Site hosted by Angelfire.com: Build your free website today!





(Compilation Date 24/01/2003 by Desaster Area)

IMPORTANT! Please read the DISCLAIMER!

Content / Colormap



• Page 3532 - Jean-Rene Ruez
• Page 3542 - DEAN MANNING
• Page 3631 - RICHARD WRIGHT


• Page 3540 • • Page 3550 • • Page 3560 • • Page 3570 • • Page 3580 • • Page 3590 • • Page 3600 • • Page 3610 • • Page 3620 • • Page 3630 • • Page 3640 • • Page 3650 • • Page 3660 • • Page 3670 •





• Page 3532 • {1/141}

(1)Friday, 26 May 2000
[Open session]
[The witness entered court]

--- Upon commencing at 9.34 a.m.
(5) [The accused entered court]

JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Good morning, ladies and gentlemen; good morning to the technical booth, to the interpreters; good morning to the legal assistants, court reporters. I think that (10)Mr. Cayley, Mr. McCloskey, and all the Prosecution are there, so is the Defence. Good morning, General Krstic. We are continuing our hearing from yesterday, and we shall take up where we left off. Good morning, Mr. Ruez. As you know, you (15)shall now be answering questions put to you by the Defence. And I see Mr. Petrusic on his feet. Mr. Petrusic, you have the floor.

MR. PETRUSIC: [Int.] Good morning, Your Honours; good morning to my learned colleagues of (20)the Prosecution and good morning to you, Mr. Ruez.

WITNESS: Jean-Rene Ruez [Resumed]

• CROSS-EXAMINED by Mr. Petrusic:

• Q.: Mr. Ruez, in the course of your testimony yesterday, you spoke about the units, that is to say, (25)the commanders of the Drina Corps. You mentioned the

• Page 3533 • {2/141}

(1)special police force as well. My question for you is the following: The special police force, with its headquarters in Janja, whose deputy commander was Ljubisa Borovcanin, did that unit, the unit of the (5)Ministry of the Internal Affairs of Republika Srpska, was it that unit, did it belong to that Ministry?

• A.: Yes.

• Q.: Thank you, Mr. Ruez.

• A.: I would like to --

(10) • Q.: Thank you, Mr. Ruez. That's fine. The 65th Protection Regiment, which you also mentioned as being in Nova Kasaba, was that a unit of the Main Staff of the army of Republika Srpska as well?

• A.: That is correct.

(15) JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Mr. Ruez, I apologise but could you please switch your other microphone on as well. Thank you. That's fine now. Thank you very much. It's on, I see. The microphone is on and functioning.

(20) MR. PETRUSIC: [Int.]

• Q.: The videotape that we saw yesterday and the contents of that video was an interview of General Krstic. Was that videotape, according to your knowledge, made on the 12th of July?

(25) • A.: Yes, I believe it was made on the 12th of

• Page 3534 • {3/141}

(1)July, for the reason that this is the only day where Serb press personnel was present in Potocari, and this is also the day when General Mladic gave a press interview. So I do believe that this interview was (5)given on July 12th.

MR. PETRUSIC: [Int.] Mr. President, I have no further questions. Thank you, Mr. Ruez.

JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Thank you very much, Mr. Petrusic. (10)Mr. Harmon, do you have any additional questions for the witness?

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

JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Judge Wald.

(15) • QUESTIONED by the Court:

JUDGE WALD: I have just one question, Mr. Ruez, which you may be able to answer. If you can't, perhaps it's in the domain of the later witnesses. But I gather from your testimony and the (20)exhibits that were attached thereto that virtually, if not entirely, all of these movements from the primary grave sites to the secondary grave sites took place within a period of several weeks in September and very early October. Is that approximately right?

(25) • A.: Yes, it is. Obviously holes were pre-dug,

• Page 3535 • {4/141}

(1)and later on, probably in one night or two night's operation, these holes were then filled with the bodies.

JUDGE WALD: Are you in a position to tell us (5)in an enterprise of that magnitude the numbers, which we'll go into later, that were moved from one site to another, how much -- for instance, take any one of the grave sites where it was moved from a primary site to a secondary site. How long, approximately -- would that (10)be; a couple of day's work or just a couple of hours' work? How much time and effort, trucks, et cetera, would it have taken to make one of those moves?

• A.: I, indeed, believe this might be covered later on by another witness, but it took certainly at (15)least two nights, two full nights to conduct such an operation. This is probably a minimum.

JUDGE WALD: Would it have taken, in your view, if you feel competent to answer, take any one of the grave sites, would it have taken just one truck or (20)several trucks to make that kind of a move?

• A.: For each site --

JUDGE WALD: Yes.

• A.: -- most certainly several trucks were involved.

(25) JUDGE WALD: Okay. The last part of this

• Page 3536 • {5/141}

(1)question: Give me a notion of the distances between the primary and the secondary sites. Take any one where a primary site was disturbed and the bodies and parts of the bodies moved to a secondary site. Was (5)that just a matter in terms of miles or metres? How long was the distance between them?

• A.: I would have to anticipate on information which will be provided to you by my colleague, Dean Manning, who will explain to you the connections (10)between primary sites and the secondary sites. So to give you these distances, I would need first to expose to you what are the links between these sites. What I can tell you now is that the longest distance which was covered was from Branjevo Farm to Cancari, and this (15)would be -- it's a rough estimate, I'm making it currently by looking at the map, and I would say 40 kilometres.

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

(20) JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Thank you, Judge Wald. Mr. Ruez, you mentioned on several occasions during your testimony the words "remote places," that was the term you used, and often you mentioned the (25)configuration of the terrain. I think that I already

• Page 3537 • {6/141}

(1)have the answer I need, but, nevertheless, I'd like to hear it from you. What is the importance and significance of this factor, this element, that is to say, the configuration of the terrain, remote places, (5)and so forth?

• A.: Yes. I said remote places. I could also have said isolated places, and even desolated places, completely destroyed places. The reason why, I believe, this is very important is that this is part of (10)an operation aimed to conceal the crime, and this massive effort of hiding these bodies was certainly much more successful if the bodies were taken in areas where probably no one would have at least resettled for years. At the moment it was done, there was probably (15)an expectation that no one would resettle in these places before a couple of years, and this is, indeed, what happened. The first refugees are coming back in this place, in fact, since last year, and mainly this year. So there was very little risk for the (20)perpetrators to have someone coming across one of these sites, even by accident.

JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Can you tell us what the reasons were? Were there any factors or reasons which led to this operation?

(25) • A.: Yes, for sure there are some factors. I

• Page 3538 • {7/141}

(1)cannot say that these factors are part of the investigation. We have no ability to enter the mind of those who live it, but one has to remember the context at that time. The shuttle diplomacy was going on (5)conducted by Mr. Richard Holbrooke who was going to Belgrade to meet Mr. Milosevic. Mr. Milosevic was in easy contact with General Mladic at that time, and I may have a wrong recollection of the date, but when I read the book of Mr. Holbrooke, I noticed that, I (10)think, that around 10th of September 1995, he requested Mr. Milosevic, President Milosevic, to have access to the area, to give access to the area, to John Shattuck who was, at that time, under secretary of state for human rights, and John Shattuck was supposed to have (15)the freedom of access to the area to crime scenes and mass graves. So this could be a reason why this has sped up the process of disturbing these sites, but it is also clear that at one point, the perpetrators took (20)more time because they realised that these kinds visits would not happen so soon and, indeed, the first visit was made in January of 1996. But this is an assumption. There is no certainty at all behind it, but there might be other (25)reasons that we are absolutely unaware of.

• Page 3539 • {8/141}

(1) JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] You used the term "acceleration". Can you tell us how much time, how long did this operation take all in all?

• A.: If I look at the little survey I just made of (5)these dates, one can see that between the 7th of September and the 2nd of October, open pits are created. So it is already at some point between these dates, for sure the 27 September pits were already open. It is only later that these pits were filled and (10)the latest pit to be closed is between the 20 October and the 23 October. So we can consider that all this period of time was used to prepare and conduct this operation.

JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] And another (15)question for you, Mr. Ruez. In this period of time, is it possible to have the basic ideas of the procedure conducted, that is to say, you said that the trenches were dug, and then the bodies were transported and placed in those trenches. So can you give us an idea (20)of the procedure actually involved and what the steps that were taken were, in general terms.

• A.: I'm not familiar with these types of military activities and there will be a General coming and exposing his views about what and logistics and command (25)efforts such an operation would take; so I'm not sure I

• Page 3540 • {9/141}

(1)am the relevant person to explain the methodology the army would use in such a circumstance if they were the one doing it.

JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] No, I do (5)apologise, Mr. Ruez, it's my fault. I was speaking about procedure of displacing bodies from one location to another, the procedure of that. The organisation of how the bodies were transported; that side of the operation was what I had in mind.

(10) • A.: On this point, we have elements that we are not in a position to disclose at this point, but we have quite precise information about movements of personnel in the days before the executions took place. (15)So I'm a bit embarrassed to already enter that field, and I turn to the Prosecutor for that.

MR. HARMON: We intend to present, Mr. President, more detailed information that will answer your question at a later time. (20)If that's acceptable to the Court, I would ask Mr. Ruez defer his answer until we present that evidence.

JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Very well. So we're going to wait for an answer in -- during the (25)proceedings.

• Page 3541 • {10/141}

(1)Mr. Ruez, as we have no further questions, we should like to express our gratitude for having come here. Thank you very much.

THE WITNESS: Thank you Your Honours.
(5) [The witness withdrew]

JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Mr. Harmon, what are you going to propose next?

MR. HARMON: We have an additional witness, Mr. Dean Manning, who is an investigator with the (10)Office of the Prosecutor. And Mr. Manning's testimony will be connected, in part, to the testimony of Mr. Ruez who has described the movement, but now Mr. Manning's testimony will be more focussed and more precise. (15)He will testify today in a summary form, about the findings of experts who conducted examinations of various grave sites from 1996, 1998 and 1999 and he will introduce for Your Honours proofs linking the primary sites to the secondary sites. (20)If I could call Mr. Manning as my next witness, we can commence.

JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Yes, please do.

MR. HARMON: And in this testimony, (25)Mr. President, it would be -- we have a large number of

• Page 3542 • {11/141}

(1)exhibits and if they could be distributed now to the parties and to Your Honours, then we will be in a position to proceed quite expeditiously.
[The witness entered court]

(5) JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] I see. Yes, very well, Mr. Harmon, I'm in full agreement. We should, indeed, always do everything to facilitate matters and to speed up the process. Mr. Manning good morning to you. Can you (10)hear me.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] You are now going to read the solemn declaration that you have before you. Please go ahead.

(15) THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

WITNESS: DEAN MANNING

JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Thank you (20)very much. You may be seated. I think that you know the procedure. You're going to answer questions put to you by Mr. Harmon to begin with. Mr. Harmon, the floor is yours. Please go (25)ahead.

• Page 3543 • {12/141}

(1) • EXAMINED by Mr. Harmon:

• Q.: Good morning, Mr. Manning.

• A.: Good morning, Mr. Harmon.

• Q.: Could you spell your last name for the (5)record, please.

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

• Q.: How old are you?

• A.: I'm 37 years of age.

• Q.: Could you inform the Trial Chamber of your (10)professional background, please.

• A.: I've been a member of the Australian Federal Police, based in Canberra, Australia, since 1993, and the majority of that time was spent in the general criminal investigations branch as a detective. I (15)joined the OTP in August of 1998 and since that time I've been working with Team 6 in the Srebrenica investigation, specifically or mainly involved in exhumation and the coordination of all evidence from that exhumation project.

(20) • Q.: Let me put aside exhumations aside for just a moment. Did you and did the investigative team investigate and examine evidence found at killing sites, killing sites that did not also include mass grave sites?

(25) • A.: Yes, we did.

• Page 3544 • {13/141}

(1) • Q.: Can you identify those principal killing sites.

• A.: Two major sites of execution which were not mass graves were the Pilica Dom in the town of Pilica (5)and the Kravica warehouse. There was also a third site examined by myself and other team members near the sites of the Nova Kasaba mass graves. That site was known as the Svilile meadow.

• Q.: Now, Mr. Manning, can you tell the Trial (10)Chamber when exhumations were conducted in respect of the investigation of Srebrenica. What years?

• A.: Exhumations commenced in 1996; four sites were exhumed during that year. In 1997 there were no Srebrenica-related exhumations. In 1998 there were a (15)further eight sites exhumed. In 1999, five sites were exhumed.

• Q.: Have you been present during some or all of these exhumations?

• A.: I've been present at four complete (20)exhumations, I've also visited the sites of the other exhumations after they have concluded, and I've also been present at the mortuary when the remains were examined and the artifacts also examined.

• Q.: Now, in conducting exhumations, did the (25)Office of the Prosecutor hire or retain experts in

• Page 3545 • {14/141}

(1)various fields?

• A.: Yes, they did.

• Q.: Could you just generally inform the Trial Chamber of the types of experts that are retained to (5)conduct an investigation in an exhumation site.

• A.: Generally there is a chief archaeologist and sometimes a chief anthropologist to perform the same duties. The rest of the team is made up of qualified archaeologists, anthropologists, pathologists. Also a (10)number of those people have qualifications in other aspects of archaeology such as surveying, photography. There are also police officers, either serving or retired, who, if you like, coordinate the handling of exhibits, the tagging of such, and the initial (15)examination of them.

