11    what we see on the screen now, that's what he has on the ELMO, that "7"

12    should be corrected to "2."  That's a typographical error. The subsequent

13    summary that you referred to earlier on mentions three.  So first it

14    should read "2" in this document, and then it reads "3" in the subsequent

15    one, and that's it.  I mean, "2" could become "3."  "7" could never become

16     "3."

17            If you want to pursue it further, please do, by all means, but I

18    think it's clear enough.

19            MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I would not pursue it any

20    further.  I would only ask the following:

21       Q.   When in October of this year you had your proofing with our

22    learned friends, and during your proofing just before your testimony, did

23    you go through the entire material which was subject to my learned

24    friend's examination-in-chief?

25       A.   During the proofing session with Ms. Soljan, I went through a

Page 19043

 1    considerable amount of material.  I don't think we went through, in great

 2    detail, this report.  We spoke of the other graves, the links, the

 3    evidence that's been presented, and I showed her what I showed the Chamber

 4    in relation to the ICMP data and what I did.  I don't recall going through

 5    this report in huge detail.  I certainly read it, personally, and went

 6    through material myself.

 7       Q.   To conclude --

 8            MS. SOLJAN:  If I may, Your Honour, with respect to the June

 9    report that Mr. Manning has just made a clarification about, if my

10    colleague would go to the annex that is also an integral part of that

11    report, at R064-3970 and R064-3972, there is additional evidence to show

12    that Mr. Manning was aware of the number of the people in the Kozluk -- in

13    the Konjevic Polje 2 grave.

14            JUDGE AGIUS:  Thank you.

15            MS. SOLJAN:  And that's two people.

16            MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I wish to thank my

17    learned friend for her explanation, but as we agreed at the beginning of

18    today's session, that the witness can only speak of the numbers and final

19    results he obtained from the documentation of the International

20    Commission.  Those are the numbers I'm using, the ones indicated in his

21    summary of June and of November, those two summaries.

22            If one looks at the annex --

23            JUDGE AGIUS:  Stop, stop.  I'm stopping you because in relation to

24    this particular grave, he said it loud and clear that he personally has

25    personal knowledge of this and was not relying on the information or

Page 19044

 1    sources -- or other sources.  I can't repeat his exact words, but we can

 2    find them about three pages up.  He was present even during the

 3    exhumations.

 4            MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Very well, Your Honour.  I'll

 5    move on.  I'll now deal with the next burial site.

 6            We're now on page 8.  Could we please move to page 12.  Thank you.

 7       Q.   Here, we mention a gravesite called "Hodzici Road 1-Snagovo number

 8    4".  Could we please zoom in on this so the witness can read a sentence

 9    us.  The first paragraph, under the subheading "Hodzici Road 1- Snagovo

10    4".  Can you read it?  If you can see it, I'll read it.

11            [In English] "This site was exhumed in 1998 under the direction of

12    ICTY Chief Archaeologist Professor Wright.  It was the view of Professor

13    Wright that this site appears to have been dug as a grave and then not

14    used."

15            [Interpretation] The next paragraph reads as follows.

16            [In English] "The Bosnian Federal Commission for Missing Persons

17    indicated this grave, renamed Snagovo 4, was exhumed between 6 and 24

18    November 2006.  No information as to remains located or DNA testing of

19    those remains is currently available."

20            [Interpretation] Mr. Manning, if you spent so much time visiting

21    sites and were familiar with the gathering of forensic data, could you

22    please explain to us how it's possible that Professor Wright, who

23    testified here as an expert witness, states that the grave was dug but not

24    used, and yet it says here that exhumation was carried out from that grave

25    in 2006?  Did you attempt to check this discrepancy between these two

Page 19045

 1    statements in these two paragraphs of your summary?

 2       A.   Your Honours, it was the view of Professor Wright that that grave

 3    had not been used.  I examined that grave with Professor Wright.  It was

 4    the first grave on the road and was at quite an angle from the road, and

 5    it was filled with water and overgrown.  It was his view that it had not

 6    been used because of the logistics of entering the grave with a truck.

 7            During those discussions, it was very evident to both of us that

 8    we would still need to exhume that hole and confirm that it was or was not

 9    a mass grave.

10            In handing over that grave to the Bosnian authorities, I indicated

11    to them Professor Wright's view and said, and I do recall this

12    specifically, that that grave may contain some human remains and should be

13    examined.  In a similar way to Zeleni Jadar 2, which we believed had been

14    completely robbed, I explained to them that they should, nonetheless,

15    examine that grave.  And this is the situation here, that they have

16    examined that grave and found it did contain human remains.

17       Q.   But you mentioned Zeleni Jadar 2 now.  In your summary of

18    November, on page 16 you said that in Zeleni Jadar only small numbers of

19    bodies were found of various persons.  Do you remember that?

20       A.   Your Honours, I remember that, and again Professor Wright examined

21    that grave, he did not exhume it, and he said that he found -- and I

22    believe to not misquote him, I think he found scattered or uncommon human

23    remains within the grave.  That was not to say that there was not some

24    human remains left in that grave, and indeed he indicated that there were

25    but that they were scattered and low in number.

Page 19046

 1       Q.   I'll take you back to what you stated and what was mentioned in

 2    your summary of November.

 3            Can we see page 16, please, to see what it says precisely about

 4    Zeleni Jadar.

 5            And while we are waiting for the page to come up, could you tell

 6    me the following:  You mentioned in that section that there was no --

 7    there were no data from the Bosnian Federal Commission on these remains,

 8    which means that you don't know the dates when the exhumation was carried

 9    out, whether or not autopsies were conducted, nor is the DNA analysis

10    known.  Can you tell us how, then, you were able to enter in your finding

11    that it turned out that in the Zeleni Jadar gravesite, there were body

12    parts of several different persons, if no DNA analysis was conducted?

