Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 17557

 1                           Monday, 5 September 2011

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           --- Upon commencing at 2.18 p.m.

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

 6     to those who are following our procedure.  Due to technical problems in

 7     Courtroom III we are, again, in Courtroom II now.

 8             I would like to raise two matters.

 9             Mr. Tolimir, Mr. Gajic, you have received a confidential motion,

10     I think it was confidential because of medical information contained in

11     it, for leave to add Witness Dumanjic to it's witness list.  It's not a

12     protected witness.  We can expect the B/C/S translation to be filed by

13     the end of today or tomorrow, and I would like to invite the Defence, if

14     possible, to respond to that orally in the course of this week, perhaps

15     on Thursday, because we are now really approaching the end of the

16     Prosecution case and, therefore, we should speed up the best possible

17     way.

18             Mr. Gajic, would that be possible for you?

19             MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, as you know so far

20     this Defence has been efficient and our written reply is already

21     prepared.  It just needs to go through a minor revision.  I believe it

22     will be filed tomorrow or the day after tomorrow at the latest.

23             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Are you now referring to the two 92 quater

24     submissions of the Prosecution or to this motion to add a witness to the

25     witness list, Mr. Gajic?

Page 17558

 1             MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] The submission concerning the

 2     addition of a new witness to the schedule, and we will probably file a

 3     combined submission responding to all the three motions of the

 4     Prosecution.

 5             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you very much for that.  That will speed up

 6     the remainder of the Prosecution case, for sure.

 7             There is another matter I would like to raise.  Early in this

 8     trial, I indicated that we will probably hold a housekeeping session at

 9     the end of the Prosecution case.  I am not sure which matters could be

10     discussed in such a housekeeping session.  I would kindly ask the parties

11     if they have some matters to discuss during a housekeeping session, and

12     if so, what kind of matters the parties would like to put on the agenda.

13     If there is no need for that, then we should refrain from having such a

14     housekeeping session.

15             Mr. McCloskey.

16             MR. McCLOSKEY:  Yes, good afternoon, Mr. President, Your Honours.

17     And I -- of course, we will discuss that, Mr. Gajic and myself, but as

18     you know we communicate so often with each other and with the Court, I

19     can't think of anything off the top of my head, but we'll discuss it and

20     see.  There is probably -- there may be something out there, but right

21     now I can't think of anything, but we will get together.

22             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Gajic.

23             MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, this is a rare

24     opportunity when I share Mr. McCloskey's opinion.  There are no issues to

25     raise at such a housekeeping session.

Page 17559

 1             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  I am astonished that you say this is a rare

 2     opportunity.  My experience is different, on procedural matters there is

 3     a very good relation between the parties and a good co-operation.  We

 4     appreciate that.

 5             Thank you for that.  I would kindly ask the Defence about the

 6     estimation of time to be used between the next two witnesses,

 7     Michael Hedley and Jan de Koeijer.  Are you able to provide us with your

 8     estimate for cross-examination.  At least I didn't receive any

 9     indication.

10             I was informed by the Registrar that we, indeed, received your

11     estimation, one and a half hours for both of the witnesses.

12             Thank you.

13             The next witness should be brought in, please.

14                           [The witness takes the stand]

15             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Good afternoon, Mr. Hedley.  Welcome to this

16     trial and to the courtroom.  Would you please read aloud the affirmation

17     on the card which is shown to you now.

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

19     whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

20             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you very much.

21             Please sit down and make yourself comfortable.

22                 Mr. Elderkin, for the Prosecution, has questions for you.

23     You have the floor, Mr. Elderkin.

24             MR. ELDERKIN:  Thank you, Mr. President.  And good afternoon to

25     you, Your Honours, and to everyone else in the courtroom.

Page 17560

 1                           WITNESS: MICHAEL HEDLEY

 2                           Examination by Mr. Elderkin:

 3        Q.   And good afternoon to you, Mr. Hedley.

 4        A.   Good afternoon.

 5        Q.   As I mentioned when we had the chance to meet yesterday, since we

 6     are both speaking the same language and the proceedings are being

 7     interpreted, we should both try and go slowly.  And the best way to allow

 8     the interpreters to keep up is to leave a pause after I ask a question

 9     before you start answering, and I will try to leave a pause after your

10     answer before I carry on.

11        A.   I will do my best.

12        Q.   Also I know you brought some papers in with you this afternoon,

13     could you just tell us what those papers are?

14        A.   This is a copy of --

15             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  And could you please move a little bit further

16     toward the microphones.  Thank you.

17             THE WITNESS:  How is that?

18             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Go ahead.

19             THE WITNESS:  This is a copy of my report.

20             MR. ELDERKIN:

21        Q.   That's fine, it's just so that everyone in the Court knows what

22     you've brought in.  I should ask, first, for the record, that you say

23     your full name, please?

24        A.   My name is Michael John Hedley.

25             THE INTERPRETER:  Could the witness please speak into the

Page 17561

 1     microphone?  He can be barely heard.

 2             THE WITNESS:  My name is Michael John Hedley.

 3             MR. ELDERKIN:

 4        Q.   And what is your nationality?

 5        A.   British.

 6             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  I think there is a technical problem with the

 7     microphones.  Perhaps the Court Usher -- it's hardly to be heard.

 8             MR. ELDERKIN:  Your Honours, I think it's coming from this

 9     microphone here, which I'm about to unplug and replace with the original

10     one.  So if you give me a moment, please.

11             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Yes, please.

12             MR. ELDERKIN:  Silence, which I think is a good thing.

13             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Yes, please, try it again.

14             MR. ELDERKIN:

15        Q.   So I think we have on the record, sir, your name.  If you could

16     repeat, please, your nationality?

17        A.   British.

18        Q.   What is your current occupation?

19        A.   My current occupation is that of a regional property manager for

20     a development company in the UK.

21        Q.   When did you start that work?

22        A.   2002, after I left as a contractor with ICTY.

23        Q.   And so what was your previous career?

24        A.   I am a retired police officer.  I retired from the police service

25     in the UK in 2000.

Page 17562

 1        Q.   And starting from when you first joined the police service, can

 2     you talk us through briefly that career in the police in Britain.

 3        A.   It was a long time ago.  Yes, I'll try.  I joined the police

 4     service in 1970 as a uniformed police officer in a county known as

 5     Teesside in northern England.

 6        Q.   I think we are still picking you up.  That's fine if you carry

 7     on.

 8        A.   I'm sorry.  It's just a change in the -- yes, I joined in 1970 in

 9     the Teesside in the north of England.  I served in that constabulary for

10     five years, and I transferred to Gloucestershire constabulary which in

11     the southwest of England.  In 1975, I was a uniformed police officer, I

12     served so until 1980, when I took an interest in scenes of crime work,

13     took an attachment with the scenes of crime department of the

14     Gloucestershire constabulary.  I took an initial training source at the

15     national scientific aides' college in the UK.  I was subsequently

16     accepted within the department, and carried on as a scenes of crime

17     officer for a number of years until, I think, 1996.  During that period,

18     within scenes of crime, obviously, I started off at the bottom dealing

19     with the most minor crimes such as theft of motor vehicles, minor

20     assaults, then went on to investigation of burglary, more serious crimes

21     of rape, sexual assault, up to crimes of attempted murder and murder.

22             Obviously, I was mentored throughout the early service, and then

23     became a senior examiner in my own right later on.

24        Q.   What was the nature of the training that you received at the

25     national college that you attended to qualify as a scene of crime

Page 17563

 1     officer?

 2        A.   We were taught all aspects of crime scene investigation, from

 3     finger-print retrieval through to collection of forensic exhibits,

 4     packaging, preservation, for later submission to the forensic science

 5     laboratories.  We were also trained in photography and technical

 6     photography of particular items found, evidential items found or

 7     collected.

 8        Q.   Perhaps by way of example, can you talk us through what a scene

 9     of crime officer does on any given case, bearing in mind you're the first

10     such professional that we have heard give evidence in this trial?

11        A.   Perhaps I could describe the approach towards a burglary scene.

12     Obviously uniformed department would be called to the burglary first, and

13     then if the uniformed officers thought that there was a scene to examine,

14     they would request attendance of a scenes of crime officer.  I would

15     attend, obviously approach the scene with a view to collecting evidence

16     on the same approach that perhaps the burglar would have taken.  I would

17     then look at the point of entry, in particular look at any tool-marks

18     which were used to force entry.  I would also look for traces of fibres,

19     perhaps even if the offender was injured, traces of blood.

20             At that point, if I haven't found any of these particular

21     articles of evidence, I would take photographs.  I would take photographs

22     with scales attached to them to -- in case of a subsequent inquiry for

23     forensic examination.  I would collect blood samples by means of a swab.

24     I would clearly mark the swab package to indicate the area -- the address

25     in which it was recovered.  In the case of tool-marks, which would

Page 17564

 1     obviously be in a fixed window frame which couldn't be removed, I would

 2     probably use a casting material to cast the impression made by the tool.

 3     Again, that's -- once the cast had set, I would remove the cast and

 4     probably store it in a crush-proof box so it couldn't be damaged, clearly

 5     mark it up for subsequent submission for forensic science laboratory.

 6             Once the physical -- again, things like fibres, fibres might

 7     perhaps be adherent to a point of entry, on a jagged piece of wood, say,

 8     for example, in which case I would use a tape method of placing tape over

 9     the fibre, lifting the fibre, and then attaching that to a celluloid

10     sheet.  Again I would write on the sheet, clearly marking the address of

11     the property, the precise location where it was found in relation to the

12     point of entry.  Again, I would clearly mark the time and date of

13     retrieval.  Then, a finger-print examination would take place around that

14     point of entry, in particular looking at a place of entry where a person

15     might have pulled themselves, which is always a favourite of raising

16     finger-prints.  That would be done with how aluminum powder and soft

17     brush.  Sometimes there would be a finger-print in blood where you could

18     actually see the finger-print in which case you would have to take a

19     photograph of the finger-print.

20             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Hedley, may I ask you to slow down a little

21     bit.

22             THE WITNESS:  I'm sorry, sir.

23             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  You are speaking very fast, and you must bear in

24     mind that we have interpreters who have to interpret everything which you

25     are saying into French and B/C/S and it's better to slow down a bit.

Page 17565

 1             THE WITNESS:  I apologise, Your Honour.

 2             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you very much.

 3             Please continue.

 4             THE WITNESS:  I lost my train now.  There are -- obviously, an

 5     examination would then carry on inside the property.  In particular,

 6     looking for, perhaps, foot-prints which obviously would have also taken

 7     place outside, footprints on windowsills.

 8             MR. ELDERKIN:

 9        Q.   If I may interrupt there.  I think you have given us a very clear

10     flavor of the detail with which a task is approached.  You've described a

11     number of examples of the specific kinds of evidence in a burglary

12     situation you might be looking for and the detailed way in which you

13     would record and then store that evidence.

14             Were you following set protocols in your approach to this, or

15     does a scene of crime officer develop their own specific methods of work?

16        A.   No, there is a --

17        Q.   And if you could leave a pause again, just for a moment.

18        A.   The word "protocol" is a word, it's attached, I think, with

19     something I found with the ICTY in the sites.  But there was a set method

20     which we were taught during our basic training, and particularly it was

21     that of a collect -- method of collection of the evidence and method of

22     preservation of the evidence, and the correct storage of the evidence.

23     And then a chain of custody from myself to whoever else the investigating

24     officer decided to submit the sample to.

25        Q.   Thank you.  And just to get back to the end of your career with

Page 17566

 1     the British police, can you tell us what was your last employment with

 2     the police and then when did you retire from the police?

 3        A.   In 1996, I was offered a position of criminal intelligence

 4     officer within the Gloucestershire crime intelligence unit.  I served

 5     there for four years until my retirement in 6th of January, 2000.  I took

 6     a couple of months off and approached ICTY with a view to employment in

 7     the exhumation scheme.

 8        Q.   And you managed to obtain employment with the ICTY.  Can you tell

 9     us what terms you were employed and what position you were employed --

10        A.   I was --

11        Q.   And again just pause for a moment, first, please.

12        A.   I was employed as a scene of crime officer, as a contractor, as

13     ICTY working under Professor Richard Wright.

14        Q.   I see in the transcript it says you were employed as a senior

15     crime.  I think I heard scene of crime officer.

16        A.   Scene of crime officer is correct.

17        Q.   And this employment as ICTY scene of crime officer started in

18     2000.  Where did you carry out your work for the ICTY in the year 2000?

19        A.   During 2000, we commenced in Croatia, at the site of -- sorry, I

20     can't remember the name of the site.  We came across to Sanski Most and

21     worked at Prijedor cemetery, a site called Redak which was a stoneworks.

22     Then we came across to Visoko [Realtime transcript read in error "Bisko"]

23     and worked on sites within the Srebrenica inquiry.  I worked at Lazete I

24     and II, Glogova 1, and I was requested to carry out an examination at

25     Kravica warehouse.

Page 17567

 1        Q.   And when did you leave the ICTY or leave your employment for the

 2     ICTY, I should say?

 3        A.   At the end of 2000 I left the Srebrenica team, Richard Wright's

 4     team, and then commenced the following year, and worked a season, a

 5     couple of months, with Jose Pablo Baraybar's team, and then requested I

 6     moved to the monitoring team, where I worked with Jon Sterenburg for the

 7     remainder of the season at Cancari Road and Liplje sites, and Ravnice

 8     sites.

 9        Q.   Can I just pick up one word that appears, if you look at the live

10     transcript.  At page 10, line 4, it refers to a place called "Bisko"?

11        A.   Sorry, Visoko.

12        Q.   Now, focussing on your Srebrenica-related work, you've mentioned

13     your work at Lazete 1 and 2 sites, Glogova 1, Kravica, and then the

14     following year also at Ravnice, and I think you mentioned Liplje,

15     although it doesn't appear on the LiveNote at the moment.  Does that

16     cover all the sites for which you worked in relation to Srebrenica?

17        A.   To the best of my recollection, that includes them all, yes.  I

18     don't know the numbers of the Liplje sites or the Cancari road, but I

19     think we did four or five sites, those locations.

20        Q.   And what function did you perform at the different sites?  Again,

21     just in relation to the Srebrenica sites.

