The transcripts of the trial of Charles Taylor, former President of Liberia. More…

  • Good morning, witness.

  • I believe yesterday when we left off we had looked at tab 37 and we had marked for identification number 22, MFI-22, if I'm not mistaken. If we could now ask the Registry to place before you the binder, binder 2, and the document from that binder, the document following tab 38. Now, yesterday, witness, you spoke of documents relating to the civil war in Liberia. I think you specifically talked about a deployment report to Charles Taylor Junior listed as an ATU commander. Would you take a look at this document that was behind tab 38 and describe that document for us and tell us if that's the document you had mentioned and then tell us what you know about it.

  • Your Honours, this is one of the three documents I mentioned in relation to the documents relating to civil war in Liberia. This is a document from the ATU which I understand was Anti-Terrorist Unit. It's addressed to Charles G Taylor Junior and the title subject is deployment report. It is dated 6 May 1999. This is one of the documents that I have recently reviewed and learned that this was obtained by Ms Ruth Mary Hackler on 28 February 2007 and it was made available to her by Sheriff Fofie Kamara and we understand from his declaration that this document was among those seized on 5 March 2004 at White Flower. The ERN on this document is 00029215.

  • Thank you very much, witness. At this point, and here we have something that I'll leave it to the Trial Chamber to decide. The document that actually appears in the evidence unit as printed from the system is not a very legible copy. With our motion we had attached and in the binder we have attached, as is clear, an identical copy of the document albeit without the ERN and those were CMS 22588 and CMS 22589 and we would, I think, ask that the second of those documents, the one that is more legible, be marked for identification as MFI-23.

  • Yes. The legible copy, that's the one without the ERN number, will be marked MFI-23.

  • Yes, unfortunately:

  • Then, witness, you had mentioned some - a handwritten document making reference to a possible immunity for acts committed during the civil war from '89 to 2003. I would ask the Registry to place before you the document that follows tab 39 and ask you if that is the document you mentioned and then to tell us what you know about that document.

  • Your Honours, this is the document that I referred to yesterday. It's a one page handwritten note. It does not appear to have a date. It lists - it talks about immunity. It says: "Immunity is hereby granted from both civil and criminal proceedings against all persons, officials, representatives, warring factions and combatants within the jurisdiction of Liberia from all acts and/or crimes committed by them during the years of civil war in the period December 1989 to August 2003." I wasn't able to clearly read some of the words. This is a document that I have seen recently. It has a number of - it has a list of names at the bottom and about seven names are listed. This is one of the documents that I have reviewed as part of the exercise in relation to this testimony. I have learned that this is a document that was copied by Ms Ruth Mary Hackler on 28 February 2007.

  • Mr Witness, I'm sorry, I'll have to interrupt you there. Just so that Justice Sebutinde can follow this evidence, I'm wondering if there's a spare copy. There was not one included in the folder that was given to her.

    Yes, go ahead, Mr Malik.

  • Thank you, your Honours. As I was saying, this is one of the documents that I have recently reviewed and learned that this is a document obtained by Ms Ruth Mary Hackler on 28 February 2007 from the collection maintained by Sheriff Fofie Kamara, according to whose declaration this document was seized at White Flower on 5 March 2004. It's a one page document and bears the ERN 00028939.

  • With that testimony, your Honours, we would then ask that the document after tab 39 be marked for identification as MFI-24.

  • Yes, that document is marked MFI-24.

  • And it bears the CMS number 22648:

  • Now, witness, you mentioned documents that relate to external activities by the Liberian presidency. What do those documents look like?

  • There are six documents which I have placed in that category. One is an identification card, an ID card, issued by Burkina Faso. It bears the name Sore Jean Michel. It has Mr Charles Taylor's picture on it. The second document is a letterhead, a piece of stationery which says "Combined junta/RUF forces". It is merely a letterhead, there is no text below. A third document is a letter written by President Kabbah of Sierra Leone to Charles Taylor, President of Liberia, in relation to a couple of matters, specifically and mostly about handing over of Sam Bockarie to Sierra Leone. This document has a cover letter from the mission, Sierra Leone mission in New York, who apparently transmitted or forwarded this letter to Monrovia.

    There are three other documents in this category and those three relate to presidential travel. One is a list of entourage that is to accompany President Taylor on one of the travels. Another document is a list of persons assigned to protect him during this travel who would escort him during the trip abroad. The third document appears to be a set of instructions to finance minister asking him to make certain monies available, including per diem for the members of the entourage and there are figures of, I believe, 40,000 and then another one of 10,000 mentioned in the document. So these would be the six documents that I would place in this category.

  • Mr President, before the witness continues, I note the way in which my learned friend Mr Rapp categorised these and I don't know if this is actually an accurate categorisation by the witness. Mr Rapp described them as relating to external activities by the Liberian presidency. The document - two at least of the documents - clearly date from the 1990s and in one - sorry, one from the 1990s and one from 1989. They cannot possibly therefore all be described as relating to external activities by the Liberian presidency. I know the witness is only summarising the category here but for those listening to or watching this evidence it would be wrong to miscategorise any of these documents at any stage.

  • Yes, Mr Rapp?

  • Well, I believe that the error is mine. If we could take a look at yesterday's transcript, yesterday in the transcript, and I am referring now to the formal transcript at page 23002, line 5 - well, the question, let's go to line 3.

    "Q. Can you describe the kind of documents that are within

    this group?

    A. I've divided these 11 documents into three categories.

    One I have called documents relating to civil war in

    Liberia and there are three documents in that. Another

    would be Charles Taylor's external activities and then

    lastly there are a couple of notebooks or more specifically

    I think there's one notebook and one entry from another

    notebook, so that would make it 11."

    So I misspoke when I referred to the presidency. What the witness had talked about was Charles Taylor's external activities and I think that's frankly descriptive of six documents that the witness has mentioned today in this group.

  • I think the precise nature of the documents will come out in the witness's evidence in any event.

  • Thank you very much:

  • Witness, let me - do we have, have we placed the document after tab 40 before the witness, if we could do that. Witness, you mentioned an ID card and rather than describing it any further in my question, is this what you were referring to?

  • Yes, your Honours, this is the ID card that I've recently reviewed or an image of it, I have reviewed an image of it, and it's the ID card I referred to just a short while ago. It has a front and a back image. It appears to be in French and is issued by Burkina Faso authorities. It apparently is valid from 13 January 1989 to 12 January 1990. It has Mr Taylor's picture on it and there is also a stamp. The two ERNs on the front has the ERN 00028795 and the red 00028796. This is the among the documents that Ruth Mary Hackler copied on 28 February 2007 in Monrovia and it was made available to her by Fofie Kamara, the sheriff, according to whose declaration this is among the exhibits seized at White Flower on 5 March 2004.

  • Mr Rapp, is there an original of this document available, or this is - or where is the original?

  • Your Honours, I believe the original is in Monrovia and we were allowed merely to photograph it. So there is a photograph - a coloured photograph which may be slightly easier to look at and read.

  • Meaning in your custody?

  • The usher has just shown me one and there may be other copies. I'm not sure.

  • This indeed is the one that we will seek to mark for identification as 40. What's in the binder is for our use in reference in the courtroom.

  • Although, your Honours, there only seems to be the front side of this in colour. I'm not sure if the rear is also available.

  • That's why I think we should mark all three of those documents behind that particular number.

  • With that, your Honours, we would ask that these pages that we have - obviously just to make sure what the witness has in front of him:

  • You have the image of the rather large - of the colour photograph and then do you have two other pages with sort of a Xerox copy?

  • I do. I have the originals processed by the evidence unit, two pages, front and back, in black and white, and I also have an unERN'd coloured photograph which shows the front of the photograph only. Front of the card only.

  • So, your Honours, we would ask that presumably this would be MFI-25 and then that the two ERN'd copies, as we call it, your ERN'd copies 28795, 28736 be given MFI-25A and B and the larger image of the front be given MFI-25C.

  • Yes. The two black and white documents with the ERN numbers on them just mentioned by Mr Rapp will be marked for identification MFI-25A and B and the enlarged coloured copy of the front of the ID will be marked MFI-25C.

  • Your Honours, each of those three pages was included in the filing with CMS, so the CMS numbers are 22573, 22574 and 22575:

  • Now, witness, you mentioned a letter from President Kabbah to Charles Taylor. I would ask the Registry now to place before you the document behind tab 41 in the second binder.

  • There's actually two documents behind that tab.

  • I would place the three pages that I believe are behind that tab:

  • Witness, could you tell me what this document is or what these pages represent if it's more than one document?

  • Your Honours, this is the letter from President Kabbah to President Taylor that I mentioned a short time ago. It is accompanied by a cover letter which I also referred to in my summary. The letter is sent to Monrovia, apparently from the Sierra Leone permanent mission in - at United Nations. President Kabbah's letter to President Taylor refers to Sam Bockarie and his presence in Liberia and Sierra Leone's request that he be handed over to Sierra Leone.

    This is among the documents that I have recently reviewed and I understand that this is a document photocopied by Ms Ruth Mary Hackler on 28 February 2007 in Monrovia and it was made available to her by Sheriff Fofie Kamara according to whose declaration - this was among the exhibits seized at White Flower on 5 March 2004. The dates - there are various dates on this. The cover letter has the date 30 January 2001 which I understand is the most recent date. The ERN on the first page is 00028775 and the ERN on the last and the third page is 00028777.

  • Your Honours, you having noted that there are really two letters in this group, with the Court's permission we would propose that the first page, the cover letter, the apparent letter from Ambassador Rowe to minister Jonathan Taylor be MFI-26A and then that the two pages of the letter from President Kabbah to President Taylor be 26B.

  • Yes. The cover letter from Ambassador Rowe will be marked MFI-26A and the letter from President Kabbah will be marked MFI-26B.

  • For the record, the CMS number for 26A is 22639 and the CMS numbers for 26B are obviously two numbers, 22640 and 22641 :

  • Witness, you indicated that one of the documents you had included in this group was a blank piece of stationery in regard to groups in Sierra Leone. I would ask the Court Usher to place before you the document that follows tab 42.

  • Your Honours, this is the letterhead that I referred to a short while ago. It reads "Combined junta and RUF forces of the Republic of Sierra Leone" and it gives an address below that. It says "Randall Street, Zone 2". There is no text below it. It has the ERN stamped 00028837 and this is a one page document. I recognise this as one of the documents I have recently reviewed and I have learned that it was among the documents Ms Ruth Mary Hackler obtained from Fofie Kamara. On 28 February she was allowed to make a photocopy of this document, which is what we have with us. From Sheriff Fofie Kamara's declaration I understand that this is one of the exhibits seized at White Flower on 5 March 2004.

  • Thank you very much, witness. We would ask that this document be marked for identification as MFI-27.

  • That document is marked MFI-27.

  • And for the record the CMS number associated with that document is 22571:

  • Now, witness, you mentioned that there were a number of documents relating to travels abroad of President Taylor and we have a document that I would like to have - I'm not sure if the tab has 43A and 43B on it, but I would ask that the Court Usher place the items after 43A and B, or 43 if that's the way the binder is set, before the witness. Now, witness, looking at the first document in front of you, could you describe that document and tell me if it's one of those that you mentioned and then tell me what you know about it?

  • Your Honours, this is the document that I called or I referred to when I spoke of a list of persons who were included in President Taylor's entourage during one of his travels. It's a document which says on the top "Republic of Liberia, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Monrovia, Liberia", and then it says "Officials of government accompanying their excellencies the President of the Republic of Liberia and Mrs Taylor on their official visit to the republic of France, September 28 thru October 1, 1998". It's a two page document and I understand from the yellow sticker that this would be 43A. It has the ERN 00029301 on the front page and 00029302 on the second and last page. It is one of the documents that I have recently looked at. It is among the documents that Ms Ruth Mary Hackler photocopied, or photographed, on 28 February 2007 in the presence of Captain Sumo after having being given access to this by Sheriff Fofie Kamara, according to whose declaration this was among the exhibits seized at White Flower on 5 March 2004.

  • Now, witness, I'm just checking in the documents that have been provided you was there a second copy of it before you that appears to be identical?

  • Yes, there is a second unERN'd copy and that is there is a lighter copy without the ERNs.

  • Thank you. Before we proceed to move for identification of this particular document, I'd like to ask you to take a look at the document that is behind the tab 43B and ask you if that's a document that you've also described?

  • Yes, this is the document which contains a list of people who were to escort President Taylor and it's from U-50 - sorry, it is addressed to U-50, U for uniform, from U-52 and dated --

  • Well I'm sorry, but I don't know how this witness can say that the U stands for uniform. As I understood it, he can only talk about the provenance and not the contents.

  • He is just spelling, I would imagine.

  • That is right, your Honours.

  • Sorry, that is an overreaction by me. I will say no more.

  • U as in umbrella, or U as in uncle. This is a - it has a list of 13 persons and they're listed by name. It's a one page document and it bears the ERN 00029303 and it also has a yellow sticker, the copy I'm looking at, which says 43B which I guess is the tab number. This is among the documents that I have recently seen. It was a document obtained by Ms Ruth Mary Hackler on 28 February 2007 from Sheriff Fofie Kamara, according to whose declaration this is among the exhibits that were seized at White Flower on 5 March 2004.

  • And, witness, behind this document in the tab I see another page. Do you have that before you?

  • Yes, that is an unERN'd more legible copy. It's lighter than the ERN'd copy.

  • Witness, just by way of understanding here, the ERN'd copies or the ERNs in this sequence are 22580 - excuse, me I misspoke. The ERNs are 29301 and 302 and then I see that the next thing is 303. So these A and B are part of a single document, or --

  • Yes, originally they were part of a single document. They were given to us as part of a single document and I could be wrong but I believe it went from 29298 to 29307, perhaps. I could stand to be corrected. But, anyway, the Prosecution has chosen to submit these - list these as two separate exhibits. I believe originally when it was given to the OTP I think it was a set of three documents which - it was given to us to be processed as one document, so for evidence unit purposes both these A and B parts come from the same document. In my database they would be listed all as part of one document.

  • Your Honours, with the Court's permission, although I know we like using ERN documents but I believe it's clear on its face that the better copy of the first document is the unERN'd copy, two pages following with the heading "Ministry of Foreign Affairs" and continuing on to a second page with numbering leading up finally to 28/32 I think is the last numbering of the delegation on that page. We would ask that those first two pages be marked for identification as MFI-28A.

  • That's the clear copy that doesn't have an ERN number?

  • Yes, exactly, your Honour.

  • Yes, all right. Well, that copy is marked MFI-28A.

  • Mr Rapp, I don't wish to be pedantic, but considering the witness's testimony that this was given to them as a single document I'm looking at the date on MFI-28A. The date is 28th, or rather September through 28 October 1998, and the date on this other document is 12 April 1999. I don't know how this can be the same document from two different years?