13            JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, Ms. Soljan.

14            MS. SOLJAN:  Your Honour, first of all, it's unclear which Zeleni

15    Jadar mass gravesite my colleague is referring to.  And, second of all, if

16    it is to Zeleni Jadar 2, then there is in fact a date of exhumation noted

17    in Mr. Manning's report.

18            JUDGE AGIUS:  I don't know what you had in mind, Madam

19    Tapuskovic.  Which Zeleni Jadar?

20            MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I said it was Zeleni

21    Jadar 2, and I did mention that, but it wasn't on the record.  When I

22    asked page 16 to be shown, that referred to Zeleni Jadar 2, because on

23    page 57, in line 25, I referred to that, reminding the witness that he

24    mentioned the Zeleni Jadar 2 gravesite.  So it's only a matter of the

25    transcript.

Page 19047

 1       Q.   With reference to Zeleni Jadar 2, Mr. Manning, it says the

 2    following:

 3            [In English] "This secondary disturbed mass grave in part was

 4    examined in part on the 6th of October, 1998, by the ICTY Chief

 5    Archaeologist Professor Wright, with sparse but multiple body parts

 6    observed.  It was apparent that the grave had been disturbed and the

 7    bodies removed to an unknown location or an unknown tertiary grave."

 8            [Interpretation] The second paragraph, not the next but the second

 9    one or the following paragraph:

10            [Previous translation continues] ... [In English] "Missing persons

11    indicates this grave was exhumed between 14 and 27 June 2007.  No

12    information as to remains located or DNA testing of those remains is

13    currently available."

14            [Interpretation] Mr. Manning, bearing in mind this statement of

15    Professor Wright's that sparse body parts were observed and that no DNA

16    testing was done, how did you come to the conclusion that these were the

17    mortal remains of several different persons?

18       A.   Your Honours, I wasn't present on the day the examination was

19    conducted.  However, I was present subsequent, a day or two later, and I

20    spoke to Professor Wright about that grave and we went to that grave and

21    discussed it.  What he told me was that there were sparse human remains

22    within the fill of the grave and that they were not from a single

23    individual; that is, that there were bones or parts of bones which clearly

24    came from more than one individual.  But he was -- his view was that that

25    grave had been robbed and that the majority of the bodies had been taken

Page 19048

 1    from that grave.  It lies very, very close to a small river and was always

 2    flooded when I saw it.

 3            And, again, in a similar fashion to the Hodzici 1 grave, we were

 4    aware that it would need to be exhumed at some stage to confirm that view.

 5       Q.   Thank you, Mr. Manning.  While we're on the same page of your

 6    summary for November 2007, at the very top of the page we see it

 7    says "Liplje 8".  Do you see that, Mr. Manning?

 8       A.   Yes, I do.

 9       Q.   And here you state:

10            [In English] "This grave is located nearby the Liplje 7 grave and

11    was exhumed by the Bosnian Federal Commission on Missing Persons on an

12    unknown date and monitored by ICMP.  The Commission indicates the remains

13    of one individual were located within the grave.

14             "No information related to DNA testing of those remains is

15    currently available."

16            [Interpretation] Mr. Manning, yesterday you told us that a mass

17    grave is a grave with at least two bodies in it; is that correct?

18       A.   That's correct.

19       Q.   This grave, Liplje 8, is a grave where only one body was found,

20    and yet it's included in the part of your report that deals with mass

21    graves; is that correct?

22       A.   It's included in the whole report, and I would indicate that I

23    call it a grave.

24       Q.   Could you tell me on what you base the information that the mortal

25    remains of one person are at all linked to Srebrenica, if no DNA test was

Page 19049

 1    conducted and if it was not established whether the name of that person is

 2    on the missing persons list?

 3       A.   Your Honours, I can indicate that the reason I included Liplje 8

 4    was because it was noted by the Bosnian Commission that there were eight

 5    Liplje graves.  I included it as a reference to make sure there was no

 6    confusion in relation to why there was seven or eight grave names in that

 7    area.  I don't indicate that the remains were connected to Srebrenica.  I

 8    indicate that there is a grave in the Liplje series which is

 9    labelled "Liplje 8", and no results have yet been obtained from the

10    examination of the single individual from that grave.  I included that

11    data for completeness.

12       Q.   Thank you, Mr. Manning.  You told us yesterday, during your

13    examination-in-chief, that while you were a member of the ICTY, the

14    Bljeceva gravesite had not yet been discovered; is that correct?

15       A.   Effectively, yes.  It may have been indicated, but it wasn't --

16    wasn't shown to be a grave.

17       Q.   In your summary, when explaining the information you received

18    concerning Bljeceva 1, you said that in the Tuzla Cantonal Court you

19    received information that this grave did not refer to Srebrenica.  Do you

20    remember that?

21       A.   Your Honours, I think the information was that it contained bodies

22    in addition to the bodies from Srebrenica, that is, it's a mixed grave.

23            JUDGE AGIUS:  Ms. Soljan.

24            MS. SOLJAN:  Your Honours, if my colleague could refer Mr. Manning

25    to the particular page so he could read it.  Thank you.

Page 19050

 1            JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, Ms. Tapuskovic, if it is necessary, but I don't

 2    know that it is necessary.

 3            MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I do have the

 4    references.  I just wanted to see whether the witness can remember this,

 5    because the witness's memory is excellent and he has a very good command

 6    of all the information relating to the gravesites and graves.

