Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 19075

 1                          Wednesday, 12 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:  Yes, good morning.

 7            Madam Registrar, could you call the case, please.

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

 9    number IT-05-88-T, the Prosecutor versus Vujadin Popovic et al.

10            JUDGE AGIUS:  Thank you.

11            All the accused are here.  From the Defence teams, I notice the

12    absence of Mr. Josse and Mr. Bourgon.  The Prosecution composition, as

13    yesterday, Mr. McCloskey, Vanderpuye and Ms. Soljan.

14            Good morning to you, Mr. Manning.

15            THE WITNESS:  Good morning, Your Honour.

16            JUDGE AGIUS:  Welcome back.

17            THE WITNESS:  Thank you.

18            JUDGE AGIUS:  Hopefully, you should be out of this room before us.

19            THE WITNESS:  Thank you, sir.

20            JUDGE AGIUS:  Mr. Meek.

21            MR. MEEK:  Good morning, Mr. President, Your Honours.

22            JUDGE AGIUS:  Good morning, Mr. Meek.

23                          WITNESS:  DEAN MANNING [Resumed]

24                          Cross-examination by Mr. Meek:  [Continued]

25       Q.   Good morning, Mr. Manning.  How are you?

Page 19076

 1       A.   Thank you, Mr. Meek.  Good morning.

 2       Q.   Yesterday, I was questioning you and drew an objection from the

 3    Prosecution about Mr. Haglund, who is your friend and who you highly

 4    respect.  You remember that?

 5       A.   Yes, I remember the conversation.

 6       Q.   We have in evidence the report of the Oversight Committee, and

 7    it's 2D70.  I don't know whether we need to put it on e-court right now.

 8    Certainly, we can.  It was completed November 15th and 16th, 1997.  Now,

 9    does that ring any bells with you?  Before you started.

10       A.   I'm not familiar with the Oversight Committee term.  I know there

11    was a document in relation to, as you described yesterday, allegations in

12    relation to the 1996 exhumations.  I'm assuming that's the same document,

13    without seeing it.

14       Q.   And so you weren't aware, then, that the questions concerning

15    specific allegations, including -- included but were not limited to the

16    methods of collection and chain of custody, problems in body count and

17    possible loss of chain of custody of bones, coordination of operations

18    between anthropology and pathology, and changing the cause and manner of

19    death again after the Prosecutor had departed and had never been notified

20    of those changes.

21            You'd never heard of these allegations; is that your testimony?

22       A.   Your Honours, I was aware of allegations having been made which

23    had been made prior to my arrival at the Tribunal.  I was aware that there

24    was a document.  I'm sure I read the document.  Since that time, it's of

25    no great consequence to me.  I'm sure I've read the document.  I can't

Page 19077

 1    recall it in detail now.

 2            MR. MEEK:  Could we turn to page 4 of that document, please.

 3       Q.   And, Mr. Manning, do you see it in front of you?

 4            Scroll up. There you go.

 5       A.   It's a document which has a subtitle -- subparagraph

 6    of "6", "Pre-investigative comments."

 7       Q.   And comment 5, have you ever heard of Clyde Snow?

 8       A.   Yes, I think I've met Dr. Snow.

 9       Q.   Okay.  And you can see and you can read paragraph 5 there, that

10    Clyde Snow felt at times it was Dr. Haglund versus the UNTAES, and many

11    bodies removed in one day.  Dr. Snow stated in his opinion no more than 20

12    bodies should have been exhumed in any single day.  He felt Dr. Haglund

13    showed "very poor judgement," and it was lucky nothing had "blown up" as a

14    result of the procedures used.

15            Now, Mr. Manning, you know that Clyde Snow is a preeminent

16    forensic anthropologist, do you not?

17       A.   I've met Dr. Snow and I've seen some of his papers.  I don't know

18    his standing, but there's nothing to indicate that he is not in good

19    standing in the community, but I didn't deal with him.  But certainly I

20    know that he's a pathologist and well known.

21       Q.   And of course you've not read any of the transcripts of

22    Dr. Petrucelli, Dr. Baraybar, Dr. Wright, Dr. Lawrence; correct?

23       A.   In these proceedings, I have read no transcripts, as I said

24    yesterday.

25       Q.   And are you aware that Dr. Baraybar and Dr. Petrucelli indicated,

Page 19078

 1    from this witness stand, that they believe Dr. Clyde Snow is a most

 2    preeminent figure in the forensic anthropology world?

 3       A.   I didn't have access to any testimony and I hadn't discussed it

 4    with anyone.

 5       Q.   Okay.  Further, you see that he's obviously stated there was

 6    sloppy science in these digs in 1996.  Do you see that under paragraph 5?

 7       A.   Your Honours, I can see that written.

 8            MR. MEEK:  Okay.  Now Can we turn to the next page, please.  Focus

 9    it on 14, please.

10       Q.   This is a question that drew an objection yesterday.  David Del

11    Pino, a Chilean anthropologist, stated that: "The operations were halted

12    when Dr. Haglund was away.  Clothing was discarded at Haglund's command,

13    even though some contained identification.  Forms were not always used,

14    and there was no delegation of authority."

15            Now, obviously you weren't there, and you can't say whether or not

16    these allegations are true or not; correct?

17       A.   Your Honours, I wasn't there.  I had nothing to do with this

18    document or these discussions.  I would say that I reviewed all the

19    material produced from 1996 from Dr. Haglund's report.  And from the

20    records that I saw, I saw nothing to indicate specific wide-ranging

21    problems.  There were, as in every exhumation or every endeavour of this

22    size, some misnumbering, some mislabelling, some general errors, but in my

23    review of the material, I didn't see any glaring errors or problems or

24    issues.  And, in fact, I saw some fairly detailed and comprehensive

25    records and notes produced.

Page 19079

 1       Q.   Would you agree, though, with the complaint that we talked about

 2    earlier, that changing the cause and manner of death, after the Prosecutor

 3    had departed, had never been notified of these changes, could be a very

 4    real problem, sir?

 5       A.   I'm not sure I really understand the Prosecutor departing.  I can

 6    see the reference in the document, but I don't quite understand it.

 7       Q.   If I can -- I may draw an objection, but I think what they

 8    indicated here was Kirschner had other pathologists working under him, and

 9    they would give a cause of death and then depart, and he would just take

10    it and change it without notifying them or questioning or asking them.

11       A.   Okay.  Well, I'm not aware of that happening, and if you're asking

12    me if that's incorrect, I would suggest that that's an incorrect process.

13       Q.   Okay.  And, in fact, this committee even found -- and, again, it

14    would be under page 10. Scroll up a little bit for Roman numeral IX.

15            Do you see that discussion, sir?

16       A.   Do you want me to read that section?

17       Q.   To yourself.

18       A.   I've read that, that part of the document.

19       Q.   And even the opinions and comments by Dr. Vincent De Maio, which

20    is just a paragraph above Roman numeral IX where it states:

21            "While Dr. Kirschner's actions had the potential to invalidate or

22    at least taint the autopsy reports, the Tribunal prevented this by

23    submitting the reports back to the original physicians for their

24    certification of cause and manner of death."

25       A.   I've read that section.

Page 19080

 1       Q.   And you can see that this committee was so concerned that they

 2    even thought about bringing possible criminal charges or licensing charges

 3    of ethical violations by Kirschner.  Do you see that under IX?

 4       A.   Your Honour, I see discussion as possibilities or options. Again,

 5    I'd like to say that I wasn't involved in this process.

 6       Q.   Okay.  So you really can't comment because you weren't involved

 7    with it; right?

 8       A.   Effectively, I didn't deal with these allegations, I didn't

 9    discuss it with these people, so I have difficulty in providing

10    information in relation to this process.

11       Q.   And wouldn't it be just logically the same, that you really didn't

12    have any involvement in the process of the ICMP and their DNA analysis, so

13    you really can't even comment on that?

14       A.   Your Honours, I don't think that's the case.  I used the data

15    provided by ICMP.  I had attended ICMP's premises, reviewed their

16    processes, spoke to the people involved, reviewed the files, and examined

17    the data held by the Bosnian Court as well as the Bosnian Commission for

18    Missing Persons.  I had no involvement with this document that you're

19    putting to me.

20       Q.   Okay.  And although you testified that you probably recall reading

21    that document at some point?

22       A.   That's correct.

23       Q.   Just like you read the things that ICMP put out; correct?  "Yes"

24    or "no," so we can finish this.

25       A.   Yes.

Page 19081

 1       Q.   All right.  Did -- you mentioned yesterday that you had talked to

 2    many people to uphold your opinion that every single person in these

 3    graves died as a result of a murder or execution; correct?

 4       A.   Yes, I'd spoken to a number of people in relation to that.

 5       Q.   One of them was Dr. Petrucelli; correct?

 6       A.   Yes.

 7       Q.   And can you give us approximate time period, year, month, that you

 8    may have talked to Dr. Petrucelli?

 9       A.   Your Honours, I was involved directly with the exhumations

10    conducted by Mr. Petrucelli over several months.  I also dealt with him at

11    the Tribunal when he was preparing to give evidence, and I think I may

12    have seen and met and spoke with him over three years.  I can't give you

13    an indication.  We certainly discussed -- we certainly discussed the

14    exhumation process.

15       Q.   And, again, prior to the 13th day of March of 2007, when was the

16    last time that you spoke to him about the exhumation process?

17       A.   Probably the last time that I spoke to Mr. Petrucelli was perhaps

18    2002, maybe earlier.

19       Q.   And you'd indicated yesterday that part of your discussion

20    concerned the cause and manner of death; correct?

21       A.   Yes.  Your Honours, I also indicated that I believed that was

22    contained in his report or reports, but that I would have to check those

23    specific reports.

24       Q.   You weren't here, obviously you haven't read the transcript, but

25    on the 13th day of March, he was being questioned, Dr. Petrucelli, and on

Page 19082

 1    page 8763 of this transcript, and he was asked, line 6, question:

 2            "All right.  Well, were you ever, in the context of your

 3    professional capacity, at Ravnice, were you ever asked to provide an

 4    opinion to Dean Manning about how you considered these persons to have met

 5    their death?"

 6            Answer:  "No."

 7            Is that right, Mr. Manning?

 8       A.   I wasn't present for the testimony, so I assume that's what

 9    Mr. Petrucelli said.

10       Q.   Okay.  Shall we believe Mr. Petrucelli, sir?

11       A.   Your Honours, I believe that that's more than possible that he

12    didn't provide an opinion.  We discussed it, as I said.

13            JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, Ms. Soljan.

14            MS. SOLJAN:  Objection, Your Honour.  Mr. Manning is not to

15    comment on this.  It's characterising other witnesses' testimony.

16            MR. MEEK:  Your Honour, he said yesterday under oath that

17    Dr. Petrucelli, and also today, had talked to him about the cause and

18    manner of death, the specific, and I'm asking him whether or not --

19            JUDGE AGIUS:  Let's bring this to a close.  Your question was a

20    very straightforward one, "Shall we believe Mr. Petrucelli," and

21    Ms. Soljan is perfectly right.  You can't ask another witness whether,

22    according to him, we should believe another witness.

23            MR. MEEK:  I was trying to refresh his recollection, Your Honour,

24    but I'll move on.

25            JUDGE AGIUS:  It's better, and also I think you should come to a

Page 19083

 1    close.

 2            MR. MEEK:  Okay.

 3       Q.   Now, since you've been a police officer of 24 years and the

 4    majority of those years were in Australia, frankly, I don't know the

 5    Criminal Code there, but do you have something that we call in

 6    America "the Miranda warnings"?

 7       A.   Your Honours, I'm not trying to be pedantic.  I spent about nine

 8    and a half years overseas in that service.  Yes, we have a Miranda.  We

 9    call it a caution, a criminal caution.

10       Q.   And when you came here in 1998 and became an investigator, were

11    there protocols in place that you learned or were told to use, as an

12    investigator, to interview suspects?

13       A.   Yes, there was a process in relation to interviewing witnesses and

14    suspects that did progress and adapt as the Tribunal moved on, but there

15    was a set of instructions, and I think there still is a set of

16    instructions.

17       Q.   Okay.  Do you recall part of that instruction being that if a

18    person you were interviewing was considered to be a suspect, that he

19    needed to be given certain warnings?

20       A.   Yes.  The process would have been that the suspect, if he was

21    considered a suspect, would have been cautioned, depending perhaps on the

22    circumstances.  There are some conversations which might not be conducted

23    in that manner.

24       Q.   Also, you're aware of the Rules of the Tribunal, are you not, that

25    anyone considered to be a suspect and being questioned by the OTP, that

Page 19084

 1    that discussion must be tape-recorded or audio-recorded; are you aware of

 2    that, sir?

 3       A.   Your Honours, I am aware of that, although I think, and I have not

 4    been here for some years, that there's a clause that if it's not practical

 5    or available or similar, but generally they should be recorded.

 6       Q.   Have you ever, sir, been taught or trained here that when you had

 7    a individual who had been summonsed as a suspect, that it was appropriate

 8    to tell them in their warnings that, "We believe that you are a possible

 9    suspect," instead of "a suspect"?

10       A.   I don't recall that.

11       Q.   And you don't believe, do you, sir, that that would be correct?

12       A.   It's a difficult question to answer without specific circumstances

13    or specific --

14       Q.   I'll give you one, then.  Individual A has been summonsed by your

15    office, and the summons says, "You are a suspect --"

16            JUDGE AGIUS:  Did he interview any suspects?

17            MR. MEEK:

18       Q.   Did you interview any suspects, sir, any suspects?

19            JUDGE AGIUS:  In relation to this case.

20            MR. MEEK:

21       Q.   In relation to this case.

22       A.   Yes, Your Honour, I interviewed a number of people, some of whom

23    were suspects.

24            JUDGE AGIUS:  All right, go ahead.

25            MR. MEEK:

Page 19085

 1       Q.   And suspect A has been -- and these ones you interviewed as

 2    suspects had received summons, correct, to come talk to you at the Banja

 3    Luka office or wherever it might be?

 4       A.   Individuals were summonsed to the interview process, but I can't

 5    recall if that automatically made them suspects.  I don't believe so.  We

 6    would summons individuals to attend for interview via the system that was

 7    in place at the time.

 8       Q.   So you don't recall a time that if a person that you wanted to

 9    interview, you consider him a suspect, that that was not put in the

10    summons that he received?

11       A.   Your Honours, I believe that if they were a suspect, they would

12    have been given a different summons process, but again this is some four

13    or five years ago.

14       Q.   And, again, if you had -- were going to interview a person who

15    you, as an investigator, knew was a suspect, would you ever tell them, in

16    their warnings, "Mr. A, you are a possible suspect and you have the right

17    to ...," whatever, after that?

18       A.   Again, it would depend on the circumstances, but I could envisage

19    using the word "possible suspect."

20       Q.   Why would that be, sir?

21       A.   Again, given the circumstances, it could be that the person is

22    borderline, you don't even know if it's the right person.  You started the

23    conversation with the person.  It's difficult, without a specific

24    circumstance, to answer that question.

25       Q.   All right.  How many people did you interview in regards to this

Page 19086

 1    case, sir?