  • If that can be posed, or consider it posed to the witness, that question.

  • Your Honours, the way the evidence is submitted is that it is the discretion of the person bringing the evidence to the evidence unit as to how they group the evidence that's being submitted. In fact, as you quite rightly said, sometimes different documents get bunched together as in this case. In fact, it is our preference that the document be split into as many discrete parts as possible. However, sometimes for reasons of time and convenience and strategy the Prosecution, or the investigators who submit the evidence to us, may choose to lump different documents together and instruct us to then list them together as part of one document.

    What we call a document does not have any - does not confer any sort of qualities, or any further sort of organisation, on the document. It is merely processed in one go, we list it with that particular range and if the Prosecution chooses to they can split that document and use only parts of it, as in fact they have done right now.

    So, as I said earlier, in fact these were three different documents which the Prosecution chose to submit as one document for the purposes of record keeping within the evidence unit and so that - I hope that explains how the process worked.

  • Thank you, witness. I will leave it to your Honours. Obviously from the face of it the first of these documents relates to the entourage for a trip to France and the second of them appears to be a trip to South Africa and Libya, but they are all about entourage for official visits by the President of Liberia and so we would propose the A and B system for these unless the Court wishes to give a separate MFI without an A and B. We propose to put those first two pages in, the ones regarding the visit to France, as MFI-28A.

  • Yes, that document just described relating to the visit to France is marked MFI-28A. I note there's the ERN copy and then there's a clear copy.

  • Yes.

  • What one are you planning to eventually tender?

  • What I was suggesting is simply that the document that is the clear copy, because it's apparent to your Honours I think that they are identical and that the clear copy be the one that's marked for identification, unless you wish to have it all in?

  • Yes, all right. Well, then the clear copy is the one marked for identification. Which one has a CMS number on it?

  • They both have CMS numbers, but the better one has CMS number 22582 and 22583. So we can nail it down with those two CMS numbers as reflecting the clearer copy.

    Then the witness having identified and given his answer regarding the source of the second document after this one, being after tab 43B, we would ask that the clearer copy, the second page, a document to U-50 from U-52, a list of 13 names eventually ending with the word "Regards" and then a comma, that that document - the clear copy - be MFI-28B. For reference, your Honour, that clear copy bears the CMS number 22586.

  • All right. Well, that clear copy just described will be marked for identification MFI-28B.

  • Thank you very much:

  • Let me then ask the Registry to place before you the document after tab 44. Witness, you mentioned a document regarding per diem allowances for an official visit and I'd ask you to take a look at the document and tell me if that's the document that you mentioned and then tell us what you know about that document?

  • Your Honours, this is the document I referred to when I spoke of set of instructions for minister of finance and this comprises four pages and has more than one date on it. The first page has - is addressed to minister of finance from minister of state for presidential affairs and refers to - is an agreement for the amount of up to 6 million United States dollars between governments of Libya and Liberia and then the next page is dated 26 February 2001 and again it is addressed to minister of finance from minister of state/chief of staff. This refers to the President's travel to Libya and mentions a sum of $40,000 to be made available as his incidental allowance. That's 40,000 US dollars, United States dollars. Also has a figure of $10,000.

    Then behind that is a list and it says "Officials of Government Accompanying His Excellency Dahkpanah Dr Charles Ghankay Taylor, President of the Republic of Liberia, to the 5th Extra-ordinary Session of the Assembly of Heads of State and Government in Serte, Socialist Peoples Libyan Arab Jamahiriya 28 February to 3 March 2001 and has 21 specific entries below that.

    Your Honours, this is one of the documents I have recently seen. It was obtained by Ms Hackler on 27 - 28 February 2007 from Sheriff Fofie Kamara and photocopied in the presence of Captain Sumo. I understand from Sheriff Kamara's declaration that this is one of the exhibits seized from White Flower on 5 March 2004. This document has an ERN on the first page, 00028786 and the ERN on the last page is 00028789.

  • Witness, before we proceed, just to be clear, you referred to an ERN that ends with 28786 as the first page and that first page is which letter?

  • This is the letter written by Jonathan C Taylor, minister of state for presidential affairs and chairman of the cabinet to the minister of finance and this relates to - it says:

    "By directive of the President you are hereby authorised to sign the financial agreement for the amount of up to 6 million United States dollars between the governments of Libya and Liberia."

    This is dated 2 March 2001.

  • And then the document that indicates to the minister of finance regarding the amounts of per diem allowances, that document is at what ERN?

  • That has ERN 00028787.

  • And the list of people to go on the mission?

  • That starts from 00028788 and goes on to the next page which has the ERN 00028789.

  • Your Honours, while these may all relate to the same mission, we would I think perhaps be the preference to split this into three parts and ask that the first letter, the one that has the ERN 28786, a letter of 2 March from the minister of state for presidential affairs, that that be marked for identification as 29A.

  • Is that - I'm just querying the expediency of marking it as 29A. Does it bear any relation to the following document? Is it a part - are they all part of the one transaction or is it a separate document on its own? The reason I ask that is if the answer to my second question is yes, then it might be more sensible to just give it a separate MFI number.

  • The reason that it's included together, as is evident from the second page of this group of four, there's a mission by the President to Libya between 28 February and 2 March 2001. The document on page 1 refers to an agreement to be signed between Libya and Liberia and that's dated 2 March 2001 which would have been during the course of this mission.

  • I see, Mr Rapp. Yes, all right. That first document, which is the letter from Jonathan Taylor, will be marked MFI-29A.

  • And then the second document, the one that carries the last five digits ERN 28787, then again from Mr Taylor this time called minister of state/chief of staff, a letter of 26 February 2001, we'd ask that that be marked for identification as 29B.

  • Yes. That document is marked MFI-29B.

  • And finally, the two pages with the last digits of ERN 28788 and 28789, officials of government accompany His Excellency President Taylor, that that two page document be marked as 29C.

  • Yes. The last document described by Mr Rapp is marked for identification 29C.

  • Then for the record, your Honours, the MFI-29A is reflected by CMS 22643, 29B by 22644 and 29C by 22645 and 22646:

  • Let me then turn to another subgroup of documents that you mentioned in your answer a few moments ago in regard to - actually it was yesterday and that was the - you mentioned notebooks. One a notebook and another an entry in a notebook. I'd ask the Court Attendant to place before you the document that follows tab 45 in the binder. Witness, could you tell me if this is the document that you mentioned and then tell us what you know about this document?

  • Your Honours, this is one of the two references to notebooks I made yesterday, steno notebooks. This is the first one. This is a photocopy of an entire steno notebook or a substantial part of it certainly. It says on the front "Gregg ruled green tint steno book" and in longhand it says "Colonel Beer" and under that name it says "chief for highway patrol". This document has an ERN starting from 00029059 on the front page and the ERN on the last page is 00029098. This is one of the documents I mentioned yesterday. I've reviewed it recently. This was photocopied and/or photographed by Ms Ruth Mary Hackler on 28 February 2007. She obtained it from Sheriff Kamara according to whose declaration this was among the exhibits seized at White Flower on 5 March 2004.

  • Your Honour, with that testimony we would ask that the document after tab 45 be marked for identification as MFI-30.

  • That document just described by the witness will be marked for identification MFI-30.

  • And for the record that bears the CMS numbers 22598 through 22637:

  • Then, witness, you mentioned also a single page entry from a notebook and we would ask the Court Attendant to place before you the one page document that follows tab 46. First, is that the document you mentioned and I'm asking a compound question as I've done before but then could you tell us what you know about that document?

  • Your Honours, this is a one page document and it is a photocopy or a photograph from a notebook, a steno notebook, one page of that notebook. It says on the top "Calls/messages", it has the date 7 February 2000 on the top. At the bottom half of the page there is - again it says "Calls/messages" and there the date given is 5 February 2000 and it says below that, "Johnny Paul Koroma's wife is here. Wishes to say goodbye to chief. They leave by 12 noon today". This is a one page document with the ERN 00029106. I recognise this as being among the documents I have looked at as part of my recent exercise in relation to this testimony. This document was obtained by Ms Ruth Mary Hackler on 28 February 2007 from Sheriff Kamara according to whose declaration this was among the exhibits seized at White Flower on 5 March 2004.

  • Thank you very much, witness. We would then ask that the document after tab 46 be marked for identification as MFI-31.

  • That document is marked MFI-31.

  • And for the record that document bears the CMS number 22592:

  • I believe that concludes the documents in the third subgroup and/or group of documents among the 55 that you've discussed. I'd like you to then focus on the fourth group of documents for which you, I think, for purposes of reference, referred to as Justice and Peace Commission documents. How many documents in this group?

  • Nine.

  • And first, what kind of information, if any, did you access to answer the request from the Prosecution team as to the source of this group of documents?

  • Your Honours, I looked at the records that I have in my unit in relation to these documents and I also spoke to Ms Ruth Mary Hackler who actually obtained these documents, together with other OTP investigators, and that is the source of my information which I will be presenting today.

  • And as far as any specific investigators that you spoke to?

  • This information actually has two sources. This is - there is one document in this collection which was obtained by other OTP investigators in 2005. The rest of the documents were obtained by Ms Ruth Mary Hackler in company of another investigator, Mr Magnus Lamin. I have not spoken to Mr Magnus Lamin in relation to this but I'm aware that he accompanied Ms Hackler when she obtained these documents.

  • You've referred to them as Justice and Peace Commission documents, but what kind of documents are they?

  • Your Honours, all of these are media reports. These are the total of nine media reports. They are photographs of newspapers which are held in this collection at Justice and Peace Commission.

  • Let me be precise just so - you mentioned there were two specific times that the documents were obtained from that Justice and Peace Commission. Specifically, when and by whom and how many documents on each occasion? How many documents of this group, I should say?

  • There were a total of nine documents and one document was obtained in September 2005 by OTP investigators. The other eight documents were obtained at various times in March 2007 and that was done by Ms Ruth Mary Hackler together with Mr Magnus Lamin, who is an investigator.

  • And when you refer to documents being obtained, how are they obtained?

  • This is a set of - if I could explain a little further. The Justice and Peace Commission organisation, it is a non-governmental organisation and it maintains a collection of newspapers at its office. Ms Hackler in 2007 and other OTP investigators in 2005 went to this office and they were allowed to photograph or copy the newspapers that were held by the Justice and Peace Commission, so what we have received are not original newspapers. They are merely images of them.

  • And personally have you done anything with the documents since they were stamped into your evidence unit?

  • Yes, I have reviewed them as required by the Prosecution in relation to this particular exercise. I've looked at my records and I have sought to familiarise myself with the appearance of these documents, as we call them.

  • As far as the appearance of these documents, is there any way in which you classified them yourself during that exercise?

  • Yes, your Honours, all of these documents are about civil war. I've categorised them in two separate categories. In the first category I list the documents relate to - which are all of course media reports that, as I've said, relate to civil war in Liberia and I've placed four documents in this category. The other five documents are in the category of civil war in Sierra Leone. So all nine documents relate to civil war in Liberia and Sierra Leone, four relate to Liberia and the other five relate to Sierra Leone.

  • Mr Rapp, this Justice and Peace Commission is located where exactly?

  • Witness, we would ask that you respond to Her Honour's question. Where is it located?

  • Your Honours, the Justice and Peace Commission as I said is an NGO and has its office at the Catholic Archdiocesan Secretariat, which is located in Monrovia, Liberia.

  • Thank you, witness. At this point I would ask the Registry to place before you a document that is already in evidence, I believe coming in during Mr Blah's testimony. That is P-126.

  • Your Honours, may I say something? I just realised that perhaps I did not fully understand the Prosecutor's question asked a few moments ago. The pattern that he has followed in relation to all the other groups is that he has asked me the question what kinds of documents they were and I think when he recently asked me this question in relation to this group I thought that he was referring to as to how the documents had been obtained, whether they were copies or photographs, et cetera. I now realise that in fact he wanted me to describe specifically what was contained, or how they're labelled, how I remember them, and so if your Honours may give me the opportunity I may briefly describe what kinds of media reports these are.

  • Is that what you want, Mr Rapp?

  • I'm not sure that it's strictly speaking necessary with media reports:

  • But, witness, if you could describe first your recollection of the media reports regarding the civil war in Liberia?

  • Your Honours, there are four such reports. One report says "NPFL Burns 200 Alive", something to that effect. There is another media report which says "Three Civilians Killed. Chinese Feared Dead". Then there is one report which has the headline "Charles Taylor's Aide-De-Camp Surrenders", and the fourth and the final report I believe has the title, or the headline, "Charles Taylor's Generals Lay Down Arms", or something to that effect - "Drop Arms", I believe. Yes, "Charles Taylor's Generals Drop Arms". So these are the four reports in the Liberian category.

    In the Sierra Leone civil war category there is a report which says "52 Burned Alive - Junta On Rampage", there is another report which says "Ceasefire Fails" and then a third report which says "Three AFL soldiers Captured In Sierra Leone". The fourth one is "Thousands Trapped In Freetown, Foday Sankoh Flown To Guinea", I believe, and then the last media report relating to the civil war in Sierra Leone is a statement issued by the Nigerian government which is published in the press. So those would be the five documents which relate to the Sierra Leone civil war.

  • Thank you very much for that, witness. Then I would ask the Registry to place before you P-126 and ask if that's the first of the documents that you just described regarding the victims burned alive.

  • Your Honours, this is one of the media reports I described. It says - it has various headlines on it. This is Monrovia Daily News. It's an image of the newspaper Monrovia Daily News. It is dated 3 March 1994. It has various headlines on it, but the way that I have described it the label that I took in order for me to remember it and describe it relates to the headline in the middle of the page, "In Rivercess County: NPFL Burns 200 alive". It's a two page report, or document. The first page has the ERN 00031374 and the second page has the ERN 00031375. This is among the images taken by Ms Ruth Mary Hackler together with investigator Magnus Lamin in March 2007 at the JPC, Justice and Peace Commission, facility in Monrovia, Liberia.

  • Just to be clear, the documents appear to be page 1 and perhaps page 6 of the newspaper. Why are these particular pages put together in this exhibit?

  • Because the stories begin on the first page and then they continue on the second page which is attached here with the document.

  • Your Honours, this document is already in evidence as P-126. I would note for the Court's information that we actually did admit the second item - the second part of it that's shown in the binder which is a more legible version and not the ERN number, but that is already in evidence as P-126:

  • Then we would ask the Court Attendant to place before you the document after binder tab 48.

  • Your Honour, is that an admitted document?

  • Yes, that is. My apologies to the Registry. That is in fact P-127 that I wish to have placed before - the actual admitted exhibit.

