Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 14410

 1                           Monday, 15 July 2013

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           --- Upon commencing at 9.35 a.m.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Good morning to everyone in and around this

 6     courtroom.

 7             Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.

 8             THE REGISTRAR:  Good morning, Your Honours.

 9             This is the case number IT-09-92-T, the Prosecutor versus

10     Ratko Mladic.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Madam Registrar.

12             The Chamber was informed that there are no preliminaries.  But

13     before we start, Judge Fluegge is for urgent personal reasons unable to

14     sit today.  We expect him back tomorrow.  Judge Moloto and I have

15     considered whether it would be in the interest of justice to continue to

16     hear the case.  We concluded that it is.

17             Is the Prosecution ready to call its next witness?

18             MS. MacGREGOR:  Yes, Mr. President.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Then could the witness be escorted into the

20     courtroom.

21             Estimates for today are one hour in chief, Ms. MacGregor, and two

22     hours for cross.

23                           [The witness entered court]

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Good morning, Mr. Wright, I presume.

25             THE WITNESS:  Yes.

Page 14411

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Wright, before you give evidence, the Rules

 2     require that you make a solemn declaration that you will speak the truth,

 3     the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.  The text is now handed out

 4     to you.  May I invite you to make that solemn declaration.

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

 6     whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.  Please be seated.

 8             Mr. Wright, when I am addressing you as "Mr. Wright" and not as

 9     "Professor Wright, it has got nothing to do with not fully appreciating

10     your professional standards.  It's a habit in this court that we call

11     people by their rather than by rank or title.

12             THE WITNESS:  I understand, Your Honour.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

14             Ms. MacGregor will now examine you.  Ms. MacGregor is counsel for

15     the Prosecution.  You'll find her to your right.

16             Ms. MacGregor, you may proceed.

17             MS. MacGREGOR:  Thank you, Mr. President.

18                           WITNESS:  RICHARD WRIGHT

19                           Examination by Ms. MacGregor:

20        Q.   Good morning, Professor Wright.  If you can please state your

21     full name for the record.

22        A.   My full name is Richard Vernon Stafford Wright.

23        Q.   And I remind you and also myself that we must pause between our

24     questions and answers since we are both speaking in the same language to

25     wait for the translation.

Page 14412

 1             MS. MacGREGOR:  If the court officer can please show

 2     65 ter 29102.  I believe this has been loaded into e-court.  If not,

 3     please let me know.  This is --

 4             THE REGISTRAR:  The document is not in e-court, Your Honours.

 5             MS. MacGREGOR:  One moment, Your Honours.

 6             Ms. Stewart informs me that it's being released just now.  Would

 7     you like the 65 ter number again?  Okay.

 8             Your Honours, this is an updated copy of Professor Wright's CV

 9     which is the reason for the new 65 ter number.  I've provided a copy to

10     the Defence.  Unfortunately there is not yet a B/C/S translation,

11     although there are very few differences with the prior copy.

12             THE REGISTRAR:  It takes a few minutes from the moment it's

13     released until --

14             MS. MacGREGOR:  Perhaps instead, then, we should show the older

15     version and that is at 65 ter 05334.  I can then question the witness

16     about the significant differences that would have come up.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed as you suggest.

18             MS. MacGREGOR:

19        Q.   Professor Wright, if you see on the screen in front of you there

20     is a copy of the -- actually, I'm just checking.  The one on the right is

21     in English.  Is this a copy of your CV?

22        A.   Yes, it is.

23        Q.   And as you have heard, it is not the most recent version that you

24     have provided but does it summarise for the most part your educational

25     and professional background?

Page 14413

 1        A.   Yes.

 2        Q.   Now it lists you as an emeritus professor of anthropology,

 3     although the reports you have provided to the Tribunal are archeological

 4     in nature.  Can you explain the difference?

 5        A.   Yes, in the older universities the word "anthropology" covered

 6     human evolution and physical anthropology, that's bones.  It covered

 7     archeology other than classical archeology, and it covered cultural

 8     anthropology.  So I was an archeologist within a department of

 9     anthropology in the broad umbrella of the term.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. MacGregor, I am informed that the uploading into

11     e-court is complete by now.  So perhaps we could work on the basis of the

12     newest version.

13             MS. MacGREGOR:  Thank you, Mr. President.  And the 65 ter for

14     that is 29102.

15        Q.   Professor Wright, when the new document comes on the screen,

16     which it is now there, is this a copy of the more current version of the

17     CV?

18        A.   I'll have to see the end of the last page to see the date, I'm

19     afraid.

20        Q.   Are you able to see?

21        A.   Yes, I haven't updated it since then.

22        Q.   Okay.

23             MS. MacGREGOR:  If the Registrar can turn back to the first page.

24        Q.   There is an AM listed beside your name that was not included on

25     the prior copy of your CV.  Can you explain what that means?

Page 14414

 1        A.   Yes, that means I was made a Member of the Order of Australia for

 2     forensic work that I've done.

 3        Q.   When you say "the Order of Australia," what does that mean?

 4        A.   It's an honour granted by the Governor-General of Australia.

 5             MS. MacGREGOR:  Your Honour, the Prosecution tenders

 6     Professor Wright's CV.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  In the absence of any objections, Madam Registrar.

 8             THE REGISTRAR:  Document 29102 receives number P1760,

 9     Your Honours.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  And is admitted into evidence.

11             MS. MacGREGOR:  Thank you, Mr. President.

12        Q.   Professor Wright, you have testified at the Tribunal several

13     times as an expert about your work on exhumations for the Office of the

14     Prosecution.  Which cases have you testified in?

15        A.   I testified in the case of Krstic, Tolimir, Popovic et al., and

16     Karadzic.

17        Q.   Did you have an opportunity to review the statement that the

18     Prosecution is tendering of yours today which is part of your Krstic and

19     Karadzic testimony?

20        A.   Yes, I did review that.

21        Q.   And was that testimony true to the best of your knowledge when

22     you gave it?

23        A.   Yes.

24        Q.   Would you give the same answers in substance if asked the same

25     questions today?

Page 14415

 1        A.   Yes, I would.

 2             MS. MacGREGOR:  Your Honours, the Prosecution tenders the

 3     92 ter statement for Professor Wright under 65 ter number -- I'm sorry,

 4     Ms. Stewart is telling me that there is not yet a 65 ter number.  If you

 5     can give me one moment.

 6             Your Honours, it was tendered by the Prosecution in its

 7     Rule 92 ter motion submitted, which the Defence has responded to.

 8     However, due to my oversight, I did not include it on the exhibit list so

 9     it does not have a 65 ter number.  The motion was filed by the

10     Prosecution on July 1st, 2013.  I don't know if there is a mechanism for

11     directing the Chamber's attention to it now so that it can be seen.  I

12     know that the Defence has seen it and has replied to it.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  I've read it, but if there is no 65 ter number and

14     if there is no exhibit number, then I'm afraid that we are unable to

15     consult it on our screens.

16             If Ms. Stewart would be in a position to show it in Sanction,

17     then we could at least have it on our screens.  I have the hard copy in

18     front of me.

19             MS. MacGREGOR:  I'll -- as is, I think, probably, evident, the

20     Prosecution will be tendering that statement.  It is not a written

21     statement with a signature, so I don't need to show it to the witness in

22     order to have him recognise his signature.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  But for admission we need to have it in the system,

24     otherwise we restart a paper trial, which this is not.

25             MS. MacGREGOR:  Your Honours, would it be possible to continue

Page 14416

 1     with the examination while Ms. Stewart's colleague uploads it into

 2     e-court?

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  I'm looking at the Defence.

 4             Mr. Stojanovic, any problem?  No problems.

 5             We'll continue as you suggest.

 6             MS. MacGREGOR:  Thank you.  And thank you also to my colleagues

 7     for their efforts.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Once it has been assigned a 65 ter number, then, of

 9     course, you should ask leave to add it to your 65 ter list.  And after

10     that, we can consider whether or not we'll -- once tendered, whether we

11     can admit it or not.

12             MS. MacGREGOR:  Thank you, Your Honours.  Would it be wise to

13     delay the reading of the witness's 92 ter summary into evidence until

14     that point or should I go ahead and do that?

15             JUDGE ORIE:  I think you can go ahead.

16             MS. MacGREGOR:  Thank you.

17             Professor Wright started work for the ICTY in 1997.  In 1998 he

18     led the exhumations at the mass grave sites at the Red Dam,

19     Cancari Road 3, Cancari Road 12, Hodzici Road 3, 4, and 5, Liplje 2, and

20     Zeleni Jadar 5.  In 1999 he exhumed a primary mass grave at Kozluk and at

21     Kevljani.  In 2000 he led the exhumations at Glogova, Pasinac, and Redak.

22     Professor Wright began his examinations when he would be taken by ICTY

23     investigators to a suspected mass grave site.  It was then his job to

24     find the actual location of the grave within that suspect area.

25             First the site was checked for mines and booby-traps and a

Page 14417

 1     surveying team was set up to record the grave's contents.  A backhoe

 2     would then be used to scrape off the surface of the soil until

 3     Professor Wright was satisfied that the complete outline of the grave had

 4     been uncovered.

 5             Each of the bodies within the grave was surveyed with a

 6     three-dimensional recording system, and each body or body part was

 7     photographed and assigned a unique number.  When a virtually complete

 8     body was removed, the experts also filled out a form called a "body

 9     sheet" which described the properties of the body.  Once the bodies and

10     body parts had been exhumed, they were sent to the morgue for

11     anthropological and pathological analysis.

12             Professor Wright would also examine and note any artefacts or

13     other items contained in the graves, in addition to noting any

14     significant factors related to the structure, composition, or nature of

15     the graves.  Professor Wright summarised his findings in written reports

16     which he provided to the Office of the Prosecutor.

17             May I now continue with questions for the witness?

18             JUDGE ORIE:  You may.

19             MS. MacGREGOR:  Thank you.

20        Q.   Professor Wright, in the summary I just read, I referenced

21     several reports that you wrote on exhumations.  And as you know, the

22     Prosecution is tendering those reports that you did on your exhumations

23     in Prijedor and Srebrenica.  Did you have an opportunity to review those

24     reports before testifying today?

25        A.   Yes, I did.

Page 14418

 1        Q.   And do you still stand by the analysis and conclusions of those

 2     reports?

 3        A.   Yes.

 4             MS. MacGREGOR:  If the court officer can please show the

 5     1998 report, which is 65 ter 04603, page 24 in e-court in the English

 6     version and page 26 in the B/C/S version.

 7        Q.   And, Professor Wright, in a few moments, a section from your

 8     report from 1998 will come on the screen.  This is the section on

 9     Hodzici 04.  To the right of your screen is the English version, and if

10     you look at the section near the bottom H --

11             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Madam MacGregor, is it 04 or 05?

12             MS. MacGREGOR:  04.

13             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Well, on the screen we see 05.

14             MS. MacGREGOR:  Your Honour --

15             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you so much.  Now we do see 04 too.

16             MS. MacGREGOR:  Okay.

17             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.

18             MS. MacGREGOR:

19        Q.   If you can please direct your attention to section HZ04, the

20     fourth paragraph in the section, it's actually the last sentence on the

21     page, this sentence says:

22             "Dr. Tony Brown visited the exhumation, and on the basis of

23     several properties concludes that the graves at Lazete are the origin of

24     HZ05."

25             Now should this sentence be referring to grave HZ05 or HZ04?

Page 14419

 1        A.   I made a typological error there.  It should refer to HZ04.

 2        Q.   Okay.

 3             MS. MacGREGOR:  And if we can please look at the next paragraph.

 4     And the court officer, this will require turning to the next page in the

 5     English although staying on the same page in B/C/S.  We'll give the

 6     document a moment to catch up.

 7        Q.   If you see the first sentence on your page, and in B/C/S this is

 8     the last sentence in the section on HZ04, and this is essentially the

 9     same question.  We see a reference to HZ05 and what should that actually

10     be referring to?

11        A.   It should refer to HZ04.  It's the same mistake.

12        Q.   Okay.  Thank you.

13             MS. MacGREGOR:  And I will no longer need that document.

14        Q.   I want to move on now to discuss in general your methodology in

15     conducting exhumations and in writing the reports for the Office of the

16     Prosecution.  How were you initially contacted to lead exhumations for

17     the OTP?

18        A.   I was contacted by the then deputy -- Deputy Prosecutor,

19     Mr. Graham Blewitt, and asked if I would head up the team for '97 that

20     was going to be working at Brcko.

21        Q.   Did you have prior experience or training with mass grave

22     exhumations?

23        A.   Yes, I did.  In 1990 and 1991, I was employed by the Australian

24     Attorney-General's Department to exhume three mass graves in the Ukraine.

25     These dated from 1942 and were the subject of an investigation by the

Page 14420

 1     Australian Attorney-General into three men who were then Australians in

 2     1990 but who were charged with war crimes in the Ukraine.  And the

 3     Attorney-General's Department if there were these graves in the Ukraine

 4     that eye-witnesses were alleging, and so I exhumed three of those graves.

 5        Q.   And approximately, and this doesn't need to be specific, but what

 6     amount of people or victims were in the mass graves?

