buildings, describes an area consistent with that shown on exhibit R92 as outside the north-western tunnel courtyard.
657 Furthermore, the applicant submits that the presence of the yellow palm oil container in the photograph of the body is of no significance, having regard to the following evidence from Person 29:
And you know for sure, don't you, that there was a yellow palm oil container in that courtyard on that day?---The yellow palm oil – yes. I can say that. Because there was a yellow – to the best of my recollection, a yellow palm oil container came out of that tunnel. Whether that yellow palm oil container is that yellow palm oil container there, I can't say. And I can't say whether that was inside – well, I can say that that's not inside the courtyard, because when I was inside the courtyard there was no EKIA engaged or killed inside that courtyard.
658 The applicant submits that the time-stamps on the SSE photographs taken by Person 18 (exhibit R18) do not unambiguously support the respondents' case about the location of the body of EKIA56. For example, there is a one minute difference between photograph 13 (a photograph of the upper part of the body of EKIA56) and photograph 14 (a photograph of the tunnel entrance). However, there also appears to be only a one minute time difference between photograph 35 (a photograph of EKIA57) and photograph 36 (a photograph of EKIA56). The applicant submits that ultimately the evidence of the time-stamps of the photographs in exhibit R18 is equivocal and equally supports the applicant's submission that EKIA56 was engaged outside the tunnel courtyard in close proximity to EKIA57.
659 Whether EKIA56 was killed in the tunnel courtyard and his body later photographed in that location depends on a consideration of a number of interrelated issues, including whether two men came out of the tunnel, whether Person 41's evidence should be accepted or rejected, including what is to be made of his reference to a minute or two, whether the applicant's account is to be accepted and whether the evidence of other witnesses, including Persons 14 and 24 is to be accepted.
660 Person 18 gave evidence that the body of EKIA56 was found inside the compound and near the tunnel entrance. This is confirmed by a contemporaneous document, that is to say, the notation on the evidence bag. I find two men came out of the tunnel. I accept the evidence of Person 41. I find that Person 41's “minute or two” is not to be taken literally. It was a short period, but a sufficient time for the majority of people in the courtyard area to disperse. I reject the applicant's account of the engagements of EKIA56 and EKIA57. The first three points made by the applicant are rejected.