• Q.: Do the police officers essentially ensure that there is a proper chain of custody on evidence recovered from the grave sites?

• A.: Yes, they ensure the evidence is (20)photographed, logged, tagged, sealed, and the continuity of that item retained until it goes to the mortuary, and then ultimately to the Tribunal.

• Q.: Now at the end of an exhumation, in a particular year, do the experts who participated in the (25)exhumation process prepare reports?

• Page 3546 • {15/141}

(1) • A.: Yes. Specifically, the chief of the exhumation project prepares a report in relation to the exhumations under his control. That was done by Dr. William Hagland for 1996, professor Richard Wright (5)for 1998, Professor Wright for 1999, and also Mr. Jose Baraybar for the remainder of 1999.

• Q.: I'm going to interrupt this examination just to remind you, and to remind myself as well, that because we speak the same language we have to pause (10)between question and answer because the interpreters are going to be working very, very hard and they are going to be working harder if they need to -- if we talk too fast.

• A.: My apologies.

(15) • Q.: So if I ask a question, if you would pause --

• A.: Yes.

• Q.: -- and I'll pause after I ask my next question, after your answer. Now, Mr. Manning, you've described the (20)general type of experts that are conducting the exhumations at the sites. But in addition to those experts, did the Office of the Prosecutor engage experts to examine evidence and material that were found at those particular sites?

(25) • A.: Yes, they did. They contracted chief

• Page 3547 • {16/141}

(1)pathologists and also other experts in the United Kingdom and in the Netherlands and the United States to examine items.

• Q.: For example, were ballistics experts retained (5)to examine ballistics -- I'm sorry, shell casings that were found at the various sites?

• A.: Yes. The United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms conducted examinations of shell cases from those sites.

(10) • Q.: Were experts in the field of geology and soil analysis retained by the Office of the Prosecutor to compare soil samples between the primary grave site and the secondary sites? And if you just pause before you -- to give the interpreters time to translate the (15)question.

• A.: That's correct. Dr. Tony Brown from the University of Exeter in the United Kingdom.

• Q.: Did the Office of the Prosecutor retain experts to analyse, for example, blindfold material (20)that were found in the primary sites and the secondary sites?

• A.: Yes. Officers from the Netherlands Institute of Forensic Studies -- Forensic Science examined cloth blindfolds and cloth ligatures.

(25) • Q.: Now, at two of the principal killing sites,

• Page 3548 • {17/141}

(1)the Kravica warehouse, and the Pilica Dom, blood and tissue samples were gathered and collected and turned over to the Office of the Prosecutor. Did the Office of the Prosecutor retain experts to analyse those (5)samples to determine if there was human DNA present in them?

• A.: Yes. Again the Netherlands Forensic Institute provided experts to study those items.

• Q.: Did the Office of the Prosecutor retain (10)experts to examine the explosives residue samples that were collected from the Pilica Dom and from the Kravica warehouse?

• A.: Yes. Again, the Netherlands Forensic Institute provided experts to examine the explosives (15)for residues.

• Q.: Now, Mr. Manning, are the expert reports that had been prepared in 1996, 1998, and 1999 voluminous reports?

• A.: Yes, they are. There's approximately 17 (20)reports, some with multiple volumes, thousands of pages.

• Q.: For purposes of this trial, Mr. Manning, did I ask you to prepare a summary report relating to the significant findings and conclusions of the experts (25)from the analyses of grave sites and crime scenes in

• Page 3549 • {18/141}

(1)1996, 1998, and 1999?

• A.: Yes, you did.

• Q.: Did I also ask you to incorporate into your report the findings of the various experts who analysed (5)the physical evidence that was retrieved from those various sites?

• A.: That's correct.

• Q.: Did you prepare a summary report that I had requested?

(10) • A.: Yes, I did.

• Q.: Now, can you identify for the Trial Chamber the names of the experts and the reports which are summarised in your summary report, please.

• A.: Yes, I can. There was a report from the (15)Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Bureau in the United States. There was a report on anthropological aspects of the 1998 bodies from Mr. Baraybar. Also a report by him in relation to the anthropological examination of human remains in 1999. Also a report by him on the (20)exhumation of mass graves in eastern Bosnia, August to October 1999. A report by Dr. Anthony Brown in relation to soil relating to 1998 exhumations. A report by the same doctor in relation to soil analysis from 1999 exhumations. A report by Dr. John Clark on (25)the pathology for the 1999 exhumations. A report on

• Page 3550 • {19/141}

(1)blood and tissue by the Dutch lab, the National Forensic Institute by Dr. A.D. Klosterman. The same lab, the examination of blindfolds and their relationships from one site to another, by Ms. Suzie (5)Maljaars. And that same laboratory, the forensic examination of explosive residues from various sites. There's also five volumes of a report on the forensic investigation of the Cerska grave site by Dr. William Hagland. Five volumes of a report by (10)Dr. Hagland in relation to the Lazete 2 grave site, which is also known as Orahovac. A report by Dr. Hagland in relation to four graves in the area of Nova Kasaba. A report by Dr. Hagland, four volumes, in relation to --

(15) THE INTERPRETER: If the witness could speak up, please.

MR. HARMON: Also if one of the microphones could be turned on. It appears that one of the microphones is not on.

(20) • A.: As I said, a report from Dr. Hagland in relation to the Branjevo Military Farm or Pilica mass grave site, four volumes. Eight reports from Dr. Chris Lawrence relating to autopsies of the 1998 graves. Four volumes of the United States Naval Investigations (25)examination of the Pilica Dom and Kravica warehouse. A

• Page 3551 • {20/141}

(1)report by Professor Richard Wright in relation to the 1998 exhumations, eight sites. And a report by Professor Richard Wright in relation to the 1999 exhumations at Kozluk.

(5) • Q.: Now, Mr. Manning, I don't intend to ask you detailed questions about the contents of each of those reports because we're going to be hearing from Dr. Hagland and we're going to be hearing from Dr. Lawrence and we're going to be hearing from many of (10)those experts. The purpose of your testimony is to essentially inform the Judges of the general findings of these -- many of these experts and the connections between the primary grave sites and the secondary grave sites. (15)For purposes of your testimony, I know you're going to be using the terms "primary grave site" and "secondary grave site". Can you define those terms as you intend to use them.

• A.: Put simply, the primary graves that I refer (20)to are graves in which the persons or victims were placed immediately after or at the time of their execution and buried within those graves. A secondary grave is one in which the bodies are placed after they've been removed from the primary (25)grave or, as I refer to it, "robbed" from the primary

• Page 3552 • {21/141}

(1)graves and placed into secondary graves.

• Q.: Now, Mr. Manning, what's the total number of grave sites associated with Srebrenica that have been completely exhumed and where the mortal remains of (5)humans have been found?

• A.: There have been 17 complete exhumations since 1996. In all those cases, multiple remains have been found.

• Q.: Before we take your report, let me ask you to (10)identify the report that you prepared, and it is Prosecutor's Exhibit 140. Can you identify the title of your report, please?

• A.: Yes that report is entitled, "United Nations International Criminal Tribunal for the Former (15)Yugoslavia Srebrenica Investigation Summary of Forensic Evidence-Execution Points and Mass Graves". It's marked as OTP 140.

• Q.: Now, will you take Exhibit 140 and place on the ELMO page number 4/21. We need to see the whole (20)page in the -- can you lower that a little, please. A little bit lower, please, Mr. Usher. That's fine, thank you. Mr. Manning, would you, using the pointer, explain what this is to the Court and to the people in (25)the gallery.

• Page 3553 • {22/141}

(1) • A.: This is a representation of the number of graves that we have exhumed and haven't exhumed to date. In this column, we have the exhumed graves, and in this column we have the graves that we have not yet (5)exhumed. In 1996, we exhumed the Cerska grave, the Nova Kasaba grave which I refer to as "96" as we exhumed a grave in a similar area in 1999. There is a grave at Orahovac which is known (10)as Lazete 2, a grave at Branjevo Military Farm which is also known as Pilica. Those exhumations were conducted by Dr. Hagland. In 1998, the site known as the dam near Petkovci was exhumed as was Cancari Road 12, Cancari (15)Road 3, Hodzici Road 3, Hodzici Road 4, Hodzici Road 5, a site known as Lipje 2 and a site known as Zeleni Jadar 5. Those graves were exhumed by Professor Wright with the exception of the dam site. The remainders are (20)secondary graves with the dam sites being a robbed primary grave. During 1999, Professor Wright conducted the exhumations of the grave at Kozluk, and Mr. Baraybar then in 1999 as the Nova Kasaba which I've indicated as (25)the 1999 Nova Kasaba grave, a few kilometres from the

• Page 3554 • {23/141}

(1)1996 site, also a site at Konjevic Polje 1 and Konjevic Polje 2, and a site known as Glogova 2.

• Q.: Mr. Manning, while we're on this particular chart, some of the names appear to be shaded and some (5)are unshaded. What does that mean?

• A.: The names of the graves that are shaded indicate primary graves. In this case, Cerska is a primary grave that was not tampered with or robbed; Nova Kasaba was 96, (10)was not tampered or robbed; Orahovac Lazete was; Branjevo Military Farm was; the dam at Petkovci was disturbed. The grave at Kozluk was disturbed. The grave at Nova Kasaba was not. Konjevic Polje 1 was not. Konjevic Polje 2 was not and Glogova was not.

(15) • Q.: So the shading in on page 4/21 are primary graves?

• A.: Primary graves, yes.

• Q.: The unshaded are secondary graves?

• A.: The unshaded graves are secondary.

(20) • Q.: Now, in the column on the right, "examined but not exhumed", what do you mean by "examined"?

• A.: The graves in the white column indicate graves in which we have either by mechanically digging or trenching, established that there are human remains, (25)multiple human remains within those graves. We have

• Page 3555 • {24/141}

(1)not yet been able to exhume them. Again the grey shading on Lazete 1 or Orahovac and on Glogova 1 indicate that they are primary graves. The remainder of the graves are (5)secondary graves.

• Q.: Now, let me turn your attention, Mr. Manning, to another exhibit that's on the easel. It's Prosecutor's Exhibit 135. Your Honours should have an A-3 size of (10)Prosecutor's Exhibit 135. Let me turn your attention to this large exhibit and can you explain, first of all, using this exhibit, the location of the primary grave sites using the -- there's a pointer. Perhaps you can approach. (15)There is a microphone. Will you just identify the primary mass grave sites? First indicating the ones that were disturbed?

• A.: Firstly, the Branjevo Military Farm at the top of the picture.

(20) • Q.: Why don't you take the microphone from the usher, please. Thank you.

• A.: This grave is a primary grave which was disturbed in that bodies were taken from that grave. This is the grave at Kozluk next to the Drina (25)River. Again, a primary grave that was disturbed.

• Page 3556 • {25/141}

(1)This is the Petkovci dam or the dam near Petkovci site. Again, that was disturbed. This is the two sites at Orahovac, also known as Lazete. Lazete 2 was disturbed. We have not yet (5)exhumed Lazete 1. In the south, we have the site known as Glogova. Primary graves, Glogova 2 has been exhumed and was a disturbed grave, Glogova one has not been exhumed.

(10) • Q.: Now, using the pointer, show the Court on this exhibit the undisturbed primary grave sites.

• A.: The undisturbed primary grave sites are clustered in this area of the map. They include Cerska, a primary grave, Nova Kasaba, Nova Kasaba 1999, (15)a grave known as Konjevic Polje 1, and Konjevic Polje 2. All primary and all undisturbed.

• Q.: Thank you, Mr. Manning. Have a seat. Now, Mr. Manning, if you would kindly take Prosecutor's Exhibit 140, your report, and turn to the (20)page which has the numbers 00950925, and place that on the ELMO, please. Can you briefly explain what this particular chart is that you prepared?

• A.: This chart shows the primary graves in (25)relation to the Srebrenica investigation. Graves here

• Page 3557 • {26/141}

(1)in red, are the undisturbed primary graves, the ones that I indicated on the map in one particular area. Graves here in blue indicate primary graves which have been disturbed or robbed of some of the (5)victims.

• Q.: Now, Mr. Manning, I'm not going to ask you to approach the board again because we had extensive testimony from Mr. Ruez identifying the secondary mass grave sites, but on Prosecutor 135, do the green dots (10)on that exhibit represent the locations of the second mass grave sites?

• A.: Yes, they do. They represent the collection of secondary graves that we're aware of.

• Q.: Now, if you turn to the next page in (15)Prosecutor's Exhibit 140 which is found at 00950926, would you place that on the ELMO, please, and this is a summary chart and it has certain information. Can you explain to the Judges what this chart contains?

• A.: In a similar fashion to the previous chart, (20)it shows the secondary mass graves. All the graves listed are ones in which we are aware that multiple human remains have been found. The graves that are indicated by the dark green filled-in areas, are the graves that we've (25)exhumed during the past few years. These other graves

• Page 3558 • {27/141}

(1)are graves that we have not yet exhumed but, again, they contain multiple human remains.

• Q.: They've been probed?

• A.: Been probed.

(5) • Q.: Now, let me correct this chart. In the top of the middle column below it, it says "Hodzici Road 2" and "Hodzici Road 2". Can we correct the top box?

• A.: It should read "Hodzici Road 1".

• Q.: Thank you very much, Mr. Manning. (10)Now, we had extensive general discussion about the robbing of these graves, and since you participated in the exhumations and had frequent contacts with the experts. When an exhumation at a particular site was (15)being conducted, could it be determined from examining the soil and examining the texture of the soil and the composition of the soil whether or not particular grave site had been tampered with? And you can answer that yes or no because I'm going to show you some exhibits (20)and I'll ask you to explain it in a minute.

