1 Tuesday, 28 February 2006

2 [Open session]

3 --- Upon commencing at 1.07 p.m.

4 [The accused entered court]

5 JUDGE AGIUS: Good afternoon, Madam Registrar. Could you call the

6 case, please.

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

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

9 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, Madam.

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

11 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the accused, please.

12 JUDGE AGIUS: It is on.

13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Your Honours, ladies

14 and gentlemen. I can follow the proceedings in my own language.

15 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, and good afternoon to you as well. You

16 may sit down.

17 Appearances for the Prosecution.

18 MR. WUBBEN: Good afternoon, Your Honours. My name is Jan Wubben,

19 lead counsel for the Prosecution. Together with me is also

20 Ms. Patricia Sellers, Mr. Gramsci Di Fazio, our case manager, and our

21 consulting expert, Doctorandus Fagel.

22 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, Mr. Wubben, good afternoon to you and

23 your team, as well as to you, Mr. Fagel.

24 Appearances for Naser Oric.

25 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Your Honours. Good

1 afternoon to my learned friends from the Office of the Prosecutor and to

2 all those present. My name is Vasvija Vidovic, and together with

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

4 assistant, Ms. Jasmina Cosic, and our CaseMap manager, Geoff Roberts, and

5 our expert, Mr. Esad Bilic.

6 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. I thank you, Madam Vidovic, and good

7 afternoon to you and your team, and to you, Mr. Bilic, as well.

8 So, I take it that there are some preliminaries before we bring in

9 the witness? Yes, Mr. Wubben.

10 MR. WUBBEN: Yes, Your Honour. I request that Ms. Patricia

11 Sellers to make a short submission.

12 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Ms. Sellers.

13 MS. SELLERS: Good afternoon, Your Honours. The Prosecution would

14 like to bring to the Trial Chamber's attention and also to our learned

15 friends that there are several documents that we wanted to tender into

16 evidence. One is the translation -- the new translation of P84, the

17 corrected version. The others Prosecution Exhibit formerly numbered 598.

18 What the Prosecution, with Your Honour's leave, would suggest is that we

19 have a --

20 JUDGE AGIUS: 598 or 589?

21 MS. SELLERS: I believe it's 598, Your Honours.

22 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. All right.

23 MS. SELLERS: What we would suggest is if it is possible is hold a

24 session in court, an administrative session, where these issues could be

25 dealt with, and I understand there will be some corrections, for example,

1 to transcripts and a couple of other documents we want to make sure are

2 clearly placed on the record and any corrections that should be put there

3 in are also noted.

4 JUDGE AGIUS: What's your position on this, Ms. Vidovic? I would

5 take it that in the case of the Defence, too, there are some clean-up

6 measures that need to be undertaken still with regards to some documents?

7 So if you both agree that there should be an ad hoc sitting or part of a

8 sitting dedicated to this clean-up process. We are prepared for it and we

9 will try to accommodate you, of course. Yes.

10 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, by all means, Your Honour.

11 That would be helpful. However, as far as 558 [as interpreted] is

12 concerned, I believe that this is the document that I objected to it being

13 replaced by another. I, however, have to double-check this and I will do

14 this in the meantime. If this is indeed 598, that is, then -- we still

15 have to check of course. We'll see whether that's the document and it

16 would be appropriate to do that at one such session. Yes, thank you.

17 JUDGE AGIUS: Without pre-empting any issues of course, because

18 these are pleasures still to come, we'll just agree here and now that as

19 soon as we finish with this expert witness, we will then proceed with this

20 cleaning process. I would suggest that in the meantime you have during

21 breaks or whenever mutual consultations, at least to indicate the one to

22 the other which documents you are meaning to refer to and - during this

23 cleaning-up process. All right. And then we can proceed -- and also keep

24 us informed. Thank you.

25 Anything else? Yes, I recognise Ms. Sellers.

1 MS. SELLERS: Yes, Your Honour. Thank you. I just want to say

2 that we will be in the touch with the Defence. There's also a 92 bis

3 statement and we'll try to make the process not only as open as possibly

4 but also that it runs smoothly in that we what to make sure that the

5 documents are in their correct form. And just -- I see that Madam Vidovic

6 on the record mentioned 558, and I just do want to confirm that it's 598

7 so that when she's looking at this document she'll know which one we're

8 referring to.

9 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you. Any further matters?

10 MR. JONES: Yes, Your Honour.

11 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Jones.

12 MR. JONES: There's one arising in relation to this witness, which

13 is that we've had disclosed to us two reports already prepared by this

14 expert for the Office of the Prosecutor. We were informed, I think ti was

15 today or yesterday that apparently there's another one, but in any event

16 we were informed just before the hearing that that was placed in our

17 locker at 1.45 p.m. I have to say, we're not delighted about it being

18 placed in our locker at that stage because, in fact, first of all, we

19 don't have it physically with us now. We were all up here in court at

20 that point. And secondly, of course, we haven't had the opportunity to

21 analyse it, to see it with our expert, and there might be matters arising

22 from that report which, obviously, we want to put to the witness. So it's

23 just to register that, and we will look at the report during the break,

24 and if there's a great deal arising from that, then we may need to have a

25 bit more time. Thank you, Your Honour.

1 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Mr. Jones. This is what you were talking

2 about and you were even luckier than we were because we only received it

3 on our way into the courtroom. So I don't know what is involved, but it

4 seems to be something related to the French ministry of the interior and

5 analysis -- but I don't know because, of course, we haven't had time to

6 look at it, just as you haven't. But -- yes, Mr. Wubben.

7 MR. WUBBEN: Yes, Your Honour. Just to support you on the

8 information we disclosed earlier this month two reports, examination

9 reports, established by Dr. Kerzan in the case of Brdjanin and Jevtic.

10 Now, this information disclosed is an additional report and additional

11 finding regarding this Jevtic.

12 JUDGE AGIUS: By whom?

13 MR. WUBBEN: The additional report is by a French lab, they did a

14 similar examination as Dr. Kerzan did, and also a witness had been heard

15 and, of course, the sample.

16 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Okay. That -- because I actually

17 queried my mind: How does the ministry of the interior of the French

18 Republic come into this matter? Although, of course, later on it shows

19 that it is in relation to a request by an officer of the Prosecutor --

20 Office of the Prosecutor here.

21 So let's bring -- any further matters, preliminary matters? No.

22 Mr. Jones, Ms. Vidovic, are you happy with the seating

23 arrangement?

24 MR. JONES: Yes, yes, Your Honour.

25 JUDGE AGIUS: All right.

1 MR. JONES: We plan to consult, rather, during the break with our

2 expert, rather than during the hearing, which might be a bit disruptive.

3 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Okay. Thank you.

4 So let's bring the witness in, please.

5 [The witness entered court]

6 JUDGE AGIUS: So good afternoon to you, Dr. Kerzan, and welcome

7 once more to this Tribunal. We will soon with commencing with your expert

8 testimony. In the meantime, I would kindly ask you to make the solemn -

9 what's this? - make the solemn declaration pursuant to our Rules that in

10 the course of your testimony you will be speaking the truth, the whole

11 truth, and nothing but the truth. The text is, I see, in your hands

12 already. Could you please read out that -- read it out loud and that you

13 will be under -- your undertaking with us.

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

15 whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

16 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. I thank you. Please make yourself

17 comfortable. Dr. Kerzan, there will be a few questions that we put to you

18 already when you came here earlier on. We have to go through the same

19 process again for the record. This is a proper sitting in which you are

20 giving testimony, and therefore I will be proceeding with some questions

21 which are a repetition of the ones that I put to you earlier on.

22 WITNESS: DORIJAN KERZAN

23 Questioned by the Court:

24 JUDGE AGIUS: Doctor, could you, for the record, kindly state your

25 full name and your date and place of birth.

1 A. My name is Dorijan Kerzan. I was born on 16th of June, 1965, in

2 Ljubljana, Slovenia.

3 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. I thank you. And for the record, also, the

4 way we are going to proceed is as follows. We will go -- first we will

5 put all the questions that we have thought of to the expert witness, then

6 Prosecution and the Defence will be given the opportunity to ask -- to put

7 questions to the -- to Dr. Kerzan within the scope of his report and

8 testimony, and that also means that it will be also within the scope of

9 his testimony in response to the questions that we would have put to him

10 in the meantime. There is something wrong? It's okay. I was -- I had --

11 yeah, it's not working properly.

12 [Trial Chamber confers]

13 JUDGE AGIUS: Anyway, let's proceed not to waste time.

14 Dr. Kerzan, I just want to confirm with you the following, namely,

15 that you were, way back, appointed by this Tribunal as a signature expert

16 in this case and that you have carried out this task and filed your report

17 on the 20th of February of this year. Is that correct?

18 A. Yeah, that is correct.

19 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Now, could the usher kindly hand to the

20 witness his report.

21 And could you, Mr. Kerzan, confirm to us that this is indeed your

22 report, after which we will introduce it in the records of this case.

23 A. Yes, this is my report; it bears my signature or my stamp

24 impression on every page.

25 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Thank you.

1 So that will become Court TC, Trial Chamber document --

2 THE REGISTRAR: It will become Exhibit C7, Your Honour.

3 JUDGE AGIUS: C7. Okay. And the translation into English will

4 become C7.E or E, C7E, and the -- into Serbo-Croat, if it goes into the

5 record as well, as C7B?

6 You have received the translation into Serbo-Croat in time to

7 enable you to consult with your client, I suppose?

8 MR. JONES: Yes, thank you. Apparently there's been a revised

9 translation.

10 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, yes.

11 MR. JONES: I'm working from the old one, since I marked that

12 one-up.

13 JUDGE AGIUS: I've gone through the revised translation, and there

14 are a few things but ...

15 A. Your Honour, about this translation, I would like to comment them

16 because there are some slight misunderstandings. So I would like to

17 comment on them later on.

18 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, okay, we will please have the opportunity to do

19 so as we go along.

20 You have also brought back with you, I take it, the documents that

21 we handed to you when you last came here?

22 A. Yes, of course.

23 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. And you have received -- taken

24 re-possession of them, Madam Registrar?

25 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honour.

1 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.

2 Dr. Kerzan, before we proceed any further, can you -- are you in a

3 position to confirm to us that you carried out your assignment, your task,

4 faithfully, honestly, and to the best of your ability?

5 A. Yes, I have.

6 JUDGE AGIUS: What is your present occupation, Dr. Kerzan?

7 A. I work as a forensic handwriting and document examiner, and I'm

8 the head of the unit for forensic document and handwriting analysis at the

9 forensic laboratory for -- of police of Republic of Slovenia.

10 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you for that information.

11 Now, you've reached a high position in your country in that

12 laboratory?

13 A. That would be the highest position in the field.

14 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Can you briefly describe to us the learning-

15 and experience-gaining process that you had to go through in your field of

16 expertise before you reached that position.

17 A. Well, I was taken to the job in 1992, in 1st of July, 1992, as a

18 beginner, of course. And right from the start, I started in-house

19 training. In-house training is basically -- was basically at that time

20 working cases under the -- under the supervision of -- of more experienced

21 experts. In my case, that was Ms. Andrea Stegnar who actually taught me

22 what I know now. I worked under supervision for four years. We do not

23 have any -- at that time we did not have any exam at the end of it; it was

24 just a mutual decision of head of handwriting and document unit, which was

25 Ms. Stegnar, and the head of the lab that the expert is capable of doing

1 expertise by himself. So we didn't have at that time any programme. We

2 are currently working on a programme of training. That's how it started.

3 In 1997, I became the head of department when Ms. Stegnar retired,

4 and I'm the head of department since then.

5 JUDGE AGIUS: Right. What does your role as head of department of

6 director, as you put it before, imply by way of responsibilities?

7 A. I'm not a director.

8 JUDGE AGIUS: Yeah.

9 A. As head of department, I have to do all the paperwork, of course.

10 I do the heaviest and most problematic cases, and of course I train

11 people. I did train all of the -- all of the expert working in the -- in

12 our lab currently. Currently I have two experts that work by themselves.

13 One expert who is at the end of the training process, and one expert-to-be

14 who started the training process approximately one year ago.

15 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. I thank you. Can you roughly but to the best

16 of your knowledge, as accurately as possible, give us an indication as to

17 how many signature examinations and analyses you have conducted in your

18 career. Would we be talking of tens? Hundreds? Thousands?

19 A. Well, as an expert witness appointed by the court, which is the

20 way I am appointed here, I did have the last five years around 70 expert

21 theses; I wrote them and did the examination. As an employee of the

22 police lab, I have -- now it's difficult to say, from 50 to 100 cases per

23 year. So if we multiply that by 14, I would say, to be on the safe side,

24 700, and for which more than a half for signatures or probably even more

25 so. It's rough to estimate. But together with handwritings it was far --

1 with handwriting, which does not really differ that much from the

2 signature examination, it's well over 1.000 cases in 14 years.

3 JUDGE AGIUS: Right. So do I take it therefore that you're not

4 only or exclusively a signature examination or analysis expert but also a

5 handwriting and document expert?

6 A. Yes.

7 JUDGE AGIUS: So your training throughout the years included

8 gaining expertise in examining handwriting, apart from signatures and also

9 documents?

10 A. Yes, I got this training and I don't do cases in documents anymore

11 because I don't have time. But I did a lot of it, and I'm also a currency

12 expert.

13 JUDGE AGIUS: A currency expert, yeah, you explained that. One

14 related question just for our need to know this. Is it necessary for a

15 signature expert to be also an expert in handwriting document examination?

16 A. Not in document examination, but certainly in handwriting

17 examination. Handwriting examination and signature examination are two --

18 are actually one field, there's just small, small differences in the

19 approach to the material. It is not necessary to be a document

20 examination, but it can help sometimes.

21 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, okay. Thank you. Dr. Kerzan, are you familiar

22 with the Serbo-Croat language and with the Cyrillic script?

23 A. Yes, I am familiar.

24 JUDGE AGIUS: To what extent, have you studied Serbo-Croat in --

25 A. Well, I -- of course, basically, in former Yugoslavia all the

1 non-Serbo-Croat citizens were basically bilingual. We had to learn

2 Serbo-Croat in school, and my original university degree is in Slovene

3 language, and within that we had also exams in Serbo-Croat or Serbian and

4 Croat at that time already. So I can read and -- I can read. I wouldn't

5 like to write.

6 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay, thank you. Dr. Kerzan, do you belong to any

7 professional associations in your country or outside or abroad?

