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

  • Mr Witness, for the record would you state your name?

  • And how are you presently employed, Mr Malik?

  • I'm chief of the Section for Evidence and Post-Archival Access - Section for Evidence, Archives and Post-Operational Access. Your Honours, if I may say so, the feedback in my headphones is extremely loud and I cannot really - okay, thank you.

  • Is that better? And that section, where and in what organisation is it located?

  • This is a section on its own in the Office of the Prosecutor at the Special Court for Sierra Leone.

  • When did you begin working with the Office of the Prosecutor of the Special Court for Sierra Leone?

  • And for the record, before we get into your position at the Special Court, could you briefly tell us about your education?

  • I received my early education in Pakistan, after which I went to the United States and graduated from the University of California in anthropology. I then returned to Pakistan and obtained a Masters in History from the University of Punjab in Pakistan.

  • Would you briefly describe your career path before coming to the Special Court for Sierra Leone?

  • After I had graduated from the University of California, I came back to Pakistan and did a number of different things, including working as an assistant editor in one of the newspapers. I then sat for the civil service exam in Pakistan and was recruited as an assistant superintendent in the police service of Pakistan, which is a federal managerial quarter of Pakistan police which is an otherwise provincial subject and organised along provincial lines. I first worked in the North West Frontier Province and then in the Sindh Province in Karachi city. I first was an assistant superintendent of police and eventually promoted as superintendent of police. I also worked in Bosnia in a variety of capacities for the United Nations mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina. In 1998 I joined the International Criminal Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia as an investigator where I worked for five years until 2003, which is when I joined the Special Court.

  • Before we proceed you have a piece of paper in front of you? Is there - what is the purpose of that or is there anything on it?

  • No. There are some blank sheets of paper and the purpose, I have it in front of me so if your Honours allow me I can - I have a numbers of things that I understand I will be asked about and it would assist me to answer questions so that I know that I have answered the questions asked fully and therefore I jot down and I tick things off as I speak about them.

  • You said you'd worked at the ICTY for a number of years, what did you do there?

  • At the ICTY I had a wide variety of duties. ICTY had massive holdings from work done by, performed by different teams which were often very compartmentalised, so I did a lot of research and analysis of what the ICTY already held in relation to the cases that I was working on. I interviewed a very large number of people. These included victims and witnesses, suspects as well as accused in custody. I worked with sensitive sources. This was in relation to tracking the whereabouts of indictees at large, as well as identifying location of mass graves in Northwest Bosnia. I also participated in search and seizure missions and - where we seized large amount of evidence.

    I spent a lot of time on behalf of the team dealing with witnesses. There was - there were also occasions when I was asked to contribute some portions to - to legal documents such as final pre-trial briefs or final trial briefs. This would be in relation to factual matters that I was aware of.

    There would be also occasions when I was asked to testify publicly as well as appeared before the judges in - in camera ex parte proceedings so there really was a wide variety of tasks that I was asked to perform when I was at ICTY.

  • Let us just limit it for a moment. You did mention some work in evidence searches and seizures; did you have a formal position in any kind of evidence unit at the ICTY?

  • No, your Honours, I wasn't member of the evidence unit but it just so happened that I was involved in exhumations. We had a number of mass graves in relation to the cases that we were working on and each of those mass graves yielded a large amount of evidence and on behalf of my team I had to liaise with the evidence unit and process the vast amount of material that would come in. So I was still an investigator working for one of the investigative teams but I worked closely with the evidence unit in that capacity.

  • But before we go on to your career at the Special Court. Just if we can double back for a second to when you were with the Pakistan police did you do anything in regard to evidence there?

  • At that time, at any given time when I was working there there would be more than one police station under my command. I was not directly involved in handling the evidence on a day-to-day basis but as the senior officer it was my responsibility to supervise people who did handle evidence and each of those police station of course were mandated to seize and store the evidence. So I had, in my supervisory capacity, dealings with people who were managing evidence under me.

  • Let's move forward to your time at the Special Court for Sierra Leone. You said you began in April of 2003. I think you also told us what your current position is. What was your position in the Special Court for Sierra Leone back in 2003?

  • I was chief of the evidence unit.

  • When your employment commenced as - at the Special Court for Sierra Leone - in what division of the Office of the Prosecutor was that unit located?

  • At the time Office of the Prosecutor was divided into the Prosecutions division and the investigations division with an independent legal operation section. My unit was situated within the investigations division.

  • Did that change at any time?

  • Around April 2007, the Prosecutor expanded the mandate and the responsibilities of the erstwhile evidence unit and reconstituted it as - it was taken - my unit was taken out of the investigations division and it was reconstituted as a section on its own. And henceforth to be called section for evidence archiving and post-operational access, SEAPA. It was felt that SEAPA, something like along those lines must be created so that the Office of the Prosecutor could meet its completion strategy needs and address post-operational and residual issues that the OTP is facing. It was created out of the core of the evidence unit. So far as evidence management is concerned, that capacity was retained within SEAPA in order to continue to support trials and appeals.

  • Well, let's go back to 2003 to your arrival in the Special Court for Sierra Leone Office of the Prosecutor evidence unit. When you arrived do you know how many persons had been indicted at the Special Court?

  • Your Honours, I think nine persons had been indicted at that time, although only eight of them publicly. Mr Taylor's indictment hadn't yet been made public. Of the other eight, two were at large; Sam Bockarie and Johnny Paul Koroma, and the other six were in custody. Within a few months, within a couple of months after my arrival another three persons would be indicted and transferred into the Special Court's custody and the last public indictment to have come out of the OTP happened about six months after my arrival.

  • What were your duties as chief of the evidence unit?

  • In line with the Rule 41(A) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, it is my duty on behalf of the Prosecutor to ensure that all evidence and information in possession of the OTP is kept in a credible, secure and retrievable manner, so that the OTP can conduct its Prosecutions in an efficient way, using the best possible evidence, and also meeting its disclosure obligations at the same time.

  • Were you given assignments other than those that dealt with the evidence unit?

  • There were several such occasions. OTP was a small office and I had had - come in with a certain investigative experience, so, on occasion I was asked to do things which were not within the mandate of my post as chief of evidence unit. A couple of these related to two of the indictees which were at large - I've just mentioned them, then at large, Sam Bockarie and Johnny Paul Koroma.

    I was asked to organise the arrangements in relation to receipt of Sam Bockarie's body from Monrovia Liberia, and in line with the work that I had 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.

    In relation to JPK, the OTP had a sub-unit in late 2004 and 2005 which was then called the section - the special investigations unit - and did - the job of the special investigations unit was to track the whereabouts of Johnny Paul Koroma, and I was made chief of that and I served in that capacity from around December 2004 to the middle of 2005 when the section was reorganised and the unit was disbanded.

  • At some point I think you referred to JPK, I presume?

  • I apologise, I was referring to Johnny Paul Koroma, who was a publicly indicted accused within the Special Court.

  • Were you familiar with the staffing of the investigation division outside your unit?

  • Broadly speaking, the OTP, or specifically the investigations division had three kinds of staff members, and I leave aside the general category staff who were always locally recruited so, leaving them aside, three kinds of staff were working in the investigations division.

    One were the - one group would be people like myself, who were internationally recruited regardless of their nationality. The other group would be international secondees. We had several of them, mostly from Canada, RCMP police officers, and the third group was Sierra Leoneans, several of them. And almost all of them were police officers, either former or present, and many of them, I believe, were working as secondees. And I think the third group probably was the most numerously - the Sierra Leonean police officers would be perhaps the largest number.

  • Mr Malik, did you refer to the second category as RCP?

  • Your Honours, I was referring to RCMP, these are Royal Canadian Mounted Police officers, although that is not always strictly true. We have many Canadians, secondees, and some of them are not RCMP officers but we happened to often lump them into one RCMP label. But anyway, they were all international seconded and most of them were from Canada.

  • Thank you very much, your Honour:

  • Would you generally describe your level of conduct or contact, if I could put it that way, contact with personnel in the investigation division outside of your evidence unit?

  • OTP is a very small office and investigations division is smaller still so on a day-to-day basis one necessarily comes across almost every colleague who works in that office so, on a day-to-day basis I would see almost every one of them. In particular, I would have opportunity to see and work with investigators because they would bring in evidence to the evidence unit and thereby one would have a chance to interact with them.

  • Did you take responsibility for any staff outside your unit?

  • I was a member of the staff association, from late 2005 to spring 2008, and for about 18 months within that period I was the president. As your Honours mentioned, in that capacity, I worked - interacted with staff and participated in recruitment, et cetera.

  • Let me get back to your formal duties. From your observation how was evidence handled before your arrival at the evidence unit in the Office of the Prosecutor?

  • When I arrived, there was no evidence unit as such. There had been a large amount of evidence collected by the Office of the Prosecutor by that time, especially following the arrests of several accused in March and April 2003, and I quickly realised that as things stood at the time the OTP did not have the capacity to process and manage the evidence, the volume of evidence at hand.

  • Well, what did you do to change things, if anything?

  • I took a number of steps and I had to act quickly. First thing I did was, I made a detailed assessment of what was required. I wrote a couple of lengthy memos for the Prosecutor apprising him of what the requirements were and what needed to be - in order to get moving. So after that initial assessment I quickly moved to establish, to physically have constructed - I had the court construct an evidence vault which would have some sort of climate control. Humidity was a big problem, as you know. At the time unfortunately, the Court premises were not ready. The OTP was located in an off-site facility and I was quite concerned that the evidence might suffer on account of high humidity in Freetown. So I had an evidence vault quickly constructed with air conditioning, et cetera.

    I ordered specialised supplies for evidence storage which - along the lines of things, of materials employed by other tribunals, so I - after I had the specialised supplies I also set up a database. I had a database consultant fly in from the United States. Before I came the database had already been purchased but it had not yet been developed so I got the consultant to come in and work with me for a couple of months, or at least about a month, and we set up a database so the evidence could be managed.

    We didn't have the equipment to process the evidence. Things like stamps and scanners, so I arranged for those. I also put in a system so that audiovisual material - and we had quite a bit of it at the time - so that it could be digitised, again like papers, audiovisual magnetic media tends to deteriorate in tropical conditions, so I set up a system for digitising. I set up some procedures as to how the evidence would be submitted. People needed to supply certain information and needed to bring in the evidence in a uniform way. I also carried out some limited training, both for my own evidence unit staff so they could process the evidence properly and for end-users in terms of database I worked with lawyers and some investigators, explaining to them how to access the database and in general I also made available guidance, if anybody sought any, in terms of how to gather evidence and how to then submit it to the evidence unit. So these are some of the things that I did, which helped move things along at that time.

  • I think we will take a break there. We are just about out of tape. So the Court is going to adjourn now for half an hour and we will resume at 12 o'clock.

  • [Break taken at 11.30 a.m.]

  • [Upon resuming at 12.00 p.m.]

  • When we left off at the break we were discussing the situation in the evidence unit, or the evidence storage system, that you confronted when you arrived and how you changed that. I did want to ask you from what you were able to observe when you arrived how was the evidence organised in the Office of the Prosecutor prior to your arrival?

  • As I explained, there was no evidence unit as such that existed at the time. Evidence would be brought in and it would be taken custody of by the criminal intelligence analyst. He was a person who had other responsibilities, but because there was no designated person who had responsibility for handling evidence he was doing this double duty. To be fair the Office of the Prosecutor had made attempts to bring in a person who would be responsible for evidence sooner, but somehow due to various administrative problems that didn't take place. I myself was supposed to have come in January, but did not manage to come until April. So it was an interim arrangement and the criminal intelligence analyst, apart from doing his own full-time job, was sort of able to hold the fort so to speak.

  • With the Court's permission, excuse me, I see that our appearances are changed and I neglected to mention that. I would seek the Court's indulgence to put that on the record at this time. We now have Nick Koumjian present on the Prosecution side. Present for the Prosecution is the Prosecutor Stephen Rapp, Nick Koumjian and the case manager Maja Dimitrova.

  • We were talking about the criminal intelligence individual handling the evidence at that time. Were you able to observe how he handled the evidence?

  • Well, essentially it amounted to receiving the evidence and storing them in cabinets and empty rooms, et cetera. Understandably he made no effort to and was in no position to institute any detailed system of evidence management and handling, so all that was left to the person who would eventually take responsibility for this and that was myself.

  • You mentioned a numbering system. Was there a numbering system in place at that time before your arrival?

  • In a rudimentary way, yes, but the convention has been at ICTY - and I understand ICTR, although I'm not personally familiar with the procedures there - that the way the evidence is handled in these international tribunals is that each page of the evidence that comes in is stamped with its own unique number, called the evidence register number or ERN for short, and that allows to - that allows for tracking and individually being able to manipulate each piece of evidence. However, that was not the case at that time. He had a rudimentary numbering system, but it was not the one that I instituted when I took over.

  • Well, we'll talk about the system that you instituted, but before we go there what about security of the storage system that - what kind of system, if any, was in effect prior to your arrival?

  • Well, the evidence was very secure. The offices of - the evidence room was where the rest of the offices of the OTP were located, which as I've explained earlier was on a different side from where the Special Court is located. So the evidence was certainly secure, it was kept in locked rooms and no unauthorised person had any access to it, but there were the other issues as I've explained in terms of management and in terms of having climate control, et cetera, which needed to be upgraded and we did that.

  • And when you mentioned the rudimentary numbering system that this individual had who worked in this area before your arrival, how was that - how were documents numbered?

  • Essentially each document would be assigned one number, so even if it was a hundred page document it would get assigned one six digit number and so on and so forth, and so you had essentially documents being numbered as opposed to pages within the documents which is what practice that let's say the ICTY approve.

  • Well, let's talk about what kind of numbering system you introduced. What did you do?

