Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 10912

 1                           Tuesday, 8 March 2011

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           --- Upon commencing at 9.00 a.m.

 5             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Good morning to everybody in the courtroom and

 6     outside listening and watching our procedure.

 7             I see you on your feet, Mr. Gajic.  You have the floor.

 8             MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours.  I'd like

 9     to greet everyone.  And today I'd especially like to greet Judge Nyambe

10     and the representatives of the Registrar to congratulate them on

11     Women's Day.

12             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  They are all in the majority in this courtroom.

13             MR. GAJIC:  We are aware about that.

14             [Interpretation] Defence would like to respond to a part of the

15     Prosecution's request submitted on the 22nd of February, 2010, which has

16     to do with Witness 187.  He was foreseen to testify towards the end of

17     the month.  By your leave, we'd like to put forth our arguments

18     concerning this Prosecution's motion.  Namely, first I need to stress

19     that it is a rather unusual request, in particular if we have in mind the

20     procedural history of Prosecution motions and Chamber decisions regarding

21     Witness 187.  Namely, Prosecution as early as the 18th of March, 2009,

22     submitted their request to admit evidence pursuant to Rule 92 ter, which

23     inter alia included their request for Witness 187 to testify in

24     accordance with the Rule 92 ter.

25             The Defence on the 24th of July, 2009, submitted its response to

Page 10913

 1     the 92 ter request by the OTP in which we objected their request

 2     concerning Witness 187, pointing out, among other things, the nature of

 3     General Obradovic's testimony, that is, the testimony of Witness 187.  We

 4     also stated that Witness 187 in the Popovic case testified as a Defence

 5     witness.  Also, General Obradovic witnessed and was supposed to testify

 6     the acts and conduct of General Tolimir which may serve as a basis to put

 7     forth his evidence based on Rule 92 ter.  We also touched upon the

 8     cross-examination of the OTP briefly as conducted by Mr. McCloskey in the

 9     Popovic case.

10             Next, on the 30th of July, 2009, the Prosecution submitted a

11     motion to reply to our response pursuant to their 92 ter request.  In

12     paragraph 2 of the reply, the Prosecution states that following their

13     analysis of our response, they withdrew their request concerning

14     Witness 187, and they expressed their wish to hear the witness viva voce

15     and in totality.

16             By virtue of the Chamber's decision of the 3rd of November, 2009,

17     the request of the OTP was approved to withdraw their 92 ter request

18     concerning Witness 187.  To put it simply, we are now in a situation in

19     which in the latest Prosecution motion we have their request following

20     the granting of their wish to withdraw Witness 187 initially, as granted

21     by the Chamber.

22             In addition to these arguments, I'd also like to state that

23     according to the schedule disclosed by the Prosecution this witness was

24     supposed to testify in the last week of the month of March 2011.  This

25     witness in the Popovic case testified for three days.  And without

Page 10914

 1     related documentary evidence, his transcript amounted to -- his testimony

 2     amounted to 287 pages of the transcript.  As we all know, preparing for

 3     such a witness is very demanding and preparing for a 92 ter witness puts

 4     a much greater burden and effort than when we hear a witness viva voce.

 5             I also wanted to say that in their request of the

 6     28th of November, 2008, the OTP requested that this witness be put on

 7     their list of witnesses, assessing that his direct examination would last

 8     for three hours.  In our view, this is reasonable given the numerous

 9     topics this witness is supposed to address.  The Prosecution announced

10     that the witness was supposed to testify inter alia about the

11     organisational structure of the Main Staff of the VRS, the position of

12     General Tolimir and his role in Srebrenica and Zepa, next on the issue of

13     humanitarian convoys, and some others which I won't go into at this

14     moment.  It is for all these reasons that the Defence object the request

15     put forth by the Prosecution concerning Witness 187.  We propose to the

16     Chamber that the request of the 28th of February, 2010, concerning this

17     witness be denied.

18             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you very much, Mr. Gajic.

19             Does the Prosecution want to respond to this submission?

20             Mr. McCloskey.

21             MR. McCLOSKEY:  Yes, good morning, Your Honour, Mr. President,

22     Your Honours.  No, I think that enough has been said.  We're ready to go

23     with however the Court wishes on this point.  Thank you.

24             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  The Chamber will take into consideration the

25     arguments of both parties, and we'll render a decision as soon as

Page 10915

 1     possible.  Thank you very much.

 2             Before the witness is being brought in, I have to express my

 3     apologies to Mr. Vanderpuye.  You were right with your time estimation

 4     for the current witness of one hour and 30 minutes.  It was a

 5     communication problem in the Chamber.  And, of course, you may use your

 6     time you have indicated earlier.

 7             The witness should be brought in, please.

 8                           [The witness takes the stand]

 9             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Good morning --

10             THE WITNESS:  Good morning.

11             JUDGE FLUEGGE: -- Dr. Barr.  Welcome back to the courtroom.  I

12     have to remind you that the affirmation to tell the truth you made at the

13     beginning of your testimony yesterday still applies.

14                           WITNESS: KATHRYN BARR [Resumed]

15             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  And Mr. Vanderpuye is continuing his

16     examination-in-chief.

17             Mr. Vanderpuye.

18             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Thank you, Mr. President.  Good morning,

19     Your Honours.  Good morning, everyone.

20                           Examination by Mr. Vanderpuye: [Continued]

21        Q.   And good morning to you, Dr. Barr.

22             MR. VANDERPUYE:  If I could have, please, 65 ter 7212 in e-court,

23     please.

24        Q.   While that's loading, let me just tell you that -- well, I think

25     it's here already.  This is your 8th January, 2010, report concerning

Page 10916

 1     typewritten documents, and I wondered if you could just briefly outline

 2     the difference, if there is any, between analysing a typewritten document

 3     and analysing a handwritten document.

 4        A.   The same basic principle would apply in that, again, it's a

 5     like-for-like comparison, so the process in effect would start the same.

 6     You would literally go through the typewritten document, examining each

 7     character to determine how it's been constructed.  The difference is you

 8     would be looking -- obviously on a typewritten document you won't get the

 9     range of variation because typescript's fixed, but what you would be

10     doing is looking for how it's been produced and whether there are any

11     defects that would enable you to identify that specific machine as

12     opposed to any other machine.

13        Q.   Did you use any specific or special devices in order to conduct

14     the examination in this case?

15        A.   In this case, it's really a case of using a microscope so that

16     you can see the detail of the typescript more closely than you could just

17     looking at it.

18             MR. VANDERPUYE:  If we can go to page number 3, and it should be

19     item number 3.

20        Q.   Here we have the instructions that you received, if you're able

21     to see that on the screen, maybe not?

22        A.   Yes.

23        Q.   Okay.  In any event, you do have the report in front of you.

24        A.   I have the -- yes.

25        Q.   Okay.  Here you've indicated that you received a certain number

Page 10917

 1     of -- a certain number of documents.  It appears to be four documents.

 2     One is a typewritten document dated 13th of July, 1995.

 3             MR. VANDERPUYE:  And for the record that's P125.  I do have the

 4     original here if the Court would like to inspect it or see it.

 5        Q.   And then you received three other documents.  And with respect to

 6     any of these documents, were you provided any other -- any additional

 7     information concerning the machine that produced it or anything of that

 8     nature that might identify -- might identify the typewriting?

 9        A.   No.  I was just provided with those four documents and asked if

10     they'd all been produced on the same machine.

11        Q.   And having examined these documents can you tell us what kind of

12     machine it was produced by or these documents were produced by?

13        A.   The appearance of the typescript is such that they appear to have

14     been produced by an old-fashioned manual typewriter rather than a more

15     modern word process document.

16        Q.   And can you tell us briefly how you can tell the difference

17     between, for example, a modern printer or relatively modern printer that

18     uses the same kind of casing that you see on a typewriter and a

19     typewriter itself?

20        A.   It's a case of looking at -- these have all been produced with a

21     fabric ribbon, which, again, you tend -- you only see on the older

22     document -- older type of typewriters rather than a word process

23     document.  And the appearance of the typescript is an old-fashioned style

24     of font.

25        Q.   With respect to -- just so that we're clear, which of these four

Page 10918

 1     documents was the questioned document as it were, and which ones were the

 2     ones that were used for comparison purposes if -- or were they all

 3     simply -- were you asked to compare all four of them?

 4        A.   Yeah, my instructions were to say had they all been produced on

 5     one machine.  So it wasn't a case of taking -- saying, these are

 6     specimens, have -- has this been produced on the same machine that

 7     produces these other documents; it was literally, have all these four

 8     been produced on one machine.

 9        Q.   If we go to the next page, and that will be item number -- oops,

10     I'm sorry, I should have gone to item number 6.  Yeah, we have it.

11             In making these comparisons, you concluded in summary form that

12     there was a conclusive evidence that document 0425-8580, which is P125,

13     and document 0441-0981, that there was conclusive evidence that they were

14     produced by the same machine.  And can you tell us how you arrived at

15     that conclusion?

16        A.   Yes.  These two documents were produced -- the typestyle of the

17     printing was the same.  And the spacing of the document, the number of

18     characters you get in a specific length, was the same.  So that indicated

19     they were both produced on the same type of machine.  And then to be able

20     to say that it's conclusively that one machine, what you're doing is

21     looking for defects that will uniquely identify one machine as opposed to

22     other machines produced in the same fashion.

23             With these two, what I found was that there was damage to the

24     lower-case P.  The lower-case V tended to print more darkly on these

25     characters.  And also there was a red colour associated with the bottom

Page 10919

 1     part of the characters.  I think old-style machines quite often had two

 2     colour ribbons; you'd got black at one -- at the top, red at the bottom.

 3     So it looked as though that was slightly out of alignment so that the

 4     characters were typing across the boundary between the grey and the

 5     black -- the grey and the red, sorry.

 6             So the combination of those three factors were, in my opinion,

 7     enough to say that this was -- they were produced on this one specific

 8     machine rather than two different machines.

 9        Q.   Let me ask you a couple of things.  First, were you provided with

10     originals of these documents?

11        A.   I was, yes.

12        Q.   And the second question is:  The observations that you've made

13     particularly concerning the ribbon or the colouration associated with the

14     characters that are printed on the page, are you able to make those

15     observations, you know, with the naked eye, as opposed to using a

16     microscope?

17        A.   It's more obvious with a microscope.  They were printing very

18     palely so you might have got an indication, but it's more obvious with a

19     microscope.

20             MR. VANDERPUYE:  First I'd like to show the Trial Chamber,

21     really, P125.  If we could have that in e-court for a moment.

22             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  May I put a question to the witness in the

23     meantime.  On page 7, line 23 and 24, you first said, "the characters

24     were typing across the boundary between the grey and the black," and then

25     you corrected yourself, "the grey and ... red, sorry."  Are you really

Page 10920

 1     referring to grey and red?

 2             THE WITNESS:  In this case, grey simply because I think it was an

 3     old ribbon so it was actually typing more grey than black.

 4             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you.

 5             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Only, and only, the B/C/S because I'd like to

 6     place side by side with this document P517.  Mr. President, I should let

 7     you know I also have the originals of this documents if it would assist

 8     the Court, and I can provide them to you.

 9             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  At the moment there's no need for that.

10             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Just for the record, on the right of this -- of

11     the screen in e-court now we have a document that's indicating that it's

12     from the IKM of the 65th Motorised Protection Regiment.  It indicates

13     Borike at 1400 hours.  And this is a document that is sent to the

14     commander of the Main Staff of Republika Srpska and concerns, among other

15     things, 1.000 members of the 28th Division of the BiH Army captured in

16     the area of Dushanovo Kasaba.

17             This document, according to your report, was produced by the same

18     printer as the document on the left.  Is that fair?

19        A.   The same typewriter, yes.

20        Q.   The same typewriter.  And you did that based upon a comparison of

21     the characters.  Was there any character in particular that you

22     identified as conclusive?

23        A.   It's taking it as its totality, but as I said, in this case there

24     is damage to the lower-case P, the same damage in the lower-case P to

25     both of them.  Again, the V tends to print more darkly.  These were

Page 10921

 1     printing quite pale at the bottom, but the V was quite dark at the bottom

 2     and also got the same mix of colours, grey and red, in the same position.

 3        Q.   All right.  I want to show -- well let me just ask you this.  In

 4     your conclusion, and I won't put that up just now, but in the conclusion

 5     of your report, you say that in your opinion that there's certain

 6     similarities also that there's strong evidence between a document

 7     0441-0992, that it was produced by the same machine as the machine that

 8     produced these two documents on the screen.  What I'd like to do is to

 9     ask you about that one, and I'll put it up in just a minute.  But do you

10     recall what the basis of that conclusion was?

11        A.   Yes, I do.  Again, the same basic style and spacing was the same

12     on this third document.  It also had the same damage to the P.  The

13     difference was, in this time, the red colouration was coming out at the

14     top of the characters rather on the bottom of the characters.

15             MR. VANDERPUYE:  If we could just replace P517 with P518 in

16     e-court.

17             THE INTERPRETER:  Could Mr. Vanderpuye kindly speak into the

18     microphone or turn on the other microphone as well.  Thank you.

19             MR. VANDERPUYE:

20        Q.   Here we have the document 0441-0992 that's referred to in your

21     report at paragraph 6.2 which, in your opinion, shows strong evidence of

22     being produced by the same typewriter as the document on the right, which

23     is P125.  Now, was there anything other than what you've indicated

24     previously that ties these two documents together?

25        A.   Apart from the damage features to the P and V, no.  You've still

Page 10922

 1     got the same difference in that they were printing in two colours.  It

 2     was just that it was -- the orientation was different.

