1 Monday, 23 January 2006

2 [Open session]

3 --- Upon commencing at 2.25 p.m.

4 [The accused entered court]

5 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Good afternoon, Madam Registrar, could you

6 call the case, please -- wait, wait, wait.

7 All right. You can call the case now. Thank you.

8 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. This is the case

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

10 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you.

11 Mr. Oric, can you follow the proceedings in your own language?

12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, ladies and

13 gentlemen, Your Honours. I can follow the proceedings in my own language.

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

15 Appearances for the Prosecution.

16 MR. WUBBEN: Good morning -- good afternoon, Your Honours. My

17 name is Jan Wubben, lead counsel for the Prosecution. I am -- and also

18 good afternoon to my learned friends of the Defence. I'm here together

19 with Mr. Gramsci Di Fazio and our case manager, Mrs. Donnica

20 Henry-Frijlink.

21 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, and good afternoon to you and your

22 staff.

23 Appearances for Naser Oric.

24 JUDGE AGIUS: Good afternoon, Your Honours. Good afternoon to the

25 learned friends from the OTP. My name is Vasvija Vidovic, and together

1 with Mr. John Jones I appear for Mr. Oric. We have with us our legal

2 assistant, Ms. Jasmina Cosic.

3 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, Madam, and good afternoon to you, too,

4 and your team.

5 So an announcement, first of all. Tomorrow you know we've shifted

6 the sitting from the afternoon to the morning, but we will not be starting

7 at 9.00 because a Status Conference in the Seselj case that had been

8 scheduled for after the Oric case being -- the accused has asked, for

9 personal reasons that I feel are justified, to have the Status Conference

10 first thing in the morning. So we will have the -- rather, not you. I

11 will have the Status Conference in Seselj at 8.30 in the morning,

12 hopefully to finish by 9.30, and then we'll start with your case at 10.00

13 in the morning, all right? And then we'll go right through until quarter

14 to 2.00, as scheduled. All right.

15 I have some information on the exchange that has been going on

16 between the two parties on the Prosecution rebuttal case. I take it that

17 you will be filing the proper instrument tomorrow?

18 MR. WUBBEN: Yes, Your Honour.

19 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. So we'll deal with that matter

20 afterwards, unless you have got some submissions to make now. Okay. So

21 that will come later.

22 Mr. Wubben, you had promised us to come, as we had indicated to

23 you that we would be quite willing to hear what you have to say on our

24 plans to appoint a handwriting expert. Do you have any submissions which

25 you would like us to take into consideration but which will of course be

1 of no binding value, please go ahead, and try to keep them as short as

2 possible, please.

3 MR. WUBBEN: Thank you, Your Honour. I have several issues to

4 convey to the Court. Indeed, it is an advising to start with the issue of

5 who to be appointed as an expert by the Trial Chamber. Well, any such

6 appointment of a Court expert is fully to the discretion of the Trial

7 Chamber. I advise that there is no compelling reason that such an expert

8 should be familiar with Cyrillic as well as Latin, in special when it

9 relates to signatures where the same elements in same order matters, even

10 illegible, and that's contrary to Cyrillic handwriting. So far this

11 condition of being familiar with Cyrillic language has not been an issue

12 with the Defence in order to contest any evidence.

13 Also, membership of a shared professional association should not

14 prevent such a nomination. Whenever a Trial Chamber expert is not shown

15 the outcome in detail of the file to expert report, this should not be a

16 problem at all. The e-mail from the German expert shown in court last

17 Thursday by the Defence counsel does not change my point of view. The

18 text of the paragraph in the e-mail involved should be read as a whole and

19 not by -- only by highlighting selected part of it. In that e-mail there

20 is no suggestion that experts during their examination are influenced by

21 opinions from colleagues within that association. Rather, it is in

22 expectation that there are consistent conclusions in proficiency tests,

23 collaborative exercises or co-working in real cases on the same material,

24 due to the many efforts to bring them into line -- to bring into line the

25 allocation and examination methodology of the handwriting experts. Even

1 if Trial Chamber would prefer two experts, then these persons might arrive

2 from nationality [sic]. It's the expertise in examination that should be

3 neutral. In that respect, the Trial Chamber is free to seek a qualified

4 expert.

5 The second issue, Your Honours, is the issue whether the Trial

6 Chamber expert is to be considered more credible on forehand. Well, in

7 the same field, the expert or experts, once nominated by the Trial

8 Chamber, should not be viewed as being more credible simply because of an

9 appointment by this Chamber. Also, the experts --

10 JUDGE AGIUS: You don't need to address the Trial Chamber on this.

11 I mean, we've made it clear. The fact that we appoint him or her does not

12 mean that we consider him or her better than yours.

13 MR. WUBBEN: Thank you, Your Honour.

14 I shall go -- move to the third issue of producing a report by the

15 expert nominated by the Trial Chamber.

16 Prior to his testimony, the Trial Chamber expert should produce a

17 report, in my opinion, even given the possibility of consulting by parties

18 of another expert on behalf of cross-examination or examination. Within

19 the adversarial system, it should be possible to prepare adequately for

20 examination or cross-examination based upon a priorly disclosed report and

21 also in order to challenge the conclusions of that report in whole or in

22 part. Rule 94 bis applies mutatis mutandis, meaning that the report will

23 be in evidence as well as the testimony in court by the Trial Chamber

24 expert. And subsequently, as it finds last Wednesday by the Presiding

25 Judge, if parties want to bring their expert over to give evidence again,

1 then there should be a possibility to recall their expert later on.

2 In the report, the Trial Chamber expert should make use of

3 international accepted standards or scales of probability and possibility

4 are referred to a similar approach of the standard as provided in the

5 annex of the expert report of the -- by the Prosecution regarding the

6 applicable scale.

7 The next issue is the reference material available to the Trial

8 Chamber expert from the reports of parties' experts. In my opinion, the

9 expert nominated by the Trial Chamber should be provided by the

10 questioned, so-called Q documents, and the known-signature documents, it

11 has the reference material also known as the K documents used by the

12 expert of the Prosecution in 2004 and related to the accused.

13 These Q documents and K documents had been partly used by the

14 expert from Defence, meaning that the Trial Chamber expert should focus on

15 examination of signatures related to the accused. No more material is

16 advised. The Trial Chamber expert will thus have the availability of the

17 originals or if copies have been examined, the copies used, and

18 subsequently exercise the examination requested by the Trial Chamber. So

19 there is also no need to provide the Trial Chamber expert with the expert

20 reports from parties.

21 The identifying of the group of the so-called K documents. As

22 stated before, the so-called K documents are documents with the known

23 signatures from accused. These K documents used by Prosecution expert in

24 his report are already all in evidence, not only the aid referred to by

25 the Defence expert, but also the other ones up to K35 are in evidence.

1 Contrary to the so-called non-contentious documents in the expert

2 report from Defence, again apart from P100, those are the eight K

3 documents. It is not contested by parties that the signatures on the K

4 documents are from the hands of the accused. It is not fair to say, as

5 the Defence counsel did last Wednesday, when he referred to P100 as a

6 collection of signatures allegedly made by his client during the course of

7 his interview. After all, the Prosecution has evidence that the

8 signatures have been placed by the accused. The placing of those

9 signatures have been confirmed in the two declarations from the OTP

10 investigators, Tedder and Kelly. These two affidavits have been accepted

11 by the Defence and ever since never been contested. Moreover, the

12 Defence -- I apologise. The Defence had put it to the expert, Doctorandus

13 Fagel of the Prosecution during his cross-examination in October 2004 that

14 Naser Oric provided them, those reference signatures, willingly. That's

15 why the expert could use them.

16 The following issue is the samples of signatures to be available

17 for the examination by the Trial Chamber expert. When it comes to the

18 contested signatures examined by both experts with contrasting conclusions

19 in the field of alleged signatures from accused, I counted ten questioned

20 documents examined by both parties' experts.

21 I refer also in addition to the number mentioned last week, P13,

22 Your Honour. So in total, ten documents within that contrasting

23 conclusion by both parties' experts. In addition, the expert by the

24 Defence examined also three documents, Prosecution Exhibits mentioned

25 under paragraph 4 of his report. Those are exhibits P176, P213, and P330.

1 The Prosecution is happy to provide as well these last three Prosecution

2 exhibits to the Trial Chamber expert. I will leave that decision to the

3 discretion of Your Honours.

4 The expert nominated by the Trial Chamber should examine these 13

5 documents, including ten contrasting conclusions by the experts, and

6 compare the signatures with the known signatures of the accused, that is

7 to say, these so-called K documents as mentioned in the expert report

8 filed by the Prosecution. So to compare the signatures included in the

9 number of 32 Q documents with the signature in a total number of 35 K

10 documents as in especially the report of the expert from the Prosecution.

11 In the report by the Defence expert, there are also other

12 documents alleged to be non-contentious signatures. These so-called N

13 documents are referring to signatures of Hamed Salihovic, N documents

14 refer to Naser Oric, and N documents referring to Hamdija Fejzic. In my

15 opinion, these N documents referred to in the expert report of Bilic

16 should not be subject to a subsequent examination by the Trial Chamber

17 expert.

18 I underline that in our response to the Defence motion, filing the

19 expert report under Rule 94 bis, the Prosecution did not accept the expert

20 statement of Mr. Bilic under 94 bis. And the Prosecution accordingly

21 contest that these so-called non-contentious document bear a known

22 signature of the alleged originator, as there is no evidence for that,

23 apart from the eight K documents used by the expert of the Defence.

24 Therefore, I advise the Court to exclude from examination by Trial

25 Chamber expert, firstly, the alleged non-contentious documents,

1 handwritings, and signatures related to Hamed Salihovic; secondly, the

2 non-contentious documents related to the accused, except of course the

3 eight K documents under N5 to N12; and thirdly, the non-contentious

4 documents related to Hamdija Fejzic. There is no evidence provided that

5 these alleged non-contentious documents include non-signatures or

6 signature witness person to be placed by alleged three originators. They

7 are simply saying no control copies available. The alleged

8 non-contentious documents, apart from, again, the eight K documents,

9 haven't even been disclosed or filed by the Defence. Here the safe-guards

10 of Rule 94 bis applies. As there are no valid control copies, one should

11 assume that the documents will not be agreed upon by parties as being

12 non-contentious.

13 My conclusion is that the Trial Chamber expert will examine the

14 signatures alleged to be from Naser Oric and then compare these signatures

15 from those mentioned 32 questioned documents and additional three

16 contentious documents under P176, P230, and P330, with the signatures from

17 the mentioned 35 K documents.

18 The other material related to other two persons should not be

19 subject to that examination by the Trial Chamber expert.

20 Thank you, Your Honour.

21 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. I thank you, Mr. Wubben.

22 Mr. Jones or Madam Vidovic. I don't know whose -- I suppose it's

23 Mr. Jones on this. Do you have any remarks?

24 MR. JONES: No, Your Honour. We don't propose to provide a

25 detailed reply to the remarks made just now by Mr. Wubben. Really, I

1 maintain the submissions which I made last Wednesday, which were made

2 really in the spirit of assisting the Trial Chamber in exercising its

3 discretion and not an attempt to interfere with that discretion.

4 JUDGE AGIUS: That was the idea of inviting you or accepting your

5 suggestion to accept -- to hear submissions from you because we are not

6 necessarily any wiser, but it's always wise to hear submissions because,

7 as always, something to learn from that. So -- and I think we have heard

8 some submissions which we'll definitely take into consideration.

9 MR. JONES: Yes, Your Honour. And it was a fairly lengthy

10 submission, so it's possible in the next day or two that we come back on

11 one point or another, having considered it, but at the moment we have

12 nothing to add.

13 JUDGE AGIUS: In the meantime, I just wanted to confirm to you

14 that we have moved -- continue moving on this and we should be able to

15 conclude on this matter pretty soon.

16 There's one final matter that I would like to ask you to do some

17 brain-storming about, and this is how it -- this might affect the final

18 briefs, because obviously some -- I'm not saying that all, of course, but

19 some very significant submissions may be affected, depending on what the

20 findings will be ultimately and what the position will be.

21 At the present moment, my suggestion is that since you are

22 expected to be working on the preparation of your final briefs in any case

23 while this exercise is going on, you keep in mind the following: That

24 there are two conflicting or almost conflicting submissions to the Trial

25 Chamber with regard to some of these documents, particularly the ten. And

1 I would suggest that you keep that at the back of your mind. As you

2 yourself said, the fact that we are going to appoint an expert of our own

3 does not necessarily mean that we are going definitely to have a final,

4 clear picture of where this matter should go, either one side or the

5 other. I, for one, do not know what to expect and we could have any kind

6 of report. So please keep all options open while you continue preparing

7 your final -- your final briefs. And then of course you will make the

8 adjustments that are required as we go -- as we go along.