 7            It's on page 18 of this report, and the gravesite in question is

 8    Bljeceva 1.  The second paragraph:

 9            [In English] "Tuzla Canton Court Prosecution file KTA672/04

10    relates to this grave and indicates that this grave also contained the

11    remains of bodies unconnected with the fall of Srebrenica."

12            [Interpretation] Is that what it says in your report, Mr.

13    Manning?  Can you tell us, as the title of all your summaries, all five of

14    them from here to here [indicates] refers to the Srebrenica investigation,

15    could you tell us why this grave, Bljeceva 1, is included in your summary?

16       A.   The Bljeceva 1 mass grave, which is not an ICTY mass grave,

17    contains the remains of 39 individuals positively identified via DNA

18    analysis as being missing following the fall of Srebrenica.  It contains

19    persons from Srebrenica as well as perhaps unconnected bodies.

20       Q.   Yes, but that's not what it says in your report.  You didn't say

21    that some of the bodies are perhaps unconnected.  You just say that you

22    received information in the Tuzla Cantonal Court that this gravesite was

23    unconnected to Srebrenica.

24            JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes.

25            MS. SOLJAN:  Objection, Your Honour.  This is not what this text

Page 19051

 1    says.

 2            JUDGE AGIUS:  You are right.

 3            MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

 4            We will now talk about the surface remains, but I don't know, Your

 5    Honour, whether it's time for a break or not.  I have some seven or eight

 6    minutes left.

 7            JUDGE AGIUS:  Okay.  Then we can have the break now.  Thank you.

 8                          --- Recess taken at 12.29 p.m.

 9                          --- On resuming at 12.58 p.m.

10            JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, Ms. Tapuskovic.

11            MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

12       Q.   Mr. Manning, we will deal with one mass grave that is of interest

13    to me.  You remember the Nova Kasaba mass grave, I suppose.

14       A.   Yes, I do.  There are two mass graves at Nova Kasaba.

15       Q.   Yes, thank you.  One is Kasaba 1996 and the other, Kasaba 1999; is

16    that right?

17       A.   That's correct.

18       Q.   During the exhumations at that mass grave, Professor Harlund [as

19    interpreted] was involved, if I remember correctly, in 1996.  Am I right

20    in saying that?

21       A.   The Nova Kasaba 1996 graves were exhumed by Dr. Haglund,

22    H-A-G-L-U-N-D.

23       Q.   Thank you for that correction.  Here, we could hear Professor

24    Haglund, who confirmed to us and to the Chamber, that it was an

25    undisturbed primary gravesite.  Is that correct?

Page 19052

 1       A.   That's correct.

 2       Q.   Could you confirm to us that inside, complete sets of bodily

 3    remains were found and not partial sets?  Those were complete bodies found

 4    in the Nova Kasaba 1996 mass grave?

 5       A.   That's correct.

 6       Q.   Thank you.  Mr. Haglund confirmed that there were 33 complete

 7    bodies taken out of that mass grave.  Is that correct?

 8       A.   That's correct.

 9       Q.   According to your report or, rather, your summary from May 2000 --

10    and I would kindly ask for the usher's assistance, since later on we'll

11    have to have another document on the screen in order to be able to

12    compare, and this way, we'll be able to move along more quickly.

13            I am interested in the pages which have highlighted portions on

14    them.

15            Do you agree with me, Mr. Manning, that what is on the ELMO is

16    your summary from 2000?

17       A.   That's correct.

18       Q.   We are looking at the page which mentions Nova Kasaba, and you

19    stated there that in 1996, there were 33 complete bodies exhumed from the

20    Nova Kasaba grave, all of whom were male?

21       A.   That's correct.

22            MS. TAPUSKOVIC:  Thank you.  I would kindly ask the usher to take

23    another document from me.

24       Q.   Mr. Manning, if we said that the exhumation of the Nova Kasaba

25    gravesite 1996 was carried out by Mr. Haglund and that he compiled a

Page 19053

 1    report and he expressed his view on the procedure he had undertaken before

 2    this Tribunal, can you tell us, how is it that in your summary in June,

 3    there is a figure of 35 bodies, and in the previous one from the year

 4    2000, you mentioned 33, especially bearing in mind that Professor Haglund

 5    himself said that there were 33 bodies?

 6       A.   Your Honours, I think I may have answered this already.  This is

 7    my previous report from June.  It carries the same error that I had in the

 8    November report.  The "NKAS" which I took to be Nova Kasaba surface

 9    remains, is included.  At that stage, there were 35 individuals.  It is

10    the same error that I made that I pointed out in relation to Nova Kasaba

11    1996 graves in my final report.

12       Q.   Since we mentioned that yesterday and you were explaining

13    something, and during the proofing you also commented on the topic of how

14    that mistake occurred, but explain me this, please:  How is it possible

15    that in two successive summaries of yours, you enter a figure which is not

16    correct and which does not tally with your previous report or with

17    Professor Haglund's report, because you made your first report according

18    to Mr. Haglund's report?

19       A.   Unfortunately, that's the nature of an error.  I made a mistake.

20    I included the Nova KAS bodies in error, even though I knew that there

21    should be 33 bodies in that grave.  I took them to be surface remains that

22    had been located by ICMP during the examination of the 33 bodies.  On

23    occasion, a body will be collected and then, on examination of the DNA, it

24    will be discovered that the remains comprise more than one person; they

25    are co-mingled or mixed remains.  That's what I took to be the case here.

Page 19054

 1    And, again, the reason that the numbers are wrong is that I made an

 2    error.