• A.: Yes, that's correct.

MR. HARMON: Now, if I could have Prosecutor's Exhibit -- it's a large exhibit, 135 -- I'm sorry, it is 1J1 placed on the easel.

(25) • Q.: Mr. Manning, you're familiar with this

• Page 3559 • {28/141}

(1)exhibit and while it's being placed on the easel, does Prosecutor's Exhibit 1J1 show any evidence of a disturbance at a primary mass grave site?

• A.: Yes, it does.

(5) • Q.: Please feel free to approach the exhibit on the easel and, using the pointer, will you explain to the Judges the significance of this particular photograph.

• A.: This is a photograph of the Kozluk mass grave (10)site that was exhumed in 1999. This represents bodies on the surface of the soil which I'm told was the original surface, the original level. As you can see, this group of bodies here appears to have been cut through, it's at the bottom (15)middle of the page, by this trench that runs through this section of the photograph. As that section of the trench cuts through the original surface, it must have been made after this surface had the bodies on it. Therefore, this trench (20)here cut through the grave and removed at least parts of these bodies here and some of the soil.

• Q.: All right. The soil then from this particular site and the bodies that were -- and the parts of the bodies that were taken from that site were (25)transported to a secondary site and I take it,

• Page 3560 • {29/141}

(1)Mr. Manning, that the soil that was take taken from this trench was then the basis of a later comparison by experts to determine whether the soil found in the secondary grave had come, for example, from this (5)grave.

• A.: That's correct, yes.

• Q.: Now you can have a seat, Mr. Manning, please, and I'm going to ask the usher to assist you in placing an exhibit on the ELMO. It's Prosecutor's Exhibit (10)132/107. Do you have a copy of that exhibit with you?

• A.: Yes, that's a copy of that exhibit.

MR. HARMON: Now, this is Prosecutor's Exhibit 132/107, and let me ask, has that been distributed to the parties? It should be in Your (15)Honours' -- Your Honours should have some binders and it should be in the binder marked "132." There will be a tab in your binder that's before Your Honours that says "107."

• Q.: Now, Mr. Manning, where is this site?

(20) • A.: The site depicted on this exhibit is the same as the large exhibit on the easel. It's the Kozluk primary mass grave.

• Q.: Could you speak up, please.

• A.: It's the Kozluk primary mass grave, as in the (25)larger exhibit.

• Page 3561 • {30/141}

(1) • Q.: Now, what does this particular exhibit illustrate that is not illustrated in the previous exhibit?

• A.: It's, in effect, the same photograph. As you (5)can see, this line through the middle of the page is the cutout shown on the large picture. It shows the more extensive trenching or cutting of the base of that area and it shows the extension through this area, to the right of the picture, where soil and bodies have (10)been removed from that grave.

• Q.: Does this give any clue as to what kind of a device was used to remove the bodies? And if so, can you explain.

• A.: Yes. I've been informed by the chief (15)archaeologists that this would represent a mechanical digger or trenching machine such as a -- similar to a bulldozer with a bucket that could scoop into the soil and make these sort of marks. It also leaves wheel marks on the base of the soil.

(20) • Q.: Mr. Manning, can you inform the Trial Chamber the effect of this removal process on the bodies in the primary grave and the evidence that is associated with those bodies.

• A.: It's difficult not to overstate the effect (25)that removing of the bodies has had on the

• Page 3562 • {31/141}

(1)investigation. As you can see in this exhibit, the bodies appear to be cut through. You can see that a large amount of soil and bodies have been removed. They were removed by a bucketed machine, in effect, (5)scooped up, placed in the back of a truck or dumped in the back of a truck, which would mean the body parts would be further broken up, and driven some distance over rough roads before being placed in a secondary grave in a similar manner, or dumped. That will cause (10)the body and body parts to break apart, to mix up, to fall in different areas, effectively spreading the bodies across both sites and across the sites. It has meant that identification of the individuals has become extremely difficult, it has (15)meant that items which would lead to identification have been damaged and destroyed, and instead of exhuming the primary graves within a year or two we are at the stage where we've only be able to exhume a part of the graves.

(20) • Q.: All right. Thank you very much, Mr. Manning. Now I'd like to focus your attention on the general findings of these experts, and if you would refer to page 3/21 of Prosecutor's Exhibit 140, your (25)report.

• Page 3563 • {32/141}

(1)I'd like to start out with just some statistics, your providing some statistics, please, and the reason I ask you to just provide the statistics is we're going to be hearing from the experts themselves (5)shortly. But can you first of all tell the Court the minimum number of individuals who were located at all of the exhumed sites. How many are we talking about?

• A.: The MNI, or minimal number of individuals, is 1,883.

(10) • Q.: Can you define the term "minimal number of individuals"?

• A.: It's a complicated term that will obviously be explained at greater length by the experts. But as the bodies have been broken up in the robbing process, (15)it's not simply a matter of counting the bodies, which would be the case with an undisturbed grave such as Cerska. With the disturbed primary grave and secondary grave, the bodies are so intermingled that a simple count won't work. They're damaged. (20)Anthropologists calculate the minimum number of individuals by selecting normally a large bone and a left or right bone and only counting that bone, in effect, a thigh bone, all left thigh bones. From that they calculate the minimum number of people that would (25)be represented by those bones. If those bones aren't

• Page 3564 • {33/141}

(1)present or are damaged, then they can't be counted. It then gets more complicated. Basically it's a count of a selected large bone.

• Q.: Now, the use of the minimum number of (5)individuals and the formula that you've described, is that a conservative approach to numbering the victims?

• A.: Very conservative. If that particular bone is not present or damaged, then it's not counted. You could have an entire body minus a leg or part of a leg (10)and it would be difficult to count that body. So it is a very conservative number.

• Q.: Does that lead to the likelihood that in the 22 fully exhumed grave sites there are more than 1,883 individuals in those sites?

(15) • A.: In the 17 exhumed --

• Q.: Seventeen, I'm sorry.

• A.: Yes. There would be, I believe, more than that, and in fact there are large numbers of body parts in some graves which certainly outnumber the number of (20)whole bodies. I would expect that number to be greater.

• Q.: Now, does the figure 1,883, the minimum number of individuals, include the number of individuals found in the probed sites?

(25) • A.: No, it does not. They have not been counted

• Page 3565 • {34/141}

(1)in that 1,883.

• Q.: Mr. Manning, please turn your attention to the gender of the victims found in the various exhumed sites. Can you provide the Trial Chamber with the (5)statistics in that regard, please.

• A.: In relation to the assessment of sex of the victims, 1,656 individuals were determined to be male; 212 individuals were undetermined, that is, no sex was determined for them; 1 individual was determined to be (10)a female.

• Q.: Let me turn your attention now to the statistics in respect of the cause of death. Would you please summarise the findings.

• A.: As to cause of death, 1,424 individuals died (15)as a result of gunshot wounds; 169 individuals died of probable or possible gunshot wounds; 5 individuals died of shrapnel injuries; 4 died of other causes, such as trauma or possible suffocation; and 1,374 individuals died of undetermined causes.

(20) • Q.: Now if I could have placed on the easel Prosecutor's Exhibit 1/H/I, we're going to turn our attention to the blindfolds because they play an important part in this case and in linking the various sites. (25)Let me ask you first, Mr. Manning, did the

• Page 3566 • {35/141}

(1)people conducting the exhumations discover the presence of blindfolds in various mass grave sites?

• A.: Yes, they did.

• Q.: Now, this is an image. Can you first of all (5)identify this image and what it shows.

• A.: This image is a victim from the Kozluk mass grave. This is during the exhumation process. This photo depicts the individual with a cloth blindfold over his eyes. It also shows his arms bent backwards (10)behind him in the area of the belt, and some of the vegetation and other artefacts in the grave, including near his head, the boot of another victim.

• Q.: Go ahead, please.

• A.: My apologies. That individual was also bound (15)at the wrists.

• Q.: Let me show you an exhibit which is Prosecutor's Exhibit 149. It's an A4-size photograph. If that could be placed on the easel, please. Can you identify this particular photograph, (20)Mr. Manning.

• A.: Again this photo is from the Kozluk mass grave. It was during the 1999 exhumation. This photograph shows one of the archaeologists in the process of exhuming this body. (25)As you can see on the right-hand middle side

• Page 3567 • {36/141}

(1)of the image, there's the head and part of the body of the victim, with the mouth. Across the eyes is a cloth blindfold, tied at the back of the head.

• Q.: I take it, Mr. Manning, in the course of the (5)exhumation work photographs are made of the various bodies and then the items that are found on these bodies, such as the blindfolds and other items, are identified, preserved, and retained by the Office of the Prosecutor. Is that correct?

(10) • A.: That's correct.

MR. HARMON: Now, could I have Prosecutor's Exhibit 27/9, which is a physical exhibit, shown to the witness; 27/9 is the exhibit.

• Q.: Mr. Manning, do you have in front of you an (15)example of one of the blindfolds that was retrieved from the Kozluk site? Could you remove it, please, and show the Court.

• A.: I have it in front of me. Excuse me. I'll just place some gloves on. (20)This artefact is marked "KK-3" for Kozluk, grave 3, "834B," for body 834, and also marked as "A1." It's a cloth with a knot at the back of it, and a metal tag identifying it. It also has what I believe to be hair and human tissue adhering to it. As you can (25)see, it was spread out and has since shrunk a little

• Page 3568 • {37/141}

(1)bit in the washing process. But it's the blindfold that you see on that image on the large easel.

• Q.: So it's the blindfold on the man who is depicted in the large image on the easel; is that (5)correct?

• A.: That's the blindfold removed from that body.

• Q.: It's this kind of material that then was submitted for expert analysis for comparison purposes with other blindfolds that are found at secondary (10)sites; is that right? This kind of material, blindfold material.

• A.: This sort of material and cloth of this type that was also used as a ligature.

• Q.: Now, if I could have Prosecutor's Exhibit -- (15)actually let me ask you another question first, Mr. Manning. How many different exhumation sites were blindfolds and cloth material discovered?

• A.: From eight separate sites.

• Q.: Now, can you identify those sites orally, (20)please.

MR. HARMON: For purposes of assisting Your Honours, at page 21/21 in Mr. Manning's report, there is a table that will provide the Chamber with statistics about blindfolds, their locations where they (25)were found.

• Page 3569 • {38/141}

(1) • Q.: Mr. Manning, can you just identify orally the locations of those sites, please.

• A.: Yes, the sites were the Branjevo Military Farm, which is a primary grave. The related secondary (5)grave of Cancari Road 12, the primary grave at Orahovac known as Lazete 2, the three connected secondary graves at Hodzici Road 3, Hodzici Road 4 and Hodzici Road 5. Also at the Kozluk site, as you've seen, and the Cancari Road 3 site which is the associated secondary (10)for that grave.

MR. HARMON: Could I have Prosecutor's Exhibit 130/96 placed on the ELMO, please. THE REGISTRAR [Int.] Your Honours, it can be found in the binders.

(15) • A.: Sorry Mr. Harmon, can you tell me that exhibit number again?

MR. HARMON: It's 130/96.

• Q.: This is a blindfold that was taken from Orahovac and it appears to be coloured material; is (20)that correct?

• A.: That's correct.

• Q.: This also provided indications to the people who were doing the expert analysis when they would find something of this colour, they would compare it to a (25)similar coloured material from a different site in

• Page 3570 • {39/141}

(1)attempting to reach their conclusions; is that correct?

• A.: That's correct.

MR. HARMON: Remove that, please, from the ELMO. Now, could I have placed on the easel (5)Prosecutor's Exhibit 142, please.

• Q.: Mr. Manning, how many blindfolds were discovered at the various sites that were exhumed?

• A.: In total, at least 270 blindfolds were found at those eight sites.

(10) • Q.: Is that a conservative figure?

• A.: Yes, it is. Some blindfolds had deteriorated to the point that we couldn't use them. Some had been dislodged. This is a conservative figure.

• Q.: Could you explain now -- there's a board on (15)the easel with many, many small photographs. Can you explain to the Judges what that represents. The Judges have also been provided with an A-3 sized copy of this exhibit.

• A.: This represents a photo of each of the (20)blindfolds located. It -- there were one or two photos that showed two blindfolds but effectively, this is the 270 blindfolds located within those graves. They are in order of grave. The first section is the grave designation. (25)Some of those blindfolds are in situ on the head,

• Page 3571 • {40/141}

(1)others are photographed at the morgue after cleaning.

MR. HARMON: Your Honours, Prosecutor's Exhibit 128, 129 and 130 are the binders with individual photographs that are depicted on this (5)collective, this collage.

• Q.: Could you tell the Judges how you made this selection of these images, please, what methodology you used, why you were conservative in your approach and how you were conservative in your approach?

(10) • A.: Your Honour, I examined all the records, photographs, expert reports in relation to the discovery of blindfolds. But as you can see from some of the photographs, they are difficult to see. They are difficult to see due to the condition of the (15)bodies. They would have been logged at the exhumation side; however, some of those blindfolds would move or slip or be dislodged on transportation to the morgue, and the morgue will also find blindfolds loose on the (20)body and part of the associated artefacts. Therefore the count of blindfolds from the exhumation site and from the morgue would be different. I examined those counts. I physically examined the blindfolds, and I selected only those (25)blindfolds that were either mentioned by the

• Page 3572 • {41/141}

(1)archaeologist, mentioned by the pathologist, anthropologist, photographed in situ or were clearly a blindfold due to their construction material, and normally the presence of human hair in the knot or (5)pieces of what appeared to be scalp and skull on those pieces of cloth.