9 I also wish to confirm to you that when we have the report of our

10 expert, it's certainly not our intention to cut you off and deny you the

11 possibility of either examining or cross-examining the expert or even

12 recalling your own experts in due course. There is the other alternative

13 I mentioned before, that the fact that even your experts are independent

14 experts does not, in our opinion, constitute an obstacle in you having

15 them present, sitting next to you, while you are examining or

16 cross-examining our expert. Probably that will prove more economic

17 timewise, and it would spare us having to go through the whole process of

18 recalling witnesses and therefore delaying the procedures. But I would

19 invite you to be open-minded in this recommendation because we could end

20 up being the most surprised of all when we have this report come from our

21 expert. It has happened before, and I do not exclude anything.

22 So I thank you so much on behalf of my two colleagues and on my

23 own behalf for having been very constructive in your recommendations and

24 suggestions and submissions to the Trial Chamber on this matter. As I

25 said, some of your submissions have been, indeed, very informative and

1 very enlightening, and I'm pretty sure that some of them will be taken

2 into consideration.

3 We will, of course, inform you in due course of what our decision

4 is.

5 Yes, Mr. Di Fazio.

6 MR. DI FAZIO: Your Honours, have you given any thought to the

7 general schedule that would follow from --

8 JUDGE AGIUS: We have --

9 MR. DI FAZIO: From this -- what I'm wondering about is the

10 four-week period going to start at some earlier point or after --

11 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Di Fazio, of course we have, and of course we

12 know that if we give one document to the expert to examine rather than 50,

13 he's going to finish his -- there is the other option of him coming over

14 or her coming over to present -- make an oral presentation of the report

15 and then you give you the opportunity to re-call your experts. That has a

16 handicap because you will be taken by surprise more or less as much as we

17 will if the expert comes over and presents -- makes an oral presentation

18 of his findings. So having had second and third thoughts about this,

19 although we haven't discussed -- finalised the discussions on this

20 particular issue, my colleagues and I, I will be suggesting that we will

21 have a written report rather than an oral presentation because that will

22 give us -- put us all in the condition of knowing beforehand what the

23 witness could be asked, putting us on notice on what questions one could

24 ask to the witness and giving you also time to consult with your experts

25 on what questions to put and so on and so forth. I think I'm making

1 myself clear.

2 On the basis of this depends the rest of the schedule. I have got

3 various options that we have been working up on with our staff. I think

4 we have to leave options open. Priority being given to two consideration:

5 To lose as much -- as least time as possible; that's number one. At the

6 same time, secure to both parties all the due process rights that you have

7 to deal with this matter as thoroughly as possible because as you yourself

8 understand and submit, these issues are of fundamental importance to this

9 trial, the authenticity of certain documents. So we don't intend by any

10 stretch of imagination to belittle the importance of this exercise, and we

11 will be giving you all the opportunity.

12 When I say you will be in the meantime preparing for your final

13 brief, reason is very obvious and a very simple one. The final brief does

14 not depend entirely, or to a large extent, on the authenticity of these

15 ten documents, 15, 20, 30. Of course if they are authentic, it does have

16 a bearing. If they are not authentic, or the prevalence of -- the

17 indication is that they are not authentic, then of course the whole

18 scenario changes as well, as far as certain issues are concerned.

19 As far as certain other issues, I think you can continue to

20 prepare and have your pre-trial -- not pre-trial, your final brief in

21 place, ready to be baked. There is no reason why you should delay on

22 preparing your final brief simply because we are going to deal with this

23 exercise and you don't know what the outcome is going to be, just as much

24 as we don't know what the outcome is going to be. We will be making our

25 own preparations as well. Of course -- and ultimately we will depend on

1 your final submissions in regard. All right? But there may well need to

2 be shifting of the dates that we had proposed as a consequence, but we are

3 still hoping to be able to conclude -- once we have an indication from the

4 expert that we will appoint as to how long he or she would require, then

5 of course we can plan better. The thing is that this exercise will start

6 while we are still not yet finished the evidentiary stage, and the

7 evidentiary stage, I mean also rebuttal and rejoinder, if there will be a

8 rebuttal and rejoinder, obviously. Because if there won't be, then

9 obviously we're talking of one starting immediately after. All right?

10 Yes, if you have any queries on -- in this context, on this

11 regard, please let us know. Please rest -- put your mind at rest that we

12 will give you all the opportunities that -- all the opportunities that you

13 need to prepare yourself well. All right?

14 Madam Vidovic, Mr. Jones, any comments?

15 Mr. Wubben?

16 MR. WUBBEN: No, Your Honour.

17 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you.

18 I thank you so much for your understanding and your cooperation.

19 Madam Usher will now -- yes.

20 [Trial Chamber confers]

21 [The witness entered court]

22 JUDGE AGIUS: Good afternoon to you, Professor Bilic, and welcome

23 back. The time has arrived to start with your expert testimony. The

24 Rules of this Tribunal require that before you start giving evidence you

25 make a solemn declaration that in the course of your testimony you will

1 testify the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. The text

2 is contained in a piece of paper that Madam Usher is going to hand to you.

3 Please read it out and that will be your solemn undertaking with us.

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak

5 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

6 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, Professor. Please make yourself

7 comfortable.

8 Now, you're a professional man and I'm going to leave you straight

9 in the hands of Mr. Jones, I take it, who will be examining you in chief

10 in relation to your expert report.

11 Mr. Jones.

12 He will then be followed by Mr. Wubben, who will cross-examine

13 you. We expect you to be here till -- hopefully Thursday, and we'll try

14 to wind up your testimony on Thursday, which would make it possible for

15 you to return to your homeland or to your residence in -- before the

16 weekend.

17 Yes, Mr. Jones.

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

19 MR. JONES: Thank you, Your Honour.

20 WITNESS: ESAD BILIC

21 [Witness answered through interpreter]

22 Examined by Mr. Jones:

23 Q. Good afternoon, Professor Bilic. If you could please give the

24 Court your full name.

25 A. Esad Bilic.

1 Q. And confirm, if you would, the following details. You were born

2 on the 18th of August, 1948, in Travnik?

3 A. Yes, yes.

4 Q. You graduated from the University of Sarajevo, completed

5 post-graduate study, and you are now a professor in education and

6 psychology?

7 A. Yes, yes.

8 Q. By profession, you're an expert in the scientific examination of

9 documents, and you've been working in that field for 30 years?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Now, is it correct that you started your career as a police

12 expert, examining documents for the Ministry of the Interior in Bosnia and

13 Herzegovina?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Did you receive training for your work with the Ministry of the

16 Interior?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Where did you receive that training?

19 A. I received that training -- or rather, the traineeship in the

20 centres of the former Yugoslavia, Ljubljana, Zagreb, Belgrade, and Skopje.

21 Q. And did you receive training from mentors in the Ministry of the

22 Interior?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. And you're now a sworn court expert in the federation of Bosnia

25 and Herzegovina and in Brcko district. Correct?

1 A. In Brcko district, yes.

2 Q. And you're also a member of a society of court experts of

3 Republika Srpska and you've worked in Republika Srpska?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. And have you also acted as a mentor to police experts in Bosnia

6 and Herzegovina, instructing them in the methods and techniques of

7 document examination?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. And do you have your own laboratory for document examination?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. And finally, do you currently have an officially registered agency

12 for graphology and an agency for investigating counterfeit money, which

13 you yourself established?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Are you engaged by the central bank in Bosnia and Herzegovina as

16 an expert?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. And you're currently a member of the association of court experts

19 of the federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and before the war you were a

20 member of the commission for forensic document examination. Correct?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Now, to be a member of the commission for forensic examination of

23 documents before the war, did you have to pass an official state

24 examination as an expert?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. Do you regularly attend meetings with colleagues to harmonise your

2 work and methods?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. And have you published in this field and your publications being

5 those listed in your curriculum vitae?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. How many examinations of handwriting can you estimate that you've

8 done in total during your career?

9 A. Several -- several tens of thousands.

10 Q. And do you still regularly do handwriting analysis?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Do you testify regularly in court in Bosnia as a court-appointed

13 expert on a cantonal, municipal, and state level?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. And are you about to publish a book on the forensic identification

16 of handwriting and signatures?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Now, before coming to the report which you prepared in this case,

19 I want you to explain for us a little your analytical methodology, and if

20 you could tell us, please, what are the phases, broadly speaking, of

21 investigation when you're asked to compare contentious and non-contentious

22 writing or signature samples?

23 A. Yes, I will try to explain the process roughly. There is the

24 preliminary phase, which consists in the analytical examination of

25 contentious documents or signatures or documents containing contentious

1 text. Then there follows an examination of non-contentious reference

2 documents. After this critical examination, there follows the process of

3 collecting adequate contentious and non-contentious documents.

4 Contentious documents may prove to be inadequate for examination for

5 several reasons, which is why it may be necessary to seek adequate

6 documentation, mainly originals. Photocopies need to be avoided. The

7 person commissioning the examination needs to prepare a solid and

8 appropriate sample of a non-contentious document, whilst respecting the

9 principles dictated by the methodology of document examination. This is

10 the crucial and most difficult stage. A well-prepared sample of

11 non-contentious documents will most certainly yield objective results,

12 that's to say, findings --

13 Q. May I stop you there for a moment. Sorry to interrupt, and we'll

14 move on to the next phase in a moment.

15 A. Thank you.

16 Q. But is it right then to say that you take a critical approach to

17 the samples that you're provided with in that you assess whether they're

18 sufficient in terms of quantity and quality even before starting?

19 A. That's of fundamental importance.

20 Q. And to your knowledge, do all forensic document examiners take

21 that critical approach?

22 A. It depends. Most -- all of them should take such an approach.

23 I will proceed to explain what course the examination takes. When

24 both contentious and non-contentious documents have been obtained, the

25 first stage of examination needs to be applied, which consists of visual

1 and instrumental examination of a given signature or a handwritten note or

2 whatever is contained in a given document.

3 The document taken as a whole cannot be looked at in its

4 individual parts; it has to be looked as a whole. If you look at the

5 document, you cannot merely look at the hand -- at the signature but,

6 rather, at the whole document. So first of all, the documents need to be

7 looked at individually, with special reference to what is contentious in

8 the document. It is in this way that all the documents need to be

9 examined and all the particular aspects can -- of a given document,

10 discrepancies that pertain either to the contents or to the stamp

11 impression or the typewriter used and so on and so forth, all of these

12 discrepancies have to be examined. And once this is done, photographs are

13 taken of a given document, a scanner is used or a camera.

14 What then follows is the presentation of the non-contentious

15 sample. There has to be a special examination for every single aspect

16 that is trying to be analysed against the non-contentious documents. Once

17 this particular analysis is finished, when the documentation is made,

18 everything has been photographed or scanned, the next stage follows, which

19 is that of comparing the similarities or dissimilarities in the documents,

20 which is of crucial importance. At that point, the examiner needs to

21 assess, evaluate, and analyse the similarities and dissimilarities in

22 which of these prevail. Based on that, the findings will be drafted.

23 The comparison can be done in several directions, again based on

24 visual or instrumental examination, depending on what the target of the

25 examination is. It can be done in several ways, several aspects. If more

1 writers are involved, we have to compare the authentic, genuine, known

2 handwriting with that which is contentious. This is a very complex and

3 time-consuming task. It is far from the comparisons we have in geometry,

4 for instance, whether you compare a square with a square; this is a

5 completely different process.

6 Once the comparisons have been drawn and all the different

7 variations existing in the handwriting stamps, typewritten texts, and so

8 on and so forth have been found, photographic enlargements are then

9 produced which will form the basis of the examination; that's to say

10 folders are created containing these enlargements which will be

11 instrumental in enabling the persons who will look at them to understand

12 what they illustrate.

13 Q. I'll stop you is there. Sorry. Sorry to interrupt. That's a

14 very helpful explanation you've been giving. Just to apply some of this

15 to your report in this case. Did you indeed prepare some of these maps

16 for this case, and are they an illustration of your conclusions or are

17 they are complete -- a complete explanation of those conclusions?

18 A. Yes, absolutely. That was something I had to produce because this

19 was a highly complex task requiring very clear and to-the-point findings.

20 That is why I produced these maps containing my findings that followed

21 logically the course of my examination. They can be analysed and

22 assessed. That's why they have been created.

23 Q. And may I just -- one clarification. Are these maps an

24 illustration of your analysis or do they summarise all of the results of

25 your analysis?

1 A. This is only part of what was analysed. It is really impossible

2 to produce maps containing all these because they would take far too much

3 space.

4 I believe that what has been presented here will be sufficient.

5 They were designed to help the observer, the beholder, to follow logically

6 the sequence of contested documents, non-contested document, different

7 fragments of these, so that even a person who is not familiar with these

8 documents, to grasp and analyse for himself.

9 Q. And then following these phases you've described, do you then

10 draft your analysis and your conclusions?

11 A. Yes. I critically re-test all the findings that I have arrived

12 at, that is to say, I critically re-examine the findings I have made.