 7        A.   In the 1990 grave that we excavated at a place called Serniki,

 8     that's S-e-r-n-i-k-i, there were about 553, mainly women and children and

 9     old men.  And in 1991, we didn't exhume the whole grave, we just exhumed

10     at Ustinovska children who had been killed after the adults had been

11     killed.  But there were approximately 160 individuals there.  And at a

12     site called Gnivan, G-n-i-v-a-n, there were about 120.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. MacGregor, we're listening with great attention

14     to what Mr. Wright tells us but we had read that already in the previous

15     testimony, so therefore could we avoid repetition.

16             MS. MacGREGOR:  Yes --

17             JUDGE ORIE:  This is not because we are not interested, Mr.

18     Wright, but because we've read it already, you testified about it before.

19     Please proceed.

20             MS. MacGREGOR:  Thank you.

21        Q.   Were you familiar with the professional backgrounds of your team

22     members on the OTP exhumations?

23        A.   I was towards the end but not at the beginning.  At the beginning

24     I knew -- did not know enough people who could make up a team and

25     Jose Pablo Baraybar suggested names to me of -- that were members -- to

Page 14421

 1     be members of the team.  But by the year 2000, I knew the field, so to

 2     speak, and made up my own team.

 3        Q.   Were you present at the excavations for the duration of them?

 4        A.   Yes, I was always present at the excavations unless I was sick or

 5     went on leave, in which case a deputy was appointed.  But I was present

 6     in the grave, so to speak.

 7        Q.   And as the director or the lead of the excavations, what was your

 8     role while the excavation was happening?

 9        A.   My main role was to see that the protocols that we'd established

10     were being followed by the excavators and the surveyors and the

11     photographers.  In other words, I would be checking that things were

12     working properly according to our protocols.

13        Q.   When it came time to write the reports that you'd been contracted

14     to write, what sources of your own did you review in order to write the

15     reports?

16        A.   Well, sources of my own were notebooks which have already been

17     copied for ICTY, that is, personal notebooks, but the main information

18     was contained within survey data, photographic data, and the excavation

19     logs which contained sequentially each item that was discovered, whether

20     it was a body or a body part or an artefact.

21        Q.   And did you consult any sources of others or reports of others to

22     write your own reports?

23        A.   Yes, I was constantly in touch with Ian Hanson who was doing most

24     of the surveying, Tim Loveless who did the photography, and the scenes of

25     crime officers who compiled the logs.

Page 14422

 1             MS. MacGREGOR:  Your Honours, at this point I would like to offer

 2     into evidence -- there are four reports that relate to Srebrenica graves

 3     and there are three reports that relate to Prijedor graves.  I can go

 4     through the seven 65 ter numbers when you're ready.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  We are ready.

 6             MS. MacGREGOR:  Okay.  The Kozluk report is 04602.

 7     Eastern Bosnia report, 04603.  Glogova 1, 04611.  Kevljani, 11049.

 8     Pasinac, 11051.  Glogova Site 1, Grave L, 11052.  And Redak 1, 11053.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Any objections?

10             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour.  I apologise,

11     though, could you please repeat the report for the Redak grave, the

12     65 ter.  If I understood it correctly, it's 11053.

13             MS. MacGREGOR:  That's correct.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  It doesn't appear with that number on the

15     transcript --

16             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  -- but now it does.  Madam Registrar, could you

18     assign numbers.

19             THE REGISTRAR:  Document 04602 receives number P1761.

20             Document 04603 receives number P1762.  Document 04611 receives

21     number P1763.  Document 11049 receives number P1764.  Document 11051

22     receives number P1765.  Document 11052 receives number P1766.  And

23     document 11053 receives number P1767, Your Honours.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  P1761 up to and including P1767 are admitted into

25     evidence.

Page 14423

 1             MS. MacGREGOR:  Thank you, Mr. President.

 2             Also, Ms. Stewart has just informed me that the 92 ter excerpts

 3     that -- excuse me, the transcript excerpts that comprise

 4     Professor Wright's statement are now uploaded.  If I can provide those,

 5     would this be a convenient time?

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, it is.

 7             MS. MacGREGOR:  The 65 ter numbers are 21903 and 29104.  I was

 8     going to, again, tender those into evidence.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  May I take it after you have sought leave to add

10     them to your 65 ter list.

11             MS. MacGREGOR:  Yes.  I apologise, yes, Your Honour.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Any objections?

13             Mr. Stojanovic remains silent, therefore I take it that he has no

14     objections.

15             Madam Registrar.

16             THE REGISTRAR:  Document 29103 receives number P1768,

17     Your Honours.  And document 29104 receives number P1769, Your Honours.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  P1768 and P1769 are admitted into evidence.

19             MS. MacGREGOR:  Thank you, Mr. President.

20             If I can ask the court officer to show Exhibit 1762.

21        Q.   Professor Wright, while that's loading I've asked the court

22     officer to show your 1998 report on exhumations in Eastern Bosnia.

23             MS. MacGREGOR:  If we can please look at page 172 in e-court in

24     the English version.  This is a photograph and I've discovered that the

25     B/C/S version did not include the photos, which means the captions to

Page 14424

 1     this photograph does not have a translation.  So that is something we can

 2     address at a later time.

 3        Q.   I've asked the court officer to show a photo that relates to the

 4     Cancari Road 12 grave.  Are you able to see that photo on the screen in

 5     front of you Professor Wright?

 6        A.   I can see the top part of it, not the whole.

 7        Q.   Okay.  If we need to, I'll ask the court officer to zoom out.

 8     Now you have stated that you customarily removed bodies as you excavated,

 9     sort of as you went.  If we look at this photo, it appears that there is

10     a mass of remains in place.  Can you explain why you left the bodies in

11     place for this particular excavation?

12        A.   Yes.  We wanted to get an idea of the distribution of bodies

13     within the grave, and since the weather conditions were reasonable and we

14     could cover the bodies at night, we decided to display the top layer of

15     bodies within the grave.  There are many more underneath that are not

16     showing.  But that was at a measure that we took at Cancari 12, but in

17     general, with the exception of one area of the Kozluk site, we removed

18     the bodies as we found them.

19        Q.   On the left of that photograph we see a trench.  Can you just

20     explain for the Chamber what that is?

21        A.   That trench allows us to see the bodies from the side, the layers

22     of bodies from the side, and it also serves to drain the area.  If it

23     should rain, we don't want water rising and disturbing the bodies and the

24     evidence, so we pump water out of that trench.

25        Q.   So to be clear, that's a trench that was put there by the

Page 14425

 1     excavation team?

 2        A.   By us, yes.

 3        Q.   And this will help with the captions which have not been

 4     translated, can you just very briefly explain the significance that is

 5     described in the caption in the second sentence about the spilling over

 6     on the right side of where the bodies are?

 7        A.   Yes.  In the far right, you can see the bodies are higher than

 8     the local ground surface.  So the excavated grave was overfilled and

 9     there were bodies on the surface that were then covered by a bit of soil.

10             MS. MacGREGOR:  Okay.  If the court officer can please turn to

11     page 174 in e-court, still in the English version.

12        Q.   This next picture is also from Cancari 12.  It is labeled as a

13     body part from that grave.  Now the condition of this seems very

14     different from the bodies that we just looked.  Can you please explain

15     how these are from the same grave?

16        A.   Yes, I can talk generally about this point.  When you have a pile

17     of bodies in a clay grave, the bodies that are deep down are protected

18     from oxygen, so they tend to putrefy much more slowly than bodies that

19     are near the top of the grave.  So much so that the -- that when we're

20     looking at a single event of the disposal of bodies in a grave, the top

21     layer of bodies may be skeletonised and the bodies underneath preserved

22     like this.  So the condition of a body in terms of its soft tissues is no

23     guide to when it was -- was buried.  You have to know the context within

24     the grave of the particular body for that to be evaluated.

25        Q.   Just to be clear, when you say -- you've said, "When you're

Page 14426

 1     looking at a single event of the disposal of bodies," just in even more

 2     simplified terms, what do you mean by that?

 3        A.   Well, let us suppose that a grave is filled with bodies as a

 4     single event and then it's filled in.  The bodies near the top will

 5     skeletonise rapidly.  The bodies near the bottom will be -- have their

 6     soft tissue preserved because of the lack of oxygen for the bacteria to

 7     do their work.

 8        Q.   Thank you.

 9             MS. MacGREGOR:  If we can turn to page 176 in e-court of the same

10     exhibit.

11        Q.   And, Professor Wright, this is from a different grave-site,

12     Hodzici 4.  Can you please explain what we are looking at here?

13        A.   We are looking at the front view of a human skull and there is a

14     cloth that's tied around the area of the -- the nose.  And you can just

15     see above the cloth the -- half of the eye socket.

16        Q.   When your team and you came across pieces of cloth like this or

17     ligatures, would you remove them or would they remain on the bodies as

18     they taken to the morgue?

19        A.   No, we didn't remove them.  We tried to disturb them as little as

20     possible, clean up the body, clean up the cloth, but not remove the

21     cloth.  And then put the bodies in a body-bag.  And then they went in a

22     chiller van, they stayed in a chiller van until that was full, on the

23     site, and then that was sent to the morgue.

24        Q.   Thank you.  And we're going to turn now to a different report.

25             MS. MacGREGOR:  If the court officer can bring up Exhibit 1761.

Page 14427

 1        Q.   Professor Wright, this is your report on Kozluk.  The Chamber has

 2     testimony that you've given about how you came to excavate Kozluk and

 3     they've also heard from Dean Manning a little bit about that so we'll

 4     just skip right to some of the results.

 5             MS. MacGREGOR:  I'd like to look at page 22 in e-court in the

 6     English and page 23 in B/C/S.  Actually, even -- there is a caption.  It

 7     may be easier to only look at one screen to have it big enough.  I've --

 8     oh, actually the B/C/S does not have the figure.  If there is no

 9     objection from the Defence, it may be easiest to just show the English

10     version since it will be bigger in that way.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Stojanovic, you have no objections, I take it,

12     against the suggestion?

13             Please, it's there already.

14             MS. MacGREGOR:

15        Q.   So, Professor Wright, this is a two-dimensional figure.  And what

16     I'm hoping you can do is explain the third dimension, the depth of the --

17     the significance about what these red dots are in the depth of the grave

18     in addition to what we're seeing here in terms of the distribution of the

19     red dots and the bodies.  If you can also, if you understand what I mean,

20     explain that distribution upon the layers of depth of the grave.

21        A.   Yes.  We're looking here at a map produced by -- from our survey

22     results, and you can see the individuals represented as stick figures.

23     We're looking in the middle of that mass of bodies at -- bodies that lay

24     on a slope, which was strewn with broken bottles, and the red dots

25     represent our survey of the shell cases from ammunition, rifle

Page 14428

 1     ammunition, and they are mixed up with the bodies, but particularly

 2     common on the right hand side, top right hand side, particularly common

 3     on the edge of the slope on which the bodies lay.

 4        Q.   And just so that my question is clearly answered, when you say

 5     that the shell cases are "mixed up with the bodies," it's clear from this

 6     that they're at least on the top, but are they also mixed up throughout

 7     the depth of the grave?

 8        A.   No, they are mixed up three-dimensionally with the bodies.

 9        Q.   Thank you.

10             MS. MacGREGOR:  If we can please turn to page 30 in the English

11     version in e-court and page 31 in B/C/S.  Although, again, it may be best

12     to keep the English version on the screen if that is okay with the

13     Defence.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Could I ask one question.  We saw a two-dimensional

15     picture.  Is there any computerised three-dimensional model made of what

16     you found there?  Because in the middle of it, it's all rather difficult

17     to still identify what we see.  It becomes a grey and black pudding more

18     or less.  That's --

19             THE WITNESS:  Yes, Mr. President.  I did submit with this report

20     a rotatable image which would have met the requirements you are asking

21     about so that you could look at the bodies and the shell cases from any

22     position by rotating the image.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  So it does exist.  Thank you.

24             Please proceed, Ms. MacGregor.

25             MS. MacGREGOR:  Thank you.

Page 14429

 1        Q.   Now, if you look at the top picture on the screen in front of

 2     you, this is also from the same KK3 grave.  Now, you said in your report

 3     that you were unable to look for bullets in KK3 underneath bodies because

 4     of the substrate of bodies and glass.  So I wonder if you can, using that

 5     picture as a guide, explain what you mean about your inability to look

 6     for bullets in this grave as compared to where you did in another part of

 7     Kozluk?

 8        A.   Yes.  The -- we were able, of course, to find the shell cases,

 9     but the bullets were not embedded in the soil underneath these bodies.

10     What we're looking at here is a view towards the slope that I mentioned,

11     and in the background you can see the glass, the green glass from -- off

12     the top of which we have already removed many bodies.  So we're looking

13     here at the few bodies that are at the base of the slope.  And I don't

14     recall finding bullets embedded in the soil in the same way as what we

15     call -- as the area we called Kozluk 1.

16        Q.   Do you remember if you used the metal detector over the area

17     underneath the bodies here in KK3?

