1 Tuesday, 22 June 2004
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.02 a.m.
6 JUDGE LIU: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
7 Call the case please, Mr. Court Deputy.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is Case Number
9 IT-02-60-T, the Prosecutor versus Vidoje Blagojevic and Dragan Jokic.
10 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.
11 Good morning, Witness. Can you hear me?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning. Yes, I can.
13 JUDGE LIU: Did you have a good rest yesterday?
14 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter did not hear the answer.
15 JUDGE LIU: Well, the interpreter did not hear your answer.
16 Would you please repeat it.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Thank you, Your Honour.
18 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.
19 Well, any cross-examination, Mr. Waespi?
20 MR. WAESPI: Yes. Good morning, Mr. President. Yes, there will
21 be, but not too long, though.
22 WITNESS: SVETLANA RADOVANOVIC [Resumed]
23 [Witness answered through interpreter]
24 Cross-examined by Mr. Waespi:
25 Q. Good morning, Professor.
1 A. Good morning.
2 Q. Yesterday you referred us to a few names which you called
3 clear-cut cases which appeared to be duplicates. Do you remember that?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And so thanks for bringing those to our attention. Prima facie,
6 they appear to be duplicates but we have to check whether that's really
7 true. And if we can confirm it, we'll delete it from our product.
8 Now, you testified that you were here in The Hague from 15th to
9 26th of April, I believe.
10 A. Yes. From the 15th to the 24th, I am not sure whether I left on
11 the 25th or the 26th. But I do have a ticket stub. I don't have it with
12 me, but I could check that.
13 Q. No, that's not possible. I guess the registrar wants to know how
14 much resources are spent, but certainly not for me. I want to ask you:
15 When did you find these mistakes, these clear-cut cases? Was it during
16 that research period here in The Hague?
17 A. No. I found these examples in the list that was published,
18 officially published and available. I found them before arriving in
19 The Hague. I wanted to study the list to see what this was about and have
20 an opportunity of checking it later on against the material available to
22 Q. And while in The Hague you checked it against some material
23 available to you?
24 A. My task was to check the methodology, the methods of work. All
25 the doubts I had while reading your expert's report and after
1 familiarising myself with your expert report and the supporting material,
2 I wanted to see whether what was published was an accidental error and
3 whether these names were there or not. Besides this, I had available the
4 examples shown by your expert demonstrating how people had been included
5 or excluded from the lists. These examples, at least the way this was
6 presented, were made up in order to protect the identity of persons. I
7 was unable to check these invented examples through the list, so I studied
8 the list carefully and then I wanted to see whether this was a mistake or
9 whether there actually were such people.
10 Q. So while you were in The Hague, you could confirm your original
11 finding or suspicion that these were mistakes? While you were in
12 The Hague you could confirm that by using the sources available to you.
13 Is that what you just told us?
14 A. Yes. Yes. That's what I wanted to say.
15 Q. Can you give us the reason why you did not include those names
16 into the expert report.
17 A. I have not heard the interpretation.
18 Q. I can repeat the question to you. Can you tell us why you did not
19 include those mistakes, as you have pointed them out, into your expert
20 report, which was due a couple of months later. In fact it was due
21 earlier, but which you produced a couple of months later. Can you give us
22 the reason for that.
23 A. Yes, I can explain the reason. I don't know when the deadline
24 was, but I did it within the time I had available when I received the
25 material and I was given a set deadline. I included it indirectly,
1 stating that this was confirmed by the large number of duplicates in the
2 master list. I can read you this sentence from my report if you like.
3 Q. No. I know your report. My question was just: Why didn't you
4 include the names of these clear-cut duplicates into your report? Just
5 this question. What is the reason you did not include the names, so we
6 could make our own checks and confirm or reject your suggestions; that's
7 my question, the names.
8 A. Well, first of all I was deeply convinced that this list had been
9 checked and revised. And secondly there was a large number of such
10 examples. I listed about ten here but I didn't feel that I had to put
11 down every example with a first and last name; that is on the list.
12 However, I'm willing to add this to my report and list all these examples.
13 I felt it sufficient to draw attention to the large number of mistakes in
14 the master list, and that if I did this somebody reading the report would
15 look at the master list to see whether I was just talking off the top of
16 my head or whether this was really the case.
17 Q. So it was a decision on your own not to include those names into a
18 report; it wasn't somebody else who told you not to include it?
19 A. It was absolutely my own decision; nobody else told me that.
20 Q. Now, if I understand your testimony of yesterday correctly, there
21 were two categories of cases where mistakes occurred. One category are
22 the clear-cut mistakes, and there were other mistakes, in your words,
23 which may be a little bit more complicated. Is that correct?
24 A. No. There are two categories of mistakes, but the second category
25 is not more complicated for somebody who knows the area. The
1 circumstances and the area are complicated for those who are not familiar
2 with them. This second category of mistake, in my deep conviction, are
3 also duplicates, because what we are dealing with here are names and
4 nicknames. However, I did not want to engage in guesswork.
5 Q. Yes, I understand that. Thank you very much. And you explained
6 us yesterday why you think these are also mistakes. Now, tell us the
7 clear-cut mistakes you found, these two, three names you told us yesterday
8 on the ELMO, how many of those did you find?
9 A. Do you want me to tell you the exact number or to show you the
10 examples I identified?
11 Q. No -- yes, in fact, whatever you identified, not yesterday, not
12 just the three ones, but perhaps there are more. And we would like to
13 know all the names as identified on the list you had used yesterday, I
14 believe it was the OTP list, that would be helpful if you can tell us how
15 many, first the numbers, and second the names. Are you able to do that
16 right now or can you give that after court? The number first and then the
17 names, if you can.
18 A. I have to tell you the following: I can certainly do it.
19 However, when I was checking the list I used a sample method. I would
20 select a last name and see whether anything interesting was going on. If
21 you are asking me out of these 7.500 names listed to give you a complete
22 list, I can promise that I will submit to you a complete list of all
23 clear-cut duplicates and all the cases where I suspect they may be
25 Q. Yes. That will be most --
1 A. This is not something that is impossible, and it requires some 10
2 or 20 hours of work, of noting and comparing the names. And I can
3 certainly do it for you if you ask me to.
4 Q. So are you saying you haven't done that yet, you don't have the
5 number of these duplicates, the clear ones and the second category and the
6 names, you don't have that yet? You still have to do it?
7 A. No, sir. What I'm saying is that I only checked samples. This is
8 quite acceptable, and the same thing is done by your expert. I used
9 random samples of names. For example, names beginning with A, and then I
10 would take 10 or 15 pages and look at every fourth page. And if using
11 this sample system I find a certain number of mistakes, I feel duty-bound
12 to point them out to you. I did not feel it was my task to count all the
13 mistakes done by your expert.
14 Q. That's fine, but my question is: You testified yesterday about
15 these two or three cases, the real duplicates, first name, surname, date
16 of birth, perhaps location of last seen alive, obviously the same. By
17 doing your random check, how many of those have you found up to today?
18 A. By your leave I will look at my notes and tell you by first
19 letter, initial letter. May I look?
20 Q. Yes, please.
21 A. Under the letter H, two examples. Under the letter C, two
22 examples, that's C diacritic.
23 Q. Sorry to interrupt, diacritic, a full diacritic or just one
24 diacritic? If I can ask --
25 THE INTERPRETER: A full diacritic.
1 MR. WAESPI: Thanks.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] C with a full diacritic. Under the
3 letter H, two examples.
4 MR. WAESPI:
5 Q. Yes, I believe that you said that already.
6 A. I apologise. Under H four examples. Under the letter K, two
7 examples. Under the letter M, two examples -- excuse me, four under M.
8 Under the letter S, two examples. Under the letter T, two examples.
9 Under the letter V, two examples. These are the examples I found.
10 Q. Thanks. 20 examples, if I counted correctly. And you can give
11 us, I understand, the names, the pairs, at the end of today's session? If
12 you can point us to the names on those pages. Is that correct?
13 A. I did it yesterday. I can give you the pairs and tell you what
14 pages they're on today.
15 Q. Great. That's wonderful.
16 And how many of the other cases, which you also say are
17 clear-cut --
18 A. I do apologise. Excuse me for interrupting you. This is what I
19 marked here as examples. Are you asking me to look at your expert's list
20 under every letter and every detail and deliver to you all the examples
21 where I have my suspicions?
22 Q. Yes. Whatever you have found up to date. I don't ask you to do
23 new checks beyond the random checks you made. Just give us whatever you
24 came up with by compiling the expert report. That's all I'm asking you to
1 A. Very well.
2 Q. Now, let's move to another subject. Yesterday you told the Court
3 that, and I quote you, "I would use the ICRC list for sure," if you had to
4 conduct your own survey about the missing persons. Do you remember having
5 said that?