8 A. In Slovenia we have no professional association of the kind, but

9 I'm a member of European Network of Forensic Handwriting Examiners. And

10 nothing else, I think.

11 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Have you published in the area of forensic

12 sciences, in particular on signature examination?

13 A. Yes. I wrote kind of a -- within a broad textbook of

14 criminalistics and forensics, I wrote the introduction of handwriting and

15 signature analysis, and I wrote some other, at least two I think, papers

16 on signature and handwriting analysis.

17 JUDGE AGIUS: Have you --

18 A. -- among other things, too.

19 JUDGE AGIUS: Have you ever given lectures on the subject?

20 A. Oh, yes, I have.

21 JUDGE AGIUS: In your country or outside your country?

22 A. I give lectures each year for the new employees of criminal

23 police. I did -- I did a lecture once in USA which was not very

24 important, but not on a -- on the -- not always. I mean, I don't do that

25 regularly, on a regular basis.

1 JUDGE AGIUS: Do you participate in conferences in Slovenia or

2 outside of Slovenia on --

3 A. Again -- excuse me.

4 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, go ahead.

5 A. In Slovenia, there was no conferences yet about that, except

6 probably in-house conferences. But I -- of course, I do. I go to the

7 ENFHEX meetings, I was in the secret service meeting, and other meetings

8 of handwriting. I can't attend all of them, I can't really attend all of

9 them but I go to most of them, most of the --

10 JUDGE AGIUS: And while we are on the same subject, have you ever

11 been involved in examining or analysing signatures together with other

12 experts from outside Slovenia, not from Slovenia in other words?

13 A. Well, I think there were cases when in Slovenian -- Slovenian

14 courts wanted outside experts, but to my knowledge I'm not really familiar

15 with that. Because we don't follow the court procedure after we file --

16 JUDGE AGIUS: What I mean to say -- I don't think you got my

17 question or my question was not clear enough. Did you ever carry out

18 signature analysis or examination together with other -- other experts not

19 from your country?

20 A. No, I did not.

21 JUDGE AGIUS: No, okay. Now, have you personally, that is, as

22 Dr. Kerzan, ever carried out forensic examination for any organ of this

23 Tribunal until now or for any accused in front -- before this Tribunal or

24 Defence team?

25 A. Well, I have to clarify here. My lab was -- was called on twice

1 to do examination of signatures and handwriting. I did that. I don't

2 know in which -- for which part of this Tribunal, whether Prosecution,

3 Defence, or anything. I -- once I did -- I did analysis with the help of

4 my co-workers in the case when I had to exam the signatures of Dragan

5 Jevtic. I have no idea who that is. I was told by the Tribunal

6 representative it's -- has something to do with the case of

7 General Krstic, I think, as far as I remember. It was quite some years

8 ago.

9 Then I was approached by another -- I mean, our lab was

10 approached, to be precise, by Tribunal to -- just to clarify some

11 documents in the case of Mr. Brdjanin, I believe. There are only three

12 documents, and we were not able to produce any opinion at that time. And

13 I was once called by phone from Den Haag to see a document to give some

14 kind of linguistic opinion whether this is in Serbo-Croat or not, whether

15 this resembles more like Albanian Serbo-Croat. I don't know what case

16 that was. I just -- it was just a short talk with a person from this

17 Tribunal when I clarify my -- I don't think that the text was written

18 by -- I think it should be written by Serb, but there were so many funny

19 words in between, that I assumed it is possible that it's an Albanian who

20 wrote that. That was three cases --

21 JUDGE AGIUS: So in these three cases, you maintain that, in other

22 words, you were not approached in your own personal capacity as an expert,

23 but in your function as the head of the unit within the --

24 A. Yes --

25 JUDGE AGIUS: -- forensic laboratory of the police.

1 A. Except for the last case, for all the others the lab was

2 approached. I was just assigned by the head of the lab.

3 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Let's come to methodology. From a general

4 approach, we'll come to more detailed matters later on, talking of

5 methodology, could you briefly explain to us what is involved in the

6 forensic examination and analysis of signatures.

7 A. Well, there are a couple of principles in signature and

8 handwriting examination; they do not differ a lot. Excuse me. And

9 basically that means -- it states that no two persons are writing

10 completely alike, that nobody, when trying to imitate somebody else, is

11 writing or -- a signature can do that as fluently as the person whose

12 handwriting that actually is, and so on. All these are explained in my

13 opinion. The methodology itself, the method we in our lab use is, I

14 think, basically in - and I do use myself - is basically the same as

15 everywhere in the world.

16 What we do is in the first place -- in the first place I have to

17 explain something. We try to find the traits of the handwriting or

18 signature that differs from ideal -- ideal script. The ideal script we

19 call which is the script which is taught in school so -- with the

20 children. Children very early start to develop their own typical

21 signature. I am currently working on a children's handwriting -- some

22 kind of analysis. I hope to publish that later. And year -- at 10 years

23 of age, the handwriting is very much already individual. So what we

24 actually do is to see how in the way this handwriting, the handwriting of

25 the person, changes from this ideal script.

1 There are two types of -- at least two types of typical traits we

2 are looking for. One are so-called general traits, which are the traits

3 of -- the look of the handwriting or signature, the slant, the -- how big

4 the -- how big the signature or handwriting is, the connections, is it

5 connected or not, is it cursive or not.

6 And the next step is to examine the detail -- the detail -- the

7 detailed traits. For the first one, we usually do not use any particular

8 equipment, except for magnifier, perhaps. For the later, for the detail,

9 which means that -- details are usually the directions of strokes, the way

10 the strokes are interconnected, there's many of that.

11 There's the moment we need a microscope. I personally use a

12 microscope with a magnification of 30 to 50 times, and here we can see how

13 certain -- a certain sign was executed, because when you don't -- when you

14 look at signs, at the signatures, at handwritings without a magnification,

15 you can see the shape of it, while looking at it with a microscope, you

16 see the way it is executed. It is very easy to explain that. You can

17 have a loop written clockwise or counterclockwise, and you can -- very

18 often you cannot see that with the naked eye, you have to -- you need the

19 magnification, but you can see the slant of it, you can see whether it's

20 open or not, whether it connects, whether it's -- there's many of those

21 things that can be observed.

22 You can also by -- what we also do is check any unusual traits in

23 the handwriting or signature. Basically that means we are trying to find

24 the -- any stops in the lines which are unusual, if there's stop -- stop

25 of the writing line on the spot where it shouldn't really be. Of course,

1 we also -- I mean, I also -- I also check the -- this -- you can also see

2 the speed of writing by that, whether the lines are smooth, are -- whether

3 the lines are dynamic, meaning that when person executes his handwriting

4 or signature, the pressure of the writing utensil changes from stroke to

5 stroke, and you can see that by microscope and sometimes by naked eye, but

6 usually we have microscope and so on. So it's -- it's basically that

7 these are the ways I do the -- the examination. Of course, within each --

8 within each examination you have to adapt to the material available, and

9 then you -- I have to check what -- what can actually be examined in each

10 particular case. Would that be in short?

11 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, I thank you so much. Are there different

12 methodologies in this area of expertise that you are aware of worldwide?

13 A. For forensic handwriting and signature examination, I don't think

14 so. There may be a difference in approach, but basic math that is, I

15 believe, the same all over. There is not a big difference.

16 JUDGE AGIUS: Is there a difference in relation to the conclusions

17 or scale of conclusions that one should aspire to arrive at or should

18 strive to arrive at in analysing or in comparing signatures?

19 A. Yes, there are differences. There are differences --

20 JUDGE AGIUS: Can you explain these differences to us, please.

21 A. Well, I don't have the different scales of conclusion here, but I

22 remember that, for example, the United States secret service with whom I

23 have -- who trained me a little bit years ago have nine -- nine points of

24 a scale of conclusion, while FBI had, I think, seven. But basically

25 that's only between certainty and probability to the inconclusive. So

1 what they do is, at a certain point they are certain, then there's very

2 probable, probable, inconclusive, and then the other way around for not --

3 for nonidentification of the handwriting or signature. What I use is the

4 slightly modified scale of conclusion used by ENFHEX, this European

5 Network and Forensic Handwriting examination -- Experts, are used in their

6 collaborative exercises. I find it very good and I use then my personal,

7 final opinion I put at the end of it. So the differences are, basically,

8 that in some countries experts write their statement with full certainty,

9 which means that they state: Somebody is the writer; while I believe -- I

10 believe you can't say that. We can say that all the evidence within the

11 handwriting or signature point to the fact that certain person is a

12 writer. Therefore, I do -- in my opinion he is. But I try not to say

13 there is something that is hundred per cent because there is nothing

14 hundred per cent.

15 JUDGE AGIUS: Two short questions that arise out of the answer

16 that you have just given. You mentioned in relation to the European

17 Network collaborative exercises. Can you explain what these are and

18 whether you have participated -- ever participated in any of them.

19 A. Those are -- the ENFHEX collaborative exercise, yearly

20 collaborative exercise prepared by one of the European labs which is the

21 member of the ENFHEX -- or, actually ENFSI, European Network of Forensic

22 Science Institutes. The last one by Germans and before that by Swedes,

23 and, yes, our lab participated in that and I do personally participate. I

24 always did the collaborative exercise that arrived to our lab. It was six

25 collaborative exercises, I think, up until now, five, six.

1 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Thank you. And you also stated in your

2 previous answer that your methodology as regards scales is a slight

3 modification of the European Network scale. Where does the slight

4 modification --

5 A. Yes, I will explain that to you. On page --

6 JUDGE AGIUS: Dr. Kerzan, I see that you have a cold or you're not

7 feeling a hundred per cent fit.

8 A. No, I'm fine.

9 JUDGE AGIUS: But if at any time you need to have a short break or

10 if you need any medication, aspirin, or anything, please do not hesitate

11 to stop us.

12 A. Well, on the page 5 and 6 it says "analysis result scale," it's

13 scales and conclusion. And I actually did use the -- everything from the

14 ENFHEX scale until the last bolded sentence, which is in my opinion the

15 question and so on. This is what -- this is the modification. The other

16 parts are the same, except that the originals, it doesn't say assumption

17 but it says proposition, and it doesn't say [indiscernible] but it is

18 limitations and so on, but is it just a matter of words.

19 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. So basically if we can conclude on this part,

20 as your membership in the European -- of the European Network and

21 participation in these collaborative exercises really impact on the

22 methodology that you use in the signature examination and analysis?

23 A. Not the methodology itself I would say, but with a lot of

24 participation in these meetings, with a lot of discussion with other

25 experts, I think I became far more cautious than ten years ago, for

1 example. So, yes, it did affect me a lot because these are very

2 high-level meetings and with a very interesting --

3 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. But is there such a thing as the "ENFHEX

4 methodology"? Would you agree with me that there is such a thing or not?

5 A. I cannot answer really that. There are documents that help --

6 that help -- help expert, but, no, it's not a methodology. There are just

7 papers of -- I don't know how they call it -- call them. It's -- actually

8 out at this point say these are documents that Mr. Fagel there knows and

9 he would say what kind of documents that are. These are documents that

10 are published by the ENFHEX to help -- particularly in quality assurance

11 and accreditation processes. It's not methodology, but it helps -- it

12 helps a person to -- to be more precise and to give you some kind of

13 guidance with the methodology.

14 JUDGE AGIUS: So if I were to ask you then to briefly describe

15 what is the contribution of ENFHEX to the science, to the forensic science

16 of handwriting and signature examination and analysis, how would you

17 describe it?

18 A. It's -- well, ENFHEX organised, first of all, the conferences

19 which are extremely important in our view. The last conference was in

20 Budapest in November and it was extremely exciting. The other thing is

21 ENFHEX in a certain way helps to unify approaches to handwriting and

22 signature examination.

23 JUDGE AGIUS: Unify or standardise?

24 A. Standardise, yeah, standardise. That would be what ENFHEX

25 actually does.

1 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. So now we come to the task that you carried

2 out for us.

3 Before so doing, Madam Registrar, I think I need to have readily

4 available to be shown to the witness all the documents that he made use of

5 during his analysis and which he has now returned. And also we would need

6 to have a look at them as we go along on the ELMO. All right. Okay. His

7 report is in his possession or do you have it? I think they all need to

8 be readily at hand, plus the English translation of the report.

9 A. I have my versions of report, which are on the same side.

10 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay.

11 A. So I don't really need that.

12 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay.

13 THE WITNESS: Thank you.

14 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

15 JUDGE AGIUS: I'm going to ask you very soon, Dr. Kerzan, how you

16 proceeded that to conduct the examination and analysis of the questioned

17 signature, but before doing so I want to put my mind and that of my

18 colleague and of everyone here at rest that in the course of your

19 examination and analysis, you did -- you carried out same entirely by

20 non-destructive and non-damaging means.

21 A. Yes, of course.

22 JUDGE AGIUS: In other words, I want your confirmation, a

23 confirmation from you, that you have done nothing to the documents, both

24 the questioned and the reference ones, which could affect their physical

25 integrity.

1 A. No, I did not.

2 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Thank you. Now, could you just explain to us

3 exactly the procedure that you followed in carrying out and completing the

4 exercise that we tasked you with.

5 A. Well, first at the beginning I, of course, see the -- I did -- I

6 checked the reference material. I had eight referenced signatures at the

7 top of the eight pages, which are described in the opinion and paper, and

8 I assessed those signatures one by one. That means that I examined them

9 and I took notes on every characteristics I notice on each particular,

10 particular signature.

11 [Trial Chamber confers]

12 A. I did that for each particular reference signature separately.

13 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Just by way of example, let's -- let's have

14 reference signature with ERN 02066400 please put on the ELMO. No, no,

15 it's the signature on the top left-hand corner.

16 Yes -- yes, this is the signature from this document that you used

17 as a reference signature?

18 A. Yes, this was the first one I examined, yes.

19 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. And would you like to see the other

20 reference documents to confirm to us --

21 A. I have copies here for myself, so I don't think it's necessary.

22 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. We could put on the ELMO the very first

23 diagram, image 1, from his report. Page 18 in -- yeah, that's the one.

24 And if it is in colour, it's much better. Okay.

25 Now, could you explain to us -- for example, this is one -- this

1 is the reference signature that I just referred to a minute ago. I see on

2 this image here the signature with a number of arrows pointing at various

3 parts of that signature. That is your work, I take it. Could you explain

4 to us in -- briefly and in simple terms exactly what those arrows signify

5 in relation to your analysis.

6 A. Yes, of course. Well, arrows -- there are two arrows number 1.

7 There's ones here and ones here.

8 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.

