1 Tuesday, 23 July 2002
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 2.21 p.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good afternoon to everyone.
6 Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Case Number IT-98-29-T, the Prosecutor versus
8 Stanislav Galic.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, very much, Madam Registrar.
10 Before we will resume the cross-examination of the expert witness
11 Tabeau, the Chamber still owes the parties a few decisions. The first
12 decision is about, I would say, those documents tendered in relation to
13 the testimony of Mr. Karavelic. Where first Prosecution document 3728, 26
14 maps they are admitted into evidence, but the witness only testified in
15 respect of the confrontation lines marked on these maps. The Chamber will
16 ignore any of the other markings on the maps, markings that were not made
17 by the witness itself and were not the subject of his testimony. The
18 Chamber is fully aware that it was a consequence of a decision made by the
19 Chamber itself. Yes.
20 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, in relation to the shelling maps at
21 least --
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
23 MR. IERACE: -- There will be further evidence from Mr. Hadzic as
24 to the manner of marking on the maps of the relevant positions in respect
25 of the shelling impact sites.
1 JUDGE ORIE: I can imagine that at a later stage, that the
2 restrictions and the views might be changed, if another witness testifies
3 about other markings, either made by himself. I cannot, of course,
4 foresee what will happen. But as it stands now, this part of the evidence
5 is excluded. So only about the confrontation lines, because that was what
6 the testimony of Mr. Karavelic was about.
7 Mr. Ierace, you -- I wanted to pay attention to document P3727
8 which is the five maps, and I think your observations were about these
9 five maps. The same limitations, the same restrictions are true for these
10 five maps that are admitted into evidence.
11 Then we have the document tendered by the Defence, D143, that is
12 the letter about Mr. Karavelic not having been detained. It is admitted
13 into evidence. The Chamber is confronted with the testimony of a witness
14 who has given evidence in respect of detention, detention he was kept in.
15 The Defence has challenged the reliability of the witness in this respect
16 and has produced this document D143, while the Prosecution has tendered a
17 document in support of the testimony about the detention.
18 The Chamber is of the opinion that both documents are of a type
19 that could assist the Chamber in making the determinations the Chamber
20 will have to make. Of course, even if admitted into evidence, also
21 document D143, the Chamber will still have to attribute the appropriate
22 way to these documents and, of course, we will consider carefully any
23 limits of the contents of the documents itself.
24 Then we still have two translations into English which were not
25 finally admitted into evidence, although we heard from the Defence that
1 apart from the one small added part on the top of document, and would you
2 please assist me.
3 THE REGISTRAR: P3735.
4 JUDGE ORIE: That there was no other objection as far as the
5 translation is concerned. The Chamber takes proper notice of this -- of
6 this minor point of incorrect or incomplete translation and admits the
7 document into evidence. Then, this would also mean that P3736, which is a
8 very small handwritten document which says that all the personal effects
9 have been returned to Mr. Karavelic, with the exception of a sum of money,
10 is also admitted into evidence.
11 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
12 JUDGE ORIE: When I refer to these documents on both numbers, I
13 should have added "point one," because that is the number for the
14 translation. Then I have one observation to make in respect of the 92 bis
15 statement the parties have still not yet received. The Chamber is working
16 hard on it. But the Chamber does understand that the Prosecution
17 specifically might not know all the reasons why the motion was rejected in
18 some respect. And I especially ask the attention of the Prosecution for
19 the reason why the motion was rejected in the respect of the witness
20 Arifagic because the Prosecution has expressed its intention to call her.
21 Once you have received the decision, you will read that the witness
22 Arifagic, the statement of the witness is sought to be admitted because of
23 the authentication of 15 documents. The statement will not be admitted
24 into evidence because the Chamber is of the opinion that there is no need
25 to receive any further evidence on these 15 documents that have already
1 been admitted into evidence. In respect of two of these documents that
2 were provisionally admitted on the 9th of January, the Chamber has
3 addressed the Defence and has said that if there were any further
4 objections against these documents, among these documents, the two I just
5 mentioned, that further objections should be made that day and we have not
6 heard since then from the Defence. So, therefore, the Chamber takes it
7 that the provisional admission is now a final decision.
8 I am mentioning it specifically because of the arrangements the
9 Prosecution might have been prepared for the -- for calling the witness
10 Arifagic. Then, a few other issues.
11 The Defence indicated that by last Friday they would give further
12 details about case presentation and numbers of witnesses. The Chamber has
13 not received any further information, at least I have not seen anything
14 by now. I just have a global number, but that is -- has it been submitted
15 in writing, Ms. Pilipovic?
16 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour. If the Chamber
17 permits, perhaps today, at the end of the day, I can give you our
18 schedule. If it's necessary, I can also tell you about it now, in general
20 JUDGE ORIE: I was just trying to establish where there was still
21 things that we had to pay attention to. So this is one of them and I do
22 understand that the Defence is ready to give further information to the
23 Chamber. There is another issue where the Chamber has put a question to
24 the witness -- to the Defence and where we would expect an answer, an
25 answer that should be given in closed session. I don't think it is
1 necessary to turn into closed session now, but it was a question that was
2 put to Defence last Friday.
3 If there would be an answer, please indicate so that we can then
4 turn into closed session and hear that answer. The last issue, and I
5 apologise that I forgot to pay proper attention to it yesterday at the end
6 of the session, that is the Defence would still indicate how much time
7 they would still need for the further cross-examination of the expert
8 witness Tabeau. Perhaps, if you would give us an indication of that last
9 question. Yes, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
10 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President. Very
11 briefly, we believe it will be just over an hour, but we would just like
12 to say that, we would ask your Chamber to take into consideration the fact
13 that this witness is nothing else but a representative of the Office of
14 the Prosecutor, does not wish or cannot give brief answers which is making
15 us lose time. So basically, this is the Prosecution making the Defence
16 lose time, which is why we will need just over an hour. Thank you.
