1 Wednesday, 2 May 2007
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 8.26 a.m.
6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Ms. Isailovic, you are to continue your
8 WITNESS: EWA TABEAU [Resumed]
9 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
10 Cross-examination by Ms. Isailovic: [Continued]
11 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Mrs. Tabeau. We shall pick up on
12 where we left off yesterday. Let me remind you of your last answer to the
13 question I put to you. "What difference is there between conflict
14 statistical method and official statistical method." Do you remember
16 A. Yes, I do.
17 Q. I noticed that in your work, you didn't indicate why you had
18 chosen this method, i.e., statistics related to conflict. Could you tell
19 us why you chose this method in particular?
20 A. I mean, for this particular report, well, I think that I didn't
21 have really much choice. This is a conflict situation that we talk about;
22 and as in every conflict, also in the Sarajevo conflict, sources on the
23 casualties of this conflict were limited and in many ways deficient. So
24 it was not really possible to apply the usual statistical approach or
25 usual approach. With good sources, systematic registration of all deaths
1 or wounding persons, it was not possible.
2 Q. Nonetheless, your best source according to what have you said in
3 your expert report, you have used the data stemming from two official
4 demographic institutes; one in the Republika Srpska and the other in the
5 Bosnia and Herzegovina Federation?
6 A. Yes, I did.
7 Q. Precisely. On reading your report, I realised that when you
8 mentioned the most reliable source, for the most part, you used death
9 certificate excerpts, didn't you?
10 A. I am not sure that I understand the question; but if you are you
11 saying that the two largest sources, RS database and FBiH database, were
12 established using documentation such as including death certificates, yes,
13 that is correct.
14 Q. That is what I realised on reading your report. Is that a
15 standard procedure that is used when determining the death rate in a
16 particular country?
17 A. The death rate is obtained based on vital events registration
18 data. This is the death registration data. This is similar to the
19 databases that I used for this report, and this registration is indeed
20 based on death certification. That is very correct.
21 The difference is that the databases I used, I know and the
22 statistical authority who is established them know these databases are
23 incomplete, and there are certain deficiencies that normally wouldn't be
24 there in normal times, in a time of peace.
25 Q. Could you briefly tell us what these deficiencies were and why you
1 chose the conflicts statistical method, in addition to the fact that you
2 had, according to what you said, fairly reliable statistical databases?
3 A. Well, first of all, I don't want that an impression would prevail
4 here that there are different statistical methods that are used in
5 official statistics and that are used in conflict research. The methods
6 are just statistical methods. What is really different is the
7 availability of information. I'm speaking of sources. We don't have the
8 same sources for conflict situations. We don't have the same sources as
9 normally in the time of peace. So the methods are all the time, always.
10 The way we apply them must be different because of the sources.
11 What was the other part of your question? The deficiencies of
12 your the sources. So the first and most probably meaningful is that the
13 registration is incomplete, and that it is incomplete is pretty certain.
14 This is related, on one hand, to the fact that during the conflict
15 situation the statistical authority was unable to function normally.
16 There was a chaotic situation and not all reports were received in time
17 and registered in time.
18 And, secondly, and very importantly, there were massive migration
19 movements in Bosnia-Herzegovina during the conflict already, starting from
20 the beginning of the conflict. At the end of the conflict, about 50 per
21 cent of the population changed their place of residence. So that would be
22 more than 2 million people who didn't live anymore at the same residence
23 as before the war. Partly, these were internally displaced persons;
24 partly these were people who migrated out of Bosnia-Herzegovina due to
25 conflict reasons.
1 So these huge population movements implied that there were
2 difficulties, that families could actually -- were not really able to
3 report that to the proper authorities in time. So that is the
4 incompleteness. There were also other deficiencies, like, for instance,
5 the required death certificate was not always available for every record.
6 Death certificates were attached to about 75 per cent of records
7 registered in databases on average. I'm not speaking of concrete numbers.
8 It's the level generally.
9 And, of course, the reporting wasn't perfect because it was often
10 done in traumatic situations, so certain details, like, for instance,
11 dates, were incomplete or misreported or places were misspelled, names
12 were misspelled. Those kind of deficiencies can be seen in these
14 Q. Mrs. Tabeau, other witnesses have shown before this Chamber that
15 the territory controlled by Bosnia-Herzegovina updated all their records.
16 I'm talking about status of various individuals. We've seen forensic
17 reports here establishing accidental deaths, violent accidental deaths.
18 You haven't used these sources, have you?
19 A. I'm not sure what kind of sources are you talking about. You are
20 speaking of forensic reports by Bosnian authorities. If you could be more
22 Q. Let me remind you that yesterday Judge Harhoff put this question
23 to you. And you answered by saying that the dead people don't -- are not
24 admitted into evidence hospital and, therefore, are not listed on the
25 hospital lists. We have here another proof of the fact that the dead for
1 the most part - I can't say whether this was the case at all times - but
2 that it was a forensic medic who registered the deaths, like in all normal
3 countries. But you did not use this database to prepare your report, did
5 MR. DOCHERTY: Your Honour.
6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Docherty.
7 MR. DOCHERTY: I object to that question on the grounds that it is
8 vague. Counsel has not specified what database she is talking. She's
9 talking about people not being admitted into hospitals who are dead, but
10 I'm not sure -- I at least am completely in the dark as to what database
11 the witness is being asked about.
12 JUDGE ROBINSON: What database do you have in mind, Ms. Isailovic?
13 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, what I mean are the
14 death registers in the hospitals of Sarajevo. This evidence was presented
15 before this Chamber. It was the Prosecutor who adduced this evidence.
16 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you.
17 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] I know this -- I wanted to know
19 JUDGE ROBINSON: Let's ask the witness. Yes. You're being asked,
20 Mrs. Tabeau, whether you availed yourself of the information from the
21 registration of deaths in hospitals.
22 THE WITNESS: I think we discussed this issue shortly yesterday;
23 and I said that from hospitals, information would be available about this
24 persons who died in hospital of their wounds. And I did not use this
25 information. That, actually, is available to me. This is a very small
1 number of records, as these are records related only to the small sample
2 of people wounded and related to the indictment period. We are speaking
3 of the wounded persons who were 405, for whom I have extensive
4 documentation. So for those of them who died, there is, in addition, a
5 record of death from hospitals.
6 But generally people who died on streets are generally not in
7 hospitals. These people were not brought to hospital in order to issue
8 death certificate for them. This is not the general practice in death
9 registration. The family has the obligation to notify statistical
10 authority about the death, and this needs to be done based on a death
11 certificate that normally is issued by a physician or another qualified
12 person, say, medically trained person, and this arranged, I guess, by
13 authorities together with the family, right? But this is not that every
14 death normally has to be reported to hospital in order to be registered.
15 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation]
16 Q. Maybe we shouldn't confuse matters. I heard that you mentioned
17 405 cases that have been recorded by the hospital; but on reading your
18 report, I believe that this figure related to the number of wounded, i.e.,
19 405. Isn't that correct?
20 A. The 405 are indeed wounded persons. The small sample of wounded
21 persons who were in hospitals, we have for these persons also, for those
22 who died of their wounds, information about death from the hospital. But
23 this is a very small group of individuals. I think, in general terms, if
24 one would like -- sorry, this last part is to be neglected, please.
25 Q. My next question runs as follows: Where did you get this
1 information? The fact that people were dying on the streets, or that
2 people were not admitted into hospital or not brought by policemen into
4 A. Where did I get the information that people were dying on streets.
5 I think, well, if this information is indeed not listed directly in the
6 databases that I used, well, we -- seeing the places they were dying at,
7 of course, the streets are mentioned. All kinds of places are mentioned
8 as the place of death. So it is pretty sure that they were dying at all
9 kind of places, on streets, in their apartments, in trams, and in cars,
10 yeah, in the river. They were dying everywhere.
11 This is one thing. Well, whether they were not admitted into
12 hospital, if they had been admitted, all of them, to hospital, then I
13 believe that there would be a record of these, available from the
14 hospitals. I probably need to explain a little bit about the project
15 related to hospital records.
16 The OTP ran this project in 1997 with the purpose of actually
17 collecting all available information from hospitals about wounded persons,
18 persons wounded during the conflict. So a group of investigators, OTP
19 investigators, visited three major hospitals in Sarajevo; Kosevo, State,
20 and Dobrinja. They arrange at the hospitals that the staff would extract
21 from their archives all existing files of patients admitted to these
22 hospitals during the conflict. Generally, there were thousands of files
23 available at the hospitals, but the OTP was interested only in those files
24 that were related to patients that were wounded by shelling, sniping, or
25 other fire-arms in conflict situation. The files that the OTP wanted were
1 of the civilians.
2 These, of course, had to define who is a civilian without knowing
3 the circumstances in which the person was wounded. So the general
4 principle here applied to us that all files selected were of women; and if
5 the files were of men, then an age was required to be below 18 or above
6 60. So the men at the military ages, active military ages were exclude
7 from this selection.
8 As a result of this project, a little bit more than 3.000 files
9 were extracted from the three major hospitals related to the entire
10 conflict, that means April 1992 until November -- December of 1995. Of
11 those approximately 3.000 files, a small sample, 405 cases, individuals, I
12 extracted as relevant to this indictment. This is how we obtained this
14 Q. Mrs. Tabeau, I shall get back to what I mentioned beforehand. You
15 did not use the hospital records established by medical examiners. You
16 only checked these records for the purpose of establishing how many
17 wounded people there were.
18 A. I think I disagree, and strongly, because I used the death
19 certificates. I used the death certificates. Those are the documents
20 that are issued by medical examiners in the case of death. I use them
21 because these are the two largest databases that I used; FBiH and RS
22 databases. These databases as the underlying documentation have the death
23 certificates and other documents declaring a person dead. So I strongly
24 disagree. I did use the death certificate, but I didn't use the death
25 report from hospital, that report from the hospital, because there was no
1 need to do so.
2 Why was -- I can even explain why there was no need to do so. I
3 believe that the death certificates used by statistical authorities in
4 both political entities partly, most likely, came from the hospitals as
6 Q. You will understand why I'm putting all these questions to you.
7 In conflict statistics, you use what is called extrapolation, I believe.
8 This is a standard method in a conflict situation when there are no 100
9 per cent reliable sources to determine how many dead people there are. Is
10 that right?
11 A. I used extrapolation in order to improve the statistics related to
12 the wounded persons. I didn't use the extrapolation in relation to the
13 killed persons. I produced statistics on the killed that came from the
14 counting approach. Counting is actual counting, yes, looking for all
15 these individuals and just adding them up to together. This is the
16 counting approach.
17 Q. But you matched the data from your sources to establish how many
18 dead people there were.
19 Let's look at these in a moment. These are the charts in which
20 you give us the figures from your sources, and then you use an adjustment
21 method which is used in conflict statistics, where you use a hypothesis to
22 establish what has happened rather than bearing in mind the real
24 A. I believe you are speaking of the two types of minimum numbers
25 that I presented on the killed; the absolute minimum and the adjusted more
1 likely minimum. It was minimum, of course, in both cases. In the second
2 case, I indeed made an adjustment. That means, yeah, some kind of
3 extrapolation combined with the counting approach figure, I presented the
4 more likely number. I don't think it is a wrong approach. It is a method
5 that is often used; not only in conflict demography, but also in
6 historical demography. This method is very popular, and I think it has a
7 very strong statistical foundation which discussed in the annex. It is
8 just a standard statistical standard to do this.
9 Q. Mrs. Tabeau, I would like you to confirm that the specific
10 difference between the two statistical methods is that in the conflict
11 statistical method you use this method, whereby, you provide an
12 explanation for things you don't know so much about because you don't have
13 100 per cent reliable sources; whereas, in a demographical statistical
14 method, you established what is true because you base this on accurate
15 records. This is the main difference between these two methods, isn't it?