 3       Q.   Why didn't you explain in detail Mr. Haglund's findings, since to

 4    a certain extent you were present during the operation and procedure; why

 5    didn't you explain it in more detail, why didn't you try and separate the

 6    two?  No matter how you put it, the figures don't match.  Yesterday you

 7    told us it should be seven sets less than 38.  We arrive at a figure of

 8    31, therefore.  Haglund's report and your first report mention 33, and

 9    there is mention of individual remains.  Haglund speaks of mortal remains

10    in terms of a full skeleton or a full body of the deceased person.

11            My question is this:  Is there any fabrication of data regarding

12    all cases pertaining to Srebrenica?

13            JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, Ms. Soljan.

14            MS. SOLJAN:  Your Honours, Mr. Manning has already made an

15    explanation multiple times, and to say "fabrication" is simply not

16    correct.

17            JUDGE AGIUS:  Let him answer it.  I think he is in a position to

18    answer that question.

19            THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

20            Absolutely not, in any of the data, in any of the records, in any

21    of the processes that I've seen or been involved in, has there been any

22    suggestion of wrongdoing.  I've explained that I made an error, and I'll

23    perhaps try and show you.

24            In the June report, 35 individuals.  That increased in the

25    November report because more bodies were identified.  You asked me

Page 19055

 1    Mr. Haglund or Professor Haglund says 33 individuals, and remembering I

 2    wasn't there in 1996, and I say 31 based on the ICMP data.  I explained to

 3    the Chamber that I have been very conservative in my collection of those

 4    numbers, and in fact there are two individuals found in the Nova Kasaba

 5    grave who are not included in the DNA reports from ICMP, or the

 6    information is recorded, but because of circumstances, I've discounted two

 7    records.

 8            In effect, the ICMP and my count is conservative and less,

 9    certainly in this case, by two than it should be.

10            MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]

11       Q.   Can you tell us more about the circumstances because of which

12    those two people were not taken into account after DNA analysis?

13       A.   There's a significant amount of data and information involved.  I

14    recall that there was one Nova Kasaba 1996 entry in the data from ICMP,

15    and for some reason, perhaps a typographical error in the grid reference

16    or something else, led me to make a decision that I wouldn't include it.

17    I wanted to be very accurate, despite my error, as accurate as possible.

18    So if I saw some data that I wasn't completely happy with, I would say, "I

19    will not count that individual."

20            And as to the final individual, it may be that that DNA result has

21    not yet been processed or it's been processed and it wasn't made available

22    to me, in the same way that there were two bodies in the Konjevic Polje

23    grave at one stage, identified through DNA.  However, I knew, to my own

24    knowledge, that there were three bodies in that grave.  Had the third not

25    then been examined, I would have only reported on the two that were

Page 19056

 1    examined.

 2       Q.   I have to interrupt you, Mr. Manning.  We're not discussing

 3    Konjevic Polje.  I would like us to focus only on Kasaba.

 4            Based on whose authorisation did you decide that some persons,

 5    after DNA analysis, be not included on the list, or, rather, in the table,

 6    to be more precise?

 7       A.   The report was my report.  I made that decision, and I produced my

 8    report based on my work, knowing that it was a conservative piece of work.

 9       Q.   Is there a possibility that the two bodies for which you still

10    haven't told us whether they were identified or not, that they had nothing

11    to do with Srebrenica whatsoever?

12       A.   Those two bodies were interned with the other 31 Srebrenica

13    victims, I believe 27 of whom were ligatured with wire, with steel wire.

14    They were placed in the same grave with those 31 completely identified

15    individuals, and there was evidence that some of those individuals were

16    executed in that mass grave.  So to my belief, those two individuals that

17    I have not counted, remembering I was counting ICMP DNA data, are

18    certainly Srebrenica-related victims located in the Nova Kasaba 1996 mass

19    grave.

20            JUDGE AGIUS:  Please bring your cross-examination to an end, Madam

21    Tapuskovic.

22            MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Certainly, Your Honour.

23       Q.   Tell me, please, who found those mortal remains in the mass grave

24    at Nova Kasaba, who discovered them, and based on what information did you

25    arrive at your conclusion?  What information did you have that led you to

Page 19057

 1    conclude what you did?

 2       A.   If I can just check, did you say "Nova Kasaba"?

 3            MS. SOLJAN:  Your Honour.

 4            JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes.

 5            MS. SOLJAN:  If the question could be asked in a way so that --

 6            MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Nova Kasaba 1996, yes.  We've

 7    been talking about Nova Kasaba all along, Nova Kasaba 1996.

 8            THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, my apologies.  I wasn't with

 9    the Tribunal in 1996.  From an examination of the records, I understand it

10    was located via aerial imagery by Jean-Rene Ruez, the former team leader

11    for the Srebrenica team, and that a Mr. John Gerns was present during that

12    occasion and he was an expert employed by the Tribunal, and it was located

13    directly from aerial imagery and probing and testing of the soil.

14            MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have no further

15    questions for the witness.  Thank you.