13 Sometimes a person gets carried away, overvalues or undervalues certain

14 items, and this can only show to have happened after some time has

15 elapsed. That is why in order to reach objective and high-quality

16 findings, one has to re-examine the findings. It is only at the end of

17 this that conclusions are formed which are then structured along a scale

18 of probability, of possibility. And again, this methodology will depend

19 on the examiner who is involved and on the experience he has.

20 Q. And in the analysis you do, are you sometimes able to reach a firm

21 or definite conclusion and not just a probabilistic one?

22 A. The aim of any forensic analysis is to provide a finding which

23 will be as conclusive as possible, because any other conclusion which is a

24 probabilistic one is of no assistance to the Court. That is why we have

25 the different categories of possibly yes, possibly not, high possibility,

1 high probability, and so on and so forth.

2 The conclusiveness of the findings will depend on the quality of

3 the samples which are being examined. That's why I said that the sample

4 itself will determine 90 per cent of the examination and the findings that

5 will be reached. Whenever it is possible to say something with absolute

6 certainty, then one should do so, of course if the samples provided permit

7 that sort of conclusion.

8 Q. Right. And what do you do if you don't have the means to reach a

9 firm conclusion but you're asked to give a conclusion nonetheless? Is

10 that when you would use a probabilistic conclusion?

11 A. If it is impossible to reach any conclusive findings, then of

12 course we will have to draw upon these inconclusive levels of findings.

13 It will again depend on contentious document. It will depend on the

14 critical approach of the examiner.

15 However, I myself reach such inconclusive findings most often when

16 I examine photocopies when the corresponding originals cannot be found.

17 In such cases, I'd rather not give any findings at all; however, sometimes

18 it might prove necessary to do so. Photocopies can be highly deceitful

19 and misleading. They may mislead; that's why it's best not to give any

20 sort of conclusions in relation to photocopies. Again, when one is

21 deciding about the finding, it will depend on the quality of the

22 reproduction of a photocopy and on a number of other aspects that will

23 shape one's conclusion. And it will then -- this will be decisive for

24 whether the conclusion will be on top of the probability scale or at the

25 bottom.

1 Q. All right. Thank you very much. Well, if at the moment you could

2 be shown --

3 MR. JONES: The witness could be shown his report. We have a

4 revised English translation, and I'd like to express my appreciation to

5 CLSS who very diligently reviewed the report beforehand and helpfully

6 pointed out some revisions, so we have a revised English version which is

7 available for everyone.

8 JUDGE AGIUS: I also wish to thank CLSS on behalf of the Tribunal

9 because this proved to be very useful.

10 MR. JONES: Yes. Yes, indeed.

11 Q. Now, first of all, while that's being distributed, Professor

12 Bilic, if you could look at what's been put in front of you and tell us

13 whether you recognise that as the report you produced in this case.

14 A. Yes. That's the report I submitted for this case.

15 Q. Now, I'm going to come to this report in detail, but for the

16 moment I would just like you to refer to pages 22, 29, and 34. And I

17 should say the page references are the same for the Bosnian and English,

18 which is helpful. So on those pages do we see some of the general and

19 specific characteristics of handwriting that you analyse?

20 A. Yes. On the pages you've referred to, I mentioned only the most

21 obvious discrepancies which were listed here. And immediately following

22 these particular pages, maps can be found where you can see --

23 Q. And as I say, Professor Bilic, we're going to come to the

24 conclusions in a moment, and in fact I'm still looking at general

25 questions. It was really to draw attention to these characteristics of

1 handwriting, formation of small and large graphemes, inclining writing

2 angle, calibration. These are a number of the things which you look at

3 when you analyse handwriting. Correct?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. As I say, we're going to come to your report in detail in a

6 moment, but I still have one or two general questions.

7 In referring to samples you've referred to the importance of the

8 quantity and quality of the samples. Now, quantity, I imagine, is

9 self-explanatory. You need sufficient numbers of documents to analyse.

10 But for quality, can you explain a little bit what factors are relevant to

11 the quality of the sample to be analysed.

12 A. I will give you a direct answer. The non-contentious document has

13 to have sufficient quantities, of course; that's first. As for the

14 quality, it has to do with the following categories: The way the

15 non-contentious documents came into being. They must have come into being

16 outside of the contentious documents; however, they should have come into

17 being in that same year, or the same month, but the year is sufficient.

18 Secondly, they should be in their original form rather than photocopies.

19 They should contain writings which were made in the same writing

20 implements as the non-contentious -- as the contentious documents, that's

21 to say, in ball-point pen or in pencil and so on and so forth.

22 Furthermore, there has to be proof of the fact that the non-contentious

23 document was, in fact, produced by the writer concerned.

24 How can we prove this? Well, this can be proved in the case of

25 official documents, for instance. The quality of the documents has to be

1 satisfactory. They have to be made on paper which is of more or less the

2 same quality and so on and so forth.

3 This is, I believe, enough. Everybody understands what I am

4 saying.

5 Q. So would it be correct, then, that if you have all of the

6 non-contentious samples being written or signed on the same day, is that a

7 good sample or not for analysis?

8 A. That would be a modest sample. That would not suffice for

9 analysis. That would be a so-called situation sample which was made on

10 one day or only in one year and, as such, would not be sufficient for

11 findings, especially when one deals with signatures and the types of

12 documents I examined here. The signatures have to date from a continuous

13 sequence in time, as I myself asked for, in fact. We had cases where

14 we -- writers are deceased, so we had to fall back on the documents dating

15 back in time.

16 Q. Thank you. Now, perhaps just one final preliminary matter. In

17 your opinion, to analyse handwriting and signatures, do you have to know

18 or do you not the language, grammar, the characters, and the scripts in

19 which the samples are written?

20 A. Yes, that's understood. As an expert, I cannot do an expert

21 analysis of handwritings in Turkish, Arabic, Hebrew, Japanese, or Chinese,

22 for example. I cannot analyse handwriting that uses a different spelling.

23 In the Bosnian language, for example, we have a principle that one

24 letter represents one sound. In other languages, such as English or

25 Dutch, one sound can be represented by two graphemes, that is two letters.

1 The researcher has to be familiar with this. He has to be able to read

2 and write the language and to use it. That can have a significant

3 influence, especially as in Bosnia and Herzegovina two kinds of scripts

4 are used, cursive and block writing are both used. And both scripts are

5 used. Anyone residing in Bosnia and Herzegovina can use both scripts.

6 Some people write in Cyrillic and sign their names in Latin or vice versa.

7 There are reasons for all this which we need not go into now, but

8 one must know all these things.

9 Q. Yes, and can I ask: Is there much difference between the Cyrillic

10 and Latin script?

11 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Wubben?

12 MR. WUBBEN: Your Honour, sorry to interrupt. It's not referring

13 to this recent question, it's about the prior question. Mr. Bilic gave an

14 answer regarding the handwriting. I would like to invite him also to

15 answer also the part of the question by my learned friend regarding the

16 signatures.

17 So does an analyst need to know the language when it refers to

18 signatures only?

19 MR. JONES: Yes, I'm happy for the witness --

20 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, thank you, Mr. Wubben.

21 Yes. Thank you, Mr. Jones. I'm sure you would agree that it

22 needs to be addressed as in the context that it was put.

23 MR. JONES: Yes.

24 Q. I don't know if you understood the question, Professor Bilic. But

25 if you're only analysing the signatures and not the handwriting, is it

1 still necessary to be familiar with the Latin and Cyrillic scripts or the

2 language of the writer?

3 A. Thank you, Your Honours, I'll answer the question, but we have to

4 clarify something. If a person is to sign his name, he first has to learn

5 to write. The handwriting comes prior to the signature. The signature is

6 very personal. It's idiosyncratic. The signature is never identical to

7 the handwriting and vice versa. But we do have to take into account that

8 for a person to have a signature he has to have a certain handwriting

9 first, whether Cyrillic or Latin. And then according to his personal

10 views and character, a person develops his own signature. The first

11 signature is simply the use of his handwriting to write his name. And

12 then through constant use it becomes idealised and may become so symbolic

13 that individual characters cannot be recognised and one can say what name

14 is written there. Sometimes, of course, we can because it all depends on

15 how frequently the writer has used the signature. Sometimes he simplifies

16 it to such an extent that it's only a curve a line, but it's his line or

17 curve.

18 So in response to Mr. Wubben's question, that is the relationship.

19 A person has to know a script and have a handwriting in a script in order

20 to write. In the former Yugoslavia, both scripts were used and people had

21 to learn to write both.

22 Q. So in brief, is the answer that: Yes, in fact, to analyse a

23 signature --

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Okay. Thank you. Now, just a few more questions on Cyrillic. Is

1 it, in fact, a different alphabet, would you say, even from the Latin

2 alphabet?

3 A. Completely different. The Latin alphabet is a cursive alphabet.

4 It can be sloping or vertical; that's the block manner of writing. The

5 Latin script uses diacritics on the grapheme on letters such as "ch"

6 or "sh" or "j" or "nj," whereas in Cyrillic, in the cursive style of

7 writing, there are no diacritics, only lines. A line is put across

8 the "ch," and this is again something one has to know about in order to

9 understand the explanation. However, those kinds of markings are lacking

10 in Cyrillic. The placing of diacritics is highly unconscious. Also,

11 there is the grapheme, M for example, which illustrates the number of

12 strokes that has to be used.

13 So in Cyrillic every grapheme has more strokes than the

14 corresponding Latin. So this leaves the impression of a more dense kind

15 of writing. If I were to write my own last name in Latin and then in

16 Cyrillic, the signature would be completely different.

17 I think I've clarified sufficiently.

18 Q. Yes. That's perfectly clear. And in fact just to anticipate one

19 matter, is it correct that Naser Oric signs his name is Cyrillic?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Now, I'm going to now go back to your report and look at it in

22 detail. First of all, I think you verified that it's your signature on

23 page 36.

24 MR. JONES: Yes, I believe we'll be taking the break at quarter to

25 4.00?

1 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, in 11 minutes' time.

2 MR. JONES: Yes.

3 Q. Professor Bilic, if you feel that you need a break earlier, if

4 you're uncomfortable, please let us know.

5 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Any time, Mr. Jones.

6 THE WITNESS: Okay, okay, okay.

7 JUDGE AGIUS: If you need a break --

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

9 Honours.

10 MR. JONES:

11 Q. Yes, I believe your signature is on page 36, and the date of the

12 report is the 2nd of December, 2005.

13 On page 1 of your report your engagement by the Defence of the

14 Tribunal's order dated 12th October 2006 [sic] is set out. That is the

15 order pursuant to which you received the documents to do the analysis.

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. And you said you worked on the documents from the 26th of October,

18 2005, when you received them until the 23rd of November, 2005. Is that

19 correct?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. One question about the time it takes for this sort of analysis.

22 Could you have conducted your analysis in this case in any less time than

23 that, say, if you'd had two weeks or three weeks?

24 A. No.

25 Q. And can you explain why it takes a long time to analyse these

1 documents?

2 A. There was a large number of documents. The documents were very

3 complex. I'm referring to the contentious documents. However, the

4 non-contentious documents also had to be prepared. Two of the writers are

5 deceased, which made the work more difficult. Furthermore, the questions

6 put by the Defence were very precise; there were many of them. And I had

7 to do a lot of work. I had to leave everything else to one side and work

8 only on these documents. I had to investigate the signatures and the

9 handwriting. And whether we like it or not, I had to look at the whole

10 document, especially the original documents which required much

11 investigation.

12 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Wubben.

13 MR. WUBBEN: Yes. Your Honour, it's a matter of further

14 clarification. Two of the writers have been deceased. Can my learned

15 friend ask for the names?

16 MR. JONES: Yes, I was going to come back to that.

17 Q. Is that correct that two of the writers are deceased? And

18 remember it's -- we're talking about Naser Oric, Hamdija Fejzic, and Hamed

19 Salihovic. Is it one or two who you say are deceased?

20 A. One. I apologise. I misspoke. Only one is deceased.

21 Q. And which is that?

22 A. Hamed Salihovic.

23 Q. Right. Thank you. Now, going back to your report, you returned

24 the documents to the Tribunal on the 23rd of November, 2005. Correct?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. And the questioned signatures and handwriting, are those set out

2 on pages 2 to 3 at I to IV, the contentious material?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. And then the non-contentious handwriting and signatures are Hamed

5 Salihovic, Hamdija Fejzic, and Naser Oric. Are those set out on pages 3

6 to 5 of your report? .

7 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Wubben.

8 MR. WUBBEN: Your Honours, I would like to make a submission, but

9 outside the presence of the witness.

10 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. I think as far as Professor Bilic is

11 concerned, we can start the break now, Mr. Jones.

12 MR. JONES: Yes. Yes. Certainly, Your Honour.

13 JUDGE AGIUS: So Madam Usher will escort you, Professor Bilic.

14 We'll have a 30-minute break. For you it's going to be 35 minutes or a

15 bit less, and we'll have the submission from Mr. Wubben.

