1 Friday, 26 May 2000

2 [Open session]

3 [The witness entered court]

4 --- Upon commencing at 9.34 a.m.

5 [The accused entered court]

6 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Good

7 morning, ladies and gentlemen; good morning to the

8 technical booth, to the interpreters; good morning to

9 the legal assistants, court reporters. I think that

10 Mr. Cayley, Mr. McCloskey, and all the Prosecution are

11 there, so is the Defence. Good morning, General

12 Krstic. We are continuing our hearing from yesterday,

13 and we shall take up where we left off.

14 Good morning, Mr. Ruez. As you know, you

15 shall now be answering questions put to you by the

16 Defence. And I see Mr. Petrusic on his feet.

17 Mr. Petrusic, you have the floor.

18 MR. PETRUSIC: [Interpretation] Good morning,

19 Your Honours; good morning to my learned colleagues of

20 the Prosecution and good morning to you, Mr. Ruez.

21 WITNESS: Jean-Rene Ruez [Resumed]

22 Cross-examined by Mr. Petrusic:

23 Q. Mr. Ruez, in the course of your testimony

24 yesterday, you spoke about the units, that is to say,

25 the commanders of the Drina Corps. You mentioned the

1 special police force as well. My question for you is

2 the following: The special police force, with its

3 headquarters in Janja, whose deputy commander was

4 Ljubisa Borovcanin, did that unit, the unit of the

5 Ministry of the Internal Affairs of Republika Srpska,

6 was it that unit, did it belong to that Ministry?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Thank you, Mr. Ruez.

9 A. I would like to --

10 Q. Thank you, Mr. Ruez. That's fine. The 65th

11 Protection Regiment, which you also mentioned as being

12 in Nova Kasaba, was that a unit of the Main Staff of

13 the army of Republika Srpska as well?

14 A. That is correct.

15 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Ruez, I

16 apologise but could you please switch your other

17 microphone on as well. Thank you. That's fine now.

18 Thank you very much. It's on, I see. The microphone

19 is on and functioning.

20 MR. PETRUSIC: [Interpretation]

21 Q. The videotape that we saw yesterday and the

22 contents of that video was an interview of General

23 Krstic. Was that videotape, according to your

24 knowledge, made on the 12th of July?

25 A. Yes, I believe it was made on the 12th of

1 July, for the reason that this is the only day where

2 Serb press personnel was present in Potocari, and this

3 is also the day when General Mladic gave a press

4 interview. So I do believe that this interview was

5 given on July 12th.

6 MR. PETRUSIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President,

7 I have no further questions. Thank you, Mr. Ruez.

8 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you

9 very much, Mr. Petrusic.

10 Mr. Harmon, do you have any additional

11 questions for the witness?

12 MR. HARMON: Mr. President, I do not.

13 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Judge

14 Wald.

15 Questioned by the Court:

16 JUDGE WALD: I have just one question,

17 Mr. Ruez, which you may be able to answer. If you

18 can't, perhaps it's in the domain of the later

19 witnesses. But I gather from your testimony and the

20 exhibits that were attached thereto that virtually, if

21 not entirely, all of these movements from the primary

22 grave sites to the secondary grave sites took place

23 within a period of several weeks in September and very

24 early October. Is that approximately right?

25 A. Yes, it is. Obviously holes were pre-dug,

1 and later on, probably in one night or two night's

2 operation, these holes were then filled with the

3 bodies.

4 JUDGE WALD: Are you in a position to tell us

5 in an enterprise of that magnitude the numbers, which

6 we'll go into later, that were moved from one site to

7 another, how much -- for instance, take any one of the

8 grave sites where it was moved from a primary site to a

9 secondary site. How long, approximately -- would that

10 be; a couple of day's work or just a couple of hours'

11 work? How much time and effort, trucks, et cetera,

12 would it have taken to make one of those moves?

13 A. I, indeed, believe this might be covered

14 later on by another witness, but it took certainly at

15 least two nights, two full nights to conduct such an

16 operation. This is probably a minimum.

17 JUDGE WALD: Would it have taken, in your

18 view, if you feel competent to answer, take any one of

19 the grave sites, would it have taken just one truck or

20 several trucks to make that kind of a move?

21 A. For each site --

22 JUDGE WALD: Yes.

23 A. -- most certainly several trucks were

24 involved.

25 JUDGE WALD: Okay. The last part of this

1 question: Give me a notion of the distances between

2 the primary and the secondary sites. Take any one

3 where a primary site was disturbed and the bodies and

4 parts of the bodies moved to a secondary site. Was

5 that just a matter in terms of miles or metres? How

6 long was the distance between them?

7 A. I would have to anticipate on information

8 which will be provided to you by my colleague, Dean

9 Manning, who will explain to you the connections

10 between primary sites and the secondary sites. So to

11 give you these distances, I would need first to expose

12 to you what are the links between these sites. What I

13 can tell you now is that the longest distance which was

14 covered was from Branjevo Farm to Cancari, and this

15 would be -- it's a rough estimate, I'm making it

16 currently by looking at the map, and I would say 40

17 kilometres.

18 JUDGE WALD: Okay. Thank you. That's all I

19 have.

20 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you,

21 Judge Wald.

22 Mr. Ruez, you mentioned on several occasions

23 during your testimony the words "remote places," that

24 was the term you used, and often you mentioned the

25 configuration of the terrain. I think that I already

1 have the answer I need, but, nevertheless, I'd like to

2 hear it from you. What is the importance and

3 significance of this factor, this element, that is to

4 say, the configuration of the terrain, remote places,

5 and so forth?

6 A. Yes. I said remote places. I could also

7 have said isolated places, and even desolated places,

8 completely destroyed places. The reason why, I

9 believe, this is very important is that this is part of

10 an operation aimed to conceal the crime, and this

11 massive effort of hiding these bodies was certainly

12 much more successful if the bodies were taken in areas

13 where probably no one would have at least resettled for

14 years. At the moment it was done, there was probably

15 an expectation that no one would resettle in these

16 places before a couple of years, and this is, indeed,

17 what happened. The first refugees are coming back in

18 this place, in fact, since last year, and mainly this

19 year. So there was very little risk for the

20 perpetrators to have someone coming across one of these

21 sites, even by accident.

22 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Can you

23 tell us what the reasons were? Were there any factors

24 or reasons which led to this operation?

25 A. Yes, for sure there are some factors. I

1 cannot say that these factors are part of the

2 investigation. We have no ability to enter the mind of

3 those who live it, but one has to remember the context

4 at that time. The shuttle diplomacy was going on

5 conducted by Mr. Richard Holbrooke who was going to

6 Belgrade to meet Mr. Milosevic. Mr. Milosevic was in

7 easy contact with General Mladic at that time, and I

8 may have a wrong recollection of the date, but when I

9 read the book of Mr. Holbrooke, I noticed that, I

10 think, that around 10th of September 1995, he requested

11 Mr. Milosevic, President Milosevic, to have access to

12 the area, to give access to the area, to John Shattuck

13 who was, at that time, under secretary of state for

14 human rights, and John Shattuck was supposed to have

15 the freedom of access to the area to crime scenes and

16 mass graves.

17 So this could be a reason why this has sped

18 up the process of disturbing these sites, but it is

19 also clear that at one point, the perpetrators took

20 more time because they realised that these kinds visits

21 would not happen so soon and, indeed, the first visit

22 was made in January of 1996.

23 But this is an assumption. There is no

24 certainty at all behind it, but there might be other

25 reasons that we are absolutely unaware of.

1 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] You used

2 the term "acceleration". Can you tell us how much

3 time, how long did this operation take all in all?

4 A. If I look at the little survey I just made of

5 these dates, one can see that between the 7th of

6 September and the 2nd of October, open pits are

7 created. So it is already at some point between these

8 dates, for sure the 27 September pits were already

9 open. It is only later that these pits were filled and

10 the latest pit to be closed is between the 20 October

11 and the 23 October.

12 So we can consider that all this period of

13 time was used to prepare and conduct this operation.

14 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] And another

15 question for you, Mr. Ruez. In this period of time, is

16 it possible to have the basic ideas of the procedure

17 conducted, that is to say, you said that the trenches

18 were dug, and then the bodies were transported and

19 placed in those trenches. So can you give us an idea

20 of the procedure actually involved and what the steps

21 that were taken were, in general terms.

22 A. I'm not familiar with these types of military

23 activities and there will be a General coming and

24 exposing his views about what and logistics and command

25 efforts such an operation would take; so I'm not sure I

1 am the relevant person to explain the methodology the

2 army would use in such a circumstance if they were the

3 one doing it.

4 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] No, I do

5 apologise, Mr. Ruez, it's my fault. I was speaking

6 about procedure of displacing bodies from one location

7 to another, the procedure of that. The organisation of

8 how the bodies were transported; that side of the

9 operation was what I had in mind.

10 A. On this point, we have elements that we are

11 not in a position to disclose at this point, but we

12 have quite precise information about movements of

13 personnel in the days before the executions took

14 place.

15 So I'm a bit embarrassed to already enter

16 that field, and I turn to the Prosecutor for that.

17 MR. HARMON: We intend to present,

18 Mr. President, more detailed information that will

19 answer your question at a later time.

20 If that's acceptable to the Court, I would

21 ask Mr. Ruez defer his answer until we present that

22 evidence.

23 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well.

24 So we're going to wait for an answer in -- during the

25 proceedings.

1 Mr. Ruez, as we have no further questions, we

2 should like to express our gratitude for having come

3 here. Thank you very much.

4 THE WITNESS: Thank you Your Honours.

5 [The witness withdrew]

6 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Harmon,

7 what are you going to propose next?

8 MR. HARMON: We have an additional witness,

9 Mr. Dean Manning, who is an investigator with the

10 Office of the Prosecutor. And Mr. Manning's testimony

11 will be connected, in part, to the testimony of

12 Mr. Ruez who has described the movement, but now

13 Mr. Manning's testimony will be more focussed and more

14 precise.

15 He will testify today in a summary form,

16 about the findings of experts who conducted

17 examinations of various grave sites from 1996, 1998 and

18 1999 and he will introduce for Your Honours proofs

19 linking the primary sites to the secondary sites.

20 If I could call Mr. Manning as my next

21 witness, we can commence.

22 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, please

23 do.

24 MR. HARMON: And in this testimony,

25 Mr. President, it would be -- we have a large number of

1 exhibits and if they could be distributed now to the

2 parties and to Your Honours, then we will be in a

3 position to proceed quite expeditiously.

4 [The witness entered court]

5 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I see.

6 Yes, very well, Mr. Harmon, I'm in full agreement. We

7 should, indeed, always do everything to facilitate

8 matters and to speed up the process.

9 Mr. Manning good morning to you. Can you

10 hear me.

11 THE WITNESS: Yes.

12 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] You are now

13 going to read the solemn declaration that you have

14 before you. Please go ahead.

15 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will

16 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the

17 truth.

18 WITNESS: DEAN MANNING

19 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you

20 very much. You may be seated.

21 I think that you know the procedure. You're

22 going to answer questions put to you by Mr. Harmon to

23 begin with.

24 Mr. Harmon, the floor is yours. Please go

25 ahead.

1 Examined by Mr. Harmon:

2 Q. Good morning, Mr. Manning.

3 A. Good morning, Mr. Harmon.

4 Q. Could you spell your last name for the

5 record, please.

6 A. My last name is Manning, M-a-n-n-i-n-g.

7 Q. How old are you?

8 A. I'm 37 years of age.

9 Q. Could you inform the Trial Chamber of your

10 professional background, please.

11 A. I've been a member of the Australian Federal

12 Police, based in Canberra, Australia, since 1993, and

13 the majority of that time was spent in the general

14 criminal investigations branch as a detective. I

15 joined the OTP in August of 1998 and since that time

16 I've been working with Team 6 in the Srebrenica

17 investigation, specifically or mainly involved in

18 exhumation and the coordination of all evidence from

19 that exhumation project.

20 Q. Let me put aside exhumations aside for just a

21 moment. Did you and did the investigative team

22 investigate and examine evidence found at killing

23 sites, killing sites that did not also include mass

24 grave sites?

25 A. Yes, we did.

1 Q. Can you identify those principal killing

2 sites.

3 A. Two major sites of execution which were not

4 mass graves were the Pilica Dom in the town of Pilica

5 and the Kravica warehouse. There was also a third site

6 examined by myself and other team members near the

7 sites of the Nova Kasaba mass graves. That site was

8 known as the Svilile meadow.

9 Q. Now, Mr. Manning, can you tell the Trial

10 Chamber when exhumations were conducted in respect of

11 the investigation of Srebrenica. What years?

12 A. Exhumations commenced in 1996; four sites

13 were exhumed during that year. In 1997 there were no

14 Srebrenica-related exhumations. In 1998 there were a

15 further eight sites exhumed. In 1999, five sites were

16 exhumed.

17 Q. Have you been present during some or all of

18 these exhumations?

19 A. I've been present at four complete

20 exhumations, I've also visited the sites of the other

21 exhumations after they have concluded, and I've also

22 been present at the mortuary when the remains were

23 examined and the artifacts also examined.

24 Q. Now, in conducting exhumations, did the

25 Office of the Prosecutor hire or retain experts in

1 various fields?

2 A. Yes, they did.

3 Q. Could you just generally inform the Trial

4 Chamber of the types of experts that are retained to

5 conduct an investigation in an exhumation site.

6 A. Generally there is a chief archaeologist and

7 sometimes a chief anthropologist to perform the same

8 duties. The rest of the team is made up of qualified

9 archaeologists, anthropologists, pathologists. Also a

10 number of those people have qualifications in other

11 aspects of archaeology such as surveying, photography.

12 There are also police officers, either serving or

13 retired, who, if you like, coordinate the handling of

14 exhibits, the tagging of such, and the initial

15 examination of them.

16 Q. Do the police officers essentially ensure

17 that there is a proper chain of custody on evidence

18 recovered from the grave sites?

19 A. Yes, they ensure the evidence is

20 photographed, logged, tagged, sealed, and the

21 continuity of that item retained until it goes to the

22 mortuary, and then ultimately to the Tribunal.

23 Q. Now at the end of an exhumation, in a

24 particular year, do the experts who participated in the

25 exhumation process prepare reports?

1 A. Yes. Specifically, the chief of the

2 exhumation project prepares a report in relation to the

3 exhumations under his control. That was done by

4 Dr. William Hagland for 1996, professor Richard Wright

5 for 1998, Professor Wright for 1999, and also Mr. Jose

6 Baraybar for the remainder of 1999.

7 Q. I'm going to interrupt this examination just

8 to remind you, and to remind myself as well, that

9 because we speak the same language we have to pause

10 between question and answer because the interpreters

11 are going to be working very, very hard and they are

12 going to be working harder if they need to -- if we

13 talk too fast.

14 A. My apologies.

15 Q. So if I ask a question, if you would pause --

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. -- and I'll pause after I ask my next

18 question, after your answer.

19 Now, Mr. Manning, you've described the

20 general type of experts that are conducting the

21 exhumations at the sites. But in addition to those

22 experts, did the Office of the Prosecutor engage

23 experts to examine evidence and material that were

24 found at those particular sites?

25 A. Yes, they did. They contracted chief

1 pathologists and also other experts in the United

2 Kingdom and in the Netherlands and the United States to

3 examine items.

4 Q. For example, were ballistics experts retained

5 to examine ballistics -- I'm sorry, shell casings that

6 were found at the various sites?

7 A. Yes. The United States Bureau of Alcohol,

8 Tobacco and Firearms conducted examinations of shell

9 cases from those sites.

10 Q. Were experts in the field of geology and soil

11 analysis retained by the Office of the Prosecutor to

12 compare soil samples between the primary grave site and

13 the secondary sites? And if you just pause before

14 you -- to give the interpreters time to translate the

15 question.

16 A. That's correct. Dr. Tony Brown from the

17 University of Exeter in the United Kingdom.

18 Q. Did the Office of the Prosecutor retain

19 experts to analyse, for example, blindfold material

20 that were found in the primary sites and the secondary

21 sites?

22 A. Yes. Officers from the Netherlands Institute

23 of Forensic Studies -- Forensic Science examined cloth

24 blindfolds and cloth ligatures.

25 Q. Now, at two of the principal killing sites,

1 the Kravica warehouse, and the Pilica Dom, blood and

2 tissue samples were gathered and collected and turned

3 over to the Office of the Prosecutor. Did the Office

4 of the Prosecutor retain experts to analyse those

5 samples to determine if there was human DNA present in

6 them?

7 A. Yes. Again the Netherlands Forensic

8 Institute provided experts to study those items.

9 Q. Did the Office of the Prosecutor retain

10 experts to examine the explosives residue samples that

11 were collected from the Pilica Dom and from the Kravica

12 warehouse?

13 A. Yes. Again, the Netherlands Forensic

14 Institute provided experts to examine the explosives

15 for residues.

16 Q. Now, Mr. Manning, are the expert reports that

17 had been prepared in 1996, 1998, and 1999 voluminous

18 reports?

19 A. Yes, they are. There's approximately 17

20 reports, some with multiple volumes, thousands of

21 pages.

22 Q. For purposes of this trial, Mr. Manning, did

23 I ask you to prepare a summary report relating to the

24 significant findings and conclusions of the experts

25 from the analyses of grave sites and crime scenes in

1 1996, 1998, and 1999?

2 A. Yes, you did.

3 Q. Did I also ask you to incorporate into your

4 report the findings of the various experts who analysed

5 the physical evidence that was retrieved from those

6 various sites?

7 A. That's correct.

8 Q. Did you prepare a summary report that I had

9 requested?

10 A. Yes, I did.

11 Q. Now, can you identify for the Trial Chamber

12 the names of the experts and the reports which are

13 summarised in your summary report, please.

14 A. Yes, I can. There was a report from the

15 Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Bureau in the United

16 States. There was a report on anthropological aspects

17 of the 1998 bodies from Mr. Baraybar. Also a report by

18 him in relation to the anthropological examination of

19 human remains in 1999. Also a report by him on the

20 exhumation of mass graves in eastern Bosnia, August to

21 October 1999. A report by Dr. Anthony Brown in

22 relation to soil relating to 1998 exhumations. A

23 report by the same doctor in relation to soil analysis

24 from 1999 exhumations. A report by Dr. John Clark on

25 the pathology for the 1999 exhumations. A report on

1 blood and tissue by the Dutch lab, the National

2 Forensic Institute by Dr. A.D. Klosterman. The same

3 lab, the examination of blindfolds and their

4 relationships from one site to another, by Ms. Suzie

5 Maljaars. And that same laboratory, the forensic

6 examination of explosive residues from various sites.