16            JUDGE AGIUS:  Thank you.

17            Who is going next?  Mr. Meek?

18            Mr. Zivanovic, mic -- okay.

19            Your microphone, Mr. Meek, is still not on.

20            MR. MEEK:  Thank you, Your Honour.

21                          Cross-examination by Mr. Meek:

22       Q.   Good afternoon, Mr. Manning.  How are you?

23       A.   Thank you, sir.

24       Q.   My name is Chris Meek, and I'm one of the attorneys for Ljubisa

25    Beara.

Page 19058

 1            This morning, sir, on page 14, line 6 and 7, when speaking of the

 2    figure of 4.017 bodies, you stated that:

 3            "That is, graves that we accept or I accept to be made up of

 4    Srebrenica victims who were executed following the fall of Srebrenica."

 5            You remember that testimony, sir?

 6       A.   Without checking it, yes, I remember that.

 7       Q.   Now, can you tell me who the "we" is?  You say "we" or "I accept."

 8       A.   The material I was referring to is my report, so that's why I

 9    added the "I."  But the graves that I speak -- I spoke of are accepted by

10    the Prosecution of the ICTY and, without meaning to be facetious, by

11    previous Trial Chambers in relation to the evidence that had been

12    admitted.  So I'm speaking of graves that we knew were ICTY graves, if you

13    like to call them that, which contained victims from Srebrenica, and that

14    those victims were executed, murdered.

15       Q.   Okay.  Sir, can you tell this Trial Chamber and me, please, what

16    is your definition of "executed"?

17       A.   These individuals were murdered.  They were taken into fields and

18    they were shot, they were lined up and shot.  They -- from the testimony

19    of witnesses, they -- other victims saw this happening.  And then when the

20    victims who weren't killed immediately called out for assistance on some

21    occasions from some graves, they were killed.

22            My definition of "execution" is these men were murdered in a

23    brutal fashion.

24       Q.   And, sir, could you enlighten me as to whether or not execution is

25    a cause of death or a manner of death?

Page 19059

 1       A.   I'm not sure of the semantics, but I would suggest that they were

 2    executed; therefore, that was the manner of their death.  They were --

 3    their cause of death, in a forensic sense, would be gunshot wound or

 4    explosive blast, et cetera.  They were murdered.

 5       Q.   So I take it, then, that you do know the difference between cause

 6    of death and manner of death.

 7            JUDGE AGIUS:  He's answered your question.  He did distinguish

 8    between one and the other.

 9            MR. MEEK:

10       Q.   Now, with the figure of 4.017 that you originally started out

11    with, you now have a figure of 4.010; am I correct?

12       A.   That is correct, yes.

13       Q.   And again this is based nearly solely on the ICMP's DNA results

14    that you're testifying about?

15       A.   The figure of 4.010 is based on the data provided by ICMP, yes.

16       Q.   Okay.  You also stated just very recently in your testimony, when

17    asked by my colleague as to why there were different numbers of bodies in

18    certain graves found by one forensic anthropologist who's testified here,

19    for example, and yet in your reports, you have a different number.  Do you

20    recall that question-and-answer session?

21       A.   Yes, I do.

22       Q.   And I believe you answered that:

23            "Unfortunately, that's the nature of an error."

24            Do you remember that?

25       A.   That was specifically in relation to my error in relation to Nova

Page 19060

 1    Kasaba 1996.

 2       Q.   Correct.

 3       A.   Yes.

 4       Q.   And you made an error?

 5       A.   That's correct.

 6       Q.   And that affected the numbers; correct?

 7       A.   That's correct.

 8       Q.   And since we can agree, can't we, that you have -- that you're not

 9    a forensic anthropologist -- correct?

10       A.   That's correct, yes.

11       Q.   You're not a forensic pathologist; correct?

12       A.   Correct.

13       Q.   You have no expertise or schooling in DNA testing, do you?

14       A.   I have a layman's view of DNA testing.

15       Q.   So would you agree with me that you cannot tell the Trial Chamber

16    that no errors were made by the ICMP during these past five, six years

17    with their DNA testing which resulted in your figures coming out of your

18    mouth in this courtroom today?

19       A.   Your Honours, I can't speak for ICMP.

20       Q.   Okay.

21       A.   I can add that I examined the process that they undertook and I

22    saw the fail-safes that they have in place, but I can't speak to the data

23    from ICMP, only that I worked with that data.

24       Q.   So you allow that if the ICMP, all the folks working there and

25    doing the DNA analysis, made mistakes or made errors, that that would

Page 19061

 1    certainly affect these numbers you're speaking of; correct?

 2       A.   Your Honours, I'm loathe to enter into hypotheticals in relation

 3    to ICMP.  I'm not speaking for ICMP.

 4       Q.   As a human being, if you made an error that resulted in a

 5    difference in number, if they made an error in their DNA testing, it would

 6    also logically result in a different number; correct?

 7       A.   Logically.

 8       Q.   Okay.  Going back to the figure of 4.010, as amended, can you tell

 9    the Chamber approximately how many of these 4.010 died in a legitimate

10    military action, such as in the forest or elsewhere, as has been

11    identified by the OTP expert Richard Butler?

12       A.   It's my belief that the individuals located within these graves

13    were killed, were murdered, and that they were not killed in the forest in

14    battle and placed into these graves; that these people were killed,

15    murdered.

16       Q.   Okay.  And, again, that's your assumption; is that what you said?

17    That's your belief or assumption; correct?

18       A.   Your Honour, there is nothing in the graves that would indicate --

19    and nothing in the information that I've seen, the records that I've seen,

20    to indicate contrary.  I will accept that we do not know the cause of

21    death of many of the individuals, some of the individuals within those

22    graves.  However, I believe there is sufficient evidence to say that those

23    individuals in those graves were murdered.

24       Q.   And then again you base that exactly on what?  Specifically, what

25    do you base that opinion on?

