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

  • Mr Smillie, can I just ask you a little more about the membership of the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme. You're one of the members. How many members are there all together?

  • The Kimberley Process is an intergovernmental arrangement so there are different terms for the people who participate in it. Members are governments, or in the case of the European Union a collection of governments, and then there are observers. Observers are the diamond industry and representatives of civil society. Observers participate in the same way as members. There's no - as participants. There is no voting in the Kimberley Process. It is all done by consensus. There are I think 46 governments represented in the Kimberley Process, plus all of the governments that are covered by the European Union. So it covers more than 70 governments.

  • Right. And the representatives of civil society being who?

  • As I said yesterday, at the height of the negotiations there were more than 200 NGOs involved in some parts of the negotiation, but in recent years almost all of the civil society representation has been done by Partnership Africa Canada and Global Witness. At the most recent meeting we endeavoured to bring civil society organisations from Africa and Latin America, so there were 15 other civil society representatives at the meeting in Brussels in November.

  • The initial nearly 200 organisations that constituted the civil society element of the process, were they all organisations concerned with diamond mining or diamond miners, or not?

  • They were organisations that were concerned about the war in Sierra Leone and the trafficking of diamonds which was fuelling the war.

  • Right. Nearly 200, you say?

  • I think at one stage there were more than 200. Some were large, well-known NGOs and some were very small.

  • Can I move on to something else. We saw some film clips yesterday. Did you yourself have any personal knowledge of any of the individuals who we saw on the film clip from the television program who had suffered injury and mutilation?

  • No, I didn't know any of them.

  • Did you yourself know any of the places that were shown in the film clips?

  • Well, some were obvious, Freetown, but some were not named so I don't know where those were taken.

  • Right. And had you ever been to any of those places apart from Freetown?

  • Well, I have travelled extensively in Sierra Leone. I lived in Kono District. I have travelled widely historically and recently and so I probably was in some of those areas, but, as I said, I don't know where those areas were.

  • Right. So you don't know whether or not you were in those areas?

  • I would like to turn, please, to your report again. I think it's MFI-9. Again, page 9, your Honour?

  • These are the statistics that we looked at yesterday. I would like you to be shown a copy of it, please?

  • Is it possible to put this page on the monitor for the public to see, the table, at the same time or at least another copy so that the public can follow as the witness testifies?

  • I am going to ask for page 28 of the report which is annex 3 also to be shown and so perhaps that could be brought out now. Thank you.

  • Mr Smillie, if you look at the figures of Liberian diamond imports, or so-called Liberian diamond imports as we now know them to be, to Belgium in 1995 and 1996, and for the benefit of the public who are watching the date above 1996 is recorded as 1994. That's an error and should read 1995. We have figures there of 10 million odd carats and $358 million worth in 1995, 12 million - more than 12 and a half million carats and more than $616 million worth in 1996.

    Now if you turn then to page 28 of your report, which is annex 3, what you have here is your table of periods of time during which the RUF controlled both the Kono District, and that is the mining area at Koidu, and Tongo Field, the other principal mining area in Sierra Leone. You have said at the bottom that all dates are approximate. Can you tell us first of all before we look at the dates where you got those figures from, those dates from?

  • Some of the dates were from the data and reports that were given to us by government sources in Sierra Leone. Some of these are on public record.

  • What public records?

  • News reports from news organisations, individual journalists? What sort of news reports are we talking about and how reliable?

  • Well, most of the dates have come from Government of Sierra Leone sources. We know that the RUF controlled the diamond areas, at least Kono District, until the end of - until basically the end of the conflict, so that was never in dispute. I don't think these dates were in dispute by anybody.

  • But you say you got them from the Sierra Leone government and from news reports?

  • Yes.

  • Yes, all right. Well, if we look at those dates, first of all Kono District, according to these figures the RUF were in control between the last quarter of 1992 and the fist half of 1993; yes?

  • Then they appear not to be in control of the Kono District for well over a year. They are in control again in late 1994 to December 1995?

  • There is then a gap of about 17 months. They're not in control again until May 1997 for about a year until mid-1998?

  • Then late 1998 until disarmament at the end of 2001?

  • That's Kono District. If we look then at Tongo Field, you say here in the narrative that the RUF first attacked Tongo in January 1994 but didn't hold the area, setting up a base camp about 10 kilometres east and regularly attacked Tongo for two years and they controlled the area completely from mid-1997 until early 1998. So the picture up until early 1998 is continuous attacks on Tongo Field, but not actually holding it until the middle of 1997?

  • For about six months or so and then they lose it again and they don't capture it again until January 1999, yes?

  • Going back to your figures on page 9 of the report, the biggest increase in so-called Liberian diamonds is in 1995 and in particular 1996 where not just the carat value but the actual monetary value of the diamonds is much higher, yes?

  • Yes.

  • 1996, the RUF were not in control of Kono District from the figures we have just looked at in annex 3 on page 28 and they are not in control of Tongo Field. So on the face of it it's right, is it not, that this huge increase in so-called Liberian diamonds does not appear to be as a result of the RUF control of the diamond mines in Sierra Leone?

  • We made the point in our PAC report, I made the point in this report and we made the point in our United Nations report that these figures didn't not bear any resemblance to the actual figures of diamonds being mined in Sierra Leone or Liberia. These figures are large figures that serve as an umbrella for all that was going on in Liberia and Sierra Leone.

  • But my point remains true, does it not, that on the face of it these figures cannot be attributed to RUF control of the diamond fields in Sierra Leone?

  • These figures, which I have pointed out are not reliable figures, cannot be correlated with any mining in Liberia or in Sierra Leone.

  • And certainly can't be correlated with any mining by or on behalf of the RUF?

  • Thank you. Now you talked about the report that you did as part of the United Nations panel. Can you help us with again with a little more detail about the membership of the United Nations panel. I want to start first, please, with the chairman of the panel who was a Ghanaian gentleman, I believe?

  • No, he was from Cameroon.

  • I am sorry, Cameroon. What was his profession?

  • He was a Cameroonian diplomat and his most recent position in the government of Cameroon had been in the office of the President.

  • Right. So that's Mr Ayafor?

  • What was his expertise?

  • I think he was appointed really to manage the team and to be the diplomatic connection between the team and all of the governments that we were going to be meeting. He didn't come with a particular expertise.

  • Right. So you couldn't call him an expert on diamonds or arms?

  • The panel that was appointed pursuant to the Security Council resolution 1306 of 2000 was a panel of experts on Sierra Leone diamonds and arms, wasn't it, to give it its title?

  • The chairman, Mr Ayafor was not an expert on Sierra Leone diamonds and arms, was he?

  • Or any diamonds and arms?

  • No, that's the way all of the expert panels have been - all of the chairs have been generalists and usually diplomats.

  • Right. Then we have Mr Bodian?

  • The next member on the list of the signatories that we saw yesterday. Where was Mr Bodian from and what was his background and expertise?

  • He's a citizen of Senegal. He had a background in air traffic control in Senegal and internationally he had worked for the International Civil Aviation Organisation.