 3        Q.   And would that suggest that it was just printed with a different

 4     ribbon or that it was printed with a different machine?

 5        A.   Printed with a different ribbon or that the position of the

 6     ribbon had been moved between the printing of the previous documents and

 7     this one.

 8        Q.   Okay.

 9             MR. VANDERPUYE:  I want to show you the last document, which is

10     0441-0972.  Let me get you the P numbers.  P520.

11        Q.   In your report at paragraph 6.3, you opine that the document --

12     that that particular document, that there's conclusive evidence that it

13     was typed on a different machine compared to the other three documents.

14        A.   Not the one that's on the screen.

15        Q.   It should be coming up in a minute.

16             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  I think it's on the screen or we have a problem

17     with a number again.

18             THE WITNESS:  This is -- this one's marked --

19             MR. VANDERPUYE:  It should be --

20             THE WITNESS: -- 971.  The one I was referring to was 972.

21             MR. VANDERPUYE:  That's correct.  We don't have it?  Okay.  I

22     think we have the original though.  If we could perhaps show this to the

23     witness or have that placed on the ELMO, that might be helpful.

24             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  No problem with that, but I wonder if there is a

25     possibility to call up P972.

Page 10923

 1             MR. VANDERPUYE:  All right.  I'm told it's on page 2.  There's

 2     the magic.  Okay.  We have it.

 3        Q.   This is the document that you excluded as being produced by the

 4     same machine as -- well, the document on the right has now disappeared.

 5     Produced on the same machine as P125, which was --

 6             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Which is again on the screen on the right side.

 7             MR. VANDERPUYE:  In a blink of an eye.

 8        Q.   You've excluded these two from being a match so to speak?

 9        A.   Yes.

10        Q.   Okay.  And on what basis did you reach that conclusion?

11        A.   The capital M on the document 972, the middle of the document is

12     higher in this typescript than it is in the others, so it's a different M

13     that's on the machine.  On top of which, this machine, a number of the

14     characters are filled in which is often an indication of dirt on the

15     type-slug, so you've got dirt and you've also got a different character

16     on there which would indicate that it was a different machine, because on

17     the old-style machines, the character is fixed.

18             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Tolimir.

19             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.  Good

20     morning to everyone.  May there be peace in this house and may God's will

21     be done in these proceedings and not mine.  And may all the present

22     ladies have a nice Women's Day, including the witness.

23             Can Mr. Vanderpuye clarify the following:  The two documents that

24     we see on our screens, were they produced on the same typewriter?  It was

25     rather confusing to me.  I didn't ultimately understand whether they do

Page 10924

 1     originate from the same typewriter.  I mean D72 and 58 -- or, rather, I'm

 2     referring to the last three digits of the ERN numbers, 972 and 580, do

 3     they come from the same machine?  Thank you.

 4             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Vanderpuye.

 5             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Thank you, Mr. President.  I think the witness

 6     has answered that, but I'm sure she'd be happy to answer it again.

 7             THE WITNESS:  They come from different machines.

 8             MR. VANDERPUYE:  I'd like to show the witness now 65 ter 7212A.

 9        Q.   First, Dr. Barr, do you recognise what this is?

10        A.   It was images that I produced as part of my examination.

11        Q.   And specifically, the references that you made to the damage to

12     the P, can you see that?

13        A.   Just about, yes.

14        Q.   Okay.  Can you tell us where it is, just so that we have an idea.

15        A.   If you can see the P in the upper left-hand box, there is

16     actually a yellow arrow, it doesn't come out very well, indicating that

17     the serif on the bottom left-hand side, there, is damaged, it's not

18     printing.

19        Q.   All right.  And if we can take a look at the O now.  Is this the

20     reference that you made to the red printing - it doesn't appear so red on

21     the screen - but is this --

22        A.   It is, yes.

23        Q.   Okay.

24        A.   I have the originals of those which would show it more clearly if

25     necessary.

Page 10925

 1        Q.   All right.

 2             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Let's take a look at the next page, please.

 3     Just for the record, this refers to -- this frame of photos refers to

 4     document 0425-8580, which is P125.  The next is 0441-0972, which was

 5     P520, which we just saw.

 6        Q.   And can you tell us what we have here?

 7        A.   Again, it's an illustration.  The lower frame shows that the P is

 8     undamaged, which again goes to my opinion that it was a different

 9     machine.  It also shows what we've called in-fill on the A, the normal

10     course of that is when you get dirt on the typewriter, the characters.

11        Q.   Okay.

12             MR. VANDERPUYE:  If we can go to the next page, please.  Here we

13     have document 044981, which was P517.

14        Q.   And can you tell us -- this was a document that you opined had

15     strong evidence that was produced by the same machine as produced P125,

16     and can you tell us about what we have here?

17        A.   I say it was conclusive evidence.

18        Q.   Conclusive evidence.  That's right.  My mistake.

19        A.   Again you can see that the damage to the P in the upper left

20     frame, the red colouration at the bottom of the O, and the fact that the

21     V prints more darkly than the other characters.

22        Q.   All right.  Now I'd like to show you the last one, which refers

23     to document number 0441-0992, and that's P518.  And tell us about this

24     one.

25             MR. VANDERPUYE:  We need to go to the next page in e-court,

Page 10926

 1     please.

 2        Q.   This was the document for which you found there was strong

 3     evidence that it was printed by the same typewriter as P125?

 4        A.   Yes.  Again, the P on the upper left, you can see there is damage

 5     to the serif.  It looks slightly different in this one simply because

 6     you're getting the paler red at the top.  The dark is printing, so you

 7     can actually see the damage more clearly.  And it does contrast quite

 8     strongly with the document that I excluded, where the serif was

 9     horizontal.  You've got the red colouration at the top of the characters,

10     but again you've got a dark-printing V.

11        Q.   And I just wanted to show you, last, the page which contains the

12     letter M that you compared across all the documents, and that's -- should

13     be two pages up, ERN ending 363.  Okay.

14             And here we can see the document that you excluded as -- in the

15     top left corner.

16        A.   Yes.

17        Q.   And can you tell us what the difference is between this

18     document -- that M in the top left corner and the others?

19        A.   I think you can see quite clearly on there that the middle of the

20     M comes down -- is higher in that one document compared to the other

21     three.

22        Q.   Okay.

23             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Mr. President, I'd like to tender 7212 and

24     7212A, please.

25             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Are you tendering these two documents as one

Page 10927

 1     exhibit or as two different, two separate, exhibits?

 2             MR. VANDERPUYE:  They should be one exhibit, Mr. President,

 3     please.

 4             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  They will be received with one P number.

 5             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit P1972, Your Honours.

 6             MR. VANDERPUYE:

 7        Q.   Now, Dr. Barr, you were asked to just -- I just want to clarify

 8     something with you on the record.  When you receive -- in the process of

 9     receiving specimens in order to compare it to a questioned document, do

10     you on occasion receive those documents, that is, the specimens, with

11     information about them, such as known samples of handwriting or other

12     documents?

13        A.   Yes.  We're told -- since handwriting is a comparative process,

14     in order to say that a specific person has produced the writing that's in

15     dispute, then we need known samples from the person that is suspected of

16     producing them.

17        Q.   All right.  But you don't have any, for example, conclusive

18     information that the person -- that a person whose specimens you're

19     provided with actually produced the specimens in question?

20        A.   Not necessarily, no.

21        Q.   Okay.  And you rely on the person or the people who give you that

22     specimen for that representation?

23        A.   We do.  We always say that, when we give advice, that if people

24     provide us with specimens, then they have to be provable as specimens,

25     otherwise we're comparing different things.

Page 10928

 1        Q.   So when you make a finding in terms of comparing the specimen to

 2     the questioned document, your finding is really an expression between --

 3     of the relationship between whoever produced the specimen and whoever

 4     produced the questioned document; is that fair to say?

 5        A.   Yes.

 6        Q.   Okay.  And that, again, is entirely dependent upon the

 7     information that you're provided with concerning the specimen?

 8        A.   Yes, it is.  If we were just provided with two documents and

 9     weren't told that one was specimen, then we could just say they were or

10     weren't produce by the same person.

11        Q.   Okay.

12             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Thank you very much, Dr. Barr.  I don't have any

13     further questions.

14             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you very much, Mr. Vanderpuye.

15             Now, a question by Judge Nyambe.

16             JUDGE NYAMBE:  Thank you.  I just wonder if you could clarify for

17     me, Dr. Barr, at page 16, lines 8 to 9, you are recorded as having said,

18     "they have to be provable as specimens, otherwise we're confirming [sic]

19     different things."  I wonder if you could clarify for me exactly what you

20     mean "provable as specimens."  Thank you.

21             THE WITNESS:  As I said, if -- handwriting is a comparative

22     process, so we could just compare two documents and say they're by the

23     same person.  Generally, if we're working for the Prosecution, they want

24     to know are they produced by the suspect or a specific person, so in

25     those cases, they provide us with specimen writing of that suspect and

Page 10929

 1     say, Compare that with the questioned writing to say whether, for

 2     example, the suspect produced it.  But obviously the only way that we

 3     could ever -- we say it's the suspect, but we are relying on the

 4     Prosecution producing specimens that are provable as having been written

 5     by the suspect.  If at some later date for whatever reason the

 6     authenticity of those documents as having been written by the suspect is

 7     proved not to be true, then our opinion still holds as regards the

 8     conclusion.  They just can't be linked back, then, to the suspect.

 9             So they would still be linked.  Say, for example, we'd said, as

10     an example, there was conclusive evidence that the suspect had written

11     them, but then the writing we used as specimen wasn't attributable to the

12     suspect, then the writing would still be conclusive evidence that it was

13     still by the same person, it just wouldn't be by the suspect if his

14     writing was no longer provable as having been produced by him.

15             JUDGE NYAMBE:  Thank you.

16             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Tolimir, now it's your turn to commence your

17     cross-examination.  You have the floor.

18             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.  Good

19     morning to everyone again.  And may God's will be done in your testimony

20     today, madam.

21                           Cross-examination by Mr. Tolimir:

22        Q.   [Interpretation] Let's stick with P1972.  I think that's the last

23     document that was admitted.  Where we were comparing two documents with

24     the last three digits of the ERN being 972 and 580, thank you.  Thank

25     you.

Page 10930

 1             So the ERNs are 0425850 and 0441-0097.

 2             THE INTERPRETER:  The interpreter isn't sure about the numbers.

 3     Mr. Tolimir wasn't clear.

 4             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Vanderpuye.

 5             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Yes, Mr. President, I think General Tolimir is

 6     referring to P125 and P520 respectively.

 7             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you.

 8             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] We can see one of them on the

 9     screen.

10             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Now you see both on the screen.

11             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.  Yes, we have both of

12     them on the screen now.

13             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

14        Q.   You said that you received a request from Ms. Gallagher

15     electronically to forensically examine these two documents and produce

16     your findings.  This is my question:  Were you able to receive originals

17     of these documents if the request was sent to you electronically?  Thank

18     you.

19        A.   Yes, I received the originals of the documents.

20        Q.   Thank you.  Why, then, in the report under item 3 that we were

21     looking at here, on page 6 in line 1, you said that you received

22     Erin Gallagher's request in her e-mail dated the 30th November, 2009.  So

23     could you have -- and is it possible at all to receive originals of

24     documents by e-mail?  Thank you.

25        A.   No, it's not.  But I received the request electronically; she

Page 10931

 1     asked if we could do it.  The documents were sent by courier separately

 2     to the request.

 3        Q.   Thank you.  Is there any reference that you could give us, either

 4     in your report or otherwise, of your receipt of these documents by a

 5     courier?  Thank you.

 6        A.   Yes.  I've got a copy of the TNT label that we received in my

 7     case file.

 8        Q.   Thank you.  Can we see from the TNT label that you received the

 9     originals of these documents and not just copies?  Thank you.

10        A.   No.  From the courier details it won't tell you that I received

11     the originals.

12        Q.   Thank you.  Tell us, please, is it at all possible to examine

13     documents received by e-mail in order to ascertain all the various

14     particulars such as you've just described for us in relation to the

15     various characters, et cetera?

16        A.   In general, if they had been well scanned and there were obvious

17     differences in the typescript, the typescript that had been used, then,

18     yes, it would be possible.  The details that require microscopic

19     examination, it probably wouldn't be possible to do from copies.

20        Q.   Thank you.  We see here the two documents for which you concluded

21     that they did not originate from the same machine; is that right?

22        A.   That's correct, yes.

23        Q.   Thank you.

24             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we move the document to the

25     right slightly so that we can see the date on the left-hand side.  Thank

Page 10932

 1     you.

 2             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

 3        Q.   As you can see, the document was produced on the

 4     13th of July, 1995, as written by hand.  At least that's what the date

 5     purports to be, because we don't have it typewritten.  And you see that

 6     the other document was produced on the 5th of July.  And you claim that

 7     the typewriter wasn't the same in these two instances, and I may agree

 8     with you on that.  If you bear in mind the fact that the author of the

 9     document on the left-hand side did not have his own typewriter but used

10     the machine on which the other one was produced, you claim that they do

11     not come from the same typewriter; the Prosecution knows that the witness

12     did not have a typewriter of his own, that he would use the one on which

13     the document on the right-hand side was typed up on the 5th of July;

14     based on what can we parties to this proceeding know that the document

15     wasn't -- that a document that was sent to you had not actually been

16     typed up on a different typewriter and then sent for you to examine it --

17     to you to examine it?  Thank you.

18             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  In fact this is a very complicated question.  I

19     didn't understand the essence of it.