  • Thank you for pointing that out. For everyone else the copy is after tab 48, the copy of the document:

  • Witness, I believe you referred to a document in the Liberian civil war group that referenced the death of or the killing of three civilians. First of all is this the document you mentioned and, secondly, could you tell us what you know about the document?

  • Your Honours, this is a report from The Inquirer and it has the headline "Three Civilians Killed, Others Wounded In Ambush - Chinese Feared Dead". This was one of the documents I referred to recently. It is among the documents copied or photographed by Ms Ruth Mary Hackler at JPC, or Justice and Peace Commission, facility in Monrovia, Liberia, in March 2007. I believe the date is 14 January 1994, although the image is faint and not very clear. This document has the ERN 00031378 and then the second page has ERN 00031379. This document - the stories begin on the first page and continue on the second page. I'm familiar with this document. This document was processed by the evidence unit after it was submitted to us by Ms Ruth Mary Hackler.

  • Your Honours, this document is already in evidence as P-127 and again it is not the ERN'd version that is in front of the Court as the exhibit, but a slightly better copy that does indeed show legibly the date of the article:

  • We would then ask that the Registry remove that document from in front of you and then place before you the document after tab 49 in the second binder. Witness, you referred to an article regarding the surrender of Taylor's aide-de-camp. Let me ask you to take a look at the document that is after tab 49 and tell us if that's the document you mentioned and then provide us with what information you have about the source of that document.

  • Yes, your Honours, this is another media report from The Inquirer. It's dated 20 March 1995 and it has the headline "Taylor's Aide-De-Camp, Others Surrender". It is one of the documents I recently mentioned. It was obtained by Ms Ruth Mary Hackler from the Justice and Peace Commission collection and it was submitted to the evidence unit in 2007 - in May 2007. We processed it and I'm familiar with this document. I looked at it as part of this exercise and it has the ERN 00031404 and the stories go on to the next page, or another page, which has the ERN 00031405.

  • And I see behind these two pages two other pages in my tab. Have those been provided to you?

  • Yes, they're here and they are black and white and perhaps they read better. I'm not personally sure. I actually think the ERN'd copy is clearer, but anyway they're here as well.

  • Well, let me just ask the Court. Obviously we have a question here of which is the better copy here to mark for identification. The witness I think is correct that there really is not a lot to choose from between the two documents and under those circumstances I think we'd prefer the ERN'd document as the document stamped in to the evidence unit and therefore we would offer the document with the ERN 31404 and 31405 as - well not offering, excuse me. We would ask the Court to mark it for identification at this time as MFI-32.

  • Yes, the ERN copy is marked for identification MFI-32.

  • And the CMS number of those particular pages, the ERN version of this article, is 22500 and 22501:

  • Then, witness, you mentioned a final document in this group relating to the Liberian civil war and that related to a ceasefire potentially failing and that is - we'd like the Court Attendant to place before you the document which appears after tab 50.

  • Your Honours, I think there is perhaps an error. I think the document that I referred to, the final document, was "Taylor's Generals Lay Down Arms", or something to that effect. The document that you just have mentioned in fact relates to the Sierra Leone civil war and so perhaps there is a mistake.

  • Well, witness, let me ask before I --

  • I'm happy to look at the document if you like.

  • Okay. Would you take a look at this document and tell me if it's one of the documents in either group that you mentioned?

  • Which tab are we looking at?

  • After tab 50, your Honour.

  • Your Honours, indeed this is a document that I mentioned but I would personally place it in the second category. I have said this is a document that relates to the civil war in Sierra Leone. It's a report from The News, 20 January 1999, Monrovia, Liberia, and towards the bottom of the page, at the bottom of the page, there's a big headline that says "Ceasefire fails" and on top of that it says "As fighting rages on in Sierra Leone: Catholic Bishop, Nuns, Others Taken Hostage" and the story reads:

    "Despite pronouncements last week by President Taylor that he had secured a ceasefire in Sierra Leone and a subsequent confirmation by rebel spokesman Sam Bockarie that his RUF would observe a unilateral truce as of Monday the 18th, reports from Sierra Leone say fighting is still raging in that sisterly state, clearly indicating that the ceasefire has failed to hold."

    It is indeed one of the documents I have looked at. It is a document that was copied or photographed by Ms Ruth Mary Hackler in March 2007 at Justice and Peace Commission archives. As I said, we processed this document in May 20007 and it bears the ERN 00031429 and then the stories continue on to another page and that one bears the ERN 00031430. So it is one of the nine documents which I have looked at and placed in the JPC documents category as part of this exercise.

  • With that, your Honours, we would ask that this document be marked for identification as MFI-33.

  • That document is marked MFI-33.

  • Now, witness, you mentioned this document that you indicated had something to do with Taylor's generals and dropping arms that you had --

  • I'm sorry, do we have a CMS number for the previous document?

  • Thank you very much, counsel. The CMS number for MFI-33 is 22520, 22521:

  • Witness, then we would ask that the Registry to place before you the document after tab 51 and then ask you about your mention of a document that you placed within a Liberian civil war category regarding Taylor's generals and dropping arms and ask you if that is the document you mentioned and then tell us what you know about that document?

  • Your Honours, this is one of the documents I referred to just a few moments ago. This is the fourth and final document in the subcategory of documents relating to Liberian civil war. It's a report by the New Democrat Weekly and the date given is Tuesday 30 November to 5 December 1995. It has the headline "Taylor's Generals Drop Arms. Claim Ritualistic Killings, Deception. List includes 16 Generals, 14 Special Forces Commandos." It's one of the documents that Ms Ruth Mary Hackler photographed at the Justice and Peace Commission holdings in Monrovia, Liberia, in March 2007. It was obtained in 2007 but processed only in 2008, in November 2008. I'm familiar with this. I've looked at this document as part of the recent exercise in relation to this testimony. It's a three page document and the ERN on the first page is 00101965 and the ERN on the last page, the third and the last page is 00101967.

  • Your Honours, then we would ask that this document in three pages be marked for identification as MFI-34.

  • Yes. That document is marked MFI-34.

  • For the record, the CMS associated numbers are 22505 through 22507:

  • Witness, you had mentioned several documents regarding the Sierra Leone civil war and I believe I've made a reference to a document regarding certain individuals burned alive. I would ask the Registry to place before you the document following tab 52. Witness, is this the document that you mentioned and then could you tell us what you know about the source of this document?

  • Your Honours, this is one of the five documents I mentioned in relation to civil war in Sierra Leone. It's an image of a newspaper Daily Times. The date given is 20 February 1998, Monrovia, Liberia. It was a document that was photographed in September 2005 by OTP investigators and it was submitted to the evidence unit in March 2007. It has the headline "In S/Leone 52 Burned Alive as Junta Goes on Rampage".

    I've looked at this document and I'm familiar with it. It's one of the documents included by the Prosecution in its list of 55 documents that I was asked to provide information on. The ERN on the first page is 00028277. The ERN on the last page - second and last page is 00028278. The ERN on the last page is 00028278. I also have been given a copy which perhaps is more legible than the ERN'd copy.

  • Let me just ask you about that. The third and fourth pages that follow the tab don't look to be exactly in the same format or cover exactly the same part of the page as the ERN numbers. Could you then relate what's on the first two pages, the ERN numbers, with what's on these third and fourth pages?

  • The ERN'd copy, the one with the ERNs, is not zoomed in on the particular story that's of interest to the Prosecution. Judging by the unERN'd copy attached the Prosecution wants to focus on the story "In Sierra Leone 52 burned alive as junta goes on rampage". The ERN'd copy has the entire page photographed and therefore the print appears smaller in the photograph and is more difficult to read. What has been provided with that, the unERN'd version contains all of the story "52 burned alive" as it's presented on the first page, and then also contains the remaining portion which has been placed on another page and has the heading "52". So I believe that the copy that's the unERN'd copy contains all of the contents of the story "52 burned alive" both from the first page, as well as the remainder of the story from the following page.

  • Your Honour, as we're prepared to have these both marked for identification. However, it's not our desire to put before the Court information that's extraneous or to overweigh the evidence file, so it would frankly be our preference simply to have the third and fourth pages here, the unERN'd version that actually contains the actual story which we wish to assert is relevant when we make our offer, and we would then ask that those last two pages, which also bear the separate CMS number 22658 and 22659 be marked for identification. I believe we're ready for MFI-35.

  • Yes. The two pages just described by Mr Rapp that do not bear any ERN numbers will be marked for identification MFI-35.

    Mr Witness, just as a matter of curiosity, I remember that you said yesterday that you would get some assistance from having some blank sheets of paper before you so that you could make notes as you go along of the evidence you've given. Are those - you have some pages before you at the moment. Is that correct?

  • Yes, your Honours, I do.

  • Are they still blank or do they bear any writing?

  • Your Honours, the pages that I used - the pages yesterday to make some notes, things as I remember them, and I've not brought them with me today. I've again brought only clean sheets and I've again made some notes, some writings on them.

  • I see. You've made the notes as you go along from the evidence you give?

  • As I go along, evidence I give and things that I'm remembering as I talk about them, things which I may be asked about as I go over the information that I am to present today.

  • Can I have a look, or could we have a look, at that piece of paper please?

  • All right. Well thank you, Mr Malik. Just to clear things up, these notes were made by you yesterday. Is that correct?

  • No, your Honours. Those were different notes. I have those available as well, if you like? These notes were made today, this morning, in the courtroom after my testimony began.

  • I don't know if the Defence wants to see these notes?

  • I would be grateful, yes, please.

    Thank you, your Honour.

  • May I have a look at the document as well?

  • I take it, Mr Munyard, you have nothing to say about those notes?

  • Insofar as I could read them, I've nothing to say about them.

  • Yes, Mr Rapp.

  • Witness, I think we had just marked for identification, or your Honours had just marked for identification, MFI-35. You had described several other news reports that were in this collection regarding events in Sierra Leone. If I'm not mistaken, my recollection is there was one about soldiers captured in Sierra Leone. If the Registry could then place before you the document after tab 53. Witness, is this the document or one of the documents that you mentioned and then could you tell us what you know about its source?

  • Your Honours, this is one of the five documents which I've placed in the category of documents relating to civil war in Sierra Leone. It's an image of The News newspaper. It's difficult to read the date. It's not clear. The story at the very bottom of the page has the headline "Three AFL Soldiers Captured In Sierra Leone" and says it's a story by a journalist Sheriff Adams and it says "Cont'd on page 3". Most of the text is on page 3.

    I'm familiar with this document. This is one of the images taken by Ruth Mary Hackler and Magnus Lamin in March 2007. It was submitted to the evidence unit in May 2007. We processed it and stamped it and this is one of the documents included in the Prosecution's list of 55 documents regarding which they wish me to speak as to the source of these documents. So this is one of the Justice and Peace Commission documents.

  • Your Honour, with that we would ask that this document in two pages be marked for identification as MFI-36.

  • That document is marked MFI-36.

  • And for the record it contains the CMS or it is associated with the pages CMS numbers 22525 and 22526:

  • Then, witness, you had described a document regarding people trapped in Freetown, or a news article in regard to that, and I'd ask the Court Attendant to place before you the document that follows tab 54 in the second binder. Witness, is this one of the documents you mentioned and for the record would you state what you know about its source?

  • Your Honours, I referred to this a few moments ago. This is the document with the headline "Thousands Trapped In Freetown. Foday Sankoh Flown to Guinea; Rebels Still Burning Buildings". It's a report by The Inquirer and it's dated Wednesday, 13 January 1999. It also says "JPC" in longhand on top of that - on top of the image.

    This was one of the documents that was brought to the OTP by Ms Ruth Mary Hackler after having photographed it at JPC, or Justice and Peace Commission, newspaper archives in Monrovia, Liberia, in March 2007. It's one of the documents that I've included in the JPC collection; one of the nine documents I've categorised as having come from Justice and Peace Commission.

    It's a two page document. The first page bears ERN 31391. The second - the story continues on another page and that page bears the ERN 00031392. I've also been given an unERN'd version - non-ERN'd version - which is black and white. Perhaps it's easier to read. The first page I think is easier to read in the ERN'd version and perhaps the second page is easier to read in the unERN'd version, but in any case I think the quality is similar.

  • Your Honours, just looking at it, it does appear that the unERN'd version may be slightly easier to read. It is rather fuzzy on the first, so we would ask that the unERN'd version, the third and fourth pages behind the binder, that deal with the - from The Inquirer "Thousands Trapped In Freetown" and contains the jumped page, page 6, that has the "Thousands Trapped" in the middle of the page, we would ask that that be marked for identification as MFI-37 and we note that those two pages have been given - the two pages, the unERN'd version, have been given CMS numbers 22514 and 22515.

  • Yes, that document just described by Mr Rapp will be marked MFI-37.

  • Finally, witness, you had mentioned a newspaper article that had reported on a statement from the embassy of Nigeria and I would ask the Court Attendant of the Registry to place before you the document behind tab 55 and ask you whether that document is the document you mentioned and then ask you to tell us what you know about its source.

  • Your Honours, this is the document I spoke of when I referred to a statement by the embassy of Nigeria on the situation in Sierra Leone. This was published in The News newspaper on Tuesday, 19 January 1999 in Monrovia, Liberia. Ms Hackler, together with Mr Magnus Lamin, obtained this at Justice and Peace Commission archives.

    It's a photograph, or appears to be a photograph of a newspaper. It was submitted to the evidence unit in 2008 and processed accordingly. It is one of the documents I've reviewed as part of this exercise and it has - it bears the ERN 00101964. There are two copies: one is ERN'd and the other copy I've been given is unERN'd. I think the ERN'd copy reads fine and I think everything is legible in the ERN'd copy, even if the unERN'd copy is slightly better.

  • With that, your Honours, we would ask that the ERN'd copy that bears the ERN number 00101964 be marked for identification as MFI-38.

  • That document is marked MFI-38.

  • And that ERN'd version carries the CMS number 22518.

    Your Honours, that will conclude our direct examination - our examination-in-chief. I do want to indicate to the Court that at the conclusion of this witness's testimony we will ask for the right to reserve recalling the witness later in the presentation of the Prosecution evidence depending on decisions on pending motions and the pending interlocutory appeal as to other documents. As he has indicated he has some knowledge of UN documents and other government documents and it may be possible to examine him about those if those matters are not resolved otherwise, but we wouldn't proceed with that today and at this point I'd conclude my direct examination.

  • Thank you, Mr Rapp.

  • Mr Rapp, with regard to this latest MFI, what is the date indicated? It's not very clear, at least not on the copy that you MFI'd.

  • Your Honour, on the second version of it it's clearly 19 January 1999.

  • The reason I asked is because only one of the copies was tendered - the unclear one.

  • Well, all I would say is if one looks at the one that wasn't tendered it does help to clarify a rather poor photocopy.