18        A.   I don't remember the event, but I'm pretty certain it would have

19     been done, yes.  It would have been done by Roland Wessling who was

20     managing the metal detectors.  But my mind doesn't -- I can't remember.

21             MS. MacGREGOR:  If we can now look at page 29 in e-court, which

22     is page 30 in the B/C/S.  Again, just keeping the English version up as

23     the picture.  And actually if I can ask the court officer to zoom out to

24     be able to show both pictures.

25        Q.   Now, this is a photograph you've explained of a man and he is

Page 14430

 1     holding something in his hand which you have identified as shrubby

 2     vegetation.  Can you explain, is that vegetation rooted in that soil that

 3     is underneath the body?

 4        A.   Yes, it's dead because it was covered up with bodies, but it's --

 5     it's still in place but dead; in other words, yes, as you say, it is

 6     rooted in the clays -- in the silts at the base of the mass of bodies.

 7     And it's preserved, again, because of the lack of oxygen and the wetness

 8     of the area.

 9        Q.   We will now turn to your report on Glogova, Exhibit 1763.  Now,

10     as we're waiting for that to come up - and we'll be looking at page 38 in

11     e-court in English, page 36 in B/C/S - you have described items in this

12     report from the grave that led you to believe the grave was linked to

13     Kravica warehouse.  When had you been to the Kravica warehouse, before or

14     after that excavation was completed?

15        A.   I originally went -- well, I was taken to the warehouse probably

16     in 1998, but not with the intention of doing any work.  The work was done

17     in late 2000, and while I was doing the excavations at Glogova, I also

18     visited the warehouse.  In the year 2000.

19        Q.   Again.  And had the possible link between Kravica and Glogova

20     been suggested to you already?

21        A.   I imagine it had been but I can't remember the occasion on which

22     it was.

23        Q.   And would that -- who would have suggested that to you?

24        A.   It would have been the -- the investigators, I'm sure.  I

25     didn't -- I mean, I do recall knowing why I was asked to excavate the

Page 14431

 1     Glogova site but I cannot recall the occasion on which I was told or

 2     exactly what I was told.  So the link with Kravica, yes, I was aware of

 3     that hypothesis.

 4        Q.   And looking at the picture on the right in front of you, the top

 5     picture and the picture in the centre right, what are those pictures --

 6     sorry, what are those of?

 7        A.   They show excavations at the mass grave at Glogova and bits of

 8     what are interpreted as coming from the Kravica warehouse mixed up with

 9     the bodies, bits of the structure of the warehouse mixed up with the

10     bodies.

11        Q.   Now, did you remove these materials?

12        A.   Well, they were excavated, yes, and they were logged.

13        Q.   And do you know where they would have ended up?

14        A.   Well, Mr. Mike Hedley did a report on the warehouse and the

15     relationship of the artefacts from the excavations to the warehouse, but

16     I have no idea where the pieces went after that.

17        Q.   Did you discuss these items and what you found in the grave with

18     Mr. Hedley?

19        A.   Yes, I went to the warehouse with Mr. Hedley to check the

20     similarity between the items which we were excavating and what was down

21     at the warehouse.

22        Q.   And did you ever review his final report?

23        A.   No, I didn't.  I didn't see his final report until the other day.

24        Q.   And when you say "the other day," do you mean in preparation for

25     your testimony here?

Page 14432

 1        A.   Yes, yes.

 2        Q.   And once you were able to review it, did you draw any conclusions

 3     or form any opinions based on his report?

 4             THE INTERPRETER:  Kindly slow down for interpretation.

 5             THE WITNESS:  I will -- was satisfied that my conclusions about

 6     the artefacts of Glogova were supported by his report.

 7             MS. MacGREGOR:  Now if we can turn to page 37 in e-court, which

 8     is page 35 in the B/C/S.  For this picture, if I can again ask to just

 9     show the English version so that we are able to see the details of the

10     paragraph.  And if we can zoom in on the top photograph.  Actually,

11     that's great.  Okay.

12        Q.   So this one is a little harder to understand from a lay

13     perspective.  Can you explain the top photograph, what we're looking at,

14     especially what the arrow is pointing at?

15        A.   Yes, we're looking at a shattered skull and that's made up of the

16     white pieces.  And then there is a piece of metal that I was told by

17     the -- a piece of metal which is inside the skull, as it were, that I was

18     told by an exploded ordinance advisor was a pellet from a grenade.

19             MS. MacGREGOR:  And if I can ask the court officer to scan down a

20     bit to look at the two -- yes, thank you, those two pictures.

21        Q.   Now, the two pictures in the centre of the page, can you please

22     explain how these -- what these are pictures of?

23        A.   Well, this is a picture of the mummified flesh of a shoulder

24     blade, of an area of the shoulder blade, and you can see on the left-hand

25     one a piece of metal sticking out of a slit in the flesh.  And on the

Page 14433

 1     right-hand side the archeologist has slid the piece of metal out of that

 2     slot, and I've forgotten what the metal was interpreted as but it was

 3     clearly embedded in the shoulder.

 4        Q.   And --

 5        A.   I mean, I don't know whether it was from a grenade or a shell,

 6     but it was a piece of metal that was forcibly -- and penetrated the

 7     shoulder.

 8        Q.   And this condition of the human remains that you saw in the grave

 9     in Glogova, did you see that same type of damage to the bodies in other

10     graves that you excavated?

11        A.   I don't recall seeing that type of, what I'd call blast injury,

12     no.

13             MS. MacGREGOR:  And thank you, I won't need this report any

14     longer.

15        Q.   Including your experiences outside of Bosnia -- sorry.  I'm going

16     to strike that question.  In the past week the Chamber has heard a lot of

17     questioning about whether bodies in these graves could have been battle

18     casualties that were collected from the field and buried.  Do you have

19     any experience in exhuming graves that contained battle casualties?

20        A.   I was the senior advisor to a team from Oxford Archeology that

21     exhumed Australian soldiers from World War I.  That was at a site called

22     Fromelles in north-east France, and there were mass graves there and I

23     saw the bodies in the grave.  I didn't take part in their exhumation, but

24     I saw the map that was produced subsequently and the bodies were laid

25     across the graves in a -- in a respectable manner.  I mean, respect had

Page 14434

 1     been shown to the dead in the disposition of these bodies.  They were in

 2     rows and not just dumped in the graves.

 3        Q.   And did you see anything in Bosnia -- in any of the exhumations

 4     that you did in Bosnia that was similar to that type of arrangement that

 5     you saw in Fromelles?

 6        A.   No, in the case of all the graves that I exhumed, the bodies were

 7     entangled, not laid out in rows, showed all the appearance of just having

 8     been dumped into the graves.

 9        Q.   Thank you.

10             MS. MacGREGOR:  Your Honour --

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Could I ask -- yes.

12             MS. MacGREGOR:  -- I have no further questions.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  I would have one follow-up question.

14             The last question was whether you have any experience with battle

15     casualties, and then you described how they were orderly buried in the

16     north of France, and disorderly buried or dumped in the graves you

17     inspected in Bosnia.

18             Now does that say anything about whether these are battle

19     casualties or does it say anything about the discipline of those who

20     disposed of those bodies?

21             THE WITNESS:  No, I should have said, Your Honour, that the

22     Australians were buried by the Germans, they were killed by the Germans

23     when they made their way into the German trenches, and so the respectful

24     burial was done by the enemy, not by the Australians themselves.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  I don't know whether that's really an answer to my

Page 14435

 1     question.  My question was battle casualties and -- compared to something

 2     you saw to be different here.  Is the way in which people are buried a

 3     sufficiently strong indication of persons having died in battle

 4     circumstances, or does it say more about those enemies or -- from the

 5     same side, whether they were disciplined when burying the corpses.

 6             THE WITNESS:  I understand now.  I think I wouldn't care to

 7     generalise an answer, then.  I was asked to comment on whether I had seen

 8     or taken part in the excavation of battle casualties and I described that

 9     one site.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Not saying that this is -- would be an

11     indication would be -- of course, it's different from what you saw in

12     Bosnia, but you do not draw any conclusions as to whether the bodies

13     disorderly buried in Bosnia would or would not have been battle

14     casualties.

15             THE WITNESS:  No, I couldn't -- I couldn't draw a conclusion from

16     that alone, no.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

18             Mr. Stojanovic, we are close with the time -- at the time where

19     we usually take a break.  Perhaps it would be wisest to take the break

20     first and that you would start your cross-examination after the break.

21             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] I agree, Your Honour.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Then we take the break first.

23             Mr. Wright, may I invite you to follow the usher, and we'd like

24     to see you back in 20 minutes.

25                           [The witness stands down]

Page 14436

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  We will resume at 10 minutes to 11.00.

 2                           --- Recess taken at 10.27 a.m.

 3                           --- On resuming at 10.55 a.m.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Could the witness be escorted into the courtroom.

 5                           [The witness takes the stand]

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Welcome back, Mr. Wright.  You'll now be

 7     cross-examined by Mr. Stojanovic.  Mr. Stojanovic is counsel for

 8     Mr. Mladic.  You'll find him to your left.

 9             You may proceed, Mr. Stojanovic.

10             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.

11                           Cross-examination by Mr. Stojanovic:

12        Q.   [Interpretation] Good morning, Professor.

13        A.   Good morning, Mr. Stojanovic.

14        Q.   Professor Wright, could you please tell the Trial Chamber the

15     following:  In 1997, when you started working for the International

16     Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, did you, and if so, how did

17     you get information about the context of events in and about Srebrenica?

18        A.   Well, in 1997 I was not involved in the Srebrenica

19     investigations.  I was at Brcko.  But in 1998 I started working on the

20     Srebrenica investigations.  I was told why I was being employed and I was

21     shown aerial images by the investigator which indicated where there might

22     be graves, and I then decided which ones we could excavate because of

23     logistical reasons of transport.  And so I was given a general advice as

24     to what I had to do and why I had to do it, and then I took over the

25     actual excavations.

Page 14437

 1        Q.   Who was the one who set up the team and determined the required

 2     expertise of persons who would work on excavations?

 3        A.   It was a joint discussion between myself and Mr. Jose Pablo

 4     Baraybar about the makeup of the team in 1998.  In 1999 I -- in 1999 and

 5     2000, I effectively chose the team from the list of people who had

 6     applied to an advertisement that ICTY published for experts, and I

 7     selected from that list.

 8        Q.   Is it true, sir, that there was a suggestion that no experts from

 9     former Yugoslavia, including Bosnia-Herzegovina, should be accepted to

10     the team?

11        A.   That is my understanding, that that was the case, yes, and on the

12     excavations themselves our equipment drivers were not local people.  I

13     didn't set that policy.

14        Q.   During your work on these projects of primary and secondary grave

15     excavations, was local personnel involved in any way?

16        A.   No, they weren't involved.

17        Q.   I will kindly ask you to clarify some things to me.

18             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Therefore, let us look at P1762.

19     I hope that that's the correct number.  Otherwise, it's 04602 on the

20     65 ter list.  Could we please get both the English and the B/C/S

21     versions.

22             JUDGE MOLOTO:  04602, Mr. Stojanovic, is P1761.

23             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] I apologise.  It's my mistake.

24     I need document P1761.  Thank you, Your Honour.  Could we please have

25     page 6.

Page 14438

 1        Q.   Professor Wright, the way I understood the summary of your

 2     report, you say that at Kozluk you found three sites that you call mass

 3     graves.  And they are KK1, KK2, and KK3.  What is the reason for your

 4     considering these separate graves?

 5        A.   No, they were not separate graves.  If I gave that impression on

 6     the previous page, then I'm wrong.  They were areas of -- that we

 7     investigated.  In the case of KK2, it was an area that contained some

 8     individuals lying on a surface, and in KK3 was the main area of bodies.

 9     But we were unable because of disturbance at the site to work out whether

10     there were individual mass graves there, because the site had

11     subsequently been excavated in October 1995.  So KK1, KK2, and KK3 are

12     areas of the Kozluk site that contained bodies.

13        Q.   What is the difference between an individual grave and a mass

14     grave according to the procedure you applied in your work?

15        A.   In the forensic literature, there is a lot of discussion about

16     when -- how many individuals have to be present before a grave becomes a

17     mass grave.  We worked on the assumption that mass graves contained,

18     obviously, more than one body, but in most cases we didn't have to worry

19     about a definition because they were -- there were dozens of bodies and

20     so no one would have argued with our use of the term "mass grave."  I

21     don't think there is a sensible definition of what is a mass grave as

22     opposed to a grave with multiple burials, for instance.

23             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Now let us look at page 13 in

24     the English and page 14 in the B/C/S version.

25        Q.   Could you please explain some things to us, sir.  After listing

Page 14439

 1     detailed information about body parts and entire bodies found at Kozluk,

 2     you say that there were at least 451 --

 3             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Could we please get the

 4     following page in both versions.  It's continued over leaf.  This is the

 5     paragraph in question.

 6        Q.   You say that the total number of bodies is greater than 451 up to

 7     660.  What was the criterion based on which you determined the number of

 8     persons buried there?