  • I essentially - I had known from my experience at ICTY that it had to change its own systems several times because the evidence that came in outgrew the system that had been put in place to manage it, so I decided to essentially start with things in a way that we would end up not having to make any changes down the road. I realised that it was a short-term tribunal with a limited mandate, but still I wanted to make sure that our system would not have to be upgraded. So I instituted an eight digit numbering system, whereby each page would be stamped with a unique eight digit alphanumeric number, and each document would be known by a 16 digit range. What that means is that the document - each page of the document is numbered, the first page of the document followed by the last page of the document together they comprise what is called the range - a document range - and then in the database, the evidence database, that document is listed by that 16 digit document range. This system allowed for sufficient capacity for the OTP to process no matter how much evidence were to come in.

    Similarly within the system there were various subdivisions, so although it was an eight digit number in some cases the first number could be replaced by a letter in order to identify a particular kind of evidence which was being referred to. For example, if it was a video cassette then the number might start with a "V" and that would denote that this is a video cassette. Things like that.

    Also it was necessary sometimes to set aside specialised numbers for specialised collections and so the numbering system ordinarily would simply go from a lower number to a higher number and as each new document came in I would assign the next available number. So the numbers generally go in an ascending order in time. So what that means is that a higher number generally refers to a document which was processed later in time as compared to a document which bears a lower ERN.

    However, in order to attend to special needs, sometimes chunks, blocks of ERN would be set aside for a particular project. For example, if a particular organisation or some special kind of evidence were to come in, so I could set aside a block of 10,000 ERNs or 20,000 ERNs and then those ERNs would only be assigned to that kind of evidence. So we had to work within this system on making sure that we were able to meet our needs in the way that was most convenient and efficient for us.

  • Okay. Well, how would you compare the system of evidence management that developed at the Special Court for Sierra Leone Office of the Prosecutor with that that you'd seen at the Office of the Prosecutor at the ICTY?

  • Your Honours, in 2003, ICTY and Special Court were at very different stages in their life cycle. After years of its own very significant teething troubles ICTY by that time had evolved a very sophisticated evidence management system. It was - it employed a very large number of personnel and was extremely resource intensive. It had scores of custodians and data inputters and indexers and there were teams developing specialised software for it.

    At one time there was a document and video indexing system - document and video indexing unit in the ICTY which that unit alone employed over a hundred person. Of course they had very large collections to deal with so it was necessary for them to have that.

    The Special Court on the other hand had none of that. All we had was essentially one person managing this evidence and as I've explained he was just holding the fort and did a great job, I'm very thankful to him, he made my job quite easier. Without him it would have been even more difficult.

    But once the unit had been set up I tried to install procedures which were similar to what was practised at the ICTY. For example, I have described a numbering system which allowed us to track each individual piece of evidence that was in the evidence library and I would say that once the evidence unit became functional we were providing services which were not too dissimilar to what was being offered at the ICTY.

    Now Special Court has always been created - has always been seen and the Office of the Prosecutor in particular has sought to run a very lean and efficient organisation and given that, you know, the Special Court evidence unit has provided services which have been adequate to the task, using a tiny, tiny fraction of the resources that have been put into the corresponding setup at the ICTY I think is a creditable achievement and I regard it as one of the successes of the OTP.

  • Under the system of evidence storage that you developed how do personnel in the Office of the Prosecutor access documentary evidence?

  • Once I have processed the evidence, scans of it are placed in a database which is on the network. Each individual staff member is able to log onto their own computers on their own desk and access the database on the network, whereby using the ERNs if they're known or other search criteria they're able to find the document and then see an image of the document on their own computer screens, and if they so want they can print the document and use it for whatever purposes that they may need it.

  • What if they need to see an original?

  • Originals are stored in the vault at the office and we try to handle them as little as possible because every time you handle evidence, any paper, it deteriorates slightly. But if there is a need then they let us know when and which particular document they want to see, and we make that available for their inspection and occasionally if necessary we can also check out this evidence to them so that they can work with it.

  • Do you have originals of all your documents?

  • Well, whatever evidence is available within the OTP we ask that the best possible form of that evidence be submitted to the evidence unit so we can process it and then keep that as original and that's how it is done. However, occasionally we only have photocopies and in those cases it's possible that the original may be with somebody outside the OTP or may not be known who has the original of that document or it may have been destroyed. Any number of possibilities. So in those cases we process the photocopy and when we - whatever document we process in the evidence unit we stamp it with a red ink which distinguishes it from copies which may be printed off printers, et cetera, which usually come out in black. In any case you can tell the difference through physical inspection.

    So in cases where a true original is not available and only a photocopy is provided to the evidence unit then we stamp the photocopy with the red ERN and treat that as original and maintain that in our evidence vault.

  • And as far as these originals, are they all kept in Freetown?

  • Until recently, or until relatively recently, all the originals were in Freetown. However, with the transfer of the Charles Taylor trial to The Hague it had become - it became necessary to have a facility here in The Hague to maintain evidence and to that effect I trained two persons so that they could act as evidence custodians here in The Hague.

    This was necessary, one, to actually take custody of the evidence that was being created here, it was being generated here because attorneys or investigators may be taking witness statements, et cetera, here in The Hague, proofing notes. And, two, these evidence custodians would then keep the evidence in a secure and credible manner which had been brought here from Freetown. So to that end I came - I travelled to The Hague during the year 2007 and I trained Ms Dimitrova, Maja Dimitrova and Ms Ruth Mary Hackler as evidence custodians.

    Of course these two are part of the trial team, but given the mandate of the Special Court, in terms of keeping our organisation lean and efficient, it was felt that at this stage of the Court's life cycle it was - it would be appropriate for these two people to sort of double hat, to sort of perform dual duties. So since that time Ms Dimitrova and Ms Hackler work as evidence custodians and act as suboffice of SEAPA in The Hague and so far as their evidence related duties are concerned they report to me rather than to the trial team.

  • And dealing with your entire collection, whether it's in Freetown or The Hague, what kind of material do you have in that collection?

  • There is a fairly wide variety of materials we have. Of course we have numerous witness statements taken by investigators and attorneys. We have material received from other governments, other agencies. We have a lot of material from the United Nations. We have material from human rights organisations. Some of this material, for example from the United Nations, is under Rule 70, given to us under Rule 70 which restricts the uses that we can put to it and in any case cannot be disclosed to anyone without prior consent.

    Other material is public source material or it's open source, anyone can access it, it can be retrieved from various websites, various other publications. We have books, diaries. We have a lot of material from the various warring factions in Sierra Leone and also Liberia. We have of course broadcasts, some audiovisual material, et cetera. So we have a broad range of materials. We also have some artefacts.

  • Who brings documents or other evidence to your unit in SEAPA?

  • It's largely the investigators who are tasked with collecting evidence. Also attorneys, sometimes case managers bring in a lot of evidence because often they're given possession of the evidence by attorneys and then case managers submit it to the evidence unit. Sometimes other people working in the office, consultants, interns, et cetera. Any number of people can be tasked by their supervisors to bring in evidence to us.

  • When is evidence brought to the unit in comparison to when it might have arrived in the OTP?

  • Well, that varies. There is no fixed rule. What happens is that whenever any person, any OTP staff member takes possession of evidence they then submit it to their own unit. So an investigator might take a statement and then they will bring and show it to their chief of investigation or investigations commander, et cetera.

    Similarly, it might be showed to the attorneys and then it is - eventually it makes its way to the evidence unit to SEAPA. This is especially true. It's perhaps not so much with the evidence - with the witness statements which end up in the SEAPA fairly quickly after being taken, but in case of other evidence, documentary evidence, often an assessment is necessary. Often the Prosecutor feels that an assessment is necessary to determine whether in fact it is potentially evidence or not. So materials may come into the office, it may be brought in and then it may be days or weeks or sometimes longer before an analysis is completed and it is submitted to the evidence unit.

    Also at times evidence has come in and it has been felt at the time that it was not relevant to the cases or prosecutions at hand, but perhaps a year later or two years later it was decided that, in fact, that evidence had now become relevant and therefore they chose to submit that evidence to the evidence unit or SEAPA at that time. So it is no general rule that applies to the situation.

  • Mr Malik, what is SEAPA?

  • Your Honours, this is the successive unit section which was created out of the evidence unit and this stands for Section For Evidence Archiving and Post-Operational Access. So in line with what the evidence unit was doing earlier, this section continues to process evidence, to manage evidence. It does everything that evidence unit used to do, but now in addition has other responsibilities and tasks which have to do with the completion strategy and with residual issues in terms of what will happen to the evidence after we physically close down and what needs there may be in terms of future access by any residual mechanism that will come in place.

  • Mr Malik, you spoke of the personnel being able to access images of the documents on their computer and even print them. Aside from being able to obtain these images of documents, what other kind of information, if any, can personnel of the OTP obtain from the evidence unit?

  • A document is not always self-speaking in terms of how it has been created. Sometimes that information is available and sometimes that information is not there. So every time an evidence comes to the evidence unit we ask the person bringing the evidence to supply some other alternate information, sometimes called meta data, as to who had given the document to OTP, when had it been collected, where had it been collected, if it was seized material or not, if they knew who the originator, et cetera, was in relation to the document. Unfortunately, that information is not always available, but we ask and if that information is provided to us then we attach that information to the record for that document. If someone were to ask us a year later, say, "Can you tell me who gave this document to the OTP?", or, "Where was this document collected?", et cetera, then if the information has been provided to us in the first place we're able to give them that and that kind of information and data.

  • Has there been a recent request, if any, for information about documents in the possession of your unit?

  • Yes, a few weeks ago I received a request from the trial team, Charles Taylor Prosecution's trial team in the Taylor trial, that was accompanied by a list of approximately 55 ERNs and I was asked to provide - to prepare an affidavit explaining as to what I knew, or what the unit knew, as to the source of these documents. So pursuant to that request I have looked at the documents that were listed and found out as to what their source was and when we received them, et cetera.

  • Now, just one thing. You referred to 55 ERNs. Does that mean 55 pages, or does it mean something else?

  • No, it means 55 documents and each document may comprise more than one page.

  • And for your own purposes did you do any division of these documents?

  • Yes, essentially I was asked to look for the source of these documents as to where the documents had come from, so when I looked at the - when I analysed as to where the material had come from I was able to make four distinct categories depending on the source. So I've divided these 55 documents into four broad categories, and these are just categories that I have labelled for my convenience and they reflect the research that I have done. The first category I have called Sankoh house documents, the second category I've referred to as RUF office documents, the third category would be Liberia search documents and the fourth is the Justice and Peace Commission documents. So those are the four categories into which I've divided the 55 documents referred to me by the Prosecution trial team.

  • Now before this recent request had you previously been involved or asked to obtain information, or been involved in the process of obtaining information, about the source of any of these groups of documents?

  • Yes, in 2005 I had been part of an exercise which concerned itself with one of these four groups.

  • And which group was that?

  • That was the Sankoh house documents. What happened was that Chris Santora, an attorney with the Office of the Prosecutor, provided me with a list of 37 documents and asked me to make those documents available for inspection by a couple of investigators in the office. Because I held custody of the documents I was asked to participate, and during that exercise the two investigators informed Mr Santora as to what they knew where the documents had come in. Of course I was present there in my capacity as the person in charge of the evidence, holding the evidence, so I too was able to learn what the investigators told Mr Santora.

  • And who were these investigators, if you know?

  • One was Mr Alfred Sesay and the other is Mr Thomas Lahun.

  • I think we do have a spelling list for the court reporter, but if we don't obviously Alfred Sesay is spelled like every other Alfred Sesay, those names, but Thomas Lahun, the last name is spelled L-A-H-U-N:

  • Let's deal first with Mr Sesay. Do you know him?

  • Yeah, I worked with him for several years in the Office of the Prosecutors.

  • And what do you know about the positions that he held in the Office of the Prosecutor?

  • Within the Office of the Prosecutor, within the investigation division there are three or four sub-units and one of them is the witness management unit and another is sort of a more generic investigations team and there is a lot of crossover between the two. Some people who work for the witness management unit also do investigative work and some people who work in the investigative unit may be asked to do witness related missions. Now, I believe Mr Sesay orig inally worked in the witness management unit and later on seemed to work more in the investigations part of the team - of the division.

  • Did you have any contact with him on a professional level other than this occasion of being present for this exercise?

  • Yes, of course I would see him in the office on a day to day basis, but he would bring in evidence because he would take witness statements, et cetera, and he would bring them to the evidence unit and so I would get to interact with him quite regularly.

  • Do you know if he's still employed at the Office of the Prosecutor?

  • No, in early 2007 he left the Office of the Prosecutor I believe to pursue a higher degree in Britain.

  • Let's just talk about this process as you conducted it with Investigator Sesay. How was that process conducted?

  • I wouldn't say that I conducted the process. I would say Mr Santora conducted the process, but I was a part of it. As I suggested, Mr Santora had provided me a list beforehand and so I had pulled out that group of documents. Mr Santora would call out the ERN of each of the documents on the list and I would put the document before Mr Sesay, he would look at it and then make his comments to Mr Santora and after which that document would be put aside and Mr Santora would then call out another document. That's how we went through the 37 documents on Mr Santora's list.

  • Do you recall what portion of the documents - what number out of 37 - he was able to identify?

  • I think all but one, 36. There was some confusion with numbering, because after that - for the purposes of this exercise I've read Mr Sesay's affidavit which followed. I just make that point now because the number of documents has been mentioned. One document was duplicated in Mr Chris Santora's list and it wasn't really clarified at the time and that duplication also made its way into Mr Sesay's declaration. So I believe there were 37 documents - 37 unique documents - and out of that 36 were identified by Mr Sesay.