 2       A.   Including witnesses, between 60 and a hundred.

 3       Q.   Do you recall interviewing a Ostoja Stanisic?

 4       A.   Possibly, yes.  If you could tell me what area he was employed

 5    in.  I think engineering?

 6       Q.   Yes.

 7       A.   Yes.

 8       Q.   Branko Ilic?

 9       A.   I would have to check my records.

10       Q.   Damjan Lazarevic?

11       A.   Yes, I think so.

12       Q.   Milorad Bircakovic?

13       A.   Bircakovic.  I believe so, but again I'd have to check the

14    records.  They're familiar.

15       Q.   Ljubo Bojanovic?

16       A.   Again, possibly.

17       Q.   Dragan Markovic?

18       A.   Again, possible.  I could check the records.  If I interviewed

19    them, there was a record made.

20       Q.   And if, again, the Rules of the Tribunal while you were operating

21    were that all conversations with suspects should be tape-recorded, you

22    followed that, didn't you?

23       A.   I followed the rules that were in place at the time, yes.

24       Q.   And so you wouldn't ever have any off-the-record conversations

25    with these suspects, would you?

Page 19087

 1       A.   Again, you would have to give me specific circumstances, but

 2    generally if a person is a suspect, considered a suspect by the Tribunal,

 3    that person -- the interview should be conducted on tape and recorded.

 4       Q.   And the reasons obviously are to protect not only the person

 5    giving the statement, but the interviewers like yourself; correct?

 6       A.   That's part of the reason, yes.

 7       Q.   Okay.  What are some other reasons?

 8       A.   If you're interviewing a suspect, to ensure that there is a

 9    complete and accurate record of the conversation, perhaps to present into

10    court.

11       Q.   Now, do you recall on 25 November 2001 interviewing Dragan Jevtic

12    at the United Nations headquarters in Banja Luka on 25 November, 2001, a

13    Sunday?

14       A.   Again, if you could tell me what unit he was in.

15            MR. MEEK:  Could I have the help of the usher for just a minute

16    with the ELMO.

17       Q.   Sir, while that's getting set up, can you tell us briefly, under

18    what circumstances would you have a conversation off the record with a

19    suspect?

20       A.   Your Honours, I don't believe I would.  Perhaps if the accused --

21    or, sorry, the suspect had his legal counsel there and a conversation was

22    had, I would certainly make notes of any such conversation, but generally

23    I would consider it essential that it be taped, if that was possible.  If

24    I didn't have the tape-recording resources open to me, I would make notes

25    and prepare a statement.

Page 19088

 1       Q.   Okay, thank you very much.  Now, could you look just at that front

 2    page.  You can look on the ELMO or you can read it.  And just go down to

 3    line 19 and 20, where you say:

 4            "And Mr. Jevtic, you've been interviewed before as a suspect.  And

 5    I'll confirm again that you're a suspect and you will be treated as such.

 6    As a suspect ..."

 7            And then you go on to tell him.  That starts at 19.  Do you see

 8    that?

 9       A.   Yes, I've read that section.

10       Q.   And you say that:

11            "Anything you say will be recorded and could be used in evidence

12    in later Tribunal proceedings."

13            Correct?

14       A.   Correct.

15            MR. MEEK:  Now, could we flip to the next page, please.  Line 15,

16    you state:

17            "And the interpreter is Adisa ..."

18            I won't mention the name there.  Strike that.  Probably should

19    have struck that already:

20            "Mr. Jevtic, do you agree that prior to the interview, you had a

21    conversation with myself and Mr. McCloskey"?

22       A.   Yes, I see that.

23       Q.   Jevtic said:  "Yes."

24            And you say:

25            "And during that brief conversation, you requested that we have a

Page 19089

 1    conversation off tape."  Correct?

 2       A.   That's correct.

 3       Q.   Okay.  Now, sir, according to your testimony under oath just now,

 4    you would have made notes and made a record of that; correct?

 5       A.   That's my testimony, yes.

 6       Q.   Where are your notes and then further record of that

 7    off-the-record conversation with Mr. Jevtic   ?

 8       A.   Your Honours, I've only read this page of the transcript in which

 9    I say:

10            "Do you agree that prior to the interview, you had a conversation

11    with myself and Mr. McCloskey."

12            I'm not sure if I then continue to discuss that conversation and

13    that, if I did discuss the conversation, would constitute a record of that

14    prior conversation.

15            MR. MEEK:  Let's just flip to the next page, please.

16       Q.   Line 3, you state:

17            "That being the case, I'll suspend this record conversation and

18    the time is 16.59."

19            You also say then:

20            "Okay.  This is a record conversation between Dean Manning and

21    Dragan Jevtic, resumed at 17.35"?

22       A.   Yes, I see that.

23       Q.   You had a 36-minute break you had an off-the-record conversation;

24    correct?

25       A.   That's correct.  By the -- by what's recorded here, we suspended

Page 19090

 1    at 16.59 and resumed at 17.35.

 2       Q.   Do you recall, sir, what was the intention of going off the record

 3    before this started and again for 36 minutes?  What were you discussing?

 4       A.   I don't know what the intention prior to the commencement of the

 5    interview, because I assumed, and I'm trying to recall, that they

 6    said, "We would like to discuss something off the record," and then there

 7    was clearly a discussion of some sort.  I don't recall that conversation.

 8    I would have to check any notes that I made of the conversation and

 9    perhaps the rest of the interview.

10       Q.   Very quickly, I'm about finished:  Can you tell me, in your

11    experience in that four years, what are some of the purposes to have an

12    off-the-record conversation like this?

13       A.   Your Honours, I've indicated before that if the person is a

14    suspect, that it would generally not occur.  I do recall that many of

15    these people were, to put it mildly, terrified of the consequences of

16    talking to us, terrified that they would be arrested.  I recall one

17    occasion a suspect hearing a helicopter outside and thinking that it was

18    coming to arrest them.

19            I don't know, I can't recall, from this brief part of the

20    conversation, what that conversation was about.

21       Q.   And you would agree, sir, that many of these people who you called

22    in as suspects were terrified of the consequences of talking to you, they

23    were terrified of being arrested, and they were so terrified that they

24    were willing to shift the blame from themselves to any other person, and

25    that's normal in a criminal investigation; isn't that true, sir?

Page 19091

 1       A.   No, I don't agree with that.

 2       Q.   You don't?

 3       A.   As a complete statement, no.

 4       Q.   As a police officer for 24 years, you've never noticed that people

 5    who you interview as suspects want to shift the blame and have a tendency

 6    to minimise their culpability and point the finger somewhere else?

 7       A.   Your Honour, Mr. Meek's asked a question in relation to the

 8    suspects in this case, and to my recollection, many of the suspects denied

 9    any involvement in the crimes.  And I said that some were terrified.  Some

10    were arrogant, some were frightened, some were thin, tall.  They were all

11    different people.

12       Q.   Some lied to you; correct?

13       A.   I would suspect very strongly that some lied, yes.

14       Q.   And is a part of your job -- is it okay for an investigator to lie

15    to a suspect and tell them something that's not quite true to get them to

16    answer?

17       A.   Your Honours, I conduct interviews in a fair and honest manner. It

18    is not normal to lie to a suspect or to a witness, and it's my position

19    that if I can, I will tell both suspects and witnesses the truth, if I

20    can.  It is not normally my habit to lie to people in any respect.

21       Q.   Thank you, sir.  I appreciate it's not normally your practice to

22    do that, but from time to time I presume, with your answer, that you will

23    tell suspects certain things; you may not really have a conversation --

24            JUDGE AGIUS:  Mr. Meek, Mr. Meek, stop it.  We allowed the first

25    question. He's answered you.  Now move to your next question.

Page 19092

 1            MR. MEEK:  Okay.  Thank you, sir, thank you, Your Honour.

 2       Q.   Mr. Manning, were you ever involved in the -- as an investigator

 3    to conduct Rule 68 compliance?

 4       A.   Yes, I was.

 5       Q.   And do you have any notes of that?

 6       A.   I'm sure that I made some entries in relation to Rule 68.  It was

 7    a huge volume of work and interviews.  I know that some Rule 68 material

 8    was identified by myself.  There should be records, notes.

 9       Q.   All right.  Now, would they be your notes, sir?

10       A.   Your Honours, I can't recall the actual process involved, but --

11    and I don't want to mislead the Tribunal.  I'm sure there was a process

12    involved where we made a record of Rule 68 or at least indicated it to the

13    senior trial attorneys and other attorneys.

14       Q.   I just ask, sir, the last question is:  Can you generally tell us,

15    what was the protocol, to your recollection, on the Rule 68 compliance?

16       A.   If we -- if I found any material that was clearly or even vaguely

17    exculpatory, then that material should be immediately reported, recorded,

18    and the process would be that it would be advised to the appropriate

19    Defence -- the appropriate area.

20       Q.   Would the appropriate parties be the Office of the Prosecutor, and

21    then from there, they would turn it over?

22       A.   Yes.

23       Q.   Okay.  Were you recently contacted by another investigator here,

24    Tomasz Blaszczyk, about some documents or notes that you had that you

25    discarded and threw away right before you left in 2002?

Page 19093

 1       A.   No, I don't think so.

 2            MR. MEEK:  I have you mixed up with another investigator.  I'm

 3    sorry.

 4            I have no further questions, Your Honour.

 5            JUDGE AGIUS:  Thank you, Mr. Meek.

 6            Ms. Nikolic.

 7            MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours.  Good

 8    morning to my learned friends.

 9                          Cross-examination by Ms. Nikolic:

10       Q.   Good morning, Mr. Manning.  My name is Ms. Nikolic, and I

11    represent the Defence for Mr. Drago Nikolic.  I would like to put to you

12    several questions concerning your investigative work in the Srebrenica

13    case before leaving the Tribunal.  So that's the period I'm interested in.

14            From what I understand, you were involved not only in the

15    investigation concerning exhumations, but also in the investigations

16    concerning the ballistics in relation to this case.

17       A.   That's correct.  Effectively, they were connected to the

18    exhumation process.

19       Q.   Aside from analysing the bullet cases found at the site, was an

20    analysis of weaponry carried out as well from the units that were out in

21    the field, namely, the Bratunac and Zvornik Brigades?

22       A.   Yes, that's correct, although it wasn't an analysis of the

23    weapons, as such, but the shell cases fired from the weapons, if that's

24    the inquiry you're speaking of.

25       Q.   No.  I'm referring to an analysis of the rifles that were taken

Page 19094

 1    from the premises of the barracks of the Zvornik and Bratunac Brigades.

 2       A.   Your Honours, I was involved in an operation which seized weapons

 3    from the Bratunac and other brigades.  Those weapons were then test-fired

 4    and the shell cases recovered from those weapons and examined by the ATF.

 5    Those weapons were then returned to the relevant units.  In that case, we

 6    didn't examine forensically the weapon, but the shell case that was

 7    produced from that weapon.  Perhaps that's the same thing.

 8       Q.   I would like to put to you the answer you gave in the Blagojevic

 9    case on page 7209.

10            I've been trying to find the documents from the batch from my

11    learned friends concerning an analysis of around 1.000 rifles that we know

12    was carried out, and I'm referring to the rifles that were taken from the

13    barracks.

14            In answer to Mr. Karnavas' question, you said, Your Honours:

15            [In English] "In a major part of that process, we tried to

16    [indiscernible] from the Bratunac/Zvornik Brigade and other brigades or

17    units in the area of Srebrenica.  Those weapons were test-fired and cases

18    were collected with the intention of comparing.  That was conducted by

19    Mr. Ols and his associates.  Did not recall the ultimate outcome, but I

20    understand it was unsuccessful."

21       A.   Your Honours, I agree with that statement, and we are discussing

22    the same matter.  To my knowledge, the test-firing produced many hundreds

23    of shell cases.  They were examined, and those results were negative.  But

24    I wasn't involved in that final part of the process, but I agree with you

25    that they were negative.

Page 19095

 1       Q.   [Interpretation] Or, rather, the link between the weapons from the

 2    Bratunac and Zvornik Brigades and other units and the bullet cases that

 3    were found on the Srebrenica mass gravesites?

 4       A.   Your Honours, no link was found, to my knowledge, from that test.

 5    I caution that by saying something may have changed between now and then,

 6    but to my knowledge, there was no link located from those weapons to those

 7    shell cases.

 8       Q.   Thank you, sir.  What I should like to ask you now concerns your

 9    report, which you must have read closely, dated the 24th of August, 2003.

10    I believe Madam Soljan showed you a map yesterday which was annexed to

11    this report, but in order for you to find it more easily to follow my

12    questions, I will show you only one page of this report, which contains a

13    certain figure, so that we do not find ourselves at cross-purposes.

14            Could I have Madam Usher's assistance in giving this report to

15    Mr. Manning.

16            Before you look at this report, let me ask you this:  In your

17    investigative work, while you were collecting the data for your -- today's

18    evidence, you contacted the Cantonal Court in Tuzla, did you not?

19       A.   I'm sorry.  Could you repeat that question?

20       Q.   While you were preparing your report for today and for this

21    particular testimony, you contacted the Cantonal Court in Tuzla, did you

22    not?

23       A.   That's correct, yes.

24       Q.   You are familiar with their work and their data, are you not?

25       A.   From that -- from that visit, I was able to see the files and the

Page 19096

 1    way they're structured.  I'm not particularly familiar with the laws and

 2    the processes in place in Bosnia for domestic crimes, but I -- I reviewed

 3    files and became somewhat familiar with their processes, yes.

 4       Q.   Mr. Manning, I really do not wish to go into the domestic law;

 5    only the documents that you were shown, records and so on and so forth.

 6            Can we call up Defence exhibit 3D265 on e-court, please.

 7            While we're waiting for the document, you'll agree with me that

 8    before you, you have your report, dated the 24th of August, 2003, that you

 9    prepared for your evidence in the Blagojevic case, which was provided to

10    you by Madam Usher?

11       A.   Yes, I can see that document.

12       Q.   Please look at the document we have on e-court.  This is the

13    report which, on the 20th of September, 2004, the Cantonal Court in Tuzla

14    sent to the Demographics Section of the Prosecution with the supporting

15    material and tables.

16            Let's turn to page 2, please.

17            Please turn to page 1 of your report, where item number 8 starts.

18            I don't know how we can coordinate e-court and ELMO at the same

19    time, but perhaps Mr. Manning should take the report and place it before

20    him, while the rest of us will be following the document on e-court.

21            Page 1 of the report, 0308 -- I'm sorry, I'm giving you the ERN of

22    the B/C/S version.  Page 1, starting with the paragraph:  "Summary of the

23    forensic material, 2001 mass graves analysis," item number 8.

24            Mr. Manning, could you please take your findings and place them

25    before you, your report.  Look at page 1 and the paragraph -- paragraph

Page 19097

 1    number 8, that is.

 2       A.   Perhaps you could tell me how it starts.

 3       Q.   This number contains all the bodies found in the exhumations.

 4            THE INTERPRETER:  The interpreter notes that we don't have the

 5    document before us.

 6            MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation]

 7       Q.   Following that, you have a section where you have the years of

 8    exhumations covering the period from 1996 to 2001, and this is the period

 9    considered by your report?

