Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 348

1 Friday, 8 October 2004

2 [Open session]

3 --- Upon commencing at 9.14 a.m.

4 [The accused entered court]

5 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Registrar, good morning to you. Could you

6 call the case, please.

7 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. I apologise for the

8 delay.

9 Case number IT-03-68-T, the Prosecutor versus Naser Oric.

10 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you.

11 Mr. Oric, good morning to you. Can you follow the proceedings in

12 a language that you can understand?

13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'm sorry. I didn't hear anything.

14 I'm really sorry.

15 JUDGE AGIUS: I will -- I will repeat the question. Can you

16 follow the proceedings in a language that you can understand?

17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I can follow in a

18 language I understand.

19 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you. You may sit down.

20 Appearances for the Prosecution.

21 MR. WUBBEN: Good morning, Your Honours. My name is Jan Wubben,

22 Senior Trial Attorney for the Prosecution team, together with Ms. Patricia

23 Sellers and Mr. Gramsci Di Fazio, and Ms. Donnica Henry-Frijlink, case

24 manager.

25 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, Mr. Wubben, and good morning to you and

Page 349

1 the rest of the team.

2 Appearances for the accused Oric.

3 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours. I am

4 Vasvija Vidovic, together with Mr. John Jones I appear for Mr. Naser Oric.

5 Together with us are Ms. Jasmina Cosic, legal assistant, and Mr. Geoff

6 Roberts, our case manager. Thank you.

7 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, and good morning to you, Ms. Vidovic,

8 and the rest of your team.

9 Are there any preliminary matters that you would like to raise

10 before we bring in the first witness?

11 MR. DI FAZIO: No.

12 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Di Fazio.

13 MR. DI FAZIO: No, Your Honour. There is a matter I need to raise

14 with you in private session, but that can be done perhaps when the witness

15 is here.

16 JUDGE AGIUS: Depends on what it is. On the part of the Defence,

17 are there any preliminary matters that you would like to raise? Okay.

18 Thank you. So we can bring the witness in.

19 And I do apologise to everyone for having started with about 15

20 minutes delay late. The reason was technical. We couldn't -- we couldn't

21 start before of technical problems.

22 [The witness entered court]

23 JUDGE AGIUS: Good morning, to you, madam.

24 THE WITNESS: Good morning, Your Honour.

25 JUDGE AGIUS: And when I say welcome to this Tribunal, I know that

Page 350

1 you work here, but welcome to this courtroom and to this trial. You are

2 about to start giving evidence, and before you do so, as you know, because

3 this is not the first time you have given evidence, our Rules require that

4 you make a solemn declaration that you will, in the course of your

5 testimony, you will be speaking the truth, the whole truth, and nothing

6 but the truth. The text is contained on a piece of paper which Madam

7 Usher is going to hand to you. Please read it out aloud, and that will be

8 your solemn undertaking with this Tribunal.

9 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honour. I solemnly declare that I

10 will speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

11 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. Please take -- take a chair.


13 JUDGE AGIUS: And Mr. Di Fazio, I take it you will be conducting

14 the examination-in-chief.

15 MR. DI FAZIO: That's right, if Your Honours please.

16 JUDGE AGIUS: Go ahead.

17 MR. DI FAZIO: And can we just now very briefly go into private

18 session? It's just a preliminary matter. It won't take long.

19 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Let's go into private session for a while. We

20 should be in private session now.

21 [Private session]

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

Page 351











11 Page 351 redacted. Private session.















Page 352











11 Page 352 redacted. Private session.















Page 353











11 Page 353 redacted. Private session.















Page 354

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 [Open session]

13 JUDGE AGIUS: We are in open session. So the witness is in your

14 hands, Mr. Di Fazio.

15 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you. If Your Honours please, can I now

16 distribute her declaration and annex.

17 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. Go ahead. So I take it that this annex

18 that I already had --

19 MR. DI FAZIO: It is --

20 JUDGE AGIUS: -- it is just an informal one which is not going to

21 be part of the evidence.

22 MR. DI FAZIO: That's right. That hopefully represents today's

23 end product.

24 JUDGE AGIUS: That's okay. That's okay. The important thing is

25 that we make it clear because I don't want in my files any documents that

Page 355

1 are not in reality tendered in evidence.

2 MR. DI FAZIO: Can Your Honours let me know when you wish me to

3 proceed.

4 JUDGE AGIUS: You may proceed now.

5 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you.

6 Examined by Mr. Di Fazio:

7 Q. Ms. Manas, I just want to go through some personal details of

8 yours very briefly. I think you served in the South African police from

9 1983 to April of 1995. Is that correct?

10 A. That's true.

11 Q. In the South African police you reached the rank of super --

12 THE INTERPRETER: Would the speakers please pause between question

13 and answer. Thank you very much.

14 MR. DI FAZIO: I'll slow down. I'm sorry.

15 Q. I think you reached the rank of superintendent?

16 A. True.

17 Q. In April of 1995 did you come here to The Hague and take up

18 employment in the Office of the Prosecutor?

19 A. That's true.

20 Q. Would you mind speaking up just a little. And you've essentially

21 been here since April of 1995?

22 A. That's true as well.

23 Q. You held the rank of investigator here at the Office of the

24 Prosecutor from April 1995 until recently, August this year, when you were

25 made acting team leader of team 9; is that correct?

Page 356

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. In the course of your experience here at the Office of the

3 Prosecutor, have you had experience in conducting missions where evidence

4 is seized, documents, artefacts, and so on?

5 A. Yes, I did.

6 Q. And has that been the case since April of 1995?

7 A. That's true.

8 Q. And in the course of those missions, have you yourself seized

9 documents?

10 A. Yes, I did.

11 Q. And I take it other forms of evidence, artefacts and so on?

12 A. That's right.

13 Q. And have you seen other investigators do the same?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. In addition to investigators conducting seizures, do other

16 employees of the OTP occasionally conduct seizures such as military

17 experts?

18 A. Yes, as well as lawyers.

19 Q. So lawyers, investigators, military analysts sometimes seize

20 documentation and other evidence in the field?

21 A. That's true.

22 Q. You're familiar, then, are you, with the procedures that are

23 adopted when documentation and other forms of evidence is seized?

24 A. [Inaudible].

25 Q. Sorry?

Page 357

1 A. Yes, I am.

2 Q. And have you been present when documentation has been seized

3 pursuant to search warrant or voluntarily handed over?

4 A. Yes, one such mission. It was the Tuzla operation.

5 Q. Thank you. And are you aware -- you may not have personally

6 experienced it, but are you aware of seizures where documentation is

7 voluntarily handed over?

8 A. Yes, I have.

9 Q. Now, in the field and on missions, seizure can be -- of a document

10 can be of the original and can it be of a copy of the original?

11 A. That's true. In most of these cases they're mainly copies.

12 Q. Can you tell the Court what happened -- that's the Chamber, I'm

13 sorry, what happens when an officer of the OTP decides to seize or take

14 custody of or receive a document in the field and he wants to take a copy

15 of that document? What's the general procedure, please?

16 A. Are we talking about a single document?

17 Q. Yes, we can start from the small and perhaps move on to the larger

18 seizures. So let's start with the situation where it's a small number of

19 documents or an individual document.

20 A. During investigation or during an interview when a witness provide

21 evidence which is related, the evidence -- the document is obtained from

22 the witness. The investigator examines the document. In most cases it's

23 the copy which is provided, and this -- this document is embodied in the

24 witness statement fully describing what is in the document with the -- and

25 as such it's annexed to the statement.

Page 358

1 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Di Fazio, perhaps you could ask the same -- put

2 the same question in a different manner to the witness, because I don't

3 think that this is precisely what we would like to -- to hear from the

4 witness. The procedure that we are mostly interested in -- this is, of

5 course, important, but the procedure that we are mostly interested in is

6 what happens if an investigator goes to a particular village or town and

7 enters a particular building where documents are seized. For example, if

8 the investigator goes into a police station in a particular village where

9 documents are being kept, irrespective of the relativity to a particular

10 witness, what is the procedure that is followed? Because at that point in

11 time, I would think it that the originals are seized and not copies. So

12 that --

13 .

14 MR. DI FAZIO: That may not necessarily be so.

15 JUDGE AGIUS: I know it may not necessarily be so. But perhaps

16 she could go through all the procedure as it may vary from one case to

17 another, but she's just restricted -- limited herself to the case when a

18 witness is being interviewed and this witness hands over copies of

19 originals.

20 .

21 MR. DI FAZIO: I'll --

22 JUDGE AGIUS: That's only part of the scenario --

23 .

24 MR. DI FAZIO: Of course.

25 JUDGE AGIUS: -- which is much, much bigger. So now you've heard

Page 359

1 what I've said perhaps it's not matter of Mr. Di Fazio putting the

2 question. You can enlighten us on these issues. I understand from other

3 cases that you do have a standard policy and standard instructions on how

4 to go about acquiring -- acquiring evidence, documents in particular. So

5 please deal with the matter from beginning to end, different scenarios

6 that you have on the ground when an investigator is involved in the

7 acquisition of evidence.

8 .

9 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours -- if Your Honour pleases, I

10 understand your concern and with respect it's quite a good -- a very

11 legitimate concern, and I intend to adduce evidence of precisely what is

12 concerning you.

13 JUDGE AGIUS: Go ahead. I leave the witness in your hands.

14 .

15 MR. DI FAZIO: This witness was in fact involved in just such a

16 seizure and I intend to come to that to recount her personal experience

17 and then ask her to comment if that's general practice.

18 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, yes, yes, yes.

19 .

20 MR. DI FAZIO: So that was the way I was going to construct, so it

21 I'll cover it.

22 JUDGE AGIUS: Go ahead, Mr. Di Fazio.

23 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you.

24 JUDGE AGIUS: And conduct your examination-in-chief in the way

25 which suits you best.

Page 360

1 .


3 Q. So we'll get to the larger seizures very shortly, but I'm now

4 talking about small individual seizures, for example, from a witness who

5 might be providing a statement. If that witness who is giving a statement

6 to an investigator also provides documents, what is the procedure at that

7 point of time when the documents are handed over to the investigator?

8 A. As I mentioned earlier, this is embodied in the statement

9 describing the document given. It forms part of a receipt and is annexed

10 to the statement. If the material or documents which is not relevant to

11 the investigation or usually the investigator gives a receipt to the

12 witness describing -- a receipt can be written by the investigators

13 describing the contents that was handed over and a receipt is provided to

14 the witness.