  • Now, you just mentioned an affidavit from Mr Sesay. What are you referring to there?

  • Following the exercise which took place in May 2005, Mr Sesay prepared an affidavit essentially as to what had happened, how he had been shown the documents in my presence by Mr Santora and how he had identified certain documents out of that group. So that's the affidavit that I referred to. I'm not sure exactly what the date is, but I believe 8 July or thereabouts 2005.

  • Did you obtain any other information from Mr Sesay in regard to the origin of these documents other than your presence at this exercise and that affidavit that you referenced?

  • I would say perhaps in two ways. One was through informal contact, because I did use to see Mr Sesay at that time quite regularly, and also you earlier asked me about my involvement with the investigations sections other than strictly within the mandate of the evidence unit. So that would be the period in early 2005 when I had slightly enhanced contact with some investigators and in that - in that way I was able to interact with Mr Sesay off and on and I knew from him that he had handled these documents before coming to the OTP. So that was one - that would be one way in which I got some information from him.

    The other would be the cross-examination - the testimony that Mr Sesay provided in RUF trial about a year after this exercise. Mr Sesay appeared as a 92 bis witness for the Prosecution in the RUF trial, he was called for cross-examination by the Defence and I have read the testimony given by Mr Sesay and that has also provided me with some information in relation to what Mr Sesay - how Mr Sesay handled these documents.

  • You mentioned also Mr Lahun involved in a process like this. First of all, let me ask you do know Thomas Lahun?

  • Yes, Mr Lahun is one of the longest working serving members of the OTP. He has been with the OTP since I believe August 2002. So since I've been here for a number of years now I know him fairly well in that I've been working with him in the same office for a number of years.

  • And is he still employed in the OTP?

  • And let me ask you this. Based upon the information that you've obtained, what did you learn about who was involved in obtaining the documents and specifically these 37 documents that were placed before Mr Sesay and Mr Lahun?

  • There were a number of people and I'll mention their names, but I will not try to - I will try to limit my answer to what you have said, although I would need to explain further before you could understand what their role was. Just in terms of names of the people who were involved, I would start with a number of CID officers at SLP. One is Samuel Sanni Sesay.

  • If we can stop for a moment. On the name we have it on the spelling list, but it's Samuel, the conventional spelling, but the middle name Sanni is S-A-N-N-I and the last name is Sesay in the conventional spelling:

  • Who else?

  • There was somebody called Albert Conteh, who was also a CID officer.

  • Just to clarify the spelling there, it is the conventional spelling of Albert and the surname of Conteh is C-O-N-T-E-H.

  • And then Mr Thomas Lahun, who we have spoke of - we've spoken of just now.

  • I'm sorry to interrupt, but is it an Alfred or Albert? We've got both first names here.

  • Your Honour, it is Alfred. I have always been referring to Alfred.

  • I believe we have an Albert Conteh, however?

  • I apologise. Yes, it's Alfred Sesay and Albert Conteh.

  • Let's just deal with those three individuals and go back to their involvement, if any, with these documents. Can you describe what it was?

  • Having read a number of statements given to the OTP and including these declarations and Mr Sesay's testimony and also having spoken to the investigators off and on, I believe this is what happened. On 8 May 2000 there was a shooting incident at Foday Sankoh's house off of Spur Road in Freetown, following which Mr Sankoh fled the house. The next day, on 9 May, there was a meeting at CID Headquarters where Mr Lahun worked as one of the directors. The senior leadership at the CID directed Mr Samuel Sanni Sesay and Albert Conteh to go visit the scene of the incident at Mr Sankoh's house. Together with some other CID officers, these two gentlemen went to the location and then reported from there to their superiors that the house had been ransacked and that there were a number of bodies lying there and a large number of documents were strewn across the compound.

    They were told to secure whatever documents they could and to seize them and to bring them back to the CID office. Mr Samuel Sanni Sesay and Albert Conteh and others collected the documents and brought them back to the CID headquarters where they were passed on to Mr Alfred Sesay's custody by Mr Thomas Lahun. Mr Thomas Lahun was a superior of Mr Alfred Sesay at that time and he instructed Mr Alfred Sesay to take possession of these documents and to keep them in his custody under lock and key.

    Later in 2000, the year 2000, some United Nations personnel are reported - said to have visited the CID office and examined the documents. Also around that time the Attorney General's office asked that the documents be brought to the Attorney General's office so that they could be photocopied, so Mr Sesay took these documents from the CID office to the Attorney General's office where copies of a certain number of documents were made.

    Also around this time Mr Sesay himself examined the documents. Subsequently, in 2002, after the Special Court had been established Mr Lahun came to work for the Special Court and a few months after having joined the Special Court he returned to CID office and asked Mr Sesay to provide him with some of the documents in his possession, which Mr Sesay did.

    Also late in 2002 another OTP investigator, Corinne Dufka, went to Mr Sesay and obtained some other documents from the same collection and there was one other incident when - one other instance when another OTP investigator returned to the CID late in 2004 and obtained yet some more documents from the same collection.

    These documents, over the years, were brought to the OTP and in 2004 all of these documents - at various times in 2004 all of these documents were submitted to the evidence unit for processing and from that time on they have been in our possession. We have processed them. We have assigned ERNs to them and they are either in our vault or here in The Hague.

  • Just a clarification. I think you have covered it there, but there was a - you mentioned CID. What does that stand for?

  • CID is one of the main departments within the Sierra Leone police and it stands for Criminal Investigations Department and has - generally has the mandate for investigating crimes.

  • And I believe the only name that was new in that list was Corinne Dufka, who I think whose name appears here on the record as a prior public witness, so I won't spell that. You mentioned the examination of these documents by other entities like the Sierra Leone - well, the United Nations and copies being obtained by the Attorney General of Sierra Leone. Do you know anything about how these documents were secured or if they were secured during the time that they were at the CID?

  • According to Mr Sesay, he kept the documents in a cabinet in his office under lock and key and that he had the only key to the cabinet, and therefore anyone who wanted to access the documents would have to go through him and the documents were kept in a secure manner all through the period that Mr Sesay had custody of them in the CID.

  • Now, you mentioned these various groups that - let's say these outside groups that were involved in coming to him about the documents. Do you know why the Sierra Leone Attorney General requested copies or why they obtained copies?

  • I don't know for a fact. I think there are some obvious explanations but I don't have any personal knowledge, direct knowledge.

  • And do you know why the United Nations accessed them, or, as you said, examined them?

  • No, I don't know that.

  • And do you know why Mr Sesay examined them?

  • Yes. Mr Sesay has been asked as to why he examined them and he explains that he was economy crime - he was a non-commissioned officer in charge of economy crimes or economic crimes and he felt that some of the documents may be of interest to state prosecutions. He believes, he states that a number of documents related to diamond transactions, et cetera, which would be of interest so, therefore, he chose to examine them, which to me makes sense because in fact there were prosecutions that happened in relation to AFRC earlier and also I believe Mr Sankoh was in custody at that time as well. So any Sierra Leonean police officer who had such documents in his possession would surely - would want to review it or ought to have reviewed it for possible use in some of these prosecutions.

  • Mr Rapp, before you proceed, could I just interrupt. At page 77, the witness stated: These documents over the years were brought to the OTP and in 2004 all of these documents at various times were submitted to the evidence unit. Is the witness able to say who brought them to the OTP and who submitted them to the evidence unit?

  • Yes, your Honours. What I meant - when I said over the years I meant from the period 2002 to 2004 because the first time the documents were brought to the OTP was in 2002 when Mr Thomas Lahun went to CID and obtained a certain number of documents and brought them to the OTP. Then later in 2002 Ms Dufka did the same thing, she went to the CID, spoke to Mr Sesay and obtained some of these documents and brought them to the OTP.

    Then in 2004 another investigator working in the Office of the Prosecutor at the time, her name was Mandy Caldwell, she went to the CID office, obtained some of these documents and brought them to the Office of the Prosecutor. So those would be the three occasions over a period of two to three years when these documents were brought in and they were also brought in in roughly two or three consignments to the evidence unit. So that would be in the summer of 2004 and then some documents were brought in later in 2004, around November.

  • Witness, you mentioned several times Thomas Lahun and what did he say, to your knowledge, was his role in handling these documents?

  • Well, Mr Lahun has also given an affidavit and I've reviewed that affidavit. Mr Lahun states that he was one of the directors at the CID headquarters when the incident took place in May 2000 and he states - in his affidavit he speaks in a collective - in a plural noun, he's speaking collectively for the leadership. He says "we" instructed Samuel Sanni Sesay and Albert Conteh to go to the scene of the crime and then he says they told us and so we spoke to them and we told them to seize documents as best as they could.

    Then, when the documents were brought back from Sankoh's house to CID headquarter by Mr Conteh and by Mr Samuel Sanni Sesay, Thomas Lahun says that he had a quick look at them, he examined them in a very brief manner and realised that these were important documents and therefore he instructed his subordinate, his junior colleague Mr Alfred Sesay, to maintain custody of the documents. He was also of course involved in subsequently bringing these documents - some of these documents from CID to the OTP in 2002.

  • And you, I think, indicated as well that he was involved in this exercise where 37 documents were placed before him. Would you describe what happened in that exercise with Mr Lahun?

  • Mr Lahun was able to identify only two documents that he thought he had brought, so his recollection was far more limited than Mr Sesay's.

  • Do you recall what kind of documents those were that he did identify?

  • I believe those were logs, communication logs, but I may not be precise here.

  • You had, as we began to talk about specific documents, you mentioned this exercise or this request by the Taylor Prosecution team for information on 55 documents, and I believe you told us you divided them into four categories, and then I asked you about the first category, the group that you had referred to yourself as the Sankoh house documents. In this group of 55 how many were in this subgroup that you called Sankoh house documents?

  • And how would you relate these 14 documents with the 37 documents that were shown to investigator Sesay?

  • These 14 were part of the 37 that were shown to Mr Sesay.

  • And aside from being present when these documents were identified, have you done anything with them yourself personally in the time since 2005?

  • In relation to this particular exercise which I've been asked to undertake by the Prosecution team, I have looked at those documents again. I have reviewed the records which are in my unit in relation to those documents and I have familiarised myself with those documents to the extent that now I can identify them and when I look at them I know which document is which and I can now say where that document came from.

  • And in terms of the content of the documents, did you examine the content?

  • No, I was not - that's not part of my ordinary duties, to examine the contents of the documents that are submitted to evidence unit or SEAPA. And nor was I asked by the Prosecution team in this particular request to familiarise or learn about the contents of each document, so I would not be able to assist you in relation to contents of any of these documents.

  • But based upon your looking at them, what kind of documents were included within the group of 14?

  • I could divide them in three broad ways. There were some notebooks, about three of them. There were some internal RUF documents and there were some documents related to AFRC, the Armed Forces Revolutionary Council.

  • Well, let's deal first with this category of notebooks. What did they look like?

  • Well, the three notebooks, and two of them were rather large in size, or mid-level, medium size, one of them says "Supra" on the top outside cover. Another one says "Conquerent", something like that, I might have the spelling slightly wrong, but the second one had that written on the title cover. The third notebook was smaller than the first two and that one said Peace, I believe, on the top and it had a name written on the outside in hand that said "Captain Bukundu" B-U-K-U-N-D-U, I believe, and it said "RUF mining unit" on the cover as well.

  • Well, let's just deal with these one by one now that you've described them. If I could ask, with the assistance of the Registry, we prepared a binder here for the benefit of everybody else in the Court but with these documents that are not - that are already in evidence, we would be asking the Registry to place a document that's in evidence, the actual admitted thing in front of you, and the others of us can look at the binder. So if we could direct everyone's attention behind tab number 1, but then I would ask the Registry to place before the witness what I believe is P-264.

  • Mr Rapp, is this an exhibit in this trial?

  • Already. So it's a Prosecution exhibit.

  • Just with the Court's permission, of the documents that I'll be placing before the witness, I think 17 are in evidence already but part of the same group, and we submit that we want to do this from the point of view of the fact that they were admitted for relevance and evidence regarding the weight to which they could be given for authenticity and reliability can be provided by the witnesses, so we want to be able to do that as well with admitted exhibits:

  • Have you placed P-264 in front of you?

  • What is this document, witness, if you know?

  • This is the notebook that I was referring to a moment ago. This is one of the three notebooks.

  • And to your knowledge what's the source of this document?

  • This is one of the documents which the CID seized from Foday Sankoh's house and was subsequently given to the OTP.

  • Let me have you put that aside and then ask the Registry to place before you - and I'd ask that the Registry pull a series of admitted documents here and hopefully we can move quickly. The next document that I would ask to be placed before you would be Defence exhibit D-3 and it's - we believe a copy of that document appears in the tab, for the benefit of the others in the room, behind tab 2. Now, witness, I see that I believe that a document is before you. Is something labelled Defence exhibit D-3 before you?

  • Yes, I have a notebook before me.

  • And does it appear to have a --

  • I don't see the Defence exhibit number, but the cover sheet has that.

  • And what is this document?

  • This is the other of the three notebooks that I described as having been reviewed by me. This is one of the documents included in the list that was provided to me by the Prosecution. I've looked at an image of this document and I've found out, according to my records, as to what the source was. This is also one of the documents seized from Sankoh's house, then kept in custody at CID and subsequently given to the OTP.

  • I have no further questions in regard to that item. The next one is behind tab 3 and I would ask that Defence exhibit D-54 be placed before the witness.

  • Mr Rapp, just for my own edification, the documents shown just a few moments ago to the witness are already exhibits. I'm just wondering where you're going with this. Is this to explain the evidence handling process in the OTP?