10       A.   That's correct, yes.

11       Q.   Please look at the screen, where you will see the report of the

12    Cantonal Court in Tuzla for 1996, where you have 224 bodies exhumed in

13    1996, whereas in your report you refer to at least 479 bodies.  In 1998,

14    in your report, at least 895 bodies were exhumed.  According to the report

15    of the Cantonal Court in Tuzla, there were 433 exhumed.  For the year

16    1999, as per your report, at least three -- or, rather, 546 bodies were

17    exhumed from mass graves, and according to the report from -- of the

18    Cantonal Court in Tuzla, there were 155 bodies from 40 mass graves.

19            I don't want to go through these figures any further, but please

20    explain to me how you account for these discrepancies, particularly with

21    regard to the fact that the report of the Cantonal Court in Tuzla dates

22    from September 2004.

23       A.   The numbers included in my report are from ICTY at that time

24    exhumations.  They represent the bodies and body parts located in ICTY

25    graves.  This document, to my reading, is data from the Bosnian

Page 19098

 1    Commission.  I don't know where these figures came from.  They're talking

 2    569 graves were opened.  Clearly, that's significantly more than the ICTY

 3    graves that I have been discussing.  I can't really comment on their

 4    figures; only to say my figures in my report represent the ICTY exhumed

 5    graves and the MNI or minimum number of individuals assessed by Jose Pablo

 6    Baraybar.

 7       Q.   Would you please look at the document we have on our screens.  If

 8    you look at the second or third paragraph, where the sources are listed

 9    which the Cantonal Court in Tuzla used for this 2004 report, you will see

10    Tuzla Cantonal Court records, Tuzla Cantonal Prosecutor's office record,

11    and the information received from the Missing Persons Institute, which was

12    also used as the source of information by the Tribunal; was it not?

13       A.   Your Honour, I see those details.  In relation to my report in the

14    Blagojevic trial, I didn't rely on records from the Bosnian authorities.

15    I based the details of that report on data held by ICTY.

16            MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Could we turn to page 3 of the

17    document, please.

18       Q.   We have a table here of the locations and mass graves where it

19    says:  "Unidentified persons from The Hague graves and other graves."

20    We're looking at the last two columns on the right-hand side.  And the

21    text above it says:  "Identified:  186 bodies," on the basis of the

22    documentation from the Missing Persons Institute and UKC, and 1.078 bodies

23    exhumed in cooperation with the ICTY.  According to the results provided

24    by the Cantonal Court, The Hague graves, or, rather, the graves examined

25    by the ICTY, they are related to 1.078 identified persons.  Can you

Page 19099

 1    comment on this?  Can you give us any further information in addition to

 2    what you've already told us?

 3       A.   Your Honours, I haven't reviewed this document.  I would note it

 4    says "1.078 bodies," not "identified bodies."  These records certainly

 5    don't -- aren't what I relied on, and I would have to check the underlying

 6    material in relation to this.  But those figures don't relate to my

 7    report.

 8       Q.   Whilst you were preparing your last two reports in 2007, in the

 9    months of June and November, you only relied on the ICMP's list, did you

10    not?

11       A.   I relied on the ICMP data in relation to the numbers of identified

12    and the codes relating to that, yes.

13       Q.   Do you know that the ICMP sent to the OTP its lists on two

14    occasions to the Demographics Section, which were --

15            THE INTERPRETER:  Could Madam Nikolic please repeat the last part

16    of her question.

17            JUDGE AGIUS:  Did you get the interpreters, Madam Nikolic?  The

18    interpreters would like you to repeat the last part --

19            MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] My apologies.  Thank you.

20       Q.   Do you know that after the Demographics Section of the OTP

21    received lists on two occasions, that corrections and modifications were

22    made there, too, by the Demographics Section?

23       A.   I'm aware that two series of data was provided and that the

24    Demographic Unit processed that data and identified some issues, some

25    areas in that material.  I didn't thereafter deal with demography and

Page 19100

 1    ICMP, but I saw the results of that.

 2            MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Could we please show 3D267 to the

 3    witness now.

 4       Q.   Mr. Manning, please read out the first paragraph of this letter

 5    sent on the 22nd of October, 2007, to Ms. Ewa Tabeau of the Demographics

 6    Section of the OTP.  Please read it out loud, since we don't have the

 7    B/C/S translation in e-court, we have it only in English.

 8       A.   "Dear Ewa.  Please find attached an Excel file that accounts for

 9    the discrepancies you noted in our previous list of DNA reports relating

10    to Srebrenica.  We have broken it into two sheets, one indicating listings

11    for which correction is necessary in the original list, and the second

12    indicating the explanation for the apparent discrepancy, where corrections

13    are either not needed or not possible."

14       Q.   Does your knowledge on certain corrections tally with what we can

15    read in the document?

16       A.   I haven't read the whole document, but I agree that there were

17    discrepancies identified by Ms. Tabeau.  She dealt with ICMP.  I saw the

18    results of that inquiry.  I examined those results, and I believe in the

19    vast majority, the corrections were not records that affected my report in

20    any way, that is, that they were records which I did not -- did not count

21    or were related to graves and surface collections which I did not deal

22    with.

23       Q.   But that list was the basis for the compiling of your report, the

24    same list?

25       A.   That's correct, yes, the same two lists.

Page 19101

 1       Q.   Do you know whether all the data from the list is secret, since

 2    that information was never disclosed to the local authorities?

 3       A.   I'm aware that the ICMP provided that data on a confidential basis

 4    to the ICTY.  I don't know if they have released that data to anyone else.

 5       Q.   You also are familiar of the mission of the Commission for Missing

 6    Persons or, rather, that they are mandated to equally assist the local

 7    authorities and courts, particularly in keeping with the contract between

 8    the ICMP and the Bosnian government in relation to the work of this

 9    Tribunal?

10       A.   If you're talking about the Bosnian Commission for Missing

11    Persons, I'm aware that it's part of the three-entity arrangement, if you

12    like.  As to their sharing arrangements, I can't comment.  I believe that

13    it was envisaged as one commission.

14            JUDGE AGIUS:  Mr. Manning -- sorry, Ms. Nikolic, a question for

15    the witness.

16            Still referring you to this document that you see on e-court, I

17    just want to have it clear in my mind.  The bottom line of that would be

18    that there would be one more in the list or one less?

19            THE WITNESS:  I'm sorry, Your Honour, I'm missing your reference.

20    You're talking about my 2003 report or --

21            JUDGE AGIUS:  No, no, no, my apologies to you.  I'm talking about

22    the document that you were referred to, being a letter from -- or an

23    e-mail from Thomas Parsons to Tabeau -- to Ewa, anyway, Tabeau at the

24    ICTY?

25            THE WITNESS:  Yes, Your Honour, I can't see the bottom of that

Page 19102

 1    document.

 2            JUDGE AGIUS:  Can we have it -- yes.

 3            THE WITNESS:  Your Honour, that entry in relation to that

 4    individual, I won't -- perhaps it's not best if I comment on that, because

 5    it's not one of the graves that I considered.  It's the site or location

 6    known as "Kravica," which wasn't an ICTY grave, so I didn't -- I didn't

 7    use that data.

 8            JUDGE AGIUS:  But what I'm asking you, if you look at the

 9    paragraph just above the details of the individual, it states:

10            "For one case, the main report was inadvertently left off the

11    list.  This is indicated on the sheet, but I append here the relevant

12    information for the main case, to complete the record."

13            So would that be tantamount to adding another individual to the

14    list or revising the list by deleting one?

15            THE WITNESS:  Your Honour, it would be adding one to the list.  A

16    main report is the one that would be counted.  The re-associations would

17    form part of that body, so that's one additional.

18            JUDGE AGIUS:  Thank you.

19            MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.

20            THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's note, could all background noise

21    please be kept to a minimum.

22            JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, thank you.  My apologies.

23            My apologies to you, Madam Nikolic, for the interruption.  Please

24    go ahead.

25            Yes, Ms. Soljan.

Page 19103

 1            MS. SOLJAN:  Your Honours, if we could just request that this

 2    image be not broadcasted.  Thank you.

 3            JUDGE AGIUS:  It has already been taken care of.  Thank you.

 4            MS. SOLJAN:  Thank you, Your Honours.

 5            MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation]

 6       Q.   A few additional questions, Mr. Manning.  In your visit in 2005 --

 7    or, rather, during that visit to Bosnia, I read that you visited the

 8    Federal Commission for Missing Persons of Bosnia-Herzegovina and that on

 9    that occasion you didn't meet Mr. Masovic.  Did you consult the archives

10    of the Commission concerning the exhumations, missing persons, et cetera,

11    or, rather, concerning all the things that were the purpose of your visit?

12       A.   I didn't consult the archives.  I intended to meet with

13    Mr. Masovic, but circumstances meant that I could not.  I didn't look at

14    the archives, no.

15       Q.   Therefore, you are not familiar with their data, the data they

16    forwarded to the OTP concerning the missing identified people regarding

17    Srebrenica in 1996?

18       A.   I don't really know what data you're speaking about, but I didn't

19    look at the archives.  I, as I said, reviewed the material at the Drina,

20    at the re-association centre, and at the Tuzla Cantonal Court.  I may have

21    seen some of their data.  I don't know specifically.

22       Q.   You will agree with me that the Federal Commission has close

23    cooperation with the ICMP as regards Bosnia, and it also cooperates with

24    all of its branches, including the PIP and the other organisations that

25    deal with such issues?

Page 19104

 1       A.   I would accept that, yes.

 2       Q.   A question concerning the location of the graves that you have

 3    been discussing here and mentioning in your reports so far.  Concerning

 4    the map behind you, I think it is Exhibit 2996, what municipalities are

 5    included; Zvornik and Bratunac, is it not?

 6       A.   Effectively, it stretches from the village of Pilica in the north

 7    to below Zeleni Jadar in the south, and it may take in other

 8    municipalities on the map, but effectively the area from Pilica to Zeleni

 9    Jadar.

10       Q.   Are you familiar with the territory of the municipalities within

11    which these locations are, and how many of such municipalities are there?

12       A.   I know generally the municipalities.  I'm not that familiar, but I

13    know when I'm in the Zvornik Municipality, but I don't know the boundaries

14    particularly well.

15       Q.   In any case, these mass graves do not encompass more than two or

16    three municipalities, i.e., Zvornik and Bratunac?

17       A.   I am aware that they are contained within the zone of

18    responsibility of the Drina Corps and that they are located throughout

19    that area.  There are graves in the vicinity of Zvornik, there are graves

20    in the vicinity of Bratunac.

21            MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.  Could we please show

22    3D268 or 1D449.  I believe we can use that one as well, if needed, and I

23    believe it was shown to the witness yesterday by my learned friend.

24       Q.   Mr. Manning, do you recall this document?  Ms. Tapuskovic showed

25    it to you yesterday.  It is a report of the Federal Commission for Missing

Page 19105

 1    Persons of Bosnia-Herzegovina which dealt with exhumations within a period

 2    of time of 11 years, covering 10 municipalities, and they identify 4.515

 3    persons.

 4            I went through the lists in detail, and by sheer chance, you had

 5    no insight into those.  More than 400 persons are mentioned there within

 6    the period between 1992 and 1994.  Therefore, the figures do not match,

 7    again, the figures being presented before this Tribunal.

 8            Had you had an opportunity to look at this data before, would your

 9    report have been different?

10       A.   Your Honours, it would not have been different, and that is one of

11    the basic reasons why I relied on the ICMP DNA data, because it is a

12    definitive numbering of the individuals.  We, in the ICTY, used an MNI.

13    The Bosnian authorities may be counting body-bags or cases.  I don't know,

14    and I don't think I should comment further.  But the definitive count, it

15    will be available from DNA.  Any other count is an assessment,

16    particularly given that the bodies are broken up and that not all the body

17    parts are available.

18       Q.   The Federal Commission for Missing Persons of Bosnia-Herzegovina

19    and the Cantonal Court in Tuzla and the rest also used the DNA analysis

20    from the same source you used; isn't that correct?

21       A.   No, I don't know that from this document, and I don't know that

22    from my discussions with them.  It's possible.

23            MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.  I have no

24    further questions.

25            JUDGE AGIUS:  Thank you so much, Madam Nikolic, even for cutting

Page 19106

 1    down your cross-examination to what you did.

 2            Mr. Stojanovic.

 3            We'll have a break in 10 minutes' time.

 4                          Cross-examination by Mr. Stojanovic:

 5       Q.   [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Manning.  My name is Miodrag

 6    Stojanovic, and together with my colleagues, we appear on behalf of Mr.

 7    Ljubo Borovcanin. I just wanted to get a few clarifications concerning

 8    some things from your yesterday's testimony.

 9            Can you tell me, looking at this map, how many were there -- how

10    many mass graves were there in the area of Glogova village?

11       A.   Referring to the map behind me, ICTY graves in the area of Glogova

12    village would be, depending on your definition, Konjevic Polje 2, Ravnice

13    1 and 2 and Glogova 1 and 2, perhaps even Cerska and --

14            JUDGE AGIUS:  What we have on the screen, you need to scroll down,

15    or what appeared on the screen.  I think it was a direct shot from the

16    map.

17            Okay.  Do you need the map any further, Mr. Stojanovic?

18            MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I will have another

19    question concerning this.  Therefore, I could ask that we look at the map

20    and focus on the bottom portion.  It is P02996.

21            Could we go towards the bottom of the map.  Yes, thank you.

22       Q.   If I understood properly, Mr. Manning, under the geographic term

23    of Glogova village, we can also include the area of the mass graves you

24    termed "Ravnice 1 and 2"; am I correct?

25       A.   Yes, taking it that the village of Glogova is on the area near

Page 19107

 1    Glogova 2.

 2       Q.   In your report dated the 27th November 2007, inter alia, you

 3    mention sub-mass graves which you termed "Glogova 7, 8 and 9".  Can you

 4    explain to us what the notion of sub-mass graves or subsidiary mass graves

 5    means?  How do you distinguish those from the basic or primary mass graves

 6    of Glogova 1 and 2?

 7       A.   Your Honours, Glogova 2 grave is, as you saw on the aerial

 8    imagery, an area that was significantly disturbed.  When the grave was

 9    exhumed, it was found that there were very different features within the

10    grave, and as they exhumed the grave, they would identify that area as a

11    sub-grave.  As they progressed, it might turn into part of a bigger

12    grave.  It might turn out to be a formation produced by the bulldozer. It

13    might turn out to be a set of tracks through the soil.

14            In the case of Glogova 1, there were very distinct sub-graves.

15    One was dug by a front-end loader and one was dug by a 360-degree machine

16    scooping into the soil, but those formed part of the whole area of Glogova

17    1 or Glogova 2.

18            We took the decision particularly that we would not attempt to

19    name the sub-graves and perhaps artificially increase the number of

20    graves.  Aligned with that was the fact that those sub-graves were all

21    part of the bigger area of Glogova 1 or Glogova 2 or Kozluk, which was

22    made up of three parts of one big digging process, so that's why they

23    referred to sub-graves.  And on occasion, a sub-grave might turn out to be

24    a hole dug by a machine with nothing in it.