17 JUDGE ORIE: The length of the answers given by an expert witness
18 who testifies in this court and is employed by the Office of the
19 Prosecutor is not the responsibility of the Prosecution in this case.
20 When the witness, the expert witness, answers the questions, she is bound
21 by the solemn declaration she gave and she has to behave fully independent
22 of what her employer says.
23 Would you be ready to resume the cross-examination,
24 Mr. Piletta-Zanin?
25 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President, whatever
1 you wish.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
3 Yes, Mr. Ierace.
4 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, just before the witness comes back
5 into the courtroom, might I clarify whether you will be at the end of the
6 session requesting the Defence to update you on the number of witnesses
7 and will you be dealing with other timetable issues, if so, I will be
8 present at that stage.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I think if the Defence is ready to give that
10 information, we would love to hear and perhaps we can spend the last 15
11 minutes of today's court session to that.
12 Then, Mr. Usher, could you please escort the expert witness,
13 Tabeau into the courtroom.
14 [The witness entered court].
15 JUDGE ORIE: Good afternoon, Ms. Tabeau. Welcome in this courtroom
16 again. May I remind you that you are still bound by the solemn
17 declaration you give yesterday at the beginning of your testimony. Having
18 said this, the Defence will continue to cross-examine you.
19 MR. STAMP: Before the Defence continues, may I ask that she can
20 be given the report and the annexes, the hard copy of the lists.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
22 MR. STAMP: And that would be P3730A and just the report itself,
24 THE REGISTRAR: P3731B, as well?
25 MR. STAMP: Indeed, yes, thank you very much.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
2 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you.
3 WITNESS: EWA TABEAU [Resumed]
4 Cross-examined by Mr. Piletta-Zanin: [Continued]
5 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Mrs. Tabeau.
6 A. Good afternoon.
7 Q. Did you this morning go to the office or the premises of the
8 Office of the Prosecutor, yes or no?
9 A. This is my office where I usually work.
10 Q. So, yes or no?
11 A. I went to my own office, yes.
12 Q. Fine. Did you speak to anybody from the Prosecutor's team? Yes
13 or no?
14 A. No.
15 Q. You didn't say one or exchange one single word? You didn't utter
16 a single word this morning, is that so?
17 A. I spoke with a colleague of mine with whom I shared my room about
18 matters that are related to our work.
19 Q. Did you speak about this report with the colleague in a general
21 A. We spoke about other projects that we have right now, and they
22 were matters that needed to be discussed --
23 Q. Madam, please answer my question. I didn't ask you whether you
24 spoke about other projects. I would be grateful if you could answer my
25 questions, as long as you understand them, otherwise I will switch to
1 another language. Did you speak about this project with the other worker?
2 A. No, I didn't.
3 Q. So this is clear. Thank you very much.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, may I ask you, if you would have
5 carefully listened to the expert witness, you would have noted that when
6 you interrupted her that she already gave the answer that she kindly
7 repeated later on, on a specific question of you. May I ask you to follow
8 the manners of courtesy which we owe to any other individual.
9 Please proceed.
10 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I will do so, all the more
11 gladly, since it is my rule too, Your Honour.
12 Q. Mrs. Tabeau, Katyn -- how many casualties? Do you know?
13 A. I don't understand the question. Please repeat.
14 Q. [In English] Katyn: How many casualties?
15 MR. STAMP: Objection. That question is much too vague.
16 THE WITNESS: How many casualties, what is that related to?
17 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please -- the witness does not understand
18 the question as you formulated it. Would you please reformulate it,
19 Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
20 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation]
21 Q. The Katyn forest, how many casualties?
22 MR. STAMP: I am sorry. I didn't hear the last --
23 THE WITNESS: I think it is about Katyn, this is a place --
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Piletta-Zanin, did you want to ask the
25 witness how many casualties occurred at a certain place, because I am
1 following you in French and I had great difficulties in even following the
2 words you expressed. But it seems that the witness understand your
3 question, but could you please formulate them in such a way that everyone
4 understands them.
5 Please proceed.
6 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation]
7 Q. How many casualties or victims in the forest of Katyn. Do you
8 understand what I am saying, Madam?
9 A. I understand what you are saying. I don't know exact numbers.
10 Q. If you tell you between 18 and 20.000 victims, are these accurate
11 figures as far as you know?
12 A. I don't know. I don't know exact figures.
13 Q. Thank you. Fine. I will move on to your expert document. Page 5
14 did you state this, I am going to quote in English [In English] "Vast
15 majority of those killed or wounded were men, most of them were at active
16 of military age [18-60] and were soldiers."
17 [Interpretation] Is this is sentence of yours, Madam?
18 A. It is written -- read from the report from page 5 yes.
19 Q. Would you mind answering with a yes or no. We would save time
20 this way. Thank you. Reversely, and here I am referring back to page 102
21 in your report, is it true that women have, relatively speaking, suffered
22 little during this period as victim?
23 A. From this figure when you have referred to, relatively little.
24 Q. Thank you very much.
25 Can you confirm for us and for the transcript that during the time
1 taken under scrutiny, there were only 10 suicides?
2 A. Well, I have to check this figure in the annex where it is
3 reported. Yes, there were 10 suicide cases.
4 Q. So this is for the two years or 24 months that you studied, is
5 that so? Yes or no.
6 A. For the period stated, yes.
7 Q. Thank you very much.
8 Did you compare this suicide rate which is, to me, very low with
9 the usual rate to be found generally in ordinary cities in Europe in
10 normal situation; yes or no?
11 MR. STAMP: Before the witness proceeds to answer, the objection
12 is not to the question itself, but it is to a comment which is introduced
13 into the question as the opinions of counsel as to what is "high" or
14 "low." I would respectfully submit that counsel at this time ought not
15 to comment on what he -- what his own assessment is. That is not
17 JUDGE ORIE: No, but it is part of the question. If he would have
18 not have said "to me," but if he would have said: "Did you compare this
19 suicide rate and did you find them to be very low to the usual rate,"
20 then, Mr. Piletta-Zanin, I think you will get the answer. And whether
21 you -- whether that is your opinion, is not, I think, of vital importance.