7 There's also five volumes of a report on the

8 forensic investigation of the Cerska grave site by

9 Dr. William Hagland. Five volumes of a report by

10 Dr. Hagland in relation to the Lazete 2 grave site,

11 which is also known as Orahovac. A report by

12 Dr. Hagland in relation to four graves in the area of

13 Nova Kasaba. A report by Dr. Hagland, four volumes, in

14 relation to --

15 THE INTERPRETER: If the witness could speak

16 up, please.

17 MR. HARMON: Also if one of the microphones

18 could be turned on. It appears that one of the

19 microphones is not on.

20 A. As I said, a report from Dr. Hagland in

21 relation to the Branjevo Military Farm or Pilica mass

22 grave site, four volumes. Eight reports from Dr. Chris

23 Lawrence relating to autopsies of the 1998 graves.

24 Four volumes of the United States Naval Investigations

25 examination of the Pilica Dom and Kravica warehouse. A

1 report by Professor Richard Wright in relation to the

2 1998 exhumations, eight sites. And a report by

3 Professor Richard Wright in relation to the 1999

4 exhumations at Kozluk.

5 Q. Now, Mr. Manning, I don't intend to ask you

6 detailed questions about the contents of each of those

7 reports because we're going to be hearing from

8 Dr. Hagland and we're going to be hearing from

9 Dr. Lawrence and we're going to be hearing from many of

10 those experts. The purpose of your testimony is to

11 essentially inform the Judges of the general findings

12 of these -- many of these experts and the connections

13 between the primary grave sites and the secondary grave

14 sites.

15 For purposes of your testimony, I know you're

16 going to be using the terms "primary grave site" and

17 "secondary grave site". Can you define those terms as

18 you intend to use them.

19 A. Put simply, the primary graves that I refer

20 to are graves in which the persons or victims were

21 placed immediately after or at the time of their

22 execution and buried within those graves.

23 A secondary grave is one in which the bodies

24 are placed after they've been removed from the primary

25 grave or, as I refer to it, "robbed" from the primary

1 graves and placed into secondary graves.

2 Q. Now, Mr. Manning, what's the total number of

3 grave sites associated with Srebrenica that have been

4 completely exhumed and where the mortal remains of

5 humans have been found?

6 A. There have been 17 complete exhumations since

7 1996. In all those cases, multiple remains have been

8 found.

9 Q. Before we take your report, let me ask you to

10 identify the report that you prepared, and it is

11 Prosecutor's Exhibit 140. Can you identify the title

12 of your report, please?

13 A. Yes that report is entitled, "United Nations

14 International Criminal Tribunal for the Former

15 Yugoslavia Srebrenica Investigation Summary of Forensic

16 Evidence-Execution Points and Mass Graves". It's

17 marked as OTP 140.

18 Q. Now, will you take Exhibit 140 and place on

19 the ELMO page number 4/21. We need to see the whole

20 page in the -- can you lower that a little, please. A

21 little bit lower, please, Mr. Usher. That's fine,

22 thank you.

23 Mr. Manning, would you, using the pointer,

24 explain what this is to the Court and to the people in

25 the gallery.

1 A. This is a representation of the number of

2 graves that we have exhumed and haven't exhumed to

3 date. In this column, we have the exhumed graves, and

4 in this column we have the graves that we have not yet

5 exhumed.

6 In 1996, we exhumed the Cerska grave, the

7 Nova Kasaba grave which I refer to as "96" as we

8 exhumed a grave in a similar area in 1999.

9 There is a grave at Orahovac which is known

10 as Lazete 2, a grave at Branjevo Military Farm which is

11 also known as Pilica. Those exhumations were conducted

12 by Dr. Hagland.

13 In 1998, the site known as the dam near

14 Petkovci was exhumed as was Cancari Road 12, Cancari

15 Road 3, Hodzici Road 3, Hodzici Road 4, Hodzici Road 5,

16 a site known as Lipje 2 and a site known as Zeleni

17 Jadar 5.

18 Those graves were exhumed by Professor Wright

19 with the exception of the dam site. The remainders are

20 secondary graves with the dam sites being a robbed

21 primary grave.

22 During 1999, Professor Wright conducted the

23 exhumations of the grave at Kozluk, and Mr. Baraybar

24 then in 1999 as the Nova Kasaba which I've indicated as

25 the 1999 Nova Kasaba grave, a few kilometres from the

1 1996 site, also a site at Konjevic Polje 1 and Konjevic

2 Polje 2, and a site known as Glogova 2.

3 Q. Mr. Manning, while we're on this particular

4 chart, some of the names appear to be shaded and some

5 are unshaded. What does that mean?

6 A. The names of the graves that are shaded

7 indicate primary graves.

8 In this case, Cerska is a primary grave that

9 was not tampered with or robbed; Nova Kasaba was 96,

10 was not tampered or robbed; Orahovac Lazete was;

11 Branjevo Military Farm was; the dam at Petkovci was

12 disturbed. The grave at Kozluk was disturbed. The

13 grave at Nova Kasaba was not. Konjevic Polje 1 was

14 not. Konjevic Polje 2 was not and Glogova was not.

15 Q. So the shading in on page 4/21 are primary

16 graves?

17 A. Primary graves, yes.

18 Q. The unshaded are secondary graves?

19 A. The unshaded graves are secondary.

20 Q. Now, in the column on the right, "examined

21 but not exhumed", what do you mean by "examined"?

22 A. The graves in the white column indicate

23 graves in which we have either by mechanically digging

24 or trenching, established that there are human remains,

25 multiple human remains within those graves. We have

1 not yet been able to exhume them.

2 Again the grey shading on Lazete 1 or

3 Orahovac and on Glogova 1 indicate that they are

4 primary graves. The remainder of the graves are

5 secondary graves.

6 Q. Now, let me turn your attention, Mr. Manning,

7 to another exhibit that's on the easel. It's

8 Prosecutor's Exhibit 135.

9 Your Honours should have an A-3 size of

10 Prosecutor's Exhibit 135.

11 Let me turn your attention to this large

12 exhibit and can you explain, first of all, using this

13 exhibit, the location of the primary grave sites using

14 the -- there's a pointer. Perhaps you can approach.

15 There is a microphone. Will you just identify the

16 primary mass grave sites? First indicating the ones

17 that were disturbed?

18 A. Firstly, the Branjevo Military Farm at the

19 top of the picture.

20 Q. Why don't you take the microphone from the

21 usher, please. Thank you.

22 A. This grave is a primary grave which was

23 disturbed in that bodies were taken from that grave.

24 This is the grave at Kozluk next to the Drina

25 River. Again, a primary grave that was disturbed.

1 This is the Petkovci dam or the dam near

2 Petkovci site. Again, that was disturbed.

3 This is the two sites at Orahovac, also known

4 as Lazete. Lazete 2 was disturbed. We have not yet

5 exhumed Lazete 1.

6 In the south, we have the site known as

7 Glogova. Primary graves, Glogova 2 has been exhumed

8 and was a disturbed grave, Glogova one has not been

9 exhumed.

10 Q. Now, using the pointer, show the Court on

11 this exhibit the undisturbed primary grave sites.

12 A. The undisturbed primary grave sites are

13 clustered in this area of the map. They include

14 Cerska, a primary grave, Nova Kasaba, Nova Kasaba 1999,

15 a grave known as Konjevic Polje 1, and Konjevic Polje

16 2. All primary and all undisturbed.

17 Q. Thank you, Mr. Manning. Have a seat.

18 Now, Mr. Manning, if you would kindly take

19 Prosecutor's Exhibit 140, your report, and turn to the

20 page which has the numbers 00950925, and place that on

21 the ELMO, please.

22 Can you briefly explain what this particular

23 chart is that you prepared?

24 A. This chart shows the primary graves in

25 relation to the Srebrenica investigation. Graves here

1 in red, are the undisturbed primary graves, the ones

2 that I indicated on the map in one particular area.

3 Graves here in blue indicate primary graves

4 which have been disturbed or robbed of some of the

5 victims.

6 Q. Now, Mr. Manning, I'm not going to ask you to

7 approach the board again because we had extensive

8 testimony from Mr. Ruez identifying the secondary mass

9 grave sites, but on Prosecutor 135, do the green dots

10 on that exhibit represent the locations of the second

11 mass grave sites?

12 A. Yes, they do. They represent the collection

13 of secondary graves that we're aware of.

14 Q. Now, if you turn to the next page in

15 Prosecutor's Exhibit 140 which is found at 00950926,

16 would you place that on the ELMO, please, and this is a

17 summary chart and it has certain information. Can you

18 explain to the Judges what this chart contains?

19 A. In a similar fashion to the previous chart,

20 it shows the secondary mass graves. All the graves

21 listed are ones in which we are aware that multiple

22 human remains have been found.

23 The graves that are indicated by the dark

24 green filled-in areas, are the graves that we've

25 exhumed during the past few years. These other graves

1 are graves that we have not yet exhumed but, again,

2 they contain multiple human remains.

3 Q. They've been probed?

4 A. Been probed.

5 Q. Now, let me correct this chart. In the top

6 of the middle column below it, it says "Hodzici Road 2"

7 and "Hodzici Road 2". Can we correct the top box?

8 A. It should read "Hodzici Road 1".

9 Q. Thank you very much, Mr. Manning.

10 Now, we had extensive general discussion

11 about the robbing of these graves, and since you

12 participated in the exhumations and had frequent

13 contacts with the experts.

14 When an exhumation at a particular site was

15 being conducted, could it be determined from examining

16 the soil and examining the texture of the soil and the

17 composition of the soil whether or not particular grave

18 site had been tampered with? And you can answer that

19 yes or no because I'm going to show you some exhibits

20 and I'll ask you to explain it in a minute.

21 A. Yes, that's correct.

22 MR. HARMON: Now, if I could have

23 Prosecutor's Exhibit -- it's a large exhibit, 135 --

24 I'm sorry, it is 1J1 placed on the easel.

25 Q. Mr. Manning, you're familiar with this

1 exhibit and while it's being placed on the easel, does

2 Prosecutor's Exhibit 1J1 show any evidence of a

3 disturbance at a primary mass grave site?

4 A. Yes, it does.

5 Q. Please feel free to approach the exhibit on

6 the easel and, using the pointer, will you explain to

7 the Judges the significance of this particular

8 photograph.

9 A. This is a photograph of the Kozluk mass grave

10 site that was exhumed in 1999. This represents bodies

11 on the surface of the soil which I'm told was the

12 original surface, the original level.

13 As you can see, this group of bodies here

14 appears to have been cut through, it's at the bottom

15 middle of the page, by this trench that runs through

16 this section of the photograph.

17 As that section of the trench cuts through

18 the original surface, it must have been made after this

19 surface had the bodies on it. Therefore, this trench

20 here cut through the grave and removed at least parts

21 of these bodies here and some of the soil.

22 Q. All right. The soil then from this

23 particular site and the bodies that were -- and the

24 parts of the bodies that were taken from that site were

25 transported to a secondary site and I take it,

1 Mr. Manning, that the soil that was take taken from

2 this trench was then the basis of a later comparison by

3 experts to determine whether the soil found in the

4 secondary grave had come, for example, from this

5 grave.

6 A. That's correct, yes.

7 Q. Now you can have a seat, Mr. Manning, please,

8 and I'm going to ask the usher to assist you in placing

9 an exhibit on the ELMO. It's Prosecutor's Exhibit

10 132/107. Do you have a copy of that exhibit with you?

11 A. Yes, that's a copy of that exhibit.

12 MR. HARMON: Now, this is Prosecutor's

13 Exhibit 132/107, and let me ask, has that been

14 distributed to the parties? It should be in Your

15 Honours' -- Your Honours should have some binders and

16 it should be in the binder marked "132." There will be

17 a tab in your binder that's before Your Honours that

18 says "107."

19 Q. Now, Mr. Manning, where is this site?

20 A. The site depicted on this exhibit is the same

21 as the large exhibit on the easel. It's the Kozluk

22 primary mass grave.

23 Q. Could you speak up, please.

24 A. It's the Kozluk primary mass grave, as in the

25 larger exhibit.

1 Q. Now, what does this particular exhibit

2 illustrate that is not illustrated in the previous

3 exhibit?

4 A. It's, in effect, the same photograph. As you

5 can see, this line through the middle of the page is

6 the cutout shown on the large picture. It shows the

7 more extensive trenching or cutting of the base of that

8 area and it shows the extension through this area, to

9 the right of the picture, where soil and bodies have

10 been removed from that grave.

11 Q. Does this give any clue as to what kind of a

12 device was used to remove the bodies? And if so, can

13 you explain.

14 A. Yes. I've been informed by the chief

15 archaeologists that this would represent a mechanical

16 digger or trenching machine such as a -- similar to a

17 bulldozer with a bucket that could scoop into the soil

18 and make these sort of marks. It also leaves wheel

19 marks on the base of the soil.

20 Q. Mr. Manning, can you inform the Trial Chamber

21 the effect of this removal process on the bodies in the

22 primary grave and the evidence that is associated with

23 those bodies.

24 A. It's difficult not to overstate the effect

25 that removing of the bodies has had on the

1 investigation. As you can see in this exhibit, the

2 bodies appear to be cut through. You can see that a

3 large amount of soil and bodies have been removed.

4 They were removed by a bucketed machine, in effect,

5 scooped up, placed in the back of a truck or dumped in

6 the back of a truck, which would mean the body parts

7 would be further broken up, and driven some distance

8 over rough roads before being placed in a secondary

9 grave in a similar manner, or dumped. That will cause

10 the body and body parts to break apart, to mix up, to

11 fall in different areas, effectively spreading the

12 bodies across both sites and across the sites.

13 It has meant that identification of the

14 individuals has become extremely difficult, it has

15 meant that items which would lead to identification

16 have been damaged and destroyed, and instead of

17 exhuming the primary graves within a year or two we are

18 at the stage where we've only be able to exhume a part

19 of the graves.

20 Q. All right. Thank you very much,

21 Mr. Manning.

22 Now I'd like to focus your attention on the

23 general findings of these experts, and if you would

24 refer to page 3/21 of Prosecutor's Exhibit 140, your

25 report.

1 I'd like to start out with just some

2 statistics, your providing some statistics, please, and

3 the reason I ask you to just provide the statistics is

4 we're going to be hearing from the experts themselves

5 shortly. But can you first of all tell the Court the

6 minimum number of individuals who were located at all

7 of the exhumed sites. How many are we talking about?

8 A. The MNI, or minimal number of individuals, is

9 1,883.

10 Q. Can you define the term "minimal number of

11 individuals"?

12 A. It's a complicated term that will obviously

13 be explained at greater length by the experts. But as

14 the bodies have been broken up in the robbing process,

15 it's not simply a matter of counting the bodies, which

16 would be the case with an undisturbed grave such as

17 Cerska. With the disturbed primary grave and secondary

18 grave, the bodies are so intermingled that a simple

19 count won't work. They're damaged.

20 Anthropologists calculate the minimum number

21 of individuals by selecting normally a large bone and a

22 left or right bone and only counting that bone, in

23 effect, a thigh bone, all left thigh bones. From that

24 they calculate the minimum number of people that would

25 be represented by those bones. If those bones aren't

1 present or are damaged, then they can't be counted. It

2 then gets more complicated. Basically it's a count of

3 a selected large bone.

4 Q. Now, the use of the minimum number of

5 individuals and the formula that you've described, is

6 that a conservative approach to numbering the victims?

7 A. Very conservative. If that particular bone

8 is not present or damaged, then it's not counted. You

9 could have an entire body minus a leg or part of a leg

10 and it would be difficult to count that body. So it is

11 a very conservative number.

12 Q. Does that lead to the likelihood that in the

13 22 fully exhumed grave sites there are more than 1,883

14 individuals in those sites?

15 A. In the 17 exhumed --

16 Q. Seventeen, I'm sorry.

17 A. Yes. There would be, I believe, more than

18 that, and in fact there are large numbers of body parts

19 in some graves which certainly outnumber the number of

20 whole bodies. I would expect that number to be

21 greater.

22 Q. Now, does the figure 1,883, the minimum

23 number of individuals, include the number of

24 individuals found in the probed sites?

25 A. No, it does not. They have not been counted

1 in that 1,883.

2 Q. Mr. Manning, please turn your attention to

3 the gender of the victims found in the various exhumed

4 sites. Can you provide the Trial Chamber with the

5 statistics in that regard, please.

6 A. In relation to the assessment of sex of the

7 victims, 1,656 individuals were determined to be male;

8 212 individuals were undetermined, that is, no sex was

9 determined for them; 1 individual was determined to be

10 a female.

11 Q. Let me turn your attention now to the

12 statistics in respect of the cause of death. Would you

13 please summarise the findings.

14 A. As to cause of death, 1,424 individuals died

15 as a result of gunshot wounds; 169 individuals died of

16 probable or possible gunshot wounds; 5 individuals died

17 of shrapnel injuries; 4 died of other causes, such as

18 trauma or possible suffocation; and 1,374 individuals

19 died of undetermined causes.

20 Q. Now if I could have placed on the easel

21 Prosecutor's Exhibit 1/H/I, we're going to turn our

22 attention to the blindfolds because they play an

23 important part in this case and in linking the various

24 sites.

25 Let me ask you first, Mr. Manning, did the

1 people conducting the exhumations discover the presence

2 of blindfolds in various mass grave sites?

3 A. Yes, they did.

4 Q. Now, this is an image. Can you first of all

5 identify this image and what it shows.

6 A. This image is a victim from the Kozluk mass

7 grave. This is during the exhumation process. This

8 photo depicts the individual with a cloth blindfold

9 over his eyes. It also shows his arms bent backwards

10 behind him in the area of the belt, and some of the

11 vegetation and other artefacts in the grave, including

12 near his head, the boot of another victim.

13 Q. Go ahead, please.

14 A. My apologies. That individual was also bound

15 at the wrists.

16 Q. Let me show you an exhibit which is

17 Prosecutor's Exhibit 149. It's an A4-size photograph.

18 If that could be placed on the easel, please.

19 Can you identify this particular photograph,

20 Mr. Manning.

21 A. Again this photo is from the Kozluk mass

22 grave. It was during the 1999 exhumation. This

23 photograph shows one of the archaeologists in the

24 process of exhuming this body.