 9        A.   Yes.  In translation your word "determined" in English means that

10     I have actually counted the number, but I have estimated the number of

11     individuals that may have been at Kozluk, and my estimation is based on

12     the -- can I see the previous page, because there are four propositions

13     that I make and I just want to go and see the first one.  Yes.  There

14     were 291 complete bodies that we actually excavated.

15             Can we move onto the next page, now?

16             We actually excavated them at Kozluk itself.  And then we also

17     recovered some body parts that were left over from the excavations of the

18     grave that were done in October 1995 and we don't know how many

19     individuals those body parts make up.  And then we decided that

20     Cancari 3, a secondary grave, and Cancari -- sorry, we decided that

21     Cancari 3, according to the morgue, had 160 individuals, and we related

22     Cancari 3 to Kozluk because of the green glass that was transferred

23     across.

24             And then there was another grave, Cancari 1, which has now been

25     excavated but wasn't excavated by us.  So I've assumed that that had the

Page 14440

 1     same order of numbers as Cancari 3; that is, Cancari 1 had the same order

 2     of numbers.  And I've come up, then, with a very rough estimate that

 3     there may have been -- that there were more than 451 persons originally

 4     at the Kozluk site, and the maximum number might be in the order of 660.

 5     But it's not a determination.  It's a very rough estimate.

 6        Q.   I just wanted to ask you to explain the methodology you used in

 7     estimating the number of bodies at 660.

 8        A.   Well, in the case of Kozluk, I took the estimates -- or I took

 9     the estimates of the number of individuals at Kozluk itself from the

10     figures I was given by the morgue.  I didn't calculate them myself.  And

11     likewise with Cancari 3, I took count of the number of individuals

12     determined at the morgue.  Not by myself.  And then I make an assumption

13     that Cancari 1 has the same -- roughly the same number of individuals as

14     Cancari 3, but that Cancari 1 had not been excavated, and that leads me

15     to come up with a rough estimate of greater than 451 persons originally

16     at the Kozluk site.

17             So we know from the morgue how many individuals we exhumed from

18     the Kozluk site, but we know that they were -- they were transferred to

19     Cancari 1 and Cancari 3 on the basis of the artefacts that were found at

20     Cancari 1 and Cancari 3.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Could I ask you one question.  When you say a

22     complete body was exhumed, you mean a complete body, everything being

23     present?

24             THE WITNESS:  No, it may be that a hand will not be present, but

25     it is essentially a body where you would have to look carefully to see

Page 14441

 1     what parts might be missing.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Which means that if the hand was found

 3     somewhere else in the same area or same grave, may have been counted in

 4     your estimate that there were more people buried there?

 5             THE WITNESS:  Ah --

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  You said parts, body parts, if they were found.  So

 7     is there a risk of counting double by finding that hand, well, let's say,

 8     somewhere else but it's still in the same grave?

 9             THE WITNESS:  Yes, Your Honour.  I will -- I will remember I was

10     not doing the counting.  The morgue was doing the counting.  Now, the

11     morgue would not have counted a hand as an individual, I am confident,

12     but I don't know their actual procedures.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  No, but you are also referring to -- you are

14     referring to complete bodies found and body parts found.  Now, could it

15     be that the almost complete body, with a body part being a hand, that the

16     hand would have played a role in your further estimates that there were

17     more people buried there than the number of complete bodies found?

18             THE WITNESS:  Yes.  I -- the answer to that is the morgue

19     received what we thought were complete bodies and had filled out a body

20     sheet for that body.  They also received the body parts.  And so I was

21     not part of the process of the analysis of body parts, and that's why I

22     am -- in that paragraph I express an uncertainty about the very point

23     you're raising.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

25             Please proceed.

Page 14442

 1             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Microphone not activated]

 2        Q.   [Interpretation] Thank you, Professor.  I would like to show a

 3     document now.  That's why I asked these questions.  It is from the P4181,

 4     collection, page 7.

 5             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] And if you remember,

 6     Your Honours, it's a map compiled by a witness we were able to hear last

 7     week.  It's an investigator who compiled it, this map.

 8        Q.   While we're waiting for the map to upload, let me ask you once

 9     again, sir, whether that means that in this rough estimate of yours of up

10     to 660 bodies in the primary site at Kozluk --

11             THE INTERPRETER:  Could Defence counsel please repeat the latter

12     part of his question.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Stojanovic, could you please repeat the latter

14     part of the your question which was not caught by the interpreters.

15             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.

16        Q.   Did I understand you correctly?  In your rough estimate of up to

17     660 bodies, in the primary site at Kozluk, whether that includes an

18     estimate of the possible number of bodies in the secondary site CR1,

19     which is Cancari 1?

20        A.   Yes, it did explicitly in the sections we looked at previously

21     include that -- an estimate for what might be in Cancari 1.  Since then,

22     Cancari 1 has been excavated, not by myself, and I don't offhand know how

23     many bodies they did find.

24        Q.   What confuses me, sir, is this map.  Can you please focus on its

25     central part, and let us enlarge it, especially the area from Kozluk to

Page 14443

 1     the green marks near Cancari.  According to this map made by

 2     Dean Manning, the investigators think that the secondary sites of

 3     Cancari 3, as you said, and Cancari 2, are related to the primary site at

 4     Kozluk, whereas on this map there is no relation between Cancari 1 and

 5     the primary site at Kozluk.  Can you see that, sir?

 6        A.   Yes, I can see -- indeed, I can see what you're saying, and I

 7     don't know what the explanation is, whether I have got the title of the

 8     grave with green glass incorrect, but I'd have to look at my report to

 9     see whether I relate Cancari 1 or Cancari 2 with the green glass.  That

10     is in my 1999 report.

11        Q.   All right.  Perhaps you can help us with that during the next

12     break.  Let me now ask you if you remember whether any other, apart from

13     these two secondary sites marked as Cancari Road, is related to the

14     primary site at Kozluk based on artefacts or anything else?

15        A.   No, I don't recall seeing other secondary sites that I could

16     relate to Kozluk.

17        Q.   Could you please tell the Trial Chamber if you took part in the

18     exhumation of any other secondary site at Cancari Road except for

19     Cancari 3?

20        A.   Yes, I conducted the exhumations at Cancari 12.

21        Q.   And you will agree with me, won't you, that it had to do with the

22     events around Branjevo and not Kozluk?

23        A.   That, as I understand it, is how the soil analyses pointed, yes.

24     When we excavated Cancari 12, I noticed that soils mixed up with the

25     bodies did not look like local soils, and so Dr. Tony Brown was called in

Page 14444

 1     to provide an expert analysis, and I know from his report that he relates

 2     Cancari 12 to a grave at Branjevo farm.

 3        Q.   Thank you.  In view of the fact that you were heading the

 4     project, do you remember -- do you know whether it was established that

 5     after the DNA analysis there is a part -- a body part in the primary

 6     grave in Kozluk and that same part of the -- or another part of the same

 7     body would be found in the secondary grave, Cancari 3?

 8        A.   No, I'm not aware of the DNA results.  They were done long after

 9     I finished the excavations and I was not part of the team that -- that

10     analysed those results.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Stojanovic, am I wrong if I see in the previous

12     testimony of the witness that he describes the particles of green glass

13     in the Cancari Road 3, which would be fully consistent, but it's

14     apparently they're not consistent with the -- with the red line on a map

15     which this witness has not created.  So is -- this map is made, I think,

16     after the witness had done his job because he says Cancari 1 was not

17     exhumed by him.  So therefore apparently there is new information at a

18     later stage, and there may be mistakes there, but is it for this witness

19     to answer those questions or is it for the person who drafted this map?

20     That's my -- I mean, to put a confusion to the witness where he may be

21     totally foreign to that confusion might be a bit problematic.

22             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] I understand, Your Honour.  I

23     will not be using the map anymore.  But I must admit that I accept that

24     the artefact of glass in Cancari 3 is directly linked to the primary

25     grave-site in Kozluk.  I think that the previous witness also spoke about

Page 14445

 1     this.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Although the red lines suggest something

 3     different on the map.

 4             But let's not bother this witness with possible mistakes, and I

 5     have to reread it all to see whether there really are any mistakes or

 6     not.  You may proceed.

 7             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

 8        Q.   Professor, the next thing that I would like to ask you is this:

 9     In the context of the events that have to do with the Kozluk primary

10     grave, were you informed whether the victims in Kozluk were brought to

11     the execution place, and if so, where they were brought from?

12        A.   I don't remember being told that.  I should, perhaps, expand a

13     moment on the discovery of the Kozluk primary site.  It came about

14     because at Cancari 3, where we found all this green glass, we had to

15     explain why there were these thousands of pieces of broken glass in this

16     grave, and we found labels with the broken glass and with the bodies that

17     gave the name of the Vitinka bottling factory at Kozluk, and it was only

18     after that that the primary site of Kozluk was found on which I worked.

19     That was in 1998 we discovered it and in 1999 I exhumed it.  I don't

20     remember being told anything about where the -- the -- the people killed

21     at Kozluk had come from.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  And if I understand you well, even not whether they

23     were killed at Kozluk?

24             THE WITNESS:  I'm sorry, Your Honour.  I missed that.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  No, you said you did not receive any information

Page 14446

 1     where the people came from who were killed at Kozluk.

 2             THE WITNESS:  Yes.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  But I do even understand that do you not even know

 4     whether they were killed at Kozluk.  They were buried in the primary

 5     grave in Kozluk, or?

 6             THE WITNESS:  I have my opinions that they were shot at Kozluk

 7     because of the number of shell cases, hundreds of shell cases that were

 8     found with the bodies.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Thank you for that.

10             Please proceed.

11             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

12        Q.   And now this question regarding your opinion as to the place of

13     execution of the victims.  Sticking to the rules of your profession,

14     would you be able to say if all of those bodies in Kozluk were executed

15     and died there or were there dead bodies that were brought to that site

16     and then buried there?

17        A.   My conclusion is that because of the way the bodies were lying on

18     the ground and because of the number of shell cases that were at the

19     site, that people were killed there.  I don't pretend to say that all of

20     them were killed there, others might have been brought in already dead

21     and mixed up with the bodies.  But because of the state of preservation

22     of these bodies, if dead bodies were brought in and buried it would have

23     been at the same time as the shootings of the others took place.  So I

24     would not conclude that every body that we found was killed there, but

25     everybody was killed at the same time in my opinion.

Page 14447

 1        Q.   Thank you, Professor.  I'm asking you this because according to

 2     the indictment, and our theory of the case, those people were brought

 3     from the school in Rocevic, as stated in the indictment, but also there

 4     were some executions in front of the school as well.  And so I wanted to

 5     ask you whether in your work you ever had any information about the place

 6     where the bodies of people were buried of victims who were executed or

 7     killed in front of the school in Rocevic.

 8        A.   No, I don't recall that -- that name.  And can I ask are we

 9     talking about Kozluk only or about the graves in general?

10        Q.   I was asking you about the grave-site in Kozluk, Professor.  And

11     thank you for the answer.  I would now want to ask you whether it's

12     correct that those pieces of glass found in the secondary site,

13     Cancari 3, which correspond to the glass fragments found at the primary

14     site in Kozluk, were not preserved?

15        A.   I'm sorry, were not preserved by the -- by ICTY?  Was that --

16     I -- I'm sure we collected some samples of glass from both sites, but I

17     was not responsible for the continuity of the evidence after that.  Once

18     I had delivered the evidence, I was not responsible for preservation.

19        Q.   Thank you.  I don't doubt that, Professor, but I wanted to ask

20     you if you know whether these artefacts, the glass was preserved anywhere

21     now and whether they could be subjected to a fresh analysis?

22        A.   I see.  No, I don't know whether that can happen.

23        Q.   Thank you, Professor.

24             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, now I would like

25     to look at 65 ter 04603.  I think that that would be the right number.  I

Page 14448

 1     think that would be P7162 [as interpreted].  I wouldn't want to make a

 2     mistake with the numbers.  So could we have that in e-court, please --

 3             JUDGE MOLOTO:  P1762, not 7162.

 4             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] 1762.  Yes.  Thank you,

 5     Your Honour.  Could we please look at page 34 together.  That's the

 6     English version.  And then page 36 of the B/C/S version of this document.

 7        Q.   Professor, could you please explain to us a little bit this

 8     estimate that you made which resulted in this number, 3.474 bodies?

 9        A.   Yes.

10        Q.   Are you able to tell us the methodology that you used in order to

11     get to this figure and this estimate?

12        A.   Yes --

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Stojanovic, I think the report describes how it

14     was done, so if you would have any focused question on where you

15     apparently do not understand it, it is about average numbers of graves of

16     a certain size and then extrapolated to the number.  It seems to be

17     relatively clearly explained, so if you have any focused question that

18     would also show where your problems are.

19             Witness, unless I'm mistaken, if I misread your report, please

20     tell me at this moment.

21             THE WITNESS:  Well, I agree, Your Honour, that the methodology is

22     set out.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

24             THE WITNESS:  The -- there is additional information because

25     the -- the graves that I talk about as probed unexcavated graves have now

Page 14449

 1     been excavated, and an ICTY document by -- I think it's Mr. Dusan gives

 2     the numbers of bodies of 19 of those 21 graves and my estimate was a

 3     slight underestimate based on those 19 graves.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  But the way you worked with the knowledge at

 5     the time is --

 6             THE WITNESS:  It's --

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  -- relatively clearly explained in the report, I

 8     would say.