16 A. Well, you are speaking about the explanation. This is not what I
17 did in this report. I didn't explain anything. I just presented
18 statistics that are measures of victimisation, expressed in terms of the
19 killed and wounded persons. Well, measures can be produced as figures
20 obtained from the counting approach or measure can be obtained as
22 Estimates are statistical visions of certain indicators.
23 Estimates, however, even though they don't rely on counting, rely on, in
24 some part, on observed, existing, available data, and, in part, on certain
25 assumptions that we apply to the data that is available. And I think that
1 both figures obtained from counting and figures obtained as estimates are
2 frequently used in conflict research and at the same time in normal
3 demography and official statistics. Well, if you think, for instance,
4 about pensions, the pension system is based on estimates of life
6 This is not observed as a figure obtained from a counting
7 approach. It is an estimate, especially if you think of models that are
8 made to establish budgets for every state. So this is all based on
9 estimates. It is not observed numbers that are used for it. But it is
10 still the best we can do it is as close to the truth as we can get.
11 Q. Precisely, Mrs. Tabeau. You used this method based on estimates,
12 didn't you, in your report?
13 A. I used both. I used counting approach and I used estimation as
14 well. That is correct.
15 Q. My last question on these sources which you did not use: Bosnian
16 police provides records of all incidents having occurred according to
17 their interpretation, stemming from snipers or shells and coming from the
18 Republika Srpska. We've had complete data from the police.
19 Now, as far as the area of Sarajevo controlled by
20 Bosnia-Herzegovina is concerned, were you aware of the existence of such
22 A. Well, whether I was aware of the existence, yes, I was. I knew
23 that such records were collected by the OTP, and I knew that OTP, the
24 Prosecution team was busy with establishing a database with these records.
25 I would be very happy to be able to analyse this data, but this was not
1 possible for various reasons. That's all I can say about it.
2 Q. And why wasn't it possible?
3 A. Mainly because of time restriction. I actually was very eager to
4 get my hands on this data, but there was a lot of time pressure and
5 deadlines, short deadlines for finishing this report. This is the only
6 reason, the major reason, that I didn't use them.
7 Q. The answer you provided; namely, that you had time constraints,
8 you realise that the indictment goes back to 1998, don't you?
9 A. Yes. But do you realise on how many cases I have worked on in
10 this Tribunal. It is not the only case I have been working on.
11 Q. According to you, the police records which provided details on the
12 number of injured, the number of dead people supposedly from where the
13 army of Republika Srpska was quartered, would this be high quality sources
14 to things which you could use; namely, establish whether violent deaths
15 was due to the war or not?
16 A. Well, as far as I know the data, and I don't know this source
17 particularly well, but I do have some impression of this data, for many
18 incidents, victims were reported in terms of aggregate statistics; numbers
19 were available, no names, and no other personal details. From the point
20 of view of the work we have done in this report, it is a serious
21 deficiency that wouldn't be possible. Exactly the same thing present as
22 this report wouldn't be possible for this data.
23 But I believe that studying the data on incidents, be it sniping,
24 shelling, both, would be a very valuable addition to the statistics
25 presented in this report. Why? It is yet another source on practically
1 the same victims, so it would certainly give additional insights into what
2 we were able to present in our report.
3 Q. The evidence the Chamber has heard until now demonstrates that in
4 all police records on the -- in the area of Sarajevo controlled by
5 Bosnia-Herzegovina had names, first names, surnames, and dates of birth of
6 a number of people. Would this have been a quality source for you or not?
7 MR. DOCHERTY: Objection, Your Honour. I believe that misstates
8 the evidence. The evidence is that the records selected for the
9 spreadsheet that was introduced into evidence last week had to have
10 certain data in them in order to be selected, and I believe that the next
11 witness will have further evidence regarding those criteria, but I don't
12 think it is correct to state that every police record will contain a name,
13 a date of birth, and so forth. I don't think there is evidence of that in
14 the record.
15 THE WITNESS: And as far as I remember, I also stressed that
16 certain records didn't include personal information of victims, and I
17 didn't say that all these records on incidents didn't have information
18 about victims. If we can go back to the transcript, we can check this.
19 JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, take that into consideration,
20 Ms. Isailovic.
21 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I must say that I
22 have understood nothing. I didn't understand the objection made by
23 Mr. Docherty. I didn't have time to look at the transcript. What
24 statement are we talking about here? I honestly don't know.
25 JUDGE ROBINSON: I understand the objection was to the formulation
1 of your question along the lines that the records in the area of Sarajevo
2 had names, first names, surnames, and dates of birth of a number of
3 people, and you asked the witness whether this will have been a quality
4 source. Mr. Docherty said that the evidence did not show that the records
5 had each and every item that you referred to, and the witness has
6 confirmed that.
7 So perhaps you should just reformulate the question.
8 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, if I have understood
9 you correctly, Mr. Docherty has challenged the quality of his own
10 evidence. I haven't quite understood. Did Mr. Docherty say that --
11 JUDGE ROBINSON: No. What he has said is that you formulated a
12 question on the basis of the evidence and that you misstated the evidence
13 because you suggested to the witness that the evidence that she gave was
14 that the records had certain data, names, et cetera, and she did not say
16 THE WITNESS: May I say something, Your Honour.
17 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
18 THE WITNESS: I think, there are two things. There was this
19 selection of records submitted by the Prosecution. There is a more
20 extensive record of these incidents, as far as I understand. And the
21 selection most likely, I don't know the selection, but the selection most
22 likely included a lot of personal information, the selection submitted by
23 the Prosecution. But I know the broader picture of these data, and I know
24 that there are various types of records in -- from this source.
25 Some are very general, like reporting only the numbers of victims
1 without personal details about individuals. But there are others, very
2 good records with very, very broad information about victims as well. But
3 generally it is not true that we, for all the records, don't have names
4 and other personal information. That is not true. For some we have, and
5 for some we don't. That's it.
6 JUDGE ROBINSON: So that's the position. For some the data, the
7 personal data is available; for others the data is not available.
8 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. Let's now get back to the sources that you have used and the
10 Sarajevo Ten and Sarajevo Six samples.
11 First of all, you used the data provided by the Statistical
12 Institute of Republika Srpska and Bosnia-Herzegovina. The data were
13 updated at the request of the OTP; is that right?
14 A. The databases were established on request of the OTP.
15 Q. So after that, you then matched these two databases, and you came
16 up with a database that contained, on the one hand, the Republika Srpska
17 Statistical Institute data and the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina
18 authority databases?
19 A. At some point, yes, indeed, we merged these two databases. We did
20 it because the coverage of these two databases is largely exclusive. So
21 Republika Srpska is related to the territory of the Republika Srpska; and
22 FBiH database, the territory of the Federation.
23 But there is a small overlap as well. Certain records are
24 reported in both; not many.
25 Q. I assume that among the instructions provided to both institutes
1 was that the name of the municipality in which the death had occurred had
2 to be mentioned; is that right?
3 A. We didn't provide instructions of -- on details. We generally
4 requested that the documentation, death documentation available to the
5 authorities, documentation covering the conflict period in Bosnia and
6 Herzegovina, be computerised. They themselves, the statistical authority,
7 decided on how they would do it. They applied, each authority, the
8 standard statistical approach, including the standard death notification
9 form for reporting of the death. But, indeed, municipality of death is
10 one of the items in this form as a standard item always provided to the
11 statistical authority.
12 Q. Mrs. Tabeau, in order to establish your two samples, Sarajevo Ten
13 and Sarajevo Six, you needed to have that information, i.e., the name of
14 the municipality. That was a prerequisite, wasn't it?
15 A. I'm not sure that I understand the question. We used the
16 municipalities as officially -- as official administrative units. We used
17 the pre-war municipalities as basis for the death registration. This is
18 the approach the statistical authority followed.
19 Q. This has been mentioned already. In your database in which you
20 collected data from the two statistical institutes, you had the death
21 records which provided the name of the municipalities in question, which
22 enabled you to come up with your sample, Sarajevo Six and Sarajevo Ten.
23 Is that right?
24 A. Yes, that is generally the situation.
25 Q. Once you had collected all this data in Stari Grad, Ilidza, who
1 provided the municipality break down? Was this done with a computer or
2 were the data already contained in your statistical data?
3 A. I think that there was no break down at all. It is the pre-war
4 municipalities of Sarajevo for which statistics are given.
5 Q. [No interpretation] -- breakdown for distribution.
6 JUDGE ROBINSON: We had last the interpretation for a while.
7 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. -- breakdown for distribution. Once you had prepared your
9 database stemming from the two statistical institutes A, from
10 Bosnia-Herzegovina, B, from Republika Srpska. Now, to break down the
11 data, according to each municipality, someone had to divide it between
12 these two municipalities or break it down according to each municipality.
13 Was this done with a computer or not? Because the name of the
14 municipality was already provided on the statistical data sheet, and this
15 was in the computer.
16 A. The name of municipalities were reported on the death notification
17 forms and were entered into computer by the staff of the statistical
18 authorities that were establishing the databases.
19 I can even give you more detail, that for the municipalities a
20 standardized list was used with coding usually applied to municipalities
21 by the statistical authority.
22 Q. I will now give you a sample. Let's take the case, for instance,
23 of the municipality of Ilidza. It is mentioned in your Sarajevo Six
24 sample, isn't it?
25 A. Yes, it is.
1 Q. Therefore, the two statistical bodies already had that data
2 regarding Ilidza as being a neighbourhood of Sarajevo. According to them,
3 this -- these were part of the Ilidza municipality?
4 A. I don't think I understand the question well.
5 I think that -- I don't see a problem. I don't see an issue, so
6 this is -- I don't know what it is about. If you could rephrase your
8 Q. Yes, of course, I can. Well, let's take the example of Ilidza
9 municipality. That municipality belonged to its territory both for
10 Republika Srpska and the BiH federation. Do you know that?
11 A. Yes, of course. The new municipal division of Bosnia-Herzegovina
12 that was introduced after the Dayton peace agreement split a number of
13 municipalities into two parts; one part belonging to one political entity,
14 one belonging to the other political entity. Several of Sarajevo
15 municipalities actually were split as well.
16 But this is not an issue in this project. The municipalities were
17 reported by respective statistical authorities in terms of pre-war
18 municipalities. The post-war municipalities were smaller than the pre-war
19 municipalities, but they added up the records provided to cover the entire
20 municipality. This is not an issue that would produce any bias in
21 statistics at all. Why? Because the basis for our calculations are
22 individual records, individual cases, persons.
23 Duplicates are searched for using personal information. So if
24 there were records overlapping for municipalities like Ilidza reported by
25 one and the second authority, we were able to exclude the duplicated
1 record using the searches based on personal information.
2 Q. Now, Mrs. Tabeau, you said for the statistics, the death
3 certificates that were issued when death occurred were used, did you not?
4 A. Of course. But name is part of the death certificate.
5 Q. Of course, as well as the municipality where death occurred, isn't
7 A. Yes. Yes, that's right, most likely. I note that I have a death
8 certificate in front of me right now.
9 Q. And because these two -- I do not know how to refer to them,
10 because we're talking about civil authorities during the war with one
11 reporting to the BiH government and the other reporting to the Republika
12 Srpska government. So both of these institutions issued death
13 certificates with names of municipalities which naturally were not
14 different from one another because for the BiH government Hrasnica was
15 Ilidza --
16 A. I think I have now got your point. These databases were
17 established of the material that comes from the conflict period.
18 Normally, there are local vital events registration offices, local, not
19 municipality, just local offices. Population living in an area, in the
20 case of death of a family member, has to notify this local statistical
21 authority of the death.
22 So the documentation comes from the conflict period from all local
23 authorities spread all over the country. The federal and arrest
24 statistical authority, the offices in Banja Luka and in Sarajevo, made an
25 effort and centralised these documentation. They physically collected the
1 documentation from the local offices to the central office; and then based
2 on this documentation, they completed this project for us.
3 So it is not that the statistical authority of federation or RS
4 were collected death certificates. Not at all. The documentation existed
5 already long before this project -- project were completed by the
6 authorities. So it was a process that was taking place, the documentation
7 I mean, of issuing the death certificates and registration. Death
8 registration was a process that took place in the conflict period. The
9 statistical authority collected kind of retrospectively the available
10 documentation and computerised data.
