Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 15591

1 Tuesday, 24 January 2006

2 [Open session]

3 --- Upon commencing at 10.14 a.m.

4 [The accused entered court]

5 JUDGE AGIUS: Please be seated. Madam Registrar, could you call

6 the case, please.

7 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is case number

8 IT-03-68-T, the Prosecutor versus Naser Oric.

9 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. And good morning to you.

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

11 your own language?

12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours, ladies

13 and gentlemen. Yes, I can follow the proceedings in my own language.

14 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. You may sit down.

15 Appearances for the Prosecution.

16 MR. WUBBEN: Good morning, Your Honours, and also good morning to

17 my learned friends of the Defence. My name is Jan Wubben, lead counsel

18 for the Prosecution, also in my team, Mr. Gramsci di Fazio, and our case

19 manager, Ms. Donnica Henry-Frijlink.

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

21 your team.

22 Appearances for Naser Oric.

23 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours. Good

24 morning to my learned friends. My name is Vasvija Vidovic, and together

25 with Mr. John Jones, I appear for Mr. Oric. With us are our legal

Page 15592

1 assistant, Ms. Jasmina Cosic.

2 JUDGE AGIUS: Good morning to you and your team.

3 I apologise to you for starting later than envisaged. The reason

4 is I was busy on another case earlier on and we had a few things to

5 discuss. Of course, we did not have the chance to discuss them before.

6 We have discussed them now, but it took us a little bit longer than we had

7 anticipated.

8 So any preliminaries? I see none. None? Yes, Mr. Jones?

9 MR. JONES: Yes, Your Honour, just this, I suppose. We considered

10 the position yesterday about tendering documents which are not exhibits

11 but which -- the originals of which are in the possession of the

12 Prosecution, and taking into account, of course, the fact that the Trial

13 Chamber may want to look at those documents during their deliberations and

14 the fact that the Prosecution doesn't seem to have any opposition to us

15 tendering documents into their possession. On the contrary, they wish us

16 to. We don't oppose that course of action, tendering those documents. Of

17 course with the reserve that we are not tendering them with the truth of

18 their contents or to --

19 JUDGE AGIUS: Of course.

20 MR. JONES: That will be addressed also in our filing of

21 authenticity. So that concerns two documents I don't know if we should do

22 it now or at the end --

23 JUDGE AGIUS: I wouldn't know the number, or the ERN number.

24 Please, we will need your help.

25 MR. JONES: I have those. I have those numbers. The first was

Page 15593

1 02075704 to 02075705, and that was S-2. I stand to be corrected if that's

2 wrong but that's the note I have. And the second one was S-3, and the ERN

3 was 02075701. And then there will be a couple of more today.

4 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. What's your position on this, Mr. Wubben?

5 MR. WUBBEN: Your Honour, we accept, of course, but very important

6 is that the copy will be tendered.

7 JUDGE AGIUS: No. We are speaking a different language, my dear.

8 The copy is of no use to anyone. Copy is of no use to anyone. We don't

9 need copies.

10 MR. WUBBEN: Then, Your Honour, can it be a combination both the

11 copy and the original?

12 JUDGE AGIUS: Provided we have the original. I mean, I don't -- I

13 don't really care how many copies are made of it.

14 MR. WUBBEN: Your Honours, S-2 and S-4 --

15 JUDGE AGIUS: You need to help me there because I must confess

16 that taking the position that each one of you took yesterday, I didn't

17 bother to jot down the reference of the ERN number or the S- number, so

18 you need to help us there.

19 MR. WUBBEN: Let me first take a look, Your Honour, to the ERN.

20 Perhaps my learned friend can help me out. This is related to file 808.

21 These are the source documents Mr. Jones related to Naser Oric signature.

22 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's -- can we -- who has them? You still have

23 them.

24 MR. JONES: No, Your Honour. We are referring to documents --

25 JUDGE AGIUS: I think Madam Registrar has them.

Page 15594

1 MR. JONES: Yes.

2 JUDGE AGIUS: These are the two.

3 So Usher, I wish -- I would like you to go around and make sure

4 that the parties agree that these are the documents. Once that is done,

5 hand them to us and we will provide accordingly. But first I want to make

6 sure that we are talking of the right documents because I don't want to

7 make a mistake there.

8 [Prosecution counsel confer]

9 [Trial Chamber confers]

10 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Jones, please also tell us what that would be by

11 way of S- or S-full stop. I think it's S-.

12 MR. JONES: Yes. It's S-2; 02075704 to 02075705. That's S-2.

13 That's his handwritten document related to Kostadin Popovic, and we

14 certainly agree that that can be tendered.

15 And then the second one is S-3; it's 02075701. And that's a typed

16 document relating to Kostadin Popovic, and that's the other -- yes, that's

17 the other document. I can confirm neither are exhibits yet, and we are

18 happy for them to be Defence exhibits.

19 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. So let's deal with these two documents.

20 Yes, Mr. Wubben.

21 MR. WUBBEN: Yes, Your Honour, I agree, except the S-2 and S-3

22 related to Hamed Salihovic as such can be handed over and tendered, and in

23 the later stage a copy of it can be substituted whenever it needed for.

24 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, yes, but we'll take care of that ourselves in

25 our decision. Can I have the two documents, please. And let me make the

Page 15595

1 entry now.

2 So the first document to be entered in exhibit, as a Defence

3 Exhibit is an original document bearing ERN 02075704 and on its retro,

4 02075705. This is a document consisting in one paper, sheet of paper,

5 with handwriting on both sides. This document is being tendered and

6 marked as Defence Exhibit D1014 with the understanding that the

7 Prosecution has agreed to its tendering only on an animo ritirandi basis.

8 In other words, a copy will be made of it and entered into the records

9 together with this original and marked as D1014.1, and when either this

10 Trial Chamber, or any other Chamber for that matter, no longer requires

11 this document, the original in other words, the original, such original

12 will be returned by the Registrar to the Prosecutor of this Tribunal upon

13 a simple demand, upon a simple demand, to be communicated both to Chamber

14 and to the lead counsel of the accused or the accused himself.

15 The second document to be tendered consists of one page, with

16 ERN - correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Wubben or Mr. Jones - 02075 -- what's

17 this, 5701, 5701, and it's being marked as Defence Exhibit D1015 and as

18 such is being tendered and received on the same basis and conditions as

19 the previous document.

20 So until we need this it will stay with us. The moment we don't

21 need it any longer, we or any other Tribunal, then you have a right to

22 claim it back and you only need to put a simple demand, request for it.

23 All right? For the record also, the first of these documents,

24 that is D1014, is referred to in expert Bilic's testimony as S-2 or -2

25 while Defence Exhibit D1015 is referred to as Defence -- in Professor

Page 15596

1 Bilic's report as S-3.

2 So here you are.

3 Yes. I saw Mr. Jones looking at the clock. I don't blame you.

4 Let's move.

5 MR. JONES: Thank you, Your Honour.

6 JUDGE AGIUS: Anything else?

7 MR. JONES: No, in fact, I was just wondering when the breaks

8 would be. I presume --

9 JUDGE AGIUS: The breaks will be at 11.30. There will only be one

10 break obviously. We can have it at 11.30 or quarter to 11.00 -- sorry,

11 not 11.00 -- yeah, quarter to 12.00, either 11.30 or quarter to 12.00.

12 Whenever it's convenient. And, of course, the recorder will tell us if

13 he's getting tired because this is a particularly tiring testimony.

14 [The witness entered court]


16 [Witness answered through interpreter]

17 JUDGE AGIUS: Good morning, Professor Bilic.

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

19 JUDGE AGIUS: We are finally ready to proceed with your testimony.

20 Please make yourself comfortable. There is no need to make the solemn

21 declaration again. The one you made yesterday remains valid

22 before the entirety or throughout the entirety of your testimony.

23 Mr. Jones will proceed with his examination.

24 MR. JONES: Thank you, Your Honour.

25 Examined by Mr. Jones: [Continued]

Page 15597

1 Q. And good morning from me, Professor Bilic.

2 A. Thank you. Good morning to you too.

3 Q. Thank you. Now, yesterday, when we left off we were just coming

4 to S-7. So if the witness could please be shown that document.

5 MR. JONES: And for the record, the ERN is 02075714, and it's

6 actually P51.

7 Q. And it's starts at page 7 of your report.

8 MR. JONES: And if the witness could also have a copy of his

9 report in front of him, please, which is now D1012.

10 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Jones, is this in evidence or not? It isn't, I

11 take it, no?

12 MR. JONES: This next document is --

13 JUDGE AGIUS: No, it is actually P51, you're saying, yeah, okay.

14 All right.

15 MR. JONES: I didn't want to raise the issue, Your Honour, because

16 it may raise any more problems. But Your Honour will notice that some of

17 the documents which are already exhibits will be copies in your file.

18 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, yes.

19 MR. JONES: So another solution will have to be found for you to

20 have access to knows originals, but that's a matter for you obviously.



23 Q. Now, this document, as with all the Hamed Salihovic documents, was

24 available in the original; correct?

25 A. Yes.

Page 15598

1 Q. And we can see that it's handwritten. And is it in the same

2 format as any of the other documents that you looked at?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. The other handwritten documents.

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. All right. Now, what can you say about who wrote this document?

7 A. The handwritten content of this document was written by the writer

8 we have labelled as X1.

9 Q. Thank you. Now, was one writing implement used on this document

10 or more than one?

11 A. It's written in ink.

12 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter did not hear the first part of

13 the answer.

14 JUDGE AGIUS: The interpreter did not hear the first part of the

15 answer. The question put to you, Professor Bilic, was: Thank you. Now,

16 was one writing implement used on this document or more than one?

17 What was your answer? Could you repeat your answer, please?

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] More than one was used.

19 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.


21 Q. Now, let's turn to the signature and the stamp. Is the stamp in

22 the usual or in the normal place?

23 A. Comparing this with the other contentious documents investigated,

24 the stamp is in an unusual position. It's in the central part of the

25 document quite far to the left from the signature so that it looks a bit

Page 15599

1 odd.

2 Q. And your conclusions as to the handwriting and signature on this

3 document are on page 36, paragraphs 1 and 2 of your report, and if you

4 could just confirm those, that the handwriting is most probably not that

5 of Hamed Salihovic and the signature is most probably not that of Hamed

6 Salihovic?

7 A. Yes, that's correct. I abide by this, this conclusion,

8 absolutely.

9 Q. Thank you. I'm finished with that document.

10 JUDGE AGIUS: Judge Eser has a question.

11 JUDGE ESER: Just to clarify me, Professor Bilic, do I understood

12 you correctly that everything what is handwritten on this document is

13 written from the same hand, so to say, or are there two different

14 handwritings and, if so, which ones are different?

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] On this contentious document, there

16 is the handwriting of only one writer. But it was not written

17 continuously. The handwritten part I will indicate now is written at a

18 later date and using a different pen, while this part up here, this part,

19 was written using another pen, and later on there is another handwritten

20 text written in a different pen. However, the handwriting is the product

21 of a single writer in the entire document.