25 As you can see on the right-hand middle side

1 of the image, there's the head and part of the body of

2 the victim, with the mouth. Across the eyes is a cloth

3 blindfold, tied at the back of the head.

4 Q. I take it, Mr. Manning, in the course of the

5 exhumation work photographs are made of the various

6 bodies and then the items that are found on these

7 bodies, such as the blindfolds and other items, are

8 identified, preserved, and retained by the Office of

9 the Prosecutor. Is that correct?

10 A. That's correct.

11 MR. HARMON: Now, could I have Prosecutor's

12 Exhibit 27/9, which is a physical exhibit, shown to the

13 witness; 27/9 is the exhibit.

14 Q. Mr. Manning, do you have in front of you an

15 example of one of the blindfolds that was retrieved

16 from the Kozluk site? Could you remove it, please, and

17 show the Court.

18 A. I have it in front of me. Excuse me. I'll

19 just place some gloves on.

20 This artefact is marked "KK-3" for Kozluk,

21 grave 3, "834B," for body 834, and also marked as

22 "A1." It's a cloth with a knot at the back of it, and

23 a metal tag identifying it. It also has what I believe

24 to be hair and human tissue adhering to it. As you can

25 see, it was spread out and has since shrunk a little

1 bit in the washing process. But it's the blindfold

2 that you see on that image on the large easel.

3 Q. So it's the blindfold on the man who is

4 depicted in the large image on the easel; is that

5 correct?

6 A. That's the blindfold removed from that body.

7 Q. It's this kind of material that then was

8 submitted for expert analysis for comparison purposes

9 with other blindfolds that are found at secondary

10 sites; is that right? This kind of material, blindfold

11 material.

12 A. This sort of material and cloth of this type

13 that was also used as a ligature.

14 Q. Now, if I could have Prosecutor's Exhibit --

15 actually let me ask you another question first,

16 Mr. Manning. How many different exhumation sites were

17 blindfolds and cloth material discovered?

18 A. From eight separate sites.

19 Q. Now, can you identify those sites orally,

20 please.

21 MR. HARMON: For purposes of assisting Your

22 Honours, at page 21/21 in Mr. Manning's report, there

23 is a table that will provide the Chamber with

24 statistics about blindfolds, their locations where they

25 were found.

1 Q. Mr. Manning, can you just identify orally the

2 locations of those sites, please.

3 A. Yes, the sites were the Branjevo Military

4 Farm, which is a primary grave. The related secondary

5 grave of Cancari Road 12, the primary grave at Orahovac

6 known as Lazete 2, the three connected secondary graves

7 at Hodzici Road 3, Hodzici Road 4 and Hodzici Road 5.

8 Also at the Kozluk site, as you've seen, and the

9 Cancari Road 3 site which is the associated secondary

10 for that grave.

11 MR. HARMON: Could I have Prosecutor's

12 Exhibit 130/96 placed on the ELMO, please.

13 THE REGISTRAR [Interpretation] Your Honours,

14 it can be found in the binders.

15 A. Sorry Mr. Harmon, can you tell me that

16 exhibit number again?

17 MR. HARMON: It's 130/96.

18 Q. This is a blindfold that was taken from

19 Orahovac and it appears to be coloured material; is

20 that correct?

21 A. That's correct.

22 Q. This also provided indications to the people

23 who were doing the expert analysis when they would find

24 something of this colour, they would compare it to a

25 similar coloured material from a different site in

1 attempting to reach their conclusions; is that correct?

2 A. That's correct.

3 MR. HARMON: Remove that, please, from the

4 ELMO. Now, could I have placed on the easel

5 Prosecutor's Exhibit 142, please.

6 Q. Mr. Manning, how many blindfolds were

7 discovered at the various sites that were exhumed?

8 A. In total, at least 270 blindfolds were found

9 at those eight sites.

10 Q. Is that a conservative figure?

11 A. Yes, it is. Some blindfolds had deteriorated

12 to the point that we couldn't use them. Some had been

13 dislodged. This is a conservative figure.

14 Q. Could you explain now -- there's a board on

15 the easel with many, many small photographs.

16 Can you explain to the Judges what that

17 represents. The Judges have also been provided with an

18 A-3 sized copy of this exhibit.

19 A. This represents a photo of each of the

20 blindfolds located. It -- there were one or two photos

21 that showed two blindfolds but effectively, this is the

22 270 blindfolds located within those graves. They are

23 in order of grave.

24 The first section is the grave designation.

25 Some of those blindfolds are in situ on the head,

1 others are photographed at the morgue after cleaning.

2 MR. HARMON: Your Honours, Prosecutor's

3 Exhibit 128, 129 and 130 are the binders with

4 individual photographs that are depicted on this

5 collective, this collage.

6 Q. Could you tell the Judges how you made this

7 selection of these images, please, what methodology you

8 used, why you were conservative in your approach and

9 how you were conservative in your approach?

10 A. Your Honour, I examined all the records,

11 photographs, expert reports in relation to the

12 discovery of blindfolds. But as you can see from some

13 of the photographs, they are difficult to see. They

14 are difficult to see due to the condition of the

15 bodies.

16 They would have been logged at the exhumation

17 side; however, some of those blindfolds would move or

18 slip or be dislodged on transportation to the morgue,

19 and the morgue will also find blindfolds loose on the

20 body and part of the associated artefacts.

21 Therefore the count of blindfolds from the

22 exhumation site and from the morgue would be

23 different. I examined those counts. I physically

24 examined the blindfolds, and I selected only those

25 blindfolds that were either mentioned by the

1 archaeologist, mentioned by the pathologist,

2 anthropologist, photographed in situ or were clearly a

3 blindfold due to their construction material, and

4 normally the presence of human hair in the knot or

5 pieces of what appeared to be scalp and skull on those

6 pieces of cloth.

7 MR. HARMON: Mr. President, I don't know what

8 time you would like to take a break but if you -- I can

9 very easily continue this examination, but if I know,

10 then I can orient myself.

11 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I think

12 that this is indeed a good time because we've been

13 working for an hour and 15 minutes. Let us now have a

14 20-minute break and we can continue after that.

15 MR. HARMON: Maybe before we take the break,

16 I can introduce the exhibits that were tendered by

17 Mr. Ruez.

18 We had not formally tendered those exhibits

19 and I can identify those for Your Honours. It would be

20 28/7, 28/9, 28/11, 28/18, 28/8, and then 160 through

21 169, and 184 through 187.

22 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation]

23 Mr. Petrusic, have you any objections to make?

24 MR. PETRUSIC: [Interpretation] The Defence

25 does not have any objections to the exhibits presented

1 by the Prosecution; however, the Defence does have a

2 proposal, that is, to officially tender D20, Exhibit

3 D20 during the testimony of Witness T.

4 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, very

5 well.

6 Mr. Harmon, any objections with respect to

7 D20 and its tendering?

8 MR. HARMON: Let me have one moment.

9 MR. PETRUSIC: [Interpretation] I think that

10 it ought to be under seal, an exhibit under seal.

11 MR. HARMON: I have no objection.

12 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, but we

13 have had that observation by Mr. Petrusic, and as it is

14 a protected witness, the declaration must be under

15 seal, admitted under seal.

16 The exhibits, Prosecution, as they were

17 numbered, 7, 9, 11, 18, 8, 169, 184 through 187, and

18 Exhibits D20 have been tendered and admitted.

19 Very well. Let us now have a 20-minute break

20 after which we shall continue the hearing.

21 --- Recess taken at 10.48 a.m.

22 --- On resuming at 11.17 a.m.

23 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Harmon,

24 you may continue.

25 MR. HARMON:

1 Q. Mr. Manning, before we start your testimony,

2 let me ask you to keep your voice up.

3 We're going to change the topic now. We're

4 going to turn to the topic of ligatures. Let me ask

5 you, during the course of the exhumation process, was

6 it determined that some of the victims, or many of the

7 victims had had their hands or their arms tied with

8 ligatures of various types of material?

9 A. That's correct.

10 Q. Now, during the recess I placed Prosecutor's

11 Exhibit 141 on the easel; it's a collage. The Judges

12 should have an A3-size copy of Prosecutor's Exhibit 141

13 in front of them for their own reference.

14 Let me ask you, Mr. Manning, can you explain

15 what's depicted in this particular exhibit.

16 A. Again, this exhibit is similar to the

17 blindfold collage. It shows the ligatures that were

18 located at the various graves. The grave name is

19 indicated in the first white section and continues to

20 show all the ligatures that I could identify from those

21 graves. A total of 407 ligatures of different types.

22 MR. HARMON: Your Honours, Prosecutor's

23 Exhibits 128, 129, 130, and 131 have the individual

24 images that are contained in the collage, so for your

25 later reference the sum individual parts of this

1 exhibit are found in those binders.

2 Q. Now, Mr. Manning, once again let me ask you,

3 the figure of 407 ligatures that are depicted in the

4 exhibits, is this a conservative number?

5 A. Yes, it's conservative.

6 Q. For the same reasons that you gave in respect

7 of the blindfold material?

8 A. Exactly the same reason, and indeed some of

9 the ligatures were cloth which deteriorated; some were

10 wire which broke apart. Exactly the same methodology

11 was applied to the ligatures.

12 Q. Now, referring to page 20/21 of your summary

13 report, can you identify the sites, the exhumation

14 sites, where these ligatures were found, and can you

15 make a distinction in making these identifications

16 between a primary site and a secondary site.

17 A. Yes. Ligatures were found at Cerska grave.

18 This is a primary grave. Almost all those ligatures

19 were of wire. The Nova Kasaba primary grave of 1996,

20 ligatures were also found. Both those graves were not

21 disturbed. At the Orahovac (Lazete 2) grave, a

22 ligature was found; that is a primary grave, and at the

23 related secondary grave of Hodzici Road 5, a ligature

24 was also found. At the primary disturbed grave of

25 Branjevo Military Farm, ligatures were found, and at

1 the related secondary grave at Cancari Road 12.

2 Similarly, ligatures were found at the primary site of

3 the dam near Petkovci and its related site of Liplje

4 2. They were also found at the primary grave of Kozluk

5 and its associated secondary grave of Cancari Road 3.

6 Ligatures were also found at the secondary site of

7 Zeleni Jadar 5.

8 Q. Now, did your analysis of these ligatures

9 reveal that there were different types of ligature

10 material used on the victims?

11 A. Yes. Different materials were used. Some

12 were used opportunistically, such as a cloth sack. But

13 predominantly there were ligatures of wire, mainly two

14 types of wire; there were ligatures of cloth; there

15 were ligatures of string.

16 Q. Let me start by putting on the easel

17 Prosecutor's Exhibit 134. We're going to use a series

18 of exhibits to illustrate the different kinds of

19 ligature material that were found in the various

20 exhumation sites.

21 MR. HARMON: Would you stand that up,

22 Mr. Usher? That's the correct perspective.

23 Q. Now, on the easel is Prosecutor's Exhibit

24 134, Mr. Manning. Can you approach that, please, using

25 the microphone, and identify the significant parts of

1 that exhibit, please.

2 First of all, where is this image, taken from

3 which grave site?

4 A. This image is from the Kozluk primary grave,

5 mass grave site. It shows an individual who is laying

6 on his face and front, with the head and skull up here,

7 two arms here, the belt and rest of the body down here

8 to the end of the photo.

9 Clearly around the arm and wrists of this

10 individual is a ligature made of twine or string, white

11 synthetic twine. It is tied in a knot here and goes

12 round both wrists of this individual. This individual

13 also has a blindfold.

14 Q. Thank you very much, Mr. Manning. Please sit

15 down.

16 Mr. Manning, I'd like to now put on the ELMO

17 Prosecutor's Exhibit 132/86, which is a cloth ligature

18 example, please.

19 Could you please explain this particular

20 exhibit, where it's located -- where the photograph is

21 taken, from which site, and what kind of material is

22 used in this particular illustration.

23 A. This particular image is from the Branjevo

24 Military Farm, or Pilica. It represents human remains

25 that have been found during the exhumation process.

1 There are a set of hands and arms. The rest of the

2 body has not yet been exposed. You can see that the

3 arms are crossed over in the area of the wrist, and

4 here is a cloth ligature, again knotted and wrapping

5 round both wrists. Some of these cloth ligatures

6 formed a figure 8; some of them formed a circle, but

7 all of them bound and knotted.

8 Q. Let's turn to the next exhibit, Mr. Manning,

9 which is Prosecutor's Exhibit 132/87. Would you place

10 that on the ELMO, please, and explain to the Court what

11 that represents. Could you turn it to the side,

12 please.

13 A. This is a photograph of a ligature binding of

14 the hands and wrists of an individual from the Nova

15 Kasaba 1996 mass grave. You can see the victim's coat

16 sleeve. This is one of his hands and this is another

17 of his hands. Binding and digging into the flesh is a

18 wire ligature, again knotted or tied around the

19 wrists.

20 Q. Now, can you show the Court, using

21 Prosecutor's Exhibit 16/6, what a wire ligature that

22 was retrieved from one of these sites looks like. You

23 should have it in front of you. Mr. Manning, if you

24 would remove that from the bag, please.

25 A. This is a wire ligature, and marked on the

1 bag is "CSK," which is the code for Cerska, "108,"

2 which is the body that it came from, and the number 2,

3 which indicates artefact 2.

4 This is now in two parts. It is a wire

5 ligature. At one stage it was passing around the

6 wrists of the individual through one loop, and through

7 the other loop was the other wrist. It is bound here

8 and twisted and tied. As you can see, it is quite

9 small. It was very tightly bound around the wrists.

10 Q. Thank you very much, Mr. Manning.

11 Now, Mr. Manning, we'll turn to another

12 important category of evidence which is the presence of

13 artefacts, as I call it, at the various grave sites,

14 and during the exhumations.

15 Did the Office of the Prosecutor recover

16 different types of artefacts that were significant and

17 that led to the identification, first of all, of the

18 victims having come from Srebrenica and, second of all,

19 to the actual identifications of some of those victims?

20 A. That's correct. In each of the graves that

21 we exhumed, documentation or other items were found

22 which provided a positive link to Srebrenica. They

23 included licna carte or licence cards, identification,

24 other. In some instances, they have provided

25 identification of the victims.

1 Q. Can you describe, just in -- using a general

2 example, how the discovery of an artefact in a mass

3 grave site leads to the identification of someone from

4 Srebrenica?

5 A. In the general sense, the licence card may

6 have the address or the opstina of Srebrenica on it.

7 It may be some other artefact as documentation from

8 factories, offices, receipts naming Srebrenica or

9 addresses in Srebrenica.

10 Q. Now, have artefacts linked to Srebrenica been

11 located in all of the primary mass grave sites?

12 A. Yes, every one.

13 Q. Also located in the exhumed secondary -- all

14 of the exhumed secondary sites?

15 A. There's been something to link the

16 individuals to Srebrenica in all the cases.

17 Q. What I'd like to do now, Mr. Manning is run

18 through a series of exhibits to illustrate the types of

19 artefacts that are discovered in these graves and we'll

20 start with first of all Prosecutor's Exhibit 132/95.

21 There is a related exhibit to that and that is

22 132/95A. But if you would put 132/95 on the ELMO

23 first.

24 Can you tell, first of all, where that

25 particular artefact was retrieved?

1 A. This artefact was removed from body number 60

2 or human remains number 60 at the Cerska grave. "CSK"

3 is the code for Cerska, 1996, primary grave.

4 Q. What is it?

5 A. I'll just move it down a bit. It's a

6 pendant, a gold coloured pendant or necklace with an

7 "S" as part of the pattern. You can also see on the

8 top of the photo a knot in the chain of that pendant.

9 This was removed from the victim, Cerska 60.

10 Q. Now, Mr. Manning, this ultimately led to an

11 identification which we'll get to in a minute. Can you

12 please tell the Court how this led to an identification

13 and the story related to this particular object?

14 A. As part of the attempt to interview, to

15 identify the victims from Srebrenica, families would

16 report the missing to known government organisations

17 such as PHR and the International Red Cross. In that

18 process, they would provide as much information as they

19 could on the description of the individual; age,

20 height, injuries. Also personal effects such as

21 clothing, such as wallets, such as medallions such as

22 this.

23 This particular thing was identified by a

24 family prior to it being investigated by the OTP. They

25 drew a picture of a pendant with an S on it and a knot

1 in the chain. On the basis of that, on the basis of

2 the description of the individual, and the post mortem

3 data, they established that the individual Cerska 60

4 was the individual that had been identified as wearing

5 this chain and this pendant.

6 Q. What were the circumstances under which the

7 victim came to wear this particular pendant? Would you

8 tell the Judges what information the Office of the

9 Prosecutor found out?

10 A. The pendant was given to the individual, who

11 was a young boy, by his mother.

12 Q. Where was that?

13 A. In Srebrenica. It was given to him. She

14 detailed that to PHR.

15 Q. Would you describe, please, the story?

16 A. She indicated that she gave him the chain as

17 a gift. He placed it around his neck. Because of his

18 small size, it was too long. She saw him knot it to

19 make it a little bit easier to wear.

20 She was able to identify the pendant itself,

21 particularly the "S" and, more importantly, identify

22 the knot that she saw her son put in that chain.

23 Q. Now, how old was the boy?

24 A. He was born in 1979 according to the

25 identification material, so that made him 15, 16 years

1 of age.

2 Q. Would you place Prosecutor's Exhibit 132/95A

3 on the ELMO. There's a name that's highlighted on

4 that. First of all, what is this list?

5 A. This is a page from the list prepared by ICRC

6 or International Red Cross and PHR. It indicates the

7 name of the missing from Srebrenica. It's a large

8 volume.

9 This indicates the missing identified

10 victim's name as Samir Spiodic, a male, his date of

11 birth which is the 22nd of February 1979. It also

12 indicates the place of birth, Srebrenica, his father's

13 name, Kamel, date and place of disappearance, and it

14 also indicates the municipality.

15 Q. Let's turn to another example, Mr. Manning.

16 Prosecutor's Exhibit 132/93. Can you place that on the

17 ELMO, please.

18 Explain what this is and what its

19 significance is.

20 A. This item was recovered from the mass grave

21 at Branjevo Military Farm. It's marked as Pilica, the

22 code for that grave, 16, and item 10. It's the 10th

23 item removed from body 16 from that grave. And as can

24 be seen, it's an artificial leg. It was removed from

25 that victim.