9 A. You can see that yourself. Those are pointing to the two vertical

10 lines which represent part of letter N in Cyrillic. Letter N in Cyrillic

11 resembles or is similar to the letter H in Latin handwriting. The left

12 one also shows the ending of the loop of sign O, which -- which

13 penetrate -- the ending penetrates deeply into the loop and it actually

14 goes over the line -- the left line of N. The number 2 arrows which are

15 again two, are showing that the transcending line which connects the

16 beginning and the end of the -- of the signature. Basically it's the

17 vertical -- it's the horizontal line of N or H, N in Cyrillic, which

18 connects also with the -- with the soft C as it is called, the C, at the

19 end of the signature. Then number 3, arrow number 3, is showing the -- a

20 little bit heart-like feature, feature at the beginning and ending as well

21 of the O. We can see the beginning which is roughly over here exactly,

22 and then it goes -- the loop is long -- it's quite big and long.

23 Then number 4 is missing here, while number 4 later on is showing

24 the -- the -- just a second --

25 JUDGE AGIUS: I see an arrow with a number 4 here.

1 A. Oh, yeah, it is. Sorry. I saw it. The number 4 shows the

2 initial stroke of letter P, the beginning. It's not very well seen. It's

3 far better seen with a microscope, but it -- actually P starts with an

4 initial stroke and then it breaks down or it turns down sharply to the

5 lowest point of P which is pointed by the arrow number 5. Line which has

6 number 6 is showing, as it was in the translation, the wave-like parts of

7 the signature which represents R. R in Cyrillic is the same as P in

8 Latinic, and E -- no, Y, sorry. And Y, which is basically in Cyrillic the

9 same as it is the turn-around N -- the turn-around N, but within the

10 cursive writing it's just a wave.

11 Then the 7 is actually showing the additional -- little additional

12 feature which is before the -- actually C starts. I find this feature

13 very interesting because sometimes it is within the -- the loop of C,

14 sometimes before it. This is the actually additional -- additional trait.

15 It does not correspond to any letter in this particular case, not in all

16 case reference of material. Then that is number 7. Number 8 is showing

17 the lower part of the first -- of the second stroke of H, and 9 is showing

18 the finishing of the -- sorry, not H, C,. And the 9 is also showing the

19 ending of the C.

20 The same goes to -- applies to all of the -- of the signatures or

21 images and annotations on the signature -- on the images.

22 JUDGE AGIUS: Right. And then after establishing these traits in

23 the reference signatures you proceeded to --

24 A. To the questioned signatures.

25 JUDGE AGIUS: -- to the questioned signatures. And what did the

1 exercise that you carry out -- that you carried out actually consist?

2 What did you do in trying to analysis?

3 A. Well, I took exactly the same steps within the examination of the

4 questioned signatures as within the examination of referenced signatures.

5 Of course, I did not mention that before, I measured all those. I

6 measured the length, the height, the axis -- let's see the English

7 translation here. So I checked all those, and then -- for all of the

8 signatures, questioned and reference. And then I approached the

9 questioned signatures in the same way. First I checked the legibility,

10 the appearance of it, and all the characteristics I could see without the

11 microscope, and then I took the microscope and checked it with the

12 microscope. Of course there were differences in approach for different

13 questioned signatures, basically because the signature P3, questioned

14 signature P3 is actually -- well, the document is a photocopy, including

15 the signature, which can be easily proven. And I did not -- I did see

16 only some similarities, but I could not establish all --

17 JUDGE AGIUS: All right, we'll come to that.

18 A. You'll come to that.

19 JUDGE AGIUS: Yeah. Okay. Before we proceed any further, did you

20 obtain access or had access to either or both of the Prosecution and

21 Defence expert reports at any time before or after your appointment by

22 this Tribunal?

23 A. No, I never saw those expert opinions.

24 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. You refer in your report to a scale, which

25 you also explain, analysis/results scale. We'll go through them one by

1 one, and very shortly, for the record, could you explain to us what is

2 meant by each of them. The first right up at the scale of these

3 conclusions is conclusions strongly supporting the assumption that the

4 questioned and reference signatures were written by the same individuals,

5 which is followed then by your opinion that the questioned and reference

6 signatures were written by the same person.

7 A. Yes.

8 JUDGE AGIUS: So when would you reach such a conclusion?

9 A. In what way "when"?

10 JUDGE AGIUS: When, under -- in which circumstances would you

11 reach such a conclusion?

12 A. I would reach such a conclusion when there were no limitation

13 to -- first of all, no limitation to the examination. It means that I

14 have full visual access, if you want, to the handwriting or signature. I

15 have to see all the features of the signature from the beginning to the

16 end of the signature. There should be no -- when comparing the questioned

17 -- questioned signatures to the -- to the reference signatures, there

18 should be no similarity -- no differences which cannot be explained by the

19 natural variation of the handwriting, which means certain differences in

20 proportions, not a big differences. Those are depending also on the

21 pre-printed symbols. There should be no different strokes, important

22 strokes, and so on. And there has to be similarities, enough similarities

23 to say that it is extremely unlikely that two -- that another person would

24 write exactly in the same way.

25 In the -- well, that would be about that, if that's enough.

1 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Thank you. And the second conclusion in this

2 scale would be conclusions support the assumption that the questioned and

3 reference signatures were written by the same individual. And your

4 opinion would be then that the questioned and referenced signatures were

5 probably written by the same person. How would this -- explain this,

6 please, but explain in particular how would this differ scale-wise from

7 the previous conclusion.

8 A. Well, previous is basically a conclusive opinion, while the second

9 is qualified opinion, I would say. I believe that within the second point

10 on a scale of conclusions, I can say that there are similarities, but due

11 to different factors I cannot be certain that the person -- that this is

12 the person. That can be either because of simplification, it can be

13 either because of the signature's implication of the signature. It can be

14 either because of the limit -- certain limitations, if the part of the

15 signature is not very well visible. And there can be, of course, that

16 some trait on the signature does not really correspond fully to the

17 reference signatures. That would be the moment when I would decide for

18 this -- for this conclusion.

19 JUDGE AGIUS: Right. I will ask you the question now; I meant to

20 ask it later on, but since you've mentioned the term. I will put it now.

21 You referred to simplification of the signature. What do you exactly mean

22 by that?

23 A. Well, the signature -- particularly the signature which is highly

24 symbolised, meaning that it's not legible, it's just a way of symbols you

25 cannot really read what it is. In this case is this signature's -- even

1 when person is signing document after document, the signature is losing

2 the characteristics. The certain -- for example, when you have wavy lines

3 in the signature, then they can become straight and so on. That would be

4 simplification, if that answers you.

5 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. The next down the scale is inconclusive.

6 What -- when would you come to had that conclusion?

7 A. That conclusion -- inconclusive, not really a conclusion anyway,

8 it's when there are some similarities and there are also differences, and

9 I can -- and due to the different factors, I cannot assess whether they --

10 whether they point to one or the other proposition, either the person

11 wrote or did not wrote the signature or handwriting. That would mean that

12 there's not enough evidence to any of the proposition or it could mean

13 that the signature -- the actual examination was not possible due to

14 severe limitations. That part is not written into the report, I have to

15 admit.

16 When the examination is -- has limitations like bad photocopies,

17 faxes, or that there is very -- some strong stain over the handwriting or

18 the signature, then you cannot see enough of the signature or you can't

19 see enough traits detailed. In this case, you -- the expert should decide

20 the result of the examination as inconclusive. It cannot -- that does not

21 of course mean that the person did not or did write, we just cannot find

22 evidence to support any of those propositions.

23 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, Dr. Kerzan. And next down the scale

24 is -- there are two more. The first one is conclusions support the

25 assumption that the questioned and reference signatures were not written

1 by the same individuals. And the opinion would be that the questioned and

2 referenced signatures were probably not written by the same person. When

3 would you come to that conclusion?

4 A. Well, it would be similar as the point 2 on the scale of

5 conclusions. When the -- in the case when I do not find enough

6 differences to be -- to be, to a certain extent, certain about that, then

7 I would say probably the person did not write that. I -- in this case, I

8 just leave the floor to the possibility that something happened while

9 writing or signing certain documents, and that's why I couldn't prove it.

10 JUDGE AGIUS: And I come to the last part of the scale, and I draw

11 your attention that at least our attention has been drawn to some fault in

12 the translation into English in this paragraph. Basically I'm told,

13 before I proceed with the question, that the second sentence which

14 presently reads: "The questioned and reference samples contain many major

15 differences," should read: "Between the questioned and reference samples,

16 there are" --

17 A. If I may?

18 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.

19 A. "Many significant differences."

20 JUDGE AGIUS: There are no major similarities between them, and

21 then after that that there are many significant differences, and then it

22 follows after that, there are no major similarities between them. All

23 right. So my question to you in regard to this scale: Conclusions

24 strongly support the assumption that the questioned and reference

25 signatures were not written by the same individual, and I notice the extra

1 words "strongly support" now. And your opinion would be now at this point

2 that the questioned and referenced signatures were not written by the same

3 person. When would you come to that conclusion therefore?

4 A. Well, I would come to the conclusion if I did not find any real

5 similarities between the -- between the questioned and reference material.

6 Basically within the scope of the signature examination, it usually means

7 that a person -- that somebody is trying to -- not to imitate somebody

8 else's signature, but he just wrote the signature with -- in handwriting.

9 So that would be a -- just to explain how that -- how this is.

10 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, Dr. Kerzan.

11 I will now lead you through various parts of your report, and

12 specifically refer to the various documents that you have examined. I

13 will start first with the so-called reference documents which I made

14 reference earlier on. And for the record, I'm referring to documents from

15 ERN 02066400 to 407, that is eight documents in all.

16 Dr. Kerzan, you have examined these documents and you give your

17 opinion in regard to them in pages 7 and 8 in the English text of your

18 report and come to certain conclusions, particularly that all the

19 individual features that you identified and which you explained or

20 indicated to us earlier on are sufficiently distinct to make analysis and

21 comparison possible. Can you kindly, briefly explain to us your findings

22 in regard and what you mean by this. Particularly my first question would

23 be the following: When you analysed all these eight reference signatures,

24 do you come to the conclusion that they are signed by the same person, to

25 start with.

1 A. Yes. To answer this question, yes, I come to the conclusion that

2 the same person wrote them. At this point I would just like to correct a

3 couple of things in the --

4 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, please, go ahead.

5 A. So the examination -- this is the -- when it starts: All the

6 reference signatures are written in the upper portion of the documents.

7 The next sentence is, this being the case the top edge of the sheet of a

8 paper --

9 JUDGE AGIUS: Hold it, you need to tell us the page, please.

10 A. Page 7, line 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 -- line 10 and 11. It

11 says: "This being the case, the top edge of the sheet of the paper and

12 the straight pre-printed lines in the document had to be taken into

13 account." It misses here, taken into account as what? As a base line.

14 The same goes to the B/C/S translation, the B/C/S translation. May I say

15 what should state here in B/C/S?

16 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.

17 A. I will read the sentence as it should be written.

18 [Interpretation] "one should look at the top page of the paper.

19 There are lines on the paper which serve as the base line of the

20 signature." This part was not translated.

21 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. I thank you for that. Any further comment in

22 relation to the text?

23 A. [In English] Yes. Later on when I describe ratio. It's eight

24 lines further down. The sentence says: "The ratio show between the

25 length of the signature and the transverse line is approximately 1 to 2,

1 nearly 1 to 1." "It ranges from 1 to 2 to 1 to 1," it should be said.

2 JUDGE AGIUS: Ranges.

3 A. While interestingly enough in B/C/S translation it's okay.

4 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Okay. Thank you. Any further comment

5 you would like to make in regard to this part of the report?

6 A. Should I go to the next page?

7 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, because the next page deals with the --

8 A. -- with the same --

9 JUDGE AGIUS: -- with the reference documents.

10 A. First of all, the translator used work "breaking." The

11 word "breaking the line" could mean that the line completely stopped and

12 then there is another line. It should probably say the change of

13 direction of the stroke in this particular cases, not break the stroke.

14 If you say "break the stroke," it would be cut.

15 JUDGE AGIUS: Broke --

16 A. Just to --

17 JUDGE AGIUS: All right.

18 A. In eighth -- in eighth line it -- it is the sentence "descending

19 is relatively deep," and then something, "and can intersect the left --

20 from the left with the two vertical lines." I would say it's -- it

21 intersects the vertical -- it covers the vertical line, it can cover the

22 vertical line of N, that's on figures 1, 2, and 4, when that's -- actually

23 covers.

24 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay.

25 A. And even more important is three lines below it says "it starts at

1 the top with two initial strokes." That's not so. That's completely

2 wrong. The Cyrillic symbol for -- for R or P, as it looks like, it starts

3 at the top twice with initial strokes, twice on this reference material

4 there are initial strokes. On the -- you can see them on figure 1, as it

5 says here, if you check that. It is seen -- this is not very well seen,

6 it's arrow 4 on figure 1, and it is barely seen on figure 5. I did not

7 put an arrow because it's in -- only with the microscope. The initial

8 stroke traces -- the next stroke, it traces the initial stroke. That's

9 quite a big difference.

10 JUDGE AGIUS: All right.

11 A. And then a couple of lines later on it says: "The vertical is

12 relatively deep and low. Sharp, but rounded." It's not sharp but

13 rounded. It's sharp or rounded.

14 JUDGE AGIUS: In other words, it's not sharp --

15 A. It's one or the other. It can can't [Realtime transcript read in

16 error "can"] be sharp and rounded at the same time.

17 JUDGE AGIUS: How should it read? The vertical is relatively deep

18 and low?

19 A. Sharp or rounded and open then.

20 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. And breaking, you said --

21 A. Turning down --

22 JUDGE AGIUS: Turning --

23 A. -- it's changing direction. Can I do the same for the

24 Bosnian/Serbian/Croat?

25 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, I mean, go ahead. I don't understand the

1 Serbo-Croat --

2 A. Yes, but I think it would be proper to do that. It's -- I will

3 say -- only one of those mistakes happens in B/C/S. Approximately in the

4 middle of the page the sentence in B/C/S reads:

5 [Interpretation] "This ending is relatively deep and can interact

6 with two verticals to the left," whereas actually it should read: "This

7 ending is relatively deep and should intersect or interact with the left

8 vertical."

9 [In English] -- find all the things that I don't agree with in --

10 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Di Fazio

11 MR. DI FAZIO: I think there's just a typo, at page -- previous

12 page, 32, line 20, 22 it appears the witness said "it can be sharp and

13 rounded at the same time." I think he meant the opposite, it can't be

14 sharp and rounded.

