Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 33396

 1                           Wednesday, 29 April 2009

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           --- Upon commencing at 2.19 p.m.

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

 6     case, please.

 7             THE REGISTRAR:  Thank you, Your Honour.  Good afternoon,

 8     Your Honours.  Good afternoon to everyone in and around the courtroom.

 9     This is case number IT-05-88-T, the Prosecution versus Vujadin Popovic et

10     al.  Thank you.

11             JUDGE AGIUS:  Thank you.  All the accused are here.

12     Representation, Prosecution, Mr. McCloskey, Mr. Vanderpuye, Ms. Soljan.

13     Anyone else there?  No.  Defence teams, I already notice the absence of

14     Mr. Bourgon.

15             All right.  I understand the Prosecution wishes to address the

16     Chamber.

17             MR. McCLOSKEY:  Yes, Mr. President.  Good afternoon.

18             JUDGE AGIUS:  Good afternoon.  Go ahead.

19             MR. McCLOSKEY:  Mr. President, we are proposing and the Defence

20     agrees that Mr. Parsons is here and that out of an abundance of caution

21     we start with him just to make sure there's no risk of him going over and

22     having to stay in for the holiday.  It looks like from the estimates that

23     we shouldn't have a problem, but as you know, sometimes we get to

24     talking.  So if we could start with Parsons and finish him, then Mr. Janc

25     is available afterward should we have more time.

Page 33397

 1             JUDGE AGIUS:  And Mr. Janc is also available Friday, I suppose,

 2     if we need him.

 3             MR. McCLOSKEY:  Yes, he is available, and that's no problem.  And

 4     then I have one other preliminary.

 5             JUDGE AGIUS:  All right.  Okay.  The other preliminary you wish

 6     to state now or later?

 7             MR. McCLOSKEY:  I can state it now.

 8             JUDGE AGIUS:  Go ahead.

 9             MR. McCLOSKEY:  As you know the Popovic team has filed a motion

10     requesting three Bisina witnesses.  We have looked at the B/C/S versions

11     of those statements and have no objection to those statements coming in

12     92 bis, no cross-examination.  I've discussed that briefly with

13     Mr. Zivanovic, and so we can -- he seemed to be positive on that, though

14     he hasn't had any time to think about it.

15             Also with -- with Mr. Rodic, the intercept person, should we --

16     if we can see a brief statement or report on what he has to say, we may

17     very well do the same thing on that issue and just let that come in

18     through 92 bis, no cross, just --

19             JUDGE AGIUS:  And Kosoric?

20             MR. McCLOSKEY:  Kosoric we'd like to chat with a bit.  Though I

21     would like to hear how if Mr. Kosoric is really willing to come and speak

22     with us, because we haven't had that opportunity to speak with him.

23             JUDGE AGIUS:  All right.  People who know me better than you do

24     would have anticipated exactly where I was getting.

25             All right.  Thank you for that information.  You will mull over

Page 33398

 1     it, Mr. Zivanovic, and if you are in agreement you will let us know as

 2     soon as possible.  In the meantime we haven't, of course, decided on your

 3     motion, but we will be deciding soon.  Thank you.

 4             Yes.  Can we bring in Mr. Parsons, Dr. Parsons.

 5                           [The witness entered court]

 6                           WITNESS:  THOMAS PARSONS [Recalled]

 7             JUDGE AGIUS:  Good afternoon to you, Dr. Parsons, and welcome

 8     back.  Could we proceed with your solemn declaration straight away,

 9     please.

10             THE WITNESS:  I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the

11     whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

12             JUDGE AGIUS:  I thank you, sir.  Please make yourself

13     comfortable.

14             THE WITNESS:  Thank you.

15             JUDGE AGIUS:  Mr. Vanderpuye will put some questions to you and

16     we'll be doing our level best to finish with your testimony today,

17     although I don't promise.

18             Mr. Vanderpuye.

19             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Thank you, Mr. President.  Good afternoon to

20     you.  Good afternoon to Your Honours.  Good afternoon to my colleagues.

21                           Examination by Mr. Vanderpuye:

22        Q.   And good afternoon to you, Dr. Parsons.  Indeed, welcome back.

23     As you know, you've been called back to testify for only a limited

24     purpose on our part and of course to provide the Defence with an

25     opportunity to cross-examine you in relation to your testimony.  So I'll

Page 33399

 1     have not very many questions for you and then I'll turn you over to the

 2     Defence for examination.

 3             If there's anything that I say that's not clear or -- just let me

 4     know and I will rephrase it in a way that we can best understand one

 5     another and get through this in short order.

 6             You last testified over a year ago in this case.  Could you just

 7     briefly tell us what your position is with the ICMP.

 8        A.   I am the director of forensic sciences at the ICMP and oversee

 9     three main divisions or areas of speciality.  One is a DNA laboratory

10     system.  Another is anthropological examinations and archaeological

11     excavations; and the third is a central identification unit where the

12     samples come in and identifications are made.

13        Q.   In terms of your supervisory functions, do your responsibilities

14     include personally reviewing all of the forensic work that is carried out

15     in ICMP labs?

16        A.   No, they do not.  The details of each and every report are not

17     something that I normally review.

18        Q.   And are those -- are those details reviewed -- is there an

19     apparatus or a mechanism by which those details are reviewed in the ICMP?

20        A.   Yes, certainly, particularly with regard to the DNA reports we

21     have a very formal system of -- of review.

22        Q.   And can you tell us just by establishment, not by name, who is

23     responsible for reviewing the laboratory work that goes on in the ICMP?

24        A.   An individual associated with the genetic analysis department, an

25     individual associated with a statistical calculations and then the head

Page 33400

 1     of the DNA laboratory.

 2        Q.   And are all those aspects necessary in order to carry out

 3     adequate and appropriate testing pursuant to the certification that the

 4     ICMP has -- accreditation that the ICMP has?

 5        A.   Yes, the accreditation calls for formal review processes.

 6        Q.   Okay.  Now, since you last testified are you aware of any further

 7     or updated information that the ICMP has provided to the Office of the

 8     Prosecutor?

 9        A.   Yes.

10        Q.   Okay.  And in particular, can you tell us what material you are

11     aware of that has been provided?

12        A.   The primary document is an update of the DNA notification list, I

13     believe it's as of January 2009, that lists the DNA match reports that

14     have been made.

15        Q.   Okay.  And have you provide -- has ICMP provided any other

16     documentation --

17             THE INTERPRETER:  Please slow down for the interpreters.  Thank

18     you.

19             MR. VANDERPUYE:

20        Q.   Has ICMP provided any other documentation that you can recall?

21        A.   There's a list of unmatched DNA profiles as well.

22        Q.   Have you had an opportunity to look at that material or review

23     that material recently?

24        A.   Yes.

25        Q.   Okay.  And how recently have you reviewed it?

Page 33401

 1        A.   Well, it's -- it's extremely voluminous, so I can't say that I've

 2     reviewed it in extreme detail, but I have familiarised myself with it

 3     recently in the last few days.

 4        Q.   And how was that material provided to you?

 5        A.   In the same form that -- that was provided to the ICTY, in Excel

 6     spreadsheets.  There is an additional set of information that our -- our

 7     agency has passed to the court as well, and that is the number of case

 8     files that were requested that contain the actual DNA data, the

 9     statistical calculations and the match reports themselves.

10             MR. VANDERPUYE:  All right.  If we could have in e-court, please,

11     65 ter 4497.  Just for the record, Your Honours, the spreadsheet of ICMP

12     data that the witness refers to is contained in D0002768, 65 ter 4494.

13             JUDGE AGIUS:  Thank you, Mr. Vanderpuye.

14             MR. VANDERPUYE:

15        Q.   Dr. Parsons, do you recognise this document that's in e-court

16     now?  And we'll go to the next page in just a moment.

17        A.   Yes, sir.

18        Q.   Is this a document that was provided by the ICMP to the Office of

19     the Prosecutor?

20        A.   Yes.

21        Q.   Okay.

22             MR. VANDERPUYE:  And if we could go, please, to the page ending

23     630.  It should be, I guess, ten pages from here in e-court.

24        Q.   And do you recognise your signature?

25        A.   Yes, I do.

Page 33402

 1        Q.   Okay.

 2             MR. VANDERPUYE:  If we could go to the next document, please.

 3     That would be 65 ter 4498.  Okay.

 4        Q.   Do you recognise this document?

 5        A.   Yes.

 6        Q.   And is this a document that was provided by the ICMP to the

 7     Office of the Prosecutor?

 8        A.   Yes.

 9             MR. VANDERPUYE:  I'm sorry, I didn't put on the record the last

10     document, the title of the document was Summary Report Cancari Road 4,

11     BiH, ICMP site code:  T-ZVO.CR04.  This document reads Cancari -- Summary

12     Report Cancari Road 06, BiH, ICMP site code:  T-ZVR.CR06, and on this

13     document if we could just go to page ending 315.  It's page 10 in --

14     that's right.

15        Q.   Do you recognise the signature on this document, Dr. Parsons?

16        A.   Yes.

17        Q.   Okay.

18             MR. VANDERPUYE:  If we could go to the next document, which is 65

19     ter 4499.

20        Q.   Do you recognise this document?

21        A.   Yes.

22             MR. VANDERPUYE:  For the record this document reads summary

23     report, Cancari Road 08, BiH, ICMP site code:  T-ZVO.CR08.  And if we

24     could just go to page ending 665, page 10 also of this document.

25        Q.   Do you recognise your signature here?

Page 33403

 1        A.   Yes.

 2        Q.   Okay.  With respect to these last three documents and the

 3     spreadsheet that you referred to earlier, those were all documents that

 4     were provided by ICMP to the Office of the Prosecutor; is that right?

 5        A.   That's correct.

 6        Q.   Okay.  Now, with respect to the first document that you referred

 7     to, that is the document concerning the identifications -- or update of

 8     identifications that were made by the ICMP, did you have an opportunity

 9     to review all of the material in that -- in that spreadsheet?

10        A.   No, I wouldn't say I was able to review all that material.

11     There's over 10.000 line entries.

12        Q.   And are you aware of any particular problems or issues concerning

13     the reliability or validity of the data that is contained in that

14     spreadsheet?

15        A.   Fundamentally, no.

16        Q.   Now, if I could, could I show you, please, 65 ter 4526.  Are you

17     aware of an e-mail that was provided by an employee of the ICMP on

18     24 April of which addressed certain -- certain issues concerning this --

19     this updated material?

20        A.   Yes, I am.

21        Q.   And how were you made aware of that particular -- of this e-mail?

22        A.   It was shared to me prior to its distribution and I've reviewed

23     it subsequently.

24        Q.   Okay.  And in this e-mail, as we can see under -- just near the

25     middle --

Page 33404

 1             MR. VANDERPUYE:  If we can blow that up where it says number 1.

 2     It's right in the middle of the paragraph.  Yes.  Right there.  I suppose

 3     everybody can read it anyway.

 4        Q.   But could you tell us what the thrust of this e-mail is, what it

 5     concerns?

 6        A.   Okay.  First of all, the -- the primary list that -- that this

 7     refers to, these some 10.000 or so entries into the notification list

 8     represent DNA reports that have been made by the ICMP, and those are

 9     matches either of a victim sample to a family -- a set of families

10     associated with a missing person, or they're related to reassociating two

11     different parts of the same victim individual.  Okay.  And so it is not,

12     strictly speaking, a list of closed cases at the ICMP, where bodies have

13     been returned to the families.  These are DNA match reports with high

14     statistical surety ascribe an individual name to a victim sample.  So it

15     was brought to our attention as -- out of these 10.000 or so entries that

16     are either primary matches or reassociation matches that there were a

17     number of cases where there were apparent inconsistencies with regard to

18     who was listed on the DNA match report, and I believe that was a list of

19     some eight cases that required a bit of additional investigation.

20        Q.   Okay.

21        A.   And these -- these numbered points here reflect a number of

22     explanations as to how something like that could occur.  So a primary

23     instance might be that we have a DNA match report, and it indicates an

24     individual with a certain name, and then we have a set of victim remains

25     to which this sample is thought to relate.

Page 33405

 1             Well, upon inspection, it turns out that it could be that the

 2     named individual is not consistent with the set of victim remains, and so

 3     I list three reasons why such an extremely rare event might -- that might

 4     cause an extremely rare event.

 5        Q.   And the three reasons that you list are set out in this e-mail,

 6     is that right, under number 1, 2, and 3?

 7        A.   That's correct.

 8        Q.   Okay.  And in respect of the data that you looked at, that is the

 9     most recent identification data on the spreadsheets as you've indicated,

10     are you aware that any one of these particular circumstances has in fact

11     occurred, or are these an explanation of potential or possible

12     explanations for the discrepancies that were pointed out to you?

13        A.   In the cases in question, in fact we remain to identify the root

14     cause of which -- which of these three or -- or possibly another

15     explanation might be.  In fact, in one case I made reference to another

16     explanation, and in one case we did determine that that was the case, and

17     that was that we have two identical twins whose DNA was exactly the same

18     between them, and therefore they were -- they were matched to the -- to

19     the same name, and as we later found out, they were the twins and we were

20     able to sort that out.