  • Do you know for how many years he'd done that?

  • I would say at least 20 years.

  • So he's a qualified and trained air traffic controller in the fist place?

  • Then presumably he went into - after 20 years worth of that work he will have been in management of air traffic control systems and the like?

  • I'm sorry, I can't really tell you what his full CV is, but he was certainly well-known in international civil aviations services - circles.

  • Right. That's something for which he will have had both training and many years of practice --

  • -- in air traffic control matters?

  • And as far as you're aware is that the only work that he had spent his last 20 years or so doing?

  • As far as I know, yes.

  • Right. So he is an expert properly called in air traffic control matters?

  • Right. Then Mr Peleman, where is he from and what's his background and his expertise?

  • Johan Peleman is a Belgian citizen. He started and ran an organisation called International Peace Information Services which had done a great deal of work on international arms trade. It was a research organisation based in Antwerp and it published a lot of material on the international arms trade.

  • Right. Did he himself have any military background or personal expertise?

  • I'm sorry, I don't know.

  • As far as you're aware, he was a member of an NGO?

  • Do you know for how long Mr Peleman had been working in the field of arms and armaments?

  • I believe for about 10 years. I'm not entirely sure.

  • But you aren't able to help us in any more detail with his personal expertise in that area?

  • I know that he was very well informed. He knew a lot of the players, a lot of the characters, he was called to testify in various arms cases. He was and remains well regarded in this field.

  • Right. However, you have no idea what if any military experience he has?

  • I don't.

  • Or relevant scientific experience bearing on the question of arms and armaments?

  • Then we have Mr Harjit Singh Sandhu who I think is an Indian police officer you told us?

  • Of many years standing?

  • A professional police officer?

  • Who had been working in that a capacity for how many years roughly?

  • I would say 25 years.

  • Right. Also I think a man who has a doctorate, a PHD. Were you aware of that?

  • Yes, I was aware of it.

  • Right. Do you know what his doctorate was in?

  • Mr Sandhu, as an Indian police officer, whatever his first language was will have been working in the English language in his capacity as a police officer for all of his professional life, won't he?

  • That's right, although he was - he had been seconded to INTERPOL and had been working at INTERPOL headquarters in France for some years, so there may have been some working in French, I'm not sure.

  • Right, but he is not somebody of whom it could be said he didn't have a full grasp and fluent control of English?

  • I think you described yourself yesterday as the only English speaker on the panel?

  • I said the only native English speaker.

  • Native English speaker?

  • Mr Ayafor for was essentially an Anglophone Cameroonian. Cameroon is Anglophone and Francophone. There was nothing - there was no problem with his English or with mister --

  • Mr Sandhu's?

  • Mr Sandhu's or with Mr Peleman's.

  • Then there was yourself and we know that by the year 2000 when you were appointed to this panel you had been working on this issue for about a year with PAC?

  • A little over a year and a half.

  • Correct. You were appointed in the early to middle part of the year?

  • Right. You were the note taker, I think, is that right?

  • No, we all took notes. We all took extensive notes and we all drafted things, but when it came to putting it altogether I did a fair amount of the writing.

  • Right. Now by the time that you were appointed to this panel, we know that you'd already published the PAC report Heart of the Matter, Diamonds in Sierra Leone?

  • Yes.

  • The diamonds publication. You have told us a little about the background of how that came about and you were involved with a number of colleagues, academic colleagues, in Canada who were discussing the whole question of the Sierra Leone civil war and would it be fair to say, Mr Smillie, that the general consensus amongst you and your academic colleagues, and particularly those of you who wrote the PAC report, there was considerable hostility towards President Charles Taylor?

  • When we began to write the report we had no idea that there was any connection between the problem in Liberia - the problem in Sierra Leone and Liberia. We started with no preconceived notions about Liberia or about where the diamonds were going. We weren't even sure at the beginning that diamonds were what we came to discover that they actually were. We had no thoughts about Liberia when we began the study.

  • When you began the study. By the time you ended the study, which was late 1999, it was published in early 2000, you had very clear thoughts about Charles Taylor, didn't you?

  • We had very clear thoughts about the Liberian connection and, since he was the President of Liberia, obviously we had thoughts about him as well.

  • Yes. Putting it in simple English, your group was particularly hostile, that is to say those of you who wrote the PAC report, particularly hostile to Mr Taylor by the time you published that report, weren't you?

  • We were not hostile. We reported what we had learned.

  • You had formed a view about his culpability, hadn't you?

  • We had formed a view about the way diamonds were being moved from Sierra Leone into the international market through Liberia.

  • You had formed a view about Mr Taylor's culpability, hadn't you? Yes or no?

  • It's - we didn't say that Mr Taylor was culpable. We said that diamonds were moving through Liberia. He was the President of Liberia and he had some responsibility therefore for what was happening.

  • One of the people who wrote the report you told us yesterday, Mr Gberie, is a Sierra Leone national albeit he was working in Canada at the time?

  • He has written extensively on Mr Taylor and the alleged connection between Liberia and the war in Sierra Leone, hasn't he?

  • Yes, he has subsequent - subsequent - to our first report.

  • Yes. But Mr Gberie has expressed himself in very strong language about Mr Taylor from time to time, hasn't he?

  • Yes, he has.

  • Yes. And he was of that view back in 1999 and 2000 when you published the PAC report, wasn't he?

  • I don't think that was the case. As I said, at the beginning of our exercise we didn't - we didn't start with any plan, we didn't start with any preconceived notions about diamonds or about Liberia. Our conclusions are there in the report and they were not conclusions that we invented or were alone in coming to. They were widely, widely publicised by other writers and in the media, but I wouldn't say that he or we were hostile to Mr Taylor.

  • By the time you went to Liberia in October 2000 as part of the UN panel Liberia was already own under an arms embargo, wasn't not?

  • Yes, it had been for nearly 10 years.

  • Right. Your panel had interviewed a lot of people before you went to Liberia, hadn't you?

  • And your panel had certain views about Mr Taylor's involvement, didn't they, by the time you went to Liberia in the first place?

  • We had a lot of information. By time we got to Liberia we had a lot of information about the Liberian connection to the RUF and diamonds and Mr Taylor's involvement. We had a lot of information.

  • When you attended the meeting firstly was that meeting a scheduled meeting, was it part of the plan and the agenda that you would meet the President of Liberia or was that something that happened ad hoc at the end of the trip to Liberia in October?

  • We hadn't decided whether we would request a meeting with Mr Taylor and we were contemplating it when we were there and then we received a notice that he would like to meet with us. So it was not planned, but it was not completely unplanned, but the initiative came from his office.

  • You made two lots of notes about that meeting, one handwritten and later typed notes. When did you make the handwritten notes?

  • In the office when we were meeting with President Taylor.

  • Did you make all of those notes in the office when you were meeting with Mr Taylor?

  • The notes, the handwritten notes, are very densely written, aren't they?

  • How long did the meeting last all together?

  • It was about an hour or perhaps slightly over an hour.