25            Does that assist?

Page 19108

 1       Q.   I wanted to ask you this:  Can you tell us here today whether

 2    those sub-graves were dug simultaneously, temporally speaking, or is there

 3    a possibility that they were dug in different periods, having in mind the

 4    type and depth of the pit, the type of machinery, or any other

 5    characteristics you found in the field?

 6       A.   Your Honour, a number of the expert reports addressed that same

 7    question and indicate that the graves or sub-graves were part of the same

 8    process in time, very close to each other in time.  If you view of aerial

 9    imagery of Glogova 2, you can see all those sub-graves are part of the

10    bigger excavation which occurred at the same time.  I do, however, know

11    that a grave known as "Grave L" within Glogova, there was evidence that

12    that was created several days after the creation of Glogova 1, and that

13    grave contained the body of 12 individuals bound together in pairs and

14    killed, and shot, each of them in the chest and some in the head.  That

15    grave, in particular, was built -- was made some one or two days after the

16    Glogova 1 grave.  It, however, was within the boundary of the Glogova 1

17    graves or grave.

18       Q.   Would I be correct in saying, then, that chronologically speaking,

19    it was within a single process; that is, that these sub-graves were

20    created within the course of a few days?

21       A.   That's correct.  And if I could make it clearer, the Kozluk grave

22    is made up of three graves, and in fact graves 1 and 2 are -- were created

23    when the bulldozer digging grave 3, which is the larger grave, pushed the

24    soil to the side and pushed bodies to the side.  So it was made in exactly

25    the same process that created the bigger grave, and it was designated as a

Page 19109

 1    sub-grave simply for assisting in processing where the bodies came from.

 2       Q.   Just to clarify, you are now referring to Kozluk rather than

 3    Glogova, is it not?

 4       A.   Yes, I was giving the example of Kozluk, which is much smaller and

 5    easier to describe than the complicated graves at Glogova 1 and 2.

 6       Q.   Thank you.  A few words about the graves you termed "Ravnice 1 and

 7    2".  Can you tell us or explain to us why those graves were called by

 8    using the local geographical term of "Ravnice," although they were in

 9    Glogova village?  Ravnice, as a geographical feature, is another location.

10       A.   Your Honours, the grave location was on the Hodzici Road, and on

11    our map it had the term "Ravnice" written in that area.  It was simply a

12    matter of that was the name of the feature closest to the grave, and we

13    chose that name.  No other reason than that.  And it is not in the village

14    of Glogova, itself.

15       Q.   Can we agree that in fact it is one location, one slope, where

16    bodies were found and that there was no digging of graves, but rather,

17    that some of the bodies that you found there had merely been covered with

18    soil?

19       A.   That's correct.

20       Q.   This mass grave was found undisturbed; am I right?

21       A.   That's correct.  Your Honours, it had not been disturbed, although

22    it was open to disturbance from natural forms.  It hadn't been disturbed

23    by people.

24       Q.   Since you were in the field, do you know whether the access road

25    you just referred to is something that heavy machinery could make use of?

Page 19110

 1       A.   Yes, certainly.  We took a bulldozer and rather large trucks

 2    through that area.  Having said that, the road had clearly deteriorated

 3    when we used it in 2001.  I can't speak to the condition of the road in

 4    1995, except from an aerial image that I've seen which indicates the road

 5    is there.

 6            MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

 7            Your Honours, perhaps this is a good time for the break.

 8            JUDGE AGIUS:  Thank you.  Perhaps you will be thinking about the

 9    need for another site visit to check what you've just asked the witness.

10            Twenty-five minutes.

11                          --- Recess taken at 10.30 a.m.

12                          --- On resuming at 11.00 a.m.

13            JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, Mr. Stojanovic.

14            MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

15       Q.   Mr. Manning, let us resume at the point where we were talking

16    about Ravnice mass grave.  I will be putting questions to you, and then

17    you can say whether you agree or not.

18            Am I right if I say that according to the aerial imagery, the part

19    of the grave you called "Ravnice 1," where the grave was covered up after

20    30 bodies were buried there, and it was covered up by the soil taken from

21    across the road, whereas down the slope, 157 bodies were found, and this

22    was at the spot that was called "Ravnice 2," and those bodies had not been

23    either buried or covered with soil at all; would you agree with me there?

24       A.   Yes, I would agree with you, although I'd have to check the

25    numbers that you quote.  But, yes, I agree with you.

Page 19111

 1       Q.   I don't mind you checking the numbers, because I'm reading this,

 2    but the gist of my question is:  According to the aerial imagery dated the

 3    17th of July, it was established that the grave was already created or was

 4    being created, if I can put it that way, since it was a process, after

 5    all, as you said?

 6       A.   The indication on the aerial image of was the soil that had been

 7    taken from one side of the road, and that was present on that image.  I

 8    don't believe that any bodies were visible on that image.

 9       Q.   Would you agree that the bodies were brought there after the 17th

10    of July and thereafter as part of a process?

11       A.   I don't think I can agree with that without the image in front of

12    me, but the 17th would be when -- up to when that disturbance had been

13    created.  So you can say that it was created at some stage before or on

14    the 17th, from that image, but I can't say that it was created after the

15    17th.

16       Q.   You do not exclude the possibility that the bodies, and I'm

17    referring to Ravnice 2, as you termed it, may have been brought at a later

18    stage; you do not rule out that possibility, since the land had not been

19    disturbed there?

20       A.   Your Honours, I have to, in fact, exclude that possibility from

21    what I know.  The grave is referred to as "Ravnice 1 and 2," but it is

22    really one grave, one collection of bodies, the only difference being that

23    the soil was placed on part of the bodies.  The definition of "Ravnice 1

24    and 2" is simply based on when and who exhumed the bodies.  There was

25    nothing to indicate that the bodies from one end of Ravnice to the other

Page 19112

 1    were from different periods in time.  They were consistent in the manner

 2    that they were dumped and in the way they were dumped, and also they were

 3    very consistent in the artifacts which had been found linking them to the

 4    Kravica warehouse.  That was -- material was spread right throughout the

 5    grave in a relatively uniform manner.  So I would have to exclude that

 6    they were created on different occasions.

 7       Q.   In view of the findings of the pathologists involved in the

 8    project, Mr. Peccerelli and Mr. Clark, can we agree that the time of death

 9    of the autopsied bodies could not be established?

10       A.   Mr. Peccerelli is an archaeologist, not a pathologist, but the

11    other pathologists, including Dr. Clark, did, I believe, seek to identify

12    a time of death, and one method we utilised was the self-winding watches

13    along with the aerial imagery used to create -- showing the creation of

14    the graves.  I would have to check the pathology reports to see if the

15    experts had indicated specific times of death.  I certainly cannot recall

16    any indication of a time of death either preceding the fall of Srebrenica

17    or significantly post-dating the fall of Srebrenica.

18       Q.   We have had occasion to hear two testimonies here concerning the

19    activities involving the burial of these bodies, and these witnesses said

20    that in the Glogova mass grave, bodies found elsewhere in the areas of the

21    municipalities of Bratunac and Zvornik were buried, and they identified

22    the locations from which the bodies were taken.  Is this consistent with

23    your knowledge and experience?

24       A.   I can't comment on the testimony of the other witnesses.  In

25    Glogova 1, grave L was created after the rest of the grave was created, I

Page 19113

 1    think several days, but there wasn't available any other evidence to

 2    indicate to me that there were other incidents or depositions of bodies.

 3    And I'm trying to think of any statements or interviews to the contrary,

 4    but I don't now recall of any other information which led -- which would

 5    lead me to think they were put in at different occasions.

 6       Q.   According to the data you provided in the report dated the 27th of

 7    November, 2007, the total number of bodies found in the primary graves of

 8    Glogova 1 and 2 was 370.  My question is:  Are all these bodies bodies

 9    found in the primary graves termed "Glogova 1 and 8" and "sub-graves 7, 8

10    and 9"; is that the collection that is referred to here?

11       A.   Glogova 2 is -- should be considered as one very large mass grave

12    which was made up of different features.  The Glogova 1 grave is a similar

13    picture.  Glogova 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 are the same large mass grave

14    known as "Glogova 2."  Glogova 1 stands by itself and Glogova 2 stands by

15    itself, with those sub-graves within it.

16       Q.   The number of identified bodies in your November report,

17    concerning graves Glogova 1 and Glogova 2, is also subsumed by these

18    sub-graves; is that what you're saying?

19       A.   Your Honours, the bodies located in Glogova 1 were located in that

20    area of the mass grave.  The bodies in Glogova 2 were in that area of the

21    mass grave.  And my figures, you must remember, too, are only those

22    identified by DNA, not all the bodies.

23            I'm not sure if I've answered your question.

24       Q.   That was precisely my question.  We're talking about identified

25    bodies.

Page 19114

 1            When referring to Zeleni Jadar 5 and 6 mass graves, which were

 2    identified as secondary mass graves, according to the information you had,

 3    are you able to say that all the bodies found in those two secondary

 4    graves had been transferred from elsewhere or were there whole bodies,

 5    allowing for the possibility that for some of the bodies, this was the

 6    place of original burial?

 7       A.   There were some whole bodies within Zeleni Jadar 5 and 6, but I

 8    don't believe that they could have been placed in there previously, as

 9    that grave wasn't created until September/October of 1995.  Had the bodies

10    been collected from elsewhere, there would have been evidence of that

11    difference in the collection of bodies, and one would expect significant

12    decomposition of the body and, from my experience, insect infestations, et

13    cetera, which would have shown a difference in the bodies.  There wasn't

14    that type of difference in the Zeleni Jadar 5 and 6 secondary mass graves.

15       Q.   Do you know that the partial sanitization of the terrain next to

16    the roadway was carried out in Ravne Buljin [phoen], Kamenica and Pobudje

17    and whether those bodies had been buried anywhere?  Do you know if this

18    was the case after the column of the 28th Division and the related events

19    took place?

20       A.   I'm not specifically aware of that.  I don't know.

21       Q.   Do you know whether there were bodies in and around the town of

22    Bratunac itself and where those bodies had been buried?  I'm speaking in

23    relation to the events in Srebrenica.

24       A.   I'm not specifically aware of bodies in the area of Bratunac. I'm

25    trying to think back as to the other evidence of killings in Bratunac and

Page 19115

 1    at Potocari.  No, I don't -- I'm not aware of that.

 2       Q.   Do you know whether the sanitization of the town of Srebrenica was

 3    carried out and whether any dead bodies were discovered, and whether and

 4    where they were buried, if so?

 5       A.   I assume that the dead from Srebrenica were removed.  I don't have

 6    any details in relation to that.

 7       Q.   Do you know if there exists any other primary mass grave in the

 8    area of Srebrenica and Bratunac, except for Glogova and Ravnice?

 9       A.   Yes, I'm aware of the Bosnian Commission graves, Bljeceva, Budak,

10    the grave at Sandici, and that there are other suspect sites around

11    Srebrenica and Potocari and that the work of the Commission continues to

12    identify graves.

13       Q.   You are not able to say in which of these graves bodies were found

14    that were collected from Srebrenica as a result of the sanitization

15    process?

16       A.   I'm -- I don't have any information in relation to the collection

17    of the dead bodies from Srebrenica.

18       Q.   A moment ago, you mentioned the grave you referred to as "Sandic."

19    You did not take part in the exhumation process of this grave; is that

20    right?

21       A.   I did not take part in the exhumation of Sandici, no.

22       Q.   This was done by the Federal Commission in August of 2004, having

23    found 17 bodies as per the report they gave you; is that right?

24       A.   Yes, I accept that.

25            MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I will be

Page 19116

 1    completing my questions, but before that, could we move into private

 2    session?  I have a document that requires it.

 3            JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, let's do that.  Let's move into private

 4    session, please.

 5            One moment.  We are not yet in private session.

 6                          [Private session]

 7  (redacted)

 8  (redacted)

 9  (redacted)

10  (redacted)

11  (redacted)

12  (redacted)

13  (redacted)

14  (redacted)

15  (redacted)

16  (redacted)

17  (redacted)

18  (redacted)

19  (redacted)

20  (redacted)

21  (redacted)

22  (redacted)

23  (redacted)

24  (redacted)

25  (redacted)

Page 19117











11    Pages 19117-19118 redacted. Private session















Page 19119

 1  (redacted)

 2  (redacted)

 3  (redacted)

 4  (redacted)

 5  (redacted)

 6  (redacted)

 7  (redacted)

 8  (redacted)

 9  (redacted)

10  (redacted)

11  (redacted)

12  (redacted)

13  (redacted)

14  (redacted)

15  (redacted)

16  (redacted)

17                          [Open session]

18            JUDGE AGIUS:  We are in open session.

19            Yes, Madame Fauveau, if you wish to repeat -- I don't think there

20    is any need for it, but let's move.

21            MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] As far as I'm concerned, I don't

22    believe I need to repeat anything.

23            Can you show the witness the Exhibit 5D360, which is an excerpt

24    from the interview with Ostoja Stanisic.

25       Q.   Waiting for this exhibit, can I ask you whether since May 2007

Page 19120

 1    until your arrival here, anyone from the OTP contacted you to know what

 2    happened to Ostoja Stanisic's journal, which you photocopied during this

 3    interview?

 4       A.   I don't believe so.  I was asked, some six or so months ago, about

 5    an interview.  It wasn't about a journal, and I don't recall who it was

 6    about.

 7       Q.   Here in front of you, you have part of this interview with

 8    Mr. Ostoja Stanisic, and what you can see on the lower part of this first

 9    page, this is his journal or logbook, and Mr. Ostoja Stanisic did show you

10    that part that was important to you.  Do you see there is a response from

11    Mr. Ostoja Stanisic stating -- is in this section.

12       A.   I see that, that part of the interview, yes.

13       Q.   And then two lines below, Mr. Ostoja Stanisic said:

14            [In English] "14th, in the morning hours."

15       A.   Yes, I see that.

16       Q.   [Interpretation] Do you now remember this logbook or journal which

17    you have photocopied?

18       A.   Not specifically, no.  I accept that I'm indicating there I'm

19    going to photocopy or intending to.  I don't have an independent

20    recollection of that.  I'm sorry.

21       Q.   I would like to show you now page 4 of this exhibit.

22            All along this page, you have asked Ostoja Stanisic to sign each

23    page of the photocopy made of this logbook?

24       A.   Yes, I see that I say that I would have him sign each page of the

25    notebook, and I do recall -- I do recall a little bit more about that,

Page 19121

 1    that interview.  I can't remember what the journal was about.

 2       Q.   But later and during the interview, it seems that Mr. Stanisic

 3    said:

 4            [In English] "The only time I had to make so many signatures was

 5    when I was issuing the certificates for children at school."

 6            So can we conclude, on the basis of that, that Mr. Stanisic did

 7    sign each page of the photocopy of this notebook you made?

 8       A.   I don't have that recollection, but I can accept that, from what

 9    you've said.  I would have to check the copy of the journal.

10       Q.   And, actually, from what we saw, Mr. Stanisic mentioned the date

11    of the 14th, in the morning, but the year is not mentioned in this

12    interview.  But one may conclude that part of this notebook concerns the

13    Srebrenica events?

14       A.   I would assume so, which would indicate why I was copying it.  It

15    may have been of interest in another case, in which case I would have

16    accepted it for another case, but I would accept that it was probably

17    related to Srebrenica.  As I say, I can't recall the journal, and I

18    apologise for that.