6 A. I said, sir, that I would certainly consult that list, but as it
7 was not my task to draw up the same kind of expert report that your expert
8 did, I don't know whether ultimately I would use it or not. But I would
9 certainly look at the list. It would be one of the sources that I would
10 have to study carefully.
11 Q. I'm just quoting your words from yesterday. "I would use the ICRC
12 list for sure."
13 Now, I believe you also said there was, and I quote you again, "a
14 high degree of professionalism involved in Red Cross work."
15 It's on page 62 of yesterday's LiveNote transcript.
16 A. That's your question?
17 Q. Yes. Do you remember having said that?
18 A. You have to understand that I was talking about sources of
19 statistical data. In the statistical sense, this is not a source that
20 rises to the level of professionalism. In the job of the ICRC, there is
21 professionalism, you just have to separate the two. If I am giving my
22 opinion about the ICRC list as a source of statistical data, I have to say
23 this is not an organisation that carries out statistical work
24 professionally. If I have to talk about the ICRC as an organisation with
25 its own goals, objectives, and work, then yes, I do consider it a
1 professional organisation. If I were to compile a report for you, I would
2 not see the Red Cross as a professional statistical organisation; it would
3 only be an auxiliary source. But -- so that I would carefully study and
4 analyse the methods they used in gathering data. Who collects the
5 information? Are these people trained? Are they tasked with searching
6 for data and checking it against other data, verifying it?
7 Q. Yes, I understand that. You told us that yesterday. But, in fact
8 it's part of the ICRC's mandate to trace missing persons and to bring
9 family members together. Isn't that correct?
10 A. To register those persons, yes. That is part of their job. But
11 I'm not sure it's part of their job to check the statistical quality of
12 their information. When you look at the original ICRC list and the
13 preamble to that list, which I can show you, you can see quite clearly
14 what the objective of the Red Cross is.
15 Q. Yes. In fact, let's go to this questionnaire which, in fact, you
16 had requested last time in April when you came and which was given to you.
17 MR. WAESPI: And, Your Honours, it's Exhibit P868.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I take the questionnaire?
19 MR. WAESPI:
20 Q. It will be shown to you. The first two pages, it's double-sided,
21 that's the official ICRC questionnaire which was used by the ICRC in the
22 field. Is that correct?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Now, let's turn to the second -- to the third page. And this one
25 is an ICRC special report. And we see on page 15 that it's dated Geneva
1 1998. If you could go to page 14, please.
2 A. Just a moment, please. Yes, I do have page 14, but I don't speak
3 English. This is in English.
4 Q. Yes. Perhaps if we could put it on to the ELMO and I can read it
5 into the record. It's paragraph 5 and it deals, if you look at the box
6 down there, exclusively with Srebrenica. That's what it says.
7 "In the immediate aftermath of the fall of the enclave in July
8 1995, delegates quickly drew up lists of names of people reported missing
9 by their families. This resulted in a list of 3.000 people last seen by
10 their families in the hands of the Serb forces when the enclave was taken.
11 And another list of 5.000 names of those who reportedly fled before the
12 Serb forces arrived in Srebrenica. During the months that followed, the
13 ICRC made further representations to the authorities of the
14 Republika Srpska to gain access to those allegedly detained. All together
15 some 200 detainees from Srebrenica were visited in detention between the
16 fall of the enclave and the end of 1996. Some 30 other detainees were
17 later released from detention in accordance with the provisions of the
18 Dayton peace agreements. In February 1996, the ICRC's conclusions were
19 made public for the first time, that the vast majority of the missing men
20 had been killed after capture and that many others had been killed in
21 armed confrontations while fleeing the enclave or in lieu of arrest."
22 And the last paragraph: "Following representations to the highest
23 authorities in the Republika Srpska and Belgrade in February 1996, the
24 ICRC submitted a list of 8.000 missing persons to the first session of the
25 working group in March 1996. Formal tracing requests were also collected
1 from the families and resubmitted with any additional details to the
2 working group. For three months in the spring of 1996, a team of four
3 delegates and 25 field officers went once again to the Tuzla area to
4 update the allegations collected in 1995 and to submit them to the
5 authorities within the framework of the working group. While several
6 hundred people had reportedly reappeared in the meantime and the deaths of
7 several dozen more was unfortunately confirmed, as many as 7.300 were
8 reported as still missing, and that's February 1998."
9 Doesn't that appear to be a serious effort to get to reliable
10 numbers about who was missing and how many were missing?
11 A. [No interpretation]
12 JUDGE LIU: Well, we did not get any interpretation. Maybe there
13 is some technical problem.
14 Well, Witness, would you please repeat your answer, because there
15 may be some technical problem.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It seems to me that a serious effort
17 was made and I do not deny it at any point in time. However, that does
18 not mean that the serious effort that was made can guarantee that what
19 they have on the list is a quality piece of information. The Red Cross
20 does not say that anywhere. They provide their own lists for insight and
21 they ask for help in terms of updating these lists, which is only natural
22 for such a serious organisation. And now, what the result is of that
23 assistance, whether they can actually update the list, whether they can
24 have accurate information on the list, how many duplicates there are, how
25 many real names, how many fictitious names, that is something the
1 Red Cross does not deal with. They take as their starting point that
2 everybody is interested in finding missing persons and they are there to
3 help. They do not go into that, whether somebody who showed up eventually
4 will come and say that they should no longer be on that list, that they're
5 alive. Their role is quite different and that is why it is so complicated
6 as a statistical source. I'm not denying the mission, the effort, and the
7 role of the Red Cross. What I'm denying is that their list is a good
8 statistical source. I agree with everything that you read out here, that
9 they made an effort, that they had major actions, that they collected on
10 two occasions different numbers. These are people in the field. I don't
11 know how many people. I don't know whether they are foreigners or not. I
12 don't know whether they understand properly the names that they are told.
13 Because your expert, on the basis of these names, makes a comparison. Do
14 they ask for documents? Do they know the exact years of birth?
15 Q. Let me show you another document from the ICRC.
16 MR. WAESPI: And, Your Honours, it's Exhibit P866. It's a press
17 release dated 9th August 2001. And it's again, unfortunately, in English.
18 Q. Just incidentally, do you know whether the ICRC list is also
19 published in the local language, B/C/S as we call it?
20 A. Some parts, yes; others, no. I had the opportunity to see the
21 entire list in the B/C/S language. You can also find it on the Internet,
22 sir, it's there. I got one of your own documents through the Internet, a
23 list from the Internet.
24 Q. Yes. Let me just read out a part of this ICRC press release. And
25 it has the title: "Bosnia-Herzegovina Srebrenica victims photobook
1 campaign leads to encouraging results."
2 MR. WAESPI: And, Your Honours, if we use that as an exhibit
3 later, we will provide a B/C/S translation into the language, if
4 Your Honours decide to admit it as an exhibit.
5 Q. Let me read just the first sentences.
6 "It has been nearly three months since the ICRC published its
7 second 'book of belongings' containing photographs of possessions found
8 with the mortal remains of people who went missing during the fall of
9 Srebrenica. The photobook as its known comprises 2.702 pictures of
10 clothes, shoes, jewellery, and other personal effects found with 473
11 exhumed bodies. It was published last May as part of the ICRC's efforts
12 to elucidate the fate of more than 7.500 people, mostly men and boys who
13 disappeared when the town was overrun in July 1995. At the same time, a
14 campaign was launched in which the book was presented to relatives of
15 missing persons by specially trained teams comprising personnel from the
16 Red Cross society of Bosnia and Herzegovina and representatives from the
17 associations of families of missing persons."
18 And then later the second-to-last paragraphs.
19 "Copies of the book will remain permanently available for
20 consultation in 18 local Red Cross offices and in the ICRC offices in
21 Tuzla, Zenica, and Sarajevo."
22 So it appears here, does it not, that again efforts were made to
23 ascertain the fate of these persons and also they do it with local staff,
24 as you have mentioned or observed earlier, that this was an important part
25 of such a project.
1 A. I'm not sure that you understood my role here properly, sir. I'm
2 not trying to challenge the fact that crimes were committed in any way.
3 I'm not challenging the fact that the Red Cross did their job in the best
4 possible way. I don't want to challenge a single figure. I don't want to
5 dispute any figures with you. My task that was given to me was to check
6 the methodology of work provided by your expert. And as I checked the
7 methodology of the work of your expert, I came to some conclusions of my
8 own. These conclusions of mine are based on a proper study of all
9 sources. I repeat: I am not denying the fact that the Red Cross is doing
10 their job well, as best it can be done. The list that your expert used,
11 the ICRC list that your expert used was not studied properly. Your expert
12 did not clean it statistically and did not depict it in a professional
13 manner, a manner that involves professional integrity. That is the only
14 thing I had to say. Please, we are not disputing figures. I'm not
15 disputing figures with you. I'm not disputing the fact that the Red Cross
16 is doing their job well. I'm deeply convinced that they are doing the job
17 as best they can.