22 JUDGE ESER: But does this mean that the last line before the

23 signature, although it is written with a different ink, that the writing,

24 handwriting, is the same as it is in the upper part? So the only

25 difference is in the ink but the handwriting, according to your expertise,

Page 15600

1 is from the same person? Just to make --

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. That's correct, Your Honour.

3 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Judge Eser.

4 MR. JONES: Yes, thank you, Your Honour.

5 Q. Now, the next document is S-8 or S-8. It's 02075760. It's P66,

6 and it's dealt with at page 12 of your report, Professor Bilic. Again,

7 it's a handwritten document. There is no stamp on this occasion. First

8 of all, what can you tell us about the paper on which this document is

9 written and the other documents which are only handwritten?

10 A. This document also requires a brief explanation. The paper size

11 is the standard A4. It's paper used both for handwriting and typing.

12 On this document, several different writing implements are used.

13 This part up to here is written continuously at a stretch. This part was

14 added subsequently using a different pen. And finally, at the bottom,

15 there is an addition, the words, "Died, 9th of March 1993."

16 On the right-hand side, there is one of the versions of a

17 signature. This document does not bear a round stamp. Alterations have

18 been made, as is evident, in the date and here as well, something has been

19 crossed out in ball-point pen, and then the words "directly responsible"

20 have been added at a later date, so this is a document that was not

21 written continuously. The writer of this part -- do you see what I'm

22 pointing at? I think you all do. This part was written by the writer we

23 have labelled X1, whereas the brief note in the bottom left-hand part is

24 the handwriting of the writer we have labelled X2.


Page 15601

1 Q. And for the record, because reading the transcript later we won't

2 be able to see this clearly, are you saying that X2 wrote the part which

3 says, "Died 9.3.93," and the rest of the document is written by X1?

4 A. Yes, that's correct.

5 MR. JONES: And if the witness could please be shown S-9A which we

6 looked at yesterday while keeping that document?

7 Q. And I would ask you on this document which is now being placed to

8 your right, Professor Bilic, to go down to just number 1, in fact, where

9 we see the same name Jakov Djokic, and the words written to the

10 left, "umro, 09.03," is that the same words and the same writer, or are

11 they different?

12 A. Yes. This is writer X2, as we have labelled him, next to

13 number 1, where it says Djokic, Jakov.

14 Q. All right. Thank you. And I think we perhaps haven't quite

15 confirmed your conclusions yet for S-8. So going back to that document,

16 your conclusions are on page 36, paragraphs 1 and 2, that the handwriting

17 is most probably not Hamed Salihovic, the signature most probably not

18 Hamed Salihovic, and then you also say the signature is by X1, I believe.

19 If you could confirm that?

20 A. This is the handwriting of X1, as we said, and the note at the

21 bottom was added on by X2, if that's what you were referring to. Most

22 probably it was not Hamed Salihovic who wrote this, nor did he most

23 probably sign these notes and this handwriting on these two documents.

24 Q. Thank you. I might have misspoken about the signature of X1. Is

25 it correct in fact you didn't draw conclusions as to whether the signature

Page 15602

1 was by X1 or X2 because you didn't analyse the signature, the other

2 signatures of X1 or X2?

3 A. X1 and X2 are unknown persons. That's why we labelled them as

4 such, so I had nothing to compare the signature with, Your Honours.

5 MR. JONES: Thank you.

6 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, Your Honour.

7 JUDGE AGIUS: Can usher please bring us this S-8, not S-9, S-8,

8 the witness had seen before, and the previous witness -- the previous

9 document, the original, P51, if I remember well.

10 MR. JONES: Yes, that's correct, yes.

11 JUDGE AGIUS: I just want to have a look.

12 [Trial Chamber confers]

13 MR. WUBBEN: Your Honours, it's just for your information that

14 sometimes it is conveyed what you're speaking about through the

15 microphone.

16 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, thank you. All right. Let's [Microphone not

17 activated] the witness any further or not?

18 MR. JONES: Not with this document. We are on to S-9 now.

19 JUDGE AGIUS: All right, okay.

20 MR. JONES: That's S-9, 02075763. And that's P108, and it's dealt

21 with on page 13 of Professor Bilic's report. This document has no stamp

22 and no signature and so it's simply a question of who wrote on this

23 document.

24 Q. If you could tell us, please, Professor.

25 A. The handwritten content of this document, this one that I'm

Page 15603

1 indicating now, was written by writer X1. He keeps recurring in these

2 documents as does X2, who added on the note, "Died on the 10th of March."

3 That was written by X2.

4 This was written on standard A4 paper of no special quality. This

5 text here was added on later with a different or, rather, with a third

6 pen, so here we have three different ball-point pens that were used. This

7 was added on and the entire document was not written continuously at a

8 stretch. So there is no continuity in the handwriting of either one or

9 the other writer.

10 I hope I've been clear. I can clarify further, if need be.

11 Q. Thank you.

12 A. There is no stamp, no signature, which is inconsistent with the

13 set of documents under investigation. However, that's for the Court to

14 evaluate.

15 Q. Thank you. One matter, you read the part written by X2 as died

16 10 March. Is that -- is that in fact what's written there or what? The

17 English translation I note we have October 1993. Can you read that for

18 us, Professor, whether it's -- is it 10th of March and then something, or

19 is it October 1993?

20 A. On this document, if that's the document you are referring to, it

21 says, in the Latin script, "Died, 10.03.9." That's what it says.

22 10.03.9 ... so the year is not complete. This can be clearly seen here.

23 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Just to have it clarified for sure, so there

24 is no way that that could be in your understanding 10.93, godina [phoen]?

25 You exclude the possibility of having instead of what you said, 10.93,

Page 15604

1 godina, "g" as sometimes is used in --

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, let me clarify again.

3 The word "died" is handwritten here followed by the number 10, which means

4 the 10th day in the month. The month is 03; that's March. This is 03.

5 You can see that the 0s are the same. They are written in the same way.

6 Then there follows a full stop after 3 and then the number 9, and we do

7 not know what year this is because the year is incomplete. It's quite

8 clear that it says, "Died, 10.03.9." I think I've clarified now.


10 Q. As far as the handwriting on this document is concerned your

11 conclusion is on page 36, paragraph 1, most probably not Hamed Salihovic;

12 correct?

13 A. Yes, that's correct.

14 Q. Thank you.

15 MR. JONES: I finished with that document, and we can move on

16 to S-9A, and that's 01239581 to 01239583. And that's P19.

17 Q. And it's dealt with on pages 13 to 14 of your report, Professor

18 Bilic.

19 A. Yes. I did not investigate this document. I'm not familiar with

20 this document.

21 Q. If you look at the first page, now, can you tell us first of all

22 is there a water-mark on this page?

23 A. Which document are you referring to? A moment ago there was

24 another one on the ELMO. Are you referring to that one or this one?

25 Please be precise.

Page 15605

1 Q. My apologies. It's a three-page document, and that's the first

2 page of it and then the other two pages are with it. And I'm just asking

3 you about the first page, which is 01239581. It will be passed to you in

4 a moment. That page which you've looked at several times already. I'm

5 just something you about that page.

6 A. Is this the document? Please take a look at the monitor.

7 Q. Yes. And is there a water-mark on that page, firstly?

8 A. Yes. As I stated in my report on page 13, there is a water-mark

9 here. You can see it through transmitted light. It is a silhouette of a

10 sail-boat, like the one we saw in some documents yesterday. You can see

11 it very nicely. Down the middle, there are continuous water-marks of

12 sail-boats.

13 Q. Now, we can see that this document is obviously typewritten with

14 handwriting on the left margin and elsewhere. You've told us about some

15 of that handwriting already. What did you conclude about X1 and X2 or

16 other writers on this document?

17 A. Yes. What specifically are you asking me? I concluded that both

18 writers participated here, X1 and X2. They are constant participants

19 recurring in these documents. Next to 30 we have handwriting by X1. Here

20 it is. This was added on later. Then we have a signature. In the

21 left-hand margin, there are alternating notes in the handwriting of X1

22 and X2, and I can tell you point by point which handwriting it is. So we

23 have X1 and X2 alternating here.

24 There are two writers participating here persistently, X1 and X2.

25 Next to number 30, the addition here was written by X1. At 29, the

Page 15606

1 typewritten name was put in subsequently, whereas next to number 28, the

2 name is typed continuously with a number. There is a lot more that could

3 be said about this document.

4 Q. Yes. We are going to come to those points one by one. If you go

5 to number 17 where it says Rado Pejic, can you read what's written to the

6 left and also tell us who wrote those remarks?

7 A. Next to number 17 is the typewritten last name Pejic, Mihajlo

8 Rado. On the left-hand side, there is a brief note added by writer X2,

9 who write, "Died between the 17th and 18.03.93."

10 Q. All right. Thank you. Now, at the bottom of the document we see

11 brown marks. What can you tell us about those markings? Or that

12 disintegration, if you like?

13 A. There is physical and chemical destruction of the document along

14 the bottom and the lower right-hand corner. A piece of paper has been

15 torn off.

16 There is an interesting point here. As the destruction was

17 physical and chemical, it is to be expected -- it would have been -- to be

18 expected that the handwriting and the signature would also be damaged.

19 However, after the physical, chemical destruction of the document,

20 number 30 was added on, Djukic (Arsen) Milomir, imprisoned or captured in

21 Kravica, followed by the date and the signature and a round seal, a round

22 stamp, that is. This was added on in ball-point pen and there is no

23 destruction. There is no bleeding of ink. If a chemical destroyed the

24 paper but did not destroy the writing, this is evidence that the writing

25 was added on subsequently, as was the stamp, and a new version of the

Page 15607

1 signature.

2 JUDGE AGIUS: Can we have a look at --

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know if I've clarified

4 sufficiently.

5 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, yes. At least on my part, I'm happy with his

6 explanation.

7 MR. JONES: Yes, thank you, I'll explore --

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.


10 Q. One matter is that you described --

11 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment, Mr. Jones.

12 [Trial Chamber confers]

13 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Thank you.

14 Do you wish to see the document, Mr. Wubben, or not?

15 MR. WUBBEN: Yes, Your Honour.

16 JUDGE AGIUS: Please feel free. They are your documents, after

17 all. Any time you wish to see them, please let us know.

18 Sorry, Mr. Jones, for interrupting.

19 MR. JONES: Not at all, Your Honour. Perhaps I can proceed to the

20 next question, though, while the Prosecution inspect the document.

21 Q. You mentioned just now a new version of the signature and on S-8,

22 I think it was, you referred to a version of the signature. What do you

23 mean by that, that you've come across different versions of the alleged

24 Hamed Salihovic signature in these documents?

25 A. Yes. That's correct.

Page 15608

1 Q. Is it usual or unusual for someone to use different types of

2 signature around the same time, in your experience?