16 THE WITNESS: [No interpretation]

17 [The witness stands down]

18 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Wubben.

19 MR. WUBBEN: Your Honours, my learned friend used two labels, the

20 qualifications of signatures, handwriting. It comes to the label of

21 questions and non-contentious handwriting and signatures. I refer to the

22 transcript page 30, lines 6 and line 9. Now we are dealing with the

23 report itself, and it is important to know what we should understand, what

24 should be included, in such a qualification. When it comes to questioned

25 signatures and handwriting, there's a qualification I used myself also, as

1 well as our expert from - yes - from the so-called the Q documents.

2 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.

3 MR. WUBBEN: I'm fine with that, and these are -- of course this

4 is contentious material.

5 When it comes to non-contentious handwriting and signatures, I

6 already took the floor in the beginning of this afternoon to underline

7 that the eight K documents is -- are supposed to bear the signature of the

8 accused. These are the known signatures.

9 For the rest of the so-called non-contentious documents in this

10 report, I don't know where the qualification comes from, but we have no

11 knowledge of evidence that these documents bear the signatures and

12 handwriting of the alleged originator. And so my submission is that

13 whenever there is an absence of such evidence and when it is contested by

14 a party, at least the qualification of non-contentious documents being

15 non-contentious by the parties, is not justified.

16 JUDGE AGIUS: Or at least you don't agree with the way it's being

17 put by the Defence.

18 Let me try and see if I have understood you well. There are eight

19 documents which the Defence and -- the Defence expert referred to as the

20 non-contentious, which include an alleged signature by Naser Oric. And

21 your contention is -- or your submission is: Does that mean to say that

22 it is not being contested that that is Naser Oric's signature? Because if

23 it's not contested, then it can be called non-contentious. If it's

24 contested, then it cannot be qualified as non-contentious.

25 As regards the other signatures by Salihovic and Fejzic, alleged

1 signatures, your contention is that there is no way in which you can agree

2 that these are not being contested by the Prosecution. Main reason being

3 that there is nothing on the basis of which one could come to the

4 conclusion that they are by that -- by those two persons?

5 MR. WUBBEN: Yes.

6 JUDGE AGIUS: Do I read you well?

7 MR. WUBBEN: That's correct, Your Honour.

8 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. So -- and if you wish to --

9 MR. WUBBEN: And I want to point out that in the case -- in the

10 group of so-called alleged non-contentious documents referred to Naser

11 Oric, there is a group that's also new without any such evidence.

12 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. So the position is --

13 MR. JONES: Yes, may I respond?

14 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, of course. Please. I mean, it's -- yes, all

15 right. Judge Eser would like to intervene before we give you the floor.

16 JUDGE ESER: Mr. Jones, because I'm not clear now what you are

17 talking about when you're talking about non-contentious documents with

18 regard to Naser Oric.

19 Do you refer to page 4 and 1, 2, and 5 or what do you mean with

20 non-contentious, Mr. Wubben?

21 MR. WUBBEN: Your Honour, non-contentious documents are referred

22 to, as I see it, under paragraph 2 of page 4.

23 JUDGE AGIUS: Uh-huh.

24 JUDGE ESER: One --

25 MR. WUBBEN: Number N1 up to N12.

1 JUDGE ESER: N12?

2 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.

3 MR. WUBBEN: Yes. The last sentence in N5 and then in the same

4 line up to N12.

5 JUDGE ESER: Yeah. Not N8 --

6 JUDGE AGIUS: No, no. Eight is with regards to the total number

7 inclusive of Oric.

8 JUDGE ESER: But you are talking about Oric --

9 JUDGE AGIUS: Yeah, but this is just Oric.

10 MR. WUBBEN: This is just Oric, Your Honour.

11 Now if you take only the number N5 to N12, these are eight

12 so-called K documents, known signatures, and that's why there is an ERN

13 number in it and one --

14 JUDGE AGIUS: One, for example, has Hamdija Fejzic and also Naser

15 Oric. All right. So it's --

16 MR. WUBBEN: As well as the others.

17 JUDGE AGIUS: In my mind it's clear what the substance of his

18 objection is.

19 MR. JONES: Yes, Your Honour -- well, may I -- I have to say this

20 is really unnecessarily muddying the waters, particularly on a subject

21 where we should try and keep matters clear and not introduce confusion.

22 Mr. Wubben started -- or said that he doesn't know where these

23 terms come from, contentious and non-contentious. Well, they're in his

24 report; they are in this expert's report. That's where they come from.

25 I'm asking him about his report. And the report is very clear in having I

1 to V as contentious, and non-contentious are listed on pages 3 to 5. It

2 couldn't be any clearer. And in fact, we even have an N beforehand to

3 indicate that it's non-contentious.

4 Now, either Mr. Wubben is making a submission which he could just

5 as well make at the end of the trial to say, well, the expert's report

6 can't be accredited because we're not actually sure that N really is

7 non-contentious or that S really is contentious, or whatever. That's up

8 to him. He can make that submission in due course. It's not a matter for

9 objecting to my examination-in-chief. Or in cross-examination he can say

10 to Professor Bilic: How do you actually know that this is

11 non-contentious?

12 The fact is it's a question of methodology. An expert has

13 non-contentious samples and contentious samples and he compares them.

14 That's what he does. And if Mr. Wubben is trying to create a situation

15 where I'm not even able to use those terms --

16 JUDGE AGIUS: When the expert has used them himself --

17 MR. JONES: Yes. And, Your Honour, it may be a question of

18 terminology. I'm going to use the term contentious and non-contentious,

19 and Mr. Wubben can subsequently make whatever submissions he likes.

20 May I add one final matter?

21 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.

22 MR. JONES: A large part of what Mr. Wubben is saying is based on

23 his submission that there's no evidence that some of these signatures are

24 non-contentious. We may yet have some evidence from this witness about

25 that. But even -- even if we already had evidence in the form of an

1 affidavit or a witness, the Prosecution would still be free to dispute

2 that evidence, in which case it would still not be agreed that it's

3 non-contentious and we would be back to square one. Frankly I'm allowed

4 to use the terms contentious and non-contentious, because that's what's

5 used in the expert's report, and Mr. Wubben is free to make submissions

6 and cross-examine about whether they really are non-contentious in due

7 course.

8 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. I think you haven't asked the witness to

9 explain his choice of -- what does he mean by contentious and

10 non-contentious. And of course we cannot ask you to put that question

11 because that question can be put on cross-examination by Mr. Wubben

12 himself.

13 So that's the position. I mean, you have to concede that the

14 choice of language has been not the Defence but the expert witness. He is

15 the one who says N1 is -- or whatever is a non-contentious handwriting or

16 a non-contentious signature. Of course you will ask him the question, and

17 if you don't, probably we will ask him the question at the end. Because

18 we want to know how he comes to the conclusion at least -- or comes to the

19 conclusion before making his analysis that some documents are -- contain

20 no contentious handwriting, some documents contain no contentious

21 signatures.

22 So you are free to ask him the question, but I cannot preclude the

23 Defence from putting questions using those terms simply because it is the

24 expert himself who is using those terms.

25 Do you read me?

1 MR. WUBBEN: Yes, Your Honour, I read you. But I have an

2 objection to make with respect to the qualification of non-contentious.

3 Non-contentious --

4 JUDGE AGIUS: Yeah, yeah, okay, but that becomes a submission

5 later on. It's not even -- a non-contentious by party. It's the

6 description that this expert is giving us.

7 Now, later on you will be free to put to him any question you like

8 and -- by way of trying to elicit an explanation from him why he chooses

9 to consider N4 and N5 as containing no contentious handwriting and

10 signature, for example. And if you're not happy with the reply that you

11 will receive from him, then of course you're free to make submissions.

12 And we will draw our conclusions as well later on as to whether we can

13 really refer to these as non-contentious or contentious; it's important.

14 I concede that the difference is of course important because if a

15 handwriting or a signature is non-contentious, it means that it has not

16 been contested, to me, in my simple English. We'll come to this later,

17 but of course you will have every opportunity to put the question and to

18 make submissions in regard, but I cannot stop the Defence from putting the

19 question -- putting questions referring to the same terminology used by

20 the expert.

21 MR. WUBBEN: I will make that submission.

22 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Thank you.

23 We will have 30 minutes starting from now, basically 20 minutes

24 past 4.00.

25 --- Recess taken at 3.50 p.m.

1 [The witness entered court]

2 --- On resuming at 4.31 p.m.

3 MR. JONES: Thank you, Your Honour.

4 Q. Now, Professor Bilic, before the break we were starting to look at

5 your report, and in particular the part where you refer to the samples of

6 contentious and non-contentious documents. It might help to explain the

7 meaning of non-contentious documents, as used in your report. Would it be

8 correct to say that by "non-contentious" you mean those documents that you

9 take to be authentic for the purposes of comparison and analysis?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. So let's, in fact, go through one by one the non-contentious

12 samples, and in fact starting with that of Hamdija Fejzic first.

13 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's give it a number straight away. The number

14 that it has in the report so that we can follow you without difficulties.

15 MR. JONES: An exhibit number for the report, Your Honour?

16 JUDGE AGIUS: Mm-hmm.

17 MR. JONES: Yes. Thank you, Your Honour.

18 [Trial Chamber confers]

19 MR. JONES: No -- my apologies. I misunderstood Your Honour. I

20 thought Your Honour was about to assign an exhibit number for the whole

21 report?

22 JUDGE AGIUS: No, no. I am not going to assign any numbers. We

23 will keep -- otherwise because it will be confusion galore. You know, I

24 mean, it will be Trial Chamber-promoted confusion.

25 MR. JONES: Right. I just mean an exhibit number for the report.

1 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. For the report I think we can give it a number

2 straight away, but I'm not going to be giving any other numbers to any

3 other documents.

4 MR. JONES: No, and we won't be tendering non-contentious

5 documents. We don't propose to.

6 JUDGE AGIUS: That's up to you. We told you last time that's not

7 our business, it's yours.

8 MR. JONES: No, indeed. So I'm not sure what the next exhibit

9 will be.

10 JUDGE AGIUS: I don't know what the next number -- 1011, 1012?

11 THE REGISTRAR: D1012, Your Honour

12 JUDGE AGIUS: D1012. So Professor Bilic's report will become

13 Defence Exhibit D1012.

14 Yes, Mr. Wubben.

15 MR. WUBBEN: Thank you, Your Honour. And just for the record, the

16 Prosecution contests the admittance of this report regarding the parts

17 concentrating on the non-contentious documents and the qualification, as

18 such, acceptance of the so-called K documents, partly attributed to the

19 accused.

20 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Thank you, Mr. Wubben.

21 MR. JONES: Right. Thank you.

22 Q. Now let's go through the non-contentious samples, and in fact I

23 want to start with those of Hamdija Fejzic. So if you turn to page 4 of

24 your report and you go down to paragraph 3 you see where it says original

25 documents with non-contentious handwriting and signature by Hamdija

1 Fejzic. And then we see N1, N2, N3, N4, N5?

2 Now, did you in fact personally obtain what you call the

3 non-contentious samples from Hamdija Fejzic?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Right. Now, in fact, did that occur? Did he come to your office

6 or did you see him or what precisely?

7 A. Pursuant to an agreement with the Defence, the gentleman called

8 into the office of Madam Vasvija Vidovic and Mr. John Jones, and then we

9 set up an appointment for him to come to my laboratory. He arrived and

10 presented his uncontentious documents, which I have listed on pages 4

11 and 5.

12 When he presented these documents, I asked Mr. Hamdija Fejzic to

13 take a piece of paper with squares on it - it's very important to have

14 that kind of paper - and to write something on it, a certain text, in

15 handwriting, which he did. I also asked for a sample of his signature,

16 and he signed his name in the standard, usual way he does so.

17 Documents N1, 2, and 3 were official documents which had court

18 stamps on them. They were certified documents. So these were

19 indisputably his signatures over a certain time period. Mr. Hamdija

20 Fejzic did not have any other samples from the period in question, which

21 is quite logical since it was wartime, but he did provide signatures of a

22 good enough quality and quantity to enable expert analysis and to make

23 possible the reaching of a final conclusion.

24 Q. All right. Thank you. Now I want to go to what you described as

25 non-contentious documents or non-contentious handwriting signatures of the

1 late Hamed Salihovic. Now, as you said, he is in fact deceased. Did you

2 request samples of non-contentious handwriting of this gentleman?

3 A. It took quite a long time and a lot of effort to find them, but

4 finally we did in the archives of the facility of mathematics and science

5 where the deceased had been a student. These documents are in the

6 archives, where they are kept for a long time, so that in the file in the

7 facility archives there was quite a lot of material, including signatures

8 by him.