MR. HARMON: Mr. President, I don't know what time you would like to take a break but if you -- I can very easily continue this examination, but if I know, (10)then I can orient myself.

JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] I think that this is indeed a good time because we've been working for an hour and 15 minutes. Let us now have a 20-minute break and we can continue after that.

(15) MR. HARMON: Maybe before we take the break, I can introduce the exhibits that were tendered by Mr. Ruez. We had not formally tendered those exhibits and I can identify those for Your Honours. It would be (20)28/7, 28/9, 28/11, 28/18, 28/8, and then 160 through 169, and 184 through 187.

JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Mr. Petrusic, have you any objections to make?

MR. PETRUSIC: [Int.] The Defence (25)does not have any objections to the exhibits presented

• Page 3573 • {42/141}

(1)by the Prosecution; however, the Defence does have a proposal, that is, to officially tender D20, Exhibit D20 during the testimony of Witness T.

JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Yes, very (5)well. Mr. Harmon, any objections with respect to D20 and its tendering?

MR. HARMON: Let me have one moment.

MR. PETRUSIC: [Int.] I think that (10)it ought to be under seal, an exhibit under seal.

MR. HARMON: I have no objection.

JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Yes, but we have had that observation by Mr. Petrusic, and as it is a protected witness, the declaration must be under (15)seal, admitted under seal. The exhibits, Prosecution, as they were numbered, 7, 9, 11, 18, 8, 169, 184 through 187, and Exhibits D20 have been tendered and admitted. Very well. Let us now have a 20-minute break (20)after which we shall continue the hearing.

--- Recess taken at 10.48 a.m.

--- On resuming at 11.17 a.m.

JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Mr. Harmon, you may continue.

(25) MR. HARMON:

• Page 3574 • {43/141}

(1) • Q.: Mr. Manning, before we start your testimony, let me ask you to keep your voice up. We're going to change the topic now. We're going to turn to the topic of ligatures. Let me ask (5)you, during the course of the exhumation process, was it determined that some of the victims, or many of the victims had had their hands or their arms tied with ligatures of various types of material?

• A.: That's correct.

(10) • Q.: Now, during the recess I placed Prosecutor's Exhibit 141 on the easel; it's a collage. The Judges should have an A3-size copy of Prosecutor's Exhibit 141 in front of them for their own reference. Let me ask you, Mr. Manning, can you explain (15)what's depicted in this particular exhibit.

• A.: Again, this exhibit is similar to the blindfold collage. It shows the ligatures that were located at the various graves. The grave name is indicated in the first white section and continues to (20)show all the ligatures that I could identify from those graves. A total of 407 ligatures of different types.

MR. HARMON: Your Honours, Prosecutor's Exhibits 128, 129, 130, and 131 have the individual images that are contained in the collage, so for your (25)later reference the sum individual parts of this

• Page 3575 • {44/141}

(1)exhibit are found in those binders.

• Q.: Now, Mr. Manning, once again let me ask you, the figure of 407 ligatures that are depicted in the exhibits, is this a conservative number?

(5) • A.: Yes, it's conservative.

• Q.: For the same reasons that you gave in respect of the blindfold material?

• A.: Exactly the same reason, and indeed some of the ligatures were cloth which deteriorated; some were (10)wire which broke apart. Exactly the same methodology was applied to the ligatures.

• Q.: Now, referring to page 20/21 of your summary report, can you identify the sites, the exhumation sites, where these ligatures were found, and can you (15)make a distinction in making these identifications between a primary site and a secondary site.

• A.: Yes. Ligatures were found at Cerska grave. This is a primary grave. Almost all those ligatures were of wire. The Nova Kasaba primary grave of 1996, (20)ligatures were also found. Both those graves were not disturbed. At the Orahovac (Lazete 2) grave, a ligature was found; that is a primary grave, and at the related secondary grave of Hodzici Road 5, a ligature was also found. At the primary disturbed grave of (25)Branjevo Military Farm, ligatures were found, and at

• Page 3576 • {45/141}

(1)the related secondary grave at Cancari Road 12. Similarly, ligatures were found at the primary site of the dam near Petkovci and its related site of Liplje 2. They were also found at the primary grave of Kozluk (5)and its associated secondary grave of Cancari Road 3. Ligatures were also found at the secondary site of Zeleni Jadar 5.

• Q.: Now, did your analysis of these ligatures reveal that there were different types of ligature (10)material used on the victims?

• A.: Yes. Different materials were used. Some were used opportunistically, such as a cloth sack. But predominantly there were ligatures of wire, mainly two types of wire; there were ligatures of cloth; there (15)were ligatures of string.

• Q.: Let me start by putting on the easel Prosecutor's Exhibit 134. We're going to use a series of exhibits to illustrate the different kinds of ligature material that were found in the various (20)exhumation sites.

MR. HARMON: Would you stand that up, Mr. Usher? That's the correct perspective.

• Q.: Now, on the easel is Prosecutor's Exhibit 134, Mr. Manning. Can you approach that, please, using (25)the microphone, and identify the significant parts of

• Page 3577 • {46/141}

(1)that exhibit, please. First of all, where is this image, taken from which grave site?

• A.: This image is from the Kozluk primary grave, (5)mass grave site. It shows an individual who is laying on his face and front, with the head and skull up here, two arms here, the belt and rest of the body down here to the end of the photo. Clearly around the arm and wrists of this (10)individual is a ligature made of twine or string, white synthetic twine. It is tied in a knot here and goes round both wrists of this individual. This individual also has a blindfold.

• Q.: Thank you very much, Mr. Manning. Please sit (15)down. Mr. Manning, I'd like to now put on the ELMO Prosecutor's Exhibit 132/86, which is a cloth ligature example, please. Could you please explain this particular (20)exhibit, where it's located -- where the photograph is taken, from which site, and what kind of material is used in this particular illustration.

• A.: This particular image is from the Branjevo Military Farm, or Pilica. It represents human remains (25)that have been found during the exhumation process.

• Page 3578 • {47/141}

(1)There are a set of hands and arms. The rest of the body has not yet been exposed. You can see that the arms are crossed over in the area of the wrist, and here is a cloth ligature, again knotted and wrapping (5)round both wrists. Some of these cloth ligatures formed a figure 8; some of them formed a circle, but all of them bound and knotted.

• Q.: Let's turn to the next exhibit, Mr. Manning, which is Prosecutor's Exhibit 132/87. Would you place (10)that on the ELMO, please, and explain to the Court what that represents. Could you turn it to the side, please.

• A.: This is a photograph of a ligature binding of the hands and wrists of an individual from the Nova (15)Kasaba 1996 mass grave. You can see the victim's coat sleeve. This is one of his hands and this is another of his hands. Binding and digging into the flesh is a wire ligature, again knotted or tied around the wrists.

(20) • Q.: Now, can you show the Court, using Prosecutor's Exhibit 16/6, what a wire ligature that was retrieved from one of these sites looks like. You should have it in front of you. Mr. Manning, if you would remove that from the bag, please.

(25) • A.: This is a wire ligature, and marked on the

• Page 3579 • {48/141}

(1)bag is "CSK," which is the code for Cerska, "108," which is the body that it came from, and the number 2, which indicates artefact 2. This is now in two parts. It is a wire (5)ligature. At one stage it was passing around the wrists of the individual through one loop, and through the other loop was the other wrist. It is bound here and twisted and tied. As you can see, it is quite small. It was very tightly bound around the wrists.

(10) • Q.: Thank you very much, Mr. Manning. Now, Mr. Manning, we'll turn to another important category of evidence which is the presence of artefacts, as I call it, at the various grave sites, and during the exhumations. (15)Did the Office of the Prosecutor recover different types of artefacts that were significant and that led to the identification, first of all, of the victims having come from Srebrenica and, second of all, to the actual identifications of some of those victims?

(20) • A.: That's correct. In each of the graves that we exhumed, documentation or other items were found which provided a positive link to Srebrenica. They included licna carte or licence cards, identification, other. In some instances, they have provided (25)identification of the victims.

• Page 3580 • {49/141}

(1) • Q.: Can you describe, just in -- using a general example, how the discovery of an artefact in a mass grave site leads to the identification of someone from Srebrenica?

(5) • A.: In the general sense, the licence card may have the address or the opstina of Srebrenica on it. It may be some other artefact as documentation from factories, offices, receipts naming Srebrenica or addresses in Srebrenica.

(10) • Q.: Now, have artefacts linked to Srebrenica been located in all of the primary mass grave sites?

• A.: Yes, every one.

• Q.: Also located in the exhumed secondary -- all of the exhumed secondary sites?

(15) • A.: There's been something to link the individuals to Srebrenica in all the cases.

• Q.: What I'd like to do now, Mr. Manning is run through a series of exhibits to illustrate the types of artefacts that are discovered in these graves and we'll (20)start with first of all Prosecutor's Exhibit 132/95. There is a related exhibit to that and that is 132/95A. But if you would put 132/95 on the ELMO first. Can you tell, first of all, where that (25)particular artefact was retrieved?

• Page 3581 • {50/141}

(1) • A.: This artefact was removed from body number 60 or human remains number 60 at the Cerska grave. "CSK" is the code for Cerska, 1996, primary grave.

• Q.: What is it?

(5) • A.: I'll just move it down a bit. It's a pendant, a gold coloured pendant or necklace with an "S" as part of the pattern. You can also see on the top of the photo a knot in the chain of that pendant. This was removed from the victim, Cerska 60.

(10) • Q.: Now, Mr. Manning, this ultimately led to an identification which we'll get to in a minute. Can you please tell the Court how this led to an identification and the story related to this particular object?

• A.: As part of the attempt to interview, to (15)identify the victims from Srebrenica, families would report the missing to known government organisations such as PHR and the International Red Cross. In that process, they would provide as much information as they could on the description of the individual; age, (20)height, injuries. Also personal effects such as clothing, such as wallets, such as medallions such as this. This particular thing was identified by a family prior to it being investigated by the OTP. They (25)drew a picture of a pendant with an S on it and a knot

• Page 3582 • {51/141}

(1)in the chain. On the basis of that, on the basis of the description of the individual, and the post mortem data, they established that the individual Cerska 60 was the individual that had been identified as wearing (5)this chain and this pendant.

• Q.: What were the circumstances under which the victim came to wear this particular pendant? Would you tell the Judges what information the Office of the Prosecutor found out?

(10) • A.: The pendant was given to the individual, who was a young boy, by his mother.

• Q.: Where was that?

• A.: In Srebrenica. It was given to him. She detailed that to PHR.

(15) • Q.: Would you describe, please, the story?

• A.: She indicated that she gave him the chain as a gift. He placed it around his neck. Because of his small size, it was too long. She saw him knot it to make it a little bit easier to wear. (20)She was able to identify the pendant itself, particularly the "S" and, more importantly, identify the knot that she saw her son put in that chain.

• Q.: Now, how old was the boy?

• A.: He was born in 1979 according to the (25)identification material, so that made him 15, 16 years

• Page 3583 • {52/141}

(1)of age.

• Q.: Would you place Prosecutor's Exhibit 132/95A on the ELMO. There's a name that's highlighted on that. First of all, what is this list?

(5) • A.: This is a page from the list prepared by ICRC or International Red Cross and PHR. It indicates the name of the missing from Srebrenica. It's a large volume. This indicates the missing identified (10)victim's name as Samir Spiodic, a male, his date of birth which is the 22nd of February 1979. It also indicates the place of birth, Srebrenica, his father's name, Kamel, date and place of disappearance, and it also indicates the municipality.

(15) • Q.: Let's turn to another example, Mr. Manning. Prosecutor's Exhibit 132/93. Can you place that on the ELMO, please. Explain what this is and what its significance is.

(20) • A.: This item was recovered from the mass grave at Branjevo Military Farm. It's marked as Pilica, the code for that grave, 16, and item 10. It's the 10th item removed from body 16 from that grave. And as can be seen, it's an artificial leg. It was removed from (25)that victim.

• Page 3584 • {53/141}

(1)Repairing or binding that leg is an amount of tape. On that tape are the words "Feros Uniz Srebrenica and Yugoslavia." On the basis of the data provided by the family, that false leg led to the (5)identification of PLC-16.

• Q.: Would you place Prosecutor's Exhibit 132/93A on the ELMO. Identify this object first of all and then tell us about it.

• A.: Again, it's a page detailing persons missing (10)from Srebrenica. This is a PHR, ICRC missing list. It provides the name of the victim, Nezir Efendic, a male, the year he was born, his father's name, and where he went missing from.

• Q.: Let's turn again to an example of an artefact (15)that was significant and was discovered in one of the mass grave sites. Could you please put Prosecutor's Exhibit 132/91 on the ELMO. Tell us about this particular exhibit, Mr. Manning.

(20) • A.: If I can just move it up. This is a licence card or licna carte which was recovered from the secondary mass grave of Hodzici Road 3 which is indicated here. It's from body 3, and it's the seventh artefact from that body. (25)There is a photograph still partly visible of

• Page 3585 • {54/141}

(1)a male person and the details of that individual, date of birth, father's name, his name, where he's from, Srebrenica, is included on that licence card.