15 And when a copy is handed over to -- the investigating officer

16 examines the copy that was provided and to make sure that it's the true

17 copy of the original, and he or she signs the reverse side of the document

18 stating the same, whether it's a true version of the original.

19 Q. Thank you. And now I want to move to a -- the larger operations

20 that His Honour touched upon. But before I do that, can I just ask you to

21 look at items 103 to 107 on your annex list. Now, I'm referring to the

22 column that appears on the extreme left-hand side that at the top is

23 headed with the words "pre-trial exhibit number." Do you see that column?

24 A. Yes, I do.

25 Q. And I'll ask you to comment on the actual structure of the

Page 361

1 spreadsheet?

2 MR. DI FAZIO: 103 to 107, page 7 of the document. 103 to 107.

3 Q. You see there that you have commented in the right-hand side that

4 Steve Tedder seized the document from the Tuzla 2nd Corps collection.

5 Tuzla collection, 7th of October, 2002. Do you see that?

6 A. Yes, I do.

7 Q. Are you aware of that particular search and seizure and mission --

8 search and seizure operation, I should say, and mission?

9 A. Yes, I do.

10 Q. Did you personally participate?

11 A. Yes, I participated in this mission.

12 Q. And were there a number of officers from the OTP involved in the

13 particular mission?

14 A. Yes. There were a number of investigators, analysts, and lawyers

15 involved in this mission.

16 Q. And it stretched over a number of days, I believe.

17 A. The search took place one day, the actual search itself, and the

18 examining of the documents was done the following day.

19 Q. And were many documents seized on that occasion?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. So I'd like you to address His Honour's question. Explain the --

22 JUDGE AGIUS: [Microphone not activated] ...because in the annex

23 here the first of these documents indeed refer to the date 7 October 2002.

24 Then 106 refers to 7 October 2003, and 107 refers to 7 October 2004. That

25 is obviously a mistake, I would imagine, I mean, because I would imagine

Page 362

1 that they went back and on exactly the same day the following year and

2 then again on the exactly the same day the following year to three

3 subsequent years --

4 MR. DI FAZIO: I'm grateful for Your Honour's eagle eye.

5 JUDGE AGIUS: So that is, I presume, Ms. Manas, that that is to be

6 corrected. No?

7 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour, that's definitely an error --

8 JUDGE AGIUS: All right.

9 THE WITNESS: -- in the dates. But it's 2002. It was the Tuzla

10 mission.


12 Q. Thanks for correcting that. Now, can you tell Their Honours the

13 procedure that was adopted on that occasion where large numbers of

14 documents were being seized by officers in the field?

15 A. This mission was a result of a search warrant which was issued by

16 Judge Hunt in July of that year, and eventually it happened to be a

17 consensual search. The whole team went to this 2nd Corps -- the 2nd Corps

18 headquarters in Tuzla and the barracks in Tuzla. I can say it's -- Your

19 Honours, just allow me to get the names of the places.

20 Q. Just a moment. What are you referring to as you flick over?

21 A. These are my notes relating to the document searches. If I --

22 Q. I see. Notes that you created in anticipation of testifying?

23 A. That's right. Am I allowed to use these notes, Your Honour?

24 Q. Only with the Court's permission.

25 JUDGE AGIUS: The practice here is to allow this on -- on the

Page 363

1 condition that if any of the parties, either Defence or Prosecution, want

2 to see those notes you need to make them available. Yes, Mr. Jones.

3 MR. JONES: We have no objection to the witness referring to her

4 notes.

5 JUDGE AGIUS: And I suppose there is no objection on your part.

6 MR. DI FAZIO: Certainly no objection. If the Defence wants a

7 copy -- I don't have a copy with me, but --

8 JUDGE AGIUS: It's apparently not necessary. If it is necessary

9 and --

10 MR. JONES: We would appreciate that, certainly.

11 MR. DI FAZIO: Perhaps during the break if that's convenient.

12 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Please go ahead.


14 Q. Yes, please refer to your notes and --

15 A. This was a one-day search on the 24th of July, 2002 by four teams

16 of the OTP at several sites in Tuzla, including the 2nd Corps headquarters

17 located in street Ulica Muharema Fizovica and the Husein Kapetan

18 Gradasevic barracks. We were allowed to enter these premises and obtain

19 documents.

20 Q. Good. Thank you. Now, tell Their Honours how the process of

21 seizing, recording and taking away of the documents occurs.

22 A. Your Honour, I can only talk about the part that I was involved

23 in. To be more specific, I was the team leader of a specific search, and

24 my search team personnel contained investigators and language assistants,

25 and one of the investigators was an evidence custodian. And as a result

Page 364

1 of the search, as documents were handed over, the evidence custodian

2 recorded the searches in a property -- property seizure register form. It

3 describes -- we assigned a number and described from which shelf and

4 basically a brief description of what the document may contain and the

5 person who handed over the document to the evidence custodian.

6 Q. I don't want to lead you, but just so that -- I want to be clear.

7 Is it the case that one officer acts the exhibits custodian and keeps this

8 form called a property seizure record and the other officers bring to him

9 documents that they have seized and he then enters details onto that

10 particular form?

11 A. That's true, they way you described it.

12 Q. Once that's happened, does he take the documents into his

13 possession?

14 A. Yes. The documents are taken into possession and it is stored in

15 a secure place, as I said. On the day later, which was the 25th, we went

16 through the documents again in the presence of the evidence custodian to

17 see -- to make sure that the documents we are taking are really the

18 relevant documents, so to speak. A final -- a final selection before we

19 send the rest of the selection to The Hague.

20 Q. And do you know how documents that -- large quantities of

21 documents that are seized in the field in such operations are actually

22 sent back to The Hague or does it differ from -- on each occasion?

23 A. In this case each stack of documents were individually secured

24 with plastic covers and were placed in a large box and sealed in Tuzla.

25 And in this particular mission, we had a member of the evidence unit

Page 365

1 present with us, and it was easier that way. So he took possession of the

2 seized documents, and he -- it was brought to The Hague in the UN plane,

3 in the custody of the evidence custodian officer.

4 Q. Can you tell the Court if from your knowledge and based on the

5 experience that you've had here at the Office of the Prosecutor since

6 1995, the last nine years, whether that procedure is normally adopted in

7 search operations and seizure operations in the field?

8 A. Yes. This is the normal procedure. It's a standing -- a standard

9 operating procedure for investigation division which all officers are

10 familiar with the procedures and they comply with it. I should say they

11 should comply with it.

12 Q. Okay. Now, we've discussed -- you've given evidence of two types

13 of seizure, we'll call them the smaller individual seizure that might be

14 conducted by a single officer who might be interviewing a witness and

15 these larger seizures. I want you to refocus back now on the smaller

16 seizure where a single officer might be seizing one or two or three or a

17 smaller number of documents.

18 Once the officer has taken the document, completed his receipt or

19 written it into the body of the statement, the fact of its receipt, does

20 he keep custody of the document?

21 A. Yes. He keeps safe custody of the document until he comes back to

22 the office in The Hague.

23 Q. Right. Okay. Now, I want you to describe to the Court the

24 process that the officer is required to under -- to complete when he gets

25 back here.

Page 366

1 A. Once the officer gets back to the office, he's -- he or she is

2 supposed to immediately process the documents through our system, which

3 means if the document is in B/C/S, with the help of the language assistant

4 the officer compiles a summary of the document in order to fill in a IIF

5 or a MIF.

6 Q. They're obviously acronyms. What do they stand for; do you know?

7 A. India India Foxtrot stands for information index form, and MIF,

8 Mike India Foxtrot stands for the mini version of the IIF.

9 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please, we might invent new words

10 today, IIFing and MIFing, and so if I use those words, I apologise for

11 that. Thank you.

12 Q. Now, I'd like to focus on the IIF form. Before I do, is there any

13 essential difference between the MIF and the IIF form?

14 A. No. It's a mini version of the IIF. Just that -- only the

15 relevant fields are now UFO [phoen]. If Their Honours allow me, I can

16 show you copies of it so you know what I'm talking about.

17 JUDGE AGIUS: I think it's a good idea, Mr. Di Fazio. Let's -- if

18 we are going to MIF and IIF, I think we better start with the hard copies.

19 MR. DI FAZIO: May I just see one before it's handed up to the

20 Bench.

21 [Trial Chamber confers]

22 JUDGE AGIUS: I don't suppose we need these as exhibits.

23 Mr. Jones, we can --

24 MR. DI FAZIO: I'm in Your Honour's hands. If you want to mark

25 them --

Page 367

1 JUDGE AGIUS: As an exhibit. I mean, we will consider them as

2 evidence in accordance with the guidelines that we gave you yesterday,

3 what we considered to be evidence, items that are just shown to us and

4 which are not really tendered into --

5 MR. JONES: -- exhibited, useful to have copies, if we could have

6 copies as an example.

7 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. As far as we are concerned, I don't think we

8 need more exhibits than we have already.

9 MR. DI FAZIO: I understand Your Honour's sentiments. We won't --

10 I'll provide copies to the Defence.

11 Q. All right. Now, the -- I want you to tell the Chamber, the Trial

12 Chamber, of the -- the important information that has to go into a MIF or

13 IIF form. Firstly, the officer fills out the form?

14 A. Yes. The officer fills out the form, and of course this is done

15 electronically. The important thing is the document date, the evidence

16 description, in the title --

17 Q. Just a minute. What is an evidence description? Tell the Trial

18 Chamber what --

19 A. Evidence description means the title, if the document has a title.

20 So you describe that. And a summary, a brief summary of the contents of

21 the document and any other comments which the investigator wants to add in

22 the evidence description field which he think it's relevant.

23 Q. Thank you. And does the document -- sorry, let me rephrase that.

24 Does the officer fill in details of the date of seizure, the name

25 of the seizing officer?

Page 368

1 A. Yes, he does.

2 Q. And am I correct that the -- I'm not talking about the large

3 seizures now. I'm only talking about the smaller seizures. Is it correct

4 that the officer who fills out the IIF or the MIF form will be the officer

5 who seized it in the field?

6 A. That's true. Or it could be somebody else who he hands it over

7 to. Say, for instance, another member of the team. For instance, he

8 brings a document to work in the team and it becomes too much for one

9 person to do. So another investigator can help out by filling in IIF.