1 Repairing or binding that leg is an amount of

2 tape. On that tape are the words "Feros Uniz

3 Srebrenica and Yugoslavia." On the basis of the data

4 provided by the family, that false leg led to the

5 identification of PLC-16.

6 Q. Would you place Prosecutor's Exhibit 132/93A

7 on the ELMO. Identify this object first of all and

8 then tell us about it.

9 A. Again, it's a page detailing persons missing

10 from Srebrenica. This is a PHR, ICRC missing list. It

11 provides the name of the victim, Nezir Efendic, a male,

12 the year he was born, his father's name, and where he

13 went missing from.

14 Q. Let's turn again to an example of an artefact

15 that was significant and was discovered in one of the

16 mass grave sites.

17 Could you please put Prosecutor's Exhibit

18 132/91 on the ELMO. Tell us about this particular

19 exhibit, Mr. Manning.

20 A. If I can just move it up. This is a licence

21 card or licna carte which was recovered from the

22 secondary mass grave of Hodzici Road 3 which is

23 indicated here. It's from body 3, and it's the seventh

24 artefact from that body.

25 There is a photograph still partly visible of

1 a male person and the details of that individual, date

2 of birth, father's name, his name, where he's from,

3 Srebrenica, is included on that licence card.

4 Q. Now, what's the date of birth that's

5 indicated on that licna carte licence card?

6 A. 17th of June, 1919.

7 Q. Would you turn to the next exhibit which is

8 related, which is Prosecutor's Exhibit 132/91A. Please

9 tell us about this exhibit.

10 A. Again, it's a page of details of missing from

11 Srebrenica. It includes the details of the identified

12 person from the Hodzici Road grave, Abdurahman Avdic,

13 male, and a year of birth and, again, date and place of

14 birth, Srebrenica, father's name, and date and place of

15 disappearance.

16 Q. And the year of birth is different in this

17 exhibit, it's the year 1920, and in the previous

18 exhibit it was 1919. Nevertheless, was there a

19 confirmation that the individual whose licence card

20 licna carte was found in the grave site is this?

21 A. This individual has been positively

22 identified, that identification accepted by the Bosnian

23 authorities, and a death certificate issued.

24 I believe, and I've had experience with the

25 details provided by the family. They are often wrong

1 in the sense that they don't know the precise year of

2 birth and, as indicated here, they can't recall or

3 don't know the day and month of birth.

4 I've spoken to witnesses who didn't know

5 their own date of birth, month or even year.

6 Q. Thank you, Mr. Manning, let's turn to another

7 exhibit, please. Prosecutor's Exhibit 132/98. Turn it

8 on its side so we can see the whole exhibit.

9 Mr. Manning, what does this exhibit tell us?

10 A. This exhibit is from the Cancari Road 3, the

11 secondary grave to Kozluk. It's from body or may even

12 represent body 372 from that grave.

13 As you can see, it's part of a spinal column

14 of an individual. In this case, due to medical

15 conditions best described by experts, the spine has

16 been fused along its length.

17 Obviously, this individual would be unable to

18 freely move or bend and he was subject to an autopsy

19 report that details that condition.

20 Q. That autopsy report that details his

21 condition is Prosecutor's Exhibit 132/98A. You don't

22 have to put that on the ELMO, but does that autopsy

23 report indicate that this was a man who was disabled as

24 a result of this condition?

25 A. From the autopsy report, the whole spine

1 showed a severe ancylosis which would have caused

2 obvious problems in moving.

3 Q. Now, this is a unique medical condition for

4 this particular victim. Has this led to an

5 identification of the victim?

6 A. Not in this case, it hasn't led to an

7 identification. Those efforts are still continuing.

8 Q. Let's turn to another type of artefact that

9 was found in, I think, the exhumed sites if we could

10 turn to Prosecutor's Exhibit 132/109.

11 Again, Mr. Manning, please tell us where this

12 was located and what this particular object is and what

13 it represents.

14 A. This object was removed from the Hodzici 4

15 secondary grave related to the Orahovac Lazete graves.

16 It is removed from body 296, and it's artefact 2. The

17 other details include the photographic numbers and the

18 date.

19 As you can see, it is a pocket watch with

20 what is obviously a hole or mark through it apparently

21 caused by a bullet or similar.

22 Q. Now, did this artefact corroborate the

23 medical findings on the cause of death?

24 A. Yes. The cause of death of this individual

25 indicated gunshot wounds, multiple gunshot wounds.

1 This being in his possession is indicative of being

2 struck by those bullets.

3 Q. Now this, for Your Honours' benefit, we won't

4 put this on the ELMO as Prosecutor's Exhibit 132/109A.

5 Let's turn now, Mr. Manning, to another type

6 of evidence that confirms that people who are located

7 in these exhumed sites were of the Muslim faith. Could

8 you please place 132/110 on the ELMO.

9 Now, first of all, tell us if, in the course

10 of the exhumations, Muslim religious objects were

11 retrieved from various sites.

12 A. In the majority of sites, Muslim religious

13 artefacts were located, such as small copies of the

14 Koran, et cetera.

15 Q. Explain what is in Prosecutor's Exhibit

16 132/110, please.

17 A. This item was removed from Hodzici 3 grave.

18 The "A" and the number indicates it's an artefact which

19 normally means separate from a body. It was loose in

20 the grave; during the disturbance it separated. It was

21 a plastic packing which included this script, which is

22 a long thin sheet of paper with apparent Muslim verses

23 on it; I've been informed that it's of a religious

24 nature. It's indicative of the sorts of religious

25 texts, or Muslim texts located in the graves.

1 Q. This is an example of an artefact that

2 confirms at least that some of the victims within the

3 site exhumed are of Muslim faith.

4 A. That's correct.

5 Q. All right. Let's turn now to the next

6 exhibit, Mr. Manning, 132/1. This is also under a

7 different exhibit number introduced earlier, 1.G. It

8 is a photograph, Mr. Manning.

9 If you'd be so kind as to place that on the

10 ELMO and tell us where it was found, and generally the

11 significance of photographs that are found along with

12 bodies.

13 A. This is Exhibit 132/1.

14 MR. HARMON: We need to pan up so that the

15 whole exhibit can be seen. Just down a little bit,

16 please, Mr. Usher. Thank you very much.

17 A. This item was removed from the Lazete or

18 Orahovac grave. Lazete 2 is the grave designation, and

19 body 36, and it's one of at least 12 items recovered

20 from that body. It's obviously a family photo, a

21 snapshot. This individual had a number of photographs

22 in his possession, in his wallet.

23 The photographs have allowed us, in some

24 instances, to identify the victims. These photographs

25 can be shown to the surviving relatives. On occasion

1 that has proved difficult as the photographs

2 deteriorate rather quickly. In this instance you can

3 still see the individuals that this man carried

4 around.

5 Q. Now, earlier in your testimony you touched on

6 the effect of the removal of bodies from the primary

7 sites to the secondary sites. Is one of the

8 consequences of essentially robbing the graves and

9 trying to hide the mortal remains of these victims that

10 physical evidence, such as photographs that have been

11 hidden at different locations and therefore take a

12 longer time to find because each grave has not yet

13 completely been exhumed, does that result in the

14 deterioration of physical evidence?

15 A. Very much so. This photograph was exhumed

16 with the body in 1996 but you can still see it has

17 deteriorated, or did then. Photographs removed from

18 the graves in 1999 are either destroyed, or I've seen

19 them disappear as they are exposed to air.

20 Q. Mr. Manning, let's turn to the next exhibit,

21 please, 132/4. It's another photograph.

22 MR. HARMON: We need to lower that.

23 Q. What is this photograph, where was it found,

24 and has it led to an identification?

25 A. This photograph was found with Lazete 2 or

1 Orahovac, body 36. Again it's part of item 12 so it's

2 with that other photograph. It's a young girl, a

3 child, in a pink dress, normal family photographs that

4 were with this victim. In this case it hasn't led to

5 an identification.

6 Q. Let's turn to the next exhibit, please,

7 Mr. Manning. Prosecutor's Exhibit 132/6.

8 A. Again --

9 Q. Please connect this exhibit to the site and

10 tell us the significance of this exhibit, please. Turn

11 it the other way, please. That's fine.

12 A. This exhibit, again from the same grave and

13 the same body, item 12, and it is a photo or part of a

14 photo of a small boy. Also of interest is the tape

15 that's binding that photograph and other photographs at

16 the back of it. Again, it's the Feros Uniz Srebrenica,

17 Yugoslavia-type that we saw on the artificial leg from

18 the Branjevo Military Farm grave.

19 Q. So these photographs and the previous two

20 photographs have not led to identifications, but there

21 is evidence from the tape indicating Srebrenica that

22 these are probably from somebody from Srebrenica; is

23 that a fair assessment?

24 A. Yes, that's a fair assessment, or my

25 assessment.

1 Q. All right. Now let's turn to the last in the

2 series of these exhibits, 132/18. Mr. Manning, again

3 orient us to this particular exhibit.

4 A. Again, a family photo. This was removed from

5 body number 11, at Pilica, or the Branjevo Military

6 Farm. This individual had a photograph of, we assume,

7 his family. As a result of this and other information,

8 that individual was identified.

9 Q. Now, would you kindly take Prosecutor's

10 Exhibit 132/18A, and you said that photograph led to an

11 identification. Who was the victim in this particular

12 case?

13 A. The victim who carried that photograph was

14 Elizabet Selimovic, a male; date of birth: 30th of

15 January, 1962; again, date and place of birth,

16 Bratunac; father's name; and date and place of

17 disappearance.

18 Q. All right. Thank you very much, Mr. Manning,

19 on that series of exhibits.

20 MR. HARMON: Mr. Usher, I'm finished with

21 that series of exhibits.

22 Q. What I'd like to turn your attention to now,

23 Mr. Manning, is focus on some of the types of other

24 evidence that led to connecting and linking the primary

25 grave sites to the secondary grave sites.

1 In your earlier testimony you said that the

2 Office of the Prosecutor had retained various experts:

3 ballistic experts, soil analysis experts, materials

4 analysis experts, comparing cloth samples, blindfolds

5 and ligatures, from one grave site to the other. You

6 said that there have been comparative analyses run on

7 these objects; is that correct?

8 A. That's correct.

9 Q. What I'd like to do, first of all,

10 Mr. Manning, is start with the ballistics experts,

11 please.

12 MR. HARMON: If we could have placed on the

13 easel Prosecutor's Exhibit 133. That should be placed

14 on the side.

15 Q. First of all, did the Office of the

16 Prosecutor, in the course of conducting these

17 exhumations, recover shell casings from the primary and

18 secondary sites?

19 A. Yes, shell casings were recovered from all

20 the sites.

21 Q. Now, were all of the shell casings from all

22 the sites recovered or only samples?

23 A. Only samples. There were shell casings at

24 sites that were not collected.

25 Q. Now, focusing your attention on Prosecutor's

1 Exhibit 133, first of all can you identify from which

2 site this photograph is taken.

3 A. Again, this is from the Kozluk mass grave

4 site, exhumed in 1999, a primary site, primary

5 disturbed site.

6 Q. Would you approach the exhibit, please, using

7 the easel, and explain to the Trial Chamber the

8 significance of this exhibit.

9 A. This is an exhumation photograph. They have

10 presented or uncovered part of the body. You can see

11 that it's an individual with his legs running through

12 here to the bottom of the photo; skull and head with a

13 blindfold; his arms behind his back, bound. General

14 artefacts within the grave: Notably on this is a shell

15 case here near what would be the individual's left

16 arm. That is indicative of where we found shell cases

17 either associated with the bodies, amongst the

18 clothing, or in other parts of the grave.

19 Q. Thank you very much, Mr. Manning. We're

20 going to show another example. If we could place on

21 the ELMO, Mr. Manning, 132/106.

22 Please identify this exhibit and point out

23 the significant features of this exhibit.

24 A. Again, this is from the Kozluk grave,

25 designated by "KK-3." It is body or body parts 571,

1 body 571. This is obviously an individual's arms and

2 you can see that they're bound. The rest of the body

3 has not been exposed yet. Again you can see the

4 artefacts that are present within the grave. In this

5 case, a shell case, a shell case, a shell case, and

6 part of a shell case here still buried. Those are the

7 sort of shell cases that were collected.

8 Q. Mr. Manning, then, were shell cases from

9 primary sites, such as this at Kozluk, also collected

10 at secondary sites?

11 A. Yes, they were.

12 Q. Were those or some of those shell casings

13 submitted to the United States Treasury Department's

14 Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms in an attempt

15 to make a comparison to see if the shell casings from

16 primary sites matched shell casings located in

17 secondary sites?

18 A. Yes.

19 MR. HARMON: Mr. President and Your Honours,

20 the Office of the Prosecutor filed the Bureau of

21 Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms' report with the Trial

22 Chamber, pursuant to Rule 94 bis, on the 14th of April,

23 2000, and on the 28th of April, 2000, the Defence

24 informed the Trial Chamber that it had accepted the

25 statement of this expert. So we would now have and

1 tender to the Court Prosecutor's Exhibit 144, which is

2 the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms' ballistics

3 report.

4 Q. Mr. Manning, have you had a chance to review

5 that report?

6 A. Yes, I have.

7 Q. Can you first of all briefly describe to the

8 Trial Chamber the types of analyses that were conducted

9 by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms.

10 A. Simply put, the shell cases collected have

11 various marks on them caused by the firing and ejection

12 process from the weapon. Specifically, ejector marks

13 on shell cases, marks that were put there when the

14 shell was ejected from the weapon after firing, were

15 examined by the ATF, using -- including methods such as

16 microscopic examination and comparison. They would

17 examine a shell case ejector mark on one or more shell

18 casings and attempt to match those marks to show that

19 that shell case had been fired by the same weapon.

20 Q. Now, as a result of that analysis, were shell

21 casings that were found in primary execution sites and

22 grave sites matched with shell casings found in

23 secondary mass grave sites?

24 A. Yes, they were.

25 Q. Now, Mr. Manning, would you kindly place page

1 14/21 from your report on the ELMO. Once it's centred,

2 properly, Mr. Manning, I'd like you to explain the

3 findings of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and

4 Firearms, the location of shells from primary sites or

5 other locations and where they matched shell casings at

6 other locations.

7 A. On the basis of the matches and the numbers

8 provided by ATF, they produced this table which

9 indicates that a shell case or shell cases from the

10 Kravica warehouse execution point were matched by ATF

11 to the secondary grave of Zeleni Jadar 5; that is, a

12 shell case from Kravica and a shell case from Zeleni

13 Jadar 5 were apparently fired by the same weapon.

14 In the Cerska primary grave, in the grave

15 itself, shell cases were matched to the surface of the

16 grave, at the roadway near the grave, and the roadway

17 on the north side of the road.

18 In the primary grave of Orahovac, or Lazete

19 as it's indicated here, shell cases from these areas,

20 including the grave and the grave surface, were matched

21 to shell cases found in the related secondary grave of

22 Hodzici Road 3, 5, and 4.

23 Again, the primary grave of Petkovci, the Dam

24 near Petkovci, the shell cases on the surface of the

25 dam matched those found within the hole, or the grave

1 itself.

2 The Kozluk primary mass grave surface, the

3 shell cases match that found at the secondary site of

4 Cancari Road 3.

5 Q. Let's turn to another link connecting primary

6 graves to secondary graves now, Mr. Manning, and that

7 is the results of soil and pollen sample analysis.

8 Now, in respect of primary and secondary

9 sites that were exhumed by the Office of the

10 Prosecutor, did the Office of the Prosecutor collect

11 soil samples from particular primary sites and

12 secondary sites, and did they retain those soil samples

13 for later analysis?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Why were the soil samples from the primary

16 sites and the secondary sites collected?

17 A. They were collected either by Dr. Tony Brown,

18 or at his request, in an attempt to identify the types

19 of soil and properties of the soil that were found in

20 one grave which were apparently picked up and

21 transported and placed inside the secondary grave, that

22 soil being foreign to that area; so an attempt to match

23 the soil from the primary site to where it was dumped,

24 if you like, in the secondary site.

25 Q. What primary and secondary sites were soil

1 samples collected?

2 A. Soil samples were collected from the Branjevo

3 Military Farm, from its associated secondary grave of

4 Cancari Road 12; from the Kozluk primary grave and its

5 associated secondary grave of Cancari Road 3; from the

6 Orahovac Lazete site and it's associated sites of

7 Hodzici 3, 4 and 5, and also from the primary grave of

8 Glogova and the secondary grave of Zeleni Jadar 5.

9 Q. You said these soil samples were submitted to

10 a Dr. Brown, can you identify him further and what his

11 background qualifications are?

12 A. Dr. Brown is a palynologist at the University

13 of Exeter in the UK. He has degrees in geology and he

14 also is an expert on the identification of soil, soil

15 types, and the artefacts found in soil such as

16 macrofossils but more particularly pollen which

17 represents where the soil came into contact with

18 vegetation, specifying the area where that soil was.

19 Q. Did Dr. Brown prepare an expert report and

20 did he submit that to the Office of the Prosecutor?

21 A. He prepared two expert reports, and he

22 submitted them.

23 MR. HARMON: Your Honours, Dr. Brown's report

24 for the 1998 exhumations was filed by the Prosecutor

25 with the Trial Chamber pursuant to Rule 94 bis on

1 January 6, 2000 and his report for the 1999 exhumations

2 was filed by the Prosecutor's office on February 7th,

3 2000.

4 On the 25th of February 2000, the Defence

5 informed the Trial Chamber in writing pursuant to Rule

6 94 bis (B) that they accepted the statements of

7 Dr. Brown. So we could tender Dr. Brown's two expert

8 reports, Exhibit 179 which is Dr. Brown's analysis for

9 the 1998 analysis, exhumations, I'm sorry, and Exhibit

10 180 which is Dr. Brown's analysis for the 1999

11 exhumations.

12 Q. Mr. Manning, briefly --

13 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Harmon,

14 excuse me, I think that you mentioned, quite rightly,

15 the two reports of Anthony Brown, and it is true that

16 the Defence has accepted the first tendered on the 6th

17 of January, but I think that the Chamber still has no

18 response to this day regarding Anthony Brown's report

19 filed on the 7th of February.

20 I don't know whether that one response

21 applies to both reports or if the Defence has given a

22 positive response to the first and has still not

23 provided a response to the second. Perhaps we need to

24 clear that up with the Defence.

25 Mr. Petrusic, I don't know whether we are

1 right or not, but we have not found any response in

2 relation to the report of the 7th of February. We do

3 have a response on the report dated the 6th of

4 January. Can you help us, please?

5 MR. PETRUSIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President,

6 the Defence has accepted both reports by expert Brown.