22        A.   Well, in 2000, I was senior scene of crime officer on site.  I

23     had assistants, data entry assistance who also assistant SOCO.  Later on

24     in the season, much later on in the season, we had two Dutch scene of

25     crime officers joined us at Glogova 1, and -- apologies, going back to

Page 17568

 1     Lazete, we also had a South African SOCO that assisted us.

 2        Q.   How did you work as a scene of crime officer at these Srebrenica

 3     related sites compare to your experience as scene of crime officer during

 4     your police service back in Britain?

 5        A.   Well, the intensity on site was obviously much greater than the

 6     more relaxed work carried out on domestic scene of crime in an urban

 7     police force.  Generally speaking, the principles were basically the

 8     same, the volume of work was just that much greater.

 9        Q.   Can you describe, perhaps by, again, way of example for any of

10     the Srebrenica sites where you worked, what other professionals were

11     present and working at those sites.  So you mentioned yourself as the

12     senior scene of crime officer and also assistant scene of crime officers.

13     Who else would have been present at a typical site and what would their

14     functions have been?

15        A.   Well, obviously there was the senior archeologist, and in the

16     case of 2000, it was Professor Wright, with one break where

17     Fredy Peccerelli took over at Lazete.  Also on site were several other

18     senior archeologists, and experienced anthropologists.  We had one

19     archeologist who was also the total operator, the electronic theodolite

20     operator who used the map the sites.  We obviously had the support staff,

21     who comprised of three or four chaps who generally looked after these

22     sites and our amenities.  There were drivers.  We had a photographer who

23     was an archaeological photographer.  I think I have covered it all.

24        Q.   Where would you stay during the course of your work on these

25     sites?

Page 17569

 1        A.   We were billeted -- in respect of Srebrenica, we were billeted at

 2     Tuzla.

 3             THE INTERPRETER:  Can the witness kindly speak closer to the

 4     microphones.

 5             MR. ELDERKIN:

 6        Q.   Glogova 1 as one of the sites that you worked on in 2000 in

 7     relation to Srebrenica, can you tell us about your work on that site?

 8     Again, a brief summary as far as you remember when you arrived there,

 9     what work was being carried out.

10        A.   To my recollection when we first arrived, I think it was

11     postponed and we actually went -- I believe we started Rovici [phoen].  I

12     can't quite remember.  But basically my duties would have been that of

13     opening up an evidence log and issuing numbers to particular items of

14     evidence that were uncovered, and eventually taking possession of those

15     items, securely packaging them, storing them for later handover to the

16     mortuary.

17        Q.   Do you remember the site well enough to give us a brief

18     description of the site or its surroundings?

19        A.   Yes.  It was a large site, just at the bottom of a valley.  It

20     was close to the main road between Bratunac and Konjevic Polje.  The site

21     itself was flat.  It was a large site.  It was, I think, four or five

22     houses around the site.  Probably three of them had been completely

23     demolished, they had been blown up.

24             MR. ELDERKIN:  And perhaps just for orientation, if we could have

25     Exhibit P104 on the screen, and at page 8, I think, in e-court.

Page 17570

 1        Q.   Sir, I am just bringing up what I hope is a simplified map just

 2     so we can see the locations that you've just mentioned.

 3             MR. ELDERKIN:  And as I say, can we have page 8, I think, in

 4     e-court.

 5        Q.   Sir, looking now at the map on the screen, you could see a red

 6     dot around the -- just above the centre of the map marked with Kravica,

 7     and then to the right-hand side of the screen Bratunac, and then down

 8     towards the bottom, Srebrenica?

 9        A.   That's correct.  Could I -- I've checked it on the -- my monitor

10     on the vehicle I was driving.  Kravica is about 8 kilometres from

11     Glogova.

12        Q.   And we can see Glogova on this map, then, on the road running --

13     starting at Konjevic Polje, going past Sandici, Kravica, then Glogova,

14     and then finally to Bratunac?

15        A.   Correct.

16        Q.   And we --

17             MR. ELDERKIN:  I don't need to have the map anymore for the

18     following question.

19        Q.   But do you recall if any ICTY investigators were involved during

20     the course of the excavations at Glogova 1?

21        A.   Yes.  Dean Manning was obviously on-site quite often,

22     Bruce Bursik was on site, Jean Gagnon was on site, and a Finnish

23     investigator called Kai, as I remember.  I can't remember his surname.

24             MR. ELDERKIN:  Can we have Exhibit P873 on the screen.

25        Q.   Sir, while this is loading up, it's going to be the report that

Page 17571

 1     Professor Richard Wright wrote about the Glogova 1 excavations and

 2     exhumations work in 2000.

 3             First, have you ever seen this report before, actually?

 4        A.   Yes, I have.  Yeah.

 5             MR. ELDERKIN:  Could we go, please, to page 3 in e-court.  I

 6     think the B/C/S will be the same.  And let us read a little bit from the

 7     summary findings, but they tell us how the work at Glogova 1 was carried

 8     out in September and October 2000.

 9        Q.   And about halfway down it reads:

10             "Several objects considered to be from the Kravica warehouse were

11     found in the graves and Mr. Michael Hedley is writing a separate report

12     on the connection between the warehouse and Glogova 1."

13             We will come to your report in a minute, but first I want to ask

14     you about the features of the Glogova exhumations that led

15     Professor Wright and the team to believe that there might be a connection

16     with the Kravica site.  Can you tell us what sort of features those were.

17     What gave this sort of indication?

18        A.   Initially, it was obvious that certain elements were being

19     uncovered which included pieces of concrete, painted concrete, in the

20     process of removing the upper spoil from the grave.  There was a couple

21     of metal doors which were scraped off the surfaces of A and B sections.

22     And also was found a painted metal girder.  But as we got into the grave,

23     as I say, these concrete pieces were significant, because it was known, I

24     believe, that in order to remove the bodies from the Kravica warehouse

25     they had to break open the front of the warehouse in order to get a

Page 17572

 1     digger in to the facility.

 2        Q.   The last piece of information you mentioned that it was known

 3     that they had to break in the front of the warehouse to get a digger to

 4     remove the bodies.  Do you recall where you learnt that information and

 5     about what period of time are we talking about when you say that the

 6     bodies were removed from the warehouse?

 7        A.   Where the information had come from, it was obviously just part

 8     of a briefing.  Whether that came from Professor Wright, himself, or one

 9     of the investigators, I can't quite recall, but we were aware of what we

10     were probably going to find.

11        Q.   And when you say that "they had to break in the front of the

12     warehouse," who are you referring to by "they" and when are these people

13     breaking down the front of the warehouse, according to your information?

14        A.   Well, we assumed it was the perpetrators or those people employed

15     by the perpetrators to remove the bodies and take them for burial, so we

16     would assume the Bosnian VRS.

17        Q.   And in what kind of time-period would that have happened?

18        A.   That would have been in July 1995.  I can't remember the dates

19     exactly.

20             MR. ELDERKIN:  Now, could we go back to the exhibit we've just

21     had on screen and to page 17 in e-court, please.  And actually one page

22     prior to that, please, in English.  So page 16.

23        Q.   I will carry on speaking while if B/C/S comes up.  This page has

24     a heading on it: "Properties of graves and bodies." And then some details

25     are listed beneath that, including a list of graves with different

Page 17573

 1     letters.  Can you tell us if you recall whether there were several

 2     different graves at the Glogova site?  Because it appears from this table

 3     that there are different designations for different graves?

 4        A.   Yeah, these designations were obviously given by Professor Wright

 5     in his capacity as the chief archeologist.  As regards the number of

 6     bodies found, that was not my job to count bodies at all.  But, quite

 7     rightly, in my report I do mention the difference between the excavation

 8     and the graves, but in my report I concentrate on the artefacts, in

 9     particular, the concrete and the girders that were found within those

10     graves -- within particular graves that would have connected them to

11     Kravica.

12        Q.   Thank you.

13             MR. ELDERKIN:  And could we go to the next page.

14        Q.   And I won't be asking you in detail about the bodies.  I

15     understand that your focus was on the artefacts.  I would just like to

16     look at one more paragraph underneath the properties of graves and bodies

17     section.  Which is, if we look at the top of this page, and the third

18     paragraph down starting:  "In the light ..."

19             And it reads:

20             "In the light of this unusual fragmentation of bodies that are in

21     situ, I consider it significant that Glogova 1 is the only primary site

22     where I have found remains of explosive devices in the form of grenades

23     and shrapnel."

24             First of all, sir, do you remember whether such items were

25     recovered at the Glogova site?

Page 17574

 1        A.   I can't remember the detail of the log, but I would have to look

 2     at the log to remember those particular items.

 3             MR. ELDERKIN:  And then if we could move on to e-court page 19,

 4     please.

 5        Q.   And this page is where Professor Wright lists under the heading

 6     of "Possible connections with the Kravica warehouse," a number of points

 7     of linkage.  Perhaps we could scroll down to see the indented points.

 8             Sir, looking down this list and the kind of items listed here, so

 9     fragments of reinforced cement panel, fragments of cement fins,

10     polystyrene foam, lumps of cut grass, pieces of metal door frame, we've

11     already heard you mention, panels of metal for covering a door, some

12     rolled steel joists, and finally, motor vehicle parts.  To the best of

13     your recollection, are these the sorts of things that were being found in

14     the Glogova exhumations?

15        A.   Yeah, just one point.  Professor Wright mentions "rolled steel

16     joists."  I would call them open box section girders.

17        Q.   I would certainly defer to your experience, now, given your

18     current profession in the construction industry.  If we could go one page

19     further from that.  As you can see at the top it refers to you:

20             "Mr. Michael Hedley, scene of crime officer at Glogova 1 is

21     writing a detailed report on items from Glogova 1 and their comparison

22     with the Kravica warehouse."

23             Could you tell us how it came about that you were asked to write

24     the report?  Do you remember who tasked you and what the instructions

25     were that you received?

Page 17575

 1        A.   It was obviously following discussions between Professor Wright,

 2     the investigator -- investigators, and myself, as to whether, A, I was

 3     proficient in collecting those samples and able and willing to provide a

 4     report for the Court to -- in an attempt to create that connection

 5     between the two sites -- a forensic connection between the two sites.

 6        Q.   Before we get into the report in detail, I would like to go to a

 7     couple more references in Professor Wright's report.

 8             MR. ELDERKIN:  First of all, at e-court in page 38.  If we could

 9     please, first of all, zoom in to better see the photograph at the top of

10     the screen.

11        Q.   In you're able, sir, can you describe to us what kind of scene

12     we're seeing here and how this relates to the question of artefacts from

13     Kravica being found in the Glogova grave?

14        A.   What we see is, as you say, it's a grave, you can see bodies and

15     body parts, you can also see the girder to which I earlier referred to.

16     We have four archeologists, Jon Sterenburg [Realtime transcript read in

17     error "Stellenburg"], Jean Marie [phoen], Gina Hart, and I can't

18     recollect the name of the male archeologists.

19             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Could you please repeat the name slowly.

20             THE WITNESS:  Jean Marie, on the left.  On the right is

21     Gina Hart, and behind, with the pad, is Jon Sterenburg.  And I can't

22     quite recollect the name of the male archeologist.

23             MR. ELDERKIN:  And can we scroll down now to see the images below

24     that.

25             THE WITNESS:  Just looking at the screen, it's actually

Page 17576

 1     Sterenberg, not Stellenberg.  S-t-e-r-e-n-b-e-r-g.

 2             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  And what was the first name.  This is also

 3     missing in the transcript.

 4             THE WITNESS:  Sorry, Jean Marie.

 5             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you.

 6             MR. ELDERKIN:

 7        Q.   Okay.  If the names are cleared up, then.  If we can look back at

 8     the images, perhaps you can tell us what we are seeing, are these

 9     pictures all taken at Glogova or elsewhere?

10        A.   Photo 56665_11a, is the doorway of Kravica warehouse as we found

11     it when we arrived in September 2000.  Photo 56759_10a shows part of a

12     door which I will refer to in my report in amongst, as you see, body

13     parts.

14        Q.   And if we could just scroll down to see that image just beneath.

15        A.   I am afraid I can't quite make that out.

16        Q.   If you take a moment, sir, also to perhaps read the text

17     underneath.  And if we could zoom slightly out, in fact, to read the

18     width of the text beneath the picture.  According to the footnote headed

19     figure 14, sir, it refers to?

20        A.   Of course, that's polystyrene, it's not a particularly good

21     photograph, but it's -- yes.

22        Q.   And could we go to the next page in e-court as well, please.  And

23     zooming in at the top, please.

24        A.   That looks like a hydraulic jack.

25        Q.   Would that have come from the Glogova grave?

Page 17577

 1        A.   That was in Glogova, yes, that's marked as 146, which would have

 2     been an artefact.

 3             THE INTERPRETER:  Can the witness kindly speak louder.  Thank you

 4     very much.

 5             THE WITNESS:  I apologise.  Yes, it's a hydraulic jack, the

 6     photograph is marked GL01 146, which would be an artefact recorded in the

 7     evidence log.

 8             MR. ELDERKIN:  Could we scroll down to the second image please.

 9             THE WITNESS:  Again, a wheel off a vehicle, next to some

10     clothing.  To the left I can see some metal.

11             MR. ELDERKIN:  And the final image beneath that.

12        Q.   And again, if necessary, there is a written description beneath

13     there.

14        A.   Yes, I see body, body parts, clothing, and grass beneath the body

15     or the body part.

16        Q.   Do you know if the presence of the cut grass had any significance

17     in terms of establishing a connection with Kravica warehouse?

18        A.   I personally didn't collect any samples from Kravica warehouse

19     which could have, to my recollection, could have been compared with that

20     but Richard Wright -- Professor Wright obviously saw significance in it.

21        Q.   Okay.  Now we will turn to your report.

22             MR. ELDERKIN:  And that is at 65 ter number 7519, please.

23             I understand, Your Honours, for your information, this is not

24     technically on the 65 ter list, but given its been the basis of our

25     request to call Mr. Hedley for some considerable time, I don't think

Page 17578

 1     there is anything controversial about requesting its addition to the

 2     65 ter list at this stage.

 3             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Tolimir, my usual question:  Are you fine

 4     with adding this document to the 65 ter exhibit list?

 5             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I am fine with that.

 6     And it has been common practice for the Prosecutor to add documents in

 7     this stage.

 8             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Leave is granted, Mr. Elderkin.

 9             Please continue.

10             MR. ELDERKIN:  Your Honours, thank you.

11        Q.   And if we could look quickly -- I think we will start with the

12     cover of your report, sir, since it's the first time we have had a chance

13     to see it.  This, I take it, is the end product of the investigation you

14     carried out.  When did you write the report and can you give us a brief

15     description of what work you did in order to produce the report?