3 A. It makes no sense. It's non-sensical.

4 Q. Thank you. In fact -- well, perhaps just to explore that a little

5 further. Are there circumstances where you encounter someone using

6 different types, different versions of one signature, any specific

7 circumstances?

8 A. Yes. I came across that phenomenon in the case of criminals who

9 wish to protect themselves, who use different versions of signature.

10 However, in this particular case, these signatures were written freely,

11 without paying particular attention to them being consistent with one

12 another. They are spontaneous signatures of these writers and, of course,

13 every person uses one version of signature throughout his or her life.

14 They would rarely use several versions. If a person has to sign thousands

15 of documents every day, then the person will tend to use initials rather

16 than a full signature or in any case it will be a simplified version to

17 enable the person to sign the documents as fast as possible.

18 There may also exist an obligation in that respect. For instance,

19 in a bank, you cannot use two types of signature. You have to deposit

20 your signature for the purposes of bank transactions and then the

21 signature has to be the same as that which was deposited. Any change in

22 signature will be immediately noticed by the bank staff, for instance, if

23 one wishes to make a transaction with their account. It may happen that a

24 person signs in full both the first and the last name, but then this is no

25 longer a signature. It's rather a piece of handwriting. We said

Page 15609

1 yesterday that a handwriting comes before one's signature because one

2 first learns to write and then forms his or her signature, but then, in

3 time, through use, this becomes an automatic and consistent process. If

4 people were to change their signatures whenever it crossed their minds,

5 then signatures would be under constant suspicion and examination.

6 A signature is an identifying mark. It's as important as a

7 finger-print. That's why a person cannot change one's -- his or her

8 signature day in, day out. Changes may only be brought about by some sort

9 of a physical handicap or a drug addiction or any other such influence.

10 Otherwise, one's signature never changes in life. That is why variations

11 in signature over a short span of time, especially in documents such as

12 these ones, showed that they are merely improvisations. That would be my

13 opinion.

14 Q. And how many versions of the Hamed Salihovic signature did you

15 come across in these specimens you looked at?

16 A. When examining these pieces of handwriting, we will not say that

17 they are Hamed Salihovic's signatures; we merely assume so. Every piece

18 of writing there differs from others in this or that aspect. Only a

19 visual examination shows that they are not identical, which does not make

20 any sense. If you take a look at the set of documents here and if you

21 take a look at the signatures there, you will see that they are mutually

22 different to a great extent, especially the ones that are -- seem to be

23 shortened pieces of writing.

24 Q. Sorry to cut you off, Professor, but we need to make progress, and

25 it was really -- I was looking more for a figure. On page 14 of your

Page 15610

1 report, for example, you referred to a fourth version of the alleged Hamed

2 Salihovic signature so my question was really that. Are there four

3 versions or five or three? How many versions of this alleged signature

4 did you discover?

5 A. I said that this was the fourth version, as I called it, because

6 it differed greatly from the others. For the purposes of clarity and

7 understanding of these signatures which are purported to be those of Hamed

8 Salihovic, I termed it as the fourth version. I did not go into detail on

9 the matter of versions because what mattered to me was whether Hamed

10 Salihovic wrote them or not. However, a lot more could have been written

11 about this. I only went as far as I thought was necessary for the

12 purposes of examination. I could have then said that this was a fifth or

13 a sixth version, but I believed that this much would suffice.

14 Q. Thank you. And now we will just take the next few points as

15 briefly as possible.

16 On this document which we are still looking at, S-9A, there

17 appears to be a stamp at the top where we can at least see "strogo

18 povjerljivo"? Do you see that in the top right-hand corner? And if you

19 can't say this, did you find that stamp on any other documents which you

20 analysed?

21 A. I did not find this on any other document. This is a trace of a

22 stamp, which is quite poorly visible in the top part. It says, "Military

23 secret, strictly confidential." Based on my experience, this could be

24 seen on military documents, both on the envelope and the document itself,

25 but it usually also contained an additional part which could be filled in

Page 15611

1 to write the reference number and so on and so forth, the date.

2 Here, this was affixed only to show that this was a document that

3 was a military secret, strictly confidential. However, it does not

4 contain the number of the document or the date. This, however, is

5 contained in the top left-hand corner. However, such stamps as this one

6 usually contained an additional part which would state their reference

7 number and their date.

8 As the document is now, we could say that it is strictly

9 confidential but in the other aspect it is not. It does have its official

10 reference number, 108, and the date is the 3rd of February. We can say

11 that this is the first time I see this type of rectangular stamp in purple

12 ink.

13 Anything else in connection with this, Mr. Jones?

14 Q. Finally, just to confirm the -- your conclusion about the

15 signature, most probably not Hamed Salihovic as set out on page 36,

16 paragraph 2 of your report.

17 A. Yes. Most probably not signed by Hamed Salihovic himself, based

18 on what we see here as the signature but we don't know whose handwriting

19 this is.

20 Q. Thank you. I've finished with that document so we can move on

21 to S-10, which is 02075791. And that's P69. And it's dealt with at

22 page 14 of your report.

23 And if you could first of all just deal with two matters,

24 preliminary matters which we have seen with all these documents. Firstly

25 is it only written on one side and is there a water-mark?

Page 15612

1 A. This document is only on one side. There is no handwriting on the

2 reverse side. The entire side is typed out, but we have handwritten

3 notes, a signature and stamp. This document also carries a water-mark, as

4 is written in my report, across the central part there is the continuous

5 silhouette of a sail-boat, and you can take a look if you so wish.

6 Later on this will prove quite significant. I don't know if Their

7 Honours are interested in taking a look at the document.

8 Q. Their Honours will let you know if they wish to see it.

9 For the time being, I'll simply ask you this: If you have your

10 ruler still with you, can you again look at the alignment or non-alignment

11 as between the court-martial reference to a "prijeki vojni sud" on the

12 right, and then on the left and again whether it's aligned or not?

13 A. You can see for yourselves that this part was additionally typed.

14 This can be seen quite easily. You see the text on the left-hand side

15 should aligned with the text on the right-hand side but it is not, and

16 this is a clear indication of the text having been written subsequently.

17 Q. Is it right or not that the spacing also is different on the --

18 what's written to the left and what's written on the right, spacing

19 between the lines?

20 A. That is quite evident, can easily be seen at first sight.

21 Q. I think we can move fairly quickly to your conclusions.

22 First of all, at the bottom we have the words "razmjenjen

23 7.01.93," "exchanged 7.01.93," is that X1, X2 or somebody else?

24 A. This is the handwriting of X2, which says, "Exchanged on the 7th

25 of February 1993."

Page 15613












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

13 English transcripts.













Page 15614

1 Q. And yesterday you were telling us about the grammar in which these

2 documents are written. Just looking at this document, if you just look at

3 the last paragraph, for example, just cast your eye over it briefly, and

4 just tell us whether this is well written, poorly written or any remarks

5 in that regard.

6 A. This is not one of the tasks that I had to address. However, it

7 is replete with grammatical errors, the semantics, the spelling, and when

8 you take a look at it does seem quite illegible at least -- or

9 unintelligible at least as far as the language itself is concerned.

10 Q. Yes. I think --

11 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, could the expert

12 repeat his answer because he -- his answer as not reflected correctly in

13 the record. It says he said that it looks like it's illiterate and makes

14 no sense.

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. When you read the entire

16 contents --

17 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] I apologise to the witness. He said

18 that it seems very, very illiterate, and this was not reflected in the

19 transcript.

20 JUDGE AGIUS: What did you exactly provide as an answer to the

21 question that was put to you, Professor Bilic? What were your comments on

22 the contents of this document?

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There are spelling errors, the place

24 name of Kravica is written with the small first letter instead of a

25 capital. Then one of the words "pridoso," is written in a wrong way; it

Page 15615

1 should have been "pridosao," grammatically correct. This part which says,

2 these parts, the last sentence, the entire context, the word order seems

3 quite confusing, although this is not part of my expertise but there are

4 many grammatical errors, there are many alterations and corrections that

5 could be noticed by a person analysing this in great detail. This is my

6 generic assessment.

7 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. I think it's clear enough.

8 Mr. Jones.

9 MR. JONES: Yes.

10 Q. And then proceeding to your conclusions, as set out on page 36,

11 paragraph 2, the signature most probably not that of Hamed Salihovic and

12 the handwritten notes not by Hamed Salihovic. Can you confirm that?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Thank you. I've finished --

15 A. He did not write the text or sign.

16 Q. Thank you. And --

17 MR. WUBBEN: Your Honour, I tried to follow page 36, what my

18 learned friend asked for a kind of confirmation and I'm glad -- I'm happy

19 when Defence counsel lead, but the confirmation was not to the full extent

20 confirmed. Was it probably not signed or not written or not signed or

21 written? I mean, there is a difference between Defence counsel and the

22 expert.

23 MR. JONES: Right.

24 JUDGE AGIUS: I think the question was very simple. I mean, he

25 was referred to page 36 of his report and a suggested conclusion in that

Page 15616

1 page, that the signature was probably -- was not that or is not that of

2 Hamed Salihovic.

3 MR. JONES: Yes. It's paragraph 2, most probably, and that's

4 S-10, not signed by Hamed Salihovic, and then also S-10 --

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Most probably, yes.

6 MR. JONES: Most probably not written in hand.

7 A. Most probably not.

8 JUDGE AGIUS: And you confirm it?

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. I do confirm that. Most

10 probably not written by Hamed Salihovic.


12 Q. And you explained yesterday but it might just be useful to put on

13 the record again today that you used the most probably measure because the

14 non-contentious samples which you had were 20 years before the contentious

15 samples and for that reason you didn't feel you could give a firm

16 [Realtime transcript read in error: "fair"] conclusion? Is that a fair

17 summary?

18 A. Yes. That's a fair summary. And I explained this in my findings

19 and I explained it verbally here yesterday.

20 Q. Thank you. And just for the transcript, I said a firm conclusion

21 rather than a fair conclusion. That was page 24, line 7.

22 So we can now move on to S-11, which is the next document, and

23 this is 02075697. It's P485 and it's dealt with at page 14 of Professor

24 Bilic's report. And again can you tell us about the paper, whether it's

25 good quality paper, whether there is a water-mark, and whether it's

Page 15617

1 written only on one side or on used paper?

2 A. This document was typed out on A4 paper, which also carries a

3 water-mark containing a silhouette of a sail-boat. This means that this

4 type of paper was used in this set of documents. We also have corrections

5 and alterations that are widely present. You can see them here, here,

6 here. There is an evident correction in the date as well. That was

7 alteration or correction. Again, this part was subsequently added,

8 "court-martial Srebrenica to the commission for mediation with the enemy

9 side." This was not continuously written at a stretch.

10 We also have an addition which consists in short handwritten note

11 by X2. He's the writer. "Died on 17" -- "between 17 and 18 March 1993."