18 Q. Let me finish this aspect and in fact tie in Mr. Brunborg, as you
19 just did, by showing you another exhibit. And this is again a press
20 release of the ICRC. It's Exhibit 870. It dates 19 September 2003, so
21 not even a year ago. And it will be very short, just a couple of
23 ICRC news 03/113. Title: "Bosnia, ascertaining the fate of the
24 Srebrenica missing." And I'll just read the one or two sentences, lines
25 from the body of the text.
1 I quote: "Since July 1995 when the ICRC started to collect the
2 information needed to trace people unaccounted for after the fall of
3 Srebrenica, the organisation has received 7.599 inquiries regarding people
4 who went missing in the town. Only 22 people have been found alive. The
5 mortal remains of 1.083 others have been identified."
6 Now, if you compare this number, the ICRC number, and we have seen
7 several numbers within in the 7.000 range, and compare it to
8 Mr. Brunborg's number of 7.475, doesn't it give you some guidance as to
9 the reliability of the final outcome of Mr. Brunborg's work?
10 A. Sir, if you're a statistician or a demographer, that's not the way
11 things are done. If we are talking over a meal in a restaurant or
12 whatever, then it's different. But that is only if we are not
13 professional demographers or statisticians. I do not question the fact
14 that there were 7.000 applications -- 19.000 or whatever that were made to
15 the Red Cross. However, for a demographer and a statistician, if there
16 are 7.000 applications that are a guideline and we say that sometimes the
17 same person is registered three or four times. And if we already noted
18 that persons who survived have to report that they have showed up, then
19 you have to take all of that into account. You have to study the list
20 systematically, you have to see how many matches there were, how many
21 people were mentioned several times the same way. There is no way of
22 seeing how many fictitious persons are on the list. I'm not saying that
23 this was done, but I'm saying that it can be done, that there can be
24 fictitious reports given to the Red Cross for political reasons or
25 whatever. So this list of 7.000 persons does not tell us how many people
1 actually went missing. Perhaps it is actually 7.000. Perhaps there are
2 people whose names are on that list and that are fictitious. So I as a
3 demographer cannot compare this application or report and your expert
4 report. I would never be guided by a number if somebody said that that
5 could possibly be my objective.
6 Q. In your random checks, did you find any evidence for fictitious
8 A. Yes, sir.
9 Q. And can you tell us the names of these persons.
10 A. I cannot, but I can tell you why I know for sure that there are
11 fictitious persons. In order to make a comparison between a list in 1975
12 [as interpreted] and a census of 1991, you know that there is a time span
13 of five years. Within that time span of five years, not to deal with all
14 other demographic indicators, people die due to old age, illness, a
15 variety of other influences that don't necessarily have to be related to
16 the war, but they may. If you do not have the exact names and surnames of
17 every person between 1991 and 1995 who died or moved away, abroad or
18 wherever, and then if you compare it to the Red Cross list, then every
19 deceased person that I, for example, wanted to report as a missing person
20 in Srebrenica, you will find that person, you will be able to provide a
21 match, and you will claim that that is not a fictitious person.
22 Theoretically the person was not fictitious, it was a real person, but say
23 that person was reported in 1991 in the census and in 1992 died a natural
24 death. If your expert does not have death rate figures and migration
25 trends and if your expert does not look at the 1991 census list, how can
1 your expert know that a fictitious person was not matched? I'm not saying
2 that's what happened, but I'm just telling you what could have happened.
3 Q. Yes, in fact that's what I'm asking you. I understand your point.
4 But can you give us the name of one person who is fictitious who was on
5 the list, either the ICRC or the OTP list of missing persons,
6 Mr. Brunborg's list? Can you give us the name of one fictitious person?
7 A. I can, but that's a suspicion. I would have to have before
8 me -- just a moment. I would -- I cannot remember now. I would need to
9 have a look at my report. Just a moment, please. I can't remember the
10 person's name.
11 Q. Sure.
12 A. I think the person's name is Hakija Efendic, but I would like to
13 underline that that is my suspicion because your expert gives me only a
14 limited number of figures, or rather, pieces of information. I didn't see
15 anything, but I believe your expert. In this report of 2003 - and it's on
16 my page 8, I don't know where it is in the English version --
17 Q. You have found one person who is, in your opinion, a fictitious
19 A. Yes, yes. I have a profound suspicion that it is a fictitious
20 person but I cannot say anything before I see clear lists from the other
21 side, too. It is fictitious because the report was that the person died
22 and your expert says I don't have enough information to check whether this
23 person is actually deceased or not. Since I don't have information
24 either, I don't know what your expert looked at. When your expert says I
25 don't have enough information, I don't know what your expert looked at to
1 begin with. I just believe that your expert did not have sufficient
2 information. Had I had the opportunity to check this, the list that your
3 expert looked at, then perhaps I could have confirmed my own doubts or
4 perhaps I could have allayed them.
5 In addition to that, my suspicion is based on the following: Your
6 expert uses something that is not customary when one has a professional
7 attitude towards one's work. When there were certain reactions that
8 perhaps some persons could be fictitious or could not -- I mean, I'm not
9 saying whether these persons were fictitious or not, whether the people
10 who are complaining are right or not. I could not check any of this. But
11 your expert says, for instance, I checked some of the names, and one does
12 not have the impression that they are on the list. Please. Saying: I've
13 checked some of the names, perhaps I could take that. But one does not
14 have the impression they are not on the list. We are not talking
15 impressions here. Somebody is either on the list or not on the list.
16 That also led to my doubts, that perhaps, I underline the word perhaps, I
17 cannot say anything, that perhaps this job was not done comprehensively.
18 I have some other examples of fictitious persons if you allow me to give
19 them, sir.
20 Q. Yes, please.
21 A. I found a number of persons who do not exist in the census of 1991
22 for all of Bosnia-Herzegovina. I'm not talking about Srebrenica,
23 Bratunac, Vlasenica. And your expert also says that there are over 1.000
24 persons who he did not find for one reason or the other, good information,
25 bad information, census and so on and so forth. I can give examples of
1 persons who I found and who do not exist in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Of
2 course, I'm not claiming that nothing happened to them in 1995. But I
3 also cannot claim that they are not fictitious persons. This person could
4 have been on the list. Perhaps this person never lived in
5 Bosnia-Herzegovina. I don't know. I'm just saying that these are major
6 suspicions. And there are ways of proving what is true and what is not.
7 Q. Yes, I got your point. How many people are you talking about that
8 you said you had a list of people? How many people did you find actually?
9 A. Your expert talks about 1.002 persons and I again checked a random
10 five or six. But if you allow me to come to The Hague again and if you
11 give me the material that your expert worked with and if it's not as brief
12 as it was, then I'm willing to do everything in order to find the exact
13 names and to show things the way they can be shown professionally.
14 Q. Let me come to that point later. But all I need now or later
15 after court is the exact number and the list of names, if you have them at
16 this point, of people you believe are fictitious. That's all I'm asking
17 at this point.
18 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour.
19 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
20 MR. KARNAVAS: I take at this time the Prosecutor is not
21 accepting --
22 MR. WAESPI: No, that's not what I said.
23 JUDGE LIU: Let Mr. Karnavas finish.
24 MR. KARNAVAS: I take it, I want to make sure that the Prosecution
25 is accepting the offer and there should be some compensation, of course,
1 because we didn't have sufficient funds to carry out this task. The offer
2 was made to go through the entire list and do a professional job. So --
3 JUDGE LIU: I don't think so. I think you misunderstood what
4 Mr. Waespi said.
5 MR. KARNAVAS: I don't believe I misunderstood, but maybe I have.
6 JUDGE LIU: I think Mr. Waespi just asked for --
7 MR. KARNAVAS: He asked for the list.
8 JUDGE LIU: -- some information, some list, which is already in
9 the possession of this witness.
10 MR. KARNAVAS: Right. But if the issue is the credibility of the
11 witness, the expert is willing to come to The Hague and spend the
12 sufficient amount of time to go through the entire list. I think for the
13 interest of justice and the interest of the families, that offer should be
14 taken with compensation of course.
15 JUDGE LIU: I believe that's another matter.
16 MR. KARNAVAS: Of course. Okay, thank you.
17 JUDGE LIU: You may proceed.
18 MR. WAESPI: Thank you very much, Mr. President.
19 Q. Now, let me go to PHR. Of the list of 7.475 persons on
20 Mr. Brunborg's list of missing persons, only 192 originate from the PHR
21 list alone, meaning have no backup on the ICRC list. I guess
22 that's -- you would agree with me?