10 But of course he will say he received it from, for instance, from me, the

11 person who gave him the document.

12 Q. So if an officer hands on the task of completing a MIF or an IIF

13 to some other officer, is he required to provide the other officer with

14 all the correct information to --

15 A. That's true.

16 Q. Thank you. Is there an item in the forms that refers to chain of

17 custody?

18 A. Yes. Because if it's a chain of custody, the officer has to

19 select the box.

20 Q. And what -- if the officer selects the box, what essentially does

21 that mean?

22 A. Chain of custody means that once it's chain of custody, the chain

23 has to be maintained all the way, meaning that once it's handed over to

24 the evidence unit and if another officer wants to view the document for --

25 for his investigation, the document is released from the evidence unit

Page 369

1 through a chain of custody which is a special register. So it shows that

2 the officer signing it out. So every time the document is signed out it

3 is reflected in this chain of custody. So you know where the -- the

4 movement of the document.

5 Q. And whenever MIF or IIF forms are completed, is a computer number

6 automatically generated?

7 A. Yes. The MIF is -- MIF number is automatically generated, and the

8 ERN number comes later once the documents are handed over to the evidence

9 unit.

10 Q. Okay. Now, I want you to tell the Trial Chamber of the process

11 that occurs after the IIF or the MIF form has been filled out. What does

12 the officer then do?

13 A. Once the document has been processed through the IIF or the MIF,

14 the actual exhibit or item is taken down to the evidence unit and handed

15 over to the evidence custodian. They have a special register. If Their

16 Honours will allow me to show what it looks like.

17 Q. May I have a quick look at it, please.

18 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, Your Honour. I thought I had it with me.

19 It's probably slipped off. Oh, just wait one moment.

20 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. You may proceed, Mr. Di Fazio.

21 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you for that.

22 Q. All right. Thank you for showing us the form.

23 A. So the -- the officer takes the evidence down to the evidence unit

24 and fills in the evidence register and hands it over to the evidence

25 custodian.

Page 370

1 Q. And --

2 A. And once that's done, it's in the custody of the evidence unit. A

3 day or two you -- an officer can view the document that he sent down to

4 the evidence unit on the electronic database.

5 Q. Thank you. Now, that's the process that occurs in the case of

6 smaller seizures that might be conducted by one or two or three officers.

7 Now, in these larger -- larger seizures that are conducted with a

8 larger number of officers, where many, many documents are involved, can

9 you tell the Trial Chamber what the procedure is there? Again, I'd like

10 to hear the process from the point at which the documents have all been

11 collated and the property seizure record that you referred to has been

12 completed out in the field. What happens from that point onwards?

13 A. As I described earlier, these documents are brought to the

14 evidence unit, and the officer -- well, after they are processed through

15 the evidence unit they acquire ERN numbers. These are unique numbers.

16 And any investigative team can search through the system and pick out

17 documents they wish to use during the investigation. And of course, the

18 documents they take will eventually be added to the investigation. So if

19 they find it relevant, they will -- if a particular document for the

20 evidence of that particular investigation.

21 Q. Thank you. I think you've jumped the gun a bit. What I'm

22 actually interested in is the process that occurs from the point at which

23 all the documents have been collated in the field. They've all been

24 collected, put into boxes or whatever, and transported back to The Hague,

25 to the OTP. Now, at this point how does the IIFing take place? Does the

Page 371

1 individual officer IIFed whatever documents he ceased or is the property

2 seizure record used to create the IIF forms or is it exactly the same as

3 the process you mentioned earlier?

4 A. No, it's not the same. The officer who seized the documents is

5 not necessarily completing the IIF. These large quantity of documents are

6 brought to The Hague. The investigator who is in charge of the

7 investigation or the team members usually undertake the task of IIFing

8 these documents based on the property seizure register I mentioned

9 earlier. On that information, he completes the IIFing or the MIFFing.

10 Q. Right. So from the property seizure record, anyone can see which

11 officer seized the document concerned and the place and date; is that

12 correct?

13 A. That's true.

14 Q. And can provide that information to the IIF or the MIF form.

15 A. Exactly. That's the way it's done.

16 Q. Now I'd like you to -- I'm going to deal with something called

17 requests for assistance shortly, but before I do, I just want you to

18 provide some very brief comments about your annex. Do you have it in

19 front of you? Just the first page. First page, in fact. Page 1, let's

20 have a look at that.

21 The first column on the left is the -- is headed pre-trial exhibit

22 number. Do you see that?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Is this annex that you created based on a document that was

25 provided to you that was the Prosecution's exhibit list?

Page 372

1 A. Yes, that's true.

2 Q. And did you add a column to this document?

3 A. Yes, I did, the last column.

4 Q. The one on the extreme right, "Seizure details."

5 A. That's true.

6 Q. And the item that you have provided in the seizure details is, as

7 I look at the document and as I understand it, the officers or person -

8 might not be a police officer or investigator, it might be a lawyer or a

9 military analyst, but person who seized the document?

10 A. That's true.

11 Q. From whom they seized the document?

12 A. Yes, that's true.

13 Q. The date of the document?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Sorry, the date of the seizure?

16 A. Seizure, that's right.

17 Q. All right. Let's look at the very first entry that you have at

18 item 15. That indicates that a Mr. Bart D'Hooge?

19 A. D'Hooge.

20 Q. Seized that from Mrs. Vidovic, the -- the Bosnian liaison officer

21 to the ICTY on the 2nd of November, 1997; is that correct?

22 A. These documents, I don't know what you have there. The 2nd of

23 September, 1997. Is that --

24 Q. Sorry, my -- what did I say? Sorry, my apologies. I can't read

25 properly. 2nd of September, 1997. That's right.

Page 373

1 A. That's true. This information, I based it on the IIF.

2 Q. And all of the entries in the column on the right-hand side that

3 you have created in your annex, do they all come from the IIF and the MIF

4 forms?

5 A. That's true.

6 Q. And I think that you were not personally responsible for seizing

7 any of the documents that you've commented on.

8 A. No, none on this list.

9 Q. Apart from actually participating in the Tuzla seizure that you've

10 already mentioned?

11 A. That's true.

12 Q. But the documents that you seized there aren't here. There are

13 other documents; correct?

14 A. That's true.

15 Q. I'll return to the annex in a little more detail shortly. I now

16 want to ask you about another method of acquiring documentation, and that

17 is the request for assistance. Please tell the Trial Chamber what a

18 request for assistance is.

19 A. Request for assistance is when we send out a request to the former

20 Yugoslavia or countries outside the former Yugoslavia for assistance

21 according to our rules and procedure of evidence, which is, I think, 39.

22 These requests are processed by the investigating officer, and it goes

23 through our request unit.

24 When a request is as a result of trial-related matter, it's got to

25 be approved by a senior trial attorney before it goes down to the request

Page 374

1 unit. And if it's still in its investigative stages, it's got to be

2 approved by the chief of investigation.

3 Once the request is approved by either parties, it goes down to

4 the request unit, and this goes to the respective liaison officers,

5 whether it's the BiH government or the RS, or any other government

6 organisation.

7 Q. Thank you. And if the request is accommodated and the government

8 concerned is able to meet the request, say, for example, in the case of a

9 document, will it then send the document here to the Office of the

10 Prosecutor?

11 A. Yes, that's right. It comes through the request unit and from the

12 request unit it's passed on to the specific person who requested for it or

13 to the team.

14 Q. Just -- I want to get down to the nitty-gritty of the actual

15 details. Once a request has gone out and a reply has been received, the

16 material's been received, and is the material actually sent to the

17 requests unit?

18 A. Yes. The requests unit take possession of it because they act in

19 between for the investigator and the liaison office.

20 Q. So the material has arrived. It's in the requests unit. What

21 does the requests unit do?

22 A. The request unit, of course when they send it out they log it in,

23 and when it comes in, they log it in and inform the respective

24 investigating officer or the team to take possession of the documents.

25 And one it's in possession of the requested person, that is the

Page 375

1 investigator on the team, the documents as such is IIFed or MIFFed and

2 processed as part of evidence.

3 Q. Using the procedure that you described before?

4 A. That's true.

5 Q. So in the case of documents that are obtained through request for

6 assistance, there is no field operation, there is no contact with the

7 person providing the document. The point at which the investigator or the

8 person concerned gets it is from the requests unit. They then take it to

9 the evidence unit and go through the process that you've already

10 described?

11 A. That's true.

12 Q. All right. Now, I want to turn to individual items in your

13 spreadsheet, please.

14 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Di Fazio, Judge Eser would like to put a

15 question which is relevant before we proceed any further. Thank you.

16 JUDGE ESER: Ms. Manas, you told us that you mostly have been

17 provided with copies. My question is why not with originals?

18 THE WITNESS: In most cases, Your Honour, we -- originals don't

19 exist. So if there's copies and someone can tell us these are the copies,

20 we take them. If there are originals, because we make copies of the

21 original and ask the parties to keep the original for the sake of the

22 trial. When they come they can use the originals.

23 JUDGE ESER: When you had received copies, you told us that you

24 would examine whether the copy is a true copy of the original. What was

25 the process of examining it?

Page 376

1 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour. I'm talking about when for

2 instance a witness gives you documentation during an investigation, during

3 the course of an interview, he or she probably has a document, say, for

4 instance, a medical certificate, et cetera. We ask the witness to keep

5 the original and we make a copy. That's what I mean. Examine it and see

6 it's a true copy of the original. But in a large search mission, in most

7 cases we do not come in contact with original documents. Most of them are

8 copies.

9 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Judge Eser.

10 Mr. Di Fazio, please proceed.


12 Q. Just following on from the question that Judge Eser asked you,

13 when officers go out into the field either in large searches or in smaller

14 searches involving smaller seizures, is it the case they sometimes get

15 original documents provided to them?

16 A. Yes, they do.

17 Q. Is it the case they sometimes get photocopies or copies of

18 documents provided to them?

19 A. Yes, they do.

20 Q. And if they're given a copy of a document but the person giving

21 them doesn't have the original, I take it there's little that they can do.

22 Now, what they can do in the circumstances is accept the copy of whatever

23 original document it was made from.

24 A. Yes. Because later on we can probably trace the original if there

25 is an original.