12 We also have spacing there, and then again, the tendency to cover the

13 signature with a stamp. There are typos, typographical errors.

14 Q. Thank you.

15 A. And I believe that is all for now. There is nothing written on

16 the reverse side.

17 Q. All right. And your conclusions, again, just to confirm them, the

18 signature most probably not Hamed Salihovic and the handwriting --

19 A. Most probably not signed by Hamed Salihovic himself, and most

20 probably he did not make those handwritten notes in the form of dates or

21 words.

22 Q. Thank you. And we've compared this document already with S-9A, so

23 I won't do that again.

24 I'll move on to S-12, which is 02075742.

25 In fact, if the witness -- if that last document could be kept

Page 15618

1 with the witness, or beside him. Yes, S-12, and that's dealt with at

2 page 14 of Professor Bilic's report.

3 Now, I asked that S-11 be kept with you because I think you say in

4 your report that S-11 is a carbon-copy of S-12; is that correct?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. All right. Dealing now with S-12, again can you confirm any

7 water-mark?

8 A. Yes. Again, there is a continuous silhouette of a sail-boat as

9 was the case with the previous document.

10 Q. Now, you said this is a carbon-copy but is it correct that in fact

11 the handwritten corrections and the stamp and the signature are in

12 different places on this document?

13 A. Yes, yes, that's correct. This can easily be seen.

14 Q. And apart from that, you -- did you reach the same conclusions

15 with regard to this document as with the previous document in terms of the

16 features which you described for S-11? And you don't need to rehearse

17 them all. If it's the same, then that's fine. If there is something else

18 to add, then please do so.

19 A. This document contains a different short note written by X2, which

20 says, "Buried in the cemetery," whereas the earlier document said, "Died

21 between the 17th and the 18th."

22 I will try to place them next to each other. That's it. This is

23 a carbon-copy, and this is the first version. This document contains the

24 text which says, "Died between the 17th and the 18th March 1993." The

25 other document says, "Buried in the cemetery." It's -- the same person is

Page 15619

1 involved, Pejevic, Rado -- Pejic, Rado, and you can take a look at the

2 dates. They are different, although it's the carbon-copy, you can see

3 it's 11 and it's the 2nd of February.

4 Now the other one says 0.11; we don't know which date it is. And

5 this is an absurdity because it's the same text, which has to do with the

6 same person, but the texts differ. One would expect the texts to be the

7 same as well, since the two documents are otherwise identical.

8 The location of both the signature and the stamp is different.

9 Here again, almost the entire half of the signature is covered by the

10 stamp. We have the instances of additional writing at the top, so we

11 would say that they have -- share the same genesis, the two documents.

12 Q. And your conclusions are as with the previous document and as set

13 out on page 36 --

14 A. Yes, yes. I said most probably not signed by Hamed Salihovic.

15 That's in point 2. Point 1, most probably not written by Hamed Salihovic.

16 And this refers to the short handwritten notes which were not written by

17 him.

18 Q. May I ask you one final question on this document and on S-11? We

19 see in the last sentence, the word "uhvacen." I appreciate this isn't

20 something which you necessarily addressed as an expert but is that a word

21 used by Bosnian Muslims?

22 A. No.

23 Q. All right. Thank you.

24 JUDGE AGIUS: Judge Eser would like to know the meaning of that

25 word.

Page 15620

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Captured. The word means, in the

2 Bosnian, arrested, but the variant "uhicen," the variant of the word

3 arrested, is Croat, in my opinion.


5 Q. What word is used by Bosnians, sorry, just again for the record,

6 for "captured"?

7 A. The version in Bosnian would be "uhvachen" or -- which means

8 arrested, or "zarobljen," taken prisoner. These are synonyms, but these

9 are the words that would be used in the Bosnian version. "Uhvacen"

10 or "zarobljen," although I would prefer -- I think "zarobljen" would be

11 in the first place.

12 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] To make the record clear, could the

13 word in Bosnian, the word used by the expert, be recorded because

14 otherwise we have an interpretation, because the expert said that the word

15 "uhicen" is not the one used in the Bosnian, but rather "uhvacen" --

16 "uhvacen."

17 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction, "uhvacen,"

18 "zarobljen."

19 MR. JONES: We can perhaps also correct that during the break with

20 the court reporter.

21 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, I think you can do that during the break,

22 because otherwise it will take us five minutes to dictate.

23 MR. JONES: Thank you. Your Honour, I'm finished with this

24 document although we have the same issue as before that it's not currently

25 an exhibit. I'm not sure whether this might possibly be a Defence

Page 15621

1 exhibit. Unfortunately, as Your Honour might have noticed our CaseMap

2 manager is not with us currently.

3 JUDGE AGIUS: It's up to you. I mean, you know what the position

4 is. We cannot force the Defence to --

5 MR. JONES: We will tender it if it hasn't been tendered already,

6 and I'm sure the Registry can check that.

7 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Yes, Mr. Wubben.

8 MR. WUBBEN: In my opinion, it's not tendered so far.

9 JUDGE AGIUS: I don't know. If it's not tendered, you wish to

10 tender it.

11 MR. JONES: Yes, Your Honour.

12 JUDGE AGIUS: So that would become D1016; correct? And it's being

13 tendered and received on the same conditions as in the case of the

14 previous two documents, D1014 and 1015.

15 MR. JONES: Thank you. And subject to our same reserves about it.


17 MR. JONES: Yes. Well, we can now move on to S-12A, and that is

18 02075743. And it's dealt with on -- it's also P62, and it's dealt with on

19 page 13 of Professor Bilic's report. All right.

20 Actually, I'm informed it may be helpful for the record that the

21 document we just saw is in fact part of D155 but not in English, just the

22 B/C/S version. So that might be of assistance at some point.

23 Q. So now looking at this document, we can probably deal with this

24 quite shortly, although in fact I would ask Professor, if you could open

25 page 23 of your report because I believe you -- that shows a map which you

Page 15622

1 described for this -- which you carried out on this document.

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. We'll just have a look at that and you can briefly explain.

4 A. The document marked S-12A; is that right? Yes. This one. The

5 contentious handwriting was photographed on this document, and fortunately

6 a word was found, "zemljoradnik," meaning farmer or farm labourer, and in

7 this form, N.5, which is an uncontentious text, handwritten text, we find

8 this same word as his father's occupation, and this is indubitably written

9 by Hamed Salihovic, so we can compare the same word. We have shown only

10 the most prominent features in these two handwritten versions of this

11 word. And you can see that there is absolutely a difference here. I have

12 marked some other differences as well here, and this is another one of the

13 elements that goes to confirm that the handwritten content of this, that

14 is this document, was not written by Hamed Salihovic. It's not his

15 handwriting.

16 I have documented this on this map here, and you can take a look.

17 I wanted the Court and everyone in the courtroom to observe this and to

18 see for themselves. This is the best way. When you look at the signature

19 on this document, this is again one of the versions with a stamp and again

20 we have the handwriting here, which is most probably not written in the

21 hand of Hamed Salihovic. And under one, there is another signature

22 probably not written in the hand of Hamed Salihovic.

23 Q. X1 was the writer of this document?

24 A. Yes. As I said that -- I said that when we were discussing 4.

25 Q. And did you say this is another version of the signature?

Page 15623

1 A. One of the versions, that's what I said. There is more than one.

2 This is one of the versions of the signature recurring in these documents.

3 They give the impression of a signature. I see that this was meant to

4 give the impression of the signature, but they are all different. Nothing

5 is consistent. Nothing is constant. Every time there is something

6 different. And you can see that even if you're not a graphologist and

7 have no skills as a graphologist.

8 Q. Thank you. We finished with that document.

9 I might just deal with one more before the break. And that would

10 be S-13. And it's 01321045 to 01321046. And I'd ask you to tell us,

11 Professor, whether this document first of all has a water-mark, and if so,

12 what type of water-mark?

13 A. Let me check once again. This is a very rare water-mark. Extra

14 Post, a chamois on a rock. It's very high quality writing paper, and this

15 water-mark is found only on this document. It's A4 in size. There is

16 writing on both sides of the paper. One side is entirely covered with

17 handwriting and part of the reverse side is also written on. The entire

18 document was written by a third writer, one we have labelled X3.

19 Q. Thank you. Just want to ask you one question. Yesterday -- yes,

20 we were looking at S-2 and you mentioned seeing a chamois on a rock

21 water-mark in that document as well. Is that the same image or a

22 different one?

23 A. It's different. This heraldic water-mark of a chamois was present

24 on high quality paper produced by the Radece factory in Slovenia, which

25 also produced paper for bank documents. Producers change their

Page 15624

1 water-marks. We can say that this was --

2 Q. Sorry to interrupt you. But so then on S-2, we have a water-mark

3 with a chamois on a rock but also on this document but it's a different

4 version of that water-mark; is that correct?

5 A. Yes, that's correct. That's what I said. The content was

6 different as well. It said "Extra Post," whereas this one says, "Extra

7 Post" continuously. You can take a look at it if you like.

8 Q. Thank you. Finally before the break, your conclusion, the

9 handwriting, because it's only a question of handwriting, there is no

10 signature, most probably not that of Hamed Salihovic?

11 A. Most probably it is not the handwriting of Hamed Salihovic. This

12 is the handwriting of the writer we have labelled X3. In all these

13 documents, we may conclude there is writer X1, writer X2 and writer X3.

14 X3 occurs on one occasion, whereas X1 and 2 recur frequently. And this

15 refers to all the documents we have looked at so far.

16 Is there anything else I need to say?

17 Q. [Previous translation continues]... Thank you.

18 MR. JONES: And if Your Honours please, we will have the break now

19 and resume at S-14.

20 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. I don't know if it's tendered or not, this

21 document.

22 Is it tendered, Mr. Jones?

23 MR. JONES: No, it isn't, and we will tender that as well in

24 accordance with the process we are adopting.

25 JUDGE AGIUS: So this will be D1017, and it's being tendered and

Page 15625

1 received as Defence document under the same terms and conditions as in the

2 previous three documents.

3 We'll have a full 30-minute break now. Thank you.

4 --- Recess taken at 11.39 a.m.

5 --- On resuming at 12.18 p.m.

6 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Jones.

7 MR. JONES: Thank you, Your Honour.

8 Q. All right. So we are just coming now to S-14, if the witness

9 could please be shown that document, and the ERN is 01837364 to 01837364A,

10 and this is not an exhibit and so we will be tendering it. And its title,

11 I'll just read the title for the record, it's "record of the civilians

12 imprisoned or missing on the territory controlled by Muslim forces." And

13 it's dealt with on page 15 of Professor Bilic's report.

14 Firstly, Professor, I don't know if you can help us with just the

15 title, whether that is indicative of whether this is a document of the

16 Serbs or the Muslims, this reference to "territory controlled by Muslim

17 forces."