• Q.: Now, what's the date of birth that's (5)indicated on that licna carte licence card?

• A.: 17th of June, 1919.

• Q.: Would you turn to the next exhibit which is related, which is Prosecutor's Exhibit 132/91A. Please tell us about this exhibit.

(10) • A.: Again, it's a page of details of missing from Srebrenica. It includes the details of the identified person from the Hodzici Road grave, Abdurahman Avdic, male, and a year of birth and, again, date and place of birth, Srebrenica, father's name, and date and place of (15)disappearance.

• Q.: And the year of birth is different in this exhibit, it's the year 1920, and in the previous exhibit it was 1919. Nevertheless, was there a confirmation that the individual whose licence card (20)licna carte was found in the grave site is this?

• A.: This individual has been positively identified, that identification accepted by the Bosnian authorities, and a death certificate issued. I believe, and I've had experience with the (25)details provided by the family. They are often wrong

• Page 3586 • {55/141}

(1)in the sense that they don't know the precise year of birth and, as indicated here, they can't recall or don't know the day and month of birth. I've spoken to witnesses who didn't know (5)their own date of birth, month or even year.

• Q.: Thank you, Mr. Manning, let's turn to another exhibit, please. Prosecutor's Exhibit 132/98. Turn it on its side so we can see the whole exhibit. Mr. Manning, what does this exhibit tell us?

(10) • A.: This exhibit is from the Cancari Road 3, the secondary grave to Kozluk. It's from body or may even represent body 372 from that grave. As you can see, it's part of a spinal column of an individual. In this case, due to medical (15)conditions best described by experts, the spine has been fused along its length. Obviously, this individual would be unable to freely move or bend and he was subject to an autopsy report that details that condition.

(20) • Q.: That autopsy report that details his condition is Prosecutor's Exhibit 132/98A. You don't have to put that on the ELMO, but does that autopsy report indicate that this was a man who was disabled as a result of this condition?

(25) • A.: From the autopsy report, the whole spine

• Page 3587 • {56/141}

(1)showed a severe ancylosis which would have caused obvious problems in moving.

• Q.: Now, this is a unique medical condition for this particular victim. Has this led to an (5)identification of the victim?

• A.: Not in this case, it hasn't led to an identification. Those efforts are still continuing.

• Q.: Let's turn to another type of artefact that was found in, I think, the exhumed sites if we could (10)turn to Prosecutor's Exhibit 132/109. Again, Mr. Manning, please tell us where this was located and what this particular object is and what it represents.

• A.: This object was removed from the Hodzici 4 (15)secondary grave related to the Orahovac Lazete graves. It is removed from body 296, and it's artefact 2. The other details include the photographic numbers and the date. As you can see, it is a pocket watch with (20)what is obviously a hole or mark through it apparently caused by a bullet or similar.

• Q.: Now, did this artefact corroborate the medical findings on the cause of death?

• A.: Yes. The cause of death of this individual (25)indicated gunshot wounds, multiple gunshot wounds.

• Page 3588 • {57/141}

(1)This being in his possession is indicative of being struck by those bullets.

• Q.: Now this, for Your Honours' benefit, we won't put this on the ELMO as Prosecutor's Exhibit 132/109A. (5)Let's turn now, Mr. Manning, to another type of evidence that confirms that people who are located in these exhumed sites were of the Muslim faith. Could you please place 132/110 on the ELMO. Now, first of all, tell us if, in the course (10)of the exhumations, Muslim religious objects were retrieved from various sites.

• A.: In the majority of sites, Muslim religious artefacts were located, such as small copies of the Koran, et cetera.

(15) • Q.: Explain what is in Prosecutor's Exhibit 132/110, please.

• A.: This item was removed from Hodzici 3 grave. The "A" and the number indicates it's an artefact which normally means separate from a body. It was loose in (20)the grave; during the disturbance it separated. It was a plastic packing which included this script, which is a long thin sheet of paper with apparent Muslim verses on it; I've been informed that it's of a religious nature. It's indicative of the sorts of religious (25)texts, or Muslim texts located in the graves.

• Page 3589 • {58/141}

(1) • Q.: This is an example of an artefact that confirms at least that some of the victims within the site exhumed are of Muslim faith.

• A.: That's correct.

(5) • Q.: All right. Let's turn now to the next exhibit, Mr. Manning, 132/1. This is also under a different exhibit number introduced earlier, 1.G. It is a photograph, Mr. Manning. If you'd be so kind as to place that on the (10)ELMO and tell us where it was found, and generally the significance of photographs that are found along with bodies.

• A.: This is Exhibit 132/1.

MR. HARMON: We need to pan up so that the (15)whole exhibit can be seen. Just down a little bit, please, Mr. Usher. Thank you very much.

• A.: This item was removed from the Lazete or Orahovac grave. Lazete 2 is the grave designation, and body 36, and it's one of at least 12 items recovered (20)from that body. It's obviously a family photo, a snapshot. This individual had a number of photographs in his possession, in his wallet. The photographs have allowed us, in some instances, to identify the victims. These photographs (25)can be shown to the surviving relatives. On occasion

• Page 3590 • {59/141}

(1)that has proved difficult as the photographs deteriorate rather quickly. In this instance you can still see the individuals that this man carried around.

(5) • Q.: Now, earlier in your testimony you touched on the effect of the removal of bodies from the primary sites to the secondary sites. Is one of the consequences of essentially robbing the graves and trying to hide the mortal remains of these victims that (10)physical evidence, such as photographs that have been hidden at different locations and therefore take a longer time to find because each grave has not yet completely been exhumed, does that result in the deterioration of physical evidence?

(15) • A.: Very much so. This photograph was exhumed with the body in 1996 but you can still see it has deteriorated, or did then. Photographs removed from the graves in 1999 are either destroyed, or I've seen them disappear as they are exposed to air.

(20) • Q.: Mr. Manning, let's turn to the next exhibit, please, 132/4. It's another photograph.

MR. HARMON: We need to lower that.

• Q.: What is this photograph, where was it found, and has it led to an identification?

(25) • A.: This photograph was found with Lazete 2 or

• Page 3591 • {60/141}

(1)Orahovac, body 36. Again it's part of item 12 so it's with that other photograph. It's a young girl, a child, in a pink dress, normal family photographs that were with this victim. In this case it hasn't led to (5)an identification.

• Q.: Let's turn to the next exhibit, please, Mr. Manning. Prosecutor's Exhibit 132/6.

• A.: Again --

• Q.: Please connect this exhibit to the site and (10)tell us the significance of this exhibit, please. Turn it the other way, please. That's fine.

• A.: This exhibit, again from the same grave and the same body, item 12, and it is a photo or part of a photo of a small boy. Also of interest is the tape (15)that's binding that photograph and other photographs at the back of it. Again, it's the Feros Uniz Srebrenica, Yugoslavia-type that we saw on the artificial leg from the Branjevo Military Farm grave.

• Q.: So these photographs and the previous two (20)photographs have not led to identifications, but there is evidence from the tape indicating Srebrenica that these are probably from somebody from Srebrenica; is that a fair assessment?

• A.: Yes, that's a fair assessment, or my (25)assessment.

• Page 3592 • {61/141}

(1) • Q.: All right. Now let's turn to the last in the series of these exhibits, 132/18. Mr. Manning, again orient us to this particular exhibit.

• A.: Again, a family photo. This was removed from (5)body number 11, at Pilica, or the Branjevo Military Farm. This individual had a photograph of, we assume, his family. As a result of this and other information, that individual was identified.

• Q.: Now, would you kindly take Prosecutor's (10)Exhibit 132/18A, and you said that photograph led to an identification. Who was the victim in this particular case?

• A.: The victim who carried that photograph was Elizabet Selimovic, a male; date of birth: 30th of (15)January, 1962; again, date and place of birth, Bratunac; father's name; and date and place of disappearance.

• Q.: All right. Thank you very much, Mr. Manning, on that series of exhibits.

(20) MR. HARMON: Mr. Usher, I'm finished with that series of exhibits.

• Q.: What I'd like to turn your attention to now, Mr. Manning, is focus on some of the types of other evidence that led to connecting and linking the primary (25)grave sites to the secondary grave sites.

• Page 3593 • {62/141}

(1)In your earlier testimony you said that the Office of the Prosecutor had retained various experts: ballistic experts, soil analysis experts, materials analysis experts, comparing cloth samples, blindfolds (5)and ligatures, from one grave site to the other. You said that there have been comparative analyses run on these objects; is that correct?

• A.: That's correct.

• Q.: What I'd like to do, first of all, (10)Mr. Manning, is start with the ballistics experts, please.

MR. HARMON: If we could have placed on the easel Prosecutor's Exhibit 133. That should be placed on the side.

(15) • Q.: First of all, did the Office of the Prosecutor, in the course of conducting these exhumations, recover shell casings from the primary and secondary sites?

• A.: Yes, shell casings were recovered from all (20)the sites.

• Q.: Now, were all of the shell casings from all the sites recovered or only samples?

• A.: Only samples. There were shell casings at sites that were not collected.

(25) • Q.: Now, focusing your attention on Prosecutor's

• Page 3594 • {63/141}

(1)Exhibit 133, first of all can you identify from which site this photograph is taken.

• A.: Again, this is from the Kozluk mass grave site, exhumed in 1999, a primary site, primary (5)disturbed site.

• Q.: Would you approach the exhibit, please, using the easel, and explain to the Trial Chamber the significance of this exhibit.

• A.: This is an exhumation photograph. They have (10)presented or uncovered part of the body. You can see that it's an individual with his legs running through here to the bottom of the photo; skull and head with a blindfold; his arms behind his back, bound. General artefacts within the grave: Notably on this is a shell (15)case here near what would be the individual's left arm. That is indicative of where we found shell cases either associated with the bodies, amongst the clothing, or in other parts of the grave.

• Q.: Thank you very much, Mr. Manning. We're (20)going to show another example. If we could place on the ELMO, Mr. Manning, 132/106. Please identify this exhibit and point out the significant features of this exhibit.

• A.: Again, this is from the Kozluk grave, (25)designated by "KK-3." It is body or body parts 571,

• Page 3595 • {64/141}

(1)body 571. This is obviously an individual's arms and you can see that they're bound. The rest of the body has not been exposed yet. Again you can see the artefacts that are present within the grave. In this (5)case, a shell case, a shell case, a shell case, and part of a shell case here still buried. Those are the sort of shell cases that were collected.

• Q.: Mr. Manning, then, were shell cases from primary sites, such as this at Kozluk, also collected (10)at secondary sites?

• A.: Yes, they were.

• Q.: Were those or some of those shell casings submitted to the United States Treasury Department's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms in an attempt (15)to make a comparison to see if the shell casings from primary sites matched shell casings located in secondary sites?

• A.: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Mr. President and Your Honours, (20)the Office of the Prosecutor filed the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms' report with the Trial Chamber, pursuant to Rule 94 bis, on the 14th of April, 2000, and on the 28th of April, 2000, the Defence informed the Trial Chamber that it had accepted the (25)statement of this expert. So we would now have and

• Page 3596 • {65/141}

(1)tender to the Court Prosecutor's Exhibit 144, which is the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms' ballistics report.

• Q.: Mr. Manning, have you had a chance to review (5)that report?

• A.: Yes, I have.

• Q.: Can you first of all briefly describe to the Trial Chamber the types of analyses that were conducted by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms.

(10) • A.: Simply put, the shell cases collected have various marks on them caused by the firing and ejection process from the weapon. Specifically, ejector marks on shell cases, marks that were put there when the shell was ejected from the weapon after firing, were (15)examined by the ATF, using -- including methods such as microscopic examination and comparison. They would examine a shell case ejector mark on one or more shell casings and attempt to match those marks to show that that shell case had been fired by the same weapon.

(20) • Q.: Now, as a result of that analysis, were shell casings that were found in primary execution sites and grave sites matched with shell casings found in secondary mass grave sites?

• A.: Yes, they were.

(25) • Q.: Now, Mr. Manning, would you kindly place page

• Page 3597 • {66/141}

(1)14/21 from your report on the ELMO. Once it's centred, properly, Mr. Manning, I'd like you to explain the findings of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, the location of shells from primary sites or (5)other locations and where they matched shell casings at other locations.

• A.: On the basis of the matches and the numbers provided by ATF, they produced this table which indicates that a shell case or shell cases from the (10)Kravica warehouse execution point were matched by ATF to the secondary grave of Zeleni Jadar 5; that is, a shell case from Kravica and a shell case from Zeleni Jadar 5 were apparently fired by the same weapon. In the Cerska primary grave, in the grave (15)itself, shell cases were matched to the surface of the grave, at the roadway near the grave, and the roadway on the north side of the road. In the primary grave of Orahovac, or Lazete as it's indicated here, shell cases from these areas, (20)including the grave and the grave surface, were matched to shell cases found in the related secondary grave of Hodzici Road 3, 5, and 4. Again, the primary grave of Petkovci, the Dam near Petkovci, the shell cases on the surface of the (25)dam matched those found within the hole, or the grave

• Page 3598 • {67/141}

(1)itself. The Kozluk primary mass grave surface, the shell cases match that found at the secondary site of Cancari Road 3.

(5) • Q.: Let's turn to another link connecting primary graves to secondary graves now, Mr. Manning, and that is the results of soil and pollen sample analysis. Now, in respect of primary and secondary sites that were exhumed by the Office of the (10)Prosecutor, did the Office of the Prosecutor collect soil samples from particular primary sites and secondary sites, and did they retain those soil samples for later analysis?