  • Were you taking a note of everything that was said, or just some of the things that were said?

  • Well, you know, there was a lot said in an hour and I only wrote two pages of notes so I probably missed a fair bit.

  • And do you think that you might have made any errors in the course of what you wrote down in those notes?

  • I don't think so.

  • But you accept that there is always that possibility?

  • I want to ask you about two particular parts of those notes, please. First of all, you have recorded a slightly different version in the typed notes from the - different from the handwritten, haven't you?

  • When I went back to the hotel I typed - actually when I went back to Freetown. We went back to Freetown immediately after meeting Mr Taylor and then I typed out the notes from memory and from my handwritten notes.

  • Right. In the notes there is - certainly in the typed notes there is a reference to the Lome agreement. It's on the second page. Madam President, this is annex 2 of the report MFI-9. It starts on page 25.

  • May we have that put up on the monitor, please, for the public to see.

  • Your Honour, I wonder, if we are going to compare my handwritten note with this, could I have a copy of my handwritten note?

  • Please ensure that the witness is looking at the documents in question.

  • Would your Honour like the Prosecution - and it was disclosed to the defence, but we have a copy here in court if the defence needs to borrow it.

  • No, I have got the handwritten notes, thank you, in front of me.

  • Court Manager, could you please put up the various documents as they're referred to by counsel starting with the typed notes.

  • I'm sorry, we don't have the typed notes.

  • This is the typed notes. Your Honour, I have a copy of the handwritten notes in my briefcase. If that would make it easier I will take them out.

  • This is annex 2 at page 25 of the report MFI-9?

  • Yes, that's the typed notes.

  • Everybody has a copy within the well of the Court, annex 2.

  • Yes, that's the typed notes, Madam President.

  • But, your Honour, if we are going to compare my handwritten notes with this I won't have a copy of my handwritten notes.

  • Where can a copy be obtained?

  • I have a copy. I think the Defence has a copy.

  • Then please supply one to the witness firstly.

  • Madam President, the page number on the Court numbering is 00037295 to 296, if that assists anybody. These were disclosed to us and I have to say I assumed that everybody had the same disclosure.

  • Those are certainly not in our folders.

  • Very well. Well, I think the Court ought to have a copy. Mr Smillie has a copy in his brief case.

  • Where is the briefcase?

  • Please access your notes. Mr Munyard, kindly proceed with your cross-examination.

  • I want to ask you first of all about your note in your handwriting about the Lome accord. Just so that everybody understands, the Lome accord was in 1999, wasn't it?

  • It was - there was a meeting held in Lome, the capital of Togo?

  • Yes.

  • With a view to bringing an end to hostilities in the Sierra Leone civil war?

  • And various people from the government side - it's a little over halfway down the page for the assistance of Court Management?

  • There were people from the government side and the RUF and I think other diplomats and other interested parties at that meeting --

  • -- in Lome. Now you have recorded here in your handwritten note about two-thirds of the was down the page: "T was instrumental in the Lome accord", yes?

  • "He brought Johnny Paul and Foday Sankoh to go to Lome"?

  • When we look at your handwritten - sorry, your typed version of those notes on page 26 of MFI-9, it's in the third paragraph on that page - your typed version says, "He said that he, Taylor, had been instrumental in the Lome agreement and that he had taken Johnny Paul Koroma and Foday Sankoh to the meeting", yes?

  • That is what you typed up when you got back to Freetown from Monrovia?

  • That's what we - that's what I understood him to say.

  • Right. Do you have any knowledge of who the individual participants were at the Lome meeting that led to the Lome accord?

  • No, this is a record of what President Taylor said to us. It's not a description of the Lome accord.

  • What I suggest President Taylor said to you was that he had brought Johnny Paul Koroma to Liberia in order to help the peace process that was then going to take place in Lome. That he never said that he brought Johnny Paul Koroma to Lome?

  • That's your interpretation of what was said. You've got my interpretation.

  • I am putting forward, as you appreciate, Mr Smillie, my client's instructions. If Johnny Paul Koroma was never at Lome it would be ridiculous for somebody in the position of President Taylor to claim that he had brought him to Lome, wouldn't it, because everybody would know who was and who wasn't at Lome?

  • Objection, argumentative.

  • Let me put that in another way.

  • Overruled. Please proceed.

  • President Charles Taylor of neighbouring Liberia would be fully aware that the rest of the world who were interested in the Lome accord would know who was and who wasn't a participant in Lome, wouldn't he?

  • These were notes that I took at the meeting. They were not intended to be a description of what happened at Lome. They were a description of what I heard at the meeting.

  • I'm suggesting that you have either misheard or misrecorded in your effort to write down what was being said at the meeting with Mr Taylor, to do you follow?

  • That your notes, certainly the typed up version of your notes, are inaccurate.

  • This particular point may be inaccurate.

  • Thank you.

  • I doubt there are very many other inaccuracies.

  • You see, all you have got down in the handwritten version is, "He brought Johnny Paul and Foday Sankoh to go to Lome." That doesn't say he brought Johnny Paul to Lome, does it?

  • No. It's actually shorthand in effect, isn't it, your handwritten note?

  • For perfectly understandable reasons?

  • Because you're trying to write down as things are being said and it's right, isn't it, I think you have indicated elsewhere, Mr Taylor was saying quite a lot at that meeting and you inevitably wouldn't be able to get a fully verbatim note, would you?

  • Thank you. Can I ask you about a matter that appears on page 25 of the typed note, MFI-9, and that's your reference to what the US ambassador Charles Minor had told you earlier about a meeting between the United States Under Secretary of State Thomas Pickering and Mr Taylor on July 17th. First of all, can you help us with where that appears in the handwritten notes?

  • In the first line of my handwritten notes I said - I wrote, "Pickering did not present evidence to the President. Blatantly untrue."

  • Yes. And you told us yesterday that the "blatantly untrue" was what Mr Taylor said to you?

  • About an allegation or about a matter that you put to him?

  • "Pickering did not present evidence to the President"?

  • That is what I understood President Taylor to say.

  • Yes. Now you received secondhand information from the American ambassador about this meeting between Under Secretary of State Pickering and President Taylor, didn't you?

  • The Under Secretary of State, Mr Pickering, was he still Under Secretary of State in October 2000?

  • Which July 17th was it that the ambassador was telling you about?

  • We understood it to be the month before we were there. Sorry, the --

  • You were there in October.

  • Sorry, the month before we were appointed.

  • Right, you understood it to be then, but did he specify that it was July 17th of the year 2000 or an earlier year?

  • He didn't specify.

  • No. Did you clarify with him which year he was talking about, or did you just assume he was talking about the same year you were writing in?

  • We were not aware that there had been several meetings between Mr Pickering and Mr Taylor. We assumed there was only one. We were only told about one.

  • Right. If it had been on July 17th 2000 then the likelihood is that Mr Pickering was still the United States Under Secretary of State, do you agree?

  • Well, it's a likelihood.