16        A.   I left Bosnia I think it was in November of 2001.  Obviously, I

17     took Christmas break, and I commenced my report, I think, in January, the

18     first draft.  I gathered up all the information I could that I was

19     allowed to take with me from Bosnia and commenced writing the report

20     which was the early stage of what you see today.  We took -- I took a

21     month out on holiday with my wife, came back in probably March, and I

22     finished the report at that stage.

23             MR. ELDERKIN:  And if we can go to the next page in e-court,

24     please.

25        Q.   And without needing to repeat what's written there, can you give

Page 17579

 1     us a brief overview of the structure of the report and then of the

 2     conclusions that you arrived at?

 3        A.   Well, for clarity, I broke up the report into two halves.  It

 4     makes it easier to read, and understand, and compare.  And you want my

 5     final conclusion?

 6        Q.   Yeah, if you could put the conclusions in context of the question

 7     that you were asked, which I understand was to determine what might be

 8     the links between Kravica warehouse and the Glogova grave?

 9        A.   That's right.  Yes, it's a collection describing what I saw at

10     Glogova 1 and the exhibits, the artefacts, control samples, that I

11     collected from Kravica warehouse, and comparing them within the report.

12             MR. ELDERKIN:  And could we go please to e-court page 20 of the

13     document.

14        Q.   Sir, for your information that's your own internal numbering,

15     page 19.  And there, I think, the report states the conclusions, but can

16     you perhaps talk us through those just to give us a direct view of what

17     you state there?

18        A.   As I say, all the exhibits that were recovered under the control

19     samples were collected with a view to comparison, where appropriate,

20     where a camera was available, photographs were taken with a scale

21     adjacent for future reference or for future forensic examination.  I

22     prepared a list of all the relevant items listed by description and

23     location together with this suggested forensic or investigative

24     comparison with control samples taken from the warehouse, from Kravica

25     warehouse.  I also noted at this point that there was a possibility of

Page 17580

 1     contamination from the houses I described earlier that had been blown up

 2     on the Glogova site, I think three of them had been blown up, and one of

 3     those houses that I searched I found on the floor were blue tiles, and

 4     the blue tiles were similar in appearance, not only in colour, but also

 5     on the reverse of the tile indicating they were probably the same

 6     manufacturer.  I would say this contamination was only in relation to the

 7     tile.  We also found in that house insulating material similar to

 8     polystyrene insulate material which wasn't similar to that that I

 9     recovered as a control sample from the Kravica warehouse or that we were

10     finding within Glogova 1 grave.

11        Q.   Sir, what conclusion did you arrive at if you had to summarise in

12     a sentence or two in terms of identifying links between Kravica and

13     Glogova?

14        A.   Well, as I said in my report, the action of enlarging the doorway

15     at the Kravica warehouse in order to gain that vehicle access would have

16     resulted in the component parts of that doorway being pushed inside of

17     the building and falling amongst the bodies of the victims that lay

18     inside.  Therefore, it would have been inevitable of a bucket vehicle to

19     have scooped up those bodies, they would have also scooped up the

20     demolished doorway.  These together would have been conveyed to the

21     burial place.  And, as we suspected, if Glogova 1 was the burial place,

22     you must consider that there is substantial evidence that those men

23     killed in the Kravica warehouse in July 1995 were amongst the same men

24     whose remains were recovered from Glogova 1 in September and October

25     2000.

Page 17581

 1             MR. ELDERKIN:  I might go into some more detail about the

 2     specific linkages and hopefully put some images on the screen, but in

 3     order to keep track of things I would ask at this stage for the report to

 4     be admitted as an exhibit, please, Your Honours.

 5             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  It will be received.

 6             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, 65 ter document 7519 shall be

 7     assigned Exhibit P2591.  Thank you.

 8             MR. ELDERKIN:  Could we please have exhibit P94 on the screen and

 9     at page 97 in e-court.

10        Q.   And sir, for your information, this is a photographic exhibit

11     that I was able to show you briefly yesterday which contains a series of

12     different photographs around the Kravica area.

13             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Before we move to that part of your examination,

14     Judge Mindua has a question.

15             JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Witness, I am very interested,

16     intrigued, by your conclusion concerning the connection between the mass

17     grave of Glogova and the Kravica warehouse.  We have just seen on one of

18     the photos that there was some sort of vehicle, and a metal object that

19     looked like a shock absorber, and some plants among the bodies.  You just

20     said that the vehicle pieces originated from Kravica warehouse.

21             Do you have any explanation for those plants?  Do you have any

22     evidence to support that conclusion?

23             THE WITNESS:  I personally can't give any evidence regarding the

24     plants found beneath the body, but I didn't go into detail to describe -

25     which I probably should have done - the fact that the breaking open of

Page 17582

 1     the doorway of the Kravica warehouse would have resulted in much of the

 2     masonry surrounding the original doorway being broken away and falling on

 3     top of the bodies.  This included a lot of concrete, a lot of insulating

 4     material, and of course it also included the reddish maroon fins which

 5     were either decorative on the front of the warehouse or had the

 6     functional purpose of strengthening the front of the warehouse.  Now,

 7     these were significant in the fact that they were painted a particular

 8     colour and we were we are finding the same pieces within the Glogova 1

 9     grave painted that same colour.

10             JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.  But

11     concerning the pieces of vehicles and the plants found around the bodies,

12     no other explanation has been found; is that the case?

13             THE WITNESS:  I understood that from our original briefing when

14     we were told what we could expect to find within the warehouse -- sorry,

15     within the graves that had been taken from the warehouse, the witness had

16     mentioned that prior to the victims being detained within warehouse,

17     there had been vehicle parts within that warehouse.  So those would have

18     been there before the victims arrived.  Presumably, they were removed

19     with the victims.

20             JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Oh, that's it.  Now I understand.

21     There are witnesses who claimed that there were parts of vehicles inside

22     the warehouse.

23             THE WITNESS:  As I understand it, Your Honour.

24             JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.

25             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Elderkin, please continue.

Page 17583

 1             MR. ELDERKIN:  If I could return to the exhibit we were bringing

 2     up in e-court, and ask to go to page 97.

 3        Q.   I will ask you a number of questions about the work at the

 4     Kravica site, but to start with and give us some context, can you tell us

 5     what we are seeing in these images here?

 6        A.   We are seeing the north aspect of the Kravica warehouse, and

 7     outlined in red is the area where I undertook my examination.  The

 8     original -- the first visit to Kravica warehouse describes recovery of

 9     shell cases and some skull fragments.  That search was carried out in

10     front of the small red box on the grassed area in front of the warehouse.

11        Q.   If I could ask you to talk to us about a couple of features on

12     the images.  First of all, in the superimposed image, the winter scene

13     where we see snow on the ground, there is a very large opening in the

14     warehouse, within the red box.  Does that correspond with how the

15     warehouse looked when you saw the warehouse or, if not, what were the

16     differences?

17        A.   The difference to the doorway that we saw in September 2000 is

18     the doorway then had a new lintel in it and there was some reconstruction

19     above that lintel to close off the doorway to the roof level.

20        Q.   And perhaps we could zoom in to the bottom right of the image

21     which I think will show the appearance as you describe.  Is that correct?

22        A.   That's right.  And painted at the front.  What's also

23     interesting, to the right of that box it shows a smaller building which

24     was -- contained -- was presumably a boiler house and that's where I

25     recovered a paint tin which contained paint which was, to the naked eye,

Page 17584

 1     similar to the paint colour on the artefacts found at the Glogova 1 site.

 2        Q.   We may see this better in a later image, but you have mentioned

 3     the concrete fins on the building, and we can see here a number of pairs

 4     of vertical lines along the white facade of the building.  Are those the

 5     concrete fins that you have been talking about?

 6        A.   Yeah, those are the fins as I described them.  You see, they are

 7     uniformly spaced.  They fit in with the pre-cast concrete slabs which

 8     were interlocked together.  So everything would just fit really neatly

 9     together.  It -- if I can later refer to my computer-generated

10     reconstruction of the door using the dimensions of the door as we knew

11     them and dimensions and the distance between the interlocking fins, and

12     also the witness marks which we discovered at the doorway which showed an

13     open box section and showed the actual position of the actual doorway.

14        Q.   And do I understand that you're referring to the page marked as

15     appendix 2 in your report, sir?  If you just give us a reference so we

16     can find that later?

17        A.   Yes, appendix 2.  Yes.

18        Q.   Did your investigation at the Kravica warehouse involve also

19     going inside the building, or did you just perform your work outside?

20        A.   No, obviously we had to go inside.  As I recall inside, there

21     was -- there was some seed grain in there, which was infested with

22     vermin.  When we first went in, there was -- mice scurried all over.  To

23     one side, there was some wooden window frames but they were undamaged and

24     unglazed as I recall.  To the back of the warehouse, halfway up the wall

25     were some wooden window frames but again there was no encasements in

Page 17585

 1     them.  To the left of the warehouse there was what appeared to be the

 2     witness marks, as I described the witness marks, it's the bonding marks

 3     where there was an internal room within the building, small room.  There

 4     were blue tiles to the base of the wall of that small room, I suspect it

 5     was probably a kitchen or a washroom.

 6             MR. ELDERKIN:  If we could go to page 105 in e-court.  And if you

 7     could comment on that image once it comes up, please.

 8             THE WITNESS:  You can clearly see where that room was placed.  It

 9     was -- it was roofed -- it was the vertical and horizontal bonding marks

10     of the structure that was attached to it.  And you can also see in that

11     photograph quite clearly the blue tiles at the base of the wall.

12             MR. ELDERKIN:

13        Q.   Was this particular area of the warehouse of any relevance in

14     relation to your investigation when you were seeking to find connections

15     with the Glogova 1 site?

16        A.   In respect of -- we took control samples of the blue tile and

17     we -- also beneath the debris you see on the floor there was vinyl tile

18     as well, and I took control samples of the vinyl tile for comparison.

19             MR. ELDERKIN:  Can we now see, please, page 108 in e-court.

20             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  And these photographs, I take it, are all part of

21     the report of Mr. Hedley, P2591; is that correct.

22             MR. ELDERKIN:  Your Honour, no.  At the moment we are looking at

23     the photo book used with Jean-Rene Ruez.  It's Exhibit P94, obviously

24     already admitted into evidence.

25             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you very much for that clarification.

Page 17586

 1             MR. ELDERKIN:

 2        Q.   Sir, this is another interior shot of the warehouse.  Does the

 3     condition seen in this image reflect how you saw the warehouse or, if

 4     not, how did it differ when you saw it?

 5        A.   Yeah, that's pretty much the same.  The walls pockmarked with

 6     bullets.  There was evidence that a fire had taken place within the

 7     warehouse, as you can see, by the blackening of the walls and ceiling.

 8        Q.   If we could go back, please, to Mr. Hedley's report which has

 9     just been assigned P2591.  And go to --

10             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  If you want to stay with this photograph for a

11     moment, Judge Nyambe has a question.

12             MR. ELDERKIN:  Of course.

13             JUDGE NYAMBE:  Yes, thank you.  Just now you have said there was

14     evidence that a fire had taken place within the warehouse.  Can you say

15     whether it was before, after, or during the time of the death of the

16     bodies that you found in that warehouse.

17             THE WITNESS:  Oh, no.  All I can say is that a fire took place

18     there.

19             JUDGE NYAMBE:  Thank you.

20             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Elderkin.

21             MR. ELDERKIN:  Yes, please.  If we could have P2591, and if we

22     could go first to page 23 in e-court.  And this is appendix 2, I think,

23     of the report coming up.

24        Q.   Mr. Hedley, can you tell us -- you mentioned briefly a

25     computer-generated image which wasn't on the screen when you spoke about

Page 17587

 1     that.  But can you tell us what was shown in this part of your report,

 2     which we see covers the frontage of the Kravica warehouse?

 3        A.   Yes, that's the north aspect of the warehouse as we discovered it

 4     in September 2000.  I think that photograph must have been taken in

 5     October 2000.

 6        Q.   And perhaps we should scroll down so we can see also the second

 7     image.  If we can try to have both as best possible on the screen at the

 8     same time, and if you can explain what are the differences?

 9        A.   As I said, we went back to the warehouse to look at the baseline

10     of where we suspected the original doorway was, and we found quite

11     definite witness marks on the ground.  When I say "witness marks," there

12     has been a compression of the open box girders pressing on the ground for

13     a period of time which should -- created either a rust stain or a

14     compression in the soil or the surface which remained once the -- once

15     the frame itself had been removed.  So from that we could ascertain the

16     width of the doorway, and from the recovered open box girders from

17     Glogova 1 site, we could ascertain the height of the doorway.

18             From that, the measurements of the fixed prefabricated slabs that

19     slotted into the wall construction, allowed us to precisely place the

20     original doorway, show the dimensions of the original doorway, but also

21     show the missing fins, one of the fins that had been demolished during

22     the gaining of access or increasing slightly the size of the aperture of

23     the doorway to get that digger in.

24        Q.   And I know you have now mentioned a couple of times, and given a

25     clarification of the meaning of "witness marks," but if I may I would

Page 17588

 1     like to paraphrase what I understand and make sure this is going to be

 2     correct on the record.  You are saying that there were marks that you

 3     were able to identify on the ground at the site of the doorway which

 4     allowed you to establish the size of the original doorway even though

 5     that was no longer in place when you visited the warehouse.  Have I got

 6     it roughly right?

 7        A.   That's a good summary, yes.

 8             MR. ELDERKIN:  And if we could go on to the next page in the

 9     report, please.  This is a chart which -- perhaps we could zoom in just

10     towards the top so we can see some of what's on the screen.  This is a

11     chart, as far as I can see, of items listed by grave.

12        Q.   Could you tell us what this chart is cataloguing?  What does it

13     show us?

14        A.   Well, a scenes of crime officer in a domestic situation would,

15     let's say, collect the exhibit, list the exhibits, and suggest to the

16     investigating officer a way forward in comparison of the control samples

17     against the samples found elsewhere.  So as you see in the chart that

18     I've prepared here, in black I have listed the samples; in red I have

19     suggested the comparison, the forensic comparison or the investigative

20     comparisons.

21        Q.   So is it correct that your investigation involved collecting

22     control samples of materials present at the Kravica warehouse and in one

23     instance also the tiles from one of the destroyed houses in Glogova, and

24     then you would compare materials found in the Glogova graves to see

25     whether they matched those samples?