22 So I would not -- I think it doesn't add anything to the question, that
23 according to you, but you can ask the question, whether it is low or high.
24 Please proceed.
25 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I very gladly
1 rephrase the question.
2 Q. Did you compare suicide rates; yes or no?
3 A. No, I didn't.
4 Q. Thank you.
5 Therefore, you don't know whether this is a high or a low rate?
6 A. I don't know whether it is a low or high. But this is not a rate
7 we are discussing. This is number, absolute number, 10 cases of suicide.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, for an expert witness, if an
9 expert witness is of the opinion that the answer she gives, even being
10 aware that if "yes" and a "no" would do, that if it would create
11 confusion, if she could not clarify part of her answer, she will be
12 allowed to do so.
13 But, perhaps, Ms. Tabeau, if you address me and ask whether you
14 can give a clarification, I will let you know whether the Chamber allows
15 you to give a clarification.
16 Please proceed, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
17 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Mr.
19 Q. Madam Witness, is it true that you did not seek to see, for the
20 purpose of your expert report, the hospital admission books for various
22 A. I didn't use them in this report.
23 Q. Thank you.
24 Did you know or did you not know how many admissions there were
25 per year, generally speaking, in a period -- in a time of peace for a
1 population of some 350.000 inhabitants? I only have in mind accidents
2 here, of course.
3 A. I didn't use this type of sources in this report. I cannot know.
4 I didn't discuss them.
5 Q. You said that you didn't use them, which would not mean that you
6 didn't know about them. I asked you whether you knew about them or not.
7 A. I am not sure that you asked your question whether I knew. It
8 was -- let me find it here.
9 Q. My question was this as follows: Did you know?
10 A. Well, I know that this type statistics exist and probably also for
11 the war period existed to a certain extent. I also know that there were
12 colleagues who were working with this type of statistics. It was not my
13 domain, say, of research.
14 Q. Were these figures given to you or not?
15 A. I read at a certain moment the report that was made based on the
16 sources, but I don't know the figures right now.
17 Q. Very well.
18 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, can exhibit
19 D154 be submitted, be given to the witness.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Would you please assist, Mr. Usher. Yes.
21 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation]
22 Q. Madam Witness, please focus only on page 2 of the document. May I
23 ask you this: Do you read or understand French, which is one of the
24 official languages of the Tribunal?
25 A. I don't understand French. Please, if you could translate it.
1 Q. Do you read French?
2 A. No, I don't know French.
3 Q. Fine. There is a table, it only deals with admissions for reason
4 of accident which is ACC as an acronym, for the last three years. In a
5 city of comparable size in Europe. So, another city than Sarajevo. In
6 this case, this is Geneva, around 350.000 inhabitants. We have a figure
7 of 18.697, for instance. Does this figure, to you, look normal or not?
8 If you can't answer, just say so.
9 A. I cannot answer. It is a different domain of research.
10 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I state for the transcript
11 that this document was recently sent to me by the general directorate of
12 the Cantonal Hospitals in Geneva so this is a very authentic document.
13 Q. I am moving on to another line of questioning. For the sake of
14 your report, did you examine a document which is entitled [In
15 English] "Sniper: September 3, 1992 until August 10th, 1994,"
16 [Interpretation], the reference number is 00986276A-6309. Yes or no?
17 A. No, I didn't.
18 Q. Were you aware of the document?
19 A. No, I was not aware.
20 Q. Am I to understand that the Prosecutor did not give you this
21 document for the sake of your report?
22 A. I said earlier yesterday that we work -- I believe I said, we work
23 quite independently. Demography is just a group which is doing
24 demographics, and this is it.
25 Q. Indeed. But I still haven't got an answer for my question. Did
1 the Prosecutor give you this document or not?
2 A. Not that I can recall at this very moment.
3 Q. Thank you very much.
4 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Can Mr. Usher help me. I want
5 to show you a document, number 155, for the transcript. I am only
6 interested in the first page, Mr. President. The document is much longer,
7 but this is by way -- shown to the witness by way of an example. The
8 first part of the document is only the translation of the top line or top
9 lines, and as to the rest these are only names or dates or names of
10 hospitals, therefore, not to be translated.
11 Q. Witness you had enough time to look at the document. Did you see
12 it before or not?
13 A. Well, I know -- I remember there is a list of sniping casualties
14 in -- attached with the indictment. But, I cannot say for sure that this
15 list you gave me and the list attached to the indictment is the same
16 thing. I am sorry.
17 Q. Very well.
18 Please go to the date of the 14th of September, for example. Did
19 you find it?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Can you see that there is about 10 wounded on that date? This is
22 in the last but one column.
23 A. Here I see only one name mentioned on this page. I don't know
24 what you mean.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, you are referring to the 14th of
1 September. There are two entries with the 14th of September. I take it
2 that you are referring to the first one.
3 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation]
4 Q. Yes, can you see that in one of the two entries. There are 10
5 names, do you see that?
6 A. Yes, I see it now.
7 Q. Good. Thank you. And by the way, there is only one for the 14th
8 of September where there are wounded. The other people are dead.
9 A. No, this is --
10 Q. There could be no confusion.
11 A. I have 10 names of wounded and 1 killed.
12 Q. No. I am talking about the wounded. Is it true or isn't it true
13 that with relation to locations or places where the accidents took place,
14 there is no indication whatsoever?
15 A. No, there is no indication.
16 Q. Fine.
17 So, are we talking about snipers in the last column of the table?
18 A. Right.
19 Q. So, Madam Witness, don't you think it is surprising, out of 10
20 wounded people, therefore survivors, none of them is able to remember
21 where they allegedly were wounded?
22 A. It is not surprising to me. If I would got wounded unexpected, I
23 would probably not know where the shot come from, came from. This is a
24 kind of shock that is by definition you cannot explain that people
25 remember these type of things.