23 A. I do not agree, because that's what Mr. Brunborg says and I don't
24 agree with that. Actually, Mr. Brunborg says that out of the possible
25 6.000 for the PHR, he found 5.470 in the Red Cross, too. And I say with
1 71 criterion he could have found that. But with a firmly established key,
2 he cannot find that. That is to say when Mr. Brunborg made a master list,
3 in many cases he decided who was on the list and who was not on the list.
4 It is quite an indication, sir, that Mr. Brunborg matches with the list of
5 the Red Cross a larger number of persons than exist on the PHR list. So
6 all of that can be proven, too. There's a certain number of people on the
7 PHR list, and when you clear it of clear-cut duplicates - and you saw what
8 a clear-cut duplicate is, when all the information is exactly the same,
9 not to go into all the figures now, and if you allow me to I'm going to
10 look at the exact figures - if you clear the PHR list of clear-cut
11 duplicates, that is to say, when there is absolutely no doubt that it is
12 one and the same person that is involved, and when you match this to the
13 Red Cross -- just a moment, please, let me have a look at this. Let me
14 tell you that the number of pairs exceeds that of the number of possible
16 Q. Okay. Very well.
17 A. For example -- well, if you give me time, I can find it exactly.
18 But, for instance, on the list there are 5.400 names on the PHR list. And
19 you match 5.500 to the Red Cross.
20 Q. That's the only point that I wanted to make was to, in fact, talk
21 a little bit about PHR. What do you know about PHR? What institution is
23 A. What I know about the PHR is what Mr. Brunborg wrote in his
24 report, and I know on the basis of the questionnaires that I got. I don't
25 know much. I cannot give you the history of the PHR, for example. I
1 wasn't interested in that anyway; I was interested in the results of their
3 Q. So you didn't check the general reliability or reputation of an
4 organisation whose list you disregarded?
5 A. No, sir. I believed that Mr. Brunborg had done that. There is no
6 reason for me to suspect that he had not checked their reputation.
7 Q. I believe he said he has done that and he relied on PHR, but you
8 did not rely on PHR, did you?
9 A. Sir, I did not rely on the lists provided by the PHR. That has
10 nothing to do with the PHR itself. The job they did at that point in time
11 was not one that was done properly, in my opinion. I am not interfering
12 with the organisation in any way and I am not interfering with their
13 reputation. I am not trying to say anything about their reputation. But
14 that particular job they did not do properly. If you ask me to dance
15 ballet now I cannot do that properly. And I wouldn't engage in that kind
16 of thing, but I'm not going into their reputation.
17 Q. I think rather than dancing to show an exhibit.
18 The next exhibit is P869. And incidentally, the person you called
19 a fictitious person, Efendic, I believe you told us that in your report,
20 would it surprise you that he's listed also on the ICRC list and that he
21 is not a survivor and not reported to have died of any natural causes?
22 A. Sir, what I said was that I only assumed he was fictitious, but I
23 did not have a sufficient number of elements to check this. My doubts
24 arose because of the response I got from your expert. I saw that this
25 person existed on the Red Cross list, I did, but I still have my
1 suspicions as to whether this is the person in question or not. Because
2 it can also be checked on the other side; however, I did not have this
4 Q. Okay. Let's talk about this exhibit, P869. It has --
5 A. This again is in English --
6 Q. Yes. And I believe you have requested it in April and you have
7 been provided with it in April. And I take it somebody explained it to
8 you in a language you understand in April?
9 A. No. You let me take the translation. I do have it translated
10 into B/C/S. May I take the translation?
11 Q. Please go ahead.
12 A. I do apologise. I have so much paper here. Just a moment,
14 Q. Please take your time. If you could have a look at the --
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. -- questionnaire. Is that the questionnaire which was used by PHR
17 in doing their job?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And isn't it a fact that only close family members were allowed to
20 report to help make identifications?
21 A. That is not in dispute. What is in dispute is if you look at this
22 it says: Firsthand, secondhand, thirdhand, so it can be very removed. I
23 don't doubt that it was close relatives who reported this. I would not
24 object even had neighbours done this. But what I do object to is several
25 different reports. As I said yesterday, in this questionnaire I found an
1 example where one and the same person was reported by his brother, sister,
2 mother, and wife, even though they all lived in the same house at the same
3 address. So I'm not saying that it was not close relatives who reported
4 these people.
5 Q. Yes, but then it's up to the people who compiled the list to just
6 have one person as being reported. It doesn't mean then you have four
7 persons as being missing but just one.
8 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour.
9 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
10 MR. KARNAVAS: I'm going to object to that. Unless there's a
11 foundation laid by the Prosecution, now he's testifying.
12 JUDGE LIU: Well, I believe that Mr. Waespi will show the
14 MR. KARNAVAS: Well, I would like --
15 JUDGE LIU: For that question.
16 MR. KARNAVAS: Well, Your Honour, I would like the foundation
17 first before the question, because now it's assuming facts that are not in
18 evidence. This evidence did not come through Brunborg. I see
19 Mr. McCloskey shaking his head. He's perfectly free to stand up and
20 perhaps point to the record where this evidence came in, otherwise I think
21 the question is improper without a foundation.
22 JUDGE LIU: Firstly, this is a cross-examination, Mr. Karnavas.
23 MR. KARNAVAS: Yes.
24 JUDGE LIU: Secondly, this witness is an expert witness. I don't
25 think anybody could fool her in this courtroom, you know.
1 MR. KARNAVAS: Okay. Very well, Your Honour. Very well.
2 JUDGE LIU: It's a very technical issue.
3 MR. WAESPI: If I can rephrase, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
5 MR. WAESPI:
6 Q. Are you saying that when Mr. Brunborg compiled his list based on
7 PHR, if he had a case where four or five people reported the same missing
8 person, that he would have four missing persons, as opposed to just one?
9 Are you saying that?
10 A. No, sir. I'm not saying that. What I'm trying to say is
11 something else. First of all, Mr. Brunborg does not -- I do not know what
12 Mr. Brunborg used from this list; I can only assume. However, in
13 statistical practice you have a questionnaire and then you scan all of it.
14 And you can also scan just parts that you like. And whether this was done
15 by Mr. Brunborg or because there is a database which he says exists, the
16 Ante Mortem database, and whether it is there what Mr. Brunborg used is
17 entered, I do not know. If Mr. Brunborg took the Ante Mortem database
18 done by somebody else and if that somebody else cleared the base of
19 duplicates, then this would be all right. If Mr. Brunborg himself
20 compiled this, if I report Svetlana Radovanovic and I know the date of
21 birth and then Svetlana Radovanovic is also reported by her grandmother
22 who doesn't know the date but knows only the year of birth and then if I'm
23 reported by my aunt who's not sure of my place of birth -- or my place
24 where I went missing but thinks she may know it, what I'm saying is it
25 takes time and knowledge of the situation to clear this up, because
1 different persons do not use a single questionnaire to report a person.
2 When the wife comes to fill in a questionnaire they say: Are you doing
3 this firsthand? She says: Yes. And she fills in the questionnaire.
4 Then comes an aunt and she is not the closest relative and she is given a
5 different questionnaire because you have four types of questionnaires, not
6 one. You have four types of data; they can all be good data. And then
7 you can say yes, this is one and the same person. However, someone may
8 report the name not as Smail, but as Smajo, which is the nickname, and
9 somebody might think that this is not the same person. So I do not know
10 where this data was taken from. Was it taken from the database? Or did
11 Mr. Brunborg look at the questionnaires and select what he thought he
12 needed in his work?
13 I'm not saying that if he saw Svetlana Radovanovic listed four
14 times, that he entered her four times into his list because he wanted to
15 do that. What I'm saying is he might have done it because the
16 identification appeared to be different and I don't know what the Ante
17 Mortem database had in it. What I was able to check and see was a base, I
18 don't know whether it was done by Mr. Brunborg or whether it was the Ante
19 Mortem database, and there I found duplicates. This, of course, does not
20 mean that when the master list was compiled Mr. Brunborg did not do his
21 best to eliminate this. On the monitor I did not see Mr. Brunborg's
22 computerised master list, I saw only the original material.
23 Q. Can you give me one example when you realised or when you
24 determined that a person was reported multiple times, same questionnaire,
25 different questionnaires, and the person is, in fact, appears on the list
1 more than once? Can you give me one example?