• A.: Yes.

(15) • Q.: Why were the soil samples from the primary sites and the secondary sites collected?

• A.: They were collected either by Dr. Tony Brown, or at his request, in an attempt to identify the types of soil and properties of the soil that were found in (20)one grave which were apparently picked up and transported and placed inside the secondary grave, that soil being foreign to that area; so an attempt to match the soil from the primary site to where it was dumped, if you like, in the secondary site.

(25) • Q.: What primary and secondary sites were soil

• Page 3599 • {68/141}

(1)samples collected?

• A.: Soil samples were collected from the Branjevo Military Farm, from its associated secondary grave of Cancari Road 12; from the Kozluk primary grave and its (5)associated secondary grave of Cancari Road 3; from the Orahovac Lazete site and it's associated sites of Hodzici 3, 4 and 5, and also from the primary grave of Glogova and the secondary grave of Zeleni Jadar 5.

• Q.: You said these soil samples were submitted to (10)a Dr. Brown, can you identify him further and what his background qualifications are?

• A.: Dr. Brown is a palynologist at the University of Exeter in the UK. He has degrees in geology and he also is an expert on the identification of soil, soil (15)types, and the artefacts found in soil such as macrofossils but more particularly pollen which represents where the soil came into contact with vegetation, specifying the area where that soil was.

• Q.: Did Dr. Brown prepare an expert report and (20)did he submit that to the Office of the Prosecutor?

• A.: He prepared two expert reports, and he submitted them.

MR. HARMON: Your Honours, Dr. Brown's report for the 1998 exhumations was filed by the Prosecutor (25)with the Trial Chamber pursuant to Rule 94 bis on

• Page 3600 • {69/141}

(1)January 6, 2000 and his report for the 1999 exhumations was filed by the Prosecutor's office on February 7th, 2000. On the 25th of February 2000, the Defence (5)informed the Trial Chamber in writing pursuant to Rule 94 bis (B) that they accepted the statements of Dr. Brown. So we could tender Dr. Brown's two expert reports, Exhibit 179 which is Dr. Brown's analysis for the 1998 analysis, exhumations, I'm sorry, and Exhibit (10)180 which is Dr. Brown's analysis for the 1999 exhumations.

• Q.: Mr. Manning, briefly --

JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Mr. Harmon, excuse me, I think that you mentioned, quite rightly, (15)the two reports of Anthony Brown, and it is true that the Defence has accepted the first tendered on the 6th of January, but I think that the Chamber still has no response to this day regarding Anthony Brown's report filed on the 7th of February. (20)I don't know whether that one response applies to both reports or if the Defence has given a positive response to the first and has still not provided a response to the second. Perhaps we need to clear that up with the Defence. (25)Mr. Petrusic, I don't know whether we are

• Page 3601 • {70/141}

(1)right or not, but we have not found any response in relation to the report of the 7th of February. We do have a response on the report dated the 6th of January. Can you help us, please?

(5) MR. PETRUSIC: [Int.] Mr. President, the Defence has accepted both reports by expert Brown. I will check later if there is some technical errors, but it is our intention to accept both reports.

JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Yes. So we (10)have your response dated the 3rd of March, 2000. But if you say that you accept both, they are accepted. No problem then. So we've cleared that up now. Thank you very much, Mr. Harmon, you may continue.

(15) MR. HARMON: Thank you Mr. President.

• Q.: Briefly, Mr. Manning, can you summarise for the Trial Chamber the types of analyses prepared or performed by Dr. Brown?

• A.: Dr. Brown has detailed in his report specific (20)methods of examination, examining the soil. They refer to methods accepted by geologists and people in that field. I, unfortunately, can't explain those tests, but some of those tests were by using a microscope in (25)and examining the structure of the soil, the structure

• Page 3602 • {71/141}

(1)of fossils within it and particularly in the structure, type, of pollen grains within that soil sample.

• Q.: Did you conclude that there were similar types of soil found in primary and secondary graves?

(5) • A.: Yes, he did.

• Q.: Referring to your report, Prosecutor's Exhibit 140, could you place on the ELMO the page and the chart that is found at 00950927. Using -- we need to lower it a little bit. (10)Using this particular chart, can you inform the Trial Chamber where the soil from primary grave sites matched the soil found in secondary grave sites based on Dr. Brown's analysis?

• A.: Using Dr. Brown's analysis, the Branjevo (15)Military Farm soil pollen samples matched that at Cancari Road 12. The Kozluk primary grave matches that at Cancari Road 3. The Glogova 2 grave matches that at Zeleni Jadar 5. And the Orahovac or Lazete grave matches all three at Hodzici Road 3, Hodzici Road 4 and (20)Hodzici Road 5.

• Q.: Now, there is a small box of soil samples found between the site, the dam and Liplje 2, that was not the subject of Dr. Brown's analysis. That's an analysis performed by another expert; is that correct?

(25) • A.: That's correct.

• Page 3603 • {72/141}

(1) • Q.: We'll get to that testimony later in the course of this trial. That concludes this particular link between primary and secondary grave sites. What I'd like to do now, Mr. Manning, is turn (5)to another source of evidence that linked the primary grave sites to secondary grave sites. Let me ask you, you've testified first of all about finding a large number of cloth ligatures and blindfolds. Were those or some samples of those cloth (10)ligatures that were found in primary sites and in secondary sites submitted to the Netherlands Forensic Institute which is part of the Dutch Ministry of Justice?

• A.: That's correct.

(15) • Q.: And was the purpose of that submission to have the Netherlands Forensic Institute make an analysis of the materials that were found in primary and secondary sites to determine if the materials were the same?

(20) • A.: Yes, that's correct.

• Q.: Now, if we could turn to your report, please, Mr. Manning, at page 15/21. Before you place that on the ELMO, let me ask you some questions before we place this on the ELMO. (25)What types of analysis did the Netherlands

• Page 3604 • {73/141}

(1)Forensic Institute conduct on the cloth material samples; can you tell us that after having reviewed their report?

• A.: Yes, the investigation was conducted by (5)Ms. Suzie Maljaars who examined the cloths in an attempt to group them into like cloths. She and other scientists examined the cloth for colour, weave, pattern, shininess of the material. It was examined under a microscope to (10)determine the number of threads within the weave, the embroidery pattern, also the elasticity of the material. As a result of that, the cloths were grouped within graves in groups of like cloths, of similar (15)cloths and a simple or a representative sample from each of those groups was compared to the other graves to a representative sample from those other graves.

• Q.: Did the Netherlands Forensic Institute prepare a final report with their conclusions and did (20)they submit that to the Office of the Prosecutor?

• A.: They did.

MR. HARMON: Mr. President, Judge Wald, the particular report which is the Netherlands Forensic Institute report, Exhibit 143, was filed with the Trial (25)Chamber by the Office of the Prosecutor on the 28th of

• Page 3605 • {74/141}

(1)February 2000. And on the 1st of March 2000, the Defence filed a notice pursuant to Rule 94 bis (B) informing the Trial Chamber that they had accepted that expert report.

(5) • Q.: Now, if you will, Mr. Manning, turning to your report Prosecutor 140, would you place page 15/21 on the ELMO, and can you please tell us what their conclusions were.

• A.: After examining that report and the details (10)provided by the Dutch lab, they advised that cloth ligatures or blindfolds located at the Branjevo Military Farm matched those at Cancari Road 12. A group of blindfolds or a type of blindfold ligature also matched that at Cancari Road 3. (15)There was no match from Zeleni Jadar 5. Cloth blindfolds collected from the Grbovci school matched those at Hodzici Road 4. Cloth collected from Orahovac Lazete 2 matched all three secondary graves of Hodzici Road 4, 3, and 5. (20)Also, a cloth ligature or blindfold from Hodzici Road 4 matched that at the secondary site of Liplje 2.

• Q.: Now, let me just ask you to put some examples of the type of the materials that were compared on the (25)ELMO to illustrate the types of materials that were

• Page 3606 • {75/141}

(1)compared. And if you would start by taking Prosecutor's Exhibit 143, please, it's appendix 1, the page number on that, the ERN number is 00916676. Could you place (5)that --

• A.: Sorry Mr. Harmon, I don't have the pages of that report.

• Q.: It's the colourful pattern. Do you have the report in front of you?

(10) • A.: No, I don't.

MR. HARMON: Could the registrar please furnish the witness with a copy of that report, 143, please.

• Q.: Mr. Manning, you're familiar with the report (15)and you're familiar with the exhibit that I'm referring to. Would you please place that on the ELMO. Now earlier, Mr. Manning, we had seen in a picture on a skull that had been exhumed a piece of colourful material. Now, can you explain what this (20)particular exhibit is and its significance?

• A.: This exhibit is from the report by Ms. Maljaars. It includes a strip of cloth spread out on the table and photographed. This cloth has a distinctive pattern, a (25)colourful pattern printed on to the material. This

• Page 3607 • {76/141}

(1)piece of cloth and the one below it obviously particularly similar. She examined both of these cloths to the level that I previously described and established that they were indistinguishable from each (5)other. Of particular notice, that this cloth at the bottom is from the Pilica grave, the Branjevo Military Farm grave. This piece of cloth is from the Cancari Road 12 cloth.

(10) • Q.: Turn to the next exhibit please, Mr. Manning. It is found in appendix 2 at 00916678. Explain this exhibit, please, Mr. Manning.

• A.: Again, this is three strips of cloth spread out on a table to be viewed. They are from three (15)different graves. The top one is the Pilica Branjevo Military Farm primary grave and the other two are from the Cancari Road 12 and Cancari Road 3 secondary graves. Of particular note is not only is the type of (20)cloth colour material the same. These cloths have an embroidered circle with a flower which is quite visible. Each of these cloths has the same embroidered mark on them and, again, they are found to be indistinguishable from each other.

(25) • Q.: These samples were found at three different

• Page 3608 • {77/141}

(1)locations; is that correct?

• A.: Three different locations, three different graves.

• Q.: Lastly, let's turn to appendix 3 in (5)Prosecutor's Exhibit 143 at page 00916680. Can you please explain what this exhibit represents?

• A.: This is a view of another type of cloth used as a blindfold or ligature. In this case, blindfolds. (10)These are from two separate graves, but as you can see, the pattern is very similar. There is a clean or straight edge at the bottom. The cloth is of a similar width, and there's a scalloped pattern across the top of the cloth. (15)This particular pattern is seen on a large number of blindfolds and ligatures and is seen at a number of different graves.

• Q.: Where did these two cloth samples come from, where were they retrieved and what did they link?

(20) • A.: I'm sorry, Mr. Harmon, without referring to the report, itself, and checking those numbers, I can't tell you. I believe the Hodzici Road graves.

• Q.: All right. Well, the answer to that question is found in the report, and we'll leave the answer (25)imbedded in that report for further examination if you

• Page 3609 • {78/141}

(1)don't know. Let's -- I've concluded then with that particular exhibit, and we've concluded with the analysis of this particular set of links between (5)primary and secondary graves, Mr. Manning. What I'd like to do now is place Prosecutor's Exhibit 27/7 on the ELMO. We're going to turn our attention, Mr. Manning, to another connection between primary grave site and secondary grave site. We'll (10)start by putting this particular exhibit on the ELMO. We've seen this exhibit earlier in this trial. Mr. Manning, can you tell us what this particular exhibit is?

• A.: I recognise this photograph of the Vetinka (15)bottling factory which is located near the Kozluk mass grave.

• Q.: Was the Vetinka bottle factory located next to a headquarters of any particular military unit in the Drina Corps?

(20) • A.: Next to the bottling factory was the then barracks of the Drina Wolves.

• Q.: Did the Vetinka bottle factory have labels that reflected "Vetinka bottle factory"?

• A.: Amongst a variety of labels, yes. It had the (25)name Vetinka; it also had the town Kozluk on some

• Page 3610 • {79/141}

(1)labels.

• Q.: Did it also have bottles that were green glass?

• A.: Yes, thousands of green glass bottles.

(5) • Q.: How far away was the Vetinka bottle factory and the headquarters of the Drina Wolves from the mass execution site at Kozluk?

• A.: About 1, 1.5 kilometres along the road that you see in front of that factory.

(10) • Q.: Now, at the mass execution site at Kozluk, was the site itself, before the executions, used as a grounds where the broken glass was discarded by the factory?

• A.: Yes.

(15) • Q.: Was it a dump site?

• A.: It was apparent that it was a dumping ground for broken bottles, amongst other things.

• Q.: If we could now turn to another exhibit, please, that is, Prosecutor's Exhibit 132/103. (20)This doesn't show up as clearly as I'd hoped on this so you'll have to explain to the Trial Chamber what this particular exhibit illustrates.

• A.: This is a photograph of the exhumation site at Kozluk, in particular detailing body 818. The (25)significance of this photo, however, is the massive

• Page 3611 • {80/141}

(1)bodies here and surrounding them and under them is thousands of green glass bottles. You can see the shape here of the base of a bottle. You can see it here, particularly here, near the yellow arrow, yellow (5)and black arrow. Effectively this whole background here is broken green glass.

• Q.: Now we're going to put another exhibit on the ELMO. It's Prosecutor's Exhibit 132/99. Mr. Manning, could you tell us what's (10)depicted in this exhibit.