  • Yes. Mr Taylor was telling you in that meeting in October that he didn't agree with the version of events that you had been given by the ambassador who was not present at the meeting with Mr Taylor and Mr Pickering?

  • I don't know about whether the ambassador was present at the meeting with Mr Pickering. I don't know whether he was present at the meeting with Mr Pickering and Mr Taylor.

  • Right. In any event what you did know was Mr Taylor was disputing the version of events that you'd been given about his meeting with Mr Pickering?

  • So what did you do to clarify what exactly Mr Pickering had said to Mr Taylor and what he Mr Taylor had said in response to Mr Pickering?

  • I have to put this in a little bit of context. The morning before we went to meet President Taylor the newspapers had reported very negatively on our mission to Liberia. The United Nations representative, and I think I have said this in my report - the United Nations representative was extremely nervous and warned us to be very careful how we addressed President Taylor. He said that if he was in a bad mood we shouldn't ask him any questions at all and if he was in a bad mood we would know, we would know it.

    When we went to the meeting we were on pins and needles. In fact, it turned out that he was in a good mood, at least the good mood that the UN representative had described to us, so we were somewhat put at ease, but we had a lot to cover in a one hour period and we didn't go into great detail on any of the subjects that are covered here. We asked him the main covering questions and that was about all we had time for.

  • So the United Nations representative had been warning you about Mr Taylor in effect, hadn't he?

  • The United Nations representative was very nervous about President Taylor.

  • Yes, and was warning you to watch out, watch what you say, yes?

  • He warned us about angering him or if he was in a bad mood that we shouldn't make it worse.

  • And are you saying that your panel and you in particular were not hostile to Mr Taylor by this stage?

  • I wouldn't say we were hostile. We were certainly nervous about the entire visit.

  • You weren't at all well disposed to Charles Taylor by October 2000 when you went down to Monrovia to meet him, were you?

  • I think all of the panel by that stage had a great deal of information about what was going on in Liberia and Mr Taylor's role in it.

  • I didn't ask you about information, Mr Smillie. I asked you about your attitude to Mr Taylor?

  • I think all of us, including me, were very suspicious.

  • Yes. Not prepared to believe him or take what he said at face value?

  • You know, I think the report that I wrote of the meeting actually puts him in much better light than I would have expected under the circumstances.

  • You were doing him a favour; is that what you're saying?

  • No, no, I was trying to record faithfully what I thought he was saying at the time.

  • Right. Can you go back, please, to the question I asked a few minutes ago. What did you do to confirm, qualify or correct the account that the ambassador had given you of the meeting between Mr Pickering and Mr Taylor?

  • When we were in Washington we met with government officials at the state department and intelligence agencies and we asked questions about the movement of diamonds, the movement of weapons and that sort of thing and we were given a variety of information.

  • The state department is in Washington, isn't it?

  • Did you go to the state department?

  • Yes, we did.

  • Did you see Mr Pickering?

  • Did you ask to see Mr Pickering's notes of his meeting with President Taylor on 17th January, whichever year?

  • We asked - I don't recall whether we asked for it. We asked for certainly a lot of information and we got some. We didn't get others. We didn't get any notes of Mr Pickering's meeting with Mr Taylor.

  • Why didn't you pursue that very obvious and, I would suggest, very simple way of determining where the truth lay about the ambassador's comments to you?

  • The issue was not so much Mr Pickering's notes. The issue was what information Mr Pickering had and what he had been given by his department and we asked his department and others in the United States for all the information that they had on these subjects.

  • According to your note, your typed note, which is rather different from your handwritten note, your typed note says that Mr Pickering told Mr Taylor he personally had seen evidence that Mr Taylor was trafficking in stolen diamonds. That is very important, isn't it?

  • We didn't say that that is what he had told him. What I wrote was that that is what the US ambassador told us.

  • Yes, we understand that. According to the US ambassador to you, a much more senior figure in the United States government, the Under Secretary of State, had personally seen evidence that Mr Taylor was trafficking in stolen diamonds. That is extremely important information, isn't it?

  • So, why didn't you approach the Under Secretary of State to ask him what this evidence was that he had seen with his own eyes?

  • We approached his department on this subject and we were given information.

  • But you never approached him?

  • Did you even ask for a meeting with Mr Pickering?

  • Can I go back briefly to something that we talked about yesterday. You told us yesterday that as part of your work on the UN panel you investigated the background of some of the Liberian diamonds and you went - you obtained eight invoices in Antwerp, I think?

  • Out of hundreds you told us yesterday, hundreds possibly thousands, of invoices you selected eight?

  • At random, but just eight. That is hardly a scientific study, is it?

  • It is more the work of an amateur sleuth than someone preparing a professional analysis of what was going on with those Liberian diamond invoices, isn't it?

  • Our mandate was to determine the relationship between weapons and diamonds and the traffic between these two items in Sierra Leone and in Liberia and to look at air traffic control systems. We were not to look at every air traffic control logbook for every flight. We certainly couldn't have done anything like the scientific study that you are suggesting we should have done where diamonds are concerned. We had a little - our initial appointment was for under four months. We were given an extension. We had very little time. What we were trying to do was to make the connections and find out where the burden of the traffic was and I think we did that.

  • Mr Smillie, you were working for the United Nations. You chose - with the resources of the United Nations you chose to embark upon an exercise to look at Liberian diamond invoices. Why did you do it in such an amateur way?

  • I wouldn't say it was amateurish. We spent quite a long time with the Ministry of Economic Affairs in Antwerp. We had long discussions with them about the Liberian figures. I asked them to pull some files and give me some representative invoices and we decided to check on those invoices and track them back to Liberia if we could. It was a sample. It was no more than a sample.

  • How on earth could you say that eight out of thousands are representative invoices? You would have to check far more before you could reach that view, wouldn't you?

  • We - I suppose we could have done more and spent more time. We were on a very tight schedule.

  • Can I move you, please, to the photographs of the BAC111 aircraft that we saw yesterday. This is MFI-11, photographs A to D, for the Court record. Where did you get - I am sorry, I don't think you have got them yet. Where did you get these photographs from?

  • The panel got these from a member of the crew of the aircraft.

  • And when was that member of the crew of the aircraft contacted?

  • I think it was probably in October or November 2000. I don't have the exact date.

  • And was it a man, or a woman?

  • There are several people who supplied us with information that were extremely frightened of giving us any information for fear of retaliation, so we haven't named the individual involved.

  • Well, are you able to help us do you know whether this individual was a man, or a woman? Did you personally have any dealings with them?

  • I did not. It was other members of the panel.

  • Right. Presumably Mr Bodian, who was the air traffic control expert, or can you say that now? Do you know?

  • Mr Peleman was involved. I don't know how many others of the team were involved.

  • Do you know when this person claimed to have taken these photographs?

  • I understand that these were the - these were taken around the time of the March flights, the March 1999 flights, from Ouagadougou to Liberia.

  • You understand that from who?

  • Well, as I said, I didn't meet - I didn't meet the crew member and so it came from Mr Peleman and others, whoever else on the team met with this individual.

