1 Tuesday, 3 February 2004

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 --- Upon commencing at 2.20 p.m.

5 JUDGE LIU: Call the case, Madam Court Deputy.

6 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. This is Case Number

7 IT-02-60-T, the Prosecutor versus Vidoje Blagojevic and Dragan Jokic.

8 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much. Before we have the witness, are

9 there any matters that the parties would like to bring to the attention of

10 the Bench?

11 Yes, Mr. Waespi?

12 MR. WAESPI: No, Mr. President.

13 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.

14 MR. KARNAVAS: No, Mr. President.

15 JUDGE LIU: Mr. Stojanovic?

16 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] No questions, Your Honour.

17 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much. Could we have the witness,

18 please.

19 MR. WAESPI: Mr. President, in relation to this witness, I know

20 that he has been called for the only purpose of cross-examination. And if

21 you allow me, I would ask him just a few brief questions, perhaps 10

22 minutes, 15 minutes, so he gets warmed up for cross-examination.

23 JUDGE LIU: Yes, please.

24 [The witness entered court]

25 JUDGE LIU: Good afternoon, witness.

1 THE WITNESS: Good afternoon.

2 JUDGE LIU: Would you please make the solemn declaration.

3 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the

4 whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

5 WITNESS: HELGE BRUNBORG

6 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much. You may sit down, please.

7 THE WITNESS: Thank you.

8 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Waespi.

9 MR. WAESPI: Thank you, Mr. President.

10 Examined by Mr. Waespi:

11 Q. Can you please state -- spell your name, Dr. Brunborg.

12 A. My first name is Helge, H-e-l-g-e. And my family name is

13 Brunborg, B-r-u-n-b-o-r-g.

14 Q. What is your profession?

15 A. I am a researcher.

16 Q. And in what field?

17 A. In demography, or population studies it's also called.

18 Q. And who is your current employer?

19 A. Statistics Norway.

20 MR. WAESPI: Your Honours, we have a couple of exhibits which are

21 a part of the Krstic record and we'll come to that. The first one is his

22 CV, an updated version, and it's P727. I don't think we have to go into

23 that. He can be cross-examined on that. I just have a few issues to

24 raise.

25 Q. The first one, I understand, Dr. Brunborg, that you had -- you

1 just came back from a recent assignment in the Middle East which is not

2 mentioned in your CV. Can you tell us what that is?

3 A. I was asked by the UNFPA, United Nations Population Fund, to write

4 a report on the effects of the separation barrier in the West Bank in the

5 occupied Palestinian territory, on the effects of the -- on the

6 population.

7 Q. Now, let me turn to your testimony in the Krstic case. I believe

8 it was on the 1st of June, 2000. And this transcript has already been

9 admitted by the Trial Chamber, and I believe you had a chance in my office

10 to read through it. Do you have to make any comments on that?

11 A. No, I was reasonably satisfied with what I said then, I think.

12 Q. Now, let me go back to your CV. I see there that you worked for

13 the OTP, Office of the Prosecution -- Prosecutor for quite a while. Can

14 you tell us in brief how come that you came to The Hague and worked for

15 the Prosecution.

16 A. In 1996/1997, the Office of the Prosecutor felt the need for

17 somebody to look at all the statistics that were floating around on the

18 consequences of the conflict in Bosnia, especially the number of dead

19 people, but also on refugees, displaced persons, and so on. They

20 approached the Norwegian government, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and

21 asked if somebody could be -- from Norway could be assigned to do this for

22 a year. I was asked to apply, together with colleagues, and I was

23 selected to do this. I came here at the end of June 1997 and stayed until

24 the end of December.

25 Q. Now, can you tell us who -- with whom you dealt in -- while you

1 were here in the OTP. What were the main persons you were tasked to work

2 with?

3 A. Well, at the beginning it was Morten Bergsmo, a lawyer, and John

4 Ralston, who later became chief of investigations. And later many people

5 in many -- many teams, including the team that worked on Srebrenica. I

6 was assigned after a while to the leadership research team.

7 Q. Thank you, Dr. Brunborg. Now, you said that you worked on

8 Srebrenica, and obviously that's why you came here today. Can you tell us

9 who tasked you within the Srebrenica team in relation to

10 Srebrenica-related projects.

11 A. Well, several people there, particularly Peter McCloskey and Jean

12 Rene Ruez, who asked me to work on Srebrenica to validate and estimate the

13 number of persons who went missing after the fall of the enclave of

14 Srebrenica in July 1995.

15 Q. Now, can you tell us a little bit more about the interactions you

16 had with these people from the OTP. Did they tell you how to conduct your

17 studies? Did they interfere with your standards, if you had any, in your

18 specific field of work?

19 A. Not at all. My approach from the beginning, right from the time I

20 came here, was to base my work on data on individuals, individual records

21 as much as possible. Since it is much more difficult to lie or to cheat

22 with individual records than with statistics produced by somebody else.

23 So I immediately started to look at how can we collect lists of persons,

24 of victims, during the conflict and of the population before the conflict

25 and after the conflict, preferably in an electronic format so it was

1 possible to do electronically process and compare and match this data.

2 Fortunately there was a list -- I learned about a list of missing persons

3 for Bosnia, and this was the starting point for the analysis of the

4 missing persons from Srebrenica.

5 Q. Now, in your discussions with Jean Rene Ruez and Peter McCloskey,

6 did you receive guidance in relation to whether you should be more liberal

7 or more conservative or whatever in relation to your projects and indeed

8 the numbers you were discussing?

9 A. They told me to do very strict and to be very careful, very

10 conservative. And they also told me that I should only include persons

11 who were registered as missing after the 11th of July, 1995, and only

12 persons whose place of missing was related to the fall of Srebrenica, that

13 is near Srebrenica.

14 Q. Yes. Thanks, Dr. Brunborg, I think we will come to that in a

15 moment. Now, let me turn to the two reports which you drafted. The first

16 one, the main report, is the report you had drafted for purposes of the

17 Krstic trial dated 12th February, 2000.

18 MR. WAESPI: And, Your Honours, that's Prosecution Exhibit 225 --

19 sorry, 725.

20 Q. And the second report which you had recently drafted, an addendum,

21 dated 12th April, 2003, that's Prosecution Exhibit 726. Now again you had

22 the chance to look at these reports in my office, and can you comment

23 briefly about -- we'll go into details about the substance. But do you

24 have general comments as to their accuracy as you see it?

25 A. I think they are -- still stand for everything I wrote here.

1 Since then there may have been new data that came up. So that's the only

2 thing I would have wanted to change, is to adjust for new data that has

3 become available, but otherwise I'm reasonably happy with the reports.

4 Q. Now, let's turn very briefly to the first report, the one which has

5 been part already of the Krstic case.

6 MR. WAESPI: And the title, Your Honours, is, and I quote, "Report

7 on the Number of Missing and Dead from Srebrenica." If the witness could

8 be shown this report.

9 Q. And perhaps while this is being done, if you could briefly tell

10 the Trial Chamber the mandate that you were given, what was the purpose of

11 the report?

12 A. I was asked to estimate and validate the number of persons who

13 went missing in connection with the fall of Srebrenica on 11 July, 1995.

14 That was a brief mandate, but a lot of work to do.

15 Q. And you told us already one parameter you were given that -- one

16 about dates and about time. I believe you said -- you were told only to

17 include people from 11th of July onwards. Can you elaborate more about

18 that. Was there also an end date to that window?

19 A. Yes, the end date was the end of 1995, the 31st of December. But

20 in practice there were very few missing persons -- very few persons who

21 went missing after August of 1995, I think less than 100. So most of the

22 missing persons went missing or reported as missing in July and August of

23 1995.

24 Q. How about the territory of missing persons you were concerned

25 [sic]?

1 A. In that case, we were given a list of opstinas, that is,

2 municipalities, and places in municipalities that were related to the fall

3 of Srebrenica, which were not so far from Srebrenica in itself. And only

4 those places were included among the missing. People who were reported as

5 being missing from other parts of Bosnia were not included.

6 Q. Now, can you tell us - and perhaps you could use Prosecution

7 Exhibit 731 - can you tell us the main finding of your report.

8 MR. WAESPI: And I think it could be helpful if it could be placed

9 onto the ELMO.

10 Q. And perhaps you can start with the last figure before you explain

11 how this figure is reached.

12 A. The bottom line is 7.475 Srebrenica-related victims. That is

13 missing and dead persons. And we see that I have arrived at this figure

14 through adding and subtracting the numbers above. There were -- we used

15 several lists of missing persons, in fact two lists from the ICRC, that is

16 a national Red Cross committee, and two lists from PHR, that is physicians

17 for human rights. We found that 5.712 victims were on both lists after we

18 had merged them. And 1.586 on the ICRC lists only. And 192 on the PHR

19 list reasonable.

20 Q. So after combining these two lists from these two different

21 sources, ICRC and PHR, you came to a number of 7.490?

22 A. That is correct.

23 Q. Now, can you tell us the methods ICRC and PHR used to collect

24 these names?

25 A. The ICRC and PHR are both non-governmental organisations with

1 different mandates. One of the mandates of ICRC is to trace persons who

2 go missing in a conflict to unite family members. If there is a chaotic

3 situation, people lose track of each other. So they -- throughout the

4 conflict in the former Yugoslavia, starting in 1991, I believe, they had

5 offices that registered people as missing. When somebody was missing, the

6 relatives, they could go there and give them the particulars about the

7 person. And I believe they have channels and ways of searching for people

8 all over the former Yugoslavia and in the rest of the world, in fact.

9 Whereas PHR, they had a different mandate. They started their

10 work in 1996, and the major purpose was to help in identifying people who

11 would be exhumed from mass graves or from graves related to the fall of

12 Srebrenica. So they would ask their relatives who came forward for

13 different kinds of information, like special physical characteristics,

14 special clothing, and so on, to help in the identification. This also

15 assisted later DNA analysis of the body parts that were found.

16 Q. Now, I see that if we go back to your exhibit, that you have

17 compared this intermediate result of 7.490 to the voters registers of 1997

18 and 1998. And we see that you deducted the number of 9. Can you explain

19 this process.

20 A. Well, people who are missing and believed to be dead should not be

21 able to vote. So when we had this complete list of people who were

22 registered to vote in 1997 and 1998, we wanted to make a comparison to see

23 if there were, in fact, people believed to be missing who were registered

24 to vote. So we did a very careful comparison, and we found nine names

25 that we believe are unique and that are appearing on both lists of missing

1 persons and the list of voters. So there is an error somewhere. Either

2 these are not really missing persons, they are survivors, or somebody

3 misused their identities because they knew they were dead, so they misused

4 their identities, perhaps to get extra -- additional political influence,

5 to vote twice. Or third, there is a mix-up due to data problems and so

6 on.

7 But the conclusion is that the number was very small. Nine, that

8 is less than -- that is about one-tenth of a per cent. To be on the safe

9 side, we subtracted these names, although it is not certain that these are

10 survivors.

11 Q. Then turning back to your chart you have deducted another six

12 persons from the list of missing in Srebrenica 1995. Can you tell us why

13 you did that.

14 A. We asked the ICRC whether they knew about people who had survived,

15 who they later learned to be survivors and not dead on the list of missing

16 persons since January 1997. And they told us there were six persons out

17 of 7.000, but they would not reveal their identities to us. So to be on

18 the safe side, we subtracted another six persons from the total number.

19 We could not delete those from the list that was also submitted to the

20 court, because we didn't know their identities. In this way we ended up

21 with 7.475.

22 By the way, some or all of these six people may be included in the

23 nine people who are above, but again to be on the safe side, we excluded

24 them.

25 Q. Now, to sum up these calculations, how reliable do you think this

1 number of 7.475 missing persons is it?

2 A. We think that the number is very reliable as a minimum estimate.

3 There cannot be many cases, if any, that are wrong amongst these. On the

4 other hand, the number could easily be higher because there were records

5 that we excluded to be on the safe side, not only these 15 but other

6 records also where there was inconclusive evidence. There could also be

7 missing persons who were not registered by the families or other people.

8 So probably there may be a few more hundred. But we did not know at that

9 time. So it's very reliable on the lower side but not on the upper side

10 you could say.

11 Q. Now, Dr. Brunborg, I see that the title of this chart

12 says, "Srebrenica-related Missing and Dead Persons." Now, are these

13 missing persons coming from these two lists, ICRC and PHR, are these

14 people dead? Do you have an opinion about that?

15 A. Well, most likely all or most of them are dead. First, in one of

16 the ICRC lists, 600 persons were listed as being declared dead. So on the

17 ICRC list, 600 are already declared dead. Then there are a number of

18 other indications showing that these people -- most people or all are

19 likely to be dead. If I may mention briefly the major argument is that --

20 Q. If you perhaps can mention on which page.

21 A. On page 10 there are -- in my 2000 report, there are four

22 arguments. Indications of why these are dead. In 2000, there are only

23 1900 bodies had been exhumed, but only 70 had been identified. And of

24 these 70, 66 appear on our list of missing. Then -- so those are dead, of

25 course, those 66. Then the age distribution of Srebrenica-related missing

1 persons and exhumed bodies is very similar, which can be shown in another

2 -- which is shown in another exhibit. You may give them the number,

3 please.

4 Q. If you -- I guess if you talk about Exhibit Number 735.

5 A. That is correct. Thirdly -- or perhaps fourthly, since the ICRC

6 started registering Srebrenica-related victims in July of 1995, only 22

7 persons had been found alive or those registered as missing. And finally,

8 as I mentioned, only nine Srebrenica-related missing persons who were

9 found on the voters lists from 1997 and 1998. So these are all

10 indications that point in one direction, that they are dead.

11 Q. Now, to finish up this brief introduction, I believe you have

12 published the findings of your report. Indeed it's been available in

13 public. And I think you also drafted a few publications yourself based on

14 this Krstic report. Can you tell us how the academic community and the

15 practitioners in your field of science specialisation has received your

16 report?

17 MR. KARNAVAS: I'm going to object to this.

18 JUDGE LIU: Yes.

19 MR. KARNAVAS: I object. Now he's going to be vouching for the

20 credibility of the articles that he wrote based on what members of his

21 association or his scientific community thinks of it. I don't think it's

22 proper. If they want to introduce somebody from the academy of sciences

23 who says, we've read his report, we've read his methodology, and we give

24 it the seal of approval. That's fine. But for the gentleman to comment

25 on how his brethren are commenting about his own articles, I think it's a

1 little bit too much.

2 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Waespi, maybe you could be more specific

3 concerning those comments or whether there have been a paper in a certain

4 kind of forum or whether it has been quoted or relied upon, but just the

5 facts.

6 MR. WAESPI: Yes, certainly, Mr. President.

7 Q. Did you give any presentations to your colleagues and other

8 interested persons?

9 A. On several occasions. Population Association of America, a large

10 conference on the statistics development and human rights in Montreux in

11 Switzerland in 2000. The conflict research seminar in Uppsala in Sweden.

12 And several other international national and national meetings.

13 Q. And how was it received?

14 A. With great interest and very well I would say.

15 Q. Can you tell us, this study you are presenting, compared with

16 statistics, as you have been doing it before you came to the Tribunal, is

17 that something new which you have developed?

18 A. Not really, because in -- I live in a country where we had very

19 good data on individuals in Norway. We have a personal identification

20 number and a central population registry since 1964. And we're very used

21 to matching data from different sources. So we have a population register

22 and from another registry we have income, from a third registry we have

23 education, and we can merge all these data sources together to find out

24 about the relationship between education and income, for example. So that

25 approach was not new.

1 The difference for Bosnia was that the data were quite faulty.

2 There is a unique identification number called "maticni broj," but it has

3 often errors, and it is not used in all sources. But the basic approach

4 was the same. But we had to do much more data cleaning and data

5 evaluation than is -- than I have to do in Norway.