  • I believe for the record, your Honours, rather than going back, that the document here would reflect the fact that the date of this issue of The News is Tuesday, 19 January 1999, Monrovia, Liberia. That's quite clear on the second version and almost clear other than I think the year on the --

  • Even the fact of the newspaper being called The News is illegible on the copy that you've tendered, but legible on the copy that you haven't tendered.

  • Okay. Well then, your Honours, with the Court's indulgence we would ask that what we have just put in as MFI-38 be withdrawn and instead that the unERN'd copy that bears the CMS number 22517 would be the document marked for identification as MFI-38.

  • Yes, I'll simply change that marking to the unERN'd copy. That is now the document identified as MFI-38.

  • Thank you very much, your Honours.

  • Good morning, Mr Malik.

  • I think we still are in morning. Can I ask you about one discrete area of your evidence yesterday before I go into the bulk of what you had to tell us which is based on documents, and that is the evidence that you gave us yesterday about Sam Bockarie's body. In yesterday's transcript it appears on page 22920, starting at line 4. You said:

    "I was asked to organise the arrangements in relation to the receipt of Sam Bockarie's body from Monrovia, Liberia, and in line with the work that I'd done with mass graves in Bosnia I was asked to obtain DNA samples through qualified professionals and then tried to ascertain the identity of the body."

    Were you able to ascertain the identity of the body that was sent from Monrovia, Liberia.

  • Yes, we were.

  • And whose body was it?

  • Thank you. Right, putting that on one side, I now turn to the bulk of your evidence and I think that you would agree with me that in relation to the documents that you have produced, all the MFIs and the exhibited - already exhibited documents, that your evidence constitutes multiple hearsay?

  • I have relied for this exercise --

  • Your Honours, with all due respect, I mean "hearsay" may be a term in common parlance but this is a legal objection, and of course there is no hearsay rule here but it's asking the witness essentially to characterise something by a legal term. He's not a qualified attorney to answer that question.

  • The other thing also, Mr Munyard, is that a lot of his evidence was direct evidence of the recording system of the OTP. So I think you're going to have to be specific if you mention the hearsay that you're referring to.

  • I can put it in another way, your Honour:

  • None of these documents were retrieved originally by you, were they?

  • You were not present when any of these documents were retrieved originally by any other person?

  • And is it right that you have been able to speak directly only to a small number of those who were involved in the original retrieval of these documents?

  • I am not sure what a small number is. That would be too imprecise for me to comment on. I've spoken to a number of people who have been engaged directly in collecting this evidence, but I could agree with you that I haven't spoken to everyone certainly.

  • All right. Who have you spoken to who was themselves directly involved in the retrieval of the evidence, and we needn't deal with Ms Hackler because it's obvious that you've spoken to her about the documents that she retrieved from the Justice and Peace Commission and also the documents that were photographed or photocopied in her presence in Liberia.

  • I have spoken to people or read information provided by people who actually handled the documents before they came into the possession of the OTP. So in that regard I would mention, Mr Sesay, Alfred Sesay, Mr Thomas Lahun.

  • And you said we shouldn't include Ms Hackler but she has been involved in handling documents in two of the four categories.

  • I'm sorry, I'm putting her aside because she's an obvious person that you've spoken to, I didn't need to go into that.

  • But of course neither Mr Lahun nor Mr Alfred Sesay themselves retrieved the documents from the place where they were found, did they?

  • Thank you. Now, can I ask you a little bit about the system for recording documents. You yourself have told us - I'm sorry, would you bear with me a second. Let me get the right folder. Thank you. You've told us that you yourself came into the Office of the Prosecutor in this Court in April 2003. I think it was 28 April 2003.

  • [Microphone not activated].

  • Prior to that you'd had a number of years experience, first of all in the police service in Pakistan and then more recently in the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia?

  • Mr Malik, you started your employment with the Office of the Prosecutor on 28 April 2003. Is that correct?

  • That is correct, your Honours.

  • Let us start at the beginning of your relevant experience in terms of your work in relation to evidence gathering and evidence storing. I think that you worked in the Pakistani police service, going in at rank of assistant superintendent. Is that correct?

  • And when did you begin your service with the police force in Pakistan?

  • So you went in at quite a high rank, is that right?

  • And did that mean that you were not personally involved in the retrieval of evidence at that rank and then subsequently in your higher rank as superintendent?

  • That's generally true, but at the beginning of the career, in order to train, one is often asked to participate in cases and in visiting scenes of crime which one does not do later on.

  • So I did have on occasion the opportunity to actually gather evidence myself but that was not my main responsibility.

  • Right, but in the course of that early experience of yours, which was in effect a part of your training, were you trained then in the retrieval, storage and documentation of evidence?

  • Yes. We had a system whereby materials had to be packaged when they were collected; documents had to be prepared as to where they had been seized from; seizure memos had to be prepared and signatures of witnesses obtained, et cetera. So we went through that training and practised it when the opportunity arose.

  • And so would you expect that from your training in your police force in Pakistan, would you expect that when items are retrieved from a particular location the documentation that is prepared specifies where they were retrieved from and what they consist of. In other words, an inventory of the items that had been retrieved?

  • Yes. When you say "ordinarily, yes", you mean in exceptional circumstances that might not be done, but the norm is that it would be done?

  • I would agree with that.

  • Thank you. And when you went to work then for the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia you were involved then, I think, as an investigator but would an investigator him or herself be involved in preparing documentation of the sort we've just been discussing in relation to any exhibits seized by him or he?

  • Yes, they would be.

  • Thank you. Now, you haven't actually, as I understand it, worked for the Sierra Leone police force yourself?

  • That is correct. I have not.

  • In your work from late April 2003 onwards with this Court, have you become familiar with the Sierra Leone police force practices or, rather, protocols in relation to the documentation and storage of seized exhibits?

  • No, I would not say so.

  • Right. Are you aware that there is a system of logging in exhibits seized into an evidence log at the police station to which the exhibits are taken, within the Sierra Leone police force?

  • I have no direct knowledge of that but that sounds reasonable to me but I cannot say that I'm personally aware of such a system which is in place in Sierra Leone.

  • Right. Well, you spoke to Mr Alfred Sesay about the documents - I'm concerning myself now with the documents seized from or said to have been seized from Foday Sankoh's home - you've spoken to him. Did you ask him what systems were supposed to be operated when exhibits were brought to a police station?

  • Well, wouldn't that be the starting point for your investigation as to establishing the provenance and then the integrity of transmission of the exhibits that you were concerned with?

  • Your Honours, when I said I spoke to Mr Alfred Sesay and also Mr Lahun, that was in context - that would be in the period 2005 and that transpired through informal conversations during day-to-day interaction. That wasn't meant to record or to lead to a formal investigation of what had taken place at the time.

    In relation to this particular exercise with which I have been now charged I have not spoken to Mr Sesay. Mr Sesay has been away from the Special Court since early 2007 and I have not been in touch with him since. Nor have I spoken to Mr Lahun in this respect. I have relied on the information available within the Office of the Prosecutor, mostly in form of affidavits given by Mr Sesay and Mr Lahun, and statements taken from other persons involved in obtaining these documents.

  • Right. What I want to ask you about in particular is the way in which the items said to have come from Foday Sankoh's house were stored and/or documented when they came to the police station - the CID police station - and were put into what you understand to be Mr Alfred Sesay's personal custody and control.

  • Your Honours, police station is a formal term which connotes certain powers on that body. I'm not sure CID headquarters, which is what I've referred to, would constitute a CID police station.

  • Well, I'm not concerned with the nature of the building. If it is police premises and he is given documents that he is supposed to have sole custody of, and important documents, you would expect him, would you not, to have entered them into an exhibit log?

  • I'm not familiar with the procedures followed by CID and what his instructions were. I have read an affidavit from Mr Lahun, who was said to be his superior at the time, and Mr Lahun expresses no dissatisfaction with how Mr Sesay handled those exhibits.

  • Were you aware that Mr Sesay gave evidence in what I will call the RUF trial in June 2006 about the way in which he dealt with these very exhibits?

  • Yes, I am aware of that.

  • Right. And were you aware that he testified in that trial that the documents that he was handed, said to be from Mr Sankoh's home, were not checked by him or recorded by him when they were given to him? Were you aware of that?

  • I believe that is correct.

  • Likewise, that he testified that the documents were not entered into the exhibit log which is against standard protocol?

  • Well, I'm not aware of the standard protocol of Sierra Leone police, so I cannot agree with you on that but --

  • No, I'm sorry, I've got to interrupt you there. I'm not asking if you're aware of it. Are you aware that he testified that he had not entered them into the exhibit log and by doing that he had gone against standard protocol?

  • I don't precisely recall that.

  • Were you present when he gave evidence in 2006 in that trial?

  • I worked for the Court at the time, but I wasn't present in the courtroom.

  • So you didn't actually follow his testimony?

  • I have read his testimony, I've read a transcript of it, but I don't recall precisely what you have just put to me. I'm not denying it, but I just don't recall it. But perhaps you can present me with the transcript and I'll be happy to look at it and assist you further.

  • I can certainly do that in due course. For the benefit of your Honours, I'm going at the moment from a short summary that appears in the Defence response to one of the Prosecution's motions dealing with these documents. This summary of Mr Sesay's evidence I don't believe has been disputed as such by the Prosecution and so for the sake of brevity I'm relying solely on the, as far as I understand it, undisputed summary of his evidence.

    He also gave evidence that he had no knowledge about whether these were all of the documents retrieved from Foday Sankoh's premises. Do you recall that?

  • Yes, I do. If I may clarify my answer, I think it was put to him whether he could say with certainty whether these were all the documents that had been obtained from Foday Sankoh's house and he said yes, he could not say with certainty.

  • Yes, well, I don't think there's any dispute between us on that.

  • Thank you. So if he was supposed to record these documents in the exhibit log and didn't, and never did do, that is a serious defect in establishing with certainty the provenance of each and every one of those documents, isn't it?

  • I cannot agree with that.

  • All right. Well, turning to what he said in his solemn declaration - I don't know if I've got time for one question on this, your Honour?

  • Yes, you do, Mr Munyard.

  • It's right, isn't it, that in the declaration that he made on 7 July 2005, all Mr Alfred Sesay was able to say was that he was given a carton containing materials which were stored in a big cupboard under lock and key at the CID headquarters, and that since he was given them on 9 May 2000 several people came and either looked at or made copies of those documents, but he's never suggested in that affidavit that he was present and documented what the various visitors were doing with the various documents, has he?

  • Well, I would have to look at the affidavit. If it's placed before me then I can assist you further. I do recall that in his testimony he did clarify that he was always present when the documents were either examined or copied.

  • Well, if I can, one short follow up.

  • Yes, it's very short:

  • In the solemn declaration what he says is:

    "United Nations representatives came, inspected the documents for several hours and did not take possession of any of the documents. I am uncertain if they made copies of any of the documents."

    Do you agree?

  • That's what he said in the affidavit, that's right, but it does not mean that he ever did not have possession of them.

  • No, I'm not suggesting that. I'm just saying in terms of how he would be able to identify these documents with absolute certainty - with any certainty - is highly speculative, would you agree?

  • I apologise, your Honours, I don't follow the connection between what you said earlier and the conclusion that you draw. Perhaps you could clarify it.

  • I'll have to do that after the break.

  • Yes, we are out of tape now. We will have an adjournment until 12 o'clock.

  • Your Honours, I'm happy for this document to be copied and given to the witness to look at over the break, which is Mr Sesay's solemn declaration, if that will speed things up.

  • I gather there are further questions following from it?

  • Given the nature of this document we have no objection to it being given to him.

  • [Break taken at 11.30 a.m.]

  • [Upon resuming at 12.00 p.m.]

  • Mr Malik, have you had an opportunity over the break to have a look at the solemn declaration of Mr Alfred Sesay?

  • Yes, I have looked at it, thank you.

  • Would you agree that he has never at any time suggested that he made any inventory of the contents of the box of documents said to come from Foday Sankoh's house?

  • That is correct.

  • Thank you. Nor did he make any inventory of which documents were taken by either OTP staff or any other people who came to look at and possibly take away any documents from that box?

  • So - nor indeed has he said that he has ever himself, regardless of making an inventory, he has never himself actually gone through and looked at each and every item in that box?

  • No, that is not correct. I believe his evidence is that he did look through the documents and therefore he was familiar with it.

  • In the solemn declaration?

  • Not just from declaration but I am aware of what he has said at other times including in the RUF trials.

  • I don't want to labour this point but if there is somewhere in the solemn declaration where it makes clear that he familiarised himself with each and every document in the box, please draw it to our attention.

  • Yeah, I do not believe he referred to that, but I am in possession of that evidence and just to complete the picture he has said at other times that he did review all the documents.

  • And when do you say he said that?

  • I believe in the RUF testimony he said he went through the documents and therefore he was familiar with them. He was --

  • How often and when did he say he went through the documents?

  • He said it was the same year, in the year 2000, when he came into possession of these documents and the year when these documents were examined by various people. He said he was - he thought that these documents might be important and may be relevant to the business of the state. Of course I am paraphrasing here right now, but anyway, he thought these documents needed to be looked at and so he did.

  • Yes, all the more surprising that he made no inventory of them then, would you agree?

  • I cannot explain why he made it or why he did not make it.

  • Very well. In any event, can you just help us with this: Are all the documents that you have now produced, and that we have looked at some of them already exhibited and some of them marked for identification, are they the entire contents of the box that was brought on 9 May 2000 to the CID headquarters?

  • Well, the documents that we have discussed as part of my testimony are a subgroup of the documents which were shown to Mr Sesay and it appears to me that what has been given to the OTP, what is in the possession of the OTP, was a part of what was in the possession of CID.

  • Right.

  • So, my understanding is that OTP does not have everything that was collected from Foday Sankoh's house on 8 May - 9 May year 2000.

  • And you would not be in a position to say, therefore, what proportion of the contents of the box the OTP has, correct?

  • No, I would not be able to do that.

  • Thank you. And, therefore, we simply don't know whether you have got the majority, a half, or a quarter?

  • I cannot say that with any certainty.

  • No. And so it follows, does it not, that we therefore don't know how it is possible for Mr Sesay to say "I can remember these specific documents as having been in that box amongst all the other material that was in that box"?

  • Well, these documents were obviously important, which is why OTP in the end wanted these documents, so I am not surprised that these documents would have attracted Mr Sesay's attention.

  • Well, it is not Mr Sesay who decided to supply them to the OTP, is it? It is people from the Office of the Prosecution who come along and take some of these documents. That is how they end up in the hands of the OTP, correct?