1 Q. Madam Witness, when you are wounded, generally speaking, well, you
2 are being taken to a hospital and there are other people who drive you
3 there. Those people driving you are not wounded, and you still don't
4 think it is surprising that we should know where these people were
6 A. I don't know. I don't know the circumstances, so it is a question
7 I cannot answer. I am sorry.
8 Q. If I put this question to you, it is because, in your expert
9 report --
10 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues]... two different
11 questions to the witness. The first was whether it was surprising that
12 injured person would not know where he was wounded. And the second was
13 whether "we" would not know, and that creates a question, I have got no
14 idea what is the source of the information. It says on the first line
15 that it is "source" and you say it needs no further translation. I see
16 different sources and I don't know whether this is what parents report to
17 the school of their children or what the parents said or whatever it is, I
18 have no idea.
19 Could you perhaps first, especially since the sources for the 14th
20 of the 9th are not the same apparently. Could you tell me and you
21 say -- at least your question was that it wounded person would not have
22 known where he was wounded, but what is "ZHMP"? Is that is list filled in
23 by the wounded persons or is that a hospital register or is that a...
24 I've got no idea. Would you please either ask this to the witness if she
25 knows or give us some clarification in this respect.
1 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, I could, but I don't
2 think -- oh, very well.
3 Q. Madam Witness, do you know the sources that are listed in the
4 first column on the left?
5 A. Well, I only understand "Statisticki Zavod", which is statistical
6 institute or institute for statistics. And I don't understand the other
7 names, interpretations.
8 Q. Very well. Thank you.
9 Madam Witness, is it true that on this page, for the sake of the
10 example, we can see a lot of entries, statistically speaking, where there
11 are no indications regarding a location. I am talking about the second,
12 the third, fifth, the sixth, the 8th, the 10th and the 11th and the 13th?
13 A. It is indeed that these locations are not given --
14 Q. Thank you very much.
15 We are going to another series of questions.
16 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I would like to have
17 distributed a document, number 156, and then we are going to come back to
18 another exhibit with the help of Mr. Usher. Thank you very much.
19 Q. Madam Witness, do you know the name of Mr. Nedzad Ajnadzic?
20 A. No, I don't.
21 Q. If I tell you that the Oslobodjenje newspaper said that in
22 Sarajevo, the number of civilian victims was 15.000, does this seem to be
23 a media exaggeration to you?
24 A. It is probably too much, too many.
25 Q. Thank you very much.
1 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] We are now going to ask Mr.
2 Usher to assist us with the distribution of another document bearing the
3 number 157.
4 Q. Madam, could you please look at page 2 in this document. You
5 have it before you. Can you read the number -- the reference number
7 A. Yes, I can.
8 Q. Thank you.
9 This is a document which comes from the Prosecution. Could you
10 please tell me how many deaths as a result of -- or alleged deaths as a
11 result of sniping for this period?
12 A. I believe it is 361 mentioned here.
13 Q. Very well. What are your own figures, the ones that you were
14 dealing with?
15 A. Well, I believe we can check this in the report how many, but it
16 is more than that, I believe. On page 68 in the annex, we can read that
17 there were, in total, 699 casualties of sniper.
18 Q. Very well.
19 Madam, so in the report it is -- the ratio in the report is double
20 and we have a document from the Prosecution which says there were 361
21 victims and your report which roughly claims that it is double. So how is
22 this possible?
23 MR. STAMP: May I -- that is something that is outside of this
24 witness's expertise. Unless the witness can be sure to know the source of
25 this document and why it was disclosed and how we got this document and
1 how it was prepared.
2 JUDGE ORIE: What you are asking, Mr. Piletta-Zanin, for an
3 explanation of the difference in numbers. That is what you are doing. If
4 I would ask the witness an explanation for the difference in numbers of
5 well, let's say, of 5 people riding bicycle on my street, compared to 30
6 people eating strawberries she might have some difficulty, because that is
7 not the same. Could you please explain what this document is. I don't
8 know whether the witness has had time to read it.
9 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, gladly. This document
10 comes from the Prosecution and it tries to establish, according to the
11 Prosecutor, gives us the numbers of civilian victims, sniper victims, of
12 alleged sniper victims for the given period which is from the 10th of
13 September 1992 until the 10th of August 1994. So we now have --
14 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please -- I see another number on that
15 document. Can you explain what that is so we can all know exactly what
16 the document is about. It says 870 cases of sniper action against
17 civilian in the period mentioned. Could you indicate what that means and
18 perhaps tell the witness before she answers your questions. Is this a
19 case study of limited number of cases or is this all the sniper cases
20 known during a certain period or is this to indicate that all the numbers
21 together were 870? Well, there are a lot of possible explanations, but I
22 see a number which is not part of your explanation to the witness.
23 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
25 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I don't know more about it
1 myself, since this is a Prosecution document. So I cannot go through the
2 chronology of the Prosecution documents. They are as they are given -- as
3 they are handed over to me. So it is not up to me to find out about the
4 figures. It is up to the Prosecution to give us the numbers. The
5 Prosecution should give me their figure.
6 MR. STAMP: The figures given by the Prosecution is the figures
7 which are testified to in court by this witness. Quite a lot of material
8 has been disclosed to the Defence pursuant to the Rules, where it is
9 relevant or pursuant to whichever rule of disclosure. They are not
10 disclosed necessarily because they reflect the position of the
12 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, may I?
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please.
14 THE WITNESS: I wanted to add, but I was stopped by the Defence.
15 The answer I gave, the answer 699 casualties of sniper was a total number
16 of all casualties, civilians and soldiers. If we look next page at the
17 table page 69, at the number for civilians, it is 253. This is table
19 JUDGE ORIE: You are referring to your report, what page?
20 THE WITNESS: Page 69, table A3.8. We have 253 civilians who were
21 killed by sniper, which is a lower number than the number reported in this
22 document that we have been discussing right now. But still both numbers
23 are incomplete, as there is no complete source for this type of -- about
24 this type of events. Both are samples or representations, estimates of
25 the unknown total, I believe.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
3 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Do I have your leave to
4 continue? Thank you very much.
5 Q. Madam Witness, I would like you to do the same thing for the
6 wounded now, looking at the document that you have before you. We have
7 for the civilians 756 wounded.