Page 17589

 1        A.   That's correct.  Such was the nature of the control samples taken

 2     and the scientific comparison, that would have to be made -- that would

 3     have to be made by forensic scientists of the particular skill required.

 4     In respect of the girder that was found in Glogova, one in the grave, one

 5     within the spoil, we were able to compare the two girders at a right

 6     angle, and because there was evidence of a broken weld, placing the

 7     broken weld next to each other, it was obvious to either scientist, it

 8     was obvious to the naked eye that those two welds formed a perfect

 9     visible fit.  Those were obviously photographed in that position with a

10     scale next to which, should they need to be submitted, that would be on

11     view for confirmation.

12             MR. ELDERKIN:  Your Honours, I would ask if a packet of

13     photographs that is currently marked as 65 ter 7524, provisionally, could

14     be added to our 65 ter list.  These are photographs from the

15     investigation that Mr. Hedley carried out.  They have only just been

16     disclosed to the Defence.  I believe a set of around 50 photos was given

17     to the Defence on CD, I've also provided hard copies of around a dozen

18     images to the Defence before Court this afternoon, and I understand that

19     there isn't an objection to their addition if Your Honours would agree to

20     that.  They are -- involve showing objects that were found both at the

21     warehouse and in the graves, and in some cases are marked with

22     identifying numbers that are mentioned in the expert report itself.

23             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Your request is only related to the 13

24     photographs listed in this -- in your Defence list of exhibits; is that

25     correct?

Page 17590

 1             MR. ELDERKIN:  In the Prosecution list of exhibits.  Yes, that's

 2     correct.

 3             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Yes.  You don't have a Defence list.  Sorry, yes.

 4     You are right.  The reason is that in your list you used the term

 5     "Defence list of potential exhibits," and I took this -- or perhaps I --

 6     no, this is indeed your list and the heading is --

 7             MR. ELDERKIN:  Your Honour, I believe the two lists today are

 8     identical, in fact.  I think the Defence have copied our list for their

 9     proposed exhibits.

10             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Oh, now I realise what happened here.  It looked

11     so similar.  Thank you very much for this clarification.

12             Mr. Tolimir, Mr. Gajic, is there any objection to add these

13     photographs to the 65 ter exhibit list?

14             MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, we have no objection,

15     but the list of our exhibits is identical with the Prosecution schedule

16     in keeping with the instructions of the Trial Chamber that whatever we

17     intend to use we must put on the schedule.

18             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you very much.  Leave is granted to add

19     these photographs to the list.

20             MR. ELDERKIN:  Thank you very much, Your Honours.

21             And if we could have that exhibit up -- or that 65 ter document

22     up on the screen, it's 7524.  And if I may, I would ask that we could

23     start at page 3.  It would make more sense in the sequence if I do it

24     this way.

25        Q.   Now, sir, we have already seen a few images now of the doorway at

Page 17591

 1     Kravica.  Just for some background, before we look at some more images

 2     closer up, does this look the way the doorway was when you were visiting

 3     the crime scene in 2000?

 4        A.   That's correct, yes.

 5             MR. ELDERKIN:  If we could go to page 2 now, please.  And in

 6     fact, if we could zoom in to the centre where you can see a small white

 7     label on the metal lattice there.

 8        Q.   Now, sir, can you tell us what we can see here both in terms of

 9     the material in the picture but also the labeling which I note states

10     GL01 053A.

11        A.   I am just checking on my proposed comparison list for that

12     particular artefact number.  I am afraid that doesn't help me at all, and

13     it appears to be a place where I might have taken a control sample from;

14     otherwise, I can't see the significance.

15        Q.   Were GL numbers ever used -- But first of all, what does a GL

16     number signify?

17        A.   Yes, right.  That's -- when we first visited the site, Kravica

18     KA01 was not designated, so we collected control samples but entered them

19     into the Glogova 1 log.  They were stored within the log but stored

20     separately within the artefact box.  When authority was received from the

21     investigating team to designate Kravica as a crime scene, it was then it

22     was given the KA01 designation.  At that point we transferred the control

23     samples from the Glogova 1 log into the Kravica log.  So what you see in

24     there is a Glogova artefact number which subsequently became a Kravica

25     artefact number.

Page 17592

 1        Q.   Thank you.

 2             MR. ELDERKIN:  And could we now zoom out from that image to see

 3     the whole of that picture.

 4        Q.   Looking at that, does that give you any better idea of what we

 5     are seeing and what kind of materials are visible in the image?

 6        A.   Well, we have got concrete with reinforcing bars going through

 7     it.  There is a wire mesh gate above it.  I don't recognise -- can't

 8     describe what the silver item is.  It could have been -- it could well

 9     have been a hinge mechanism.

10             MR. ELDERKIN:  And if we could go back to page 3 in e-court

11     again, just see whether we can place that image, the one we are just

12     looking at now, the one we see --

13             THE WITNESS:  It's quite clear now.  The metal strip on the

14     left-hand side of the doorway did, in fact, form a make-shift hinge for

15     the mesh door which, incidentally didn't have any damage to it in terms

16     of bullet holes or any blast marks on it.

17             MR. ELDERKIN:

18        Q.   Okay.  And I will just go through a sequence of the other photos

19     in this packet and ask you, as each one comes up, to comment, if you can,

20     on what we see.

21             MR. ELDERKIN:  So can we go to page 1 on e-court.

22             THE WITNESS:  That's a piece of concrete recovered from one of

23     the graves.  I think I describe it in the report as being 700 millimetres

24     square.  As you can see there's bullet damage to the front of it.

25             MR. ELDERKIN:  And could we go to page 4 in e-court, please.

Page 17593

 1             THE WITNESS:  Yes, we saw that previously in Jean-Rene's

 2     photograph.  It shows the girder removed from, I think, grave G, but I

 3     must double-check on that.

 4             MR. ELDERKIN:

 5        Q.   And just to be clear about the difference in terminology between

 6     you and Professor Wright, is this what you would call an open-box girder

 7     and he would call a rolled seal joist?

 8        A.   That's correct.  We are talking about one and the same thing.

 9             MR. ELDERKIN:  And if we could see page 8 in e-court, please.

10             THE WITNESS:  That's -- we went through the process of putting it

11     through the two, the upright and the horizontal together at the welded

12     point to show the physical fit.

13             MR. ELDERKIN:

14        Q.   And where were these items found?

15        A.   One of the girders was found in grave G, the other girder was

16     found in the spoil, initially, when the surface of the grave was taken

17     off.

18        Q.   And were you able to establish where they've come from?

19        A.   We're pretty certain by the dimensions of the open box section

20     that they originally formed the doorway of the Kravica warehouse.

21             MR. ELDERKIN:  Could we have page 9, please.

22             THE WITNESS:  Well, it's not a particularly good photograph that,

23     because it's pretty well shaded.  But you can see the -- I mean, I can't

24     make it out there, but -- is there a better photograph?

25             MR. ELDERKIN:  I believe there is a photo of one part of this.

Page 17594

 1     We can look at page 7, although it doesn't show the angle of the join.

 2             THE WITNESS:  I see, yes.  You can see the weld mark up on the

 3     left of the bracket.

 4             MR. ELDERKIN:

 5        Q.   Is this the item you were talking about when you described a weld

 6     that could be seen to match?

 7        A.   I am afraid the photograph isn't as clear as I recall it.  We

 8     took some quite definite shots which were -- which showed that perfect

 9     physical fit.

10        Q.   I won't ask you to see things that aren't easy to see.

11             MR. ELDERKIN:  Your Honours, I see it's the break and I've

12     probably got two to three minutes left and then I will be done with these

13     photos and also with the witness.  So if you don't mind continuing --

14             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  You should continue and then we will have our

15     break.

16             MR. ELDERKIN:  Page 11, please.

17             THE WITNESS:  That shows a component part of the doorway and the

18     buckled metal.  Now, this damage -- some of this damage could have been

19     caused during the excavation, because as I say we were using a backhoe,

20     truck with a backhoe to take out the earth.

21             MR. ELDERKIN:

22        Q.   Again, where was this found, just for the record?

23        A.   Again, I would have to go back to the log.  It was found at

24     Glogova, and it refers to Glogova 368A.  If you have copies of the log,

25     that would help.

Page 17595

 1        Q.   Thank you.

 2             MR. ELDERKIN:  Page 12, please.

 3             THE WITNESS:  That shows us the collection of white painted

 4     concrete that was found within the grave.  It shows one artefact number

 5     which was the policy adopted by Professor Wright because of the number of

 6     pieces that were coming up.  For the purposes of mapping we had to show

 7     the spread of the finds.  So I subsequently took representative samples

 8     from those particular stones for submission for comparison.

 9             MR. ELDERKIN:  Page 13, please.

10             THE WITNESS:  That shows a selection of the motor vehicle parts,

11     and I see there were also tools which were found within the grave.

12             MR. ELDERKIN:  And finally, could we see page 6.

13        Q.   And we have already talked about the blue tiles, but I just want

14     to look at one of those images.

15        A.   Yeah, that was found within the grave.  The exact location would

16     be shown under GL01 240A.

17             MR. ELDERKIN:  And if we go to page 10.

18        Q.   Now, here you've already read back to us part of the report where

19     you described taking a control sample from the destroyed house and in the

20     report you refer to GL01 266A.  Does what we see here then reflect the

21     control sample that was taken from the destroyed house?

22        A.   That would be the case, yes.

23             MR. ELDERKIN:  Your Honours, I would ask if the photo packet

24     could be admitted, please.

25             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  The 13 photographs will be received as an

Page 17596

 1     exhibit.

 2             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, 65 ter document 7524 shall be

 3     assigned Exhibit P2592.  Thank you, Your Honours.

 4             MR. ELDERKIN:

 5        Q.   Just to finish up with that, the blue tile story.  So could you

 6     tell us then the locations where you took controls for blue tiles and

 7     where also you found evidence of blue tiles?

 8        A.   Evidence of broken blue tiles was found within the graves of

 9     Glogova 1 site.  The control sample for the purposes of comparison were

10     taken from Kravica warehouse, and this particular sample was taken for

11     elimination from one of the demolished houses.

12             MR. ELDERKIN:  Your Honours, I have no further questions.

13             Witness, thank you very much.  And I'm sorry to keep everyone

14     five minutes longer.

15             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you very much, Mr. Elderkin.  We must have

16     our first break now and we will resume after half an hour, at 20 minutes

17     past 4.00, and after that Mr. Tolimir is commencing his

18     cross-examination.

19             THE WITNESS:  Thank you.

20             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  We adjourn.

21                           --- Recess taken at 3.51 p.m.

22                           [The witness stands down]

23                           [The witness takes the stand]

24                           --- On resuming at 4.22 p.m.

25             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Hedley, as I told you earlier, Mr. Tolimir is

Page 17597

 1     now conducting his cross-examination.  I would kindly ask you again to

 2     speak a little bit more slowly, especially when you are mentioning names.

 3     Please, it is -- we need everything on the record, and if it's not there,

 4     then, then it doesn't exist, and that would be not very favourable.

 5     Please slow down and speak up a little bit, because the interpreters

 6     don't understand you properly.

 7             THE WITNESS:  I will do my best, sir.

 8             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Tolimir, please, your cross-examination.

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

10             May God's peace reign supreme in this courtroom and may God's

11     will be done today in these proceedings, and not necessarily mine.

12                           Cross-examination by Mr. Tolimir:

13        Q.   [Interpretation] I would like to welcome the witness to say

14     courtroom.  I will have a few questions with regard to your report, sir.

15             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could I please call up the report

16     in e-court.  We saw it before the break, 52591 is the number.  Let's look

17     at page 4.

18             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Tolimir, I think you are referring to the --

19     to the report of Mr. Hedley; is that correct?  This is now P2591.  Try,

20     please, to use that number.  We have a quite different one on the record

21     at the moment.

22             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

23             Thank you, I apologise.  It is 65 ter 7519, thank you.

24             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Indeed.  And this is now P2591.  But the number

25     is -- the 65 ter number is incorrectly recorded again.  It is

Page 17598

 1     65 ter 7519.

 2             Mr. Tolimir, please go ahead.

 3             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.  Let us

 4     look at page 4 in the report.  The title is: "Professional Experience."

 5        Q.   I am reading the Serbian version.  I suppose it will be the same

 6     in English as well.  Thank you.

 7             THE REGISTRAR:  Just for the record this is page 3 in English in

 8     e-court.  Thank you.

 9             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.  Let's look at page 3 in

10     English and let's look at the second paragraph.

11             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

12        Q.   Where you say in lines 4 through 8:

13             [As read] "He attended the exhumation of eight grave-sites in

14     Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, his responsibility being the

15     identification, recording, collection, packaging, security, and

16     continuity of custody of all the evidence recovered from each site.  In

17     all, this accounted for nearly 600 bodies and many hundreds of body parts

18     and associated exhibits (artefacts)."

19             My question is this:  When you were in Croatia and in Bosnia and

20     Herzegovina, does this number of over 600 bodies and body parts refer to

21     your work in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina?  Thank you.

22        A.   It includes both those -- both those states, yes.

23        Q.   Thank you.  Do you have data for each of the states and each of

24     the localities where you worked?  Do you have separate data for each of

25     those?

Page 17599

 1        A.   No, I don't have that.  I'd have to confer and come back to you

 2     with that.

 3             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Please speak up a little bit, a bit louder if

 4     possible.

 5             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

 6        Q.   Thank you.  Would we find information on that in your report with

 7     regard to the site in Glogova?  Thank you.

 8        A.   No.  That was not my field of expertise in assessing numbers of

 9     individuals and body parts.  That would have been in Professor Wright's

10     report.

11        Q.   Thank you.

12             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Let us now go to page 4 in your

13     report and let us now look at the first paragraph.  The title of that

14     page is: "Glogova 01."  It's the next page in e-court, thank you.

15             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

16        Q.   "On the 23rd of August ...," I am reading the first paragraph.

17             [As read] "On the 23rd of August, 2000, the ICTY forensic

18     exhumation team commenced work to uncover the site of an alleged mass

19     grave situated at a location identified as Glogova 01.  The site was

20     designated the site code GL01.  (Map reference 61 degrees, 0.5 north and

21     96 degrees, 2 east).

