|
Content
/ Colormap • Page 3532 • {1/141} (1)Friday, 26 May 2000 [Open session] [The witness entered court]
--- Upon commencing at 9.34 a.m. 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
• 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
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,
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
• 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
• 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
• 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
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.
THE WITNESS: Thank you Your Honours. 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
(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.
• 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.
• 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
• 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?
• 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
• 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,
• 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
• 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
(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
(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
• 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.
• 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
• 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.
(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
• 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
• 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
• 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,
• 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.
• 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
(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.
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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.
• 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
• 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,
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
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
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:
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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.
• 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
(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.
(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?
• 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
• 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
• 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.
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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.
• 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.
• 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
(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
• 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.
• 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.
• 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
• 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,
• 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
• 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
• 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
(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
• 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
• 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
(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
• 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.
• 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
• 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
(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
• 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
(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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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.
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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
• 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)
• 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.
(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
• 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
(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?
(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
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
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
(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
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
--- Recess taken at 12.55 p.m. (10)
--- On resuming at 1.25 p.m. 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,
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.
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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.
• 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
• 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 |