Page 19062

 1       A.   Your Honours, I base that belief on the expert reports, in which

 2    experts state that individuals were killed in situ within the mass graves,

 3    on the fact that there are significant numbers of individuals bound and

 4    blindfolded, the witness and survivor testimony, including the testimony

 5    of Mr. -- well, individuals who have presented evidence before this

 6    Chamber, and also on the -- my own knowledge of the consistency of the

 7    graves.  I saw, at great length the collections of bodies within the

 8    graves.  I saw and spoke to the experts about that consistency.  It wasn't

 9    the case that there were 12 individuals bound in one corner of the grave

10    and 10 individuals laying down in uniform in another part of the grave.

11    Those bodies and those graves were uniformly consistent and that they

12    showed people had been killed.

13       Q.   Which grave or graves are you speaking of now, sir?

14       A.   Your Honour, I was asked a general question.  I'm speaking

15    generally of the graves.  But in Nova Kasaba 1996, individuals were

16    executed, were killed.  There was evidence in Nova Kasaba 99 that

17    individuals were killed within the grave.  There's evidence in Konjevic

18    Polje 2 and Konjevic Polje 1 that individuals were killed within the

19    grave.  There's evidence in Cerska that individuals were killed within

20    that grave.  There's evidence -- very, very strong evidence at Branjevo

21    military farm that individuals were executed at that site.  There's

22    evidence that individuals were executed at Kozluk at that site and also at

23    the dam at Petkovci.  I'm not sure if I missed anyway.  And the Godinjske

24    Bare execution was indeed filmed.

25       Q.   Are you speaking of the Red Beret execution that was filmed?

Page 19063

 1       A.   It was the video presented in the Milosevic case.  I believe it

 2    was the Scorpions.

 3       Q.   Scorpions.  Let me ask you this:  Just back on page 68 or 69,

 4    because my runs over from page -- onto line 26, when you were speaking

 5    under cross-examination on the Nova Kasaba graves, your answer at line 28,

 6    which, Your Honours, it may be page 62 at line 3, you stated that:

 7            "I believed 27 of whom were ligatured with wire, with steel wire,

 8    they were placed in the same grave with those 31 completely identified

 9    individuals, and there was evidence that some of those individuals were

10    executed."

11            Do you recall that testimony within the last half hour?

12       A.   I recall that testimony, and if I may correct, there were four

13    sub-graves with the Nova Kasaba 96, so I was wrong there.

14       Q.   Were you telling the truth -- were you speaking the truth then?

15       A.   Certainly.  There were individuals killed within that grave.

16    There was evidence of that, and a significant number were ligatured,

17    indicating that they were also killed.

18       Q.   And it is still your position that each and every body was a

19    result of an execution rather than a result of being shot by enemy fire,

20    shrapnel, shelling, or a grenade, or suicide, or having even been shot by

21    their own -- members of their own army when trying to escape?

22       A.   Your Honours, it's my evidence that those individuals within those

23    graves were murdered and were not killed as a result of other causes, as

24    you say, military action.

25       Q.   And you mentioned earlier that and you're speaking with experts.

Page 19064

 1    Can you tell me, please, the name of these experts that you were referring

 2    to?

 3       A.   You might have to help me with the context of that.  "Experts" in

 4    relation to ...

 5       Q.   You said you had reviewed reports of experts in this case to come

 6    to this conclusion.  Page 74, line 16, you said:

 7            "I based that belief on the expert reports in which experts state

 8    that individuals were killed in situ within the mass graves, on the fact

 9    that there were significant number of individuals," and so forth.

10            Which expert reports did you rely on, sir?

11       A.   Your Honours, specifically Dr. Haglund's report.  I don't know the

12    reference number, but it related to his exhumation of significant graves

13    in 1996.  Professor Richard Wright's exhumations in 1999 and continuing

14    into 2000.  Mr. Jose Pablo Baraybar, Mr. Freddie Petrucelli [phoen], I

15    believe, makes that same observation in his Lazete exhumations, but I

16    would have to check that, and also the reports of the chief pathologists

17    of the ICTY.  I would caution that those reports are multi-volume and many

18    thousands of pages, but certainly the exhumation reports I've mentioned

19    include those words.

20       Q.   And besides those experts which this Trial Chamber has heard

21    testify, are there any others you can think of, sir?

22       A.   Any others that I can think of that indicate that --

23       Q.   That reports you relied on.

24       A.   Your Honours, clearly in the reports that I've presented and my

25    evidence, I've relied on, I think, in excess of 50 separate individuals

Page 19065

 1    and their multi-volume reports, including Professor Brown, Suzie Maljaars,

 2    Dr. DeBruijn, Martin Als [phoen], et cetera, et cetera.  They all lead me

 3    to make the statements in relation to the people being murdered.

 4       Q.   Sir, I remember in your earlier testimony, I believe it was

 5    yesterday, you spoke about when you were actually involved in some of the

 6    exhumations during your four years as an investigator and how important it

 7    was to make sure that the items found in and around the graves, such as

 8    prayer beads, identifications, ID cards, should be kept logged in

 9    [indiscernible]; is that correct?

10       A.   That's correct, yes.

11       Q.   And were you aware that when Dr. Haglund was doing these digs,

12    that he was accused of doing just the opposite, throwing away ID cards,

13    throwing away those types of personal items, sir?

14            MR. McCLOSKEY:  Objection.  That's a misstatement of the

15    evidence.  He was not accused of throwing away ID cards.

16            JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, Mr. Meek.

17            MR. MEEK:  Your Honour, I believe that the San Antonio report

18    directly indicated that was one of the complaints against Dr. Haglund.

19            JUDGE AGIUS:  I don't recall that particular issue being put to

20    him.  In any case, I stand to be corrected, of course, because I can't

21    pretend to remember his testimony or your cross-examination at the time.