20             But, Mr. Vanderpuye.

21             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Thank you, Mr. President.  I would ask -- well,

22     the first issue is whether or not it properly characterises the testimony

23     to which it refers, and I do not believe that that is the case.  If

24     General Tolimir's contention is that the witness stated that he produced

25     a document on the right of the screen using a single typewriter or that

Page 10933

 1     there was only one typewriter, I'd like him to provide a reference in the

 2     transcript so that at least that's clear for the witness.  Other than

 3     that, you're right; I think the question is rather inartfully phrased,

 4     and I would ask him to phrase it in a manner that's at least

 5     understandable to the witness.

 6             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Would you please rephrase your question in order

 7     to enable the witness to provide you with a clear answer.

 8             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.  We'll rephrase the

 9     question.

10             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

11        Q.   Ms. Barr, the writer of this text, signed as Milorad -- Colonel

12     Milorad Sacic, he used the typewriter in the headquarters of the brigade

13     which is listed on the right-hand side document, and this in -- and this

14     was only several days apart between the two documents and he didn't have

15     his own typewriter, so is it possible that one of the two documents was

16     typed up on a completely different machine?  Thank you.

17        A.   I think I've said that they were typed on different machines.

18        Q.   Thank you.  This is my second question:  Why do you compare the

19     text which has very few characters or words in common with the other

20     text?  Why didn't you ask for identical texts to be sent to you,

21     identical in substance, but produced on different typewriters in order to

22     facilitate your examination?  Thank you.

23        A.   Umm, since I've -- since these are typewriters that have fixed,

24     fixed characters, that their -- normally the metal, what we'd call slugs,

25     what the characters actually produced, then I've compared each character

Page 10934

 1     in turn between the two documents, so there may not be the words the same

 2     but there are the same letters of the alphabet and I've compared each

 3     letter that is in common between the two to come to my conclusions.  Does

 4     that answer the question?

 5        Q.   Thank you.  Can you please answer this question:  Would it have

 6     been easier for you to examine the features of these characters had you

 7     had two identical samples?  For instance, if the two texts on the screen

 8     were identical.  Perhaps I haven't been clear enough.  Would it have

 9     suited you better if you had the same sample text as that of the

10     questioned text?  Would that have made your analysis easier?  Thank you.

11        A.   No.  Provided -- and I think in, if I check my notes, that I had

12     nearly all the letters of the alphabet on both, it wouldn't have made any

13     difference, specifically because I was asked if these two documents were

14     produced on the same machine, so I'm comparing the documents as opposed

15     to comparing them to a machine, I'm just comparing the documents

16     together.  If I'd been asked, This is the machine, does this document

17     come from it?  Then, yes, having the same typescript would have helped.

18     But in this particular case, I'm asked to compare these two documents.

19     They have nearly all the characters in common between them, so they were

20     more than suitable for comparison purposes.

21        Q.   Thank you.  Do all the characters of the alphabet feature on the

22     text that we see on the right-hand side on our screens?

23        A.   Just about, yes.

24        Q.   Thank you.  Was your examination about these two documents not

25     having been typed up on the same typewriter?  Was that what you were

Page 10935

 1     examining?  Thank you.

 2        A.   I was given the four documents and asked, Were they produced on

 3     the same machine?

 4        Q.   Thank you.  Please look at the documents on the screen.  These

 5     two documents, were they typed on the same typewriter?

 6        A.   No.

 7        Q.   Thank you.  Did the Prosecution tell you that the signatory --

 8     that the signatories of both these documents typed documents in the same

 9     headquarters on the same typewriter?  Thank you.

10        A.   I don't think I was given any information about the production of

11     the documents.

12        Q.   Can you tell us, did you ask for all the documents available that

13     were typed up on that location, on that particular location, at that

14     particular time to be delivered to you?  Thank you.

15        A.   No.  I was simply asked about these four documents.

16        Q.   Thank you.  I'm asking you bearing in mind the question put to

17     you by Her Honour Judge Nyambe when you said that you needed to have a

18     sufficient number of authentic documents in order to infallibly ascertain

19     which of them are genuine and which are not.  In other words, did you ask

20     for specimens to be sent to you or did you analyse the specimens that the

21     Prosecution sent you?  Thank you.

22        A.   I thought that Judge Nyambe was asking about specimen handwriting

23     as opposed to typescript, and so that referred to handwriting, needing

24     specimens.  For typescript, as I said, if we had been provided -- asked

25     if they were produced on a specific machine, then we would have needed

Page 10936

 1     samples from that machine.  In this case, I was asked if these four

 2     documents were all produced on one machine, and so my comparison can only

 3     take place with those four documents, to say whether or not they were

 4     produced on the same machine.

 5        Q.   Thank you.  You conducted your expertise based on the items you

 6     received.  That's sufficient for us at the moment, and we will be looking

 7     into this fact whether these persons produced the documents on these

 8     machines.

 9             I do apologise for the tenor of my questions, but the Defence is

10     really interested in finding out how these documents came into being.

11             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we now have 65 ter 7212 shown,

12     please.  This is your report dated the 8th of January, 2010.  And can we

13     show page 3 where it is stated that you received the said documents on

14     the 30th of November, 2009.

15             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  This is now P1972.

16             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.  We can see it now.

17             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

18        Q.   In paragraph 3 on the right-hand side, which is what I understand

19     because it's in the Serbian language, or for you it is on the left-hand

20     side, it's stated here that:

21             "I have examined the items listed below at the instruction of

22     Erin Gallagher of the UN ICTY as detailed in her e-mail dated the 30th of

23     November, 2009."

24             It has to do with the same documents we have just discussed.

25             My question is this:  The documents you examined, did you receive

Page 10937

 1     them by electronic mail and did you carry out your expertise based on

 2     copies of these documents?

 3        A.   No.  I received the original documents by courier.  And I

 4     actually received them on the 10th of December, 2009.

 5        Q.   However, you say here that you received an e-mail from

 6     Ms. Gallagher.  If you cannot produce those documents now before the

 7     Court, perhaps you could at least tell us what I'm asking.

 8        A.   I received the instructions from Ms. Gallagher by e-mail.  I

 9     received the documents by courier.

10             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  The witness told that already earlier during your

11     examination, Mr. Tolimir.

12             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.  And

13     thank you, Ms. Barr.

14             Could we next have 65 ter document 7212A.

15             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

16        Q.   This document was disclosed to us recently.  In the list of

17     documents, it is stated that the photographs found in that document are

18     linked to the 8th of January, 2010, report.  As we can see, the date on

19     this document is the 15th of March, 2007.  My question is this:  The

20     document we have on the screen, did it have something to do with the

21     expertise you carried out between the 30th of November, 2009, and the

22     8th of January, 2010?

23        A.   The date of the 15th of March is the date of issue of this

24     document.  It's -- part of the quality control system for the company is

25     that this is a digital image examination form, so that date is related to

Page 10938

 1     the date of issue of the form rather than the production of the

 2     photographs.  So the photographs were produced when I had the original

 3     documents as part of my examination.

 4        Q.   Thank you.  My question is this:  Did you carry out your

 5     expertise only based on these images that we find in the document, or did

 6     you also rely on other material?

 7        A.   My examination was based on the original documents and the

 8     comparison and examination of the original typed documents.  These images

 9     were produced as part of my examination as a way of illustrating the

10     differences that I found.

11        Q.   Thank you.  Ms. Barr, can you tell me this:  Did you state in

12     your report that these documents were produced on the same typewriter?

13        A.   The images on the screen are all from one document.

14        Q.   Thank you.  Why did you not state in your report what the

15     typewriter in question is, such as make and model?

16        A.   Because I was asked if they were produced on one machine, not

17     what make and model of machine it was.

18        Q.   Thank you.  Is there a possibility that these three documents for

19     which you state were produced on the same typewriter were actually

20     produced on different typewriters of the same make or model, that is to

21     say that the same company manufactured those typewriters and that they

22     were of the same model?

23        A.   If there had been no damage features and they were simply -- they

24     were all typing perfectly as they were manufactured, then there would be

25     no way of telling.  But in this case, we've got features such as the

Page 10939

 1     damage to the P which, in my opinion, would not have occurred in exactly

 2     the same way on two different machines, which allows me to distinguish

 3     between different makes and models of the same machine.

 4        Q.   Thank you.  Did the Prosecutor let you know the year of

 5     production, the type of the machine, and other elements that would be

 6     interesting for you to know so that you could make that conclusion?

 7        A.   No, I received no such information from the Prosecutor.

 8        Q.   Thank you.  If two documents are produced on two different

 9     typewriters of the same model, is it possible to examine and ascertain on

10     which of the machines the original document that you are examining was

11     produced?

12        A.   It would depend on the features of the typewriting that those

13     machines were producing.  If, for example, they were two new machines

14     that came straight out of the company boxes and had no unique features,

15     then, no.  But once you start using them and they get damaged and they

16     get their own unique identifying characteristics, then, yes, it is

17     possible to determine which machines produced them.

18        Q.   Thank you.  If the typewriters are from the same batch, is there

19     a possibility they will produce the same prints of the letters, given

20     that they were actually produced serially and they were not unique?

21        A.   I think the type of damage features here are such that they're

22     not the type that I would expect to see as a manufacturing defect.

23     You've got the -- and also you've got the combination of the damage to

24     the P, the position of the ribbon when the documents are being typed, and

25     the fact that the V is printing; you've got more than one distinguishing

Page 10940

 1     feature for these machines.

 2        Q.   Thank you, Ms. Barr.  Please tell us this:  Can you ascertain the

 3     type of the typewriter through your examination since we have a number of

 4     witnesses whom we can ask what kind of typewriters they used in order to

 5     arrive at a final conclusion as to which typewriter they actually used?

 6        A.   Had I been asked to do that, it may have been possible.  It's not

 7     something that we do very often now and it would depend on how up-to-date

 8     the records of these types of machines were.  Theoretically it's possible

 9     to identify makes of machine from their typescript within certain caveats

10     in that companies are taken over and therefore more than one company can

11     produce the same type of typescript, and so you need to have very good

12     records or you may not be able to identify it down to one particular make

13     and model.

14        Q.   Thank you.  A moment ago we saw two documents for which you

15     ascertained they were not typed on the same typewriter.  Is there a

16     possibly that both documents were typed up on an Olympia typewriter?

17        A.   I don't know.

18        Q.   Thank you.

19             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we please have 65 ter 7212.

20             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  This is now P1972.

21             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, could we have P1972, page 2.

22     It is the report of the 8th of January, 2010.

23             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

24        Q.   In item 2, you clearly state, and I quote:

25             "I clearly stated which facts and issues in this examination fall

Page 10941

 1     within the scope of my expertise and which do not."

 2             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we please have paragraph 2.1

 3     of this document and I will quote from it.

 4             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

 5        Q.   Here you say that:

 6             "Specialists in questioned documents all have an understanding of

 7     issues relating to handwriting and signatures and other aspects of

 8     document examination that routinely arise in their field.  These include

 9     methods of examining documents to show their authenticity or to determine

10     alterations on them -- to them; the examination and comparison of

11     handwritings and signatures and general examinations such as for indented

12     impressions.  Beyond this knowledge, practitioners must be aware of their

13     own limitations and have an awareness of the more specialised examination

14     methods other practitioners may be able to offer."

15             My question is this:  Do you primarily analyse handwritings or

16     impressions produced by typewriters?

17        A.   The majority of our work is -- does involve handwriting

18     signatures.

19        Q.   Thank you, Ms. Barr.  Can you tell me why in your report in part,

20     titled "Scope of Expertise," you formulated this paragraph so as to

21     conclude that you analysed signatures rather than analysing whether

22     different documents were produced on the same typewriter?

23        A.   I think this whole part 2 was devised to show that there are some

24     people who look at handwriting signatures, other people who look at the

25     non-handwriting parts of them, and that actually varies across Europe.

Page 10942

 1     In England, document examiners look at all aspects of document

 2     examination, so that covers both handwriting signatures and the

 3     non-handwriting part, such as typewriter examinations, printers, inks,

 4     counterfeit documents, et cetera.

 5        Q.   Thank you, Ms. Barr.  In order to establish whether documents

 6     were produced on the same typewriter, which is something that this Court

 7     needs to know, does one need to have further information on the year,

 8     model, and make of the typewriter in order to make the job easier for

 9     those who are eventually supposed to draw conclusions?

10        A.   No.  Since I was simply asked, Were they produced on the same

11     machine, when that machine was produced doesn't matter.

12        Q.   Thank you.  I understand your answer, however, for the needs of

13     these proceedings, it would probably be necessary for us to have the

14     machine itself.  Or, if not that, to at least have some more details

15     about the model of the typewriter so that the Court could arrive at

16     relevant conclusions.

17             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  What is your question, Mr. Tolimir?

18             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

19        Q.   My question was actually:  Is it necessary when examining

20     documents produced on a typewriter to also have information about the

21     model of the typewriter used in the course of production?  Especially it

22     is a matter that needs to be litigated.

23             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  You have received an answer to that earlier.

24     Please move on.

25             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.  I still haven't

Page 10943

 1     received any answer.  I may have overlooked it.  In any case, I'll move

 2     on, as long as you heard the answer.

 3             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  I think the witness indicated several times that

 4     it was not necessary to know about the model and the machine itself.

 5     Only by comparison of the documents she could indicate and distinguish if

 6     it was written on the same machine or not.  That was the answer we heard

 7     several times.

 8             THE WITNESS:  Yes.

 9             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  And the witness is confirming that.  Please move

10     on.