Page 377

1 Q. So many documents that might be referred to as an original

2 document in fact might sometimes be a copy of a document that was given

3 for the first time to someone in the field; is that correct?

4 A. Yes. Yes.

5 JUDGE AGIUS: In any case, just to make it clear, because at the

6 end of the day the bottom line is that we never see the originals here in

7 this courtroom unless it is necessary to have the original brought up from

8 the -- the -- from the place where they are -- they are kept for

9 verification or cross-reference. What you produce here is just

10 photocopies of what you have downstairs.

11 MR. DI FAZIO: In the main that is so, Your Honour, yes.

12 JUDGE AGIUS: Or upstairs.

13 MR. DI FAZIO: Your Honour is correct. That's mainly so.

14 JUDGE AGIUS: So we could be talking also of photocopies of

15 photocopies of photocopies sometimes. So that's to make it clear that

16 this is how it works here, and this is how it has to work, and then if we

17 need to make a confrontation with the original, as happened, for instance,

18 in the Brdjanin case, we needed to do that on several occasions, then we

19 do it. And the Prosecution are asked to bring forward the original that

20 they have, which could be a copy in itself, and then we will do that

21 exercise. But this is just to make things clear, that this is the

22 procedure that we follow here.

23 MR. DI FAZIO: I'm grateful to Your Honour.

24 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Mr. Di Fazio. Go ahead.

25 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you, Your Honour.

Page 378

1 Q. I'd like you to take you -- I'd like to take you through your

2 spreadsheet, your annex. I don't want to dwell too long on it because

3 it's in the main self-explanatory, but there are just some comments,

4 points at which I'd like a little further -- a little further explanation.

5 You have item 16, page 2 of your spreadsheet?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. This is an example. On that occasion it would seem from looking

8 at your right-hand column that a man called Dan Perry collected the

9 document from Milivoje Ivanisevic. In the Golden Card Hotel, Banja Luka.

10 Do you see that?

11 A. That's right, I see it.

12 Q. Dan Perry is a former investigator here?

13 A. He is a former investigator for the Oric investigation.

14 Q. And I think he's been gone for some years now. He's back in the

15 United States; is that correct?

16 A. Back to Canada.

17 Q. Canada.

18 JUDGE AGIUS: I don't think we need to go into the details where

19 each witness has gone back to.

20 MR. DI FAZIO: Fine.

21 JUDGE AGIUS: Whether they are still in the employ of the Tribunal

22 or whether they are gone. Most of them, I understand, are gone.

23 MR. DI FAZIO: Most of the matters I want to raise, Your Honour,

24 are just to -- small examples just to provide a little fuller picture of

25 the annex. And I'm not going to dwell on this. I'm certainly not going

Page 379

1 to go through each and every item.

2 JUDGE AGIUS: Exactly. But the point I wanted to make you don't

3 need to go into the detail of where the person who has left the Tribunal

4 has returned to.

5 MR. DI FAZIO: Oh, I see, fine.

6 JUDGE AGIUS: That would not be the way to go about it. We'll

7 avoid it in fact.


9 Q. Items 18 all the way through to 37 indicate that a Mr. Gamini

10 Wijeyesinghe took the documents concerned there from Jovicic Trivun, a

11 liaison officer from RS. RS is Republika Srpska; is that correct?

12 A. That's right.

13 Q. And you comment there response to RFA. Is RFA request for

14 assistance?

15 A. That's right. It's a particular one. It's 285.

16 Q. So in this particular case Mr. Wijeyesinghe would have gone

17 downstairs, collected the document, taken it to the evidence unit and gone

18 through the process that you described?

19 A. That's true.

20 Q. Thank you. And can I ask you to look now at items -- I'm sorry.

21 MR. DI FAZIO: Will Your Honours bear with me for just one moment.

22 JUDGE AGIUS: Certainly, Mr. Di Fazio.


24 Q. Item 59, page 4, all the way through to 93, page 6. There's a

25 whole collection of documents there. They would have been seized, I

Page 380

1 assume, all under one operation, again by that particular investigator.

2 A. Yeah, that's true.

3 Q. And another particularly large seizure that is mentioned here in

4 your -- in your evidence is item 241, page 15 of your declaration --

5 sorry, of your annex, continuing all the way to item 295 on page 20.

6 Again, that is another very large seizure conducted on the one operation;

7 correct?

8 A. Yes. It appears to be conducted by the military analyst team. I

9 can see the name is from the military analyst.

10 Q. Thank you. Throughout the list there appear various names. I

11 don't need to trouble the Trial Chamber with -- with the specific names,

12 but are there the names of military analysts from the Office of the

13 Prosecutor, lawyers, and investigators who receive documents either by way

14 of seizure or requests for assistance?

15 A. That's true.

16 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please, I've just about finished my

17 examination-in-chief, but I'd be grateful if I could have a little bit of

18 time to finally go through the list. There's one or two little items I

19 want to look at and then start the process of actually tendering the

20 documents that I wish to. It's ten minutes before time --

21 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, exactly. So I suggest that we break now, and

22 we will reconvene 25 -- would 25 minutes suit you, Mr. Di Fazio?

23 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes.

24 JUDGE AGIUS: Because if you require a little bit more we can

25 accommodate.

Page 381

1 MR. DI FAZIO: Half an hour.

2 JUDGE AGIUS: 30 minutes. Is that fine with you, Mr. Jones,

3 Ms. Vidovic?

4 So we will have a break of 30 minutes and then we conclude

5 with the examination-in-chief and we proceed with the tendering of the

6 documents, and then afterwards, of course, cross-examination.

7 --- Recess taken at 10.21 a.m.

8 --- On resuming at 10.53 a.m.

9 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Di Fazio. Did you have enough time to --

10 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes, I did.

11 JUDGE AGIUS: -- do what you needed to do?

12 MR. DI FAZIO: I'm grateful to Your Honours for the extra few

13 minutes. Both the Prosecution and the Defence were well able to use the

14 time.

15 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you as well, Mr. Di Fazio. I know how

16 cooperative you are.

17 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please, I am ready now to proceed

18 to the tendering process.


20 MR. DI FAZIO: There's just --


22 MR. DI FAZIO: There's just a couple of matters that I need to

23 point out. Because there's a large mass of documents that we will be

24 tendering, and I might add I express my gratitude to registry for all

25 their help in -- it's been a hard few days and I'm grateful to them for

Page 382












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 383

1 their assistance.

2 But there's a couple of items that I don't -- won't be tendering

3 today. They'll be P25 or what -- the space that occupies P25 will be left

4 blank, shall we say. P85 and P86. In addition, P96 and 97 represent --

5 the registry has copies of those particular documents or items of

6 evidence. I'm not sure what they are as I stand here, but the parties

7 haven't yet got them and they will be getting them go very shortly, but

8 nonetheless they can go in today, so there's no problems with that.

9 So P25, P85, and P86 I don't propose to tender. However, I now

10 seek to tender into evidence all of the remaining items from P1 to 260.

11 And if Your Honours please, the registry has also suggested that the

12 document that you had earlier in the proceedings on which there was a bit

13 of handwriting, I'm afraid, headed "Sanja's list" would be useful to the

14 Chamber as a -- as a working document for the tendering process. You will

15 have the --

16 JUDGE AGIUS: That's what I'm referring to.

17 MR. DI FAZIO: It will have the title of the item on it which is

18 good for identifying the particular item of evidence. So that's very

19 useful.

20 It's been suggested that I tender that particular document as

21 well. If --

22 JUDGE AGIUS: Of course if there is no objection.

23 MR. JONES: Your Honour, further to what was discussed yesterday I

24 want to make sure our objections are recorded at the appropriate time. If

25 now is appropriate for us to indicate which exhibits we object to, then I

Page 384

1 can do that.

2 JUDGE AGIUS: Because he said from number 1 but he haven't

3 finished.

4 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the Judge, please.

5 JUDGE AGIUS: My apologies for you. He mentioned exhibit number

6 one but he hasn't concluded the sentence as yet. So I take it you are

7 tendering up to 250, with the exception of 25, 85 and 86.

8 MR. DI FAZIO: That's right.

9 JUDGE AGIUS: Sorry, 260. 260 not 250.

10 MR. DI FAZIO: 260, yes.

11 JUDGE AGIUS: All right.

12 MR. DI FAZIO: With the exception of those three that I --

13 JUDGE AGIUS: Exactly, 25, 85, and 86.

14 MR. DI FAZIO: There are some difficulties with two of those

15 particular documents, so there's no point in putting them in at the

16 moment.

17 JUDGE AGIUS: Certainly. And I'll come to you, Mr. Jones, very

18 soon. It's with a --

19 MR. JONES: Obliged, Your Honour.

20 JUDGE AGIUS: So that --

21 MR. DI FAZIO: Not on the list that you have to think about, if

22 Your Honours please, is the document that the registry has suggested we

23 should tender and the Prosecution is only too happy oblige.

24 JUDGE AGIUS: And we agree we should have it in evidence at this

25 point.

Page 385

1 MR. DI FAZIO: And that finally leaves the declaration of this

2 witness and the attachment, the annex that she's testified about.

3 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's give them a number.

4 MR. DI FAZIO: They will have to be given separate -- separate

5 numbers.

6 JUDGE AGIUS: You have the numbers ready, Mr. Siller?

7 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, may I confirm I have all the

8 documents indicated in Sanja's list except of P80 -- the document

9 indicated under P86. The Sanja's list itself gets the Exhibit number

10 P261, and the declaration with the annex gets the Exhibit number P262

11 under seal.

12 JUDGE AGIUS: Sanja's list is P261. The declaration of the

13 witness is P262. And the annex which is -- it's the name one. All right.

14 It's not been given a separate number, in other words. It's not being

15 given a separate number. All right. I think that's fine.

16 Are you comfortable with that, Mr. Jones, the numbering, in other

17 words?

18 MR. JONES: Yes. Yes, Your Honour. There was another document we

19 were handed as well this morning which I understand the Prosecution is

20 intending to tender.

21 JUDGE AGIUS: I don't know about that.

22 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes. That is -- just let me explain what my

23 application is there, if Your Honours please. This is not a document that

24 is commented upon by this witness. Her evidence does not --

25 JUDGE AGIUS: So we can come to it later.

Page 386

1 MR. DI FAZIO: We can, but it will be useful to have this before

2 the Court before Monday for the handwriting experts but we --

3 JUDGE AGIUS: You want to tender it now, tender it now. I mean,

4 there is no problem with us.