19       Q.   I would like to show you the Exhibit 5D304.  This is the notebook

20    of Mr. Stanisic, but Mr. Stanisic told us that it was dated the 17th of

21    May, 2007, page 11, and this is not the journal or the notebook you have

22    photocopied.  And I believe you don't speak the Serbo-Croatian language,

23    so you will have to trust me.

24            Can we come back to the first page, please.

25            Here, there is a Cyrillic word "Ostoja," which is Mr. Stanisic's

Page 19122

 1    name, his first name.

 2            Can we now move on to page 2.

 3            Here we have his complete name, "Ostoja Stanisic" in the Cyrillic

 4    language.

 5            Can we now show page 3 of the document.  Can we have the whole

 6    page.

 7            Here, you can see that there is no signature, and we can look at

 8    the whole -- flip through the whole notebook, and there is no signature on

 9    any page.  Can you accept that this notebook is not the one you have

10    photocopied?

11       A.   Remembering, if you will, that I would have had the photocopies

12    signed, not the notebook.  So if this is the notebook, and I don't

13    recognize it, it would be consistent that it wasn't signed.  I would have

14    asked for the copies to be signed.

15       Q.   But concerning the notebook of Ostoja Stanisic you have

16    photocopied, you did not take the original copy.  He kept the original

17    copy.  This is the reason you made photocopies?

18            JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, Ms. Soljan.

19            MS. SOLJAN:  Your Honours, I object.  Mr. Manning has indicated

20    that he does not recall the specific interview and whether this is the

21    specific notebook.

22            JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, Ms. Fauveau.  I think Ms. Soljan is right.

23            MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] He said he does not remember the

24    notebook, as such, but he didn't say that he does not remember whether he

25    made photocopies or took the original.  I don't know.  Maybe I can repeat

Page 19123

 1    my question.

 2       Q.   When you take notebook, did you make photocopies on site, when you

 3    took the original notebook from a suspect or an accused or a witness, did

 4    you make photocopies on site?

 5       A.   Your Honours, that might vary, but in this circumstance, from

 6    reading the brief section of the interview, I would believe that I had

 7    copied it then and there, because I asked him to sign it, and he wouldn't

 8    have signed the original book that he had.  I would not have asked him to

 9    sign that.  I would have asked him to sign the photocopies that I would

10    have kept and taken presumably back to The Hague.  So his -- I would

11    expect his notebook not to be signed; however, the photocopied pages to be

12    signed.

13       Q.   Can you tell me what you did with the photocopies signed by

14    Mr. Stanisic?

15       A.   No, I can't, because I don't recall.  But had I taken those

16    copies, I would have conveyed them back to The Hague, entered them into

17    evidence.  Generally, I wouldn't even -- if on further review they weren't

18    considered of evidentiary value, I would probably still have entered them

19    into evidence as part of the collection of material from that interview,

20    and they would have been stamped and placed into the Evidence Unit,

21    Evidence Section.

22       Q.   And just in order to know whether this has any probative value,

23    you should have used an interpreter or a translator?

24       A.   Again, I can't recall the specific circumstances, but, yes, when I

25    was first shown the notebook, I would have asked the interpreter to

Page 19124

 1    explain what it was to me.  When I returned it into evidence, part of that

 2    process is to say, "We need a translation," and perhaps that could have

 3    been done verbally or perhaps it would have been, "This document needs to

 4    be translated.  Please place it in the system and have it translated."

 5    And then I would review or someone would review the English version.

 6       Q.   If you -- had you made photocopies of this newspaper

 7    [as interpreted] signed by Mr. Stanisic, would you agree that these

 8    photocopies should be somewhere in the OTP's office, a signed photocopy?

 9       A.   Yes, I would expect them to be somewhere within the Tribunal.  I

10    assume you're indicating that they're not.  I have no knowledge whatsoever

11    of that.

12       Q.   Actually, we did not get them.  That's the only thing I can tell

13    you.  I cannot tell you whether they are in the Prosecutor's office or

14    not.

15            Now, I have another question for you concerning something my

16    colleague has asked you.  He talked about non-recorded conversations.

17    That was on page 13 and 14 of today's transcript.  And you said that when

18    part of the conversation was not recorded, you would take notes of the

19    conversation.  When the conversation was recorded, for instance, a

20    conversation with a suspect, and when, for whatever reason, the recording

21    was stopped, would that part that had not been recorded -- would you have

22    taken notes of that part of the conversation not recorded?

23       A.   Generally, yes, I would have, and I think I indicated that

24    before.  There are circumstances where I might not.  It might be that a

25    person was providing some information in relation to some confidential

Page 19125

 1    information.  I would probably still record details of that conversation.

 2    It might be that they asked me not to make notes.  I would probably still

 3    make notes at a later time.  If I did, those notes would form part of

 4    the -- the material that I put into evidence.  If it was of a very

 5    confidential nature, it might be placed into Rule 70 within the Tribunal

 6    or similar.  But generally I would take a note of the conversation or I

 7    would note that the conversation occurred and what it concerned.

 8            MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.  That's all, I

 9    have no more questions.

10            JUDGE AGIUS:  Thank you, madame.

11            I have left the Pandurevic Defence team.  Mr. Haynes.

12                          Cross-examination by Mr. Haynes:

13       Q.   Good morning, Mr. Manning.

14       A.   Good morning, sir.

15       Q.   The burial sites which you investigated were divided up by your

16    team into the northern sites and the southern sites; that's correct, isn't

17    it?

18       A.   Not really.  That's just an artefact of where they are on the

19    map.  We didn't generally refer to them as the northern sites or the

20    southern sites.

21       Q.   Well, you'll forgive me.  I'm referring back to the evidence we

22    had from Mr. Ruez at the very start of this trial where he did divide them

23    in that way.  But for my purposes, when I talk to you about the northern

24    sites, I'm talking about the sites within the municipality of Zvornik.

25    You understand what I'm talking about?

Page 19126

 1       A.   Yes, I do, but would you be able to specify which graves or I

 2    can --

 3       Q.   You can turn around and look at the map, but I'm talking about

 4    Orahovac, Petkovci, Kozluk and Branjevo.

 5       A.   That being the primary graves, and the secondary from Cancari Road

 6    and upwards?

 7       Q.   I'm only concerned about the primary graves.

 8       A.   Yes, I accept that.

 9       Q.   And we can go to some aerial images if you want, but will you

10    accept from me that the excavation or re-excavation of those primary

11    graves, those four primary graves, all took place between the 7th and the

12    27th of September of 1995?

13       A.   Without checking the imagery, I would accept that the disturbances

14    of the primary and then the secondaries was in September and October, so I

15    can accept that, but -- unless we need to check.

16       Q.   Perhaps you better have them.

17            Can we have P1724 into e-court, please.

18            I'm sorry.  These photographs take quite a long time to come up.

19            And this is Orahovac or Lazete, as I think you referred to it at

20    the time of the investigation, and I think these aerial images, you would

21    accept, show a further disturbance of the earth between the two dates

22    which the image providers have placed on the photograph, the 7th and the

23    27th of September, wouldn't you?

24       A.   Yes, I accept that.  There also may be other aerial images that

25    have later dates, but I doubt that there would be an earlier date than the

Page 19127

 1    7th of September.

 2       Q.   Well, what I'm going to suggest to you is that all of the images

 3    that have later dates relate to sites in a different area of Bosnia.

 4            But can we go to P1747, please.

 5            I think you looked at this when Ms. Soljan was asking you

 6    questions, and you told us that the photograph on the right, the 27th of

 7    September, showed that the ground there had been disturbed, according to

 8    the aerial image.  Is that right?

 9       A.   That's correct, yes.

10       Q.   So if we take the logical conclusion, not disturbed on the 7th of

11    September, but disturbed by the 27th?

12       A.   Yes, I accept that.

13            MR. HAYNES:  And, lastly, can we go to P1763.

14       Q.   Again, I can't remember whether Ms. Soljan showed you this

15    photograph when you gave evidence-in-chief, but I hope you'll agree that

16    on the left we see some disturbance of the area but, on the right, greater

17    disturbance by the date that the image provider has put on the photograph,

18    the 27th of September?

19       A.   Yes, I accept that.

20       Q.   So in a certain state on the 7th of September, but, according to

21    your analysis of this photograph, re-excavated by the 27th; is that right?

22       A.   Certainly disturbed by the 27th.  That process may have continued

23    after the 27th, but that image shows the grave being significantly

24    disturbed between those periods.

25       Q.   Can I take it from the answers you're giving me that you are

Page 19128

 1    happy, as it were, to interpret these aerial images, that you're happy to

 2    look at them and state what you think they show?

 3       A.   Your Honours, I certainly am not an interpreter of aerial

 4    imagery.  Looking at this as a simple photograph, with some knowledge of

 5    the lay of the land, I can see clearly that in one image to the other,

 6    there is a significant difference.  And I know that the marks on the soil

 7    there correspond to many of the marks on this image.  But I'm not an

 8    interpreter of aerial imagery, but as a layman, I can certainly see that

 9    within those images.

10       Q.   That's not an accidental question, Mr. Manning, because of course

11    we're going to come to some images in a minute where the image providers

12    have put their own commentary on it.

13            Were you ever briefed by the image providers as to who had

14    interpreted these photographs, how they had done it, and by what method,

15    using what techniques?

16       A.   Your Honours, I'm conscious that this is or was Rule 70 material.

17    I'm not sure to what level I can discuss that aspect.

18       Q.   Answer this question:  Did you ever meet anybody who had

19    interpreted these photographs?

20       A.   I'm not trying to be --

21            JUDGE AGIUS:  This last question, you can answer.

22            THE WITNESS:  Your Honour, as I say, I wasn't sure of the status

23    of the images.  I never spoke to or dealt with anyone who actually

24    interpreted the images or put those markings on the images.

25            MR. HAYNES:  Thank you.

Page 19129

 1       Q.   I'd like you then to look, please, at P1801, and this is the

 2    fourth of the sites in the northern area, Branjevo.

 3            Now, you did see this before, and this is a photograph on which,

 4    according to you and Mr. Ruez, in fairness, there is some commentary

 5    placed by the image providers, and by that I mean it says:  "Excavation

 6    activity," and on the left-hand side it says:  "Newly excavated trench,"

 7    with an arrow, and then there's a blown-up section in the middle: "Backhoe

 8    and front loader."

 9            I take it from your previous answer that other than what is

10    written on there, nobody's ever told you how they came to the conclusion

11    that this aerial image showed excavation activity, have they, by which I

12    mean nobody from the image provider?

13       A.   I had a conversation with some people who provided this.  It's a

14    difficult question to answer, in that if they had access to this image and

15    they saw the machines and the trenches, then that would indicate that they

16    knew there was excavation activity.

17            When these images were presented to me, that was labelled on them,

18    and the provider may have said, "And this shows the trench being dug."

19    The basis for their knowledge of that would have been their knowledge of

20    the image or further down the line.

21       Q.   I don't mean to be pedantic, but I wonder if you could just

22    therefore explain the answer you gave at line 17 to 19:

23            "I never spoke to or dealt with anyone who actually interpreted

24    those images or put those markings on the images."

25       A.   Exactly.  I dealt with the next person in the chain.  But did I

Page 19130

 1    have a conversation with those people?  Yes.  And to be clear, some of

 2    those people may have done that work, conducted that inquiry.  I didn't

 3    know that.

 4            MR. McCLOSKEY:  Mr. President, we're now at a point, as

 5    Mr. Manning has said, where he has talked to someone related to the

 6    provider, and that information is protected by Rule 70.  And I think

 7    that's well understood.

 8            JUDGE AGIUS:  But I don't think he's going beyond that.

 9            MR. McCLOSKEY:  No, I don't think he has, either.  It sounds like

10    we're on our way --

11            JUDGE AGIUS:  We are getting there, yeah, exactly.

12            Mr. Haynes.

13            MR. HAYNES:

14       Q.   Let's just concentrate on the image for a while, shall we,

15    Mr. Manning?  In the box in the center of this image, there is a

16    horseshoe-shaped track around the farm buildings, isn't there?

17       A.   Yes, there is.

18       Q.   And at the top of that horseshoe, there are some farm buildings;

19    do you agree with that?

20       A.   On the left-hand side of the image and at the bottom, yes.

21       Q.   Thank you for the clarification.  And we can see going off, as it

22    were, not quite at a tangent, but at a 45-degree angle to the horseshoe,

23    some tracks.  You would agree that they're tracks?  You told us the other

24    day that they're tracks, and that's presumably something you interpreted

25    and nobody else.

Page 19131

 1       A.   That track moves from the center of the image to the top left or

 2    towards the top left, and I interpret those, from looking at a photograph,

 3    as vehicle tracks, yes.

 4       Q.   Thanks.  Now, in the enlarged image, we can see that on the far --

 5    well, as we look at it, at the top of the long side of the horseshoe,

 6    there is a little collection of objects which somebody has decided to call

 7    a backhoe and front loader; is that right?

 8       A.   Yes, I can see that.

 9       Q.   I mean, looking at it yourself, and we do have a facility to

10    enlarge it, is there any way you can tell that that's a backhoe and front

11    loader?

12       A.   Looking at that image, no.

13       Q.   Would you like us to enlarge it a few times to see if it helps?

14       A.   I've gone through that process myself.  I believe it shows what

15    looks like a vehicle.  I can't say that it's a backhoe or a front loader.

16       Q.   That's very, very honest of you, Mr. Manning.

17            Now, if we go over to the left-hand side, the image provider has

18    placed there a little commentary box saying:  "Newly excavated trench,"

19    and do you take that, like me, to be the rather thin, whitish line that's

20    running about north-northwest just between the trees and the ploughed

21    field?

22       A.   I, in fact, take that to be the greater area.  When you dig a

23    trench, you take the soil from that trench and generally put it on the

24    side, so that's what I think we're seeing is a trench in shadow and the

25    spoil from that trench, but again that's just me looking at a photograph.

Page 19132

 1       Q.   Okay.  Well, let's move on, shall we?

 2            Can we have a look at P1800.  Thank you very much.

 3            You'd agree the same area but from a slightly different angle and

 4    what appears to be a lower trajectory?

 5       A.   It's the same area, Branjevo Military Farm.

 6       Q.   Okay.  But not as high as the other image, not so far above it, it

 7    seems.  And do I understand your evidence correctly that the yellow

 8    writing we see on that image would have been placed upon it by somebody

 9    from the Office of the Prosecutor?

10       A.   That's correct.

11       Q.   Somewhere, presumably, there's a copy of this image without that

12    yellow writing on.  Have you seen one like that?

13       A.   Yes, I have.

14            MR. HAYNES:  Thank you.  Now can we go to the horseshoe again,

15    please.

16       Q.   Top of the horseshoe, just about where the track comes in, do you

17    see an object or a vehicle there?

18       A.   Are you talking of the road that runs from the top of the image to

19    the horseshoe, as you call it?