21        Q.   Okay.  Now, are you aware of any defects in the testing

22     procedures that were -- that are employed by the ICMP or were employed by

23     the ICMP that would call into question the reliability of the results

24     that are -- that are shown in the spreadsheet of identifications as you

25     referred to previously?  That is, are you aware of any defects in the

Page 33406

 1     testing procedures themselves?

 2        A.   With regard to the actual DNA typing and methodology, I would say

 3     no.

 4        Q.   Okay.  And would the explanations that you've given here for

 5     these rare instances, as you've referred to them, would these kinds of

 6     individualised errors impact on the overall reliability and accuracy of

 7     the results that have been obtained by ICMP in respect of

 8     identifications?

 9        A.   In -- in some ways, yes, and in some ways, no, and that's

10     obviously something I would have to clarify.  The -- the DNA match

11     reports that are contained in that list and -- indicate the DNA that was

12     obtained from a victim sample, and I would say in -- in every case,

13     regardless of these -- these very small number of cases we're discussing

14     here, even including those, the sample that was tested for DNA in fact

15     matches that family and that named individual as it is stated on the

16     match report.  The problem comes in with correlating that sample to where

17     it was originally thought to have been taken from.  So we have a small

18     number of cases where there was potentially, for example, a labelling

19     error when the sample was taken usually by an outside agency, not the

20     ICMP.  If the proper code was not written on that to allow it to refer

21     back to the body, then there would be a discrepancy when the DNA report

22     was compared to the remains that it was written down it came from.

23             Certainly the DNA profile and the DNA match we got from the

24     sample itself is correct.  It's simply due to, if you will, a clerical

25     error at some point in the process is no longer ascribed to the set of

Page 33407

 1     remains that -- that we hoped to return to the families.

 2        Q.   And are there any systemic or systematic problems in -- in the

 3     handling or administratively or even in the laboratory context of data or

 4     samples within the ICMP that, in your view, might imperil the validity or

 5     reliability of the ICMP results?

 6        A.   In terms of systematic problems, no.  In fact, the system is very

 7     carefully designed to control -- to avoid these problems, and -- and as a

 8     result, in any given case the chance of a problem such as this is

 9     extremely minuscule.

10        Q.   I just want to ask you a couple of questions.  As you mentioned

11     concerning some case files, could you tell us a little bit about that?

12     You mentioned that the ICMP had provided some case files.

13        A.   I believe you're referring to -- to it a number of cases that

14     were requested by the Office of the Prosecutor to provide the underlying

15     DNA data and associated documents for -- for review.

16        Q.   Did you oversee the compilation of this material?

17        A.   That would not be a role that I would play directly, no.  That

18     would be -- that requires a great deal of -- of collation of material

19     and -- and background research by the staff that actually conduct the

20     work.

21        Q.   Okay.  And are you aware of -- are you aware of the circumstances

22     under which this material was gathered, that is, what is it -- what it

23     relates to, when it was put together, what it comprises?

24        A.   Yes, I am.

25        Q.   And could you tell us a little bit about that, please.

Page 33408

 1        A.   Well, having -- having had these particular cases brought to our

 2     attention, we then had to access the records we have on the matching

 3     processes, access the raw data on computer files in the laboratory, check

 4     to see that -- that everything is included and assemble them all

 5     together.  An additional very time-consuming element of this process was

 6     to obtain victim consent waivers.  In other words, consent from the

 7     family members involved in these DNA match reports to have their DNA

 8     profiles and their personal information released to the court.

 9        Q.   And were you able to obtain these consent forms or consents of

10     the victims, I should say, or relatives in all instances?

11        A.   No.  I believe there were a number of cases where that simply was

12     not possible.  That is to say that the families refused.

13        Q.   And approximately, if you know, how many case files did the ICMP

14     compile?

15        A.   You know, I apologise, but I don't happen to know that number

16     right off the top of my head.  It's around 25 or something if I'm not

17     mistaken.

18        Q.   And are you aware if there were any difficulties in compiling

19     these -- this information?

20        A.   Not fundamentally, no.  We were able to provide the DNA

21     information for -- for all the cases and the matches that they were --

22     they were -- they were based on.  In some instances, to ensure that we

23     were providing the proper information, we did -- we did actually quickly

24     retype a couple of the blood samples.

25        Q.   Okay.  When you say retype, you're speaking in a scientific sense

Page 33409

 1     and not in a colloquial literal sense of actually typing as in a

 2     typewriter; right?

 3        A.   Yes.  What I'm referring to is that -- that the genetic profiles

 4     from the reference blood samples were in some cases obtained many, many

 5     years ago prior to 2003 or in that era, and some of the criteria were

 6     slightly different for -- for how we go about designating these profiles.

 7     So to be safe and conservative, we retyped them again according to

 8     current-day standards and I'm pleased to report that there weren't

 9     differences.

10        Q.   Now, in terms of evaluating the reliability of the DNA analysis

11     procedures that you follow, is it possible in the absence of examining

12     electropherograms, is it possible to determine whether or not a DNA

13     analysis or procedure is a valid and reliable one?

14        A.   Yes.  Basically, if you have access to the raw data such as we

15     provided here, someone should be able to look at those and say they've

16     been drawn on solid conclusions.

17             I would like to qualify that, though, by saying that nothing

18     exists in a vacuum, so it -- it would also be with -- the expert

19     reviewing this material, it would also be within his knowledge that this

20     is in fact an extremely well-established, fundamental means for DNA

21     typing that has emerged as a gold standard in forensic analysis.

22        Q.   And are there other factors that might reasonably be considered

23     in order to evaluate the reliability of a lab practice and the results

24     that are obtained by a particular or a given lab?

25        A.   Well, yes, of course.  It relates to many things.  One would be

Page 33410

 1     the -- the level of experience and training within the laboratory, and in

 2     that regard, ours is one -- one of the world's most highly experienced

 3     laboratory.  It would go to quality control procedures that have been

 4     well-devised and implemented and documented, as is currently the case in

 5     our laboratory.  And it would be -- it would go to accreditation

 6     standards.  Our laboratory is inspected very formally by outside, neutral

 7     investigators to determine that our processes map onto our protocols and

 8     vice versa.  And then lastly, the extent to which that laboratory works

 9     in concert with the -- with other workers in the field, other experts in

10     the field, in other words, the extent to which we maintain

11     state-of-the-art capabilities that are up-to-date.  And we have in that

12     regard a scientific advisory board of many of the more prominent

13     scientists in the world that on a yearly basis come in and review our

14     processes and help us discuss where we are and how -- how the processes

15     fit in with the state of the art worldwide.

16        Q.   And lastly, in your view, do you have any concerns regarding the

17     reliability or validity of the data that's been provided by the ICMP to

18     the Office of the Prosecutor as concerns the DNA analysis procedures and

19     the results that they show?

20        A.   I don't.  I think they're rock solid.

21        Q.   All right.  Thank you, Dr. Parsons.  I don't have any further

22     questions for you.

23             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Thank you, Mr. President.

24             JUDGE AGIUS:  Thank you, Mr. Vanderpuye.

25             Mr. Zivanovic.

Page 33411

 1             MR. ZIVANOVIC:  Ms. Tapuskovic will lead this witness.

 2             JUDGE AGIUS:  Okay, thank you.  I apologise.  Ms. Tapuskovic.

 3             MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Your Honours.

 4     Good afternoon to everybody in the courtroom.

 5                           Cross-examination by Ms. Tapuskovic:

 6        Q.   [Interpretation] Good afternoon to you, too, Mr. Parsons.  I hope

 7     you remember that in February last year we had an opportunity to conduct

 8     a conversation, so we're going to continue that here today, but we're

 9     going to talk today in line of the Trial Chamber's decision and ruling,

10     which is that your testimony will be to authenticate some new facts about

11     DNA identification to which investigator Janc, who attached his resume

12     here, to which he -- on which he relies.

13             Now, you mentioned just now, you said there were some new

14     documents with respect to the time when you testified last year or,

15     rather, that the only new document was an updated list of missing persons

16     which was compiled, as you said, I think, in January of this year and

17     afterwards sent to the Prosecutor, to the OTP.  Is that right?

18        A.   Well, as I -- as I just mentioned, also we provided some case

19     files, but that is -- the list you just referred to is the primary thing,

20     yes, I think so.

21        Q.   Can you tell us whether in the meantime, during the space of that

22     year, you have changed any SOP or standard operative procedure which you

23     applied in the process of establishing the identity of individuals?

24        A.   The answer would be yes.  We very often will modify our SOPs.  In

25     this case, in quite minor ways, but it would be the case that one would

Page 33412

 1     expect some of those to have been updated in terms of very narrow

 2     procedural manipulations, for example.

 3        Q.   And these new operative procedures, did you send them to the

 4     Prosecutor?  Have you provided them?  Or can I put this question a

 5     different way:  Have you informed the OTP that you've changed any of the

 6     standard operative procedures?

 7        A.   Well, we certainly don't inform the OTP every time we change a

 8     procedure in the laboratory, and I think that the OTP is aware that many

 9     of our procedures will be updated regularly as is the case in all

10     laboratories.  I think it's rather important in this context to note that

11     fundamentally the type and quality of testing that we do in the

12     laboratory hasn't changed at all.  So it's not as if we've employed new

13     techniques.  It's a simple change in -- in some operating procedures at a

14     very detailed level.

15        Q.   If I understand you correctly, these new operative procedures

16     just promote the way in which you work without influencing the quality of

17     your work.  Would that being correct?

18        A.   I think that's a reasonable statement, yeah.

19        Q.   Thank you.  Now, since the time you testified last year, the

20     Prosecutor on several occasions disclosed to us raw material, if I can

21     use the term, or the match reports support documentation files.

22             Now, you know that the Defence of -- that the Popovic Defence,

23     and I'm a member of that Defence team, asked the ICP to provide them with

24     all the basic raw material.  Asked the ICMP, actually.

25        A.   Yes, I'm aware of that.

Page 33413

 1        Q.   Are you aware of the fact that the Prosecutor disclosed this raw

 2     material to us relating to 30 cases and that all the cases relate to a

 3     locality called Bisina?

 4        A.   Yes, ma'am.

 5        Q.   Very well.  Thank you.  I'm sure you're also aware that in that

 6     locality a total of 39 bodies were exhumed.

 7        A.   I would not know that off the top of my head.

 8        Q.   Very well.  Now, do you know that the Prosecution disclosed to us

 9     30, if I can call them sets or groups of raw material for 30 out of the

10     total of 39 victims that were exhumed at the Bisina locality?

11        A.   I accept that prompt to my recollection, yes.  That seems

12     correct.

13        Q.   Does your answer mean, sir, that you personally did not conduct a

14     selection, did not make a selection of which raw material of those

15     39 exhumed persons from Bisina locality be sent to the Prosecution and,

16     in turn, disclosed to the Defence?

17        A.   That's correct.

18        Q.   Can you tell us within the frameworks of the ICMP who was in

19     charge and responsible for making the selection of these 30 out of the

20     total of 39 Bisina cases?

21        A.   Well, my previous answer reflects mostly the fact that no one at

22     the ICMP selected which ones to provide and which ones not.  If I may

23     clarify.  It was in regard to which ones that within the ICMP policies we

24     were able to provide by virtue of having appropriate waivers from the

25     family members involved in the case.

Page 33414

 1        Q.   Do you know whether in all the 39 cases for Bisina agreement was

 2     asked from the family for disclosing information?

 3        A.   I believe so, ma'am, but I will say that an effort was made to

 4     ask all the families.  I can't -- I can't, as I sit here, assure you

 5     that, for example, we had appropriate contact information for each and

 6     every one, but I believe that to be the case.

 7        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Parsons.  Now, can you tell us whether these

 8     30 samples out of a total of 39 for Bisina is a sufficiently

 9     representative sample to be able to -- for people to be able to make a

10     conclusion as to the correctness of the work of the ICMP with respect to

11     identification?  Is that a sufficiently large sample?

12        A.   The issue of -- you're asking fundamentally a statistical

13     question, I believe, and the answer to any sample-size question or issue,

14     is to what degree of certainty and what level of precision are you trying

15     to talk about.  If you're asking do these 30 cases prove clearly that

16     ICMP has never made a mistake, obviously that is -- that's not sufficient

17     to be supported.  If -- if the review of 30 cases is conducted, one could

18     certainly conclude that on the basis of that information that the general

19     standard of testing in the laboratory is of a very high level and there

20     is no indication within that sample for doubt as to an identification.

21        Q.   The Prosecutor provided us with the complete documentation

22     relating to the exhumations at Bisina and the ruling from the

23     Cantonal Court Bisina for the exhumation in Bisina, and all the other

24     relevant material relating to the autopsy of those bodies.  But tell me

25     now, please, do you know that the identification process was conducted

Page 33415

 1     mostly in 2007 for Bisina?

 2        A.   I have to say in fact that I don't know when the identifications

 3     were concluded.  My understanding is that the DNA match reports -- the

 4     finalisation of the DNA match reports was relatively recent in these

 5     cases.  I would have to refer to the dates on the files, ma'am.

 6     2007 seems reasonable to me.

 7        Q.   When I said that the Prosecution provided us with that data, I

 8     meant that it was all part of the exhibits with the numbers 4510 to 4521.

 9     That's information for the benefit of the rest of the people in the court

10     here.  But can you tell me, please, Mr. Parsons, whether you know the

11     exact number of persons identified during 2007 and during 2008 as well?