11 So the reporting of the municipalities was according to the
12 available standards at the time, and the new municipalities were
13 introduced after the Dayton agreement which is after the conflict. So we
14 have no issue of new versus old municipalities here.
15 Q. Well, Mrs. Tabeau, let me put you an example of things to be as
16 simple as possible. In your sample, Sarajevo Six, say, for example, the
17 Ilidza municipality, but this would be valid for other municipalities, but
18 I'm picking this one.
19 So as far as that is concerned, you are saying that you blame the
20 accused for all accidental deaths occurring in Ilidza during the conflict?
21 MR. DOCHERTY: Objection. That statement is argumentative and it
22 completely misstates the evidence. The witness has not said that she
23 blames anything for these deaths. She has simply stated that she
24 collected death statistics.
25 I believe the question should be withdrawn.
1 JUDGE ROBINSON: Or reformulated.
2 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I do not know how to
3 rephrase this. Maybe I could use the conditional tense, because yesterday
4 we discussed this when discussing the statistical conclusions of the
5 report. As regards the Sarajevo Six and the time covered by the
6 indictment, and Mr. Docherty said this was the right question to ask, he
7 said that the number of victims is going to be very high and will be
8 relevant when sentencing the accused.
9 I'm not inventing or making anything up. What I'm saying is we're
10 talking about Sarajevo Six and the indictment period, and we're talking
11 about all the deaths. So I don't know how to phrase it differently. But
12 at the end of the day, all the deaths will be attributed to the accused.
13 There is just an observation and then I will move on to my question, if I
14 may. I'm not saying that the witness is accusing anyone, but --.
15 JUDGE ROBINSON: Ms. Isailovic, that is a submission which the
16 Prosecution may make in its closing arguments, but to say that the witness
17 is blaming the accused for all accidental deaths occurring in Ilidza is
18 not correct.
19 If you wish, you can reformulate the question; if you can't, then
20 move on to another matter.
21 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I do not know how to
22 phrase things differently because you can look at this sample, and perhaps
23 I could did the question differently.
24 JUDGE ROBINSON: Move on to another matter. If you can't put the
25 question in a form that is permissible, please move on to another matter.
1 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation]
2 Q. Let me give you an example. For the purposes of your expert
3 report, have you counted all the deaths in Ilidza in your Sarajevo Six
4 sample during the indictment period, indictment against Mr. Milosevic?
5 A. Yes. I included the entire Ilidza in the statistics. Well, I
6 think we agreed yesterday, as well, that the report is made from the end
7 of deaths, not incidents. I didn't use the data on incidents as the basis
8 for this report for various reasons, of course, again. But, still, these
9 are the same victims from the incidents, largely, if not 100 per cent.
10 Q. So your Sarajevo Six samples encompasses the Centar municipality,
11 Ilidza, Novi Grad, Novo Sarajevo, Stari Grad, and Vogosca. Is that
13 A. Yes, it is correct. Yes.
14 Q. And everywhere in your Sarajevo Six sample, you count all the
15 deaths for which you have a record which occurred on these territories
16 during the indictment period?
17 A. In the Sarajevo Six area, in the indictment period, that's
19 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Witness, the Defence counsel is
20 asking whether you count all, all the deaths. Are we talking about all
21 the deaths or the war-related deaths?
22 THE WITNESS: Of course, my assumption is that we all realised
23 that we are talking about violent, war-related deaths, right? So I'm not
24 interested in natural deaths, obviously, because we are speaking of a
25 conflict situation. So I assumption is that we all understand what we are
1 talking about; the statistics relevant to this case, to this indictment.
2 It cannot be about natural death. There is not what are you talking
4 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.
5 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. So in order to include the data in your Sarajevo Six sample during
7 the Dragomir Milosevic indictment period, you have made no distinction
8 between deaths occurred on the territory of the Ilidza which was
9 controlled by the BH army, and the death occurred on the territory of the
10 municipality controlled by the Republika Srpska army. You have not made
11 that distinction. Is that correct?
12 A. No, we didn't.
13 Q. So for things to be clear for the record, you have not made this
15 A. I have not made this distinction because I wasn't able to use data
16 on incidents.
17 Q. And this was my very point, has been so since the very beginning.
18 Excuse me.
19 Now, as regards the methods you used for the estimates used in
20 your expert report, I invite -- or I ask everyone to look at Table 2 on
21 page 15 of the expert report, and I would like to discuss that briefly.
22 In order to prepare that Table, you have used the statistical data
23 pertaining to ten Sarajevo municipalities between 1989 and 1991. Is this
25 A. Yes, it is.
1 Q. And is it correct to state that these are the deaths occurred in
2 peacetime in these municipalities?
3 A. Yes, it is.
4 Q. And for the purposes of your report, you calculated a yearly
5 average of deaths for this Sarajevo Ten sample pertaining to those years.
6 Is this correct?
7 A. It is. Yes, it is.
8 Q. Next, you multiplied this by four; in other words, you multiplied
9 the average by four to calculate a death estimate in the absence of
10 conflict or war in these municipalities. I don't know how you reached
11 that figure because my result was 14.168 and you obtained 14.167. Is this
12 a typo or are we talking about the special statistical methods you have to
13 subtract one? Could you explain this or perhaps there is just a typo?
14 A. I think it is rather a rounding error, or something like that.
15 The computer did it, simply.
16 Q. Now, could you look at the next page. On that page, you look at
17 the number of deaths extracted from your sources after removing the double
18 entries, which is 26.466. You subtracted 14.168 and you reached the
19 number of 12.298. What is stated in the report is 12.299, but we have
20 agreed on that figure. So the figure should have been 12.299 deaths which
21 can be related to war. This is an estimate, isn't it?
22 A. Yes, it is a very rough estimate, if, based on the assumption, if
23 the number of natural deaths would be the same as on average before the
25 Q. Can we agree that any statistical method when it is based on the
1 future; that is, the numbers of death which has not occurred yet are based
2 on -- or is based on hypothesis, on assumptions?
3 A. Of course, making predictions involves making assumptions, and
4 some observed data as well.
5 Q. Now, could you please take the previous page again, Table 2. You
6 haven't done that in your expert report, but this is something I did.
7 What I have done is calculate an average of deaths for your Sarajevo Six
8 sample. Let us check this together. Let us check my calculation together
9 and the method that I used.
10 I have taken the figure of 2.372, to which I added 1.056 for
11 Ilidza, 1.836 for Novi Grad, 2.040 for Novo Sarajevo. I added 1.343 for
12 Stari Grad, and 402 finally for Vogosca. I obtained 9.049 deaths. And
13 we're talking about the number of deaths for three years; that is, 1989 to
14 1991, divided by three, and I obtained 3.013. So that would be the yearly
15 average for the Sarajevo Six sample. It is an estimate for that sample of
16 the yearly number of deaths.
17 Do you agree that this is the total of the average of total death,
18 both natural and violent, but in peacetime?
19 A. Well, perhaps you are just redoing this for the Sarajevo Six area,
20 but what's your point? I think these numbers were provided in my report
21 for contextual purposes, and I didn't attach any meaning to them and
22 explain these in the report. The reason for this is that the population
23 of Sarajevo, and not only of Sarajevo of Bosnia and Herzegovina, moved a
24 lot during the conflict.
25 There were huge migrations, internal and international, so this
1 number is highly hypothetical that I presented. So it is just, you know,
2 like a frame. What if there was no conflict, but the conflict was there.
3 So practical meaning is nothing of this -- of very rough estimates.
4 Q. You have been talking migration among the population of Sarajevo
5 Ten and Sarajevo Ten --
6 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: Six.
7 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. But can we assume that those who emigrated were younger because
9 they were more able to travel? Is this a safe assumption?
10 A. That might be, but I don't think I would like to comment on
11 migration from and into Sarajevo because I didn't study this in this
12 report. Generally, I think it is a very difficult issue to study due to
13 lack of proper information about that.
14 Q. So you have not studied the matter. Still, you used it to discard
15 the estimate method in your report, and this is the reason why you
16 favoured the so-called extrapolation method. Is this correct?
17 A. I don't think I understand what you are saying. You are saying
18 that I used it to discard the estimate method in my report. What estimate
19 method? The rough estimate I presented in Table 2?
20 Q. Well, I'm not sure if it is the rough estimate or not. But you
21 have stated yourself that this method is used frequently, and you have
22 used it yourself to establish the number of deaths which are war-related.
23 So this figure is the right one, approximately, is it not?
24 A. I don't think you are right. I presented this rough estimate for
25 contextual purposes. It is important to understand what was the scale of
1 mortality in Sarajevo before the conflict in order to have a better
2 perspective on the scale of conflict victimisation, and that is the only
3 purpose I produced; and as such, it is, in my view, justified to have this
5 But I did not produce this figure, this roughly estimate, as an
6 estimate of -- as a basis for the other estimate of war-related deaths in
7 my report. This was not the intention, and there is nothing like this in
8 the report.
9 Q. Precisely. That is why I put the question to you. Why is it not
10 included in your report? Why had you rather used the extrapolation
11 method? You attributed all deaths, some of which are not war-related.
12 Why did you attribute all these deaths to the war?
13 A. Well, I don't think I can agree that I used extrapolation method.
14 I used counting approach, counting approach on the first place. These are
15 the absolute minimum numbers of the killed persons that are presented in
16 this report as the major statistics.
17 I also produced more likely minimum numbers. More likely minimum
18 numbers involved, in part, the number obtained from the counting approach;
19 and in the second part, an estimate which is no more just -- than just
20 redistribution of deaths from unknown causes, reported under unknown
21 causes. Well, you call it an extrapolation approach. I call it an
22 adjustment. It not even an extrapolation; it is an adjustment.
23 And I still believe that it is a far better method, a far better
24 method than any rough estimate, other estimate presented by anybody,
25 including myself here in this report. It is just the best one can do in
1 certain situations.
2 And regarding causes of death, you also said something about
3 causes of death. I think you were referring to the unknown causes.
4 Indeed, there is a number of records reported under unknown causes, and
5 there is very little we can do about it. The best we can do is we can
6 redistribute them into natural and violent war-related causes, using the
7 redistribution between the two. This is what I did.
8 Q. Mrs. Tabeau, precisely. The method which you mention at the
9 beginning of your report, did this method help you in carrying out your
10 work in redistributing the number of deaths and recording the unknown
11 causes of death based on the data that was provided to you by the
12 statistical institutes to avoid artificially increasing these numbers?
13 A. What is the question actually?
14 Q. Let me give you an example, and let's go to page 22 of your
16 We have a chart here before us, and this is Figure 7a. This is
17 Sarajevo Ten sample, and the period covered is a four-year period. You
18 remember, I'm sure, we have here 12.298. This is a number of deaths.
19 According to your estimation method, this could be attributed to
20 war-related deaths. Do you remember this?
21 A while ago, we mentioned this on page 16. The figure you came up
22 with when you deducted it from the figure 26.466 and 14.168. By computing
23 the mean average per annum, the years without a war over a period of four
24 years, the figure obtained is 12.298. So in comparing this figure with
25 the one you provided when analysing your sources, according to you, these
1 were reliable data, total number of deaths 12.003; and then deaths through
2 natural causes, 9.588 and 400.868 [as interpreted].
3 Does this ring a bell when you see that the estimates, the data
4 provided is data stemming from the death certificates?
5 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: The figure is 4.868,
6 not 400.868.
7 THE WITNESS: Another figure is --
8 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. We shall get back to other figures. I would like to you answer my
10 question, please.
11 A. Well, are you saying that this figure from Table 7a and the other
12 table, Table 2, was it are very similar? Is this what you are saying?