  • But those are the documents that Mr Sesay identified so he has not been - every other document which - that let us say in contradistinction to these documents may be uninteresting, not everything was put to him. Only those documents which were in the possession of the OTP, or perhaps a part of those documents were put to him and those were the documents that, if I can use the phrase maybe jumped at the Prosecution because they seemed interesting, so I would imagine that Mr Sesay, anyone in Mr Sesay's position would also find those documents interesting and perhaps memorable.

  • All I am suggesting, Mr Malik, is that in the light of the complete lack of documentation by him, or anybody else for that matter, there must be some doubt, must there not, as to his ability to remember that each and every one of these documents were documents that he had seen in that box?

  • Mr Sesay was a very experienced police officer. He had been in this business for a long time. I worked with him for a number of years. I found him to be very conscientious, very punctilious, if I can say. I have no reason to believe that he did not recall these documents. He in fact recalled 37 documents. I have been able to recall 55-odd documents more or less for the purpose of this exercise, so I don't find it - I have no doubts that as to why he was able to recall all the documents.

  • Well, the exercise that you have been embarked upon is a very different one from the exercise he was embarked upon during the years when people were coming and taking out different documents from the box?

  • Well, he had them for a number of years. He got possession of them in early 2000 and then did not have to part with them I understand until 2003, except for the documents which were taken away. So he had possession of these documents for a long time. In fact, every time somebody would come and examine those documents I take that to be an additional opportunity when he would have another look at those documents. So given the amount of interest in these documents expressed by various parties including the Attorney General's office, the United Nations, the Special Court, it is quite understandable that he was very familiar with them.

  • Very well. Just one other question, please, about the people who had dealings with those documents. You mentioned in your evidence that during 2002 to 2004 documents were brought to the OTP first by Mr Lahun, then by Ms Dufka, and then another investigator, Mandy Caldwell, in 2004, obtained some of the documents. Do you remember telling us that?

  • That is correct. It would be Cordwell, C-O-R-D-W-E-L-L.

  • Cordwell, not Caldwell. Thank you. Now, you have made a declaration of your own about the various people who handled these documents and Ms Cordwell is not mentioned in that declaration of yours. Is there any particular reason why she is not mentioned?

  • No, I am not sure I needed to mention that so --

  • Well, you were being asked about who had had anything to do with these documents since they were put into the custody of Mr Sesay, weren't you?

  • And indeed, when you gave us evidence, you were being asked exactly the same thing, but in your declaration you have omitted Ms Cordwell. Do you know which documents it was that she took to the OTP and were any of those ever shown to Mr Sesay for him to identify?

  • Yes, they were. I believe there are - among the 14 that we have here I believe there are two documents that were brought in by Ms Cordwell and I believe I limited my discussion to Mr Sesay and Mr Lahun because those were the people who had handled the documents before they came into possession of the OTP. I have sought no declaration in this regard from any of the OTP investigators who have brought in evidence, either Ms Dufka or Ms Mandy Cordwell.

  • No, I am not suggesting that. I am simply wondering why when you have mentioned Mr Lahun and Ms Dufka, why you didn't mention Ms Cordwell in your declaration; is it simply that you forgot about her?

  • No, I did not forget about her, but I just thought her involvement was relatively limited. Ms Dufka had brought in a lot of the documents that I'd mentioned in my affidavit. Mr Lahun and Mr Sesay had personally handled the documents when they were at CID so my discussion necessarily was limited to the principal actors.

  • Right. When they were brought to the OTP by people like Ms Dufka and indeed like Ms Cordwell, were they then immediately documented and logged and individually categorised?

  • Your Honours, as I have explained, the way the process works in the OTP is that evidence is brought in by attorneys, investigators and then it is reviewed for evidentiary relevance. So the materials were brought to the OTP and remained within - remained in custody of investigators and attorneys for some time before they were brought to the OTP. The first time that I became aware of these documents was in 2004 when they were brought to the evidence unit. I am not aware of any other inventory or list et cetera which may or may not have been prepared prior to that.

  • So the precise answer is no?

  • Yes, your Honours, the answer is no.

  • Very well. I would like to look, please, at some of these. Now I appreciate, Mr Malik, that you are not able to comment on the content. You are here to establish provenance. But I would just like to go through a few of them. Now, I think the first - I am sorry, the first batch of documents that you dealt with included at least two notebooks. Are you aware whether or not there were any other notebooks in the box that was taken to the CID headquarters on 9 May 2000?

  • Well, within these - this box of 14 there are I believe three notebooks. I meant this group of 14 documents which I have discussed, there are at least three notebooks.

  • Yes.

  • So that would be more than two.

  • Sorry, I have misstated. I was looking at the way they are categorised. You are quite right. The third one - there are two that are logbooks or used as logbooks and one is used as a mining record book. Are you aware if there are any more notebooks within the box of documents?

  • One, I am not aware of the contents of that box. There may be other notebooks in OTP's possession which came from that box which came from CID. However, for the purposes of this exercise I have only looked at the list of 55 documents that was given to me by the Prosecution.

  • Thank you. Can we turn, please, to tab 4. It is a minor point but it is analogous to a point that was taken up earlier I think by my learned friend, Mr Rapp. On here --

  • If counsel could please indicate the MFI number?

  • What I am looking at at the moment is Prosecution exhibit number 84 in tab 4:

  • Now, you see that - and I make it absolutely clear that this is a minor point of recording - on the what I will call the exhibit page, which is the first page in tab 4, it says "Letter from a Black Guard commander to The Leader". It is a one page document that follows and it's to the leader - the heading on that document is "To The Leader RUF/SL from the Black commander", in other words, the word "Guard" is not included in the title. I make it clear, your Honours, I had spotted that as we were going through and realised I hadn't mentioned it on the way, but clearly the cover page of that exhibit will need to be amended to accurately reflect the document itself.

    Now, you may or may not be able to answer this, Mr Malik. We have seen a number of documents that refer to Black Guards and, indeed, if one looks at tab 6, which is MFI-1, on the first page of that, four lines down, it says "Black Guard commander". Do you see that? Sorry --

  • I have not been given the exhibit yet.

  • It will be shown to you in a moment.

  • You see where it says "Black Guard commander" four lines down there? Four lines from the top? Have you got the right exhibit there, or sorry, the right document?

  • This bears the ERN 00025545. Is this the one you are referring to?

  • No, I am looking at one - I will miss out the zeros - 9489. It is behind tab 6, which is MFI-1, I believe. I have got it as MFI-1. If I am wrong about that then - no.

  • Yes, I have the exhibit in front of me now.

  • Thank you. I am sorry, Mr Court Attendant, but I am going to have to ask you to bring MFI-2 and MFI, sorry MFI-2 and P-67 as well, in order to make the point. If we look at MFI-2 now, which is behind tab 7, do you have that, Mr Malik?

  • This is to the leader of the revolution from the Black Guard. Do you see that?

  • If you put that on one side and then turn to P-67, behind tab 8 for those who are using the tabs, I just want you to look at the first page of that, please. This is addressed to the leader and it is from the Black Revolutionary Guard?

  • That is correct.

  • Have you in any of your review of these documents seen any other reference to something called the Black Revolutionary Guard?

  • I cannot say with certainty. As I have explained, I was not paying any attention to the content. It was merely a way to be able to identify any given document so that I can speak as to the source of that document.

  • Yes.

  • So I would not be able to answer either yes or no.

  • All right, thank you. And can you just confirm, please, that those two documents that you are looking at, the one that is MFI-2, has a signature at the bottom - the bottom of the second page of the document?

  • Yes, that is right.

  • Yes, it does have a signature. It is an original document and it has a signature.

  • Whereas P-67 does not have any name on it at all, the name of the person submitting the document, either at the top on page 9672 or at the bottom on page 9681 on the last page of that document?

  • That's correct.

  • For the sake of completeness I'm sorry I am going to have to ask you to go back to MFI-2, a one page document which was the first one. This is said to be from the Black commander. Do you have it there still, Mr Court Attendant? It is P-84. I think you may have taken it back. Thank you.

    The document you are looking at, page 9485, it's not clear whether that is the first page of a number of pages of that particular letter or report, is it?

  • I am not sure why you believe that's not clear. It does seem to have a header and --

  • It has a heading. There is no signature at the bottom or anything of that sort as we have seen in other such documents. Other documents purporting to come from the Black commander, the Black Guard commander, or for that matter the Black Revolutionary Guard, always have something at the bottom at the end of the document, albeit the Black Revolutionary Guard document doesn't have any name of the sender. This one that we are looking at now, P-84, we can't be sure whether this is the complete document or whether there were other pages that were not photocopied, can we?

  • Yes, that's possible, but perhaps there is one obvious explanation why there is no signature block at the bottom because they ran out of space. And given that that information was already available at the top perhaps this is all there is to it. But, anyway, one could not be sure.

  • Precisely. And what you are looking at, the original in your hand, is itself a photocopy, isn't it?

  • It is.

  • And so we don't know for that matter whether - if there had been a signature and it was at the very bottom of the page, whether it has simply not been photocopied?

  • Sorry, could you repeat the question, please.

  • Yes. We can't tell, because we are looking at a photocopy of a page - we can't tell whether there was more at the very foot of the page, such as a signature, because clearly what we are looking at is not the entire page itself because there appears to be a fax number at the top of it. Would you agree?

  • Well, there is a fax number at the top, but, I'm sorry, it's not clear to me why you say these are not the entire contents of the page because --

  • Because the document we are looking at to the leader of the RUF/SL starts below the fax number, suggesting that the document that was being faxed may have gone further than the remainder of this A4 sheet of paper as very often happens with faxed documents?

  • I don't see any reason to believe that. I mean, I guess you could say in theory one could be unsure, but unless there is any other reason to believe that there was something that followed I would not draw that conclusion. And in the absence of any other information I would take this to be a complete document.

  • But you simply can't say, can you?

  • Well, it appears to be a one page document. It has - I don't see a run on at the bottom. Sometimes - if this had half a sentence on the last line then one could reasonably conclude that there was text that followed it either on this page or the next.

  • But given that the sentence is complete and in fact somebody has actually written it in hand, it seems to me perhaps that this was the last word left on this and they have completed this document. So unless other information was presented to me I would take this to be a complete document in itself.

  • All right. MFI-4, please, which is behind tab 10. You have referred to it as the nominal roll. Now it is right, isn't it, that you have no idea who prepared this document?

  • That is correct.

  • But you have looked at the document itself, haven't you?

  • Only in a very superficial way just to know what it is.

  • All right. Well, I am just going to see if you can help us with a couple of the matters that are on it. You will see on the first page, 7802, underneath "Nominal roll of trained RUF personnel", there is a box giving rank, name, base trained, name of training commandant, year trained and where and when captured and then remarks. Are you able to help us at all as to captured by who?

  • No, I would not be able to do that.

  • All right, thank you. On the second page, 7803, we see a list of the same 30 names, starting number one Captain JT Bayoh, or Bio, and ending, number 30, Private Sahr Lamin. Do you know if this is purporting to be just a part photocopy of the first page, or is it a different document?

  • I cannot say that. I received this together and it appears to have been stapled together, looking at the original, so I would not be able to comment on that.

  • But to me it appears to be - it was given to me as one document, so therefore we stamped it, we kept it as one document and that's how we processed it.

  • Right. In fact, scrutiny of the second page suggests that it's not simply a photocopy of part of the first page for the simple reason that in that box that I drew your attention to on the first page if you look at the box on the second page it gives rank, name and then base, but not the word trained and then instead of name of training commandant, year trained, it just gives year. So they appear to be two different documents?

  • I apologise. I misunderstood your question. Anyway, now I understand what your question was and, yes, it couldn't be a photocopy because it is in a different format so obviously it's not a photocopy, but it may repeat some or part of the information on the first page.

  • Yes, yes. If you turn to the third page, please, you will see - this is page 7804. This is another Revolutionary United Front of Sierra Leone nominal roll of RUF personnel classified as prisoners of war by ECOMOG who were released on 14 August 1999. If we just take the first name on there, Private Hassan Gbla, and then go across the page from left to right, when and where captured, Boajubu in 1993, escaped and recaptured in 1999, classed as prisoner of war, Amnesty. And below that the next person is said to have been released on 14 August by Amnesty. Can you help us at all with this, Mr Malik? Where that refers to Amnesty, is it referring to an amnesty given to people or is it referring to the organisation Amnesty International acting as some kind of medium - some kind of player in the resolution of the conflict?

  • Your Honours, I would not be able to assist the counsel on this point. I have no information either way.

  • Very well, thank you. Now would you go, please, to the fifth page in that bundle, page 7806. This document is headed "Revolutionary United Front Sierra Leone, trained RUF/AFRC/SLA child combatants at Lungi" and there on the right-hand side it gives an indication of in which organisation these particular individuals were trained. Do you see that? There is a column marked - sorry, there is a column and the entries all have "Trained" and then a dash and a reference to the organisation?

  • I do.

  • Thank you. And I am not going to ask you to do the exercise, I have done it myself, but if one counts up the different individuals by organisation it appears that 11 of those, if they were child combatants, or others in any event, 11 of them were trained by the SLA, one is untrained, that is number 10, and five trained by the RUF. Will you accept those figures?

  • I do. I have counted them as you spoke and I agree with you.

  • Well, what are you accepting; that that is what the document says or that they were in fact trained?

  • No, your Honours. I understood the question to be that in that column it states these are the numbers assigned - attached to each particular organisation. 11 are said to be trained by SLA and five by RUF. That is what the document says. I have no information as to whether that's actually true, whether they were actually trained by any of these organisations or not.

  • Thank you. Can I make it clear, your Honour, I wasn't asking anything other than that:

  • Tab 11, which is exhibit P-100, in our copy on page 7671 and 7672 there are items blacked out. That is the first and the second page of the document. Now what you said to us in evidence, Mr Malik, was: "This is different from the one I have examined recently. Some items or some matters have been blacked out". Can you remember what it was that has now been blacked out in this different copy?

  • Well, the first page has letters Ex.A which have been blacked out here. There are some other - there are other bits of writing as well which I cannot recall, but that is what is different from this document to what I looked at for this exercise.

  • Right. And does Ex.A have any significance at all to you?

  • It could be an exhibit, exhibit A.

  • Though I don't know that for sure, but it could be one. It could be example A or it could be exercise A.

  • But you have seen a - what I will call a clean copy of this document, is that right?

  • And can you think of any reason why we shouldn't be supplied with a clean copy?

  • Your Honours, I believe that when this item was originally exhibited in Court it was a copy without the black-out and that was made on the instructions of your Honours. We will check the record in that regard.

  • In that case I will move on from that:

  • I am now going to turn, if I may, to the documents said to have come from the RUF office in Kono. If your Honours will bear with me for just a moment while I reorganise myself. I want to ask you about the way in which these documents came ultimately into the possession of the OTP. You told us about special branch officers going to Kono and to a particular office in a place called Koakoyima and collecting a rice bag of documents, yes?