12        A.   I do not.

13        Q.   But the number can be established, can it not, through the tables

14     and the tracking charts that -- issued by the ICMP; right?

15        A.   Yes.

16        Q.   In the proceedings so far, on two occasions we introduced these

17     tracking charts.

18             MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] And for my colleagues they are

19     Exhibits P3488 and 3D461.  The first tracking chart which I mentioned is

20     dated March, and the second dates to August 2008.

21        Q.   Tell me now, please, Mr. Parsons, in these tracking charts, among

22     other things, you show the number of samples, blood samples, taken up

23     until the date when the tracking chart was issued; right?

24        A.   Is it possible to review these documents, refer to them as I

25     answer?

Page 33416

 1        Q.   Certainly.

 2             MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours --

 3             JUDGE AGIUS:  By all means.  By all means, Mr. Parsons --

 4     Dr. Parsons.

 5             MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour, for your

 6     assistance.  It was indeed my intention to pull them up on e-court.  So

 7     may we have document number 1D1376 now, please.

 8        Q.   Mr. Parsons, in this document, which is on our screens, we have

 9     collected several tracking charts which you sent to the Prosecution and

10     the Prosecution disclosed to the Defence, and I'd like to ask us to zoom

11     down to the bottom of the document now, please, to see what it says

12     there.

13             Now, Mr. Parsons, can you see that here on the document it says

14     that it was issued -- or, rather, that the information was updated on the

15     20th of February, 2009?

16        A.   Yes.

17        Q.   Thank you.

18             MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we go back to the top of the

19     document now, please, the beginning of the page.  Thank you.

20        Q.   Could you answer my question now, please, Mr. Parsons, and it was

21     whether in these tracking charts we see the total number of blood samples

22     collected and the total number of bone samples collected.

23        A.   I believe that is correct.  The second block of -- of rows don't

24     specifically state bone in a number of the instances, but that is -- my

25     understanding is that is what it refers to.

Page 33417

 1        Q.   Very well.  Thank you for your answer.  Now let's go to the last

 2     page of this document, please, if we may.  We have here six tracking

 3     charts, and we put them in chronological order.

 4             I'd like to ask you now --

 5             MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Or, rather, may we zoom down the

 6     document and see the date at the bottom, please.

 7        Q.   Mr. Parsons, can you see there that it says that this document

 8     was issued on the 27th of March, 2009?

 9        A.   Yes.

10        Q.   Thank you.  Now, not to go back to the first page again, the

11     first column -- or one of the columns tells us how many DNA reports were

12     issued.

13             MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, we can keep the document

14     there.

15        Q.   If we go underneath the third thick black line, you'll see a

16     column which says "Total number of reports."  Can you see that, sir?

17        A.   Yes.

18        Q.   I hope you'll take me at my word and believe me if I say that

19     we've done a mathematical report for the total number of reports between

20     the first and last tracking chart that I've shown you.  We arrive at a

21     figure of 2.144 DNA reports.

22             Now, do you know that on an annual level that would be a

23     reasonable figure or is that not relevant as far as your work is

24     concerned?

25        A.   Remind me of the time period we're talking about here?  I know I

Page 33418

 1     just looked at those dates, but I appreciate if you could refresh me.

 2        Q.   Certainly, Mr. Parsons.  The two tracking charts that I've just

 3     shown you incorporate the period of one year, one year exactly, perhaps

 4     with a day or two give or take, but as far as I can see from the

 5     documents, the tracking charts are issued on a weekly basis.  Am I right

 6     in saying that?

 7        A.   Yes.

 8        Q.   Thank you.  So, Mr. Parsons, we're dealing with the period of a

 9     year plus or minus two or three days, and I don't think that's important

10     here.

11             Now, to go back to my question.  Do you know that the number of

12     issued DNA reports for this one-year period was 2.144 based on the

13     tracking charts that I've shown you?

14        A.   Yes.

15        Q.   Thank you.  Now, Mr. Parsons, these figures indicate the total

16     number of DNA reports issued.  From that can you tell us - so the number

17     is roughly 2.000 DNA reports - of that number how many were positive DNA

18     identifications, because a figure of 2.000 DNA reports does not mean that

19     2.000 persons were positively identified.

20        A.   The exact answer to the question is no, I can't tell you that,

21     but I'm willing to put forward that a vast majority of them would have

22     been.  The only time we issue non-positive DNA reports is in response to

23     presumptive identifications and we've had a few of those, a few requests

24     for those.  It's listed here actually.

25        Q.   Yes, I understand that.  Thank you, but you haven't told me

Page 33419

 1     whether the number of reports reflects the number of positive

 2     identifications at all, and would that be 2.000?

 3        A.   So I would like to ask you, please, to clarify what you mean by

 4     an identification.  I think I see the nature of your question, but you're

 5     distinguishing a DNA match report from an identification; is that

 6     correct?

 7        Q.   I don't use the terminology that you use, that's quite certain,

 8     but I'll try and simplify what I actually want to ask you to see if you

 9     understand what I'm getting at.  If we have 2.144 DNA reports, the

10     reports on identification, are they also of that number or a lesser

11     number?  Did you have as many or less?

12        A.   Let me -- let me address a number of issues that I think get to

13     what -- what you're -- what information you're interested in receiving.

14     A DNA match report is simply the result of a DNA test.  What one often

15     considers in practice to be an identification would be the closure of a

16     case by identification authorities of which ICMP is not one, and -- and

17     the repatriation of that victim to the family.

18             In -- a reason why the number of identifications as defined the

19     way I just said, remember I said closure of a case, in other words, the

20     entire case has been solved and considered to be resolved and then handed

21     over to the families, the reason why that number can be smaller, and in

22     many instances in Srebrenica is smaller than the number of DNA match

23     reports, is that it relates to the issue of the secondary graves and the

24     extreme fragmentation of the victims.  As you're aware, there were --

25     primary mass graves were exhumed and buried into a series of secondary

Page 33420

 1     mass graves where the victims become fragmented and commingled, and

 2     therefore, entire bodies are not recovered at once from these graves.  So

 3     we may get a DNA match report only on a small portion of an individual

 4     but the pathologist in question, who isn't in that role part of the ICMP,

 5     would not want to close that case, would not want to go to the family

 6     until additional portions of that individual had been identified, and

 7     that's one of the biggest challenges with the Srebrenica case, and that's

 8     why there would be a difference in those numbers.

 9        Q.   Thank you.  That means that over that period of time you have

10     about 2.000 DNA reports but much fewer cases.

11        A.   Yes.

12        Q.   Thank you.  Let us now dwell for a while on the tracking charts.

13     What you see now on your screen is third column from the bottom entitled

14     "Cases Closed."  Can you see this -- this column, Mr. Parsons?

15        A.   If we could please scroll -- go down a little bit in the document

16     so I can see the bottom.  You said the third row, I think you mean ...

17        Q.   Mr. Parsons, this is now the third column from the top.  It says

18     "Cases Closed," 2.790 [as interpreted].

19        A.   I'm sorry, now we have to go back to the top of the document.

20     I -- you said third from the top.  No.  I'm sorry.

21        Q.   It was on your screen at that point.

22             MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Can you please scroll it a bit

23     more and let's leave it exactly at the top.

24             JUDGE AGIUS:  Mr. Vanderpuye.

25             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Thank you, Mr. President.  I'm sorry to

Page 33421

 1     interrupt my colleague, it's just that the transcript reflects the number

 2     of 2.790.  If it's corrected to 3.790 it would be easier for Dr. Parsons

 3     to find.

 4             JUDGE AGIUS:  Thank you, Mr. Vanderpuye, for that.

 5             THE WITNESS:  I do see the entry you're referring to.  I

 6     apologise for the confusion.

 7             MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]

 8        Q.   Very well, Mr. Parsons.  Can you tell me what is the significance

 9     of this term "Cases Closed"?  What does it mean?

10        A.   That is when the pathologist in charge of the case, that would be

11     a court-appointed pathologist by the BiH national authorities, issues a

12     death certificate and returns the -- the remains to the family members.

13        Q.   Tell me, please, in your updated list of identifications marked

14     P4494, did you in any way represent in any of the columns which

15     particular case has been afforded the status of a case closed, that is to

16     say, that the authorities of Bosnia-Herzegovina have handed over the

17     remains of the deceased to the family, or in other words, that the death

18     certificate was handed over to the family.

19        A.   That information you just referred to is not listed in that -- in

20     the notification list of DNA match reports, no.

21        Q.   Thank you.  We'll go back now again to the Bisina cases, because

22     that's the only site for which we have full information provided in this

23     raw material.  Therefore, we are going to focus on Bisina a little more.

24     You told us that only for Bisina, as far as I understood, sought

25     additional consent from the families, and that you attached them, and we

Page 33422

 1     received them along with the material; is that correct?

 2        A.   Yes.

 3        Q.   Did you perhaps seek the consent for some other sites, not only

 4     for Bisina?

 5        A.   Not specifically retroactively with regard to provision to the

 6     court.  However, our current consent forms, since well over a year now -

 7     I apologise, I don't remember the date - now have provision for the

 8     families when they provide a blood sample to give consent in the

 9     beginning for provision to the court.  So we do in fact have quite a

10     number of people -- well, it's not a huge number, but multiple family

11     members have already given consent to have their data released to the

12     court.  But for the majority of the time that the ICMP has been in

13     operation, when we collected the blood samples we did not have provision

14     at that time for them to provide consent, and therefore we had to go back

15     retroactively in these cases and specifically request it, and it's a very

16     delicate undertaking in terms of contacting the families.

17        Q.   Yes, but after reviewing the documents relating to the Bisina,

18     that is to say, the raw material provided to us by the OTP, we saw that

19     in 30 cases -- or out of the 30 cases, consent of families members was

20     provided in 11 cases, that is to say, from the families living abroad.

21     For example, in the case of Sekovic 04, from Holland, from the USA, from

22     Germany; Sekovic 029, the USA again; Sekovic 07, France, et cetera.

23             This tells me, Mr. Parsons, that this wasn't so problematic at

24     all, particular in view that all these consents were obtained in January

25     and March 2009.

Page 33423

 1        A.   The fact that we have gone to the effort to find the location of,

 2     reach out to and contact people and obtain consent from people living

 3     throughout a wide number of nations, in fact attests to what great effort

 4     it did require and the amount of work that we had to go to in order to,

 5     at this late time, provide information that has been requested.

 6        Q.   I presume that you have been informed that Mr. Popovic's Defence

 7     team applied directly to the ICMP last year with a request for the entire

 8     raw material relating to Srebrenica to be disclosed.  Were you aware of

 9     that?

10        A.   Yes.

11        Q.   In order not to call up this document in e-court for the sake of

12     time saving, do you remember that in your response, although your

13     response was signed by someone else, not yourself, I think that was

14     Mr. Andreas Kleiser, if I pronounce his name correctly, it was said that

15     the obtainment of consent from family members had begun in 2007; is that

16     correct?

17        A.   That was when our forms were modified so that people that we

18     initiated contact with at that time or later would automatically be asked

19     if they wanted to provide waivers.  We did not attempt to -- any

20     retroactive means to contact any of the other family reference samples,

21     the many, many thousands of family reference samples, to go back to them.

22             MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, can we now see in

23     e-court document 1D1371, but can we please not broadcast this document

24     because it contains the name of a person.

25             JUDGE AGIUS:  Thank you, Ms. Tapuskovic.  That's exactly what we

Page 33424

 1     will do.  No broadcast.

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

 3        Q.   This is an excerpt from Exhibit 4494.  It is made up of four

 4     documents that relate to the hospital in Srebrenica, but for the purpose

 5     of our discussion, I only need page 4 of the document.  So can we please

 6     now move to page 4.

 7             Mr. Parsons, do you recognise the DNA report issued by the ICMP?

 8        A.   I recognise that as an ICMP DNA report.  I certainly wouldn't

 9     know that one by -- by specificity.

10        Q.   Mr. Parsons, during our conversation today, for the sake of the

11     protection of the integrity of the victims we are going to refrain from

12     using any names.  We shall, rather, use only numbers.  However, if there

13     are any names shown in the documents, we shall try not to broadcast them

14     for the same reasons that I just explained to you.

15             Let us now just move to the bottom of the document -- or, rather,

16     the last paragraph there.  Since this is very small print, I'm going to

17     read it out to you, Mr. Parsons.

18              "[In English] This record is privileged and confidential and

19     shall be used in legal proceedings only for the purposes of

20     identification unless otherwise authorised with the written consent of

21     living person to which the record refers."

22             [Interpretation] While we still have this document on the screen

23     Mr. Parsons, you will see that this particular DNA report was issued in

24     2005.

25        A.   Noted.

Page 33425

 1        Q.   Thank you.  My colleagues have drawn attention to me that I

 2     omitted the first sentence, and it's very short.  I'm going to read it

 3     out.

 4              "[In English] This record is established by the ICMP for the

 5     sole purpose of identifying the mortal remains of missing persons."

 6             [Interpretation] What follows in this paragraph that I read out,

 7     which is apparently in the form issued by the ICMP, it says that this

 8     document can be used in legal proceedings for the purpose of

 9     identification.  In these proceedings, we are conducting the procedure of

10     identifying the victims relating to Srebrenica.  Tell me now, then, why

11     is it necessary to obtain a separate consent of the family when this

12     document clearly shows in 2005 that this document can be used in legal

13     proceedings for the purpose of establishing identities?