5 MR. DI FAZIO: Fine. In that case I seek to tender --

6 JUDGE AGIUS: I don't know what document you're talking about

7 because obviously we haven't seen it. But if it is so important, tender

8 it now, we see it.

9 MR. DI FAZIO: The handwriting experts will touch upon it. And

10 that's why I want it in before they--

11 JUDGE AGIUS: Fair enough. Fair enough, Mr. Di Fazio.

12 MR. DI FAZIO: So if Your Honours please, can I please tender this

13 document headed order and dated the 11th of December, 1992 numbered 134 of

14 1992 apparently signed by the accused in this case. Copies are being

15 distributed. It's been disclosed to the Defence.

16 JUDGE AGIUS: And this will be given Exhibit number?

17 THE REGISTRAR: One is Your Honour P263.

18 JUDGE AGIUS: This will be given Exhibit number P263.

19 So do you have any further questions to the witness?

20 MR. DI FAZIO: No. Once the tendering process is complete, there

21 is just one very brief issue.

22 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

23 MR. DI FAZIO: Sorry. Let me repeat myself. There is just one

24 very brief issue and I'm grateful to Ms. Sellers for reminding me of it.

25 I'm going to finish my examination-in-chief with this witness, but I want

Page 387

1 to -- the Trial Chamber to know that we will be applying to recall, if

2 that's the right expression, or call again this witness to undergo the

3 same exercise that we've done this morning at some point I hope at a

4 convenient break and I hope fairly soon.

5 JUDGE AGIUS: That's what we would have expected in the first

6 place anyway, simply because we are pretty sure that this one -- this

7 exercise is not complete. It will not be completed today for sure.

8 So at this point in time, Mr. Jones, I -- you have these options:

9 You can start with your cross-examination straight away and then proceed

10 with a statement indicating the exhibits that the Defence has an objection

11 to for admissibility purposes, or else you can start precisely with this

12 statement and then proceed with the cross-examination. My suggestion is

13 that you start and finish with the cross-examination first so that the

14 witness can then leave and we can deal with the question of objections

15 which need not necessarily be debated in her presence.

16 MR. JONES: Certainly. I --

17 JUDGE AGIUS: It's up to you, Mr. Jones.

18 MR. JONES: I certainly agree that starting with the

19 cross-examination, then proceeding to our objections would be the most

20 appropriate course.

21 JUDGE AGIUS: I again thank you, Mr. Jones, and you may proceed.

22 You are now going to be cross-examined by the Defence. Thank you.


24 Cross-examined by Mr. Jones:

25 Q. Yes. Ms. Manas, in preparing for today and in preparing your

Page 388

1 declaration, you referred to the IIF and the MIF forms. Do you

2 additionally have access to any other notes taken by investigators in the

3 course of seizing documents?

4 A. Yes, we do. For instance, spreadsheets which are compiled on the

5 field itself while the documents are seized.

6 Q. And so the IIF form and the MIF form is already a summary of

7 information from various sources?

8 A. That's right.

9 Q. And the information which appears in the column, the final column

10 of Annex I to your declaration, the seizure details, that's -- that's a

11 further summary, isn't it?

12 A. That's right. It's based on the data that I looked at.

13 Q. So when we look at that column, seizure details, there may be

14 additional information about who some of the people or who some of the

15 places are which you have but which doesn't appear in that column. That's

16 right, isn't it?

17 A. This -- the information that appears in this column is based on

18 the IIF and the MIF and other documents I mentioned, like the

19 spreadsheets, searching through them. I just checked them to see if

20 everything is correct, and based on that I searched the IIF. Of course I

21 go through the original documents first and to whatever documents that

22 support that evidence and then the MIF or the IIF.

23 Q. Yes, I see. It's just to say that obviously there's more

24 information which you might have than appears in this column. So if I ask

25 you about it you might be able to elaborate?

Page 389

1 A. Yeah.

2 Q. Now, you've mentioned the IIF and the MIF forms. Now, just

3 dealing briefly with individual documents which are handed over, first of

4 all, if the person hands over a document to an investigator, would they

5 normally also explain where they got the document from and how they came

6 to have it?

7 A. Naturally, yes. It's embodied in the statement.

8 Q. So it's common practice that the witness would explain, "I

9 received this document from this source and that's how I come to have it"?

10 A. Exactly.

11 Q. So if that's not in the witness statement, it's -- that

12 information is incomplete?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. It wouldn't be in accordance with the proper practice.

15 A. Yes. Or it might be recorded elsewhere, for instance in a receipt

16 which is -- for instance, if an investigator is not taking a statement

17 from the witness, maybe an investigative note. So just a receipt given to

18 the person who submitted the document or the evidence.

19 Q. So generally whenever a document, an individual document, is given

20 to an investigator, the information should be available as to where that

21 person got the document from?

22 A. Yes. If the information is available to the investigator.

23 Q. And you have guidelines on that sort of thing as well, don't you?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Are they published guidelines? Were they -- or are they

Page 390

1 confidential to the OTP?

2 A. Confidential to the OTP. I'm not sure on that, but I think it's

3 an office operating procedure.

4 Q. Now, I'd like to start really by just establishing the parameters

5 of your evidence here today. Your testimony is, essentially, as to the

6 source of documents, isn't it?

7 A. That's correct.

8 Q. This document from this place or that place?

9 A. Uh-huh.

10 Q. So it's right to say, isn't it, that if a document has in any way

11 been manipulated, if a signature has been added or a stamp added, if

12 information has been added to the document later but before it was

13 delivered to the Office of the Prosecutor, that's not something you would

14 know about at all?

15 A. No. Unless it's brought to your attention and if the investigator

16 finds the discrepancies, of course we follow further investigation on

17 that.

18 Q. -- explained that, "I've added this signature or I've added this

19 stamp"?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. So the investigator might not know about that and you wouldn't

22 know about that, if there had been manipulation before it was delivered

23 and the person didn't divulge to you that they had manipulated of the

24 document?

25 A. Yeah, I think so.

Page 391

1 Q. So just to be absolutely clear, if someone sat at home, typed a

2 letter up today but dating it October 1992, they put someone's name, take

3 someone's signature, put it in the collection or hand it to an

4 investigator, that's not something you would know that that had been done.

5 You would just say that was in this collection or this was taken from this

6 person on that occasion. That's right, isn't it?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. It's also true, isn't it, that you wouldn't know or your testimony

9 doesn't go to the issue of whether a document has actually been received

10 where it appears to have been sent? So in other words, if you have --

11 sorry. I need to slow down, I think, probably. I'll go very slowly.

12 If you have a document, let's say a letter which states that it's

13 copied to various persons, you wouldn't know whether that document had

14 actually been received in this other location just based on the document

15 yourself, would you? You would just -- you would just include that

16 document in your evidence unit?

17 A. During your searches you come across in document where it was cc'd

18 to the person who received it as a stamp of the office or corresponds in

19 respect of that document, then, yes, you would come to know whether that

20 person actually received that document.

21 Q. Right. It's something you can sometimes discover by other means.

22 But on the face of the documents which you collect, you wouldn't know and

23 you don't necessarily try to establish whether it was received or not?

24 A. No.

25 Q. Now, on the subject of chain of custody, you've mentioned how the

Page 392

1 IIF form, I think, has a box on chain of custody. It's right, isn't it,

2 that that's chain of custody, once the document is with the ICTY, with the

3 OTP. It doesn't deal with the chain of custody before the document

4 reached the OTP?

5 A. When this comes into the hands of the investigating officer or

6 other personnel from the OTP investigation, no.

7 Q. In that sense, it's a partial chain of custody, isn't it, in the

8 sense that you know the chain of custody from when the OTP gets the

9 document, but from the moment the document was created until the OTP

10 received it, you don't record how many hands it went through?

11 A. Of course you try to establish that, and if the information is

12 provided, you make record of that.

13 Q. Your forms deal only with chain of custody in the OTP, that box

14 which you mentioned.

15 A. From the time it comes into possession of the OTP investigation

16 staff.

17 Q. You say it's not a complete black hole. You may have information

18 about where the person claims they got the document from and who they got

19 it from back to the source of the document on some occasions?

20 A. Uh-huh.

21 Q. But that's not included on this spreadsheet? The spreadsheet

22 deals with when the OTP officer gets the document.

23 A. But on the IIF itself will tell you the originator, the

24 originator, the writer of the document. So if that's available, you fill

25 that field in.

Page 393

1 Q. By originator you mean what, the author?

2 A. The author of the document.

3 Q. Which I imagine is pretty rare?

4 A. In most cases there is an author to a document. You can assess it

5 by the signature or who it is addressed to.

6 Q. In those cases, the author of the document doesn't actually

7 provide you with the document there and then?

8 A. No.

9 Q. It would be very rare?

10 A. Not the case. Yeah.

11 Q. Now, just before I come to some specific questions, you've spoken

12 of collections, seizing collections versus someone who hands over

13 documents voluntarily to you, individual documents and then requests from

14 the Tribunal. Now, on requests, I understood you to say that if a request

15 is made, then the response is sent to your requests unit in the OTP. Is

16 that always true or presumably on some occasions someone in the field will

17 meet with an official and they'll say, "Here's this document which you

18 requested"?

19 A. Well, there's many ways to obtain documents, and one of them is

20 through requests through the other governments as I described during my

21 evidence. And of course during investigation in the field, a person can

22 come up to you and provide you documents.

23 Q. Yes. Just to clarify, because in your evidence you seem to be

24 saying that RFAs always went straight to your request unit, whereas of

25 course I imagine it must be the case that sometimes an officer in the

Page 394

1 field receives documents pursuant to an RFA?

2 A. Well, that specific incident I was talking about requests for

3 assistance. The other thing you're talking about is when an officer is in

4 the field and somebody approaches him or her and provides documents, or

5 during an interview documents are provided. It's different from an RFA.

6 Q. One further preliminary question, and it's really following up on

7 what the learned Judge Eser asked you. If you have a document which

8 you're provided with, let's say an original, and you then make a copy, is

9 it right to say that you don't actually -- you, the officer or the

10 investigator doesn't certify this copy matches the original I've just

11 copied. That isn't part of the process?