  • Thank you, your Honour, for your question. The documents that we'll be presenting in this first group of 14, ten of them are admitted, four of them are not and in a moment we'll reach exhibits that aren't yet admitted and ask that they be marked for identification. But it is our position in the Office of the Prosecutor, and as your Honours have stated in your own jurisprudence in the prior trial, that evidence comes in under Rule 89 based upon relevance and that questions about the weight to which it can be given are to be determined as it's connected up by a variety of witnesses and other evidence. We think it's appropriate that this witness identify information that he has about the source of this information - the source of these documents - as additional evidence in support of their weight. So it will be quite quick about these items that are already in evidence, but we simply want to include them all in a group and make sure that we're not just dealing only with those that aren't yet before the Court.

  • Yes, I understand. Thank you.

  • Now, witness, do you have Defence exhibit D-54 before you?

  • What is this document?

  • This is the third notebook that I mentioned a few moments ago; the third of the three notebooks. It's a small notebook with the word "Peace" on it. It has the name "Captain Joseph K Bakundu", I think B-A-K-U-N-D-U, written on it and below that it says "RUF mining unit".

  • And to your knowledge what's the source of this document?

  • This is also one of the documents that were seized from Sankoh's house by CID officers and subsequently given to the OTP.

  • Nothing further with that item. Let me move to the next group of kind of documents that you described. I believe you indicated three categories. One were notebooks and then you talked about internal RUF reports. What do they look like?

  • Sort of a miscellaneous bunch. There's operational reports, there is one report - many of these reports are addressed to Foday Sankoh, who of course is addressed as either The Leader or sometimes by name. There is a Black Guard report, one page report, addressed to Foday Sankoh dated 2 September 1998. There is another report by Sam Bockarie, again written to Foday Sankoh, and that would be September '99, about a year later. There is one report titled "Suggestions and Advice" and then another would be something titled like "Information Report". I believe it's information from Colonel Stevens. Then yet another report is called "Situation Report". So those would be the kinds of reports which are bunched in this particular category of operational reports. There is also something called "A proposal for greater integration of RUF in army and political circles", I believe, and then there is one nominal roll - RUF nominal roll. So I think it's about seven documents that would fall into this miscellaneous category, or RUF internal documents category.

  • Witness, you mentioned a document dated - and you actually have a date - 2 September '98 to The Leader. Let me ask the Registry to place before you P-84, which is an admitted exhibit but a copy of which I believe is at tab 4 of our binders. Witness, do you have P-84 in front of you?

  • I do.

  • And what is this document?

  • This is the one page report dated 2 September 1998 that I described to you earlier. It's titled "Information" and it is addressed to The Leader RUF and is from the Black Commander.

  • And to your knowledge what's the source of this document?

  • This is one of the documents that was seized by CID at Foday Sankoh's house on 9 May 2000, year 2000, and subsequently given to the OTP.

  • Nothing further with that document. If we can then go to tab 6 and then ask the Registry to place before you the last - excuse me, I misspoke. Tab 5 is the next tab and it's exhibit D-9. Okay, witness, is exhibit D-9 in front of you?

  • And what is this document?

  • Your Honours, this is the report by Sam Bockarie, the salute report that I referred to a moment ago, from September 1999. It is addressed to The Leader of the Revolution and this is also one of the documents that I have examined recently and found that it was seized by CID at Foday Sankoh's house in the year 2000 and then subsequently given to the OTP.

  • Nothing further with that one. Then if we could proceed to a document that is not in evidence. I believe the Registry should have to show to the witness the best copy or the original of this document, but for the rest of us it's in the binder - a copy is in the binder at tab 6. Witness, you referred to communications to The Leader. Let me put in front of you another that at least on the top says "To: The Leader RUF" and ask you if you can tell us what that is?

  • Yeah, this is a - also I spoke about this a moment ago. This is the report titled "Suggestion and Advice". It is addressed to The Leader RUF and From Jackson Ray Swarray, Black Guard Commander, dated 25 September 1999. I have looked at this document recently and found out that this was collected by the CID at Sankoh's house and given to the OTP in 2002.

  • And for the record let me ask you what ERNs appear on this document, or evidence record numbers as you referred to them earlier?

  • Yes, the evidence register number on this document, it is a three page document and so the first number on the first page is 00009489 and then the number on the last page is 00009491. So it's a three page document and the document range goes from 00009489 to 00009491.

  • Your Honour, Mr President, I would ask that this document of three pages be marked for identification for this witness. I believe it would be MFI-1.

  • Yes, thank you. This document will be marked for identification MFI-1.

  • Thank you very much, your Honour. Just for the sake of the record, because some of these are attached to motions that are pending before the trial court and depending on what happens here that may affect what the status will be of the subject matter of those motions. So just to be the clear this three page document actually contains a CMS number in court records, which of course is a different kind of number, and if I can read those out just so the record is clear it's 22048 to 22050 for this document:

  • Then if we could proceed --

  • Just before you move off that, Mr Rapp, is the document that has just been marked for identification the subject of any formal motion before this Court at the moment?

  • That's correct, your Honour. Obviously if - and to be very clear there are of course several documents. If you're asking me a question about how this relates and how this testimony relates, these four groups are each subject of a separate motion for admission under 89(C). There are, however, other documents, UN resolutions, BBC broadcasts, other things that this witness is not speaking to today, that are also subject to motions, but obviously depending on what happens here we'll have to make a determination about whether those motions remain at issue.

  • Well, I take it that the issue in the motions is the admissibility of the document. Is that correct?

  • The issue was specifically this issue which your Honours are familiar with, whether documents can come in under 89(C) without a physical witness presenting them and that's obviously a position that the Prosecution has taken in the past and it's the subject of a current interlocutory appeal certified by your Honours that that issue - whether to pursue that or not obviously depends upon whether this witness can provide sufficient foundation for the admission of these documents.

    If he does then I would suspect at least those four motions would be moot or moot in part, but obviously, given the place where we are at this stage of the trial, hoping to finish the Prosecution case in the near future and having this witness available, we thought to pursue with him the ability to present foundation testimony that could provide the basis for the admission of documents and see where it goes.

  • Yes. Thank you, Mr Rapp.

  • Witness, we're now I think ready for tab 7, and I'm not sure whether a document has been placed before you. I don't believe so. You had mentioned to us communications to The Leader and at tab 7 there appears to be a document that begins with that heading and I'd like the Registry to place that document at tab 7 before you and then ask you to your knowledge what is that document?

  • This is the information report I have spoke of - I've spoken of just a few moments ago - and this is also one of the documents that was collected by CID at Sankoh's house and subsequently given to the OTP.

  • And what is the ERN that's contained on this document?

  • It's a two page document and so the ERN goes from 00007736 on the first page to 00007737 on the second and the last page.

  • And you indicated the source, according to your knowledge. We would ask that this document be marked for identification as MFI-2.

  • Yes, that document is marked MFI-2.

  • Thank you very much, your Honour. Again for the sake of record, those two pages appear as CMS number 22052 and 22053:

  • Then if we can go now to another document which is in fact in - appears to be in evidence and ask the Registry to place before you P-67 which is at tab 8 and appears to be another document addressed to The Leader. Is exhibit P-67 in front of you, witness?

  • And what is this document?

  • This is a handwritten document. It's titled "Situation report". It is addressed to The Leader from Black Revolutionary Guards. I mentioned this a few moments ago. It has the ERN 00009672 on the first page and the ERN on the last page is 00009681. So it appears to be a ten page document and this is one of the documents I have recently looked at as part of this exercise and it is a document collected by the CID at Sankoh's house in the year 2000 and given to the OTP subsequently.

  • Thank you very much. Let's pass that document from the table and ask the Registry then to place before you the document at tab 9. You, I believe, referred to documents about the integration of the People's Army or the RUF with the national army and ask you if you can look at the document that is at tab 9 and tell us what that document is?

  • This is a two page typed document signed by Sam Bockarie. This is - it's titled - it is addressed to Johnny Paul Koroma who was then head of the AFRC, head of the state, and it's dated 13 August 1997. It's titled "Proposal for the tentative integration of the People's Army into the national army and the political circle". It's a two page document with the ERN 00007769 on the first page and 00007770 on the second and the last page. This is one of the documents that I have familiarised myself with recently as part of the exercise undertaken and following Prosecution's request, and I know that this document was collected by the CID and given to the OTP. It was collected at Foday Sankoh's house in the year 2000 and given to the OTP subsequently.

  • With that testimony, your Honour, we would ask that this document be marked as MFI-3.

  • For the record again, if I could reflect the fact that this document is CMS number 21952 and 21953:

  • Now, let me ask the Registry to place before you tab 10, a similar document regarding - to those that you've described and if you could tell us what this document is?

  • Your Honours, this is a typed document, six page document. I spoke of a nominal role, RUF nominal role. This is the document I was referring to. It has the ERN 00007802 on the first page and the last page bears the ERN 00007807. This is a document that I have looked at recently and found out, on the basis of information I have, that CID collected this document from Foday Sankoh's house in May 2000 and provided it to the OTP subsequently.

  • Your Honour, we would ask that this document be marked for identification as MFI-4.

  • Yes, that's marked MFI-4.

  • Again, regarding CMS numbers, it may have been in three parts there but they are all contiguous. The CMS numbers for this document of six pages is 22055 to 22060:

  • Now, passing from documents relating to the RUF specifically, you mentioned that there are documents that appear to relate to the AFRC. What do these documents look like?

  • There are four documents in this category. Of the 14 that we are speaking of four documents fall into what I call AFRC related documents. First is a proclamation by the AFRC. It's dated 28 May in relation to the AFRC coup on 25 May 1997. Then there is another document called "Minutes of an emergency meeting". I believe that's 11 August 1997. Then there is a letter written by Johnny Paul Koroma to President Charles Taylor dated 3 October 1997. And there is one other AFRC document, which escapes my mind, but perhaps in a moment I will be able to recall that.

  • Well, let's deal with the first three then. You talked about this proclamation. Let me ask the Registry to place before you a document already in evidence, it's P-100, that's at tab 11 of the binders, and ask if you can identify this document. Witness, could you identify that document?

  • This is the proclamation dated 28 May 1997 that I spoke of. The copy that I have examined recently is slightly different in that some of the markings on that copy have been blacked out here in the copy that's before me. Otherwise it's the same document and it's a public proclamation of the taking of power of AFRC in May 1997.

  • And do you know the source of this document?

  • Yes. This is one of the documents that was seized from Foday Sankoh's house and brought by the CID to CID headquarters where it was kept in custody until it was given to the Special Court.

  • Well, that will conclude our questioning on that document. Let me then ask the Registry, if we can, to place before you another document which I believe is in evidence as P-134B and you mentioned some minutes and I will ask you if these were the minutes that you were referring to. Yes?

  • Yes, this is the document that I was - actually, I did not refer to this document. When I spoke of minutes, that was in relation to the meeting on 11 August 2000, 11 August 1997, but I have examined this document, I am familiar with it. This is a document titled "Minutes of the family reunion", then part of the text is not readable but apparently it's aimed at reconciling chairman Foday Sankoh and chairman Johnny Paul Koroma and these are minutes of the meeting.

    I have looked at these documents recently. This was included in the Prosecution's list of 55 documents. It is one of those documents that CID received or seized at Foday Sankoh's house and was subsequently passed on to the OTP and do you - I believe you don't need me to read the ERN.

  • No, for admitted documents, witness, I'm not putting to you the question about the ERN because they're in evidence. So that will conclude my questioning as far as P-134B is concerned. Then let me ask the Registry to place before you P-61 and you said a few moments ago there were minutes that weren't the document that was P-134B of a meeting of 3 October '97 and let me ask you if the document that is in evidence as exhibit P-61 is the document you were referring to.

  • I think that would be 11 - minutes of the meeting on 11 August. The letter is dated 3 October. The minutes of the meeting are from 11 August.

  • Okay.

  • No, 16 August. Yes, this is a meeting - this is one of the copies. This is the second of the 41 copies of this document. It says "Minutes of emergency council meeting of the AFRC held at State House on Monday, 11 August" and the document was prepared on 16 August. This is a document that I have recently examined. It is included in the Prosecution's list of 55 documents and the CID seized this document from Foday Sankoh's house in May 2000 and subsequently it was given to the OTP.

  • Thank you, witness. There is one final document in this group, a Defence exhibit D-4, but I will just ask you again, you weren't sure what the fourth document was, do you know what the nature of the documents, of the remaining document may have been?

  • If, your Honours if I may clarify, the document that I did not recall initially was the second document presented to me. Those are the minutes of the meeting aimed at reconciling Foday Sankoh and RUF. When you presented that document to me then I was able to recall that that was the missing document. So I think there may have been some confusion, because there are two documents, both of which are minutes of different minutes.

    So if I can just for the record clarify again. One document - there is one AFRC proclamation dated 28 May 1997 which you've shown to me. There is another - the minutes of the meeting which aimed at reconciling, you've also shown that to me, I've recognised that document. Then there are minutes of an emergency AFRC council meeting which happened on 11 August and you have also shown that to me and I've recognised that and I think the fourth document which has not been shown to me is the letter written by Johnny Paul Koroma to Charles Taylor and that was dated 3 October 1997 and I believe that will be the document that will be put to me now.

  • Yes. Let me ask the Registry to place before you Defence exhibit D-4. You tell me whether this is the document that you just described and anything else you know about it?

  • Yes, your Honours. This is the document that I was referring to. It's a document which is an original. It says "State House, Freetown, Republic of Sierra Leone" on the letterhead. It is dated 3 October 1997 and it is addressed His Excellency Charles Taylor, Charles G Taylor, President of the Republic of Liberia, Monrovia, Republic of Liberia. It's a three page document and it's signed at the end Major Johnny Paul Koroma, Chairman Armed Forces Revolutionary Council and Head of State of the Republic of Sierra Leone. That's the document that I was referring to and I'm familiar with it. This document was given to the OTP by CID who have collected this, seized this, at Foday Sankoh's house following the incident in May 2000.