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And according to your findings, Madam Witness?
10 A. We have on page 19, 1.296.
11 Is this --
12 Q. Are you talking about civilians?
13 A. I am speaking about civilians, yes.
14 Q. Would you agree with me that these are different figures?
15 A. These are different figures. And I repeat, that both these
16 figures are just approximations and incomplete.
17 Q. Very well.
18 Madam Witness, in order to save time, since time is running out,
19 do we have the same type of difference which exists for the case of the
20 shellings, and would you then give me the same type of answer for that
21 difference as well?
22 A. Well, first of --
23 MR. STAMP: May I ask counsel to clarify that question.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Well, in general, Mr. Stamp, if the witness
25 understands the question, we will hear her answer. If it is not clear to
1 the witness, the witness will tell us, so I think -- so if you understand
2 the question, would you please answer it. If not, please tell us.
3 THE WITNESS: You didn't show me your figure or other figures,
4 alternative figures related to shelling. But I think what is really
5 confusing is mixing up different things. Well, we deal here with a very
6 special situation. We have a conflict situation in which normal
7 procedures for collecting statistical information don't work out. It is
8 never possible during the conflict period to obtain statistical
9 information about demographic events in the way they are normally -- these
10 type of records are normally collected. So we have to base our
11 conclusions on sources that are different than regular vital statistics,
12 vital events registration. And every source is just a sample, incomplete.
13 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation]
14 Q. Very well.
15 A. It is very well possible that we will see a different figures
16 related to the same phenomenon.
17 Q. Thank you very much, Madam.
18 Now, before we continue with this line of questioning, you said
19 that your study was only related to six municipalities in Sarajevo. Were
20 these, the municipalities, whole municipalities?
21 A. The area within front lines, actually covered parts of six
22 municipalities, not complete whole municipalities.
23 Q. Thank you.
24 What are the municipalities which were not covered by your survey,
25 by your study?
1 A. That were not covered by my study. It was, I think, Trnovo -- no,
2 I can tell you what I covered by my study. Perhaps this is the simpler
3 way of saying this.
4 Q. Yes, please.
5 A. It is Sarajevo, Stari Grad, Novi Grad, Novo Sarajevo, Vogosca,
6 Ilidza, and Centar.
7 Q. And Centar. Thank you.
8 So which one of these municipalities was not studied in its
9 entirety, as a whole?
10 A. I think every of these municipalities, every one of these
11 municipalities was studied only partly, as part of it.
12 Q. Are you trying to say that for each of these municipalities, you
13 were missing some data?
14 A. It is not --
15 Q. So, why?
16 A. It is that the front lines actual split these municipalities in
17 such a way that only part of these municipalities were included in the
18 survey area. And part was left --
19 Q. Very well.
20 Therefore, Madam, if you are giving us the number of inhabitants
21 about 340.000 inhabitants, do we agree in considering that this is just a
22 part -- that this is just a part of these six municipalities that this is
24 A. Yes, it is.
25 Q. Madam Witness, would you agree with me in considering that during
1 these two years of war that we are looking at, all of the losses, all of
2 the casualties that was suffered by the Sarajevo population, is probably
3 lesser than a rate of 0,5 per cent per annum?
4 A. I must say I need clarification. What do you mean?
5 Q. Very well.
6 The rate of losses, when we look at the population as a whole, the
7 population of Sarajevo, is it true that this rate was lesser than 0,5 per
8 cent per year?
9 A. It is possible to check the rate per annum in 1991 because this is
10 in the report and it is six municipalities, entire municipalities --
11 Q. No, no, Madam, I am going to interrupt you, Madam. No.
12 During the two years of the war, 1992, 1994, the ones that we are
13 focussing on, is it true that the rate of the losses suffered by the
14 population, globally speaking, is it less than 0,5 per cent per year, yes
15 or no?
16 A. It is not lesser, it is higher.
17 Q. Can you demonstrate this for us, please? What is the late of the
19 A. This is page 40 from the report in which we show rates of killed
20 and all deaths.
21 Q. Very well, Madam.
22 You have this rate, you have 1153, so for how many years would
23 that be, would that cover?
24 A. This rate is for two years, for the whole period.
25 Q. Thank you very much. If we divide that by two, how much would we
1 get, then approximately?
2 A. It is five per hundred, I believe, 5.000 per 100.000, so this is
3 the rate you mentioned, I believe, isn't it?
4 Q. I said 0,5 per cent, is that the rate?
5 A. Is it 5 per cent?
6 Q. [In English] 0,5 percent.
7 A. Oh yeah. I am sorry, I understood 5 per cent.
8 Q. [In English] And I said "0,5 per cent". [Interpretation] So,
9 therefore, the question that I am asking per year is that correct, then?
10 If we know that the Sarajevo population is large?
11 A. So it would be 500 per 100.000, I believe. This is the rate you
12 mentioned, right? So in the question you asked, is whether this rate, 500
13 per 100.000, is lesser than the rate we calculated.
14 Q. I simply asked you Madam, if yes or no, the rate of the losses
15 that were suffered by Sarajevo was probably under 0,5 per cent?
16 A. No, it is the rate we obtained for the area within front lines.
17 These rates are higher than rates you mentioned.
18 Q. Madam, if we have 3.798 out of a population of about 340.000, this
19 gives us a rate of 1,153 per cent, do we agree, generally speaking, yes or
21 A. You said 1,153 per cent, it is not correct. These are rates that
22 are given for 100.000 population. If you express the rates by hundred,
23 these are different values then.
24 Q. Very well, Madam. What is the rate in percentages, could you
25 please do it for us, on a population of 340.000, for 3.798 victims, total?
1 A. The rate I included in table that is already now at the ELMO, on
2 the ELMO is 1,153 per cent.
3 Q. Very well.
4 A. This is in terms of percentages.
5 Q. So if we divide this rate by 2 for each year, what would be that
6 rate then? Be 0,5? Very well. So, what the figure I gave you, Madam
7 expert, these figures were correct, do we agree on that, yes or no, Madam?