6 Q. And my last question is: Can you tell the Trial Chamber how this

7 area is called, you know, the assessment of numbers of victims of an area

8 in an armed conflict? Do you have a name for that?

9 A. Well, this is in a way an emerging new area that is now called the

10 demography of conflict and violence, which I also have contributed to

11 establishing. There is a working group in the International Union of the

12 Scientific Study for Population chaired by me on this topic. There was a

13 large seminar in Norway in November. And several journals will publish

14 special issues on papers related to the demography of conflict and

15 violence, which has both to do, dealing with the consequences of conflict,

16 that is, number of deaths, number of refugees, effects on births, and so

17 on, but also on demographic causes of conflict, say high population

18 growth, high population pressure, youth bulges, do they increase the

19 likelihood that there is violent conflict effect.

20 So this is an emerging field that is achieving a lot of interest,

21 getting a lot of interest, both from demographers and from conflict

22 researchers.

23 MR. WAESPI: Thank you, Your Honour, I have no further questions.

24 JUDGE LIU: Thank you, Mr. Waespi.

25 Cross-examination, Mr. Karnavas?

1 MR. KARNAVAS: Thank you, Mr. President, if I could have just one

2 moment.

3 Cross-examined by Mr. Karnavas:

4 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Brunborg.

5 A. Good afternoon.

6 Q. First, let me just get to your CV so we can get that out of the

7 way. As I understand, you just came back from the Middle East. Is that

8 correct?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Now, from the sounds of the project, you have been tasked to

11 figure out what effects the barrier that the Israeli government is

12 putting -- to separate itself from the Palestinians. Is that correct?

13 A. Yes, that is correct.

14 Q. Now the effects, are we talking about economic effects?

15 A. No, social effects. Effects on migration, housal [sic]

16 composition, social relations.

17 Q. Now, is that in the field of demography or is that in the field of

18 sociology or is it a combined field?

19 A. Well, migration and housal composition is in the field of

20 demography. This other social relations is more in the field of

21 sociology, that is correct.

22 Q. Now, from looking at your CV it appears to me that you specialised

23 in economic demography?

24 A. That's correct.

25 Q. Would that be the field where you're trying to figure out incomes,

1 how labour -- how the labour force works, migration of labour, those sorts

2 of things?

3 A. Yes. But I would also like to say that since I finished my Ph.D.,

4 most of my work has been related to more pure demography and not so much

5 to economic demography, which my CV will show.

6 Q. All right. I wasn't getting to your CV. I was merely asking what

7 you got your Ph.D. in, okay?

8 Now, as I understand it from listening to you, you were, in

9 essence, seconded from the Norwegian government to the Office of the

10 Prosecution. Correct?

11 A. That is correct. Until -- I believe it was at the end of 1997

12 this [indiscernible] institute was abolished because of opposition in

13 the -- at the United Nations, so then I was transferred to a regular UN

14 contract.

15 Q. Well, I want to get to that in a little bit. You indicated that

16 from June 1997 until the end of the year, that would have been six months,

17 you were assigned by your government to assist. Correct?

18 A. That's true.

19 Q. So it was after that six-month period that you began to work as a

20 contract employee for the Office of the Prosecution?

21 A. I think the dates are correct, but I'm not quite sure.

22 Q. Okay. Now, how long did you work as a contract employee with the

23 Office of the Prosecution?

24 A. Until the end of 1998.

25 Q. Okay. So we're talking about approximately a total of year and a

1 half working with the Office of the Prosecution?

2 A. That's correct.

3 Q. Now, while you were -- for the year of 1998, were you back in

4 Norway teaching or doing other projects, or were you exclusively

5 dedicating yourself to this project?

6 A. It was full-time, but I took some vacation days off to do some

7 teaching in Norway. I had some shorter teaching assignments that I wanted

8 to continue.

9 Q. Well, I can understand that. Now, the UN is pretty generous, at

10 least from a private sector's point of view, with respect to vacation

11 time. I think it's six weeks a year, perhaps even longer, when you count

12 in all the UN holidays. Was that above the six-week period?

13 A. No.

14 Q. So within that range?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. All right. Were you also -- maybe I should slow down a little bit

17 because of the translation, you know, and I'm a little nervous, you know.

18 I don't know why, but I am.

19 A. Well, I think I have more reason to be nervous than you.

20 Q. Well, maybe we can work our way through this process. In any

21 event, while you were working for the Office of the Prosecution, were you

22 out in the field as well or were you basically here?

23 A. I made four trips to Bosnia, during that period 1997/1998, and one

24 trip in 1999 when I was more of a consultant.

25 Q. Okay. Now, during those trips, was that for the purpose of

1 getting yourself oriented to the landscape, or was it for you to actually

2 go into archives, meet with various offices to see what data you might be

3 able to collect? What was the real purpose of that?

4 A. To collect data, to find out what data were available and to

5 request that data.

6 THE INTERPRETER: Could the counsel and the witness please make

7 pauses.

8 MR. KARNAVAS:

9 Q. Could you please tell us where exactly did you look for data?

10 A. I first went to the statistical office in Sarajevo. And I went to

11 the OSCE, that is the organisation for security and cooperation in Europe.

12 And to various governmental and non-governmental organisations, mostly in

13 Sarajevo.

14 Q. Okay. And I would suspect by that time and for sure by this time

15 you know that in Bosnia you have the federation -- the entity of the

16 federation and another entity called the Republika Srpska. Correct?

17 A. Yes, and I am aware of that.

18 Q. And of course Sarajevo is the capital for Bosnia-Herzegovina, and

19 that's where the state offices are. Right?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. May I -- incidentally, do you know in which of the two entities

22 Srebrenica is located?

23 A. Certainly, in Republika Srpska.

24 Q. Okay. Did you ever make any efforts to contact or search -- well,

25 let's say start with contacting officials in the Republika Srpska to see

1 whether you could collect any data from them?

2 A. Yes, I did. In fact, I had planned -- I was planning a trip to

3 Banja Luka in December 1999. And I remember the day. It was heavy snow

4 fall. I was going to drive in a Land Rover to Banja Luka in the

5 afternoon. I was not looking forward to it. Then I was told at 2.00 that

6 you cannot go, because there has been an arrest of General Krstic. So the

7 security situation is too difficult. So I never made it to Banja Luka.

8 But I have talked to people from Republika Srpska later. And also

9 after my first visit, there was established an overall statistical agency

10 for all of Bosnia and Herzegovina. There's one federation office in

11 Sarajevo, one for Republika Srpska in Banja Luka. And there is an agency

12 for statistics I think it is believed [sic]. And headed by a three-person

13 body, one Muslim, one Croat, and one Serb, and I met those on several

14 occasions.

15 Q. But suffice it to say - and I'm just trying to be rather direct on

16 this - you never physically went to Banja Luka to, say, visit the bureau

17 of statistics of the RS?

18 A. I tried but I did not get the opportunity.

19 Q. I understand you've tried. But there's been a whole lot of time

20 between the Krstic arrest and his trial, in fact. So the answer is you

21 did not go?

22 A. That is correct. But on my behalf the Office of the Prosecutor

23 made several written requests to the Office of the Prosecution for data.

24 Q. Now, was that -- were those requests made to specific agencies or

25 collection offices, such as the Bureau of Statistics?

1 A. They went through the government, through the special liaison

2 officer based in The Hague. And I think they went to different, like,

3 Ministry of the Interior, Bureau of Statistics, and different agencies.

4 Q. Let me rephrase the question. I'm trying to give the interpreters

5 a break. I'm sure they're going to appreciate that.

6 Did you -- when you began working, did you at any point in time

7 make a comprehensive list of all the official agencies or offices, be they

8 in Serbia, Croatia, the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the state of

9 Bosnia and Herzegovina, or the Republika Srpska, did you make a list of

10 all those sorts of places that might have relevant data to your project?

11 A. I think I can say yes, but it -- the list was not a fixed one. As

12 I learned more about institutions, I investigated, approached, either in

13 person or through correspondence, sometimes through telephone, whether

14 they had data that was available.

15 Q. Now, I've been to Norway; lovely country, runs like a Swiss clock.

16 And as you said, you can get all sorts of data. And I take it that if

17 somebody were to go to Norway, they would ask somebody like yourself where

18 they could collect data. Correct?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Did you, not being from the Balkans, you know, this region, and

21 specifically not being from Bosnia and Herzegovina, did you ever contact

22 anyone from the region or the former Yugoslavia to get a handle on the

23 various agencies or organisations, official organisations, that collect

24 data?

25 A. Well, I talked to many people about that. I asked everybody I met

1 almost: Do you know about organisations, institutions, NGOs, government

2 agencies that have data? So that permitted all my work to do that [sic].

3 Q. Okay. But you would agree with me that asking, for instance,

4 Peter McCloskey, who is from the United States, or Mr. Ruez, who is from

5 France, is not going to be terribly helpful? I mean, they may have some

6 knowledge but they're not going to know the nitty-gritty, all the little

7 places that you might find statistics. Correct?

8 A. That is correct, yes.

9 Q. Okay. Asking NGOs that are international might be of assistance,

10 of course. But my question is: What about domestic, people from the RS,

11 for instance, or people from the Federation, or people from the state of

12 Bosnia-Herzegovina? Did you actually contact somebody in particular who

13 would be able to tell you this organisation collects data with respect to

14 movement or households or number of births or what have you?

15 A. Yes, certainly. And my first approach was, of course, the

16 statistical agency in Sarajevo, which because I used to work in a

17 statistical office myself and they have the mandate to collect and

18 disseminate all statistics for a country. And that was the same for

19 Bosnia, so that was my first approach.

20 Q. Okay. So that was the state office?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Okay.

23 A. But I also talked to, as I said, a number of other individuals and

24 institutions, including, say, the office of the high representative, and

25 embassies and so on, because I was not familiar with that situation.

1 Q. Well, the office of the high representative is primarily composed

2 of foreigners working there, all right, so they are hardly in a position

3 of being experts as far as how the RS government keeps statistics.

4 Wouldn't you agree with me on that?

5 A. Yes, but they knew about data collected by foreign organisations

6 like the OSCE.

7 Q. What if I were to tell you that at the time that you went to

8 Sarajevo, that it's my understanding that they were not collecting data

9 relevant to the RS, such as the data that we just discussed. Were you

10 aware of that?

11 A. Could you repeat that question, please.

12 Q. At the time that you went to Sarajevo, it's my understanding that

13 the Sarajevo -- the state office was not getting all of that data from the

14 RS, because as you well know, there's been some -- there's some ongoing

15 friction, although much less today than in the past?

16 A. I was fully aware of that, yes. And I heard rumours about some

17 friction between those -- between the two entities, yes.

18 Q. All right. Now, before we get -- launch into your reports and

19 your articles, I must confess that I was rather taken aback yesterday

20 evening at 6.00 or slightly thereafter when I was informed by Mr. Waespi

21 that there is this ongoing effort by the demographic team at OTP, that

22 they have generated a report or a draft, and that apparently you are

23 involved in or consulting with that particular team with respect to this

24 project.

25 A. That is correct.

1 Q. Okay. My question is: Was this news to the Office of the

2 Prosecution yesterday at 6.00 in the afternoon, or had they known about

3 this information before?

4 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Waespi.

5 MR. WAESPI: Well, Mr. President, I think that's a question for

6 the Prosecution to ask. I'm not sure whether Mr. Brunborg can answer when

7 the Office of the Prosecutor was involved or informed about an ongoing

8 project.

9 JUDGE LIU: Yes.

10 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour, with all due respect, this gentleman

11 has been working in the Middle East. Obviously they had to make contact

12 with this gentleman, the demographer's work for the Office of the

13 Prosecution, obviously it would seem at least logical that members working

14 for the Office of the Prosecution would know that there is this ongoing

15 study and that Mr. Brunborg, because of his association with OTP, his

16 expertise, you know, the institutional knowledge on the project would also

17 be involved. And I guess it's a way -- I'm trying to figure out: Is he

18 aware, in his conversations with Mr. McCloskey or Mr. Waespi or somebody

19 else on this team, whether he had told them that there is this ongoing

20 project. Because, as I said, I learned of this for the first time 6.00

21 yesterday evening. We've had a fairly long weekend, and I just think that

22 it's rather coincidental that I get it right before I'm supposed to do my

23 cross-examination. And I just want to know whether this gentleman knows

24 anything about that. And if he doesn't, that's fine. I'll accept it.

25 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Karnavas, I believe that you have to

1 rephrase your question in a certain way, because your question is truly

2 posted to the Prosecution rather than the witness.

3 MR. KARNAVAS: Okay. I'll rephrase, Your Honour.

4 Q. Mr. Brunborg, did you inform the Prosecutor that you had been

5 working or assisting in this ongoing project? Had you informed them prior

6 to yesterday afternoon, say 6.15 when I got the call in the middle of

7 watching the news?

8 A. Certainly, yes.

9 Q. Can you tell me -- do you know about what date, what time frame,

10 it might have been that you had informed them that there was this ongoing

11 process and that you have been involved with and that there was a draft

12 report being prepared?

13 A. I think I learned about that soon before Christmas.

14 Q. All right. And I take it you communicated this to the

15 Prosecution, that there was this draft report coming out?

16 A. Well, the draft report was written by the Prosecution, the OTP, so

17 I did not need to inform them about their own work, if I may.

18 Q. Well, it sounds pretty logical to me. So I think we solved that

19 conundrum.

20 Well, I'm going to reserve any questions with regard to this

21 because I haven't had a chance to study it.

22 Let me just focus now on some of your other work. And

23 incidentally the report that we're talking about is basically an update of

24 what you had built on. Correct?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. It's not something entirely new?

2 A. That's correct.

3 Q. And I would suspect that the same methodology that you applied is

4 currently being applied by the folks in OTP?

5 A. That's correct. May I say why I think it is important that this

6 work continue?

7 Q. Well, I never said that it was unimportant, now, did I?

8 A. No. But may I say?

9 Q. No, you don't have to say it at this point in time. Because I

10 will -- well, I will agree with you that it's very important, but that's

11 not the purpose why we're here. If you can agree with me that I have been

12 sandbagged a little bit, and sideswiped a little bit, you know, I think

13 that's more important at this stage, but I agree that it's very relevant

14 Now, before we get into your reports, let me be upfront with you

15 with respect to where we stand as a Defence. In other words, I'll give

16 you a preview of our case. First, we have never contested, nor do we

17 contest, that atrocities occurred during the fall of Srebrenica or

18 thereafter; nor do we contest that a large number of people, the number of

19 which is unknown but in the thousands, were executed, okay. We know that

20 there is a large number of people missing. So I think that we're not that

21 far apart as far as what occurred and maybe even somewhat in the same

22 vicinity as to how many people are missing. All right. So that's not

23 going to be much of an issue, though I do want to talk to you about your

24 methodology, and I have some more pointed questions with respect to our

25 particular case. Okay.

1 Now, if we could just start with: Could you please tell us, if

2 you know, if you're able to, what was the number of people that had left

3 through the exodus, as you put it in your report or one of your articles,

4 through the woods to make it to Tuzla? What was the number of people that

5 were killed as a result of non-executions?

6 A. I do not know.

7 Q. Could you tell us why you do not know?

8 A. Because the cause of death is not given for the people I estimated

9 the number. The only source I have is which is mentioned in my addendum

10 is the NIOD report, the Dutch -- the war -- what do you call it, the war

11 institute. And they said that by quoting two Serb sources, 1500 men were

12 taken as prisoners of war, subtracting those from the 7.500,

13 approximately, that leaves 6.000 that could be -- that were killed. That

14 is their conclusion. But they also say that it can never be known with

15 certainty.