22             "Information has been received alleging that during July 1995,

23     male victims, believed to lie within the grave, had been part of a group

24     who had walked the mountain route from Potocari and Srebrenica towards

25     Tuzla."

Page 17600

 1             My question is this, sir:  Can you tell us when it comes to

 2     Glogova, people went missing en route from Potocari and Srebrenica

 3     towards Tuzla, were their bodies also found in this Glogova grave?  Thank

 4     you.

 5        A.   On that page I am purely describing my understanding of the

 6     situation that I understood it to be at the time, so I can't answer that

 7     question.  I have no knowledge of the history of the event in that

 8     respect.

 9             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Please, let us go to page 6 in this

10     report.  I am calling up page 6.  The title is: "Kravica Warehouse."  It

11     is page 5 in English, thank you.

12        Q.   We are interested in paragraph 2 on page 5.  The part in

13     quotation marks, in italics, I am going to read.

14             "The warehouse was identified at an early stage as an execution

15     site of Bosnian Muslims and has been subject of several searches by ICTY

16     investigators and a subsequent forensic examination was carried out

17     between the 30th September and the 1st October 1996 by investigators from

18     the United States Naval Criminal Investigations Service.  Officers

19     recovered 149 representative blood, hair, and tissue samples from the

20     building, and subsequent analysis revealed 142 of these samples contained

21     human DNA."

22             My question:  Was it established whether the 149 samples of human

23     DNA which were identified from the Kravica warehouse were identical to

24     the DNA samples from Glogova 01 site?

25        A.   I can't confirm that.  The reason why that particular extract is

Page 17601

 1     in the report and it's an extract from Dean Manning's report, it was

 2     placed in there purely and simply to indicate that my examination was not

 3     the first examination.  This was one of very many examinations, so the

 4     accused would have to refer to Dean Manning's report and any results

 5     arising from those DNA samples.

 6        Q.   Mr. Hedley, do you know whether the subsequent analysis of the

 7     149 samples was carried out in the United States or right there on the

 8     site or elsewhere?  Do you know that?

 9        A.   I do not know that.  No.

10        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Hedley.

11             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] And now can we look at page 15 --

12     or 16 in Serbian, which would be number 15 in English.  If it's 16 in

13     Serbian, it must be 15 in English.  We are still looking at the report.

14             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation].

15        Q.   Thank you.  My legal assistant is going to help me with this.

16     Let's see what we are looking for --

17             THE REGISTRAR:  For the record, this is page 12 in English in

18     e-court.  Thank you.

19             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I would like to thank the Registry.

20             I need the previous page, number 11 in e-court, both in Serbian

21     and in English, thank you.  And I apologise for not being very precise in

22     calling up the pages in e-court.  I have somewhat dated material in front

23     of me and the page numbers do not exactly tally.

24             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

25        Q.   On page 8 of the report, you stated that on the 7th of September,

Page 17602

 1     2001, you carried out the first inspection of the areas; is that correct?

 2     I am talking about Kravica warehouse.

 3        A.   That's correct.  I've found the page, now.  On the 7th of

 4     September I undertook the first of six visits.

 5             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Elderkin.

 6             MR. ELDERKIN:  I am just rising for a correction.  I believe

 7     General Tolimir talked about 2001.  When I read the report it reads 2000.

 8     Perhaps we could confirm that, for the record.

 9             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Hedley, you are referring to which year?

10             THE WITNESS:  7th of September, 2000.

11             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you very much.

12             Mr. Tolimir, please carry on.

13             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.  Thank you,

14     Mr. Elderkin.

15             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

16        Q.   And then you said on page 14 -- which is actually not page 14 but

17     page 2, you say that your last visit to Kravica warehouse was on the

18     20th of October 2000; is that correct?

19        A.   That's correct.

20        Q.   Thank you.  In view of the fact that between the 7th September

21     2000 to 20th October 2000 you visited the location six times.  Could you

22     please tell us whether during the period of six weeks was Kravica

23     warehouse continuously secured?  Were there guards throughout all that

24     time when you decided to carry out your inspection visits to the Kravica

25     warehouse?

Page 17603

 1        A.   No, sir.  It was not secured.

 2        Q.   Thank you.  You said that we should refer to Mr. Wright's report

 3     because he was the team leader for forensic exhumations.  Let us look at

 4     his report drafted for the year 2001.  He claims in his report that 249

 5     body parts were found in Glogova and that they were placed in a total of

 6     32 body packs.  Do you remember that that was indeed done?  You said on

 7     page 3 in e-court that you were in charge of safe-keeping the evidence

 8     and artefacts exhumed from all of these graves?

 9        A.   I couldn't confirm those figures.  No, I didn't count the bodies.

10     They would correspond with the site log.

11        Q.   Thank you.  In that case let's please look at P873, page 3.  This

12     is Mr. Wright's report and a short summary thereof.  Thank you.

13             And while we're waiting for the document to appear, I would like

14     to look at it together with you because you wanted us to refer to

15     Mr. Wright's report.  You said that on page 5.  You mentioned his name.

16     I am going to read his words back to you.

17             [As read] "In September and October 2000, I supervised a team

18     that found and exhumed a series of graves dug by heavy machinery at the

19     site called Glogova 1, in eastern Bosnia and west of Bratunac.  We

20     exhumed 191 bodies.  Severe robbing of the graves by heavy machinery, and

21     removal of an unknown number of the original bodies, means that 191 is a

22     minimum number.  Many of the bodies show signs of blast damage; remains

23     of exploded grenades were found with the bodies, together with rifle

24     bullets.  Several objects considered to be from the Kravica warehouse

25     were found in the graves, and Mr. Michael Hedley is writing a separate

Page 17604

 1     report on the connection between the warehouse and Glogova 1."

 2             My question to you, sir, is this:  Was the total number of bodies

 3     found at Glogova 1 indeed 191?  You have just heard a summary of

 4     Mr. Wright's report on the site.  So bearing that in mind, could you

 5     please answer my question?  Thank you.

 6        A.   I am neither qualified nor had an involvement in the assessment

 7     of the bodies.  This would have been done possibly by Professor Wright,

 8     most likely at the mortuary.  I was purely the scene of crime officer who

 9     was handling the bodies, handling the body parts, and handling the

10     artefacts.

11        Q.   Thank you.  Please, did you secure them, did you guard them as it

12     says on page 3 in e-court?  It says on that page, and I have just quoted

13     the summary back to you where it says that you were in charge of guarding

14     the material exhumed from each of those graves?  Thank you.

15        A.   I just say there might be an error in the translation.  The fact

16     of guarding.  I never physically guarded the exhibits.  I was responsible

17     for their security in that I was provided with refrigerated containers.

18     Each had a means of locking the containers.  I was supplied with

19     padlocks.  Onsite I had an artefact box.  That also had a padlock when we

20     left it unattended.  When a body was recovered from the grave or body

21     parts were recovered from the grave in any number, we would carry those

22     down to the locked refrigerated container.  We would open the container,

23     we would put the body parts or bodies in the container.  And then we

24     would relock it.  We would walk back to our SOCO station and then resume

25     our duties.  At the end of the day, or perhaps more than once a day, we

Page 17605

 1     would take the recovered artefacts, we would carry them down to the

 2     secure container, unlock the container, place the items in there, lock

 3     it, and then return to our duties.

 4             At the end of the day we ensured that that the containers were

 5     locked.  We had a permanent presence on-site of UN security officers, and

 6     I was satisfied that the recovered bodies, body parts, and artefacts were

 7     secure whilst in my possession.

 8        Q.   Thank you.  Since Professor Wright said 191 bodies were found,

 9     exhumed, is there a possibility that more bodies were exhumed at that

10     location or just the number quoted by Professor Wright who is in charge

11     of the exhumations and the analysis for Glogova 1 and Glogova 2?

12        A.   I am just not qualified to answer that question.  I have not go

13     knowledge of a minimum number of individuals of combing more bodies or

14     whatever.  We were purely -- as scenes of crime officers we were told

15     there was a body or we were told it was a body part, and we logged it

16     accordingly.

17        Q.   Thank you.  In the report P170, page 12 in English, Mr. Janc said

18     that 224 persons were identified in Glogova 1 and 169 in Glogova 2 which

19     in total is 393.  My question is:  In view of the data presented by

20     Mr. Wright and Mr. Janc, how do you explain this difference between 191

21     and 393 in localities of Glogova 1 and Glogova 2?

22        A.   I can't explain it at all.  As I say the designation of B, body,

23     or BP, body part, was given to me by an anthropologist or an archeologist

24     or, in fact, Professor Wright on site.  And that was how it was recorded.

25     I don't know whether they were re-recorded in the mortuary when they were

Page 17606

 1     found, perhaps, to be a body, or there might have been less elements

 2     present, so redesignated as a body part.

 3        Q.   Thank you.  Mr. Hedley, can you tell us who had supervision over

 4     the bodies and body parts?

 5        A.   Supervision.  Once they were removed from the grave I had

 6     supervision of the body bags which contained bodies or body parts.  They

 7     were assigned B or a BP number.  They were stored within the container,

 8     the refrigerated container on the site.  There was never a discrepancy on

 9     our log sheet to that which we handed over to the mortuary at the end of

10     a particular period.  So yes, I had security.  I never lost anything.

11        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Hedley.  Does that mean that when Mr. Wright who

12     said there were 190 bodies, there is a discrepancy with the number that

13     you --

14             THE INTERPRETER:  The interpreter apologises.  Mr. Tolimir needs

15     to repeat his question.  It was not understood.

16             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Tolimir, the interpreters didn't understand

17     your question.  Please repeat it.

18             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.  I'll repeat.

19             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

20        Q.   Mr. Hedley, was there a comparison between the number of bodies

21     and body parts that you found and the number presented by

22     Professor Wright who said that there were only 191; whereas, some more

23     body parts were found?  Were they found to be identical and is there an

24     explanation for any discrepancy?

25        A.   All of the information Professor Wright would be basing his

Page 17607

 1     figures on, I would suspect, came from the log sheets which we kept.  So

 2     comparing Professor Wright's figures, the log sheet would, I assume, give

 3     him that number.  I didn't physically count them.  I didn't keep a tally

 4     of how many bodies, how many body parts, and how many artefacts.  I

 5     purely and simply recorded them and ensured their safe custody.  I didn't

 6     take anything away or add anything to them.

 7        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Hedley.  I am not blaming you for that.  I am just

 8     asking if the figures of Mr. Wright were identical to yours for Glogova 1

 9     and 2 at the time of exhumations and at the time when you were in charge

10     of safe-keeping?

11        A.   I will have to ask Mr. Tolimir to repeat that question.  I didn't

12     quite understand.  May I read it off the screen?

13        Q.   Thank you.  You can see the summary on the screen.  In line 4,

14     you see, "We exhumed 191 bodies."  Can you see that sentence?

15        A.   I'm sorry.  On which screen?

16             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  On the screen with the document with the heading:

17     "Summary Findings."

18             THE WITNESS:  Again, this is Professor Wright's figures, and you

19     quoted from Mr. Janc's figures.  I am not familiar with either of them.

20             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

21        Q.   Let's leave Mr. Janc aside.  I am asking you to tell the

22     Trial Chamber, is it possible that the number of bodies recorded by

23     Professor Wright in his final analysis is identical to the number of

24     bodies you safe-guarded at localities of Glogova 1 and Glogova 2?

25        A.   I would have to carry out an audit of the log sheet and compare

Page 17608

 1     the number of Bs in the B column and see whether we had 191 Bs.

 2        Q.   Thank you.  I was asking only about Glogova 1, actually.  Not

 3     Glogova 2.  I am asking you again:  Is it possible that there are

 4     discrepancies in numbers because Professor Wright quotes the figure of

 5     191 bodies found at Glogova 1.  Is it possible that more bodies or fewer

 6     bodies were found?

 7        A.   I don't think so.  We logged each body, each body part, and each

 8     artefact that came out of the grave at Glogova 1.  If I was told by the

 9     exhuming anthropologist or archeologist it was a body, I was assign it a

10     "B" suffix.  So therefore any count of the bodies coming from Glogova 1,

11     it would a count of the Bs within the columns, the columns of the

12     designated numbers.

13        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Hedley.  Let's go to another issue.

14     Professor Wright said 191 bodies were exhumed at Glogova 1; whereas,

15     Mr. Janc, in his report, said 224 bodies were exhumed.

16             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Tolimir, before you move to another issue,

17     Judge Nyambe has a question.

18             JUDGE NYAMBE:  I just want to clear my understanding.  Is it your

19     testimony that you received the body parts or the bodies and artefacts

20     from an archeologist or an anthropologist, you logged it in; and

21     subsequently, Professor Wright used your log sheet to compare his own

22     report with regard to these 191.

23             THE WITNESS:  I would assume that.  He would certainly have a

24     copy of the whole of the logs from which he would extract his

25     information.

Page 17609

 1             JUDGE NYAMBE:  So it is okay to say your -- it is okay to say his

 2     figures and yours should tally.

 3             THE WITNESS:  They should tally, yes.

 4             JUDGE NYAMBE:  Okay, thanks.

 5             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Judge Mindua has a question.

 6             JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Yes, Witness Mr. Hedley.  You have

 7     talked about the total number of bodies and body parts with which you

 8     worked and that was 600.  And here you are telling us that you are not

 9     qualified to determine whether something is a body or a body part and it

10     is Professor Wright who is qualified to talk about that or perhaps

11     another anthropologist or archeologist.  Now, concerning your work in

12     Croatia and in Bosnia and Herzegovina that involved 600 bodies and body

13     parts, this number, 600, who gave it to you?

14             THE WITNESS:  That either came from my scenes of crime manager at

15     the mortuary or, perhaps, Dean Manning.  And it was just an indication in

16     my preamble of my experience as to how much experience I had to give you

17     an indication attaching to my CV.  I didn't personally identify each one

18     as a body.  It was purely and simply from the records which were

19     available to the people -- the persons I asked.

20             JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Very well, thank you.  Then - and

21     now please correct me if I'm wrong, because I want to understand this,

22     what you're work involved.  Your report had the purpose of establishing a

23     link between mass graves, notably Kravica -- or, sorry, the mass graves

24     of Glogova 1 and 2, and the Kravica warehouse.  Is that correct or not?

25             THE WITNESS:  No.  The purpose of the report was to show a

Page 17610

 1     connection between Kravica warehouse and Glogova 1, not Glogova 2.

 2             JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] All right.  Thank you.  And that's

 3     all.

 4             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Tolimir, please carry on.