8 A. Well, if it is your approximation of the annual rate, these are
9 correct figures.
10 Q. Very well. So our figures are correct. Thank you.
11 Since we are speaking of this, and in order to understand these
12 figures well, Madam expert, is it true that there were four other
13 municipalities, additional municipalities, that you did not take into
14 consideration in your calculation; yes or no?
15 A. There were four municipalities that I excluded.
16 Q. Very well.
17 So, I believe that you answered no to this question but still the
18 names of those four municipalities, do you know them?
19 A. Well, I would have to think about it. It would be Ilijas,
20 Trnovo -- I don't remember other two. Please mention the other two.
21 Q. Very well.
22 Would you please look at page 19 of your expert report. And
23 perhaps you will find the name of Hadzici and also Pale?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. These are the two names that we were looking for. Thank you.
1 Madam Witness, I would like us to come back to your figures. You
2 said earlier that in relation to the civilian population, there is a
3 certain number of deaths which is part of -- was part of your findings.
4 Could you please give us again this figure, the figure is civilian losses,
5 and I believe that the figure amounted to 1.399 casualties or losses.
6 Could you tell us if this is correct?
7 A. It is table 1, page 3 -- sorry -- 4. This 1.399.
8 Q. Very well. Madam, is it true that the rate of civilian victims,
9 generally speaking, of those who died, was per year some 0,2 per cent?
10 A. Well, we are -- I would disagree because we didn't have
11 information about the civilian population, so we couldn't calculate the
12 rate. It is not that you may relate events from a certain group of the
13 population to the whole population.
14 Q. Madam, I agree with you, but if we have, let's say, 1.400, let's
15 take a round number, out of 340.000 inhabitants, divided by two years,
16 wouldn't the result of that give us 0,2 per cent, yes or no?
17 A. I cannot answer the questions. It doesn't make sense to divide
18 any two numbers.
19 Q. For the Defence, it makes a lot of sense, to find out what was the
20 percentage over a given population per year. If you can answer
21 mathematically or algebraically, could you please give us an answer? Is
22 it true that this calculation gives us in a percentage -- speaking in
23 percentages, 0,2 per cent in annual losses, and I am talking about
24 civilian population, allegedly civilian population?
25 A. [Previous translation continues]... will bring a small calculator
1 for your next question, before your next question. But believe me that
2 calculating demographic rates is not a matter of dividing one number by
3 another number. These are measures of intensity of a process. And in
4 order to be correct, you really must relate events in the population that
5 was exposed to risk of these events, not just any numbers, you know.
6 Q. Yes. But Madam, the population was 340.000. So we know that
7 there were 700 civilians killed per year which is 1.400 for two years. So
8 could you please give us a rate, I have given you a rate which is 0,2 per
9 cent. You don't want to confirm it or you can't confirm it, so I am going
10 on to another question.
11 Madam, I am talking about deaths, people who died, allegedly as a
12 result of sniper activity. Is it true that you have kept as a figure,
13 that you have a figure as 352 or 353 victims for these two years; yes or
15 A. You are speaking now about the rates or --
16 Q. I am talking about absolute numbers, figures.
17 A. Civilian victims?
18 Q. I am talking about civilian victims, that is, allegedly civilians.
19 A. In my table on page 69, I see 253.
20 Q. Very well.
21 Madam, could you do the same exercise if we, if we look at the
22 population of 340.000 people, is it possible to take a rate of civilian
23 victims, allegedly snipers victims the rate would be 0,037 per cent? The
24 Defence is precise here.
25 A. I am sorry, I must answer, it is the same problem here with the
1 population at risk.
2 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Very well. For the transcript,
3 Mr. President this is 0,037, so that things are clear.
4 Q. And Madam, you cannot answer, is that it?
5 A. I disagree with the way you calculate rates. It is just the wrong
6 way of doing so.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps, what happens at this moment that the Defence
8 has indicated several times that what the Defence considers a relevant
9 rate that is civilian casualties, whether or not caused by sniping, at the
10 whole population makes sense. The expert witness says that from a
11 demographic point of view, that it makes no sense to her. I did not hear
12 any disagreement as the arithmetics are concerned. Did I understand your
13 testimony well that you are not contesting the ability of the Defence to
14 divide numbers by numbers, but that in your view, it gives no useful
15 information? Well, of course, finally, whether this is useful or not, the
16 Chamber is -- will have to determine whether it is useful or not. There
17 is no disagreement about 4 divided by 2, it makes 2. There is
18 disagreement about the Defence -- between the Defence and this expert
19 witness who does not want to add to what the expert witness thinks is
20 useless information.
21 I think, Mr. Piletta-Zanin, the positions are clear. Please,
22 could you proceed.
23 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
24 Q. Madam Witness, I would like us to go to your page 68, the page 68
25 of your expert report. You found it, Madam?
1 JUDGE ORIE: Before we continue, the Chamber would like to know
2 that what would be the proper way of establishing rates in this respect,
3 because the witness has told us several times that this was not a proper
4 way of doing it. What would have been the proper way, Ms. Tabeau?
5 THE WITNESS: The proper way would be to relate the events that
6 were obtained or reported in our report for civilians, to the population
7 of civilians and for soldiers to the population of soldiers. These are
8 much smaller populations and the rate would be much higher than the rates
9 presented by the Defence.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So you would say rates makes sense, if you
11 relate civilian casualties to civilian population, and military casualties
12 to military and that would be the proper way of doing it?
13 THE WITNESS: Yes.
14 JUDGE ORIE: And what the Defence proposed to you is to establish a
15 rate between civilian casualties on the whole of the population --
16 THE WITNESS: On the whole of the population.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that is clear. Please proceed.
18 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, on this issue,
19 I will have to ask the expert something else, because one of the questions
20 related to the global population of Sarajevo that we knew about, because
21 everyone says this is roughly 350.000 people and the first question was
22 asked about the entirety of the losses in relation to the global
23 population, that is civilian and military together, in relation to the
24 population of Sarajevo. So the methodology was very much what the expert
25 has indicated. And if my mathematical ability isn't much, I believe that
1 I have established what you have asked about.
2 Thank you very much.
3 Q. I am going to come back to page 68 --
4 A. May I add something with this regard?
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please do so.