  • Well, special branch representative was already present in Kono District and had these documents in his possession. Then other officers from the special branch office in Freetown went to Kono and one of them brought the bag back to Freetown.

  • Yes, I mean, the man - and it was a man - who was there already obviously claims that he went to the RUF mining office there and collected these documents?

  • That is correct.

  • His colleagues then came and brought them back to - ultimately to Freetown, yes?

  • And are you able to help us: Were all the documents in that rice sack the documents that we have now been looking at, or have we been looking at simply a selection but not all of them?

  • As part of my testimony, your Honours, I have only discussed a part of those documents.

  • Right. And are you able to tell us what - roughly what proportion of the total of the documents in that rice sack we have looked at?

  • I could not be sure of that, but it would be a part of that - a fraction of that.

  • So there may be many more documents that were in that rice sack?

  • Yes. I believe the documents - the total number of documents is much larger than the 22 documents which I have discussed as part of my testimony.

  • And when the expression "rice sack" is used it may be that others have better knowledge than me, but is there one standard size of rice sack, or are there different sizes of rice sack?

  • I believe there are different sizes of rice sacks.

  • Right. And it is correct, isn't it, that the gentleman at the Special Court who first took possession of them - I just want to make sure I pronounce his name correctly - Mr Poraj-Wilczynski - described receiving the documents from the Sierra Leone police in two rice sacks?

  • That is correct.

  • So the document - all other people who say they handled these documents up to that point say they were in one rice sack, correct?

  • By the time they get to Mr Poraj-Wilczynski they have now gone into two rice sacks, yes?

  • And is there any explanation given by anyone as to these documents being divided, or someone having made a mistake in the first place about there just being one rice sack when in fact there were two sacks of documents?

  • There isn't any, but given how these things - how this information is transmitted I believe it is one of those two things that happened: That either people were not precise when they were describing how many rice bags, or perhaps at some point it became necessary to transfer the materials which were originally in one bag into two new bags, either for ease of transport or because perhaps the first bag might have been damaged, et cetera, et cetera. There could be any number of explanations, but I am not aware why there is this discrepancy.

  • Thank you. Right, if I can take you now, please, to some of those documents. Would your Honours give me a moment? I think I can probably speed up if I have a moment now, rather than go through all of these. Yes. Could you turn, please, it is behind tab 20, which is MFI-9. Mr Malik, can you confirm is this document also either a photocopy or a carbon copy and not the original?

  • Your Honours, it does appear to be a photocopy or a facsimile of some sort.

  • Or possibly a photocopy of a carbon copy; in other words, a copy of a copy?

  • Possibly, but I couldn't be sure.

  • And I just want to have you draw our attention to something in the third numbered paragraph there, please. This is a minutes of a forum held with the RUF/SL administrative board on 4 December 1998. In paragraph 3, there are a number of points made to correct administrative mistakes and the second bullet point there reads as follows: "Most commanders are illiterate" and then it says "Adjutant/clerks must be rectifying their mistakes". Do you agree that is what appears there at the second bullet point of paragraph 3?

  • Thank you. Right, I am now going to move on, please, to tab 25 which is MFI-11. This is a document - I am not going to read out the full title - it is a forum held on 12 February 1999 at the Bombali District office of the headquarters, commander of the 2nd Infantry Brigade, Bombali District, Makeni, and I would like you please to look at the body of the document. After the agenda, does it state that "The forum fully commenced later in the afternoon after thorough advice by the BFC", I presume that means battlefield commander, "to strike common understanding amongst us disregarding association with either SLA or RUF"? Then there is another paragraph making much the same point that starts with the words, "Lieutenant Colonel Augustine Gbao". Moving over the next paragraph, the penultimate paragraph on that page starts:

    "However, to create atmosphere of better understanding we suggested every Friday to be holding forums to iron out and maintain balance in operation. Lieutenant Colonel Titus deliberating on mutual understanding emphasised to de-associate from the practice of identifying with a particular force, SLA or RUF. He contended that we constitute same force with same ideology fighting for same goal. He strongly advised officers against inciters who might want to upset operations by their sabotage methodologies".

    And so it goes on. You have no doubt had a look through that document at some point, Mr Malik, and do you agree that it is dealing to a considerable extent with the concerns that the two groups, RUF and SLA, should act in unity rather than as divided separate entities?

  • Without being aware of the document - the entire contents of the document - that does appear to be what the text that you have read out to be saying so --

  • Thank you. I am now going to ask you to look at another MFI. Well, before I do that, for the assistance of Mr Court Attendant, I am going to ask you to bring a few of them to the witness table so that you don't have to go backwards and forwards. MFI-12, MFI-14 and MFI-16. If we start with MFI-12, just one matter I want to have you confirm for us. This is a letter to Charles Taylor, President of the Republic of Liberia, and it is signed at the bottom Colonel Jonathan - well, I am sure it is Jonathan. It is slightly misspelled, Kposowa, chief of admin, it would appear, RUF. Then there is a stamp. Do you see the stamp there, Mr Malik?

  • I do.

  • At the top half of the stamp, reading from the top line, do you see it says "United Front Party"?

  • And the date there is 14 November 2000. Have you seen any such stamp at any time other than on this particular document?

  • I think at some point I have seen - I believe I have seen documents which refer to RUF Party, or Revolutionary United Party. I could not precisely point to those documents, but I have seen the use of the word "party" in relation to RUF.

  • Right. If you go then to MFI-14, we can see here I - this is a Revolutionary United Party of Sierra Leone. The word "party" is used there in the heading dated 21 January 2001. This is some kind of pass. And at the bottom of that first page, 25653, it is signed by someone who is special assistant to the AG chairman, RUFP/SL. And over the page another travelling pass on page 25654. Again we see the same title "Revolutionary United Front Party of Sierra Leone" and the initials RUFP at the bottom below the signature. Can you simply confirm for us that that word "party" and the letter "P" appear in those documents?

  • That is correct.

  • Thank you. I just have to change bundles for a moment, your Honours. Now this is a notebook, MFI-16, behind tab 31, which includes a great deal of different kinds of information, but it appears essentially to be lists or communications about materials of one sort or another, would you agree?

  • Not having examined the notebook, I cannot say.

  • Let me just give you a very quick flavour. If you turn to the first handwritten page, which is our page 26049, dated 2 December 2000:

    "Issues in summary: 1. Colonel Junior wounded soldier came with problem. He needs the following items to travel to Kailahun for treatment: (a) dressing materials; (b) drugs; (c) salt and; (d) Maggi and some finance."

    Well, I don't need to ask you what Maggi is now, because I know. That's one list. If you turn to any other page the chances are that you will find requests for items of one sort or another. And if you turn for example to page 26053 - and I emphasise I am doing this entirely at random. Have you got 26053 there?

  • I do.

  • In the middle of that page it looks like:

    "Respond: (a) Corporal Edwin Bockarie was instructed to organise the following: 1. Fanta Kabba and other" - I can't read the next word - "2. Filter and truck driver".

    And then if you turn over to page 26060 there is a long list on that page dated 5 December 2000, "Items brought by Pa Demba" and they all appear to be items of a medical nature, would you agree?

  • Personally I am not familiar with what these things are so I cannot testify that these are - some of them obviously like Panadol, ibuprofen I can see that, but there are other words which I'm not familiar with, so. But it is a long list, I can agree to that.

  • Well, I don't know if you know what number 8 Chinese rub is, but for the most part they are obvious medical supplies, aren't they?

  • There are many references to medical supplies in this list.

  • Thank you. And one more page in that document, please. Page 26066. This page again is headed "Revolutionary United Front Party/SL, RUFP/SL, headquarters Makeni, 7 December 2000" and it's some sort of greeting to Lieutenant General Daniel Opande, the force commander of UNAMSIL, thanking him for his letter and, over the page, suggesting a face to face meeting and it's signed by Issa H Sesay, general interim leader RUFP/SL. Do you agree that's the contents of that page.

  • I agree with other things you have said, but where it says "signed" there are no signatures. The space is left blank.

  • You're quite right and I stand corrected. It says "signed" and then there is a line, but below the line where the signature is meant to appear somebody has written "Issa H Sesay, General Interim Leader RUFP/SL". So it's either a letter or a draft of a letter that somebody anticipated Issa Sesay would be signing, would you agree, on the face of it?

  • Yes, that's right, but possibly.

  • Very well, thank you. The next one is I believe, yes, again I am going do ask Mr Court Attendant to bring a number of these MFI-documents. The next one is MFI-17, if you could bring that, please.

  • Your Honours, in relation to my last answer I just would like to make it clear that it could - I am not in a position to say whether it was meant for Mr Sesay to sign or whether it was a draft that actually was supposed to be put before him, but I can agree to the text that you have read, that that's what it says.

  • Yes, all I was saying to you, Mr Malik, is on the face of it it would appear to be that. I am not asking you to say it clearly is that. Simply on its face. Just as you said, on its face a document, a one page document we looked at earlier, to you on its face it appeared to be a complete document. I am not suggesting any of us can be sure. Do you follow?

  • I cannot attach any conclusions as to what it was meant for, but it is written as if it was meant to have been signed by him.

  • Thank you. I think, Mr Court Attendant, have you got MFI-17 there? I was going to ask you to get another MFI as well, but we will just deal with this one while it is there. MFI-17, behind tab 32, this is a one page document, page 25482. It is said to be information on charges against a Lieutenant Colonel Gaylay forwarded to the joint security for investigation and I simply want you to look at the second numbered paragraph in the middle of the page setting out the disciplinary measures recommended against this particular individual:

    "Number 2, to go to the front line for 90 days after mess arrest.

    The above disciplinary measures serve as a bright precedent for all ranks and files. It also serves as an indication that discipline is the main thing to any progressive organisation like ours."

    And this one is actually signed by Lieutenant Colonel Augustine A Gbao and dated 15 February 1999. So I think you described that as a letter to or a report to General David Bropleh in your evidence?

  • I did not use that characterisation, but I did speak about this document. I think I mentioned a name - I mentioned that it was a complaint against Lieutenant Colonel Gaylay. I did not bring up the name of General Bropleh in this connection.

  • All right. I am grateful for that correction, but this clearly is an example of a lieutenant colonel being disciplined - a senior officer, in other words, being disciplined. Do you agree?

  • Thank you. The next one I would like you to look at - I am going to try and do this in a batch also - is MFI-20. Well, actually that will bring me to the end of this particular batch of documents. So I will only ask for MFI-20. I am going to move on to provenance issues in relation to the next batch in just a moment. Thank you. All I want you to try and help us with here - and I don't know if you are going to be able to - is looking at the first page of MFI-20, which is again "Revolutionary United Front Party of Sierra Leone, 2nd Brigade Headquarters, Koakoyima, Kono District, Particulars of Statement", this is a caution statement and the date is 1 November 2000 and it is basically a complaint about a rice bag full of Guinean currency and other currencies having been handed over and then somebody being attacked.

    If you look at the line below the first main paragraph, do you see there it says: "Because of the foregoing I was attacked by the bodyguard of the BGC" - I presume that means battle group commander - "Lieutenant Colonel Trouble", and Lieutenant Colonel Trouble's name again is repeated. You are not in a position, are you, Mr Malik, to help us as to whether or not that particular battle group commander's name is a nickname or the actual name of the individual?

  • No, I don't know that.

  • No, all right, thank you. I am now going to ask you, if I may, a little about the Liberian documents from Monrovia. Yes, the position is that in March of 2004 the Prosecutor contacted the Liberian deputy minister for administration and public safety at the Ministry of Justice asking him to conduct searches at a number of locations including Mr Taylor's former residence known as White Flower and his former offices at the Executive Mansion also known as the presidential palace. Now, those searches were carried out on 5 March 2004, weren't they, to your understanding?

  • Well, I would state it slightly differently. I do not believe the Prosecutor asked the minister to carry out searches. I think what was said was that competent Liberian authorities conduct lawful searches. So the communication went to the deputy minister, but he was not asked personally in any capacity to conduct searches.

  • Mr Malik, I don't doubt that what you say is correct, but I am going from your solemn declaration. Paragraph 31, under the heading "Liberian search documents" and I actually attempted to read it out word for word, but I will now specifically read out word for word what you have yourself said:

    "On 1 March 2004 the Prosecutor wrote to Mr Edward K Goba", G-O-B-A, "then Liberian's deputy minister for administration and public safety, Ministry of Justice, requesting him to conduct lawful searches at a number of locations including Charles Taylor's former residence known as White Flower located in Congo Town, Monrovia, and at his former offices at the Executive Mansion also known as the presidential palace."

    Now, that is what you wrote in your solemn declaration of 1 December last year. Do you agree?

  • I agree that that is the language in the affidavit.

  • But I would take this opportunity, since you bring it up, to fully inform the Chamber as to exactly what I know about this and that, I believe that language that you read, which is in fact what I included in the affidavit, perhaps does not fully explain the actual request by the Prosecutor and I have taken this opportunity to apprise the Honourable Court to that effect.

  • Well, I didn't want to waste any time on that. I wasn't suggesting or intending to suggest that the Prosecutor wanted the minister himself to go round armed with a sack and collect what he could find. It is obvious and common sense that the minister would authorise a competent officer to do so and he did and you make it clear in later paragraphs in your solemn declaration that certain - a certain police officer, no doubt with others, went and seized materials at - was it your understanding that they received materials from both White Flower and the Executive Mansion?

  • I do not have any definitive information to that effect. I do believe that searches were conducted at both locations.

  • Yes. What you have said in paragraph 34 - and I will be careful to read it word for word, "Pursuant to the search warrant Liberian authorities conducted searches at the two locations on 5 March 2004 and seized a number of documents and other items". Do you agree that you wrote that?

  • Yes.

  • "These seized materials", this is paragraph 35, "have remained ever since in the custody of the Liberian authorities and stored at the Temple of Justice in Monrovia. Over the years the OTP has made efforts for the seized material to be transferred to the permanent custody of the OTP, but this request has not been granted so far."

    36:

    "The OTP has not received an official inventory of materials seized as a result of the searches conducted by the Liberian authorities on 5 March 2004."

    Pausing there, did you ask for an inventory of all the materials seized in those searches at those two locations on 5 March 2004?

  • I did not personally.

  • No, sorry, when I say "did you", I mean did the OTP?

  • I do not know the answer to that question.

  • Well, why was it that you saw fit to say in paragraph 36 that the OTP has not received an official inventory if you hadn't at least directed your mind to the question: Did we ask for one and not get it, or have we simply never raised the issue and perhaps should have done?

  • Well, I am aware that the OTP has raised the issue of transfer of these documents to the Special Court's possession and --

  • I am sorry to interrupt you; I am not talking about transfer of documents. I am now addressing an official inventory.