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

 6             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

 7        Q.   Mr. Hedley, was Mr. Manning also in Croatia because this number

 8     of 600 bodies and body parts is a number that you presented for the whole

 9     theatre of war in Bosnia and Herzegovina as well as Croatia.  Was

10     Mr. Manning in Croatia as well?

11        A.   No, sir.  He was part of the Srebrenica team, but he could have

12     given me part of the -- if, in fact, it was Dean Manning, he could have

13     given me part of the figure.  It could have been given by my SOCO

14     supervisor from the mortuary who could have given me the other part of

15     the figure who was in both Croatia and, of course, involved in the

16     Srebrenica post-mortems.

17        Q.   Thank you.

18             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we now look at P170, page 12

19     in English.  That's the report of Mr. Janc where he said that Glogova 1

20     identified 224 persons.

21             THE WITNESS:  I can't answer that.  I have never read Mr. Janc's

22     report.  I don't know what he's basing his figures on.

23             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

24        Q.   Look, please, at this table, where he says -- the first table,

25     where he says Glogova 1, 224 bodies identified.  My question to you is,

Page 17611

 1     is it an increase in the number of 31 over Professor Wright's figure of

 2     191?

 3        A.   But you use the word "identified," was that the identity of the

 4     victims?  Because identity of a victim could come from a body part.

 5        Q.   Thank you.  He identified individuals, 224 individuals, that

 6     means those are bodies, not body parts; whereas, Professor Wright said

 7     191 bodies were exhumed.  He never spoke about body parts.

 8             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Elderkin.

 9             MR. ELDERKIN:  General Tolimir should please refer to the part in

10     Dusan Janc's report where he's saying that these are identifications

11     bodies and not body parts.  My understanding of Dusan Janc's report is

12     that he is talking about DNA identifications and does not specify whether

13     DNA extraction comes specifically from bodies only or also comes from

14     body parts as Mr. Hedley rightly indicated is possible.  So if there is

15     that reference, I'd like to hear it.  If it's not there, then please

16     could the question be rephrased.

17             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Tolimir.

18             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Elderkin.  I will

19     rephrase.

20             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

21        Q.   Mr. Hedley, you see this report, this table, where Mr. Janc says

22     224 individuals.  My question is, can you tell us how come that he quotes

23     more individuals in Glogova 1 than Professor Wright who was in charge of

24     exhumations?

25        A.   I read the paragraph above, and it says:

Page 17612

 1             "DNA examinations by ICMP of human remains located within the

 2     Glogova 1 grave indicate the following numbers of Srebrenica victims."

 3             So I assume that they found 224 individuals as a result of DNA

 4     testing, but I would suspect that the discrepancy is come from the

 5     testing of body parts.

 6        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Hedley.  But tell us, the people who are doing the

 7     analysis, other than pathologists and experts, are they allowed to

 8     increase the total number presented by Professor Wright who said there

 9     were 191 individuals identified?  That he exhumed 191 bodies.

10        A.   That's totally beyond the realm of my experience and knowledge.

11     I just can't answer the question.  If Professor Wright has mentioned the

12     figure 191, I would assume he took it off the Glogova 1 evidence log.

13     What happened subsequently, I really can't answer.

14        Q.   Thank you.  Mr. Hedley, on 28 April this year, Witness PW-064

15     testified here, page 15439, lines 16 to 23.  And he said investigation

16     showed that there were -- the investigation of the OTP revealed that

17     there were 1.301 bodies buried in the Glogova mass grave.  Are you

18     surprised by this figure?

19             My question is:  Does this huge number, 1.301 as opposed to 191,

20     show that the OTP investigation considerably increased this number, and

21     is the Prosecution allowed to do this with the figures produced by

22     experts?

23             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Tolimir, I don't recall this specific

24     evidence of another witness.  You should indicate if you are referring --

25     if this witness was referring to Glogova 1 or Glogova 2 or even to other

Page 17613

 1     mass grave-sites.  To compare these figures without a clear indication to

 2     which grave-site these numbers refer, it is not a fair way to do that.  I

 3     think we need some more information.

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

 5             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

 6        Q.   You see this page on the screen, Glogova 2, 169 individuals.

 7             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Now you are --

 8             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

 9        Q.   Sorry, 169 --

10             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Now you are referring again to the report of

11     Mr. Janc.  The present witness, Mr. Hedley, said he never read this

12     report.  It's quite difficult for him to comment on these numbers, but

13     just a minute ago you were referring to the evidence of another witness,

14     a protected witness.  You should give us the opportunity to look at the

15     transcript at the relevant page or you should indicate if you are

16     referring to Glogova 1 or Glogova 2 or both or to whatever a mass grave.

17     But if we have that on the screen, we should not broadcast that part of

18     the transcript.

19             Perhaps the Court can produce it and put it on the screen.

20             But, Mr. Tolimir, you reviewed the transcript, you should be in

21     the position to give us a clear indication what you are referring to.

22             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.  I read from page 13439,

23     lines 16 through 23, testimony from 28 April, 2011, protected witness

24     064.  I can tell you the name if you wish, but we would need to move into

25     private session, although I don't think it's really necessary.

Page 17614

 1             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  If it is not broadcast, you may continue.

 2             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

 3             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

 4        Q.   I was reading out the question by the Prosecutor to this witness,

 5     and I would now like to go back to the previous document, the report of

 6     Mr. Janc.

 7             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  No, we want to have the opportunity to look at

 8     the transcript.  Where can we find these figures?  Mr. Tolimir, please

 9     point that out.

10             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.  This is

11     the right page, and the lines 16 through 23 are now marked.

12             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Tolimir, the question of the Prosecutor was

13     related to this Glogova grave-site.  I don't know which grave-site this

14     was.  And then the answer is, I quote:

15             "It's probably a credible figure because there was work at the

16     location for five or six days.  I was there for only limited periods of

17     time, and if my assumption is that between 4- and 500 people were buried

18     there when I was there, then the total you presented may well be a

19     credible number."

20             So this is what we can take from the transcript.  But there is

21     only a reference to a Glogova grave-site, and therefore the question

22     remains open if this is a reference to Glogova 1, Glogova 2, or even

23     other grave-sites.  Please carry on.

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

25             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

Page 17615

 1        Q.   Mr. Hedley, were only at Glogova 1?

 2        A.   Yes, that was the only grave I attended.

 3        Q.   Thank you.

 4             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we now look at P170, page 12

 5     in English, the report of Mr. Janc.  He, as an OTP investigator, deals

 6     with both grave-sites, Glogova 1 and Glogova 2.

 7             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

 8        Q.   And the total he mentions is 393 individuals, identified from

 9     both localities, Glogova 1 and Glogova 2.  At Glogova 1, 242; and at

10     Glogova 2, 169; which is in total 393.  How can that suddenly turn into

11     1.131, which is the figure found by the OTP as opposed to the figure

12     produced by anthropologists and archeologists?

13        A.   I can't answer the question.  I am not qualified.  I am not

14     familiar with the figures.  I am not the right person to ask.

15             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  This is not the first time the witness is giving

16     this answer because it was not in the limits of his duties over there, as

17     we all know.

18             Please continue.

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

20     just trying to get his views with regard to the report that was published

21     on behalf of the witness.  I did not subtract anything.  I didn't add

22     anything, and I'm just quoting the Prosecutor's findings from a locality

23     that this witness investigated and analysed, and there is a huge

24     discrepancy.

25             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  I don't want to discuss the matter with you.

Page 17616

 1     Please carry on and put the next question to the witness.

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

 3             Let us now look at annex 3 to your report.  Thank you.

 4             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  I would like to correct the figure on page 57,

 5     line 2 [sic], the report said not "242 individuals identified from

 6     Glogova 1," but in the report it was "224."  Thank you.

 7             Mr. Tolimir.

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

 9     previously called up annex 3.  This is an overview of the area and graves

10     at Glogova 01, but I don't have that on the screen.  Thank you.  Now I

11     have it.  It's page 24 in English, thank you.  Can we have both pages and

12     can they be zoomed in for the benefit of the witness.

13             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  In the meantime, I would like to make another

14     correction.  I didn't say "page 57, line 2," but "57, line 13" of today's

15     transcript.

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

17             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

18        Q.   Sir, what we have here is a table referring to Glogova 01,

19     Kravica warehouse.  This is where you represented area A, area B, grave

20     C, grave E, grave F, grave H, grave K, grave L.  These are just the

21     totals from this table.  My question to you, sir, is this:  In his

22     report, was Mr. Wright in charge of all of those graves and is the number

23     of 191 bodies the total number of bodies exhumed from all the graves, and

24     where -- did you attend all of the graves that you mention in your

25     report?  Thank you.

Page 17617

 1        A.   We were on call for each one of those graves.  They obviously all

 2     didn't come together.  They were uncovered one at a time.  And we would

 3     receive from those graves bodies, body parts, and artefacts, which we

 4     dealt with in the way I previously described.

 5        Q.   Thank you, my question was this:  In graves C, E, F, H, and K,

 6     were the 191 bodies described by Dr. Wright in his analysis and in the

 7     summary that we read out before the break, were the 191 bodies exhumed

 8     from those graves that are referred to in your report?

 9        A.   Again, it -- Professor Wright would report upon the bodies, the

10     locations, and the designation.  I purely received them after they had

11     been designated.  I never changed the designation.  They remained as they

12     were given to me.

13        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Hedley, for all of the answers you have provided.

14     Thank you for coming to testify here today.  I don't have any more

15     questions for you.  I wish you a safe journey back home.  God bless you

16     in your future work and life.

17             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, the Defence has no

18     further questions of the witness.  Thank you.

19             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you very much, Mr. Tolimir.

20             Mr. Elderkin, do you have re-examination?

21             MR. ELDERKIN:  If I may just on one topic, very briefly.

22                           Re-examination by Mr. Elderkin:

23             MR. ELDERKIN:  This concerns the questions that we heard,

24     including, for example, at page 57, lines 11 to 15, when General Tolimir

25     asked about the numbers of Glogova-related victims and how it was

Page 17618

 1     possible that the number could be as high as 1.131.

 2        Q.   Mr. Hedley, do you know if any Srebrenica-related graves were

 3     disturbed such that human remains were moved to other graves before ICTY

 4     investigations began?

 5        A.   I am not sure.  I don't have that information.

 6             MR. ELDERKIN:  That's all I have.  Thank you.

 7             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Hedley, you will be pleased that this

 8     concludes your examination here in this trial.  Thank you very much that

 9     you were able to come to The Hague and to provide us with your expertise

10     and your recollection.  You are now free to return to your normal

11     activities.  Thank you very much again.

12             THE WITNESS:  Thank you, Your Honour.

13                           [The witness withdrew]

14             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Elderkin.

15             MR. ELDERKIN:  Your Honours, Ms. Hasan is leading the next

16     witness.  If I may be excused and I can also then make sure that people

17     are heading into the courtroom to replace me.

18             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you very much.  Yes, indeed.  Have a good

19     day.

20             MR. ELDERKIN:  Thank you very much.

21             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  In that case, to save some time, we should have

22     our second break now and resume at 6.00 and then start with the next

23     witness.

24                           --- Recess taken at 5.29 p.m.

25                           --- On resuming at 6.01 p.m.

Page 17619

 1             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  The witness should be brought in, please.  And

 2     welcome to you, Ms. Hasan, back to the courtroom.

 3             MS. HASAN:  Thank you, Mr. President.  Good afternoon,

 4     Your Honours.  Good afternoon to the Defence and to everyone else in and

 5     around the courtroom.

 6             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  I have to confess that my question at the

 7     beginning of today's hearing about the length of cross-examination was

 8     only because of my personal mistake.  I didn't want to blame anybody, not

 9     the Defence, not the Registry, not the staff of the Chamber.  I just had

10     forgotten and was confused by another matter.  I wanted to put that on

11     the record so that nobody has the feeling I would like to blame somebody.

12                           [The witness entered court]

13             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Please stand a moment.  Good afternoon, sir.

14     Welcome to the courtroom.  Would you please read aloud the affirmation on

15     the card which is shown to you now.

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

17     whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

18             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you very much.  Now, please, sit down.

19             THE WITNESS:  Thank you.

20             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  And make yourself comfortable.

21             Ms. Hasan has questions for you.  She is conducting the

22     examination-in-chief.

23             Ms. Hasan, you have the floor.

24                           WITNESS:  JAN DE KOEIJER

25                           Examination by Ms. Hasan:

Page 17620

 1        Q.   Good afternoon, witness.

 2        A.   Good afternoon.

 3        Q.   Could you pleases state your name for the record?

 4        A.   My name is Jan de Koeijer.

 5        Q.   What is your profession?

 6        A.   My profession is -- I am at the moment team leader of -- I'm a

 7     forensic expert in document examination, but at the moment I am team

 8     leader of a group that does interdisciplinary forensic research, but I

 9     have been a document examiner for the past 20 years.

10             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Could page 62, line 4, please be corrected.  We

11     have now another witness.

12             THE WITNESS:  No, 19 years, sorry.

13             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  No, that was not in relation to you, but we have

14     a wrong name on the transcript.  And could you please repeat the name

15     because your answer in relation to your name was not properly recorded.

16             THE WITNESS:  Okay.

17             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  As well.  That was page 62, line 8.

18             THE WITNESS:  My name is Johan de Koeijer.  No, it's not Johan.

19     J-a-n de Koeijer.  De Koeijer is correct in the transcript.  Yes, that's

20     correct.

21             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  I would kindly ask the court reporter to correct

22     line 4 of page 62.  Ms. Hasan, please continue.

23             MS. HASAN:

24        Q.   Let's start with your formal education.  Do you have any degrees?

25        A.   I've a degree in chemistry.

Page 17621

 1        Q.   And at what level is that?

 2        A.   Masters degree.

 3        Q.   Where did you obtain that degree from?

 4        A.   I obtained that degree in the University of Utrecht here in the

 5     Netherlands.

 6        Q.   What year did you obtain your degree?

 7        A.   I have to just check my resume.  I'm sorry.  I obtained my degree

 8     in 1988.

 9        Q.   Mr. De Koeijer, I noticed that you are looking through some

10     papers that in front of you.  Could you please just tell us what's in

11     that file that's before you?

12        A.   Well, the papers I am just looking through is my resume, which I

13     have a Dutch and an English version, and the rest is the case file which

14     I have with me with the report and other matters dealing with the case.

15        Q.   In terms of forensic document analysis, have you received any

16     training in that field?