11             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

12             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

13        Q.   In that case, I'd like to ask the witness the following:  Can you

14     guarantee that the person forwarding the documents for your examination

15     to you actually forwarded the very documents produced on the particular

16     typewriter?  Are you to be held accountable for the veracity of that fact

17     or the person who actually sent you the documents in question?

18        A.   I can only compare what I received from the Prosecution.  I have

19     no knowledge of where those documents came from.

20        Q.   Thank you, Ms. Barr.  This suffices.  My next question is this:

21     On page 3, in paragraph 2.4, I believe we'll see it on the screen

22     shortly, you state:

23             "Some related aspects require expertise in highly specialised

24     fields such as security printing or the detailed analysis of specialised

25     inks or papers.  Experts in such areas may not necessarily have a

Page 10944

 1     detailed knowledge of the other aspects of questioned documents but will

 2     often work in partnership with other document examiners to ensure that

 3     all aspects of the task are correctly addressed."

 4             My question is this.  In your report you state your opinion about

 5     the degree of certainty that the two documents in question, which is

 6     0425850 and 044100972 [as interpreted], were produced on the same

 7     typewriter.  In relation to that, I'd like to ask you this:  Is it

 8     necessary to have all the elements you refer to in paragraph 2.4 in order

 9     to draw such conclusions?

10        A.   Paragraph 2.4 refers to the fact that there are experts that work

11     with banks, for example, who only have knowledge of printing of bank

12     notes, so they are an expert in that area not in any other area, and so

13     for cases involving bank notes they should work in conjunction with other

14     document examiners to ensure that what has been asked, whatever that

15     might be, is answered.  So it doesn't really refer to my comparison of

16     the typewritten documents.

17        Q.   Thank you, Ms. Barr.  In your report in paragraph 5.3, which we

18     are about to see, you state that the lower-case letter P on these

19     documents has a slight damage to the left-hand side of the bottom

20     horizontal line.  My question is this:  Since you used the term slight

21     damage or partial damage to the bottom line, are you trying to point out

22     that there was a particular feature on the slug for the production of the

23     letter P, or are you actually referring to something else?  Was there a

24     defect?

25        A.   I'm referring to a defect.

Page 10945

 1        Q.   Thank you.  What may have been the reason for that defect to

 2     occur, the mere use of the machine or any particular mechanical feature

 3     of the typewriter?  Was it due to wear and tear or something else?  Can

 4     you tell us what the basic cause may have been?

 5        A.   For this particular machine, I don't -- wouldn't know the cause,

 6     but generally the defects I've encountered in these types of typewriters

 7     is normally caused by wear and tear.

 8        Q.   Thank you.  Such defects, can they also occur during production

 9     itself?  And is it possible that all typewriters of the same batch have

10     the same defect?  Is there such a possibility?

11        A.   It is a possibility.

12        Q.   Thank you.  Do all typewriters have -- make different prints

13     irrespective of the model match as would be the case with finger-prints?

14        A.   Typewriters have a fixed each -- they have a fixed typestyle

15     that's produced by the manufacturer and how the slugs have been produced.

16        Q.   Thank you.  If possible, please answer this, since we are not

17     experts in this field, can you explain it in lay terms:  Is there a

18     possibility that all typewriters of the same model have different prints

19     or produce different prints which occur between the time of production

20     and the end of their life much as would be the case with regular

21     finger-prints and dermal ridges?

22        A.   Typewriters, when they're produced, of the same model would

23     produce the same print.  But as they wear over time, then they can

24     develop their own unique features.

25             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Tolimir, I think it's time for our first

Page 10946

 1     break.  You may continue after the break.  We must have our first break

 2     now, and we will resume at 11.00.

 3                           --- Recess taken at 10.31 a.m.

 4                           --- On resuming at 11.01 a.m.

 5             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Yes, Mr. Tolimir, please continue.

 6             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.

 7             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

 8        Q.   Let's take it up from where we left off.  You say that the

 9     machines wear over time and they develop peculiar features.  My question

10     is this:  Does the position of the machine at the time it is being used

11     have any bearing on the eventual peculiar features it may develop in the

12     prints?  Thank you.

13        A.   It may do if it was exposed to more things that are likely to

14     damage it.

15        Q.   Thank you.  May an inadequate bearing, or underneath a

16     typewriter, for instance, if it's placed on an inadequate surface, have

17     any impact on the possible defects that may develop in the prints?  Thank

18     you.

19        A.   I don't know.  It may do.

20        Q.   In the specimens you examined, in addition to the damage to the

21     Ps and Vs, you also observed a difference in colouration.  My question is

22     this:  Can the use of different ribbons on the same typewriter produce

23     different prints, although the text was produced on the same machine?

24     Because normally where you have different ribbons, this would have an

25     impact on the text printed.  Thank you.

Page 10947

 1        A.   It wouldn't affect the style of the text, though it may affect

 2     the colour of it.

 3        Q.   Thank you.  Can it affect the degree to which the characters are

 4     filled in, for instance, in the case of the letters V and P?  Thank you.

 5        A.   By filled in, I was referring to dirt on the actual -- the

 6     characters.  That was meaning that it was -- more was being transferred

 7     onto the paper.  So to that extent, no, the ribbon wouldn't affect that.

 8     It would affect the amount that you could see.  Again, if you had a newer

 9     ribbon with more ink in it, then the print would be darker and you would

10     see darker filling in.

11        Q.   Thank you.  I ask this because in the texts you use as

12     referential originals we were able to see different impressions of

13     characters which seemed quite faded.  You are a forensic document

14     examiner.  This is my question:  Were you asked to determine the degree

15     of certainty that the documents you examined were produced at a time at

16     which they were purported to have been produced?  Thank you.

17        A.   No, I wasn't.

18        Q.   Thank you.  And were you able to establish the time when a

19     document came into being based on the typewritten impressions you were

20     given for forensic examination?  Thank you.

21        A.   No.  I was simply asked to compare the documents.

22        Q.   Thank you.  I understand your position.  Can experts establish

23     the time when a document was produced and which was typed up on a

24     specific typewriter?  Thank you.

25        A.   As regards the time when a document was produced, no.  Whether it

Page 10948

 1     was typed on a specific typewriter, yes.

 2        Q.   Thank you.  Is it possible for any expert to determine the time

 3     when a document was produced?  Thank you.

 4        A.   It depends on what document.  Dating documents is a very

 5     specialised and difficult field.  As regards typewriting, I don't think

 6     so.

 7        Q.   Thank you.  Can you tell the Trial Chamber what sort of forensic

 8     examination is required in order to establish the time when a typewritten

 9     document was produced?  Thank you.

10        A.   I can't think of any means of determining when a typewritten

11     document was produced.

12        Q.   Thank you.  Can the chemical substance of the impressions, that's

13     to say of the text itself, contribute to this process?  Do they affect

14     the process in any way?  Thank you.

15        A.   They may do.  As I say, to the best of my knowledge, for

16     typescript, I don't think it's possible.  For example, there are still

17     old-fashioned typewriters and ribbons dating back many years that people

18     still have, so it would still be possible to produce something today that

19     was produced on an old-style typewriter.

20        Q.   Thank you.  Maybe my question wasn't clear enough.  Let me give

21     you an illustration.  The Prosecution here challenged the time when

22     certain entries were made, altered, or erased.  We as the Defence also

23     challenge the origin of certain documents, whether they are of pre-war or

24     post-war origin.  Can you tell us, what are the features that can

25     determine the time of origin of a document?  Thank you.

Page 10949

 1        A.   It would depend on the specific document that you were talking

 2     about.  So, for example, if you were talking pre-Second World War, you

 3     wouldn't expect to see ball-point pen on it, so that's one way of dating

 4     documents.  As regards, as I say, typescript, I'm not aware of any means

 5     of determining when it was produced.  There are some -- in the UK it's

 6     not something that is done routinely.  Dating of documents, there is a

 7     lot of research being done in America on dating handwritten documents by

 8     dating the alterations in inks, but it's not very reliable at the moment.

 9     And as I say, for typewritten documents I don't think it's possible, or

10     I'm not aware of any means of doing it.

11        Q.   Thank you.  Since you forensically examined handwritten texts for

12     the purposes of this trial, this is my question:  Based on the

13     examination of the date when a paper was manufactured or on the pen

14     impressions, is it possible to establish -- or to date the documents that

15     were the subject of your forensic examination?  Thank you.

16        A.   Again, it would depend on a lot of other factors.  For example,

17     you would have to know when the paper was manufactured, and in effect all

18     that could tell you was, if you knew that precisely, that the document

19     couldn't have been produced prior to that date, but it couldn't tell you

20     after that date when it had been produced.

21        Q.   Thank you.  Can the chemical substance of the ink or any other

22     matter used to produce the impression point to the date when the document

23     was produced?

24        A.   As I said, I think there is some research that says that you can

25     date documents by how the ink has changed over time.  As far as I am

Page 10950

 1     aware, I don't know the time, how closely you could differentiate, I

 2     suspect in terms of years it may be possible, providing you're looking at

 3     the same ink on the same piece of paper.

 4        Q.   Thank you.  Tell us, on page 6 of today's transcript, in line 6,

 5     you spoke of -- or actually, it's paragraph 6 of your report, I'm sorry.

 6     You say that there are some features in the questioned text which are not

 7     consistent with the signature specimen.  And at page 78 of the

 8     transcript, that's the extent of what you said in answer to the

 9     Prosecutor's questions.  Do you remember that?

10        A.   No, I'm not entirely sure to what you're referring.

11        Q.   Thank you.  On page 75 you spoke about the contents of the

12     document written by Dragan Jokic.  You went on to speak about your

13     findings --

14             THE INTERPRETER:  The interpreter didn't catch what Mr. Tolimir

15     said.

16             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

17        Q.   And then I asked you on page 78 -- or, rather, the Prosecutor

18     asked you about Vujadin Popovic's signature, and then at paragraph 6.5

19     you speak of the questioned signature, and then at item 6.6 of your

20     report you say that some of the features in the questioned text are not

21     consistent with the signature specimen.

22             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we have the relevant portion

23     shown on the screen in order for you to see the point I'm referring to.

24             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  I think it will come up very soon.  You were

25     referring to the transcript -- just to clarify, you were referring to the

Page 10951

 1     transcript of yesterday during the cross-examination of Mr. --

 2     examination-in-chief of Mr. Vanderpuye; is that correct?

 3             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.  I was referring to the

 4     examination of today.  I was referring to pages 77 and 78.  I'm not sure

 5     where exactly the reference can be found.  Yesterday, I believe that was

 6     the case, yes.

 7             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Indeed.  Yesterday, not today.  We don't have --

 8     reached the page 78 today.

 9             We need paragraph 6.6 on the screen of this document.

10             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I think I'm referring to P1969, but

11     I'm not sure that my notes are correct.

12             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Now I'm confused.  We had the document P1972 on

13     the screen.  You -- and I don't know which document you want to have on

14     the screen.

15                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

16             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  We have now P1969 on the screen I was told.

17             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we look at item 6.6 if we have

18     it.  If we don't, can we then look at P1969.  Thank you.

19             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  This is on the screen.  Paragraph 6.6 can't be

20     found in this document.  You should check it again.

21             Mr. Vanderpuye.

22             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Thanks, Mr. President.  I think the reference

23     that General Tolimir is talking about, referring to paragraph 6.6, is

24     from a different document which is P1967, but that document refers to

25     Drago Nikolic and not Vujadin Popovic, so it's unclear whether

Page 10952

 1     General Tolimir is referring to Drago Nikolic or Vujadin Popovic for the

 2     purposes of the question he wishes to put.

 3             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.  I meant Drago Nikolic,

 4     since that's what the expert referred to.  Thank you, Mr. Vanderpuye.

 5             Can we have P1967.  Thank you.

 6             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Now tell us, please, the page number and/or the

 7     paragraph number.

 8             Mr. Vanderpuye.

 9             MR. VANDERPUYE:  On my feet again, and I apologise.

10             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Page 5.  Thank you.

11             MR. VANDERPUYE:  1968, not 1967.  I'm mistaken.

12             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Okay.  Then move to another document.

13             MR. VANDERPUYE:  I apologise.

14             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Now we have the paragraph 6.6 on the screen.

15             Please continue, Mr. Tolimir.

16             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.  Let me just read it

17     through.

18             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

19        Q.   What I was looking for cannot be found under 6.6.  But under 6.7,

20     in line 4, it reads:

21             "However, there are some features of the construction and

22     proportions of these questioned signatures that are less well matched.

23     While these differences may be due to the small size of the signature

24     boxes, they have prevented me from expressing any strong opinion.

25     Nevertheless, the similarities do, in my opinion, provide some limited

Page 10953

 1     evidence that Drago Nikolic produced the specified signatures on the

 2     vehicle log" of such and such a number.  "However, the possibility of

 3     simulation cannot be ruled out."

 4             Thank you.  That's the relevant part I was looking for, which was

 5     in paragraph 6.7 rather than 6.6 so I apologise to everyone.

 6             Can this provide conclusive evidence that Drago Nikolic made the

 7     entry himself or that somebody made the entry in his stead?  Thank you.

 8        A.   No.  It provides limited evidence that Drago Nikolic produced the

 9     signatures, but I can't exclude the fact that somebody else did.

10        Q.   Thank you.  You are a doctor of sciences and you received your

11     doctorate in plant pathology.  Can you tell us briefly what sort of

12     scientific field this is and in what way it is related to your forensic

13     expertise?  Thank you.

14        A.   It was to do with a virus relating to sugar beet, so it has

15     absolutely no relevance to my expertise in forensic science, other than

16     it being a scientific degree.