20       Q.   Yes.  It's just in the bottom left-hand quadrant of the crossroads

21    there.  You can see it, can't you?  Can you see what appears to be a

22    vehicle of some substance there?

23       A.   I'm assuming that you mean where the top part of the horseshoe

24    meets that road.  There looks to be something there.  It could be a

25    vehicle.  It could be facing the join in the road.  I'm not sure.

Page 19133

 1       Q.   I mean, it's in precisely the same position as the object that

 2    somebody called a backhoe and a front loader in the previous photograph,

 3    isn't it?

 4       A.   I don't -- I don't know.  I would have to compare the two.  I

 5    would also say that from my experience in using those images, because of

 6    the angle, some things can be foreshortened.  We had some difficulty in

 7    locating the graves on occasion, because on the image it looked to be next

 8    to a tree; in fact it was some several tens of metres away.  But I didn't

 9    recognise a backhoe or a front-end loader on that, but then I didn't on

10    the other image.

11       Q.   Thank you.  I'm having to ask you this because we're not going to

12    hear from the person who made that determination, so you and I are going

13    to have to do our best, and the Tribunal as well.

14            Can we have a look at P1798, please.

15            Now, this is not an aerial image.  This -- well, it's not an

16    aerial image in the sense that it's not one that's been provided subject

17    to Rule 70.  I'm guessing that this is a photograph taken from a

18    helicopter in which probably Mr. Ruez was flying, and it looks like it was

19    taken in winter.

20            Can you help us as to when the photograph was taken?

21       A.   You're right that it was Mr. Ruez in a Black Hawk helicopter. It

22    was perhaps at the end of 1995 or early 1996, in the winter, but from

23    memory I can't recall the exact date.  There is another photograph where

24    the helicopter lands at the military farm.

25       Q.   Thanks very much.  It's not the clearest of photographs, but

Page 19134

 1    you've been to Branjevo Farm, and in that horseshoe we can see some fairly

 2    substantial objects that look like vehicles.  One's red and one's green,

 3    so far as I can see.  Can you see them?

 4       A.   I can see shapes.  I can't, from that, say that they're machines.

 5    And I'm trying to recall when I visited.

 6       Q.   Well, that's why I pointed out that you'd been there.  Were there

 7    pieces of substantial farm equipment parked in that area of Branjevo Farm

 8    when you went there?

 9       A.   I don't know.  It wasn't used as a pig farm.  I don't believe -- I

10    can't remember.  I don't want to -- I don't want to say that I can or

11    can't recall.

12       Q.   Can you see other vehicles on the road there and around that yard

13    area in that photograph?

14       A.   I can see what looks like two vehicles on the road approaching the

15    horseshoe, I think a blue and another colour.  I can't say that the red

16    and the green or blue further on is a vehicle.  I would accept that it may

17    be.  My recollection of the farm was that it wasn't being used.

18            MR. HAYNES:  And, lastly, can we have a look at P1802, please.

19       Q.   And on this image, Mr. Manning, I'm really interested in you

20    concentrating on the area at the edge of the wood, just where the ploughed

21    field begins, and the white markings we can see all over the soil there.

22    I mean, pretty much precisely similar to what's shown in the image of the

23    27th of July, aren't they?

24       A.   I'm sorry.  You're going to have to be more specific as to what

25    area you're talking about.  You're still talking about the U-shape, the

Page 19135

 1    horseshoe?

 2       Q.   No.  I'm talking about the area towards the left-hand bottom

 3    corner of the image, where the forest meets the ploughed field, the area

 4    which was said to have been evidence of recent excavation.

 5       A.   Yes, the gravesite, yes.

 6       Q.   We can see there's a similar white line there, similar white areas

 7    on this image which appears to have come from a similar sort of recording

 8    device as the image from the 27th of July.  Would you agree with that?

 9       A.   This is an aerial imagery -- aerial image, the same as the

10    previous one.

11       Q.   And would you agree that the area that we are concerned about

12    looks pretty similar to the way it did in the aerial image of the 27th of

13    July?

14       A.   It looks similar, yes.  I can't tell, from this image, if there's

15    any significant difference, particularly given the quality of the previous

16    image, but I accept that that same area has a disturbance.

17       Q.   Now, as I've said, Mr. Manning, we're not going to be privy to the

18    techniques or expertise of the person who interpreted the photograph of

19    the 27th of July, but would you agree with me that on the basis of

20    comparing it with other images we've got of Branjevo Farm, the suggestion

21    on the image of the 27th of July that it shows excavation activity is, at

22    best, [Realtime transcript read in error "inclusive"] inconclusive and

23    possibly even fanciful?

24       A.   No, I can't agree with you.  I believe that there is a disturbance

25    on that image, and it corresponds to the location of the mass graves that

Page 19136

 1    was exhumed in 1996.

 2       Q.   It's only the date I'm worried about.  Could it have happened by

 3    the 17th of July?

 4       A.   I'm sorry, you -- I've missed you.  This image on the 17th of July

 5    shows a disturbance.

 6       Q.   And it's a disturbance that was found to exist on the physical

 7    earth; is that right?

 8       A.   Yes.

 9       Q.   And the image of the 27th of July shows no greater or better

10    disturbance than this image shows?

11       A.   I don't think we can say that, but that there is a disturbance on

12    the soil here on the 17th of July.

13            JUDGE AGIUS:  Before you continue and before we forget about it,

14    line 20 on the previous page, page 62, "inclusive" should

15    read "inconclusive."

16            MR. HAYNES:

17       Q.   Thank you.  I'm going to move on from this, Mr. Manning, because I

18    did promise I wouldn't be very long with you.

19            What technique did the ICMP use in calculating the MNI?

20       A.   They probably didn't.  My definition of "MNI" is "minimal number

21    of individuals," which is a term used by the anthropologists specifically

22    involved in a process of counting skeletal remains.  ICMP may have used

23    that method in their work.  I only dealt with the DNA-based results, which

24    wouldn't be, in my view, described as a minimal number of individuals as a

25    specific term.

Page 19137

 1       Q.   Even when you are using DNA as a means of investigation, it's

 2    important to have a basis for calculating MNI, isn't it?

 3       A.   Perhaps if we use the term "minimum number" rather than "minimal,"

 4    which it's pedantic, but I understood that to be a process used by the

 5    anthropologists.  But a minimum number of individuals, yes.

 6       Q.   Because, let's be perfectly honest, quite a lot of the bodies

 7    recovered were actually only parts of bodies, weren't they?

 8       A.   That's correct, yes.

 9       Q.   And unless you have a basis for excluding parts of bodies being

10    counted twice, you can never rule that out, even with DNA, can you?

11       A.   You can never rule out what, specifically?

12       Q.   Well, a question was put to you the other day by Ms. Tapuskovic,

13    where she showed you that in relation to numbered bodies that were part of

14    the ICMP results, there were three potential identities.  Do you remember

15    that?

16       A.   Yes.  We were talking about what I understood to be related

17    individuals, brothers in this case, or sisters, I assume.

18       Q.   Well, possibly, but equally it could be that where those

19    identities appear more than once in that schedule, it's because different

20    parts of the same body have been recovered, which would naturally have DNA

21    related to that family, wouldn't it?

22       A.   With the cases where there was two or three or more possibilities,

23    you have to remember that the DNA protocol would be unique, so you would

24    say that that DNA protocol, whether it be one whole body or ten of that

25    same body's body parts, is unique.  It could be that that individual is

Page 19138

 1    one of three people, but the key to the uniqueness of the record is that

 2    that is a DNA protocol number.  If the second brother was tested, he would

 3    have a different protocol number, and they would still say that he could

 4    be one of his siblings.

 5       Q.   Precisely.  But the converse is equally true, isn't it, that the

 6    arm could throw up the DNA that was related to one family, and then a leg

 7    could be found which threw up the same DNA, and we cannot rule out the

 8    possibility that what is being found are two parts of the same body and

 9    they're being recorded twice; that's why we need an MNI calculation?

10       A.   I'm not an expert in DNA, but I can see that that is wrong in

11    respect of the fact that the DNA protocol is unique, even if it was the

12    arm of one brother and the leg of another.  The difficulty then lies in

13    matching it to the blood sample provided by the family.  That is where the

14    uncertainty as to who it is comes into it.

15            But that arm would come up with a specific type of DNA, and the

16    leg from another individual, even be it his brother, would be again

17    completely different.  If you then tried to match those two to the blood

18    sample from the mother or father, you would be able to say, and I'm not an

19    expert, that they are related, that they come from those parents or that

20    parent.  But, again, the arm would be unique, and so would the leg.  If

21    it's the same body, they would come up with the same code of DNA and be

22    put together.

23       Q.   And that's why we see on that schedule different ICMP numbers

24    throwing up the same possibility for the identity, isn't it?

25       A.   The same -- the same body throwing up that possibility, but not

Page 19139

 1    the same ICMP number.  The ICMP protocol number would be different.

 2       Q.   I think we're going to have to agree to differ on this, but let me

 3    move on.

 4            Were you aware of the standard used for calculating MNI by

 5    Mr. Baraybar?

 6       A.   Yes, I'm very familiar with the process, as far as a layman can

 7    be.  Right through the process, I assisted him in his calculation by

 8    providing him data.

 9       Q.   And were you aware that the standard used for assessing MNI by

10    Mr. Baraybar was different from that used by Mr. Haglund?

11       A.   I can't recall, and I'm not even sure if Mr. Haglund produced an

12    MNI.  He may have done, and I wasn't involved in that process with

13    Dr. Haglund.

14       Q.   So in the course of bringing together all these figures, three

15    different standards have been used for calculation, haven't they;

16    Mr. Haglund's, Mr. Baraybar's and the DNA ICMP basis?

17       A.   No.  In my earlier three reports, it was specifically based on the

18    work of Mr. Baraybar, and he may have used -- and indeed he did use

19    records from the 1996 exhumations.  My final report for this testimony

20    relies solely on DNA and does not mingle or mix any other counting

21    method.  It just relies on the DNA process conducted by ICMP.

22       Q.   Now, I just want to turn very briefly to one last topic, which I

23    hope I can do in the next ten minutes.

24            We were talking about the aerial images a little while ago.  Did

25    you ever see an aerial image of an execution actually in process or taking

Page 19140

 1    place?

 2       A.   No, I did not.

 3       Q.   And insofar as your involvement in the investigation was

 4    concerned, did that actually involve you in the physical exhumation of

 5    bodies?

 6       A.   I actively participated in the process, but I didn't -- I took a

 7    view that I wasn't an archaeologist.  I didn't dig, I didn't remove

 8    bodies.  I certainly carried them.  And, generally, if there was an item

 9    of interest in the grave, they would call me, they would show me the

10    item.  We would discuss it.  They would remove it, they would process it.

11    But I was actively involved in that, and once it was recorded it may be

12    that I took possession of the artefact and conveyed it specifically, and

13    then I dealt with them at the mortuary as well.

14       Q.   And you've been at pains, I think particularly when Mr. Meek was

15    cross-examining you, to emphasise how fair, honest and objective you were

16    in conducting interviews with the very many witnesses and suspects you

17    interviewed.  That's correct, isn't it?

18       A.   I explained to Mr. Meek that that's the way I conduct my duties.

19       Q.   Would you agree with me that it's part of your interviewing style

20    to make the suspect or witness perfectly aware of the material at your

21    disposal?

22       A.   Your Honours, again this is quite general, but if I am in a

23    position to tell the suspect certain things, I will.  That's not to say

24    that if I have a piece of information, that I will tell that person that I

25    have that information.  I indicated I wouldn't lie, but it's not always

Page 19141

 1    the case that I would tell them everything that I knew or everything that

 2    I had.  But, again, that's being very general.

 3       Q.   And what is a lie?  Is a lie saying something that's untrue,

 4    knowing that it's untrue?

 5            JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, Ms. Soljan.

 6            MS. SOLJAN:  Objection, Your Honour.

 7            JUDGE AGIUS:  Mr. Haynes.

 8            MR. HAYNES:

 9       Q.   You told Mr. Meek yesterday that you remembered interviewing a man

10    called "Milorad Bircakovic."  I'm going to show you his interview in a

11    minute so that you can remind yourself of it.

12            Do you remember what position he held within the Zvornik Brigade?

13       A.   Not specifically.  It could have been engineering or it could have

14    been security.  I'd have to check.

15       Q.   He was a driver.  Does that jog your memory?  He was a driver for

16    a man called "Milorad Trbic".

17       A.   Yes.

18       Q.   And do you remember the interview sufficiently well to recall

19    whether he was one of those people who was terrified by the process he

20    found himself within, such as you've told us earlier today?

21       A.   I don't believe so.  I remember vaguely the interview.  If I read

22    the interview, I'd certainly recall now.  And if someone was in that

23    state, I would generally -- generally reassure them and say that they had

24    been summonsed.  If they asked me if they were going to be arrested, I

25    would say, "No."  I would have to read the interview for Mr. Bircakovic.

Page 19142

 1       Q.   I mean, I'll tell you just before I show you the interview, he was

 2    interviewed as a suspect.  Do you recall what basis you had for treating

 3    him as a suspect?

 4       A.   No, I don't.

 5            MR. HAYNES:  Can we have a look at 7D702 in e-court, please.

 6       Q.   Rather confusingly, Mr. Manning, the first page of this interview

 7    is page 2, but life's like that sometimes, and I just want you to have a

 8    look at page 2.

 9            And the first two or three replies, it's plain from that, isn't

10    it, that Mr. Milorad Bircakovic was unrepresented during the course of

11    this interview, he had no lawyer with him?

12       A.   Yes, he indicates he doesn't have a lawyer, and then I discuss him

13    seeking a lawyer.

14       Q.   Do you recall whether he was told at any stage what, in fact, he

15    was suspected of?

16       A.   Yes.  He was told that, and I say that from not a recollection,

17    but I cautioned him.  I then would have said he was suspected of

18    involvement in the Srebrenica crimes and perhaps detailed what that was.

19    That's generally what I would do.  I would -- I would explain to him what

20    we were interviewing him about.

21       Q.   And Srebrenica crimes, that would mean genocide, presumably, would

22    it?

23       A.   It would mean the Srebrenica investigation.  It could be any part

24    of the crimes committed, including the re-burial process.

25            MR. HAYNES:  Now, I'd like us to go to page 19, please, and

Page 19143

 1    conveniently, it's the same in both B/C/S and in English.

 2            Sorry, it's been pointed out to me that because it's page 2, it's

 3    actually page 18, I think.  There we are.  It's "19" on the top of the

 4    page.

 5       Q.   And this is what you said to him, and I think you agree with me

 6    it's fairly typical of the way you introduced interviews.  Can you see

 7    about a third of the way down the page, you say:

 8            "I'm going to ask you questions about the killings and about

 9    organisation for killings of many thousands of men.

10            "Firstly, I want you to understand some things.  We have part of

11    witnesses to the killings, we have survivors who were part of the

12    executions, who were shot at, we have aerial images of the executions

13    taking place, we have seized records from the Zvornik Brigade and the

14    Bratunac Brigade, and we've had many people from those brigades and the

15    Drina Corps interviewed.  We have your MP logs.

16            "What I want you to understand is that it's very important for you

17    to tell the truth.  If you try and hide what happened or hide your part in

18    what happened, or your knowledge of what happened, I can prove that you

19    are lying.  And I want you to understand that this is your chance to tell

20    the truth here now.