 9             So therefore, Mr. Stojanovic, why ask the witness -- please show

10     us where you do not understand it or where you have doubts and ask the

11     witness about that rather than to repeat again what he has already

12     written in his report.

13             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.  Well, why am

14     I asking this?  It's for the following reason.

15        Q.   Professor, when you completed your work and once you completed

16     this report, do you stand by this number of 857 as the definite number

17     that you established following your work?  Everything that is above that

18     amounts to an estimate?

19        A.   It was an estimate.  Any number above 857, which I derived from

20     the staff at the morgue, was when I wrote the report an estimate.  But

21     now the graves have been excavated, there are counts of the numbers of

22     bodies in 19 of those 21 unexcavated graves.  And, as I said to the

23     President, those numbers show that I slightly underestimated the number

24     of bodies in the unexcavated graves by about 10 per cent.

25        Q.   Thank you, Professor.

Page 14450

 1             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we now look at 65 ter 04611,

 2     please.  I think this is P1763.  Could we look at page 3 of the B/C/S and

 3     the English versions.

 4        Q.   Professor, this is a report that you did on the excavation of the

 5     Glogova 1 grave-site.  I wanted to ask you this:  Was Glogova 1 one

 6     single grave or did it consist of several sites?

 7        A.   It consisted of several distinct graves, distinctly dug holes.

 8     But in the main area of Glogova 1, because it had been disturbed in

 9     October 1995, we were not able to work out whether it was all one single

10     grave or a series of individual graves.  So I can't answer -- I can

11     answer your question for the fringes of the site that there were several

12     individual graves, but I can't tell you how many individual graves there

13     were in the main area of excavation.

14        Q.   All of those graves, were they all disturbed in October 1995 as

15     you said?

16        A.   No, they weren't all disturbed.  Those on the -- I do have,

17     Your Honour, a map of the site, and it would be easier to answer it from

18     the map, to answer the question from the map.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  You mean the map as part of your report?

20             THE WITNESS:  Yes.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

22             Mr. Stojanovic, if this is ...

23             MS. MacGREGOR:  Your Honours, I think he's referring to figure 4

24     in that report.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Which is found at page?

Page 14451

 1             MS. MacGREGOR:  I would have -- the page number is around 25.

 2     I'd have to hunt a bit once we're there.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  24 gives a map and it's perhaps not as detailed.

 4             MS. MacGREGOR:  Page 28 I am told by Ms. Stewart.  It's a

 5     schematic rather than a street -- or road map like this.

 6             THE WITNESS:  Yes, this is what I wanted to see.

 7             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.  And thank you to the

 8     Prosecution for their help.

 9        Q.   Professor, could you please tell us, when you see this map, are

10     you able to tell us which graves were desecrated and attacked in

11     October 1995 as you said?

12        A.   Yes.  The -- if we start from the top, all of the graves - that's

13     grave F, grave C, grave H, and grave K - were disturbed in October 1995,

14     but grave E and L were not disturbed.  So those two - those are at the

15     bottom of the image and to the right, grave E and grave L - were not

16     disturbed.

17        Q.   During the examination-in-chief today, you said, among other

18     things, that this grave-site is something that you connect to the events

19     at the Kravica warehouse.  In view of the artefacts that were found in

20     these grave-sites, Glogova 1, I wanted to ask you whether that would

21     indicate or could indicate that all the bodies found in these graves in

22     Glogova 1 came from the Kravica warehouse?

23        A.   Again, as with my answer about Kozluk, I don't believe that it

24     shows that all the bodies came from the Kravica warehouse, but it

25     indicates that when -- that bodies from the Kravica warehouse were

Page 14452

 1     brought to the site with parts of the broken door brought with the

 2     bodies, but I -- I would accept a proposition that some of the bodies may

 3     have come from somewhere else.  I don't claim that all the bodies there

 4     were brought from the Kravica warehouse.

 5        Q.   Thank you.  And can you please tell us, Professor, your work or

 6     the work of some other experts at the Visoko morgue, did it help to

 7     establish the time of death, approximate time of death of all 190 victims

 8     whose bodies were found at the Glogova 1 site?

 9        A.   May I ask, do you mean the year of death?  Are we talking about

10     the time of day or the time of -- the year, which year?  I don't -- I

11     don't know the answer to any of those questions anyway because I was not

12     concerned with the work that was done at the morgue.  We formed at the

13     site our opinions about the simultaneous burials, but I don't know what

14     conclusions the morgue arrived at that were -- agreed with us or

15     disagreed with us about the time of death.  And I doubt very much whether

16     the morgue would be able to determine in what year the individuals died

17     other than by the same information that we had which were -- look at

18     documents and at the aerial images of the disturbances in October 1995

19     and the original disturbance of the burials in July 1995.

20        Q.   Thank you, Professor.  I was just waiting for the interpretation

21     to finish.  I want to ask you this also:  Were you present when Glogova L

22     was being excavated as the primary grave?  Were you personally present

23     during the excavation?

24        A.   Yes, I was personally present and I was in charge of that

25     excavation.

Page 14453

 1        Q.   Professor, could you please tell me if you received information,

 2     and from whom you received information, about another grave that needed

 3     to be checked in the village of Potocari?

 4        A.   Potocari is -- is a village near Srebrenica.  It's -- it's where

 5     the bus station was.  Yes, I did go to -- I --

 6        Q.   Correct.

 7        A.   I did go to that site and we found a hole in the ground, but we

 8     did not find bodies in the hole.  I think that year was 1999.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Could I take you back to one of your previous

10     answers.  You told us about which graves were disturbed when looking at

11     this map, and you refer to E and L as the non-disturbed graves at the

12     bottom, and you included K in one of the disturbed graves.

13             Now if I look at your report -- let me see.  I read, unless

14     I'm -- let me just check one second, please.  For Glogova 1, I read on

15     page 6:

16             "Grave K, an intact primary grave, not robbed."

17             The same for L.  Is there any chance that you may have mixed up E

18     and K because --

19             THE WITNESS:  Your Honour, I think I just had a lapse of memory

20     then.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

22             Mr. Stojanovic, if someone has written a report, then to ask him

23     to reproduce by heart what is clearly described in the report doesn't

24     make much sense during cross-examination, unless I'm looking at the wrong

25     report but we are still talking about Glogova 1?  Please proceed.

Page 14454

 1             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

 2        Q.   Professor, are you aware that close to Kravica and Glogova was

 3     where the 28th Division was moving as it was breaking through from

 4     Kravica towards Tuzla?  And this was in July 1995.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Stojanovic, before you ask these details, we

 6     should first ask whether the witness has any knowledge about military

 7     movements and who moved where and when.

 8             THE WITNESS:  No, I don't have any coherent knowledge of that.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Please proceed.

10             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Very well.  Thank you very much.

11     Then I would not dwell on that topic anymore.

12        Q.   I do want to ask you, though, whether during the time you spent

13     in this area in Kravica, Glogova, did you have any information as to

14     whether the terrain was sanitised in that area and whether all the bodies

15     that -- of people that were killed during combat were collected and taken

16     away?

17        A.   No, I was not told.  I was not told that, no.

18        Q.   Thank you, Professor.  Now I'm going to move to topics that have

19     to do with the Krajina.

20             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] So I think that perhaps at this

21     time, Your Honours, would be a good time to go on a break.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  But I'd like to ask one additional question.

23             In your work, excavations, exhumations, did you find any

24     indication that the persons buried in the graves you examined, that they

25     would have been bodies of persons which may have collected -- been

Page 14455

 1     collected somewhere on the terrain as battle casualties?

 2             THE WITNESS:  No, I got no such indications.  As you asked me the

 3     question, I'm thinking:  What would I be looking for.  All I saw were --

 4     all the bodies I saw were dressed in civilian clothing, so without

 5     knowing historical background, my initial reaction to that would be that

 6     these were civilians.  Whether they'd been collected from the landscape,

 7     I would expect them to be in different stages of decomposition before

 8     they were put into the grave, and I would expect to see the remains of

 9     insects with the bodies, and we didn't find such evidence in the -- in

10     these graves.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  To understand the last part of your answer, the

12     insects, are you referring to insects which would have already, if I

13     could say so, attacked or at least entered into the bodies and then be

14     taken together with the bodies, if in this hypothesis, then to be taken

15     to the grave where people were buried and then still be with those

16     bodies?

17             THE WITNESS:  Yes --

18             JUDGE ORIE:  That is what you're referring to.

19             THE WITNESS:  [Overlapping speakers] --

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Stojanovic, I think that was the issue you

21     wanted to raise, not whether the witness has any knowledge but whether

22     the witness has found anything which would either support or would not

23     support or even contradict the hypothesis.

24             We'll take a break.  You may follow the usher.  We'd like to see

25     you back in approximately 20 minutes.

Page 14456

 1                           [The witness stands down]

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  We take a break and will resume at quarter past

 3     12.00.

 4                           --- Recess taken at 11.52 a.m.

 5                           --- On resuming at 12.19 p.m.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Could the witness be escorted into the courtroom.

 7             Meanwhile, I would like to briefly raise a matter.  The Defence

 8     had asked for an enlargement of time, two weeks, until the 23rd of July,

 9     to respond to the motion, which by the way I see is a confidential motion

10     but to add witnesses.

11             Is there any objection against an extension of time?

12             MR. McCLOSKEY:  No, Mr. President.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Then, Mr. Lukic, the time you have to respond to

14     that motion is extended with 14 days so that the response is now due the

15     23rd of July.

16             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

17                           [The witness takes the stand]

18             JUDGE ORIE:  If you're ready, Mr. Stojanovic, you may proceed.

19             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

20             Could we please see 1D1139, pages 66 and 67 respectively.  It's

21     the Karadzic transcript, and I'm interested in the last paragraph on

22     page 305.

23        Q.   Please listen carefully to the question I'm about to ask, and

24     then we'll -- actually, that was asked -- that was put to you.  And then

25     I would like to move on to page 306.  While you're reading, in the

Page 14457

 1     Karadzic case you were asked if you could rule out the possibility that

 2     the bodies at Glogova were buried as part of the sanitizing process and

 3     you answered that you couldn't rule that out completely.

 4             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Mr. Stojanovic, where are you reading?  We would

 5     like to keep up with you.

 6             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.  I

 7     believe that I'm interested in the first paragraph, the answer on

 8     page 22306.  It's what we have on our screens, I believe.

 9             JUDGE MOLOTO:  We don't see the question that you say was put to

10     the witness.

11             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, with your

12     permission I will go back to page 66 in e-court or 22305.  Here's the

13     question as put to the witness.

14        Q.   Please tell me, Professor, if you still stand by the answer you

15     provided in the Karadzic case.

16        A.   [Overlapping speakers] ...

17             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] If we move onto the next page.

18     Thank you.

19             THE WITNESS:  Yes, I do stand by that answer.

20             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation]

21        Q.   Thank you, Professor.

22             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] 1D1139 is hereby tendered.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  That's 75 pages, Mr. Stojanovic.  You've dealt with

24     one or two pages.

25             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour.  It's just

Page 14458

 1     pages 66 and 67 of this transcript as I've stated already.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  But then you have to upload it as a separate

 3     exhibit.  We'll reserve a number for those pages.

 4             Madam Registrar, the number to be reserved for that would be?

 5             THE REGISTRAR:  The number reserved for the two pages of document

 6     1D1139 will be D331, Your Honours.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Madam Registrar.

 8             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

 9        Q.   Just one more clarification, Professor.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Stojanovic, was -- what has it added to the

11     previous question?  I mean, I asked the witness about whether he found

12     indications.  He said, "Well, you would expect to find insects, et

13     cetera," but he never said that he would have excluded anything

14     definitely.  What now does this add?  He did not exclude it in the

15     previous question, either, did he?  He just said that it would be an

16     indication that it might not be bodies which had been left out on the

17     terrain and then collected later.  Even the witness says he has no reason

18     to believe that they were.  But what now does this add to the previous

19     answer?

20             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Overlapping speakers] --

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Why do we need to have it in evidence, those pages?

22     He explains exactly the same thing as he did in the last question --

23     series of questions, whether people were wearing military uniforms or

24     not.  He already said, "I don't know anything about the background,"

25     could mean nothing -- could be not -- he doesn't express himself on in

Page 14459

 1     it.  And the insects he said would be an indication to the contrary of

 2     this.  What now does this add?

 3             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I'm about to tackle

 4     the issue of insects, therefore I wanted this explicit answer provided by

 5     Professor Wright to be in evidence and now I want to deal with the

 6     witness's argument with relation to insects.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  I do not mind if you want to go further in detail

 8     with the insects, but I am concerned about you tendering a

 9     not-yet-prepared 75 pages and then reduce it to two pages which brings us

10     nothing new.  The only thing, the difference is that he was a little bit

11     more in detail talking about blowflies and the chitinous material of

12     their bodies and wings.  That's the only detail which is added which is

13     hereby on the record.

14             So I don't think, Madam Registrar, that we need to have a number

15     reserved for the not-yet-uploaded portion of the previous testimony.