9 Q. Thank you.

10 MR. JONES: With the assistance of the usher, we'll pass up a new

11 exhibit. It's not set out in any exhibit lists because it's arisen in

12 light of the objections expressed by the Prosecution today, and I trust

13 that in any event there will be plenty of time before cross-examination

14 for that to be studied. And if that could be shown to the witness,

15 please.

16 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Wubben.

17 MR. WUBBEN: Well, Your Honour, there might be some confidence in

18 the time for preparing this as expressed by the Defence counsel. I

19 haven't seen it. This is the first time. And I protest that it is even

20 announced as being produced today at court. I think this is not the

21 professional way.

22 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

23 MR. JONES: Yes, Your Honour, if I might respond.

24 It wasn't until today that we knew the Prosecution was contesting

25 that these non-contentious documents by Hamed Salihovic were in fact

1 non-contentious and that they had put us on notice that they required

2 evidence in that regard. We've been put on notice. We're providing

3 evidence in that regard, so I really don't see how my learned friend can

4 object. If it's a matter of preparation, then of course if -- if he needs

5 more time to study this document before he starts his cross-examination,

6 that's one matter. But surely there can't be an objection in principle to

7 tendering an exhibit of this nature.

8 [Trial Chamber confers]

9 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Wubben.

10 MR. WUBBEN: Yes, Your Honour.

11 In reply to the statement by my learned friend, first we

12 challenged in our motion, 94 bis, the recourse. Second, non-contentious

13 means non-contentious between parties, so Defence counsel should be aware

14 that that label does not apply, as they never invited us for such an

15 opinion. And last Wednesday my colleague, Ms. Patricia Sellers, in the --

16 in this court confirmed that non-contentious documents are only the

17 documents agreed upon by parties. So from that time, that should be even

18 more specific.

19 Thank you.

20 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. I'm sure that when you read this

21 document, Mr. Wubben, you realise that you will have ample time to deal

22 with it and put any questions that you might wish to in the course of the

23 three/four days that the witness will be with us here.

24 So for the time being we will admit this document, give it to a

25 number, D1013. And all it states is that way back in 2003, before the

1 case started, these two persons signed below gave the -- Madam Vidovic a

2 folio -- the personal file of Hamed Salihovic for the purpose of

3 graphological examination.

4 MR. JONES: Thank you, Your Honour.

5 Q. Professor Bilic, have you seen this receipt before?

6 A. Yes, I have.

7 Q. And did that -- was that the receipt which was attached to the

8 Hamed Salihovic non-contentious documents?

9 A. Yes, along with the entire file which was in a folder.

10 Q. And now, if we turn to the non-contentious documents relating to

11 Naser Oric, we see on page 4 you have N1, N2, N3, N4, and then N5 to N12.

12 Now, leave N5 to N12 aside because that has an ERN number. Can you tell

13 us how you came into possession of N1 to N4?

14 A. I came into possession of this sample from Mrs. Vasvija Vidovic,

15 who had prepared the documents beforehand. I received them personally

16 from her. These are official documents, and they are listed under N1, N2,

17 N3, whereas documents N5 to N12 are samples taken from one year and one

18 point in time. Documents N1, N2, and N3 are official documents which are

19 certified and which were created in 1969, 1999 -- 1996 --

20 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction.

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] And 2001 and later and before, and

22 these are all allegedly signed by Naser Oric. I took these documents with

23 a reserve, but I did not attach the same weight to these as I did to N1,

24 N2, and N3.

25 MR. JONES:

1 Q. Sorry, just for clarification, which documents did you attach

2 reserve to?

3 If that's not clear, I can put the question again. You said you

4 had some reservations about some of these documents. Which ones, again

5 for the record, which --

6 A. Yes, I had reservations in respect of the documents N5 to N12, and

7 this was why somebody made a cardinal mistake, and that was that somebody

8 asked that these suspect, contentious document be signed and dated at the

9 top right corner. It was asked of Mr. Naser Oric to sign and place a date

10 on these contentious documents. He could have been and should have been

11 asked to do so on any other document but the document which is contested.

12 The contentious documents which are subject of examination must not be

13 written upon in -- by way of additions or signatures or dates. I have

14 very rich experience in examining these documents, and I took them with a

15 certain reservation. How can we examine a document in the light of

16 whether it contains Naser Oric's signature or not if he has been asked to

17 put his signature on the same document? It has some consequences, adverse

18 consequences, for the subsequent examination.

19 Q. Okay. Well, leaving N5 to N12 aside, N1, N2, N3, N4, did that

20 provide a sample sufficient for analysis?

21 JUDGE AGIUS: Which -- yes, Mr. Wubben.

22 MR. WUBBEN: Yes. I hate to interrupt, but a matter for

23 clarification, my learned friends asked questions about the alleged

24 non-contentious documents, and the expert -- he skipped number N4; he

25 didn't clarify about N4. And he addressed also the year of 2001, and it

1 appears not to be on the group as mentioned in page 4 of the report --

2 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. And perhaps 1996 and -- you are right

3 there. Let's take them --

4 MR. JONES: I think the last error got corrected, 1996, 1969.

5 Certainly I can ask about --

6 JUDGE AGIUS: I think you better do, actually. And I'm not quite

7 clear in my mind whether N4 has been included or not yet included in any

8 of these two groups that the witness has referred to.

9 MR. JONES: Yes.

10 Q. Witness Bilic, what would you say about N4?

11 A. N4 is -- was only examined for handwriting. It does not contain

12 signatures. And since we were supposed to examine the signatures, I only

13 included it here because I had received it from Madam Vasvija Vidovic. I

14 described it as such, as containing non-contentious block capital

15 handwriting. I could not use it for the purposes of examining his

16 signature because it did not contain one. I merely elicit it here as one

17 of the documents I had received.

18 Q. Right. Let's turn to N1, N2, and N3, and I'll clarify the

19 dates --

20 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Jones, just a moment.

21 JUDGE ESER: These documents 5 to 12, you told us that there is a

22 signature put on by Naser Oric. Could you describe where this signature

23 has been put -- on which -- if there have been two sides of the document

24 and which side?

25 JUDGE AGIUS: I think these are available, no?

1 MR. JONES: Yes, it's P100.

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

3 JUDGE AGIUS: These we had seen in the beginning of the trial and

4 we can see them again. If we have indication of the exhibit number, we

5 can see them now. They were --

6 MR. JONES: If it helps, I can put an example on the ELMO.

7 JUDGE AGIUS: If you have at least one that we can see on the

8 ELMO, it will sure -- I'm sure satisfy Judge Eser. I do remember vividly

9 how they were, but it would help me.

10 MR. JONES: Yes, I'm putting N5, so that should -- should help

11 clarify matters in that -- yes. The Professor is pointing to a signature

12 at the top and the date is 23 May, 2001. That's the non-contentious

13 signature. And then I think we will see that there are two ERN numbers on

14 this document signifying -- yes. The one was the document's original ERN

15 and then it was re-assigned a new ERN once it had been signed. And then

16 there's another signature further down the document there, and that would

17 be -- that would be a contentious signature, in our submission, and I

18 can't recall whether it's a Q -- I think it's Q16, I believe -- no. I'm

19 not sure. It's a Q as well.

20 JUDGE ESER: Could we see the whole page?

21 JUDGE AGIUS: Yeah. We are not seeing the whole page. We have to

22 go further up. There you see. That's the one.

23 JUDGE ESER: Yeah. Okay.

24 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. I thank you so much, Mr. Jones.

25 I recognise again Mr. Wubben. Yes, please, Mr. Wubben.

1 MR. WUBBEN: For your information, this is K1. So the whole range

2 is K1 up to K8.

3 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. We have actually already, one of my staff has

4 actually grouped them together with particular reference to how they are

5 referred to in one --

6 MR. JONES: Yes, I think it's --

7 JUDGE AGIUS: One recorded --

8 MR. JONES: It's also Q4 and --

9 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, but I don't have it with me at the moment. I

10 have to look it up in one of these documents. Well, actually I do have

11 it.

12 MR. JONES: Right.

13 Q. A question for you, Professor Bilic. Just looking at N1, N2, and

14 N3, was that a sufficient sample for analysis?

15 A. Relatively speaking, it was sufficient. Why? Because documents

16 of official character had to be collected where a person was not writing

17 on request but spontaneously. Like, for instance, receipt on -- of money

18 or goods or a payment slip. Any document which a person must have signed

19 personally. This goes to show, the character of a document, goes to show

20 that the person had to sign it personally in order to make it valid, to

21 make use of it. We can see which documents these were; they are contained

22 here, whereas taking -- a deliberate taking of samples by asking a person

23 to write on a contested document is not the way to be done. Therefore,

24 examination can be carried out only if in addition to such on-request

25 handwriting one also has pieces of spontaneous writing. This could have

1 been solved by obtaining documents of such character which date from a

2 certain, continuous period of time. One has to pay attention to the fact

3 that these signatures come from a period of time, that they -- they were

4 placed over a certain period of time. And this is the sort of

5 documentation that we had here. I hope I've made myself clear.

6 Q. Yes. Perhaps one final clarification, and perhaps you can answer

7 this shortly. In other words, if you had in regard to Naser Oric only N.5

8 to N.12, which you've spoken about, the signatures dated 23 May 2001,

9 would that have been sufficient for your analysis?

10 A. Quite sufficient, because they were of sufficient quantity and

11 quality. Had I needed any more copies, I would have sought them --

12 Q. I think there was an interpretation error. I asked about N.5

13 to N.12. And I understand that was misinterpreted.

14 If you had only N.5 to N.12, the ones from 23 May 2001, would that

15 have been satisfactory?

16 A. They sufficed for my preliminary assessment, but they were far

17 from sufficient for any conclusive findings on my part.

18 Q. Okay. Thank you. Now, I want to move on swiftly, first of all,

19 to your mandate, as set out in this report. And you don't need to

20 describe it. It's simply to confirm that your mandate is there on page 6.

21 The questions which you were addressing in your report, namely whether

22 contentious documents were written by Hamed Salihovic and whether other

23 documents were signed by Naser Oric and whether they were signed -- other

24 documents signed by Hamdija Fejzic. Correct? It's page 6 of the report.

25 A. If it could be focussed in.

1 Q. Yes. Well, that's in English. Do you have the Bosnian version

2 there? And can you confirm that was your mandate, as set out on that

3 page?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. And did you analyse these documents listed there in accordance

6 with the -- with that mandate and using the methods that you've described

7 to us today?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. And in doing that did you also take into account the books and

10 articles set out in the bibliography to your report at page 37 and the

11 methods and techniques set out in those works?

12 A. Yes. That was only part of it.

13 Q. Right. We're now going to turn to the documents themselves,

14 they're the contentious documents. And for clarity's sake, the

15 contentious documents for Hamed Salihovic are marked with an S hyphen and

16 then a number. For Naser Oric they are S.1, S.2, et cetera. And the

17 Fejzic contentious documents are the same as the Oric, S.1, S.2, S.3. And

18 so we'll start with S-1. And for the record, that's 02075703, P46. And

19 of course we're looking at the originals which are held by the

20 Prosecution, rather than the Court copies.

21 While that's being handed up, could you clarify one thing for us,

22 Professor Bilic. Where you say in your report that a document is

23 available in the original, does that imply simply that it's not a

24 photocopy and it doesn't imply anything about authenticity? Would that be

25 correct?

1 A. Yes, yes. That's correct.

2 MR. JONES: So for the record, the document is S-1, 02075703, and

3 it's exhibit P46.

4 Q. You've described this document's characteristics in detail on

5 pages 8 to 9 of your report. Now, we can see this document is typed with

6 handwritten additions. Right?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Now, first of all, is this document written on both sides or only

9 on one side?

10 A. This document was written only on one side --

11 Q. Thank you.

12 A. -- of the sheet.

13 Q. And -- and does that paper on which that is written, does it have

14 any specific characteristics?

15 A. Yes, it does.

16 Q. And what is that?

17 A. This is the standard A4-sized paper which carries a water-mark in

18 the shape of a silhouette of a sailing-boat. It is a production

19 water-mark which indicates the quality of paper, which is the type of

20 paper used for typewriting. It is also, at the same time, an identifying

21 protection mark. It can be seen. If His Honours wish to see that, they

22 may, and this will prove to be of particular significance later on. It

23 can be seen in transmitted light, just as is the case with bank notes, in

24 fact.

25 Q. Yes.

1 MR. JONES: I don't know if Your Honours wish to see, to hold the

2 document to the light.

3 JUDGE AGIUS: I think it would be better, Mr. Jones. I was going

4 to suggest that to my two colleagues.

5 MR. JONES: Yes. If the usher can kindly pass that up to the

6 Chamber. Thank you.

7 [Trial Chamber confers]

8 MR. JONES:

9 Q. Perhaps, Professor, can you briefly explain and based on your

10 experience what such water-marks are used for.

11 A. Primarily to protect paper production. Also for safety purposes,

12 the guarantee of quality for the person buying it; it also shows the time

13 when the paper was produced, indicates the quality of paper, its purpose.