21            "I have personally exhumed the bodies of thousands and thousands

22    of men and boys from Kozluk, from the Branjevo Military Farm, from the dam

23    above the factory in Karakaj from the Pilica Dom, from the Kravica

24    warehouse, and from Orahovac, and as I said, I want you to answer

25    questions about that."

Page 19144

 1            Why did you tell him all that?

 2       A.   Clearly, I'm indicating to him that we had a substantial amount of

 3    information, that it was in his interest to tell the truth.  Clearly, I

 4    was conducting an interview.  I suspected, as many of them did, that he

 5    would lie, and I was trying to give him as much information as possible

 6    that we had.

 7            Now, I must make comment on two points.  I wasn't present for the

 8    exhumations at those graves.  And you asked me about the aerial imagery of

 9    executions, and clearly that's not correct.  When I spoke about the aerial

10    image of executions, in the Branjevo Military Farm photographs you can see

11    what I believe and know to be bodies, and I take that as a valid comment,

12    that that image shows bodies that have been executed.  And I don't know

13    why I indicated that I personally exhumed those bodies, knowing that I

14    wasn't there in 1996.  I would say that I haven't checked this interview

15    against the record, the actual tape, but I accept the majority of what was

16    said there.  I can see that there are one or two words missing, but I

17    accept that I said those things.

18       Q.   Do you understand the word "hyperbole," Mr. Manning?

19       A.   Yes, I do.

20       Q.   Would that fairly summarise your claim that you had personally

21    exhumed thousands and thousands of men and boys?

22       A.   Not from those graves, but I have personally been involved in the

23    exhumation of thousands of men and boys from Srebrenica mass graves.

24       Q.   Had you by the 13th of March, 2002?

25       A.   I'd been involved in that process since September/October of 1998,

Page 19145

 1    when the Zeleni Jadar 5 mass grave was opened, and in that intervening

 2    time I was involved in the exhumation of a number of graves, yes.

 3       Q.   I mean, you agreed with me earlier, didn't you, that this sort of

 4    passage as an introduction to an interview is not unusual for you?

 5       A.   I think in that instance it may be unusual.  I can't remember the

 6    circumstances as why I felt it appropriate to go into so much detail with

 7    this individual.  Perhaps because he was a lower-level individual.  I

 8    didn't perhaps want him to lie and incriminate himself in that lie.

 9    Perhaps I wanted to show him that there was a wealth of information

10    available.  I don't know that that would be a normal, representative

11    interview conducted by me.

12       Q.   I mean, using the same adjectives that you used to Mr. Meek, would

13    you describe that passage as fair, honest and objective?

14       A.   Given the fact that I said Branjevo Military Farm and Pilica Dom,

15    Kravica warehouse, that's not correct, but, yes, the rest is.  We had a

16    significant body of evidence.  I was trying to state it as strongly as I

17    possibly could so that this individual would understand that we had a

18    wealth of information and evidence.  And as I say, "It's your opportunity

19    to tell the truth."

20       Q.   I'm going to finish with this:  Do I understand what you're saying

21    correctly, you thought the best way of getting Milorad Bircakovic to tell

22    the truth was to tell him some lies?

23            JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, Ms. Soljan.

24            MS. SOLJAN:  Objection, Your Honour.

25            JUDGE AGIUS:  Why?

Page 19146

 1            MR. HAYNES:  Let's have a break.

 2            MS. SOLJAN:  Inappropriate.

 3            JUDGE AGIUS:  Why?

 4            MR. HAYNES:  I didn't follow that, but we'll have a break and I'm

 5    finished.

 6            MS. SOLJAN:  Well, it's argumentative.

 7            JUDGE AGIUS:  Let's have a break, 25 minutes.

 8                          --- Recess taken at 12.32 p.m.

 9                          --- On resuming at 1.02 p.m.

10            JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes.  For the record, both Mr. Josse and Mr. Bourgon

11    are present in the courtroom.

12            Mr. Haynes.

13            MR. HAYNES:  The problem is, with ending your cross-examination

14    just before a break, is you realise you've forgotten one or two things,

15    but it shouldn't take more than two minutes.  So with your leave, can I

16    ask the witness two or three more questions?

17            JUDGE AGIUS:  Can we split the difference 50/50?

18            MR. HAYNES:

19       Q.   Mr. Manning, we were just talking about interviewing witnesses and

20    suspects.  I take it that whether you were interviewing a witness or a

21    suspect, you would regard it as thoroughly bad practice for the interview

22    to take place whilst the both of you were consuming alcohol?

23       A.   Yes, I would agree with that.

24       Q.   Thank you.  Now, moving on, in amongst the many figures you've

25    given us, are you able to give us a figure for the number of bodies that

Page 19147

 1    were found, as it were, above ground, on the surface?

 2       A.   The figure of -- or the number of surface remains is incorporated

 3    into the remainder of the Bosnian graves and surface remains.  I didn't

 4    calculate a specific -- specific number in relation to surface remains

 5    specifically because it was difficult to identify exactly where the bodies

 6    were located and when, as a collection of surface remains.  So,

 7    effectively, the surface remains are also -- would also include the other

 8    smaller graves or graves exhumed by the Bosnian Commission.

 9       Q.   Thank you.  And, lastly, are you aware of the basis upon which the

10    ICMP receives its funding?

11       A.   I understand that they're funded mostly by donations, but that's

12    the extent of my knowledge.  I think Queen Noor of Jordan is involved.

13    There are several notable figures involved, and I think a US politician of

14    some repute was also involved.  I can't remember his name.

15       Q.   And did you understand that the funding it receives may or is

16    based on sentences of local and international courts?

17       A.   No, I'm completely unfamiliar with that.

18            MR. HAYNES:  Thank you, Mr. Manning.

19            JUDGE AGIUS:  Thank you, Mr. Haynes.

20            Is there re-examination?

21            MS. SOLJAN:  Only about five to ten minutes, Your Honours.

22            JUDGE AGIUS:  Okay, thank you.  Go ahead.

23                          Re-examination by Ms. Soljan:

24       Q.   Mr. Manning, can you remind the Trial Chamber, has a connection

25    been made between the primary grave of Branjevo Military Farm and a

Page 19148

 1    secondary grave?

 2       A.   Yes, Cancari Road 12.

 3            MS. SOLJAN:  Could I please ask the usher to put on e-court

 4    Exhibit number P01801.  Thank you.

 5       Q.   Mr. Manning, can you indicate for the Court what date this image

 6    is taken on?

 7       A.   The image is marked "27 September 1995".

 8       Q.   And just briefly, can you describe what is on this image, what you

 9    see on the image?

10       A.   It's the Branjevo Military Farm.  It's the area of the pig farm,

11    vehicle tracks through the field, and the mass grave at Branjevo Military

12    Farm, also known as "Pilica."

13            MS. SOLJAN:  Thank you.  Could I please have Exhibit P01869. Thank

14    you.

15       Q.   Mr. Manning, can you indicate what the date of this image is?

16       A.   The 2nd of October, 1995.

17       Q.   And can you please describe what the image depicts?

18       A.   Effectively, it's the Cancari Road 12 secondary mass grave, and

19    you can see that the tracks leading to the grave and there are vehicle

20    tracks around the grave.  It would indicate to me that the grave has been

21    sealed up.

22            MS. SOLJAN:  And can we have image P01868 on the screen, please.

23       Q.   Mr. Manning, what is the date of this image?

24       A.   This image is dated 27 September 1995.

25       Q.   And can you describe what it depicts?

Page 19149

 1       A.   It shows the Cancari 12 secondary grave, and you can clearly see

 2    vehicle tracks, what I previously described as a mound of soil next to a

 3    trench on the 27th of September, 1995.

 4       Q.   And what is the significance of this mound of soil?

 5       A.   It would have come from either the trench itself or be on top of

 6    the trench.

 7       Q.   And what does that mean about the grave?

 8       A.   In this image, it looks to me that the grave is opened, but it

 9    could be that it's being -- been filled in.  The lack of vehicle tracks

10    indicate that it's been built.

11            MS. SOLJAN:  Thank you.  Can we go to image P01610.  And this is

12    the last image, Your Honours.

13       Q.   Mr. Manning, earlier in cross-examination with Mr. Stojanovic, you

14    were discussing a certain number of graves.  Can you indicate to us what

15    this image represents?

16       A.   This image shows, on the right-hand side of the road, "GL-1", the

17    primary disturbed mass grave, and on the left near the marking that

18    says "GL-2" and "Front loader" is part of the GL-2 mass grave.

19       Q.   Thank you.  And can you, in a little more detail, explain to the

20    Trial Chamber the various sub-parts of the grave that you had been

21    discussing with Mr. Stojanovic?

22       A.   If you look at the GL-1 grave, you can see what looked like to be

23    vehicle tracks and soil pushed in a direction.  As the grave was robbed,

24    there was a significant movement of earth.  That feature you see in the

25    middle of the grave, where those tracks and movements of earth go in a

Page 19150

 1    upwards-to-the-left direction, perhaps would have been treated as is

 2    separate grave feature by the archaeologists when they dug the grave, so

 3    that may have been - and I can't recall - designated grave H.  If you look

 4    further up to the top right, you see another shape in that grave.  Again

 5    that would be designated as grave B, perhaps, and in that way they were

 6    able to identify the features within the grave as they operated and

 7    continued to expand their view of the grave.

 8            But if you look at it, it's all part of one grave and there are

 9    features within that grave.  I'd indicate that the grave L that I spoke

10    of, with the 12 individuals, was next to the house at the bottom of the

11    GL-1 photograph, and that was distinct and separate, but very close to the

12    other graves that were there.

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

14            I have no more questions, Your Honour.

15            JUDGE AGIUS:  Thank you.

16            Judge Kwon?

17            Mr. Manning, we don't have any further questions for you.

18            Yes, Ms. Tapuskovic.

19            MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.  I would

20    have two questions for the witness arising from re-examination, with your

21    permission, of course.

22            JUDGE AGIUS:  If they arise out of the re-examination, yes, of

23    course.  Go ahead.

24            MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour, they do arise

25    from re-examination, namely, from the photographs shown to the witness.  I

Page 19151

 1    will not be going back to the photographs.  Rather, I will only use the

 2    photograph that we have at present on our screens to save time.  Thank

 3    you, Your Honour.

 4                          Further cross-examination by Ms. Tapuskovic:

 5       Q.   Mr. Manning, I've got two questions to put to you in relation to

 6    this photograph, where we see these labels, "GL-2" and "GL-1" in yellow.

 7    Can you tell me, who placed these two yellow labels, "GL-2" and "GL-1"?

 8       A.   I did.

 9       Q.   Thank you.  You placed them here because, based on the photograph,

10    you can recognise the location at hand; is that right?

11       A.   Yes.  I was involved in the exhumation and identification of both

12    those graves.  I knew where they were, and I'm indicating which graves

13    they are.

14       Q.   In relation to the photograph we are looking at now, you also have

15    a label in this white rectangle where it says "Front loader."  Can you

16    tell me who placed this label here?

17       A.   That was placed there by the provider of the image.

18       Q.   In order not to go back to the other photographs, as it takes time

19    to call them up, do all the photographs shown to you by Madam Soljan and

20    which have labels, have all of them been obtained from the same provider,

21    the provider that gave you these photographs?

22            JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, Mr. McCloskey.

23            MR. McCLOSKEY:  That's not appropriate under the Rule 70, to

24    determine which providers we get material from.

25            JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, Mr. Tapuskovic.

Page 19152

 1            MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I may have

 2    misspoken.  I didn't want to hear from the witness who the provider was.

 3    My question was whether the other photographs, images, shown to us during

 4    the re-examination by Madam Soljan were also placed -- those labels,

 5    whether they were also placed by the same provider.  I don't want to go

 6    into who the provider is.  I only want to know whether the same labels

 7    were placed by the same provider on the other photographs, images.

 8            JUDGE AGIUS:  I think the objection focuses on the use of -- or

 9    your use of the word "same."  I think the proper way to put the question

10    is whether the indications on the map which are in white, like we have

11    here on this present photo, were put by the provider, not necessarily by

12    the same provider, because that would just go into what Mr. McCloskey is

13    objecting to.

14            MR. McCLOSKEY:  Mr. President, I'm thinking about that now, and

15    I'm thinking about the authorisation, and I think the provider stands

16    behind all these photographs.  So that question is okay, now that I think

17    about it.  I apologise.  I'm just -- we're just getting close.

18            JUDGE AGIUS:  Okay.  So basically you have a stipulation there,

19    and you don't need to put the question.  You have a stipulation from the

20    Prosecutor, lead counsel for the Prosecution in this case, so there's no

21    point in pursuing the same question.

22            MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.  Yes, I

23    am clear now, I should be using the term "provider," but can I get my

24    answer from the witness?

25            JUDGE AGIUS:  I don't think you need an answer from the witness.

Page 19153

 1    You have a confirmation of what you want to know from Mr. McCloskey,

 2    himself.

 3            MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Very well.  I still have one

 4    question left for the witness.

 5       Q.   Does the same form of indications in white also apply to the

 6    indications of dates, when it comes to these same images?

 7       A.   Your Honour, in these images the yellow text was placed on there

 8    by myself.  The white text, the label and the date was placed by the

 9    provider.  In effect, the yellow is mine; the rest is not.

10            MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

11            Your Honours, I have no further questions.

12            JUDGE AGIUS:  Thank you, Ms. Tapuskovic.

13            That concludes your testimony.  We don't have any questions for

14    you from the Bench.

15            Mr. Manning, I wish, on behalf of the Trial Chamber, to thank you

16    very much for having come over to give testimony.  And you have a long

17    journey back home, and we wish you a safe journey.

18            THE WITNESS:  Thank you, Your Honours.

19                          [The witness withdrew]

20            JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes.  We will postpone the exhibits till later, and

21    we start with Kingori.

22                          [The witness entered court]

23            JUDGE AGIUS:  Good afternoon to you, Mr. Kingori.

24            THE WITNESS:  Good afternoon, sir.

25            JUDGE AGIUS:  And most welcome.  We are about to start your

Page 19154

 1    testimony, which will continue in the forthcoming days.

 2            Before you do so, you're required by our Rules to - you are

 3    familiar with this - to make the solemn declaration.  Please read out the

 4    text, and that will be your solemn undertaking with us.

 5            THE WITNESS:  I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the

 6    whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

 7                          WITNESS:  JOSEPH KINGORI

 8            JUDGE AGIUS:  I thank you, sir.  Please take a seat and make

 9    yourself comfortable.

10            We've got about 20 minutes or 22 minutes to go.  Mr. Thayer will

11    go first.

12            Please, Mr. Thayer, I know that you have asked for about three

13    hours.  Try to limit it as much as you can.  Our idea is that we try and

14    finish the complete testimony of this witness by Friday.

15            MR. THAYER:  Mr. President, I will do my best.  I've already cut

16    the examination down.  I'll try to keep it as short as possible.