16 Q. Okay. Well, I didn't want to get ahead of myself, but since

17 you've already got us there, let's just discuss that. In one of your

18 reports you do, among other things, go through the report that was

19 prepared by the RS that was in answer to basically the OTP's, or the

20 results that were -- that are published with respect to how many people

21 perished or disappeared or are missing as a result of the fall of

22 Srebrenica. Correct?

23 A. No, no, not quite I'm afraid. I learned that the RS report was

24 actually first written in 1998, I did not learn this until yesterday, and

25 translated and published in 2000. So they did not have a chance to

1 consider my report or the OTP report, so their criticism is a critique of

2 the ICRC list of missing persons, not our work.

3 Q. In any event -- and thank you for clarifying that. In your

4 addendum, which is for identification purposes P726 of 12 April 2003, you

5 do an analysis of this particular report. Correct?

6 A. That is correct, yes. I look at some of the arguments raised in

7 the report as if they were against our list.

8 Q. Right. Okay. And one of the things that you wanted to do was

9 pre-empt, I would suspect, or answer or counter any arguments that may

10 have been made or could be made by the RS against your report. Correct?

11 A. Yes. I think it would be more open, more honest, to present the

12 arguments in writing instead of as a surprise in court.

13 Q. All right. Fair enough. And of course at no time have we ever

14 accepted this report of having any credibility or validity, so we get that

15 straight.

16 Now, if we go to your mentioning of the NIOD report, which is

17 found on -- I always seem to have an unnumbered article. It's on

18 paragraph 5, number 5.

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. It's right above the conclusion. But there you do mention the

21 NIOD report. And there you state that the VRS estimate -- that of the

22 7.500 persons that are missing, they came up with 1500, approximately,

23 dying on their way to Tuzla as a result of or based on the VRS estimate of

24 6.000 prisoners of war. Correct?

25 A. That is correct.

1 Q. Now, with the RS report, you allot yourself two -- a little bit

2 over two full pages of a response. And I notice here that you don't

3 respond one way or the other with respect to the NIOD report. Was there a

4 particular reason?

5 A. Well, the RS report I found interesting, because not only as, say,

6 part of the -- witness for the Prosecution, but also intellectually, other

7 data that could contradict in any way my findings. Because I always have

8 doubts whether, is this really correct, is there something I overlooked.

9 So I was very interested in seeing that. That's why there is a lengthy

10 discussion.

11 Now, the NIOD report doesn't address this issue very much at all.

12 So that's why there is just a short paragraph, but I wanted to make aware

13 of this issue of -- the conclusion on approximately 1500 people killed,

14 which is a very uncertain estimate because it's very rough. But I would

15 also like to say that I was not asked to find out how many -- how people

16 were killed or who did it, just the number of missing persons.

17 Q. I'm not suggesting that. But there may be a purpose why I'm

18 asking these questions which at this point in time may not seem obvious or

19 relevant.

20 Upon looking at the NIOD report, did you by any chance contact

21 anybody that was preparing the report to find out who at the VRS estimated

22 that there was 6.000 prisoners of war?

23 A. No, I did not.

24 Q. And from your analysis based on -- and with the qualifications

25 that you have stated, as you sit here today you cannot tell us with any

1 degree of certainty of the some 15.000 people that were reported to have

2 left through the woods to Tuzla, how many exactly perished or disappeared

3 or went missing as a result of military activities on their way?

4 A. That is correct.

5 Q. All right. And so we don't know whether that 1500 is on the high

6 end or the low end or the average -- or the acceptable range. Correct?

7 A. That is correct.

8 Q. Okay.

9 A. And it's about the only estimate I've seen also.

10 Q. All right. Now, I take it, given your answers, if I were to ask

11 you -- I think I know the answer but we want it for the record. If I were

12 to ask you: Of those people that perished, how many of them were actually

13 from Srebrenica and not refugees from other parts of Bosnia-Herzegovina or

14 Eastern Bosnia, could you give us that?

15 A. Well, after the 2000 report and the presentation of it in the

16 Krstic trial, we matched the missing persons with this census 1991. And

17 we could then assess the residence of the missing persons in 1991, where

18 they lived. And we found out that of those 7.500, approximately 56

19 per cent were enumerated in Srebrenica in 1991. So a little more than

20 half of them lived in Srebrenica. Most of the others lived in Bratunac

21 and Vlasenica.

22 Q. Okay. Now, I don't want to get into that area yet. But let's say

23 just for the moment that we accept that figure, okay. I'm not saying that

24 I'm not accepting it, but let's just for the sake of argument at this

25 point in time we accept that figure. Would you be able - since we don't

1 know, since we don't know how many people perished on their way in the

2 woods - you cannot tell us with any degree of certainty what the

3 percentage of those people might have been?

4 A. No, but it is probably -- approximately the same proportion of it,

5 I would say.

6 If I may, in the -- when people register people as missing, they

7 said place of disappearance, and quite a few noted forests or mountain.

8 And probably thinking of the track through the woods. But I don't recall

9 now the number. We could find out the number of people who were reported

10 as being missing in the forest or mountains.

11 Q. So you never did the calculation?

12 A. We looked at it at one time, but I don't recall what it is.

13 Q. But if we look at your charts, we could not at this point in

14 time -- I'm not saying it's impossible to create, but at this point in

15 time if we look at your chart, we cannot find a breakdown of how many

16 people would have been missing in the woods versus those who are missing

17 elsewhere?

18 A. That is correct.

19 Q. Okay. All right. And of course you weren't asked to do that, I

20 take it?

21 A. That's also correct.

22 Q. But as I understand it, your initial mandate called for you to

23 simply find out how many people went missing as a result of the fall of

24 Srebrenica. Correct?

25 A. Correct.

1 Q. And I also understand from reading your addendum -- I think it's

2 in the addendum. You kept me busy this weekend, I must say. It's in one

3 of your reports. That the other issue was how many of them were from the

4 Srebrenica area. Correct?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. So there were two main tasks: How many missing and how many of

7 those missing were from the Srebrenica area. Correct?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Now, I take it --

10 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour, are we going until 3.30?

11 JUDGE LIU: Yes.

12 MR. KARNAVAS: I'm about to launch into an area which I hate to

13 break. I don't mind, but if we could have an earlier break so then I

14 could -- because I don't want to get into it, and the gentleman may be

15 confused.

16 JUDGE LIU: Yes. Maybe we could have our break now. We'll resume

17 at five minutes to 4.00.

18 --- Recess taken at 3.24 p.m.

19 --- On resuming at 3.58 p.m.

20 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Karnavas, please continue.

21 MR. KARNAVAS: Thank you, Mr. President, Your Honours.

22 Q. Okay, Mr. Brunborg, just a last couple of questions I forgot to

23 ask regarding the NIOD report. You did point out, or they stated in their

24 report: "It remains impossible to state with any certainty how many men

25 were executed following the fall of Srebrenica and how many perished

1 during the march to Tuzla. It is likely that we shall never know."

2 Now, do you agree or disagree with that part of the NIOD report?

3 A. Yes, I agree in principle. I think it may be possible to get a

4 little bit closer, though, as exhumations are progressing and if people

5 are found blindfolded in mass graves and so on, I think that is a clear

6 indication of execution. But that work is in progress.

7 Q. Okay. Now -- and would it be fair to say that identifying those

8 who were executed is probably a slightly easier - especially under those

9 conditions - than, say, those who might have died of gunshot wounds on

10 their way to Tuzla?

11 A. Yes, definitely. And there are also many of those who died on the

12 way to Tuzla may not be buried in -- many of them are probably not buried

13 in any grave at all.

14 Q. Okay. All right. And I understand you're not a pathologist, but

15 I thought I would ask for your opinion nonetheless.

16 So anyway, Mr. Brunborg, in your conclusions, if you look at the

17 very last one, that's on paragraph 6. Again I'm referring to Prosecution

18 Exhibit 726. Now, you state here on the very last one: "Similarly,

19 claims that the missing persons did not die in connection with the fall of

20 Srebrenica but later in other armed confrontations are not convincing, as

21 the presented evidence is inconclusive and covers only a relatively small

22 number of persons."

23 My question is: Are you referring to those who might have died

24 during the trek towards Tuzla over here? Is this -- in other words, when

25 I read this, I had the feeling that perhaps you were presenting a

1 counter-argument to the portion of the NIOD report that we just discussed.

2 A. No, not really. I was thinking more of the arguments claimed in

3 the Banja Luka report that some of the persons claimed to be missing were

4 transferred from Srebrenica soon after the enclave alive and went to Zepa

5 and other places and died in battles there. And so they were not missing

6 from Srebrenica, the fall, but from some other conflict. That's what I

7 was referring to. And perhaps there are some cases like that, but not a

8 very large number.

9 Q. Okay. You are aware, of course, that of the reported 15.000

10 number of individuals that left towards Tuzla, it's reported - we don't

11 have exact data - that about one-third, that would make it about 5.000 of

12 them, were actually armed soldiers. Correct?

13 A. I've heard about that, yes.

14 Q. Right. And of course we don't have some kind of a statistical

15 breakdown as to the age bracket for the people that left towards Tuzla.

16 Correct?

17 A. That is correct.

18 Q. Unlike, for instance, for the separation where we have pretty good

19 information in evidence that those who were separated were generally

20 between the ages of 16 and 60, which was the military age. Correct?

21 A. That is correct. But of the total number of missing persons, most

22 of them are also in that age bracket, including -- which includes people

23 who trekked through the forest.

24 Q. Exactly. Which would all make them combatants or potential

25 combatants?

1 A. Potential, not necessarily combatants.

2 Q. Not necessarily. And if we were to take -- again, just to make

3 sure that I got it right. If we were to accept your figure of 7.000-plus,

4 you cannot tell us whether a third, a half, or more of that numerical

5 figure that you've come up with actually perished in the woods or perished

6 as a result of the executions?

7 A. No, I cannot. But we could look at the place of disappearance,

8 and include, say, how many were listed as disappearing in the forest or

9 mountains.

10 Q. All right. Now, many of them were claimed to have disappeared in

11 Srebrenica. Is that correct?

12 A. That is also correct.

13 Q. All right. Now, as you know - or maybe you don't know - but the

14 individuals that left towards the woods had gathered, as I understand the

15 evidence, sometime around the 10th of July. And then around the early

16 morning of the 11th, as I understand it, they began to make their trek.

17 My question is: Do you know -- do you have an exact figure as to

18 how many people were actually killed in Srebrenica during the period of

19 the conflict there, that is between the 6th of July and the 11th of July,

20 when Srebrenica fell?

21 A. No, I do not. I have read reports about the fighting and what

22 happened then, but I don't recall any numbers of killed persons in that.

23 Q. All right. Now, you don't exclude the possibility, though, that

24 some of the people that went missing from Srebrenica could have been --

25 and I would suspect the number is small, but nonetheless could have

1 actually been killed during that period of the conflict leading up to the

2 fall of Srebrenica, that is between the 6th of July and the 11th of July.

3 Correct?

4 A. That is possible. But if they were listed as missing, registered

5 missing by relatives, and they were last seen on the date before the 11th,

6 they have not been included in our list.

7 Q. But those are some pretty big ifs. Right?

8 A. Yes. But if they were witnesses to many of these -- to the

9 fighting, and I'm sure that many of those that were killed then were seen

10 by witnesses.

11 Q. Well, we're going to get into that. But just since you raised the

12 issue, did you by any chance check any data, just do a random sampling, to

13 see whether those incidents were reported, to see whether verifiable

14 information was presented by family members that would give you some sort

15 of confidence that that data was actually collected and of course was

16 reliable and verifiable?

17 A. Not really. We relied on checking the -- comparing data with

18 other data sources. I did meet with families and victims' families,

19 though, to get an impression on -- especially the situation when the

20 registered -- the families -- their relatives as missing.

21 Q. Well, we know that some fighting occurred and we know that a

22 certain number -- we don't know the exact, but we know that there were

23 fatalities on both sides. Do you know whether there were any

24 registrations of people missing between the period of 6 and 11 from the

25 Muslim community of Srebrenica?

1 A. I'm not sure, but the Bosnian army, the Federation army, they

2 registered all their killed soldiers, and they have data lists, lists of

3 people who were killed in action.

4 Q. And naturally you checked that data for the month -- for the days

5 of the 6th of July and the 11th of July to make sure that you excluded any

6 potential - how should I put it - mistakes?

7 A. No, that list was not available when I did this work, but it has

8 later been acquired.

9 Q. When you say it wasn't available, was that because the Federation

10 army refused to turn it over to the Office of the Prosecution or was it

11 unavailable because perhaps you were unaware of that list being in

12 existence?

13 A. First I did not know that there was such a list, but I was in

14 contact with some sources in Bosnia, also military, and there was -- I

15 sensed a great reluctance at that time to hand over anything.

16 Q. Okay. Well, sensing a reluctance is like the way I feel when I

17 come to court, my gut really is turning upside down, you know, that's a

18 gut feeling, as we call it. So -- and given that you are a scientist,

19 could you tell me whether indeed you made a specific request for that, as

20 opposed to sensing a reluctance, hence being reluctant to ask for it?

21 A. I don't recall. I think I asked for the OTP to make a request

22 through the liaison office on military deaths.

23 Q. And as I understand it - and I might be wrong, I don't know - but

24 rumour has it that AID, the secret service, basically, of the Federation

25 has been working hand in glove with the Office of the Prosecution since

1 almost the inception of the Tribunal and actually working here. Now, do

2 you know whether any requests were made through AID to get that

3 information --

4 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Waespi.

5 MR. WAESPI: I not sure whether that comment is really helpful for

6 the witness to answer the next question.

7 MR. KARNAVAS: If he is aware of it, Your Honour. He is aware

8 that AID, the secret service, was working, and as I understand it, Your

9 Honour, and I can be corrected by my colleague here, that AID has gone

10 through great lengths to assist the Office of the Prosecution in providing

11 them with relevant documents to their cases. We're talking about

12 Srebrenica. Obviously the Federation army has no reasons to withhold

13 evidence that would provide some insight and guidance as to how many of

14 their soldiers might have perished during that fight. So I'm merely

15 asking the question. The gentleman can tell me he doesn't know.

16 JUDGE LIU: Mr. Karnavas, your question: "Do you know whether any

17 requests were made through AID to get any information," is perfectly okay.

18 The other words I don't think is necessarily. Just ask your question

19 directly.

20 MR. KARNAVAS: Well, thank you, Your Honour. Sometimes it is

21 helpful to sort of comment a little bit to let the witness know that I do

22 know, as opposed to getting a no and then I'm stuck with the answer.

23 Q. But in any event, sir, do you know whether AID was asked to

24 provide any such information?

25 A. I do not recall. I would need to ask OTP to check.

1 Q. Naturally at some point, having become aware of such a list,

2 surely you must have insisted on those records in order to have a most

3 accurate - if that is possible - but a most accurate accounting. Would I

4 be correct in assuming that?

5 A. Yes, I was very interested in an accurate accounting. But may I

6 also repeat that I was not asked to consider the cause of death and/or

7 military or civilian deaths. So I was not really very much concerned

8 about that. But for the total picture, for the total number of deaths

9 related to Srebrenica and for all of Bosnia, I would like to include

10 military deaths as well.

11 Q. Well -- I'm waiting for the translation. Well, given your

12 mandate, as I understand it, it was the Office of the Prosecution that

13 picked those magic dates, that is, July 11th to end of August -- or I

14 think it was 31, August 31 --

15 A. Well, actually end of December 1995.

16 Q. End of December. But in reading your report it seemed that

17 initially it was until the end of August, and then that mandate grew until

18 the end of December. Is that correct?

19 A. That is correct.

20 Q. So we know that Srebrenica fell on the 11th. We know that most of

21 the atrocities occurred within a four- to five,- six-day period. And I

22 say most. We do know that some people were still trying to make it to

23 Tuzla. What was the justification given to you by the Office of the

24 Prosecution that you should try to locate missing people that were

25 reported all the way up until December 1995, or the end of December 1995?