7 I will check later if there is some technical errors,

8 but it is our intention to accept both reports.

9 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes. So we

10 have your response dated the 3rd of March, 2000. But

11 if you say that you accept both, they are accepted. No

12 problem then.

13 So we've cleared that up now. Thank you very

14 much, Mr. Harmon, you may continue.

15 MR. HARMON: Thank you Mr. President.

16 Q. Briefly, Mr. Manning, can you summarise for

17 the Trial Chamber the types of analyses prepared or

18 performed by Dr. Brown?

19 A. Dr. Brown has detailed in his report specific

20 methods of examination, examining the soil. They refer

21 to methods accepted by geologists and people in that

22 field.

23 I, unfortunately, can't explain those tests,

24 but some of those tests were by using a microscope in

25 and examining the structure of the soil, the structure

1 of fossils within it and particularly in the structure,

2 type, of pollen grains within that soil sample.

3 Q. Did you conclude that there were similar

4 types of soil found in primary and secondary graves?

5 A. Yes, he did.

6 Q. Referring to your report, Prosecutor's

7 Exhibit 140, could you place on the ELMO the page and

8 the chart that is found at 00950927.

9 Using -- we need to lower it a little bit.

10 Using this particular chart, can you inform the Trial

11 Chamber where the soil from primary grave sites matched

12 the soil found in secondary grave sites based on

13 Dr. Brown's analysis?

14 A. Using Dr. Brown's analysis, the Branjevo

15 Military Farm soil pollen samples matched that at

16 Cancari Road 12. The Kozluk primary grave matches that

17 at Cancari Road 3. The Glogova 2 grave matches that at

18 Zeleni Jadar 5. And the Orahovac or Lazete grave

19 matches all three at Hodzici Road 3, Hodzici Road 4 and

20 Hodzici Road 5.

21 Q. Now, there is a small box of soil samples

22 found between the site, the dam and Liplje 2, that was

23 not the subject of Dr. Brown's analysis. That's an

24 analysis performed by another expert; is that correct?

25 A. That's correct.

1 Q. We'll get to that testimony later in the

2 course of this trial. That concludes this particular

3 link between primary and secondary grave sites.

4 What I'd like to do now, Mr. Manning, is turn

5 to another source of evidence that linked the primary

6 grave sites to secondary grave sites. Let me ask you,

7 you've testified first of all about finding a large

8 number of cloth ligatures and blindfolds.

9 Were those or some samples of those cloth

10 ligatures that were found in primary sites and in

11 secondary sites submitted to the Netherlands Forensic

12 Institute which is part of the Dutch Ministry of

13 Justice?

14 A. That's correct.

15 Q. And was the purpose of that submission to

16 have the Netherlands Forensic Institute make an

17 analysis of the materials that were found in primary

18 and secondary sites to determine if the materials were

19 the same?

20 A. Yes, that's correct.

21 Q. Now, if we could turn to your report, please,

22 Mr. Manning, at page 15/21. Before you place that on

23 the ELMO, let me ask you some questions before we place

24 this on the ELMO.

25 What types of analysis did the Netherlands

1 Forensic Institute conduct on the cloth material

2 samples; can you tell us that after having reviewed

3 their report?

4 A. Yes, the investigation was conducted by

5 Ms. Suzie Maljaars who examined the cloths in an

6 attempt to group them into like cloths. She and other

7 scientists examined the cloth for colour, weave,

8 pattern, shininess of the material.

9 It was examined under a microscope to

10 determine the number of threads within the weave, the

11 embroidery pattern, also the elasticity of the

12 material.

13 As a result of that, the cloths were grouped

14 within graves in groups of like cloths, of similar

15 cloths and a simple or a representative sample from

16 each of those groups was compared to the other graves

17 to a representative sample from those other graves.

18 Q. Did the Netherlands Forensic Institute

19 prepare a final report with their conclusions and did

20 they submit that to the Office of the Prosecutor?

21 A. They did.

22 MR. HARMON: Mr. President, Judge Wald, the

23 particular report which is the Netherlands Forensic

24 Institute report, Exhibit 143, was filed with the Trial

25 Chamber by the Office of the Prosecutor on the 28th of

1 February 2000. And on the 1st of March 2000, the

2 Defence filed a notice pursuant to Rule 94 bis (B)

3 informing the Trial Chamber that they had accepted that

4 expert report.

5 Q. Now, if you will, Mr. Manning, turning to

6 your report Prosecutor 140, would you place page 15/21

7 on the ELMO, and can you please tell us what their

8 conclusions were.

9 A. After examining that report and the details

10 provided by the Dutch lab, they advised that cloth

11 ligatures or blindfolds located at the Branjevo

12 Military Farm matched those at Cancari Road 12. A

13 group of blindfolds or a type of blindfold ligature

14 also matched that at Cancari Road 3.

15 There was no match from Zeleni Jadar 5.

16 Cloth blindfolds collected from the Grbovci school

17 matched those at Hodzici Road 4. Cloth collected from

18 Orahovac Lazete 2 matched all three secondary graves of

19 Hodzici Road 4, 3, and 5.

20 Also, a cloth ligature or blindfold from

21 Hodzici Road 4 matched that at the secondary site of

22 Liplje 2.

23 Q. Now, let me just ask you to put some examples

24 of the type of the materials that were compared on the

25 ELMO to illustrate the types of materials that were

1 compared.

2 And if you would start by taking Prosecutor's

3 Exhibit 143, please, it's appendix 1, the page number

4 on that, the ERN number is 00916676. Could you place

5 that --

6 A. Sorry Mr. Harmon, I don't have the pages of

7 that report.

8 Q. It's the colourful pattern. Do you have the

9 report in front of you?

10 A. No, I don't.

11 MR. HARMON: Could the registrar please

12 furnish the witness with a copy of that report, 143,

13 please.

14 Q. Mr. Manning, you're familiar with the report

15 and you're familiar with the exhibit that I'm referring

16 to. Would you please place that on the ELMO.

17 Now earlier, Mr. Manning, we had seen in a

18 picture on a skull that had been exhumed a piece of

19 colourful material. Now, can you explain what this

20 particular exhibit is and its significance?

21 A. This exhibit is from the report by

22 Ms. Maljaars. It includes a strip of cloth spread out

23 on the table and photographed.

24 This cloth has a distinctive pattern, a

25 colourful pattern printed on to the material. This

1 piece of cloth and the one below it obviously

2 particularly similar. She examined both of these

3 cloths to the level that I previously described and

4 established that they were indistinguishable from each

5 other.

6 Of particular notice, that this cloth at the

7 bottom is from the Pilica grave, the Branjevo Military

8 Farm grave. This piece of cloth is from the Cancari

9 Road 12 cloth.

10 Q. Turn to the next exhibit please, Mr.

11 Manning. It is found in appendix 2 at 00916678.

12 Explain this exhibit, please, Mr. Manning.

13 A. Again, this is three strips of cloth spread

14 out on a table to be viewed. They are from three

15 different graves. The top one is the Pilica Branjevo

16 Military Farm primary grave and the other two are from

17 the Cancari Road 12 and Cancari Road 3 secondary

18 graves.

19 Of particular note is not only is the type of

20 cloth colour material the same. These cloths have an

21 embroidered circle with a flower which is quite

22 visible. Each of these cloths has the same embroidered

23 mark on them and, again, they are found to be

24 indistinguishable from each other.

25 Q. These samples were found at three different

1 locations; is that correct?

2 A. Three different locations, three different

3 graves.

4 Q. Lastly, let's turn to appendix 3 in

5 Prosecutor's Exhibit 143 at page 00916680.

6 Can you please explain what this exhibit

7 represents?

8 A. This is a view of another type of cloth used

9 as a blindfold or ligature. In this case, blindfolds.

10 These are from two separate graves, but as you can see,

11 the pattern is very similar. There is a clean or

12 straight edge at the bottom. The cloth is of a similar

13 width, and there's a scalloped pattern across the top

14 of the cloth.

15 This particular pattern is seen on a large

16 number of blindfolds and ligatures and is seen at a

17 number of different graves.

18 Q. Where did these two cloth samples come from,

19 where were they retrieved and what did they link?

20 A. I'm sorry, Mr. Harmon, without referring to

21 the report, itself, and checking those numbers, I can't

22 tell you. I believe the Hodzici Road graves.

23 Q. All right. Well, the answer to that question

24 is found in the report, and we'll leave the answer

25 imbedded in that report for further examination if you

1 don't know.

2 Let's -- I've concluded then with that

3 particular exhibit, and we've concluded with the

4 analysis of this particular set of links between

5 primary and secondary graves, Mr. Manning.

6 What I'd like to do now is place Prosecutor's

7 Exhibit 27/7 on the ELMO. We're going to turn our

8 attention, Mr. Manning, to another connection between

9 primary grave site and secondary grave site. We'll

10 start by putting this particular exhibit on the ELMO.

11 We've seen this exhibit earlier in this

12 trial. Mr. Manning, can you tell us what this

13 particular exhibit is?

14 A. I recognise this photograph of the Vetinka

15 bottling factory which is located near the Kozluk mass

16 grave.

17 Q. Was the Vetinka bottle factory located next

18 to a headquarters of any particular military unit in

19 the Drina Corps?

20 A. Next to the bottling factory was the then

21 barracks of the Drina Wolves.

22 Q. Did the Vetinka bottle factory have labels

23 that reflected "Vetinka bottle factory"?

24 A. Amongst a variety of labels, yes. It had the

25 name Vetinka; it also had the town Kozluk on some

1 labels.

2 Q. Did it also have bottles that were green

3 glass?

4 A. Yes, thousands of green glass bottles.

5 Q. How far away was the Vetinka bottle factory

6 and the headquarters of the Drina Wolves from the mass

7 execution site at Kozluk?

8 A. About 1, 1.5 kilometres along the road that

9 you see in front of that factory.

10 Q. Now, at the mass execution site at Kozluk,

11 was the site itself, before the executions, used as a

12 grounds where the broken glass was discarded by the

13 factory?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Was it a dump site?

16 A. It was apparent that it was a dumping ground

17 for broken bottles, amongst other things.

18 Q. If we could now turn to another exhibit,

19 please, that is, Prosecutor's Exhibit 132/103.

20 This doesn't show up as clearly as I'd hoped

21 on this so you'll have to explain to the Trial Chamber

22 what this particular exhibit illustrates.

23 A. This is a photograph of the exhumation site

24 at Kozluk, in particular detailing body 818. The

25 significance of this photo, however, is the massive

1 bodies here and surrounding them and under them is

2 thousands of green glass bottles. You can see the

3 shape here of the base of a bottle. You can see it

4 here, particularly here, near the yellow arrow, yellow

5 and black arrow. Effectively this whole background

6 here is broken green glass.

7 Q. Now we're going to put another exhibit on the

8 ELMO. It's Prosecutor's Exhibit 132/99.

9 Mr. Manning, could you tell us what's

10 depicted in this exhibit.

11 A. This is a photo of artefacts recovered from

12 the Kozluk grave. It's numbered 773A, an artefact. It

13 shows paper labels, bottle labels, which were recovered

14 from that grave. You can see part of "Vetinka," or the

15 spelling of Vetinka. On examination of those labels

16 you can see "Vetinka," and "Kozluk" as well.

17 Q. Earlier in your testimony you've testified

18 that the Kozluk primary mass grave site had been

19 disturbed, and we had seen in Prosecutor's Exhibit

20 1/J/I the trench mark or the gouge mark at that

21 particular location.

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. Let me ask you, then, Mr. Manning, were

24 similar pieces of green glass and labels similar to

25 what's depicted in Prosecutor's Exhibit 132/99 found at

1 secondary mass grave sites?

2 A. Yes. The same green glass, the same labels,

3 were found at the secondary grave of Cincari Road 3.

4 Q. Let me start then by using the next exhibit,

5 which is 128/263. Would you place that on the ELMO,

6 please. Would you lower that just a little bit,

7 please.

8 Now, what is this exhibit? What does this

9 exhibit depict, Mr. Manning?

10 A. This exhibit is an exhumation photo from the

11 secondary grave of Cincari Road 3. It is an

12 individual, a skull, and what is a blindfold fallen

13 from the face. It was given an artefact number.

14 The significance of this particular photo,

15 and again it's not as clear as perhaps hoped, is in the

16 background here are fragments, pieces, of green glass

17 bottles. In the Cincari Road 3 grave, there were

18 thousands of small pieces of glass adhering to the

19 bodies and within the grave itself.

20 Q. Let's turn to the next exhibit, please, which

21 is 132/101.

22 Mr. Manning, what is depicted in this

23 particular exhibit?

24 A. This is a photograph taken at the mortuary of

25 artefacts recovered from the Cincari Road 3 grave.

1 It's numbered 402. It is the glass labels -- the

2 bottle labels, sorry, "Vetinka" and "Kiseljak Water."

3 But again on those labels was "Vetinka" and "Kozluk."

4 Q. So these labels were found mixed in with the

5 bodies that were discovered at the secondary mass grave

6 at Cincari Road 3.

7 A. That's correct.

8 Q. Let's turn to the last exhibit in this

9 series, Mr. Manning, Prosecutor's Exhibit 132/105.

10 Mr. Manning, what does this particular

11 exhibit depict?

12 A. This is a photograph taken during a trenching

13 operation of the Cincari Road 1 grave by an

14 investigator. What it shows is a body part, in this

15 case a part of the pelvis, within the unexhumed grave

16 of Cincari Road 1. As you can see clearly, again

17 pieces of broken green glass.

18 Q. This is a grave that was probed, it wasn't

19 fully exhumed; is that right?

20 A. That's correct.

21 Q. All right. Based on your analysis of the

22 findings of green glass and Vetinka bottle labels in

23 the secondary sites of Cincari Road 1 and Cincari Road

24 3, is it your conclusion that the bodies found in those

25 two sites came from the primary mass execution site at

1 Kozluk?

2 A. Certainly the bodies in Cincari Road 3 came

3 from Kozluk, and I believe that the bodies in Cincari

4 Road 1 will be shown to have come from Kozluk,

5 particularly by the obvious green glass fragments.

6 That will be more clear once it's exhumed.

7 MR. HARMON: Now, Mr. Usher, if we could have

8 placed on the easel Prosecutor's Exhibit 135. It's

9 previously been shown.

10 Q. Mr. Manning, if you would prepare, while

11 that's being done, locate in your report page number

12 00950927 and place that on the ELMO.

13 Mr. Manning, would you approach the large

14 easel exhibit. What I'd like you to do, please, is

15 based on the analyses that we've been discussing, the

16 shell casings, the soil analysis, the textile analysis,

17 the presence of green glass and labels, could you

18 summarise, please, the movement of victims' bodies from

19 primary mass execution and grave sites to secondary

20 sites, based on the analysis and based on the reports

21 that you've reviewed.

22 A. Yes. Based on all that material, the bodies

23 from Branjevo Military Farm, the primary grave, were

24 removed from that grave, some of the bodies, and were

25 then transported to Cincari Road 12 where they were

1 placed in that grave.

2 The primary grave site of Kozluk was robbed;

3 some of those bodies were taken and transported to

4 Cincari Road 3.

5 This site at the Dam, near Petkovci, was

6 robbed, with the majority of the bodies being taken to

7 Liplje 2.

8 The site at Orahovac (Lazete 2) was robbed;

9 bodies from that grave were transported to the graves

10 Hodzici Road 3, 5, and 4.

11 Q. And Glogova.

12 A. Also the primary mass grave of Glogova 2,

13 bodies from that grave were transported to and reburied

14 at Zeleni Jadar 5.

15 Q. All right. Have a seat again, Mr. Manning,

16 please.

17 The exhibit that's found on the ELMO, which

18 is from your report at page 00950927, is essentially a

19 summary chart coming to the same conclusions; is that

20 correct?

21 A. Essentially, yes.

22 Q. All right. Mr. Manning, we're going to turn

23 to a different topic at this point because I'd like you

24 to discuss some additional forensic reports that were

25 prepared and submitted to the Office of the

1 Prosecutor.

2 Now, following the revelation that mass

3 executions had occurred, did the Office of the

4 Prosecutor send investigators to two locations? First

5 of all, did they send a team of investigators and

6 forensic experts from the United States Naval

7 Investigative Service to the Kravica warehouse, on the

8 30th of September, 1996?

9 A. I did, yes.

10 MR. HARMON: Mr. Usher, if we could place on

11 the ELMO Prosecutor's Exhibit 8/4, which is a panorama

12 of the Kravica warehouse.

13 Q. Mr. Manning, is this the location where the

14 experts went? Is this the Kravica warehouse?

15 A. Yes, it is. It's the Kravica warehouse, one

16 end of the warehouse, if you like. They examined this

17 end of the warehouse, to the right of the picture.

18 They didn't examine the far end of the warehouse,

19 depicted on the left.

20 Q. What was the purpose of that examination?

21 A. We had been told by witnesses, and there was

22 evidence there, of a mass execution. Their job was to

23 collect evidence to corroborate that witness, or those

24 witnesses, to the fact that there was a major execution

25 that took place in that building.

1 Q. Did they collect hair and blood samples and

2 explosives residue samples?

3 A. They did, yes.

4 Q. Did they provide those samples to the Office

5 of the Prosecutor?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Now, let me place on the ELMO a photograph

8 from a report that was prepared by the Naval

9 Investigative Service, Prosecutor's Exhibit 181/1. I'd

10 like you to put on the ELMO, please, Mr. Manning,

11 photograph 16 from roll 2.

12 There are many photographs in this particular

13 report, are there not?

14 A. There are many volumes of reports -- volumes

15 of photos.

16 Q. But I have selected one particular photograph

17 just to illustrate the location where samples were

18 taken. That's photograph 16, on the bottom. What is

19 that, please, Mr. Manning?

20 A. This is a photograph of the wall of the

21 warehouse. More particularly, it's a photograph of

22 what is blood, human blood, on the wall, splashed

23 across the wall of the warehouse.

24 Q. Just describe briefly how a blood sample was

25 collected.

1 A. Using two sampling methods, water and a

2 scraping action, the naval investigators would remove a

3 section of the stain, scrape it off and also swab it

4 off, place it into bags which they sealed and numbered,

5 and the numbering up in the top corner would reflect

6 the number of the sample.

7 Q. All right. Those samples were provided to

8 the Office of the Prosecutor for later analysis.