17                          Examination by Mr. Thayer:

18       Q.   Good afternoon, sir.

19       A.   Good afternoon, sir.

20       Q.   Would you please state and spell your name for the record?

21       A.   My name is Lieutenant-Colonel Kingori, and I spell the last name

22    that is Kilo-India-November-Golf-Oscar-Romeo-India.

23       Q.   And how old are you, sir?

24       A.   I'm now 50 years in August this year.

25       Q.   And where were you born and raised?

Page 19155

 1       A.   I was born in Kenya, in Moyale District, and that is where I was

 2    raised until I went to Nairobi in 1977 to look for a job.

 3       Q.   And let me just briefly review your military service history.

 4            You joined the Kenyan Air Force in 1997 and retired this past --

 5    I'm sorry, 1977, and retired this past August at the rank of colonel; is

 6    that correct?

 7       A.   That's correct, Your Honour.

 8       Q.   And what is your current assignment or work?

 9       A.   Currently, I'm deployed in Nairobi as the acting director of the

10    National Disaster Operations Centre.

11       Q.   Now, your service in the former Yugoslavia began in 1994, when you

12    served as an UNMO team leader in Erdut until approximately March of 1995;

13    is that correct, sir?

14       A.   That's correct, Your Honour.

15       Q.   Would you just briefly describe any training that you received to

16    be an UNMO upon your deployment?

17       A.   First and foremost is that before going to -- for the deployment

18    in the former Yugoslavia, we had a brief in Nairobi concerning what we

19    were expected to do when we got to the operational area.  And when we

20    arrived there, that is, in Zagreb, we were trained on various issues that

21    we were going to handle when we were in the field, and that training took

22    about two days, and that involved a lot of things, that is, first aid,

23    things to do with crater analysis, things to do with the reporting, the

24    normal military observer type of reporting, and all that.

25       Q.   Now, sir, in March of 1995, you were assigned to Sector Northeast

Page 19156

 1    UNMO headquarters as a member of Team Srebrenica; is that correct?

 2       A.   Yes, that's correct, sir.

 3       Q.   Where were your offices located?

 4       A.   In Srebrenica, our offices were located in the PTT building. That

 5    was -- I think it was either a postal building or something like that, but

 6    that is where our headquarters were.

 7       Q.   And where were you quartered or billeted?

 8       A.   We were having our billet in the same place.  That is where we

 9    were sleeping, that is where we had our offices, and that is where we were

10    doing all our things, like even washing, cooking and all that.

11       Q.   And, briefly, would you describe what your team's duties and

12    responsibilities were as UNMOs in Srebrenica?

13       A.   Military observers have, you know, various duties that they are

14    assigned to, but mainly it's to monitor and report any violations to the

15    ceasefire agreement, that is, VCFAs, VCFAs, and also bring the warring

16    factions to an understanding, to bring them together, hold meetings

17    regularly with them in the side, and then so that you can convey whatever

18    you told from this side to the other side and vice versa so you can bridge

19    the differences that hold them apart, and then you can bring them together

20    to an agreement and to a situation whereby they can live together and as

21    one family.

22       Q.   Now, you mentioned reporting violations of the ceasefire

23    agreement.  Was part of your duties investigating reports of violations?

24       A.   That is true, Your Honour.

25       Q.   And can you describe what you would do in connection with those

Page 19157

 1    investigations?

 2       A.   Now, whenever we went out in case we are told that there is a

 3    violation somewhere, we go out in the field, then get the report from the

 4    locals or -- so that, I mean, even ourselves, we can see if it is maybe a

 5    crater which has hit a certain area, we'll go see the place where the

 6    craters hit, analyse the size of the crater, and also the detail that

 7    concerns how or where -- from which direction that that shell could have

 8    come from, and then get the grid references for the -- so that we can be

 9    able to report to the UNMO headquarters through the normal channels.  Or

10    if it was maybe some people was injured, we would go there, see them,

11    interview them, and record all the statements from them so that we can be

12    able to transmit the same to our headquarters through the normal channels.

13       Q.   Sir, when you perform these crater analyses, would you use any

14    special equipment for that?

15       A.   Your Honour, there was special equipment that we were using, and

16    we had them, and that first and foremost you got to -- the crater, when a

17    crater is formed, it forms in a definite pattern, especially if it has hit

18    a hard surface.  It forms in a definite pattern that you'd be able to

19    identify, according to what we had been taught, where the shell could have

20    come from, the general direction of the origin of the shell. Then, with

21    the equipments that we had, you could place them there, on the shelling --

22    on the hole itself, and then that is the crater, and then be able to

23    measure and know the size or the calibre of the shell.

24            Then you go to the shell, so the fragments that you have there.

25    Then you could be able to check with the documents that we had, because we

Page 19158

 1    had a book that carried all the types of weapons which were in that

 2    general area.  Then you could be able to tell the kind of or the calibre

 3    of the weapon.  From that calibre, you can be able to identify the range,

 4    because all those details are in the book.  You can identify the range of

 5    that particular weapon.  If it is a 155, maybe two and a half kilometres,

 6    that is the range.  Then from there, you can go to the map that you

 7    already have, then try to locate, with the direction that you got from the

 8    way the shell landed towards that -- where the source you think could have

 9    been, then when you put the two and a half kilometres or so, you be able

10    to identify the general area where the shell could have been launched

11    from.

12       Q.   Now, sir, could you just briefly describe the reporting system

13    that Team Srebrenica used?

14       A.   Our reporting system was just like any other UN military observer

15    teams, in that we had, as a team, to report to our sector headquarters,

16    that is, UNMO's sector headquarters, United Nations Military Observers,

17    not UNPROFOR.  So when we report to the UN Military Observer headquarters,

18    that is, sector headquarters, they would now report to the UNMO

19    headquarters in Zagreb, and that is -- that was the normal -- the normal

20    pattern.  In fact, we had a very clear way of reporting, and our hierarchy

21    was very definite, in that we still had our own senior military observer

22    in the sector and the chief military observer in the UN headquarters in

23    Zagreb.

24       Q.   And your Sector Northeast headquarters was located where, sir?

25       A.   Your Honour, it was located in Tuzla.

Page 19159

 1       Q.   Now, how important was the accuracy of the information that you

 2    put in those reports?

 3       A.   The reports that we used to make definitely were accurate, and

 4    that is one of the qualifications of UN military observers, in that the

 5    details of whatever they report had to be as accurate as possible.  In

 6    fact, if there was to be any error, it was actually unforgivable, so we

 7    had to make sure the details we put in there were very accurate.  That is,

 8    when we go out there to maybe check any VCFA and we find any, we will take

 9    the task of interviewing the people who were around there.  We'd also make

10    an effort to ensure that the leadership in that particular area, you know,

11    is interviewed, and also even people on the other side, that is, the

12    opposing side, is also interviewed so that they can also give us their

13    story from their perspective, and then so that whatever we're reporting is

14    something which is as true as possible.

15       Q.   Now, how would you indicate, if at all, the different sources of

16    this information and whether or not something was able to be confirmed by

17    you or another member of your team, or where there was something that was

18    not confirmed?

19       A.   What it is, Your Honour, is that in most cases we are the ones who

20    are doing the investigations, but in case we got maybe a rumour or

21    information from a source that maybe is not that reliable, but for the

22    purpose of writing the report we've got to include that because maybe it

23    could turn out to be true, we always put the initials "NCBU" to mean not

24    confirmed by UNMOs, in that that is what we have had, but for sure we are

25    not the ones who found it, we have just been told.  So it would be taken

Page 19160

 1    the way it is, and later on you could find out maybe it's true, but if you

 2    have not confirmed it, we must indicate it's not confirmed by UNMOs.

 3       Q.   Now, would you just briefly name, to the best of your

 4    recollection, the contacts in the Muslim military leadership that you had

 5    in Srebrenica?

 6       A.   In Srebrenica, Your Honour, the contacts that we had mainly were

 7    through Mr. -- the Chief of Staff.  That was Mr. Ramiz, and also his

 8    intelligence officer.  I can't remember his name very well, but there was

 9    an intelligence officer.  But Ramiz and this intelligence officer were our

10    main contacts with the Muslims.

11       Q.   And did you ever meet anybody that you understood was the

12    commander of the local military presence?

13       A.   Your Honour, the -- I never met anyone that was in charge, only

14    that when I arrived there, that is, in early April, I was told that there

15    was someone who was in charge of the army called Mr., I think, Oric, yes,

16    Naser or Jaser Oric or something like that, but for sure I never met him

17    because by the time I arrived there, he had already left the enclave and

18    his whereabouts were unknown.

19       Q.   When you met with Mr. Ramiz -- and do you recall his last name,

20    sir?

21       A.   Yeah, his -- Your Honour, his last name was "Becirovic."

22       Q.   When you met with Mr. Becirovic or the intelligence officer, where

23    would you do that?

24       A.   We would meet either at the PTT building -- in fact, most of the

25    time, we were meeting at the PTT building, but at times, though it was

Page 19161

 1    very -- I think it was only once that we met at the opstina, but that was

 2    only once.  Most of the time we were meeting at the PTT building, at the

 3    top.  Yeah, that's all.

 4       Q.   Did you ever visit or see what was told to you was the

 5    headquarters of the local military presence?

 6       A.   As far as I know, there was -- there was no local headquarter of

 7    any military people there, that is, the Muslims.  There was just a

 8    communications centre, a small communications centre in that same

 9    building, but there was no headquarters, as such.

10       Q.   And do you recall ever being present in that military -- in that

11    small communications centre?  Sorry.

12       A.   Yes, Your Honour, I was there.

13       Q.   How many times, and can you recall anything about it?

14       A.   I can remember we had some meetings there, and one of the meetings

15    is when just before -- just before the place was shelled and also even

16    during the shelling is the time we had a meeting with the CO Dutch-Bat

17    there, and also another meeting that we held with the LO Dutch-Bat in the

18    same place, that is, in the communications centre.

19       Q.   And, again, do you recall anything about the centre?  Was it a

20    room, was it a floor; do you recall any details at all?

21       A.   The thing I remember is that it was a small room.  It was just a

22    small room with some communication equipments, that is, HF, VHF radios,

23    and nothing much, nothing you can call a proper communication centre.

24       Q.   What were the topics of your meetings, just generally, sir, with

25    these Muslim military representatives?

Page 19162

 1       A.   This could vary from time to time, but mainly they were calling us

 2    for meetings only when they had been attacked by the -- by the BSA, and

 3    especially when their people were coming back from Tuzla to bring goods

 4    that they had gone to buy there so that they can sell to the people, and

 5    mainly is -- if we suspected that these attacks were being caused by maybe

 6    disagreements between the two, because in most cases when they were going

 7    out, they had to agree with the BSA so that they could be given a safe

 8    passage to go out, bring back their goods and all that, but in case there

 9    was a disagreement, they were ambushed, they were harmed, and then after

10    that, maybe they would call a meeting and say that they were beaten by,

11    you know, by the BSA.  So that's the only time that they used to call us

12    for a meeting.

13       Q.   Did you ever receive complaints from any other source about

14    shelling or attacks into the enclave?

15       A.   Well, there were a lot of complaints.  I think that was normal.

16    In fact, we couldn't stay for long without some complaints coming from the

17    Muslims concerning an attack somewhere, in a certain village, and

18    especially the Bandera Triangle area, which was somewhere to the -- I

19    think to the west or somewhere, and also even in the most of the other

20    villages you could hear attacks, and then, you know, there are complaints

21    that a certain village has been shelled, a certain village there was some

22    shooting from the BSA side, and we would go out that way to investigate

23    that case.

24       Q.   And how often would you verify those complaints, sir?

25       A.   Your Honour, most of the time we could verify.  When we arrived

Page 19163

 1    there, we could find people who were injured.  You could find where a

 2    shell has landed.  It has exploded and you can see the place.  The

 3    shrapnel, most of them are there, you can be able to see them.  You can

 4    even identify the type of weapon used, the injuries on the people, the

 5    destruction on the buildings or something like that.  You know, you could

 6    be able to verify that actually an attack occurred.

 7       Q.   And did these locations and individuals appear to you to be

 8    military or civilian?

 9       A.   I didn't get your question well.  Are you talking about the ones

10    who attacked or the ones who were attacked?

11       Q.   The ones who were attacked that you were visiting and performing

12    your investigation.

13       A.   Your Honour, the persons who were attacked were normal villagers.

14    In fact, they were not military at all.  As far as we could verify, they

15    were not military, and so their targets were actually civilian targets.

16       Q.   Did you have interpreters on staff with whom you worked?

17       A.   Your Honour, we did.  We had two interpreters who are Muslims,

18    that is, inside the enclave, and we had one who was a Serb from outside

19    the enclave.  That is, he was staying in Bratunac, so whenever we wanted

20    him, we could be able to get him.  We could call him on radio, get him,

21    arrange for a meeting, and then whatever we wanted, we would discuss in

22    his presence or through his effort.

23       Q.   Now, with respect to the Muslim interpreters, do you know or do

24    you have any idea how long they had been working as UNMO interpreters

25    prior to working with you?

Page 19164

 1       A.   Yeah.  When I arrived there, I found these guys there, that is,

 2    the two, Amir and Hasan, and those guys had been there for quite some

 3    time, at least around three years or so, and that they could give me

 4    stories of some Kenyan officers who were there, you know, prior to my

 5    arrival there.  That was about two to three years or so.  And so I had

 6    reason to believe that they had been there for about a minimum of three

 7    years or so.

 8       Q.   Now, you referred to a Serb interpreter a moment ago.  Do you

 9    recall the interpreter's name?

10       A.   Oh, that is someone I cannot forget.  His name was Petar.

11       Q.   And do you recall the names of any Serb military representatives

12    with whom you met with any regularity?

13       A.   Your Honour, there was one that -- who was our main contact with

14    the -- with the BSA military establishment, and that was Major Nikolic.

15    This one was the main contact, and he's the person we met nearly -- nearly

16    always.  And whenever we wanted to pass something, he's the guy that we

17    always arranged meetings with, Major Nikolic.

18       Q.   Were there any other Serb officers whose names -- or whose name

19    you recall?

20       A.   Yeah, there were others, there are others that I happened to

21    meet.  Of course, most of them, I cannot remember their names, but at

22    least I can remember there was Colonel Vukovic, there was Colonel, I

23    think, Tricic [phoen], there was -- you know, during my entire stay there,

24    there were people I met.  And there was a legal officer, one -- that is

25    during the war.  That is the one who told me that he's a legal officer,

Page 19165

 1    and his name, Fatim Watamir [phoen] or something like that.  I can't

 2    remember very well.

 3       Q.   Okay.  And we'll get to that in a little while, but just focusing

 4    on prior to the July attack, sir, had you met this Colonel Vukovic prior

 5    to the attack in July?

 6       A.   Your Honour, I had.  I met him before.

 7            MR. THAYER:  And we'll leave it there for the day, Colonel.  Thank

 8    you.

 9            JUDGE AGIUS:  Okay.  Colonel, thank you.  We'll continue tomorrow.

10            Thank you, everyone.  We'll reconvene tomorrow at 9.00 in the

11    morning.

12                          --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.45 p.m.,

13                          to be reconvened on Thursday, the 13th day of

14                          December, 2007, at 9.00 a.m.