13 So they have very similar. Yes, they are.
14 Q. Nonetheless, after that, you apply your method. You call it a
15 counting method, which is closer to extrapolation. So it is a very
16 complicated for people like me, lawyers like me. So you then come up with
17 a figure which is 14.199; and when you compare this with the figure
18 obtained by applying the estimation method; in order words, the number of
19 deaths which are not war related, if that figure had remained the same,
20 proportionally speaking, in other words, throughout the period 1989/1991,
21 the figure should have been 12.298. These should be war-relate the
23 So, according to the sources, this figure is 12.013; and after the
24 adjustment you made, according to the counting method, as you call it, you
25 then have the figure of -- the figure of 14.199. What about these
1 differences? As a demographer, what do you may of these differences?
2 A. Madam, as I said, these numbers you discussed based on Table 2
3 were presented in my report for contextual purposes, and it really doesn't
4 matter that these numbers are as they are; and next to them, there are
5 other statistics present in the report.
6 Well, the difference between the first set of rough estimates and
7 the major statistics is that about the first ones, we don't know anything,
8 but the assumptions that were used to produce them. That's all we know
9 about them. About the major statistics that are presented in the my
10 report, we know much more than that. You know the sources; you know how
11 good they were; how large they were; you know who made them; you know that
12 the sources were unbiased because all ethnic groups are represented in
13 establishing of the sources; you know the causes of death; you know the
14 military status, how was it reported; you know the deficiencies, including
15 among others, the number of unknown causes of death reported in the
17 So what I'm trying to say is it does matter. It really does
18 matter what we know about the statistics that are presented as the major.
19 Q. I must admit that I have understood nothing. My question was a
20 very simple one. As a demographer and a scientist, what do you make of
21 this? Don't you think this raises questions when you see that, on the one
22 hand, you have reliable sources, even if in certain cases the deaths are
23 due to unknown causes, and the estimates get close.
24 Didn't this lead you to distribute this figure differently, these
25 4.868 deaths on line 8 of your chart as a sum total of deaths due to
1 unknown causes. Do you know because you proceeded differently? I just
2 need to move on to my next question now.
3 JUDGE ROBINSON: You spoke for some time, Ms. Isailovic, but you
4 didn't ask a question.
5 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, I did, Your Honour..
6 Q. I asked the question: As a scientist, did Mrs. Tabeau -- on
7 seeing these figures, did she not want to redistribute them differently so
8 that these figures -- so the figures could be more in line with the
9 estimates, estimates which would have been provided had the war not
11 JUDGE ROBINSON: And what is your answer to that, Mrs. Tabeau.
12 THE WITNESS: The estimates presented in Table 2 were meant to
13 provide a contextual situation. These are figures that should not be seen
14 as figures relating to this indictment. The statistics I produced for
15 this indictment are those discussed yesterday in terms of concrete
16 numbers, and they are mentioned in executive summary and of course
17 throughout the report.
18 And in relation to the distribution or, say, redistribution of the
19 deaths number of deaths of unknown causes, I applied the statistical
20 approach. There is a statistical foundation. There is a method for
21 this. There are no subjective assumptions involved. The matter is
22 described in annex number 4 --
23 MR. DOCHERTY: Could the witness be permit to the finish, please.
24 THE WITNESS: -- annex number 4 to this report. I'm not going to
25 into the deaths again. It is the way it should be done. It has been done
1 the good way, and I'm not going to do anything else with this.
2 JUDGE ROBINSON: She's quite happy with what she has done.
3 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] That is what I assumed you would
4 say. So you do not come up with an estimate for the 16-month period,
5 August 1994/November 1995, the period covered by the indictment in
6 Sarajevo for the sample Sarajevo Ten. This is not something that you
7 concluded in your report, is it? This only covered the four years of
8 conflict; is that right.
9 A. Now I'm confused.
10 Q. Yes. I shall put the question again.
11 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, reformulate the question.
12 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation]
13 Q. So, Mrs. Tabeau, you made an estimate and you came up with a
14 figure of 12.298 which, according to your estimate, were war-related
15 deaths for this sample Sarajevo Ten. This covered the four years of the
16 war. Is that right?
17 A. No, this is not right. This is a table, again, presented for
18 contextual purposes. It is the entire conflict period. It is Table 7a a
19 that you are referring to. But there is another table for the Sarajevo
20 Ten, Table 8, in which statistics for August 1994 to November 1995 are
21 included. The table 8, 8a and b are on page 23.
22 Q. In that case, this is in your report. I'd like you to turn to
23 page 16. If now you state the contrary, you did come up with an estimate,
24 and this we addressed a while ago.
25 In the first paragraph, "assuming that our total," then you
1 continue by saying that this figure is biased because of migrations. You
2 did not have data provided to you pertaining to these migrations, did you?
3 A. I guess you are back with the figure 12.299 mentioned in the first
4 paragraph on page 16. Is that so?
5 Q. Yes, that's correct.
6 A. Yes. I didn't have migration available, information about
7 migration available, but I still don't understand why this figure is so
8 important to you, as it really is much boarder than the indictment period
9 that is just -- you know, we are in section 3.
10 If you look at the table of contents, section 3 is about overview
11 of the merged sources on killed persons, and is much boarder than what is
12 really essential for this case and this indictment. It is a discussion of
13 sources and of how we were doing things at different stages of our work
14 and the results obtained.
15 JUDGE ROBINSON: Just a minute. I think you should take the
16 break, Ms. Isailovic, to consider that answer.
17 We'll adjourn for 20 minutes.
18 --- Recess taken at 10.03 a.m.
19 --- On resuming at 10.26 a.m.
20 JUDGE ROBINSON: Ms. Isailovic, you have 16 minutes left.
21 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I shall
22 therefore right away ask you for an extra ten minutes that I can finish
23 the summary, which I'm about to address.
24 JUDGE ROBINSON: Another ten minutes?
25 [Trial Chamber confers]
1 JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, let us see how you make do with the 16
2 minutes and we'll decide. Try to do as much as possible. I myself don't
3 believe that more time is required for this witness.
4 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
5 Q. Witness, I will finish off with this. You did not compute the
6 number of deaths for this sample, Sarajevo Ten, over a period of 16
7 months, as the period covered by the indictment against Dragomir Milosevic
8 in your report.
9 A. Well, I mentioned, before the break, Table 8a and b on page 23,
10 and in this table there are statistics for Sarajevo Ten for August
11 1994/November 1995.
12 Q. But you did not compare the figure in this Figure 8a, 1.692, which
13 according to your most reliable sources would be the total number of
14 death -- of violent death, with a figure which would have stemmed from the
15 estimate found in Figure 2. You did not compare these two figures, did
17 A. No, I didn't.
18 Q. And you didn't do it for your sample Sarajevo Six either, did you,
19 for the period that covers the indictment?
20 A. No, I didn't.
21 Q. I would like now to turn to page 5 of your report. These are your
22 findings, the summary of your work as an expert. The last paragraph is
23 the one I'm interested in.
24 You say: "[In English] The above findings suggest that the
25 civilian population of Sarajevo had systematically been the target for
1 military attacks disregarding the actual presence of heavy combat
2 activities. This also indicates that a targeted terror campaign against
3 civilians likely continued for most of the period from August 1994 to
4 November 1995."
5 [Interpretation] These are your findings which we discussed
6 yesterday. I'm sure you remember that?
7 A. This is one of the findings, indeed.
8 Q. We discussed these yesterday, didn't we?
9 A. Yes, we did.
10 Q. We asked you several questions about that, and we looked at Figure
11 8, Figure 11 to be found on page 39 of your report. Let's have a look at
12 this together.
13 Can you confirm that this is a chart that we looked at yesterday,
14 which formed the basis of the findings I have just read out to you?
15 A. Figure 11 is just one of several findings, based on which this
16 conclusion was drawn. And, indeed, it was presented yesterday as slide
17 number 8, in addition to the presentation in the report.
18 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] I will now ask the usher to blow
19 up this figure as much as possible. It is now more legible on the screen
20 than it is on paper, because we have various colours.
21 Q. Mrs. Tabeau, now, the figures you used were the ones which you
22 obtained by the method we mentioned a while ago to establish or to prepare
23 this chart. Am I right in saying that?
24 A. You are not right if you mean the method extrapolation. This is a
25 figure that is obtained based on absolute minimum numbers, from which
1 deaths of unknown causes are excluded.
2 Q. In this case, you have used the figures which are to be found on
3 Figure 8a before adding all of this up; is that right?
4 A. This is Sarajevo Six, so respective tables for Sarajevo Six.
5 Q. So Figure 9a, which you can find on page 17, and you did not
6 include ...
7 Are you with me? This is Figure 9a.
8 A. I don't think it is Figure 9. Oh, yes, you are right. Figure 9
9 which is repeated in section 4 where I discuss the major statistics, as
10 Table 11.
11 Q. We need to look at 9a. This is on page 17.
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. To begin with, in this case, as far as Figure 11 is concerned, you
14 used the data which you can find in Figure 9a, but you did not include the
15 figure for 1.097 deaths who died of unknown cause; in other words, it was
16 not determined whether this was a natural or violent death?
17 A. That's right. And, of course, yes. This is what I said, yes.
18 Q. On Figure 11, which we are about to discuss, you factored in 981
19 deaths, violent cause of death cases. After that, you redistributed this
20 between the soldiers and civilians; in other words, you came up with a
21 figure of 419 soldiers and 499 civilians; is that right. 449 civilians.
22 A. 449 civilians, that's correct, and 419 soldiers.
23 Q. So the 113 of unknown status, we don't -- they were a part of the
24 military and are not included in Figure 11; is that right?
25 A. That's right. They are left out.
1 Q. With that said, let's turn to page 39 and Figure 11.
2 We have in the ratio of dead civilians and dead soldiers, this
3 formed the -- the basis of part of your findings, which I read out to you
4 a few moments ago. Isn't that right?
5 A. In this figure, we have the ratio of civilians killed and soldiers
6 killed, yes.
7 Q. I would like to turn to ratio 11, which pertains to the month of
8 January, 1995. This is one of the most striking features of this chart.
9 This was, according to your findings, a period which was a quiet period,
10 and the red represents the civilians. In January, there was -- in
11 January, there were 11 civilians killed and one soldier, is that right,
12 which is why we have this ratio here, which is the ratio of 11?
13 A. That's right.
14 Q. I would now like to ask you to recall what was said about
15 municipalities a while ago. Now, in red, we have here the 11 civilians
16 pertaining to the month of January. These were deaths that had occurred
17 in a part of the municipality that was part of Sarajevo Six. This was
18 Ilidza, which was under the control of the army of Republika Srpska.
19 Isn't that right?
20 A. Well, Ilidza is part of Sarajevo Six and partly was controlled by
21 Republika Srpska, partly by the Bosnian army.
22 Q. So, as we don't know, but there is a likelihood that these 11
23 deaths, who died a violent death, these deaths occurred in part of the
24 municipality of Ilidza that was under the control of the army of Republika
25 Srpska. Therefore, these deaths cannot necessarily be attributed to the
1 accused, who is tried before this Chamber?
2 MR. DOCHERTY: Mr. President.
3 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Docherty.
4 MR. DOCHERTY: I think, once again, the role of the witness and
5 the role of the Prosecutor need to be clarified. We certainly might make
6 submissions along these lines, based upon this evidence, but I think it is
7 wrong to say that this witness is attributing these deaths to anyone.
8 She is presenting evidence of numbers of violent, war-related
9 deaths which both parties, in conjunction with all of the other evidence
10 in the case, may make such submissions as are logically and factually
11 supported by it.
12 JUDGE ROBINSON: That's what I said to her earlier. That is a
13 matter on which the Prosecutor may make submissions, and indeed in which
14 she may make submissions at the end. But this is not the appropriate
15 witness to put this kind of question to.
16 [Trial Chamber confers]
17 JUDGE ROBINSON: Ms. Isailovic, perhaps I should develop the point
18 a little more.