  • Yes. Was this individual a mercenary?

  • You will have to define mercenary. He was - well, now I have given you his gender, but he was a crew member of an aircraft. You will have to define mercenary for me.

  • Well these are arms shipments, yes?

  • Was he a regular commercial - was he a pilot, or a member of the crew? Was he a regular commercial employee flying planes, civil aviation, or was he flying arms during civil wars on a freelance basis? I think that probably meets the definition of mercenary.

  • The aircraft was - I am not sure whether it was owned by Leonid Minin, or whether it was rented by him, leased by him. I am not sure what the ownership of the aircraft was. I assume that anybody who required a licence to operate an aircraft would have to have that. You certainly wouldn't be able to fly an aircraft. So, again I am a little unclear about the term mercenary. If he was breaking UN embargoes, and in this case he certainly was, I suppose you would say, yes, he was a mercenary.

  • Yes. Was he paid for the information; in particular the photographs that he supplied to you?

  • How can you be sure of that?

  • We discussed payment of funding to anybody that we were going to be meeting in the course of our work and we decided clearly and absolutely we were not going to give money to anybody for anything.

  • Was there any documentary record connected with the photographs that show when they were taken? If you have a look on the back of the photographs, for example, is there any indication there that would show when they were taken?

  • The writing on the back of the photograph says "March 1999". That is my handwriting.

  • That is your handwriting, yes?

  • So, there is no indication of when those pictures were taken.

  • Do you know from what kind of camera, or with what kind of camera, they were taken?

  • No.

  • In particular, you don't know whether it was a digital camera which would have some form of recording of the date when the photographs were taken?

  • I am sorry, I don't know.

  • No. So, you are going entirely on information from this individual that these photographs were taken then?

  • Now you told us that you had information from various intelligence sources, yes?

  • From which countries were these intelligence sources?

  • We talked to intelligence sources in - well, to British intelligence sources, to American intelligence sources, to French intelligence and perhaps because we were seeing Police officials in Israel and a couple of other countries perhaps there was some intelligence involvement there as well, but the main sources were the US, the United Kingdom and of course Sierra Leone.

  • Yes, predominantly the United States?

  • Not predominantly the United States.

  • Predominantly the United States and Britain?

  • Yes. The same intelligence sources who sent us to war on the basis of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction?

  • That is an inappropriate question, I am afraid.

  • How could you be sure how reliable these intelligence sources were?

  • We actually saw radio intercepts - very detailed radio intercepts. There was a great deal of listening going on to the RUF and to their operations in Sierra Leone and in Liberia. We saw very detailed radio intercepts of communication between people involved in all of this.

  • Yes, and what else did you see?

  • We saw summary reports of various events as well.

  • Summary reports by intelligence agencies?

  • Well, those were the written reports. We talked to a number of individuals as well.

  • Did you see any other photographic material?

  • We saw - as I recall, we saw a photograph of Sanjivan Ruprah's Liberian passport and a passport in the name of Samir Nasr.

  • And the Liberian passport was a passport that is the same sort of Liberian passport that many Greek shipping magnates have who sail their vessels under the Liberian flag of convenience, isn't it?

  • I don't know. I haven't seen any other passports.

  • Right. Are you not aware that the Liberian Maritime Agency will issue passports to ship owners and the like who use the Liberian flag of convenience operated by a United States company?

  • No.

  • Would you agree, Mr Smillie, that by the time you came to write your UN report - and I think you said yesterday it was you who did the drafting of the report?

  • I said that I did the actual typing. I didn't write it. I did the typing. I wrote the diamond sections, the other people contributed their bits and pieces and we concluded on all of the points together.

  • By that time do you accept that certainly you, and probably some of your colleagues if not all of them, had formed views particularly hostile to President Charles Taylor?

  • Your Honour, my objection is that the word "hostile" is vague as to what counsel means.

  • Overruled. Please answer the question.

  • We presented the facts as we had seen them and as we understood them. I don't think there was any hostility in the report. There wasn't any hostility intended.

  • There may not have been any hostility in the report by your definition, or any hostility intended, but do you agree that you personally by that time were hostile to Charles Taylor? It is a simple question?

  • Honestly, I am having trouble with the word "hostile". I mean, we I think all developed very strong feelings about the RUF. We were appalled by what we had seen. We were hostile towards the RUF.

  • I think we were dismayed that there seemed to be so much evidence pointing directly to Mr Taylor that he was involved in both weapons and diamonds.

  • And are you seriously saying in the light of that information that you have just given us that you weren't hostile to Charles Taylor by the time you wrote that report?

  • I think we were trying as much as we possibly could to be objective and to present the facts objectively to the Sanctions Committee and to the Security Council without adding any personal views into it.

  • Is that still your view, or would you accept that by now you clearly are hostile to Charles Taylor?

  • Could I tell you an anecdote?

  • Well, I would like you just to answer the question with a simple yes or no?

  • You know, I think we felt sorry for him. I don't think it was hostility. The truth is we felt sorry for him that he had missed a huge opportunity in Liberia.

  • Do you know anybody else who feels sorry for Mr Taylor?

  • I think all of our team came to the conclusion that he had squandered his opportunity to turn Liberia from war to peace. We felt sorry for Liberia and we felt badly that he had missed that opportunity.

  • It was not a question, Mr Smillie, of simply feeling sorry for him, was it? You were as hostile to him as you were to the RUF, I suggest. Would you agree?

  • Those are your words. They are not mine.

  • I have no other questions, Madam President.

  • Thank you, Mr Munyard. Any re-exam from the Prosecution?

  • Mr Prosecutor, at this stage would you like to reintroduce your application to tender?

  • Yes, thank you, your Honour. The Prosecution moves the Court to accept into evidence MFI-1 through MIF-15.

  • Thank you. If the Court Manager could please remind me how many MFI-exhibits were there? MFI-1 until MFI ---

  • If it would please the Court, I could list each one?

  • Your Honour, it is until MFI-15.

  • The best thing would be for counsel to apply to tender one by one and so that I could hear from counsel opposite what their views are on each exhibit individually. So, MFI-1 is, if you could assist.

  • That is the curriculum vitae of the witness, Ian Smillie.

  • Mr Munyard, any objection?

  • So, the CV of Mr Smillie is admitted as Prosecution exhibit ---

  • Your Honour, it would be Prosecution exhibit P10.

  • [Exhibit P10 admitted]

  • MFI-2, your Honour, is a clip from the video "Blood Diamonds". Clip number 4.

  • Madam President, we object to all of the video clips for reasons that were enunciated yesterday and I don't think I need do much more today than to repeat in summary form our objections to the video clips. These are for the most part anonymous witnesses; anonymous in the sense that we don't know any of the details of these witnesses. Many of them do not deal with the question of diamonds. Insofar as any of those witnesses do deal with the question of diamonds Mr Smillie is here, albeit we will be submitting in due course that he doesn't meet the qualification of expert for the Court's purposes.