1 A. Because there might be some relatives who did not report their

2 relatives as missing before, and they were not sure when they were seen

3 last alive and so on. But in any case, it wasn't a very large number

4 after 31st of August.

5 Q. What was that number?

6 A. I believe it was less than 100. It's written in my report; I

7 could find it.

8 Q. And so, given that they told you these were the dates, you didn't

9 think it was necessary to try to find out how many people might have been

10 killed from the 6th to the 11th?

11 A. Well, I understood it that it was exactly to eliminate such cases,

12 that the starting date should be 11th of July.

13 Q. Okay. All right. Now, let's switch the topic a little bit, and I

14 want to talk about your project. In reading your reports and your

15 articles and your testimony, one walks away with the -- a conclusion that

16 there was a lot of unknown data not available to you at the time that

17 these reports were made. Correct?

18 A. Yes, that's correct.

19 Q. And in fact, that data continues to remain unavailable or unknown

20 to us. Correct?

21 A. Partly correct only. Some of the data has later been collected by

22 my successor Ewa Tabeau and her colleagues, say, list some military deaths

23 and data both from Republika Srpska and from the Federation, data on

24 exhumed bodies, more missing persons and more dead persons. So a lot of

25 data had been collected after I finished this project, including regular

1 data on the deaths from the federal statistical office.

2 Q. It appears now from your answer that there was a list of military

3 deaths. Did you look at that list prior to making your --

4 A. I did not get that list.

5 Q. Okay. Well, do you know when it was received?

6 A. No. Well, I think it was received in 2001 or 2002. It has been

7 later used by Ewa Tabeau to -- for further work, which was included in the

8 documents that you received last night.

9 Q. That's wonderful --

10 A. Or mentioned there.

11 Q. Okay. But nonetheless, from listening to you, it would have been

12 available to you prior to your preparation of your addendum to your

13 initial report that you made back in 2002?

14 A. Possibly, I'm not sure.

15 Q. Can I assume that you just were not aware of that information, as

16 opposed to you were aware of it and simply didn't think it was necessary

17 or helpful to look at?

18 A. For the total number, I did not think about that as a source. I

19 think your point is good that military deaths before 11th of July should

20 be excluded, because we're only looking at missing persons after the 11th

21 of July. So if it could be shown that some of these were -- actually

22 happened before the 11th of July, they should definitely be excluded.

23 Q. But -- and I don't know because I haven't seen the list, but if

24 there is a list of military dead, you know, and if we are to assume that

25 some 5.000-plus or minus or so of the 15.000 or so folks that went to

1 Tuzla were armed, and if we are to assume that many, perhaps a lot more

2 than 5.000 -- of the 15.000 were within the age bracket of 16 to 60, and

3 knowing that everyone -- most of those folks were mobilised at the time,

4 okay, don't you think that looking at the military list might have been

5 helpful to see whether some of the folks that went missing in the woods as

6 they were fighting by Zvornik to get to Tuzla might have been on that

7 list?

8 A. Yes, although I -- but I think you beat me in the number of ifs in

9 your statement.

10 Q. You're absolutely correct on that. The difference is the material

11 and documentation was available to you and not available to me, and you're

12 the expert, I'm not. Right?

13 A. It was available to my successor at the -- who is on this project.

14 Q. Had you asked your successor to make it available to you in

15 preparation for your addendum or in preparation for your testimony here

16 today. Do you think that your successor would have been cooperative in

17 providing you that information?

18 A. Very much so, I'm sure.

19 Q. So it's not for lack of uncooperation, but a lack of perhaps a

20 need on your part to look at that information?

21 A. Perhaps a lack of imagination on my side. But in my addendum I

22 did not present any new numbers of missing persons. I just wanted to

23 comment on the few aspects relevant for the whole situation, for analysis.

24 Q. Well, the reason I'm heading down this path, and the reason I'm

25 being kind of direct with you on this is not so much because of the

1 numerical figure that you've arrived, but it would appear, would it not,

2 sir, that since you left the project, you have written an article

3 called "Accounting for Genocide." Correct?

4 A. Yes.

5 MR. KARNAVAS: And for the record, this will be marked as D110 for

6 identification. We're not going to go into it right now in detail.

7 Q. But I'm sure before coming here today - and with the cautionary

8 instructions from Mr. Waespi - you probably did read all of your articles

9 before coming here to -- in preparation. Correct?

10 A. I looked over them, but not in detail because I have been very

11 busy dealing with other business.

12 Q. Well, forgive me if I have looked at the details. In this

13 particular article, you also state - and we're going to get to it - but

14 you state that you wanted to assess the magnitude and demographic impact

15 of the massacre, as you called it. Correct?

16 A. Correct.

17 Q. It can be found on page 4 of your report --

18 A. Of my 2000 report or the article?

19 Q. The article. I'm sorry. I'm not going to discuss it that much,

20 other than to say that it would appear that you stated that you had two

21 following questions. Question one: What was the magnitude of the

22 massacre relative to the pre-war population. And question number two:

23 From whence came the missing men to Srebrenica before the fall of the

24 enclave. Correct?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. Now, since we're at this topic I want to be very clear. From

2 listening to your testimony, in reading your report, it seems that that

3 was not part of your initial mandate from OTP. Correct?

4 A. You could say that. This is not a legal document, and --

5 Q. I understand that.

6 A. It's a scientific paper.

7 Q. Well, okay. There's no need to get the -- on the defensive side

8 yet. My question is: When you were initially hired by the Office of the

9 Prosecution, seconded and then later became a contract employee of the

10 United Nations, were you not initially asked to look at how many people

11 were missing in total as a result of the war and then slowly narrowed into

12 how many people were missing as a result of Srebrenica?

13 A. The initial mandate was not about the number missing; it was the

14 number -- demographic effects in general, including number of deaths and

15 refugees and displaced persons, and then after some time I was asked to

16 study Srebrenica, the case of Srebrenica in particular.

17 Q. Okay. And the issue was: You were to try to estimate and

18 validate the number of missing persons from Srebrenica?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Okay. This is from your testimony, by the way. I just looked at

21 it -- from the Krstic case, that is. Now, that was your mandate. Right?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. So would it be fair to say that you were never asked by the Office

24 of the Prosecution to make a determination as far as the impact, you know,

25 these -- on the Srebrenica community?

1 A. Well, they would like to know, I think, how many people who lived

2 in Srebrenica who were killed. They were very interested in that.

3 Q. Okay. Well, that's one question. And in fact --

4 A. And at that time, when I did this, we could not tell because we

5 hadn't -- we did not know how many people who were in the enclave before

6 it fell.

7 Q. All right. And we still don't know.

8 A. That is correct.

9 Q. We have this figure of 40.000, perhaps slightly less, slightly

10 more. Right?

11 A. That's correct.

12 Q. Okay. Now -- I guess we're going to have to get to this article

13 at this point, just to pin you down a little bit.

14 MR. KARNAVAS: And I have copies of your article. Again I'm

15 referring to D110/1 for identification.

16 Q. I believe you have the -- you may want to look at mine only

17 because it's easier for me to focus you, but I see that you have the nice

18 published version.

19 A. Excuse me, which -- this is not the final version. I don't know

20 where you have got this copy from.

21 Q. Well, I got it from the office of -- "Accounting for Genocide:

22 How Many Were Killed in Srebrenica." That was 10 July, 2002. It has an

23 ERN number 01121235. And I can only assume that this was provided to us

24 by the Office of the Prosecution.

25 A. I do not recall. It could be that this is the version I submitted

1 to the OTP for permission to publish and that later there were -- some

2 changes were made later. Because I recognise in the acknowledgments,

3 there are more names in the final version than in this version.

4 Q. Okay. Well, I suspect that since we're going to go into tomorrow,

5 you'll have the kindness to provide me with a copy of the actual one so I

6 can give it a quick over.

7 A. Although there are probably not very large differences between

8 these two versions.

9 Q. Okay. Now, if I could focus your attention -- and again I'll look

10 at your version and if you have changed, please feel free to comment on it

11 because I certainly don't want to appear unfair. If you could look at

12 page 4, and we can even put it on the ELMO, if there's an extra copy. I

13 believe we do have an extra copy.

14 MR. KARNAVAS: Thank you, Madam Usher. Sorry for troubling you.

15 Page 4.

16 Q. You could almost tell it's a draft because you have a little

17 notation to yourself, "include map of Bosnia", so that's how I knew it was

18 a draft, but this is all they gave me. All right. Now, there you state

19 on page 4, and I'm reading right before the two bullet points. You say:

20 "The research questions that guided the demographic project on

21 Srebrenica were defined by the Office of the Prosecutor as: What was the

22 minimum number of victims from Srebrenica who were killed by the VRS after

23 the fall of the enclave on 11 July, 1995, who can be identified by name?"

24 Okay. And two: "What is the reliability of this list of

25 victims?"

1 Okay. Further down, if we skip one paragraph, you say: "In

2 addition to the two research questions posed by the Office of the

3 Prosecutor, we" -- I can only assume when you say "we," you're including

4 your colleagues, or at the time it was a student. Henrik Urdal and

5 Lyngstad. Okay. So you say: "We also want to assess the magnitude and

6 demographic impact of the massacre." Okay. And: "The following

7 questions are concerned with these matters." And that's when you

8 state: "What was the magnitude of the massacre relative to the pre-war

9 population? From whence came the missing men to Srebrenica before the

10 fall of the enclave?"

11 So just so I'm clear, was it your understanding and belief that at

12 the time that you were hired by and working for the Office of the

13 Prosecution, your mandate included just the initial first questions, or

14 did they also include the questions that you state further down where you

15 say you wanted to assess the magnitude of the massacre?

16 A. They were not so clear on that, what was the magnitude relative to

17 the pre-war population. But I think it was mentioned because I had made

18 several attempts at getting lists or information about the population in

19 Srebrenica immediately before the fall of the enclave. I was in touch

20 with several international organisations who were there to, say, UNHCR,

21 did they have a list of the number of the people there, and -- but I did

22 not get anywhere on that.

23 Q. Well, was this something that you felt was necessary to the

24 project, or was this something that the OTP was interested in, given the

25 fact that they wanted to see whether or not they should indict anyone for

1 the charges of genocide, if you know?

2 A. I do not know.

3 Q. Okay. But it would seem - and I don't want to get ahead of

4 myself - but in reading your article it would seem that you come to some

5 conclusion of your own, that because of the magnitude and the impact on

6 the community, this was genocide?

7 A. That's true. And the article -- the name of the article is

8 "Accounting for Genocide". Although this was not -- wasn't meant in a

9 legal sense but in an, you could say, academic discussion about genocides.

10 And there's reference in the article to other genocides, whether they have

11 been taken to court or not. And we knew, and as you also stated, you

12 agree that a large number of people were killed. We don't know exactly

13 how many. Some died from -- were not killed but died on the way from

14 various causes. But a large number of men were killed, and so it is not

15 unnatural to say that this may be a genocide. Now, as you also know, if I

16 may, there is no precise definition of genocide.

17 Q. Okay. Well, rather than discuss the issue of -- the definition of

18 genocide, getting back to what you claim to have been one of your purposes

19 for your study and getting back to my initial question, don't you think it

20 would have been relevant then to have made the effort to see how many were

21 actually killed on the way to Tuzla as a result of the ongoing battles

22 that were going on?

23 A. For legal purposes, yes. But for -- say for general -- or general

24 analysis, it doesn't really make much difference whether they were killed

25 fighting or killed in other ways, because it's not always easy to

1 distinguish between those and if there is -- well, say --

2 Q. Collateral damage.

3 A. Collateral damage is one thing, and if it's part of the whole

4 fight, say in the Second World War, when six million Jews were killed,

5 whether some of them were not massacred but killed in action, and there

6 were some in Warsaw that were killed in action. It doesn't really make

7 much difference. It was an attack on the Jewish population and whether or

8 not they were killed in action wasn't -- for posterity is not a big issue.

9 Q. So it seems -- well, in reading your article here, it would seem

10 that you have come to some sort of a legal conclusion of your own?

11 A. Not a legal conclusion, more a scientific conclusion.

12 Q. All right. Well, getting back to what information was not known,

13 okay, what data is unavailable for your study, can you give us a list of

14 the data that you would have liked but was unavailable to you as a result

15 of lost records, incomplete records, mistaken recording, can you give us a

16 list of that?

17 A. Of course I would like a list of all people who died in connection

18 with the fall of Srebrenica and the cause of death, place of death, time

19 of death, and of course name, et cetera, date of birth of all the

20 individuals.

21 Q. All right. Did you do an accounting of where the people were

22 listed as their place of death, whether -- how many were listed to have

23 been killed in Potocari, how many were listed killed in the woods? Do you

24 have a breakdown of that?

25 A. I don't recall if we have that. We did have it at some stage. I

1 don't recall now that we -- it was -- maybe if you let me, I will have a

2 quick look. But you seem to be more familiar with my paper than I am, so

3 perhaps you remember whether there is a breakdown.

4 Q. I have to be honest, I'm not very good with your charts -- at

5 understanding them.

6 A. No, we did not focus very much on that. At some stage we did an

7 analysis, but the place of disappearance, no, we did not focus much on

8 that, I think.

9 Q. Okay. Now, the data that you did rely on, we'll talk about that

10 first. As I understand it, you had a list that came from the ICRC, the

11 Red Cross, in essence.

12 A. I had two lists.

13 Q. Okay, you had two lists. But we'll talk about in a general sense

14 the sources. The sources were the ICRC. Correct?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Then you had the PDH?

17 A. PHR.

18 Q. PHR. And those were the physicians for human rights. Right?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. And then for other reasons which we'll get into, you looked at the

21 1991 census?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. And then you also had a voting list that was composed or compiled

24 by OSCE in 1997/1998?

25 A. Yes, correct.

1 Q. Okay. And as I understand it, getting back to the two -- all of

2 these lists, you know, were obviously created for different reasons.

3 Okay. Right. You're shaking your head. You've got to --

4 A. No, no. I'm not shaking; I'm nodding.

5 Q. Yeah, okay. And they -- by different organisations. Right?

6 A. Correct.

7 Q. At different time periods?

8 A. Correct.

9 Q. Okay. Different questions were asked or the questionnaires were

10 different?

11 A. And the purposes --

12 Q. And their purposes were different.

13 A. -- were different, and instruments for collecting data were

14 different.

15 Q. And the instruments. And if we could encapsulate your entire

16 study, as I understand it - and I'm going to do the best I can as a

17 layperson - in essence what you did was you had a list. Once you cleaned

18 up or compiled the ICRC list and the PHR list, you merged them; and from

19 there, you compiled a master list. And for purposes of corroboration and

20 to double-check, you used the 1991 census and you used the voting list.

21 And I'm speaking in a very general, broad approach. Correct?

22 A. That's correct. You got the major points.

23 Q. Okay. So let's -- so those were the sources. Question: To your

24 knowledge, were there other available sources? We talked about one, the

25 military list, but let's forget that. We can deal with -- we've dealt

1 with that. Were there other available lists that you knew of at the time,

2 or might have learned thereafter, that have been examined?

3 A. Not that I knew about.

4 Q. Okay.

5 A. Because of course then I would have used them.

6 Q. All right. Okay.

7 A. I'm a data freak.

8 Q. All right. Okay. Well, good. Now, of the four sources that you

9 used, would I be correct in stating that only one of the sources was

10 official, in a sense that it came from a government as opposed to NGOs?

11 A. That is correct.

12 Q. Okay. And that would have been the 1991 census?

13 A. Correct.

14 Q. Conducted at about the time of the war, right before the war was

15 about to break up -- to start. Correct?