19 Yesterday, the Prosecutor had put questions to the witness in
20 relation to the statistics showing a targeted terror campaign against
21 civilians, and you have cross-examined on that matter. I allowed the
22 question because I said ultimately it would be a matter for the Trial
23 Chamber to determine what weight we attach to that kind of evidence.
24 Although I wasn't here yesterday for the last session, I have
25 brought myself up to date, and nothing that I have heard has removed the
1 first impression that I had of this kind of evidence, which is that I
2 would attach no weight to that kind of evidence.
3 As far as the question of the targeting of civilians is concerned,
4 I will have to be persuaded by other evidence than this witness's
5 statistical report and the conclusions on that, and that is also the view
6 of my other colleagues. You can virtually, in fact, you can neglect or
7 set aside that part of the report in which the witness gives a conclusion
8 on the basis of statistical data as to the specific targeting of
10 [Trial Chamber confers]
11 JUDGE ROBINSON: The Chamber is also aware and acknowledges that
12 the Figure 11 does not give any indication as to who was the perpetrator.
13 So let us move on.
14 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. In that
15 case, that will definitely shorten my cross-examination. This was what I
16 wanted to hear about from the Chamber.
17 Now, let me conclude.
18 Q. As far as this figure is concerned, the figure which is included
19 in the report, as Mrs. Tabeau is a serious scientist, there's just one
20 answer I would like to elicit. As far as the red part of this figure is
21 concerned, of this diagram, can you confirm that on looking at this chart,
22 we don't know which side of the municipality we're talking about, as the
23 confrontation line crossed these municipalities. We don't know on which
24 side the victims were.
25 A. I can confirm that they had for entire municipalities included,
1 Sarajevo Six municipalities.
2 Q. In other words, you didn't factor in the fact that over the period
3 covered by the indictment, these municipalities, with the exception of
4 Stari Grad perhaps, that there was a dividing line between the warring
5 factions here?
6 A. Yes. Of course, there is with an a confrontation line located
7 around Sarajevo up on the hills. But if you realise that the population
8 of Sarajevo was concentrated in the very heart of the city, then you
9 realise that almost the entire population of the urban part of Sarajevo,
10 Sarajevo Six, lived within the confrontation lines.
11 So even though we, in statistical terms, used administrative
12 units, that means entire municipalities, in terms of the population where
13 they lived, we cover by the study mainly the population that was staying
14 within the confrontation lines. From this point of view, it is a very
15 good approximation of the indictment area.
16 Q. Witness, you had no proof about what you are stating today; is
17 that right?
18 A. About the concentration of the population? Oh, I think I could
19 provide the proof. We studied the population of Sarajevo based on nijetsa
20 sjednica [phoen] in our previous project in the Galic project, in which I
21 also made an expert report; and then we made the effort to approximate the
22 population living within the front lines, and that is one of the
23 conclusions from that study.
24 So I have a proof, although it is not directly presented in this
1 Q. In other words, you are saying that if we were to take the
2 municipality of Novo Sarajevo, which Grbavica belonged to, that Grbavica
3 was not inhabited by civilians? Is that the main thrust of what you have
4 just said?
5 A. No, that is not what I said. I said the population was
6 concentrated on a smaller area than the geographic area of the six
7 municipalities; geographic area of the six municipalities, in terms of
8 administrative units, right? So it is not that the population there in
9 that city was uniform and spread over the entire area of every
10 municipality. Population density was much higher in the heart of the
11 city than in the suburbs, and this is what I'm saying that is there is an
12 experience I have from my previous work based on which I am saying this.
13 Q. In that case, I shall conclude. The civilian population killed
14 during the war in Grbavica, which was part of the Novo Sarajevo
15 municipality, is shown in red in Figure 11; is that right?
16 A. If Grbavica was part of that administrative unit called Novo
17 Sarajevo, then civilians from this municipality killed during the conflict
18 from August 1994 to November 1995 are shown red.
19 Q. Were you given proof of the fact that Grbavica was controlled by
20 the army of the Republika Srpska for the purpose of your report?
21 A. I didn't pay attention to what army controlled what areas. It was
22 beyond this report, at least beyond the interest I had in this particular
23 report. The purpose was to produce statistics that would cover the
24 indictment period and indictment area as closely as I can get, and this is
25 what I did. For instance, if I would --
1 JUDGE ROBINSON: Sorry. I think you have answered enough.
2 Let us bring this to an end now, Ms. Isailovic.
3 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes. This was my last question.
4 Q. Thank you, Mrs. Tabeau.
5 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Any re-examination, Mr. Docherty.
7 MR. DOCHERTY: Briefly, Your Honour. But before I begin, could
8 Mr. Whiting and I have a moment.
9 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Only a moment.
10 MR. DOCHERTY: Thank you.
11 MR. DOCHERTY: Mr. President, I want to re-examine the witness on
12 one fairly specific point only. With all respect, Your Honour, I also
13 feel that I would be derelict in my duty if I did not note for the record
14 the Prosecution's objection to the ruling made by the Trial Chamber
15 concerning the weight to be given to this witness's evidence.
16 I trust that the Chamber will, when submissions are made at the
17 end of the case, be willing to listen to what the Prosecution has to say
18 to evaluate this evidence, in the light of all the other evidence that has
19 been received in the case.
20 I, of course, acknowledge and accept that it is for the Chamber to
21 assign weight, but I'm simply noting for the record that we are trusting
22 that the Chamber will, of course, keep an open mind and look at all of
23 this evidence as a whole when we make our submissions.
24 JUDGE ROBINSON: And we take note of your submissions,
25 Mr. Docherty.
1 MR. DOCHERTY: Thank you, Your Honour.
2 Re-examination by Mr. Docherty:
3 Q. Mrs. Tabeau, just one question, and it concerns something that you
4 and Ms. Isailovic were discussing at the very beginning of
5 cross-examination when a number of questions were asked about the sources
6 that you used. Do you remember the discussion that I'm referring to?
7 A. Well, I remember the discussion in general. I don't know which
8 part specifically you are referring to.
9 Q. Well, I'm about to help you with that.
10 There were questions concerning coverage of the sources, and I
11 believe your evidence was that the sources did have some gaps in coverage;
12 is that correct?
13 A. Yes, that's correct.
14 Q. And then my question would be: As a result of this deficiency,
15 would the numbers in your report, as a result of this, be lower than
16 otherwise, higher than otherwise, or would this not have an affect on
17 those numbers?
18 A. These numbers certainly are lower than otherwise. My numbers are
19 just minimum numbers.
20 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] I'm sorry.
21 JUDGE ROBINSON: Just a moment.
22 Ms. Isailovic, yes.
23 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Could Mr. Docherty and Dr. Tabeau
24 kindly slow down, please, because it is extremely difficult to listen. If
25 it goes too fast, the interpreters can't do their job properly.
1 JUDGE ROBINSON: I will ask you to speak slow and observe the
2 pause between question and answer. I ask the witness and Mr. Docherty.
3 MR. DOCHERTY: That actually concluded my redirect, Your Honour.
4 Does any part of it need to be repeated?
5 JUDGE ROBINSON: Well let us hear, Ms. Isailovic. Are you content
6 with that? He is now finished.
7 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] If you like, I will read the
8 transcript afterwards, but it is rather unpleasant when there is no pause
9 between question and answer. It is difficult to follow, but I will check
10 the transcript afterwards.
11 JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, afterwards may be too late. If you have an
12 objection to make, for example, now is the time to make it, but I take it
13 that you have none.
14 MR. DOCHERTY: Can I put -- I would like to put the question
15 again. It was short.
16 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, put the question again then.
17 MR. DOCHERTY:
18 Q. Mrs. Tabeau, my question is: Do the gaps in coverage of your
19 sources cause the numbers in your report to be higher than otherwise,
20 lower than otherwise, or do they not affect -- do the gaps in coverage not
21 affect the numbers in your report?
22 A. The gaps, of course, had a considerable impact on statistics which
23 are lower than otherwise. If there were no gaps, the statistics would be
24 more complete and simply higher than what we were able to produce; not
25 only the gaps, but also other reasons are that the statistics are that
1 low. For instance, a number of records of war-related violent deaths were
2 rejected because of deficiencies. It is that we require a certain
3 standard for a record to be included as part of or statistics. If the
4 standard was not kept, the record was excluded.
5 Q. Thank you.
6 MR. DOCHERTY: I have no further questions, Mr. President.
7 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mrs. Tabeau. That concludes your
8 evidence. Thank you for giving it.
9 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
10 JUDGE ROBINSON: And you may now leave.
11 [The witness withdrew]
12 JUDGE ROBINSON: And witness number 75 is Mr. Barry Hogan. No, I
13 meant the 75th witness to give evidence. I have been numbering them that
14 way. It is number 76 actually.
15 MR. DOCHERTY: Mr. President, my colleague Mr. Waespi will take
16 the next and final witness for the Prosecution. May I be excused.
17 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
18 MR. DOCHERTY: Thank you, Mr. President.
19 [The witness entered court]
20 JUDGE ROBINSON: Let the witness make the declaration.
21 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the
22 whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
23 WITNESS: BARRY HOGAN
24 JUDGE ROBINSON: You may sit.
25 And you may begin, Mr. Waespi.
1 MR. WAESPI: Good morning, Mr. President, Your Honours.
2 Examination by Mr. Waespi:
3 Q. Good morning, Witness Hogan.
4 A. Good morning, sir.
5 Q. Can you please state for the record your full name?
6 A. Barry Alan Hogan.
7 Q. And I take you are an employee of the OTP; is that correct?
8 A. Yes, sir.
9 Q. And four how long have you been an employee?
10 A. I first joined the Tribunal in October 1998, but I left in October
11 2004. I rejoined in March 2006, and I have been employed since 2006.
12 Q. And, very briefly, your background before you joined the OTP for
13 the first time.
14 A. I was a member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police from 1975
15 until I joined the ICTY.
16 Q. While in OTP, were there specific cases you were involved in?
17 A. When I first joined, I was assigned to the Bosnian Serb leadership
18 case. In spring of 1999, I was reassigned to investigate events in
19 Kosovo. I was working in the refugee camps in the former Yugoslav Republic
20 of Macedonia for a number of months, and then I went to the western part
21 of Kosovo as a liaison officer/investigator until approximately November
22 of 1999. When I returned to The Hague, I was reassigned to the Stanislav
23 Galic case, siege of Sarajevo case in January 2000.
24 Q. Were you also assigned to a field office outside The Hague while
25 working for the OTP?
1 A. Yes, I was. In June of 2003, I was reassigned to the Banja Luka
2 field office in Republika Srpska, and I remained there until October 2004
3 when I left the Tribunal.
4 Q. As part of your duties, as you just described, were you involved
5 in efforts to locate the documents or the document archive of the
6 Sarajevo-Romanija Corps?
7 A. Yes, I was. I made repeated efforts to locate the those archives,
8 obtain documents relating to the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps, both during the
9 investigation of the Stanislav Galic case and while I was at the field
10 office in Banja Luka. All those attempts were negative.
11 Q. Can you very briefly describe those attempts, very briefly.
12 A. In the OTP, we have a procedure that has been worked out with the
13 governments of countries and the entities within the Bosnia-Herzegovina
14 State of requests for assistance. A formal request is prepared, signed
15 either by the chief of Prosecutions or the Prosecutor herself -- I'm
16 sorry. The chief of investigations or the Prosecutor, and forwarded to
17 the governments through embassies or liaison officer.
18 I made a number of such requests for assistance to Republika
19 Srpska, to Bosnia-Herzegovina federation, to the government of Serbia, and
20 I was unsuccessful in getting any positive replies. I was always told
21 that the archives were not available. Their locations were unknown, and
22 they were not able to comply with our requests.
23 While I was at the field office in Banja Luka, I had many meetings
24 with government officials including the Prime Minister, Minister of
25 Interior, the Chief of the army of Republika Srpska, and again made
1 repeated requests for not only the collection of documents from the
2 Sarajevo-Romanija Corps, but from the Main Staff of the army of Republika
3 Srpska and the Presidency archives. All three of these collections had
4 been subject of repeated requests over the years, and none of the archives
5 had been made available to the OTP.