9 A. That's correct.

10 Q. Let's turn our attention to another mass

11 killing site, the Pilica Dom. If I could have

12 Prosecutor's Exhibit 25/7 placed on the ELMO.

13 As a point of reference to your testimony,

14 Mr. Manning, can you tell us what is illustrated in

15 this particular exhibit.

16 A. This is a photograph of the Pilica Dom in or

17 near the town of Pilica. At the rear of this building

18 was the execution point examined by the Naval

19 Investigation Service.

20 Q. The Office of the Prosecutor sent

21 investigators to that location after Drazen Erdemovic

22 informed the Prosecutor that approximately 500 Muslims

23 had been executed at that location on the 16th of July,

24 1995.

25 A. That's correct.

1 Q. Now, did the Office of the Prosecutor

2 investigators and Naval Investigative Service forensic

3 specialists go to the Pilica Dom between the 27th and

4 29th of September, 1996, and did they return again on

5 the 2nd of October, 1996?

6 A. That's correct.

7 Q. Was their purpose similar to the purpose that

8 you've described as those same experts and

9 investigators going to the Kravica warehouse?

10 A. That's correct.

11 Q. Did they, in fact, turn over the hair, blood

12 samples and the explosives residue samples that they

13 collected at the Pilica Dom to the Office of the

14 Prosecutor?

15 A. They did.

16 Q. What I'd like you to do, please, Mr. Manning,

17 is if you would take Prosecutor's Exhibit 181/4, and

18 I'm referring to photograph 18 in roll 10 of that

19 exhibit. I'd like you to just illustrate what an

20 explosives pattern looks like and explain to the Judges

21 how a sample of an explosives residue is collected.

22 A. In this photo you can see there's some

23 markings on the wall, red marks, and some numbering.

24 That's part of the examination process. But in the

25 centre of the photo you see a black staining rising

1 from the floor area. This is soot or residue from an

2 explosives seat which has struck the wall or gone up

3 the wall. The naval investigation service members

4 again number marked that area. They took a swab using

5 water and also a swab using a light acid in separate

6 samples. They then bagged, numbered that, and provided

7 that to the Office of the Prosecutor, from various

8 areas within the Pilica Dom.

9 Q. Did the Naval Investigative Service prepare a

10 report describing their collection methods, and did

11 they submit that report to the Office of the

12 Prosecutor?

13 A. They did.

14 Q. Have you reviewed their report?

15 A. Yes, I have.

16 MR. HARMON: Mr. President and Judge Wald, in

17 respect of this report, this is Prosecutor's Exhibit

18 181/1, which is the Naval Investigative report for the

19 Kravica warehouse, and Prosecutor's Exhibits 181/2, /3,

20 and /4, which is the Naval Investigative Service report

21 for the Pilica Dom, these reports were filed by the

22 Office of the Prosecutor, pursuant to Rule 94 bis, on

23 the 2nd -- I'm sorry, on the 7th of February, 2000 and

24 on the 25th of February, 2000, the Defence notified the

25 Trial Chamber in writing, pursuant to Rule 94 bis (B)

1 that she had accepted the reports from the Naval

2 Investigative Service.

3 Q. Subsequently, Mr. Manning, did the Office of

4 the Prosecutor submit to the Dutch Ministry of Justice,

5 again, the Netherlands Forensic Institute, numerous

6 blood and tissue samples that had been collected by the

7 Naval Investigative Service for an analysis to

8 determine if human DNA was present in those samples?

9 A. Yes, they did.

10 Q. Why did they submit those samples to the

11 Netherlands Forensic Institute?

12 A. Those samples were representative of the

13 blood and tissue on the walls of the buildings. They

14 submitted it in an attempt to corroborate the execution

15 of those people in the buildings.

16 Q. In the Pilica Dom and --

17 A. And Kravica warehouse.

18 MR. HARMON: Again, Mr. President and Judge

19 Wald, the Netherlands Forensic Institute report on the

20 analysis of blood and tissue samples was filed by the

21 Office of the Prosecutor on the 7th of February 2000.

22 And on the 25th of February 2000, the Defence filed

23 written notice pursuant to Rule 94 bis (B) informing

24 the Trial Chamber that they had accepted the reports

25 from the Netherlands Forensic Institute.

1 Q. Now, Mr. Manning, briefly, can you summarise

2 the types of analysis that were performed on the blood

3 and tissue samples by the Netherlands Forensic

4 Institute?

5 A. The institute used standard testing methods

6 involving chemical reactions which proved positive to

7 the presence of human DNA. They applied that to all

8 the samples and then produced the report detailing

9 which ones were positive.

10 Q. I'd like to turn to those conclusions,

11 please, Mr. Manning. What were the conclusions of the

12 Netherlands Forensic Institute in respect of the blood

13 and tissue samples from the Pilica Dom. How many

14 samples were submitted and what were their conclusions?

15 A. Of the 234 representative blood, hair or

16 tissue samples which were collected throughout the

17 Pilica Dom. They were able to establish that 166 of

18 those samples were positive for the presence of human

19 DNA.

20 Q. Turning to the samples that had been

21 collected from the Kravica warehouse, how many samples

22 were analysed by the Netherlands Forensic Institute and

23 what were their conclusions?

24 A. From the Kravica warehouse, 149 represented

25 blood, hair or tissue samples were collected throughout

1 the building and the Netherlands Forensic Science

2 Laboratory Institute said that 142 of those samples

3 were said to contain human DNA.

4 Q. Now the Netherlands Forensic Institute

5 report, Mr. President and Judge Wald, is Prosecutor's

6 Exhibit 150. That's the report relating to the blood

7 and human tissue analysis.

8 The last part of my examination, Mr. Manning,

9 deals with the analysis of the explosives residue that

10 was collected by the Naval Investigative Service and

11 retained -- those samples were retained by the Office

12 of the Prosecutor.

13 Let me ask you first of all: Did the Office

14 of the Prosecutor submit those explosives residue

15 samples to the Netherlands Forensic Institute for an

16 analysis?

17 A. They did.

18 Q. Did the Netherlands Forensic Institute

19 conduct an analysis?

20 A. Yes, they did.

21 Q. Did they prepare a report?

22 A. Yes.

23 MR. HARMON: Mr. President, Judge Wald, the

24 report of the Netherlands Forensic Institute relating

25 to the analysis of explosives residue is Prosecutor's

1 Exhibit 97. That report was filed by the Prosecutor

2 with the Trial Chamber on the 24th of March 2000. I

3 may have the wrong date on that. I apologise. It

4 was -- all I can say in looking at my notes is that it

5 was filed by the Office of the Prosecutor, I'm sorry,

6 on the exact date, but on the 24th of February, 2000,

7 the Defence filed a written notice pursuant to Rule 94

8 bis (B) informing the Trial Chamber that they had

9 accepted the conclusions of that report.

10 Q. Could you please, Mr. Manning, summarise,

11 first of all, the types of analysis that the Institute

12 conducted on the samples of residue explosives residue

13 that had been submitted to them?

14 A. In relation to the explosives analysis, I'm

15 not able to describe what these are, but it was a

16 reversed-phase high-performance liquid chromatography

17 and photo-diode array detection test and confirmed

18 using a reversed-phase high-performance liquid

19 chromatography and double mass-spectrometry detection.

20 MR. HARMON: I'd like to hear the translation

21 of that. I think that's probably pretty tough to

22 translate, but we appreciate the effort.

23 Q. Any event, Mr. Manning without going into the

24 scientific analysis would you just tell us what their

25 conclusions were?

1 A. Effectively they informed me that their

2 conclusion were that of the 15 representative samples

3 of explosive residue collected throughout the Pilica

4 Dom, a single sample was found to be positive for the

5 presence of the high explosive TNT.

6 And in relation to the Kravica warehouse, 23

7 of the representative samples of explosive residue were

8 examined, two were found to have possible traces of

9 TNT, the high explosive.

10 MR. HARMON: Mr. Manning, thank you very

11 much. I've concluded my direct examination.

12 Your Honours, I've concluded my direct

13 examination.

14 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you

15 very much, Mr. Harmon.

16 Mr. Visnjic or Mr. Petrusic.

17 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President,

18 the Defence has reviewed the report of the expert as

19 Prosecution Exhibit 140. This exhibit was disclosed to

20 the Defence three days prior to today.

21 Bearing in mind the report of Mr. Manning and

22 the fact that it is really a summary report of other

23 reports that will be reviewed here in the courtroom in

24 the next few days, and bearing in mind the very short

25 time that we have had, and the fact that the text was

1 received only in the English version, the Defence, in

2 the interest of uninterrupted, positive cooperation

3 with the Prosecution, the Defence has taken the liberty

4 to suggest to the Prosecution that the

5 cross-examination of Mr. Manning, if possible, if the

6 Prosecution agrees, and if Mr. Manning can come back,

7 should be held in the middle of next week after the

8 other expert witnesses have been heard, according to

9 the plan of witnesses, because a part of the questions

10 which might be addressed to Mr. Manning after today's

11 examination-in-chief will be put to the other expert

12 witnesses and thereby the cross-examination of

13 Mr. Manning would be shorter.

14 That is why I should like to suggest to the

15 Chamber, to accept this motion of ours, and to allow us

16 to postpone the cross-examination until the middle of

17 next week.

18 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Harmon.

19 MR. HARMON: I have discussed this with my

20 colleagues, Mr. President. I have no objection to

21 that. The only request that I have is that there is

22 presently in place a court order that I cannot contact

23 or communicate with my witnesses.

24 Mr. Manning and I may have a need to discuss

25 matters other than his testimony. I have no intention

1 of discussing his testimony with him, but I would ask

2 to be relieved of the order of the Court saying that I

3 cannot contact Mr. Manning.

4 What I would request is that on matters other

5 than his testimony, I be permitted to talk to him about

6 other matters relating to the investigation. That also

7 would apply to members of my trial team as well.

8 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation]

9 Mr. Visnjic.

10 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] We have no

11 objections to that, we have no objections to that,

12 Mr. President.

13 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] In that

14 case, we are going to show confidence in Mr. Harmon,

15 who may talk to Mr. Manning regarding other matters,

16 but not regarding this case.

17 Is that acceptable, Mr. Harmon and

18 Mr. Visnjic?

19 MR. HARMON: It is.

20 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] In that

21 case, we are going to trust you. Mr. Manning has heard

22 well what we have decided regarding this matter. So

23 exceptionally, we will suspend the ruling of the

24 Chamber. We will treat this as an exception so that

25 Mr. Harmon may contact the witness, but not on this

1 subject.

2 As to the request of Mr. Visnjic, the Chamber

3 fully understands your reasons and I think that from

4 the point of view of the rights of the accused to a

5 fair and expeditious trial, I think it is good to

6 combine fairness with efficiency so that we will have

7 the cross-examination in the middle of next week.

8 Do you have a more or less fixed date? Is

9 the witness available?

10 MR. HARMON: Mr. Manning is available all of

11 next week.

12 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well.

13 What are we going to do next, Mr. Harmon? Are we going

14 to have an expert witness?

15 MR. HARMON: We are.

16 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation]

17 Mr. Visnjic, I think you had some remarks to make or

18 certain suggestions regarding that so please proceed.

19 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President,

20 our suggestion and request to the Trial Chamber would

21 be that during the examination-in-chief and the

22 cross-examination of expert witnesses that the

23 Prosecutor is going to call, that the Defence be

24 allowed to include, on the Defence team, our own expert

25 so that he might assist the Defence counsel with his

1 expert knowledge of terms and the subject matter.

2 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation]

3 Mr. Harmon.

4 MR. HARMON: We have no objection.

5 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] In that

6 case, bearing in mind your request, Mr. Visnjic, and

7 the fact that the Prosecutor has no objection but also

8 in line with Article 90, paragraph D, the Chamber

9 allows the presence of your expert so as to help you in

10 preparing for the cross-examination.

11 MR. HARMON: The last item I have,

12 Mr. President, is I would request that the exhibits

13 that have been tendered in the direct examination of

14 Mr. Manning be introduced at this time.

15 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation]

16 Mr. Visnjic, have you any objection to the admission of

17 the exhibits mentioned?

18 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] No,

19 Mr. President, we have no objection.

20 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] In that

21 case, the Prosecution exhibits are admitted into

22 evidence. I think there are no other matters to deal

23 with before the break, so we are now going to have a

24 break, and we will be able to resume with the expert

25 witness' testimony, and I should like to ask the

1 registrar to have the witness brought in before we

2 begin so as to speed things up.

3 It is now five to 1.00. I think that we can

4 have a 20-minute break now. I can feel that there are

5 many people who would like a half an hour break. I

6 think we need to work for at least an hour and a

7 quarter, so let's have a 25-minute break. A 25-minute

8 break.

9 --- Recess taken at 12.55 p.m.

10 --- On resuming at 1.25 p.m.

11 [The witness entered court]

12 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I see that

13 we ended up having a half-hour break, but never mind.

14 I see that the two parties are standing up.

15 Mr. McCloskey.

16 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, Mr. President. Good

17 afternoon. Good afternoon, Judge Wald, Mr. Visnjic.

18 Professor Wright is our next witness.

19 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well.

20 Mr. Visnjic, perhaps you could take advantage

21 of this opportunity to introduce your expert witness

22 whom we see in the courtroom.

23 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President,

24 thank you. I was just going to do so.

25 With us we have Docent Dr. Zoran Stankovic,

1 the head of the Institute for Forensic Medicine of the

2 Medical Military Academy in Belgrade. Mr. Stankovic is

3 on the list of experts of the United Nations for

4 forensic medicine and has been there since 1964. Thank

5 you.

6 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you

7 very much. May I say welcome to Mr. Zoran Stankovic.

8 I'm now going to turn to Professor Wright and

9 say good afternoon to him.

10 Can you hear me, Professor?

11 THE WITNESS: Yes, I can hear you,

12 Mr. President.

13 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] You are now

14 going to read the solemn declaration that the usher is

15 going to give you. Please go ahead, Professor.

16 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will

17 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the

18 truth.

19 WITNESS: RICHARD WRIGHT

20 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] You may be

21 seated. Perhaps you are already acquainted with

22 procedure. For the moment, Professor, you're going to

23 answer questions put to you by the Prosecutor,

24 Mr. Peter McCloskey.

25 Please go ahead.

1 MR. McCLOSKEY: Thank you, Mr. President.

2 Prior to addressing Professor Wright, I would

3 like to -- as a point of background, as we've heard, he

4 was the supervising archaeologist for our exhumations

5 of 1998 and 1999, and we have filed, in November 1999,

6 which is Exhibit 204, his report for the 1998

7 exhumations, and Exhibit 205, which we filed on

8 February 18th of 2000, is his report on the 1999

9 exhumations. We were notified by the Defence that they

10 would like to cross-examine Professor Wright. So we

11 are calling Professor Wright to give you some of the

12 background and some more of the scientific detail of

13 the exhumations, though, as we can all imagine, this

14 could be a subject of several months of a course. We

15 will try to keep it to the highlights and to the brief

16 points, but of course he'll be open for everyone's

17 questions.

18 Examined by Mr. McCloskey:

19 Q. Professor Wright, could you state your name

20 and spell your last name for the record.

21 A. Yes. My name is Richard Wright, and the

22 spelling of my surname is W-r-i-g-h-t.

23 Q. What is your profession?

24 A. I'm an archaeologist.

25 Q. Can you give us a review of your educational

1 background and your employment background.

2 A. Yes. I was educated at Cambridge University,

3 where I have a masters degree. I was employed in the

4 Anthropology Department of the University of Sidney in

5 1961, and in 1981 I had the Chair of Anthropology,

6 which I held until 1990. I resigned from that position

7 in 1990 and the university gave me the title of

8 Emeritus Professor of Anthropology.

9 Q. Okay. We should remember we need --

10 everything we've said is being translated so we need

11 to, probably both of us, slow down a little bit, and

12 it's something that we may be reminded of as we go.

13 In any event, can you briefly describe to us

14 what the field of archaeology is and in particular how

15 it fits in to the exhumations of mass graves.

16 A. Yes. From the point of view of these

17 investigations, archaeologists are experts in the

18 recognition of disturbed soil; in recovering

19 objectives, whether they're bodies or artefacts, from

20 that disturbed soil; in properly recording the location

21 of objectives from that disturbed soil. That's the

22 central expertise of archaeologists. This expertise is

23 required for the detection and exhumation of mass

24 graves.

25 Q. How does that fit in to the greater picture

1 of archaeology that you were taught and learned in

2 school and practised before that? Just briefly, how is

3 it related to the classic archaeology, as we speak.

4 A. I think the aspects of archaeology that I've

5 mentioned are absolutely central to the discipline;

6 that is, the use of soil to reveal what went on in the

7 past.

8 Q. Does an archaeologist analyse artefacts and

9 soil together to try to build a picture of the dig,

10 what it means, what happened, what the various things

11 might tell us about a prior culture, or in this case a

12 prior crime?

13 A. Yes, that is exactly the responsibility of

14 archaeologists.

15 Q. In fact, you did do that in your exhumations

16 for the OTP.

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Can you give us a background in some of the

19 exhumations, archaeological work that you've done in

20 the past, perhaps starting in your earlier years and

21 working around.

22 A. My general or my major interest has been in

23 the archaeology of Australia, particularly the

24 excavation of sites that have bones from marsupials,

25 and trying to reconstruct the environment from those

1 sites.

2 In 1990 I began to develop a special interest

3 in forensic investigations, and I was employed by the

4 Australian government to investigate three mass graves

5 in the Ukraine. That was in 1990 and 1991.

6 Before I worked for the Prosecutor, I worked

7 on the recovery of human remains in the Middle East,

8 that was an archaeological job, and I also worked for

9 the New South Wales investigators for the recovery of

10 the skeletons of children from a nineteenth century

11 orphanage cemetery.

12 Q. Can you tell us a little bit more about your

13 archaeological dig in the Ukraine? Who was that for?

14 And can you just describe briefly about that dig.

15 A. Yes, the Australian government had complaint

16 made to it that three naturalized Australians had

17 participated in the killing of large number of Jews in

18 1942. The war crimes investigation unit in Sydney

19 asked me whether I would go over there to see whether

20 there were graves, where the eyewitnesses said there

21 were graves and whether they contained the remains of

22 the sort that the eyewitnesses had stated.

23 Q. And were you able to go over at that time,

24 the Soviet Union and do an exhumation of a mass grave?