16 A. 31st of March, 1991, was the census day.

17 Q. Okay. And we're going to get into it. But as I understand from

18 reading your historical analysis of the census of 1991, because of the war

19 and the conditions there was never an opportunity to come up with a clean

20 list. I believe that was the word that you used or phrase, to clean it or

21 to have a comprehensive list. Correct?

22 A. Yes, that is correct. Especially as there may be -- were many

23 errors in the data and they were not checked and corrected.

24 Q. Okay. Now, we're going to get to that in a little bit. But aside

25 from the sources that you checked, were you aware of whether the UN had a

1 list of refugees and other persons that were threatened by war, that list

2 being in Serbia?

3 A. No, I did not know about that.

4 Q. Okay.

5 A. I heard about, though, a list of displaced persons in Bosnia.

6 Q. Okay. There's a list of that as well.

7 A. After the war.

8 Q. After the war, an OHR.

9 A. And I made an attempt to get that list.

10 Q. Okay. We're going to get to that. But I just -- let me go

11 through my list and then we're going to get to your list. Okay. Were you

12 aware that the UN had a census of refugees -- of refugee households in the

13 RS?

14 A. I vaguely remember.

15 Q. Okay.

16 A. You mean the UNHCR when you talk about UN?

17 Q. Well, yeah, UNHCR. But it was a list of refugee households in the

18 RS. Okay.

19 A. Yes, I think I remember something about that, though this is now

20 six years ago. We did -- UNHCR was not willing to provide any data on

21 individuals to ICTY.

22 Q. Now, might I be able to look somewhere in your report -- because

23 I'm a footnote fetish, you know. I'm that kind of nut. I like

24 footnotes. I like to read them; I like to go to the source. I haven't

25 been able to find anything where you've gone and made these requests and

1 they were -- they said, We're not going to provide them, a UN organisation

2 to another UN organisation. Could I find that anywhere in your reports or

3 your articles?

4 A. Probably not -- no, I don't think so. And I don't see why I

5 should have included that, all the things that failed would be very

6 strange to -- even you might get too many footnotes from it.

7 Q. All right. Well, I guess -- and then we're going to go on, and

8 there's a reason for all of this, of course. Did you look at the voter

9 list for Serbia, the 2000 one?

10 A. For Serbia?

11 Q. Yeah. To see whether -- because -- I mean the census.

12 A. Are you talking about Bosnia or Republika Srpska?

13 Q. Yeah -- no, for Serbia, the census, the final results.

14 A. It was not available to me.

15 Q. What about the final results of the census of 2001 in Croatia?

16 A. No. This was after I did this project.

17 Q. Okay. There's an official -- I'm told, and we can dig it up, that

18 if you were to go, for instance, to the RS Bureau of Statistics, there is

19 an official assessment of the inhabitants of the RS that goes from 1996

20 all the way to 2003. Did you check that?

21 A. Did you have -- in another paper I did find some data on a

22 so-called census in Republika Srpska in 1994 or 1995 or something.

23 Q. But they have it all the way to 2003?

24 A. This work was does in 1999 and 2000, so I was not aware of that

25 source.

1 Q. Okay. But what I'm saying to you: Were aware that they have

2 official assessments that go all the way up to, which would include the

3 period when you were working --

4 A. No, I was not aware of that.

5 Q. Okay. What about -- did you ever check the results of the vital

6 statistics of the RS? And as I understand it they have official records,

7 if you go to Banja Luka, from 1996 all the way to 2003.

8 A. I really wanted to use the vital statistics, but in a situation

9 where there is war and conflict, the vital statistics are very deficient.

10 And I doubt very much that the vital statistics for Srebrenica would have

11 helped me.

12 Q. Okay. But just so we know that we're all speaking on the same

13 page, the vital statistics would have the births and the deaths and I

14 think they also include the marriages as well.

15 A. That is correct.

16 Q. Okay. Fair to say that aside from the four sources that you have

17 mentioned, you didn't reach out to see what other sources might be

18 available, if not to answer your first question - that is how many people

19 perished as a result of the Srebrenica incident - but the second question

20 which you seem to be interested in and that is the impact on the

21 Srebrenica community?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. Okay. You would agree with me that if you were writing a paper

24 and you were trying to make an assessment as to the impact on the

25 community upon which you were to conclude in your own paper that a

1 genocide had occurred, that you might want to look at statistics from

2 sources as the one that I've indicated. Correct?

3 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Waespi.

4 MR. WAESPI: Just one point to raise. This witness has been

5 called for purposes of cross-examination on his report, especially the

6 additional one of 2003. And now we are going into his academic papers

7 and -- so I'm not entirely sure whether that was the purpose why this

8 witness has been called to testify.

9 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Waespi, we believe that all those

10 cross-examinations are related to the subject matter we are discussing,

11 about Srebrenica, which might - I do not know at this moment - have some

12 relevance to that very issue. Up to now we didn't see that the Defence

13 counsel has passed this boundary yet. But we will be very careful on

14 that, thank you.

15 You may proceed, Mr. Karnavas.

16 MR. KARNAVAS: Thank you, Your Honour.

17 JUDGE LIU: You have to bear the objections from the Prosecution

18 in mind.

19 MR. KARNAVAS: I surely do, Your Honour, and I'm playing within

20 the field. I may get offside occasionally, but ...

21 Q. Now, did you recall -- do you remember my question, or would you

22 like me to ask it all over again?

23 A. Maybe I can say something, maybe I'm not quite to -- on your

24 point. But to assess the impact of the population on Srebrenica, you

25 would need another census. And there were plans for a census in 2001 for

1 all of Bosnia, but the international community would not let the census be

2 taken because -- for various reasons. And since I was not aware of any

3 census, there was no data on the complete population composition of

4 Srebrenica in -- after the war, I mean, 2001, or after 1995. Moreover,

5 there were large refugee movements, not only Muslims being driven away

6 from Srebrenica, but then Serb refugees or displaced persons moving to

7 Srebrenica, including from areas of Sarajevo that were after the Dayton

8 Accords where then became part of the Federation and many people left. So

9 far as I understand, many of the houses in Srebrenica are now inhabited by

10 people from Sarajevo and probably there -- and also the other way around..

11 Q. Of course, before the war Srebrenica was a multi-ethnic

12 community. Correct?

13 A. That's true.

14 Q. Actually, you have some statistics on it. Right?

15 A. Mm-hmm.

16 Q. When Srebrenica fell, for lack of a better term and I'm not

17 asserting a legal connotation to this, but for lack of a better term, was

18 not Srebrenica ethnically cleansed of Serbs?

19 A. It was first ethnically cleansed of -- before the 11th of July?

20 Q. Yeah, how many Serbs were in Srebrenica?

21 A. Before 1995?

22 Q. Right before the fall of Srebrenica, 1995, July 11th, was

23 Srebrenica not ethnically pure of Serbs?

24 A. I do not know. We have the census from 1991, and I do not recall,

25 but there was a certain, as you said, multi-ethnic society. There was no

1 census or enumeration of people before the 1995 fall, so we don't know.

2 Q. But do you know -- well -- so as we stand here today, you're not

3 aware whether -- when Srebrenica had been declared an enclave, when Naser

4 Oric was in there with his army, the 28th Division, you're not aware --

5 and you had the various brigades of the VRS surrounding the enclave,

6 you're telling us that you were not aware whether Srebrenica had any Serbs

7 living there at the time?

8 A. I knew there had been -- had been fighting and atrocities from

9 both sides, but I had not seen any population estimates of the number of

10 Serbs or Croats or Muslims.

11 Q. All right. Okay. We'll leave that for another day. Now, getting

12 back to your stated purpose -- because here in your article you state in

13 the conclusion, and I'm referring to page 12.

14 MR. KARNAVAS: Again, this has been marked for identification

15 purposes as D110.

16 Q. You state -- and I'll just read and tell me if it has been

17 changed. You'll have to accept my apology on the record for that.

18 A. Page?

19 Q. Page 12 you have a conclusion. And here you say: "The aim of

20 this article has been to present the results and the methods used by the

21 authors to establish a minimum estimate of victims of the genocide in

22 Srebrenica based on individual-level data."

23 All right. Just from this sentence can we not conclude that you

24 have made, at least in your own mind, a conclusion that a genocide

25 occurred.

1 JUDGE LIU: Yes.

2 MR. WAESPI: Mr. President, he was asked this question before --

3 MR. KARNAVAS: I'm going to ask -- I haven't --

4 MR. WAESPI: Twice, in fact.

5 MR. KARNAVAS: If I ask the follow-up question, perhaps Mr. Waespi

6 will see that there's a foundational reason why I'm asking this question.

7 Just one more question, Your Honour.

8 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Karnavas, I think you have already asked

9 this question and the witness has already answered it, and we are

10 satisfied with the answer. If you have any follow-up questions, you may

11 proceed.

12 MR. KARNAVAS: Yes, Your Honour. I just didn't want to be unfair

13 to the witness.

14 Q. Now, when you -- since you have determined that genocide occurred,

15 may I ask: Was that based on a numerical figure, that is, coming up with

16 7.456 or 57 or whatever, or was that based on your assessment and analysis

17 and expert opinion on the impact, the overall impact, these atrocities

18 would have had on the community?

19 A. It was based on the numerical figure, that 7.500 people who are

20 dead. It is a very large number. And in -- except in a legal sense, I

21 think, for historians would be satisfied to call this a genocide.

22 Q. Okay. I just have a question here. In one of the footnotes -- I

23 don't know if it's in this one. In one of the footnotes to an article

24 that you make reference to, I believe it's in your 1993, you make

25 reference to -- the reference is to a paper that was prepared by Ball,

1 Patrick, and it deals with killings and refugee flow in Kosovo.

2 A. That's correct.

3 Q. And I looked at it and I noticed that there was a -- that you

4 chaired a reviewing panel for this particular paper.

5 A. That's correct.

6 Q. Some 70 pages, it looks quite academic. Was there a reviewing

7 panel for your article that you prepared?

8 A. No. It's unusual to have review panels. But -- no -- well, when

9 you submit an article to a paper, there's always a review. There are the

10 editors and the referees. And yes, my article was reviewed by referees,

11 anonymous referees. So the draft that you presented to us dated 10th of

12 July was presented to a journal that reviewed it and gave some comments,

13 there were a few changes made, and it was accepted. And they wrote they

14 were very happy to receive this article.

15 Q. Okay. All right.

16 A. So that is the normal procedure in the academic world. Whereas,

17 if I may, the Patrick Ball paper was not submitted to a journal. If it

18 had been submitted to a journal, it would have been reviewed in a similar

19 way.

20 Q. Suffice it to say, the Patrick Ball journal, as I understand it,

21 at least from when I looked at it --

22 A. Not the journal, the paper.

23 Q. The paper. Went through somewhat more scrutiny than yours.

24 A. That's correct.

25 Q. And I don't mean this in a negative sense, but it's just because

1 of the nature of the papers?

2 A. It was a long and technical and difficult paper. That's correct.

3 Q. And going back to your paper, and again I'm referring to D110 for

4 identification, on the very last page, page 13, at the very end, you state

5 that -- at the very last paragraph: "We believe" -- "we" being the

6 authors -- "believe that the large scale of the tragedy, comprising more

7 than a third of all Muslim men in Srebrenica before the war, including

8 about 50 per cent of all middle-aged men," and you give the ages 41 to 60

9 years of age, "meets the ICTY genocide criteria," and then you quote

10 apparently from the Krstic judgement,' acts committed with intent to

11 destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious

12 group.' And then you state: "In the ICTY trial against General Radislav

13 Krstic, the Court ruled in accordance with this view."

14 Now, my question to you, sir, is: Did you go through any process

15 to estimate the actual impact that these deaths would have had or have had

16 on the Srebrenica community, yes or no?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Okay. Previously you indicated that in order to make an

19 assessment a census would have been required. Did you not state that?

20 A. Yes, but I -- since that was not available, I took another

21 approach.

22 Q. Okay. Well, we're going to talk about your approaches. Was any

23 effort made by you or the Office of the Prosecution to conduct a census,

24 say in Srebrenica, to make a determination as to how many people are

25 there, how many men, how many women, the ages, et cetera, et cetera?

1 A. No. I did meet with the overall statistical agency for Bosnia and

2 then discussed the census and possibility of holding a census. And we

3 agreed in principle that there should be a census. It would not have been

4 enough, though, to have a census of just Srebrenica, since there was --

5 have been so large movements of people in and out. So a census of the

6 population of Srebrenica after the war would not have told us anything,

7 because we needed to know where they came from and where those who lived

8 there, where they went.

9 Q. Okay. And for the purposes of your studies, since you know that

10 would have been relevant information, could you not, sir, have come up

11 with a questionnaire where you could have gotten that information,

12 received that information, and then perhaps check it against other

13 sources. You could have done that, could you not?

14 A. My capacity was unfortunately limited. It was myself and one

15 assistant. We did not have the capacity or the resources to conduct a

16 partial or full census. All my work relied on data that was collected for

17 other purposes.

18 Q. I'm going to get to that data, but I guess I'm trying to get you

19 to think outside the box. Did you ever make that request to say, if we're

20 going to have a study in order to demonstrate the impact on this community

21 in light of some of the limitations that we have, we should have a census

22 with perhaps some added information, was that request ever made to the

23 Office of the Prosecution, yes or no?

24 A. No, but it was not -- if I may, it was not -- it wouldn't have

25 been sufficient to have a census just for Srebrenica. It was all -- for

1 all of Bosnia. And that I discussed with the leadership of the

2 statistical agency, and I suggested it was very important to include

3 questions on migration, where people lived before the war, the conflict,

4 and where they lived afterwards. And the statistical agencies said the

5 international community will not let us have a census yet; we are ready

6 for it.

7 Q. Okay. But since we're dealing with only Eastern Bosnia, but in

8 actuality Srebrenica, could you not have accomplished or compiled a list

9 similar to the list that was compiled by the ICRC, with the exception is

10 that you would go from house to house to house to count heads, to

11 determine their sex, to determine where they came from, whether they were

12 residents of Srebrenica or whether they had been refugees or displaced

13 persons that were living in somebody else's home, was that not available

14 to you as an option? I'm not saying about the resources; we'll forget

15 about the resources. Was that not an available option as far as looking

16 for data, yes or no?

17 A. I don't think it would have been very helpful, to be honest.

18 Q. Okay. So the answer is: It wasn't necessary to do that?

19 A. I did not consider it.

20 Q. Okay. That's a more honest answer now. Now we're talking.

21 That's what I'm saying, I'm trying to get you to think outside the box.

22 So if you hadn't considered it, you could not have made that step to ask

23 the Office of the Prosecution to see whether resources are available to do

24 such a questionnaire analysis. Correct?

25 A. Correct.

1 Q. Okay. And when we're talking about Srebrenica, and I assume

2 you've been there, we're not talking about New York City, we're not

3 talking about Oslo, we're not talking about The Hague, we're talking about

4 a pretty small place, aren't we?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Now, did you -- have you -- since coming here today, have you

7 asked to check the voter registration for the years, say -- I guess they

8 had a vote 1997. I think they had -- there's a list -- current list

9 available, 2003. Have you checked the list to see how many on that list

10 actually live in Srebrenica and how many are voting from outside the

11 country who are from Srebrenica? And Norway, as I understand, has a lot

12 of people from Bosnia living there who vote in -- who vote, you know,

13 absentee. Did you look at that list?

14 A. We did look at that list for 1997/1998.

15 Q. And?

16 A. It's not reported here, but we did look at the number of people,

17 as you said, who were from Srebrenica and lived elsewhere and other way

18 around, and so on and all kinds of --

19 Q. Now, this would have been a source. Right?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. The answer is yes --

22 A. Well, not for the number of persons who died in connection with

23 the massacre.

24 Q. No. I understand. But it is a source of information nonetheless

25 that you looked at. Right?