2 A. No, sir, I didn't even try to prove this. I didn't look for an
3 example. I didn't look for such examples. I believed that if
4 Mr. Brunborg saw what I saw, that the same person had been reported four
5 times, he would not enter this on the list. This is a clear-cut
6 duplicate. I don't believe he entered this. But I was just pointing out
7 examples of duplicates. Whether it's from PHR, Mr. Brunborg entered in
8 his list Smajo in both lists and Smail only in PHR. So on the list of
9 duplicates it says what source it was taken from. Smajo is there twice,
10 and two times in PHR, because the first time he was matched with the Red
11 Cross list and there is another one. But now the father's name is listed
12 as Smail and this is only in PHR and was not matched. So automatically
13 this is a duplicate when matching the PHR list and pairing it. So I think
14 that what happened here was insufficient familiarity with the material.
15 Q. Just let me finish off this subject before the break with just a
16 brief hypothetical. If one person, a close family member, walks into a
17 PHR office, a local PHR office, and fills in a questionnaire and the
18 person doesn't appear on the ICRC list and it's not on the list of
19 survivors, it's not on the list of voters, is there any reason for you not
20 to include that person as a valid person to be put on the missing persons
22 A. I'm not sure I understood your question well. You say if one
23 person who is reported by somebody as missing is not found on the voters
24 register, is there any doubt and would I leave that person out of the list
25 of the missing? Was that your question?
1 Q. Maybe I wasn't clear enough. Somebody reported by a family member
2 and the person is not on the ICRC list of missing persons and it can't be
3 found on a list of survivors, he is not listed as a voter in -- by the
4 OSCE in 1997/1998, any reason for you not to use this name as a proper and
5 valid entry into the list of missing persons?
6 A. I have at least two reasons. First of all, in the PHR list, at
7 the end of the list you will see there is a question: Have you already
8 reported this missing person somewhere else, to the Red Cross, another
9 organisation, and so on? From this, one could see which persons had
10 already been reported. So you could see that the person had already been
11 reported in the Red Cross; you didn't have to match everyone. You would
12 simply exclude everyone who had already been reported. Because if
13 somebody reporting a person saying that they have already reported the
14 person to the Red Cross, you're generating a duplicate. The second reason
15 is that matching or pairing in the way it was done by your expert with the
16 voters register is absolutely unacceptable for more than one reason,
17 sir --
18 Q. I understand you. I understand you. That's why I wanted to
19 create a hypothetical so we could talk about your method and not what
20 Mr. Brunborg did. Just think about this hypothetical and then we can have
21 a break.
22 MR. WAESPI: I'm sorry, Your Honours, it took a little bit longer
23 and I think it's a mutual mistake.
24 JUDGE LIU: Well, we have the whole morning and another session.
25 We'll break and we'll resume at quarter to 11.00.
1 --- Recess taken at 10.16 a.m.
2 --- On resuming at 10.46 a.m.
3 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Waespi, please continue.
4 MR. WAESPI: Thank you, Mr. President.
5 Q. Professor Radovanovic, just finishing up the point where we left
6 off before the break, the hypothetical which I told you. Wouldn't that be
7 a person you would feel safe to put on the -- your final list of missing
8 persons, or do I need to repeat the factors of that little hypothetical?
9 A. Please repeat the factors of your hypothesis, because I haven't
10 really been considering it.
11 Q. The break is for relaxing, as I know as well. A person comes into
12 a local PHR office, reports the missing of a relative, this person, the
13 missing person, is not on the ICRC list, it has not been reported before,
14 the person is not later found to be a survivor, he doesn't appear on the
15 OSCE voters list of 1997/1998, wouldn't you be -- wouldn't that be good
16 enough for you to consider that individual as being missing, according to
17 your standards? Just perhaps a simple answer, if you can.
18 A. This is a truly hypothetical case; it involves a lot of guesswork.
19 You say certainly not reported to the Red Cross. I don't know if anybody
20 knows that at the time he is reported. Then you say: Certainly not on
21 the voters register. In other words, you're telling me this person has
22 certainly been reported only to the PHR and is not on the Red Cross list,
23 would I include this person. If this were all certain, yes, I would.
24 Q. Okay. Let's just finish with two other items. You testified
25 yesterday just before we broke for the day that you agreed to a question
1 posed by Mr. Karnavas, and I quote him. You agreed with, quote, "a large
2 number of people did perish as a result of the atrocities following the
3 fall of Srebrenica."
4 And I think you agreed with him. Is that correct?
5 A. Yes. I agree, but when you say "large," I don't know how large.
6 If only one person had lost their life, I would agree.
7 Q. Yes, and that's, in fact, a point I wanted to ask you about.
8 Wouldn't it be important for everybody, for the historical record, in
9 particular for the Judges in this case, to get a number as precise as
10 possible of the people who were killed in the aftermath of the fall of
11 Srebrenica? Wouldn't that be very important, Professor Radovanovic?
12 A. Absolutely, yes. This is of the greatest importance, that the
13 number be as precise as possible. And because the matter is so serious,
14 there must be no guesswork involved. It is important to get the number as
15 precise as possible.
16 Q. Now, weren't you tasked by the Defence to come up with your own
17 estimate, your own number of missing persons?
18 A. No, sir. Even had the Defence asked me to do this - I don't want
19 to engage in any false humility; I can say that I understand my job
20 well - but I would not have agreed. I was asked to look at what the
21 Prosecution expert had done and to give my opinion on this report. I was
22 never instructed to come up with a new figure, nor, sir, would I have
23 agreed to do it.
24 Q. But you could have done it in these few days here in The Hague.
25 You had all the resources at your availability, the same resources
1 Mr. Brunborg had. You had even clean versions of, for instance, the
2 census of 1991. It would have been much easier for you to follow step by
3 step his work and come up with your own number. Wouldn't that have been
5 A. No. That wasn't possible. First of all, your expert is using
6 sources which cannot provide correct data. My goal was not to follow him
7 step by step and increase or decrease the numbers. My goal was to show
8 that the sources of information and the methodology used to process these
9 sources was not proper. That was the end of my task, not for a single
10 moment did I deal in numbers in the sense of saying, well, it's not the
11 number your expert gives, it's such-and-such a number, the number that I
12 come up with. That's not what I was about.
13 Q. So the only thing you were about was to criticise his intellectual
14 honesty, as you testified yesterday. Is that the whole goal that you had?
15 A. No, sir. I wanted to see how the report was compiled, in what
16 manner. It was not my goal to criticise a certain person. Whoever did a
17 report in this manner would be criticised by me. It wasn't a question of
18 who was compiling the report but how they were doing it.
19 Q. Well, you even said in court that it was manipulation. I think
20 that's even part of your report. And you talked about statistical
21 exhibitionism yesterday. Do you remember that? Is that your contribution
22 to coming up with a final figure, an important project as you have said a
23 moment ago --
24 MR. KARNAVAS: Objection, Your Honour. Objection. Again, there
25 was nothing in the final task for a final figure. And I need to make sure
1 that the record is very clear that when we have very limited resources and
2 very limited time, the Defence that is, we cannot be expected to do what
3 the Prosecution has failed to do in seven years. But if the resources are
4 available because we did talk about having a census, but when the
5 resources are not there, we cannot be expected to do that. So we need to
6 be very clear with the way that we ask the questions we're asking the
7 witness and be fair to the witness.
8 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Waespi, I believe the testimony of this
9 witness is only for the method or methodology of the report prepared by
10 Mr. Brunborg, not -- has anything to do with the final figure.
11 MR. WAESPI: Yes. Very well, Mr. President, I just asked and I
12 think she answered already. It would have been possible for her to follow
13 the steps of Mr. Brunborg. In these ten days she was here, she had all
14 the resources available. Everything Mr. Brunborg relied upon was at her
15 availability. That's my question to this witness.
16 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
17 MR. KARNAVAS: Well, at first if you look at the monitors, he's
18 saying that that's what she said. Then he turns it into a question. So I
19 would like the question to be posed clearly so the witness can have an
20 opportunity to answer. And if the question is: Did she have all the
21 resources there, all the data, for her to come up with the figure? If
22 that's the question, let's have it posed and let's have the answer.
23 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Waespi, you made a statement here.
24 MR. WAESPI: Yes, I just want to ask her. I think she answered it
25 before but just for the purposes of clarification I can ask it again.
1 Q. Professor Radovanovic, you could have in those days you were here
2 in The Hague, you could have with the resources you had asked for, the
3 sources you had asked for, you could have reproduced the project
4 Mr. Brunborg did, step by step, and approved, according to his standards,
5 his project, product, and come up with a different number. That could
6 have been possible. Isn't that correct?
7 A. No, it's not correct. First of all, I did not have all the
8 sources I asked for. I had only the sources you gave me, which were used
9 by Mr. Brunborg. I feel that these sources are not nearly sufficient to
10 arrive at a reliable result. Based on the sources Mr. Brunborg had, my
11 goal was not to check whether the number he came up with was correct.