17        Q.   Thank you.  Since you've just told us that you received your

18     doctorate in this field, is it possible to decry traces invisible to the

19     naked eye by dowsing the paper with a certain substance which would

20     enable us to see if the entry made on that piece of paper is identical to

21     the rest of the text contained on that sheet of paper?  Thank you.

22        A.   I don't really understand the question.  Do you mean identical to

23     the ink or identical to the writing?

24        Q.   Thank you.  I'll repeat my question.  If we have a set of writing

25     where an alteration was made of several words or a single word, is it

Page 10954

 1     possible by analysing invisible features of the chemical impression of

 2     the various characters and the rest of the text to ascertain that there

 3     are differences between the different sets of writings on the piece of

 4     paper if -- and that by adding some substance to it, such as smearing it

 5     with a citric acid or something of the sort?  Thank you.

 6        A.   I don't know about the -- adding some substance.  It would be

 7     possible to analyse the inks to determine if they were different, which

 8     may indicate that a different pen had been used, which, depending on the

 9     circumstances, may indicate an alteration.

10        Q.   Thank you for your answer.  In addition to the forensic

11     examination of documents and in particular handwriting, do you also work

12     in the other scientific field within which you received your doctorate?

13     Thank you.

14        A.   No.  I've been a forensic document examiner since 1992.

15        Q.   Thank you.  Can you understand the Serbian language used in the

16     documents you examined for the purposes of this Tribunal and testimony?

17        A.   No.

18        Q.   Thank you.  In order to analyse a handwriting, is it necessary to

19     be acquainted with the elements of the language and script used in the

20     document?

21        A.   Not necessarily, no, provided that you can identify the

22     individual characters to make sure that you're comparing like with like.

23        Q.   Thank you.  Is this in keeping with certain general guide-lines

24     that graphologists have to abide by when analysing documents and

25     handwriting?

Page 10955

 1        A.   Yes, I think it is.  Yes.

 2        Q.   Therefore, I can conclude that such an examination meets the

 3     standard threshold required of any graphologist when carrying out an

 4     analysis of a particular handwriting?

 5        A.   The examination that I carried out here, yes, meets the standard

 6     that we would do for all our examinations.

 7        Q.   Thank you.  Given that it does meet the standard, my question is

 8     this:  Does it make it more difficult for the forensic examiner in

 9     question to examine a certain document without being familiar with the

10     language and script used in the document that is being examined?

11        A.   It takes more preparation to be certain that you're comparing

12     like with like.  Once that process has been taken into account, then we

13     would use the same principles that we used -- or I would use in comparing

14     writing in English.

15        Q.   Thank you.  Given that, for the purposes of your examination as

16     you were tasked by the OTP, you analysed a large number of documents that

17     were created either on typewriters or by writing, did you use the

18     assistance of anyone familiar with the Serbian language and script during

19     your examination?

20        A.   No.  Other than I had -- I was provided with transliterations of

21     certain parts of the writing to enable me to identify the characters.

22        Q.   Thank you.  Can you tell us who carried out these

23     transliterations?

24        A.   No.

25        Q.   Does it mean that you don't know, or ...

Page 10956

 1             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Can you answer this question?  You were asked:

 2     "Can you tell us who carried out these transliterations?"  And you said,

 3     "No."  Does it mean you don't know or are there other reasons why you

 4     can't tell?

 5             THE WITNESS:  Sorry, I only got up to the "or."  I don't know.

 6             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you.

 7             Mr. Tolimir.

 8             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.

 9             I'd like to thank the witness as well, our expert witness,

10     Ms. Kathryn Barr, for her assistance and clarifications that serve our

11     needs.  Thank you for being here, and thank you for this opportunity to

12     put questions to you since we are unfamiliar with the topic as

13     laypersons.  I'd like to thank you on behalf of the Defence.  I wish you

14     a safe journey back home.  And may God bless you in your further

15     activities.  Thank you yet again.

16             Thank you, Mr. President.  This concludes the Defence

17     examination.

18             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you very much, Mr. Tolimir.

19             Mr. Vanderpuye, do you have re-examination?

20             MR. VANDERPUYE:  No, Mr. President.

21             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Dr. Barr, you will be pleased to hear that this

22     concludes your examination, your testimony here in this trial.  The

23     Chamber would like to thank you that you were able to come to The Hague

24     and to provide us with your expertise.  Now you are free to return to

25     your normal activities.  Thank you very much again.

Page 10957

 1             THE WITNESS:  Thank you.

 2                           [The witness withdrew]

 3             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Vanderpuye.

 4             MR. McCLOSKEY:  Mr. President, well, just two things.  One is I

 5     thought it would be helpful to point out to the Court that the subject

 6     matter of Dr. Barr's 8th January, 2010, report concerning the documents

 7     is also referred to specifically in the testimony of Danko Gojkovic.

 8     It's at pages 2888 of the transcript and 2881 of the transcript, and I

 9     think that would be helpful to the Trial Chamber.

10             The second issue is, since I've concluded the examination of my

11     witness, may I be excused?

12             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Yes, you are.  Enjoy your -- the remainder of

13     your working day.

14             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Thank you.

15             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  I suppose Mr. Thayer is taking the next witness.

16             Good afternoon, Mr. Thayer.  I always address you as Mr. Thayer

17     because I -- at the beginning the trial one day I asked you how to

18     pronounce your name correctly.  Others say sometimes Mr. Tayer.  What is

19     correct?  Finally after one year I would like to know that.

20             MR. THAYER:  Good afternoon, Mr. President.  The correct

21     pronunciation is Thayer, but --

22             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you very much.

23             MR. THAYER: -- but I answer to numerous monickers and --

24     depending on what they are.

25             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you very much.

Page 10958

 1                           [The witness entered court]

 2             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Good morning, welcome to the Tribunal.  Would you

 3     please read aloud the affirmation on the card which is shown to you now.

 4             THE WITNESS: [Microphone not activated] I solemnly declare that I

 5     will speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

 6                           WITNESS:  EMMA SAYER

 7             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you very much.  Please sit down and make

 8     yourself comfortable.

 9             THE INTERPRETER:  Could the witness's microphones be turned on,

10     please.

11             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  The microphones should be switched on for the

12     witness.

13             Mr. Thayer for the Prosecution will conduct his

14     examination-in-chief.

15             Mr. Thayer.

16             MR. THAYER:  Thank you, Mr. President.  And good afternoon to you

17     again.  Good afternoon to Honourable Judge Nyambe.  Good afternoon to the

18     Defence and everyone in the courtroom.

19                           Examination by Mr. Thayer:

20        Q.   Good afternoon, ma'am.

21        A.   Good afternoon.

22             MR. THAYER:  Mr. President, if I could go into private session

23     for one brief moment, please.

24             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  We turn into private session.

25                           [Private session]

Page 10959

 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                           [Open session]

17             THE REGISTRAR:  We are in open session, Your Honours.

18             MR. THAYER:

19        Q.   Ma'am, would you please just state your name for the record.

20        A.   My name is Emma Lucinda Sayer.

21        Q.   Do you recall testifying in this courtroom in February of 2008?

22        A.   I do.

23        Q.   And, ma'am, did you recently have an opportunity to read a

24     transcript of your prior testimony?

25        A.   Yes, I did.

Page 10960

 1        Q.   And were there two corrections to that prior testimony that we

 2     discussed when we met on Tuesday -- I beg your pardon, on Sunday of this

 3     week?

 4        A.   Yes, that's correct.

 5        Q.   Okay.  The first correction, I believe, has to do with a

 6     particular word that you noticed had been mistranscribed and do you

 7     recall off the top of your head what that word was?

 8        A.   Yes.  The word was "scything," the use of a scythe.  And it was

 9     mistranscribed as "sizing."

10        Q.   Okay.

11             MR. THAYER:  And for the record, that's at transcript page 21136

12     of the prior transcript, line 22, where we see the word size, s-i-z-e.

13        Q.   Now, there was another correction that you wished to make and

14     that was with respect to your recollection of General Tolimir's presence

15     at one meeting versus another.  Can you briefly tell the Trial Chamber

16     what that correction is which you wish to make.

17        A.   Yes.  There were two meetings that I was present at in the same

18     restaurant in the region of Han Kram, and I mistook the meeting in my

19     original testimony in 2008, so the regard to -- with regard to which of

20     the assistant commanders was accompanying General Mladic.  So I believe

21     that the two meetings were on the 19th of July and the 25th of July.  And

22     they relate to General Gvero being at the meeting, the later meeting on

23     the 25th of July.  And it was General Tolimir and Colonel Indjic who were

24     at the meeting, the first meeting, on the 19th.

25        Q.   Okay.  And just for the record, you were asked, beginning at

Page 10961

 1     page 21116 of the prior transcript, about the meeting on the

 2     25th of July, and then on the next page, on 21117, you were asked at

 3     line 11:

 4             "Who, if anyone, from the VRS was there to greet you when you

 5     arrived at the restaurant?"

 6             And your answer to this question was:

 7             "My recollection is that General Tolimir was at the restaurant."

 8             And, again, this is referring to the 25th.  So is that the

 9     specific portion which you wish to correct?

10        A.   Yes, that's correct.

11        Q.   Okay.  And we'll go into a few questions about that meeting on

12     the 19th of July.  We didn't go into that in the last trial but we will

13     in this trial, so hopefully that will be made a little bit clearer.

14             Now, bearing those two corrections in mind, can you attest that

15     the transcript that you read otherwise accurately reflects what you said

16     in the last trial, ma'am?

17        A.   Yes, absolutely.

18        Q.   And, again, bearing those two corrections which you just told us

19     about in mind, can you attest that were you asked the same questions

20     today which you were asked back in February 2008 that your answers would

21     be the same?

22        A.   Yes, bearing in mind the two corrections I've just made, yes.

23        Q.   Okay.

24             MR. THAYER:  Mr. President, the Prosecution would tender

25     65 ter 7214 and 7215 respectively, please.  The under seal and public

Page 10962

 1     versions of the transcript.

 2             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  They both will be received.  The first one under

 3     seal.

 4             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, the under seal version will be

 5     Exhibit P1973 and the public version Exhibit P1974.

 6             MR. THAYER:  Mr. President, we do have one associated exhibit to

 7     tender and that is 65 ter 02434, a list of proposed questions which the

 8     MOD require that we submit ahead of the witness's interview back in 2008.

 9             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  That will be received too.

10             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit P1975.

11             MR. THAYER:  Mr. President, I do have a 92 ter summary to read

12     for the witness, if I may proceed.

13             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Yes.

14             MR. THAYER:  Thank you.

15             Beginning in June 1995, the witness served as a liaison officer

16     and interpreter working for General Rupert Smith at UNPROFOR BH command

17     in Sarajevo.  She primarily dealt with the ABiH and Bosnian politicians,

18     whereas Captain Tom Dibb primarily dealt with the VRS and Serb civilian

19     leadership in a similar role.  When Captain Dibb was unavailable, the

20     witness would occasionally attend meetings with the Serb side.  In 1995,

21     the witness's surname was Bliss.

22             The witness accompanied General Smith to Zepa on 25, 26, and

23     27 July 1995.  She received this assignment only because Dibb was in Zepa

24     working with Colonel Coiffet.  C-o-i-f-f-e-t for the record.  On 25 July,

25     she was present with Smith at a meeting with Generals Mladic and Gvero at

Page 10963

 1     the Jela restaurant in Han Kram after which she drove with Smith to Zepa

 2     later that day.  In Zepa, she particularly recalled the look of shock or

 3     disbelieve on Mr. Torlak's face when Smith asked him whether there was

 4     anybody who wished to remain in the enclave.  Torlak replied that nobody

 5     wanted to stay because they were afraid.  The witness authored the

 6     majority of a report, 65 ter 6072, that memorialises Smith's meetings in

 7     Han Kram, Zepa, and Sarajevo on 25 July.

 8             The witness was also present when Smith met with three members of

 9     the Zepa War Presidency on 27 July and specifically recalls Mladic using

10     the word "liquidate" when discussing what would happen to the men

11     remaining in Zepa who refused to surrender their weapons.

12             The witness also testified about an encounter Smith had with

13     Gvero at a check-point as they left Zepa on 27 July.  During a brief

14     conversation between the two generals at the check-point, the witness

15     formed the impression that Gvero was headed into the enclave to ascertain

16     the situation on the ground and that he would meet Dibb and Coiffet

17     there.

18        Q.   Now, ma'am, I have a few additional questions for you and a

19     couple of reports to show you that we didn't look at last time you were

20     here.  My first question is:  Who preceded you in your position as

21     interpreter and liaison officer on General Smith's staff?

22        A.   There was a female captain called Penny Ferguson who preceded me

23     in the role of liaison with the Bosnian and federation side.

24        Q.   Okay.  Let's go right to some of these documents.

25             MR. THAYER:  If we could have 65 ter 2137 on e-court, please.

Page 10964

 1        Q.   Do you see a document on your screen in front of you, ma'am?

 2        A.   Yes, I do.

 3        Q.   Okay.  We can see it's dated the 13th of July, and we can see

 4     it's from Captain E.L. Bliss.  Just for the record, who's that?

 5        A.   That was me.

 6        Q.   Okay.  And we see that the heading is:

 7             "Meeting General Smith/Prime Minister Silajdzic 13 July 1995."

 8             And it goes on to summarise then lay out what the main issues

 9     were.

10             MR. THAYER:  If we could just briefly go to the next page in both

11     versions, please.  And then one more page in the B/C/S to the last page

12     in B/C/S.

13        Q.   And we see a signature over your name.  Do you recognise that

14     signature?