15 JUDGE AGIUS: That's how I understood it anyway. I mean, I wasn't

16 following the -- the transcript but that's how -- it's either one or the

17 other.

18 A. It's logical.

19 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. All right. So going back to my question I

20 asked you a few minutes ago -- let me -- so my question to you, to bring

21 everyone back to -- in line is the following. I said: "Dr. Kerzan, you

22 have examined these documents and you have given your opinion in regard to

23 them on pages 7 and 8 in the English text of your report, and come to

24 certain conclusions, particularly that all the individual features that

25 you identified and which you explained to us earlier on when I was

1 referring to image 1 in your report, you explained or indicated to us, are

2 sufficiently distinct to make analyse and comparison possible." This is

3 your conclusion.

4 And then I said: "Can you briefly explain to us your findings in

5 regard, and what you mean in this. Particularly, my first question to you

6 was the following," to which you answered yes. "When you analysed all

7 eight reference signatures, do you come to the conclusion that they are

8 signed by the same person to start with?"

9 And your answer was: "Yes."

10 So having come to that conclusion, can you explain to us what

11 message you mean to convey to us when you say that they had individual

12 features which are sufficiently distinct to make analysis and comparison

13 possible. What do you mean by this?

14 A. Well, as you have read in my opinion, I -- basically I describe

15 the features from one letter to another, from one sign to another,

16 within -- also bearing in mind that these signs or letters are all in

17 Cyrillic script. I don't know if it's necessary, but, for example, for

18 the letter on N which is within the loop of O is basically composed of

19 three writing strokes, one is very long, and so on. For each feature I

20 did -- for each part of the signature, I did the same, I described it.

21 And all these features together present a distinctive signature identity.

22 So all of those together are enough for expert to -- to -- to be able to

23 present certain conclusions when comparing to the other signatures.

24 JUDGE AGIUS: All right.

25 A. It's --

1 JUDGE AGIUS: Please bear with us when I ask you these questions.

2 I mean, we have, of course, read your report thoroughly and we know that

3 this is explained in some detail in the report, but these are also public

4 hearings, public sessions, and we need to ensure that whoever is following

5 the proceedings from outside these four walls will be able to do so and

6 understand exactly why you come to certain conclusions and not others.

7 A. Would that be then necessary to describe every --

8 JUDGE AGIUS: I would suggest that, again, if we show you, say,

9 image 1 or you choose any of the eight reference signatures, you point to

10 us what these distinctive features that enable a comparison are. I mean,

11 that's -- would help the public understand better.

12 Usher, if you can help --

13 A. I can use my copy, too.

14 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, we need to put it on the ELMO.

15 A. It's very randomly I took that one out. It's ERN --

16 JUDGE AGIUS: Image 7.

17 A. Image 7, 02066406, for example. In this particular reference one

18 of the features is missing, so I'll present it later on. You can see, as

19 I showed on the letter, letter O, which is rounded, is -- it has a

20 heart-like shape, it has a relatively -- not that deep penetration into

21 the loop. If I may show the other one which is below image 8, it shows

22 extremely long penetration into it, and this is the line which very often

23 intersects with the left vertical of N. Now, to go back on image 7. Then

24 this is the long line on N, which is intersecting the complete signature

25 and finishing far away. Then you have P, the waves over here. The

1 interesting inside -- inside feature within the loop of C, this one is

2 very interesting, the same -- this is very -- there is more of this in the

3 reference material. And then the other features, the downward stroke of

4 the H and then the -- turning up and then again down. You can see

5 basically also the slant which can be shown by that. I don't have the

6 utensil to measure it here, but it's -- you can be sure that it was

7 measured okay. So I don't know what to point to more -- of course, I can

8 also show another page. Again, the one that we saw before, to show you

9 it's arrow number 4, to show you, hardly visible initial stroke. Just a

10 second, if I have a better image here. I apologise to be slow. Yes, I

11 have a better image here, actually. These are the working images I used

12 to -- you can see over here there is an initial stroke. That's --

13 JUDGE AGIUS: Which one is this image number?

14 A. This is the first one, it's image 1. Image 1. It's this arrow 4

15 which presents the initial stroke of P, and it's -- it is seen -- it is

16 not seen as good as when you use a microscope, but it is here and on this

17 image it can be seen a little bit.

18 JUDGE AGIUS: All right.

19 A. You can also see that it's a light -- relatively light stroke so

20 the parts of O which it covers is lighter in comparison to the other parts

21 of O, if you want to do -- to see here when it goes on. I hope I

22 explained that clearly enough.

23 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Did you also compare the size of each of these

24 reference signatures?

25 A. Yes, I did compare them. Yes, of course. I measured them, and

1 they -- they are different, of course, but they are within the -- within

2 the limitations of actual space they have. For example, image 2 you can

3 see there's a lot of thods [phoen] because of the photocopy and the person

4 signing that had far less place so he -- so this one is shorter, that's

5 the reason why it's shorter and a little bit more simplified.

6 JUDGE AGIUS: Then, Dr. Kerzan, you then proceeded, I take it, to

7 examine the so-called questioned signatures, and my first questions --

8 question to you is the following. I take it that you did so separately,

9 one by one?

10 A. Yes.

11 JUDGE AGIUS: But did you also in this process try to compare the

12 various questioned signatures together?

13 A. You mean questioned signature to questioned signature?

14 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, yes.

15 A. Well, not deliberately, but I did, actually, yes. I did not take

16 one and the other and compare them to the others. But, of course, during

17 the actual examination, of course one comparison.

18 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. I must -- I've asked you this question

19 because I do have a pertinent question later on in relation to one of the

20 documents or one of the signatures.

21 Could the usher please make available to the witness P3, the first

22 of the questioned signatures. And could we put it on the ELMO, focussing

23 and zooming in the signature part. Yes. Perfect.

24 Now, Dr. Kerzan, this is the first of the 11 questioned signatures

25 that you examined. I'm not saying that -- first for the purpose of this

1 exercise, let's put it like this. And according to your report, after

2 carrying out the comparative analysis or examination, you came to the

3 conclusion that the examination of this signature is inconclusive. Can

4 you briefly explain to us why you came to this conclusion?

5 A. Well, it is quite obvious that this document in its entirety is a

6 photocopy. You can see that on the image I pointed to the certain

7 deposits of dry toner, which I have to say there is a mistake in B/C/S

8 translation. It says here, I do apologise, but I have to do that. It

9 says [Interpretation] "Dried-up toner" it says, whereas it should say "dry

10 toner." Therefore, the term "dried-up" in my opinion would mean it became

11 dry, whereas it was dry in the first place, to begin with.

12 [In English] And to go further with the signature itself, half of

13 the signature is covered with what it seems like to be a stamp impression.

14 So what one can see are only hints of a first part of signature. You

15 can't see the R, at least I don't see it. I can see the lines that could

16 relate to R, but I'm not sure that they are. There are some similarities

17 in the ending of the signature, but it is far from enough to say that this

18 is possible to do the examination. This -- in my opinion, this document

19 is not -- is not good enough to make an examination. So the findings were

20 inconclusive.

21 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you. We come now to the next document, P4.

22 A. If I just can make some order here in my documents.

23 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.

24 A. I have three lines of documents.

25 JUDGE AGIUS: Incidentally, Mr. Wubben, Madam Vidovic, we will

1 have a break in seven minutes' time, or something like that, eight

2 minutes' time, after which I don't think that our questions will last too

3 long. I reckon then within three-fourths of an hour after we recommence,

4 we reconvene, we will be ready. So Prosecution is going first.

5 A. Okay.

6 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Yes.

7 P4.

8 A. Well, P4 is -- okay, the document was typed with a type-writer.

9 It's what we call an original document not in any kind of a copy. You can

10 see the signature is very nicely visible, despite the fact that a small

11 part of the -- of the signature is covered by the stamp, but because of

12 the different material it is nicely seen. It is written with -- by the

13 fountain-pen, I reckon. And I see, and I have shown, the different -- the

14 similarities to the reference material. It goes the same as the reference

15 material with inside of N and long transpence [sic] line, the R, the

16 waves, and so on. The difference which is interesting is the dot at the

17 end of it, at the end of the signature, but I attributed this difference

18 to the time, quite a lot of time, quite a lot of time elapsed between the

19 questioned and the reference material. So I don't think it's that

20 significant that I could not make my decision that findings strongly

21 supported a proposition that -- to find that --

22 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Just to clear this up straight away, at

23 this point we come to this dot, another questioned document, to which

24 reference is made later on, and in each case you come to the same

25 conclusion. Is that correct?

1 A. Yes.

2 JUDGE AGIUS: In other words, that you attribute this dot to -- or

3 this variance, in other words, to the lapse of time.

4 A. Yes, it is also interesting that this dot only on -- only is seen

5 on the dot -- on the signatures which are written by a fountain-pen. It's

6 also interesting observation, I would say. And one of those does not --

7 does not have this document, it's P158. So I -- I didn't [Realtime

8 transcript read in error "did"] find that very significant.

9 JUDGE AGIUS: In your experience is there a reason why there

10 should be a dot behind a signature and why sometimes there should be one

11 and sometimes not?

12 A. No, I don't have an idea.

13 JUDGE AGIUS: So your conclusion in regard to P4, you have

14 explained basically the fact that there is a dot does not change the

15 conclusion that the questioned signature was written by the same person as

16 the reference signature.

17 MR. DI FAZIO: Another one of those typos, if Your Honours please,

18 I don't know if it's significant. Page 40, line 12, "I did find that very

19 significant."

20 JUDGE AGIUS: I did not find.

21 MR. DI FAZIO: I did not.

22 JUDGE AGIUS: But there is that arrow there.

23 MR. DI FAZIO: I'm sorry, I didn't realise.

24 JUDGE AGIUS: So my question to you is the following, that

25 notwithstanding the fact that there is this dot behind the signature in

1 this document, and I'm referring to this document only for the time being

2 now, you did not come to the conclusion -- you did not arrive at the

3 second part of the scale, you went right up to the highest. Do you

4 confirm that?

5 A. Yes, I confirm that.

6 JUDGE AGIUS: And why would that be so?

7 A. Because this dot, it is -- it is, in my opinion, not significant.

8 It is the dot that appears. This dot is possibly part of the signature,

9 but it's not necessarily. It can also be a dot to show somebody where to

10 sign, but in this case I don't think so, that it is. I think it's a

11 variant of the signature of the ...

12 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. We come to P13, usher, please. Now, we,

13 in relation to this document, you come to the conclusion of the second

14 step in scale, namely that the questioned signature on this document was

15 probably written by the same signatory as on the reference signatures.

16 I -- you use in your report in relation to this document the

17 simplification of signature, which you explained earlier on. Now, could

18 you give us an illustration of the simplification of this signature that

19 you see on the monitor now.

20 A. Yes, of course. The simplification goes -- is within the letter

21 Y -- E, sorry, excuse me. Letter E. It is not executed completely as you

22 see. It is just one wave in the place where there should be two for -- to

23 have a complete letter E.

24 There are also two things -- another thing that I notice on this

25 particular signature. There are some dots of -- some larger dots of the

1 ink on it, which is probably due to bad ball-point, but also this shows --

2 it tells me that I cannot be as certain as the previous to the proposition

3 that the same person wrote that. So I went one step below.

4 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. And you also referred to your -- in this

5 part of your report in relation to this document to a presence of ink

6 spots.

7 A. Yes, that's what I was talking about.

8 JUDGE AGIUS: That's what you meant --

9 A. Yes --

10 JUDGE AGIUS: -- by ink spots?

11 A. Yes.

12 JUDGE AGIUS: And looking at the stamp.

13 A. Stamp is so barely visible, so it does not limit the possibility

14 of examination.

15 JUDGE AGIUS: And the fact that the stamp seems to be in purple or

16 more or less similar to the ink used for the signature, does that

17 interfere in any way?

18 A. No, it doesn't because it is different. I can clearly see the

19 difference in colour, so it's -- and I also could have -- I did also use

20 the police lab machine for that just to be sure. I did not mention in my

21 report. I checked the line also on the VSC-2.000 in my lab. I did that

22 with the permission of my head -- head of department, to check it out just

23 to be sure.

24 JUDGE AGIUS: Can you explain precisely what you mean by that?

25 A. With the ER elimination, you can divide the different colours of

1 the ink so it's clearly dividable. I did not -- because it is the machine

2 of the police, I did not present it here inside, but it's clearly visible.

3 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Okay. And with that we stop here for

4 half an hour, 30 minutes.

5 Yes, Mr. Wubben?

6 MR. WUBBEN: Your Honours, I want to make a short submission.

7 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, in the meantime I think the witness can be

8 escorted and make sure that he has an ample supply of coffee.

9 THE WITNESS: Can I leave this stuff here?

10 JUDGE AGIUS: I would suggest you take it with you, Dr. Kerzan. I

11 mean, I would rather not take responsibility for that.

12 THE WITNESS: For just so many papers.

13 [The witness stands down]

14 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Wubben.

15 MR. WUBBEN: Yes, Your Honours, I want to convey that I just

16 signed a letter with a few pages, also to disclose -- in addition to the

17 disclosure of this morning. It is related to the handwriting samples of

18 that same examination, and I want to further clarify because that will

19 also support the quick reading by the Defence, expeditious reading by the

20 Defence of the material. The material that we disclosed the French report

21 is this: The Kerzan report, the Kerzan report in the Jevtic case we

22 disclosed earlier this month, and the French report analysed the

23 handwriting and signatures of a document and reached the same conclusion,

24 so both reached the same conclusion, namely that the handwriting and --

25 JUDGE AGIUS: It's all right. I mean, you don't have to tell us.

1 I mean, it's --

2 MR. WUBBEN: No, I would like to confirm that for the record,

3 Your Honour, namely that the handwriting and signature came from a man

4 called Jevtic.

5 Now, a Prosecution witness later claimed that he had authored the

6 text, whereas Jevtic only signed the material. And I would like to refer,

7 for a quick reader, to the transcript in English page 10 up to 15, and

8 that's the reason why we disclosed it.

9 JUDGE AGIUS: All right.

10 MR. WUBBEN: Just to support Your Honours and the Defence.

11 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Thank you so much. We will have a full

12 30, 30 to 35 minutes' break. And then the idea is to try and finish

13 around about 5, 5-ish, 5.00 to 5.15 today. All right? Thank you.

14 --- Recess taken at 2.48 p.m.

15 --- On resuming at 3.27 p.m.