12 A. It is part of the process. It is part of the Rules.

13 Q. In any document in the custody of the OTP we'll see a signature

14 saying this -- "I certify this conforms to the original"?

15 A. You can't do that in a large collection. When an investigator is

16 given individual documents in the field, yes, of course we do that. We

17 see the original and certify the copy as a true copy of the original on

18 the reverse side. And in large quantities of documents, you would -- you

19 can do one spreadsheet itemising the documents and a signature to the

20 witness to say it's a true copy of the original. You've seen that.

21 Q. Now, I'd like to tender some specific items in your spreadsheet,

22 and I'm working from Annex I which I believe we all have, and that

23 numbering. And I'd like to refer you first to item 16 and 17. And also

24 to your proofing notes, if you have those before you?

25 A. Yes, I do.

Page 395

1 Q. Yes. In fact, as to the proofing notes, it's in fact on the ERN

2 numbers page. It's really just to clarify this point. In the

3 spreadsheet, it's stated that Dan Perry seized those documents from

4 Banja Luka, various places in Banja Luka. In your note, you say: "Items

5 16 and 17 show that the documents were seized by RS officials, although

6 I'm not sure."

7 Why are you not sure?

8 A. Well, I wasn't present. Based on the information provided by

9 the -- on the IIF, I gather that this is what happened. The Prosecutor

10 asked me if I knew these individuals, and that's why I said I do not know

11 them, and I do not know the circumstances surrounding the manner in which

12 Mr. Perry obtained these documents. But based on the information

13 provided, that is what I have.

14 Q. That's surely true of all the items where you weren't actually

15 present?

16 A. No.

17 Q. You were receiving it as a secondary source?

18 A. But from the Tuzla collection, I was present during the search

19 operation. So I'm aware of the procedures that took place there.

20 Q. For some reason you have special doubts about items 16 and 17.

21 A. I don't have any special doubts. I -- I cannot -- no, I don't

22 have any doubts about that.

23 Q. It's simply --

24 A. It's simply the information I obtained was from the IIF.

25 Q. Let's deal with item 16. And you have Milivoje Ivanisevic

Page 396

1 providing the document to Dan Perry. Who is he? Who is Mr. Ivanisevic?

2 Is he an official?

3 A. He is an official of the RS.

4 Q. Republika Srpska. If you have your notes and you need to refer to

5 them for more detail, that would be helpful.

6 Do your notes record where he got the document from?

7 A. No. Which means I have to go and tell you from a specific IIF,

8 and I don't have that specific IIF with me. Mr. Daniel Perry can answer

9 those questions. I'm not in a position to answer that.

10 Q. I understood you had access to notes prepared by the

11 investigators?

12 A. Not all notes I have access to. Now, looking a bit further down

13 where you have documents received from Jovicic Trivun. I'm not sure I'm

14 pronouncing that correctly. He's the Republika Srpska liaison officer,

15 isn't he; is that right.

16 A. That's right.

17 Q. Now, it's right to say, isn't it, that he's just a conduit? He's

18 a go-between?

19 A. Uh-huh, that's true.

20 Q. He's not actually the source of the document. He gets the

21 document from somewhere else?

22 A. That's true.

23 Q. Now, do you have information as to where he got the document from

24 in each case? Is it just as a general matter you would record that,

25 wouldn't you?

Page 397

1 A. [Microphone not activated] ...provided to the investigating

2 officer.

3 Q. So for the spreadsheet to be complete, you wouldn't say, "We

4 received it from the postman." You would say who you really -- who the

5 source was. That information is available to you?

6 A. Yes. Because now I'll have to go and look at the specific RFA 285

7 and see the response to that, and in that RFA it will tell you where

8 exactly Mr. Jovicic received the documents from.

9 Q. Simply to clarify what your spreadsheet contains and what other

10 information might be out there.

11 If I could turn to item 38. Now, there, the seize our details

12 that Carolyn Edgerton received that document from Fikret Masic from AID

13 Sarajevo. Is that correct?

14 A. Yes. Based on the IIF information, yes.

15 Q. You've checked that to be correct.

16 A. Pardon?

17 Q. You've checked that specific information to be correct?

18 A. Yes. Based on the IIF information.

19 Q. AID Sarajevo and the date?

20 A. That's true.

21 Q. That's all correct. Okay. I want to refer you to items 49 to 57.

22 And this concerns the material seized from Colonel Sarenac. And I think

23 your evidence this morning was that that was a seizure. Those documents

24 were seized. It was a collection that was seized.

25 A. That's right.

Page 398

1 Q. Is that correct?

2 A. Uh-huh.

3 Q. Does that mean that it wasn't -- it wasn't a voluntary handing

4 over of documents, it was a coercive seizure?

5 A. There were many types of seizures. This was a consensual

6 hand-over done by the authorities themselves. From the notes I've been

7 reading on this, the investigators were present and these documents were

8 brought over to them.

9 Q. Right. So in fact, this was more of a selection of documents

10 being handed over by an official than the seizure of a whole collection,

11 like the Sarajevo collection; is that right?

12 A. It's different.

13 Q. Now, we see that that's Colonel Sarenac but then we have a

14 building, a military defence building. Obviously it's not --

15 A. Location. It would be referring to a location.

16 Q. It's not just --

17 A. Military defence building, Banja Luka.

18 Q. Right. But obviously Colonel Sarenac isn't just loitering in the

19 corridors. Presumably he has some position and that building is a

20 government department or something of that nature?

21 A. For instance, it says Steve Tedder from Colonel Rajko Sarenac

22 means that he received it from this colonel, and the location is a

23 military defence building in Banja Luka, 13th of July, 2001.

24 Q. So my question is: What agency is in that building? What

25 government department does Colonel Sarenac work for? Do you have that

Page 399

1 information?

2 A. No, I don't. You'd have to ask Mr. Steve Tedder.

3 Q. So you don't know why he happens to have all these documents?

4 A. No.

5 Q. Can I refer you now it items 59 to 94. And these are documents

6 taken from Major Ronko Todorovic. And firstly the same question: Was

7 this a coercive seizure or was this a voluntary handing over of documents?

8 A. It's a voluntary hand-over of documents.

9 Q. Now it appears looking at the description of the documents that

10 they're all to do with imprisonment, with the detention charges in this

11 indictment, interrogations of prisoners mostly. That's right, isn't it?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. These documents were taken from the 5th Corps headquarters Sokolac

14 of Republika Srpska. That's right, isn't it?

15 A. That's right. My notes, if you want me to tell you how they got

16 in possession of those.

17 Q. Actually, let's take it one step at a time. The 5th Corps,

18 presumably that's a normal army division of the Republika Srpska. Did you

19 have any reason why they have the whole detention file against Naser

20 Oric --

21 MR. DI FAZIO: My learned friend is stretching things a bit there.

22 There's no evidence that they have the whole detention file against Naser

23 Oric. Only the face of the document, it -- the observation can be made --

24 JUDGE AGIUS: I don't think you need to continue, Mr. Di Fazio.

25 It's objection. Objection sustained. Thank you.

Page 400

1 MR. JONES: I'm obliged, Your Honour.

2 Q. Well, do we know what agency, if indeed there is an agency or a

3 division in the 5th Corps, had these documents in its possession? Is that

4 clear from your notes?

5 A. From my notes it says according to -- according to the mission

6 order, the VRS Drina Corps obtained the documents issued by ABiH

7 authorities at some unknown time and transferred them to the VRS 5th Corps

8 headquarters in Sokolac.

9 Q. So the 5th Corps of Republika Srpska received the documents from

10 the Drina Corps, which is a Bosnian Serb army division. They got the

11 documents from the ABiH, the army of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina at

12 some disclosed time, the documents from the enemy during the conflict;

13 correct?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. You don't know when, all right. But you don't have any further

16 details as to what agency or division within the 5th Corps, whether it's,

17 I don't know, counter-intelligence, propaganda, misinformation, you don't

18 have any details of which specific part of this regular army division had

19 these documents in its custody?

20 A. No. I -- I think the investigators who were present during this

21 collection can answer that question.

22 JUDGE AGIUS: Incidentally, is Dan Perry still in the employ of

23 the Tribunal or not?

24 THE WITNESS: No, Your Honour.

25 JUDGE AGIUS: And the other person that was mentioned earlier,

Page 401

1 Steve Tedder?

2 THE WITNESS: Yes. He's also not an employee any more.

3 JUDGE AGIUS: This is the problem that is encountered most of the

4 time, and that's why I suggested in the very beginning to get one person

5 who would make the necessary searches and then try to enlighten us as much

6 as she could, and I think more or less you have -- Madam Manas, you have

7 done a wonderful job.

8 THE WITNESS: Thank you.

9 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.

10 MR. JONES: Certainly. There is never any criticism if Ms. Manas

11 doesn't have -- no information, she relies on the investigator's notes.

12 JUDGE AGIUS: Exactly. But it's good to know whether the

13 persons -- because when you tell us you can check it with Dan Perry,

14 well, I mean if we can locate Dan Perry and if need be we can bring him

15 over, yes, but it's also useful to know here and now that he's no longer

16 in the employ of the Tribunal.

17 MR. JONES: Yes, indeed, Your Honour.

18 JUDGE AGIUS: Sorry for having interrupted you.

19 MR. JONES: Not at all.

20 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Jones, you may proceed.


22 Q. If I could now turn to item 97. Now, there we have a document

23 supplied by the Netherlands Institute for War Documentation. It's also

24 known as NIOD, I believe; is that right?

25 A. I'm not sure about the other word that you mentioned. Yes, it was

Page 402

1 obtained from the Netherlands Institute of War Documentation.

2 Q. Is that -- I think I'm right in saying that that's the only

3 document provided by them on your spreadsheet?

4 A. Yes, it would appear so.

5 Q. That document doesn't appear to be to have been provided in

6 response to a request for assistance. It was voluntarily provided; is

7 that right?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Your notes say where they got that document from.

10 A. You mean Professor Blom?

11 Q. Yes. Where Professor Blom in the Netherlands got a document from

12 an interview which was taken in Bosnia?

13 A. It says Netherlands Institute of War Documentation. So I would

14 assume that investigative interviews were conducted with witnesses and

15 they were documented.

16 Q. You assumed that the investigators from Netherlands institute

17 interviewed Mr. Sarac?