14        A.   I would like to preamble my answer to that by reading the final

15     sentence in that paragraph that we've -- we've read the other parts of so

16     far.  That would be:

17             "Other restrictions may apply.  If in doubt, contact ICMP for

18     further information."

19             With that as a preamble, I would like to go back to -- more

20     specifically to your question with regard to legal proceedings only for

21     the purpose of identification.

22             Well, it turns out that the -- the identifications that the ICMP

23     strives to make are -- or strives to assist in making are legal

24     identifications as determined by the death certificate.  So our aim here

25     is to provide assistance so that the families can have legal closure with

Page 33426

 1     relation to the identification of their loved ones.

 2             Within the ICMP's understanding and within -- within the sense of

 3     the ICMP's policies and the way -- and policies that are absolutely

 4     necessary to conducting our work, we would view the -- the legal

 5     proceedings of this court to be related to criminal prosecution, not to

 6     identification.

 7             At any rate, that is the distinction with which -- which we

 8     clearly make.  That sentence, when it was written, was -- was directed

 9     toward legal processes solely associated with identification and not with

10     criminal prosecution.

11             MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] But can we now see in e-court

12     Exhibit 1D1394.  And I also would kindly ask this document not to be

13     broadcast either.

14        Q.   Mr. Parsons, do you recognise this document?

15        A.   Well, the ICMP has had a number of different form formats in

16     time, and I note that this is in the local language of the former

17     Yugoslavia.  If you could -- it's a consent form; is that correct?

18        Q.   Yes, it is.  I agree with you.  That is why I asked you,

19     Mr. Parsons, if you recognised the document, because there's no

20     translation of this document.  This is a consent of family members of the

21     donor from the Haradinaj case in which the ICMP -- or, rather, the OTP

22     provided a full set of raw data at the request of the Defence.

23             I'm going to read out to you, and I hope the OTP will not object

24     to this, so that you understand what is written in this document.

25             "International Commission for Missing Persons, ICMP, is working

Page 33427

 1     on the collection of blood samples from family members from the persons

 2     missing in the recent conflict in the former Yugoslavia.  From these

 3     samples the ICMP will extract and process DNA data and register them on

 4     the database only for the purpose of assisting the process of

 5     identification.  We are going to abide by strict rules of preservation or

 6     safeguarding of data or -- and any use of these samples for other

 7     purposes will not be allowed.  The DNA donors will -- the identity of the

 8     DNA donors will remain confidential."

 9             If in the Haradinaj case the genetical material, confidential

10     material was disclosed, which is part of the so-called genetic privacy,

11     at the request of the Defence, this kind of consent of the donor's family

12     member is actually disclosed, tell me, then, why is it a problem to

13     disclose the same documents relating to Srebrenica that contain this kind

14     of raw data without going into this complex procedure that you explained

15     to us and that was subsequently implemented on the 30 Bisina cases?

16        A.   In the cases provided for the Haradinaj prosecution that you

17     refer to, we went to exactly the same extensive efforts to retroactively

18     obtain consent from the family members for exactly the same reasons.

19        Q.   Tell me, Mr. Parsons, if we review the issue of privacy and why

20     these data are not divulged, can you tell me precisely what is the reason

21     for this data not to be disclosed -- or, rather, why are you refusing to

22     disclose them without additional consent?  What particular reason of

23     privacy warrants this?

24        A.   Well, there are two reasons at different levels.  The first level

25     seems quite clear.  It's because, as we've just read in this document

Page 33428

 1     you've shown, we've already assured the donors that it would be used for

 2     no purpose.  We've specifically assured individuals that it would not be

 3     used for that purpose.  We are then obligated to stand by our previous

 4     statements.

 5             The reason we established the policy for that is that the ICMP

 6     needs to have the trust of the families.  What we want to do is to have

 7     as many families as possible have recourse to the human rights element of

 8     being able to receive their loved ones back and know their fate, and

 9     therefore we want them to be able to participate in the process without

10     being afraid that they might be involved in some sort of a criminal

11     prosecution that they might otherwise not want to have anything to do

12     with.  They may not have interest in, they may be frightened of the types

13     of things going on here, but they still want their loved ones back, and

14     so the ICMP wanted to establish policies to permit us to do our work for

15     the purpose of returning their family member to them without them being

16     concerned that it would draw them in potentially without their explicit

17     consent into proceedings related to -- such as those in this courtroom.

18        Q.   Mr. Parsons, your job stems from a war that engulfed this region,

19     and crimes were committed on both sides.  Can we then conclude that one

20     of the reasons for the protection of privacy is that perhaps the

21     possibility has been ruled out that some of the individuals whose

22     identity is being established have perhaps been declared war criminals by

23     the other warring party?

24        A.   I think it's conceivable that one might argue that that would be

25     a component of some justification.  I don't recall it having been a

Page 33429

 1     factor in our own considerations.  So the answer that I gave you

 2     previously, I think, is both -- is the sufficient basis and the primary

 3     basis with which we made that policy.

 4        Q.   Is it possible that these genetical information is kept

 5     confidential because they open up possibilities for determining that some

 6     blood relations actually are nonexistent?

 7        A.   I'm -- I'm fairly confident that the answer to that question is

 8     yes, but I think we need to -- to clarify what you meant by the question.

 9     Maybe if you could take another -- another try at it, or phrased slightly

10     differently, or expand on it more clearly, please.

11        Q.   In administrative and legal terms, certain persons are considered

12     blood relatives, but once it reaches the stage of DNA matching, it turns

13     out that they are not actually related to each other.

14        A.   I think -- I think I do know the sense of your question.  Let me

15     just -- just give a clarification that I'm comfortable with and then you

16     can -- you can let me know if I'm addressing the correct issue.

17             When one obtains genetic samples from family members, in this

18     case as reference samples to assist with the identification of their

19     loved ones, one obtains information about what the real genetic

20     relationships are amongst those family members, and sometimes the actual

21     genetic relationships are not those that are either reported to us or

22     believed by the families, and a common -- to give an example that will

23     clarify what I'm talking about is sometimes, as we all know, there are

24     issues of nonpaternity, for example, and those can become apparent in the

25     course of our work, and that in fact is an extremely good reason why we

Page 33430

 1     maintain absolute control over the privacy of the genetic information.

 2        Q.   Thank you for this answer.  Mr. Parsons, let us now go back to

 3     the Bisina cases and the raw material supplied to us.

 4             MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Therefore, I would kindly ask

 5     document 1D1334 to be shown in e-court and not to be broadcasts.

 6             This is a large document, some 80 pages, and it's a complete set

 7     of raw material pertaining to SEK 040 case.

 8             If we can zoom in on the upper part.

 9        Q.   Sir, do you see the line which says "Case number"?  There is a

10     marking, VIS 01, which is the marking for the site or the grave, SEK 40 B

11     (Zmax).  This B, I suppose, means -- stands for body?

12        A.   I don't know.  That's the -- the case number is simply a site

13     code that is assigned outside of the ICMP.

14        Q.   But since this is something that appears on a regular basis on

15     all ICMP's identification lists, I'm interested in this letter B after

16     the figure 4.  I'm not asking you about the site code.  I understand that

17     this is absolutely none of our business.

18        A.   I apologise.  I may have misspoken.  I meant the case number is

19     assigned outside of the ICMP system.  I have no information of certainty

20     to provide you with regard to that B or any other information in the case

21     number.

22        Q.   Well, perhaps it's my fault, Mr. Parsons, and I wasn't precise in

23     my question.  This B after the 040, does that -- is that B for body?

24     Does that mean that it's a body?

25        A.   Ma'am, I don't know.

Page 33431

 1        Q.   Very well.

 2             MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] May we move on to page 2,

 3     please.  Thank you.

 4        Q.   In the lower left-hand corner, in the black rectangle, black box,

 5     there you'll see the sample that was taken from the body of a person who

 6     has the markings 040 B, and according to all our information, this is a

 7     tooth taken for DNA analysis, and we can see that from the report on the

 8     exhumation, and we'll look at that in just a moment?

 9             Now, when DNA analyses are conducted, Mr. Parsons, tell us,

10     please, whether I -- or tell me whether I understand the process.

11     There's an initial examination.  Then you conduct a statistical

12     information and then a final examination; is that right?

13        A.   I'm sorry, those terms are not specific enough for me to quite

14     understand what you're -- I'm not able to say yes or no to that question

15     as stated.  Are you speaking about levels of review of the -- of the

16     findings?

17        Q.   Possibly those are levels of review of findings.  I'm looking at

18     the documents that I have in front of me, but let's move on to the next

19     page of this document.

20             The next thing we have is the decoded DNA report.

21             MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] May we scroll down so we can see

22     the bottom of the document better.

23        Q.   Now, here, Mr. Parsons, where the signatures are, we have

24     "Statistical calculation," "Initial review ," "Statistical review," and

25     "Final review."

Page 33432

 1        A.   Yes, ma'am.

 2        Q.   That's what I was referring to, those stages.

 3             Tell me now, please, Mr. Parsons, are these reviews conducted by

 4     the same people or different people?

 5        A.   In general, different people.

 6             MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, perhaps this is a

 7     good moment to take the break.

 8             JUDGE AGIUS:  I didn't stop you before precisely to let you

 9     finish the chain of questions.

10             We can have a break of 25 minutes now.  Thank you.

11                           --- Recess taken at 3.48 p.m.

12                           --- On resuming at 4.18 p.m.

13             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, Ms. Tapuskovic.  Are we nearing the end?

14             MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour.  I think I'll

15     need the whole of the next session to complete my examination of

16     Professor Parsons.

17             JUDGE AGIUS:  Thank you.  Is there anybody else cross-examining

18     this witness?  Okay.  Go ahead, please.  Thank you.

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

20        Q.   Mr. Parsons, can we continue where we left off?  I was asking you

21     about the difference between the initial review, statistical review, and

22     final review, and I asked you whether these reviews are conducted by the

23     same person.

24        A.   Different persons, ma'am.

25        Q.   Are these reviews conducted simultaneously or at different

Page 33433

 1     periods?

 2        A.   Sequentially, ma'am.

 3        Q.   Thank you.  I asked you about the B and the number 040, and you

 4     said you didn't know what that stood for.  Do you know what the marking

 5     BP stands for that is placed along with the numbers linked to certain

 6     victims?

 7        A.   I know what it means when the ICMP uses them in some cases.  I

 8     don't know what it means unless I know that the ICMP has sampled the

 9     remains according to a recent SOP.  I don't believe it's the case that

10     the ICMP did any sampling here, so I will say -- I will not provide any

11     opinion as to what B or BP means in this case.

12        Q.   Can you tell us, and we'll have to move the document to the left

13     slightly for the next question, can you tell us, Mr. Parsons, in that

14     black box, the first line says BIS 01 SEK 040 B and then we have Zmax 1.

15     Do you know what this Zmax 1 stands for, means?

16        A.   The same answer applies.

17        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Parsons.  Now, you said that you provided the ICMP

18     latest list of identified persons in February this year to the

19     Prosecution, and if we look at that list, which has about 10.600 entries,

20     you will see that almost every second or third entry has some markings in

21     the case ID.  The B, it has the B or a BP or F or Z -- rather, Z.  So how

22     is it possible if you supply this list and if you deal with

23     identifications, you don't know what these letters stand for and they're

24     to be found on most of the entries in the list?

25        A.   Very simple answer.  Those are simply the names of the samples

Page 33434

 1     that come to us.  The ICMP didn't give those names.  They could be any

 2     number of things.  In fact, in the experience of the ICMP, you can

 3     imagine virtually any type of sample code.  We simply do not dictate or

 4     take responsibility for what the samples are named when they come to us.

 5     They could have been named Bob and Bob would be written on that list.

 6        Q.   Mr. Parsons, I remember when you were testifying last year that

 7     we dealt with methodology and the work of the ICMP and the application of

 8     the standard operative procedures, SOPs, and as far as I remember, there

 9     was a standard operative procedure which related to the cleaning of teeth

10     and bones; is that right?  Do you agree?

11        A.   Yes, ma'am.

12        Q.   It's difficult for me to accept your answer when you say that you

13     don't know how your institution marks a sample, which, for example, can

14     mean a tooth sample.

15        A.   Ma'am, our institution does not mark those.  They come to us from

16     outside agencies.  We handled the plane crash in Cameroon.  They had

17     their own code system.  We simply call it what it was called when it was

18     given to us.

19        Q.   Tell me, please, who then does the case ID, assigns the case ID?

20        A.   Typically and probably in this case I would imagine it's the

21     pathologist who perform the sampling.

22        Q.   And who assigns the protocol ID?

23        A.   That is definitely an ICMP number.  We assign that.

24        Q.   So then I conclude that it is the -- that the ICMP is also

25     assigned by the international commission.

Page 33435

 1        A.   I'm sorry, I didn't understand that question.

 2        Q.   We have three types of annotations in each of the list of

 3     identified persons, the case ID, and you told us about that.  You said

 4     you can't define who assigns this.  Then you said for the protocol ID,

 5     which determines -- which is determined by your international commission,

 6     and then there is the ICMP ID.  So is it the international commission

 7     which assigns an ICMP ID as well?