18 A. The very word, "control of Muslim forces," "controlja muslimanski

19 snaga," [phoen] shows that this cannot be a document belonging to the

20 Muslim forces. They certainly wouldn't have phrased it in this way.

21 Q. Okay. Thank you.

22 A. It's just a statement.

23 Q. Yes. Thank you for that observation.

24 Now, as far as this document is concerned, it's again typed with

25 some handwritten additions. Have you identified who made the handwritten

Page 15626

1 additions?

2 A. Yes. I have identified the writer whom we previously labelled as

3 X2. For example, next to number 22, 22, it says, "Killed, Dimitrovski,

4 Krste and wife," and then in the handwriting of X2 it says, "Killed."

5 Next to number 16 where it says, "Lazic, Dusan Krsto," it's not

6 the same one the Serbs say. We cannot attribute this to X2. This is a

7 different person who wrote this.

8 Also next to number 3, "Zivanovic, Jove Bogdan," it says

9 here, "Died," this was written by X2, who occurs frequently, but above

10 this we also have the word "razmjenjen," which means exchanged, and this

11 was written by a different person.

12 So here we have participation by X2 and another writer who does

13 not occur frequently in these documents.

14 On page 2 of the same document, next to number 38, we have the

15 word double, "dupli." This was written by X2.

16 Next to 40 it says, "u dupli," in double. And then 43, "Djokic,

17 Vidosava, Jakov," says "double."

18 Then we have number 39. Next to it says, "Exchanged at Lake

19 Ziga." [phoen] This is a handwriting we cannot attribute to either X1 or

20 X2 or X3. This is something completely different. That's what I can say

21 about this document. It was typed on a single sheet of paper on both

22 sides.

23 Q. Thank you. And it might be necessary just to clarify one matter.

24 Next to 39, as I heard you in Bosnian, you read, "razmjenjen na Jezerv

25 Ziv." Is that correct? "Exchanged at Jezero, lives," rather than the

Page 15627

1 name of the lake as it came out in the English translation,

2 interpretation.

3 A. Yes. It says that he's alive. That's next to number 39,

4 Mr. Jones. Yes. Next to 39. Not 32. On page 2.

5 Q. All right. Thank you.

6 A. Nikolic, Pajo, Ratko, Pajo Ratko, it says, "Exchanged at Jezero,"

7 and then it says "alive," referring to Nikolic, Pajo, Ratko, that he's

8 alive. I think I've been clear now.

9 Q. That's clear. And then just finally did you analyse this

10 handwriting by reference to non-contentious handwriting of Hamed

11 Salihovic, and did you conclude it was most probably not written by Hamed

12 Salihovic?

13 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please speak into the

14 microphone?


16 Q. Yes, Professor Bilic, you're being asked to speak into the

17 microphone as well, please.

18 A. Yes, thank you.

19 I said under 1 that Hamed Salihovic most probably did not write

20 this in his own hand, this contentious handwritten document with short

21 notes and additions. That's what it says precisely under 3, Hamed

22 Salihovic most probably did not write this in his own hand.

23 Is that it?

24 Q. Yes. Thank you. I'm finished with that document and we will now

25 move to the next one.

Page 15628

1 JUDGE AGIUS: Is this in evidence already, this document, or not?

2 MR. JONES: No. So again it would be a question, sorry, of asking

3 for an exhibit number.

4 JUDGE AGIUS: Can I have the exhibit, the document, please, Usher?

5 I thank you. All right.

6 [Trial Chamber confers]

7 JUDGE AGIUS: So this document, which consists of two sheets of

8 paper, the first one of which has a crossed ERN 01837363, and underneath

9 in handwriting, another reference number, ERN, which is 01837364, the

10 second page having an ERN number 01837364-A, in capital form, is being

11 tendered by the Defence, marked as Defence Exhibit D1018, under the same

12 terms and conditions as all the previous documents tendered today

13 from D1014.

14 MR. JONES: Thank you.

15 JUDGE AGIUS: The other thing is we would like to, because we are

16 not experts, so if the witness can tell us if there are any water-marks

17 here.

18 MR. JONES: Yes, certainly.

19 JUDGE AGIUS: I can't see any but, you know, sometimes they are

20 hidden to the amateur eye.

21 MR. JONES: Thank you. And then I'll have one matter to clarify

22 as well with the Professor on this document.

23 JUDGE AGIUS: Professor Bilic, looking at those two piece of

24 paper, do you see any water-mark by any chance?

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There are no water-marks on these

Page 15629

1 two sheets of paper. This is plain writing paper.

2 MR. JONES: Thank you.

3 Q. There is a matter I'd like you to clarify for us. In your

4 conclusions on page 36, at paragraph 4, you conclude that S-14 and also

5 S-15, the document we'll see in the moment, were most probably written by

6 two frequently participating writers marked as X1 and X2, and you've told

7 us that X1 and X2 are not Hamed Salihovic. If I refer to paragraph 1, it

8 appears that in fact you didn't specifically address S-14 and S-15 and say

9 that they were not -- that they were most probably not written in hand by

10 Hamed Salihovic. Does that follow anyway from the fact that X1 and X2 are

11 not Hamed Salihovic? Is that what you're telling us?

12 A. Yes. That's correct. X1 and X2, when they are mentioned, that

13 always means that most probably it is not the handwriting of Hamed

14 Salihovic.

15 Q. Thank you.

16 MR. JONES: I'm finished with that document and we can now move on

17 to S-15, which I believe is the last of the Hamed Salihovic documents,

18 and that, for the record, is 01837373 to 01837375. And, again, it's not

19 an exhibit and we will propose to tender it. Again, it's a list, and the

20 title -- sorry, one moment. We can see the title for ourselves.

21 Now this document is dealt with at page 15 of your report. And,

22 again, if you could just tell us whom you identified as having done the

23 handwriting in this document?

24 A. This is a list of fighters of the army of Republika Srpska who

25 were captured or missing on the territory under the control of the Muslim

Page 15630

1 forces from Srebrenica. Analysing the handwritten notes next to number 1,

2 it says, "Not known" in handwriting, and then next to 3, it

3 says, "Buried."

4 Q. If I can ask you to go through all the handwriting because there

5 is quite a lot there. I would ask you to go to numbers 91 and 92, which

6 is right at the end, and if you could first of all read what is

7 handwritten there and then tell us who wrote that?

8 A. Next to 91 -- just a moment.

9 Q. Yes.

10 A. Can you zoom in on this.

11 Q. And if you could read what that says and then --

12 A. Okay. It says here, "After, "poslije." "After demilitarisation,"

13 "demilitarizacije," and there is a bracket here, and it says, "posle

14 demilitarizacije." "After demilitarisation." It is not in the Ijakavian

15 dialect spoken in Bosnia, which would be "poslije," but rather "posle."

16 This is significant. "Posle" is in the Ekavian dialect. It should be in

17 the Ijakavian dialect. After that it says "demilitarizacije,"

18 demilitarisation.

19 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... is it the Ekavian dialect

20 used or by whom is it used?

21 A. The Ekavian dialect is used in Serbia. They speak the Ekavian

22 dialect. In Bosnia they seek Ijakavian.

23 Q. And can you identify that writer or designated --

24 A. Yes. This writer has been identified. It's X2.

25 Q. And, actually, sorry, if we go back to 2, I'm not sure if you had

Page 15631

1 told us yet, but for 2, if you look over past the second column, we see

2 handwritten, 31.7.1993, 31 July 1993. And who in your opinion is the

3 writer of that date?

4 A. Most probably a third person.

5 Q. Okay. Now there is no signature, but again if you can just

6 confirm your conclusions about the handwriting, which is -- again, it's

7 page 36, paragraph 4, that the handwriting was most probably X1 and X2,

8 neither of whom are Hamed Salihovic?

9 A. Yes, that's correct. That's correct. That's what it says here.

10 Q. Well, that concludes our examination of the documents allegedly

11 written or signed by Hamed Salihovic. So we can now turn to those

12 allegedly signed by Naser Oric. And we can start --

13 JUDGE AGIUS: This is not in --

14 MR. JONES: My apologies, yes, again that needs to be tendered.

15 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, exactly. So this document consists of three

16 pages with the following ERN numbers: 0 -- first page 01837373; second

17 page, 01827374; third page 01838385.

18 The three pages are being tendered and received in evidence as

19 Defence Exhibit D1018 -- 9, 1019. And they are being tendered and

20 received under the same terms and conditions of the previous five

21 documents.

22 MR. JONES: Yes. So we can turn now to S.1, and as explained, the

23 point documents concern Naser Oric and Hamdija Fejzic. Now, this is

24 02075809, and it's P74. And this is also questioned signature Q2, and

25 it's dealt with at pages 15 to 16 of Professor Bilic's report.

Page 15632

1 Q. Now, firstly, Professor Bilic, is it right that this was available

2 in the original, by which I mean it was not a photocopy or a carbon, that

3 it was not a photocopy?

4 A. In my investigation, I had access to the original of this

5 document.

6 Q. Thank you. Now, again is this written on only on one side?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. And can you tell us anything about the top right-hand column,

9 "vojna tajna strogo pov," when that was written on the document?

10 A. This was added on subsequently, just as we have seen previously in

11 other documents. When we looked at the other documents we saw this. It's

12 not a continuous text, as you can see, but it was typed in later.

13 Q. Now turning to the signatures at the bottom, what can you tell us

14 about which writing implements were used for the alleged signatures of

15 Fejzic and Oric?

16 A. The signature of Hamdija Fejzic is written in ball-point pen,

17 leaving a dark blue ink trace, whereas Naser Oric's signature is written

18 in ink. This is fountain-pen ink. It's a completely different kind of

19 writing implement and it's covered over.

20 Q. I'll come that in a moment. In terms of those different writing

21 implements, are there different pressures which are used when those

22 implements are used and, if so, is that something you can analyse if you

23 have the originals?

24 A. Yes. That is an indispensable part of the investigation. I have

25 to explain briefly that for a ball-point pen, to function properly, there

Page 15633

1 has to be a certain amount of pressure. A ball-point pen will not write

2 unless pressure is exerted, whereas when fountain-pens are used, no

3 pressure is necessary. On the contrary, a pressure would create

4 difficulties. The pressure has to be very slight and fluid ink comes out

5 which remains on the paper. This is a significant difference. Therefore,

6 there is a category which exists in writing with a ball-point pen which

7 causes an impression and on the reverse side it's seen as an indentation,

8 whereas the indentation is very slight or there is none if a fountain-pen

9 is used. A fountain-pen would not write properly if too much pressure

10 were exerted. That is a very simple and brief explanation.

11 Q. All right. So according -- well, if this document were signed by

12 Naser Oric, he'd have used a fountain-pen; correct?

13 A. Allegedly signed. You said signed. But, of course, if he has

14 indeed signed, I believe we should speak in those terms.

15 Q. Yes, Professor. And it may or may not need clarification, but

16 when we speak in English of a fountain-pen you can have a type where you

17 insert a cartridge with a pen -- with ink in it, or there are ones where

18 the pen itself takes up the ink and then writes with it. Which type of

19 pen are we talking about or are they -- or could it be either?