    In the video clips, there is a combination of material diamond related and unrelated to diamonds. None of the material that is unrelated to diamonds should go in through this witness, or we would submit at all. There are other witnesses. As my learned friend indicated yesterday, despite our offer at the status conference in August of last year to try to reach agreement so that victims of the conflict did not have to come all the way to Europe to give evidence and that their evidence could be agreed and read, the Prosecution nevertheless decided they still wanted to call some of these individuals, then they can prove the facts that they wish to prove through those individuals, who can be properly tried and tested, rather than small clips taken for all we know out of context from an American television company programme.

    As far as the diamond related aspects of the programme is concerned, those elements are no more based on expertise than that of Mr Smillie, and the Prosecution have got Mr Smillie here to give such evidence as is necessary on that.

  • Mr Munyard, these are your comments with regard to all the clips shown yesterday?

  • Your Honour, yes.

  • So, in that regard [microphone not activated] before I ask you to respond could we perhaps go through all the clips, give the MFI-number of all the clips and then I will ask you to respond or to reply to Mr Munyard's objection.

  • I will give the clips in the order that they were given the MFI-number. As stated, clip number 4 is MFI-2.

  • Clip number 3 is MFI-5. Clip number 1, just to remind your Honours, was a very short clip. It actually was the first one I showed which talked about Sierra Leone being a very poor country and depicted some of the scenery. That is MFI-6.

    Clip number 2 - and again to remind your Honours that was the clip that was largely of Mr Fofana, a double amputee who was speaking about his experience and his family who were burnt to death in their homes - was MIF-7.

    Clip number 5, which contained information and some scenes of artisanal mining and was largely an account by a young man - I am sorry, I don't recall his name, but it is given in the video - who was subjected to forced mining and talked about the murder of his friend, or his colleague. That is MIF-8.

    The last clip shown, MFI-15, was clip number 6, which included - if your Honours need reminding, that included an account by several persons: an amputee, a woman who was sexually assaulted with a stick and another victim in that case. That was a woman whose husband's hands were amputated.

    Your Honour, addressing all of these - thank you. First of all, counsel said some of these have to do with diamonds and some don't. Our position is all of these have to do with diamonds. This is what our case is about and this is why we brought Mr Smillie. A key link between Mr Smillie's expertise on diamonds and this case and the relevance to this case was in the last questions he answered on direct examination. He had told us about how artisanal mining is labour intensive, the diamonds can be moved over millions of years by rivers from a kimberlite and an area can be covered with those and that, in order to exploit those diamonds, it is very important for the person or group that wants to exploit them to control the population. If you don't, you get a situation like in 1955 when there were 75,000 miners - independent miners - coming to Kono illegally and in the present day there is 120,000. He gave an example of New Year's Day when there was a mad rush in Kono because someone had found a diamond and hundreds of thousands of people showed up shovelling dirt into the backs of cars to take it away.

    So all of these clips in our view have to do with diamonds and, of the terrorism that is depicted very briefly in these clips, only three of the clips depict victims and talk about atrocities and those are clip number 2, clip number 5 and clip number 6.

    Those do have slightly less than nine minutes - eight minutes and 53 seconds in total - that includes brief examples of the terror that was inflicted. I presume that the Defence is objecting to these nine minutes because it is distressing for your Honours and all of us to watch it, and I certainly believe for me it was distressing even though I have seen it many times before. But, your Honour, it gives us all an insight and gives your Honours an insight that, if we are distressed watching and hearing an account of an amputation, of a sexual assault, of being forced to mine for a year, we can imagine the terror of the people at the time. We can get a small hint, thousands of miles away and years away in the safety of this courtroom, of the terror of the population.

    So this testimony, just like the brief victim testimony, illustrates the terror that is part of our case and these are true accounts. This is not a Hollywood movie. The man who was speaking with both arms amputated, this is not something that was done for special effects. He is living without his hands for the rest of his life.

    The information about the diamonds is used as a visual aid in this trial just as we might use a diagram of kimberlite. It is simply in video form. It helps the Court to see how mining is actually done. The video diagram is simply the same as if we presented a series of diagrams showing how diamonds are formed in the earth, how they are spread out, how it is retailed, how it is sold and it just allows the Court in a very brief exhibit - the total exhibit of all six clips together is less than 20 minutes, slightly less than 19 minutes, and I believe all are relevant to our case and I would ask the Court to admit all of them.

  • Thank you, Mr Koumjian. This is the ruling of the Court in light of the application so far on the clips. Pursuant to Rule 89 (C) of the rules of procedure of this Court a chamber may admit any relevant evidence, and in our view these clips do contain relevant evidence. However, the issues raised by Mr Munyard are pertinent, but in our view they go to weight rather than admissibility of these clips. As you know, issues of weight are dealt with at the end of the trial when all the evidence comes in, and we will then review these clips and measure them up to the rest of the evidence and weigh them up at the end of the case.

    Therefore, I will admit these clips as follows: Clip number 4, which is MFI-2, is admitted as exhibit P11; clip number 3, which was formerly MFI-5, is admitted as exhibit P12; clip number 1, which was originally MFI-6, is admitted as exhibit P13; clip number 2, which was originally MFI-7, is now exhibit P14; clip number 5, originally MFI-8, is now exhibit P15; and clip number 6, which was originally MFI-15, is now exhibit P16.

  • [Exhibits P11 to P16 admitted]

    Now, Mr Koumjian, you wanted to continue with the admission of certain other exhibits?

  • We are up to exhibit P16. Please continue.

  • The next exhibit is the Security Council resolution that set up the panel and that is Security Council resolution 1306, MFI-3.

  • No objection to that, your Honour.

  • Then the Security Council resolution MFI-3 - I am sorry, let me just get the proper citation of this. Security Council resolution 1306 of 2000 is admitted as exhibit P17. Prosecution exhibit 17.

  • [Exhibit P17 admitted]

  • Thank you. The next exhibit is the report of the panel of experts that was presented to the United Nations, the panel of which Mr Smillie was part, and that is MFI-4.

  • Mr Munyard?

  • Your Honour, we object to the admission in evidence of this particular report for the reason essentially that this is a report that is based only partly on expertise. It is patently obvious that only some of those who contributed to this report were experts in the true sense for reasons that I have already dealt with this morning in my questioning of Mr Smillie. The Chairman was not an expert and, for reasons that I will deal with now and they will apply equally to Mr Smillie's report, in our submission Mr Smillie is not an expert in the way in which that word is understood in Court proceedings.

    Mr Smillie's expertise, as the Court knows, is in administration essentially. He has spent a lifetime in administration and no doubt very effectively so. Indeed he has been recognised for his role carrying out that kind of work and no-one on the Defence side wishes to in any way detract from the good work that he has done, but it is not work as an expert in the field of the diamond industry.

    You know from his evidence of the minimal experience that he had in Sierra Leone by the time he published his report - I am sorry, his organisation published its report in the year. By the time he was appointed to the United Nations panel of experts in August of that year and worked on that particular report until December of that year, it cannot be said that his experience and his knowledge and his understanding turned him from anything more than at best a specialist into an expert.