• A.: This is a photo of artefacts recovered from the Kozluk grave. It's numbered 773A, an artefact. It shows paper labels, bottle labels, which were recovered from that grave. You can see part of "Vetinka," or the (15)spelling of Vetinka. On examination of those labels you can see "Vetinka," and "Kozluk" as well.

• Q.: Earlier in your testimony you've testified that the Kozluk primary mass grave site had been disturbed, and we had seen in Prosecutor's Exhibit (20)1/J/I the trench mark or the gouge mark at that particular location.

• A.: Yes.

• Q.: Let me ask you, then, Mr. Manning, were similar pieces of green glass and labels similar to (25)what's depicted in Prosecutor's Exhibit 132/99 found at

• Page 3612 • {81/141}

(1)secondary mass grave sites?

• A.: Yes. The same green glass, the same labels, were found at the secondary grave of Cincari Road 3.

• Q.: Let me start then by using the next exhibit, (5)which is 128/263. Would you place that on the ELMO, please. Would you lower that just a little bit, please. Now, what is this exhibit? What does this exhibit depict, Mr. Manning?

(10) • A.: This exhibit is an exhumation photo from the secondary grave of Cincari Road 3. It is an individual, a skull, and what is a blindfold fallen from the face. It was given an artefact number. The significance of this particular photo, (15)and again it's not as clear as perhaps hoped, is in the background here are fragments, pieces, of green glass bottles. In the Cincari Road 3 grave, there were thousands of small pieces of glass adhering to the bodies and within the grave itself.

(20) • Q.: Let's turn to the next exhibit, please, which is 132/101. Mr. Manning, what is depicted in this particular exhibit?

• A.: This is a photograph taken at the mortuary of (25)artefacts recovered from the Cincari Road 3 grave.

• Page 3613 • {82/141}

(1)It's numbered 402. It is the glass labels -- the bottle labels, sorry, "Vetinka" and "Kiseljak Water." But again on those labels was "Vetinka" and "Kozluk."

• Q.: So these labels were found mixed in with the (5)bodies that were discovered at the secondary mass grave at Cincari Road 3.

• A.: That's correct.

• Q.: Let's turn to the last exhibit in this series, Mr. Manning, Prosecutor's Exhibit 132/105. (10)Mr. Manning, what does this particular exhibit depict?

• A.: This is a photograph taken during a trenching operation of the Cincari Road 1 grave by an investigator. What it shows is a body part, in this (15)case a part of the pelvis, within the unexhumed grave of Cincari Road 1. As you can see clearly, again pieces of broken green glass.

• Q.: This is a grave that was probed, it wasn't fully exhumed; is that right?

(20) • A.: That's correct.

• Q.: All right. Based on your analysis of the findings of green glass and Vetinka bottle labels in the secondary sites of Cincari Road 1 and Cincari Road 3, is it your conclusion that the bodies found in those (25)two sites came from the primary mass execution site at

• Page 3614 • {83/141}

(1)Kozluk?

• A.: Certainly the bodies in Cincari Road 3 came from Kozluk, and I believe that the bodies in Cincari Road 1 will be shown to have come from Kozluk, (5)particularly by the obvious green glass fragments. That will be more clear once it's exhumed.

MR. HARMON: Now, Mr. Usher, if we could have placed on the easel Prosecutor's Exhibit 135. It's previously been shown.

(10) • Q.: Mr. Manning, if you would prepare, while that's being done, locate in your report page number 00950927 and place that on the ELMO. Mr. Manning, would you approach the large easel exhibit. What I'd like you to do, please, is (15)based on the analyses that we've been discussing, the shell casings, the soil analysis, the textile analysis, the presence of green glass and labels, could you summarise, please, the movement of victims' bodies from primary mass execution and grave sites to secondary (20)sites, based on the analysis and based on the reports that you've reviewed.

• A.: Yes. Based on all that material, the bodies from Branjevo Military Farm, the primary grave, were removed from that grave, some of the bodies, and were (25)then transported to Cincari Road 12 where they were

• Page 3615 • {84/141}

(1)placed in that grave. The primary grave site of Kozluk was robbed; some of those bodies were taken and transported to Cincari Road 3. (5)This site at the Dam, near Petkovci, was robbed, with the majority of the bodies being taken to Liplje 2. The site at Orahovac (Lazete 2) was robbed; bodies from that grave were transported to the graves (10)Hodzici Road 3, 5, and 4.

• Q.: And Glogova.

• A.: Also the primary mass grave of Glogova 2, bodies from that grave were transported to and reburied at Zeleni Jadar 5.

(15) • Q.: All right. Have a seat again, Mr. Manning, please. The exhibit that's found on the ELMO, which is from your report at page 00950927, is essentially a summary chart coming to the same conclusions; is that (20)correct?

• A.: Essentially, yes.

• Q.: All right. Mr. Manning, we're going to turn to a different topic at this point because I'd like you to discuss some additional forensic reports that were (25)prepared and submitted to the Office of the

• Page 3616 • {85/141}

(1)Prosecutor. Now, following the revelation that mass executions had occurred, did the Office of the Prosecutor send investigators to two locations? First (5)of all, did they send a team of investigators and forensic experts from the United States Naval Investigative Service to the Kravica warehouse, on the 30th of September, 1996?

• A.: I did, yes.

(10) MR. HARMON: Mr. Usher, if we could place on the ELMO Prosecutor's Exhibit 8/4, which is a panorama of the Kravica warehouse.

• Q.: Mr. Manning, is this the location where the experts went? Is this the Kravica warehouse?

(15) • A.: Yes, it is. It's the Kravica warehouse, one end of the warehouse, if you like. They examined this end of the warehouse, to the right of the picture. They didn't examine the far end of the warehouse, depicted on the left.

(20) • Q.: What was the purpose of that examination?

• A.: We had been told by witnesses, and there was evidence there, of a mass execution. Their job was to collect evidence to corroborate that witness, or those witnesses, to the fact that there was a major execution (25)that took place in that building.

• Page 3617 • {86/141}

(1) • Q.: Did they collect hair and blood samples and explosives residue samples?

• A.: They did, yes.

• Q.: Did they provide those samples to the Office (5)of the Prosecutor?

• A.: Yes.

• Q.: Now, let me place on the ELMO a photograph from a report that was prepared by the Naval Investigative Service, Prosecutor's Exhibit 181/1. I'd (10)like you to put on the ELMO, please, Mr. Manning, photograph 16 from roll 2. There are many photographs in this particular report, are there not?

• A.: There are many volumes of reports -- volumes (15)of photos.

• Q.: But I have selected one particular photograph just to illustrate the location where samples were taken. That's photograph 16, on the bottom. What is that, please, Mr. Manning?

(20) • A.: This is a photograph of the wall of the warehouse. More particularly, it's a photograph of what is blood, human blood, on the wall, splashed across the wall of the warehouse.

• Q.: Just describe briefly how a blood sample was (25)collected.

• Page 3618 • {87/141}

(1) • A.: Using two sampling methods, water and a scraping action, the naval investigators would remove a section of the stain, scrape it off and also swab it off, place it into bags which they sealed and numbered, (5)and the numbering up in the top corner would reflect the number of the sample.

• Q.: All right. Those samples were provided to the Office of the Prosecutor for later analysis.

• A.: That's correct.

(10) • Q.: Let's turn our attention to another mass killing site, the Pilica Dom. If I could have Prosecutor's Exhibit 25/7 placed on the ELMO. As a point of reference to your testimony, Mr. Manning, can you tell us what is illustrated in (15)this particular exhibit.

• A.: This is a photograph of the Pilica Dom in or near the town of Pilica. At the rear of this building was the execution point examined by the Naval Investigation Service.

(20) • Q.: The Office of the Prosecutor sent investigators to that location after Drazen Erdemovic informed the Prosecutor that approximately 500 Muslims had been executed at that location on the 16th of July, 1995.

(25) • A.: That's correct.

• Page 3619 • {88/141}

(1) • Q.: Now, did the Office of the Prosecutor investigators and Naval Investigative Service forensic specialists go to the Pilica Dom between the 27th and 29th of September, 1996, and did they return again on (5)the 2nd of October, 1996?

• A.: That's correct.

• Q.: Was their purpose similar to the purpose that you've described as those same experts and investigators going to the Kravica warehouse?

(10) • A.: That's correct.

• Q.: Did they, in fact, turn over the hair, blood samples and the explosives residue samples that they collected at the Pilica Dom to the Office of the Prosecutor?

(15) • A.: They did.

• Q.: What I'd like you to do, please, Mr. Manning, is if you would take Prosecutor's Exhibit 181/4, and I'm referring to photograph 18 in roll 10 of that exhibit. I'd like you to just illustrate what an (20)explosives pattern looks like and explain to the Judges how a sample of an explosives residue is collected.

• A.: In this photo you can see there's some markings on the wall, red marks, and some numbering. That's part of the examination process. But in the (25)centre of the photo you see a black staining rising

• Page 3620 • {89/141}

(1)from the floor area. This is soot or residue from an explosives seat which has struck the wall or gone up the wall. The naval investigation service members again number marked that area. They took a swab using (5)water and also a swab using a light acid in separate samples. They then bagged, numbered that, and provided that to the Office of the Prosecutor, from various areas within the Pilica Dom.

• Q.: Did the Naval Investigative Service prepare a (10)report describing their collection methods, and did they submit that report to the Office of the Prosecutor?

• A.: They did.

• Q.: Have you reviewed their report?

(15) • A.: Yes, I have.

MR. HARMON: Mr. President and Judge Wald, in respect of this report, this is Prosecutor's Exhibit 181/1, which is the Naval Investigative report for the Kravica warehouse, and Prosecutor's Exhibits 181/2, /3, (20)and /4, which is the Naval Investigative Service report for the Pilica Dom, these reports were filed by the Office of the Prosecutor, pursuant to Rule 94 bis, on the 2nd -- I'm sorry, on the 7th of February, 2000 and on the 25th of February, 2000, the Defence notified the (25)Trial Chamber in writing, pursuant to Rule 94 bis (B)

• Page 3621 • {90/141}

(1)that she had accepted the reports from the Naval Investigative Service.

• Q.: Subsequently, Mr. Manning, did the Office of the Prosecutor submit to the Dutch Ministry of Justice, (5)again, the Netherlands Forensic Institute, numerous blood and tissue samples that had been collected by the Naval Investigative Service for an analysis to determine if human DNA was present in those samples?

• A.: Yes, they did.

(10) • Q.: Why did they submit those samples to the Netherlands Forensic Institute?

• A.: Those samples were representative of the blood and tissue on the walls of the buildings. They submitted it in an attempt to corroborate the execution (15)of those people in the buildings.

• Q.: In the Pilica Dom and --

• A.: And Kravica warehouse.

MR. HARMON: Again, Mr. President and Judge Wald, the Netherlands Forensic Institute report on the (20)analysis of blood and tissue samples was filed by the Office of the Prosecutor on the 7th of February 2000. And on the 25th of February 2000, the Defence filed written notice pursuant to Rule 94 bis (B) informing the Trial Chamber that they had accepted the reports (25)from the Netherlands Forensic Institute.

• Page 3622 • {91/141}

(1) • Q.: Now, Mr. Manning, briefly, can you summarise the types of analysis that were performed on the blood and tissue samples by the Netherlands Forensic Institute?

(5) • A.: The institute used standard testing methods involving chemical reactions which proved positive to the presence of human DNA. They applied that to all the samples and then produced the report detailing which ones were positive.

(10) • Q.: I'd like to turn to those conclusions, please, Mr. Manning. What were the conclusions of the Netherlands Forensic Institute in respect of the blood and tissue samples from the Pilica Dom. How many samples were submitted and what were their conclusions?

(15) • A.: Of the 234 representative blood, hair or tissue samples which were collected throughout the Pilica Dom. They were able to establish that 166 of those samples were positive for the presence of human DNA.

(20) • Q.: Turning to the samples that had been collected from the Kravica warehouse, how many samples were analysed by the Netherlands Forensic Institute and what were their conclusions?

• A.: From the Kravica warehouse, 149 represented (25)blood, hair or tissue samples were collected throughout

• Page 3623 • {92/141}

(1)the building and the Netherlands Forensic Science Laboratory Institute said that 142 of those samples were said to contain human DNA.

• Q.: Now the Netherlands Forensic Institute (5)report, Mr. President and Judge Wald, is Prosecutor's Exhibit 150. That's the report relating to the blood and human tissue analysis. The last part of my examination, Mr. Manning, deals with the analysis of the explosives residue that (10)was collected by the Naval Investigative Service and retained -- those samples were retained by the Office of the Prosecutor. Let me ask you first of all: Did the Office of the Prosecutor submit those explosives residue (15)samples to the Netherlands Forensic Institute for an analysis?

• A.: They did.

• Q.: Did the Netherlands Forensic Institute conduct an analysis?

(20) • A.: Yes, they did.

• Q.: Did they prepare a report?

• A.: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Mr. President, Judge Wald, the report of the Netherlands Forensic Institute relating (25)to the analysis of explosives residue is Prosecutor's

• Page 3624 • {93/141}

(1)Exhibit 97. That report was filed by the Prosecutor with the Trial Chamber on the 24th of March 2000. I may have the wrong date on that. I apologise. It was -- all I can say in looking at my notes is that it (5)was filed by the Office of the Prosecutor, I'm sorry, on the exact date, but on the 24th of February, 2000, the Defence filed a written notice pursuant to Rule 94 bis (B) informing the Trial Chamber that they had accepted the conclusions of that report.