14 It also tells us whether the paper is generally available or not; in this

15 case it cannot be purchased by everyone. We can also consult the files in

16 the factory where it was produced, which will tell us when the paper was

17 produced because year in, year out the factory changes the water-mark,

18 whether it's positioning only, whether it's going to be positioned across

19 the middle of the paper, more to the right, or to the left. This is

20 within the producer's discretion. Therefore, this particular feature of a

21 water-mark is quite significant for determining the provenance of the

22 paper, the date when the paper was produced, and what the paper was to be

23 used for.

24 Q. Right. Now, moving on to some other features of this document,

25 and I imagine you'll need it -- need it back. I don't know if the witness

1 has it -- has it, yes, okay. Now, we can see that there is typewritten

2 words at the top of this document, to the left and to the right. What can

3 you say about what's written at the top, whether they have the same

4 spacing and alignment as the main body of the text.

5 A. May I answer?

6 Q. Yes.

7 A. Take a look at the document, please. I would wish everyone to

8 look at the document. The content, starting from the name and surname and

9 further down, was typewritten first. The top left part was typed

10 subsequently, as was the -- this other text block. Therefore, the text as

11 a whole was not continuously written by a typewriter which carried Latin

12 script. The keyboard used was the one to be found in that part of Bosnia

13 and Herzegovina. This means that these two blocks of text were

14 subsequently typewritten; this can be easily established.

15 Although this was not part of my task, I will show you by placing

16 this ruler across. This court-martial, the top sentence, was supposed to

17 be aligned with the text that runs to its left, which isn't the case. The

18 same applies to the left margin. When we look at it, we can see that the

19 text, the top part of the text is not aligned with the bottom part. You

20 see the discrepancy there, which shows that the paper was re-inserted into

21 the typewriter at a later stage, and only then was it typed. These are

22 typewritten traces which immediately point to this conclusion.

23 Therefore, generally speaking, this document was not continuously

24 written, as would have been the case with this type of document; rather,

25 there was subsequent typing on this same document.

1 You can put the next question to me.

2 Q. All right. Thank you. Well, I'll turn now to the signature and

3 the stamp. As we can all see, the signature is, at least partly, covered

4 by the stamp. Is it usual to cover the name and signature with a stamp,

5 in your experience?

6 A. This is unusual. The signatory would complain about the fact that

7 his or her signature was covered. Normally the stamp is placed more to

8 the left without disturbing the integrity of the signature. Therefore,

9 this phenomenon is quite unusual because 90 per cent after Hamed

10 Salihovic's signatures were covered by a dark trace of round seal.

11 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction --

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] 50 per cent of them were covered by

13 a stamp. What is your next question, please?

14 MR. JONES:

15 Q. Well, I'd ask you to look at the -- what is written in hand in the

16 top, he date and protocol numbers, and at the bottom.

17 Now, firstly, the bottom -- the top we have the date and the

18 protocol number. And then at the bottom can you confirm the words "umro"

19 6/7.02.1993, died -- 6/7.02.1993, and then in graveyard

20 beneath, "ugroblje."

21 You don't need to confirm that, but do you draw any conclusions as

22 to who wrote those remarks?

23 A. Yes, that is quite evident.

24 Q. Yes. And did you draw any conclusions as to who was the writer of

25 those -- those remarks.

1 A. These short, handwritten notes read as follows. I will read them

2 in the Bosnians. "Died between the 6th and the 7th," 02 means

3 February, "1993." This handwriting belongs to one person, whereas the

4 short handwritten note below which says "in the cemetery" is an addition

5 written by a different writer in a different ball-point pen. Therefore,

6 we have two writers there writing two different handwritten notes.

7 Q. Did you designate those writers X1 and X2 in your report?

8 A. Yes, yes. I designated them because normally when in document

9 examination we come across writers whose identities we do not know and

10 whose handwriting appears, we mark them as X1, X2, or -- et cetera. "X"

11 standing for the unknown in mathematics.

12 Q. And in your analysis, does multiple writers on one document

13 indicate anything?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. And what does it indicate?

16 A. It shows that the document was not continuously written, written

17 at a stretch, and that we have handwritten notes on a document which

18 should not have them, at least based on the contents and the form of the

19 document in question. This shows that there was subsequent writing, that

20 there were additions made to the document on the typewriter, and it speaks

21 about the document as such.

22 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Wubben.

23 MR. WUBBEN: Your Honour, I object to asking questions to what

24 extent additional handwritings at the same time then or later on indeed

25 belong and are linked to the contents and should contrast or not. I feel

1 that this person is not an expert on the contents of these kind of

2 handwritings at the time in -- related to the written short notes

3 subsequent. He can -- I mean below the document. He can, of course, give

4 his expertise about the writing itself, meaning is it another writer,

5 different writer, or whatsoever. But the linkage with the content and

6 whether or not it should be placed upon there, that should not be part of

7 his expertise.

8 JUDGE AGIUS: I don't even think I need Mr. Jones to reply that.

9 But the question wasn't as you put it, Mr. Wubben. A question -- there

10 are two questions asked by Mr. Jones. The first one was: "And in your

11 analysis, does multiple writers on one document indicate anything?"

12 And he said: "Yes."

13 And the second sequential question was: "And what does it

14 indicate?"

15 He's basically being asked to explain in his profession when he

16 sees a document with multiple signatures or multiple writing, writing by

17 different persons possibly on the same document, whether that, to him as

18 an expert, means anything or is indicative of anything. I mean, he has

19 given an answer. Now, whether that's correct or not is another matter.

20 You can address it in the cross-examination. But he didn't ask --

21 Mr. Jones did not ask him the question that you are objecting to.

22 MR. WUBBEN: Yes, Your Honour. I understand and I accept. I

23 apologise.

24 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay.

25 So let's continue.

1 Any -- Professor Bilic, I know that this is tiring. Any time that

2 you want a rest, please tell us.

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I am still able to

4 concentrate, and I will tell you if I need a break.

5 JUDGE AGIUS: So perhaps you can indicate -- or, I don't know, I

6 leave it. Because actually I was going to ask him whether on the basis --

7 on the face of this document, now it is that he has mentioned X1 and X2,

8 whether he can tell us whether, according to him, what X1 supposedly wrote

9 on this document, what X2 supposedly wrote on this document, and whether

10 X1 or X2 is, according to him, any of the signatories on this document. I

11 think that's what you need to clear at this point.

12 MR. JONES: Yes.

13 Q. Professor Bilic, if you could answer the question asked by His

14 Honour what was written by X1, what was written by X2, and whether the

15 signature is that of Hamed Salihovic, in your opinion.

16 I see you're holding a pencil, and, obviously, as you're well

17 aware, if you could keep that far away from the original.

18 JUDGE AGIUS: Give him a pointer, please.

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The text written in dark ball-point

20 pen died between the 6th and 7th February, 1993, has been labelled as

21 written by X1, whereas the handwritten addition in "graveyard" has been

22 labelled as having been written by X2.

23 Your Honours asked whether this was Hamed Salihovic's signature.

24 We cannot compare this handwriting with the signature because signatures

25 can only be compared to other signatures and handwriting to handwriting.

1 We shall demonstrate this on another sample.

2 I wish to point out something else. We have a correction made in

3 handwriting in the text itself, which is also indicative, and also the

4 inscription of a number, 8. This most probably comes from writer X1. I

5 cannot be absolutely sure, but this is probable. There are not enough

6 numbers to be sure, but I believe it probably originates from writer X1.

7 Signatures, however, can be compared only to other signatures and

8 numbers to other numbers. That is the methodology that is used. I think

9 I've been clear enough, Your Honours.

10 MR. JONES:

11 Q. Yes. Thank you. Two questions remain, though. Firstly, and this

12 may be to anticipate. Are X1 and X2, either of them Hamed Salihovic or

13 did you conclude that neither of them were Hamed Salihovic?

14 JUDGE AGIUS: I think he has a problem with reception --

15 MR. JONES: Yeah.

16 Q. Yes. Firstly, are X1 or X2, or either of them Hamed Salihovic, in

17 your opinion?

18 A. I don't know how you mean can X1 or X2 be Hamed Salihovic? Can

19 you be more precise?

20 JUDGE AGIUS: I think I will be more precise than you, Mr. Jones,

21 if he thinks that you haven't been.

22 You have examined, I take it, handwriting which has been

23 attributed to Salihovic, not just on this document but also on other

24 documents. Handwriting -- not signatures. Now, this is handwriting. On

25 the basis of your examination of handwriting by Hamed Salihovic, do you

1 think it is probable, highly probable, possible, not possible at all, or

2 impossible, that X1 or X2 could be the handwriting of Hamed Salihovic on

3 this document?

4 Am I reflecting your question better, Mr. --

5 MR. JONES: Yes, precisely, thank you, Your Honour.

6 JUDGE AGIUS: -- Jones?

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, Your Honour has

8 observed rightly that I had to look at everything in order to reach such a

9 conclusion. What I can conclude is the following: Neither of those two

10 writers have the same handwriting ability as the late Hamed Salihovic.

11 The handwriting and style are completely different. This is highly

12 probable. However, we had samples that were quite old, over 20 years --

13 written over 20 years before, but the handwriting taken from the faculty

14 was very valuable.

15 Q. Yes. I'd be grateful if you'd put the pencil, really, to one

16 side --

17 A. Excuse me --

18 Q. -- just to avoid any possible risk.

19 Yes, please continue.

20 JUDGE AGIUS: I think it's clear enough. I mean, I think you can

21 move to the next question, in my mind, unless my two colleagues would like

22 to hear it -- yes, but I recognise Mr. Wubben.

23 [Trial Chamber confers]

24 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Wubben.

25 MR. WUBBEN: Yes, Your Honour, I want to make a submission. I

1 object to additional testifying in addition to the report that is

2 completely new. When I find out on page 22 of the report and on page 2 of

3 the report that this particular document has not been subject and

4 indicated as bearing handwritten text, but rather a contentious signature

5 of Hamed Salihovic, I take it that this has not been analysed, as such,

6 with a purpose to compare handwriting and signature with Hamed Salihovic.

7 So the first question should be, as put by Defence counsel: Did

8 you do an analysis in that aspect, and referring to the report, and if

9 there has not been such an analysis, that means that he, as a layman, will

10 give a view -- such a statement. That is not the purpose of 94 bis and

11 the safe-guards meant to be -- thank you.

12 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Jones.

13 MR. JONES: Your Honour, again, I think many of these points are

14 for cross-examination. If one turns to the conclusions, in any event,

15 page 36. Conclusions, page 36, 3, the original documents with contentious

16 handwritten short notes, words, date, numbers, marked as S-1, and then he

17 goes on, "were most probably not written in hand by HS."

18 So clearly the expert has looked at S-1, he's looked at the

19 handwritten notes, not simply the signature, and he's reached a conclusion

20 on that basis. And that's evident from the conclusions. If Mr. Wubben

21 wants to put it to this witness that he --

22 JUDGE AGIUS: Again, stop, both of you. Leave this until later.

23 I think you shouldn't -- I'm not censoring either of you, mind you, but I

24 don't think we should discuss it any further in the presence of the

25 witness who is a professional in his own right.

1 Yes, Judge Eser.

2 JUDGE ESER: Professor Bilic, just to make it clear to me, am I

3 correct in concluding that you say on this document we have writings from

4 three different persons and whether the signature is that of Salihovic is

5 not clear to you? Is that your answer?

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's clear. That's what's stated

7 in the conclusions. We have the participation of two more handwritten

8 writers. However, establishing whether it is Hamed Salihovic's signature

9 is one matter, whereas the handwritten participation of Hamed Salihovic is

10 another. The handwriting of Hamed Salihovic has to compare with these

11 handwritten notes, and then the signature has to be considered later on.

12 And I have represented this. Mr. Wubben says I didn't, but I did. Please

13 take a look at this. Take a look. I did do it. It has been stated quite

14 evidently. Hamed Salihovic did not write this because X1 is the writer.

15 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. I think we can move to the next

16 question, Mr. Jones.

17 MR. JONES: Yes. And we do have quite a few documents to get

18 through --

19 Q. And it's no criticism of you, Professor Bilic, but we will try to

20 deal with these with short questions, from me certainly, and if your

21 answers can also be brief.

22 On this document, and I want to be absolutely clear about this,

23 did you analyse the signature by reference to the non-contentious

24 signatures of Hamed Salihovic and what did you conclude?

25 A. Which document?

1 Q. The document we saw, S --

2 A. Which documents and which signatures?

3 Q. S-1. The signature there. Did you analyse that signature by

4 reference to non-contentious signatures of Hamed Salihovic and what were

5 your conclusions?

6 A. Yes, I did. I made a comparison, the conclusions, as stated very

7 precisely. We'll find them right away.

