Thank you very much, your Honours.

I will do so, your Honours.

Of course, your Honours. I was not able to note the ERNs at that time, but I will request our case manager to liaise with them and obtain the ERNs and I will supply the information as soon as possible.

Your Honours, it became a contested matter and I believe this matter has been debated and pursued in the Liberian courts over a certain period of time. I know the OTP was represented by a Liberian legal practitioner and I understand persons representing or - other persons apparently representing Mr Taylor ...

Yes, your Honours, I'm unable to say that precisely.

Your Honours, I'm not aware of any formal official log. OTP investigators have variously gone there and I have not seen unified, combined log. In fact, if there were such an official log made available to the OTP it would greatly assist in knowing what evidence exists there or ...

Your Honours, it might be with the investigations section. I believe such a log existed in the past. I don't know where it is right now.

I believe, your Honours, the OTP did create a log after they had received these documents in 2005. I have not personally been in possession of that log, but when the documents were received by the OTP from Mr Poraj-Wilczynski then the OTP created a table or a log, but ...

No, your Honours, I have not seen such a log.

No, your Honour.

That was where the RUF office was, RUF mining office.

Your Honours, Koakoyima would be the place where the documents were seized.

Yes, your Honour, special branch.

That appears to be correct, your Honours.

I think that was - I believe it was a letter written by Johnny Paul Koroma to Charles Taylor on 3 October 1997.

The other document had the ERN 12940 - sorry, preceded by three zeros of course. Then the last ERN on this was 00012942.

Yes, I believe so. I don't have tab numbers in front of me but it was the third of the notebooks, the small notebook that said "RUF mining unit".

That's one document. And the other one --

Your Honours, I believe the ERN is 00012914 and it goes up to 00012927.

There are two documents among these 14. I believe they are both logbooks, or both notebooks. The ERN for them is 12914 to 917. And the second document has the ERN 12940 to 12942. One of them is a logbook. I'm not sure about the other one.

That's correct, your Honours.

Yes, your Honours. Samples were drawn by the pathologist, who did the autopsy, and I was then handed those samples and they were processed for comparative DNA analysis and on the basis of those DNA tests we concluded that that body was that of Sam Bockarie.

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

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

Well, it depends what the witness wanted to do. One cannot force them to turn over exhibits if they do not wish to do so. I can think of many such situations where a witness would not want to part with a photograph, or another original document. I do believe ...

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

That is correct. However, I would say - and this goes again back across tribunals - these international organisations have often found it difficult for this mix of people to gel very easily. People come in with different experiences, different ways of doing things and every tribunal has to go through some ...

That is correct.

That's correct.

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

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

That is possible.

Certainly that is the standard procedure. However, your Honours, because of the circumstances in which we operate occasionally one encounters a situation where not all the requirements of the protocol are satisfied and I don't think that is necessarily unique to this institution. Occasionally these problems with provenance happen ...

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

Yes, you have. That is correct.

Occasionally evidence has been brought to the evidence unit and the person bringing the evidence has not been able to supply all relevant information, for example, as to who gave the evidence to the OTP, when the evidence was received, et cetera. However, like I have said, that is an ...

Your Honours, there is indeed such a procedure. Certainly in the evidence unit we have very stringent procedures and nothing is ever received without recording other attendant information. However, what I was referring to was an exception to the general rule that everything is recorded and then passed on and ...

I would be happy to assist the Court.

Well, one would expect there to be a record. Unfortunately, at times documents come into the OTP and there is - the linkage is occasionally in some cases lost and by the time the evidence comes to the evidence unit that information is no longer readily available. It has to do ...

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

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

Yes, I have looked at them.

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

Always, in fact.

Yes, normally.

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

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

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

No, it doesn't. No, he didn't.

Yes, I would.