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Okay. And I take it it must have had some significance because

3 you looked at it, otherwise you would have said, no, you know, I don't

4 need this information; it's not necessary. But nonetheless you looked at

5 it. Right?

6 A. Yes, and what did I find?

7 Q. Well, I don't know yet.

8 A. You are not interested.

9 Q. We're going to get there. What I do know is I have nothing in

10 here in either your reports or your articles that states that you looked

11 at this information, and here is why this particular information is

12 irrelevant. I don't have anything in here. Right?

13 A. That's correct.

14 Q. Okay. Now, aside from the issue of how many people perished

15 overall, okay, that numerical figure, would that information not have been

16 useful if we were trying to make some sort of an estimation on people that

17 were from Srebrenica that were abroad or who were in BiH?

18 A. Yes. We did that, and we found that -- we looked at the ethnic

19 cleansing of Srebrenica and found that it was totally turned around.

20 There were very few -- there were few, if any, Muslims in Srebrenica after

21 the conflict.

22 Q. After the conflict -- okay.

23 A. After the massacre or the fall of the enclave. There were some --

24 many people who were from Srebrenica who registered to vote elsewhere,

25 especially in Tuzla and Sarajevo. But from those originally there and who

1 were Muslims, there were a few.

2 Q. Do you have the numerical breakdown?

3 A. Not here, but my successor Ewa Tabeau has looked at this.

4 THE INTERPRETER: Could the speakers please pause between question

5 and answer.

6 Would the counsel please use the microphone, otherwise the

7 interpreters cannot hear you.

8 MR. KARNAVAS:

9 Q. Now, my figures show that for the 1996/1997 list, you had 13.094

10 Muslims, 11.043 Serbs that were registered to vote in Srebrenica, with

11 4.000 Muslims registered to vote from abroad. So we're talking at about

12 17.000 eligible Muslim voters. Okay. Does that correspond with the

13 figures that you looked at, if you recall?

14 A. I don't recall.

15 Q. Okay. Now, if you're going to be publishing an academic article

16 where you're stating an opinion where you're trying to conclude the

17 ramifications of a community based on the number of deaths - and of course

18 you do give some breakdowns based on your theory - would it not have been

19 reasonable to then look at also what the results might be in 2003; in

20 other words, how many people are registered to vote in Srebrenica who are

21 actually living in Srebrenica and also how many are registered from

22 abroad, would that not have been helpful as well?

23 A. Perhaps. I think so. With limited resources, I did not have time

24 to do that. But I would like to draw your attention to the fact that we

25 did look at the proportion of men who lived in Srebrenica in 1991 who were

1 found to be dead or missing in relation to the conflict, and that a third

2 of the men, approximately, in some age groups more than half of the men,

3 were listed as missing.

4 Q. Okay.

5 A. And that is indeed a significant part of the original Srebrenica

6 population. So we did consider that issue.

7 Q. All right. And we haven't got to that part, and I understand that

8 you did look at that and you did make some findings. What I'm interested

9 to know is: Aside from those lists that you've indicated, the four lists,

10 why did you not reach out and look at other available data before reaching

11 conclusions which you are publishing, either in reports or in journals,

12 which you've indicated have been received with a great deal of interest in

13 your field?

14 A. We did look at the voters' lists, we did use it. We did not look

15 at the ethnic cleansing aspect, if that is what you are considering. The

16 voters were the people who are registered to vote. And we could have done

17 that, of course. But we needed -- in an academic article, you need to

18 focus on certain issues, and that was our focus.

19 Q. Are you suggesting that because somebody is living in Oslo,

20 working there and voting in the RS, that he's there as a result of ethnic

21 cleansing, is that a conclusion that you axiomatically draw? They are in

22 Norway, hence they must be ethnically cleansed?

23 A. I did not say anything about that. You would like me to have

24 looked at hose data. And I did not. So perhaps you should do this study.

25 Q. Okay. But if you're going to be making a conclusion with respect

1 to the impact on this particular community, today as you testify here in

2 court, all right, do you think that would be useful information?

3 A. I think it would be useful information, yes.

4 Q. To see, for instance, how many births, how many new people are on

5 the voting list as a result of getting older and becoming eligible to

6 vote. That would be important, right?

7 A. Yes, but not highly related to the number of people that were

8 killed.

9 Q. How many men are living in Srebrenica that are Muslim. Correct?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. How many children are there. Right?

12 A. But still we are focused on the number of killed --

13 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Waespi.

14 MR. WAESPI: In all due respect, he questioned him at length now

15 about what should be part of an academic or scientific article. It

16 doesn't really go into his report because that was a different mandate

17 given by the OTP, and the OTP certainly didn't tell him to publish

18 anything in an academic article. So in my belief, I think that goes now

19 beyond what the reason was he was called to be cross-examined.

20 JUDGE LIU: Maybe Mr. Karnavas could think it over during the

21 break. Now it is time for the break.

22 MR. KARNAVAS: Thank you. I finished that area. And just for the

23 record, I'm basing my cross on what the Prosecution has argued in the

24 Krstic judgement -- or the Krstic trial at the end of the case. And I

25 apologise if these are issues that they should have raised at some other

1 point.

2 JUDGE LIU: We'll resume at quarter to 6.00.

3 --- Recess taken at 5.15 p.m.

4 --- On resuming at 5.47 p.m.

5 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Karnavas, please continue.

6 MR. KARNAVAS: Thank you. And for the record I just want to

7 clarify a couple of things, because I misspoke when I said that the 1997

8 voter list had 4.000 that were abroad, that was inclusive within the

9 13.094 Muslims that were registered to vote.

10 Q. And also the latest voters list, you might be interested to know,

11 is 2.000.

12 A. May I make a comment, please?

13 Q. You certainly may, go ahead.

14 A. You also referred to the 1996 voters' list, didn't you?

15 Q. The 1996/1997.

16 A. The 1996 voters' list is not relevant to use at all because it's

17 included the 1991 census. There was no collection of voters'

18 registrations for the 1996 elections.

19 Q. Okay. So your -- what you're telling me now is that you actually

20 looked at that voters' list?

21 A. No, I did not consider it. I used 1997 and 1998.

22 Q. Well, okay. I'm trying to tell you that for my information that

23 I'm referring to it's the 1996/1997, that's where I got these figures

24 from. Now -- but we'll move on and we'll get back to the voters' list at

25 some point.

1 Initially -- I want to talk to you now about the sources that you

2 did use, and the two primary sources initially were the list that was

3 compiled by the ICRC and the list that was compiled by the PHR. Correct?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Now, with the ICRC, they have compiled, I believe since the war

6 and thereafter, several different lists. Correct?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. The ones that you had available were --

9 A. A qualification, please. Not several different lists. They have

10 updated, revised previous lists.

11 Q. Yes, exactly. And thank you for correcting me.

12 A. They have published different lists.

13 Q. Right, exactly. And I appreciate for that correction. And you

14 had the third and the fourth edition, I guess, if we could call it that.

15 A. Right.

16 Q. So one of the first tasks that you had was to take a look at the

17 third and the fourth to make sure that there were no duplications?

18 A. Correct.

19 Q. Because, as I understand it, as people were declared missing, they

20 might have been added on; and as people who had been found who were

21 declared missing were struck off. Correct?

22 A. That is correct.

23 Q. And also there might have been situations, I assume, where

24 somebody might have been listed as missing by different sources, different

25 people, different relatives. Correct?

1 A. Right.

2 Q. Now, can I ask you what the percentage of error was when you

3 compared these two lists.

4 A. What do you mean by error? Do you mean duplicates?

5 Q. Duplicates.

6 A. I don't recall. Not a very large number. I would need to check

7 the records. It's not included in my report, is it?

8 Q. I don't believe I see a percentage, as far as, you know, that this

9 was within a margin of 3 to 5 per cent or anything of the sort, as far as

10 errors go. In fact, would it surprise you that I don't have that for any

11 of your reports where you indicate what the percentage of error was?

12 Would that surprise you?

13 A. Well, it would not be included not to overburden the report with

14 details.

15 Q. Well, surely that little space wouldn't have been that much of an

16 overburden, would it?

17 A. Then you would have to define what is meant by a percentage error.

18 Q. Okay. Did you think that that might have been relevant, at least

19 maybe not to put into your report, but at least to make some sort of

20 determination about the quality of the reporting -- of the list itself?

21 A. Well, we included such data in basic reports. We did look at it

22 and -- but we did not include, as I said, all details about the study in

23 the final report.

24 Q. Let me just -- because you have to forgive me, this is not my

25 field of expertise. When you went through the list - and I take it you

1 went list - you first checked each list, and then you compared the lists.

2 Correct?

3 A. Yes, we merged them.

4 Q. Okay. But before merging them, did you check the list itself

5 first to see whether they had any duplicates, any errors?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Okay. Now, my question is: At that point in time, did you

8 subscribe a numerical percentage of the errors found, such as this list

9 has 10 per cent errors of duplications, or five per cent, or two per cent?

10 A. Not per cent, but we did count the number of duplicates. It

11 wasn't a very large number. Much, much less than 10 per cent. As far as

12 I recall.

13 Q. Well, for statistical purposes, is there a margin of error that's

14 an acceptable range?

15 A. There's no objective margin of error. We're not talking about

16 probabilities here; this is not probability theory.

17 Q. All right. I suspect that you kept track of the list of names,

18 along with all the other relevant data, of all those who were duplicates

19 or you thought to be error?

20 A. Mm-hmm.

21 Q. So for instance, if I were to ask the Office of the Prosecution to

22 provide me with that analysis, that information, they might be able to

23 accommodate me?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Okay. All right. Now, when you made the comparisons, at that

1 point is it fair to say that since you didn't do a percentage check on the

2 first individually, that you probably didn't do a check to see what

3 percentage of error existed when you merged the two?

4 A. Of course when you merge the two, there was a very large overlap,

5 many duplicates, because basically the 1998 version, the fourth version,

6 was an update of the third version. So it means that 1995 percent [sic]

7 of the individuals were the same in both of these. So we just had to make

8 sure that they were marked as such and not repeated.

9 Q. Okay.

10 A. Some -- there were some additional names in the 1998 version, and

11 some names were -- there was a very large overlap, but some names only in

12 the third edition and some names only in the fourth version.

13 Q. And then I take it, based on that, you compiled, for lack of a

14 better term, a master list from ICRC?

15 A. Correct.

16 Q. Now, once you had that list of names, might I ask, that master

17 list, was it composed after checking all of the data, the name, surname,

18 name of father, date of birth, year of birth, place of birth, et cetera?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Okay. And may I ask: From that master list, of which I believe

21 it was -- how many thousands was it? 6.000 or something? 5.000?

22 A. Approximately 7.000, I think.

23 Q. 7.000, that's when you add the folks from the PHR. Right?

24 A. No, there is an additional number of people from PHR. It was very

25 small, just a few hundred. So I think it's more in the order of 7.500.

1 Q. Okay. Now, what was the percentage of folks on the list, names on

2 the list, where you had incomplete data? Did you make some kind of a

3 breakdown --

4 A. Certainly.

5 Q. Okay. So -- and what was the percentage of names that had

6 incomplete data that you then needed to go to other sources or to do other

7 things to fill in the blanks as best you could?

8 A. Let me check. On the ICRC lists, date of birth was complete for

9 65.4 per cent. So that is full date of birth, day, month, and year. So

10 that means that 35 per cent did not have the full. But there were only

11 one or two cases where there was none of that, no year of birth.

12 Q. All right.

13 A. And date of disappearance was 89.6 per cent complete.

14 Q. Okay. Now, let's stay with this for a moment. And these are not

15 trick questions. This is just to -- I'm trying to understand this. We

16 know from this report that approximately 35 per cent at least did not have

17 a complete date of birth. Can I assume or can we assume here that all the

18 other information, such as the father's name and then the place of birth,

19 were completed? Or is this just representative of date of birth

20 incomplete or complete information?

21 A. There were errors in all variables, misspellings, and errors to a

22 smaller or larger extent.

23 Q. All right.

24 A. Data of completed birth is to the larger extent. But no data are

25 perfect, ever, not even in Norway.

1 Q. With that qualification, and I'll grant you that, did you do a

2 breakdown so we can see what the percentage was from this list of missing

3 information in each category, such as, you know, the identification

4 number, the date of birth, the name of the father, the place, is there a

5 numerical breakdown?

6 A. I think the OTP will be happy to provide you with that. The

7 identification number was not included in the ICRC list, by the way.

8 Q. Okay. Now, you said that they would be able to provide me with

9 that information. Does that mean that a numerical breakdown was done, or

10 am I going to have to do it myself? I mean, with my large staff and all

11 the resources we have, we could do that.

12 A. OTP could easily do that.

13 Q. Okay. All right. But needless to say, as you sit here today and

14 having written these reports, this wasn't something that you or your team

15 had compiled, this sort of data?

16 A. The ICRC list?

17 Q. Yeah, from the list. We're going to go one by one. In other

18 words, when you checked all of this, did you say -- because as I

19 understand you had an assistant but later on there were other students,

20 and later on there was a demographic section within OTP, did you ever

21 request that a breakdown be done so then we can have this information?

22 A. I remember looking at that myself and -- but we did not include

23 all that information in the report, again not to overburden it. But we

24 included the breakdown on complete date of birth and date of

25 disappearance.

1 Q. I can see that from the report, sir. And I'm not asking you

2 whether you wanted to overburden this report, okay. And trust me, I've

3 been burdened by it as it is, okay, Lord knows. But aside from that, is

4 there information in the file where you looked at this and gave -- you

5 know, gave it some significance, or perhaps you felt it wasn't necessary,

6 yes or no?

7 A. I looked at it, certainly. Yes.

8 Q. So you actually did the breakdown?

9 A. I think so for most of the variables, yes.

10 Q. So I can ask the OTP to provide me with a list of the breakdown,

11 and they would be able to say for 30 per cent there was no place of birth,

12 from 20 per cent the names didn't match --

13 A. Sure.

14 Q. Okay. And that's already been done. You've looked at it and felt

15 it wasn't significant in any way?

16 A. Well, it was significant in the overall impression about the data

17 quality. So I learned about the data quality and made a conclusion on the

18 quality based on that.

19 Q. Okay. And --

20 A. But, if I may.

21 Q. Yes, you may.

22 A. It's not only missing data or not. It's also whether there are

23 errors in the data themselves.

24 Q. Well, that was my next question.

25 A. Spelling of names, date of birth, and so forth. So those data

1 were also evaluated.

2 Q. Overall can you give a numerical figure or a percentage figure of

3 how many on the list checked out completely versus the ones that had

4 problems, either with misspellings or omissions?

5 A. That isn't -- it's not possible to give you an objective answer

6 because it's not -- first we would have to define what is meant by an

7 error.

8 Q. Okay.

9 A. So if you were on the list and your name had one spelling mistake,

10 one letter wrong, two lettered twisted, interchanged, is that a serious

11 error or is it just an error or... Such considerations would have to be

12 made.

13 Q. All right. Well, let's take that example. First you would have

14 to -- you would agree with me that at least on its face it might seem like

15 an error. Right?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. So the next thing would be to see whether that can be verified or

18 rectified?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Okay. So you might then need to go to another source that might

21 have part of that information or maybe more information. And when you

22 dovetail it, you can come -- have a more complete picture. Correct?

23 A. Exactly.

24 Q. So would you agree with me that if you were to find additional

25 information that would corroborate part of it and correct other, then that

1 would be an error, the initial name on the list, as it stood?

2 A. Correct.

3 Q. Okay. So see, very easily, we solved that definitional problem,

4 we have a definition of errors. My question is: Did you and your team

5 list or compile a percentage of errors? You know, just an overall figure

6 to tell us how many errors were in this list, whether they were because of

7 misspellings or maybe there was a missing number to the personal

8 identification, or the father's name was misspelled or so on and so forth.