8 I wish to ask Their Honours -- the documents are listed on

9 page 26, 27, and 28 with ERN numbers. I did compare the signatures. I

10 carried out an analysis. I established all the characteristics and

11 features relevant for identifying the signatures. The similarities and

12 dissimilarities. The dissimilarities were predominant. So the conclusion

13 was that most probably in documents S-1, S-2, S-3 and S-4, S-5, S-6, S-7,

14 S-9A, S-10, S-11, S-12, and S-12A, most probably they were not written by

15 Hamed Salihovic. There is a wide range of uncontested handwriting by

16 Hamed Salihovic, who is deceased. Nothing else could be found, so that

17 was the conclusion that could be reached.

18 Q. Yes. Thank you. And in fact, it may be helpful to take your

19 conclusions together since you've mentioned them all. It's page 36,

20 paragraph 2. I'm reading from the English. The original documents with

21 contentious signatures of HS marked as S-1, S-2, S-3, S-4, S-5, S-6, S-7,

22 S-8, S-9A, S-10, S-11, S-12, and S-12A most probably were not signed in

23 hand by Hamed Salihovic. Can you confirm that conclusion?

24 A. Yes. Yes, absolutely.

25 Q. Why do you use the most probably -- you say "most probably,"

1 rather than were not signed.

2 Q. I drew a distinction previously and said that an uncontested

3 sample by Hamed Salihovic came into existence between 1971 and 1974.

4 There were no other samples of his handwriting. Because of this, I have

5 to say "most probably." That's why I say most probably it was not signed

6 by him. Had we had his handwriting in the period in question when the

7 contested documents were created, had we had an uncontested sample from

8 that period, then I would not have had to say "most probably."

9 Q. Thank you. Now, if the witness could keep that document for a

10 moment but be shown S-9A. I'm sorry, I'm leaping slightly forward, but

11 it's ERN 01239581 and it's P10.

12 Now, Professor, I'm going to ask you to briefly look at this

13 document. I'm not going to ask for all your conclusions on it.

14 It's S-9A. And also ask you, of course, to be very careful with the

15 document because it's already suffered some damage.

16 If you turn to the name written number 6 you see Kostadin Popovic,

17 and then to the left there are handwritten marks "umro" 6/7.02. Now,

18 first of all, did you analyse that handwriting, and then secondly, and to

19 the left, "umro," and which writer would you conclude had written that?

20 A. I analysed the handwriting at item 6 of this document, which is

21 badly damaged. The brief note "died between the 6th and the 7th.02,"

22 referring to the month February, is writer X1. X1. And, as we have

23 already stated, this was not Hamed Salihovic.

24 Q. All right. Thank you. Now, if that document could just be kept

25 to one side, but I'll show it to you in relation to the subsequent

1 documents. We can now move on to S-2. And it's S-2. It's 02075704 to

2 02075705. It's not an exhibit.

3 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Wubben.

4 MR. WUBBEN: For the record, Your Honour, this S-9A is not P10 but

5 P19.

6 JUDGE AGIUS: The one we have seen?

7 MR. WUBBEN: Yes.

8 MR. JONES: Thank you.

9 JUDGE AGIUS: Do you agree?

10 MR. JONES: I agree, yes.

11 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Mr. Wubben, for pointing that important

12 matter out to us. I didn't realise. Thank you.

13 MR. JONES:

14 Q. Now, this next document S-2, you described the features of this

15 document on pages 9 to 10 of your report. We can see this document is

16 handwritten. And can you confirm whether this is written - again, just on

17 one side - as opposed to paper which has been already used for some other

18 purpose?

19 A. This document is written on standard typewriting paper, A4 in

20 size. It's written -- the writing covers one side and half of the reserve

21 side of the paper. We can see this on the monitor.

22 Q. And did you find any water-mark on this document, on this page?

23 A. Yes, a water-mark was found on this document also. I'm -- I

24 always like to look again, just to be on the safe side, but I have noted

25 this in my report, that there is a water-mark.

1 [Trial Chamber confers]

2 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. It's because procedurally I see a

3 problem arising here which we would rather solve now rather than later.

4 This, I understand what we are seeing -- the document that we are seeing

5 on the ELMO is not yet an exhibit in the -- in this case, yet it is being

6 made use of now during the testimony of the expert and I have no doubt

7 that it was also available to him while he was preparing his report

8 because it's a document that the Prosecution has made available to you in

9 its original. Correct?

10 MR. JONES: Correct.

11 JUDGE AGIUS: So I will not ask you whether you want to tender

12 this document because it's not yours. So --

13 MR. JONES: I wasn't proposing to.

14 JUDGE AGIUS: No, you can't. I mean, even if you were proposing

15 to, you can't, because it's not your document. So basically it's a

16 Prosecution document, an original document which belongs to the

17 Prosecution.

18 The thing is this: I don't know what the Prosecution's intentions

19 are, but if we at a later stage in our deliberations we need to study the

20 results of this witness, of this expert in relation to this document, we

21 need to have this document. If we need to also put the question to our

22 expert, not that I think we -- that we would, we would still require this

23 document.

24 So what -- are you going to tender this document into evidence

25 once it has been made use by this expert witness or not?

1 MR. WUBBEN: Please, Your Honour, bear me a moment.

2 JUDGE AGIUS: At least a commitment that you would make it

3 available - let's put it like that - if we need it. Because I can't

4 force -- I mean, let's put it like this. I can actually -- if we wanted

5 to, we can force you to tender it into evidence. But dealing with an

6 original document, I would rather stop one step short of that.

7 MR. WUBBEN: One moment, Your Honour.

8 JUDGE AGIUS: If you need time, we can have a break now and we'll

9 come to this after the break.

10 MR. WUBBEN: Much obliged, Your Honour.

11 JUDGE AGIUS: I think so.

12 So we'll have a short break now because we need to clear this up.

13 Because I don't want a situation to obtain whereby these documents come

14 and go and disappear, and then you have had them available, he has had

15 them available, you have had them available all the time as well, except

16 when they were in their hands, and we have never had them available.

17 Thank you. 30 minutes.

18 --- Recess taken at 5.38 p.m.

19 --- On resuming at 6.13 p.m.

20 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Wubben. Do you wait a bit until the

21 accused --

22 MR. WUBBEN: I will.

23 JUDGE AGIUS: -- enters the courtroom and is seated.

24 In the meantime, we've two new motions from the Defence that I

25 suppose you are aware of, Mr. Wubben.

1 MR. WUBBEN: Yes, Your Honour.

2 JUDGE AGIUS: And we'll come to you on these later on tomorrow,

3 but our invitation is that you start working on them straight away.

4 Where is the accused? Yeah, here he comes.

5 Yes, Mr. Wubben.

6 MR. WUBBEN: Yes, Your Honour. It's about the request to make a

7 submission regarding tendering into evidence of the document dealt with by

8 the expert before the break. It is our opinion that this should be

9 tendered by the Defence, as the Defence led evidence in that respect. If

10 the Defence is not willing to do so, it should be forced to do so because

11 it should take -- the Defence should take the position whether or not to

12 lead evidence upon such a document.

13 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. That's your submission.

14 The Defence has heard what you've said and they are free to do as

15 they wish.

16 You will come back to us later -- either now or later as you wish.

17 MR. JONES: Later. Thank you.

18 JUDGE AGIUS: Next thing is this, Mr. Jones, it's my personal

19 feeling that we are moving very slowly.

20 MR. JONES: Certainly my intention was to move things -- move the

21 review on a bit. The initial stage of this witness's testimony was

22 lengthier due to background matters.

23 JUDGE AGIUS: I know that.

24 MR. JONES: I think for the following documents I can speed up,

25 particularly since the expert confirmed his conclusions, so I won't go

1 through those for each document.

2 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. But you got my message, in other words?

3 MR. JONES: Absolutely, Your Honour. Yes, thank you.

4 Q. Now, Professor Bilic, in the interests of moving on swiftly, I'm

5 going to -- I'll just ask you a few questions about each document so you

6 don't have to repeat all of your conclusions and observations in your

7 report.

8 On S-2 which we were looking at, you mentioned a water-mark. Can

9 you just tell us what sort of a water-mark it is, first of all.

10 A. It's a water production -- it's a paper production water-mark.

11 The text says: "Extra post" and there's a silhouette of a chamois on a

12 rock. This type of paper was produced in Slovenia, in the former

13 Yugoslavia. This is high-quality paper and is rarely to be found

14 nowadays. This can be seen. The date of production of the paper could be

15 supplied by the producer. However, this type of paper was among the best

16 paper to be found at the time in the former Yugoslavia.

17 Q. Thank you.

18 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's see it. You can also show it to the -- sorry,

19 let's see it, and in the meantime you can proceed with your

20 questions.

21 MR. JONES: Yes.

22 Q. Professor Bilic, is it also correct that you noted some

23 corrections to the text and that those corrections correspond to those on

24 S-1, in other words, the 7th of May, 1992?

25 A. I will answer the question once I have the document back.

1 JUDGE AGIUS: Show it to Mr. Wubben, please. What you need to

2 look at is the centre of the page, please, and give it to the witness

3 immediately after.

4 MR. JONES:

5 Q. Yes. I was just directing your attention to the correction which

6 you note in your report. 7.05.199 -- and then the "2" appears to be a

7 correction, and I was asking whether that was the same correction which

8 you noted in relation to S-1, and I can show you S-1 again if need be, but

9 if you recall then that will save us time.

10 A. Yes. There was a correction in that document as well, that was

11 number 7, in ball-point pen. Here 7th of May, 1993, was continuously

12 written at the time when the entire text was written, and subsequently it

13 was altered into 1992 in red-pencil. And this is quite telling.

14 I can show it to you. The first continuously written version had

15 the date of the 7th of May, 1993, and only later in red pen there was --

16 it was altered into 1993. Therefore, this alteration is of a subsequent,

17 later date. Interestingly enough, it was done quite ineptly in

18 red-pencil. It is quite obvious.

19 Q. Right. Thank you. And where you find the same correction to two

20 different documents, what, if anything, does that indicate to you in your

21 professional opinion?

22 A. I have already answered this question. It is quite telling -- or

23 rather, any subsequent correction, alteration, or addition is indicative

24 of the intention to alter the paper or to add something to it, something

25 that was not originally there.

1 Q. Yes, but --

2 A. I don't think there's any further need for me to expound on this.

3 Q. No. In fact, my question was related to there being the same

4 change on two different documents, whether that meant that the two

5 documents are linked. Perhaps it's a matter of common sense, in any

6 event, and I'll keep that as a submission.

7 I want to move on to your conclusions for this document. You've

8 confirmed your inclusions already for all the S- documents, that the

9 signature is most probably not Hamed Salihovic. And in terms of

10 handwriting, do you confirm your conclusion as set out on page 36.

11 MR. JONES: And, Your Honour, in the interests of saving time, I

12 might lead on the conclusions.

13 JUDGE AGIUS: If there is no objection, you will certainly be

14 allowed to do that.

15 MR. WUBBEN: As long as it's linked to the page itself and not --

16 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.

17 MR. JONES: Yes, thank you.

18 Q. So is your conclusion that the handwriting on this document is

19 most probably not that of Hamed Salihovic?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. And then in terms of the -- the writing which is on the document,

22 page 36, paragraph 4, this is one of the documents I believe - although I

23 might be -- I might be wrong.

24 If you could perhaps just tell us whose handwriting is on this

25 document? Is it X1? Is it X2? Or is it someone else?

1 A. X1. X1. That's the writer.

2 Q. All right. One final matter. You see -- we see where the

3 signature appears on the document and then there's a gap between the end

4 of the text and the signature lines, is that in your professional opinion

5 indicative of anything?

6 A. Yes, it is. A writer who writes a certain text ends it the way it

7 should be ended. Here there's quite a large spacing between the last

8 sentence and the signature block. This may have been space left empty in

9 order for something to be added at a later date. What we have here is

10 then handwriting by an author and then another piece of handwriting below

11 it and then the signature. The document is not in any real order, really,

12 because at the end of a text one never leaves such large spacing. Here

13 the intention might have been to add something. What we have here is the

14 sentence and the large blank space before another piece of handwriting,

15 which in itself is quite suspicious.

16 Q. Right. Thank you. I've finished with S-2. And -- sorry, I was

17 going to move on to S-3, 02075701. And again this is not an exhibit and

18 so I imagine the situation will be as before with regard to the position

19 of the Prosecution and our position to be confirmed?

20 JUDGE AGIUS: I would imagine so.

21 MR. JONES: Now, again I'm going to lead some of this evidence in

22 the interests of moving on.

23 Q. This is dealt with at page 10 of your report, and you say that

24 this is a carbon-copy of S-1. But if you could answer this question: Do

25 the signature and the stamp and the handwritten markings, are they the

1 same as in S-1 or are they different?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Yes. My question is whether the location of the words on this

4 document, "umro" 06/07.02.1993 is in the same place as S-1, and if you

5 don't recall we can show you S-1.