12 Q. Thanks. I see your point.
13 Let me finish with showing you the last exhibit, that's P864, and
14 we have both an English version and a B/C/S version. Now, Professor, are
15 you aware of this recent June 2004 report by the official Republika Srpska
16 governmental commission in relation to Srebrenica --
17 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Karnavas.
18 MR. KARNAVAS: Yes, I'm going to object to the use of this report,
19 Your Honour, on the primary basis, even though I understand we're on cross
20 and even though I understand that just about anything can be used. I
21 think on page 6, if we look at it, it says here that the sources were from
22 the Krstic case and that would be found on page 6, the second paragraph
23 from the top, in the English version. It says: "As the commission had
24 limited time and in order to maximise its resources it accepted the
25 historical background in the facts given in the appeal case Prosecution
1 versus Krstic when the accused was sentenced by ICTY for 'assisting and
2 supporting genocide' committed in Srebrenica."
3 So in light of that I object to try to bootstrap in other words to
4 sort of show that since the RS has come up with this report and they're
5 taking figures from the Krstic case, therefore those figures must be
6 correct. I think it's totally improper to use this report, and also I
7 would like to point out that in last week's article by the IWPR, it's
8 clear that those who were on the commission were more or less coerced
9 into --
10 MR. WAESPI: Mr. President.
11 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Waespi.
12 MR. WAESPI: Mr. Karnavas just quoted one part of the -- and it
13 deals with legal issues, as he could see from the first sentence of what
14 he read out that was on page 6. "The commission, not being a judicial
15 body, had no mandate to consider legal issues, as was the task and right
16 of competent courts."
17 And then later comes the sentence he quoted. Then the report
18 interviewed several witnesses. They consulted as can be seen from the
19 report several bodies of the different ministries, ministry of justice,
20 the police, and they interviewed these people as you can see from this
21 report. What I want to show is I would like to read out one portion of
22 this report and ask the witness whether she was aware of it. And you are
23 well aware with the level needed to have certainly put something in
24 cross-examination to a witness and ask her to comment.
25 The second step about the introduction of the document, we can
1 deal with as soon as we come to this point. But it's certainly proper to
2 point to a very, very recent figure, not relying on ICRC or something else
3 we discussed but on something different. But we'll see from the excerpt
4 I'm going to quote to you.
5 JUDGE LIU: Well --
6 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour --
7 JUDGE LIU: We are not debating on this report at this moment. In
8 the cross-examination I believe that the party leading the
9 cross-examination could use any materials they like. The witness could
10 answer yes or no to any questions posed to him, which does not mean that
11 at last we will admit this document into the evidence.
12 MR. KARNAVAS: Very well, Your Honour, I just wish to point out my
13 objection unless there's a foundation as to how any figures were derived
14 on what basis. I understand that question can be posed --
15 MR. WAESPI: Mr. Karnavas is not telling her --
16 MR. KARNAVAS: Nobody is telling anybody anything.
17 MR. WAESPI: Conscience.
18 MR. KARNAVAS: I object to these accusations by the Prosecution.
19 JUDGE LIU: Mr. Karnavas, let's not debate this issue in front of
20 the witness.
21 MR. KARNAVAS: Very well, Your Honour.
22 JUDGE LIU: I understand your point and your objection is
23 registered in the transcript --
24 MR. KARNAVAS: I understand, Your Honour, but I think at some
25 point --
1 JUDGE LIU: We do not entirely believe whatever is said in any
2 report which has already been admitted into the evidence, which means that
3 they are not necessarily representing the truth.
4 MR. KARNAVAS: I understand, Mr. President.
5 JUDGE LIU: This is the cross-examination. Let the Prosecution
6 put some questions to this witness. The witness may not agree with
7 whatever is said in the report.
8 MR. KARNAVAS: I fully agree with you, Mr. President, I just
9 object to the manner of the unprofessionalism of the Prosecution,
10 particularly the individuals that are sitting over there. That's what I
11 object to because they think that they can just stand up and object and
12 interrupt and say whatever they wish to say. I just object to that.
13 That's -- I think it's unfair. I should be allowed to at least finish
14 what I'm saying and then they can state whatever they want. But to make
15 accusations, I think that's improper.
16 JUDGE LIU: Thank you. You may sit down.
17 Well, Mr. McCloskey, let's proceed with the questions. I know
18 what you are going to say, actually, this happened many, many times. I
19 just don't want to spend the precious time in this courtroom on those
21 MR. McCLOSKEY: I agree, Mr. President, but the Prosecution cannot
22 stand here and -- without -- and maybe it's cultural, but in my culture I
23 cannot stand and not respond to repeated accusations of unethical conduct.
24 By my silence I would be suggesting that they are true. I will sit down,
25 but I just want you to know my continuing objection to that kind of
2 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much.
3 Mr. Waespi, please move on.
4 MR. WAESPI: Thank you, Mr. President.
5 Q. Now, my question to you. Have you seen this report or heard of
6 this report, which has been published just a couple of weeks ago?
7 A. No. I haven't heard of it and I haven't seen it ever.
8 Q. Now, you're not aware of this report, and I quote from it, had the
9 mandate among others: "To come up with the most precise list with names
10 of all persons that went missing during the events in Srebrenica between
11 10th and 19th July, 1995."
12 You weren't aware of that, that there was some work in progress
13 very, very closely related to what you have been testifying about. You
14 weren't aware of that?
15 A. If that was done a few days ago, I don't know how I could have
17 Q. Yes. I take it it took some time for them to complete it, but it
18 doesn't matter. If you say you haven't heard of it, that's fine.
19 Let me direct you to page 32 in your B/C/S version, second
21 MR. WAESPI: And in English, Your Honours, it's on page 34, the
22 third paragraph.
23 Q. And I'll read it out for the record, since it's the most recent
24 number we have heard of.
25 "By evaluating the methodology on collecting information about
1 missing persons, the commission reached a conclusion that the most
2 accurate list is in possession of the ICMP. That list is created within
3 ICMP's DNA identification project. Every blood donor is giving
4 information about missing persons and about circumstances and the time of
5 persons missing. Until the day of this report's submission, the ICMP
6 collected information on 7.779 persons that went missing in Srebrenica
7 between 10th and 19th July, 1995. This information was collected from
8 missing person's family members. Unfortunately, this number is not final,
9 since the ICMP is still collecting blood samples and information from
10 victims' families which are currently living in the countries of the
11 European Union. This number will undeniably be increased after the
12 completion of the above-mentioned ICMP's project."
13 Now, first of all, do you know what ICMP stands for?
14 A. The international committee -- no, I don't know. I don't want to
15 guess. I'm not sure.
16 Q. So you've never heard of an institution called International
17 Commission for Missing Persons active all over Bosnia?
18 A. I have heard of it, but it's ICMP in English. And what was
19 written here in B/C/S was different. When you say the International
20 Commission for Missing Persons, then I know exactly what it is. But what
21 I read here in B/C/S, is something that I am unfamiliar with.
22 Q. Does that again help you, like the ICRC, numbers we have heard in
23 your assessment whether Mr. Brunborg may, in fact, be right in the range
24 of missing persons he talks about?
25 A. No, sir. You are asking me to look at the quotation that you read
1 out to me, and I don't know how, when, why, for what purposes, is this a
2 statistical and demographic finding. You are asking me assess is it the
3 same thing that Mr. Brunborg said. I am not somebody who is misled by a
4 figure because somebody said whatever. I don't know why this is said and
5 I hardly ever take anybody's word for anything. I deal in an exact
6 science. I have to verify everything. There is either information, exact
7 and accurate information that I can use or I cannot. So if you're asking
8 me for an opinion as to whether the figure that is mentioned here
9 justifies the figure that Mr. Brunborg mentions or confirms or
10 corroborates the figure that Mr. Brunborg gives, that is something I
11 cannot say. What I can say with certainty is that the figure that
12 Mr. Brunborg attained was not attained statistically and demographically
13 in a proper statistical and demographic manner. He did not apply a good
14 methodology. The Prosecution has a demographer. I don't know if the
15 Red Cross or the commission that wrote this report consulted a demographer
16 at all. I cannot claim that this figure supports Mr. Brunborg's figure,
17 but I cannot make any claims whatsoever as to what the figures should be
18 in support of such a claim. I didn't deal with that. I'm just claiming
19 that Mr. Brunborg's methodology, Mr. Brunborg's sources of information are
20 not proper. I'm saying that the job was done superficially.
21 Q. And my last question is: On Mr. Brunborg's list, did you find any
22 person who, in fact, is alive, who is a survivor?
23 A. I didn't look for one, sir. But what I did find is that
24 Mr. Brunborg, while looking for survivors, did not use OSCE lists as they
25 should be used. That is to say that he was not interested in all the
1 voters from Bosnia-Herzegovina, but only those who were filed from
2 Srebrenica. Now, what he considers to be Srebrenica is something I don't
3 know. In that way, he could not have found any other survivors. I was
4 not seeking to find out whether there were or weren't any survivors.