9 Can you give us a figure, if you know?

10 A. If I may, I would have to say something about the methodology on

11 this question.

12 Q. Before you get to the methodology, could you just answer my

13 question and then -- we're going to get into the --

14 A. The methodology is a necessary part of the answer.

15 Q. Is the answer to my question, no, you did not compile a percentage

16 of --

17 A. I would need to say, how do you detect errors? We detect errors

18 by comparing the list on missing persons to other sources, as you

19 correctly say, especially the census now. If you manage to match records

20 on both lists that are identical, then -- exactly, then there is no error.

21 But there are a number of records that we cannot match, perhaps because of

22 errors, perhaps not. So some of the errors are detected, some are --

23 there are also unknown errors. And we kept a record of -- during this

24 matching procedure, how many matches were done with everything, say

25 complete name of birth, complete name, complete -- including father's

1 name, complete date of birth, et cetera, how many matches with the census

2 were exact. And so on. The next time we would just need to include year

3 of birth.

4 But you know, there are also errors in the census. So when there

5 is a difference, whether it is due to an error in the missing list or the

6 census list, that is not clear always. When there are two different years

7 of birth, how do you know which one is the correct one? We did so-called

8 fuzzy matching we looked at individuals with the same name, but perhaps we

9 checked whether -- if we didn't find, whether they were born one or two

10 years apart to allow for errors.

11 Q. All right. Are you through with your explanation for now on this?

12 A. Are you happy with it?

13 Q. Well, I'm not sure I'm happy, because I still have some questions,

14 but I accept your explanation which I found in your report incidentally.

15 But getting back to my question, because we haven't gotten to

16 matching yet. You see, I'm still back on the first list, the ICRC list,

17 and I'm trying to figure out whether after you merged the two lists to

18 compile that master list, whether you have a numerical or percentage

19 breakdown of how many errors in total, and then more specifically perhaps

20 as far as names, spelling, things that you think I might be missing that

21 you need to check --

22 A. I think -- but the detection of errors is a consequence of the

23 merging. So we cannot speak about errors isolated from the merging.

24 Q. Okay. But, sir --

25 A. So that's how the errors are detected. We don't have a telephone

1 directory where we can look up all the spellings of the names.

2 Q. All right. Let's set aside the errors. Do you have a listing of

3 all the -- do you have a percentage of all the names that had incomplete

4 data? So it's not necessarily a mistake but it's just incomplete. Do you

5 have a percentage?

6 A. Incomplete names, I don't think so.

7 Q. No, no. Incomplete -- sir, I'm not talking about names, because

8 there are several components. There's the first name; there's the last

9 name; there's the name of the father; there is the complete date of birth,

10 including the year; there is the place of missing; there is the place of

11 birth, okay, there is the date of missing. So all of that, and perhaps

12 more information. But with respect to that, do you have a percentage of

13 the numbers, you know, on the list, the names on the list, that had

14 missing information? It's a yes or no. If it's a no, it's not a problem,

15 we'll move on.

16 A. I do not recall, but we could easily make such a list and provide

17 it to you, if you --

18 Q. Okay. So the answer is you don't know?

19 A. I don't recall. I think we made such a list, but I don't recall

20 now. And it would be very easy to make it.

21 Q. All right. Now, I take it since I don't have that information

22 from the ICRC list, I'm not going to have it for the PHR either?

23 A. That's correct. But --

24 Q. It can easily be done?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. I understand. Okay. Now -- because what I'm interested in is the

2 raw data, before you do the merging. Okay. Now you have to do the

3 merging because you want to see, I understand, the total list of people.

4 Right?

5 A. Mm-hmm.

6 Q. And one of your functions is to make sure, one, that there are no

7 duplicates. Correct?

8 A. Correct.

9 Q. Two, that there is sufficient data for each particular name that

10 would give you some certainty that that person, you know, actually exists

11 and is missing. Correct?

12 A. Correct.

13 Q. Right. Because, as you note, we're not talking about phantoms,

14 we're talking about real, live individuals. And the question here was:

15 Can we identify them by name and then perhaps later where they came from,

16 where they were residents of, where they were last seen, when were they

17 last seen. Correct?

18 A. Correct.

19 Q. Okay. Now, when you did the merging, did you come up with a

20 percentage of -- a percentage where you had to -- a percentage of errors

21 in the merging?

22 A. What do you mean by "percentage of errors"?

23 Q. Well, you have one person that part of the name is misspelled.

24 Now you have to look at somebody else, and now you're trying to get -- you

25 look at another name from the other list, maybe the date of birth is not

1 quite matching. And so you have to do what I believe you just called a

2 fuzzy matching, where a little bit here, a little bit there, and then you

3 come up with what you believe is a complete and accurate person's, you

4 know, information.

5 A. We kept logs of everything we did, about the matches, number of

6 cases matched and unmatched, so on, at various stages. This was done by

7 my assistants, and they kept logs. All of that information is available.

8 Q. Okay. Now you said "assistants." So it's not that you just only

9 you had one assistant, you had more than --

10 A. No, one at the time.

11 Q. One at the time. Okay.

12 A. And those who worked on this are actually my co-authors of these

13 papers.

14 Q. Right. Were they also students of demography or statistics?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. And I believe one of them was even your own student from Oslo?

17 A. That is correct. Both of them took courses from me.

18 Q. Incidentally, before we move on, once this was done, did you

19 actually go over all of their research, or did you take it at face value

20 that more or less they followed your instructions?

21 A. Well, I did a lot of checking and talking, looking at difficult

22 cases, doing consistency checks --

23 Q. Random checking?

24 A. That, too. Also looking at visual -- at names and so on.

25 Q. I'm having visions of the Florida counting of these ballots as

1 we're having this discussion.

2 A. But you will appreciate that more than 7.000 names is a very large

3 number.

4 Q. I agree, sir.

5 A. And that we have to automate the routines, use computer routines

6 to do merging and checking and so on. But we do also -- I think it's very

7 important to look at the data and get a feeling for the individual data.

8 Q. Now, as I understand, some persons were not matched in the first

9 rounds. Correct?

10 A. That's correct.

11 Q. Do you know what percentage actually did match on the first round?

12 A. I don't recall, but that is -- it's all in our logs.

13 Q. Okay. You then indicated that after that, going to the second

14 round in order to match them, you broaden up the variables. Correct?

15 A. Correct, yeah.

16 Q. And that's where the fuzziness, if I call it that, because it's

17 your word not mine, comes in?

18 A. Mm-hmm.

19 Q. You know. And that's where, for instance, you may play with the

20 year, one year one way or the other. Correct?

21 A. Correct.

22 Q. And in some instances, as I understand it, with respect to the

23 names, rather than look at the complete name, you only look at the first

24 initial and then the last name?

25 A. That's correct.

1 Q. Of course, having spent a lot of time looking at these names, you

2 came to conclude, perhaps early on, that many folks shared the same name?

3 A. Correct.

4 Q. The same first name as well as the same last name. Correct?

5 A. Correct.

6 Q. And that's why you would go to the father's name?

7 A. Correct.

8 Q. That's usually one of the ways that one identifies themselves in

9 this particular region. Correct?

10 A. Correct.

11 Q. And even there, even there, I am sure, I am certain - I am certain

12 as we are speaking right now - that you found instances where the person

13 would have the same first name, last name, and father's name. Right?

14 A. I think there were such cases, but I don't recall any right now.

15 Q. Okay. All right. And what about the date of births? Were you

16 able to, to some degree of satisfaction, find a date of birth for all

17 those persons on the list?

18 A. Year of birth was found for everybody. Date of birth was found

19 for almost everybody.

20 Q. When you say "almost," what's the percentage?

21 A. It increased from 65 per cent to - it's listed here somewhere -

22 75.5 per cent.

23 Q. So for approximately a quarter of the people on the list, we don't

24 have a complete date of birth?

25 A. We have year for all and in most cases month as well.

1 Q. Okay. And that gives you a certain degree of confidence as a

2 statistician and as a demographer that the people on the list -- that

3 there are no duplicates where there are, for instance, you had the same

4 first name, last name, or first initial, last name?

5 A. Let me remind you, if I may, that --

6 Q. Go for it.

7 A. The purpose of doing this was to reduce the number of potential

8 missing persons, because if we had not done this fuzzy matching, then the

9 number would have been much larger. That was the very purpose, because we

10 did not want to include the same person twice because there was a spelling

11 mistake in the name. That would have been a serious error. Or because

12 two persons with the same name and one was born in 1955, the other one in

13 1954, that they were included as two different persons. So we needed to

14 check whether they were in fact the same person but with slight errors.

15 In one of the exhibits for today, there is an example of a person,

16 two persons who had the same first name, same last name, same year of

17 birth, 1955, one has the father's name. In the other list, there is no

18 father's name. These turned out to be two different people. But they

19 are -- we had to be careful and check very carefully.

20 Q. Okay. And as I understand it, this list did not have that

21 personal identification number that all the folks from the former

22 Yugoslavia had?

23 A. That's correct, but all the folks did not have it.

24 Q. That's correct, too. Only about 60 per cent, as I understand.

25 A. Something like that.

1 Q. Okay. So -- and that was seven digits plus another six digits.

2 Correct?

3 A. Correct.

4 Q. The seven digits basically composed the date of birth --

5 A. Yes.

6 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Karnavas, please make a pause. It's too

7 fast.

8 MR. KARNAVAS: Okay.

9 Q. The last six digits indicated some specific information, such as

10 the sex, the region, the --

11 A. And a check digit at the end.

12 Q. Okay. Now, you did not have that information with those lists --

13 A. In the missing lists, no. In the census, yes. In the voters'

14 list, yes.

15 Q. But not in the PHR list?

16 A. That's correct.

17 Q. Okay. Now, let's talk about the voters' -- the census list. I

18 take it before you went to the census list you still had some dilemmas,

19 otherwise you would not have gone to that source. Correct?

20 A. That's true. So when there were two records that looked almost

21 identical, we needed to go to the census to see if they really represented

22 two different persons or the same person. And the census helped us in

23 that, because if there were we could see in the census whether there were

24 two persons with different names and almost the same year of birth, for

25 example.

1 Q. All right. I take it you had a chance, since you checked the

2 census, to look at the census form that was used at the time. Correct?

3 A. Certainly.

4 Q. All right. And would that census form not include also the

5 person's residence?

6 A. Yes, because they were enumerated in so-called enumeration areas.

7 So the locality and municipality were all there.

8 Q. Okay. And so if somebody had transferred from one area and I was

9 living in another, would that census form not reflect that?

10 A. Well, the census was taken on the 31st of March, as of that date.

11 So if you leave there on that date, you would have been enumerated in the

12 place where you lived on that date.

13 Q. Was there other information on that form that would designate

14 whether that person was actually born there or was just living there. In

15 other words --

16 A. Place of birth was there. I think it was also place of previous

17 residence in addition to education, occupation, and all those variables.

18 Q. Okay. All right. I just asked that question, because going back

19 earlier to the earlier session where we talked about taking the census in

20 Srebrenica, see we didn't even have to compose an additional

21 questionnaire, the census form already had all of that information, which

22 would have provided you an understanding whether somebody had just moved

23 to Srebrenica from someplace else as a refugee or displaced person or was

24 actually from Srebrenica. Right?

25 A. That's correct. But still I would like to repeat that that would

1 not have helped us in analysing the number of deaths.

2 Q. I understand that. But see, I was just going back to this issue,

3 and that issue was dealing with the -- trying to figure out years later

4 the impact on this community, which you seem to think was relevant in your

5 report. Now, in that --

6 A. I may add that I was looking at the impact of the community as it

7 was in 1991, not what happened after 1995.

8 Q. Okay. So when you were looking at the census of 1991, did you

9 find that information to be complete or were there errors there as well?

10 A. Of course. You mentioned that already.

11 Q. Okay. Refresh my memory.

12 A. You said that -- one or two or three hours ago that the census was

13 taken right at the dawn of the war and that there was no time to check the

14 data and correct the data.

15 THE INTERPRETER: Could the speakers please pause between question

16 and answer and could Mr. Karnavas please speak into the microphone.

17 MR. KARNAVAS:

18 Q. Now -- but part of the data was apparently was either incomplete

19 or incorrect?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. And in part, from what I understand from reading your reports,

22 that when the census was taken, perhaps because of poor penmanship, they

23 were -- the spellings were wrong or there might have been even errors in

24 the identification numbers?

25 A. Correct, but we checked for that.

1 Q. I understand that. Now -- and we already indicated that only

2 about 60 or more percentage of the population actually had gone through

3 the trouble to get a personal identification number; not everybody had

4 one?

5 A. The personal identification number was established in 1981, and I

6 do not know how it was distributed to people. So everybody got one, were

7 assigned one in 1981, or for those who were born after 1981, at the time

8 of birth or soon after. And I don't know the procedure as to where people

9 are informed about their own identity number. Somebody may have lost the

10 piece of paper they probably received or forgotten it for some reason.

11 Q. On the 1991 census, can you tell me what the percentage of errors

12 were on that?

13 A. If you excuse me, I don't think it's a very good question.

14 Q. Okay. Well -- that's all right. Why don't you answer my

15 question, bad as it is, and then in the meantime I'll try to think of a

16 better one.

17 A. Well, we looked at one thing to assess the quality of the names,

18 we counted the number of different names in the census for all of Bosnia,

19 say a combination of first name and family name. First we found, I think,

20 120.000 names. But when you look at the names, you realise there were

21 many typos. We corrected the typos, and then it dropped down to 80.000 or

22 something. And the way we corrected the typos, I'm a little bit proud of

23 it, if I may say.

24 Q. Okay, go ahead. Don't be modest now.

25 A. You know, in a household, most people in a household have the same

1 family name.

2 Q. Right.

3 A. So that if one name, say a simple name, Lukic, one is spelled

4 Lukic straight, another one has a Y instead of a U, the third one as an E

5 instead of an I and so on. There may be four or five different ways of

6 spelling the same name within a household. Due to spelling mistakes or

7 poor penmanship, as I said. Now, we compared those names in a household

8 with a list of correct names and changed those incorrect names to the

9 correct name.

10 Q. Now, what about missing identification numbers, what was the

11 percentage on that from the census?

12 A. Was it like 30, 40 per cent or something. I also checked whether

13 the ID numbers were correct because, as I mentioned, the last digit is a

14 check digit and it's a function of the first 12 digits. So we can -- I

15 learned the algorithm and checked in how many cases the digit was correct.

16 Q. Incidentally, the people doing the checking for the errors in

17 spelling and what have you, were they native speakers? You know, were

18 they from the region? Or was it done by Norwegian students or

19 internationals working for OTP?

20 A. We had native B/C/S speakers go through the list of family names

21 and first names and indicate which was wrong or unlikely, and which were

22 correct.

23 Q. And of course that data is available, should somebody want to look

24 at it?

25 A. Surely.

1 Q. Okay. Now, the reason for looking at the 1991 census, as I

2 understand it, was aside from perhaps checking it against the list that

3 you had already compiled from the ICRC and the PHR, but also to identify,

4 to the extent possible, where those missing people on the list had come

5 from?

6 A. Correct.

7 Q. So at least we would know, if we looked at the list -- or these

8 two lists I should say, from the 1991 census, where it's designated that

9 that person was living or was from at the time the census was taken.

10 Correct?

11 A. Correct.

12 Q. And then we could also see where that person was last seen.

13 Correct?

14 A. Correct.

15 Q. Did you by any chance then look at any other information available

16 to you at the local Srebrenica municipality or other surrounding

17 municipalities to see whether those people on the list who were also in

18 the 1991 census were registered in the Srebrenica municipality?

19 A. There was no other data available to us on Srebrenica.

20 Q. Okay. So if I understand you correctly, in the opstina, in

21 Srebrenica, the municipality there, there were no records as to where all

22 those 40.000-plus people had come from? We know that some were from

23 Srebrenica, but we also know that some were from other municipalities. Is

24 that correct?