    It is interesting to note that in contrast to his lifetime's experience as an administrator and organiser and reviewer of projects and the work that he described yesterday, that at least two members of the United Nations panel had a lifetime of experience and expertise; the one in the field of air traffic control and the other as a senior police officer. Well, a police officer starting no doubt in the ranks and rising up over a 20 year period.

    Those - and in particular the air traffic controller - are what any court of law would recognise as an expert. The very best that Mr Smillie can do is to apply his undoubted organisational skills to data that he and others have collected and put together a report. That makes him no more an expert, in our submission, than the makers of the television programme that my learned friend has shown you clips of, or indeed a university student who is reviewing material and doing perhaps some original work and coming up with a dissertation in the course of their degree.

    It did not involve Mr Smillie in many, many years of work in Sierra Leone, or in the diamond industry. He accepted also the limitations of his knowledge of the diamond industry. He is not a geologist. He has not worked in that industry in any other capacity. He has gathered together as I have indicated an amount of data, together with some colleagues, and put together a report and that report may be accurate. It may not be. I am not commenting on that. But it does not turn him into an expert.

    For that reason, in our submission, neither the United Nations panel of experts' report nor Mr Smillie's own report to this Court, which relies of course heavily on his earlier writing in the PAC report and the United Nations report --

  • We were actually dealing at this stage with the panel's report.

  • Yes, I am hoping to try to save time by dealing with my objection overall. The two are inextricably interlinked and that is why I have put it in this way. I won't need to repeat what I say when I come on to Mr Smillie's report.

  • We prefer to do things in an orderly manner, Mr Munyard, because these exhibits are tendered individually.

  • Very well. Well, Madam --

  • Mr Smillie's own report has not been tendered in evidence.

  • You have heard my submissions in relation to the UN report.

  • In future, please respect the order that the Presiding Judge would prefer. This is the way it will be; exhibit by exhibit. Thank you.

  • Madam President, I have made my submissions about the UN report in that case.

  • Your Honour, this morning counsel did a good job going through the individual backgrounds and expertise of the members of the panel. The report of the panel was a team effort. The conclusions were agreed upon according to this witness and, although he helped draft it, all of them discussed the material that was presented. We had an expert in arms, a person with great police experience, a person with air traffic control experience and a senior diplomat all contributing to that report.

    Your Honour, the report, although it contains some opinions, the opinions I think are largely in the recommendations which are not the portions of the report that are most important to this case. What the report does generally is relate facts; facts about how diamonds are produced, about statistics of diamond production in Sierra Leone, about the quality of diamonds and the capacity of production in Liberia, about Belgian statistics which, while certainly we cannot rely upon to know where those diamonds come from, clearly show from the Belgian import statistics that diamonds that purportedly were coming from Liberia far, far exceeded the capacity of Liberian production, although these were from companies with addresses in Liberia to be forwarded to the Liberian maritime agency.

    In arms, we say the report relates facts about arms shipments and specifically about six shipments in March 1999, a key shipment in December of 1998 just before the Freetown invasion - December 22nd 1998 - and other shipments of arms. These are facts gathered by the panel and presented. They are not opinions.

    Furthermore, your Honour, the report was issued by the United Nations during the Indictment period. The report also is a fact in this case in that it provided further - yet again further notice to the Accused of the crimes that were happening, of the RUF diamond dealing, of the diamonds going through Liberia. Although it is not our case that he needed that notice, certainly this adds to the notice that he had of these activities. Thank you.

  • The ruling on MIF-4, that is the report of the panel of experts, is that this report is admissible - Mr Koumjian, why are you on your feet? Shouldn't I rule on this particular - do you have anything additional to say before I rule on it?

  • No, your Honour, just bad knees that creak going up and down.

  • I am sorry. The report of the panel is in our view relevant and therefore admissible under Rule 89 (C). Again, the issues raised by Defence counsel are pertinent, but in our view they go to the weight of this document and will be considered in due course as any other weight matters are considered. So, the document MFI-4 is admitted as exhibit P18.

  • [Exhibit P18 admitted]

  • Could you please proceed with your applications to tender.

  • The next document in order of MFI numbers is MFI-9, the report of Mr Smillie for in Court "Diamonds, the RUF and the Liberian connection", and we tender that into evidence.

  • And perhaps while you are still on your feet you could comment by way of reply to Mr Munyard's comments on this particular report.

  • Madam President, I do propose to follow your earlier direction and to address you on my learned friend's application.

  • Mr Munyard, I thought you had exhausted everything you had to say on this report.

  • I took cognizance of what you directed me to do and, in the light of that, I thought it appropriate to address you even briefly individually on each of these matters. I am seeking to follow the directions of the President of the Court.

  • Very well, Mr Munyard.

  • Can I add very shortly to what I have already submitted that it is important for this Court to bear in mind that this is the first time that Mr Smillie has given evidence in a Court of law purporting or seeking to do so as an expert. He has not, in other words, previously been recognised by a Court as an expert. That of course is a matter that is not binding on the Court, but it is a matter of considerable significance and relevance, and you will appreciate from your experience that many persons who are put forward as experts have been recognised as such in the past by Courts of various jurisdictions. That is not the case with Mr Smillie.

    His own report furthermore by his admission in evidence cannot be seen as entirely reliable, and in particular that which my learned friend has just touched upon - the Belgian import figures. Mr Smillie agreed with me that the Belgian import figures of Liberian diamonds are not worth the paper that they are written on. There is absolutely no way of knowing the provenance of those - sorry, the country of origin of those diamonds and the evidence was quite clear from him that nobody knows where they came from. His argument was that his estimates and the estimates of others as to Liberian diamond production were accurate, but they are estimates and estimates only. The figures that have been produced in his report are patently and obviously inaccurate.

    Equally, I would add that invoices that he has referred to - and this was more a matter of evidence, a gloss on the report, on his own report - diamond invoices that he looked into demonstrated further the lack of reliability of the Belgian import figures from Liberia. So, the report itself is based on figures that are patently inaccurate and a lack of any detailed knowledge of the Liberian diamond mining industry.

    Those are the further submissions I wish to make in addition to what I drew the Court's attention to earlier.

  • Mr Koumjian, please.

  • Thank you. Your Honour, in the subject that we are dealing with in this trial I don't think we can find in the world a person better qualified to give an opinion about the role of diamonds in a conflict, particularly in the conflict in Sierra Leone, than Mr Smillie. He is not a diamond appraiser, but he is a person - one of the world's leading figures in leading the fight against diamonds having a role in conflicts. He began that study some years ago and it has taken him to study the industry to very, very numerous discussions with members of the industry, with producers, with retailers. He has participated with the industry, he was one of the individuals that initiated or worked for the initiations of the Kimberley Process and the scheme that we now have today requiring certification and he certainly had a connection to Sierra Leone back from his first job, he has a knowledge of Sierra Leone, he has studied in particular the diamond production in Sierra Leone and how this war, this internal conflict or this conflict in Sierra Leone, was fuelled by diamonds and by those outside the country that wanted to exploit the diamonds in Sierra Leone.