6 I think that would be of use in any event. If the witness could

7 please be shown --

8 A. It is approximately at the same place.

9 Q. Yes. We'll have a look, actually.

10 A. I will show it to you. Here it is.

11 Q. Professor Bilic, if you can look at the document which is being

12 handed to you, which is S-3. I want you to compare three things: Firstly

13 where "umro" is written; secondly, where the signature is located on the

14 signature line; and where the stamp is related in -- in relation to the

15 signature on those two documents, and if it's the same or different.

16 A. The spatial location of the signatures and the stamp impressions

17 on these two documents are different, and you can see that by placing one

18 document next to the other.

19 Q. Right. Now, is this document 2, and we can leave S-1 aside. Does

20 this have a water-mark or not?

21 A. Yes, it does, a sailing-boat, identical to the other paper that we

22 had, a silhouette of a sailing-boat.

23 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment. I think he picked -- there are two

24 documents on the ELMO. One that he's picked now or that Madam Usher has

25 picked now is the document that we saw some time back as S-1. But I think

1 what you are asking of the witness is about S-3 --

2 MR. JONES: Yes, I'll make that clear.

3 Q. If you can look -- yes, you have the right document now. This is

4 S-3 --

5 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, that's what we want to know, whether it has a

6 water-mark.

7 MR. JONES: Yes.

8 Q. Does that document, Professor Bilic --

9 JUDGE AGIUS: Pick it up, please, and check whether it has a

10 water-mark or not.

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, this document also has

12 a water-mark.

13 JUDGE AGIUS: And is it the same water-mark as on the other

14 document?

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

16 MR. JONES: Right.

17 Q. And this document, too, is written only on one side?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. And your conclusions -- yes. Thank you.

20 And your conclusions are on page 36, paragraphs 2 and 3 of your

21 report. The signature most probably not that of Hamed Salihovic. The

22 handwritten notes most probably not Hamed Salihovic?

23 A. That's correct, yes. Yes. He did not sign it in his own hand.

24 Q. Right. Thank you. I've finished with that document.

25 So we can move on to S-4, 02075710, which is P48. And this

1 document is dealt with at pages 10 to 11 of your report. And again I'm

2 going to ask you when you received the document to confirm or to tell us

3 whether it's written on one side or both sides and whether there's any

4 water-mark.

5 A. This document is typewritten only on one side of paper. This

6 document carries the same water-mark as the previous one, that of a

7 silhouette of a sailing-boat. And you can see the water-mark. You can

8 perhaps pass the document to Their Honours, if necessary, to see, when

9 lifted up to the light, the silhouette of a sailing-boat.

10 MR. JONES: Yes. We can do that if Your Honours please.

11 JUDGE AGIUS: Do you want -- do you wish to see the water-mark,

12 Mr. Wubben?

13 MR. WUBBEN: Yes, Your Honour.

14 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Please show it to Mr. Wubben.

15 MR. JONES:

16 Q. And in the meantime, I'm going to ask you just to summarise your

17 conclusions on this document -- sorry, to confirm your conclusions,

18 namely, again, the signature most probably not that of Hamed Salihovic and

19 the handwritten notes of X1 and X2.

20 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's have a look at it, please.

21 MR. JONES: Thank you, Your Honour.

22 Q. Now, Professor Bilic, you'll recall -- actually, my apologies. I

23 think -- I'm not sure if you've yet confirmed your conclusions with regard

24 to this document, that the signature is most probably not Hamed Salihovic

25 and that the handwriting is by X1 and X2.

1 A. Yes, that's correct, and I stand by that conclusion.

2 Q. Now, in a previous document we looked at, I think it was S-1, you

3 looked with your ruler at the alignment of the -- of what's written at the

4 top. With this document, can you say anything about the alignment of

5 what's written on the right and what's written on the left and what

6 conclusions you would draw.

7 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, I think the ...

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Do you mean the right-hand margin or

9 the left-hand margin specifically? If you can be specific, please.

10 MR. JONES: Yes.

11 Q. Whether the words [B/C/S spoken], whether that aligns on what's on

12 the left, [B/C/S spoken]?

13 A. To the commission for mediation with the enemy side.

14 Q. Yes. Is there alignment?

15 A. No, there is no alignment, and one can see it clearly that one was

16 written before the other.

17 Court-martial should have been aligned with the text at the left.

18 One can see that.

19 Let us look at the text within enemy side. Again, they are not in

20 alignment, that's to say, the part reading "Srebrenica" and the date with

21 the part saying with the enemy's side.

22 We can of course examine it more closely with a microscope, but

23 this is the -- a rough way of examining it.

24 Q. And I want to ask you another question about this document. If we

25 go down to the signature line and we see what's written just above the

1 signature, I'll read in Bosnian, it says [B/C/S spoken]. Is that correct

2 grammatically?

3 A. That's not within my scope of analysis, but it is grammatically

4 incorrect. There's an error in the case, instead of [B/C/S spoken] there

5 should have been [B/C/S spoken]. There must -- this must have been a

6 typewriting error.

7 Q. Do you -- generally in terms of the grammar of documents, is that

8 something you look at as part of your analysis, whether it's well-written

9 or not?

10 A. Serious examination of a document does require such analysis as

11 well. The signature is not contained in a blank piece of paper. It has

12 its context and there is the form in which it was written. There are

13 punctuation rules that need to be kept in mind and they have to be

14 examined. You have to look at the style of writing, if there are many

15 errors, and so on and so forth, if there are many alterations, subsequent

16 additions in pencil. These are aspects that can be noted here, for

17 instance -- noticed here, for instance.

18 Q. Thank you. Yes. Unfortunately, we can't go into all these areas

19 in depth.

20 But would you be able to tell us in your review of these allegedly

21 Hamed Salihovic documents what you noted, if anything, about the grammar,

22 the grammatical form in which they're written.

23 A. Do you mean Hamed Salihovic's documents?

24 Q. Yes.

25 A. The person had a handwriting which is quite worked out without --

1 runs smoothly without grammatical errors and a person that used its

2 handwriting to express their thoughts.

3 Q. Yes. And in terms of the content of the contentious documents,

4 what's the grammar like generally in the sample you looked at?

5 A. Disastrous. Did you mean the one in the contentious documents?

6 Q. Yes.

7 A. It was disastrous. It -- this was produced by a person who is

8 obviously ignorant in terms of these rules. There are many corrections

9 and alterations done to it. I don't believe anybody in their right mind

10 would actually agree to affix their signature to a document which abounds

11 in as many errors as these ones do.

12 Q. All right.

13 Thank you. I'm not sure if you still have S-9A with you, but if

14 not, if the witness could be shown S-9A. And it's again simply to make a

15 comparison and on that document I'm going to ask you to look at number 8,

16 Milovanovic, Milisav. We can see that on the ELMO. And if you see,

17 again, what's written to the left of the 8, "umro 12/13.08" and tell us

18 whether that's also what's written on S-4 and whether or not it's the same

19 writer, number 8, yes?

20 A. Yes. This was written by X2.

21 Q. Right. Thank you. Now, I've finished with S-4. S-9A can just

22 maybe be kept at the next table because I will come back to it regularly,

23 but we can move on to -- my apologies. Yes. S-5 -- no.

24 MR. JONES: If Your Honours would give me a moment.

25 Yes, sorry, S-5. And that's 02075711. It's P49. And it's dealt

1 with at page 11 of your report, Professor Bilic.

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Yes.

3 MR. JONES:

4 Q. And again, this is a handwritten document. Who did you conclude

5 wrote this document?

6 A. I've indicated this several times. That's writer X1, who is quite

7 recurrent in all these contentious documents. I've said so in my

8 conclusions as well.

9 Q. Yes, and --

10 A. So X1 is the author of all the pieces of handwriting contained

11 here.

12 Q. Right. And your conclusion is that this signature is most

13 probably not Hamed Salihovic and that the handwriting is most probably not

14 Hamed Salihovic. Correct?

15 A. Yes, absolutely.

16 Q. All right. We can move on to S-6, which is 02075713. It's P101.

17 And this is dealt with at pages 11 to 12 of your report. And when you see

18 that I'll ask you to tell us immediately if there's a water-mark first of

19 all.

20 A. I have to take a look first. Yes. This document also has a

21 continuous water-mark which runs across its middle. It's a silhouette of

22 a sailing-boat again. The document was written only on one side; the

23 other side is blank.

24 Q. Okay. And I'm not going to ask you for each of these documents to

25 demonstrate any misalignments in the header, simply to ask whether you

1 confirm what you said about other documents, that what's written at the

2 top was added later, the top right-hand side.

3 A. Yes. Yes. We'll establish this at once. It has to be aligned

4 with "court-martial," but it's not. Once something has been written on a

5 piece of paper on a typewriter, one can never re-insert the document at

6 the same line. It's quite impossible. I'm sure all of you must have used

7 typewriters at a certain point, and you must have noted that it's quite

8 impossible -- or rather, it's impossible to re-insert the document and

9 type in alignment with what had been written earlier on. I'm referring to

10 the right-hand portion, the entire text here.

11 We can also check this vertically. The margin should be aligned,

12 but it is not, which means that this was typed in subsequently. Just as

13 this top part does not match with the other, it was not continuously

14 written, this does not align with the rest, which means that the text was

15 written on three occasions. Whether there was a specific purpose to that,

16 that's something I cannot judge.

17 Q. Thank you. And then for your conclusions, again you've

18 concluded X1 wrote the notes at the top, I believe, and that X2

19 wrote "umro 19.03.1993" at the bottom and that the signature is most

20 probably not that of Hamed Salihovic. Correct?

21 A. Yes, that's correct. That was my conclusion. This handwriting

22 belongs to writer X2, this -- which says "died," whereas X1 probably wrote

23 number 7, 31.01. Most probably. That is all.

24 Q. And in fact, looking at the protocol number, we have 7/93 of

25 31 January 1993. You may recall that P1 had a protocol number 8/93, 30th

1 January 1993. And I'm just wondering if you had any observations as to

2 whether it's logical that a document later in time as a lower protocol

3 number?

4 A. That's nonsense. That's not the way things can be. That would be

5 dating something earlier than when it was written. That would be one of

6 the elements of forgery. It is quite illogical to have a subsequent -- a

7 later date with a smaller number and vice versa. If you know which

8 document that is, that would be interesting to point at. That is to say a

9 document having a smaller protocol number and a -- and a later date.

10 Q. Yes. Well, that -- in the interests of time, we don't need to

11 look at the document. I take your answer regarding protocol numbers.

12 MR. JONES: Your Honours, are we sitting until 7.00 or 6.45?

13 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's put it like this: We sit not later than 7.00

14 and until whatever time you think it is convenient, because this is a

15 difficult session. It's difficult for everyone. So whatever -- whenever

16 time you --

17 MR. JONES: Yes, I think I'll finish with this document and then

18 pause for the day. Thank you.

19 Q. Yes. Well, then, finally if we could again just make the

20 comparison with S-9A, and on that document which -- it should be there, I

21 want you to look at number 2 and it's this same name "Branko Sekulic," and

22 tell us what, if anything, you can say about what's written to the left of

23 Branko Sekulic at number 2, "umro 19.03.93," in terms of content and in

24 terms of the writer.

25 A. The text next to number 2, where it says Sekulic, Miodrag [phoen]

1 Branko on the left-hand side, there is a handwritten note: "Died on the

2 19th of March, 1993," and this was written by X2, who frequently appears

3 in these documents. If you look at the handwriting above that, in the

4 line above, you will see that it's the same writer, whom we have

5 marked X2.

6 That's what I can say in response to your question.

7 Q. And in fact -- you did also ask -- I asked a matter about protocol

8 numbers and you asked to be shown a document. If you look at this

9 document, S-9A, we have protocol number 108/93, which is dated the 3rd of

10 February, 1993. The protocol number on the document you have S-6 is 7/93,

11 31.01/93. That would mean that more than a hundred documents would have

12 been issued in three days, according to protocol procedure?

13 A. This does not correspond.

14 Q. And is there, in fact, in the former Yugoslavia was there a

15 practice of by which protocol numbers would be kept in order?

16 A. Yes. And that's how it is now, too. Everywhere, not just in the

17 former Yugoslavia. The protocol numbers are always in sequence. These

18 documents are kept and entered in a protocol by year, and the numbers rise

19 in sequence, but in this case this is not so.

20 Am I clear enough? Is there anything else I need to add?

21 Q. No. Thank you very much. And that would be sufficient for

22 today. I thank you. We'll resume tomorrow.

23 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, Professor Bilic. We'll continue with

24 you tomorrow morning. We'll be starting at 10.00, not at 9.00, because I

25 have another case at 8.30. And we'll -- as soon as we finish, we will

1 start this case.

2 Thank you.

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

4 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 6.50 p.m.,

5 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 24th day of

6 January, 2006, at 10.00 a.m.

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25