17        A.   Yes, I received a training of about four years before I did my

18     examination and became an expert, and this training was in-house training

19     at the Netherlands Forensic Institute.

20        Q.   Can you tell us a little bit more about what that training

21     comprised of?

22        A.   The training is training under a mentor, it's on the job

23     training, partially, so doing case work under supervision.  It also deals

24     with taking courses in specifics like courses in law, courses in

25     statistics, courses in reporting, so we have a whole number of courses

Page 17622

 1     which are the general courses each examiner must undergo, then we have

 2     specific literature training, studying the literature dealing with

 3     document examination and related topics.

 4             THE INTERPRETER:  Kindly slow down and please make pauses between

 5     questions and answers.  Thank you.

 6             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  This is a request for both speakers.

 7             THE WITNESS:  Okay.

 8             MS. HASAN:

 9        Q.   Are forensic document examiners, do they typically receive a

10     license or do they receive any certification of any form?

11        A.   At the Netherlands Forensic Institute we have a certification

12     programme where after -- well, two to four years of training, depending

13     on other activities, we undergo an exam, and this exam is with an

14     external expert present and another -- and other people on the

15     examination committee from within the institute.  This certification is

16     repeated every four years.

17        Q.   And when you say that certification is repeated, what does that

18     entail?

19        A.   That entails that a similar committee is assembled every four

20     years, usually each time with a different external expert, and we go

21     through the same routine looking through case work.  Usually we put in

22     four to six case reports and they are reviewed by the external expert and

23     questions are asked, and also it is looked into your resume to see if you

24     kept up with your training and kept up with international contacts and

25     things like that.

Page 17623

 1        Q.   And who else sits on this examination board?

 2        A.   We have besides the external expert, a principal scientist from

 3     our institute, the head of the department, a person from our personnel

 4     team, and a lawyer.

 5        Q.   When did you --

 6             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Please pause between question and answer.

 7             MS. HASAN:

 8        Q.   Witness, when you did you receive your personal certification?

 9        A.   I received my personal certification in 1996.

10        Q.   Are you a member of any professional bodies that are relevant to

11     the field of forensic document analysis?

12        A.   Yes, I am a member of a number of bodies.  One body here in the

13     Netherlands which is called Quality Circle on Documents and -- I just

14     have to see the translation.  I'm sorry.  I am not used to doing this in

15     English.

16        Q.   I believe --

17        A.   Yeah, it's the Quality Circle on Documents, with members -- all

18     document examiners in Holland are a member of this.  I am also a member

19     of the American Academy of Forensic Science, of the document section

20     there, and a member of the American Society of Question Document

21     Examiners.

22        Q.   And I take it these are the professional bodies that you've

23     listed on page 1 of the English version of your --

24        A.   Yes.

25        Q.   -- CV?

Page 17624

 1        A.   That's right.

 2        Q.   And I see from your CV that you were on the steering committee of

 3     the European Document Experts' Working Group?

 4        A.   That's correct.

 5        Q.   Can you tell us just what projects that steering committee --

 6             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Please pause between question and answer and the

 7     next question.  We have some problems.

 8             THE WITNESS:  This steering committee -- this working group does

 9     work on harmonisation of methods and techniques within the document

10     community, so we have done a lot of writing of methods relevant to

11     document examiners.  Furthermore, we are combining areas of research in

12     documents, and we are organising conferences to help exchange knowledge

13     between document examiners within Europe.

14        Q.   Have you authored any articles on these topics or on forensic

15     documents examination generally?

16        A.   Yes, I have authored a number of articles on document

17     examination.  Some on the more chemical aspects of ink analysis, and some

18     also on some physical examinations of ink and toner.

19        Q.   And these articles that you've authored, have they been published

20     in peer-review journals?

21        A.   Yes, all articles published -- are published -- they are all

22     published in the standard peer-review journals for forensic science.

23     Yes.

24        Q.   Do you hold any teaching positions?

25        A.   Yes.  I teach at a number of different locations, one is the

Page 17625

 1     University of Amsterdam, a forensics course.  The second is the

 2     Hogeschool of Amsterdam, it's a technical college of Amsterdam, they also

 3     have a forensics course.  We also teach the judges and the lawyers in the

 4     Netherlands specific to document examination, and I also teach an

 5     international course on document examination given to mainly border

 6     control police and people from other forensic labs which come to Holland

 7     for this course.

 8        Q.   And in terms of the subject matter of the field itself, what

 9     types of services do forensic examiners provide?

10        A.   What type of service?  What do you mean?

11        Q.   In terms of what are the general tasks of domestics -- sorry, a

12     forensic examiner would be tasked to do?

13        A.   At the NFI, we have two major types of cases, one is an analysis

14     of anonymous or threatening letters to determine the origin thereof; and

15     the second part is more general document examination, it could be

16     contracts, it could be bank documents, it could be fire-damaged

17     documents, water-damaged documents, all kinds of documents which are in

18     the -- which come to us from the police or from the prosecutor dealing

19     with criminal trials.

20        Q.   And what sort of things are you looking for?

21        A.   Well, we look for, for example, for authenticity of a document to

22     try and see if the document has undergone changes, and we will sometimes

23     need to determine if two documents come from the same source, to see if,

24     for example, a print is made by a specific printer.  We can also, like,

25     in this case, if we have latent impressions or latent text or whatever to

Page 17626

 1     try and enhance that and determine what was the original entries.  So

 2     it's quite broad aspect.  Ink analysis is sometimes done to compare an

 3     ink to a pen from a suspect, paper analysis.  All kinds of different

 4     techniques.

 5        Q.   Thank you.  And have you been trained in all these aspects of the

 6     discipline that you have just described?

 7        A.   Yes, we have.  That's partly the on-the-job training and partly

 8     the chemistry background which I have.

 9        Q.   Where you are currently employed?

10        A.   I am currently employed at the Netherlands Forensic Institute.

11        Q.   And what is your current position?

12        A.   Team leader of the interdisciplinary forensic science group.

13        Q.   Is this an accredited institution?

14        A.   Yes, the NFI has been accredited since 1994.

15        Q.   Since when have you been employed with NFI?

16        A.   1992.

17        Q.   And just to be clear, is NFI a governmental agency, or is it a

18     private enterprise?

19        A.   It's a governmental agency.

20        Q.   Does it belong to any particular ministry?

21        A.   Yes, the Ministry of Justice and Security.

22        Q.   And generally, during the course of your work with NFI you have

23     described the types of work that document examiners received, but with

24     your work with NFI, who is it that assigns you work?

25        A.   Work is assigned by -- well, we get the request from either the

Page 17627

 1     police, the prosecutor, or sometimes investigative judge.

 2        Q.   And can you describe your current responsibilities as head of the

 3     interdisciplinary forensic science group?

 4        A.   My current responsibilities are the group -- the group I run now

 5     is a group which deals with the larger cases which come into the

 6     institute.  There is the larger murder cases, for example, where a lot of

 7     different requests are put into the institute within one case, and my

 8     section co-ordinates these larger cases and sends out a co-ordinated

 9     report on all the examinations done within the NFI.

10        Q.   Now, do you recall when you received a request from the OTP for

11     which you're here to testify about?

12        A.   Well, I don't recall it very specifically.  It was to --

13        Q.   The year?

14        A.   Oh, the request to testify?

15        Q.   No, sorry, I mean the request for you to produce a report, an

16     expert report?

17        A.   Well, I --

18        Q.   The year?

19        A.   The year, well, it was in 1999.  So my recollection of the

20     request itself was not so -- is not so vivid in my mind, but it was the

21     first -- I think it was the first case we did for the Tribunal so that

22     was -- well, in that -- in that effect it was memorable.

23        Q.   And at the time that you received this request, what position did

24     you hold at NFI?

25        A.   At that time I was senior forensic document examiner and also, I

Page 17628

 1     believe, the head of the department for document and photography.

 2        Q.   Could you briefly describe your practice at that time in 1999?

 3        A.   At that time we had two document examiners, I think, myself and

 4     my colleague, and -- well, the practice was mainly doing daily case work

 5     and some research in documents.  And -- well, some leadership issues but

 6     it was mainly case-work driven.

 7        Q.   And how many cases would you say your section was involved in on

 8     a yearly basis?

 9        A.   On a yearly basis we do between 100 and 200 cases.  It used to be

10     a bit more, but it's going down at the moment, but so roughly between

11     those figures.

12        Q.   And after you were a senior forensic document examiner, well, at

13     the time in 1999, did your position change at any point thereafter?

14        A.   My position's changed quite a bit.  In -- we have had

15     reorganisations within our institute.  I have been head of the department

16     of document examination, finger-prints, and photography, and then I was

17     head of the document examination and photography, because finger-prints

18     went separately.  Then there was a period when I was only senior document

19     examiner and someone else was head of that department.  And the past two

20     years I have been head of the department of documents and handwriting --

21     or team leader of that department.  And, well, now, I have just switched

22     to team leader of the new department.

23        Q.   Okay.  And if we can go back to 1999 when you were the head of

24     the document section.  Were you, yourself, directly involved in the

25     examination of documents?

Page 17629

 1        A.   Yes, I was.

 2        Q.   Did you have any supervisory role?

 3        A.   Also, yes.  I had a trainee at that time, and I also had a role

 4     to supervise the work coming out of the photography department.

 5        Q.   Of the cases that you worked on in your section, you know, how

 6     many of them, roughly, were for criminal cases?

 7        A.   That would be more than 90 per cent because the times that we

 8     have a noncriminal case is very limited, so it would probably be 95 to

 9     99 per cent criminal case work.

10        Q.   Have you ever been called to testify as an expert in the past?

11        A.   I have been called once here at the Yugoslav Tribunal, and two or

12     three times in Dutch court.

13        Q.   Do you recall in which case and what you were tasked to do for

14     this Tribunal?

15        A.   I was -- I know I had a -- numerous documents I had established

16     for stamps to see if there are any alterations in the document, but I

17     don't recall exactly for what -- who the suspect was in this case.

18             MS. HASAN:  Mr. President, at this stage I would offer

19     Mr. De Koeijer's CV into evidence.  It has 65 ter number 7521 and this

20     wasn't previously on our 65 ter list as we just recently received an

21     updated version of Mr. De Koeijer's CV.

22             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  I take it from my experience with the Defence

23     that there is no objection, especially not with this document, so leave

24     is granted to add it to the 65 ter exhibit list.

25             MS. HASAN:  And I would in that case offer it into evidence.

Page 17630

 1             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  It will be received.

 2             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honour, 65 ter document 7521 shall be

 3     assigned Exhibit P2593.  Thank you.

 4             MS. HASAN:

 5        Q.   I am going to now turn -- just divert our attention a little bit

 6     to the examination of documents, specifically.  Could you describe the

 7     methods that experts in your field use to examine documents that have

 8     been altered?

 9        A.   Yes.  The main methods are optical methods to look at altered

10     documents.  Microscopy is a method you usually start off with, looking at

11     the document through a microscope.  Of course, well, first you examine

12     the document with the naked eye, but the microscope is the method which

13     you use quite often.  We will use luminescence and reflectance techniques

14     so they are light-driven techniques where we have different types of

15     light sources which you then look at the document with and these are

16     mainly used to detect remnants in the document from original entries, for

17     example.  Sometimes these -- there are remnants in the document from inks

18     which have specific properties under these different lighting conditions

19     which make them light up or be enhanced.

20             Other -- there are other more sophisticated chemical techniques,

21     scanning techniques which we will seldom use.  There is also -- lately we

22     are also using more digital image enhancement techniques where we have a

23     very good scanner to scan the document and then do image analysis.  This

24     was something which we did not do back in 1999 because, well, the

25     scanners were not of as good quality as they are now.

Page 17631

 1             MS. HASAN:  Could we please have 65 ter 642 displayed on the

 2     screens.

 3        Q.   Sir, do you recognise this document?

 4        A.   Yes, I recognise this as something come -- well, it's a

 5     translation, of course, but it looks like something coming from our case

 6     file system, our case system.

 7        Q.   Okay.

 8             MS. HASAN:  Could we just turn to page 2, please.

 9        Q.   And what would this be?

10        A.   I recognise this as a translation of my report, the front page of

11     my report.

12             MS. HASAN:  If we could just turn to page 5 now, the last page.

13        Q.   Now, do you recognise this as being -- would this have been the

14     report that you prepared --

15        A.   Yes, yes.

16        Q.   -- for the Tribunal?

17        A.   Yes.

18        Q.   And --

19        A.   Or the translation thereof.

20        Q.   And what language was the original in?

21        A.   In Dutch.

22             MS. HASAN:  Could we go back to page 1.

23        Q.   At the very top of this page next to the word "co-ordinator," it

24     has the letters -- the abbreviation "DO," and next to that that's been

25     translated as "investigation director," which is followed by your name.

Page 17632

 1     What does the abbreviation "DO" in Dutch mean?

 2        A.   The abbreviation stands for document onderzoeker which means

 3     document examiner.  It's more the section within the institute where the

 4     case needs to go to or where I belong to.  That's the section which I

 5     belong to.

 6        Q.   Can you tell us what -- okay, where this request originated from?

 7     Who did you receive the request from?

 8        A.   The request came from the -- from ICTY.

 9        Q.   And when you received the request, what were you asked to do?

10        A.   We were asked to examine the documents listed here to look for

11     erased writings, examine the tables, and more specifically later on we

12     were asked to emphasize on the specific letter "O" in the documents,

13     where the letter O had been erased.

14        Q.   Okay, and when you say this was emphasized, what do you mean be

15     that?

16        A.   This was in -- well, we talked to the requestee Bertel [phoen]

17     and to limit the amount of research on the document he -- he or she, I am

18     not sure if it was a lady or a man, specified that we should put emphasis

19     on the letter "O" and on the legenda [sic] part of one of the pages.

20        Q.   Okay.  So do I understand you correctly that that is what you

21     were meant to look for?

22        A.   Yes, yes.

23        Q.   And were you provided with any materials?

24        A.   Yes.  We obtained four sheets with -- containing the tables.  And

25     these -- the sheet is listed at the bottom of this page.

Page 17633

 1        Q.   Were these -- was this an original document?

 2        A.   This is an original document, yes.

 3             MS. HASAN:  May we have P1754 displayed.

 4             And if I may ask for the assistance of the Court Usher to hand

 5     the document to the witness.

 6             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  The original document or --

 7             MS. HASAN:  Yes.

 8             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Yes, the Court Usher will assist.