15        A.   Yes, I do.  That was my signature.

16        Q.   Okay.

17             MR. THAYER:  Now, if we could just briefly go back to the first

18     page of the document, please.

19        Q.   We'll see that this was a meeting at approximately 1420 hours on

20     the 13th of July at the Presidency.  Were you present for this whole

21     meeting, ma'am?

22        A.   Yes, I was.

23        Q.   And can you tell the Trial Chamber whether there was anything in

24     particular that stood out in your mind about this meeting?  If there is

25     nothing after however many years it's been, almost 16 years, that's okay,

Page 10965

 1     but if there's anything that stands out in your memory, please share that

 2     with the Trial Chamber.

 3        A.   I particularly recall the conversation about the capacity for

 4     refugees at Tuzla airport.

 5        Q.   Okay.

 6        A.   And this sticks in my mind because actually Tom Dibb was sent

 7     with the deputy Chief of Staff of headquarters UNPROFOR, Colonel Coiffet,

 8     to assist in this.

 9             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Tolimir.

10             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.  Since the witness is

11     referring to paragraphs 4 and 5, could we also have them displayed on the

12     monitors in the Serbian since now I can only see paragraph 3 which has

13     been discussed.

14             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Yes, of course.  Now we have also paragraphs 4

15     and 5 in B/C/S on the screen.

16             Mr. Thayer.

17             MR. THAYER:

18        Q.   You referred to Captain Dibb.  Do you recall whether you were

19     receiving communications from him during this period of time about what

20     was happening in Tuzla?

21        A.   Yes, they had a means of communicating directly with the

22     headquarters during their deployment.

23        Q.   Okay.  Thank you.

24             MR. THAYER:  We're done with this document.  Mr. President, the

25     Prosecution would tender 65 ter 2137.

Page 10966

 1             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  It will be received as an exhibit.

 2             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit P1976, Your Honours.

 3             MR. THAYER:  Now let's have a look, please, at 65 ter 2139 in

 4     e-court.

 5        Q.   We can see that this at the top indicates that it's coming from

 6     UNPROFOR Sarajevo headquarters office of General Smith.  The date and

 7     time, if I'm reading it correctly, is the 19th of July at 2300 hours

 8     Bravo time zone 1995.  Do I have that correct if we look at the DTG entry

 9     in the upper left-hand corner, ma'am?

10        A.   Yes, that's correct.

11        Q.   Okay.  The drafter is Lieutenant-Colonel Baxter, and the message

12     on this cover sheet is that there is a report attached on the meeting

13     today between General Smith and Mladic with a copy of an agreement which

14     they concluded at the meeting.

15             MR. THAYER:  Now, if we could go to the next page, please.

16        Q.   We can see, again at the upper left-hand side corner, it's from

17     Lieutenant-Colonel Baxter, MA, military assistant to the commander, dated

18     19 July 1995.  If we look at the summary, it refers to a meeting between

19     General Smith and Mladic at the Jela restaurant at 1200 hours in Han Kram

20     on the 19th of July and further indicates that General Mladic was

21     accompanied by General Tolimir and Lieutenant-Colonel Indjic.

22             Now, I don't think we're going to see your name or signature on

23     this report, ma'am, but can you tell the Trial Chamber whether you were

24     present for this meeting?

25        A.   I was present for this meeting, yes.

Page 10967

 1        Q.   And, again, is there anything that stands out in your mind about

 2     this meeting?

 3        A.   May I see the next page of the document, please?

 4        Q.   Certainly.

 5             MR. THAYER:  This would also be the same next page in B/C/S,

 6     please.

 7             THE WITNESS:  Thank you.  Yes, I particularly recall, after the

 8     very detailed discussion on each paragraph of the agreement, the

 9     conversation moved to Srebrenica.  And I particularly recall the

10     translation of General Mladic's point that Srebrenica was finished in the

11     correct way and also when he further explained that he had personally

12     engaged himself in making sure that the refugees had as much water and

13     food as possible.

14             MR. THAYER:  Now, why don't we go two more pages in the English

15     and two more pages in the B/C/S.

16        Q.   I don't want to take you through the actual text of the

17     agreement.  I think we'll have other witnesses here, General Smith, for

18     example, who can testify about it in more detail.  My one question for

19     you is:  As we can see here, there's an agreement, and if we go to the

20     next page, we'll see that it was in fact signed by both General Smith and

21     General Mladic and dated the 19th of July.  Did you have any knowledge at

22     the time as to where or when this agreement which was signed on the 19th

23     was actually drafted or first discussed?

24        A.   I was aware that there had been conversations in Belgrade, at the

25     Belgrade meetings, relating to this agreement.

Page 10968

 1        Q.   Okay.

 2             MR. THAYER:  Mr. President, the Prosecution would tender

 3     65 ter 2139.

 4             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  It will be received.

 5             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit P1977, Your Honours.

 6             MR. THAYER:

 7        Q.   And just a general question with respect to the report we just

 8     saw:  It doesn't bear your name, but can you give the Trial Chamber an

 9     idea of what role you recall playing in the drafting of that report?

10        A.   Yes.  It was our practice in the outer office where

11     Colonel Baxter and the liaison officers sat that whichever of the liaison

12     officers had attended the meetings would do the first sort of draft of

13     the meeting notes, and then they would be passed either to Colonel Baxter

14     or to General Smith for refinement or any amendment.

15        Q.   Okay.  What I'd like to do next is --

16             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  May I ask in addition, who was drafting this

17     specific agreement?

18             THE WITNESS:  My recollection is that the specific points in the

19     agreement were already -- had already been discussed before we actually

20     went to this meeting, and I wasn't present at the Belgrade meetings.

21             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Can I take it that this draft was created before

22     you went with General Smith to this meeting?

23             THE WITNESS:  The actual draft of the agreement, sir, yes.

24             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you.

25             Mr. Thayer.

Page 10969

 1             MR. THAYER:  Okay.  Let's look at some video very briefly, if we

 2     could.  This is P740.  Just going to look at a couple of minutes and

 3     there should be some video showing up on your screen in just a moment.

 4             THE WITNESS:  Okay.

 5                           [Video-clip played]

 6             MR. THAYER:  Sorry, we're just going to start again so I can put

 7     the time code on the record, Mr. President.

 8             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Yes, indeed.  And you have indicated in your list

 9     of documents that this is marked for identification.  Do you recall the

10     reason why it was marked, perhaps about the subtitles or?

11             MR. THAYER:  In this case, Mr. President, this is a -- what we

12     have referred to as a compilation video regarding the events in Zepa.  It

13     comprises different video footage from different days during this period

14     of time.  And our plan has been that we authenticate the various pieces

15     of footage throughout the trial and once everything has been shown to the

16     Court and authenticated, then we would offer the compilation video as an

17     exhibit.

18             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you for this update.  I forgot.

19             MR. THAYER:  So we are looking at 18.4 seconds of the video.  And

20     if we can role the video, please.

21                           [Video-clip played]

22             MR. THAYER:

23        Q.   We've paused it at 28.5 seconds.  First of all, can you tell us

24     where this is and what the date is?

25        A.   I believe this to be the 19th of July at the restaurant at

Page 10970

 1     Han Kram.

 2        Q.   And there is a man with his profile to the camera in an

 3     olive-drab T-shirt and appears to have a pistol holster on his right hip.

 4     Can you tell the Trial Chamber who that is, please?

 5        A.   Yes, that's Lieutenant-Colonel Indjic.

 6             MR. THAYER:  Okay.  Let's keep playing the tape, please.

 7                           [Video-clip played]

 8             MR. THAYER:

 9        Q.   And we've stopped at 1 minute 15.3 seconds.  We've seen a man in

10     this footage in addition to the officer you've identified as

11     Lieutenant-Colonel Indjic.  There's another man who's been standing at

12     the printer in a long-sleeve camouflage uniform and his face is currently

13     in profile to the screen.  Can you tell the Trial Chamber who that person

14     is, please?

15        A.   Yes, that's David Wood.  He was a member of the headquarters

16     UNPROFOR party.

17             MR. THAYER:  Thank you.  Let's keep playing the tape.

18                           [Video-clip played]

19             MR. THAYER:

20        Q.   Okay.  We've paused at 2 minutes 18.1 seconds.  Can you tell the

21     Trial Chamber, moving from left to right, who is in this image?

22        A.   Moving from left to right is General Mladic with

23     General Rupert Smith in the middle and Colonel James Baxter on the

24     right-hand side of the image.

25        Q.   And in this footage we've been seeing, what's being signed?

Page 10971

 1        A.   That's the agreement that we have been looking at in e-court.

 2        Q.   Okay.  And do you recall where you were while this agreement was

 3     being signed?

 4        A.   I believe I was sort of out of shot on the right-hand side of the

 5     table.

 6             MR. THAYER:  Okay.  Thank you.  We're done with the video.

 7             THE WITNESS:  Thank you.

 8             MR. THAYER:  I'd like to move on to some subsequent meetings.  If

 9     we may have 65 ter 1984 on e-court, please.

10        Q.   Okay.  We have a report from Lieutenant-Colonel Baxter and it's

11     dated the 26th of July, referring to the meeting between General Smith

12     and Mladic on the 25th of July.  We can see that he starts out in the

13     report referring to a meeting again at the Jela restaurant at 1230 hours

14     on the 25th of July, and it notes that the meeting was to follow up on

15     aspects of the agreement signed on the 19th and that General Mladic was

16     accompanied by General Gvero.

17             My first question is:  Were you present for this meeting at the

18     Jela restaurant on the 25th of July?

19        A.   Yes, I was present at this meeting on the 25th.

20        Q.   Okay.  And just to tie this back to what you told us at the very

21     beginning of your testimony, with respect to the correction you made in

22     your Popovic testimony, is this the meeting that you mistakenly testified

23     last time that you thought General Tolimir had attended and greeted you

24     at?

25        A.   Yes, that's correct.

Page 10972

 1        Q.   Okay.  I won't go into the details of the report.  We can see

 2     though at paragraph 3 there's a reference to Zepa and that this is the

 3     subject of a separate note, and we'll take a look at that in a moment.

 4     We can see here the topics that were discussed --

 5             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  We should move to the next page in B/C/S.

 6             MR. THAYER:  And in English as well, please.  Thanks.

 7             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Paragraph 3 was on the previous page in English.

 8             MR. THAYER:

 9        Q.   We can see that it's been signed by Lieutenant-Colonel Baxter.

10     The meeting at the Jela restaurant that day, ma'am, do you recall

11     anything in particular about it?  Does anything stand out in your mind

12     about that meeting, whatever it might be?

13        A.   Yes.  I particularly recall the conversation about Bihac.  And

14     General Smith actually raised the situation in Bihac with General Mladic.

15             MR. THAYER:  Mr. President, the Prosecution would tender

16     65 ter 1984.

17             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  It will be received as an exhibit.

18             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit P1978, Your Honours.

19             MR. THAYER:  Okay.  Let's go to the next document which is

20     65 ter 6072, please.

21        Q.   Okay.  We have another report from Lieutenant-Colonel Baxter, and

22     it's dated the 26th of July.  And it indicates at paragraph 1 that this

23     note will summarise today's events in Zepa.  My first question is:  We

24     saw a reference in the previous document at paragraph 3 that there would

25     be a separate note on Zepa; can you tell the Trial Chamber whether this

Page 10973

 1     is the separate note or is there another note that the previous report

 2     was referring to?

 3        A.   Yes, this is the note that was referred to in that earlier

 4     report.  And when it talks about today's events in Zepa, it is actually

 5     referring to the events of the 25th of July.

 6             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Tolimir.

 7             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can it be said clearly for the

 8     transcript whether this is a special reference to a note made in relation

 9     to Zepa or something else.  Can this be clearly distinguished by the

10     Prosecutor or the witness.  Thank you.

11             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Thayer.

12             MR. THAYER:  Mr. President, we can say it again.  I think that's

13     what was contained in the last question.

14        Q.   But, ma'am, you are familiar with this report.  I think, based on

15     your prior testimony, we know that.  Can you tell the Trial Chamber to

16     which area and, generally speaking, to which events this note refers.

17        A.   Yes.  This note refers to the situation in Zepa on the 25th and

18     is drawn from what the headquarters UNPROFOR team saw on the ground on

19     the 25th of July.  And it also, I believe, refers in the second or third

20     pages to the meeting we had at the Presidency, the Bosnian Presidency,

21     with President Izetbegovic just before midnight on the 25th of July.

22        Q.   Okay.  Before we go into some particular portions of this report,

23     can you give the Trial Chamber just a little idea of what the

24     circumstances were of this particular report's drafting in terms of time

25     and place, hour of the day, that this was being drafted?

Page 10974

 1        A.   Yes.  We had gone to Zepa after the meeting at Han Kram and were

 2     there sort of late afternoon.  And we stayed in Zepa for a number of

 3     hours.  We then made the journey back to Sarajevo by road and went

 4     straight to the Presidency, the Bosnian Presidency, to meet with

 5     President Izetbegovic.  And I was the primary author of this document.

 6        Q.   So approximately what time of the day and what date was it

 7     actually that this report was completed, to the best of your

 8     recollection?

 9        A.   It was -- it was started in the early hours of the 26th of July

10     at around 1.00 in the morning, and it was then finished off after it had

11     gone to Colonel Baxter in the morning around sort of 9.00 -- 9.00, 8.00,

12     9.00 in the morning.  And for that reason, it has the date of the

13     26th of July at the top.

14        Q.   Okay.

15             MR. THAYER:  Now, if we could go to the next page in both

16     versions, please.