25 A. Yes, in 1990 I conducted the exhumations at

1 Serniki which contained 550 mainly women and children

2 who had been shot in the head.

3 In 1991, I went to Ustinovka which is in the

4 Ukraine and conducted the excavations at a grave where

5 adults had been killed first and then children.

6 And later in 1991, I conducted the exhumation

7 of a grave at Gnivan, also in the Ukraine, where about

8 100 victims had been shot.

9 Q. And these were Jewish victims?

10 A. These were Jewish victims.

11 Q. In those graves were you able to find

12 artefacts like paper materials and things that you've

13 been able to since recover in Bosnia?

14 A. We were able to find -- I don't remember

15 papers specifically, because these were extremely old

16 sites and papers had disintegrated, but we were able to

17 find shell cases that had the date and manufacture

18 of -- manufactured in Germany in 1939, 1941, and 1942.

19 Q. Did you try to prove ethnicity or background

20 in those graves as well?

21 A. No, we didn't -- that wouldn't have been my

22 responsibility anyway, but the -- my responsibility was

23 that of an archaeologist. But the point of the --

24 whole point of the work was to establish whether the

25 eyewitnesses' testimony had any credibility.

1 In other words, whether the material evidence

2 supported the claims of the eyewitnesses.

3 Q. Now, before we get into your ICTY experience,

4 I notice that you refer to yourself as an

5 archaeologist. The front of your report refers to you

6 as a professor of anthropology, and we have already

7 heard about forensic pathologists from the summary

8 witnesses.

9 Can you tell us what forensic anthropology

10 is, where you fit in that field and how it fits into

11 the field of archaeology and exhumations?

12 A. Yes, put very simply, in this sort of work

13 there are three disciplines that are called on; one of

14 that is archaeology, and I've described the reasons why

15 archaeologists are called in to do this work in

16 connection with the soils.

17 The anthropological side concerns the study

18 of the bones for the purpose of determining the sex and

19 age of the individual, and interpreting breaks and

20 other holes in the bones.

21 In addition, the pathologists, who are drawn

22 from the medical profession, are the ones who finally

23 determine the cause and manner of death.

24 Q. Now, when you deliver, your team delivers all

25 these broken up bones to the morgue, which profession

1 is it that tries to sort out the minimum number of

2 individuals based on the --

3 A. The anthropologists do that.

4 Q. And when did you first start working for the

5 ICTY?

6 A. In June 1997.

7 Q. And can you just briefly describe what your

8 work involved?

9 A. Yes, I was in charge of the exhumations at

10 Brcko where there were Muslim and Croatian victims.

11 Q. In 1998?

12 A. In 1998, I worked for the case that we are

13 discussing now.

14 Q. As well as 1999?

15 A. As well as 1999.

16 Q. And this year are you continuing to work for

17 the ICTY?

18 A. Yes, I've just completed an investigation in

19 Croatia where there are alleged Serb victims, and I'm

20 currently working at Prijedor in Bosnia.

21 Q. Now, the first exhumation you began with in

22 1998 for the Srebrenica team was the dam; is that

23 correct?

24 A. Yes, that's correct.

25 Q. Well, we have a film, as you're aware, of an

1 exhumation at Cancari 12, so I'm going to take us out

2 of order, briefly, and we'll play that film a bit

3 later.

4 Starting with Cancari 12, can you tell the

5 Court a little bit about what you knew about the area

6 going into it, and what you first did when you came to

7 the area, what plan you developed.

8 A. Yes, the plans are essentially the same for

9 all the sites. The ICTY investigators take me to a

10 place where they suspect there is a mass grave.

11 Often, their knowledge comes from aerial

12 imagery. I then have to find the exact location of the

13 grave within the generally disturbed area.

14 I then take charge of the finding of the

15 grave, the removal of the bodies and the putting of the

16 bodies into a freezer van which is then sent to the

17 mortuary and my duty stops with sending the bodies down

18 to the mortuary.

19 Q. And do the investigators many times

20 investigate the surface of the area if there appears to

21 be evidence or indications of the crime prior to you

22 coming on it?

23 A. Sometimes yes and sometimes not.

24 Q. And of course the demining act is the

25 absolutely first thing that happened?

1 A. Yes. The area is checked for mines and booby

2 traps.

3 Q. Now, we've seen a clip of the beginning of

4 the Cancari 12 site of surveyors and of a backhoe at

5 work, and you're walking around, and we'll get to that

6 very soon. But can you just tell us before we get into

7 that, what's going on there, what are your plans,

8 what's going on there?

9 A. We, when I say "we", I mean the team of

10 experts which includes archaeologist and

11 anthropologists under my direction, we use a backhoe, a

12 mechanical backhoe to find the exact location of the

13 grave. Our task is not to find bodies first, but to

14 find the outline of the grave, and that way we do the

15 least damage to the remains.

16 Q. Can you describe your team? Can you give us

17 more detail on who is working with you and what kind of

18 work they do?

19 A. The team of archaeological and

20 anthropological consists normally of about ten people.

21 They're drawn from literally all over the world. We

22 depend a lot on experts from Central and South America

23 who have to investigate police and military killings in

24 their own countries. And they sometimes have

25 archaeological expertise, sometimes anthropological

1 expertise, but many people have both.

2 Q. And this is with an educational background to

3 back it up. And do you have just basic labourers, you

4 know, there is this -- there may be ideas out there

5 that from films that there is labourers running

6 around. Who are basically the labourers?

7 A. The experts may look like labourers when

8 they're doing the work but we don't have local

9 labourers. The people who do the work are the experts.

10 Q. So the people we'll see in the film are all

11 educated experts in their field of archaeology or

12 anthropology by and large?

13 A. Yes, and by and large they'll -- well,

14 they've already done forensic work before ICTY takes

15 them on.

16 Q. Perhaps if we could start with the tape. We

17 have three or four minutes of the tape that you've seen

18 before. But then we'll get into the end of the tape

19 that you did not see before and, Dr. Wright, if you

20 could explain some of the things that are going on in

21 it and I may stop the tape to give you a better chance

22 to explain more detail.

23 So if we dim the lights and play Exhibit 188

24 [Videotape played]

25 A. This is the site of Cancari 12, as you see, a

1 secondary grave. Here my experts are setting up a

2 surveying system to record the grave itself and the

3 contents of the grave.

4 The backhoe will be used to scrape off the

5 surface of the soil until we are satisfied that we have

6 the complete outline of the grave.

7 Q. How do you do that without messing up the

8 potential evidence there? This seems like a big

9 machine.

10 A. They are removing only the top of the grave.

11 The driver that we have has been doing forensic work

12 since 1996, so he's familiar with the changes of colour

13 and texture in the soil that has to be established.

14 We also have to clear a large area around the

15 grave, so some of these pictures that look as though

16 destruction is taking place are due to the clearing of

17 a large area outside the grave.

18 The soil here, I should say, is a clay. Most

19 of these graves are in what's called a loess soil which

20 is a brownish clay.

21 Q. When you say "these graves" are you referring

22 to the secondary graves or all the graves?

23 A. All except the dam site which is in a

24 construction --

25 Q. What are you doing here?

1 A. Here what we think are the outlines of the

2 grave are being marked with flags.

3 Q. Can we stop the film right here, please. Go

4 ahead, I'm sorry.

5 A. Here you can see the natural soil, I don't

6 think my pointer shows on this, does it?

7 At the top of the picture, you can see the

8 brownish soil and we're beginning to see now the

9 blueish-green soil which is characteristic of these

10 clays when they've been in contact with putrefying

11 bodies.

12 Q. I believe that you're referring to the little

13 orange -- the second orange piece from the top you can

14 see a dark clay to the left and a blueish clay to the

15 right?

16 A. The band across the middle of the picture is

17 the blueish clay that we use to detect where bodies

18 are.

19 Q. Okay. And that's what you are marking with

20 the little tags?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. What do those little indicate? What are you

23 marking there?

24 A. We are here developing the outline of the

25 rectangular grave. This is a very early stage when we

1 were still exploring to find the whole outline of the

2 grave.

3 Q. How do you know that this colour change in

4 the soil actually outlines a grave?

5 A. In my experience in Bosnia, when we find this

6 greenish soil near the surface, it's invariably in

7 contact with putrefying bodies.

8 Q. Just feel free to comment as we go along.

9 A. And here you can see the development of what

10 we suspect in the early stages to be the outline of the

11 grave.

12 Q. Did that turn out to be correct?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. You trust your backhoe driver.

15 A. Normally.

16 And then there is some development of the

17 detail by hand. In this case, one of my experts using

18 a pick.

19 Q. How much of the work actually gets done by

20 backhoe?

21 A. Very little, just the development of the

22 outline of the grave and the putting in of a ditch

23 around the grave itself to control flood water and to

24 give us access to the bodies.

25 So all that we're looking at is not

1 exhumation but the preparatory work.

2 Q. And as yet you haven't found any indication

3 of human remains aside from the colour in soil; is that

4 correct?

5 A. At Cancari 12, we did find some bones on the

6 surface, but here we see the first remains, some

7 bones. At the top left, a shoe, on the right, and this

8 characteristic greenish soil.

9 And at this stage, we have the whole of the

10 outline of the Cancari Road 12 grave visible and on the

11 left, you can see the --

12 Q. Stop here. Excuse me, Professor. Go ahead.

13 A. On the left-hand side, you can see a deep

14 trench which is artificial in the sense that we have

15 put that deep trench in, and on the centre and to the

16 right is the -- are the contents of the grave itself.

17 So the grave is turned into a mound by

18 putting trenches around it.

19 Q. So it be -- the perimeter of the grave

20 does -- it is not included in this ditch that you're

21 talking about, it's only the area, the mound we see?

22 A. The perimeter of the grave is what the

23 experts are working on to reveal bodies.

24 Q. Continue, please.

25 A. So the work consists of -- the removal of the

1 empty soil and once the bodies are exposed then we use

2 trowels and sometimes brushes.

3 Here is a much later stage of the work.

4 People are walking in the trench and they are

5 surveying --

6 Q. Stop this again, please.

7 A. They are surveying the bodies within the

8 grave. We --

9 Q. Can you explain what that means?

10 A. Yes, for each of the bodies, we record 12

11 landmarks; the skull, the shoulders, the elbows, the

12 wrists, the pelvis, the knees, and the ankles.

13 And that allows us to reconstruct the

14 arrangement of bodies within the grave.

15 Q. So this surveying system is an electronic

16 system that actually records these various points?

17 A. Yes. It records the number of metres north,

18 number of metres east and the depth of each of the

19 points, it's a three dimensional recording system.

20 Q. A little later on, we'll see some of the

21 results of the surveying system. Continue with the

22 film, please.

23 [Videotape played]

24 A. This is the surveying process in place,

25 taking place.

1 Q. Do you see some investigators working along

2 with your team there?

3 A. Yes. In addition to the

4 archaeological/anthropological experts, we have working

5 at the site police, as scene-of-crime officers, and we

6 have investigators from ICTY who are really observers

7 of what's going on at the site.

8 Q. What's going on here with these numbers and

9 the labelling of these bones?

10 A. We assign a unique number to each body or

11 body part found within the grave. Here they have

12 recovered a hand with a ligature, cloth ligature, and

13 that is being bagged separately, because in the

14 secondary graves we often find just an arm or a hand

15 that's been ripped off at the time of removing the

16 bodies from the primary graves.

17 Q. And the process of photography.

18 A. Yes. Each of these items is photographed and

19 a log is kept of the photographs and cross-referred to

20 the site log. "A," as you see there, signifies an

21 artefact that's being photographed.

22 Here the hand with the ligature is being

23 bagged and will be sent down to the morgue for further

24 analysis.

25 Q. That will be the anthropologists' work; is

1 that correct?

2 A. Anthropologists, and investigators in the

3 morgue.

4 There's a scene-of-crime officer in the

5 middle and one of the anthropologists on the left.

6 The remains, the human remains, are put in

7 body bags and these are taken to the chiller van and

8 periodically transferred down to the ICTY morgue, which

9 is in Visoko.

10 This is one of the body sheets, the record

11 sheets --

12 Q. Can we stop there so we can explain that.

13 Thank you.

14 A. Each time we remove a virtually complete

15 body, the experts fill out a form that describes the

16 properties of this body, the way in which it's lying,

17 whether it shows any signs of injury, whether it has

18 clothing, and so on. So this form that you're seeing

19 here is a checklist to be sure that the excavators have

20 recorded critical information, and these forms are sent

21 to the morgue with the bodies for the information of

22 the mortuary staff.

23 Q. Continue, please.

24 Is this the typical kind of checklist that

25 you would do on many archaeological projects?

1 A. Yes. The surveying is continuing here. The

2 person holding the staff communicates with a surveyor

3 by means of a two-way radio because of the noise of

4 machinery in the distance.

5 Here you can see someone filling out one of

6 these body sheets.

7 Here some remains are obviously being put

8 into the body bag.

9 Q. How do the archaeologists sort out what part

10 belongs to what body?

11 A. In the case of primary graves that have not

12 been disturbed, that's very easy. But in the case of

13 secondary graves, they will follow an arm or a leg

14 until it stops, or the next bone makes no anatomical

15 sense, and so they will call that a body part and it

16 will be sent to the morgue, and I understand some

17 attempt to link these pieces together is made at the

18 morgue. But because these are secondary graves and the

19 bodies have been ripped out of the primary graves,

20 everything is mixed up. So the fact that two body

21 parts are found together is not a necessary indication

22 that they belong together. It's a complicated process

23 of reconstruction.

24 In a sense, what's happening now is the end

25 of my responsibilities as a team leader. The bodies

1 have been put into the chiller van, and then the

2 anthropological and pathological analysis starts at the

3 morgue later.

4 Here the individuals are searching the

5 outside of the body for any documents, looking in the

6 outside clothing. The reason for doing that is that

7 oxygen, to which these bodies are now freshly exposed,

8 can cause rapid deterioration of images and so we take

9 photographs of any documents that are on the outside of

10 the bodies. Those that are on the inside are much more

11 protected from oxygen and so we let the people in the

12 morgue discover those in the course of their

13 pathological examination.

14 Q. Is this the chiller van you spoke of?

15 A. Yes. Here are the bags, the body bags,

16 waiting for transmission to the morgue. This van is

17 locked, and the scene-of-crime officers are responsible

18 for maintaining the chain of custody.

19 Here you see a shell case mixed up with the

20 bodies. These are treated as artefacts and are put in

21 evidence bags and then sent down with the bodies to the

22 morgue, where the investigators take over. They are

23 cleaned with a toothbrush and water in order to prevent

24 any further corrosion of the cases.

25 Q. These are largely brass cases.

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. That's a computer. Do you have computers out

3 there? And could we stop just briefly, could we stop

4 it, please. Can you explain where the computer fits

5 in.

6 A. Yes. We have two systems of maintaining the

7 log. The log of the site which lists all the bodies

8 and their properties -- their sequence numbers is kept

9 on paper, and at the end of the day, for security

10 reasons, to ensure we don't lose the thing, the paper

11 log is typed into a computer version of the log.

12 Q. Continue. Thank you. You can continue.

13 A. Here is an example of one of the documents

14 found at Cancari 3 which was photographed and on which

15 you can see a name.

16 Q. Salko Ramic.

17 A. Salko Ramic, information about --

18 Q. Mother, Sabin --

19 A. Yes, and where it was issued. And then

20 this -- although this is not my work, it's an example

21 of some preliminary work that's done at the site by the

22 investigators to see whether the names on the documents

23 that my team recovers also occur in this missing

24 persons register. This is the missing persons register

25 with the same name as the person that was on the

1 document that my team recovered.

2 Q. Okay. That's the end of the film.

3 Professor Wright, now we're going to go back

4 in time a bit to where you first began, and that was at

5 the site known as the dam.

6 MR. McCLOSKEY: If Professor Wright could be

7 shown Exhibit 22/3, or if he's got that in front of

8 him, we could place it on the ELMO.

9 Q. Does this photograph reflect the dam before

10 you began work?

11 A. Yes, this is the dam before we began work.

12 Q. What can you tell us about the area on that

13 photograph?

14 A. The suspect area that I've been showing from

15 aerial imagery is circled in red here. It was evident

16 by the growth of weeds that were not growing elsewhere

17 on the dam -- I should say that this whole surface here

18 is an apron in front of the dam, it's entirely

19 artificial ground made up of rocks to contain the dam

20 wall, that is, behind where the photographer is

21 standing.

22 Q. Okay. Could we move that sideways a bit,

23 going in the -- yes, in that direction. Could you stop

24 right there.

25 Did you at some point wander around a bit and

1 look at some of the piles of rocks in the area and

2 notice anything in particular?

3 A. Yes. As an archaeologist I look at all

4 rocks, and I looked at this heap here and decided that

5 it is a demolished mosque; decided that on the basis of

6 the carved stone, angular carved stone, of the sort

7 that I've seen in the structure of mosques. But this,

8 I should say, is well before the killing events that we

9 were investigating because it appears on aerial

10 photographs before the executions took place.

11 Q. All right. Can you just tell us a bit about

12 this exhumation, what it involved, what you found out

13 about?

14 A. Yes. The ICTY investigators who took me to

15 the site told me that this was an undisturbed primary

16 grave. I had to tell them very soon into our

17 investigations that this was not an undisturbed primary

18 grave, that it was a robbed primary grave from which

19 bodies had been taken away. What was left after the

20 grave had been filled were many pieces torn off

21 bodies. We were obviously looking at a few dozen

22 people -- the remains of a few dozen people but

23 entirely disintegrated.

24 Q. Could you explain in a little more detail how

25 you knew it was not a primary grave? What were the

1 main characteristics?

2 A. The main characteristics were that there

3 wasn't a complete single body, scarcely a complete

4 limb.

5 Q. Did you get results back from the

6 anthropologists about how many total individuals were

7 reflected in all these body pieces that you refer to?

8 A. Yes. Mr. President, may I refer to my notes

9 for numbers and dates and so on.

10 Q. I may have misspoke if I said how did you

11 know that this was not a primary grave, I should have

12 said how did you know that it was not a primary

13 undisturbed grave, just to clarify the record.

14 A. The same answer would apply, that it

15 consisted of just fragments of human remains.

16 Q. Can you describe the grave itself, how big it

17 was.

18 A. You asked me just now about the numbers, and

19 I didn't answer it. I asked the President whether I

20 could refer to some notes on this matter that I have

21 with me.

22 Q. I'm sorry.

23 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes,

24 Professor, naturally. We are not computers that can

25 remember all the dates and the numbers, so please do.