 8        A.   The ID number and the protocol number are both internally

 9     generated tracking numbers for our own purposes.

10        Q.   Well, if you don't know what the case ID is composed of, how do

11     you know what type of identification it is in each specific case?

12        A.   I don't know what you mean by "what type of identification."

13        Q.   How do you know from the documents you have and the documents I

14     showed you whether it is a procedure of identification for main case or

15     reassociation?

16        A.   That has to do with how the DNA matches were made.  So if we --

17     if we obtain a sample and we photo document what it is, in this case it

18     is quite obviously a tooth, and we have a unique identifier for that.

19     That's the case number.  We don't care what it is.  There is no

20     restrictions on what that is.  We obtain a DNA profile for that and then

21     we compare it to the family references.  If we get a match and a -- a

22     determination that that sample relates to the family, then we call that

23     the main case, because we have now put a name on a DNA -- on a sample

24     that's been given to us.  If we subsequently find another part of the

25     same individual, we call that a reassociation, because that reassociates

Page 33436

 1     to a case that has previously been identified as well.

 2             So the first time we identify it it's the main case, and any

 3     additional parts of the same individual that are discovered, that are

 4     identified by DNA, become reassociation cases.

 5        Q.   But you told me a moment ago that from this document, the one I

 6     showed you, that you cannot establish whether it's a tooth or some other

 7     bodily part.  Now you say it's a tooth.  So how come you concluded that

 8     this is a tooth?  On the basis of what I told you; right?

 9        A.   No, ma'am.  There's a picture of a tooth there in the photo

10     documentation of the evidence.

11        Q.   Very well.  Now, tell us, Mr. Parsons, the document that you have

12     before you, what does it represent?

13             MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] And could we zoom out so we

14     could see the whole document, please.  Thank you.

15             THE WITNESS:  You would like me just to describe in general what

16     this is and its purpose, et cetera?

17             MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]

18        Q.   Yes.

19        A.   Okay.

20        Q.   Tell me what type of document this is.  Yes, precisely as you put

21     it.

22        A.   This is an internal ICMP DNA match report.  So this is -- this is

23     sort of the summary of the findings with regard to this case, and so what

24     we have at the very top is the sample number as it was supplied to us.

25     Again, nothing to do with our choosing or any requirements as to its

Page 33437

 1     content.  The BIS 01 SEK, et cetera, that's the sample number.

 2             Beneath it is a code that we have associated with that sample for

 3     our own tracking purposes, so that's just what it gets called as it goes

 4     through the laboratory system in the computers.  And then to the right of

 5     that is the DNA profile that we've obtained for the sample and that is

 6     depicted by a series of numbers that relate to things called alleles, and

 7     at any rate, we type these two alleles for each of 16 different locations

 8     in the DNA of an individual and so that's listed there.  And those would

 9     reflect the findings of the electropherograms that are in the -- in the

10     full data reports that you've received.

11             Beneath that in the next block are additional individuals --

12     relate to additional individuals who are the reference families in

13     this -- reference family members in this case.  So we have a match for

14     this sample on a particular named individual, and then that person's wife

15     and three sons that were provided as references for that missing

16     individual.  Their genetic profiles are also listed there.

17             And then -- so that's kind of the primary set of information by

18     which the DNA calculations are made, and then as you noted, there's a

19     photograph in the lower left.  That represents one of the photo

20     documentation pieces.  It's just a way to indicate that we track

21     carefully what we get in and what it relates to.  And then a conclusion

22     statement to the right that describes the results of the DNA statistical

23     analysis that tells us the statistical surety with which the named

24     individual can be associated with those family reference samples in the

25     manner indicated on this report.

Page 33438

 1             Now, I mentioned at the outset of all of that this is an internal

 2     -- ICMP internal DNA match report and what that means is it's the one

 3     that is used for -- to complete a review process.  So there are a number

 4     of levels of review.  First is the signature by the individual who found

 5     this match by performing the DNA database comparisons and -- and entered

 6     it into the system.  The next is the person who then took the information

 7     as represented on here and perform the statistical calculation.  The

 8     third individual signed there, it says initial review, is the person --

 9     so -- at the end of those two analyses really all the work has been done.

10     So there is no more information to be generated in the case, but we have

11     two additional levels of checking to review.

12             So then we would have an initial review where someone looks over

13     everything to say, yes, it's -- it's in order.  I've -- I've checked it.

14     It's right.

15             We have statistical review which is a second person independently

16     pulls the data in and regenerates the statistical calculation.  This

17     is -- this is the numerical part of it and compares it to the previous

18     result.  When that level of review is completed then it goes to one of

19     the senior members of the laboratory, and that person reviews all the

20     information and then -- and then signs that it appears to be correct.

21             And so after this is done, then -- then this internal report goes

22     back to the identification coordination division, which then generates

23     a -- a DNA match report very similar to this one for external

24     distribution, and the primary difference between the internal one and the

25     externally distributed one is that in the external copy the DNA

Page 33439

 1     information is scrambled in a way to protect genetic privacy.

 2             I apologise if that was a lengthy answer.

 3        Q.   Very well.  You gave -- provided us with a detailed explanation.

 4     Tell me now, this DNA report that you have before you on the screen, is

 5     it coded or not coded?

 6        A.   The one on the screen is not coded.  That would be the internal

 7     one that we look at for -- so that we can check everything.

 8        Q.   So if on this uncoded internal report -- well, if we look at it,

 9     you mentioned the allele, and if relook at the seventh and eighth box, we

10     have a D18 gene, S51.  Can you see that?

11             MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] If we can zoom into the upper

12     left-hand corner, please.

13        Q.   Can you see that Mr. Parsons?

14        A.   Yes, ma'am, I can.

15        Q.   Now, let's go to the electropherogram two pages on in this same

16     document.

17             If we look at the fourth group of these peaks here, we'll see

18     that it says 15, 18, and 20.  That's the group, 15, 18, 20; right?

19        A.   Yes.

20        Q.   Could you tell me -- well, on the previous page in the report,

21     the uncoded report, you saw that in the fourth locus, in the allele, we

22     have numbers 00.00.  So may we just go back two pages to the document we

23     were looking at earlier on.

24             And can you tell me, please, why the values of this gene 8 -- let

25     me read the exact number, D18S51, which in the electropherogram are

Page 33440

 1     marked by 15, 18, and 20, have not been included in this report?

 2        A.   Strictly speaking, I think I have to answer no, that I could not

 3     tell you that, but what I can do is tell you what -- some general reasons

 4     why those alleles would -- why alleles are sometimes marked 00.  And the

 5     reason I just don't feel like it's proper for me to be more specific is

 6     that I would have to look at more of the genetic information in this

 7     case, but -- but let me take -- take an attempt to -- to describe the --

 8     the type of considerations that going on here and the types of things we

 9     might see.

10             What the 00 means is that the genetic information at that locus,

11     this D1 8, et cetera, was not deemed by the ICMP to have been accurately

12     recovered to the level of scientific surety that we are comfortable with.

13     So when you deal with these degraded skeletal remains that have been in

14     harsh environments for long periods of time, it becomes a very

15     specialised type of DNA testing, and it happens that the DNA becomes

16     degraded over time.  So the DNA becomes damaged and fragmented and

17     attacked by microorganisms, et cetera.  So because the DNA has been

18     fragmented, sometimes it's difficult to recover the information to make

19     these allele calls.  So one has to have quite conservative guidelines to

20     make sure that if you -- if you see it and you call it, that you're

21     positive that -- that's what it is.

22             So in this case if we could jump to the -- the next allele -- the

23     next picture that shows the electropherogram.

24        Q.   Mr. Parsons, but I'd like to dwell on the particular

25     electropherogram that we were looking at?

Page 33441

 1        A.   Yes, ma'am.  I just asked that that be put up.

 2        Q.   If you say that the values expressed here, that is to say,

 3     15, 18, and 20, if those are the values with those peaks from the

 4     electropherogram for the gene that I mentioned were not transferred to

 5     the internal report where it says 00, in fact we don't have a match

 6     between the electropherogram data and the DN report data.  They don't

 7     match?

 8        A.   No, ma'am, that's not the way to consider it at all.  As I said

 9     before, we have very conservative guidelines for determining a genetic

10     profile, and if we decide that we're not sufficiently sure about a

11     particular genetic designation, we say we don't know and that's what the

12     00 means.  The -- the criteria that we employ have not been met and

13     instead of adding that genetic information to the case, we -- we -- we in

14     a conservative manner say we didn't obtain that information.  So any

15     strength that that genetic information would add to the case is not going

16     to be accessed.

17             So -- so it's not that there's a discrepancy.  It's that we say

18     we don't know what it is.  It's perfectly consistent with being a 18 and

19     20.  You'll -- or a 15 and a 20, for example, with relation to that

20     electropherogram.

21             Now what I'm not prepared to do is start discussing the precise

22     circumstances under which that determination was made by the DNA

23     analysts, because I don't have enough information in front of me.  I

24     would need to go through the entire case file and take a fair amount of

25     time.  But what I would say is that I think it's very likely -- if you'll

Page 33442

 1     please bear with me, I'm going to speculate briefly to -- to -- in order

 2     to give you an example of the types of reasons why we would want to be

 3     conservative in a case like this.

 4             We see three numbers on this electropherogram at this case.  We

 5     see a large 15 and a large 20.  Normally one sees only two alleles at a

 6     particular locus but there's an additional little bump called an 18 that

 7     is presumably some sort of minor artefact or very possibly an extremely

 8     minor contaminant that is -- just managed to pop itself up above the

 9     background here.  So because that introduced just a little bit of

10     uncertainty with relation to the 15 and the 20, we said, you know what?

11     We believe it's a 15, 20.  I'm speculating here, but I think it's very,

12     very likely that -- that the correct genotype would be a 15 and a 20, but

13     because that 18 popped its little self in there, we decided to be extra

14     conservative and not take advantage of the additional information

15     provided by the 15 and the 20.

16             These type of -- by the way, I would like to back this discussion

17     up by saying these types of considerations, while possibly difficult to

18     follow in the courtroom with my discussion, are absolutely standard

19     interpretation issues in the DNA field, and designation of a locus as a 0

20     in circumstances like this is -- is a conservative practice consistent

21     with forensic best practices.

22        Q.   And those circumstances, Mr. Parsons, are that at that point in

23     time for the gene you cannot provide any certain data, as you've

24     explained to us; is that right?

25        A.   That's correct.

Page 33443

 1        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Parsons.  Now, let's move on, and we'll stay with

 2     this document.  Just remember the date, please, on this electropherogram.

 3     Just remember that date in the upper right-hand corner where it says the

 4     14th of September, 2006.  Right, Mr. Parsons?

 5        A.   Okay.  I note that.

 6        Q.   Now in the middle at the top we see that it says August the 31st,

 7     2006.  Can you see that, Mr. Parsons?

 8        A.   Yes.

 9        Q.   Fine.  Now, the date and hour on the right-hand side in the

10     right-hand corner, does that mean when the printout was made of this

11     electropherogram?  Is that what it denotes?

12        A.   Ma'am, I don't actually perform these manipulations in the

13     laboratory and I'm sorry to say I can't give you a definitive answer on

14     that.  I think what you just said is correct.

15        Q.   Thank you.

16             MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we now please move to

17     page 36 of this document.

18        Q.   Mr. Parsons, can you look at the top right-hand corner.  The date

19     is 23rd of March, 20 -- and because this is a bad photocopy, we can't see

20     the year.

21             If we saw a minute ago that the DNA report, the internal report,

22     was compiled in 2006, if we look at the calendar, the 23rd of May --

23     March could only be in 2009.  Does that indicate that this document, this

24     printout, was made again on the 23rd of March, 2009?

25        A.   Well, I think it's rather inconvenient that we can't see those

Page 33444

 1     two numbers, but I think it is a possibility, yes.

 2        Q.   Thank you.

 3             MS. TAPUSKOVIC [Interpretation] Can we now move to page 64.

 4        Q.   What you see in front of you is Worklist number 1, dated the

 5     19th of February, 2009.  Can you see that, Mr. Parsons?

 6        A.   Yes, ma'am.

 7        Q.   If we look somewhere in the middle of this page --

 8             MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] And if we can please zoom in the

 9     middle part of the document so that we can see the letter B.

10        Q.   You see the marking B08, B09, and B10.  Have you found them,

11     Mr. Parsons?

12        A.   Yes.

13        Q.   After each of these markings, B08, B09, B10, there's a code

14     number, 0007422, 0007421, and 0007420.  These are the codes assigned to

15     the relatives by the ICMP relative -- laboratory.  These are the wife and

16     two sons of the victim SEK 03.

17             If we look at the date, which is the 19th of February, 2009, am I

18     right in saying that these samples for these relatives, the wife and two

19     sons, were analysed again on the 19th of February, 2009?

20        A.   That's correct.

21        Q.   Thank you.  When we were looking at this large document

22     containing raw data relating to SEK 04, we saw that the initial

23     statistical and final review were carried out in 2006.  Can you explain

24     to me the need for additional analysis for these three relatives to be

25     carried out on the 19th of February, 2009, given that there was already

Page 33445

 1     an intention on the part of the OTP to disclose to us the raw material

 2     relating to the Bisina site?