6 It got to the point where the Prosecutor herself during meetings
7 in Banja Luka insisted that criminal investigations be conducted by the
8 authorities of the Republika Srpska into the theft of state-owned
9 archives; and as liaison officer at the field office, I was recipient of
10 updates on the progress of those investigations.
11 Q. Now, I understand that despite what you said, that these efforts
12 were fruitless, in the end they were successful because you have had
13 access to the archive documents of the SRK; is that correct?
14 A. Yes, sir.
15 Q. And when did you have access to the archive?
16 A. We had -- I had access to the archives in June of -- I'm sorry, in
17 May of 2006 as a result of a further follow-up request for assistance.
18 Q. And what do these archives contain, as you found out in May 2006?
19 A. They contain the collection of Sarajevo-Romanija Corps documents
20 from the army of Republika Srpska, the Main Staff archive collection from
21 the army of Republika Srpska plus a number of different corps, such as
22 some Drina corps documents, Herzegovina corps documents, and I don't
23 believe I saw any Krajina corps documents there.
24 Q. And where are these archives located, the ones that you saw in May
25 2006 for the first time and that contained the documents you just
2 A. They're contained in a basement wing of the Kozara barracks, which
3 is an army facility in Banja Luka.
4 Q. Can you describe to the Trial Chamber the -- how it was set up,
5 the way access an organised, according to your information?
6 A. The access to the archives was only granted to me and my
7 colleagues from the OTP with prior written permission of the Ministry of
8 Defence of Bosnia-Herzegovina. The archives itself, as I say, were a
9 basement wing. There is a locked, steel door separating that archive
10 location from the rest of the building.
11 The military building in which the archives are contained have
12 uniformed soldiers guarding the entrance, various offices within that
13 building, and the barracks building itself is on an army base which is
14 fenced, guarded by uniformed soldiers and access a controlled by those
15 uniformed soldiers.
16 Q. When you visited the archive for the first time in May 2006, did
17 you have contact with the archivist?
18 A. Yes, I did. I met with Captain Sindrak, as well as some other
19 officers, but I was told that Captain Sindrak was in charge of the
20 physical facilities there.
21 Q. Did he relay any information to you in relation to the origins and
22 the source of the documents he was now in charge of?
23 A. Yes, he did. During that meeting and during subsequent meetings
24 and conversations, I learned from Captain Sindrak that military reforms
25 had been under way in Bosnia-Herzegovina since late 2004; and in earlier
1 2006, the armies of the Republika Srpska and the federation had been
2 amalgamated into one army at the state level.
3 As part of the military reforms, orders had been issued by the
4 entity armies, late in 2004, that all documents and archive material
5 should be forwarded to central locations. I was told that in the case of
6 the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps documents and other Republika Srpska army
7 documents, orders had been issued to all existing military facilities and
8 barracks to send all of their documents to Banja Luka to the Kozara
10 Captain Sindrak told me that in the case of the Sarajevo-Romanija
11 Corps documents, they had been received at the end of November, early
12 December 2004 from a military barracks in Sokolac.
13 Q. Subsequent to your first visit in May 2006 to these archives in
14 Banja Luka, were you part of another mission that actually went into the
15 archives and looked at the documents themselves for the purpose of
16 obtaining evidence for the OTP.
17 A. Yes, I was. I was the mission leader of a mission at the end of
18 June, early July 2006, and we did research and collected a number of
19 documents, scanned a number of documents from those archives.
20 Q. How many people were involved in that mission you were the leader
22 A. There were 12, including myself.
23 Q. And how was it organised? Can you very briefly tell us how these
24 documents were processed?
25 A. Besides this particular case, there were other cases for which we
1 were doing research during that mission. We had two military analysts.
2 We had one attorney from another team and two members of the Prosecution
3 team for this case doing research. We also had language assistants. We
4 had two staff members from the evidence unit to scan the documents, and we
5 had an analyst to track the documents which we were scanning and to
6 prepare a spreadsheet of the documents that were being collected.
7 Q. You talk about scanning documents. Did you see the originals of
8 these documents?
9 A. Yes, I did.
10 Q. And how do you know these were originals?
11 A. The vast majority of the documents that I saw were signed and/or
12 stamped in ink other than the colour of the typed document; in other
13 words, it appeared to be original signatures, original stamps with
14 handwritten notes. Many documents were typewritten, and you could see the
15 impressions of the type face on the document itself.
16 There were carbon copies, which were typical carbon paper with an
17 obvious carbon impression on the paper. There were also telexes which
18 were on different coloured paper than the rest of the documents. I
19 describe it as tan-coloured paper that comes in a roll, and then it as --
20 as a document is being printed on the electronic transmission, the paper
21 is torn off from the roll so that sometimes the document ends up being
22 twice as long as a normal A4 size, sometimes half as short as a A4 size.
23 Q. Where are the originals today of the documents we are about to
24 show to Your Honours, to Their Honours.
25 A. All the originals are still in the archives in Banja Luka at the
1 Kozara barracks.
2 Q. Did you have any information whether the Defence in this case had
3 a chance to see the archives as well?
4 A. I was told by Captain Sindrak that Mr. Tapuskovic, in particular,
5 had already visited the archives in March of 2006, and that he or any
6 other Defence attorney was free to do any research there with the
7 permission of the Ministry of Defence. The same rules applied to the OTP.
8 We were free to do additional research at the archives with the permission
9 of the Minister of Defence.
10 MR. WAESPI: Mr. President, if the 65 ter number 03128, page 4 to
11 12, could be brought up. We do have, Mr. President, a hard copy binder of
12 these 85 documents which might assist you. It's also prefaced by the
13 spreadsheet which has relevant information about all these 85 documents,
14 but I intend to lead the witness electronically through three examples so
15 we can look there e-court. It might be easier for you, Mr. President, to
16 have it aside. It's both in original B/C/S and in English.
17 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, I would like to have it.
18 Ms. Isailovic.
19 MR. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] I have just a question because on
20 my list I have 82 documents. Are we talking about 85 documents or 82
21 documents, because I counted myself.
22 MR. WAESPI: According to my information, we have 85 documents.
23 Perhaps we can figure out the right number as we go along.
24 Q. If you could have a look at the spreadsheet which is now in front
25 of you on the screen, can you tell Their Honours what this spreadsheet
2 A. This spreadsheet is a list of a selection of documents which were
3 scanned at the Kozara barracks archives of the former army of Republika
4 Srpska during my mission in June and July 2006.
5 Q. Can you tell Their Honours what it represents, what the
6 information contained in this spreadsheet is about? I can confirm,
7 thanking my colleague, that it is indeed 82 documents and not 85.
8 A. The first column, of course, is 65 ter number. The second column
9 is the author of the -- the author's name as it appears on the document;
10 then comes the date of the document. The fourth column is a comment that
11 was created by one of our military analysts and myself.
12 The next two columns, of course, are the evidence reference
13 numbers. The column which is labeled "relevance" is again authored by one
14 of our military analysts with some input from myself, showing what we
15 believe this document will be able to tell the Court. And the final
16 column is the number of paragraph of the indictment to which this document
18 Q. Thank you, Mr. Hogan. Let me ask you first: Did you look at all
19 these 82 documents yourself?
20 A. Yes, I did.
21 Q. If we could have a look at three examples. The first one is in
22 your binder, Your Honours, tab 11, which represents 65 ter number 02016.
23 MR. WAESPI: If that could be brought up, please, on the screen.
24 Q. Mr. Hogan, can you talk a little bit about this document, about
25 the authenticity as it appeared to you at the time and today.
1 A. Yes. This is a -- what I call a telex. It might not have been an
2 actual telex machine that transported this document; however, I refer to
3 telex as any form of electronic transmission. It was, as far as I recall,
4 on the brownish or tan-coloured paper amongst other original documents in
5 the archives in one of the binders. It has the signature block of
6 Major-General Dragomir Milosevic; however, it is it unsigned because it
7 was an electronic transmission.
8 At the top of the document, you can see the handwriting for BVP or
9 4th Battalion of military police, and the word "vratiti" which I believe
10 was translated as return or reply. That would have been in handwritten
11 ink on that original document.
12 JUDGE HARHOFF: Counsel, I have something different in tab 11. I
13 don't know in I'm out of place somewhere, but could you help us identify
14 the correct document.
15 MR. WAESPI: Perhaps -- I'm guessing it might be in your version
16 tab 13.
17 JUDGE HARHOFF: It is. Right.
18 MR. WAESPI: I'm sorry for the confusion.
19 Q. Thank you, Mr. Hogan.
20 MR. WAESPI: If we move on to the next document, which will be ter
21 number 02182, and that should be in my tab 19, but that appears to be,
22 Your Honours, tab 21. It's a document dated 2nd January 1995.
23 Yes, that's the document that appears now on the screen.
24 Q. Mr. Hogan, can you tell Their Honours about your impression of
25 what this -- the authenticity of this document.
1 A. Again, this document was found in one of the binders amongst other
2 original documents. This one has the signature block of Major-General
3 Dragomir Milosevic, as well as his handwritten signature. It has the
4 stamp of the command of the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps. It has a
5 transmission receipt stamp, bottom right, with handwritten notes, and a --
6 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour.
7 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
8 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Just to make everybody's work
9 easier, I have given this to Dragomir Milosevic. The Defence does not
10 challenge the authenticity of these documents. Just to avoid this. I'm
11 only worried about this difference because I provided a binder to
12 Mr. Milosevic, and I want to be quite sure that we're talking about the
13 same binder, the same binder that the Bench has.
14 MR. WAESPI: It is the same binder. I just wanted to show Their
15 Honours and to everyone three samples of these documents, and I'm happy to
16 hear that the Defence doesn't object to its admission.
17 Q. Do you have anything more to add to this document; if not, we will
18 move on to the last example, which is ter number 02197, which is very
19 likely in tab number 24.
20 And while that is being retrieved, Mr. Hogan, how many documents
21 were there in the collection you have looked at in Banja Luka?
22 A. There were tens of thousands of documents in the collection of the
23 Sarajevo-Romanija Corps and further tens of thousands of documents in the
24 Main Staff collection. From the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps, I believe we
25 selected 3.300, it could be 3.370, documents to scan and enter into
1 evidence; plus, the original maps and ledgers that we brought back for
3 Q. And did you see any gaps in the sequence of documents you have
4 encountered there?
5 A. Yes. There were obvious gaps. There were -- the numbers of the
6 orders should have been subsequently. The dates should have been
7 subsequential. There were obviously documents missing from various
8 binders, various collections. I did speak to the archivist, Captain
9 Sindrak, about this, and he was able to tell me that everything that was
10 sent to them at the archives was contained in the binders that we were
12 They were not saving anything back; however, it was obvious to him
13 that there had been documents removed from the total collection, prior to
14 it arriving at the archives.
15 Q. Thank you, Mr. Hogan. A very brief comment on the document that
16 you see on the screen.?
17 A. Yes. This is a document that was -- originated at the 3rd
18 Sarajevo Infantry Brigade. It has the original stamp and handwritten
19 notation at the top left, and it has the signature and stamp of the 3rd --
20 sorry, the signature, I believe, is Dragan Jusipovic. It is also written
21 in Cyrillic so it is harder to decipher, but it has the stamp of the
22 command of the 3rd Sarajevo Infantry Brigade at the back.
23 I think this was one of the typewritten documents because you can
24 see obvious strike-overs at various places within the document.
25 Q. Thank you, Mr. Hogan.
1 MR. WAESPI: Mr. President, I would like to tender the spreadsheet
2 we discussed a moment ago, which is ter number 03128; and, second, all 82
3 documents and they should receive individual numbers, and I understand
4 that can be done outside the courtroom.
5 And my case manager just tells me that the documents we just
6 discussed, the three, are already exhibits, and I can give the exhibit
7 numbers to them.
8 [Trial Chamber confers]
9 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Prosecutor, can we confirm that all of these
10 82 documents were collected by Mr. Hogan in the archives.