22    I know that you had referred to that report on several occasions, but this

23    particular incident, as such, I don't think it was put to the witness.

24            Anyway, I stand to be corrected, and if anything, if we need to

25    discuss this, it will not be in the presence of the witness.

Page 19066

 1            MR. MEEK:  Well, if we're going to discuss it, then let's have the

 2    witness leave, because --

 3            MR. McCLOSKEY:  The witness probably knows the answers.  Maybe we

 4    can save some time.

 5            JUDGE AGIUS:  If you know the answer, Witness, then please go

 6    ahead.

 7            THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I was aware of some

 8    allegations in relation to the 1996 exhumations.  I can't now recall in

 9    what report or volume they were.  I would reject that suggestion, knowing

10    Dr. Haglund and seeing his work, I would reject that he would incorrectly

11    handle evidence.  I can't say anything more.  I can think of circumstances

12    where something might be destroyed or not utilised if it was in such a

13    condition as to not be usable, but I would be very surprised if

14    Dr. Haglund had mistreated evidence in any way.

15            MR. MEEK:

16       Q.   Sir, surprised as you might be, if his co-workers accused him of

17    such activity, I suppose that would even surprise you more?

18       A.   I don't know who accused him of that.  I can't say that I would be

19    surprised, because I don't know the individuals.  I do know Dr. Haglund,

20    and I do know his reputation.

21       Q.   Okay.  And you were working for the OTP as an investigator when

22    they had the San Antonio -- when the San Antonio report was generated.  Do

23    you recall that, sir?

24       A.   I don't believe so.  I joined the OTP in August of 1998.  My

25    dealings with Dr. Haglund then commenced in relation to his preparation

Page 19067

 1    for the Chamber in relation to Krstic and his reception of his reports.

 2    You would have to check the date of that document.

 3       Q.   Of his report?

 4       A.   Of your Antonio report.

 5       Q.   The Antonio report.  It was either 1998 or 1999, but before

 6    tomorrow I'll find out for sure.

 7            So you say you've had dealings with Dr. Haglund, and may I ask

 8    you, were those personal dealings, or over the telephone, or by e-mail, or

 9    letter?

10       A.   Since 1998, I dealt with Dr. Haglund in person, over the

11    telephone, internet, fax, et cetera, over several years.  Subsequently, we

12    both lecture at a international training course for war crimes

13    investigators, and I have spoken to him at length at those courses.  And

14    I've also attended a conference at which he spoke.

15       Q.   Are you aware, Mr. Manning, that after his digs in 1996 and after

16    the fiasco that caused the San Antonio conference and subsequent report,

17    that Dr. Haglund was never employed in the field again by the Office of

18    the Prosecutor here?

19       A.   Your Honour, to describe Dr. Haglund's work as a fiasco is

20    completely wrong, and I'm not aware that he was not further employed by

21    ICTY because of that.  And, in fact, he provided evidence to subsequent

22    trials.

23       Q.   Yes, he did.

24       A.   I reviewed Dr. Haglund's work, and to describe it as a fiasco is

25    wrong.

Page 19068

 1       Q.   Well, he, himself, described it, and I know you're not an

 2    American, but being from Australia, have you ever heard of a three-ring

 3    circus?

 4       A.   Your Honours, I've heard the term.

 5       Q.   And you know what it means; correct?

 6       A.   Effectively.

 7       Q.   And it's slang; is it not?

 8       A.   Yes.

 9       Q.   And what does it mean?  Tell us what it means.

10            MS. SOLJAN:  Objection, Your Honour.  Where is this going?

11            MR. MEEK:  I'll show you where it's going.  I'll rephrase the

12    question.

13            JUDGE AGIUS:  I don't know what it means, anyways.  I would be in

14    a better position to assess the objection raised after I've heard an

15    explanation of the meaning of the term.

16            THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I preface it with the

17    fact that I'm Australian, so I may have a different understanding.

18            It's something that's either out of control and happening all

19    around you all at the same time, and it's literally a circus with three

20    rings, everything happening at once.

21            MR. MEEK:

22       Q.   Out of control, that's correct.  And that's not far off from the

23    American definition of that, but I just wanted to know if you personally

24    knew that Dr. Haglund, himself, described his team in 1996, during that

25    time period on these excavations, as a four-ring circus.

Page 19069

 1       A.   I wasn't aware of that.

 2       Q.   Now, when I said "fiasco" earlier, I didn't mean just Dr.

 3    Haglund.  Were you aware of a pathologist working for the Office of the

 4    Prosecutor back then named Dr. Kirchner?

 5       A.   I think it's -- William Kirchner, Bill Kirchner?

 6       Q.   Yes.

 7       A.   I've not to my recollection met Mr. Kirchner or Dr. Kirchner.

 8       Q.   He was in the field and was a pathologist for the Office of the

 9    Prosecutor when Bill Haglund was also on the site?

10       A.   I'll accept that Dr. Kirchner or Mr. Kirchner worked for the ICTY

11    in some profession.  I would have to check through the reports to make

12    clarification of that.

13       Q.   Now, you'll agree with me, won't you, that the ICMP deals only

14    with identification and does not deal with manner or cause of death;

15    correct?

16       A.   Yes, they deal with the identification of the human remains.

17       Q.   Thank you.  And since you're a former police officer and

18    investigator, might I ask you, what expert from the OTP identifies, upon

19    which you rely, that the cause and manner of death was a result of

20    execution, if any?

21       A.   I'm a serving police officer.  I've already answered that

22    question, I believe.  The expert reports that I spoke about were experts

23    from the OTP.