20 A. Yes, yes. Most probably the fountain-pen which uses a cartridge.

21 However, I did not pursue that examination because it would inquire --

22 would require invasive examination, whereas the visual examination and the

23 light examination showed that most probably this type of fountain-pen was

24 used.

25 However, if we wanted to establish whether it was the cartridge

Page 15634

1 pen, fountain-pen, or the classical pen, then we would have to apply more

2 invasive examination techniques which we could not do in this case because

3 we would have damaged the integrity of the documents.

4 Q. Just to summarise on that, is it correct in fact that by removing

5 [microphone override] document one can analyse the ink, the paper, how far

6 the ink has sunk into the paper and with such invasive techniques find out

7 a great deal more about the document?

8 A. Yes. That's correct. There are instruments in place and chemical

9 examinations which can establish this but this would require a more

10 invasive examination approach, as I said.

11 On the basis of the examination carried out, we can establish as

12 follows: That there were two types of pen used, one of which is a

13 fountain-pen, which leaves a trace of ink, whereas the ball-point pen

14 leaves the trace of an ink paste. The ball at the point of the pen

15 rotates and that's how it brings the ink paste on to paper, but there has

16 to be pressure for that.

17 Q. All right. Thank you. Now just to come to your conclusions, they

18 are -- firstly you mentioned that this stamp partly covers the signature.

19 You told us yesterday what that indicates to you and so I won't ask you

20 about that again, if your conclusions are again the same, namely, that the

21 stamp should not be over the signature.

22 A. Yes. The conclusions remain the same.

23 Q. Now, dealing with Hamdija Fejzic and the name Hamdija Fejzic on

24 this document, that's beneath "zapisnicar." Can you just explain to us

25 what that means? Does that mean this person prepared the document or

Page 15635

1 typed the document or what in your language?

2 A. That's the person who keeps minutes from an event. Or that's to

3 say the minutes can be taken down in handwriting and then typed out. In

4 any case, this is an administrative worker who deals with documents. His

5 role was that of an assistant who prepares and processes documents, files

6 documents, keeps the log-books, controls the contents of the documents

7 before they are signed by the person authorised to sign them.

8 Q. Thank you. So according to this, Hamdija Fejzic would have

9 prepared this document. Can you tell us about -- again, and it's not

10 necessarily up to me --

11 A. Allegedly, yes.

12 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Wubben?

13 MR. WUBBEN: Yes, Your Honour. I presume my learned friend

14 doesn't want to give evidence in a concluding sense that Hamdija Fejzic

15 would have prepared this document as the witness was just stating what

16 should be considered as the functioning of a secretary.

17 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Jones. Do you want to comment? Do you

18 wish to comment on that?

19 MR. JONES: No. Really, it was just anything which is apparent on

20 the face of the document from the word "zapisnicar" and the name, but I

21 don't need to pursue it.

22 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Wubben?

23 MR. WUBBEN: Well, it is my objection when Defence counsel gives

24 evidence, made concluding remarks like that, gives leading questions with

25 a view even to certain facts and -- while the witness was just elaborating

Page 15636












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

13 English transcripts.













Page 15637

1 on the functioning of a secretary, in general what his function is. It's

2 inappropriate questioning in my --

3 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Wubben, I refer you to line 4 and 5 of page 42,

4 and there is no problems in interpretation here because the words were

5 spoken in English. And Mr. Jones did not say: So according to this,

6 Hamdija Fejzic prepared this document. He said: So according to this,

7 Hamdija Fejzic would have prepared the document. This is -- and in

8 English, that has its connotation. He's not suggesting that indeed

9 because that is what is stated in the paper, therefore it follows that

10 Hamdija Fejzic did prepare. The "would" is there precisely to indicate

11 that that is what appears on the face of the document but doesn't

12 necessarily follow that it is so. In fact, he was -- when you stood up,

13 he said: Can you tell us about it again? And it's not necessarily he was

14 precisely going to indicate --

15 MR. WUBBEN: I accept that, Your Honour, but my advice is that

16 when it comes to facts and conclusions like that, it should not be leading

17 questions.

18 JUDGE AGIUS: I don't think it was a leading question. It's just

19 putting -- anyway, Mr. Jones, I don't know if you want to pursue it any

20 further or not, but I think it's clear enough.

21 MR. JONES: Yes. I'm really dealing with what on the face of the

22 document that it appears that that person would have been the person who

23 prepared the document, and I'll leave it with that.

24 Q. A question about the grammar in which this document is written. I

25 can draw your attention, for example, to the last three words, "Sarajevu

Page 15638

1 Injima." Is this in good grammatical language? It's the last three

2 words.

3 A. Are you asking me?

4 Q. Yes.

5 A. No. This isn't correct. It's grammatically incorrect, completely

6 incorrect.

7 Q. Now, did you analyse or did you compare the signatures on this

8 document with non-contentious signatures of Naser Oric and Hamdija Fejzic?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. And did some of those non-contentious signatures date from 1996,

11 in other words, only three years or so from the contentious ones?

12 A. Yes, yes.

13 Q. And in terms of the non-contentious signatures of Naser Oric and

14 Hamdija Fejzic, were those signatures spontaneous, fast and fluent, or

15 were they otherwise?

16 A. Yes. What you said is correct.

17 Q. And did any of the non-contentious signatures of Naser Oric which

18 you looked at, did any of them have a full stop after the signature?

19 A. There were so many Naser's signatures covering a very broad span

20 of time, from 1996 up until 2004, and none of the signatures had one, had

21 what we call the punctuation mark when one places a full stop at the end

22 of a word is in this case a punctuation mark, which is in principle placed

23 only at the end of written material. In my practice so far, I've never

24 come across a person's signature at the end of which a punctuation mark is

25 placed. This isn't a sentence. It's a signature.

Page 15639

1 Q. All right. Thank you. What were your conclusions about whether

2 or not this signature is in fact the signature of Naser Oric?

3 A. Since this is an original document, I categorically concluded that

4 it was not written by Naser Oric in his hand.

5 Q. And was that simply because you had the original that you could be

6 categorical or were there any other reasons?

7 A. In addition to there having been the original, there were other

8 indicators and elements which arose during the examination, based on the

9 good quality and quantity of non-contentious samples.

10 Q. All right. Now, you've told us how the non-contentious signatures

11 which you analysed were spontaneous, fast and fluent. Were the

12 contentious signatures -- I'm not just talking about this document now,

13 I'm leaping ahead slightly. Were the contentious signatures of Naser Oric

14 written spontaneously, quickly and fluently?

15 A. No.

16 Q. Were they even written at the same speed, the contentious

17 signatures?

18 A. No, no.

19 Q. Some of the features of the contentious and non-contentious

20 signatures of Naser Oric set out on pages 30 to 33 of your report?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. We don't need to look at that in detail now. I want to ask you

23 about, if you can refer to that later, that's fine.

24 The signature, the alleged signature of Hamdija Fejzic, what did

25 you conclude about that signature?

Page 15640

1 A. I concluded that the signature was forged with an unsuccessful

2 method of free-hand imitation and simulation, and I am absolutely sure

3 that this is not Fejzic's signature. This is not Hamdija Fejzic's

4 signature. There are -- such signatures can be found on two more

5 documents that follow after this one.

6 Q. We are coming to those. So your conclusions about the alleged

7 signatures of Oric and Fejzic are firm conclusions, they are not

8 probabilistic?

9 A. Definitely, yes. Yes.

10 Q. Thank you.

11 MR. JONES: I'm finished with that document. We can move on to

12 the next document, which is S.2, and it's 02075808, and it's P73. It's

13 questioned signature Q3. And it's dealt with at pages 16 and 17 of

14 Professor Bilic's report. And in order to progress, I'll lead some of

15 this evidence. This was available in the original, for examination. It's

16 typed with some typed corrections.

17 Q. And, yes, your pointing out the alignment "vojna tajna." What can

18 you tell us about that, Professor?

19 A. This was subsequently typed as was the case with other documents.

20 This is quite recurrent in all the documents. You can see that it is

21 misaligned. It is not aligned with the other pieces of writing. This can

22 be established by mere visualisation. I can show it to you, this way. I

23 do not usually do it this way, but for the sake of clarity, you can see

24 that this part was written earlier.

25 Q. Thank you. Now you've also noted in your report some corrections

Page 15641

1 or changes to this document, in particular at 7 Skelani. Can you tell us

2 how that correction has been made?

3 A. Can this be focused in please? More, more.

4 Q. Yes, it's --

5 A. Could you please blow it up a bit more? Yes.

6 At some point, this document contained a completely different

7 typewritten word. What happened next was mechanical scraping or abrasion

8 with an adequate implement. One can see still traces of that earlier word

9 in the form of black dots and abrasions, and even blots of a sort. The

10 word that was there earlier was obliterated and what was subsequently

11 added was the word "Skelana." Whether this was a typographical error

12 which occurred whilst the document was being typed out or whether the

13 reason was different, that is something I cannot conclude anything about.

14 However, what is evident is the scraping effort, the abrasion that can be

15 seen. But it is, of course, up to the Court to enter its findings on

16 that.

17 Q. Yes, thank you. And then moving to your conclusions --

18 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. You can move ahead with the question. We

19 would like to see this document.

20 MR. JONES: Yes.

21 Q. The conclusion, just to confirm, it's page 36 and it's

22 paragraphs 5 and 7, that the signatures were not signed by Naser Oric and

23 were not signed by Hamdija Fejzic. And, again, are those firm

24 conclusions?

25 A. Yes. These are final, absolute conclusions, under 5 and under 7.

Page 15642

1 Q. Thank you.

2 MR. JONES: And the next document, I'll just mention it now, to

3 show the witness is S.3, 02075810, and it's also P75. And that's dealt

4 with at pages 16 to 17 of Professor Bilic's report.

5 Q. So this document, too, was available for inspection in the

6 original. It's written on one side --

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Written, and I'm taking this from your report, commercial writing

9 paper, I believe you say?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. And handwritten with -- typed with handwritten corrections in

12 one -- at least one place. Now, can you tell us in this document where

13 there has been a correction to Srebrenica, how has that been made, that

14 correction?

15 A. Could you zoom this in, please?

16 This was covered over with correction fluid and then over the

17 corrected part the word "Srebrenica" was written. However, the

18 punctuation mark of comma was left from the earlier word, and when the

19 word was retyped or typed over, that's when another comma was placed.

20 There is another addition, handwritten addition to the text, quite roughly

21 done. It is quite striking and a bit surprising that such a correction

22 should be done to this type of document, a decision.

23 Q. And just going back to the mention of correcting fluid, is that

24 what we would call Tipex, that's obviously just one brand. I don't want

25 to promote one brand over another. But what is referred to as Tipex?