  • Thank you very much. Your Honour, that concludes the first group of 14 documents. Is this a convenient place to take our break?

  • Yes, we will take the lunch break now, Mr Malik. We'll resume at 2.30.

  • Thank you, your Honours.

  • [Lunch break taken at 1.30 p.m.]

  • [Upon resuming at 2.30 p.m.]

  • Thank you very much, Mr President, your Honours:

  • Witness, let me proceed where we left off. We had finished the group of 14 documents that you had, in your division, given for purposes of reference the term Sankoh house documents. You mentioned at the beginning of that exercise three other groups and let me go to the next group which you had for purposes of reference called the RUF office documents. How many documents in this group?

  • 22.

  • And what kind of information, if any, did you access to answer the requests that you received as to the source of this group of documents or how these documents were collected?

  • One, I looked at the documents themselves and I looked at the records within my section in relation to these records. I also remember when these documents were brought in to the OTP in 2005 so I drew upon my own memory of what happened at the time and more significantly I was able to access four OTP witness statements which OTP investigators took at the time the documents came in and those four witness statements described what each of those four witnesses had done in relation to handling of these documents. So drawing upon all of these three or four sources of information, I have formed a picture as to how these documents came to be with the OTP.

  • Witness, you indicate four statements and that they were taken by the Office of the Prosecutor. Do you know who was involved in taking those statements?

  • It was, your Honours, an investigator named Jusu Yarmah.

  • Let me just check here whether his name is - yes, he is on the spelling list J-U-S-U, Jusu, surname Yarmah, Y-A-R-M-A-H. Do you know what positions he held in the Office of the Prosecutor during the course of its work?

  • He also - he was a serving SLP officer. I believe he was on secondment at the time. He worked in the investigations division mostly on the investigative side, though he may also have done work for the witness management unit which is within the investigations division.

  • Did you have any contact with him on a professional level?

  • Yes. As with all of the investigators I worked with him on a day-to-day basis. I saw him every day and he would come to the evidence unit with evidence - new evidence periodically.

  • And where is he now?

  • He left the ICTY I believe in 2006 when he was offered a position at the ICTY, the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, as an investigator and he is still there.

  • Just in terms of his background you indicate he is a Sierra Leonean that came out of SLP?

  • That is right, he is a serving Sierra Leonean police officer. He was at time when he was with the court. I am not sure of what his status is but he has been a Sierra Leone police officer for some time now.

  • Mr President, I think the witness made a slip of the tongue there when he said he left the ICTY to go to the ICTY. I am assuming he meant he left the SCSL.

  • I apologise your Honours. I misspoke. I did mean that he left the Special Court. He is in fact with the ICTY as we speak.

  • Thank you very much, counsel:

  • Thank you, witness. You indicated that four statements were taken. Do you know from which individuals, or from whom these statements were taken?

  • Yes. Three of these four witnesses or persons who spoke to the OTP are SLP officers. The fist one was, or one of them was Aiah Ansumana; another is George Cuffy and the third one is Ibrahim Bangura. The fourth officer, fourth person spoken to, is Joseph Poraj-Wilczynski. He was at the time officer in charge of security at the Special Court.

  • Okay. To move matters along in terms of these four names and their spellings, we have a spelling list but Aiah Ansumana, first name Aiah A-I-A-H, surname Ansumana A-N-S-U-M-A-N-A, George Cuffy, conventional spelling for the given name, Cuffy is C-U-F-F-Y, Ibrahim Bangura, spelling I-B-R-A-H-I-M, surname, conventional spelling of Bangura, and then Joseph Poraj-Wilczynski, conventional spelling for Joseph, second name is hyphenated P-O-R-A-J hyphen Wilczynski, according to our spelling list, we have W-I-L-C-Z-Y-N-S-K-I. Now, witness, let me go to the first of these individuals, Mr Ansumana. Do you know what positions he held during the time that these documents were handled?

  • Your Honours, at the time, this was in 2001, he was a representative of the special branch in Kono. Special branch is one of the Sierra Leone police departments or wings and it's headquarters is if Freetown and Mr Ansumana represented the special branch in Kono.

  • Mr Rapp, I suppose SLP means Sierra Leone Police?

  • That's right, your Honours, SLP, Sierra Leone Police.

  • Thank you, you Honour:

  • The second individual you mentioned was George Cuffy. What do you know about the positions he held during the time that his documents were handled?

  • Apparently there is a post in the special branch in the Sierra Leone police known as source manager, so Mr Cuffy, in late 2001, was serving as source manager in the special branch of the Sierra Leone police.

  • And Ibrahim Bangura, do you know what positions he held during the time these documents were handled?

  • Yes, your Honours. He replaced George Cuffy as the source manager in the special branch in the Sierra Leone police.

  • And just to be clear, I think you said Mr Ansumana was working in Kono. Where were Mr Cuffy and Bangura working?

  • Mr Cuffy and Mr Bangura both were posted in Freetown, although Mr Cuffy at the time of handling of these documents travelled to Kono on official business, but otherwise the regular place of posting was Freetown.

  • Now, do you know any of these three gentlemen personally?

  • Let me go to the fourth individual, Mr Poraj-Wilczynski. What do you know about the positions he held during the time that these documents were handled?

  • Mr Poraj-Wilczynski was a British ex-military man who at the time in 2005 was working as officer in charge of the Special Court for Sierra Leone - officer in charge for security in the Special Court for Sierra Leone. At some point he replaced his predecessor as the regular chief of security, but I'm not sure precisely what his status was in early 2005, but he served at the Special Court for a few years starting in I think 2004 to 2006 approximately.

  • Did you have contact with him on a professional level?

  • Yes, from time to time when matters arose which necessitated my meeting him I would meet him. More often I would just meet him in the Special Court, passing him by off and on.

  • Based upon the information that you obtained, what did you learn about who was involved in obtaining and handling these 22 documents?

  • The four persons we have just mentioned were the four primary persons who have handled these documents since they have been - since they were seized in Kono some time in the year 2001.

  • And would you be precise and tell us what you know about the movement of these documents and the role of each of these individuals in that movement since their seizure?

  • Some time at some point in 2001 Mr Ansumana was working as a special branch representative in Kono which is the name of the district and Koidu is the name of the town. At some point some officers from CID who were also in Kono at the time, they, together with Mr Ansumana, searched a facility known as RUF mining office at a place called Koakoyima. During that search this police party came across a number of documents and Mr Ansumana seized those documents and brought them to his office which was in Tankoro police station which is also, I understand, near Koidu which is in the Kono District.

    Mr Ansumana then kept these documents with him in his office apparently in a rice bag for some time. He went through these documents and he realised that some of these were important and therefore in December of that year his boss, overall head of the special branch, one Mr Jalloh, visited Kono from Freetown. He discussed the documents with him or told him about the documents. Mr Jalloh on that visit was accompanied by his source manager, Mr George Cuffy, and Mr Jalloh instructed George Cuffy to take custody of the documents from Mr Ansumana. Mr Cuffy then brought these documents to Freetown with him around 2001, end of 2001, December 2001, and kept them in his custody until he was transferred from his post and replaced by Mr Ibrahim Bangura.

    Mr Ibrahim Bangura again looked at the documents and when he was in the process of reviewing the documents another gentleman by the name of Mr Philip King happened to come by and when he learned of those documents he informed the Special Court about them. Mr Philip King was a consultant, a security consultant, who had been working as an advisor with the special branch and Sierra Leone police.

    Mr Philip King met Mr Joe Poraj at the Special Court, or at some other location, and mentioned the existence of these documents and asked him if the Special Court would be interested in looking at them and Mr Joe Poraj-Wilczynski said that yes, and asked for the documents to be brought to the Special Court so they could be looked at and assessed.

    With the permission of Mr Jalloh, the head of the special branch, Ibrahim Bangura took those documents and together with Philip King brought them to the Special Court where Philip King handed those documents to Mr Wilczynski. Mr Wilczynski, who is not part of the OTP, then contacted the deputy chief of the investigations in the OTP and handed him the documents. This apparently happened in early - well, this happened in early 2005, after which the OTP analysed these documents over a period of time and selected some documents which were then submitted to the evidence unit in August 2005 and we processed them and made them available for use by all the trial teams.

    The balance documents, that is those documents which were not selected by the OTP at that time, were then returned to SLP and about a year later persons within the Office of the Prosecutor again requested that those other documents which had not been retained during the initial analysis be brought back to OTP, which happened. Then during a second review in the year 2006 the OTP selected further documents from that same original collection and submitted those documents to the evidence unit which I processed and marked with ERNs. Those documents have been submitted to me over a number of months in the year 2006.

    So that is roughly the chronology of these documents which were seized in an RUF office in Kono District in 2001 and they were submitted to the OTP in 2005 and then again in 2006.

  • Before we go on with substance, let me just deal with some spelling. At least according to the declaration of the individuals involved, the town in Kono is spelled K-O-A-K-O-Y-I-M-A on our spelling list and the Jalloh that we mentioned has the Sierra Leone spelling of Jalloh, J-A-L-L-O-H. I believe you mentioned a Mr Philip King and his name is spelled in the conventional way.

    So, witness, can you tell us anything about the storage of these documents during the period of time they were at CID according to the information that you received?

  • I think they were at special branch. I understand that mister - they were kept in rice bags all along because perhaps that was the most conveniently available container available to Mr Ansumana.

  • Sorry, rice bags where?

  • Your Honours, in Kono when Mr Ansumana was - had collected the documents and had wanted something to put those documents in, in his statement he says that, "I put them in a rice bag".

  • Yes, I understand that, but the rice bags were where? Stored where?

  • That is not - that information is not made known, but that's what Mr Ansumana - that is what Mr Ansumana was able to find perhaps within the office, although that information is not explained any further.

  • And just to follow up on the judge's question, when the documents were moved from the Kono District from the Tankoro police station to the special branch office at SLP in Freetown, do you know in what medium they were stored at SLP, Freetown?

  • They continued to be stored in one or more rice bags, but it is not necessarily clear from the information made available by the individuals if it necessarily was the same rice bag or whether it was divided into further smaller containers or bags. But, anyway, consistently starting from Kono all the way to Freetown and then to the OTP the materials did travel in rice bags.

  • You say that these documents or the information you received indicated they came from this RUF office in Koakoyima in Kono. Is there any other source location given in any of the information that you received from these officers or anyone else suggesting any other source of these documents?

  • Yes. Among the four statements Mr Ansumana and George Cuffy, they are unequivocally clear that the documents came from Kono and made no mention of any other location. However, Mr Ibrahim Bangura says in his declaration that the documents came from both Kono and Makeni and Mr Poraj-Wilczynski also talks of documents having quote unquote originated in Makeni.

    However, I think the evidence is quite clear that the documents in fact did come from Kono and not from Makeni and I base that conclusion on the fact that the person who actually collected the documents was posted in Kono and has said so, that, "I collected them from this particular place in Kono".

    Mr Cuffy, the second person who brought the documents from Kono also makes, you know, no other mention - does not talk of Makeni.

    Mr Ibrahim Bangura who really was not on the scene when the documents were actually collected many years ago, he came along only in 2004, he does not have direct evidence and in fact he merely quotes George Cuffy as having told him that the documents came from both Kono and Makeni. Since we have spoken to George Cuffy and he has made no such reference, so I think Mr Bangura is probably mistaken on this particular point.

    Similarly, although Mr Poraj-Wilczynski speaks of the documents having originated in Makeni, he is apparently referring to the fact that the letterheads on many of the documents talk of the letter having been drafted or prepared or the orders having been originally made at the RUF headquarters in Makeni, and that may well be true and that is apparently true on the face of it, but that does not in any way undermine Mr Ansumana and Mr Cuffy's evidence that the documents were physically seized in Kono. So that just merely means that the documents originated or were originally issued in Makeni and then subsequently they were seized by SLP, or by special branch, in Kono.

  • Witness, speaking of this group of 22 documents, have you done anything with them yourself personally since they were stamped into the evidence unit?

  • This is part of this recent exercise, this request that I have received. I have reviewed these 22 documents and I have looked at what information is available to me as regards the source of these documents and I have included that information in my analysis.

  • Now, could you describe what type of documents we are talking about here within this group of 22?

  • Again these are sort of artificial categories that I have made for sake of convenience, but they help see the document - help group the documents together. One category I have called administrative records, about six records in that. Another is complaints, or investigations. Another would be documents relating to operations or operational reports. One classification would be RUF documents relating to RUF contacts or dealings with other entities. And then there are a few notebooks as well; three, to be precise.

  • Okay. Now, let's first go to this group on administrative matters. You mentioned potentially six documents that you had classified within that category. What do these documents look like?

  • One document is a report by a General Bropleh which is titled "Postings". Another document is titled "Promotions/officers". Yet another document is titled "Minutes of the meeting of administrative board at Waterworks". Then there are three documents relating to stocks of materials. I think all of them relate to the 2nd Brigade, but a couple of them mention Waterloo, another mentions Buedu, I believe. So those would be the six administrative documents.

  • Let me ask the Registry now to place before you a document that is already in evidence as a Defence exhibit D-29. It is a - a copy of it is displayed after tab 15 in the binder for the reference of others. Now, witness, you mentioned a letter from General Bropleh and let me ask the Registry to place this D-29 before you and indicate whether that is the letter from General Bropleh that you were - that you mentioned?

  • Yes, it is. This is the document that I have recently reviewed. It is a document that was included in the Prosecution's list of 55 documents that they wanted me to speak to source of and it is a document that according to the information I have reviewed was seized in Kono by special branch and CID officers in the year 2001 and subsequently provided to the OTP in 2005.