24       Q.   Did you read all the testimony from this case of Wright,

25    Dr. Wright, Dr. Haglund, Baraybar, Petrucelli?

Page 19070

 1       A.   From this proceeding, certainly not.

 2       Q.   Did you read any of them?

 3       A.   From this proceeding, no.

 4       Q.   And, again, how long were you a police officer in Australia before

 5    you came here in 1998?

 6       A.   I joined the federal police in August of 1983.  I remained a

 7    serving police officer on leave during the whole period that I've been at

 8    the Tribunal and also in New York, so effectively I've been a police

 9    officer for 24 years.

10       Q.   And from looking at your resume, you've been in various fields of

11    law enforcement, such as homicide; correct?

12       A.   That's correct.

13       Q.   Robbery?

14       A.   Yes.

15       Q.   Narcotics?

16       A.   Yes.

17       Q.   Were you ever an undercover agent?

18       A.   No.

19       Q.   Did you ever run undercover officers?

20       A.   On an ad hoc basis.  We had not a programme in those days, and I

21    would be loathe to continue answering questions in relation to our

22    activities back in Australia.

23       Q.   Okay.  Now, being a police officer for 24 years and having worked

24    murder details, for example, do you believe and agree with me that a

25    pathologist must be independent and objective when coming to the manner

Page 19071

 1    and cause of death?

 2       A.   Yes, as should the -- as should the police investigator.

 3       Q.   Okay.  And would you also agree with me that a pathologist must

 4    maintain that independence and objectivity, and that neither Defence

 5    counsel nor a prosecutor should be allowed to assist or encourage them in

 6    the cause or manner of death?

 7       A.   If you're asking if a Defence counsel or Prosecutor should be

 8    allowed to assist or encourage in the cause or manner of death, no.

 9       Q.   Thank you very much.  We have a few minutes.  Just briefly tell

10    the Trial Chamber why you believe that.  And I believe it, too.

11            JUDGE AGIUS:  Let's move to your next question, Mr. Meek.

12            MR. MEEK:

13       Q.   You're aware of -- are you aware of testimony in this case,

14    because in one of your prior answers you mentioned testimony in this and

15    other cases involving Srebrenica; correct?

16       A.   I'm aware of testimony in the other Srebrenica cases, and clearly

17    there's been testimony in this case.  I haven't read any transcript.

18       Q.   Are you aware of any testimony that has been presented that

19    indicated that when this column of Muslims was -- 28th Division was moving

20    from Susinari [phoen] towards the free area, that there were individuals

21    who -- in the ABiH Army that were military who were committing suicide?

22       A.   I recall reading a witness statement, I think it may be one, but a

23    witness statement which indicated that there was a suicide -- I think it

24    was two brothers had committed suicide, and it may have been a further

25    statement of some other suicide.

Page 19072

 1       Q.   And are you aware, from your knowledge of the testimony in this or

 2    other Srebrenica cases, that the members of the ABiH Army who were among

 3    the column moving through the woods towards the free territory, many of

 4    them had simply taken off their military clothes and put on civilian

 5    clothes and left with the column?

 6       A.   I'm not aware of that as testimony.

 7       Q.   And since you really have no -- or you can't tell us, because you

 8    lack the expertise, as to the manner and cause of death of each of these

 9    alleged 4.000 bodies that you say were in the graves, isn't it fair,

10    sir -- isn't it a fair statement that the only thing that you can really

11    say with certainty would be that those bodies that you discovered or that

12    were discovered with blindfolds and ligatures are the only ones that you

13    could say were executed beyond reasonable doubt?

14       A.   I have to disagree, and I think I've answered that question

15    before.  I believe that the people located in those graves were murdered,

16    executed, killed.  Homicide.  I believe that and I accept that.

17       Q.   And does that come also from the DNA tests from the ICMP?

18            JUDGE AGIUS:  Don't answer this question, because he's already --

19    Mr. Meek, you have already stated that ICMP do not go into the cause of

20    death, so let's move to your next question, please.

21            I don't think there is time for it in any case.

22            Have you finished your cross-examination or --

23            MR. MEEK:  I don't think so, Your Honour.

24            JUDGE AGIUS:  Okay.  So we'll continue tomorrow.

25            Yes, thank you.  I think you can leave the courtroom.  We'll

Page 19073

 1    continue tomorrow.  Thank you so much, Mr. Manning.

 2            THE WITNESS:  Thank you.

 3                          [The witness withdrew]

 4            JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, Mr. McCloskey, briefly please.

 5            MR. McCLOSKEY:  Yes.  Can we get an estimate of the remaining

 6    time, because we really, of course, want to finish up Mr. Kingori and

 7    this -- frankly, this type of exploratory cross-examination is I don't

 8    think very valuable to the Court.

 9            JUDGE AGIUS:  How much more time do you need, Mr. Meek?

10            MR. MEEK:  I'd say 20 to 30 minutes, Judge.

11            JUDGE AGIUS:  And, Ms. Nikolic, do you still require your 45

12    minutes?

13            MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] I'll try and complete my questioning

14    within that time frame, Your Honours, but it may be less, I hope.

15            JUDGE AGIUS:  Mr. Stojanovic.

16            MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we will take about

17    20 minutes.

18            JUDGE AGIUS:  And then you have Miletic and Pandurevic, between

19    them 30 minutes, so there you are.

20            Okay, thank you.

21            I still suggest that you try and sit down together to see and work

22    out the schedule for Kingori.

23            MR. McCLOSKEY:  Yes, Mr. President.

24                          --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.47 p.m.,

25                          to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 12th day of

Page 19074

 1                          December, 2007, at 9.00 a.m.