16             Please proceed, including if with your insects.

17             Madam Registrar, therefore, the reserved number it's not attached

18     yet to an uploaded document.  This is hereby vacated.

19             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation]

20        Q.   Professor, preparing for today's examination I had the

21     opportunity to read a number of transcripts.  When Professor Lawrence was

22     examined in the Karadzic case, he said - I'm paraphrasing now - that

23     after three years, a significant amount of evidence belonging to forensic

24     entomology would have been destroyed, would have disappeared beyond

25     reconstruction.  He was referring to something that you mentioned as a

Page 14460

 1     possible basis for drawing conclusions.

 2             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Before the Prosecutor objects, I

 3     would add that this is page 22465 in Karadzic.

 4        Q.   And now I'll ask you whether you would agree with

 5     Professor Lawrence's statement, if he made such a statement?

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. MacGregor.

 7             MS. MacGREGOR:  Your Honours, I would just ask that if we're

 8     going to ask Professor Wright to comment on the testimony of someone

 9     else, first of all that he be given a full name and perhaps the area that

10     that other person is an expert in just in case -- so we have the record

11     clear but also so that this witness clear, and then we can determine if

12     he's in fact in a position to comment on that statement by another

13     expert.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  That's one.  And second, by just giving a page

15     number to Mr. Wright who may have no idea what is to be found on that

16     page seems not to be the appropriate way of proceeding.

17             If you want to put this to Mr. Wright, then you have to give him

18     at least the full details.  And perhaps he knows the author, I do not

19     know.  Perhaps that's the first question you would ask him, whether he

20     knows Professor Lawrence.

21             THE WITNESS:  Yes, I do.  I do know Professor Lawrence, yes.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  So therefore, qualifications, Ms. MacGregor,

23     seems not to be -- I take it that you know him from your professional

24     background and you're --

25             THE WITNESS:  Yes, I --

Page 14461

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  -- aware of his qualifications.

 2             THE WITNESS:  Yes.  He -- yes, I do.  Yes.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 4             Now, Mr. Stojanovic, if you want to put any conclusions by

 5     Professor Lawrence to this witness, then you have to do that in detail

 6     and very precise because otherwise we can't expect this witness to

 7     meaningfully comment on that.

 8             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.  The witness

 9     will be heard until the end of the week.

10        Q.   If I were to tell you, sir, that after three years - that is,

11     three years after the burial - it is difficult to establish using the

12     means of forensic entomology the --

13             THE INTERPRETER:  The interpreter did not understand counsel.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  The interpreters were unable to hear or understand

15     you, Mr. Stojanovic.

16             But let's leave Professor Lawrence for a moment alone.  When you

17     said it would have been a -- you would have expected any insects' remains

18     with the bodies to be found, have you taken into account the time and

19     have you considered to what extent evidence of the presence of insects

20     would have faded away or would have disappeared over a number of years?

21             THE WITNESS:  My answer is that I'm, of course, not an expert in

22     forensic entomology, but in my own experience and in Bosnia at the site

23     of Kevljani, we found insect remains on bodies that were believed to have

24     dated from 1992 and we were working, I think, in 1997.  And so we found

25     in -- I have seen personally insect remains.  But as to a general account

Page 14462

 1     of where they survive, the soil conditions and so on, I am not an expert.

 2     But I do know from forensic reading that I have done that insect remains

 3     will last for many years.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Mr. Stojanovic.

 5             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation]

 6        Q.   Thank you, Professor.

 7             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Could we now see --

 8             THE WITNESS:  I'm sorry, Your Honour.  May I correct the date?

 9     It was not 1997.  It was 1998 or 1999.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes --

11             THE WITNESS:  Correct.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  -- because earlier you corrected -- when a question

13     was put to you about 1997, you said it was 1998.

14             THE WITNESS:  Work at Kevljani was done in 1998.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you for the correction.

16             Please proceed, Mr. Stojanovic.

17             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

18        Q.   Let us stick to the Kevljani report.  11409 is the number on the

19     65 ter list.  I'm afraid --

20             THE REGISTRAR:  Document P1764, Your Honours.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  It has been admitted meanwhile.

22             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.  Let us look at

23     page 3 in both linguistic versions.

24        Q.   The first thing I would like to ask you, Professor, is the

25     following:  On page 2 you say that you found 72 complete bodies in

Page 14463

 1     15 virtually intact graves.  Then you estimate that in the remaining

 2     disturbed and removed bodies -- or, rather, that the number of such

 3     bodies is 72 again.  I would like to know which methodology you used to

 4     establish that.

 5        A.   May I first say that my memory is worse than I thought.  It was

 6     1999 that I worked at Kevljani.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Add another few years, Mr. Wright, and we come to

 8     2013.  Yes.  No --

 9             THE WITNESS:  I thought that -- in -- in answer to your question,

10     can we look at the map that is included in my report.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Stojanovic, could you guide us to the map.  And

12     I think in general asking questions about the summary seems not to be the

13     best thing to do where the witness has explained in his report quite a

14     number of things which do not appear in similar detail in the summary.

15             MS. MacGREGOR: [Microphone not activated]

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. MacGregor.

17             MS. MacGREGOR: [Microphone not activated].

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Could you switch on your microphone?

19             MS. MacGREGOR:  Is it on?  There is a figure 2 that I think is

20     page 17 that may be -- it's a schematic map.  I think it may be that one.

21             THE WITNESS:  Yes, that's the one I want.

22             Now, my answer depends on our knowledge that there were two major

23     rows of graves; one row which was largely undisturbed at the top, and

24     then a row of graves to the right of them which were largely disturbed

25     but covered the same sort of distance and area.  And then there are

Page 14464

 1     two -- in the bottom left-hand side, there are two disturbed graves and

 2     two undisturbed graves.  So we know how many bodies were found in the

 3     undisturbed graves and that estimate - and I repeat it is an estimate -

 4     of 72 makes the assumption that the same sort of area is covered in the

 5     disturbed graves from which the bodies were taken away.  So 72 is -- for

 6     the undisturbed areas and the partly disturbed graves is a count, and the

 7     other number 72 that I mention is an estimate based on the assumption

 8     that we're looking at the same sort of area of disturbed graves.

 9             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation]

10        Q.   Professor, do you think that this is a primary burial site or a

11     secondary one?

12        A.   We formed the opinion that it was a primary burial site.  The

13     bodies were in an intact state.  There were some body parts but we

14     interpreted them as left over from the disturbance at the site, but that

15     the undisturbed graves were places of primary burial.

16        Q.   I asked you this because I wanted you to assist us.  That being

17     the case, do you think that the bodies and persons buried there were

18     killed at that very site or were they brought there already dead?

19        A.   I think they were brought there already dead on the grounds that

20     we didn't find numerous shell cases such as we did, say, at Kozluk.  We

21     saw no evidence of signs of execution at that spot.  So I think they were

22     brought there.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  By the way, Mr. Stojanovic, again, the way in which

24     the witness has estimated or on what basis of what kind of calculation he

25     has based his estimates are found in the report in detail.  Therefore,

Page 14465

 1     why ask him again about methodology which is -- I mean, let's try to

 2     focus on what really matters and not put the same question to the witness

 3     and then accept the same answer.

 4             Please proceed.

 5             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation]

 6        Q.   Professor, the fact that in a number of graves iron ore was

 7     found, could that be an indication of where the bodies in question had

 8     been brought from?

 9        A.   Yes, indeed.  And Dr. Brown was brought in to analyse these

10     foreign rocks, foreign rocky material that we found in these graves.  It

11     consisted of some piece of slag which is left over from a furnace, and it

12     consisted of some pieces of raw iron ore.  And so a report was written by

13     Dr. Brown who visited the site, and he concluded that that material was

14     consistent with the bodies having been brought from the site at Omarska.

15        Q.   Thank you.

16             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Let us look at 1D123.

17             THE REGISTRAR:  Document 1D123 is not in e-court, Your Honour.

18     Could it be 1123?

19             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, I apologise.  1123.  I

20     would like to see page 1.

21        Q.   Professor, during the excavation of the Kevljani burial site, was

22     local personnel from Bosnia-Herzegovina also involved?

23             JUDGE MOLOTO:  You asked this question earlier today,

24     Mr. Stojanovic, and the Professor said no.

25             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.  That related

Page 14466

 1     to the exhumations relating to Srebrenica, and this one has to do with a

 2     site in the Krajina area and that was the reason for my question because

 3     now I'm about to mention the name of a local site.

 4             JUDGE MOLOTO:  My apologies.

 5             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you for your assistance.

 6        Q.   Professor, so my question was:  Do you recall if the exhumations

 7     in Krajina, specifically in Kevljani, included local personnel from

 8     Bosnia and Herzegovina also?

 9        A.   No, there were no locals taking part in the exhumation.  Just can

10     I -- I'm not sure what the purpose of your question is, but can I just

11     anticipate this by saying that people would have been able to observe our

12     exhumations but they certainly didn't take part in the exhumations.  We

13     were in the -- there were roads passing close and so they could have

14     observed what we did.

15        Q.   Thank you, Professor.  Well, the question is now if you know

16     whether any of the local staff took part in the process of processing and

17     identifying of the bodies?

18        A.   The identifications were certainly not my responsibility and no

19     one came to the site for the purpose of attempting to identify the

20     individuals.  I mean, no local people came to the site to do any work

21     whatsoever.

22        Q.   Thank you.  I want to ask you something about the document.  Does

23     the name Jasmin Odobasic mean anything to you, who at the time was the

24     chief of the federal commission for searching for missing persons in

25     2005?  Did you have the opportunity to meet this person at any point

Page 14467

 1     during your work?

 2        A.   I don't remember meeting such a person, and I -- my work finished

 3     in Bosnia in 2000.  But I don't -- no, I don't remember meeting such a

 4     person.

 5             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we look at paragraph 30 of

 6     this statement which the then-chief of the federal commission for missing

 7     persons gave to the international tribunal and to the investigators.

 8        Q.   I'm going to just put a couple of questions to you, Professor, so

 9     perhaps you can help.

10             In paragraph 30 the witness says, among other things:

11             "Let me just mention one problem:  In 1999, the ICTY exhumed a

12     mass grave - Kevljani, a secondary grave - with 143 bodies.

13     Eva Klonowski and Nermin Sarajlic processed these bodies.  And they made

14     mistakes there as well.  An example is the identification of

15     Mursija Zenkic.  In 2004, I exhumed another secondary grave, Stari

16     Kevljani, just 200 metres away from the first grave.  456 bodies were

17     exhumed, all camp inmates from Omarska.  Among those bodies, I found the

18     body of Mursija Zenkic with her identity papers.  Physician Ana Boza was

19     in charge of the onsite examination of the bodies, but later during the

20     final autopsy and the identification process of the ICMP replaced her

21     with Eva Klonowski and Nermin Sarajlic and she was literally excluded

22     from the whole process."

23             My question is this:  After you left this locality, up to 2000,

24     was the final number of persons linked with that grave-site ever

25     established?

Page 14468

 1        A.   Well, I had nothing to do with the processing of the bodies and

 2     the identifications.  My understanding was that the -- the bodies from

 3     Kevljani, which was a primary grave, in my opinion, not a secondary

 4     grave, that the bodies were taken to the ICTY morgue for examination.

 5     And I don't understand the remainder of that paragraph, maybe because I'm

 6     just ignorant of what happened, but I couldn't answer it.

 7        Q.   And I'm going to finish with this question, Professor:  Did you,

 8     in your work in any way, respecting the rules of your profession,

 9     establish that these were the bodies of persons who were detained in the

10     Omarska camp?

11        A.   No, it was not my business to do that.  And it was my business to

12     draw attention to items of material culture and of rocks which might bear

13     on the question of where these people had come from, but my brief did not

14     go beyond that.

15        Q.   Professor, thank you very much.  I have no further questions.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Stojanovic.

17             Ms. MacGregor, is there any need to re-examine the witness?

18             MS. MacGREGOR:  I do have one question for the witness,

19     Your Honour.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Please put that question to the witness.

21             MS. MacGREGOR:  I just want to clarify the Professor's testimony

22     before on the comments of Dr. Lawrence.

23                           Re-examination by Ms. MacGregor:

24        Q.   And to be clear, we're talking about Dr. Christopher Lawrence; is

25     that correct?

Page 14469

 1        A.   Yes.

 2        Q.   And what was his role on these exhumations you worked with him

 3     on?

 4        A.   He didn't have a role in the exhumations.  He was -- he was, in

 5     1998, in charge of the operations at the morgue, though he did visit the

 6     exhumations but he had no -- no role in the exhumations in any official

 7     sense.

 8        Q.   Was he the chief pathologist of the project?

 9        A.   That was my understanding.

10        Q.   Thank you.  So I've located the quote from Dr. Lawrence's

11     Karadzic testimony, and I will just -- since we don't all have it in

12     front of us, I will slowly read the question and answer and just ask you,

13     based on your experience in the forensic work you've done, if you would

14     agree or not with his conclusion.  The question:

15             "Q.  Would the presence of insects give any kind of indication as

16     to the time that the body was there, from the time of death to the time

17     of burial?