  • I have no further questions about that document and then if the Registry can take that one aside - put that one aside and we could then turn to the tabs for the next five documents that are not in evidence. If I could ask the Registry then to place before you the contents after tab 16. Witness, you referred to a document relating to promotions. You now have before you a document from tab 16. Could you tell me what that document is?

  • This is the document that I have reviewed. It is a document titled "Promotions/officers". It is from the War Office and Brigade Headquarters Buedu, it is dated 20 July 1998. It is partly typed and partly written in hand. It says "Restricted" at the end and it bears - it is a one page document. It bears the ERN 00025669 and a this is one of the documents seized by SLP/CID at the RUF office in Kono District and then given to the OTP in 2005.

  • Now, you said CID, was that?

  • I said that because as I have explained at the beginning that the party - the police party which went to the RUF office comprised both of special branch officers, Mr Ansumana, and some CID officers, but it is Mr Ansumana who actually took custody of the documents so I suppose it would suffice for me to refer to this as having been seized by special branch.

  • Witness, I am not sure if I heard the ERN number. Did you provide that for this document?

  • I did. Would you like me to repeat it?

  • Yes, if you would, thank you?

  • That would be 00025669. It is a one page document.

  • Okay. Thank you very much, witness. With that we would then identify - we would then ask that this particular document be marked for identification as I believe MFI-5.

  • Yes, that document is marked for identification MFI-5.

  • Thank you very much, Mr President. And again, this document is - has a CMS number and other filings in court as 22246 as a one page document:

  • With that, I would then turn to a similar document of administrative matters in the RUF, or apparently administrative matters, and that would be the document behind tab 17, if I could ask the Registry to place that document before you. Witness, could you tell us about this document?

  • Yes, your Honour. This is one of the three documents that I mentioned was - which spoke of materials or stocks et cetera and all of them I suggested appear to involve the 2nd Brigade and this is one of those documents. It is dated I believe 15 November or February 1999 and it is a two page document. The first page bears the ERN 00025545 and the second page bears the ERN 00025546 and this is one of the documents that I have recently reviewed and learned that it was provided - it was seized by special branch in Kono at an RUF office and subsequently given to the OTP in 2005.

  • Just to be clear, witness, is there a third page in this document?

  • Yes, you are right. There is a third page. It is actually the back of the second sheet, but it has its own ERN because there is information that is written on the back and so in fact the ERN of the last page is 00025547 so this is a three page document.

  • And, witness, when we were talking about the month or the date of the document, the document may speak for itself, but I thought perhaps at one point you said November and then you said February. What month and date does the document appear to have been issued?

  • It is February. 15 February is written in a less than clear way, but, well, I apologise. It is 15 February.

  • Your Honour, at this point we would ask that this document be marked for identification as MFI-6, I believe.

  • Yes, that document is marked MFI-6.

  • Mr President, the date on the first page is rather confusing in the way it is written, but the date is much clearer on the second page for the benefit of anybody checking it. The way I originally read the date on the first page was 15 September because the 2 looked like a 9, but it is clearly meant to be a 2, if you look at the second page where it appears twice.

  • I thank learned counsel.

  • Thank you, Mr Munyard.

  • Thank you, your Honour. Again, in terms of identifying where this is document may be elsewhere in the records before the Court it appears at CMS numbers 22267 through 22269:

  • Now, let me ask then the Registry to place before you a document that is behind tab 18, and you mentioned documents regarding administrative matters. Let me ask if this is a document that you described and then tell us what it is.

  • This is another of the administrative documents that I have spoken of and within the administrative documents I spoke of three documents which refer to stocks et cetera, materials, and this is the second of those documents. It is dated 14 December 1998 and again relates to 2nd Brigade, Kono District. It has the heading "Materials issued to the 2nd Brigade commander on 13 December 1998". It is - it appears to be a one page document, but because the writing sort of seeps through to other side so, in an abundance of caution, the evidence unit stamped the back page as well. This is deliberate and done in conformity with practices elsewhere, so the ERN for this document would be 00025700 and the ERN on the back page, backside of that one sheet, would be 00025701. This is one of the documents that I have familiarised myself with recently and it was seized from Kono by special branch and given to the OTP in the year 2005.

  • Thank you very much, witness. If we could then ask that this document be marked for identification. I believe now we are ready for MFI-7.

  • That document is marked MFI-7.

  • And for the sake of the record I think it should be noted that the CMS document which contains the material part of it is in as one page 22255, being the front page and not the seeped through on the back page:

  • Then let me ask the Registry to place another document that appears to be administrative in nature before you that is behind tab 19.

  • This is another document relating to the 2nd Brigade. It also speaks of materials. This is the third of such documents within this category of administrative records. The headline - well, the subject is "Report of materials issued out". It is issued by Revolutionary United Front of Sierra Leone 2nd Brigade Headquarters Kono District and the date is 12 December 1998. The ERN on this - on the front part of this document is 00025706 and the back side is also stamped for the reasons that I explained in connection with the previous document and the ERN on the back side is 00025707.

  • Mr President, on this document we have two different dates. The witness has chosen to give the one at the top of the page on the right-hand side, but if you look at the signature at the bottom on the left-hand side you will see a date of 14 December 1998.

  • I agree, your Honours.

  • And again you have provided us with information on the source of this document, I think.

  • This is one of the documents that I have reviewed and it is the document given to the OTP in 2005 by special branch and they had seized it from an RUF office in Kono District in 2001.

  • Your Honour, we would then ask that the document after tab 19 be marked for identification as MFI-8.

  • Yes, it does appear the correct date is 14 December 1998, but in any event that document will be marked MFI-8.

  • Thank you very much, your Honour, and again this document is - there is a CMS number reflecting only the front page contents rather than the reverse image that seeped through and that CMS number is 22253:

  • Then let me ask the Registry to place before you a document at the next tab - do we have a document at tab 20? Okay. And you mentioned administrative matters. This document makes reference to some kind of administrative board potentially. Would you tell us what this document is and what you know about it?

  • Yes. Your Honours, this is one of the documents I referred to. It is titled "Minutes of forum held with RUF/SL administrative board at Waterworks compound" and it's a four page document and the ERN on the first - it is dated 4 December 1998 and it is one of the documents that I have recently reviewed. It was given to the OTP by special branch in 2005 and they seized it in Kono in 2001. The ERN on the first page of the document is 00015509 and the ERN on the last page of the document is 00015512. It is a four page document.

  • Thank you very much, witness. Your Honours, I would then ask that this document be marked for identification as MFI-9.

  • Mr Rapp, is there a better copy than we have of this, a more legible copy?

  • The best that we have is the one that is in the file here. Perhaps your Honours could take a look at that and determine - it may be possible to make a better copy, but the one that we have in this file here presented to the witness is the best.

  • We will mark that document MFI-9.

  • Your Honours, when we proceed at the end and your Honours decide in terms of offers and acceptance of these exhibits there are some of these exhibits where we have originals even for exhibits that are previously put into evidence and it may be that we will want to substitute better copies if that's your desire, but we will try to make sure that the best copies are available for your deliberations.

  • Can I inquire of my learned friend if what the Court has just been shown, which is the document bearing the red ERN number on it, is itself accepted to be a copy or an original?

    It appears on the face of it to be a copy because it has copies of where a hole has been punched, but there isn't actually any hole on those pages. So I wonder if there is another more original version within the evidence unit than what we have been shown.

  • Since I am asking questions now, let me just put that question:

  • Is there a more original document to your knowledge, witness, in the collection by your evidence unit?

  • No, your Honours. As I explained earlier, some of the quote unquote originals in the evidence unit are in fact copies and this is one of those, so this would be the best copy that we have in the Special Court.

  • Okay, witness, let's now pass to another potential subgroup of documents. You referred to there being operations reports. What do these operations reports look like?

  • In this group there are a couple of those. One of them is a comprehensive report about attack on Kono and another is about ammunitions, ammos, et cetera, weapons having been transferred to Kono. Those are the two operational reports I have seen in this group.

  • Okay. Well, let me ask the Registry to place before you a document that is already in evidence as P-93 and in the subject line refers to itself as a comprehensive report. That is a document that is behind tab 21 in the binder. Witness, if that document is now if front of you, could you tell us what is it?

  • Yes. Your Honours, this is the report that I mentioned regarding the attack on Kono. It is written by - it's from Brigadier Issa Sesay to Major General Sam Bockarie. It is a five page document and it is dated 24 January 1999. It's typed. It's a document that I have recently seen, or image of it, and I am aware that this was given to the Special Court in 2005 by special branch who themselves seized it from an RUF office in Kono in 2001. The ERN on the first page is 00025503 and the ERN on the last page is 00025507. Although the document is from Brigadier Sesay, it's not signed by him, but it's signed by an adjutant.

  • Your Honour, I believe this document is already in evidence as P-93, so I will ask the witness to put it aside and ask the Registry then to place before the witness --

  • Perhaps before you do that, Mr Rapp, I notice a cover sheet compiled by the Registry says it is a report from Major Sam Bockarie to Brigadier Sesay when in fact it is the other way round.

  • Thank you for the correction. I presume the Registry can amend the cover.

  • Your Honour, that has been noted.

  • We are, I think, up to tab 22 and you had talked about operations reports and you were describing a memorandum. I would like to ask the Registry to place before you the contents of the document behind tab 22. Witness, could you tell us what this document is?

  • Yes, your Honours, this is the report that I described a few moments ago regarding transport of materials to Kono, weapons and ammunitions, et cetera. It is a document that has got various dates on it, but the last date or the latest date is 1 February 1999, although the date on the top of the document header says 22 January 1999. It's a two page document with most of the contents on the front page. It is a document that I am familiar with. It has been with the Special Court since 2005 and was given to the Special Court by special branch who seized it in the year 2001. The ERN on the front page is 00026072 and on the rear is ERN 00026073.

  • Witness, you said they seized it in 2001. From your knowledge, from where did they seize it?

  • From Kono. They seized it in 2001 from the RUF office in Kono.

  • With that, your Honours, we would then ask that the document after number 22 in the binder be marked for identification as MFI-10.

  • Yes, that document is marked MFI-10.

  • And I believe in terms of CMS record, the cover, the first page of that with the contents of the report, is CMS number 22257:

  • Now, let's pass to another subcategory. I think you talked about documents relating to potential RUF contacts or relationships with other entities. What do those documents look like?

  • There are six documents which are placed in that category and those include one document which speaks of a forum with external delegates and defence staff. There is another which refers to a visitation by Foday Sankoh and external delegates. Yet another one is like a pass or asking that certain individuals be - certain individuals including people from outside apparently from Sierra Leone be allowed to pass without hindrance. The one document which speaks of instructions given to one of the commanders in relation to support to forces attacking Freetown in January 1999. Another document is a letter by Kposowa to Charles Taylor informing him that Gibril Massaquoi was no longer part of the external delegation. So I think I have covered all six, otherwise if I have left something I can --

  • Okay, well, let me first turn to an item that is already in evidence, P-63, and that is exhibited after tab 23, and ask the Registry to place before you P-63 as it had been admitted into evidence. Witness, could you tell us what that document is?

  • This is one of the documents that I have mentioned - the first document that I mentioned in my list of documents from RUF relating to other entities. It is titled "Forum with external delegates led by the of defence staff", that seems to be a typographical error, but it is or appears to be a five page document. It is dated 2 December 1998, although again the date it was signed was 4 December. This document is among the documents that I have recently reviewed and learned that it was given to us by SLP in 2005 and the special branch of the SLP seized it from an RUF office in 2001 in Kono District. The ERN - would you like me to give the ERN?

  • No, this item is in evidence, so I think with those we needn't repeat the ERNs. Put that aside. We have another document that is admitted in evidence as P-149 that is at tab 24. If we can ask that to be shown to the witness. You referred to a document in regard to a memo about Freetown and the attack on Freetown and I would ask you to look at that document and tell me what you know about it?

  • Your Honours, before I speak on this, one document that I did not mention just now when I was giving a list of documents relating to RUF's contact with other entities was apparently a meeting which talks of downplaying differences. There is a document which relates to efforts to downplay the differences between the RUF and the army, so I just wanted to mention that before the document was presented to me.

    This document before me now is one of the documents that I referred to earlier and this is dated 21 January of 1999 and it is written to Brigadier Sesay, the battlefield commander, and it is sent by the overall intelligence officer, commander and Black Guard adjutant. This is a document which speaks of instructions given in relation to forces attacking - in relation to supporting forces attacking Freetown. It's a document that I have seen, it's an image I have recently seen and it is among the documents given to the Special Court in 2005 by special branch who seized it in Kono District at an RUF office in 2001.

  • And that document is already in evidence as P-149 so I will ask you to set that aside and then ask the Registry to place before you a document that is behind tab 25. I think you talked about records of forums or meetings that were held and I will ask you then to look at this item behind 25 and tell us what you know about this document?

  • Yes, your Honours. This is one of the documents I just mentioned. It is - it talks of downplaying the differences between SLA and RUF and it is dated 12 February 1999. It is a four page document starting with the ERN 0015513. This is one of the documents that SLP provided to the Special Court in 2005, having been seized from Kono - an RUF office in Kono District in 2001 - by special branch.

  • With that, your Honours, we would ask then I think we are ready for MFI-11 for this document.

  • Yes, that document is marked MFI-11.

  • I apologise, did you want the ERN number for this?

  • I think you had given us the opening ERN number.

  • And then told us it was four pages, and I think rather than having you cite all the digits I think we can conclude that the sequence would then lead up to where it did?

  • Okay.