Page 15643

1 A. Yes. Correction fluid, white in colour, which is used for errors

2 in a text, and then in order not to scrape the errors, they are covered

3 over in fluid. Had we applied invasive examination techniques, we could

4 have been able to establish perhaps what word was written under. However,

5 we did not apply that type of examination, and we can conclude what we see

6 here, that there was something that was covered over.

7 Q. All right. Thank you. Now, as before, and I'm not sure if we

8 dealt with this at S.2 but it's in your report, the signature, the alleged

9 signature by Hamdija Fejzic in ball-point pen and that allegedly by Naser

10 Oric in fountain-pen. Correct?

11 A. Yes, that's correct. As was the case with the earlier document,

12 all the observations I relayed in relation to the earlier document apply

13 here.

14 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... your conclusions the same

15 regarding the signatures?

16 A. Absolutely the same. Fejzic did not sign his name here, as court

17 reporter, nor did Naser Oric sign this particular signature as commander

18 of TO Srebrenica. None of them produced these signatures.

19 Q. Thank you. We can move on to S.4.

20 MR. JONES: Are we continuing to 1.45, Your Honour, or do I need

21 to stop again?

22 JUDGE AGIUS: You stop when you wish, but my idea was to continue

23 until 1.45. However, at this point, I think I would like to know how much

24 time you have left.

25 MR. JONES: I'm going it try and finish today. I'm optimistic.

Page 15644

1 JUDGE AGIUS: In that case, do you think you will finish your

2 cross-examination in two days?

3 MR. WUBBEN: If we finish today by my learned friend, then yes,

4 Your Honour.

5 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. All right. Because if not, I have been

6 inquiring to see availability of courtrooms. You know the difficulties

7 that we have at the moment, and I was trying to jump in before others

8 would, and there is a possibility of booking a courtroom for Friday

9 morning, the proviso is that we would have to finish a little bit earlier

10 because one of us needs to travel. So --

11 MR. JONES: I'll try and go as quickly as possible.

12 JUDGE AGIUS: Go ahead.


14 Q. Professor, for the rest of the following documents, I think we can

15 probably --

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. -- take it quite quickly. So we have S.4 where the ERN is

18 01239504, and it's P4. And this is dealt with at page 17 of your report,

19 available in the original, written only on one side, typed, does this

20 document have any signs of physical or chemical destruction?

21 A. Yes. At the bottom, there is evidence of physical and chemical

22 destruction. This was some substance that permeated the paper and it is

23 now easily torn in that part. So in this part, the document is damaged.

24 On the right-hand margin, as you can see, is torn in parts, whether this

25 was because the document was handled, circulated, used and so on.

Page 15645

1 Q. And could you in fact confirm your conclusions regarding the

2 signature or the alleged signature of Naser Oric for this document?

3 A. What we said with regard to the earlier documents applies here,

4 and I stand by my conclusion that this signature was not written by Naser

5 Oric.

6 Q. Thank you. Is this again a question of a signature and a

7 fountain-pen and is it again a question of a signature with a full stop at

8 the end?

9 A. This was also written in fountain-pen, which has running ink, and

10 we have the punctuation mark, which is a full stop. In this case, as was

11 the case with the other signatures, alleged signatures, the full stop is a

12 bit spaced out. It is further off in relation to the signature, not right

13 at the end of it.

14 Q. Thank you. Is it right that in fact there are a whole host of

15 features which you analysed in the signature, not just the full stop that

16 we are referring to?

17 A. Yes. I listed these features under the comparison that I

18 produced, which is contained on page -- I believe you know which page it

19 is -- that was the C stage, stage of comparison, which is on page 3.

20 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter isn't certain about the page.

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I tried to present it in a way that

22 would make it easy for everyone to understand. From the perspective of

23 professional ethics, one should not -- an expert should not really state

24 his entire opinion because one can never be sure in whose hands the paper

25 can end up. We can only present those features we are fully certain of.

Page 15646

1 The document examination is time-consuming, it requires a wide range of

2 analyses, looking for both general and specific characteristics, which

3 assist -- or rather, on the basis of which a conclusion is made.

4 Q. Now we can move to S.5, which is 03720933. It's P176. It's dealt

5 with at pages 17 to 18 of Professor Bilic's report.

6 Q. Now this was only available for analysis as a photocopy; correct?

7 JUDGE AGIUS: This last document --

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

9 JUDGE AGIUS: Is already in evidence, isn't it?

10 MR. JONES: Yes, yes.

11 Q. Now, this document was available as a photocopy. On pages 17

12 to 18 of your report, you express reservations about working with

13 photocopies and you don't need to elaborate on that now. But is it right

14 that you have those reservations about giving an opinion in relation to

15 copies?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. We can -- if need be, we can elaborate on that subsequently. But

18 for now, I just want to ask you the following about this document.

19 Firstly, the "vonja tajna strogo pov," is it the same as before, that that

20 does not align with the other words in the document or does it line up?

21 A. Yes, yes. It was typed in later.

22 Q. Thank you.

23 A. But I do have reservation. It's a photocopy. When one

24 photocopies, there can always be extensions. It can be misleading. It

25 all depends on how you place the document, what the quality of the

Page 15647

1 photocopying paper is, what the toner was like, and so on and so forth,

2 whether the document is being photocopied with a view to achieving

3 something, and modern photocopying machines are such that everything can

4 be made to look as if it were authentic. And that's my general remark

5 about photocopying.

6 So to carry out any subtle measurements or analyses on photocopies

7 is highly uncertain. That's why I don't wish to decidedly state my

8 opinion about this. And the fact that I have analysed this signature is a

9 precedent in my case. That's why I say most probably. Because if you

10 only look at the shape, the form of the signature, and if we go back to

11 all the signatures we have, I think even a layperson can see that it's

12 different, and there is nothing one can add or take away. That's why I

13 used the category most probably.

14 Q. Just for clarity, the conclusion most probably not the signature

15 of Naser Oric, and you used that measure of probability because you had

16 only a copy?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. All right. Thank you we can move to the next document, which

19 is S.6, and that's 01839608, and it's P37. It's also been designated Q17.

20 And it's dealt with at pages 18 to 19 of Professor Bilic's report. This

21 was available in the original, written only on one side?

22 A. Yes, yes.

23 Q. And can you tell us if there is a water-mark?

24 A. Yes, there is a water-mark on this document. There is a

25 water-mark. The one we've come across before. Extra Post with a chamois

Page 15648

1 on a rock, and we have explained the origin of this type of paper, and

2 what the water-mark means. You can see this for yourself. Extra Post,

3 Extra Post, Extra Post. You can see it easily. This is half of an A4

4 size paper. It has been torn in half. And this is high quality writing

5 paper. You can take a look, if you like.

6 Q. Thank you.

7 A. It's an original document.

8 Q. Your conclusion was that this was not the signature of Naser Oric

9 and that was a firm conclusion?

10 A. Yes. That is a final conclusion.

11 Q. All right. I propose to move on to the next document but, of

12 course, if Your Honours wish to see the water-mark, the chamois on a rock,

13 otherwise I know Your Honours will have it.

14 JUDGE AGIUS: I think we can proceed. We will have these

15 documents available later on.

16 MR. JONES: Right, thank you, Your Honour.

17 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's proceed. It's more important to finish with

18 the testimony of this expert today.

19 MR. JONES: Yes, thank you, Your Honour.

20 Q. So we are now moving to S.7, and this is 01239545, P158, it's Q24,

21 and it's dealt with at page 19 of your report, available in the original,

22 as we can see. Here the stamp does not cover the signature. Conversely

23 is says Nasre Oric. Now, what was your conclusion about this signature?

24 A. The conclusion regarding this signature is also that it was not

25 written in hand by Naser Oric.

Page 15649

1 Q. Thank you. Now we come to S.8, and that's 03721400, and

2 it's P210. It's designated Q30. Dealt with at pages 17 to 18 of your

3 report but again only available as a photocopy. Did you conclude this was

4 most probably not the signature of Naser Oric and you used that level of

5 probability because it's a photocopy?

6 A. Yes. That's correct.

7 Q. Thank you. We can move on to S.9, which is 03721419, and

8 it's P213. It's dealt with at pages 17 to 18 of your report. And again,

9 we can take this quickly, I think, because it's a photocopy, and you

10 reached the conclusion most probably not the signature of Naser Oric.

11 Correct?

12 A. That's correct, yes. Most probably not signed by Naser Oric.

13 Q. You also noted a change or correction "Zulfaroli" in your report.

14 Can you notice how that change was made to that word?

15 A. Could you zoom in a little, please?

16 You can see this quite clearly, although it's a photocopy, so one

17 can rarely see something like this, photocopies are only black and white.

18 But here you can see that "Zulfaroli," I don't see the sense of this.

19 There is an error as we can see, and it's added in later, "Zulfaroli."

20 Q. Thank you. In terms of the space between the signature line and

21 the rest of the document, is that within the parameters of what in your

22 experience is normal or reasonable or not?

23 A. There is an enormous space left here. Whether it was left so that

24 something could be written in subsequently, it's an unnecessarily large

25 space for this text. Two or three spaces might have been left. This is

Page 15650

1 characteristic of all these documents, and indirectly, speaks about those

2 who created these documents. They always left a space. Whether it was in

3 handwriting or in typewriting, they left a large space, which gives rise

4 to suspicion.

5 Q. All right. Thank you. We will move on to the next document,

6 which is S.10, and that's 01239528. It's P13. It's also Q15. It's dealt

7 with at pages 18 to 19 of your report. As we can see, it was available in

8 the original. And can you tell us about any water-mark, first of all?

9 A. Yes. This is the document. I want to look at the water-mark once

10 again. You can't see it unless you hold it up to the light. Yes. There

11 is a water-mark here with a text "Extra Post," and it shows a chamois on a

12 rock, just as in the previous document which was on half a sheet of

13 A4-size paper. So this appears to be half of that sheet of paper.

14 Is there anything else we need to say about these documents? Do

15 you have any further questions about them?

16 Q. I believe you also note in your report that there is an imprint on

17 this document with the name Oric. I don't know if you're able to show

18 that on the ELMO. Perhaps --

19 A. Would you zoom in, please? Here?

20 Q. Apparently it's not possible to zoom.

21 A. Zoom in, please. Yes, yes, zoom in, zoom in.

22 Q. We can stop. We can just about see it.

23 A. Okay, okay, okay, okay.

24 Q. Yes, can you just explain what you see there for us?

25 A. This is in block writing, in Cyrillic letters, O-R-I-C. It's

Page 15651

1 block writing, not block capitals but block writing. You can see it even

2 better. If Their Honours wish to see it, please take it to them.

3 JUDGE AGIUS: Could you bring it here, please?

4 [Trial Chamber confers]

5 JUDGE AGIUS: Show it to Mr. Wubben, please.

6 [Prosecution counsel confer]


8 Q. My apologies. Also I don't think we need to necessarily go into

9 it now but on page 32 of your report, for S.9 I think you point out some

10 of the features -- sorry, S.10, some of the features which you -- the

11 contentious signature which led you to your conclusions about the

12 signature; correct?