5 Q. Yes. That wasn't my question. It wasn't my question whether
6 Mr. Brunborg found his methods; we have talked about that. My question
7 was directed to you, whether you did find any survivor who appeared on
8 Mr. Brunborg's list, and I understand your question [sic] as being no, you
9 didn't look for it?
10 A. No, sir. I -- when I say I did not look for any, I'm saying why I
11 did not look for any. Because that would be pointless. On OSCE lists,
12 you do not have the father's name. And on lists of both the PHR and the
13 ICRC you do have the father's name. I tried to show yesterday that even
14 if one single feature or piece of information is missing, it can create a
15 great deal of confusion. If you have lists whose quality is debatable,
16 then if you move on to other lists you get an outcome which is not proper.
17 So if I enter the census on the basis of PHR or ICRC lists, I can get an
18 endless number of links. I told you how many Svetlana Radovanovics there
19 are in Bosnia and I am from Serbia. So if I find Mustafa Omeragic, what
20 do you think, how many of them are there in Bosnia? And I don't know
21 whether the father's name is Jusuf or the father's name is Smail, and in
22 that case I would be putting myself in the following position: Perhaps
23 half of them are alive, perhaps not. I would be embarking on the project
24 subjectively. I am saying with the information of the OSCE, and the PHR,
25 and the ICRC, it is absolutely impossible to claim whether a person is
1 alive or not, precisely because this particular piece of information is
2 missing, that is, the father's name. Even if all the other identification
3 characteristics are the same. If you have 2.700.000 persons on a list,
4 that's it. I can prove you with using any list, PHR list or an ICRC list,
5 find me the name, surname, and date of birth, I can prove to you how many
6 such persons with the same name, same surname, and same date of birth
7 there are in Bosnia-Herzegovina. But I cannot guarantee whether it is
8 precisely these persons, because the father's name is not there. I can
9 guess. I did not engage in guesswork and that is why I did not look for
11 Q. And the answer to my question whether you found a survivor on
12 Mr. Brunborg's list would be no. Is that correct?
13 A. I've been explaining this all along. I do not wish to guess. It
14 is impossible to find any. I don't know how Mr. Brunborg found them. If
15 the father's name are not there, I don't know how he could establish that
16 there were nine survivors. I can say with full responsibility that it is
17 impossible to say that it is such-and-such a person, because in the OSCE
18 lists there is no information on the father's name.
19 Q. It was a simple question. Did you find it, yes or no? You didn't
20 look for it for all the information you have given, but you haven't found
21 any. Is that your answer?
22 A. It's not. I'm explaining to you, sir, that I looked at all of
23 this and I made my own decision. I can say that I found 1200 such
24 persons, but I am not sure that it's these persons because it's impossible
25 to review all of this. Then I gave up. You cannot compare apples and
1 pears and say that that's it. I do not have proper identification, full
2 identification, so I cannot claim that I found precisely
3 Svetlana Radovanovic for the simple reason, and I gave the example
4 yesterday. I was looking for Svetlana Radovanovic, father's name Dragan.
5 I'm -- I mean, had I been on the list by some chance, because in voters
6 registers in Bosnia-Herzegovina there are three Svetlana Radovanovics.
7 I -- two of them could be me or one, one could be me, approximately, in
8 terms of age. Since I'm not on your list. Had I been on the list of
9 killed persons, I would have to decide whether that is the
10 Svetlana Radovanovic because the father's name is not there. On the
11 voters register you do not have the father's name. I'm sorry, sir. Only
12 on the PHR list you have 1200 names that are completely identical.
13 Q. Okay. I asked you the question three times, I think you have
14 responded one way or the other. Thank you very much.
15 MR. WAESPI: I have no further questions, Mr. President.
16 JUDGE LIU: Thank you, Mr. Waespi.
17 Any re-direct?
18 MR. KARNAVAS: Just a few questions.
19 Re-examined by Mr. Karnavas:
20 Q. Professor Radovanovic, just to go back to the RS report and I want
21 to go back to the particular part that was read to you. And I'll just
22 read the first sentence. "By evaluating the methodology on collecting
23 information about missing persons, the commission reached the conclusion
24 that the most accurate list in its possession is in its possession of the
1 Now, the question is: If you could look through this, give it a
2 glance perhaps, this short report, can you find anywhere the methodology
3 that was used, number one. Number two, how was that methodology
4 evaluated? Number three, what information was collected, by whom, and
5 how, and how it was sifted? Number four, whether there was a quality
6 control? Number five, whether they looked for duplications and so on and
7 so forth. In other words, if you can find in this report anything that
8 would give you as a professional demographer any assurances that the
9 evaluation of the methodology and the collection of information was done
10 in a proper, consistent, and professional manner.
11 A. I cannot.
12 Q. All right. Now, you were asked about -- yesterday we talked about
13 a census, that that's the approach you would have taken. Would a
14 census -- had a census been done by the Office of the Prosecution with its
15 rather unlimited budget compared to the Defence -- had a census been done,
16 would you have been able to at least determine who might be a survivor
17 that's currently on the list?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. All right. Now, you were asked about the importance of reaching a
20 precise number of killed people. Let's assume that a precise number was
21 able to be reached, either by census or some other means, assuming the
22 Prosecution experts had done what you believe should have been done, would
23 that figure be determinative of how many were actually executed versus how
24 many perished as they were walking through the woods, how many were killed
25 among themselves, how many were killed in actual battle, would that final
1 figure be determinative? And you as a professional demographer, could you
2 give us an opinion on that?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm not sure --
4 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Waespi.
5 MR. WAESPI: That's an issue I haven't raised in
6 cross-examination, the ratio of whether the missing people are actually
7 dead. Mr. Brunborg mentioned it, but it's nothing that I cross-examined
8 Professor Radovanovic on.
9 MR. KARNAVAS: It was on the precise number of people killed,
10 that's why I raised it.
11 JUDGE LIU: This question is related to the question in the
12 cross-examination and the witness is prepared to answer it.
13 You may answer this question, Professor.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Could you please be so kind as to
15 put the question to me again. I'm really sorry.
16 MR. KARNAVAS:
17 Q. All right. That's okay. I'll try to keep it shorter.
18 The Prosecution talked about the importance of having a precise
19 number of people missing. From that number, could you be -- would you be
20 able as a demographer to determine how many within that number were
21 actually executed, how many perished as a result of stepping on landmines
22 or being killed in battle or some other ways lost their lives?
23 A. No. It's impossible to establish that.
24 Q. Finally, in spite of the rather vigorous cross-examination, would
25 you still be willing, assuming that there was compensation by the
1 Prosecution, to assist them in finding -- in looking through their
2 material and even with coming up with a methodology and an approach to
3 arrive at an accurate decision -- figure? Would you be willing to do
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Okay. Thank you.
7 MR. KARNAVAS: I have no further questions, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.
9 Judge Vassylenko.
10 Questioned by the Court:
11 JUDGE VASSYLENKO: Professor Radovanovic, taking into account
12 flaws in methodology in the Brunborg report, is it possible to adopt
13 marginal error approach to Brunborg conclusions relating to the number of
14 lives lost in the Srebrenica enclave?
15 A. It is possible to look at what Mr. Brunborg did and to see that he
16 had he given precise information, "my clear matches are the following,
17 what I changed was such-and-such," so as Mr. Brunborg did his work he
18 could have shown the statistics involved or the probability of the
19 correctness of the result. "If you do not change the key you get
20 such-and-such an outcome. If I change the possibilities, then you get
21 such-and-such an outcome." So there is a pyramid that has to be there.
22 That is why I use this word "lack of intellectual integrity," because you
23 had to look at this properly and you can stand by it only if the key is
24 not changed, is firmly established. And now the probability has to be
25 looked at in terms of the overall result, too.
1 JUDGE VASSYLENKO: What would be your estimate as to margin of
2 error in the Brunborg conclusion?
3 A. Well, I cannot give an estimate for a simple reason. Mr. Brunborg
4 has 71 keys, 71 ways of matching data. So I really don't know when he
5 uses what is the proper thing to be used, that is to say a firmly
6 established permanent key. I can really not give an evaluation of that
7 off the cuff.
8 JUDGE LIU: Thank you, Judge Vassylenko.
9 Any questions out of Judge's question?
10 MR. KARNAVAS: No, Mr. President.
11 JUDGE LIU: Mr. Waespi, do you have any questions out of
12 Judge Vassylenko's question?
13 MR. WAESPI: No, Mr. President.
14 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.