17        Q.   We can see that paragraphs 4 and 5, and if we go to the next page

18     in B/C/S, and paragraph 6 all pertain to the meeting at the

19     Jela restaurant; is that correct?

20        A.   Yes, that's correct.

21        Q.   Okay.

22             MR. THAYER:  My apologies for leading a little bit; I just want

23     to move along slightly here.

24        Q.   If we look at paragraph 7, it refers to a reconvened meeting in

25     Zepa.  And what was that about?  What does that refer to?  Let me just

Page 10975

 1     ask a proper question.  What does that refer to?

 2        A.   Okay.  It refers to General Smith and General Mladic meeting

 3     again at CP2 and also General Smith had the opportunity to meet with his

 4     other headquarters UNPROFOR staff who had been in Zepa pocket, in

 5     Zepa town, throughout the day.

 6        Q.   Okay.

 7             MR. THAYER:  And if we go to the next page in both the original

 8     and B/C/S.

 9        Q.   We see another paragraph 7, and I think we can appreciate it was

10     early in the morning when this was drafted.

11        A.   Yeah.

12        Q.   But we see another paragraph 7 and a reference to meeting between

13     General Smith and then Mladic and Torlak.  And, again, just briefly

14     because you did touch on this in your prior testimony, to what does --

15     events does this paragraph and the following paragraphs refer?

16        A.   We met with Mr. Torlak and -- because he had been the sort of

17     main representative, or he was presented to us as the main

18     representative, of the population in the pocket of Zepa, the

19     Bosnian Muslim population.  And General Smith was very keen to meet and

20     be able to talk to him and relay to him the fact that we would go from

21     Zepa back to the Bosnian Presidency and meet with Minister Muratovic and

22     the president and be able to relay the concerns of Mr. Torlak directly to

23     them.  And most of the conversation related to the POW exchange.

24        Q.   And just one last question before the break.  I think we're

25     coming up on the break.  Does anything in particular stand out in your

Page 10976

 1     mind about the meeting or the various meetings that General Smith had

 2     during this period of time with General Mladic and Mr. Torlak?

 3        A.   General Smith was trying to get a sense of the atmosphere within

 4     Zepa, the Zepa population, and it was at this stage that he asked

 5     Mr. Torlak whether anybody wished to stay in the pocket.  And my earlier

 6     testimony relates my clear memory of the sort of shock and disbelief on

 7     Mr. Torlak's face when he asked the question.  And it's around

 8     paragraph 10 that that refers to.

 9        Q.   And did Mr. Torlak communicate to General Smith what his belief

10     was would happen to anyone who was left behind, any Muslim that was left

11     behind?

12        A.   Yes.  He, you know, was -- it was clear that any man of fighting

13     age was at risk, at risk of death, were they to remain in the pocket.

14     Which was why they were so keen on helicopters, that's where, you know,

15     he was desperate for helicopters to be used rather than road transport.

16             MR. THAYER:  Okay.  And we'll pick up with this document after

17     the break.

18             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you very much.  We must have our second

19     break now, and we will resume at 1.00.

20                           --- Recess taken at 12.30 p.m.

21                           --- On resuming at 1.01 p.m.

22             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Thayer, please continue your examination.

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

24        Q.   Good afternoon again to you, ma'am.

25             MR. THAYER:  Okay.  We've been looking at 65 ter 6072, for the

Page 10977

 1     record.  If we scroll down in both versions, and we'll have to go -- we

 2     can see that the B/C/S continues through paragraph 10.  If we can go to

 3     the next page in B/C/S, please.

 4        Q.   At paragraph 13 there's a reference to a meeting between

 5     General Smith and President Izetbegovic.  We can see the time here at

 6     2340 hours.  General Smith met Izetbegovic with Muratovic and Masovic

 7     attending as well.  Is this the meeting to which you referred earlier in

 8     your testimony at the end of the night on the 25th?

 9        A.   Yes, that's correct.

10             MR. THAYER:  And if we could just go to the end of the document,

11     the next page in both versions, please.

12        Q.   And, again, do you recognise the signature at the bottom of this

13     page, ma'am?

14        A.   Yes, I do.  It's my signature.

15        Q.   Okay.

16             MR. THAYER:  Mr. President, the Prosecution would tender

17     65 ter 6072.

18             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  It will be received as an exhibit.

19             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit P1979, Your Honours.

20             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Tolimir.

21             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] We have page 13 but not in its

22     entirety, and we don't have paragraph 14 at all.  Does it exist in the

23     document or not?

24             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  We can go back to the previous page with the

25     paragraphs 13 and 14.  We had that on the screen already.  Now you can

Page 10978

 1     see it.  We can go to the next page so that we can see there's paragraph

 2     15 and 16.

 3             Okay.  Mr. Thayer, please continue.

 4             MR. THAYER:  Thank you, Mr. President.

 5        Q.   Now, staying on the 25th of July, ma'am, you've already told the

 6     Trial Chamber that Tom Dibb was on the ground separately from your group

 7     that day.  Can you just generally describe the type of contacts which you

 8     had with Captain Dibb that first day?

 9        A.   Yes.  By the time we arrived at check-point 2 in the late

10     afternoon, around 4.30, Captain Dibb and the French colonel were -- did

11     actually arrive at check-point 2 as well.  So there were verbal

12     communications.  And I hadn't seen Tom for -- or since he'd been

13     deployed, so we took the opportunity to catch up and talk about what had

14     been going on, as our various deployments had been different.

15        Q.   And when you refer to your deployments, are you referring to the

16     events in Zepa or are you referring to a larger deployment of some kind?

17        A.   No, specifically Tom's deployment to the pocket of Zepa and my

18     deployment to the meetings with the Bosnian Serbs that he would normally

19     have attended.  And then our drive from the restaurant at Han Kram into

20     the Zepa enclave, to OPT -- OP2.

21        Q.   Okay.  And you testified in the last trial that you recalled

22     travelling to Zepa on the 25th, 26th, and 27th of July with

23     General Smith.  On those three days, did you ever go down from OP2 into

24     the town of Zepa, or did you remain at OP2 or some other location during

25     those three days?

Page 10979

 1        A.   No.  On each of the three occasions, I remained at the OP2

 2     location.  I did not go into Zepa town.

 3        Q.   And how about Captain Dibb, did he go down into the town?

 4        A.   Absolutely, yes.  That had been his -- the nature of his

 5     deployment was to spend the bulk of that time actually in Zepa town

 6     monitoring and observing what was happening.

 7        Q.   And do you recall at some point on the 25th having a conversation

 8     with Captain Dibb about his interactions with the ICRC?

 9        A.   Yes, I do.  There, it was a difficult time, obviously, and Tom

10     had been actually down in Zepa town and with the civil affairs people as

11     well, and there had been a dispute, a disagreement, between the

12     internationals down in Zepa town at that time about what was appropriate

13     action to be undertaking.  And Tom felt very strongly that ICRC should

14     have been taking a much more proactive role.  And that had caused some

15     tension.

16        Q.   And what did Captain Dibb tell you he wanted the ICRC to do more

17     proactively?

18        A.   He wanted them to take a much more proactive role about taking

19     proper names and information from the people, from the wounded, and also

20     the refugees, and he felt that that was not happening.

21        Q.   And did he tell you why ICRC wasn't being proactive enough in his

22     view?  Did they give him any explanation?

23        A.   Yes.  The ICRC explanation was that from their perspective for

24     them to be actively involved in that sort of activity would make them

25     party to ethnic cleansing.

Page 10980

 1        Q.   So to your knowledge what did ICRC actually end up involving

 2     itself with in terms of its activities in Zepa?

 3        A.   Mainly there was observation, I believe.  And I believe at some

 4     stage towards the end of that three days there was some registering of

 5     wounded.  An assessment of the wounded, yeah.

 6        Q.   Okay.  Now, were -- was this particular conversation with

 7     Captain Dibb in person or through some communications means?

 8        A.   No, it was face to face.

 9        Q.   And do you recall whether Captain Dibb maintained some form of

10     communication with the rest of the UNPROFOR contingent from Sarajevo who

11     were at OP2 while he was down in Zepa town?

12        A.   Yes, absolutely.  They had satellite communication, so they were

13     able to stay in comms with General Smith's party at all times.

14        Q.   Do you recall ever seeing the accused on the 25th of July,

15     General Tolimir?

16        A.   Yes.  And also Tom had told me when we met at check-point 2 that

17     Tolimir had been -- General Tolimir had been in Zepa town during that day

18     on the 25th.

19        Q.   And where did you see General Tolimir that day, if you recall?

20        A.   At check P -- at check-point 2 where there was a tent set up.

21     And he was with General Mladic.

22        Q.   Okay.  Just a couple more documents to go through with you,

23     ma'am.

24             MR. THAYER:  And, Mr. President, I note that I'm -- I think I'm

25     coming up on my estimated hour, and I think I might need 5 to 10 minutes

Page 10981

 1     beyond that, if I may, to go through the next couple of documents.

 2             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Fine.  Yes.

 3             MR. THAYER:  Thank you, Mr. President.

 4             May we see 65 ter 2142 on e-court, please.

 5        Q.   And we can see this document is headed, "The Situation in Zepa

 6     Summary as at 0800 hours 28 July 1995."

 7             MR. THAYER:  If we could just briefly go to the next page in both

 8     versions, please.  That will be the last page in B/C/S.  The third page

 9     in B/C/S, please.  We can see that it's signed by

10     Lieutenant-Colonel Baxter.  If we could go back to the first page,

11     please.

12        Q.   Just take a moment to re-familiarise yourself with the subject

13     matter of this report.  And we can see it refers to the departure of the

14     civilian population, paragraph 1.  Paragraph 2 there's a reference to the

15     events, the meetings, at the Sarajevo airport.  Paragraph 3 refers to a

16     meeting at 4.30 that afternoon with three members of the

17     Zepa War Presidency and then an agreement.  And we'll have to go to the

18     next page in B/C/S - thank you very much - to capture paragraph 5 where

19     General Smith's conversation with those three members of the

20     War Presidency is memorialised.

21             My first question, ma'am, is were you present for the events in

22     paragraphs 1, 3, 4, and 5?

23        A.   Yes, I was present.

24        Q.   And I take it you didn't pop back up to Sarajevo to be part of

25     the airport negotiations in paragraph 2; is that fair to say?

Page 10982

 1        A.   Yes, that's correct.  Although, we were in communication with the

 2     people who were at the POW exchange commission meeting.

 3        Q.   Okay.  So in paragraph 2, do you recall who received this

 4     information, and were you present when it was received?

 5        A.   The communications officers received the information.  And I

 6     wasn't present when it was received, but I was there when the information

 7     was relayed to General Smith.

 8        Q.   Okay.  So is it fair to say at the time this document was created

 9     you were aware of the information in paragraph 2, just to lead you a

10     little bit on that, but ...

11        A.   Yes.

12        Q.   Okay.

13        A.   And I should perhaps clarify that although the summary is dated

14     as at 0800 on the 28th of July, it does concern information from

15     everything that happened on the 27th of July, just in case that isn't

16     clear.

17        Q.   And based on your recollection of these events, is there anything

18     that stands out in particular in your mind about what happened that day

19     in Zepa, the 27th of July?

20        A.   Yes.  In particular I recall the meeting with the War Presidency

21     members.  And you may recognise that I actually have changed the name of

22     Mr. Torlak.  When I first met him, I misheard his name as Hakija, and

23     that's what it says in the earlier report that we've seen today.  And so

24     now in paragraph 3 I've got his correct name.

25        Q.   Okay.  And in your prior testimony you indicated that you had a

Page 10983

 1     specific recollection of General Mladic's use of the term "liquidate"

 2     when he was referring to the men in Zepa who refused to surrender their

 3     weapons by 1800 hours that day.  Can you describe for the Trial Chamber

 4     anything about General Mladic's demeanour when he made this statement and

 5     whether you drew any conclusions based on his demeanour and how he was

 6     communicating this statement?

 7        A.   Yes.  I specifically recall that when General Smith was talking

 8     to General Mladic about the fact that the Bosnian government were

 9     unlikely to accept the agreement that had been signed by the three

10     members of the Zepa War Presidency, Mladic became very dismissive,

11     very -- and I have said scornfully.  He -- he -- his demeanour seemed to

12     have hardened.  And there had been an offer of a meeting with

13     Mr. Muratovic, but Mladic refused to go to the airport and Muratovic

14     refused to come to Zepa to OP2, to check-point 2.  So there was -- he was

15     very dismissive of the Bosnian Muslim politicians at this particular time

16     of meeting.  And then when we talked about General Smith relaying the

17     information to the Bosnian government that the agreement had been signed

18     by the War Presidency, he was very specific in the word he used.  They

19     would be liquidated by the dead-line of 1800 hours.  And he specifically

20     asked General Smith to take that message back with some force to

21     President Izetbegovic.

22        Q.   And based on the -- his tone, as you said, and his demeanour and

23     the force, as you just said, what was your conclusion based on how he --

24     how General Mladic delivered this message about what "liquidated" meant

25     and to whom he was referring, who would be liquidated?

Page 10984

 1        A.   I had the strong impression that he was talking about the men,

 2     the Bosnian Muslim men, left within the Zepa enclave who had refused to

 3     surrender.  And my -- the impression that I formed was very strongly that

 4     once the dead-line of 1800 had passed, Mladic would not show them any

 5     form of mercy and that they would be killed.

 6             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Tolimir.

 7             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.