18             "A.  Sorry, yes.  If they were present, it could be helpful.  I

19     think my experience with forensic entomology suggests to me that

20     sometimes it's helpful and sometimes it's not.  It doesn't always work.

21     I also suspect that after three years quite a lot of the forensic

22     entomology evidence would have gone and would not be recoverable."

23             And did you need me to repeat the question that I asked to you,

24     Professor Wright?

25        A.   I can only talk about my own experience, and at Kevljani, it

Page 14470

 1     lasted longer than three years.  But I absolutely decline to be drawn

 2     into discussions about forensic entomology in general.

 3             MS. MacGREGOR:  I have no further questions, Your Honours.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  I have one further question.

 5             On the same subject, is Professor Lawrence known to you - and I'm

 6     not asking you to disqualify him - as a specialist in forensic

 7     entomology.

 8             THE WITNESS:  No, he's known to me as a medical pathologist.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

10             Any further questions, Mr. Stojanovic?

11             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour.  Thank you.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Then, Mr. Stojanovic, I haven't heard you about the

13     need for further time to prepare further cross-examination.

14             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour.  In view of

15     your suggestion, we did prepare for Kevljani and these other two

16     locations so there is no need to recall Professor Wright on these

17     matters.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you for that information.

19             I asked this, Mr. Wright, because there had been a discussion

20     about whether there would be any need to recall you since some of the

21     reports were -- were presented rather late as to be dealt with during

22     your examination, but luckily enough, you don't have to travel again.  At

23     least not for us.

24             THE WITNESS:  Thank you.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Because we have concluded your evidence.  I'd like

Page 14471

 1     to thank you very much for coming a long way to The Hague and for having

 2     answered all the questions that were put to you either by the parties or

 3     by the Bench, and I wish you a safe return home again.

 4             THE WITNESS:  Thank you, Your Honour.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  You may follow the usher and you are excused.

 6                           [The witness withdrew]

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Would the Prosecution be ready to call its next

 8     witness?  I'm not yet asking you to do, but ...

 9             MS. MacGREGOR:  My understanding is that we are prepared,

10     Your Honour.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Because there are a few other matters on our

12     agenda as well, and since we are -- we may have some time to do that.

13     But let me just try to get organised again.

14             First I'd like to deal with one procedural matter, which is

15     92 ter motions for upcoming expert witnesses.  For a number of upcoming

16     expert witnesses, the Prosecution has filed Rule 92 ter motions tendering

17     transcript portions as well as expert reports as associated exhibits.  In

18     this respect, the Chamber recalls its decision on the Prosecution

19     92 ter motion concerning Witness Teufika Ibrahimefendic, dated the 1st of

20     July, 2013, and will consider those documents filed pursuant to Rule 92

21     ter of the Rules as Rule 94 bis documents.

22             Then there are a few decisions which I would like to render.

23     There are a few.  There are four.  I'd like to use the next minutes for

24     that.  I'll start with the ones which can be delivered in open session.

25     But if you would just bear with me for one moment.

Page 14472

 1                           [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  I just wanted to make sure that the booth had

 3     received all of the decisions.

 4             The first one is an oral decision on the amalgamated witness

 5     statement and associated exhibits of Witness Rupert Smith.

 6             By its confidential decision issued on the 28th of June, 2013,

 7     the Chamber decided that there is no need to recall Witness Smith.  It is

 8     hereby put on the public record that the testimony of Witness Smith is

 9     concluded.

10             The Chamber will now turn to its outstanding decision on the

11     admission of his amalgamated witness statement of the 22nd of October,

12     2009, which is currently marked for identification as Exhibit P785 as

13     well as the remaining associated exhibits to it.

14             At first, following the conclusion of his testimony before the

15     Tribunal, the Chamber admits Witness Smith's amalgamated witness

16     statement of the 22nd October 2009, currently marked for identification

17     as Exhibit P785, and it's admitted into evidence.

18             With regard to the outstanding associated exhibits, the Chamber

19     notes at the outset that it was not properly guided as to which

20     associated exhibit is referred to in different parts of the witness

21     statement because the statement itself refers to document ID numbers,

22     whereas the Rule 92 ter exhibit list, as provided by the Prosecution,

23     refers to Rule 65 ter numbers of the respective exhibits.

24             In addition, many references to document ID numbers in the

25     statement proved to be incorrect and the Chamber was only able to find

Page 14473

 1     the corresponding associated exhibit by carefully analysing the affected

 2     sections together with the associated exhibits.  Therefore, in order to

 3     avoid this in the future, the Chamber requests the Prosecution to clearly

 4     set out the corresponding paragraphs in the relevant witness statement

 5     for each associated exhibit it seeks to be incorporated into its

 6     Rule 92 ter exhibit list.

 7             Following the Chamber's approach in the Tucker oral decision of

 8     the 22nd of November, 2012, on the admission of associated exhibits, the

 9     Chamber admits the following 12 documents into evidence as associated

10     exhibits through the witness -- to the statement of Witness Smith.

11     Rule 65 ter numbers 03500, 11469, 03503, 05727, 05728, 19262, 05832,

12     05589, 18635, 17475, 08946, and 03502.

13             With regard to Rule 65 ter number 09670, the Chamber notes that

14     it has not been able to find its corresponding paragraph or section in

15     the witness statement.  In the event that the Prosecution still intends

16     to have this document admitted, it is hereby invited to inform the

17     Chamber of the correct reference in order to enable the Chamber to decide

18     on its admission.

19             With regard to the remaining 19 associated exhibits tendered by

20     the Prosecution through Witness Smith, the Chamber denies their admission

21     into evidence without prejudice.

22             And this concludes the Chamber's decision.

23             I move to the next decision which relates to Exhibit P1003.

24             This is the Chamber's decision on the admission of Exhibit P1003

25     into evidence.

Page 14474

 1             During the testimony of Witness Nermin Karagic on the

 2     21st of February of this year, the Prosecution used a comments chart

 3     which, when tendered for admission into evidence, was marked for

 4     identification as Exhibit P1003.

 5             At the direction of the Trial Chamber, the parties made further

 6     submissions on the chart on the 1st of March, 2013.  (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)  The Prosecution

12     submitted that the Defence's objection was a question of the weight to be

13     attributed to the chart.  And these submissions can be found at

14     transcript page 9509.

15             The Chamber has analysed the comments chart in light of

16     Rules 89(C) and (D) of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure and Evidence and

17     notes at the outset that the evidence relates to Scheduled Incidents

18     A 6.7, A 6.8, and C 15.5.  The Chamber observed that Witness Karagic

19     prepared the comments chart prior to his testimony in court, recalling

20     what happened to the persons listed therein based on his knowledge.  The

21     witness also made additional comments in court and affirmed the

22     document's authenticity.  This can be found at transcript pages 9106 to

23     9109.

24             In the comments the witness clearly indicated those persons he

25     knew personally and any uncertainty he had about the identity and/or fate

Page 14475

 1     of persons.  Considering this, the Chamber finds the comments chart to be

 2     prima facie relevant and to have probative value of Scheduled Incidents A

 3     6.7, A 6.8, and C 15 of the indictment, and therefore admits P1003 into

 4     evidence.

 5             And this concludes the Chamber's decision.

 6             The next decision is the decision on the Prosecution motion to

 7     amend its 65 ter witness list to substitute Witness RM705 with Witness

 8     RM095.

 9             On the 9th of May, 2013, the Prosecution filed a confidential

10     motion seeking leave to add Witness RM095 to its Rule 65 ter list as a

11     proposed Rule 92 bis witness in substitution of proposed 92 bis Witness

12     RM705 whom the Prosecution seeks to withdraw.  The Prosecution submits

13     that the substitution of witnesses will not cause prejudice to the

14     Defence because the expected evidence covers the topic of alleged

15     detention and killing in Prijedor.  The Prosecution submits that it has

16     good cause for the substitution considering what the Defence has recently

17     described as its "revenge" defence and Witness RM705's reluctance to have

18     their evidence used in any form due to personal security concerns.

19             The Defence filed its response on the 23rd of May objecting to

20     the substitution on the ground that the Prosecution failed to establish

21     good cause.  The Chamber considers that the Prosecution has not shown

22     good cause for adding Witness RM095 to its Rule 65 ter witness list.

23     However, considering Witness RM705's reluctance to provide evidence

24     because of personal security concerns, and considering that the

25     anticipated evidence of both witnesses is substantially similar, thereby

Page 14476

 1     causing limited additional burden for the Defence, the Chamber finds that

 2     it is in the interest of justice to allow substitution, and for these

 3     reasons the Chamber grants the motion.

 4             And this concludes the Chamber's decision.

 5             Although I would have one more decision to be delivered, I

 6     refrain from that because the next witness is scheduled for chief -- in

 7     chief for half an hour.  We'll see at the end of today's session whether

 8     still time remains before cross-examination will start to read that last

 9     decision.

10             Ms. MacGregor.

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 14477











11  Page 14477 redacted.















Page 14478

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted) may I remind the

 9     Prosecution that it's appropriately done in private session.

10             We take a break.

11             And, Ms. MacGregor, the Chamber expects that examination-in-chief

12     can be concluded today.

13             MS. MacGREGOR:  Your Honours, I believe it can.  It's Mr. Jeremy

14     who will be handling the next witness so he can answer to that, but I

15     believe he can.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  We have the same expectations as far as he's

17     concerned.

18             We take the break and will resume at 20 minutes to 2.00.

19                           --- Recess taken at 1.17 p.m.

20                           --- On resuming at 1.41 p.m.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Could the witness be escorted into the courtroom.

22                           [The witness takes the stand]

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Could the witness please put on the earphones, yes.

24             THE WITNESS:  Thank you.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Good afternoon, Madam.

Page 14479

 1             Before you give evidence, the Rules require that you make a

 2     solemn declaration.  The text is now handed out to you by the usher.  May

 3     I invite you to make that solemn declaration.

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

 5     whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.  Please be seated.

 7             THE WITNESS:  Thank you.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Maljaars, you'll first be examined by

 9     Mr. Jeremy.  Mr. Jeremy is counsel for the Prosecution and you'll find

10     him to your right.

11             You may proceed, Mr. Jeremy.

12             MR. JEREMY:  Thank you, Your Honours.  Good afternoon.

13                           WITNESS:  SUZANNA MALJAARS

14                           Examination by Mr. Jeremy:

15        Q.   Good afternoon, Ms. Maljaars.

16        A.   Good afternoon.

17        Q.   Could I start by stating your full name for the record, please?

18        A.   Suzanna Elisabeth Maljaars.

19        Q.   And I see you've brought some materials in with you to the

20     courtroom.  Could you briefly tell the Court what those are, please.

21        A.   It's a copy of a report that I wrote in February 2000.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Could I ask you to make a short pause --

23             THE WITNESS:  I'm sorry.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  -- between question and answer because your second

25     name has already disappeared from the transcript.  It was Suzanna

Page 14480

 1     Elisabeth Maljaars.  Could you please keep this in mind, both.

 2             MR. JEREMY:

 3        Q.   Ms. Maljaars, what is your current profession?

 4        A.   My current profession is a chemistry teacher.

 5        Q.   And could you briefly tell us about your educational background,

 6     the main points.

 7        A.   I finished laboratory school and later on I finished university,

 8     both in chemistry.  And after I finished chemistry in university, I

 9     followed a post programme, post-doc programme to become a chemistry

10     teacher.

11             MR. JEREMY:  Okay.  Your Honours, could I please see 65 ter 29089

12     on our screens.

13        Q.   And while that's coming up, Ms. Maljaars, do you recall providing

14     a copy of your CV to the Office of the Prosecutor in the past?

15        A.   Yes, I did.

16        Q.   And I see in the -- the title below your names it says "drs."

17     which I understand is a Dutch term, "doctorandus," that indicates that

18     you have a master's degree rather than a PhD; is that correct?

19        A.   Yes, it is.

20        Q.   And is the information contained in this CV accurate as at 2003?

21     Does it outline the courses you attended, your professional employment,

22     and the publications you had written up until 2003?

23        A.   Yes, it does.

24             MR. JEREMY:  Your Honours, I'd tender that as the next

25     Prosecution exhibit.

Page 14481

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar.

 2             THE REGISTRAR:  Document 29089 receives number P1770,

 3     Your Honours.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  And is admitted into evidence.

 5             MR. JEREMY:

 6        Q.   Ms. Maljaars, your CV states that, by the year 2000, you'd been

 7     employed by the Netherlands Forensic Institute for approximately ten

 8     years; is that correct?

 9        A.   Yes, it is.

10        Q.   And could you very briefly explain what the

11     Netherlands Forensic Institute is?

12        A.   The Netherlands Forensic Institute is an institute that conducts

13     forensic investigations for the whole of the Netherlands, and it is

14     specialising in all types of forensic investigations.

15        Q.   And is one of the areas that it specialises in textiles

16     investigations?

17        A.   Yes.

18        Q.   And has the Netherlands Forensic Institute, or NFI for short,

19     previously provided a report relating to your analysis of textiles

20     material, a report specifically prepared by you to the Office of the

21     Prosecutor of this Tribunal?

22        A.   Yes, they have.

23             MR. JEREMY:  Your Honours, could we please see 65 ter 04612 on

24     our screens.