1 A. As I said, I knew that there were some tens

2 of people here. The report that I have seen from the

3 analysis by the anthropologists at the morgue show that

4 these fragmentary remains account for a minimum number

5 of 46 individuals that were left -- whose pieces were

6 left behind in this primary grave.

7 MR. McCLOSKEY:

8 Q. And then I'll get back to the question that I

9 asked originally. About how big was this grave? Can

10 you describe what it looked like, and then we'll go on

11 to another exhibit to help that out.

12 A. Yes. It was a very large grave. My

13 estimates are is it was 25 metres long, 6 metres broad,

14 and 3 metres deep.

15 Q. Any indication from the soils or from what

16 you'd seen as to what kind of implement was used to dig

17 this?

18 A. We found traces of machine teeth within the

19 grave, showing, not surprisingly, that it was dug by an

20 excavator.

21 Q. Could you take a look at what is Exhibit

22 189. It should be your next in order. Could you

23 please, and thank you, put that on the ELMO. If you

24 could, tell us what this is and --

25 A. This is the grave at the dam, after we have

1 removed the refilling of the grave. It was dug out,

2 the bodies were taken away, and then it was refilled.

3 So we were removing the refilling, and for scale you

4 can see people up here and the vans. So it's a very

5 large trench after we finished removing all the

6 forensic evidence.

7 Q. Can you just tell us roughly how long it

8 takes you to get this far? You don't need exact

9 dates. Just a rough number of days.

10 A. I can give you the exact number of days that

11 the exhumation there took place: It was ten days.

12 Q. Could we look at the next exhibit, which is

13 190. What is this, and how is it in relation to the

14 last exhibit?

15 A. In the last exhibit you'll remember that

16 there was a bottom to the grave. These are fragments

17 of human remains, that is, bones, scattered along the

18 bottom of the grave, representing what was there after

19 the bodies had been removed and before the grave was

20 refilled.

21 Q. All right. Could we go to Exhibit 191, the

22 next one. What does this represent?

23 A. It represents some clothing contained within

24 the refilling of the robbed grave.

25 Q. Would that be the kind of clothing that would

1 have been searched like we've seen on the movie?

2 A. Yes, it would have been.

3 Q. Could we go to the next photo. Now, I note

4 in the bottom this says, "Item 122 from body pocket

5 028." The previous exhibit was marked, in the

6 photograph, as 028. What is this exhibit, this

7 document?

8 A. This is a document that my team found in the

9 pocket of that body part that you saw in the previous

10 picture.

11 Q. What about these records lead you to believe

12 that, that this came from that, aside from the matching

13 numbers? The numbers at the bottom of this exhibit, is

14 that something your team would have written down?

15 A. The photographer would have written it down

16 before he took the photograph.

17 Q. And then it would have been put in the photo

18 log.

19 A. The entry would have been made in the photo

20 log as well.

21 Q. All right. While it cannot be read very

22 well, the name on the exhibit, on the paper was Dzevad

23 Kardasevic. Again, if we could go to the next exhibit,

24 193. As we've seen in the film, here is a page out of

25 the ICRC missing list with an individual's name in it

1 like that.

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. All right. Thank you very much.

4 Now, while we recall those big rocks and

5 boulders from the exhibit of that big hole, as you went

6 through the summer exhuming the various secondary

7 graves, did you come across any of the secondary graves

8 that resembled the rocks from the dam?

9 A. Yes. The rocks at the dam are rocks that

10 were used to construct the dam itself, and these were

11 quarried from limestone quarry and have angular edges,

12 as all quarry rocks do. Naturally, when I was looking

13 at secondary graves I was looking out for such angular

14 limestone blocks.

15 Q. Let's go to the Liplje grave, and I may be

16 skipping out of order a bit, but it's Exhibit 194,

17 which should --

18 A. Yes, this is the totally exhumed -- this

19 photograph is taken at the grave of Liplje 2 which was

20 totally exhumed, and you can see in various places

21 limestone blocks.

22 Q. Are those the same kind of rocks as the dam?

23 A. They are the same kind of rocks as the dam,

24 and moreover they are not rocks that are found

25 naturally in the area -- not found naturally in the

1 soil from which the grave was dug.

2 Q. You inspected the whole area and didn't see

3 any of those cut limestone rocks in that area.

4 A. That's correct. We don't merely inspect the

5 surface of the area, we also inspect, as you can see

6 here, a dug trench through the soils in the area. So

7 we see right down to below the area of the grave, and

8 angular limestone blocks are not to be found in that

9 place.

10 Q. And how about the contents of the grave? How

11 did you find the contents of the bodies?

12 A. At Liplje, in particular?

13 Q. Yes?

14 A. At Liplje, in particular, the bodies were

15 almost entirely broken up into their individual bones.

16 Q. And how did you account for that?

17 A. I think at the dam itself where the original

18 bodies were mixed up with very large boulders, that as

19 they were removing, as they were robbing the primary

20 grave, the bodies were torn apart by the machinery that

21 was dragging them out. One end of the body being

22 trapped under a boulder, and then the part that's been

23 pulled is separated.

24 Now, I also account for it on the grounds

25 that this -- at the dam site, the soil is fairly

1 porous. Oxygen gets in and speeds up putrefaction, so

2 the periosteal tissues that hold bones together would

3 be partly putrefied and thus the bodies would come

4 apart fairly easily.

5 Q. And can you tell how many bodies were pulled

6 out of the Liplje site and tell us the exact number of

7 the Liplje site, if you could, that we're looking at?

8 A. This is only the Liplje 2. I had only the

9 vaguest of ideas how many bodies might be represented

10 by these disintegrating body parts, but I was told by

11 the morgue that the minimum number of individuals at

12 this Liplje 2 site was 192.

13 Q. All right. Thank you. Now, let's go back to

14 Cancari Road now. How many bodies were recovered from

15 the Cancari 12 site?

16 A. From the Cancari 12 site, the morgue told me

17 that 177 were recovered by my team.

18 Q. Now, the Hodzici sites. Can you tell us

19 about the sites along the Hodzici site?

20 A. The numbers or the properties in general?

21 Q. No, the properties in general. Were they any

22 different as compared to the other secondary sites?

23 A. No, there was a consistency of size and shape

24 of these secondary sites. They were generally 13

25 metres long by 3 metres wide by 1.5 to 2 metres deep.

1 The -- except for the Zeleni Jadar secondary site, all

2 the sites had been dug by what I call a front loader,

3 an excavator and we found traces of the wheels and the

4 teeth of those machines in the bottom of the -- in the

5 bottom of the grave.

6 The Hodzici sites and the Cancari Road sites

7 and the Liplje sites were as graves, as dug graves

8 virtually identical.

9 Q. And could you look at Exhibit 200, I'm sorry,

10 I've skipped again on you it's the bulldozer. And

11 could we put that on the ELMO.

12 A. Yes. This is not a bulldozer. This is what

13 I was calling a front loader. It's a machine which has

14 obviously got wheels and a bucket at the front and this

15 is the machine -- the marks that we found in the

16 secondary graves along Cancari Road and Hodzici Road

17 and at Liplje are consistent with the graves having

18 been dug by this sort of machine.

19 Q. And briefly, on the Hodzici Road sites, can

20 you tell us the numbers of those graves in each, how

21 many bodies came out of those three sites?

22 A. Yes. Hodzici Road 3, I was told 40; Hodzici

23 Road 4, 81; Hodzici Road 5, 57.

24 Q. So while the size of the Hodzici Road graves

25 in -- was almost identical to the size in Cancari Road

1 and Liplje, there is a significantly less number of

2 bodies in those than you had described in Cancari?

3 A. The smaller number of bodies along Hodzici

4 Road, in particular in Hodzici Road 3, as it was a

5 full-sized grave, only had 40 individuals. And Hodzici

6 Road 1 is a grave that was never used at all. That is,

7 the rectangular hole there with all the properties but

8 the hole was not used.

9 Q. From your exhumations of the secondary

10 graves, were you able to make any kind of estimate on

11 how many truckloads it may have taken or how many

12 truckloads it takes to fill up a grave or was that ever

13 attempted by you?

14 A. I didn't attempt that because I wouldn't know

15 the size of the trucks.

16 Q. All right. Now, let's go to Cancari 3, and

17 can you describe at Cancari 3, as the dig commenced,

18 was its size any different than the others?

19 A. No, Cancari 3 was a perfectly average-sized

20 secondary grave; that is, it was 12 metres long, 3

21 metres broad and 2 metres deep.

22 Q. And what did you note about the geology and

23 the artefacts that was particularly interesting and

24 different from the graves that you saw?

25 A. The grave was dug into clay, but the contents

1 of the grave consisted of river cobbles or pebbles as

2 they are called and some clay, but the most conspicuous

3 artefact mixed up with the bodies in Cancari Road 3

4 were thousands of fragments of broken green glass.

5 Q. And in particular, what could you tell what

6 the glass was originally or what it had been

7 originally?

8 A. Yes, we used our archaeological minds here,

9 if I can just give an account of the properties of

10 these bottles, they were broken. About half of them

11 had the crown seals, the metal seals on the top, so we

12 formed the conclusion that they had been filled before

13 they were broken.

14 None of the bottles had a label on the body

15 of the bottle, and so it appeared to us that they had

16 been broken in some accident in a bottling factory, not

17 in a distribution warehouse, because then you would

18 expect them to have labels as well as their tops.

19 So towards the end of the excavation, we

20 found a large collection, some 100 or 200 labels all

21 stuck together which gave the name Vetinka bottling

22 factory and the town of Kozluk.

23 So I contacted the investigators at ICTY and

24 asked about a primary grave at Kozluk and was told that

25 no investigations had been made there, but Mr. Ruez

1 came down to Bosnia very quickly and we went to Kozluk,

2 passed the Vetinka bottling factory and found an area

3 where there was broken green glass lying around and

4 many hundreds of thousands of fragments and area where

5 holes had been dug and two legs on the surface and some

6 clothing.

7 Q. And that is what we now call the Kozluk

8 primary site that was the subject of your exhumation

9 last year?

10 A. Yes, in 1998 we simply observed that there

11 were human remains on the surface there, and in 1999,

12 we carried out an investigation at that site.

13 Q. Okay. Then let me go back to Cancari 3 and

14 what were the total numbers that came out of Cancari 3?

15 A. Cancari 3, the estimated minimum number of

16 individuals is at 160.

17 Q. All right. Thank you. Now, if I could

18 direct your attention to the exhibits of

19 computer-generated exhibits beginning with 196, and if

20 you could just go through each of the exhibits, 196,

21 197, 198, and 199 and describe to us, if you could,

22 what -- how you were able to get these images and what

23 actual size they are and how they relate to the various

24 secondary graves you exhumed.

25 A. If we put on one side the top one which is

1 the red dam, I'll just explain briefly how these are

2 constructed.

3 The outlines of the grave when we have

4 finished removing the contents are surveyed by my

5 archaeological surveyor, and from that survey data, the

6 contour image of the grave is constructed. So for each

7 of the graves we do we have such an image.

8 In case of the Cancari 12 site, the

9 dimensions of the Cancari 12 site are 13 metres long

10 by -- 13 metres in this direction, 3 metres broad and 2

11 metres deep.

12 And you can also, if I can also draw

13 attention to the fact that we can also detect in our

14 excavations the entrance ramp that the front loader

15 went down to excavate the grave. And we frequently

16 find impressions of the wheel marks and the teeth of

17 the impressions of the tines or teeth on the front of

18 the bucket.

19 Q. I'll ask you, in particular, when we get to

20 Kozluk on that point, so save that thought. Do we see

21 a ramp on the dam as well? I think you mentioned it in

22 previous testimony.

23 A. Yes, we see a ramp here. Down which were

24 strewn many body parts.

25 Q. Okay and going to the next exhibit, 198.

1 A. At the top, we have the outlines of the

2 Hodzici Road 5 site that I mentioned. The dimensions

3 of the Hodzici Road 5 site 16 metres long by 3 metres

4 by 1.5 metres deep and, again, we have the entrance

5 ramp visible.

6 Q. And Hodzici 4?

7 A. Hodzici 4 has an entrance ramp and Hodzici 4

8 is 12 metres long by 3 metres long by 1.5 metres deep.

9 Q. And the next exhibit, 199, Liplje 2.

10 A. Liplje 2 is the site that I conclude came

11 from the dam, where the bodies came from the dam, and

12 it is 13 metres long by 3 metres wide by 1.5 metres

13 deep and again has an entrance ramp.

14 Q. And Zeleni 5?

15 A. Zeleni 5 is south of Srebrenica and this is

16 the only grave that was not dug by a front loader. It

17 has no ramp. This appears to be a -- perhaps a ramp

18 but it isn't. It has no whole tracks or tooth marks.

19 I believe that this grave was dug by a

20 backhoe; that is, a machine with an arm that can dig.

21 The dimensions of the Zeleni Jadar 5 site are 17 metres

22 long by 3 metres broad by 1.5 metres deep.

23 Q. And how many bodies came out of the full

24 exhumation of the Zeleni site?

25 A. Zeleni site, 150.

1 Q. So aside from what you've just described as

2 remarkably similar in size than the ones that are much

3 further north?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Now, did you examine Zeleni 2 in any fashion?

6 A. I did examine Zeleni 2 because the

7 investigators had asked that I should exhume it, but I

8 had to tell them after my investigations that if it was

9 a secondary grave, and I believe from the aerial

10 imagery that it was a secondary grave that coincided in

11 time with the rest, that that secondary grave had,

12 itself, subsequently been dug out.

13 So somewhere there must be a tertiary grave

14 that we haven't discovered.

15 Q. Could you tell us what you did to Zeleni 2

16 that allowed you to reach that conclusion, what you

17 saw?

18 A. There was just a few disconnected human

19 remains and isolated items of clothing in the filling

20 of the Zeleni Jadar 2 grave.

21 Q. Were you able to make out that it was a

22 similar size as the other -- of the other graves?

23 A. Yes. It was a rectangular structure the same

24 size as the Zeleni Jadar 5.

25 Q. Any indications -- was it in any particular

1 area near a stream that was causing any overflow into

2 that grave; do you recall?

3 A. There was a stream nearby but I don't know

4 whether it would overflow into the grave. It was a

5 very wet area so possibly it would, but I couldn't say

6 for sure that it did.

7 Q. All right. Now, aside from all of those --

8 how many of the secondary graves did you actually fully

9 exhume? We just went over those.

10 A. We fully exhumed seven secondary graves in

11 1998.

12 Q. Did you go on to examine other sites that

13 were believed to be secondary graves?

14 A. Yes. The investigators took me to places

15 where aerial imagery suggested that they were secondary

16 graves, and these we subjected to a process that we

17 called probing. Probing means within the disturbed

18 area that is shown on the aerial imagery, to try and

19 find the rectangle of the grave, and having done that,

20 to establish that there are multiple body parts

21 within -- multiple bodies, I should say, within the

22 grave. And that's the end of the probing process.

23 Q. Did you go to the various sites along the

24 Cancari Road, the Hodzici Road, Liplje, and Zeleni

25 Jadar and examine another many sites? And can you tell

1 us how many you examined?

2 A. Yes. I examined exactly 21 sites that proved

3 to be secondary -- that proved to be graves.

4 Q. Now, did you, as an archaeologist, make any

5 kind of estimate of numbers of potential bodies inside

6 those unexhumed, yet confirmed secondary graves?

7 A. I did do that. I did it on the grounds that

8 the secondary graves, the seven that we did exhume

9 along the three roads that we've already discussed,

10 were the same size and shape. What I did was to

11 average the number of bodies found in those seven

12 graves and extend that average to the 21 places that we

13 had probed and shown to have multiple body parts.

14 Q. Your total for that was?

15 A. Well, it's an estimate; that in the 21

16 graves, based on the seven exhumed graves, in the 21

17 graves my estimate was 2,571 bodies.

18 Q. If you take the graves by road, in the

19 vicinities, for example, Cancari 12, take the average

20 there, and Hodzici Road, take the average there, and

21 take the average of Zeleni and Liplje, do you come up

22 with a somewhat different number?

23 A. Yes. The number of 2,571 takes the whole

24 area of secondary graves as a whole, and that's the

25 number that I gave in my report.

1 If I do it road by road, that is, average the

2 numbers for Cancari Road and then for Hodzici Road, I

3 come up with a higher number. The estimate then would

4 be 3,189 as opposed to the 2,571 that comes from taking

5 the area as a whole.

6 Q. These are clearly estimates. What's your

7 opinion on the reliability of these estimates for

8 numbers in the ground?

9 A. It's a common archaeological practice to

10 expand one's estimates to unexcavated places from

11 excavated places. Whether or not my estimate is

12 correct could be established by the total exhumation of

13 the graves. But it's, I think, a conservative approach

14 to take the average and then extend it to the other

15 graves. The real number might be less, it might be

16 more.

17 MR. McCLOSKEY: Mr. President, he has one

18 more grave, primary grave, Kozluk to discuss. It's

19 2.30. It might be a good time to take a break, so we

20 could start on that on Monday. Or he can go on longer

21 and it shouldn't take us much longer to get through

22 Kozluk, though there are some exhibits.

23 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I would be

24 ready but I think it is quite impossible to continue

25 today. It is Friday, people have already packed their

1 suitcases, and it would be torture for them to continue

2 the hearing.

3 So for today we'll end there and we will

4 resume work on Monday, at 9.30, won't we.

5 MR. McCLOSKEY: Thank you, Mr. President.

6 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you,

7 Professor. Enjoy your weekend here in The Hague. You

8 will be able to take a walk and take a rest.

9 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Mr. President.

10 MR. McCLOSKEY: Mr. President, I'm sorry, one

11 thing. If we could have Dr. Wright -- Professor Wright

12 is in our team area, and if we could have again

13 permission to speak to him on non-testimonial matters.

14 I don't expect to have to speak to him but it's

15 inevitable that I would run into him in the hallways

16 and things, as well as the rest of the team.

17 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation]

18 Mr. Visnjic.

19 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President,

20 we have no objection to this exception.

21 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, but

22 with too many exceptions we won't have a rule. We

23 understand that the professor is here for a long

24 weekend and perhaps we should give permission for

25 contact. But I have confidence in you so it's all

1 right.

2 MR. McCLOSKEY: Thank you, Mr. President.

3 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at

4 2.30 p.m., to be reconvened on Monday,

5 the 29^th day of May, 2000, at 9.30 a.m.

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25