11 MR. WAESPI:
12 Q. Mr. Hogan, can you answer Judge Harhoff's question?
13 A. Your Honour, all 82 of these documents were collect the on the
14 mission that I led in June and July of 2006. I cannot confirm that I
15 selected each and every one of those documents; but if I did not do it
16 personally, then somebody on my mission did, and they were scanned all
18 JUDGE HARHOFF: And they were all taken from the archives.
19 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour.
20 [Trial Chamber confers]
21 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Waespi, on what basis do you say these
22 documents are admissible?
23 MR. WAESPI: Well, as the rule requires, Rule 89, they are
24 relevant; and you see in the last column of your spreadsheet, a list in
25 relation to each document what the relevance is. It goes command and
1 control; it goes to the subordinate unit; it is goes to the disciplinary
2 action, which was instituted by the accused. And that's been done for
3 each single document.
4 Second --
5 JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, of course, we haven't seen the documents
7 MR. WAESPI: Yes. But I can -- Mr. President, I can go through
8 each document, but it's all listed for each document. Of these 82
9 documents, there is a separate column about relevancy. You have in your
10 binder each document, so you can compare each document as it relates to
11 the indictment. You can look at the comments made by Mr. Hogan and our
12 military expert, and they explain the relevancy of each of these
14 JUDGE ROBINSON: We have done something like this before?
15 MR. WAESPI: Yes. For instance, Witness Nakas was a witness who
16 introduced medical records which were not all signed by him but by other
17 parts, and he talked about authenticity of these records. The
18 authenticity, Mr. President, Your Honours, I think has been several laid
19 by Witness Hogan, and the Defence didn't object to really a limited amount
20 of documents, 82 out of thousands of relevant documents.
21 We have carefully selected these documents, and I think that they
22 are all very, very helpful for Your Honours' determination about the
23 issues in this case.
24 [Trial Chamber confers]
25 JUDGE ROBINSON: It seems to be the practice of the Prosecution to
1 bring in cases as a last witness a kind of wrap-up witness who puts in all
2 these documents. In the other Milosevic case that I was involved in, I
3 remember we had this experience. We went through the documents, I
4 believe, and looked at those that were public documents and admitted them.
5 Part of the problem is that the practice in Trial Chambers is not
6 consistent in these matters. I think some Chambers will admit, others
7 will not, and maybe it is the bulk of the documentation here. But as a
8 matter of principle, I suppose the bulk should not make any difference.
9 MR. WAESPI: Yes. I accept that Mr. President, and we have looked
10 at other cases. For instance, the Martic case introduced more documents
11 in our case; namely, 149 documents that came in with investigator, Ari
12 Kerkkanen, an OTP analyst. In the Milutinovic case, Phil Coo brought in
13 documents and there were other cases. Indeed, Mr. President, it is
14 important in these cases, as you are well aware.
15 Military accused who issued directives, orders, I think that is
16 important for to see relevant documents, which show the issues that are at
17 stake. His exercise of command and control. His ability to initiate
18 disciplinary proceedings. This is all very, very relevant, and there is no
19 other way to introduce these documents, these very limited number of
20 documents. I'm sure, if you read them and go through each of them, you
21 will find them very helpful. They are very short. Most of them are just
22 one page.
23 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Whiting, in your jurisdiction, these
24 documents would not be admitted in this way.
25 MR. WHITING: With respect, Your Honour, I don't think that is it
1 correct. I think they would be.
2 JUDGE ROBINSON: They would be?
3 MR. WHITING: Absolutely, Your Honour,. They have been properly
4 authenticated by a witness. They are essentially business records that
5 are stored in an archive, and the basis that the witness has given is
6 certainly sufficiently reliable to -- for authenticity to be established
7 so that the court can make that finding and rely on them.
8 They are relevant, and they are probative. We have made a
9 substantial showing of authenticity. The Defence does not object to their
10 admission. Compared to other cases, it is a small number of documents,
11 only 82. We did canvass a number of other cases, and I can give
12 additional examples to the ones given by Mr. Waespi.
13 We found approximately ten examples of other cases where document
14 collections were admitted into evidence. For all those reasons, this
15 would be, in my submission, admitted in my jurisdiction. Certainly, the
16 rules of admission are more lenient, for obvious reasons, here in this
17 Tribunal than in typical common law jurisdiction, because it is a --
18 because Your Honours are -- will be able to assign the appropriate weight
19 to the documents at a later time. For that reason --
20 JUDGE ROBINSON: I was merely being curious because we are not
21 operating in a common law jurisdiction here.
22 [Trial Chamber confers]
23 JUDGE ROBINSON: Ms. Isailovic, just as a matter of curiosity and
24 information, would the documents be admitted in your jurisdiction in this
1 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. I think this
2 was always a problem with lawyers who are coming from the civil law
3 system; because in our system, an authentic document contains probative
4 value in itself. So, as far as I'm concerned, I find it very difficult to
5 admit that the content of a document should be proven by someone who can
6 only confirm that the fact actually occurred.
7 So from the Serb and French jurisdiction standpoint, I believe
8 that authentic documents carry a lot of weight and, therefore, it's not a
9 question of admitting the documents or not. Documents came from the
10 archives and the archives are properly administered.
11 It is a problem for to us introduce the documents for very selfish
12 reasons. The Defence does not challenge the tendering of these documents.
13 We don't challenge the authenticity of these documents because we know
14 that they come from the archives which are properly administered and
15 according to the law applicable in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
16 [Trial Chamber confers]
17 JUDGE ROBINSON: Following the law and practice of the Tribunal,
18 in particular Rule 89(C), the Chamber admits the documents.
19 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we will admit the spreadsheet, 65
20 ter 03128, as P639. The additional 82 documents will be assigned exhibit
21 numbers this afternoon, and a memo will be circulated tomorrow morning.
22 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Court Deputy.
23 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Waespi.
24 MR. WAESPI: Thank you, Mr. President. I have just two or three
25 more questions to the witness in relation to another assignment Mr. Hogan
2 Q. Mr. Hogan, are you familiar with a spreadsheet summarising
3 Bosnian police investigate reports?
4 A. Yes, I am.
5 Q. Can you tell us what these reports were about?
6 A. These reports were a collection of local Sarajevo police
7 investigations into shelling and sniping incidents between August 1994 and
8 November 1995.
9 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please move closer to the
10 microphone thank you.
11 MR. WAESPI:
12 Q. And how many reports did that concern?
13 A. I believe the spreadsheet contained approximately 200, maybe just
14 slightly above 200, but the total collection of reports between 11th of
15 August 1994 and the 30th of November 1995 was 754 such reports of shelling
16 and sniping incidents.
17 Q. Thank you very much, Mr. Hogan.
18 MR. WAESPI: Mr. President, I don't have more questions.
19 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you.
20 Now, Ms. Isailovic.
21 Cross-examination by Ms. Isailovic:
22 Q. [Interpretation] Yes. Good morning, Mr. Hogan. I think we know
23 each other. I'm one of the lawyers of Mr. Dragomir Milosevic. You are
24 the last witness presented by the Prosecution, and I'm happy to see you
25 but I have no questions to put to you.
1 JUDGE ROBINSON: Very well. But Judge Mindua has one.
2 Questioned by the Court:
3 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Witness, I just wanted to the check
4 this with you on the archives. You turned to were the archives in Banja
5 Luka not in Sarajevo. Am I right?
6 A. Yes, Your Honour. The archives in Banja Luka were the archives of
7 the former army of Republika Srpska. The archives in the Sarajevo are the
8 archives of the former army of Bosnia-Herzegovina, the Bosniak army.
9 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.
10 JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, Mr. Hogan, that concludes your evidence.
11 Thank you for giving it. You may now leave.
12 [The witness withdrew]
13 JUDGE ROBINSON: So, Mr. Prosecutor, is that your case?
14 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, unfortunately, we have to do a few
15 housekeeping matters before we can rest. I'm not sure what the time of
16 the break is. I have kind of lost track. If you want to do them now or
17 take a break, it could take about ten, 15 minutes.
18 JUDGE ROBINSON: The break would be at 12.00.
19 MR. WHITING: Well, we can get started.
20 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
21 MR. WHITING: The first thing we need to do is there were a number
22 of statements that were admitted by the Trial Chamber via Rule 92 bis and
23 92 quater, and a number of those had to be -- redactions were required.
24 We have done that and they now need to be assigned exhibit numbers, and we
25 could go through that process now. I could give you --
1 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
2 MR. WHITING: Okay.
3 One of them doesn't have a -- I will do the best I can. There may
4 be one or two that we will have to do after the break.
5 The first one is Ismet Alic. His two 92 bis statements were
6 admitted by decision of 27 February 2007 with redactions, which have been
7 done. It is 65 ter 31289, and if that could be assigned a number.
8 JUDGE ROBINSON: Ms. Isailovic.
9 MR. WHITING: Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't see.
10 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. This is a
11 purely technical question. In order to be able to check with what I have
12 in my notes, would it be at all possible after the break, or perhaps we
13 could have the break now, so that I would be able to see the document and
14 compare with the rulings you made.
15 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, I think that is perfectly in order. So that
16 the Defence, which obviously has an interest in this matter, should be
17 able to ascertain that the corrections have been made, the redactions have
18 been made, rather, I think we will take the break now and resume in 25
20 --- Recess taken at 11.53 a.m.
21 --- On resuming at 12.22 p.m.
22 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Whiting.
23 MR. WHITING: Thank you, Your Honour.
24 I think we're now on the same page with the Defence with respect
25 to the 92 bis and 92 quater witnesses. I will just read them and out, and
1 Mr. Monkhouse has advised me that it would be easiest if I just I read
2 them out and assign numbers to all of them afterwards, the rather than
3 doing one at I am.
4 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
5 MR. WHITING: The first one is Ismet Alic. Two statements were
6 admitted via Rule 92 bis with redactions on the 27th of February 2007.
7 The 65 ter number is 312.
8 Then there is Fadila Serdarevic. Two statements, via Rule 92 bis,
9 without redactions, 27 February, 2007, and the 65 ter number is 3135.
10 Zejna Sljivo. One statement admitted, via Rule 92 bis, decision
11 of 27 February, 2007 without redactions. That's 3136, 65 ter number.
12 Fikreta Pacariz: Three statements, via Rule 92 bis, granted
13 admission by decision of 27 February 2007. Two of them with redactions,
14 one without. That's 3133.
15 Edisa Krso: One statements, via 92 Rule bis, granted on the 27th
16 of February, 2007 with redactions. That's 3134.
17 Mehmed Kamber: One statement, without redactions. Decision is
18 the same date, and it's 3130.
19 Ermin Kreco: Two statements admitted by decision of 3 April
20 2007. One with redactions, one without. That is 65 ter 3132.
21 Avdo Vatric: Two statements admitted via Rule 92 bis on the 3rd
22 of April, 2007 with redactions, and that is 3137.
23 Witness Mesuda Klaric: One statement admitted without redactions
24 on the 3rd of April, 2007, and that is 3131.
25 Zlatko Medjedovic: Three statements admitted via Rule 92 quater
1 on the 19th of April, 2007. Two of the statements with redactions, one
2 without. That is 3138.
3 So if those could all be assigned number.
4 There is one left which is actually an odd case. It is Witness
5 Djula Leka, and his statement was admitted by the Chamber via Rule 92 bis.
6 However, we then tried to do the 92 bis procedure, and there are medical
7 reasons why that was impossible to do. We have filed a motion this
8 morning to transform the admission of his statement via Rule 92 bis into
9 admission via Rule 92 quater under the same terms as before, which the
10 only difference really is that of course there will be no 92 bis procedure
11 that is done.
12 That was filed only this morning. That obviously can't be decided
13 upon. However, I think there is no reason why we can't close our case
14 today with the understanding that if our motion is allowed, that we be
15 allowed to reopen for -- strictly for the purpose of assigning that
16 statement an exhibit number and putting it into evidence.