 3        A.   Yes, ma'am, I can.  When Mr. Vanderpuye first started asking me

 4     some questions, he asked about the -- the provision of these -- of these

 5     full data reports and if there had been any question -- any issues that

 6     arose in putting them together, and if I remember correctly, I answered

 7     that there were some cases where the previous genetic information that we

 8     utilised was done so long ago that it didn't conform well to current-day

 9     standards in the laboratory.  As you know, we're presently highly

10     accredited, et cetera.  And so in an abundance of caution and to provide

11     the court with the best information we could about the correctness of the

12     result, we went back to actually check again to make sure that those

13     previous profiles were genotyped correctly.

14             What I didn't add in response to that question because of sort of

15     the pace of things here was that there were also a small number of those

16     blood profiles, which we were not able to locate from that period of time

17     and in light of the fact that we had difficulty in pulling forward the

18     genetic -- the electropherogram from that time, which we do view with

19     some concern, we did go ahead and take all the blood samples relevant to

20     these Bisina cases and retype them to confirm that the previous results

21     we had found are correct and to provide that information to you in lieu

22     of those that we weren't able to recover.

23        Q.   Am I right to conclude that on that occasion when you decided to

24     disclose the Bisina raw material felt the need to check the accurate --

25     accuracy of all the information that you obtained a few years before?

Page 33446

 1        A.   Given that for reasons we're not exactly sure of -- in some of

 2     these cases we weren't able to provide the information to you, we

 3     certainly did decide that the best thing to do would be to type them

 4     again to permit the accuracy of the match itself to be assessed using the

 5     highest standards possible in DNA typing of today.

 6        Q.   Mr. Parsons, you were preparing with the OTP for your giving

 7     evidence, and as I can see from this paper, you met with them on the

 8     27th.

 9        A.   Yes, ma'am.

10        Q.   In the course of your preparations for today's testimony, you

11     stated the following, inter alia, this has been stated in the proof

12     notes:

13             "[Previous translation continues] ... [In English] Some of the

14     data gathered in respect of the Bisina-related case files, part of the

15     raw data could not longer be located.  Several of these files were

16     complied [sic] by the DNA lab in Tuzla.  The witness stated that in

17     somewhere around 25 per cent of cases, for example, an electropherograms

18     of one of the donors may not have been located."

19             [Interpretation] From this work list number 1, can one see that a

20     DNA analysis was repeated for these three donors.  These are 7422, 7421,

21     and 7420, the wife and two sons, and the reasons were because you were

22     not able to locate their electropherograms, so that is to say, the

23     previously taken raw samples or raw material.

24        A.   I don't have memorised which cases -- which instances this would

25     apply to and which it would not, but what you just said is perfectly

Page 33447

 1     consistent with what -- what did happen in a number of cases and I

 2     wouldn't doubt at all that that is what happened with these.

 3        Q.   On page 48, line 17, you said that certain things from the moment

 4     when either blood or bone samples were taken, circumstances changed in

 5     the interim period and certain new SOPs came into force.  Can you tell

 6     me, please, whether these new SOPs could have provided you with different

 7     results or do you absolutely confirm that the results are identical?

 8        A.   In the case of the Bisina samples when we did type them again we

 9     compared them to the genetic information that was used in the preparation

10     of the match report, and it confirmed without change any of the -- all of

11     the matches.

12        Q.   Tell me, please, does this story about misplaced raw material

13     happened also in case of other sites or is this uniquely the case with

14     the Bisina site?

15        A.   We're reviewing what we can do to recover that information, but,

16     no, we wouldn't -- we wouldn't say that it's restricted only to the

17     Bisina cases.  It relates to work that was done in Tuzla around the 2003

18     era, and we -- we're currently attempting to determine the extent to

19     which we can't find these samples, that is to say, the electropherograms.

20     It has to do with the changeover of a computer platform, and so there

21     might be an informatic solution to this, but we're looking into it.

22        Q.   Do you know approximately how many new re-examinations and how

23     many repeated DNA analysis were perform?

24        A.   For the Bisina case we did all of the blood samples.  And this

25     problem having recently come to our attention, we haven't addressed it

Page 33448

 1     with -- we haven't specifically addressed this question with additional

 2     retyping.

 3        Q.   So you don't know that the same problem exists regarding some

 4     other sites.  Of course, we are talking about Srebrenica.

 5        A.   Yes, ma'am, that's a possibility.

 6        Q.   Tell me, sir, when did you first identified this problem

 7     time-wise?  When did you realise that the problem with the Bisina raw

 8     material and their storage in or on computers existed?

 9        A.   I can't give you a date, but it's somewhere, I think, around

10     February or March in the process of compiling this information for you.

11        Q.   You mean February or March this year?

12        A.   Yes, ma'am.

13        Q.   Thank you.  You said yourself that the issue here is the storage

14     of data on computers, and that was the cause of the whole problem.

15     Usually we used to receive from the OTP all the information relating to

16     the exhumations, excavations, autopsies, and identifications, and we

17     received all this information in electronic form.  Now, in the case of

18     Bisina, we also received the material in an electronic form.

19             Can you tell us, why did you disclose this as hard copies?

20        A.   I don't remember discussing an alternative.  I think we felt like

21     that was what was -- what was desired.  There's no particular reason why

22     it couldn't have been provided electronically.

23        Q.   I asked you about the previous document, the one that contains

24     electropherogram, and I asked you about the date in the upper right-hand

25     corner, and you told me it was possible that it was the date when the

Page 33449

 1     printout was made.  Can you tell me, is there any difference between the

 2     information visible in a computer data file and the information that one

 3     can see in a printout?

 4        A.   Yes, there can be, mm-hmm.

 5        Q.   Does that mean, Mr. Parsons, that the printout shows in its top

 6     right-hand corner only the date when this individual document was

 7     printed, but we cannot see when the exact processing of the DNA material

 8     was done?

 9        A.   If you'll recall, I suggested some uncertainty as to what that

10     date meant, and I apologise.  I don't know if that's the date that that

11     was printed or whether it was the date that the analysis was run.  That

12     was -- that was the level of uncertainty I had.

13        Q.   Can you tell me, do you know does the printout show when this

14     data file was generated, when the analysis was conducted?  Does the

15     printout show that at all or can it just be seen in the electronic form?

16        A.   Can we look at the page again?

17        Q.   By all means, Mr. Parsons.

18             MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Let us go back.  I think that

19     was page 5.

20        Q.   I asked you about the date in the top right-hand corner, and I

21     asked you whether that was the date when this electropherogram was

22     printed.

23        A.   Yes.  Thank you for putting it back up.  I'm sorry, it doesn't

24     help me know whether that's the print date or whether that is the -- the

25     date that the Genotyper analysis was done.  I think it was the latter,

Page 33450

 1     but I'm sorry because I'm not the one that handles these.  I just don't

 2     know the answer to that question.  That is a question that the ICMP knows

 3     the answer to, the DNA laboratory technical staff, but I don't.

 4             JUDGE AGIUS:  Dr. Parsons, the second line below the date

 5     14 September 2006, reads "Genotype," and then the registered mark, and

 6     then there is 3.7 that I can read, possibly it could be 3. something

 7     else.  Does that mean anything to you?

 8             THE WITNESS:  Yes, it does.  That is simply the software

 9     programme that converts the raw data into a form that can be digitalised

10     in terms of these peaks.  So that's just an internal instrumentation

11     software programme.

12             JUDGE AGIUS:  Okay.  Thank you.

13             MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] May I continue?  Thank you,

14     Your Honours.

15        Q.   If we can now go back to page 36 that we saw a while ago and I

16     asked you a question about it.

17             My question was as follows:  The first line at the very top

18     indicates the date, and we concluded that the date was the

19     24th of February, 2009.  It says "Check Kornelia [as interpreted]" and

20     the date in the right-hand corner is March 23rd.  Am I right to conclude

21     that the analysis has been carried out by someone called Kornelia in

22     February 2009 and that the printout was made on the 23rd of March of the

23     same year?

24        A.   I have to confess that I personally don't know exactly the answer

25     to that.  Something like that is extremely reasonable.

Page 33451

 1        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Parsons.  We shall now move to a new topic.  When

 2     you receive a DNA report and when a DNA report on identification is

 3     compiled, you then notify the family of the result; is that correct?

 4        A.   No, ma'am.  The ICMP does not notify families.  That's a function

 5     that has to be conducted within the legal system of Bosnia, and that's --

 6     relates -- our reports exit the ICMP when they are handed over to the

 7     pathologist who is actually in charge of determining identity and issuing

 8     death certificates and interfacing with the families.

 9        Q.   But if we go back to page 1 of this document -- in fact, page 3.

10             MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] If I can have it, please.  And I

11     would kindly ask this not to be broadcast.

12        Q.   You can see in the left corner that it says "Possible identity."

13     Can you tell us why this has been phrased like this, "Possible identity"?

14        A.   Well, forensic scientists like to be extremely circumspect, and

15     so we use the word "possible" even when there's the minutest fraction of

16     a statistical chance that it might be -- might not be true.

17             So in the conclusion statement of the -- of the match report, we

18     have the probability of relatedness is greater than 99.9999.  We don't

19     feel it's the ICMP's job to say that a level of certainty of 99.999, et

20     cetera, equates to identity.  We turn this report over to the pathologist

21     and let him make that conclusion.

22        Q.   Very well.  But to whom do you forward your reports?  Is it the

23     Cantonal Court, as you did in the case of Srebrenica?  Then, I suppose,

24     that you actually forward the results of your analysis to the competent

25     authority of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

Page 33452

 1        A.   My understanding is that that goes through the -- the

 2     court-appointed pathologist, and then it's up to him to integrate it into

 3     the system.

 4             MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we please now call up

 5     document 1D1347 in e-court, please.  We have a translation of this

 6     document as well, and can this be shown to the witness, please.  Thank

 7     you.

 8        Q.   This is the cover page of the document obtained by the Popovic

 9     Defence team, and it is a letter that came from Republika Srpska.

10     Enclosed hereto is the letter of -- I apologise.  My mistake -- of the

11     Bosnian Institute for Missing Persons that used to be called the

12     Federal Commission for Missing Persons.

13             MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we now move to page 2,

14     please.

15        Q.   Sir, if you could be so kind to read this letter first so that

16     you can learn what it says.  Or, rather, it would be maybe easier for me

17     to read this for the Bench and for all the parties in the courtroom.

18              "Further to your memorandum of the above number and date, we

19     hereby inform you that the institute has details of 3.214 identified

20     victims of genocide buried in the Memorial Complex in Potocari and

21     168 identified victims buried in several local Muslim graveyards.

22              "We also have information that the DNA laboratory in Tuzla has

23     completed the preliminary identification of about 2.000 other victims who

24     have still not been identified by their next of kin.

25              "The DNA method has been used to make a preliminary

Page 33453

 1     identification of these victims, but since only parts of their skeletal

 2     remains have been exhumed, mainly from so-called secondary mass graves,

 3     it was not possible to reassemble and complete the skeletons.

 4              "In some instances parts of the same victim have been found in

 5     five different mass graves, and skeletons have been (incompletely) put

 6     together from ten different bags.

 7              "It is therefore impossible to answer the question of how many

 8     victims from Srebrenica killed in July 1995 have been exhumed so far."

 9             Mr. Parsons, here a local authority, that is the Institute for

10     Missing Persons, speaks about preliminary identifications, and they say

11     that there were about 2.000 preliminary identifications not yet

12     recognised or acknowledged by members of the families of the victims of

13     the events in Srebrenica.

14             What connection can there be between the figure here, 2.000 for

15     the preliminary identifications, with the preliminary identifications

16     that you conduct in your Institute for Missing Persons?

17        A.   Well, I believe that largely they're speaking about the same

18     thing.  So again the issue of case closure that I addressed earlier has

19     come up here, and the pathologists like to return the -- the remains to

20     the families.  That's what they mean by identified by the families.  They

21     take the case to the family and present it and turn it over.  They only

22     do that once all the parts of the body have been found from the different

23     graves, and we haven't exhumed all the graves yet.  So we will have

24     instances where we've made DNA matches, and those were in that list we've

25     been discussing, those were the DNA matches in that list, but they don't

Page 33454

 1     correspond to cases that have been closed because not all the remains

 2     have been found.  It's very common phenomenon.

 3             I don't know about this value of 2.000 or how they calculated it

 4     there, but as we've noted previously in the proceedings today, there's a

 5     large difference between the number of individual DNA match reports and

 6     the number of cases closed, and it's exactly the same phenomenon they're

 7     describing.  The number of -- of individuals, names that we have from

 8     Srebrenica graves that correspond to match reports is greater than the

 9     number of closed cases by around 2.000, if I'm not -- or more.  I'd have

10     to look at the numbers, but that's consistent with what we saw earlier.

11        Q.   But when we look at the letter, it was compiled on the

12     8th of August, 2008, and I'm sure you will agree with me when I say that

13     the Institute for Missing Persons established by the government of

14     Bosnia-Herzegovina as an official organ of that -- of that state

15     recognises only 3.214 identifications at that point in time, plus 168

16     which were buried in individual grave -- graves.  Do you agree with me

17     there?

18        A.   I agree with that, that's what's indicated in this letter.  I

19     don't know what information that this particular director accessed in

20     order to put that number on this piece of paper.