18 A. Yes. Because I didn't see the actual -- the whole documentation.

19 I would say, "Here's the interview" --

20 Q. I think it's right. Sorry for interrupting you. I think it's

21 right to say and I don't think it's in dispute. This was an interview

22 which was done by Judge Eric, Slavisa Eric. I don't know if that's

23 something which appears in your notes. Ms. Manas, I don't know if that's

24 in your notes?

25 A. No.

Page 403

1 Q. My apologies, Judge Vaso Eric. Just for the record. I'll be

2 corrected if that's wrong.

3 Now, if we could just turn to items 196 to 198 and it's also 201

4 to 202, documents which have been provided by Tihomir Jovanovic in the

5 Srebrenica police station. Now, Don King, is he an investigator or a

6 lawyer or a military analyst?

7 A. He's an investigator working at the Sarajevo field office.

8 Q. And who is Tihomir Jovanovic, if your notes tell you? Because

9 again we have the problem of a person in a building but we don't know who

10 the person is.

11 A. He's an official of the VRS government.

12 Q. Your notes say what sort of official, what his post is?

13 A. No. Sorry.

14 Q. That's all right. Now, this is really again just my own

15 understanding. If I can refer you to item 223 and item 224. Those

16 documents - I don't know if this is in your notes - that were previously

17 designated as E37 and E39 and we're wondering what happened to E38. I

18 don't know if you can help us with that. Do your notes have those exhibit

19 numbers in a binder E, 37 to 39? We seem to have lost E38.

20 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please, I think that the

21 designation E with the numbers was not a creation of this witness but was

22 part of the exhibit list. It was a designation on our exhibit list that I

23 later caused to be removed to keep the numbers going in sequence.

24 MR. JONES: Perhaps we can take it up in another forum.

25 JUDGE AGIUS: -- explains the situation.

Page 404

1 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you so much, Mr. Di Fazio. Thank you.


3 Q. Now, items 239 to 240, we have John Elford receiving documents.

4 Again, who is John Elford, if you can help us with that?

5 A. He's a military analyst from the military analyst team. Still

6 employed.

7 Q. Now, there we just have a street address, Filipa Visnjaca Street,

8 in Bijeljina. Who in fact -- what person or what agency provided those

9 documents, if you know?

10 A. Sorry.

11 Q. That's all right. Take your time.

12 A. From my notes, it appears that this was a search pursuant to a

13 search warrant. I have the notes on it; it's not very clear. It's

14 photocopied, so I don't know which Judge issued it. It was an operation

15 called city port, October 2003. As a result --

16 Q. Would it assist -- please continue if you can summarise the

17 search.

18 A. The search was a result of a search warrant as I mentioned. I

19 cannot tell you what Judge because the photocopies I have are very poor

20 quality.

21 Q. The Judge is less important than whether it was a warrant for the

22 search of the premises of a person or an agency?

23 A. It was for a search for -- if I can gather, this is for a private

24 residence, somebody's dwelling, and the rest was public premises, OBS

25 building. Unfortunately, I do not know what OBS building stands for, OBS.

Page 405

1 Q. You don't know who lived at Filipa Visnjaca Street?

2 A. I don't have that information.

3 Q. And similar questions for the OBS building in Dobrovol-Sacka

4 Rogatica. Again, what is this building? Is there --

5 JUDGE AGIUS: The OBS is probably opstina. It's a municipality

6 probably. I don't know --

7 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

8 JUDGE AGIUS: We can find -- we can find out later. I'm sure it

9 can be verified.

10 MR. JONES: Certainly, Your Honour. It's really just to get a bit

11 more information on some of these entries because some of them are a bit

12 mystifying to us.

13 Q. Dobrovol-Sacka, for example, is that a place or...

14 A. It's a place and it's in Rogatica, according to this property

15 seizure record. I think --

16 Q. Do you have any information as to why this -- all these documents

17 were held in that building?

18 A. No, I don't.

19 Q. But it was a government agency or department or...

20 A. Definitely a government agency.

21 Q. You see at item 274, Tomislav Puhalac. Who is he again? Is he a

22 private individual or an official of the Republika Srpska?

23 A. Official Republika Srpska.

24 MR. JONES: Your Honours, may we have a moment? We need to take

25 some instructions from our client.

Page 406

1 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, certainly.

2 MR. JONES: We may have arrived at what OBS stands for. It may

3 be -- and I'll put it to Ms. Manas, if it's in her notes. I'm not sure if

4 I can pronounce that "Obavjestajno Belbjednosna Sluzba." Which perhaps if

5 the interpreters could -- my apologies. The intelligence service. I

6 think that's -- is that something reflected in your notes?

7 JUDGE AGIUS: Sort of the security services --

8 MR. JONES: Yes.

9 JUDGE AGIUS: -- centre.

10 THE WITNESS: It doesn't specifically mention security service.


12 Q. There is no mention of it?

13 A. No, no mention of it.

14 Q. Security service. Okay. And do you happen to know whether in

15 Rogatica there is some special security agency?

16 A. No. I haven't been to that part of the world, sorry.

17 Q. So we move on to the last few items I wanted to ask you about

18 which is items 419 to 420. There we have documents being received in the

19 Republika Srpska bureau for cooperation with the ICTY. Do you notes

20 provide a number of the person who actually provided those documents

21 within that bureau.

22 A. No.

23 Q. Do you have in your notes any names of people in the RS bureau who

24 were providing documents in this case?

25 A. That's all we have on that, I'm sorry.

Page 407

1 Q. You don't have the name Di Miletic [phoen]?

2 A. No.

3 Q. Just a couple of final questions. You can put aside the

4 spreadsheet because it won't concern that document. I just want to run

5 another name past you which is Dordevic of the RS bureau. Is that a name

6 you're familiar with?

7 A. It doesn't appear in my spreadsheet or my notes, no.

8 Q. It does, actually. If you see item 129, Sinisa Dordevic.

9 A. Oh, it's spelled differently.

10 Q. My apologies.

11 A. Reading the screen.

12 Q. It's in your spreadsheet so I assume that's correct.

13 A. Sinisa Dordevic, yes.

14 Q. Now, a final general couple of questions about procedures in the

15 OTP for checking sources. Now, if someone says, "I received this document

16 from source X," let's say, do you try and verify that indeed the document

17 was received from that source by some other means?

18 A. Yes, we do.

19 Q. For example, looking to see whether the document which you've been

20 provided with appears in some register of documents which would have been

21 sent or received? That's part of your practice?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. So if you have a document which you're checking the source of and

24 it doesn't appear on one of these registers, is that something which is

25 entered in your internal system so that you know that there's possibly a

Page 408

1 discrepancy?

2 A. Yes, it is entered.

3 Q. You keep track of that?

4 A. Keep track, yeah.

5 Q. Do you also keep track of sources which have been impeached?

6 Let's say -- let's say someone, a person who has provided documents and

7 found to be untrustworthy, is he then blacklisted or somehow you keep

8 track of the fact that that person has provided false or dubious

9 documents? Is that something that you do?

10 A. Yes, we do.

11 MR. JONES: Those are my questions.

12 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Di Fazio, is there a re-examination?

13 MR. DI FAZIO: Just one question.

14 JUDGE AGIUS: Take your time. I just checked if we have questions

15 we don't.

16 MR. DI FAZIO: I've only got one question. Thank you, Your

17 Honours.

18 Re-examined by Mr. Di Fazio:

19 Q. You were asked about seizures from the 5th Corps of

20 Republika Srpska dealing with items 59 onwards in your list. In 59

21 essentially they're concerning the seizures by Dan Perry from Major Ronko

22 Todorovic, 5th Corps headquarters, Sokolac. The seizures all seem to be

23 dated in July of 2001. During the course of Mr. Jones's

24 cross-examination, he asked you if the documents were said to be seized --

25 these documents seized by Dan Perry, whether those documents were seized

Page 409

1 during the conflict, during the war, during the war. Now, I understood

2 him to be saying whether the Serbs seized those documents during the war,

3 and you answered yes. How do you know that they were actually seized

4 during the war or [technical difficulty]?

5 A. [Technical difficulty] ...seized during the war.

6 Q. Okay. Perhaps I'm misunder --

7 JUDGE AGIUS: I don't remember hearing the witness say that either

8 but I stand to be corrected.

9 MR. DI FAZIO: Perhaps I misunderstood the evidence and it went

10 off my screen, if Your Honours please.

11 JUDGE AGIUS: No, no. I mean, I wasn't on the screen, I was --


13 Q. In any event, all I want to know is this: Is there anyway that

14 you can tell from the information that you have and the spreadsheet when

15 the Serbs actually got their hands on those documents that -- presumably

16 at some point before Dan Perry got to them, but do you know prior to that

17 when they got those documents?

18 A. Well, as I said earlier, it's some unknown time. So the date and

19 time is not --

20 Q. That's all I'm interested in. Thank you very much.

21 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Yes, Mr. Jones.

22 MR. JONES: I was just wondering when I should express objections

23 to the documents. I suppose that's still to come.

24 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. We have one question from the Bench. Madam

25 Manas, Judge Eser would like to put a question to you.

Page 410

1 Questioned by the Court:

2 JUDGE ESER: I would like to come back, Madam Manas, to the chain

3 of custody. Did I understand you correctly that from the point of seizing

4 a document that is a clear chain of custody, a record of custody, and --

5 is that correct?

6 A. Yes, Your Honour.

7 JUDGE ESER: And before that, you told us that in some cases you

8 do not know from where a copy or an original may come, but if you had some

9 idea where it came from, you registered it or was it more accidental

10 whether you made a note of the source or not?

11 A. It is recorded, Your Honour.

12 JUDGE ESER: It has been recorded.

13 A. Uh-huh, yes.

14 JUDGE ESER: It can be found in the exhibits, the notes, or if you

15 want to know more clearly whether there has been some search for the

16 source, where we could find it?

17 A. Investigator who obtained the document who needs to search for the

18 source, he would make it known through his investigation, maybe a

19 statement or investigative notes.

20 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Judge Brydensholt would like to put a question

21 to you, madam.

22 JUDGE BRYDENSHOLT: Yes. But if such an investigation has taken

23 place regarding the source before your investigator got it, wouldn't that

24 be noted now somehow also in the notes you have made here that we checked

25 and it was in the registry for letters or whatever?

Page 411

1 A. Yes, Your Honour. I have to say to the Court that my research was

2 done in a very short time. I had very short notice. So had I had ample

3 time, I would have provided the Court more information on the documents as

4 such.