  • So, let me also say, Mr President, that this document is another of those that is in the CMS records, all four pages, at 22259 to 22262. Okay. We then would ask the Registry to place before you the document that follows tab 26. I think you may have referred to some kind of communication or something signed by a Colonel Kposowa, if I am not mistaken, and I would like to ask you if that is the document that you were talking to us about?

  • Yes, that is the document that I mentioned. It is a letter addressed to His Excellency Dr Charles G Taylor, President of Republic of Liberia, it is dated 14 November and as I indicated earlier it speaks of Colonel Gibril Massaquoi having been quote unquote impeached from the external delegation. It is a one page document.

  • Who is it signed by?

  • It is signed by Colonel Jonathan Kposowa, chief of admin RUF and it is also signed by Brigadier General Issa Hassan Sesay, acting chairman RUF-P.

  • I know the document has the information. For the benefit of the court reporter Kposowa is spelled K-P-O-S-O-W-A. While I was looking at that spelling I guess, with the Court's indulgence, I wasn't sure about the source of the information on this document. Did you provide that to us?

  • It was one of the documents seized by special branch in Kono at an RUF office in 2001 and it was given to the Special Court in 2005.

  • With that, your Honour, we would ask that this item be marked for identification as I believe we are ready now for MFI-12.

  • That document is marked MFI-12.

  • And again, this is a document that is contained in other court records as CMS 22287:

  • Witness, you referred to a document in regard to the visitation by Corporal Sankoh and representative of the international communities and ECOMOG. Let me ask the Registry to place before you a document that is after tab 27 and ask you if that is the document that you described and then to proceed, if you wish, to tell us what you know about that document?

  • Yes. This document is titled "Visitation of the Leader Corporal Foday Saybana Sankoh, Representatives of the International Communities and ECOMOG Securities". It is a four page document and appears to be dated 22 November 1999 and this is one of the documents that I have recently seen and it is in the collection - in the group given to the Special Court by SLP in 2005 having been seized in an RUF office - seized at an RUF office in Kono District in 2001 by the special branch.

  • With that, your Honour, we would ask that this document be marked as identification - for identification as MFI-13.

  • And the ERN for this --

  • Before I ask that, let me strike that request and let us get the ERN if we can. Sorry.

  • The ERN on the first page is 00015502 and it goes up to 05. It is a four page document.

  • Okay. With that, your Honours, then I would ask that we mark this one as MFI-13.

  • Yes, that document is marked MFI-13.

  • Okay. And again this document is otherwise in CMS records as 22276 through 22279:

  • Now, witness, you had referred also to something about someone being given a travelling pass. Let me ask the Registry to place before you a document that - a copy of which is behind tab 28, for everyone else, and I will place the original before you if we have it. Witness, could you tell us what this document is?

  • Yes, this is the pass that I was talking about. This document comprises two pages. The subject is "Clearance" and it is from the offices of the acting chairman RUFP/SL General Issa Sesay and it is addressed to all functional areas. The first page is dated 21 January 2001 and the second one - second page, which is in relation to another person, is dated 31 January 2001. Both are from the office of the - well, one is from the office of the acting chairman and the other one is from the office of the special assistant to acting chairman. This document is among the documents that I have recently examined. They were included in the group of documents given to the OTP by special branch in 2005. They seized it at an RUF office in Kono in 2001. The ERN on the first page is 00025653 and on the last page is 00025654.

  • Thank you very much witness. With that, we would ask this two page document be marked for identification. I believe we are ready now for MFI-14.

  • Yes, document marked MFI-14.

  • Then finally, witness, you indicated that I think there is a notebook or something of that sort within this group of RUF documents. What did that - what did that item look like?

  • Well, I believe there are three notebooks in that one notebook is titled "UNICEF", it says "UNICEF" on the outside, United Nations Fund for Children, another one is titled "Composition" and yet a third one has the cover which says "London Pupil's Notebook".

  • Mr President, before we move off MFI-14, can I enquire if there is a CMS number in relation to that particular document, the one that we have just moved away from behind tab 8.

  • Right. Thank you very much, counsel. The MFI number of that is 22314 through 22315.

  • I think you meant to say the CMS number.

  • Did I - okay. The CMS document number for MFI-14 is 22314 through 22315. Thank you, your Honour:

  • Okay. Then you were describing these various notebooks or booklets and you mentioned a document that looked like a UNICEF exercise booklet of some kind. Could we ask the Registry to place before you an item that is already in evidence as P-51. That is at tab 29 of our binder. The last item in this first binder. Witness, can I ask you what is that document?

  • It is a document - it is a notebook which - a blue notebook with the word "UNICEF United Nations Children's Fund" on the outside. It is 28 - 26 page - apparently 26 page document. It appears to be a list of RUF personnel starting with the name Denis Mingo, and it is among the documents that I have recently examined and determined that it came from the special branch to the Special Court in 2005, having been seized at an RUF office in Kono in 2001 by special branch.

  • And that document is already in evidence as P-51, so we would ask that the Registry take that back and then place before you the document that is at tab 30, if we can go to the second binder. I think you referred to a document that referred to composition of - some kind of composition book on its cover and ask the Registry to place before you the document after tab 10.

  • Your Honours, we do not appear to have tab 30. Is it a document already admitted into evidence?

  • No, it is - we have tab 30 in our booklet here.

  • We would be able to avail a copy of the tab 30 document, but we don't have the original.

  • I see, but you do have a copy of it before you because we believe we provided the original, but let's move forward with a copy, if we can, to at least identify it:

  • Witness, could you identify this document?

  • This is one of the notebooks that I spoke of. It has got a cover. The original has a greenish cover, I believe. It says "Composition book" on the top and then says "Black Guards admin mine". It is one of the documents that was given to the Special Court by special branch in 2005, having been seized at Kono at RUF office in 2001 by special branch. The first ERN - the ERN on the first page is 00025608 and the ERN on the last page, what would be the back cover, is 00025648.

  • The witness referred to a greenish cover. Is he looking at the original?

  • No, your Honour I am not, but I recall having looked at it some time in the past, so that's my--

  • So where is it?

  • Your Honours, tab 30 is actually exhibit P-83 which has been admitted into evidence.

  • Well, if you have it then show it to the witness.

  • I think the confusion we have here is that only one page of P-83 is in evidence now and what the Registry has, is that all the pages or just one page? Okay, there we are.

  • So the whole book has been placed before the witness.

  • Witness, you now have the whole book in front of you and I can see where our confusion is that only one page of it, the page that is 25639 according to my records, out of what is a 41 page document is the only item in evidence and so obviously I think we want to now deal with this entire document and probably --

  • And is the cover greenish?

  • Your Honours, it is more black than greenish, but I had handled this when I had processed it, so it's a dark cover.

  • Witness, again taking a look at that document itself, you have obviously just a moment ago looked at a copy. Would you just review that document and assure us that that's what you were talking about when you were looking at the copy?

  • Yes, it is the same document. It has the title "Composition book" on the fist page, "Black Guards admin" and the first ERN on the front page is 00025608 and the ERN on the last page is 00025648.

  • And you provided us the information of the source as well?

  • Yes, this is one of the documents that was seized by special branch in Kono at an RUF office in 2001 and was given to the OTP in 2005.

  • Your Honours, at this point we would I think ask that this whole document be marked as MFI-30, one page of it alone having been exhibited. We now wish to exhibit the entire document and it may be that when it comes to time number it the Court may consider a different numbering, but, just so that we know what we're talking about based upon this witness's evidence, we would ask that it be MFI-30.

  • Yes, for the present it will be marked MFI-15.

  • Right, thank you. I misspoke, I was referring to the tab number. MFI-15. And then of course with the CMS we have CMS page numbers 22319 through 22356:

  • Now, witness, you also mentioned a London Pupil's Notebook. I would ask the Registry to place before you a document that follows tab 31 and, witness, would you identify this document?

  • This is one of the notebooks that I have looked at recently as part of my exercise and this document is among the documents given to the OTP by special branch in 2005. It has a cover which says "London Pupil's Notebook", it has a picture of what would appear to be Buckingham Palace guards, it has a picture of Big Ben. It was a document seized in Kono by SLP in 2001 and given to the OTP in 2005. The ERN on the first page is 00026048 and the ERN on the back page is 00026071.

  • We would then ask that this document be marked for identification as MFI-16 I think now.

  • The document is marked MFI-16.

  • We have CMS numbers here because this is an MFI. Those were 22289 through 22312:

  • Then the final sort of classification for these documents that you had referred to as RUF office documents you indicated as having to do with investigations and complaints. What do those documents look like?

  • I think there are about five of those documents. One document is like a general complaint by high command against local commanders for failure to obey and carry out their orders. I think that was initiated by the public relations officer. There is a report against some Major Blackman who is said to be in contact with one James of - a journalist named James from The Guardian. There is a statement from John Petters in relation to an investigation against him which also appears to refer to Morris Kallon as an accused at some point. And then there is a document relating to Colonel Gaylay, an investigation against Colonel Gaylay. Then there is a document from one of the paramount chiefs of Bombali District which is forwarded with a cover letter and that also speaks of some problems. So those are the I believe five complaints which I came across in this group of documents.

  • Well, let's start with the one that's behind binder 32, tab 32 in the binder. You mentioned something regarding a Mr Gaylay or Colonel Gaylay. Could we ask the Registry to place before you the document that follows tab 32. Could you tell us what this document is, witness?

  • This is the document that I was referring to in relation to Lieutenant Colonel Gaylay. It is a one page document and it is dated 15 February 1999. It is signed by Lieutenant Colonel Augustine Gbao. The heading or the subject line says "Information on charges against Lieutenant Colonel Gaylay forwarded to the joint security for investigation". It is one of the documents given to the OTP by special branch in the year 2005, the document itself having been seized in Kono at an RUF office in 201 by the special branch and the ERN on this page is 00025482.

  • With that, your Honours, we would ask that that document be marked for identification as MFI-17.

  • Yes, the document is marked MFI-17.

  • The CMS number - it's a single number - is 22271:

  • Moving along, you mentioned something regarding a Major Blackman. Let me ask the Registry to place before you a document that is displayed behind tab 33. Witness, could you describe that document?

  • Yes, this is the document in relation to Major Blackman. It is an intelligence report and it - as I said, it, among other things, seems to say that Major Blackman is in touch with international journalists, et cetera. It's dated 2 May, I believe. 2 April actually, your Honours. 2 April 2001. It's one of the documents that was given to the OTP in 2005 by SLP, special branch having obtained this document from RUF office in Kono in 2001. The ERN on this one page document is 00025524.

  • Okay. Thank you very much, witness. With that we would ask that this be marked for identification as MFI-18.

  • The document is marked MFI-18.

  • Did that have an CMS number?

  • Thank you very much, Mr President. It does have a CMS number. It is 22317.

  • We may as well clear up the remaining absence of CMS numbers. I think you have only missed one other and that was the document behind tab 20. Either you have missed it or I have missed it.

  • I thought I had provided that, but if I had not that document after tab 20, which in terms of MFIs would be MFI-9 was 22248 through 22251.

  • Thank you, Mr Rapp. That was probably my error, not yours.

  • So let me go now to the document behind tab 34 and ask if you could describe that document and whether that document is in this group?

  • This is the document that I refer to as sort of a generic document which the high command has complained that local commanders are not obeying their orders et cetera and this is issued by the public relations officer and signed by Eldred Collins, a spokesman. It is also signed by Bockarie and the date on the document as given on the front page is 20 February 1999. This is a document that I have recently reviewed and learned that it was given to the OTP in 2005 by SLP, Sierra Leone Police, special branch having seized this document at an RUF office in Kono in 2001. It is a two page document. The ERN on the first page is 00025534 and 00025535 on the second and last page.

  • Thank you very much, witness. We would then ask that this item, I believe we are ready for MFI-19 would be marked - would be so marked.

  • The document is marked MFI-19.

  • Witness, you mentioned - excuse me, I have run into trouble. The CMS number 22273 to 22274. Now, witness, you mentioned a document relating to a Morris Kallon. I would ask that the Registry place before you the document that follows tab 35 and ask you to tell us what you know about that document?

  • Your Honours, this is a five page document and it is part of an investigation. It is a statement of - a caution statement of Colonel John Petters and this investigation also at some point lists Morris Kallon as an ex - I apologise. It also lists Brigadier Morris Kallon as an accused at some point. So this is the same investigation that - reference I made to Morris Kallon is on the fourth page which would be just the last page effectively. This is a document which has several dates on it actually, but the very first page carries the date 1 November 2000, but then as you move through the document there are different dates like 5 November 2000 is when Major Frank N'dovo, who did the investigation, that is the date that he signed the statement. So this is one of the documents that I have seen. It is a document given to the Special Court by SLP, special branch, and special branch seized this document in the year 2001 at an RUF office in Kono. And the ERN on this document go from 00025708 on the first page to 00025712 on the last.

  • Mr Witness, are you looking at the original there?

  • Yes, your Honour, it appears to be an original.

  • And is it fully legible, because some of our pages are totally illegible?

  • Your Honours, the typing is quite faint but I believe it is legible. Faint, but legible.

  • Tell me, Mr Witness, just looking at the original, is page 00025710, is that simply a blank page with "Colonel John Petters' statement" written on it, or is there something else on it?

  • No, your Honours, that is all there is on that. That is all. The rest - everything else you see is just the type print seeping in from the other side.

  • I see. My copy, the last page 00025712, is that supposed to be blank as well with --

  • No, your Honours, that page carries the words "Colonel John Petters' statement".

  • That is all that is on it?

  • That is all there is. Yeah. The rest is just typing coming in from the other side.

  • With that, your Honours, we would ask that the document after tab 35 be marked for identification. I think MFI-20 is the next number.

  • Yes, that document is marked MFI-20.