16 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. Next in line is P14. Now, there are a

17 few things that I would like to explain. Basically, just for the record,

18 your conclusion is more or less - I'm using my own language rather than

19 yours - but some features are pointing to the possibility that the

20 signature was copied or may have been copied, but -- although this cannot

21 be conclusively stated. As a result of that, you come to the conclusion

22 that the examination is inconclusive. Is that correct? Do I read you

23 well or not?

24 A. Let me just read that. Yes. That would be right.

25 JUDGE AGIUS: You referred to two unusual pen lifts --

1 A. Yes.

2 JUDGE AGIUS: -- in -- and there are seven strokes in this

3 signature, whereas in the reference signatures you usually find five

4 rather than seven. Although on a general basis, the features of the

5 questioned signature do resemble those of the reference signature, you

6 still come to the conclusion that you cannot come to a conclusion or that

7 it is inconclusive. I think this is one of the documents that needs

8 somewhat deeper explanation on your part.

9 A. I very much agree with you, Your Honour. So, as you might have

10 seen on -- can I give the image -- my images on ELMO?

11 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, of course.

12 A. It would be better. It's easier to show an image than -- that's

13 P14 here. Now, this image, this first image, image number -- on this one

14 I don't have numbers. Image number 12, it is image number 12, yes. On

15 image number 12 I've shown the features on this signature that correspond

16 to the -- to the --

17 JUDGE AGIUS: Reference --

18 A. -- reference material, although it has to be stated right away

19 that this is extremely simplified version of the -- this kind of a -- of a

20 signature because you can see that E is not visible at all, except for

21 this little dot, tiny dot, tiny part here. Now, if I go further on,

22 it's -- I won't go into details about these features we discussed on

23 other. But then I took the microscope, and what came up is this very odd,

24 odd stop of the line over here and beginning here. There are some hints

25 of something else down there. There's some blue-ish colour over here. I

1 don't know what it is. I was thinking of possibility that this is a

2 striation mark. Striation mark is the mark of the ball -- the little ball

3 on the ball-point. But this cannot be a striation mark, as you can see

4 how the striation mark actually looks like. It's here. This is a

5 striation mark. So there is an abrupt stop in the new beginning of the

6 line. This is not something I would say usual for any -- any signature.

7 Of course, there might be explanation for that. There might be a surface

8 that stop the -- the pen, the writing utensil. There might be a hole in

9 the surface, whatever. There are some possibilities, although with this

10 very smooth lines here, I'm kind of worried that there's no such

11 explanation. I believe this is a deliberate stop here; I don't know why.

12 I can't explain it why. And again on the other -- on the next image I'm

13 showing, it's not that well-seen on the image. That's the course of a

14 digital photography. It probably would be better if I use a film. You

15 can see there's one line and there's another line to the opposite

16 direction. There are no such lines at -- at the reference material and,

17 for that fact, any of the other --

18 JUDGE AGIUS: Questioned --

19 A. -- questioned documents. Those two features, one shown on an

20 image 12B and 12A, are so strange that I went to the inconclusive. The

21 fact that I didn't say it is a falsified -- falsified signature, that it

22 is a forged signature is -- comes to the fact that there -- it's just too

23 easy to be a forgery, I think. It's -- and it's only here. For a

24 forgery, I believe there should be more so I couldn't really decide

25 whether this is a forgery or not. That is the reason why I wanted -- I

1 decide for inconclusive.

2 JUDGE AGIUS: All right.

3 A. But it was very, very -- it gave me a lot of thinking.

4 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, yes, okay. And when you said the seven strokes

5 instead of five, going back to 12, if you could explain which are the

6 seven strokes.

7 A. Can I show you the first strokes on one of the --

8 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.

9 A. This is the first of those. You have one stroke. One is the

10 loop, actually --

11 JUDGE AGIUS: Uh-huh. All right.

12 A. Then there's two and three. Then four, it goes all the way here.

13 This is four and this is five.

14 JUDGE AGIUS: I see. Okay. All right.

15 A. Strokes in this meaning is the uninterrupted line of -- of the

16 signature. And now here we have one is the loop and probably one even

17 more here -- but I think that could be a problem of the ball-point.

18 Because one is the loop. There are two inside the loop. Then there is

19 four, the horizontal line. Five is this one here. Then you have six

20 going up to the stop, and seven is -- is that.

21 JUDGE AGIUS: All right.

22 A. These are seven.

23 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Let me see if I had the questions to -- are

24 there otherwise -- when you look at the stamp covering part of this

25 signature, looking at that stamp, did it constitute any obstacle to you in

1 trying to come to your conclusions or not?

2 A. Not to my conclusions. It was more difficult to show you this

3 feature here, this double line in P -- in R, sorry. But otherwise, no.

4 No, it's very -- it's hardly visible, this type of impression is not a

5 very strong one.

6 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Let's go to the next -- I lost my pen.

7 I have another one here.

8 Let's go to P37, please.

9 A. Oh, yes, can I go just a little bit back. I had to comment on

10 here. P14 down, on the fourth line from the down it says: "The next

11 stroke flows downwards before it breaks downwards." It was my mistake. I

12 omitted this. It was -- if it goes downwards, it then does not break

13 downwards, it then opens again upwards. I just wanted to make that clear.

14 It's also in the original, so it's something I missed when I was reading

15 it.

16 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Thank you.

17 P37. In here you come to the conclusion that the features of the

18 questioned signature do resemble reference signatures. Some features are

19 such that the result of the exam and your opinion is inconclusive. And

20 that's the -- that is the conclusion that you reach.

21 A. Yes.

22 JUDGE AGIUS: In your considerations, you also make reference to

23 one -- at least one unusual pen lift at the I, where the I of Oric is, and

24 that you also comment that the signature is larger than the reference ones

25 and deviates significantly in the proportion from the reference

1 signatures.

2 A. Your Honour, if I may?

3 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.

4 A. This you have non-amended version. This is the biggest mistake in

5 the translation. It does not say that way. It does not deviate

6 significantly. It says the -- in proportion. This is the mistake that

7 was the most severe. I do apologise.

8 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, and in fact now I refer to the -- parties to

9 page 12 of the report, 11 lines into paragraph five where it says: "The

10 signature is larger than the reference one, it also deviates significantly

11 in proportion." I am told that the part reading "it also deviates

12 significantly in proportion," should read: "Although the proportions do

13 not differ essentially from the reference signature."

14 Mr. Wubben, Mr. Jones or Madam Vidovic, all right?

15 Yes, so, of course -- I mean, taking this into consideration, we

16 still remain with the fact that the signature is larger than the reference

17 one. Does this really mean anything or does it carry any significant

18 weight --

19 A. No, it does not.

20 JUDGE AGIUS: -- in trying to analyse the two?

21 A. No, Your Honour, I don't think it's very significant. It's just

22 my observation. It is larger, but the proportions are basically within

23 the limitation of the -- of the -- of the reference signatures. The point

24 that is larger is probably -- can come from the fact that the signer had

25 more space to do anything or he signed in a different position. It's not

1 very significant.

2 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, all right. Sorry. And this pen lift at the I,

3 where the I is, could you perhaps show it to us using your own image.

4 A. I will show it to you, I will try to explain it also. Well, you

5 can see that the point -- I will tell you exactly what it is. You said

6 37. It is between the -- the N and A in the -- when you have down there

7 written Naser, between A and N. N is here and A is here. This part is --

8 this is clearly a pen lift -- actually, the new beginning of the line.

9 It's not probably a pen lift, but it's -- the line stopped, the pen was

10 lifted -- you don't see the pen lift, you see the -- actually, the

11 pressure down again. This is where it is. It goes down and I don't

12 really know -- it could be here, too, because there is no -- there is no

13 connection. That can be attributed to different factors. It can be, of

14 course, that in this part somebody was trying to draw a signature. It

15 also can be that the ball-point didn't work and that the person just --

16 just tried to make this trait visible, this line. There's two

17 possibilities, I believe, at least.

18 So -- but it does mean that something is not clear with this

19 signature, in my opinion. And if -- if it's not clear, I can -- I cannot

20 say it is a -- I cannot make an actual opinion. I think it's inconclusive

21 because of that.

22 JUDGE AGIUS: Right. I thank you. And again in this regard -- in

23 regard to this document, again I would like to ask you about the -- how

24 much of -- of a -- a problem was or wasn't, the purple stamp ink.

25 A. Well, in this particular case a purple stamp ink was a bit

1 stronger, but still the lines are visible anyway, not as clear on some

2 others but are clear enough to see where the line stops, where the line

3 begins, the stroke begins, the -- so on. It's mostly visible.

4 JUDGE AGIUS: And compared with the stamp in the previous

5 document, P14.

6 A. Yes, the -- on P14 the stamp is not as strong. It does not cover

7 so much of the signature where it's -- where it is in ...

8 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Now we come to P73, and this is a

9 signature which you state in your report is made with a fountain-pen,

10 using a fountain-pen. You come to the conclusion that "findings strongly

11 support the proposition that the same person wrote the questioned and the

12 referenced signatures, therefore the questioned and reference signatures

13 have been written by the same person." So you are back to the top of the

14 scale when it comes to this signature.

15 A. Yes.

16 JUDGE AGIUS: Now, let's start with -- you have got nothing to add

17 with regard to the point that appears or the dot that appears --

18 A. No, I don't.

19 JUDGE AGIUS: -- after the -- no, you don't. So you stand by your

20 statement -- your previous statement?

21 A. Yes.

22 JUDGE AGIUS: There is in that particular document, if we can zoom

23 out on this document, please. Zoom out completely.

24 A. This is the most I can do.

25 JUDGE AGIUS: Can I have the document here, please? I think it's

1 easier.

2 [Trial Chamber confers]

3 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, you can hand the document back to the witness.

4 I refer you specifically to the stamp, which to me appears to be

5 somewhat bolder, stronger, when it comes to ink content.

6 A. Yes.

7 JUDGE AGIUS: And it does cover the initial part of the signature

8 covering the O, the N, the Cyrillic N, and also part of the R.

9 A. It's --

10 JUDGE AGIUS: The ascending part or descending part of the R.

11 A. R.

12 JUDGE AGIUS: You come to the conclusion that you are -- that the

13 covered part is clearly visible and the stamp does not obstruct the

14 examination. Do you stand by that conclusion?

15 A. Yes, using the magnifier, you can see clearer.

16 JUDGE AGIUS: You can see --

17 A. It's very, very clear by using a magnifier to see the difference

18 between one and the other ink. It is seen clearer. It is also far better

19 seen on my image than on the ELMO.

20 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, yes, can we see your image, please?

21 A. Yes, of course. You can see -- does it do that automatically?

22 I'll try to zoom it in.

23 JUDGE AGIUS: Zoom it in, exactly.

24 A. You can see here the particular lines -- you see the -- this line

25 where here -- here you can see at the beginning of the -- of the R, it

1 goes down here, not up here, and then further on. It is visible.

2 JUDGE AGIUS: But, for example, if you were to assess or -- the

3 speed of that particular part, would you be able to do that or not?

4 A. Yes, I would be because you can see it, that the R line down is

5 getting lighter here. It's not because of the stamp impression. It is

6 actually getting lighter, so the pressure is not as strong as it is. But

7 of course with a fountain-pen it is more difficult to see the -- the

8 pressure as with a ball-point pen because the fountain-pen has liquid ink

9 which is just pouring out of the pen, while here you have to move the ball

10 of the ball-point to get ink on the paper. It has to -- the striation

11 marks from that.

12 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Can the witness be shown the next

13 document which is P74, please.

14 Again, you come to the conclusion here, sir, that the findings

15 strongly support the proposition that the same person wrote the questioned

16 and referenced signatures, and therefore you come to the conclusion that

17 the questioned and referenced signatures were written by the same person.

18 In this case I will start with the stamp again. The stamp covers half of

19 the signature, almost entirely the R, the Cyrillic R.

20 A. It covers three of the letters, actually.

21 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Okay. So you still maintain that that was not

22 an obstacle for the -- to you for the examination?

23 A. Yes, because with the magnifier -- while magnifying you can see

24 this, and again I can show you on the image. I will also show you my

25 image, and just do not change it. You can see all the -- all the strokes.

1 All the strokes are visible here, the beginning of the stroke, and then

2 you can see also the lighter stroke over here up -- so you can see what

3 was supposed to be seen.

4 JUDGE AGIUS: Is there anything in this signature that relates to

5 speed that you did not find in other signatures? Does it -- what are the

6 indications as regards speed in this signature?

7 A. Again, it is fountain-pen. It is more difficult to assess the

8 speed of the writing, but again you can see -- now I have those lines

9 here. You can see that -- the thinner line here, which means that the pen

10 was a little bit easier on that -- so it means it went faster, which is

11 typical of the -- of the -- of those straight lines. And again the same

12 goes up here. The others, the wavy lines, are more like -- are more

13 like -- they are in the same speed. There's no speed -- there's no

14 acceleration of speed as here, I think it is. And you have also here a

15 little bit of -- it goes up -- it's -- it slows down and indeed increases

16 speed again and so on. And you can see exactly here how pen was slightly

17 lifting from the beginning -- from here to the other way. I think it's --

18 dynamics is seen enough, good enough.

19 JUDGE AGIUS: Is there anything in this -- or any indication in

20 this signature in relation to speed that singles it out when compared with

21 the other questioned signatures?

22 A. I don't find that.

23 JUDGE AGIUS: Especially the ones with -- with -- written with a

24 fountain-pen?

25 A. I don't find anything significant --

1 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Okay.

2 A. -- in this way.

3 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's go to P75, please.

4 A. This is P75, I think?

5 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, the next one we are going to see is P75.

6 A. Thank you.

7 JUDGE AGIUS: Again your conclusion here is that the findings

8 strongly support the proposition that the same person wrote the questioned

9 and reference signatures, and therefore the referenced and questioned

10 signatures have been written by the same person, in other words, the

11 highest grade in the scale that you mentioned.

12 Can I have the document brought to us for a moment, please?

13 [Trial Chamber confers]

14 JUDGE AGIUS: Now, I'm going to give you back this document, and I

15 need you to explain two things. There is some -- what appears to be some

16 handwriting in the second line from the bottom of the written text above

17 the signatures. And there is also what appears to be a typewriter

18 correction in item number 1 of this document. Have a look at both first,

19 and then I will ask you my questions.

20 You say -- it's obvious that with regard to that typewriter

21 correction, even to the naked eye, that seems to be correcting fluid --

22 A. Yes --

23 JUDGE AGIUS: -- and new words typed over the correcting fluid.

24 When you say in your report here and in other places "there's no trace of

25 manipulation or tampering with this document," what do you actually mean?