21        Q.   He is the director of the institute, the founder of which is the

22     Government of Bosnia-Herzegovina, but do you agree with me that means

23     that in 2.000 cases - it says approximately or about 2.000 - the next of

24     kin did not accept the identification; right?

25        A.   They have not been presented with the identification.

Page 33455

 1        Q.   I'll read this again, what it says again.  I can't find it.  I

 2     can't find the place where it says that.  Yes.  "2.000 victims who have

 3     still not been identified by their next of kin," whereas the preliminary

 4     identification has been completed.

 5             Now, do you agree that in this case the next of kin do not accept

 6     the identification because, as it says here, only individual body parts

 7     were found, not the complete body?

 8        A.   No, I wouldn't assume that's the meaning here.  Now I want you --

 9     we need to understand that I don't know what went into the writing of

10     this letter, and I don't know what went into the translation of this

11     letter, but my -- my experience and understanding of the situation here

12     is that in the cases that he's referring to where they have not been

13     identified by the next of kin, what that refers to is cases that have not

14     been taken to the families because the cases are not complete yet.

15             What happens is we get a DNA match report on the lower leg of an

16     individual, and the families at this point are not systematically

17     notified at that time of that because it is so extremely traumatic for

18     them.  There's been a long history of how these cases are handled in

19     Bosnia, and it turns out to inflict greater pain on the families to go --

20     to present evidence of the dismemberment of their loved one when what

21     they really want is to be able to close the case on the entirety of the

22     remains.

23        Q.   With all due respect to the emotions of the next of kin and

24     families in situations of this kind, you have not denied today that in a

25     certain number of cases the families do not accept the identification,

Page 33456

 1     quite simply.

 2        A.   I deny that -- that I believe it is a number anything close to

 3     the 2.000 referred to in this paper or that that's what he had in mind

 4     when he listed that.  I -- there are certainly in the history of the many

 5     thousands of cases that have been handled where the families have denied

 6     identifications for a wide range of reasons.  One of the most common is

 7     that we have mothers that are unwilling to accept the notion that their

 8     loved one is dead regardless of whatever evidence is given to them.  But

 9     the number of cases where -- where families have denied identifications

10     is extremely small relative to any of the numbers that -- that we have

11     here.

12        Q.   Very well.  We have here in this document that that figure is

13     about 2.000, and we'll leave it to the Trial Chamber.

14             Now, I'm going to move on to another area, Mr. Parsons.  We have

15     received in electronic form a list of identified persons which is under

16     P5494, and Dusan Janc, the investigator, has talked to us about that.

17     Even in Exhibit P3517, dated November 2008, we see that the table of

18     identified persons was made up in different colours.  One colour was

19     grey, another colour according to Dusan Janc was green or greenish, one

20     was pink, and one was orange.  Now, did you notice on that list that

21     there were different colours which demonstrate certain things?

22        A.   I just want to make sure I know what we're referring to.  What is

23     the Exhibit P3517?

24        Q.   I apologise to you, Mr. Parsons.  I wanted to provide the

25     references for the Trial Chamber and the other participants in the

Page 33457

 1     proceeding.  They're exhibits with that number, and they are updated ICMP

 2     data which we received from the Prosecutor.  So one is -- when I said

 3     3517, it's an updated list dated July 2008, but we'll come back to the

 4     latest list -- let's go back to the latest list.

 5             MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] And may we ask the usher's

 6     assistance here.

 7             Your Honours, with your permission, I'd like to show this list

 8     that we received yesterday to the witness.  Thank you.

 9             JUDGE KWON:  Or we can use the sample page, 4493.

10             JUDGE AGIUS:  Depends on whether she is going to refer only

11     generally to the document or whether she has specific pages, multiple

12     pages.

13             I don't know what you have in mind, Ms. Tapuskovic.

14             MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I'd just like to have it noted

15     that different colours were used and then we'll continue with e-court.

16     Thank you, Your Honours.

17             JUDGE AGIUS:  We can take up Judge Kwon's suggestion, of course.

18             MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I don't mind what

19     page it is.  We'll get to that in due course.  Thank you.

20        Q.   I'd just like to ask you, Mr. Parsons, whether this table is

21     multi-coloured, because we can't see that on e-court.

22        A.   Yes.

23        Q.   That's all I needed to establish with that document.  We won't

24     need it any more.

25             Now, yesterday we heard testimony from Mr. Dusan Janc, an

Page 33458

 1     investigator of the ICTY OTP, and on page 71 of the transcript yesterday

 2     he said that the colours had certain meanings.  The green colour or

 3     greenish colour, and I would rather say that it's pink or yellow, but

 4     never mind, he said that they were marked cases of when the families were

 5     not informed about the identification, that they were not notified of the

 6     identification.

 7             I'll tell you exactly what Mr. Janc said.  913:

 8             "[In English] So if you see the colour, the entries in this

 9     colour, that means that the relatives of this particular individual,

10     individual have not been informed about the result of -- of the DN

11     match."

12             [Interpretation] Can you confirm that that is what this colour

13     denotes?

14        A.   No, I can't.  I don't know what that colour -- what the colour

15     scheme relates to.

16        Q.   We were also told that the orange colour scheme represents the

17     new identification compared to the previously disclosed and updated list

18     of identified persons.  Is that something you're aware of?

19        A.   No, I don't know what the colours indicate or who generated them.

20             JUDGE KWON:  According to the witness we heard yesterday, he said

21     that the colour was generated by the ICMP.

22             THE WITNESS:  Okay.  Thank you.

23             JUDGE KWON:  If you take a look at the monitor, you can see it in

24     colour.

25             THE WITNESS:  Yeah.  I'm sorry, nevertheless, I personally

Page 33459

 1     don't -- don't know that.

 2             MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]

 3        Q.   Regardless of that fact, I have to continue my questioning along

 4     those lines, because I met Mr. Janc during preparations for his

 5     cross-examination, and this took place on the 16th of April this year,

 6     when he, in talking to me, told me that that's what the colours denoted

 7     but that you are far more competent and better placed for me to ask you

 8     that.  So you then confirm that you don't know what these colours mean at

 9     all?

10        A.   Ma'am, I do apologise but that's the case, yeah.

11             MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Just a moment, please.  May I

12     just take a moment to confer.

13                           [Defence counsel confer]

14             MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I'll have to skip over my next

15     group of questions.  Is this the right time for the break or not yet?

16             JUDGE AGIUS:  If my colleagues agree, by all means.  Twenty-five

17     minutes from now.  Thank you.

18                           --- Recess taken at 5.28 p.m.

19                           --- On resuming at 6.02 p.m.

20             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, Ms. Tapuskovic.  Will you -- will you leave us

21     time for Mr. Janc or not?

22             MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I think I'll need

23     about half an hour to complete my examination of Mr. Parsons, maybe even

24     40 minutes.

25             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, Mr. Ostojic.

Page 33460

 1             MR. OSTOJIC:  Thank you, Mr. President.  I may have five, ten

 2     minutes, but I'm still working on trying to figure something.  I just --

 3     to have an explanation from Dr. Parsons --

 4             JUDGE AGIUS:  So let's put it like this.  Mr. Vanderpuye, please,

 5     you need to decide whether you're going to retain here Mr. Janc or

 6     whether you're going to send him back to his hotel.  Oh, he will be here.

 7     Yes, yes.  He's here anyway.  But I don't -- it's still already it's past

 8     5.00 -- 6.00, and if he doesn't need to stay here, he might as well go

 9     home.

10             MR. VANDERPUYE:  We would prefer that, Mr. President.

11             JUDGE AGIUS:  Okay.  This is why I'm asking you.

12             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Yes.

13             JUDGE AGIUS:  So at least we don't keep him here waiting

14     unnecessarily.

15             The other thing is you leave ten minutes for Mr. Ostojic.

16     Otherwise, between you, you can take the whole session.  I don't know if

17     you have -- or you're contemplating any re-examination.

18             MR. VANDERPUYE:  I am contemplating it, but I don't think at this

19     time that I have any.

20             JUDGE AGIUS:  Okay.  Keep contemplating it.

21             Yes, Ms. Tapuskovic.

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

23        Q.   Mr. Parsons, we'll try and speed up to leave some time for the

24     next team.  I'd just like to go back for a moment to your proofing

25     session with the Prosecutor, which took place on the 27th of April, and

Page 33461

 1     I'll read out a sentence that you said -- or, rather, the OTP conveyed to

 2     us.

 3             "[In English] The witness indicated that he would agree that the

 4     examination of electropherograms is necessary for scientific evaluation

 5     or verification of DNA testing results.  However, an examination of all

 6     raw data is not necessary to such an evaluation.  Statistical models can

 7     be generated to determine error rates in the data examined."

 8             [Interpretation] I just have one brief question linked to what

 9     you said there.  Tell me, please, then, what would the number of

10     electropherograms be that you would need to analyse -- how many would you

11     need to analyse to have the right statistical model for establishing

12     certain error rates in compiling the DNA report?

13        A.   Well, first of all, I don't think it relates to the number of

14     electropherograms but, let's say, the number of -- I think the relevant

15     question is the number of full case files that would have to be reviewed

16     in order to establish the -- the rate of -- of error that is detected

17     through such review.  So the -- if the question is could there possibly

18     be a single mistake in the entire match list, that's a completely

19     different statistical question than saying it's clear that at least

20     90 per cent of these -- these samples are correct.  Not samples, I mean

21     of these match reports are correct.

22             And there are statistical -- there's a whole branch of statistics

23     that relates to sampling, and you can do things like -- it's called

24     confidence interval from zero proportion.  In other words, if you look

25     for something in a certain sample size and you never see it, that is to

Page 33462

 1     say, if you review 30 DNA match reports and you don't see any errors, you

 2     have no evidence for any errors, but on the other hand, it could be that

 3     there are errors at some rate that wasn't possible to be detected.  And

 4     you can -- you can do some calculations on -- that give you some numbers.

 5             But -- but again, you need -- you need to define the operational

 6     question.  Are you asking whether any given match report is correct?

 7     Then it's the review of that report that determines it.  If you're asking

 8     how many potential errors are there in 10.000 matches, to distinguish the

 9     number between 0 and 1 you'd need to look at a huge number, in fact, all

10     of them.  So, you know, if the question before the Court is, is every

11     single one of these things correct, I guess one would have to agree that

12     you'd have to look at them all.

13        Q.   Thank you.  We'll now move on to another area.

14             MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] And for that may we have called

15     up on e-court document 1D1330, and to be placed on Sanction, because it

16     contains the names of identified persons.

17        Q.   The quality of this scanned document is not very good, but

18     anyway, Mr. Parsons, this is an excerpt from your ICMP list of -- and

19     persons identified from March 2009 in Excel.  We have the Bisina

20     locality.  The document is two pages long.

21             MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] May we zoom in so that we can

22     see the first name and last name and markings for the person in lines 6

23     and 7.

24             There are two entries there.  Unfortunately, we can't see line 7.

25     Maybe we'll move into private session for a moment, please, Your Honours,

Page 33463

 1     because I'll have to state the names because they're not clearly visible

 2     on the document?

 3             JUDGE AGIUS:  Sure.  Let's go into private session for a short

 4     while, please.

 5                           [Private session]

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 33464

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12                           [Open session]

13             JUDGE AGIUS:  One moment.  Yes, we are now in open session.

14     Thank you.

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

16             Now, may we have called up on e-court the following document,

17     which is 1D1392.

18             Your Honours and Mr. Parsons, this document has not been

19     translated.  It was taken over from the Prosecution Exhibit P4511, which

20     is rather large exhibits so we extracted this document for ease of

21     manipulation, and it is an exhumation for the Bisina locality.

22             JUDGE AGIUS:  I'm being informed that it is not in e-court, in

23     which case you can hand a hard copy to the witness.

24             MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Then we can go to P4511, to

25     page 35 of that document, Prosecution exhibit.  Page 35, according to our

Page 33465

 1     records.  No, that's not the document.  I do apologise, Your Honours.

 2             Unfortunately, the document has not been translated because it's

 3     a very long document, but I hope the Prosecution would [indiscernible] if

 4     I say that this is the records on exhumation from the Tuzla canton and

 5     the cantonal prosecutor's office, and the date is 2008.  May we go to the

 6     ERN number which is 706, the last digits of the ERN number 706.  That's

 7     the right page.

 8        Q.   Sir, you'll see here that in this exhumation paper it was noted

 9     that the exhumed bodies were the bodies under number BIS 01 SEK 038, and

10     it was observed that the body was complete, and you can recognise the

11     038 B mark there, annotation, if nothing else.  Can you see that,

12     Mr. Parsons?

13        A.   It looks like the third entry from the bottom.  Yes.

14        Q.   Yes, that's right.

15             JUDGE AGIUS:  [Overlapping speakers] ... on the ELMO, or are you

16     happy with how we are proceeding?

17             MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I think this is fine,

18     Your Honours.  I think the witness can find his way.

19             JUDGE AGIUS:  One other thing.  Please decide, Ms. Tapuskovic,

20     since this document, according to you, has not been yet translated,

21     whether you would require the translation of the full document or only of

22     the part that you are using.  You don't need to give the decision now,

23     later, because as you know, we MFI them pending translation thereof.  If

24     you're using one page from the document, it's of course different from

25     using the whole document or wanting the whole document to be tendered

Page 33466

 1     into evidence.