  • Yes. To me, inventory is related to the documents and it would be a source of what was seized.

  • In relation to this, I have not seen an inventory that has been given to us by the Court and, therefore, I cannot answer your earlier question as to whether material was seized from both locations. What I say in my affidavit is that searches were conducted at both locations and materials were seized. I do not say that materials were seized at both locations.

  • Quite right, yes.

  • And I have gone by in this exercise as to - by what I have found in Sheriff Kamara's affidavit because that is the only definitive information I have.

  • Right. And it is right, isn't it, that these materials were stored in some kind of - well, they were stored in a place where water access - water penetrated?

  • And a lot of the documents were completely ruined by the penetration of water into the storage area?

  • I believe some documents, some evidence, some materials were damaged by water. I don't know how much, or how many.

  • Bear with me for just a moment. Right. Yes, can I take you, please, to tab 37, MFI-22, and again I will try and organise a couple of documents at once. Yes, MFI-23 and MFI-24, please. Mr President, may Mr Taylor be excused for the usual reasons, please? He is content for me to carry on in his absence.

  • Yes, he can be escorted out.

  • MFI-22 is headed "Situation report and recommendation", it is to His Excellency Charles Taylor, it is dated 30 September 1994, and if you look at paragraph 7, which is the last paragraph on the second page, page 28871 --

  • Could you please repeat? I have just been given the exhibit now.

  • Yes, it might make more sense - well, I think I can deal with the whole of this by just referring you to paragraph 7, the last numbered paragraph in the complete document, "Predicated upon the above mentioned and for the successful recapturing of the entire Gbarnga city and its environs I humbly request for sufficient rockets and ammunition to be used within the front line for the most possible time. Most respectfully submitted Samuel G Varney, senior military advisor to the armed forces of the NPFL."

    So it would appear that this letter or situation report, as it is called, has been written following the fall of Gbarnga to the enemy - to the enemy of the NPFL, in other words?

  • Yes, that is right.

  • Yes, thank you. The next one I asked you to look at is MFI-23, which is in tab 38. This is from Jason Weni to Charles G Taylor Junior, ATU commander. It is dated 6 May 1999 and it refers to the border patrol team being deployed at various points: One, St Paul's bridge; two, Jowah and then the next one is Shankpallah, I think; then Garmue; then Gbawuta and then it concludes with, "So far so good. These are the deployments that have been made to points previously occupied by Anti-Terrorist Unit personnel."

    Now, at that time in May of 1999, were you aware that the LURD, an armed faction opposing Charles Taylor, had penetrated into Liberia and were leading an armed insurrection against his forces?

  • I don't know the time line. I know LURD has been involved in a civil war in Liberia, but as to the time line I could not assist you any further.

  • All right, thank you. The next MFI is MFI-24, please. This is a document concerning immunity relating to acts done during the civil war in Liberia, and I want to draw your attention first of all to one of the names on this page. Halfway down the page we see numbers. The first two are - I don't know if the first one is a 7 or what, but the next one is a 6 and then below that there is a number 1. Do you see the next number, the third one down?

  • I do.

  • And you see the name V Sherif, deputy - it would appear to be deputy commander operations?

  • That is what it appears to say.

  • Right. Were you aware that a person by the name of Varmuyan Sherif had been a general in ULIMO, one of the forces opposing Charles Taylor's NPFL during the Liberian civil war?

  • I know the name, but I have no information as to what position that person held and in which organisation.

  • All right. And were you aware that the Liberian legislature did indeed pass an immunity law relating to acts done by various combatants on different sides in the civil war?

  • Not specifically. I may have come across this in the news reports, but I have no information.

  • All right, thank you. I have a feeling that was the batch of MFI documents that I had asked to be brought over at that point. I am now going to ask for some more to be brought. It may be that I should only ask for one at this point. Could you bring MFI-26, please. I have got a very small point to raise on this. Mr Malik, on the first page of MFI-26 - well, in fact I think it is probably 26A, page 28775, there is some handwriting at the top, "DM" and then "Max", a word I can't decipher and then something else followed by "2/5". Was that writing on the document when the OTP received it? Are you able to tell whether or not it was on the document?

  • I cannot be sure. I would have to look at - well, I am looking at the original, but I would assume that it was there. Ordinarily any document that we receive is not marked in any way. That is the standard practice. So I would assume that it was there, although occasionally before it comes to the office of the - before it comes to the evidence unit occasionally some people may have worked on it and may have marked it in some way.

  • Right. Is it right that no-one in your evidence unit should be writing on exhibits?

  • Yes, absolutely. This was not written in the evidence unit. I can assure you of that.

  • But it is possible - your question was with regards to the OTP, or perhaps you would like to rephrase your question.

  • I am content with it phrased as it is. I think you are basically just drawing a distinction between the OTP as a whole and the evidence unit as part of that organisation?

  • And it's your position that none of your staff should write on any document?

  • Absolutely.

  • Is that something that those in the investigation section of the OTP have been made aware of by your section, the evidence unit?

  • Yes, I remember specifically at our discussion on that point in 2003 with senior management - I believe they are aware of it and I am not suggesting by any means that in fact anything was written on this document within the OTP. I am just discussing the possibility, because you raised the issue, that occasionally it is possible that a document may come in and may be marked in some way within the OTP outside the evidence unit. Once it comes to the evidence unit I can assure you that we never mark it in any way except with a ERN.

  • Right, but the word has gone out since 2003 that investigators and other staff should not mark any exhibits either?

  • That is correct.

  • Do you have a system of, as happens in some police forces, attaching a label to exhibits - items that come in?

  • No, our label is the ERN. This is what we use to track it. This is our handle on it.

  • The ERN and alongside, as it were, the ERN you would have a description of what that ERN number relates to?

  • Yes, we have a database where we store other information which is related to that document such as the description of the document.

  • To help us, just by way of illustration, we have got an index at the front of our two volumes of documents and in there as well as the ERN number is a title of the document. Does that title, if you - well, I will read out the title that relates to that particular document, "Cover letter to Jonathan Taylor Minister For Presidential Affairs in Monrovia from Ambassador Sylvester Ekundayo Rowe". Now would that be the full extent of your database entry describing that exhibit or would your database entry be longer or, for that matter, shorter?

  • The description is provided by the person bringing in the evidence, because they are deemed to have the best possible knowledge about that piece of evidence. Sometimes persons within the evidence unit may elaborate on a description, but that is not - that is not our responsibility as such. Our job is to faithfully transfer what we have been told into the database, so it would depend on the person who brought it. I would imagine that it would have some reference to the letter which is below that which is President Kabbah's letter.

  • So there is no set protocol as to what you have got to include in the database?

  • Well, the protocol is to include in the database what the person submitting the evidence has told us about the document and it is up to the person who is giving us the document to describe it to their own satisfaction. And that varies from person to person. It's not something that can be uniformly enforced. Some people give longer descriptions, some people give short descriptions.

  • Thank you, we have run out of time.

  • We will take the lunchtime break now Madam Court Manager.

  • I don't anticipate being very much longer.

  • [Lunch break taken at 1.30 p.m.]

  • [Upon resuming at 2.30 p.m.]

  • Thank you, your Honour. I've been reminded to indicate a change of appearance on our Bench. We are the same as before except that Mr Chekera is no longer with us. Now it's getting really embarrassing. I am reminded by Mr Griffiths that he is sitting next to me and he wasn't this morning, but his presence is so overwhelming that even when he is not here sometimes we imagine that he is.

  • Thank you.

  • I think that's enough of a mixture of compliments and insults for one session.

  • Wasn't Mr Anyah here in the morning instead of Mr Chekera?

  • They were both here. I wonder, Mr President, if you would let me strike all of that and start again and say simply: Our appearances have changed in that Mr Chekera and Mr Anyah are no longer with us and Mr Courtenay Griffiths Queen's Counsel is now with us. Thank you, Mr Munyard.

  • Thank you, Mr Munyard that is noted.

  • Mr President, our appearances are now Steven Rapp the Prosecutor, Brenda Hollis and Maja Dimitrova and I should note for the record that Ms Hollis did come in at the beginning of the second session and I had omitted to rise at that time, I apologise, but she was present here for the second session and Mr Koumjian who had been present in the first session was not present after the first session.

  • Thank you, Mr Rapp. The record now reflects that. Yes, Mr Munyard.

  • Thank you. Sorry, I am slightly thrown by all that. Now I have to go back to the MFI that I had previously reached. Would your Honour give me a moment? Again I have something marked here that I suspect I don't have to deal with, but I would like a moment just to reconsider that.

  • Yes, go ahead, Mr Munyard.

  • Yes, I think in the light of something the witness said in his final answers just before we broke for lunch deals effectively with the point I would have made, so I can pass over that:

  • I would like you, please, to have a look at - and again I will try and do it in groups - MFI-30. I see, we are coming to a different batch anyway, so we will just do MFI-30 for now, please. It's behind tab 45 for those who are using the tabs. It is a Gregg Ruled Green Tint Steno Book, notebook. It starts on page 29059 and just in order to help us with dates, or certainly to put some kind of time frame on at least part of this, this is essentially, is it not, a list of supplies that were due to be given to or had been given to particular individuals?

  • I have not examined the contents, so unfortunately I cannot assist you.

  • Very well. Don't worry. If you would just turn to the third page, which is 29061, that page starts with some indications of some sort of counting at the top and then the word "luncheon meat" and a number that I can't read, then it has a list of amounts of cigarettes, mangoes, sardines, tuna fish, salt, bath soap, Maggi cubes again and towels and then soap. And if you turn to any page at random you will see lists of amounts mainly of bags usually with a person's name and a date by them. Am I right in summarising if you take any page at random that's the sort of thing that you will find on that?

  • I agree with that.

  • Thank you. I just ask you to look at one particular page, please, 29067?

  • Okay, I have that page in front of me.

  • Now, this page hasn't been properly photocopied, has it?

  • Perhaps the right margins may have been missed.

  • I don't think there is any perhaps about it, is there, Mr Malik?

  • You are quite right. Some of the writing on the extreme right-hand side has not come within the image.

  • Yes, thank you. If you look three-quarters of the way down the page, do you see a name "VP Hon M" and then it looks like "Blas" there and "51 bags 7/17/2". The 2 is obviously I suggest the beginning of a date, that is to say the year part of a date, but unfortunately whoever copied this page in the evidence unit or elsewhere has not properly copied it. Have you heard of Vice-President the Honourable Moses Blah of Liberia?

  • I have.

  • Do you know when he became Vice-President? I mean in what year did he become Vice-President?

  • No, I would not know that.

  • So if I suggested that he became Vice-President in the year 2002 - sorry, the year 2000, you wouldn't argue with that, would you?

  • Well, I wouldn't be able to say yes or no.

  • Yes, thank you, that is all I want to ask about that document. Oh, I'm sorry, the next one - I should have asked you to bring the next one also, which is MFI-31. That is a one page document here. I just want you to confirm, please, that halfway down this page, which is 29106, "Calls/messages" and then it looks like it is the 5th of the 2nd 2000, although of course I suppose it could be the 2nd of the 5th depending on how you put the date:

    "Johnny Paul Koroma's wife is here; wishes to say goodbye to the chief. They leave by 12 noon today."

    Is that what is recorded there?

  • That's right.

  • Are you able to help us, Mr Malik, with what is written sideways along that page on the right-hand margin? Don't worry if you can't.

  • I cannot read the first line properly. The second line reads, "He will be in ...", something, "... until tomorrow".

  • Right, thank you. I think that brings us now to documents obtained from the Catholic Peace and Justice Commission of Liberia. Can you help us with this. Do you know if the Peace and Justice Commission keep copies of every single newspaper published in Liberia?

  • I don't know that.

  • The selection that we have here run from 1994 to I think the year 1999. I am just checking the last one. Yes. Were you able to determine from Ms Hackler, who went and obtained these particular newspapers, just how comprehensive is the Justice and Peace Commission's newspaper archive?

  • I did not enquire of her regarding this area. I did not enquire from her anything in relation to that.

  • Did you enquire of her whether or not she obtained copies of more newspapers than appear in this bundle?

  • I believe that is true.

  • The first one in the bundle dated 3 March 1994, which is P-126 - well, I wonder if it would make sense for the entire collection to be brought over by Mr Court Attendant. I am not saying I am going to deal with every single one, but it will help him perambulating back and forth across the court.

  • Yes, can you arrange that please.

  • Thank you. I just mean these. I don't mean all the MFIs and exhibits. I just mean what I will call the newspaper collection. I was trying to simplify things, but I suspect I have ended up making them more complicated.

  • Your Honour, they are put together in order of MFI or whether they are Prosecution exhibits or Defence exhibits and so it's not possible to isolate.

  • All right. Well, let's see how we get on:

  • The first one, which is P-126, is a Daily News from Monrovia dated 3 March 1994.

  • Your Honours, I don't have the exhibit before me yet.

  • That is all right, Mr Malik. I'm just going to summarise it and then you can look at it at your leisure. It contains an article in which it's alleged that fighters of the National Patriotic front of Liberia set a town ablaze in Rivercess County. That is all that that article is about, isn't it?

  • I have not read the article.

  • All right. Well if you would like to look at it, feel free. I should say at the foot of the article, if you look at the second page 31375, if you look at the final paragraph it says:

    "It was also reported that the NPFL was on the rampage in Yarnee District raping women as well as killing and burning down towns in the district for what they term supporting LPC."

    Are you able to help us what LPC means?

  • No, I'm afraid I can't.

  • Right, we have to go back to the first page to see what it refers to. It's at the very end of the first column on the front page, "The town was reportedly used as one of the bases of the Liberia Peace Council (LPC's) since it captured Rivercess County last year". In other words, it was one of the other armed groups of combatants in Liberia. So that's all that that article deals with. It doesn't touch in any way on the war in Sierra Leone, does it?

  • Again I've not read the entire news clipping, but --

  • Do feel free to read it, Mr Malik.

  • It does not appear to refer to Sierra Leone.

  • No, thank you. The next one is exhibit P-127 behind tab 48. This appears to be dated 14 January 1994 and it's about an ambush - a reported ambush it says - of several civilians fleeing No 4 District, Buchanan, in which three were killed and others were abducted, and it continues to go on to talk about other mass killings in Rivercess County when it continues on page 6. That is all about - that is very much again tied in with conflict between the NPFL and the LPC, if you look particularly at the last paragraph on the second page. Although in our bundle it follows the first article, the previous one we looked at, in time it predates the first article by about three months. That's also nothing to do with the war in Sierra Leone, do you agree?

  • It does not appear to refer to Sierra Leone.

  • Thank you.

  • Which is not the same thing as saying that it could not have some connection with Sierra Leone, but the news report itself does not mention Sierra Leone by name.