5 JUDGE AGIUS: Well, I think -- I think that's enough information

6 for the time being. And if needs be, if we really need further

7 information on the source related to any particular document, then we will

8 come to that. We will address that problem. But I don't think we need to

9 go any further today.

10 Yes, Mr. Di Fazio.

11 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please, I can pick up on this topic

12 and perhaps we can develop this on this occasion and the witness --

13 JUDGE AGIUS: I appreciate that. When we sort of invited you

14 to -- to bring forward this witness - when I say this witness, the witness

15 is your choice, not our choice obviously - we realised that you didn't

16 have much time. And madam, I do, on behalf of Judge Brydensholt and Judge

17 Eser and myself, of course appreciate all the efforts that you put in this

18 exercise within the very short time that you had available.

19 That brings us to the end of your testimony. You may withdraw

20 now. You will be escorted by the usher. And as you heard, you will

21 probably be needed to return to the courtroom and this trial again not

22 just on one but probably on more than one occasion to give us further

23 information. I thank you very much, madam.

24 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honour.

25 [The witness withdrew]

Page 412

1 JUDGE AGIUS: Now, Mr. Jones, or Madam Vidovic. When I say one it

2 also means the other. When I mention one it also means the other. So I

3 understand you are now going to state which documents you are objecting

4 to, and I imagine that you will also state why you are, what's the reason

5 for the objection.

6 MR. JONES: Well -- thank you, Your Honour. In accordance with

7 your directions yesterday, I understood that we wouldn't be making lengthy

8 submissions on each document.

9 JUDGE AGIUS: No. What I expect from you if you're going to

10 contest P1 you're going to say the Defence is contesting P1 maintaining

11 that it is non-authentic, for example, because it does not bear a stamp,

12 because it does not bear a signature. I don't know because I haven't got

13 a clue what the objections are. If you think that the document is forged,

14 for example, we would expect you to say because we contend that it is not

15 an authentic document, we contend it is forged or something like that.

16 Because otherwise we would never know exactly what's the reason behind

17 your objection.

18 MR. JONES: Well, you wouldn't never know, Your Honour, you just

19 might not know today. If I can preface my remarks to say this: As I

20 mentioned the other day, authenticity is a multi-layered concept. It's

21 not simply someone typing up a false letter. It may be a letter which was

22 perfectly genuine but someone wrote something additional on it. Someone

23 may have crossed off some information. Someone may have torn off a second

24 page. It may be authentic but it wasn't received where the document

25 purports to have been received. And so for that reason, it would be a

Page 413

1 very lengthy process to go through document by document. We'd have to

2 have the documents in front of us.

3 JUDGE AGIUS: No, I do understand.

4 MR. JONES: Of course, Your Honour. So I propose to approach the

5 matter this way: To simply say which documents we object to globally and

6 to state for the record, and we appreciate the difficulty with documents

7 at this Tribunal, of course, but our position is that when we don't admit

8 a document, we put the Prosecution to strict proof of the chain of custody

9 of that document from origin to its -- to the present.

10 JUDGE AGIUS: So let's go through the list, please.

11 MR. JONES: I'll go with the P numbers. That's probably easiest.

12 We do not object to P1. Oh, my apologies.

13 JUDGE AGIUS: Sanja's list now?

14 MR. JONES: If you don't mind. Sanja's list. I was afraid I was

15 going to have to cross-reference again. P1 we do not object to. P2 until

16 P21 we object to. We don't object to P22. We do object to P23 to P26.

17 We do not object to P27.

18 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment. One moment. You do not object to P27.

19 MR. JONES: P27 up to P33.

20 JUDGE AGIUS: Uh-huh.

21 MR. JONES: We do object to from P34 until P75. We don't object

22 to P76. We do object to P77 until P89. We do not object to P90. We do

23 object to P91. We do not object to P92. We do object to P93 to P95. We

24 don't object to P96. We object to P97 until P104. We do not object to

25 P105. We object to P106 to P111. I'll just wait for the transcript to

Page 414

1 catch up. We do not object to P112. We do object from P11 -- to P113.

2 We do not object to P114 to P116. We do object to P117. We do not object

3 to P118. We object to P119 to P122. We do not object to P123. We do

4 object from P124 to P126. Obviously these are all inclusive when I give a

5 first and a second number.

6 We do not object to P127. We do somebody to P128. We do not

7 object to P129. We do object to P130. We don't object to P131 to P133.

8 We do object to P134. We do not object to P135 and P136. We do object to

9 P137. We don't object to P138 to P140. We do object to P141. We do not

10 object to P142 to P144. We do object to P145 and P146. We do not object

11 to P147 and P148. Okay. We do object to P149 to P152. We don't object

12 to P153. We do object to P154 until P170. We do not object from P171 to

13 P175. We do object from P176 until P200. We do not object to P201. We

14 object from P202 until P213. We do not object to P214 to P217. We do

15 object from P218 to 222, P222. We do not object to P223. We object from

16 P224 -- simply P224. We do not object to P225. We do object to P226 and

17 P227. We're getting there, Your Honours, nearly finished.

18 We do not object from P228 to P231. We do somebody to P232 and

19 P233.

20 JUDGE AGIUS: It's okay. Go ahead and finish and --

21 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, Your Honour.

22 JUDGE AGIUS: Go ahead and finish and then I'll return to what the

23 legal officer told us. We are at -- you don't object up to 31 --

24 MR. JONES: We do object to P232 and P233. We don't object from

25 P234 --

Page 415

1 JUDGE AGIUS: You don't.

2 MR. JONES: From P234 we do not object --

3 JUDGE AGIUS: Uh-huh.

4 MR. JONES: -- until P250. We do object to P251. We do not object

5 to P252 and P253. We do object to P254. And we do not object from P255

6 to P262. Obviously P261 and P262 have to be added to the list. We don't

7 object to Sanja's list which we're working from, but we do object to P263,

8 the new document which was discussed this morning.

9 And to assist, Your Honours, our objections may be grouped under

10 the general rubric of authenticity because of our concern about sources of

11 documents. And so it may be that on some occasions we've not objected to

12 a document although it's from a source we've objected to. In that

13 situation it's because we have some other source and so, therefore, we're

14 not concerned. But during the course of the trial, our objections will

15 be --

16 JUDGE AGIUS: And during the course of the trial you will also be

17 expected, if upon cross-examining a witness the situation changes somewhat

18 and you no longer have a valid reason to maintain your objection, then

19 you're expected to tell us, "Our objection is now withdrawn," and not just

20 leave us in --

21 MR. JONES: Yes, Your Honour.

22 JUDGE AGIUS: So that's the system I'm suggesting as we go along.

23 And then as I told you yesterday, just before we wind up and start

24 deliberating on our final judgement, we will go through this exercise to

25 make sure what remains contested and what does not. All right?

Page 416

1 MR. JONES: Thank you, Your Honour. Thank you.

2 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Now we have a problem. I am informed that in

3 the transcript there was --

4 MR. JONES: Yes.

5 JUDGE AGIUS: -- some -- yes. I am informed that having verified

6 the problems there is -- we need to clarify the position from P202 to

7 P222. Follow me, please, Mr. Jones, and if I am not correct, please

8 correct me.

9 201 you do not contest.

10 MR. JONES: Correct.

11 JUDGE AGIUS: From 202 till 213 you contest.

12 MR. JONES: Correct.

13 JUDGE AGIUS: 214 you do not contest.

14 MR. JONES: Again correct.

15 JUDGE AGIUS: 215, 216, 217 you do not contest.

16 MR. JONES: That's right, Your Honour.

17 JUDGE AGIUS: But then from 218 until 222 you contest.

18 MR. JONES: Exactly.

19 JUDGE AGIUS: And then you do not contest 223.

20 MR. JONES: That's right. And then we do contest P224 and it

21 should be right after that.

22 JUDGE AGIUS: Does that cover the problems that you had? Yes,

23 exactly. Okay.

24 So I think we've covered everything. Do you have any other

25 business that you'd -- you think ought to be dealt with today or can we

Page 417

1 adjourn?

2 MR. DI FAZIO: No, Your Honours.

3 MR. JONES: No, Your Honours.

4 JUDGE AGIUS: So we will be reconvening on Monday, and as I take

5 it, the witness will be Dr. Fagel.

6 MS. SELLERS: That is correct, Your Honours.

7 JUDGE AGIUS: And you expect to have him in chief practically for

8 the entire day of Monday? When you say three hours, it would basically

9 mean one day.

10 MR. DI FAZIO: I won't be handing that particular witness,

11 Mr. Wubben will be. I don't know exactly with any precision, but --

12 JUDGE AGIUS: I have three hours.

13 MR. DI FAZIO: I gather he wouldn't be a very long witness. I

14 think we should handle him --


16 MR. DI FAZIO: -- comfortably.

17 JUDGE AGIUS: I don't know what to expect from the Defence. This

18 was the fingerprint --

19 MR. JONES: Firstly we were wondering are we sitting only in the

20 morning next week?

21 JUDGE AGIUS: I think next week -- let me see if I brought it out

22 with me. I think we are sitting in the morning next week, yes.

23 MR. JONES: That's because of the scheduling for Dr. Gow.

24 JUDGE AGIUS: I think we are sitting in the morning but I'm afraid

25 I didn't bring the chart with me. Registrar, could you check that for us,

Page 418

1 please. But my impression is that we are sitting the entire week in the

2 morning.

3 MR. JONES: I wonder if Dr. Gow is now scheduled as per our

4 request for Tuesday and Wednesday to give us enough time for the

5 cross-examination. Apologies, Wednesday and Thursday.

6 JUDGE AGIUS: Wednesday and Thursday. Because there's

7 Dr. Koeijer.

8 MR. JONES: Yes.

9 JUDGE AGIUS: Or whatever his name is.

10 I can inform that we are sitting the entire week in the morning,

11 not in this courtroom, however, in courtroom 3.

12 MR. JONES: We can provide a three-hour time estimate for

13 cross-examining on Monday.

14 JUDGE AGIUS: That's fine. Thanks a lot. We will reconvene on

15 Monday. Have a nice weekend. And don't tire yourself out. Thank you.

16 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 12.07 p.m.,

17 to be reconvened on Monday, the 11th day of

18 October, 2004, at 9.00 a.m.