17 [Trial Chamber confers]
18 JUDGE ROBINSON: It's being suggested that we could mark it for
20 MR. WHITING: I think that would be fine; however, I think we
21 would still have to go through the procedure. I mean, it's merely a
22 technical that we change it from MFI to an exhibit. I apologise. I
23 referred to that witness as a "he," but it is in fact a "she." The 65 ter
24 number of that statement is 3139.
25 For that one, of course, we are not asking for an exhibit number
1 today, unless Your Honours want to make it an MFI.
2 JUDGE ROBINSON: Just make sure we do not forget it.
3 MR. WHITING: Right. Of course, that is a good idea. With all the
4 others, we would ask that they be admitted into evidence.
5 JUDGE ROBINSON: All right. We'll admit them.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour, 65 ter number 3129 becomes P640. 65
7 ter 3135 becomes P641. 65 ter 3136 becomes P642. 65 ter number 3133
8 becomes P643. 65 ter number 3134 becomes P644. 65 ter number 3130
9 becomes P645. 65 ter number 3132 becomes P646. 65 ter number 3137
10 becomes P647. 65 ter number 3131 becomes P648. 65 ter number 3138
11 becomes P649. 65 ter number 3139 will be marked for identification as
13 MR. WHITING: Thank you, Your Honours.
14 There are two other matters that Mr. Sachdeva will take up. One
15 having to do with medical documents, and one having to do with a problem
16 which arose with respect to a specific exhibit. So I will let him address
17 Your Honours.
18 MR. SACHDEVA: Good afternoon Mr. President, Your Honours.
19 The Prosecution makes an application pursuant to Rule 89(C) for
20 the admission of ten hospital records that emanate from the Dobrinja
21 hospital. These records relate to persons that we allege were killed or
22 injured in the scheduled incident, shelling incompetence 14; that is, the
23 Dobrinja Simone Bolivar school. Therefore, we would submit that these
24 reports are probative and relevant and within the parameters of Rule
1 Just a brief history. You may recall that the Prosecution had
2 witness Zineta Arifagic down to authenticate these records in court. She
3 had expressed concern because she had left the hospital, she would be
4 unable to appropriately authenticate the records. And in response, the
5 Prosecution applied on the 30th of March, 2007 to amend this witness list
6 and substitute Zineta Arifagic for Dr. Hadzir, who was the former director
7 of the hospital.
8 The response from the Defence objected to the substitution of the
9 witness but did not object to the authenticity of the documents. And in
10 Your Honour's decision of the -- I can't recall the exact date of the
11 decision. But on the 23rd of March -- excuse me. In Your Honour's
12 decision, we were denied to change the witness. However, it was noted
13 that the Defence did not object to the authenticity of the records.
14 So, in that regard, we would push for the admission pursuant to
15 the process of tendering them from the bar table. I note that the
16 Tribunal practice has permitted this manner of tendering documents into
17 evidence; most recently the Milutinovic case on the 27th of March, 2007, a
18 decision by the Chamber permitted the tender of documents from the bar
19 table and admitted the document into evidence, provided, of course, the
20 Prosecution can demonstrate the probative value and the relevancy.
21 I also understand that the Defence maintains their lack of
22 objection to the tendering of these ten -- actually seven death
23 certificates and three medical records.
24 [Trial Chamber confers]
25 MR. SACHDEVA: Just for Your Honours' benefit, the decision was
1 the 13th of April, 2007.
2 [Trial Chamber confers]
3 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, we will admit them.
4 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, without a 65 ter number, it is
5 difficult to assign exhibit numbers. If we could be provided those 65 ter
6 number numbers, we can assign those exhibit numbers now or we can do it
7 this afternoon and incorporate that into our memo for tomorrow.
8 MR. SACHDEVA: I have the numbers. I was just awaiting a decision
9 from the Trial Chamber.
10 65 ter number is 00119, and there are ten documents in total and
11 the numbers have been assigned 119, letter A to letter J. I understand
12 that they are uploaded in e-court with their corresponding translations.
13 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, 65 ter number 00119 A through J will
14 receive the exhibit numbers P651 through P660, respectively.
15 JUDGE HARHOFF: I thought we ended last with P650 MFI, so the next
16 one in line would be P651.
17 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honours, I believe that is what I said;
18 If not, I stand corrected. It would be P651 through P660, respectively.
19 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you. I thought I heard you say 61. Sorry.
20 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, the next issue is an issue I think
21 that came about during the sort of teething problems that we had the
22 manner of tendering parts of composite exhibits in the beginning of the
23 case, and it relates to an exhibit that I showed Witness 137. It can be
24 found at transcript reference 2451 to 2452 on the 19th of February, 2007,
25 and it concerns Exhibit P252.
1 What I had shown the witness was a technical bomb squad report on
2 the Markale 2 incident, and I had asked for pages 22 to 30 of exhibit --
3 sorry, 65 ter 891 to be brought up on the screen, where I then proceeded
4 to show the witness four pages from those eight pages; that Is, 22 to 30.
5 Upon the witness confirming the document, I asked for the document to be
6 entered into evidence, and I stated on the record that it should be pages
7 1 to 4 of 65 ter number 891. What I, in fact, meant was 1 to 4 of the
8 pages 22 to 30; therefore, pages 22 to 25 of the 65 ter 891.
9 I recently had a look at the e-court and the Prosecution exhibit
10 252 that is uploaded is not the document that I showed the witness and,
11 therefore, I ask your leave to substitute the exhibit to the correct
12 exhibit that was shown to the witness.
13 JUDGE ROBINSON: What is the correct exhibit?
14 MR. SACHDEVA: The correct exhibit is a technical report by the
15 bomb squad on the Markale incident, and it is pages 22 to 25 of 65 ter
16 891; the English being 15 to 19.
17 JUDGE ROBINSON: Ms. Isailovic.
18 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I have nothing
19 against this. I also have an application to make. I thought Mr. Sachdeva
20 had finished.
21 JUDGE ROBINSON: I see. Well, this is not going to be a case of
22 one hand washing the other.
23 We'll admit it then.
24 MR. SACHDEVA: Thank you, Mr. President.
25 MR. WHITING: Just a few other minor housekeeping matters, if I
1 may, Your Honours.
2 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
3 MR. WHITING: The next one is, as Your Honours are aware, on the
4 17th of April, the Prosecution filed a motion seeking certification to
5 appeal a decision of the Trial Chamber with regard to adjudicated facts.
6 The Defence also filed a motion seeking certification, I believe, one or
7 two days before that.
8 We, of course, have not received a decision yet from the Trial
9 Chamber, so I would just ask that we be allowed to close today our case on
10 the condition that if certification is allowed by the Trial Chamber, and
11 if the Prosecution's appeal is successful before the Appeals Chamber, that
12 we then be allowed again to reopen our case in order to admit into
13 evidence whatever additional adjudicated facts the Appeals Chamber might
14 allow. So it's just a technical procedure.
15 JUDGE ROBINSON: That would follow, in any event, because the
16 Appeals Chamber would require it.
17 MR. WHITING: I would think so, but I'm just trying to be careful.
18 Part of a job of a lawyer is to be careful, to make sure that everything
19 is covered. So I just wanted that to be clear on the record.
20 The next matter is that -- I don't think, though, that it prevents
21 us from closing our case or proceeding with the 98 bis argument tomorrow.
22 JUDGE ROBINSON: Not at all.
23 MR. WHITING: The next issue is I just want to confirm that Your
24 Honours received a memorandum from me yesterday, which was also provided
25 to the Defence, with respect to our continued efforts to identify the
1 location of Captain Idriz and also providing information about a Polish
2 UNMO I wanted to interviewed. I just want to make sure that that was, in
3 fact, received by the Trial Chamber.
4 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, I received it.
5 MR. WHITING: Okay.
6 JUDGE HARHOFF: Counsel, could I just ask you whether the
7 Prosecution has tried to contact the captain in Kenya through UN sources;
8 that is to say, through the UNHCR in Nairobi, because that is frequently a
9 more efficient way of getting through.
10 MR. WHITING: The answer to that question is no, and I'm not sure
11 about -- we have would have to consider the protocol involved in that,
12 because typically we respect a certain protocol which involves sending an
13 RFA to the government in order to identify where a person is. If there is
14 no problem with the protocol, I would be happy to take up Your Honour's
15 suggestion and pursue that means, as well, to try to identify where this
16 person is. I just wouldn't want to step on any diplomatic toes in doing
17 so. So I will inquire in our office of about the protocol and what is
18 acceptable and what is not in that regard and pursue it, if we are allowed
20 JUDGE HARHOFF: I'm not, of course, suggesting that we violate the
21 rules of diplomacy rules, but it could be helpful to pursue both tracks in
23 MR. WHITING: I think anything at this point could help; but as I
24 stated in the memo, I'm afraid that ultimately it may require some more
25 firm action by the Trial Chamber. I think Your Honours carry a much
1 bigger stick than we do.
2 I would suggest that an order from the Trial Chamber or a subpoena
3 or something of that nature would certainly get a lot of attention.
4 In that memo, I inquired whether the Trial Chamber wanted to have
5 available to it the information report regarding the Polish UNMO who was
6 with Captain Hansen on the date of the incident. I don't know if Your
7 Honours have had an opportunity to consider whether you would like that to
8 be provided to Your Honours or not. It has, of course, been provided to
9 the Defence.
10 JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, we will consider that, as well as the
11 submission that you made about compulsory order.
12 MR. WHITING: Okay.
13 The final matter, Your Honours will recall, is that during a
14 number of cross-examinations, there were Defence exhibits, which were
15 marked for identification, and for -- for two different reasons. One,
16 some were marked for identification because there was not a proper
17 foundation for the document to come into evidence. Others were marked for
18 identification because there was no translation.
19 I'm currently in discussions with the Defence about which ones
20 fall in which categories and which ones can become exhibits. We don't at
21 the moment fully agree. There are four documents at the moment that
22 are -- actually, I think just two that are in dispute. I think this is
23 something that we can resolve between ourselves and get settled, but I
24 just wanted to alert Your Honours that is an outstanding matter with
25 respect to the record as it now stands.
1 There are some documents which have been marked for identification
2 which will slide over into the exhibits category. It may, at some point,
3 require a decision by Your Honours. I hope it doesn't. I hope we can
4 resolve it between the parties.
5 JUDGE ROBINSON: Very well.
6 MR. WHITING: With those matters addressed and the various
7 conditions that I set out about having to reopen the case in various
8 eventualities, we're prepared to close our case and rest.
9 JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, thank you, Mr. Whiting.
10 Ms. Isailovic.
11 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
12 I just have one question pertaining to the following: These
13 documents that have been marked for identification which we have agreed
14 upon, we both agree, that's the Prosecution and the Defence, that some are
15 marked for identification because there is no translation. We now have
16 the translations of these documents.
17 They have been provided and input in the e-court system. We have
18 sent them to the Bench and to the OTP. We've sent a list of documents.
19 These are four documents which I would like to tender, and I would like
20 them not to be marked for identification but to be given an exhibit
21 number, please.
22 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Let us have them.
23 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] D109, D118, D135, and D136 marked
24 for identification, pending translation. We have now been provided with
25 the translations, and the two documents mentioned by Mr. Whiting were
1 documents number D64 and D100. We will be able to check on the transcript
2 and know exactly had a these documents contained.
3 Mr. Tapuskovic had not intended them to be marked for
4 identification - this was a slip of the tongue - because the documents had
5 prior to that been admitted under no conditions whatsoever. But we need
6 to still check this.
7 JUDGE ROBINSON: D109, D118, D135, and D136 are admitted.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, those exhibits are retain the
9 exhibit numbers listed, and they will just move from MFI to exhibit.
10 JUDGE ROBINSON: The Chamber will await the results of the
11 discussions between the Prosecution and the Defence. If they cannot be
12 resolved timely, then the Chamber should be informed so that we can make a
14 Are there any other matters? None. We are to resume tomorrow.
15 [Trial Chamber confers]
16 JUDGE ROBINSON: We are to resume tomorrow at 9.00.
17 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 12.50 p.m.,
18 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 3rd day of May,
19 2007, at 9.00 a.m.