25 A. That's correct.

1 Q. And if I may skip ahead of my cross, as I understand it, you

2 use --

3 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Waespi.

4 MR. WAESPI: Sorry, that was a compound question, at least two

5 different questions. I don't know which one the witness answered when he

6 said, "Correct." The first part was: There were no records. And the

7 second one was: These people came from different municipalities.

8 JUDGE LIU: Yes, it is a compound question.

9 MR. KARNAVAS: Yes. I stand corrected.

10 Q. We know of some 40.000 people went missing. Correct?

11 A. Well, no --

12 Q. Well, some 40.000 people were living in Srebrenica at the time.

13 Correct?

14 A. That's what the rumours say. And help agencies and the people in

15 the municipality said that, but there was no count.

16 Q. All right. So rumour has it that there were 40.000?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. It could have been more; it could have been less?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. There are no records available for you to check to see how many

21 exactly were there?

22 A. No, and I tried and I looked and I asked, but I did not find any.

23 Q. So I take it in your search you went to Srebrenica to see whether

24 at the municipality they had registered or there were records where

25 refugees perhaps had been registered who had come into Srebrenica while it

1 was an enclave?

2 A. I asked the municipality officials, yes, whether they knew about

3 any records of the population, but they said no.

4 Q. And do you know where this 40.000 figure comes from?

5 A. I think it's a rough estimate, partly based on relief agencies and

6 the number of rations or whatever that was required.

7 Q. Okay. All right. But you also are aware that folks who were

8 living in the enclave were on -- not -- I don't want to use the

9 word "routine," but occasionally some folks would either make it to Tuzla

10 or to Zepa?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Okay. You also are aware - at least it would appear from reading

13 your reports - that there was a flux of movement, some people coming into

14 Srebrenica, other people going out of Srebrenica?

15 A. That is correct. I also have read that, that during certain times

16 it was very difficult to move in and out because of closure and troop

17 movements outside.

18 Q. I understand that.

19 A. By the way, the 40.000 figure may well be somewhat inflated

20 because -- well, to get more rations, perhaps. Some people have claimed

21 that; I don't know how true it is.

22 Q. Well, we believe there was a big black marketeering going on, but

23 that's another side issue. Now, of the people that were in the enclave,

24 whatever the number may be, you don't know with any degree of scientific

25 certainty what percentage of those people were actually from Srebrenica?

1 A. No. I thought it was -- having read reports and heard rumours, I

2 thought it was a rather small percentage. But when we did our analysis of

3 where the missing persons came from, through matching with the census, I

4 was -- well, some -- surprised or relieved to see that 56 per cent of

5 those missing actually lived in Srebrenica in 1991. So more than half

6 were residents of Srebrenica.

7 Q. Well, back in 1991.

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Okay.

10 A. But if they had not been in Srebrenica in 1995, July, they would

11 not have been listed as missing.

12 Q. I understand that. So you were able to trace 55 per cent of the

13 names to the 1991 --

14 A. Census.

15 Q. Okay. Now, of that 55 percentage, do you know how many of those

16 people --

17 A. Excuse me, it was not correct what you said. 56 per cent of those

18 we traced with the census --

19 Q. 56 --

20 A. -- lived in Srebrenica.

21 Q. Of the 56 per cent of those who lived in Srebrenica, they were on

22 the list?

23 A. We traced 87 per cent to the 1991 census, of all the missing. So

24 there were only 13 per cent of the missing persons who we could not link

25 to the census.

1 Q. All right. See, you're getting ahead of my cross, but since we're

2 here. This is -- these are based on your statistical analysis. Correct?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. The 13 per cent that you came up with, you made -- you gave

5 yourself some allowances as to where they came from, based on having

6 looked at the 87 per cent and breaking that down. Correct?

7 A. Well, of those we matched with the census, 56 per cent came from

8 Srebrenica, 24 per cent from Bratunac, et cetera.

9 Q. All right. Now, let's stick with that for a second. Okay. Of

10 that percentage, of the 56 percentage that you said, can you give me a

11 numerical figure of how many of those were in the column heading towards

12 Tuzla and were killed in battle or stepping on lines as they were making

13 their way towards Tuzla and how many were executed at various sites?

14 A. I do know the answer.

15 Q. And the answer is?

16 A. I don't know. But exhumations will show how many were actually

17 executed.

18 Q. Okay. But again, that wasn't my question. And we did begin by --

19 I believe, by me stating to you that there is no disagreement in principle

20 as far as the number, that it is a large number. Okay. I don't

21 necessarily, or may not necessarily accept your number, but nonetheless we

22 can agree on that. But on the very narrow issue that I asked you, based

23 on your statistical analysis, based on what you had available to you,

24 today as you sit here, even with your formulas, you cannot tell us with

25 any degree of scientific certainty how many of those 56 per cent that

1 originated from Srebrenica, according to the 1991 census, perished on

2 their way towards Tuzla versus being executed?

3 A. That was not my mandate.

4 Q. I didn't ask you whether that was your mandate. You see --

5 A. And I don't know.

6 Q. Okay. So that's the answer, you don't know. And might I ask: If

7 the reason you don't know is because you can never know, not you, not

8 anyone?

9 A. We will know more as more bodies are exhumed and identified, then

10 we will know more. Those were found in graves elsewhere were obviously

11 executed.

12 Q. But the assumption is we have to be able to find them and also to

13 be able to identify them. Correct?

14 A. At least find them and count the bodies.

15 Q. All right. And by finding and counting the bodies, you're going

16 to be able to determine whether they're within that 56 per cent?

17 A. Not really. Because when they are identified, we can say that.

18 Q. Okay. But that was my whole purpose of saying they need to be

19 identified. So merely finding the bodies and counting the bodies doesn't

20 get us any closer to trying to come up with some figure as to what

21 percentage of those 56 were executed, 56 per cent, that is, were executed,

22 versus perished on their way to Tuzla?

23 A. If that is an important question. But there were people from

24 other municipalities that were also living in Srebrenica before the

25 enclave fell, and they were -- some of them went through the woods,

1 correct, and some were taken away and shot. So whether they originally

2 lived in Srebrenica or Bratunac in 1991, I don't think it's that

3 important.

4 Q. Okay. As far as you're concerned?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Okay. Now, aside from this list, you also looked at the voters'

7 list that was prepared by the OSCE. Correct?

8 A. Correct.

9 Q. That was a list that was compiled on a voluntary basis?

10 A. Yes. Yes. It was so-called active registration of people voting.

11 People had to come forward to registration centres and show ID, and then

12 they were registered to vote. Eligible to vote. And they had to prove

13 that they were citizens, and they're over the age of 18, et cetera.

14 Q. Okay. So -- but again, that was voluntary. Not everybody --

15 nobody was compelled to register to vote?

16 A. Not as far as I know.

17 Q. Okay. And you would suspect to find people on that list that were

18 not on any previous voting lists, like the 1996 list which you indicated

19 was based on the 1991 census?

20 A. It was the 1991 census with people under the age of 18 removed.

21 Q. Okay. But the voting list that you looked at, would that tell you

22 how many people in Srebrenica were added to the list as a result of coming

23 to age for voting purposes?

24 A. It included everybody who was age 18 and over. And from 1997 to

25 1998, new people were added, if that is what you are aiming at. Some

1 people came of age between 1997 and 1998, and then assumed that most of

2 them went to be registered because now they had the right to vote.

3 Q. Okay. So from there you could look, at least to see how many --

4 whether there is an increase or decrease in the voting population in

5 Srebrenica. Correct?

6 A. Yes, but there are many other factors that would influence that

7 number, because not the least, the number of people who would register

8 themselves. Because of a strong or weak belief in the democratic process,

9 for example.

10 Q. Right. But nonetheless, should you have wanted to see how many

11 people, young people, from Srebrenica had registered to vote, you could

12 have done so, at least for the purposes of seeing what impact this tragedy

13 would have had on the community. Correct?

14 A. Sure.

15 Q. All right. Now, if I may ask you: What is your definition of

16 Srebrenica for -- you know, so we can -- at least we know -- because now

17 we're shifting gears. We're going to go into a different area, but we

18 need to lay the groundwork.

19 A. Well, as you know, there is the municipality, or opstina, of

20 Srebrenica, which is including certain areas, including many villages, but

21 also then the town or city of Srebrenica.

22 Q. Okay. But as you understand it, or at least as you were using it

23 in your report, do you have a definition of what constitutes Srebrenica?

24 A. I think we talk about the municipality. Well, when we say "the

25 enclave," that included, I believe, most of the municipality, perhaps not

1 all of it.

2 Q. Okay. All right. First, let's look at your report dated 2000.

3 MR. KARNAVAS: And I'm referring to P725, Exhibit P725, for

4 identification purposes.

5 Q. If you could turn to page 2. We have an extra copy if you need

6 one.

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Here you have a definition of the term "Srebrenica victim" or

9 "victims."

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Okay. But in looking at your report, I was hard-pressed to find

12 anywhere where you have a definition of what constitutes Srebrenica, at

13 least from a geographical sense, so that at least we could begin to have a

14 discussion on how many people actually from Srebrenica are within your

15 list, which might be able to assist us on the impact that that -- that

16 occurred on Srebrenica.

17 A. In the paper that you referred to where you had the draft, in the

18 final version there is a map showing the municipality of Srebrenica, the

19 safe area, and the Srebrenica town.

20 Q. Okay. Now, curiously enough I don't have that little map because

21 I only got a draft of your article, but I just heard several objections

22 from the Prosecutor here that this was an academic article and not part of

23 your report. Okay. And we also talked about how in your article you as a

24 scientist - if I could term you one, and I think that that would be a fair

25 and accurate characterisation - you were using the term "genocide" as a

1 scientific versus a legal term, or at least you understood it to be.

2 So in your article you have, at least on a chart, a geographical

3 region for Srebrenica. But my question now is: For the purposes of the

4 official report that you prepared for the Office of the Prosecution in

5 2000, which was updated in 2003, did you come up with a distinct and

6 identifiable geographical basis for Srebrenica which would give us some

7 understanding of not just the town but also the surrounding villages?

8 A. That was also not really part of the mandate, because when we

9 talked about then the fall of the enclave of Srebrenica, for those

10 interested the definition of the enclave and the area was well-known. And

11 for us, we were asked -- we were asked to estimate the number of people

12 who went missing after the fall of the enclave.

13 Q. Okay.

14 A. And, as I said, according to date and place of disappearance. So

15 the exact definition of the enclave wasn't very important -- wasn't very

16 relevant for that analysis.

17 Q. Okay. Just so that we don't mix terms, I'm not referring to the

18 enclave. The enclave itself, as far as I understand it, the geographical

19 boundaries, were a creation of the United Nations. My question, more or

20 less, directed to you is: Your definition of what constitutes Srebrenica,

21 if we are to at least look at the impact that these events had on the

22 community of Srebrenica versus, for instance, what might have happened in

23 Vlasenica or Zvornik or Han Pijesak or some other place.

24 A. After the finished report in 2000, 12th of February, we were able

25 to -- during the next half a year, we were able to match the missing with

1 the census, and then we could say where the missing persons came from.

2 And that is the figure we referred to when 56 per cent came from

3 Srebrenica, that is the municipality of Srebrenica, the opstina.

4 Q. All right.

5 A. So that is the definition of Srebrenica, if you wish one.

6 Q. Let me ask you this: In the missing list that you've compiled

7 where you also indicate where persons are from or went missing --

8 A. In the missing list itself, we did not know where they were from

9 or where they disappeared. That information was added later by matching

10 with the census.

11 Q. All right.

12 MR. KARNAVAS: I'm about, Your Honour, to go into another area,

13 and I would respectfully request that we break a little early, plus I

14 think I might be able to -- well not might. I do hope -- I do intend,

15 intend, to streamline my cross-examination so we can complete tomorrow so

16 this gentleman can go back to his business.

17 JUDGE LIU: Well, if you so wish.

18 Madam Usher, would you please show the witness out of this

19 courtroom first.

20 [The witness stands down]

21 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Waespi, now -- well, I have two procedural

22 matters that I would like to inform the parties of seeking the views of

23 the parties. The first one is that we changed our sitting schedule. On

24 Thursday we will sit in the morning in Courtroom I, instead of in the

25 afternoon.

1 The second issue is about the question the Bench raised to the

2 Defence team about the pages of the 98 bis filings.

3 Mr. Karnavas, are you in the position to inform us how many pages

4 you intend to --

5 MR. KARNAVAS: Yes, Your Honour.

6 Well, normally I would ask for a great deal, but you did, Your

7 Honour, couch your request by saying you wanted a reasonable amount. And

8 I think a reasonable amount, total amount, would be 25 pages for that

9 motion. I don't think I need all 25. Having said that, having said that,

10 that would be sort of the guts of the motion, but I think it -- assuming

11 that we are able to humanly carry this out, given the lack of resources we

12 have, I might need to append to it, attach to it, a summary, a very short

13 summary, of each witness, in comparison to what was promised by the

14 Prosecution in their -- in either their indictment or their proofing

15 chart. So there might be that, so I don't want to mislead the Court. But

16 as far as legal argument and everything, I believe I can keep it well

17 within 25. I don't think I need all 25, given that we have extra time.

18 But I think 10 pages for this kind of case, it's really not a whole lot.

19 JUDGE LIU: Well, will you please tell me how many pages for that

20 attachment, because in the previous case we received 10-page filings, but

21 hundreds of pages of attachments.

22 MR. KARNAVAS: Well, Your Honour, that was the whole purpose of

23 going short on the motion and long on the attachment. But --

24 JUDGE LIU: But you have to understand, the Bench has to read no

25 matter whether it's legal reasons or attachments.

1 MR. KARNAVAS: I understand. I understand. I don't think that

2 would exceed the 25 pages. And I'm -- and again, I'm -- I don't -- I'm

3 stating this without any real data in front of me. But it would -- it's

4 our expectation on a motion such of this nature to not necessarily argue

5 the law that much, because the whole issue is whether there is sufficient

6 facts. And so I have to at least go through the main witnesses, not all

7 of the witnesses, but the main witnesses to demonstrate perhaps where the

8 Prosecution has failed to meet its burden of proof at this stage, that

9 even if you look at it in a light most favourable to the Prosecution,

10 there is only one inevitable conclusion, and that is, you know, there is

11 no evidence there to support it. So that's why I need to do this

12 comparison.

13 But again, the fact that we have some additional time assists us

14 in streamlining it, because we need a lot more time to be short. That's

15 been my experience at least. If you want to be cogent, you need more

16 time. In -- I think, given the flexibility shown by the Court and in

17 light of the Prosecution's dilemma with their witnesses, we're banking on

18 that, that we will have that extra time to fine tune it so you don't have

19 to read that much. But it promises to be a well [sic] read.

20 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Stojanovic, how about your filings?

21 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. We are aware

22 of the fact that the last -- the latest change requires 3.000 words. We

23 have already started working on our 98 bis motion, in consultation with

24 our client and with colleague Lukic. We uphold this request that 25 pages

25 be granted to us. We know that we have 11 counts of the indictment

1 related to our client, and keeping in mind the exhibits that the

2 Prosecutor has appended -- that has presented in his case, we think that

3 25 pages would suffice for us to present whatever we think is relevant for

4 that particular motion.

5 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.

6 [Trial Chamber confers]

7 JUDGE LIU: Well, after consultation with my colleagues on the

8 Bench, we decided that we'll have an extension of the page limit to 30

9 pages, including all the filings and the attachments as well. It is so

10 decided.

11 Well, I think the hearing is adjourned for today.

12 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 6.57 p.m.,

13 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 4th day of

14 February, 2004, at 2.15 p.m.

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25