(10) • Q.: Could you please, Mr. Manning, summarise, first of all, the types of analysis that the Institute conducted on the samples of residue explosives residue that had been submitted to them?

• A.: In relation to the explosives analysis, I'm (15)not able to describe what these are, but it was a reversed-phase high-performance liquid chromatography and photo-diode array detection test and confirmed using a reversed-phase high-performance liquid chromatography and double mass-spectrometry detection.

(20) MR. HARMON: I'd like to hear the translation of that. I think that's probably pretty tough to translate, but we appreciate the effort.

• Q.: Any event, Mr. Manning without going into the scientific analysis would you just tell us what their (25)conclusions were?

• Page 3625 • {94/141}

(1) • A.: Effectively they informed me that their conclusion were that of the 15 representative samples of explosive residue collected throughout the Pilica Dom, a single sample was found to be positive for the (5)presence of the high explosive TNT. And in relation to the Kravica warehouse, 23 of the representative samples of explosive residue were examined, two were found to have possible traces of TNT, the high explosive.

(10) MR. HARMON: Mr. Manning, thank you very much. I've concluded my direct examination. Your Honours, I've concluded my direct examination.

JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Thank you (15)very much, Mr. Harmon. Mr. Visnjic or Mr. Petrusic.

MR. VISNJIC: [Int.] Mr. President, the Defence has reviewed the report of the expert as Prosecution Exhibit 140. This exhibit was disclosed to (20)the Defence three days prior to today. Bearing in mind the report of Mr. Manning and the fact that it is really a summary report of other reports that will be reviewed here in the courtroom in the next few days, and bearing in mind the very short (25)time that we have had, and the fact that the text was

• Page 3626 • {95/141}

(1)received only in the English version, the Defence, in the interest of uninterrupted, positive cooperation with the Prosecution, the Defence has taken the liberty to suggest to the Prosecution that the (5)cross-examination of Mr. Manning, if possible, if the Prosecution agrees, and if Mr. Manning can come back, should be held in the middle of next week after the other expert witnesses have been heard, according to the plan of witnesses, because a part of the questions (10)which might be addressed to Mr. Manning after today's examination-in-chief will be put to the other expert witnesses and thereby the cross-examination of Mr. Manning would be shorter. That is why I should like to suggest to the (15)Chamber, to accept this motion of ours, and to allow us to postpone the cross-examination until the middle of next week.

JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Mr. Harmon.

MR. HARMON: I have discussed this with my (20)colleagues, Mr. President. I have no objection to that. The only request that I have is that there is presently in place a court order that I cannot contact or communicate with my witnesses. Mr. Manning and I may have a need to discuss (25)matters other than his testimony. I have no intention

• Page 3627 • {96/141}

(1)of discussing his testimony with him, but I would ask to be relieved of the order of the Court saying that I cannot contact Mr. Manning. What I would request is that on matters other (5)than his testimony, I be permitted to talk to him about other matters relating to the investigation. That also would apply to members of my trial team as well.

JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Mr. Visnjic.

(10) MR. VISNJIC: [Int.] We have no objections to that, we have no objections to that, Mr. President.

JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] In that case, we are going to show confidence in Mr. Harmon, (15)who may talk to Mr. Manning regarding other matters, but not regarding this case. Is that acceptable, Mr. Harmon and Mr. Visnjic?

MR. HARMON: It is.

(20) JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] In that case, we are going to trust you. Mr. Manning has heard well what we have decided regarding this matter. So exceptionally, we will suspend the ruling of the Chamber. We will treat this as an exception so that (25)Mr. Harmon may contact the witness, but not on this

• Page 3628 • {97/141}

(1)subject. As to the request of Mr. Visnjic, the Chamber fully understands your reasons and I think that from the point of view of the rights of the accused to a (5)fair and expeditious trial, I think it is good to combine fairness with efficiency so that we will have the cross-examination in the middle of next week. Do you have a more or less fixed date? Is the witness available?

(10) MR. HARMON: Mr. Manning is available all of next week.

JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Very well. What are we going to do next, Mr. Harmon? Are we going to have an expert witness?

(15) MR. HARMON: We are.

JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Mr. Visnjic, I think you had some remarks to make or certain suggestions regarding that so please proceed.

MR. VISNJIC: [Int.] Mr. President, (20)our suggestion and request to the Trial Chamber would be that during the examination-in-chief and the cross-examination of expert witnesses that the Prosecutor is going to call, that the Defence be allowed to include, on the Defence team, our own expert (25)so that he might assist the Defence counsel with his

• Page 3629 • {98/141}

(1)expert knowledge of terms and the subject matter.

JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Mr. Harmon.

MR. HARMON: We have no objection.

(5) JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] In that case, bearing in mind your request, Mr. Visnjic, and the fact that the Prosecutor has no objection but also in line with Article 90, paragraph D, the Chamber allows the presence of your expert so as to help you in (10)preparing for the cross-examination.

MR. HARMON: The last item I have, Mr. President, is I would request that the exhibits that have been tendered in the direct examination of Mr. Manning be introduced at this time.

(15) JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Mr. Visnjic, have you any objection to the admission of the exhibits mentioned?

MR. VISNJIC: [Int.] No, Mr. President, we have no objection.

(20) JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] In that case, the Prosecution exhibits are admitted into evidence. I think there are no other matters to deal with before the break, so we are now going to have a break, and we will be able to resume with the expert (25)witness' testimony, and I should like to ask the

• Page 3630 • {99/141}

(1)registrar to have the witness brought in before we begin so as to speed things up. It is now five to 1.00. I think that we can have a 20-minute break now. I can feel that there are (5)many people who would like a half an hour break. I think we need to work for at least an hour and a quarter, so let's have a 25-minute break. A 25-minute break.

--- Recess taken at 12.55 p.m.

(10) --- On resuming at 1.25 p.m.
[The witness entered court]

JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] I see that we ended up having a half-hour break, but never mind. I see that the two parties are standing up. (15)Mr. McCloskey.

MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, Mr. President. Good afternoon. Good afternoon, Judge Wald, Mr. Visnjic. Professor Wright is our next witness.

JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Very well. (20)Mr. Visnjic, perhaps you could take advantage of this opportunity to introduce your expert witness whom we see in the courtroom.

MR. VISNJIC: [Int.] Mr. President, thank you. I was just going to do so. (25)With us we have Docent Dr. Zoran Stankovic,

• Page 3631 • {100/141}

(1)the head of the Institute for Forensic Medicine of the Medical Military Academy in Belgrade. Mr. Stankovic is on the list of experts of the United Nations for forensic medicine and has been there since 1964. Thank (5)you.

JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Thank you very much. May I say welcome to Mr. Zoran Stankovic. I'm now going to turn to Professor Wright and say good afternoon to him. (10)Can you hear me, Professor?

THE WITNESS: Yes, I can hear you, Mr. President.

JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] You are now going to read the solemn declaration that the usher is (15)going to give you. Please go ahead, Professor.

THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

WITNESS: RICHARD WRIGHT

(20) JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] You may be seated. Perhaps you are already acquainted with procedure. For the moment, Professor, you're going to answer questions put to you by the Prosecutor, Mr. Peter McCloskey. (25)Please go ahead.

• Page 3632 • {101/141}

(1) MR. McCLOSKEY: Thank you, Mr. President. Prior to addressing Professor Wright, I would like to -- as a point of background, as we've heard, he was the supervising archaeologist for our exhumations (5)of 1998 and 1999, and we have filed, in November 1999, which is Exhibit 204, his report for the 1998 exhumations, and Exhibit 205, which we filed on February 18th of 2000, is his report on the 1999 exhumations. We were notified by the Defence that they (10)would like to cross-examine Professor Wright. So we are calling Professor Wright to give you some of the background and some more of the scientific detail of the exhumations, though, as we can all imagine, this could be a subject of several months of a course. We (15)will try to keep it to the highlights and to the brief points, but of course he'll be open for everyone's questions.

• EXAMINED by Mr. McCloskey:

• Q.: Professor Wright, could you state your name (20)and spell your last name for the record.

• A.: Yes. My name is Richard Wright, and the spelling of my surname is W-r-i-g-h-t.

• Q.: What is your profession?

• A.: I'm an archaeologist.

(25) • Q.: Can you give us a review of your educational

• Page 3633 • {102/141}

(1)background and your employment background.

• A.: Yes. I was educated at Cambridge University, where I have a masters degree. I was employed in the Anthropology Department of the University of Sidney in (5)1961, and in 1981 I had the Chair of Anthropology, which I held until 1990. I resigned from that position in 1990 and the university gave me the title of Emeritus Professor of Anthropology.

• Q.: Okay. We should remember we need -- (10)everything we've said is being translated so we need to, probably both of us, slow down a little bit, and it's something that we may be reminded of as we go. In any event, can you briefly describe to us what the field of archaeology is and in particular how (15)it fits in to the exhumations of mass graves.

• A.: Yes. From the point of view of these investigations, archaeologists are experts in the recognition of disturbed soil; in recovering objectives, whether they're bodies or artefacts, from (20)that disturbed soil; in properly recording the location of objectives from that disturbed soil. That's the central expertise of archaeologists. This expertise is required for the detection and exhumation of mass graves.

(25) • Q.: How does that fit in to the greater picture

• Page 3634 • {103/141}

(1)of archaeology that you were taught and learned in school and practised before that? Just briefly, how is it related to the classic archaeology, as we speak.

• A.: I think the aspects of archaeology that I've (5)mentioned are absolutely central to the discipline; that is, the use of soil to reveal what went on in the past.

• Q.: Does an archaeologist analyse artefacts and soil together to try to build a picture of the dig, (10)what it means, what happened, what the various things might tell us about a prior culture, or in this case a prior crime?

• A.: Yes, that is exactly the responsibility of archaeologists.

(15) • Q.: In fact, you did do that in your exhumations for the OTP.

• A.: Yes.

• Q.: Can you give us a background in some of the exhumations, archaeological work that you've done in (20)the past, perhaps starting in your earlier years and working around.

• A.: My general or my major interest has been in the archaeology of Australia, particularly the excavation of sites that have bones from marsupials, (25)and trying to reconstruct the environment from those

• Page 3635 • {104/141}

(1)sites. In 1990 I began to develop a special interest in forensic investigations, and I was employed by the Australian government to investigate three mass graves (5)in the Ukraine. That was in 1990 and 1991. Before I worked for the Prosecutor, I worked on the recovery of human remains in the Middle East, that was an archaeological job, and I also worked for the New South Wales investigators for the recovery of (10)the skeletons of children from a nineteenth century orphanage cemetery.

• Q.: Can you tell us a little bit more about your archaeological dig in the Ukraine? Who was that for? And can you just describe briefly about that dig.

(15) • A.: Yes, the Australian government had complaint made to it that three naturalized Australians had participated in the killing of large number of Jews in 1942. The war crimes investigation unit in Sydney asked me whether I would go over there to see whether (20)there were graves, where the eyewitnesses said there were graves and whether they contained the remains of the sort that the eyewitnesses had stated.

• Q.: And were you able to go over at that time, the Soviet Union and do an exhumation of a mass grave?

(25) • A.: Yes, in 1990 I conducted the exhumations at

• Page 3636 • {105/141}

(1)Serniki which contained 550 mainly women and children who had been shot in the head. In 1991, I went to Ustinovka which is in the Ukraine and conducted the excavations at a grave where (5)adults had been killed first and then children. And later in 1991, I conducted the exhumation of a grave at Gnivan, also in the Ukraine, where about 100 victims had been shot.

• Q.: And these were Jewish victims?

(10) • A.: These were Jewish victims.

• Q.: In those graves were you able to find artefacts like paper materials and things that you've been able to since recover in Bosnia?

• A.: We were able to find -- I don't remember (15)papers specifically, because these were extremely old sites and papers had disintegrated, but we were able to find shell cases that had the date and manufacture of -- manufactured in Germany in 1939, 1941, and 1942.

• Q.: Did you try to prove ethnicity or background (20)in those graves as well?

• A.: No, we didn't -- that wouldn't have been my responsibility anyway, but the -- my responsibility was that of an archaeologist. But the point of the -- whole point of the work was to establish whether the (25)eyewitnesses' testimony had any credibility.

• Page 3637 • {106/141}

(1)In other words, whether the material evidence supported the claims of the eyewitnesses.

• Q.: Now, before we get into your ICTY experience, I notice that you refer to yourself as an (5)archaeologist. The front of your report refers to you as a professor of anthropology, and we have already heard about forensic pathologists from the summary witnesses. Can you tell us what forensic anthropology (10)is, where you fit in that field and how it fits into the field of archaeology and exhumations?

• A.: Yes, put very simply, in this sort of work there are three disciplines that are called on; one of that is archaeology, and I've described the reasons why (15)archaeologists are called in to do this work in connection with the soils. The anthropological side concerns the study of the bones for the purpose of determining the sex and age of the individual, and interpreting breaks and (20)other holes in the bones. In addition, the pathologists, who are drawn from the medical profession, are the ones who finally determine the cause and manner of death.

• Q.: Now, when you deliver, your team delivers all (25)these broken up bones to the morgue, which profession

• Page 3638 • {107/141}

(1)is it that tries to sort out the minimum number of individuals based on the --

• A.: The anthropologists do that.

• Q.: And when did you first start working for the (5)ICTY?

• A.: In June 1997.

• Q.: And can you just briefly describe what your work involved?

• A.: Yes, I was in charge of the exhumations at (10)Brcko where there were Muslim