13 A. Yes. I marked these characteristics, only those that can indicate

14 to anyone, Their Honours, counsel, whoever wishes to look.

15 Q. Yes, thank you. That's fine. We will look at that at our

16 leisure.

17 Just want to ask you to confirm your conclusion about the

18 signature on this document as stated in your report, namely not the

19 signature of Naser Oric and that being a firm conclusion, not a

20 probabilistic one.

21 A. That's correct, yes.

22 Q. Thank you. We can move to S.11. S.11, which is 00926461.

23 It's P3, and it's also Q10, and it's dealt with at pages 17 to 18 of

24 Professor Bilic's report. And again, I think I can summarise most of

25 what's in your report, available only as a photocopy, and therefore you

Page 15652

1 concluded that it was probably not the signature of Naser Oric. Is that

2 correct?

3 A. Yes. That's right.

4 Q. And is there anything you can tell us about the letters POV, P-O-V

5 full stop, which appears also on this document in the first line?

6 A. This is the first time this abbreviation is used in one of the

7 documents. It's written incorrectly with a small P and a capital OV.

8 From what I know about such texts, it's the first part of the word

9 "povjerjevo," [phoen] meaning confidential. But it doesn't make much

10 sense in this position. This is a photocopy. We see quite a few

11 alterations, as we can in all the documents.

12 Q. Thank you. I've finished with that document. We can move

13 to S.12. The ERN is 01239544. And it's P14. It's also Q18. And it's

14 dealt with at pages 18 to 19 of your report, available in the original.

15 And, first of all, I think we can deal immediately with your conclusion

16 that this was not the signature of Naser Oric?

17 A. Yes, that's correct.

18 Q. Now I want to ask you to pay attention to the words written in the

19 top right-hand corner to the president of the War Presidency. Now, does

20 that align with the rest of the text? Is there anything else you can tell

21 us about that?

22 A. This is added on later. Take a look. This has been typed in

23 subsequently, after the entire document was written, as you can see.

24 Q. Yes. Thank you.

25 A. Look.

Page 15653

1 Q. So, in other words, yes, the words, "the president of the War

2 Presidency," you're saying were added later because it doesn't align with

3 what's typed on the left-hand side?

4 A. That's correct.

5 Q. Thank you. Okay, I'm finished with that document.

6 We can move to S.13. That's 01801596. It's P330. And it's dealt

7 with at pages 17 to 18 of your report.

8 And again, available only as a photocopy, and so your conclusion

9 was most probably not the signature of Naser Oric; correct?

10 A. That's correct, yes.

11 Q. And that two other features which I'll ask you about, again the

12 space before the signature line. Does that seem normal or abnormal to

13 you?

14 A. Abnormal. This space here is very big between the text and the

15 signature. As the document is photocopied, there is nothing further we

16 can conclude about it. But you can see how large this space is.

17 Q. On the left-hand side we see the words "prekucani tekst." What in

18 fact does that mean?

19 A. The text was typed and then it was retyped again. It was retyped

20 from a pre-existing text, which may have been either handwritten or

21 typewritten or printed out or -- it may have been a facsimile, but we do

22 not know that.

23 Q. I'm finished with those documents. I have a few general subjects

24 which I think we can cover today.

25 There will be a couple more exhibits to look at. But firstly --

Page 15654

1 Professor, in the contentious signatures of Naser Oric, did you find

2 variation in the signature or not?

3 A. In the case of the contentious signatures, there was a variation

4 from signature to signature, every time. This variation was unexpected

5 when dealing with a signature of a single person and a single personality.

6 These are signatures that differ from each other completely. You can see

7 this on the map I have created if you look carefully at the contested

8 signatures, and you can observe this without much difficulty.

9 Q. All right. There are a few last documents which I would like to

10 show. Can you just give us the page numbers, Professor, for reference?

11 A. Of the map? 30, 31, 32 and 33. All these pages make up a single

12 system and they are provided as a whole in continuity.

13 Q. Thank you. Now, there are a few other documents I want to show

14 you and to hopefully forestall any objections from the Prosecution,

15 because Mr. Wubben did mention a possible objection earlier, it's purely

16 to show the existence of water-marks on some other documents, and these

17 documents not analysed in the report, and it's merely a question of noting

18 a water-mark. And I can read out by ERN number -- I understand the

19 documents --

20 JUDGE AGIUS: But what's the purpose of --

21 MR. JONES: It's to have the witness confirm that there are the

22 water-marks and whether they -- how they compare to the other water-marks

23 he's seen.

24 Q. The first document is --

25 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Wubben.

Page 15655

1 MR. WUBBEN: Yes, I have an objection, Your Honour. We are not

2 prepared for this when it comes to comparison now here, what kind of

3 expertise for comparison in court.

4 JUDGE AGIUS: We will assess the importance of this later because

5 for the time being I am not, at least speaking for myself, in a position

6 to make a definitive assessment. What's your position?

7 We will proceed for the time being, and then if we feel that this

8 is an unnecessary exercise or one which deserves to be -- deserves the

9 objection of Mr. Wubben, then obviously we will stop you. But let's

10 proceed for the time being.

11 MR. JONES: Thank you, Your Honour.

12 Q. It's four documents, I think. The first is 02075716. And this is

13 the original of P53, so that will be in the -- in those files, which the

14 Registry has.

15 And the others -- my apologies if this is going to be difficult to

16 find them, but I'll read the other numbers in the meantime. Then there is

17 02075745, 02075762, and 02075765. And I did earlier check that they

18 are -- they will be in that collection of documents.

19 In fact, while the Registry is locating those documents, I do have

20 another question for Professor Bilic, a general question.

21 JUDGE AGIUS: Go ahead.


23 Q. Professor Bilic, in terms of the documents that you've analysed in

24 your report, you referred to a number of features which recur in all of

25 the documents, or in many of them, the covering of the signature by the

Page 15656

1 stamp, alterations and mistakes, typing errors, different versions of the

2 contentious Hamed Salihovic signature, variation in the Naser Oric

3 contentious signature, misalignment of words in the header. Taken as a

4 whole, is this in your opinion indicative of anything? Are you able to

5 give a globalistic conclusion?

6 A. Examining the entire sample of all the contentious documents, what

7 you have said was established, both in general, in my view, these are all

8 suspect documents that have not been signed by their real authors, those

9 who should have signed them, in which unknown writers have participated,

10 and I reiterate that these are suspicious, suspicious, suspicious

11 documents. And Their Honours will evaluate this.

12 Q. Thank you. I think if we are ready with any of those documents

13 which I mentioned we can take them one at a time. Perhaps I'll ask if you

14 put it on the ELMO and then we can read the ERN number one by one rather

15 than me calling out the ERN number.

16 Right. So we have 02075716. Can you just tell us, Professor,

17 please, if there is a water-mark and if so, what type?

18 A. On this paper, there is a water-mark. It's a sail-boat again.

19 It's down the middle.

20 Q. And this is a document of the Srebrenica war hospital purportedly;

21 is that correct?

22 A. Yes. That's what it says here. You can see it clearly,

23 Srebrenica war hospital, date 19th of March, 1993, record of an on-site

24 inspection concerning the death of Sekulic, son of Milorad, Branko.

25 Q. That is purportedly signed by Dr. Avdo Hasanovic; correct?

Page 15657

1 A. Yes.

2 MR. WUBBEN: Your Honour, the witness is asked to confirm

3 something factual, nothing to do with his alleged expertise, like and

4 purportedly Dr. Avdo Hasanovic signed this, to confirm that. It has no

5 indication, relevancy, it's really not --

6 JUDGE AGIUS: I agree with you. That's not important.

7 MR. JONES: Purportedly is simply on the face of the documents.

8 JUDGE AGIUS: It's not important.

9 MR. JONES: Yes. We'd say Your Honours follow --

10 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, the whole thing is that point made is basically

11 we have another document with the sailing-boat.

12 MR. JONES: Purportedly from the war hospital signed by

13 Dr. Hasanovic, that's my point.

14 MR. WUBBEN: Your Honour, every time my learned friend now goes

15 beyond the water-mark issue --

16 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Wubben, I think you are missing it completely.

17 We are talking of documents that were supposedly prepared more or less at

18 the same time, and also more or less in the same place.

19 So let's move. You know what we are saying. Let's proceed. We

20 have only got six minutes left.

21 MR. JONES: Yes, and just three more documents.

22 Q. So the next one is 02075765. Again, if you could, please,

23 quickly, if you're able to, Professor, confirm any water-mark?

24 A. This document also says it comes from the Srebrenica war hospital,

25 and it's a record of an on-site inspection regarding the death of a

Page 15658

1 person, and we will look at it now.

2 Yes, there is a water-mark here, a sail-boat, on this document.

3 You can look at it, if you like. It might be a good idea if you were to

4 look at it.

5 JUDGE AGIUS: Next document. We'll have a look at all these

6 documents. Are these in evidence or not?

7 MR. JONES: I'm not sure if the originals are.

8 JUDGE AGIUS: No, no, the originals wouldn't be probably, but

9 Mr. Wubben can enlighten us on this.

10 MR. JONES: Some of them are.

11 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Wubben, are these --

12 MR. WUBBEN: Yes, Your Honour, this document is in evidence, in my

13 opinion, P68.

14 JUDGE AGIUS: And the previous one?

15 MR. WUBBEN: And the previous one should -- P53, Your Honour.

16 MR. JONES: Yes, they are all exhibits.

17 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. I thank you so much, Mr. Wubben.


19 Q. Yes --

20 JUDGE AGIUS: Again, we are interested in the water-mark. Please

21 tell us whether it has a water-mark, and the reference is 02075745. And

22 we'll see for ourselves what the document states on the face of it.

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It has a water-mark with a

24 sail-boat.


Page 15659

1 Q. And then finally 02075762.

2 A. Same as before. There is a water-mark with a sail-boat.

3 MR. JONES: Yes, thank you, Your Honour. I have no further

4 questions.

5 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you so much.

6 I think we can give you a break now, Professor Bilic. You can go

7 back to your hotel. You're not to communicate with anyone on the

8 substance of your testimony. And we will see you again tomorrow in the

9 afternoon.

10 Tomorrow, Mr. Wubben and Mr. Jones, and tomorrow the hearing is in

11 the afternoon. All right? And we will start with the cross-examination.

12 The usher can escort -- we can leave, actually. Is there anything

13 you wish to state?

14 MR. WUBBEN: Your Honour, I need to discuss the running or the

15 evidence of the last document.

16 One moment, please.

17 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, all right. Of course.

18 MR. WUBBEN: Your Honour, the last document, P65.

19 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Thank you.

20 All right. So we'll reconvene tomorrow in the afternoon.

21 Thank you so much.

22 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.42 p.m.,

23 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 25th day of

24 January, 2006, at 2.15 p.m.