15 At this stage, are there any documents to tender? Mr. Karnavas?
16 MR. KARNAVAS: Yes, Mr. President. That would be D202/1, which is
17 Professor Radovanovic's CV; D203/1, which was a letter provided by the OTP
18 dated April 16th, 2004, with respect to the precise criteria that has the
19 71 different ways of matching; and D204, which is the report by
20 Professor Radovanovic, which was filed under Rule 94 bis.
21 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.
22 Any objections?
23 MR. WAESPI: Yes, Mr. President, in relation to the report, we
24 don't consider that as a true expert report. Making something
25 constructive, coming up with a -- the own way to create a record and what
1 she did was criticising Mr. Brunborg. We had -- agreed to the report
2 coming in without her testimony, the Defence chose to bring her here,
3 which was unnecessary, in our submission. We had the same approach with
4 Mr. Brunborg, it would have been okay to bring it in. Now since she was
5 here, she testified, she was cross-examined. We believe that's enough,
6 and her report should be rejected. I don't have any objections to the
7 other items proposed.
8 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.
9 Any reply?
10 MR. KARNAVAS: Yes. Well, first of all, last time I checked the
11 rules, I don't see anywhere where they have a set criteria what should be
12 and what should not be in a report, in an expert report. That's number
13 one. Number two, I have never had such a report rejected before and I
14 have never heard such an objection before, so I really don't understand
15 what the problem is. Number three, and more importantly, if you recall
16 the expert report of our military analyst, the American, that was
17 accepted. And if you look at that, that report attacks the methodology of
18 Mr. Butler. So -- and I think this is proper. I think the report itself
19 cannot stand on its own, again as I indicated yesterday, because we don't
20 have sufficient time and funds. And I can -- I have the backup of all the
21 memos and all the correspondence to the registrar with respect to -- and
22 to the Prosecution to make everything available. So because of these
23 constraints, we had a report that was -- that would be based on what she
24 would be testifying, which is her analysis of the methodology. And her
25 testimony complements her report. So with all due respect to the
1 arguments posed by the Prosecution, I think the report should and must
2 come in. And I don't see how they can say for the one expert it's okay to
3 attack the methodology, but on the other expert, maybe because they -- you
4 know, they are two different subject matters, I don't know. But I don't
5 think that's a basis.
6 JUDGE LIU: Well, after consultations with my colleague, I would
7 like to say that document D202/1, document D203/1, as well as the report,
8 document D204/1 are admitted into the evidence. And we believe that the
9 report is relevant to this case. And this document is under Rule 94 bis,
10 as the witness is an expert.
11 On the side of the Prosecution, are there any documents to tender?
12 Yes, Mr. Waespi.
13 MR. WAESPI: Yes, Mr. President. P866, that's the article of ICRC
14 dated 9th August 2001; P868, the ICRC questionnaire and the information
15 about the ICRC project in Bosnia; P869, the PHR questionnaire and
16 information about the project in Bosnia; P870, again ICRC press release
17 dated 19th September 2003. And in relation to the Prosecution Exhibit
18 864, the Srebrenica report, we'll reserve that perhaps for the rebuttal
19 phase. So we would not suggest to tender it at this point.
20 JUDGE LIU: Thank you, which implies that you will have the
21 rebuttal procedure. Am I right? Because this is the first time I
22 heard --
23 MR. WAESPI: If I look at the rules right, like Mr. Karnavas does
24 all the time, there is a rebuttal phase. So we'll look into that whether
25 anything arose out of the Defence case, and if we have any rebuttal
1 evidence, witness, perhaps documents, then we would inform you. But I'm
2 sure Mr. McCloskey can enlighten you more on that point.
3 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.
4 Well, are there any objections?
5 MR. KARNAVAS: Yes. Yes. Well, with respect to the P866 and
6 P870, we outright reject that. With respect to P868 and 869, the
7 questionnaires themselves, we have no problem coming in, because there
8 seems to be a point of contention. So the questionnaires we don't have a
9 problem, but the other two which seem to be public relations information,
10 unless they intend in their rebuttal case to bring somebody from ICRC
11 here, I don't believe that there's a sufficient foundation. And simply
12 because they used a document for the purposes of confronting a witness, we
13 certainly don't believe that that's sufficient for its introduction.
14 As for the report on Srebrenica, since they do intend to have
15 rebuttal and we welcome it, we would give them a suggestion that they
16 should bring the folks who were on the commission because so they could be
17 cross-examined because we're going to be requesting not just those folks
18 but perhaps the high representative of Bosnia-Herzegovina which is
19 Paddy Ashdown because we understand from everything we read in the press
20 that they were severely pressured to come out with this report in order to
21 maintain their jobs. And I can give the Prosecution the website where
22 they can find this information.
23 JUDGE LIU: Any reply?
24 MR. WAESPI: Yes, just on the ICRC. Mr. Karnavas knows very well,
25 if he knows the ICRC, there is no way the ICRC will come to testify in
1 this court. This is obviously a document which speaks for itself, a
2 document requested and relied upon by this very Defence expert here. I
3 think it's sufficiently reliable to have it admitted.
4 [Trial Chamber confers]
5 JUDGE LIU: Well, this Bench finds no difficulty to admit the
6 document P866, P868, P869, and P870 because we believe those documents are
7 relevant to this case and the resources are somehow reliable.
8 As for the document P864, it's too early to discuss about the
9 admission of this document. But I don't believe that there is a necessity
10 to call the drafters of this report to testify just for the admission of
11 this document into the evidence. We have a very relaxed rule of admission
12 of the documents into the evidence. So long as those documents have the
13 correct source and they are relevant to this case and the Bench believes
14 it has some, some, not all, but some probative value in it, they could be
15 admitted into the evidence, which as I stressed before doesn't mean that
16 everything said in certain documents is truth. Well, this is for the
17 later stage.
18 Yes, yes, Mr. McCloskey.
19 MR. McCLOSKEY: Just to be helpful on that last point, it would
20 be -- as you know this RS report just came out. And I was considering
21 asking Mr. Brunborg or Ms. Tabeau to just briefly look into the
22 foundations of the ICMP and their report, perhaps write a one or two-page
23 analysis of what they come up with, so that if we do feel the report is
24 necessary, there will be some, some, review. I don't expect it to be
25 exhaustive like we've seen before, but some guidance for the Court. As
1 their expert may want to do the same thing and we of course support
2 Mr. Karnavas when the Registry with any funds. Because I think the
3 Registry has been pretty supportive of funds and we have always been
4 supportive that they should be supportive of the Defence. In any event,
5 that is what we have in mind for the future of that report.
6 JUDGE LIU: Well, I doubt very much about this approach. All
7 those official documents as long as they meet the requirements I said just
8 before, I believe that they could be admitted into the evidence, like the
9 report of the United Nations, the report of the Dutch government, as well
10 as the report of this commission of the Republic of Srebrenica. There's
11 no problem about that.
12 MR. KARNAVAS: I just --
13 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
14 MR. KARNAVAS: Listening to Mr. McCloskey, there seems to be a
15 catch to all of that. Maybe it's my own paranoia. Obviously because he
16 has a whole demographics department; I don't. I certainly cannot go the
17 Registry and say, I anticipate something in rebuttal, give me the funds
18 for this project; that's not how it works. I will agree, and I want to
19 state this on the record, that the Prosecution has been supportive of the
20 Defence having funds. They've gone on record, they've told this to OLAD.
21 So we're grateful for that.
22 As for the Registry being liberal and generous, well, they have
23 been flexible. Let me put it that way. There's a degree of flexibility
24 that beyond that they're not willing to go. And for me to say
25 pre-emptively, "I think I'm going to need these resources..." They're not
1 going to give me those resources.
2 But the reason I'm raising it is because I don't want later on for
3 Mr. McCloskey to stand up and say: "Well, I telegraphed my intentions and
4 Karnavas should have gone ahead and hired his expert to do all those
5 things." I can't do that. So I just see that coming. I just want to
6 make sure -- I'm not capable of doing that. Now, I would -- perhaps they
7 could hire or pay Professor Radovanovic to assist Mr. Brunborg and
8 Ewa Tabeau in their work and we could have some sort of a corroborative
9 effort, but I just want to make sure that I'm not going to be in that
10 position to go to OLAD and say: Give me the funds, because I think I'm
11 tapped out on that one.
12 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much. Your statement is registered in
13 the transcript. I believe someone from the Registry will read it.
14 Well, Witness, thank you very much for coming to The Hague to give
15 your evidence. I personally benefited a lot from your expert testimony.
16 And the usher will show you out of the room when this sitting is
17 adjourned. And we wish you a pleasant journey back home.
18 So the hearing is adjourned.
19 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned
20 at 11.41 a.m., to be reconvened on Wednesday,
21 the 23rd day of June, 2004,
22 at 9.00 a.m.