 2             MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.  We'll

 3     bear that in mind.

 4        Q.   Now, if you look at the document, two rows down you will see that

 5     another body was exhumed and it is 040, and once again it says "Complete

 6     body."  Can you see that?

 7        A.   Yes, ma'am.  Sorry.

 8        Q.   Thank you.

 9             MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Now, on e-court may we call up

10     document 1D1388, and on Sanction once again.  There's an English

11     translation of the document as well.

12        Q.   Sir, you have here a record on establishing identity issued by

13     the University Clinical Centre of Tuzla.  Can you read out what it says

14     in the upper right-hand corner, the identification number, please.

15        A.   BIS 01 SEK 040 B.

16        Q.   Thank you.

17             MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Now on e-court, please, the next

18     document, 1D1389, also --

19             JUDGE AGIUS:  I want to know whether this is being broadcast or

20     not, because do have names here.  It's not being broadcast.  Okay.

21             MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honours.

22             JUDGE AGIUS:  Keep it that way, please.  Thank you.

23             MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I would kindly ask the witness

24     to focus on the name in this document.

25             Can we please now see document 1D1389.  And it shouldn't be

Page 33467

 1     broadcast as well.

 2        Q.   In order not to mention any names, can you please read the

 3     identification number in the top right-hand corner.

 4        A.   There are two apparently, BIS 01 SEK 038 B and BIS 01 SEK 040 B

 5     (Zmax).

 6        Q.   Thank you.

 7             MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we please now see in e-court

 8     1D1366, without it being broadcast.

 9        Q.   Can you see this document, sir?

10        A.   Yes.

11        Q.   If you look at item 3, we're not going to read out any names,

12     number 3 contains the name that we read before, and it says here that

13     it's body SEK 038 and SEK 040.  Do you agree with me?

14        A.   That is what it says here, yes.

15        Q.   Can you tell me when we compared the names before that we were

16     talking about different persons?  That is what we discussed while we were

17     in private session.

18        A.   I recall that there were two people on the list, we were looking

19     at two names, but I don't know how they correspond to these sample names,

20     I'm sorry.

21             MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, can we please go

22     into private session once again?

23             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, by all means.

24             THE WITNESS:  It might be a little helpful if I could --

25                           [Private session]

Page 33468











11 Pages 33468-33473 redacted. Private session.















Page 33474

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25                           [Open session]

Page 33475

 1             JUDGE AGIUS:  Please go ahead.

 2             MR. OSTOJIC:  Thank you, Mr. President, again.

 3                           Cross-examination by Mr. Ostojic:

 4        Q.   Sir, thank you.  As you may remember, my name is John Ostojic.  I

 5     have a couple questions that I would like you to assist me, perhaps, in

 6     clarifying.

 7             MR. OSTOJIC:  If we could have P4500 up in e-court, please.

 8        Q.   As it's coming up, sir, I'll just tell you the caption of it.  It

 9     says "Tracking chart for Srebrenica cases."

10             MR. OSTOJIC:  And I think out of the abundance of caution, we

11     should not broadcast this document and then we can decide later once he

12     tells me about --

13             JUDGE AGIUS:  Mr. Registrar will attend to that.

14             MR. OSTOJIC:  Thank you.

15        Q.   Sir, are you familiar with this document?

16        A.   Yes, these tracking charts are regularly prepared.

17        Q.   Was this tracking chart actually prepared by ICMP?

18        A.   Yes.

19        Q.   Okay.  Now I have a couple of questions in connection with this

20     tracking chart.  If you look at the different sections there, what I

21     don't understand, briefly, is the centre -- where it says in the centre

22     of the page, "DNA reports ICMP," and in the last three rows of that

23     section which starts with "Cases closed," "Open cases" and then "Pending

24     cases"; do you see that?

25        A.   Yes, sir.

Page 33476

 1        Q.   Where -- how do you define cases closed, where you have the

 2     number 3.825?

 3        A.   This would be dependent upon information from outside of the

 4     ICMP, and these tracking charts are not official products -- I just want

 5     to make a slight disclaimer.  These are not official products of the ICMP

 6     Forensic Sciences Section in terms of relating to our forensic

 7     accreditation, et cetera.  So the closed cases is information that comes

 8     from us from the pathologists, where we ask the question, of these -- of

 9     these match reports we've provided, how many of these have been closed?

10     That is to say, how many -- how many have the pathologists taken to the

11     family, issued a death certificate, et cetera.

12        Q.   And the same, what is the definition for open cases, where we

13     have 1.800?

14        A.   I would presume --

15             THE INTERPRETER:  Please pause for the interpreters and repeat

16     the last question, thank you very much.

17             MR. OSTOJIC:

18        Q.   Sorry, sir.  I know you're anticipating and I was rushing, and I

19     apologise for that.  The same question with respect to this row, open

20     cases, where it reflects 1.800.  How is that defined?

21        A.   I would assume that's the total number of cases minus the cases

22     closed minus the pending cases.

23        Q.   I did the math, actually.  It doesn't come out right, but we'll

24     look at it a little closer, but I'd like to show you now 1D1347 which was

25     shown to you previously this evening.  Keeping in mind these two figures

Page 33477

 1     if you don't mind.  So again it's 1D1347.

 2             My learned friend was showing you this document earlier today.  I

 3     believe it's letter that you looked at with some numbers in English which

 4     talked about specifically the number of unidentified being 2.000

 5     approximately and the other number, by memory --

 6             MR. OSTOJIC:  I think it's the next page on that document if I

 7     recall.  And I don't think we should broadcast this either.  Thank you.

 8        Q.   You remember that the 3.214, I believe?  Do you see that?  What

 9     you have in your tracking chart that ICMP does, is that information that

10     you obtained from this document as well?

11        A.   No, we wouldn't have got it from this document, no.

12        Q.   So this document has -- is not reflected anywhere in your

13     tracking chart; correct?

14        A.   Not specifically, no.

15        Q.   Okay let's go back then to P4500.  And if you look -- keeping

16     this figure of 3.124 in mind, if you look at your -- in the row under

17     "Totals," do you see that in the bottom portion?  I think you might have

18     to scan -- or go a little lower.  There it is.  The total section there

19     says number of closed cases and then it says number of bodies buried and

20     then in parentheses it has in the row 3.297 and then in parentheses 3.234

21     in Potocari.  Do you see that?

22        A.   Yes, sir.

23        Q.   Well, what is that the total of?  How do you, like, add all these

24     things up and come up with that?

25        A.   Let me sort through this for a few moments, if you would.

Page 33478

 1        Q.   Of course.

 2        A.   Is there a way we can zoom out so that I can see the whole

 3     document?  Maybe one in from there?  Yeah.

 4        Q.   And while you're looking at it, if I could draw your attention to

 5     one --

 6        A.   Please.

 7        Q.   -- other thing, maybe you could help us.  If you look at the --

 8     on the first section where it says "Blood sample status," I had a

 9     question on that.  The third row which talks about number of missing

10     individuals represented by the blood samples collected you have 7700

11     plus, and then if you go to the third section there which talks about DNA

12     reports and it talks about individuals represented 6.023, and just if you

13     could help me reconcile that.

14        A.   That one's easy, fortunately.

15        Q.   Great.

16        A.   Do you want me to turn --

17        Q.   You can?

18        A.   -- to that one now?

19        Q.   [Overlapping speakers]

20        A.   The first number, which is in the third row, where it says the

21     number of individuals represented by the blood samples --

22        Q.   Mm-hmm.

23        A.   -- that is simply the number of missing persons for which at

24     least one family member has provided a blood sample.  So they -- they

25     reported this individual missing and gave us a blood sample and we have

Page 33479

 1     that for that number of people, 7.789.

 2        Q.   Why wouldn't that be the same number for individuals represented?

 3        A.   Because this is -- because this is DNA match reports.  That --

 4     that information has nothing to do with who's been matched and who

 5     hasn't.  That's just our database.

 6             Now we go down to DNA reports.  That's completely different.  The

 7     reports are when we've arrived at some genetic conclusion.  So in this

 8     case we -- the individuals represented number means that we have obtained

 9     DNA profiles from bones and by looking at those profiles we know that

10     there are at least 6.023 people represented.  So we've typed many bones

11     from the same individual but out of all these -- these 11.000 reports, it

12     involves 6.023 different individuals.

13        Q.   Okay.

14        A.   As victims.

15        Q.   Okay.  And now have you looked, then, in that section where it

16     says "Cases closed" and "Cases open," how come they don't reconcile the

17     numbers?

18        A.   Okay.  I think the basic answer is going to be is that the ICMP

19     doesn't -- doesn't have custody of -- does not maintain -- does not have

20     access to accurate information about cases closed.  Its -- it's -- the

21     part that I was able to give you a clear explanation of, those are our

22     numbers.  Whether the state pathologist has closed the case, there's no

23     formal mechanism that is in any way associated with our forensic

24     department that notifies us with certainty when the case has been closed

25     or not.

Page 33480

 1             So I think -- I don't -- I can't make sense of the closed versus

 2     non-closed numbers, and I think the answer is that that's soft

 3     information and it -- I think we should revise these tracking charts.

 4     These are not formal forensic documents.  They're something that's been

 5     put together to kind of keep track of talking point sort of things and I

 6     would -- I would not stand by those numbers, nor might they add up --

 7        Q.   Would the same --

 8             JUDGE AGIUS:  One moment, Mr. Ostojic.

 9             MR. OSTOJIC:  Sorry.

10             JUDGE AGIUS:  In other words, to have to clear in my mind, what

11     you're saying is that technically the ICMP doesn't open and close

12     cases --

13             THE WITNESS:  That -- that --

14             JUDGE AGIUS:  -- that's someone else's job, and you rely

15     presumably on the information you receive from that entity as to how many

16     cases are still open, how many cases are closed.

17             THE WITNESS:  That's exactly right, sir.

18             JUDGE AGIUS:  Thank you.

19             MR. OSTOJIC:  Thank you, Mr. President.

20        Q.   And with respect to being medically certain on this data

21     provided, if we look at the section which is highlighted with totals,

22     would your answer be the same also, that we shouldn't rely on that based

23     upon any certainty?  The number of closed cases as well as the numbers of

24     bodies buried?  Do you see that?

25        A.   Yes.  Particularly the cases closed one fits into the set of

Page 33481

 1     numbers that I -- I can't give you a good explanation of.

 2        Q.   That's all I have.  Thank you very much.

 3        A.   Thank you.

 4             JUDGE AGIUS:  I thank you.  Are you still contemplating,

 5     Mr. Vanderpuye, or have you finished your contemplation?

 6             MR. VANDERPUYE:  I've finished my contemplation, Mr. President.

 7             JUDGE AGIUS:  No questions.

 8             MR. VANDERPUYE:  I have no further questions.  Thank you.

 9             JUDGE AGIUS:  All right.  Dr. Parsons, the Trial Chamber is

10     extremely grateful for your patience and acceptance to come here and give

11     evidence.  We appreciate that.  We also wish you a safe journey back

12     home.

13             THE WITNESS:  Thank you very much.

14             JUDGE AGIUS:  We've still got ten minutes.  Documents.

15     Mr. Vanderpuye.

16             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Mr. President, I think we've just sent our list

17     out.

18             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes.  It hasn't reached us as yet.

19             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Okay.

20             JUDGE AGIUS:  If you want to postpone it until Friday, I have no

21     problem.

22             MR. VANDERPUYE:  I can tell you -- I can tell you right now.

23     They are 65 ter 4494, 65 ter 4497 through 4499, and 65 ter 4526.

24             JUDGE AGIUS:  Any objections, Ms. Tapuskovic?

25             MS. TAPUSKOVIC:  No objections.

Page 33482

 1             JUDGE AGIUS:  Thank you.  Documents you wish to tender?

 2             MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I would be grateful,

 3     Your Honour, if you would allow me to do that by Friday.

 4             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes.  Thank you.

 5             MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

 6             JUDGE AGIUS:  In relation to the Prosecution documents, any

 7     objections from any of the other Defence teams?  We hear none, so they

 8     are admitted.  And on Friday you come back to us also on that particular

 9     document which is still untranslated to tell us whether you wish to have

10     it translated into its entirety or just sample pages from it,

11     Ms. Tapuskovic.

12             MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I apologise but I

13     was focusing on what the record said linked to the exhibits proposed by

14     my learned friend Mr. Vanderpuye, and I see there -- well, I'm looking to

15     see if there's a separate document that wasn't on the list so I'm afraid

16     I didn't hear your question.  I do apologise.  Could you repeat your

17     question, please?

18             JUDGE AGIUS:  My question is you will tender your documents on

19     Friday.  In the meantime, since one of them, you yourself explained that

20     it still is not translated.  You will need to tell us on Friday whether

21     you wish it to be translated in its entirety or only insofar as the

22     sample page or pages that you make use of from it.  All right?

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

24     certainly.

25             JUDGE AGIUS:  Thank you.  Tomorrow is a national holiday here,

Page 33483

 1     and -- which is also observed by the Tribunal, so we will reconvene on

 2     Friday.  Thank you.  In the morning.  Yes, in the morning.

 3                           [The witness withdrew]

 4                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 6.54 p.m.,

 5                           to be reconvened on Friday, the 1st day of

 6                           May, 2009, at 9.00 a.m.