  • And the Court Management system numbers or service number is in sequence 22281 through 22285:

  • Finally, witness, in this group, you have mentioned a document that discussed or came from an acting paramount chief. I would ask the Registry to place before you the document that appears after tab 36. Witness, could you tell us what you know about this document?

  • Yes, your Honours. This is the document that I mentioned with reference to the paramount chief. It is a document - the paramount chief appears to have written the letter on 12 February 1999 and then a certified true copy of it is sent with this cover letter which is dated 13 February. The subject line says "Report from the acting paramount chief, Pa Alimamy N'Soila Koroma, Bombali Sebora Chiefdom" and it is signed on the front page. The name of the officer is not clear, but it is 2nd Brigade 5G commander and it is signed in an original - this is an original document. This is one of the documents I have seen and it is a document that was given to the Special Court in 2005 by special branch which seized it at an RUF office in Kono in 2001 and this is a two page document. The ERN on the first page is 00026007 and the ERN on the last page is 00026008.

  • With that, your Honours, we would ask that this exhibit or that this document of two pages be marked for identification as MFI-21.

  • Yes, document marked MFI-21.

  • And for the record this document has the CMS number 22264 and 22265:

  • Okay, witness, let's pass - we have passed through those 22 documents in the second group now and you mentioned that there was a third group of documents as to which you were asked for information on source which, for purposes of reference, you called the Liberia search documents. How many documents in that third group?

  • The short answer is 11 although, your Honours, actually there were ten documents and one document has been split into two by the Prosecution because they wished to submit it as two separate exhibits. So I would refer to them, for the purposes of this testimony, as 11 documents.

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

  • I was working at the Special Court when searches in Liberia took place. I did not myself go to Liberia for this - for participating in this. However, I do recall from memory some of the things which happened so that my memory of these vents is one source of knowledge and information for me.

    I have also reviewed some available OTP correspondence, as well as have consulted my colleague, Ms Ruth Mary Hackler, whom I see - converse with on a day-to-day basis as she has been involved in obtaining some of these documents for the OTP. I have also reviewed her affidavit and I have also briefly spoken to a couple of investigators who were present in Monrovia - in Liberia in 2004 when the searches took place. So they would be - all these would constitute my source of information.

  • And who did those investigators work for?

  • For the Special Court for Sierra Leone. They were OTP investigators who happened to be - who were in Monrovia at that time.

  • Did you obtain any information from anyone - any investigators outside the Special Court?

  • Okay. And how about any Liberian officials? Were any Liberian officials --

  • Right. I have not directly obtained any information from them but I have read affidavits prepared by certain persons who were involved in this. Firstly, in the searches themselves and then also in making some of this information available to the OTP.

  • And who were those individuals, if you recall?

  • One of them would be Sheriff Fofie Kamara, sheriff of Monrovia and another is Captain Sumo who is a Liberian police official.

  • And in terms of spellings, Kamara is spelt K-A-M-A-R-A and you said his first name is Fofie or --

  • I have seen two versions Fofie and Fofia, but I believe his affidavit carries the word Fofie, F-O-F-I-E, so I have used that.

  • Okay. So the spelling F-O-F-I-E?

  • Yes, I believe that is the correct one.

  • And THE other individual's name?

  • Captain Sumo, that would be S-U-M-O.

  • And any knowledge of his given name?

  • No, I do not know that. It is referred to I understand, on the affidavit, as Captain Sumo, but perhaps we could double check.

  • And do you - I think you may have indicated, but just as a point of clarity, have you ever met these gentlemen?

  • And you have obviously mentioned the role of Ms Hackler within your unit and her role in these events, but you also mentioned that there were two - perhaps two investigators from the Special Court of Sierra Leone that you talked to in regard to these events. Who were those investigators?

  • One of them is named Joseph Saffa. He is an OTP investigator who works in Freetown. The other is Mr Jusu Yarmah. I brought up his name earlier in relation to the RUF documents. He no longer works at the Special Court. He is at ICTY these days.

  • And he is the same gentleman we talked about earlier, the one going on to ICTY?

  • That is correct.

  • And Joseph Saffa, what is his specific position?

  • Joseph Saffa is another long-time investigator who has been at the Special Court from the very beginning. I think he came over like Mr Thomas Lahun in August 2002 and is still with us. He in fact at the moment occupies an international investigator's position.

  • Now, based upon the information that you obtained, what did you learn about who was involved in obtaining and handling these documents?

  • Some of the names we have mentioned, it was the Prosecutor originally who initiated the request. The searches were conducted by the Liberian officials themselves and so they are the ones who originally handled the documents and from the beginning the documents have been in the possession of Sheriff Fofie Kamara. Subsequently OTP investigators have been given limited access at which time they have obtained copies of some of these documents. So Ms Hackler was able to do so in 2007, which is when the copies or photographs of some of the documents were obtained and brought back to the OTP, printed off and submitted to the evidence unit which I then processed and stamped with the ERNs.

  • I think we need some more precision here. When, if you know, was the assistance of Liberian authorities requested for this search?

  • On 1 March 2004 the Prosecutor wrote to the Liberian authorities asking that competent Liberian authorities conduct lawful searches at a number of locations of interest to the OTP, including Charles Taylor's former residence at Congo Town, White Flower - called White Flower. Subsequently the Liberian authorities, pursuant to a search warrant, conducted searches and a certain amount of documents, et cetera, were seized at White Flower.

  • Before we proceed, search warrant. Do you know where the search warrant was issued? Was it by a Sierra Leonean court or by some other authority?

  • It was issued by Liberian authorities. The process, as I understand it, was completely carried out by Liberian officials and no-one from outside at any time was directly involved, although there were in fact in the area - OTP personnel were in the area because in the original request of the Prosecutor it had been said that searches should be conducted in the presence of OTP personnel. So when the warrants were executed which was on 5 March, I believe, OTP personnel were present. However, they did not seize anything and the Liberian authorities conducted the searches as well as these materials.

  • And you said items were seized from White Flower, the former residence in Congo Town. Where were these items then kept after the date of their seizure?

  • They were kept by Sheriff Fofie Kamara at the Temple of Justice.

  • And where is it that OTP had access to the documents?

  • OTP had made a number of requests for these materials to be turned over to the Special Court. However, as of now that has not happened. So at times there have been - on a few occasions OTP has been granted access to view or to copy the documents and I believe the OTP investigators have gone to the Temple of Justice and, with the permission of the authorities, viewed these documents. However, in order to obtain photocopies of some of these documents Liberian authorities have permitted some of these materials to be taken to the UNAMSIL office where photocopying facilities were available. However, Captain Sumo that I mentioned earlier escorted Ms Hackler when some of the documents were taken to UNAMSIL in order to be photocopied and, as per her affidavit and other information, documents remained in custody of Mr Sumo and the Liberian authorities at all times.

  • You have mentioned UNAMSIL which I think is in the record here in this trial as meaning the United Nations Mission to Sierra Leone. Is that the mission where they were taken?

  • I have spent too many years with UNAMSIL, I apologise. This would be UNMIL in Monrovia, because we are talking of Monrovia, Liberia. That would be the UN Mission in Liberia.

  • Did you ever obtain an inventory of all of the documents that were taken as a result of the search or searches?

  • I do not believe that Liberian authorities have ever provided the Office of the Prosecutor with an inventory of all the documents that were seized.

  • Are you aware of any request ever for the originals of these documents?

  • Yes, the OTP - I am not aware of the details, but OTP has made, I understand, several or certainly more than one request for these materials to be given to the OTP, but the OTP has not been given custody of these documents.

  • Now, in regard to the 11 documents, or ten documents if there are to be combined as one of them is a single document, these particular documents, what form are they in and how was the image of the document obtained?

  • Well, I believe some are photocopies and some are photographs. Essentially an OTP investigator, or in this case she was not strictly-speaking an investigator, Ms Hackler, I believe she was working as a contractor at the time. They went with a digital camera and took digital photographs and then that film was downloaded into - those files were downloaded into a computer and then prints were made from it and those physical hard copies, papers, were submitted to the evidence unit. And in some cases they have made actual photocopies from a photo machine.

  • Thank you. And when did these documents come into the possession of the evidence unit?

  • I have to break that up. That would be in two different parts. Some of the documents - well, let me start again. These documents were photographed or photocopied on 28 February 2007 and subsequently a few weeks later, I believe on 26 March, these documents were submitted to the evidence unit for processing. So approximately three weeks after the copies were obtained the documents were submitted to SEAPA, or at that time the evidence unit.

  • And that works for both kinds, both photos and sort of Xerox copies if we can call them that?

  • Yes, I make no distinction. For me it's - for our purposes - because we were given hard copies. Even when photographs were taken, what came to the evidence unit was a paper because the photograph had then been printed and a hard paper copy submitted to us. So, yes, regardless of how the original image was taken, either through a machine or through a camera, the hard copy photos were submitted to us on 26 March 2007.

  • And what did you do with them in the evidence unit?

  • As with any other evidence we logged them, we stamped them, we scanned them and made them available to anyone who needs them.

  • And could you tell us did you personally do anything with the documents after they were stamped and scanned and made available broadly?

  • For the purposes of this exercise I have looked at those documents, I have determined, having looked at the source, when they came in and who brought them in and what date the OTP obtained possession and in that respect I have familiarised myself with them. That's for this particular exercise.

  • And can you describe the type of documents that are within this group?

  • I have 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 is one notebook and one entry from another notebook. So that would make it 11.

  • Okay, witness, talking about these that relate to the civil war in Liberia, what do these documents look like?

  • The first one would be it is a salute report from General Varney I think dated 1994. It is addressed to Charles Taylor. The second document is a ATU, that is Anti-Terrorist Unit, report called "Deployment". It is addressed to Charles Taylor Junior as commander I believe. And the third report - third document - it's a handwritten paper which appears to deal with immunity for actions or crimes committed during the civil war in Liberia from 1989 to August 2003. That would be the three documents that I would place in this first category.

  • Then we would ask the Registry to place before you the document that follows tab 37 which you said was - one of these documents was a report from a General Varney. His name appears therein. Let me ask you then whether this is that document and what you know about it?

  • Yes, this is one of the documents I was referring to. I may have called it salute report. It is a situation report and it is addressed to Charles Taylor, Chairman and CIC, commander in chief, NPFL, Republic of Liberia. It is from Lieutenant General Samuel G Varney, Senior Military Advisor, Armed Forces of the NPFL, Liberia. It is dated 30 September 1994 and originated from Headquarters National Patriotic Front of Liberia, Gbarnga city, Bong County, RL, which is Republic of Liberia. This is one of the documents that I have recently seen. It is a document that was seized by Liberian authorities in 2004, 5 March 2004, and a copy of it was made by Ms Hackler on 28 February 2007. It is a two page document and on the first page it has the ERN 00028870 and the last page has the number 00028871.

  • Witness, you said it was seized I think 5 March 2004. Do you know from your information from what location it was seized?

  • Well, as per the affidavit of Fofie Kamara, the documents were seized at White Flower and so that is the source of my information. Otherwise OTP has no other - as I have said previously, we have not been provided with an inventory of any sort. So it was seized from White Flower on 5 March 2004 as per the affidavit.

  • Again, I think you have mentioned Fofie Kamara as being involved. What is his rank again or what is his position?

  • He is sheriff of Monrovia. He is also sometimes written as police magistrate. He was the person to whom the warrant was issued. The rate of - the search warrant issued on 5 March 2004 was issued in Fofie Kamara's name and he is the one who conducted the searches and he is the one who has maintained custody of all the materials that were seized on that day.

  • Mr Witness, I just need to know this. You say, Mr Witness, that no inventory was provided. Did you or did the Special Court request for an inventory and it was denied?

  • I couldn't be absolutely sure, your Honours, but my general belief is that the OTP was interested in obtaining the documents themselves. I don't know whether the OTP has requested an inventory.

  • At this point, your Honour, I think we are at tab 37 and we would ask that this document be marked for identification. I believe we are ready for 22.

  • That is correct, Mr Rapp. This document will be marked MFI-22.

  • And this has a CMS number, two page document, 22577 through 22578. Thank you.

  • Mr President, I wonder if I can raise something now before the tape runs out as I am aware it is going to within the next five minutes. This witness has referred several times in his evidence today to having had sight of various other people's affidavits about where they found what and when.

    All we have been supplied with is a copy of a solemn declaration by this witness himself. I would be grateful if, hopefully before we ourselves leave the building, we can be provided with copies of those affidavits that he has been referring to. I don't include his own solemn declaration as we already have that, but I wonder if that could be set in train so that no time is wasted tomorrow in seeking it and that I can look at these things overnight.

  • Mr Rapp?

  • Your Honour, yes, by way of record I believe and I have asked several times that each of these affidavits to which you refer have previously been included in disclosure and have been in the possession of the Defence for several months. Rather than argue about that let us check the records here when we proceed to adjournment and make sure that that is the case and if you don't have the copies that we provided we will provide additional ones.

  • Well, does that satisfy you for now at least, Mr Munyard?

  • Mr President, I am perfectly content with that. I don't need to go over the history of what may or may not have been provided. We know that sometimes when announcements of that sort are made it turns out they weren't. Sometimes it turns out they were. So let's forget the history and just get on the with practicalities tonight, if possible.

  • All right. Thank you. I think this is an appropriate time to adjourn now, Mr Rapp. We are just about out of tape. Mr Witness, we are going to adjourn court until 9.30 tomorrow morning and you are ordered in the meantime not to discuss this case with anyone at all. Do you understand that?

  • I do, your Honours. Thank you very much for your guidance.

  • Thank you. We will adjourn court now, Madam Court Manager.

  • [Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 4.30 p.m. to be reconvened on Tuesday, 20 January 2009 at 9.30 a.m.]