25        Q.   Ms. Maljaars, do you recognise the document on the screen before

Page 14482

 1     you?

 2        A.   Yes, I do.

 3        Q.   And I see the subject of the document is "Textile Investigation,"

 4     it's dated 11 February, 2000.  Can you very briefly explain to the Court

 5     what this document is, please?

 6        A.   This document is a report that I wrote concerning textile

 7     investigations on pieces of textiles that I have received, and I was

 8     asked to look for similarities between the pieces of textile.

 9        Q.   And from -- from whom did you receive those pieces of textile?

10        A.   We received them from Mr. Ruez, Mr. Kruszewski, and Mr. Manning.

11             MR. JEREMY:  Could we please go to page 24 in the English and

12     page 23 in the B/C/S.

13        Q.   Ms. Maljaars, in the English version on the right-hand side of

14     the screen we see a signature.  Whose signature is that?

15        A.   It is mine.

16        Q.   And before your name below this signature I see "Ing," what does

17     that represent?

18        A.   That's a short version of "engineer," and that's my bachelor

19     degree in chemistry.

20        Q.   So does that reflect your level of education at the time that you

21     wrote this report?

22        A.   Yes, it does.

23        Q.   And what was your position within the

24     Netherlands Forensic Institute when you prepared and wrote this report?

25        A.   I was a research co-ordination -- co-ordinator for the hair,

Page 14483

 1     fibre, and textile investigations.

 2        Q.   And what did that mean in -- in practice in respect to reports

 3     like this?

 4        A.   It meant that I conducted investigations on textiles in a

 5     forensic way.

 6        Q.   And at the time of writing this report, had you completed any

 7     relevant publications related to this field of expertise?

 8        A.   In 1991 I co-wrote a publication about fibres and their evidence

 9     in court.

10        Q.   And do you -- do you recall how long it took you to conduct the

11     investigations and prepare this particular report?

12        A.   It took about 140 hours.

13        Q.   And did you -- did you complete that work alone?

14        A.   No, there was a whole team working on it.  About five to six

15     people, including me.

16        Q.   And what was your position within that team?

17        A.   I set out the way to examine them, to examine the textiles.  I

18     was in charge of the whole investigation.

19        Q.   Okay.

20             MR. JEREMY:  Could we please go to page 2 in e-court.

21        Q.   And, Ms. Maljaars, at the top of the screen we see the title

22     "Materials Submitted," it indicates who it was received from.  Via, we

23     have J.R. Ruez.  And date of receipt:  3rd of July, 1997.  We then have

24     some subheadings saying "originating from" and then a location.  And

25     below that a list of codes and some descriptions.  Could you -- and that

Page 14484

 1     goes on for nine pages or so in the report.  Could you tell us what those

 2     are, please?

 3        A.   There are in total about 400 pieces of textile materials.  They

 4     were divided from different origins, and the list on the page says the

 5     codes on the items and the origin that they came from.

 6        Q.   And so these comprised the materials that you analysed in

 7     connection with this report?

 8        A.   Yes.

 9             MR. JEREMY:  And can we go to page 4 in e-court, please.

10        Q.   Ms. Maljaars, did you have a correction that you wished to make?

11        A.   Yes, I do.  I would like to point out a typo on this page.

12        Q.   And could you tell us where that is, please?

13        A.   It's on the lower half.  It's about the eight or nine line from

14     below, and it says "LZ2-B-41 #2" and it should be "LZ2-B-41 #1."

15        Q.   Thank you.

16             MR. JEREMY:  Could we go to page 10, please.

17             And if we focus on the bottom of the page it reads:

18             "Question 1.

19             "The ICTY requested to investigate the occurrence of similarities

20     between the pieces of textile material, blindfolds, and ligatures from

21     the different places of origin."

22             MR. JEREMY:  Can we go to the next page, please.

23        Q.   Now, Ms. Maljaars, here we see a series of subheadings,

24     "Procedure," "Methods used" and "Exceptions," and that's all under the

25     main heading of "Textile investigations - question 1."  With respect to

Page 14485

 1     the heading "Procedure" in the second paragraph we read:

 2             "Within each group and from within each of the different origins

 3     within this group those pieces of textile material were selected that

 4     were the least deteriorated.  Not all individual pieces of textile

 5     material in the different groups were therefore investigated."

 6             Could you please explain what this means?

 7        A.   It means that we described all pieces of textile materials from

 8     all different origins, and we looked for similarities.  When we found

 9     similarities between different origins, we looked for the best type of

10     material that was the least deteriorated to investigate further.

11        Q.   And you've mentioned material from different origins.  What did

12     you know about the origins of these pieces of material?

13        A.   I know they were different origins and with different codes and

14     that there have been excavations revealing textile materials and that

15     those materials were sent.

16        Q.   All right.  The next sentence reads:

17             "... when working with the computerised database, it may be

18     possible that there are more matches than those examined in the groups" I

19     to IV.

20             Could you explain what that means, please?

21        A.   We made a description of all the textiles that we received, and

22     we did it on a special set of features.  We put those features in

23     database and then use the auto-filter to filter out the similarities or

24     the similar description from different origins, and those five groups

25     came out of that selection and it may be because of the way that we

Page 14486

 1     filtered the database that there are more matching pieces of textiles

 2     other than the groups I to V.

 3        Q.   All right.  And the next subheading reads:  "Methods Used."  Now,

 4     we won't go through those because we don't have time, but were you

 5     familiar with and trained in the use of each of those methods?

 6        A.   Yes, I was.  When working for the NFI, I had two to three years

 7     training to do those investigations, as well as in my studies in

 8     laboratory school and in university I was trained to operate the FTIR

 9     machine.

10        Q.   And were these methods consistent with the prevailing

11     professional standards relevant to this sort of investigation at the time

12     the report was prepared?

13        A.   Yes.

14             MR. JEREMY:  Could we go to page 12, please.

15        Q.   We see on this page "Results - question 1.

16             "Group I."

17             Very briefly, could you tell us what we're looking at here just

18     in a couple of sentences?

19        A.   What we are seeing here is a table that I made stating all the

20     features that are investigated, macroscopically and microscopically in

21     FTIR, if applicable, and I used this table throughout the investigation

22     of all textile materials, and it says how the features are on that

23     specific type of textile material.

24        Q.   And is this group I of matching material one of a number of

25     groups of matching material that you identified in your investigations?

Page 14487

 1        A.   I am not sure I understand the question.

 2        Q.   I see it says "Group I" here.  Are there also additional groups

 3     that you identified in your report that contained matching textiles?

 4        A.   Yes.  Those were the groups II, III, IV, and V, as mentioned in

 5     the report.

 6        Q.   And I see at the bottom of the page there is a reference to

 7     FTIR-microscopy, and I see it says "not applied" and "not applied."

 8     Could you tell us what FTIR-microscopy was first, please?

 9        A.   It's a method used based on spectroscopy to identify type of

10     fibres, fibre types like polyester, nylon, acrylic, and you only apply

11     them to synthetic fibres and not to natural fibres.

12        Q.   And so why was it not applied to fibres that comprised as group

13     I?

14        A.   Because those contained cotton fibres.

15             MR. JEREMY:  Could we go to page 27 in e-court, please.

16        Q.   And, Ms. Maljaars, could you tell us what we're looking at here,

17     please?

18        A.   You're looking at a photocopy of two pieces of textiles from

19     group I.

20        Q.   And are these photocopies of the textiles that you explained or

21     that you had matched in the table that we just looked at?

22        A.   Yes.

23        Q.   And above the first piece of cloth, photocopy of the piece of

24     cloth, is a code, and there appears to be another code below the second

25     piece of cloth.  What are those codes?

Page 14488

 1        A.   The codes came with the pieces of textile.

 2        Q.   So they are -- are they itemised in the list that we -- we looked

 3     at at the start of my questions?

 4        A.   Yes.

 5             MR. JEREMY:  Could we please go to page 23 in the English,

 6     page 22 in the B/C/S.

 7        Q.   Ms. Maljaars, we see at the top of the page it's "Conclusion -

 8     question 1," and focusing on group I, which is the group that we just

 9     looked at, can you briefly explain this conclusion?

10        A.   When looking at the two pieces of textile, you immediately see

11     similarities, and I conducted an investigation to see if those

12     similarities are not there.  So I took a number of investigations,

13     investigated features, looked at the -- at everything that I could look

14     at, and then I could see no differences between them; therefore, I stated

15     that they are indistinguishable from each other.

16        Q.   And you mentioned earlier that you had a team of persons working

17     for you.  Did you personally verify every match that you made in your

18     report?

19        A.   Yes, I did.

20        Q.   And in making that personal verification, did you in turn verify

21     that with anybody else?

22        A.   Yes.  All of my investigations were checked by another member of

23     the textile and fibre group of the NFI.

24             MR. JEREMY:  Could we go to page 43 in e-court, please.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Could I ask one additional question.

Page 14489

 1             You said it was verified by another member of the group.  Were --

 2     was that a person who had not participated in this investigation or was

 3     it someone who was within the team who was performing on this -- on this

 4     investigation?

 5             THE WITNESS:  It was someone who had already taken part in this

 6     investigation to describe the features of all the textile materials.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  So it was not an outsider to the group that

 8     worked on the investigation.

 9             THE WITNESS:  No.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

11             MR. JEREMY:  Can we go to page 43 in e-court, please.

12        Q.   Ms. Maljaars, here we see the title:  "Figure illustrating the

13     similarities between the pieces of textile with the different places of

14     origin."  Who prepared this table?

15        A.   I did.

16        Q.   And does it contain the results of the textiles that you were

17     able to match as represented by your report?

18        A.   It does as it -- as the arrows combine the different origins with

19     each other.  It does not combine the origins that are, for example,

20     within the primary graves or within the secondary graves.

21        Q.   And what did you know about primary graves and secondary graves

22     when you compiled this table?

23        A.   We found similarities -- no, we found the groups I to V, then we

24     talked with Mr. Manning about what the results were, and I suggested we

25     could make a figure illustrating how the connections could be made

Page 14490

 1     visible, and he made a separation in sites that were primary graves and

 2     sites that were secondary graves.  And until that point, that was not

 3     known to me.

 4             MR. JEREMY:  Could we go to page 21 in the English and page 20 in

 5     the B/C/S.

 6        Q.   Ms. Maljaars, could you explain briefly why you included this

 7     miscellaneous section in this report?

 8        A.   The question originally was if we could see similar pieces of

 9     textile between all the origins.  When we conducted that investigation,

10     we came up with other features that may be important, so I put those

11     features in this section.

12        Q.   And can you briefly describe those -- those features?

13        A.   The pieces of textile that we investigated from groups III, IV,

14     and V, they were scalloped on one side, and in my report it says "eloped"

15     on one side.  So they did not match in a textile way but they did match

16     in a way that they were found as in appearance, size, et cetera.

17        Q.   And I see there is also a reference to groups IV and V.

18        A.   Yes.  The patterns that are woven in the textiles from groups IV

19     and V are similar, and the colour of the textile is different but the

20     weaving pattern is not different.  It's the same.  So we suggested they

21     might have the same origin, like the same manufacturer or the same

22     manufacturing process, and we thought that may be important to note

23     beside then just answer the question that we were asked.

24        Q.   All right.

25             MR. JEREMY:  Lastly, let's go to page 10 in e-court, please.

Page 14491

 1        Q.   And focusing on the bottom of the page, there is a request.  It

 2     states:

 3             "The ICTY also requested to investigate if it was possible to

 4     form a mechanical fit with textiles materials that are labeled," and then

 5     those labels are explained in that paragraph.

 6             Now, what were the results of that particular investigation?

 7        A.   That a mechanical fit between those pieces was not possible.

 8             MR. JEREMY:  Your Honours, I'd like to tender Ms. Maljaars'

 9     report, 65 ter 04612.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  No objections.

11             Madam Registrar.

12             THE REGISTRAR:  Document 04612 receives number P1771,

13     Your Honours.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  P1771 is admitted into evidence.

15             MR. JEREMY:  That concludes my direct examination, Your Honours.

16     Thank you.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Jeremy.

18             I suggest, Mr. Lukic, that we'll not start for two or three

19     minutes the cross-examination but rather start tomorrow.

20             Therefore, Ms. Maljaars, we'll adjourn for the day and we'd like

21     to see you back tomorrow morning at 9.30 in this same courtroom.

22             Meanwhile, I instruct you that you should not speak or

23     communicate in whatever way about your testimony with whomever, whether

24     that's testimony you've given today or whether that's testimony still to

25     be given tomorrow.  Is that instruction clear to you?

Page 14492

 1             THE WITNESS:  Yes, it is.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Then you may follow the usher.

 3             THE WITNESS:  Thank you.

 4                           [The witness stands down]

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  We will adjourn for the day and will resume

 6     tomorrow, Tuesday, the 16th of July, in this same courtroom III at 9.30

 7     in the morning.

 8                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.13 p.m.,

 9                           to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 16th day of July,

10                           2013, at 9.30 a.m.