    In his report he reports numerous facts, including the figures from Belgium which he indicates and indicates in the report had to be wrong. That is what the report points out. Obviously, Liberia did not have the capacity to produce the diamonds that were being reported by the Belgian authorities as being imported from that country. Thank you.

  • I have carefully listened to the submissions on both sides regarding this particular report. We are satisfied that Mr Smillie has - within the framework of the statute of the Special Court and the rules, Mr Smillie has exhibited special skills in the field - special skills and knowledge in the field - of diamonds which qualify him as an expert within the meaning of the word as envisaged in our statute and rules.

    Now as regards the reliability of his report, that again is a matter of weight that will have to be assessed. We have of course taken into effect or into consideration the cross-examination throughout his testimony and this will be weighed accordingly when the time comes. Therefore the report of Mr Smillie, formerly MFI-9, is now admitted in evidence as exhibit P19.

  • [Exhibit P19 admitted]

  • Mr Koumjian, I have my eye on the clock and I think that, in view of the time, we could take a break now and reconvene for the remainder of your applications at five-past-eleven. So, Court will adjourn for half-an-hour. Thank you.

  • [Break taken at 10.35 a.m.]

  • [Upon resuming at 11.05 a.m.]

  • Mr Koumjian, before the break you were continuing with your applications to tender.

  • Thank you. The next document in order is MFI-10. This is a letter, the signatory is Sam Bockarie, "To whom it may concern."

  • Thank you, Madam President, we object to the admission of this primarily on the basis of its lack of authentication. I raised this point when the letter was produced yesterday when your Honour was concerned about the legibility of it. In our submission a far more significant and important aspect arises in relation to this letter: it has not been proven to be from the author. There has been no proof of the signature and indeed I think it is right to say that Mr Smillie wasn't even sure where it came from. I hope I am doing justice to his evidence on that, but that is certainly my recollection: that it was that document that he couldn't say where it had been obtained from. For those reasons, and they are very important reasons in my submission, no proof of its provenance and even more importantly no authentication of this particular document as coming from the person it purports to come from.

  • Your Honour, just to note, my recollection, we would have to check the transcript, is he said it came from the house of Foday Sankoh, although he could not say who had picked it up, and in 2000.

  • I accept that. The important point about it was that is where he thinks it came from, but he doesn't know how he got it.

  • Just to continue, your Honour, in an international tribunal the case law is consistent amongst tribunals that authenticity of a document goes to the weight and unlike national jurisdictions it is not necessary to establish an elaborate foundation before a document is admitted. Many documents are admitted with signatures without proving through an expert testimony that that signature is the person who purports to sign. Your Honour, the document has relevance in that it shows the interest in mining.

    Also I just point out that in the matter of signature the Prosecution does anticipate submitting other documents signed by the same person. We would submit the signatures look identical, so the signature itself could have some evidentiary value in relation to other documents at a later time. Thank you.

  • It is the majority view of the Chamber that this document is relevant to the case. The question, or issue, of its origin, or authenticity, in the majority's view go to weight and these will be decided appropriately at the right time so the document is admitted as exhibit P20. Was that the end of your application, sir?

  • [Exhibit P20 admitted]

  • No. The next documents, in order MFI-11 (a), (b), (c) and (d), are the four photographs of the Minin plane and one of the photographs of part of the airport.

  • Yes, Mr Munyard?

  • Madam President, we object to those on the basis again of a lack of proof of who they were taken by: an anonymous source. We have no evidence of any objective nature as to when they were taken and the very best that can be said about that plane is that it was registered to Mr Minin. Mr Smillie said this morning he didn't know even if the plane was owned by him, it may have been leased by him, and in the circumstances the evidence is tenuous at best and its relevance must be marginal in our submission.

  • Your Honour, my understanding is that the correct term would be that the source was confidential rather than anonymous. The witness did not reveal the name but indicated that the panel had spoken to the person and obtained it from a crew member. Regarding the relevance of these documents these are photographs of a plane that the accused in this case has acknowledged, in that meeting with the panel of experts, he himself used. There are direct ties between Mr Minin and the accused in this case and this plane -- which the accused used as a executive jet and described the interior, said it wasn't laid out for cargo, we have photographs and evidence from a member of the crew, and other evidence that will be presented -- was used to transport weapons, weapons that subsequently we will show went to Sierra Leone.

  • Your Honour, your microphones are on just so you know.

  • Mr Koumjian, just a clarification, you did apply for all four photographs to be exhibited?

  • It is the majority view of the Chamber that these photographs are relevant. The issue of their origin or authenticity goes to the weight to be attached to the evidence and so the photographs are admitted and numbered as follows -- actually in order. MFI-11 (a) to (d) are now numbered as prosecution exhibits 21 (a) to (d) respectively.

  • [Exhibit P21 A-D admitted]

  • Thank you. The next document in order, MFI-12, is United Nations Security Council resolution 1343 of 2001. This was a resolution taken by the Security Council after receiving and considering the panel of experts' report of which Mr Smillie was a part. It indicates in it --

  • No objection. I can cut that short I hope.

  • Thank you. The resolution 1343 of 2001 is admitted in evidence as exhibit P22.

  • [Exhibit P22 admitted]

  • The next document, MFI-13, is I believe -- I believe that is a copy of a letter from the accused to the Security Council that was submitted just before the debate on the panel of experts' report.

  • No objection.

  • The letter dated 24th January 2001, formally appearing as MFI-13, is admitted in evidence as exhibit P23.

  • [Exhibit P23 admitted]

  • The next document, MFI-14, is a letter -- the preliminary letters from the Charge d'Affairs of the Liberian mission to the United Nations. It is a letter from the foreign minister of Liberia.

  • The letter, formally MFI-14, is admitted in evidence as prosecution exhibit 24.

  • [Exhibit P24 admitted]

  • Thank you, your Honour. That concludes all of the exhibits of the prosecution application.

  • Mr Smillie, I believe that concludes your testimony before the court. I want to thank you for taking time off and for your testimony. You are now free to leave.

  • Thank you very much.

  • Your Honour, the Prosecution calls the next witness who is TF1-015.

  • This witness, if I recall properly, was formerly a protected witness who has since waived his right to testify in closed session, or under protection, so he will testify in open court.

  • Correct, your Honour.

  • Okay. Sorry, Mr Prosecutor, could you please remind me your name again?

  • Mohammed A Bangura, your Honour.

  • Out of curiosity I am wondering why it takes so long for the witnesses to come into court. Is there a good explanation for this length of time?

  • [Microphone not activated].

  • Madam Court Manager, could you shed some light on why it takes witnesses so long.

  • Your Honour, the witness waiting rooms are located two floors from the court and it is the only possible place where the witnesses can wait, so it takes a while to go down the stairs and pick up the witness. That is the cause of the delay, thank you.

  • Could the witness be sworn. Would the witness please be upstanding, please stand up as you take the oath.