1 A. Well, I mean that I don't feel somebody would deliberately change

2 the document. This is, in my opinion, just typewriting error which was

3 corrected. I did not find it that important to notice that, to be honest.

4 And, of course, you have to realise that it's during the whole word that's

5 written again, it's just the middle portion of the word. This was written

6 over, I believe, before that, in that course.

7 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. And let's -- usher, please, could you

8 show the witness P73.

9 A. Yes, even that.

10 JUDGE AGIUS: Again, as you see that there is "Skelani"

11 or "Skelana" in P73. We need -- it's another document. Do you find it?

12 A. I would say you would want -- you are talking about this?

13 JUDGE AGIUS: Yeah.

14 A. Yes, and there's something underneath.

15 JUDGE AGIUS: Yeah. Again, when you say there is no trace of

16 manipulation or tampering, did you take that into consideration or did you

17 ignore it?

18 A. I did not take that into consideration; I ignored that.

19 JUDGE AGIUS: Right.

20 A. This one I did not notice, to be honest. I was preoccupied with

21 the --

22 JUDGE AGIUS: No, no. I just want you to testify the truth;

23 that's all. All right. So we come back to P75, please. You can remove

24 P73. Your findings are based on the fact that the features of the

25 questioned signature are very similar to the referenced signatures and

1 that the presence of a point at the end of the signature does not change

2 your evaluation or your assessment. Neither, I take it, does the fact

3 that, although to a minor extent, the stamp covers part of the signature,

4 do you -- does it?

5 A. Yes, I agree.

6 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's move to page 158.

7 A. Can I just have a comment on P75?

8 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.

9 A. The only of these signatures that does not have the initial stroke

10 in the R, which is consistent with the -- with most of the reference

11 material.

12 JUDGE AGIUS: Still, it doesn't change your --

13 A. No, it doesn't.

14 JUDGE AGIUS: P158, and your conclusion is, again, the highest

15 level in the scale, highest grade, findings strongly support the

16 proposition that the same person wrote the questioned and referenced

17 signatures, therefore the questioned and referenced signatures have been

18 written by the same person.

19 My question rather relates now to a comparison between this

20 signature in P158 and the other questioned signatures. Do you see or

21 detect any particular variations or difference between this one and the

22 other questioned signatures?

23 A. There is a slightly harder pressure on the two vertical --

24 verticals in P, but not a big one. There is no dot at the end of it,

25 nothing which could not be explained by the natural variability [Realtime

1 transcript read in error "ability"] of the handwriting or the signature.

2 Natural variability, not ability.

3 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Then we come to P210. Your

4 conclusion -- this is -- let's say it straight away. This is a photocopy.

5 A. Yes.

6 JUDGE AGIUS: Not an original. And your conclusion here is that

7 the findings are inconclusive. I would like you to explain why, and in

8 particular how you come to this conclusion even when, according to you,

9 the photocopy is of a relatively good quality.

10 A. Well, the fact that the photocopies is of good quality means that

11 there's no extra dry toner deposits, comparing to P3, I think it was, also

12 for the copy. For the copy P3 was a very -- relatively bad, bad quality

13 in this case. But still, in this particular signature you have covered

14 virtually the first two letters, the O and the N with the stamp impression

15 and you can hardly see the beginning of R and the ending of R -- the lower

16 portion of R. So I personally believe that that limits the possibility

17 for examination so far that I cannot put it. Or to put it in the other

18 words, sometimes, but very rarely, you can do a report on the photocopy.

19 In my personal opinion, photocopies are not to be used in -- for expert's

20 opinion. I usually decline that but -- I mean, I usually don't come to

21 the conclusion.

22 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. And the last document. This, as you rightly

23 indicated in your report, is the only document which purports to have both

24 the first name and the surname and the signature -- forming the signature.

25 Your conclusion is that it is not possible to perform examination

1 according to the standards that you adopt and that your findings are,

2 therefore, inconclusive. I would like you or I invite you now to tell us

3 all you can in relation to this document, which is even to the naked eye

4 different from all the others.

5 A. Well, this document is a faxed document, which I think that is

6 quite clear. You can see that by, as it says on the English translation

7 "dashy edges," actually on the B/C/S translation the word is, I think,

8 far better, but I don't find another one. It's a faxed message. It's an

9 old-type fax, so it's analog fax, which I don't really know how it works,

10 but new faxes work as a -- as a printers. They scan the document and put

11 it into a digital message and send it through. This one is analog one,

12 the old one with a thermal -- some kind of thermal -- thermal printing.

13 This is the first observation.

14 The second observation, as you've already noted it, it is the only

15 signature which comprises of surname and given name. So I cannot compare

16 this kind of signature to the signatures which do not contain the given

17 name; it is impossible because it's a different. I've seen -- I've

18 checked the document. It is possible that this document was sent to some

19 headquarters in Sarajevo, I think. I've seen that on the document, I

20 believe, so perhaps somebody who wouldn't usually sign with the name,

21 given name and surname, would for the importance of the document or

22 whatever write it that way. There are some differences in a situation

23 when one does sign a document. So -- but nevertheless, most of the -- at

24 least 50 per cent of -- all of the appearance of the signature is covered

25 by the stamp impression. The fax is even of a poorer quality than the --

1 than the photocopy. It is -- it is a matter of doctrine, to put it that

2 way, not to identify anything on the fax machine. Fax -- faxes are --

3 particularly those kind of faxes, this thermal faxes, are completely

4 insuitable for handwriting or signature examination. That's why I went

5 into the inconclusive conclusion.

6 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. You also mention in your report that

7 there is no N, Cyrillic N, inside the O, as in the reference signatures.

8 But is this of any relevance since the name and surname are signed

9 separately or not one superimposed, not one inclusive of the other? You

10 wouldn't expect it?

11 A. Well, actually I don't know. You wouldn't expect it because the

12 actual signature, if we go to the reference signatures, these are nicely

13 balanced, very nicely executed signatures. And the fact that the

14 signature is executed with a N -- with the two strokes of N within the

15 loop of O and then a long vertical. This is a very distinctive feature,

16 so -- but I have no idea whether there are some possible reference

17 materials that are written in this way so -- with a surname and given

18 name. So it's hard to say that.

19 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. I thank you so much, Dr. Kerzan. I --

20 we don't have any further questions for you. Now, what's going to follow

21 is a series of questions from Mr. Wubben, I suppose.

22 A. Thank you very much, Your Honour.

23 JUDGE AGIUS: And -- who is going to put the questions?

24 MR. WUBBEN: Sorry, I haven't stated anything in confirmation in

25 that respect, but I would like to add I would like to thank Dr. Kerzan.

1 The Prosecution has no questions. Thank you.

2 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. That -- you took us by surprise. I want to

3 make sure that --

4 THE WITNESS: Me, too.

5 JUDGE AGIUS: -- the Defence are not caught on the wrong foot.

6 MR. JONES: Only slightly in that I -- in terms of I have to

7 re-assemble the lectern. I think it came from Ikea.

8 JUDGE AGIUS: I've never seen any lecterns at Ikea.

9 MR. JONES: That's no problem.

10 JUDGE AGIUS: Do you want some time?

11 MR. JONES: No, Your Honour, I'm fine, I can start straight away.

12 MR. WUBBEN: I would like to add that we have a lectern there

13 ourselves that is completed. If my colleague can handle --

14 MR. JONES: Thank you, yes. I can handle it now.

15 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. As we near the end, I recognise more

16 cooperation between Prosecution and Defence.

17 MR. JONES: Yes, thank you.

18 Cross-examination by Mr. Jones:

19 Q. Yes, Dr. Kerzan, I'll have a few questions for you and will also

20 involve looking at some of the documents again. To start off with,

21 though, I have some questions arising from your CV and your current

22 occupation.

23 A. Yes, I understand.

24 Q. Is it right you currently work for the ministry of the interior?

25 A. I work for the -- actually, it's the police. I work for the

1 police lab now for 14 years, as I stated, almost 14 years.

2 Q. So your laboratory is a police laboratory and then you work with

3 policemen and prosecutors as your daily work?

4 A. Yes -- well, not only prosecutors. Also we are also sometimes

5 called in as -- for defence. But rarely, to be honest.

6 Q. Yes. Well, I'm coming to that. One matter firstly. Are you

7 actually a head of your laboratory or not? I wasn't clear about that.

8 A. I'm head of the department of handwriting and document and

9 currency analysis. I'm not the lab -- I'm not the head of the lab.

10 Q. Now, in the capacity of working in a police laboratory, are you

11 actually able to accept instructions from the defence and to use the

12 facilities of the police in order to analyse material for the defence?

13 A. Well, usually, usually it is the court that asks us to -- now it

14 depends how the other things work. We do work for the police. We do

15 prepare some kind of - how to put that? - pre-reports to the police so the

16 police can act against the accused and so on. We do that no -- I mean, we

17 do that -- I mean, we quite often disappoint the police because they're

18 not happy if we find their conclusions wrong. And then the other -- the

19 other possibilities that the court, either by the motion of the

20 prosecution or the defence ask either the lab to do the expert opinion or

21 they can also -- also turn to me as an expert opinion appointed by the

22 court. So it -- usually, I don't really know who it is, but it --

23 sometimes I know it is -- whether it is -- we sometimes know whether

24 defence demanded a new opinion or not. Our opinion as a police officers

25 usually are not in the fights of the trial procedure.

1 Q. Right. So are you able to tell us actually whether you personally

2 have been engaged by the defence, do you actually know whether you have

3 been, or is it only been by the police?

4 A. No, we were often, either me personally or the lab, appointed by

5 the court. And it is -- we can see from the -- from the court order which

6 party wanted us to prepare or wanted me to prepare a new or a first or a

7 second expert opinion. But it is the court, in the same way as here I was

8 appointed by the court, not either by defence or Prosecution. If I made

9 that clear, that's --

10 Q. Yes, that's more or less clear. Thank you. And I think you've

11 told us you've done about 70 analyses as a court-appointed expert. How

12 many of those were analyses of signatures as opposed to handwriting?

13 A. Well, there I would say -- it's difficult. Most of them were

14 signatures because when I was appointed by the court usually it involved

15 either -- either a - how do you call that? - inheritance papers, you know

16 when --

17 A. Either the will or some contracts where the signatures are

18 involved. Most of them are those.

19 MR. JONES:

20 Q. Right. And how many analyses have you done of signatures in

21 Cyrillic?

22 A. A couple. Not a lot, to be honest, but I do a couple in the last

23 14 years.

24 Q. Thank you. And I omitted one question about your PhD. What's the

25 subject of your PhD?

1 A. The subject of my PhD has nothing to do with the work I do. I did

2 a sociology PhD, as you might have seen in the documents.

3 Q. Okay. That's fine. Now you've also done signature analyses for

4 the Prosecution of this Tribunal in the past. You can confirm that?

5 You're aware that it was for the Prosecution?

6 A. Well, I think it was for the Prosecution, as I believe, although

7 as far as I was told back then in the first case, which is the case of

8 Dragan Jevtic, I was not told what it is. I really was not told. I don't

9 know really the procedures here, so it's hard for me to tell which part of

10 the procedure that was.

11 Q. Okay.

12 MR. JONES: Well, we'd like to pass up copies of the report in the

13 Brdjanin case as an exhibit, and for the record the ERN 02295496 to

14 02295501. Unfortunately we don't have an English version of the report,

15 it's just a one-page summary in English, and -- but, of course, rather

16 than --

17 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. Just for the record since I was the

18 Presiding Judge in the Brdjanin case and I speak out of memory more than

19 anything else, but I -- although there were a lot of submissions during

20 the course of the trial on the authenticity of certain signatures or

21 documents, the Trial Chamber never came, actually, to hearing evidence on

22 authenticity of signatures. So whatever examinations of signatures may

23 have taken place, that was --

24 MR. JONES: It never reached the court?

25 JUDGE AGIUS: No, exactly.

1 MR. JONES: I'm obliged, Your Honour.

2 JUDGE AGIUS: And I want to assure you -- assure you of that. And

3 that's for the record more than anything else. I mean ...

4 MR. JONES: Yes, thank you, Your Honour. And it's simply this,

5 really, again, for the record, this is dated 17th of January, 2002, and it

6 is headed ministry of the interior so I take it that you were affiliated

7 with the --

8 A. No, it's Ministry of the Interior general police department and --

9 and used to be the -- whether the department of criminal investigation,

10 and then the forensic lab -- the whole -- the whole head of it.

11 Q. That's fine. It's simply this, actually. I just want to draw

12 your attention to the second page.

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. And it's the second paragraph where it says "examination was

15 aggravated because of insufficient comparative material, time gap between

16 disputed and comparative signatures, and the fact that some of the

17 disputed material were photocopies."

18 Now, do you recall writing that?

19 A. You said paragraph 2?

20 Q. Yes, the first full paragraph in the centre.

21 A. Are you referring to the --

22 Q. In the English.

23 A. Oh, yeah, sorry, I was referring to the --

24 Q. Oh, my apologies, it's the second page. I'll -- do you recall

25 writing that and do you recall that that was actually -- your examination

1 was aggravated by a seven- to eight-year time gap?

2 A. Yes, in this particular case it was.

3 Q. Thank you.

4 MR. JONES: In fact, I'll ask for an exhibit number for this,

5 please, Your Honour, since I referred to it?

6 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, and this will become Defence Exhibit D --

7 THE REGISTRAR: D1022, Your Honour.

8 JUDGE AGIUS: 1022. Yes, thank you.

9 You may proceed, Mr. Jones.

10 MR. JONES: Thank you.

11 Q. We may come back to that later. I want to turn to your report

12 now, if I may, to C7.

13 A. Which report?

14 Q. Sorry, your report in this case. You can put that to one side;

15 we'll come back to it.

16 A. Yes, okay. C7.

17 JUDGE AGIUS: That's your report. C7 is your report.

18 MR. JONES: Yes.

19 Q. Your report, do you have it?

20 JUDGE AGIUS: In the original language, Slovenian.

21 MR. JONES:

22 Q. And I'm going to be working from the English.

23 A. Yes, I have it here.

24 Q. I want to start just with the statement of your mandate, and I

25 appreciate that as -- the mandate, as you set it out there, was from the

1 wording of this Trial Chamber's order, but nonetheless I want to review it

2 with you for a moment.