 8     Mr. Thayer is asking for the witness's opinion and she was supposed to

 9     testify about events.  He wants to know the witness's opinion of what

10     General Mladic had in mind, also leading the witness in that.  Perhaps

11     questions should be put specifically and limited to the words of those

12     participating in those events.

13             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  I don't think so, Mr. Tolimir.  Mr. Thayer was

14     asking about the conclusion of the witness how General Mladic delivered

15     this message about what "liquidated" meant and to whom he was referring.

16     This witness was present at the time and I think it is absolutely correct

17     to ask for the way this witness understood the words of another person

18     present at this meeting.

19             Mr. Thayer, please continue.

20             MR. THAYER:  Mr. President, the Prosecution would tender

21     65 ter 2142.

22             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  It will be received.

23             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit P1980, Your Honours.

24             MR. THAYER:

25        Q.   Just one question about your observations in this case of the

Page 10985

 1     Ukrainian contingent that was up at OP2.  Based on your observations of

 2     their conduct, their behaviour, their -- whatever equipment they had with

 3     them, were you able to get a sense of what military capabilities they had

 4     up there at OP2?  And referring, again, specifically to the Ukrainians.

 5        A.   Yes.  I'm afraid that my view of the Ukrainians that I met at OP2

 6     is not good.  They were, in military terms, shambolic.  Their weapons

 7     were filthy.  And I at no stage saw any attempt by any of them to clean

 8     obviously dirty weapons.  And I did not form a very high opinion of their

 9     military capability.

10             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Thayer, some minutes ago you indicated you

11     need 5 to 10 minutes.  You should try to come to an end.

12             MR. THAYER:  I'm down to my last question actually,

13     Mr. President.  Sorry, actually one question and one document and then

14     I'm done.  And I can -- well, I'll finish, I hope, in five minutes, if I

15     could have five more minutes.

16             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Try to do it in three minutes.

17             MR. THAYER:  All right.

18        Q.   Did you personally, observe, ma'am, any of the Muslim population

19     being taken out of the enclave?

20        A.   Yes, I did.

21        Q.   Can you tell the Trial Chamber about what you saw.

22        A.   Yes.  On the final day that we were at OP2, so 27th, there was a

23     truck that was to one side of the check-point, and it was carrying sort

24     of 12 to 15 Bosnian Muslim people.  And they were a mix of a couple of

25     younger boys, a couple of older women, and a number of wounded, maybe

Page 10986

 1     three or four of them were wounded.  And I particularly recall a man of

 2     fighting age with a very obvious wound to his leg that had begun to smell

 3     from the infection that had set in, and they were -- they were terrified.

 4        Q.   And did you do anything with respect to these people that you saw

 5     in the truck?

 6        A.   I actually did get into the back of the truck at the request of

 7     one of the women, and she explained that they were terrified that they

 8     would be taken off the truck.  And they asked me to take their names,

 9     both first names and surnames, of everybody that was in the truck and

10     pass them to the UNHCR when I got back to Sarajevo.  So I did do that and

11     I did pass the information back to our civil affairs people when I got

12     back to headquarters UNPROFOR in Sarajevo that evening.

13        Q.   And among these wounded whom you saw in the back of this truck,

14     were all of the wounded military aged or able-bodied men?

15        A.   Yes.  They weren't -- not all of the 14 people in the back of the

16     truck were wounded, but the men of fighting age all had wounds.  So one

17     had an arm in the sling, there was a man with the leg injury, and a

18     couple of other sort of walking wounded.

19        Q.   And were any of the wounded in the truck other than a military

20     aged man?

21        A.   No.

22        Q.   Okay.  Let me just ask you, see if I can jog your recollection,

23     do you remember telling me the other day about a wounded elderly woman

24     who was in the back of the truck, or did I mishear what you may have told

25     me?

Page 10987

 1        A.   There was an elderly woman who was not well, but my distinction

 2     is that I don't believe she had been wounded by a military action.  She

 3     was suffering from heat exhaustion and very, very dehydrated.  So I did

 4     give her some water.

 5        Q.   Okay.  That was my mistake then.  Thank you for clarifying that.

 6             I just want to show you, very quickly, one last document.

 7             MR. THAYER:  65 ter 2143.

 8             THE WITNESS:  Here we are.

 9             MR. THAYER:

10        Q.   While the B/C/S is coming up, it's a report from

11     Lieutenant-Colonel Baxter, it's dated the 31st of July, and it

12     memorialises a meeting between General Smith and General Mladic and

13     General Gvero at the Balkana motel near Mrkonjic Grad at 1200 hours on

14     the 31st of July.

15             Now, you testified a little bit about this meeting and identified

16     yourself in some video in the last trial, so we won't go through that.  I

17     just want to ask you very quickly whether you've seen this report before?

18        A.   Yes, I have.

19        Q.   Were you present for the meeting that's described in this report?

20        A.   Yes, I was present for the whole of the meeting.

21        Q.   Okay.  And does the report accurately reflect what occurred in

22     the meeting?

23        A.   Yes, it does.

24        Q.   Okay.

25             MR. THAYER:  Mr. President, the Prosecution would tender

Page 10988

 1     65 ter 2143.

 2             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  It will be received.

 3             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit P1981, Your Honours.

 4             MR. THAYER:  And Mr. President, that concludes my

 5     examination-in-chief.  I appreciate the extra time.

 6             And I thank you, ma'am.

 7             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you very much.

 8             Mr. Tolimir -- Judge Nyambe has a question first, and then the

 9     cross-examination.

10             JUDGE NYAMBE:  Thank you.  At page 67 of today's transcript, you

11     have stated that "the ICRC explanation was that from their perspective

12     for them to actively be involved in that sort of activity would make them

13     party to ethnic cleansing."

14             What particular activity is this?

15             THE WITNESS:  The specific activity I was referring to is the

16     ICRC registering the full names and details of all the refugees within

17     the pocket.

18             JUDGE NYAMBE:  Thank you.  And what is your own opinion of this

19     refusal by the ICRC to register the refugees?  As I understand generally,

20     this is the role of the ICRC in conflict zones.  So what impression did

21     you form of their refusal to register refugees in these circumstances?

22             THE WITNESS:  The impression that I formed is that the ICRC were

23     understandably nervous that the refugees did not wish voluntarily, for

24     any other reason than fear, to leave their homes.  And therefore it was a

25     form of ethnic cleansing to actually -- the intent was to move the

Page 10989

 1     Bosnian Muslim population in its entirety from the Zepa enclave to

 2     Bosnian Muslim territory.

 3             JUDGE NYAMBE:  Thank you.

 4             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Tolimir, your cross-examination, please.

 5             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.

 6                           Cross-examination by Mr. Tolimir:

 7        Q.   [Interpretation] Good afternoon to you.  I wish you a happy

 8     Women's Day.  And may your testimony here end as God wishes and not I.

 9             Let me start from the question put to you by Judge Nyambe.  Is

10     that which is the subject of an agreement between the parties relevant

11     for the parties, or is the opinion of other representatives present more

12     important?  Thank you.

13        A.   I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand the question.  Could you

14     clarify who you mean when you're talking about the agreement between the

15     parties?

16        Q.   I mean the UNHCR.  Is their -- is more relevant the opinion held

17     by you or the UNHCR or the opinion of the parties that were signatory to

18     the agreement on the evacuation?  I'm sorry, I'm referring to the ICRC,

19     rather than the UNHCR.

20        A.   Okay.  My belief is that the ICRC are experts in this field and

21     they have very clear understandings of what constitutes ethnic cleansing

22     and genocide.

23        Q.   Thank you.  I understand what you're saying.  But tell me this,

24     if you were in Zepa and saw that the parties agreed on the population

25     moving out and evacuating, would you insist on having the population stay

Page 10990

 1     there and possibly get killed only because you held an opinion that this

 2     amounted to ethnic cleansing?  Thank you.

 3        A.   I'm not sure I completely understand the question.  I was at

 4     check-point 2 in Zepa and the members of the population whom I met did

 5     not convince me that they were leaving voluntarily because they wished to

 6     move and live in Tuzla.  They -- the impression that I formed and what

 7     they told me was that they did not feel safe and they feared aggression

 8     and perhaps death from the Bosnian side -- Serb side, and therefore they

 9     were being forced to leave their homes.

10        Q.   Thank you.  Did you have occasion to review the items of the

11     agreement reached on the 24th, the agreement to which you testified here?

12     And specifically it's item 7.

13        A.   Do you mean the agreement signed by the members of the

14     Zepa War Presidency or some other agreement?  Because we have also

15     discussed an agreement signed between General Mladic and General Smith.

16     I would be grateful for clarification.

17             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  And I would be grateful to receive the document

18     number so that it could be displayed on the screen.

19             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.  For everyone's

20     reference, can we show D51 in e-court.

21             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

22        Q.   And I kindly ask you to read item 7 of the document.  Thank you.

23             Thank you.  We have item 7 in e-court.  And to save time, I'll

24     read it out:

25             "In accordance with the Geneva Conventions of the

Page 10991

 1     12th of August, 1949, and the Additional Protocols of 1977," it says

 2     1577; it should read 1977, "the civilian population of Zepa shall be

 3     given the freedom to choose their place of residence while hostilities

 4     continue."

 5             Can you keep these words in mind:  "While hostilities continue."

 6     This is my question:  Is it not better to get the civilian population out

 7     of harm's way while hostilities continue, or is it better to allow them

 8     to stay in an area where fighting is going on?  Thank you.

 9        A.   In my opinion, it would have been better if the civilian

10     population of Zepa could have stayed in their homes without fear for

11     their lives.

12             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  For the record, at the moment we have this

13     document on the screen signed by members of the War Presidency of Zepa

14     and General Mladic.

15             THE WITNESS:  Mm-hm.  Thank you.

16             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Tolimir.

17             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

18        Q.   Thank you.  Can you tell Their Honours, are the

19     Geneva Conventions invoked here by the signatories to the agreement

20     invalid and should they not be applied if the agreement is not proper

21     according to the opinion of the ICRC and yourself?  Thank you.

22        A.   I think the question at issue is whether the civilian population

23     of Zepa were freely choosing their place of residence with regard to

24     Article 7 of the agreement or whether they were doing it out of fear.

25     For me, that is the distinction, but I'm not an ICRC expert on these

Page 10992

 1     things.

 2        Q.   Thank you.  Though you answered a question which you seem to have

 3     put to yourself, my question was should we not have acted in accordance

 4     with the Geneva Conventions and the provisions of this agreement, which,

 5     as Mr. President's indicated, was signed by the warring parties on the

 6     24th in Zepa?

 7             This is my next question:  Did you know that the Muslim

 8     delegation had asked that the entire Muslim population in Zepa be allowed

 9     to leave?  Thank you.

10        A.   May I clarify.  Do you mean the Muslim delegation, the three

11     members of the War Presidency, or the Bosnian government in Sarajevo?

12        Q.   Thank you.  I mean the individuals who negotiated and reached the

13     agreement that was signed in Zepa who were resident in Zepa and not in

14     Sarajevo.  Thank you.

15        A.   Thank you for the clarification.  You may recall we have just

16     seen a document where General Smith talked to the three members of the

17     Zepa War Presidency and he did convey to them that he felt it was

18     unlikely that the Bosnian government in Sarajevo would accept the

19     agreement that had been signed and -- as they would feel that it would be

20     under duress for the three members of the Zepa War Presidency to sign

21     such an agreement with the Bosnian Serb forces.

22        Q.   Thank you.  Was the status of the enclave given to the Muslims in

23     Zepa or to the Muslims in Sarajevo?  And I mean the authorities there.

24        A.   My understanding of the political situation at the time is that

25     President Izetbegovic remained president of the enclaves even though he

Page 10993

 1     resided in Sarajevo.

 2        Q.   Thank you.  Does it follow then that all those who were in Zepa

 3     had to get killed for the sake of Sarajevo or should they not have made

 4     decisions which were in their own interest?  Thank you.

 5        A.   I'm sorry, that's an astonishing question.

 6        Q.   Thank you.  Since you find the question astonishing, are you here

 7     to present your own views, the views of the Muslims in Zepa, or the views

 8     of UNPROFOR?  Thank you.

 9        A.   I've been asked here to give testimony on what I witnessed during

10     my service for UNPROFOR in Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1995/1996.

11             If I may answer your question, when we met with President

12     Izetbegovic and Ministers Muratovic and Masovic on the first evening, the

13     evening of our first day in Zepa, they were -- the Bosnian government was

14     completely open to an all-for-all prisoner exchange in order to

15     safe-guard the population of Zepa.  And not solely the military, the

16     Armija forces in Zepa, but the civilian population.

17             So I do not -- I did not conclude that the Bosnian Presidency was

18     intending to sacrifice the civilian population of Zepa for the sake of

19     Sarajevo, which I refer to your earlier question.

20        Q.   Thank you.

21             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Tolimir, that should be the last question for

22     today because we are running out of time.

23             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

24        Q.   Did you know that the population of Zepa had asked that all those

25     held in prisons be exchanged for the inhabitants of Zepa and not for all

Page 10994

 1     those detained across Bosnia?  Were you aware of this?  Thank you.

 2        A.   I was aware of the -- the questions regarding the prisoner

 3     exchange as they've been reported in these reports.

 4             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Tolimir, we have to adjourn for the day.

 5     Sorry for that.  We resume tomorrow morning in this courtroom at 9.00.

 6             And you should be reminded not to have contact to either party

 7     about the content of your testimony.

 8             THE WITNESS:  Of course, Your Honour.

 9             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you very much.  We adjourn.

10                           [The witness stands down]

11                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.48 p.m.,

12                           to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 9th day of

13                           March, 2011, at 9.00 a.m.