  • No. Now, I would like you please to turn to --

  • Mr Munyard, just before you leave that item, you've placed on record that it's dated 14 January 1994. It seems to me as though it's dated 24 January 1994.

  • I've been going by the way in which it was exhibited, your Honour, but I agree that on the slightly clearer version - is there something within the body of the report, of the newspaper, that refers to the 24th, or is your Honour looking at the date at the top?

  • I'm looking at the date at the top of the clearer version.

  • I agree that does look more like the 24th. We have got it at the moment as an exhibit. It's said to be published on 14 January and that's why I have used that date. Maybe we need to correct that.

  • Well two of the judges think it's the 24th and one thinks it's the 14th, so it's certainly not clear. It's not clear.

  • You are allowed to reach decisions by majority. All I can say is the last time this Court - yourselves - considered this document you had it described as 14 January. I think at this point it is probably safest for me not to get involved in any argument that might rage amongst you. I will leave it simply as P whatever it was - P-127 and it's up to others to decide the proper date.

  • Well, I agree with that. It has been adequately described and I don't think anything at all turns on the date.

  • I am now moving on to a different one altogether. It's tab 53 which is MFI-36:

  • Starting, if we can, with the date, the date on the copy that I have in my bundle is quite illegible but the article to which your attention was drawn, Mr Malik, is at the foot of the page, the front page of this copy of The News headed "Three AFL soldiers captured in Sierra Leone". Now, if you look at what it says on the second page - do you see the second page, 31383, where the article from the front page is continued under the rubric "Three AFL soldiers captured"? Do you have that, Mr Malik?

  • I do, your Honours.

  • Thank you. It says:

    "And Private Patrick Kajde. The report furthered that the three AFL men were captured along with 15 fighters of the dislodged African Revolutionary Council (AFRC) and RUF who have been battling against Kamajor fighters in eastern Sierra Leone."

    So if the AFRC has been dislodged, it suggests that this newspaper or this news article has been written after February of 1998. Would you agree?

  • It also suggests that the writer of the article doesn't know very much about what the letters AFRC stood for, doesn't it?

  • No, it doesn't. No, he didn't.

  • Thank you. But it does make it clear that Liberian soldiers had been fighting against Kamajors in eastern Sierra Leone. Eastern Sierra Leone of course would be closer to Liberia than other parts of Sierra Leone; I think you'd agree with that. Were you aware that there had been Liberian soldiers fighting under General David Bropleh for the Sierra Leone government in the 1990s in a unit called the Special Task Force?

  • I'm not aware of the details that you've just mentioned.

  • All right. Well, I won't pursue that with you. Your Honour, I don't know if anybody wants to make a stab at the date. I would simply say it would appear to be one of the later months of the year, just looking at the length of the month, but whether it's September, October, November or December is pretty impossible to decipher.

  • Yes, I agree that's indecipherable.

  • But it does appear to be 1998 at any rate. But my interpretation of the year there is aided by the content of the article and the fact that the last letter looks more like an 8 than a 9. However, that is as far as I want to go on that one:

  • Could you have a look, please, at the next one which is MFI-37. I am using what was put in as the clearer copy which I think is the one that has been tendered. Actually, to be entirely honest, I think the point I want to make about this is so minimal that I won't spend any time on it and we can put that away. Thank you.

    That's all I want to ask you about the bundle of documents that you have been giving evidence about the provenance of. Can I ask you in more general terms now, Mr Malik, if somebody came along and supplied the Office of the Prosecutor with an exhibit, would you normally keep a copy of that exhibit? Sorry, let me rephrase that. Would you normally keep the original of the exhibit?

  • That would be the preference, but ultimately it would depend upon the person supplying the evidence whether they were willing to depart with the original or not.

  • Right. So what would you do if the person brought in, for example, a document that they wanted to keep but you needed to be able to copy to show the condition that it was in when they handed it to you?

  • That would depend on the person actually dealing with the witness. They could photocopy it. They could photograph it if they wanted to. They could write a memo with it explaining exactly the circumstances under which they received it from the person.

  • But normally you would want to keep anything that somebody provided to you as an exhibit, particularly if they were a witness in the case?

  • Yes, normally.

  • Right. Thank you. I would like you, please, to have a look at exhibit P-129. Can I just check that the right thing is going to the witness. In fact, it looks as though the gremlins have crept in because as soon as I saw the size of that I thought it might not be what I wanted. Can I have a moment just to check we have got the numbers the right way around. Yes, I suspect I know what has happened here. I have given advance warning to CMS about the exhibits I would like them to produce in order to try to be as efficient as possible, but we've managed to put an extra digit in that one. It was actually P-29 that we wanted.

    In the meantime, however, there is another exhibit that I hope we have asked for correctly which is P-161 and I will just check that we have asked for the right thing that time around. I will check all three documents before they go. Yes, thank you very much.

    I simply want to ask you this, please, Mr Malik: If you just have a look at that exhibit which consists of three separate documents that are all lists of a very similar nature --

  • Since we don't have copies of this readily I am just wondering if it wouldn't be a good idea to put them on the overhead.

  • Your Honour, I was going to do exactly that once the witness has seen them himself so that he knows what it is we are talking about. I can tell your Honours that it is three handwritten lists of Sierra Leonean members of the ATU in Liberia, that a witness - I think it was Jabaty Jaward - gave evidence about in the summer. His evidence was that he hadn't written these lists himself but he had written similar lists and he didn't know where these lists had come from and we had no information forthcoming as to where they had come from and I was going to ask Mr Malik if he could help us determine where they had come from:

  • Have you looked at each of those three separate groups of documents, Mr Malik?

  • I am in the process of doing that, your Honours.

  • Have you had an opportunity to look at them now?

  • Yes, I have looked at them.

  • I will just ask for the first page of the first one to be put on the overhead because they are all much the same.

  • Well, these are documents that were processed by the evidence unit but I could not give you any information just looking at it off the top of my head. There are tens of thousands of documents and I couldn't possibly assist you with the source just off the top of my head.

  • I wasn't expecting you to remember where any particular document came from. What I want to know is, bearing in mind that these documents have their ERN numbers, it is presumably a very simple task to determine where these came from, where the OTP obtained these documents from and how they have been described in your database, is that correct?

  • It depends. If that information was provided to me at the time these documents were submitted to the evidence unit, then it would be, quite rightly, a very simple task to find out who had given them to the OTP, but I cannot tell you whether that information is with me or not until I look at the database.

  • No. This is simply an exercise that I am effectively asking to be done. But, so that we know what we can hopefully expect, there will certainly be a record of who gave it to the OTP, won't there?

  • Well, one would expect there to be a record. Unfortunately, at times documents come into the OTP and there is - the linkage is occasionally in some cases lost and by the time the evidence comes to the evidence unit that information is no longer readily available. It has to do with many factors. As I have explained, the process is that evidence comes in to investigations or Prosecution where it is analysed, sometimes over an extended period of time, and because of the high turnover at the office sometimes people who had originally received the evidence leave the office in the meanwhile and therefore the person who comes to the evidence unit with the evidence is unable to supply all the relevant details. I am not saying that is the case in this particular instance, but it's quite possible that I have the information available in my database.

  • If you were to simply make a note, as indeed you have been making notes on the paper in front of you, of the ERN numbers of those three documents that collectively make up that exhibit, can you provide to us - and I am not asking for you personally to return to court, but can you provide to us what information is on the database as to the provenance of those documents?

  • I would be happy to assist the Court.

  • Thank you very much.

  • Mr Munyard, if I may interrupt. Mr Malik, are you saying in the statement you've just stated in relation to the high turnover that there isn't a procedure requiring every recipient in the OTP, or in the evidence unit, who receives evidence to actually note somewhere, or enter in a log or an inventory, that they have received this evidence? There isn't that requirement, or regulation, or practice within the OTP?

  • Your Honours, there is indeed such a procedure. Certainly in the evidence unit we have very stringent procedures and nothing is ever received without recording other attendant information. However, what I was referring to was an exception to the general rule that everything is recorded and then passed on and conveyed to the evidence unit with all the relevant information. However, occasionally - and this is perhaps more true for the years past - that information would be received and perhaps by the time it would come to the evidence unit some of that information would be lost, but that does not happen very often. It's only very occasionally that one encounters such problems, but in fact occasionally you do encounter - you do run into such problems. I believe the vast majority of evidence that has come into the evidence unit makes its way to the evidence unit. However, as I've explained in the past sometimes material is not deemed relevant at the time and therefore it's not submitted to the evidence unit for some months, or occasionally for some years. But generally speaking by and large information about who gave the evidence to the OTP is available, it is maintained and when the evidence is brought to the evidence unit or SEAPA we receive that information together with the evidence itself.

  • Well, if I can pursue that. You are not suggesting, are you, that there are occasions when there is a document, for example, that is simply in somebody's office in the OTP with absolutely no indication of where it's come from?

  • Occasionally evidence has been brought to the evidence unit and the person bringing the evidence has not been able to supply all relevant information, for example, as to who gave the evidence to the OTP, when the evidence was received, et cetera. However, like I have said, that is an exception to the rule and often there may be other ways whereby that information has been obtained through talking to various people, et cetera. So generally speaking I am able to supply information as to who gave the evidence to the OTP, but we are limited by what we are provided by persons bringing the evidence to the evidence unit.

  • Yes. When you say "persons bringing the evidence to the evidence unit", I understand you to be saying persons within the OTP bringing the evidence to the evidence unit. Have I understood you correctly?

  • Yes, you have. That is correct.

  • Right. What I'm more interested about, or more interested in, is the information as to where that person got - I will limit myself to a document by way of example. Where that person got the document from, who they claim produced it, if they know, and where it was found?

  • Yes, we ask for that information. That information - it is standard protocol to supply that information to the evidence unit when the evidence is submitted.

  • Well that's what I had understood you to be saying just before we broke for lunch, that you have a standard protocol that since 2003 you have issued to am I right in thinking all members of the OTP staff as to how evidence should be documented once it reaches the hands of the OTP?

  • Certainly that is the standard procedure. However, your Honours, because of the circumstances in which we operate occasionally one encounters a situation where not all the requirements of the protocol are satisfied and I don't think that is necessarily unique to this institution. Occasionally these problems with provenance happen at every institution, and certainly because we did not have a fully functioning evidence unit in the early months of the life of this Court we have had a situation where a lot of evidence was brought into the OTP and it took some time to actually process it and properly label it and put in a system whereby it could be tracked and properly identified. So we have inherited some of these problems, but by and large we - well, in fact not by and large. We always seek to find out such information and in the overwhelming majority of cases we have this information. Now as to whether we have it in this particular case, or this particular document that you've brought up, I will be able to get back to the Court as soon as I have had a chance to look into this.

  • Well, I am grateful for that. What you are saying, if I've understood you correctly, is that you might even have some documents in your evidence unit about which you have no indication of provenance whatsoever. Is that right?

  • And so in the case of those documents you can't rule out forgery, for example?

  • Well, it would require - if the need were to arise it would require perhaps further investigation and one could return to the source, or the stated source, and verify the validity or veracity of those documents.

  • If there is a stated source and the stated source still exists?

  • That's right. It would depend on that particular document and the work required would change from instance to instance, but if it were important to discover that information in relation to that particular document then an exercise could always be undertaken in order to ascertain the provenance of that particular piece of evidence.

  • And it is right, isn't it, that the investigation unit would be likely to be the people to whom evidence comes in the first place?

  • That's correct.

  • And the investigation unit am I right in thinking it is staffed, or has been staffed, by either serving or seconded or former police officers of one sort or another?

  • In other words, people who one would expect to have been trained in basic documentation of exhibits?

  • That is correct. However, I would say - and this goes again back across tribunals - these international organisations have often found it difficult for this mix of people to gel very easily. People come in with different experiences, different ways of doing things and every tribunal has to go through some teething problems. I think we went through that in the first year or two and I think ICTY certainly went through that in the mid-'90s, but things have been streamlined over the years and I can certainly state here before your Honours that this process is far smoother now in the last several years than it was perhaps in the first year or two.

  • Mr Malik, I can't put to you I am afraid the exhibit numbers, because it seems I really have been completely confused as to the numbering of an exhibit, but let me just ask you a question about one exhibit whose number I can't put my finger on at the moment. In the case of someone who is interviewed as a witness who produces a photograph - not a photograph of themselves, or a member of their family, or anything of that sort, but just a photograph that they've carried around over years of the civil war - would you expect that the person receiving that photograph from them would keep the original and if the person really wanted one give the witness a copy of it?

  • It would depend on the particular situation. OTP always seeks to have the best possible evidence, so in such a situation certainly as the evidence custodian I would want to have the original photograph in the evidence unit.

  • Yes. I'm talking about a photograph of a dead body, no head visible, we don't know whether the person has been decapitated or not, a dead body that has been hacked, no suggestion that it was somebody known to the individual in possession of the photograph and indeed the person in possession of the photograph claimed to have carried it around for long periods of time in his back pocket throughout the years of the civil war, then shows it to Alfred Sesay, who takes a witness statement from him in I think 2007, and then hands it back to the witness - hands the original back to the witness - and simply takes a photocopy for your unit. Can you think of any good reason in those circumstances why the original was not kept, so that we could see the state the original was in, and the witness given a copy of this gruesome photograph?

  • Well, it depends what the witness wanted to do. One cannot force them to turn over exhibits if they do not wish to do so. I can think of many such situations where a witness would not want to part with a photograph, or another original document. I do believe that on many occasions witnesses have provided materials, evidence, et cetera to the OTP, to the investigators, but only to the extent that a photocopy could be made and the original returned to them and so I don't find anything unusual in this case.

  • Well, there was no suggestion by that particular witness that he insisted on keeping the photograph. In fact his evidence was, "They gave it back to me", or rather his evidence was, "I think they gave it back to me. I've looked for it, but I can't find it". It was in the investigator's own notes of an interview with that witness that we discovered that the investigator had returned the photograph to the witness. There was no evidence from the witness that he insisted on having the photograph himself.

  • Well, all I can say is general - I can just make a general comment that ordinarily one would want to have the best possible evidence. Now, exactly what happened between Mr Sesay and that particular witness in a meeting I am not privy to that and so I cannot comment on that situation.

  • I don't want to pursue this any longer than is necessary, but if the witness did not insist on having the photograph back then the proper thing for Mr Alfred Sesay to have done would have been to have kept the original, wouldn't it?

  • Well, I don't know what Mr Sesay had in mind and so I would not try to guess as to why he acted the way he acted. I am afraid only he can answer that.

  • For the benefit of your Honours and the parties opposite, the witness - I can't remember whether it was in private session or not and so I will just give the TF1 number, which is TF1-539, and I am sure that your Honours will remember the exhibit in question. I have no other questions of this witness, thank you.

  • Thank you, Mr Munyard. Mr Rapp