3 A. Just tell me on which -- what page to go.

4 Q. Yes, well in the English it's page 2 where it says: "The analysis

5 was to determine the following." And the first one is: "Whether the

6 signatures of the questioned documents when compared with the provided

7 reference signatures documents are of the same author."

8 Now, I take it you understood that included in that question is,

9 of course, whether they're not, whether they're not of the same author.

10 A. Yes, of course I understand. It's self-evident I think.

11 Q. Well, I want to be clear about that because I think it arises

12 again with the way you express in your conclusions, but is it clear that

13 your mandate was not to assume that the questioned and referenced

14 signatures were by the same author and then to see if the evidence

15 supported that assumption --

16 A. I don't really grasp your question.

17 Q. Okay. Let me approach it a different way and I'll come to the way

18 you stated your analysis results scale, and that's on page 5 in the

19 English. The wording is: "Conclusions strongly support the assumption

20 that the questioned and referenced signatures were written by the same

21 individual."

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. My question goes to that really, that you seem to be starting from

24 an assumption, believing that you've been given an assumption that the

25 questioned and referenced signatures are the same, and then you're looking

1 to see if that assumption can be supported, aren't you?

2 A. Well, first of all it should be a proposition, not assumption.

3 I -- if you check my summary, you would see there, "findings strongly

4 support the proposition," not assumption. That's why it would be good for

5 the translators to use that. "Proposition" is different than

6 "assumption."

7 Q. Yes, I'm reading from the English.

8 A. I have two propositions, either somebody did write or did not

9 write and I work with these two propositions here, if that clears the

10 question?

11 Q. Well, I'm working from the English where it says "assumption,"

12 maybe that's a mistranslation.

13 A. Well, I have "amended proposition" on all of mine.

14 Q. Staying with this mandate a bit longer. The second part of the

15 mandate concerned whether there was any tampering, but then again the

16 third part of the mandate whether the questioned documents contain any

17 other feature relevant to establishing their authenticity, and, again, do

18 you understand that would include establishing also their inauthenticity

19 or establishing something that's fishy or wrong about the document and not

20 simply proving authenticity.

21 A. Well, of course I understand that. That's -- basically this

22 question goes in that direction as you pointed it, in my opinion.

23 Q. Now, I want to ask: Did you know when you analysed these

24 documents what the P stood for, P73?

25 A. No, I don't know what P stands for.

1 Q. Did you understand that these were Prosecution exhibits?

2 A. No, I didn't know that. You told me that just now.

3 Q. Now, I'm going to ask you to look back at your methodology before

4 moving on to the documents. You explained your methodology today, and it

5 appeared at one point that you were saying that the methodology is the

6 same for analysing handwriting as for analysing signatures. Is -- are you

7 saying that?

8 A. Yes, it's not entirely the same. I didn't say it was the same.

9 It is the same basis, but signature examination has certain additional

10 problems comparing to handwriting analysis.

11 THE INTERPRETER: Could the pose --

12 JUDGE AGIUS: One --

13 THE WITNESS: Which were explained while -- when I explain it with

14 the fact that the signature is more individualised, can be more

15 simplified, it's the most intimate writing act of the person, that's the

16 reason why you work differently. And I -- as I wrote also somewhere in

17 the report, you can have completely illegible signature but still it's

18 possible to assign it to a person. So that would be a difference between

19 handwriting and signature analysis.

20 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. One moment, Mr. Jones. I heard at the

21 beginning --

22 THE INTERPRETER: We would appreciate a break between a question

23 and an answer, since the two speakers speak the same language. It's very

24 difficult to interpret.

25 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Thank you. And I'm sure that both

1 Mr. Jones and Dr. Kerzan will comply.

2 MR. JONES: Yes. Thank you, Your Honour. Apologies.

3 Q. Right. So the methodology isn't exactly the same for handwriting

4 and for signatures?

5 A. Can I explain the difference that can arise?

6 Q. Yes, certainly.

7 A. While in handwriting you almost always have letters to analyse, in

8 signature you just sometimes have lines. It is very nicely stated in a --

9 in a B/C/S translation with the same word as I used "parafa" [phoen] we

10 use this word. This is completely illegible, but it can be very, very

11 individualised and it can be -- it is -- one is able to -- to identify

12 or -- or prepare opinion with a strongly -- either strongly or not so

13 strongly support some proposition that somebody did or did not write the

14 signature. That is the difference I'm talking about, the reason being, as

15 I stated before, because it is a highly individualised writing act, the

16 signature.

17 Q. And beyond that, it's also an act which is done more often than

18 other words and it's also something which needs to be consistent because,

19 after all, signatures on a cheque or signatures on a credit card need to

20 be consistent or you risk not having your cheques paid. Correct?

21 A. Yes, correct, and to be honest I had a lot of troubles with that.

22 JUDGE AGIUS: You're not the only one.

23 THE WITNESS: I mean, consistency is supposed to be, but you have

24 people whose hand -- whose signatures are extremely inconsistent and then

25 you cannot perform a proper examination, unless you have an extremely

1 enormous amount of comparative material.

2 MR. JONES:

3 Q. Yes. And we're going to come back to that in relation to P269,

4 but for the moment we're just dealing with the introductory part of your

5 report. On page 3 you set out principles of signature examination.

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Now, of course there are more principles than these four, aren't

8 there? This is a simplification?

9 A. Yes, I would say it's -- but these are the main points.

10 Q. Well, isn't another very partner principle that you have to have a

11 sufficient sample, otherwise you can't do the job at all?

12 A. Yes, of course, but I find that's self-evident.

13 Q. Now, in fact is the -- is there a fuller list maintained by this

14 European Network of Forensic Handwriting Experts of principles?

15 A. I don't think so. It's -- basically I used the -- as you saw -- I

16 think I used most of them or all of them, but ...

17 Q. Okay. Well --

18 A. I shortened them a bit.

19 Q. Right. Now, I want to ask you about at least one of these

20 principles of the examination procedure, and it's at page 5 of your report

21 and it's the penultimate sentence of the first paragraph. And it says --

22 or you say: "Therefore, special attention must be paid to legibility,

23 size and proportion, slant, pressure, and flow of the signature, et

24 cetera."

25 Now, did you analyse pressure in this case?

1 A. Well, pressure is seen on the paper. You can see the pressure,

2 you can see the pressure of the writing utensil, but the question is which

3 writing utensil you use. If you use fountain-pen, which is most often the

4 case here, the pressure is hardly seen because fountain-pen, as I

5 explained, has liquid ink. Liquid ink goes out of the fountain-pen by

6 itself, [indiscernible], while ball-point pen is something you have to

7 press to start writing. So the difference is big. You don't -- I have

8 quoted here a [indiscernible], what has to be -- special attention has to

9 be paid for. It does not mean always to all of it because sometimes some

10 are not visible.

11 Q. Yes. Well, dealing with the reference samples, in fact you

12 couldn't really analyse pressure, could you, because you only had

13 photocopies. So you could analyse -- correct me if I'm wrong. That's

14 what I heard you say earlier, the reference samples.

15 A. The reference samples was photocopied -- photocopies that were

16 signed. The signature itself was original written with a ball-point pen.

17 The signatures were not photocopies. Photocopies was the content of these

18 papers.

19 Q. Okay. I apologise. That was a misunderstanding. In terms of the

20 reference samples being from a ball-point pen, you said there's actually a

21 difference, isn't there, between pressure used with a ball-point pen and

22 the pressure used with a fountain-pen. Correct?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Sorry. I have to wait for the transcript. And if you could

25 confirm that again, please -- yes, we have the confirmation.

1 So when it comes to pressure, there's a different pressure as was

2 used in the reference samples from what was used in the -- those

3 questioned signatures which were written with fountain-pen, correct?

4 You're not comparing like with like?

5 A. Not exactly, as you pointed. The fact -- fact that you can't

6 see -- you can't see the pressure with a fountain-pen does not mean that

7 it doesn't exist, but you can't see that. That's a slight difference in

8 that. But of course with the fountain-pen, seeing the pressure is far

9 more difficult and is very often nonvisible. Sometimes it is visible when

10 the pressure is lighter, and I showed that when I was asked by the -- by

11 the Judge on a couple of cases.

12 Q. Okay. Now, I just want to ask you about another couple of

13 features that you looked at. Are you familiar with the term "garlanded,"

14 "garlanded script"?

15 A. Yes, I'm familiar with that word. It could have been used with

16 the portion which is underlined 6, that would be garlanded writing. I do

17 not use this word, as it has quite different meaning in the history of

18 arts. That's why I don't think it's appropriate.

19 Q. Is it what you refer to as wave-like part, when you mentioned

20 wave-like parts which you're analysing. That's garlanded and arcade

21 composition, would that be correct, analysing the loops?

22 A. Not entirely. Garland, yes, but arcade, no; arcade is

23 something else. It's quite the opposite. One is going down the

24 other is going up.

25 Q. Exactly. That's what I'm wondering. Did you analyse that in

1 these signatures, the wavy parts down and the wavy parts going up?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Right. Now, before we move on to your sample, I want to ask you

4 about one further analytical question, it's on page 7 of your report,

5 again in the English, that's the third paragraph. And it's just to draw

6 your attention to this point. You analysed reference signatures with what

7 appears to be mathematical precision, the length, 14 to 18 millimetres,

8 the average angle of slant. Forensic document examination is not an exact

9 science, is it?

10 A. No, it is not. I was trying to see the ratios between certain

11 parts; that is all. It is not mathematical, no, it is far from that.

12 Q. Now, have you heard of David Ellen?

13 A. Yes, of course I did.

14 Q. I'd like to read just a section from his book, and we have copies

15 for everyone. It's at page 46. Let me just get it in front of me before

16 we move on. The book is "The Scientific Examination of Documents,

17 Methods, and Techniques." It's the second edition. It's page 46.

18 MR. JONES: We haven't copied the whole book; we've copied the

19 extracts.

20 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you for that, Mr. Jones.

21 MR. JONES: Yes. Thank you.

22 Q. Now -- yes, page 46, there's a section which says "subjectivity."

23 You can probably see the heading there.

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. And I'll just read that paragraph. It says, "In any assessment

1 of evidence derived from examination of documents which depends not on

2 mathematical conclusion but on the evaluation of the significance of all

3 the findings taken in combination, there must be a subjective element as

4 well as a possible variation in observation of the documents in question

5 and an awareness of the background knowledge of the subject, there may be

6 elements within the personality of the expert which play a part, a

7 tendency to caution or the opposite perhaps. In addition, there will be

8 variations in the competence of the examiners."

9 Now, do you agree with that, that forensic document examination is

10 not a science based on mathematical conclusion, but there is an element of

11 subjectivity?

12 A. Yes, I fully agree with you and that.

13 Q. And the personality of the examiner has a tendency of caution or

14 the opposite, plays a role as well?

15 A. It's hard not to agree with that.

16 Q. To the extent that you do use mathematical parameters, the point

17 is, is it not, that if a questioned signature falls outside those

18 parameters that that's a difference worth noting -- that that's a

19 difference, in fact?

20 A. Well, you have to realise that -- that it is not the exact

21 measurements that you measure. I did the measurements here; I agree with

22 you. It's obvious. But the point is a person can have a lot of place for

23 his signature; he can have a small place. But usually the proportions

24 should stay within the same limits, more or less. They can go out a bit

25 but not a lot. That's -- that's why I did the measurement, to -- I didn't

1 want to fool anybody with that, to -- that this is some kind of a very

2 precise thing. I think I wrote that also.

3 Q. And then the question is: How much -- when something falls

4 outside the parameters, whether that's enough to be significant or not,

5 and that's a matter for your judgement?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. And the same applies, does it not, to what is natural variation,

8 or what is attributable to natural variation, and what might be a forger

9 doing a bad job?

10 A. Yes again.

11 Q. Now, I want to turn to samples now, and I think again we might

12 have a quote from David Ellen. Do you agree that it's of fundamental

13 importance to have a comparative sample that's sufficient in both quantity

14 and quality in order to do analysis?

15 A. That comes without saying, of course.

16 Q. Yes. I'm going to just read from page 63 of Ellen, and it's in

17 chapter 5, handwriting, the collection of samples. And it's -- yes,

18 sorry. Yes, paragraph 3. "There are two essential requirements before

19 any material is adduced as a standard for specimen of known writing. One

20 is that the writing must be adequate in quantity and quality for the

21 examination to be carried out." And then it continues. I'm just

22 concerned with that and you've agreed with that proposition.

23 Now, if we turn to page 67 at the very bottom where we see

24 signatures and it says there: "Signatures are important as known writings

25 written in the course of business. A wide variety of these, written

1 without the knowledge that they may be later used as comparative material,

2 gives a better indication of the whole range of variation used by the

3 writer than a small sample taken at one sitting."

4 Now, do you agree with that?

5 A. Yes, I agree with that.

6 Q. Now, your comparative sample, the reference signatures, was a

7 small sample, was it not, eight signatures, taken at one sitting, on one

8 date, the 23rd of May, 2001.

9 THE INTERPRETER: Slow down please for --

10 THE WITNESS: It's obvious.

11 MR. JONES:

12 Q. Yes. Thank you. We have to slow down.

13 A. Yes, I do apologise.

14 Q. Now, that's one factor that the reference signatures are taken in

15 one day. Now, is it also the case that you had eight questioned

16 signatures and there were more -- my apologies. Eight referenced

17 signatures, but you had more questioned signatures, 11, and is it --

18 you'll obviously agree with that, but isn't there a principle that you

19 shouldn't be looking at more questioned signatures than you have

20 referenced signatures?

21 A. Well, I have never heard of that principle -- am I too fast?

22 Q. So you don't agree?

23 A. Well, it depends when we go to the -- to the reference signatures,

24 it's the absolute number of the -- those which is important. Of course it

25 is good to have more of them as less than them. But there are differences

1 how many of those are needed. It goes down to five to six to, I remember

2 writing -- to I remember somebody wrote at least ten times as much as the

3 questioned -- the questioned sample. Of course if you have a couple of

4 hundreds of questions, it's hard to have ten times more. It is not that

5 important. It is -- but more you have, better it is. But eight are

6 somewhere in the middle of -- they should be enough in most of the cases.

7 Q. Well, in fact isn't eight close enough to being not enough at all

8 in that you said it goes down to -- five to six, I take it, is the minimum

9 you would require, referenced signatures?

10 A. Yes, it's not a lot of those. It's close to the -- to the limit.

11 I would agree with that.

12 Q. Now, on top of that, we have the fact that these are from nine

13 years later from the actual questioned signatures, and did that not in

14 Brdjanin, in the Brdjanin report we saw, that was actually something which

15 posed a problem to analysis. Correct?