6 A. The population of 340.000 that we used in our population was not
7 the population of the six municipalities. This is an estimate for the
8 parts covered within front lines. We obtained this number from the number
9 of questionnaires, from the survey, and applied certain statistics about
10 average number of persons in one household in these municipalities to end
11 with the total of this population. We also included approximately 7.000
12 displaced persons reported by UNHCR in Sarajevo. So this is our numbers.
13 We actually were -- have done a lot of effort to use a proper -- the
14 proper population in the calculation of our rates.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please move to your next question,
16 Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
17 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you.
18 Q. On page 68, Madam, a question of methodology here. You have here
19 a presentation of causes of death and I can see that the first part of the
20 report doesn't have a subheading, although the second part of the report
21 here does have a subheading. Do you see it? It is a direct losses in
22 relation to direct casualties of war.
23 A. I see that, yes.
24 Q. Thank you very much.
25 So we now have a problem with methodology as far as the Defence is
1 concerned. Why do you have this heading "direct casualties of war."
2 Shouldn't it be ahead in the first column, that is regarding the shelling
3 and other firing, et cetera, et cetera?
4 A. It is because the subheading that for your information and for the
5 information of anyone in this court, we wanted to show which specific
6 categories were included in the group, for instance, direct casualties of
7 war. The subheadings are very small as every single one, categories. So
8 it is -- it makes sense to combine them and show them as one group. This
9 is why we created the category "direct casualties of war." And this
10 category includes the subcategories as mentioned in the table.
11 Q. Yes. Very well. We did read this.
12 But my question, that perhaps you didn't quite grasp, wasn't that
13 one. I was asking why isn't this subheading at the head of the column?
14 That is before firearms shelling, firearms sniping et cetera. Why isn't
15 that, this heading, the first line?
16 A. For firearms, you are suggesting that I should include a heading,
17 general heading "firearms" as such?
18 Q. No, Madam.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Do I understand your question well,
20 Mr. Piletta-Zanin, that you asked the expert witness to explain why she
21 would not count firearm shelling, firearm sniper, firearm shooting,
22 firearm other, under a heading which would be direct casualties of war? I
23 mean, why are these categories not under the heading of direct casualties
24 of war? Is that what you would like to ask?
25 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] It is even clearer than when I
1 explained it.
2 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues]... clear
3 answers, Mr. Piletta-Zanin. Would you please answer.
4 THE WITNESS: It is mistake I made that the other heading is
5 direct casualties and not "other" direct casualties of war. But --
6 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation]
7 Q. Very well. Thank you.
8 So I assume, Madam Witness --
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stamp.
10 MR. IERACE: I believe the witness was in the process of giving an
11 explanation to the court
12 JUDGE ORIE: Did your finish your answer? I do understand that
13 you said it should have read "other" casualties of war. That was
14 expressing that the first categories were also direct casualties of war
15 but not the same?
16 THE WITNESS: Yes.
17 JUDGE ORIE: If that was your explanation, then please proceed. I
18 don't know whether you intended to add something.
19 THE WITNESS: If I may add, it was only that we tried to show the
20 major causes of killing. Major means significant numbers should be shown
21 for each category. The categories, shooting, firearms, are all
22 unspecified because you see the numbers. And for direct casualties of
23 war --
24 JUDGE ORIE: If I may interrupt you. I think it was mainly the
25 matter of why you would not consider these categories to be direct
1 casualties of war. And any further question was not put to you, but
2 perhaps, Mr. Piletta-Zanin, please proceed.
3 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] No, no. I am just taking note
4 that this heading should be up and then the other one heading should be
5 "other," et cetera.
6 Q. So if we go to page 5 of your report, Madam, could you please do
7 that. You have found the page, Madam?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. At the very end of the paragraph called "absolute numbers of
10 casualties", we have one of the dashes and I will read it in English [In
11 English] "the analysis of timing also suggests that many civilian
12 casualties were not caused by mechanisms which were killing or wounding
13 soldiers thus some kind of targeting civilians might be possible."
14 [Interpretation] Have you found this sentence? Thank you.
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Madam Witness, my questions are the following: Where and when in
17 your report were you able to compare what you call "the timing"? Could
18 you please tell me. Briefly, please.
19 A. There is a section in the report that discusses the results of
20 timing, as we call it, "timing." So this is in section -- it is section
22 Q. Page, please.
23 A. It is page 32.
24 Q. Very well.
25 Could you please tell me where you compared the timing -- I can
1 see the heading, but where did you do the comparison then?
2 A. Well, it is in the tables from 9 to 14, where we listed the dates
3 with the highest numbers of casualties for civilians and soldiers.
4 Q. Very well. Thank you. That is clear.
5 But, Madam, did you examine the locations of the events in
6 relation to the timing; yes or no?
7 A. Generally, but not specifically. So I did not compare every
8 single event --
9 Q. Very well.
10 A. -- The dates --
11 Q. Very well.
12 Madam Witness, let us imagine that one day there is a combat left
13 from the confrontation lines without much damage among the military, but
14 there is a stray bullet, faulty fire, faulty firing which results in 10
15 civilian casualties which results to the right of the front line. Did you
16 consider this possibility, yes or no, in your analysis of timing?
17 A. No, I didn't.
18 Q. Thank you very much.
19 The same question for the targets in the centre of the city. Were
20 you given information on the entirety of targets in the centre of the
22 A. I don't know exactly what you mean. But if you mean whether I
23 received written information about targets, the city centre, I didn't have
24 such information --
25 Q. Thank you very much.
1 So, Madam Witness, we agree that including this reservation, not
2 knowing where the target, military target was in the centre of the six
3 municipalities you mentioned, you would not know if these victims were in
4 relation, yes or no, to an attack on a legitimate target?