 9             MS. HASAN:  I think it's sufficient for this purpose to not have

10     the English translation up for the time being, just simply the B/C/S so

11     we can see it clearly.

12        Q.   Sir, if you could just flip through that and let us know if that

13     is the document that you received?

14        A.   Yes, this is the document.

15        Q.   And would that be the document -- did you -- sorry, did you

16     examine the original document or would you have examined a copy of it?

17        A.   No, we examined the original document.

18             MS. HASAN:  Mr. President, I would offer the original to

19     Your Honours to have a look at while the witness testifies, if you wish

20     to see it.

21             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  If he doesn't need it during the answers he is

22     providing to you?

23             THE WITNESS:  I don't think so.  I think I have copies with me,

24     so ...

25             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  That's fine, the Chamber would like to see it,

Page 17634

 1     but also the Defence should have the opportunity to have a look.

 2             Ms. Hasan, please continue.

 3             MS. HASAN:

 4        Q.   Mr. De Koeijer, aside from that document, were you provided with

 5     any other materials?

 6        A.   No.

 7        Q.   Did you examine that document yourself?

 8        A.   Yes.

 9        Q.   Did anyone else examine the document?

10        A.   A colleague of mine examined the document first, and I examined

11     it after him.

12        Q.   Is that standard procedure?

13        A.   This is -- all case work at the NFI is done by, at least within

14     the document section, is always done by two people, and specifically if

15     there is an interpretation issue then the second examiner will always

16     look at the items in detail or so and do their own examination.

17        Q.   Could you describe for us the techniques you used to examine this

18     particular document?

19        A.   This particular document was examined with different types of

20     lighting.  Looking at it with transparent lighting, with oblique

21     lighting, which is lighting from a low angle, this in combination with

22     stereo-microscopy, we also looked at it with infrared, infrared

23     reflectance method, which is using infrared light shining on the document

24     and looking at the reflectance and the absorbance of the inks on the

25     paper under this infrared light using a camera to register this.  This

Page 17635

 1     technique is mainly done because pencil contains carbon and carbon

 2     absorbs infrared light very strongly.  So if there are very weak pencil

 3     marking, they could be enhanced a bit by looking at it with infrared

 4     reflectance technique.

 5             Other technique which we tried which we did -- another technique

 6     which we tried, which we did not report, is electrostatic detection

 7     apparatus, which is a technique which looks mainly at indented writing

 8     impressions, and, well, this technique didn't work as well as the other

 9     techniques which we did report.

10        Q.   And can you just elaborate a little bit on what it is that this

11     transparent or oblique lighting shows you?

12        A.   If you use oblique lighting, then impressions will show a darker

13     rim around the impression, so they will stand out more in the paper

14     than -- than they would with normal reflective lighting.

15        Q.   And what is a stereo-microscope?

16        A.   A stereo-microscope is a microscope which has a binocular, so you

17     can view it with both eyes.  Not just one eye, it has a binocular.

18        Q.   And do all these techniques or equipment, do they assist you in

19     also discerning the underlying text?

20        A.   Yes, they do.

21        Q.   In addition to determining whether there has been an erasure?

22        A.   Yes, yes.

23             MS. HASAN:  If I could have the report back on the screen, which

24     are 65 ter 6 -- no, 65 ter 642.

25             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Gajic.

Page 17636

 1             MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, on page 77, line 15,

 2     there is something that seems completely unclear to me.  It says:  "So

 3     you can view it with Bozovic implies."  It must be an error.  This

 4     sentence is completely nonsensical and in Serbian I heard something

 5     entirely different, in the interpretation, I mean.

 6             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  It was very clear that the witness said, "with

 7     both eyes."

 8             Please continue, Ms. Hasan.

 9             MS. HASAN:

10        Q.   Witness, if I may just go back to the infrared reflection

11     technique you talked about.

12             Now, you said you could observe -- you could use it to look at

13     the absorption of the light when looking at documents that have ink and

14     pencil on them.  In this particular document, what is used?  Is it ink?

15     Is it pencil?  What's used on this document?

16        A.   This document was written in pencil.

17             MS. HASAN:  If we could turn to page 3 of the report.

18        Q.   Under the subheading "Investigation of documents," you note that

19     the characters on this document were written, and I will quote the

20     English, "With considerable pressure leaving deep imprints in the paper."

21     How are you able to see these imprints?

22        A.   These imprints you can see quite clearly with the oblique

23     lighting.

24        Q.   Were you able to see these imprints --

25             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Please pause between question and answer at the

Page 17637

 1     next question.

 2             MS. HASAN:  I apologise.

 3        Q.   Were you able to see any imprints on this document using the

 4     naked eye?

 5        A.   Using the naked eye you could see that part of the pencil

 6     material had not been erased fully.  It's more difficult to see the

 7     imprints just with the naked eye, but you can if you're in a darkroom and

 8     use side lighting, you can then, with the naked eye.  But just under

 9     normal lighting conditions, it's much more difficult.  But in a darkroom

10     with side lighting, you can with the naked eye, you can see these

11     imprints, also, yes.  You don't really -- if it's large enough, you don't

12     need a microscope to see these imprints.

13        Q.   And for the entire document that you examined, did you apply all

14     the methodologies or did you select a few for specific entries?  How did

15     you go about examining it?

16        A.   We would first examine it with the naked eye using different

17     lighting techniques, and when you want to examine it in more detail, we

18     would go to the microscope and examine it at a larger magnification, and

19     that's mainly to see if there are any -- to look at the letters a bit

20     more closely to see if there are maybe letters which may look similar.

21     Like, if it's an "O" or it's a "C" or if the closure is correct in a --

22     or it may be a tail, there could have been an A, for example.  That kind

23     of detail we would look at under the microscope.

24             MS. HASAN:  Could we have the document P1754 again displayed on

25     our screen.  And could we turn to page 8.  And it's sufficient if we

Page 17638

 1     just, I think, have the B/C/S version of the document on the screen.

 2        Q.   Now, based on your examination of this page, did you see -- yeah,

 3     perhaps we can centre the text a little bit more.  I know it's printed

 4     that way in the original -- no, maybe not.  Okay.  Did you see any

 5     alteration that's been done on this page?

 6        A.   Yes, we did.

 7             THE INTERPRETER:  Would the witness kindly wait for the

 8     interpretation.

 9             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Just look at the transcript and see if the --

10             THE WITNESS:  It's finished, yes.

11             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  -- question is finished.

12             THE WITNESS:  Yes, we did.  We saw below the -- or row nine,

13     below the "T," we saw that a part of the text there -- of the text there

14     had been erased.  You see it as the white line in this legenda [sic].

15             MS. HASAN:

16        Q.   Now, the original document itself, do you see any evidence of

17     erasure on that document.  It doesn't --

18        A.   It doesn't register on the copy, no.  But on the document itself,

19     you can see, very lightly, you can see it with the naked eye, but using

20     the equipment we have we could get a better image and we are able to

21     interpret what was there.

22        Q.   And what were you able to discern was written there before it was

23     erased?

24        A.   The line started with the letter "O," and then there was a dash,

25     and then the name Orahovac, O-r-a-h-o-v-a-c.

Page 17639

 1             MS. HASAN:  Mr. President --

 2             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Please.  Is that correct, the spelling of this

 3     word?

 4             THE WITNESS:  Yes, that's correct.

 5             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you.

 6             Judge Nyambe has a question -- Ms. Hasan, please continue.

 7             MS. HASAN:  Mr. President, when I met with Mr. De Koeijer earlier

 8     today he provided us with some images of this particular -- from this

 9     document that were part of his file, and these have now been uploaded

10     onto e-court and they have the number 65 ter 7527, and I would ask leave

11     to add these images which were recently provided to us to our witness --

12     to our 65 ter list.

13             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Tolimir, do you have any objection to that

14     request?

15             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.  No

16     objection.

17             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Leave is granted to add these documents.

18             MS. HASAN:  Thank you.  Could we have then 65 ter 7527 displayed

19     on our screen.

20        Q.   Mr. De Koeijer, do you have those images that you gave us earlier

21     today with you?

22        A.   Yes, I do.

23        Q.   Okay.

24             THE INTERPRETER:  Again, the witness is kindly asked to wait for

25     the interpretation.

Page 17640

 1             MS. HASAN:

 2        Q.   Could you please tell us how these images were captured?

 3        A.   These images were captured with an apparatus called the VSC, it's

 4     a video spectral comparator.  And some of the images of this image was

 5     captured with side lighting or with oblique lighting, and there are also

 6     one or two images in here which were captured with infrared reflectance.

 7        Q.   Now, we will go through these images, but what I want to ask you

 8     before we get into them is do they reflect -- what we see on the screen

 9     here, is that a reflection of what you would have seen through the device

10     you were looking through at the time?

11        A.   The image quality is always quite a bit less on printed images,

12     and the quality is always better when viewing it directly under the

13     microscope or with the apparatus on the screen.  Once you print it, the

14     quality is less and, well, this is of course a copy of a print of mine so

15     the quality is, again, somewhat less.  But some of the features you can

16     see here I can also see on my copy, and some of the features I can see a

17     little bit better maybe on my copies.

18        Q.   Okay.  Let's look at one of the these images which is on page 4

19     of this document.  Can you tell us what we see here on the screen?

20        A.   What we see here is a side light image, oblique light image,

21     where we can see some of the paper -- well, the impressions in the paper.

22     This is a pretty rough image.  We have some better images for the side

23     lighting, but you could see also the paper fibre disturbances in this

24     image that -- also the paper has been damaged a bit, at the place of the

25     erasure.

Page 17641

 1             MS. HASAN:  Let's turn to the next page of this document.

 2        Q.   And can you tell us what we see here?

 3        A.   Yeah, this is also a side light image, and -- but here we see

 4     less of the paper fibre disturbances, and we see a bit more of the

 5     impressions which can be, well, deciphered partly from this image.  But

 6     the image I saw on the screen and under the microscope is better than

 7     this quality, and also the one I have in front of me is somewhat better

 8     quality than this is.  But here we can see the text "Orahovac."

 9             MS. HASAN:  And let us turn to page 6 in e-court.

10        Q.   What are we seeing on this page?

11        A.   This is an infrared image of the same line.  This image is weaker

12     than the previous one with the side lighting, and it's -- well, it gives

13     more or less the same information but it's more difficult to decipher.

14        Q.   I am going to move to some of the other findings you've made in

15     your report which relate to your search for the letter "O."  If we can

16     look at one example.

17             MS. HASAN:  Could we go back to P1754 and turn to page 3.

18        Q.   Now, I'd like to just take as an example row 1 in this table.  In

19     your examination of that row, did you find any alterations in your search

20     or did you find any Os?

21        A.   Yes, we did.  In column number 14, we found that there was an

22     original "O" entry underneath the "T."

23        Q.   If perhaps we can focus in a little bit on column 14, row 1.  And

24     did you find any other alterations in this row?

25        A.   Yes.  In 15 -- in column 15 we found that the letter "R" had been

Page 17642

 1     changed to a "T."

 2        Q.   Okay.  Now, we're going to look at some other images of these

 3     particular findings.

 4             MS. HASAN:  If we could revert back to 65 ter 7527, please.  And

 5     if we could just zoom in a little bit on this page, thank you.

 6        Q.   Can you tell us what we are looking at here?

 7        A.   Yes, again, this image is -- the quality of this image is less

 8     than what I have in front of me, but in column 15 you can see quite well

 9     the "R" in this case, and -- but in column 14 it's still difficult to see

10     the "O," but there are some -- well, you can see there are some round

11     part in there around the bottom of the "T," but there is -- there should

12     be a better image.

13        Q.   Okay.  And how is it that you know that this is row 1, the same

14     row we were looking at in the other document?

15        A.   Well, this is -- you can check this very easily by just

16     overlaying this image with the document.

17        Q.   Okay.

18        A.   But it's also stated on here on the image itself, which you have.

19             MS. HASAN:  Yeah, if we zoom out of this a little bit.  I don't

20     know if it's been picked up on the screen.  It hasn't.

21        Q.   But in your version I note that you noted down the ERN number of

22     the document.

23             MS. HASAN:  Perhaps Your Honours can take a look at the copies of

24     the versions that he has.  But for the time being, if we could then turn

25     to the next page, I think there is another image that's been captured of

Page 17643

 1     these same two columns.

 2        Q.   Mr. De Koeijer, would you be able to answer my questions about

 3     these images without having your copies of the documents before you?

 4        A.   Yes.

 5             MS. HASAN:  And I would just propose to hand those up to

 6     Your Honours as they are a little bit clearer than what appears on the

 7     screen, and the Defence can take a look at them as well.

 8             Well, we can just hand up the one page.

 9             THE WITNESS:  Is it possible for me to use a pointer of some

10     kind?

11             MS. HASAN:  Absolutely.  The Court Usher will assist you with

12     that in a moment.

13             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you.  This page which is now on the screen

14     with the ERN number 0559-2134 is handed over to the Defence and to the

15     Chamber.  Please continue, Ms. Hasan.

16             MS. HASAN:

17        Q.   Mr. De Koeijer, you wanted to show something using the pointer?

18        A.   Yes.  Is it just this one?  In column 14 you can see the outline

19     of the "O" here going something like this, and the "R" is -- in column 15

20     is like this.

21             MS. HASAN:  Mr. President, given that the witness has marked this

22     particular page, I would offer this page into evidence.

23             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  This marked page will be received.

24             THE REGISTRAR:  The marked page of the 65 ter document 7527 shall

25     be assigned Exhibit P2594.  Thank you, Your Honours.

Page 17644

 1             MS. HASAN:  Mr. President, I note the time, and it would be a

 2     good point to end.

 3             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you.  I would like to give the original

 4     documents we have received as the Chamber back to the Prosecution and the

 5     witness respectively.

 6             Indeed, we have to adjourn for today.  Ms. Hasan will continue

 7     the examination-in-chief tomorrow and followed by Mr. Tolimir with his

 8     cross-examination.  We have to adjourn and we will resume tomorrow in the

 9     afternoon, 2.15, in Courtroom III.

10             Mr. De Koeijer, just to let you know, you have no permission to

11     contact either party about the content of your testimony during the

12     break.

13             THE WITNESS:  Okay.

14             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  We adjourn.

15                           [The witness stands down]

16                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at

17                           7.02 p.m., to be reconvened on Tuesday, the

18                           6th day of September, 2011, at 2.15 p.m.