16 A. One of the problems, if I may say. I don't really remember this

17 case very good -- it's really four years ago. I don't remember the

18 signatures, but the main problem was that I had only three -- three

19 reference signatures.

20 Q. Yes.

21 A. And so that was the main problem in this case. But also the time

22 lapse can be a problem, and I have it written down there.

23 Q. Yes. I'm going to come back to that because I think that merits

24 more detail. Isn't it also the case that these signatures, reference

25 signatures, were given in artificial circumstances and in an artificial

1 place, at the top of the document in a confined space?

2 A. Well, the fact that they are on the top of the document I don't

3 really find very important. But I fully agree that those specimens were

4 taken with -- I believe with the -- with the -- as to be used for

5 examination, I believe. I may be wrong, of course.

6 Q. Yes?

7 A. But it is far better to have signatures that were taken for any

8 other reason, so to -- so to speak. And I can agree on that.

9 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Wubben.

10 MR. WUBBEN: Yes, Your Honours, just for the record. I do believe

11 that my learned friend didn't invite the expert to speculate on this, but

12 this was rather a speculation. And I would like -- rather than to request

13 the Court to be alert on the matter, as this is a pure speculation from

14 the other side.

15 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, we are alert, Mr. Wubben, and I also think that

16 the witness, too, is alert. But --

17 MR. JONES: Yes, perhaps I can clarify with one question.

18 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, I don't think you need to. We understand the

19 question and we also understand what his answer was. So let's move. I

20 mean, he was not there present when these signatures were taken in any

21 case. So he cannot be in the mind of whoever asked for those signatures.

22 MR. JONES: Yes, that's why I just wanted to ask one further

23 question on that.

24 Q. These weren't signatures which were at the bottom of a, say,

25 contract or a birth certificate or some document that you come across in

1 the normal state of affairs?

2 A. I'll have to read that. I don't really understand what you are

3 asking for. Those signatures were at the top of the page. They are not

4 at the typical place; I fully agree with you.

5 Q. Let me clarify. We saw a moment ago in David Ellen where he talks

6 about signatures are important as known writings written in the course of

7 business. And I don't want you to speculate, and if you can't answer

8 this, then don't. But as far as you can tell were these signatures

9 written in the normal course of business?

10 A. Which signatures?

11 A. The reference signatures.

12 THE WITNESS: I don't know.

13 MR. JONES:

14 Q. That's fine. We've dealt with the fact that those reference

15 signatures were in a ball-point pen, and you were comparing that with

16 fountain-pen pen in some instances; that, too, hinders analysis, does it

17 not?

18 A. It can.

19 Q. And considering all of that, wouldn't you agree that you had a

20 very poor sample in terms of quantity and quality?

21 A. Are you talking about a sample of reference materials?

22 Q. Yes.

23 A. No, I don't think so. It's not a poor sample. I would be more

24 than happy to have more of that, but I'm always more than happy if I have

25 more. But the samples itself are relatively, relatively good. They're

1 written with the fluency, they're written -- executed nicely. As I said

2 before, it is a very nice -- I mean, nice, I like that signature. It's a

3 nice signature, nicely balanced, and those signatures, those referenced

4 signatures were such. So I don't think when -- when assessing the

5 signature you just don't go by the -- whether there are numbers -- numbers

6 are enough, whether they are taken in this sort of way. You have to look

7 at the signatures to assess whether they are -- whether they are good

8 for -- for examination. It's not just the -- whether there is five, four,

9 or ten of them or a couple hundred of them, if you understand what I'm

10 trying to say.

11 Q. I do, but surely when you have more signatures you might notice

12 something which you didn't notice before, that perhaps a certain mark is

13 much more predominant in that person's signature than appeared in the

14 reference sample simply because it was unrepresentative. That's surely a

15 risk if you have a small quantity?

16 A. That's always a risk even if you have a large quality, but with a

17 small quantity this risk can be larger, bigger.

18 Q. Right. And finally on this issue, I did say want to come back to

19 the issue of the nine-year gap.

20 A. Could you speak slower?

21 Q. My apologies. I have been asked by the stenographer to do that as

22 well, so obviously I have to make an effort. If you turn to page 7 of

23 your report, now there you comment on this -- this nine-year gap and you

24 say "there is a difference of nearly nine years between the time that the

25 questioned and referenced samples were created. Although this is quite

1 significant for the purposes of signature analysis, it is not sufficient

2 to render the examination impossible."

3 Now, my question is: That's not the point, is it? It's not that

4 it makes it impossible; the point is, it makes it more difficult, doesn't

5 it, a nine-year gap. Ideally you would like to have signatures two years,

6 three years, four years afterwards?

7 A. Well, there are no rules how old the signatures should be. As

8 new -- as close to the questioned signatures the referents are, the better

9 it is, of course. What is meant here -- what I meant here is, of course

10 there is this time gap of nine years, but within nine years the signature

11 can change but it does not change with -- with all the people. I remember

12 cases when I had -- when I had one particular case when I had handwriting

13 from the -- I think just after World War II. It was an engineer who wrote

14 exactly the same way 40 years later. It can happen that way or somebody

15 can change his signature within a year or handwriting. It can happen. It

16 depends on the age of the person. It depends on the different -- for

17 example, legal status, and so on. I was talking about the marriage at

18 this point. So there's a lot of -- it's just an obstacle that has to be

19 taken into account.

20 Q. Now, if you had reference signatures from 1996, 1999, 2001, 2003,

21 a spread, do you accept that you might have reached different conclusions

22 if you had signatures, reference signatures, from a broader period of

23 time?

24 A. I cannot deny the possibility of that; of course I cannot deny,

25 but I'm quite confident that my opinion was in this way prepared as it

1 should have been.

2 Q. Certainly. I don't question that. Maybe I should put it this

3 way. If you had signatures from 1996, let's say, three or four signatures

4 from then, some from 1998, wouldn't your examination have been more

5 complete and more accurate?

6 A. Well, in this particular case I would say it would be better if

7 they were from 1992. I would prefer them from 1992. Of course that can

8 change the -- the examination, but it is not something that is a rule in

9 this examination.

10 Q. Okay. Now I want to move to your analysis results scale on pages

11 5 to 6 of your report and ask you a few questions about that scale. Now,

12 you told us -- you told us today that the -- this European network uses

13 this scale and uses the terms strongly supports the proposition, et

14 cetera, that it's the same author. But it doesn't recommend the

15 additional step you take of then giving an opinion that it is the same

16 author of the reference and question signatures. Is that correct? Have I

17 understood you correctly?

18 A. Yes, you understood me correctly. I refer now to the summary, if

19 I may. In the summary, page 2, you will have -- you will have the -- I'll

20 just have -- I will just explain it on the first -- for the first step on

21 the scale of conclusions. "Findings strongly support" and so on and so on

22 to the end of -- not comma -- what's that. From the point "therefore in

23 my opinion," that's mine. The rest of it is a quote from the ENFHEX

24 collaborative exercise scale of conclusions, which we -- which I use

25 daily.

1 Q. Now, that network is an eminent network, I take it? It's a

2 respected body of experts. Is that correct?

3 A. As to my knowledge, there's no other body to be -- to be so

4 distinguished in Europe as this one.

5 Q. And I suggest to you that the reason why they don't recommend this

6 wording of going on to say that in one's opinion the referenced signatures

7 and the questioned signatures are the same when they've reached the

8 conclusion that it strongly supports the conclusion, is because that's

9 illogical, it's an illogical step to go from strong suggestion to what

10 appears to be a definite conclusion.

11 I'll put it again if you don't follow.

12 A. Just, did you say illogical or logical step, if I may?

13 Q. Illogical.

14 A. Illogical step.

15 Q. Let me approach it this way, let me put it again to you. You've

16 done your analysis. You conclude that there are enough features to

17 strongly support the proposition that the questioned and referenced

18 signatures are written by the same individual, but rather than stopping

19 there you then go to the next step and give an opinion which appears to be

20 definite. It appears to be a clear conclusion that it's the same person.

21 I suggest to you that is not logical.

22 A. Well, yes. I have to explain that in terms of what we do in your

23 legal system. In our legal system, the -- now I'll have problems with

24 wording, to be honest. But we have -- every opinion comprises of two

25 parts. One is part which is, let it put in quotes, objectively done. So

1 this is the description and all of the -- what you see, what you -- your

2 annotations, and so on. I think you understand what I mean. I hope you

3 understand. And then there's opinion. Opinion at the end is a

4 subjective -- subjective -- subjective assumption or -- do not please

5 catch me by the word because it's very difficult to explain that. This is

6 my subjective -- this is subjectively, I say -- under these

7 circumstances -- after this examination I think so. I did not say "I know

8 that." It's a bit of a difference here, but this is not illogical. If

9 findings strongly support a conclusion, the conclusion can be on the other

10 hand -- can be concluded. But this is the opinion of subjective nature.

11 The last -- at the last sentence is this, where we were talking about

12 subjectivity. This is my subjective opinion. If I answered you

13 correctly.

14 Q. Well, we need to dwell on that a little?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Strongly supports is not the same thing as a definitive, hundred

17 per cent conclusion then, is it?

18 A. No, and I never said that -- if I say it's my opinion that it has

19 something to do with hundred per cent. If you think the opinion is

20 hundred per cent -- I don't know, I don't find opinions hundred per cent.

21 Q. Right. So do you leave the possibility and when you reach of a

22 conclusion of that nature that in fact the document is not written by the

23 same author as those of the reference samples. That's a possibility even

24 when you give that opinion?

25 A. Well, in any opinion this possibility cannot be ruled out. I just

1 believe that in particular cases -- in any particular case I can assess

2 whether this is a large or small possibility. In this particular case I

3 believe that this possibility is very, very small. That is what is meant

4 by opinion; it is not meant that that is a fact of life.

5 Q. Now, I also want to develop this a bit more with a suggestion

6 which I'll be putting to you, that of course the signatures which we've

7 been looking at, and we'll come to specifics subsequently, but of the

8 questioned and reference samples, of course they look similar. My

9 suggestion to you is that they look the same because it's the work of a

10 seasoned professional forger who's practiced the signature of the -- of

11 Naser Oric so that he can do it almost perfectly, so that it can become a

12 habitual movement of the forger. Now, can you exclude, categorically

13 exclude, the possibility that for those documents where you've given the

14 opinion that it's the same author, that in fact it's the work of a

15 seasoned, professional forger? Can you exclude that?

16 A. As I said before, there's no hundred per cent opinions, and I

17 cannot exclude anything like that. But I believe that the consistency,

18 the fluency of these signatures shows quite the opposite.

19 Q. Okay.

20 A. Those that were told that way. There are some that are quite

21 inconclusive.

22 Q. Yes. We're going to come to the documents one at a time. I just

23 was speaking, of course, generally.

24 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Jones, more or less where do you stand because

25 my idea was to finish in a few minutes' time, more or less. If it's -- I

1 don't know how long you require to clear this point?

2 MR. JONES: Your Honour, I'm going to proceed document by document

3 after -- after two or three questions on another issue, but I'm perfectly

4 happy to break now and resume tomorrow.

5 JUDGE AGIUS: Because I think it would be also wiser to do that,

6 give you the opportunity to consult with your expert, and we can resume.

7 Do you think you will finish tomorrow?

8 MR. JONES: Yes, certainly. My estimate is an hour, an hour and a

9 half tomorrow.

10 JUDGE AGIUS: Right. Then can I ask you to be -- continue to be

11 cooperative, as you have already been so far today, and try and sit down

12 and exchange information on the documents that we need to discuss after we

13 finish with the testimony of the witness which require something else to

14 be done like certain documents that we still haven't got the CD from your

15 part, and certain documents that -- anyway. I mean, if you exchange the

16 information, it will make the exercise much simpler when we come to it.

17 MR. DI FAZIO: Do you mean housekeeping matters not related to

18 this topic?

19 JUDGE AGIUS: Yeah, yeah, not related to the same, no,

20 housekeeping, I mean, because, as I said, that's why I asked Mr. Jones

21 whether he -- it's likely that he finishes his cross-examination tomorrow

22 because I anticipated that to be the case. And if we can finish tomorrow

23 as well, then it will be much, much better. And we can do this

24 housekeeping exchange for as long as needed. We could go the following

25 day if necessary. And if there is an exchange of information in the

1 meantime, it will be much easier.

2 MR. WUBBEN: Your Honour, we will exercise the contact with

3 Defence.

4 JUDGE AGIUS: All right.

5 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, I have just one question, if I may?

6 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Kerzan.

7 THE WITNESS: I don't know to what extent tomorrow the questions

8 will be, but would it be wise for me to see the opinions of the

9 Prosecution and Defence to prepare myself for tomorrow or I shouldn't?

10 JUDGE AGIUS: No, no.

11 THE WITNESS: I'm just asking.

12 THE WITNESS: Would it be possible to know it after I finish?

13 JUDGE AGIUS: Curiosity killed the cat, Dr. Kerzan.

14 THE WITNESS: Yes, I know that.

15 MR. JONES: May I just mention one matter in that regard. I think

16 I put on the exhibit list a page from our report. It was purely for

17 visual comparison, but I thought better of that idea today and I'll use

18 his images instead.

19 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, and in fact you anticipated an intervention

20 that I had in my mind, actually, as to whether it was regular to use that

21 or -- anyway.

22 MR. JONES: Yes. I won't use that.

23 JUDGE AGIUS: I don't think you need to mention it at this stage,

24 particularly considering what you've just stated.

25 So, Dr. Kerzan, go and have a good rest. Tomorrow you've got a

1 couple of hours still with us, and then you're free to go home unless the

2 Prosecution embarks on a re-examination which will last a week. I also --

3 you can -- Madam Usher, you can escort Dr. Kerzan.

4 Tomorrow also will be the last time we will see Mr. Wubben in this

5 courtroom in his role as lead counsel for the Prosecution. And when we

6 finalise the exercise, the testimony plus the exercise, I had in mind to

7 have a very short ceremony here and it's the concluding part of the public

8 sitting tomorrow. I just wanted to alert you to this fact so as not to be

9 surprised.

10 I thank you so much. Have a nice evening and we'll -- tomorrow,

11 by the way, we have shifted the sitting for the morning, okay? To the

12 morning. You're both aware of that?

13 MR. JONES: Yes.

14 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Thank you.

15 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 4.59 p.m.,

16 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 1st day of

17 March, 2006, at 9.00 a.m.

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25