5 A. We had general information about place or killing and wounding for
6 both civilians and soldiers, but, well, I didn't compare this information
7 with some other source that would be telling me about targets in the city
9 Q. Let me take a very clear example. You have 10 to 15 victims on
10 the Benevolencija Street, I like the name of the street. These 10 to 15
11 victims, are they going to be taken up into your figures without any other
12 processing of them?
13 A. Of course, we process this information, we called "displace" as I
14 said in local community, and then further as a municipality, and then we
15 use this item in the analysis. We did not study places as streets or
16 under common names, given as common names, very specifically.
17 Q. But specifically, this name of Benevolencija, doesn't mean
18 anything to you, does it?
19 A. If you expect me to remember all streets in Sarajevo --
20 JUDGE ORIE: Let me just interfere. Do I understand you well, and
21 I am questioning yourself, why you don't ask the expert witness, whether
22 she considered whether casualties, maybe civilian or soldiers, could be --
23 could have occurred because of the presence at a certain place of a
24 military target that would justify an attack on that place? Is that the
25 question you would like to put to the witness.
1 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] This is the question I
2 generally put.
3 JUDGE ORIE: It you are calculating, if you are analysing your
4 figures, did you take into account that sometimes civilians might have
5 been close to concentrations of military people, headquarters, troops,
7 THE WITNESS: This is clear now. I did not use additional
8 information of this type in the analysis of the data from this survey.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you very much. Yes.
10 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Another two questions.
11 JUDGE ORIE: I look at the interpreters and see -- would this be
12 your last two questions.
13 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes. These would be the
14 Defence questions in general.
15 JUDGE ORIE: That would then conclude the cross-examination?
16 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Quite.
17 JUDGE ORIE: If I then have the cooperation of the booth for the
18 last two questions, which include the very very last questions as
19 well Mr. Piletta-Zanin. Please proceed.
20 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation]
21 Q. Madam Witness, can we now look at page 98 in your report. Did you
22 find it?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. So that everything is clear because in the chronology, it might
25 not be stated there is a peak both among the civilians and the soldiers
1 and, of course, for all wounded and on a date which is after the 30th of
2 January 1994, if this is the case, can you please confirm that this is in
3 keeping with the date of the 5th of February 1994, because the date of the
4 5th is not mentioned?
5 A. I believe it is 5th, the 5th of February.
6 Q. Thank you.
7 So we are talking about the Markale attack?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Thank you.
10 Is it true, and we are talking in purely statistical terms, that
11 there is a drastic drop in the number of victims, whoever they may be,
12 straight after the date of the 5th of February, and this is true until the
13 date which is of concern to us, of the 10th of August, 1994; yes or no?
14 A. Yes it is.
15 Q. Madam Witness, if you know this please tell us: Is the situation,
16 is it a causal situation that is then in place?
17 A. I don't know, but I believe there had been probably certain
18 extraordinary events that caused this significant difference in the
19 pattern of timing observed before the 5th of February and after the 5th of
21 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Very last question. It is the
22 last question.
23 Q. As far as you know, has any proceedings been launched or -- with
24 relation to Katyn?
25 MR. STAMP: I object.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, questions should not only be
2 understood by a witness, for example, because she has a certain personal
3 background but should be informative for the Chamber as well and should be
4 understandable for the other party as well. So would you please
5 indicate -- I take it that you are referring to, well, let's say,
6 occurrence outside the timeframe and outside the geographical frame of the
7 indictment. So would you then please be clear, and it is not just the
8 witness. Yes.
9 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I thought it was clear for
10 everybody. I am sorry. Mea maxima culpa. I am very sorry for this.
11 Q. Do you know, Madam Witness, whether some ad hoc proceedings were
12 started following the massacre of 18.000 young officers who were executed
13 through a bullet in their napes in NKVD at the time, I don't think so?
14 A. I don't know.
15 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] No further question. Thank
17 JUDGE ORIE: We will then adjourn until 25 minutes past 4.00.
18 Could the Prosecution already indicate whether there is any need to
19 re-examine the witness?
20 MR. STAMP: Indeed, just one or two questions.
21 JUDGE ORIE: One or two questions, so shortly --
22 MR. STAMP: Not literally one or two --
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but a limited number. Yes, I am trying to
24 understand everyone, according to what they intend to say.
25 We will adjourn for half an hour.
1 --- Recess taken at 3.55 p.m.
2 --- On resuming at 4.29 p.m.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, I was informed that you wanted to
4 address the Chamber, just briefly.
5 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, very briefly, Mr.
6 President. My co-counsel is more shocked, Ms. Pilipovic, than I am. We
7 were unfortunately the target of something that I would call a verbal
8 aggression in the halls, in the corridors, during the break. It was
9 probably by someone who was earlier in the public gallery and who seemed
10 not to appreciate us as defendant lawyers of Mr. Galic, nor Galic himself.
11 Now, Mr. President, we didn't provoke this. We were just going in the
12 corridor to have a coffee and we were attacked by a person we have never
13 seen before. They provoked the Defence. There was -- this provoked a
14 certain upset, as you can imagine. And now particularly, this shocked
15 Ms. Pilipovic, although I have seen such occurrences. I believe that this
16 is unbearable, unacceptable, and for once I remained quiet. And it was
17 very hard for me to remain silent and not respond. And I am afraid I will
18 not remain silent if this situation happens again.
19 Could you please take note of what has happened. I don't think
20 that we are the only ones who are subject to this. Now, thank you for
21 allowing me to address you publicly on this subject, because I hope that
22 in the future, such incidents are launched against whoever will not happen
23 again. Thank you.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, this is a very serious matter.
25 First of all, I would like to express my appreciation that you took
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 whatever effort not to give the person involved, of whom I do not know the
2 identity, any opportunity to further escalate the, whether it was verbal,
3 or at least the hostile attitude towards you. The Chamber will ask
4 specific attention of the security for what happened and the Chamber will
5 take care that the Registry will be informed. If, in your view, any
6 specific measure should favour that this would not happen again, please
7 let the Chamber know, since the security of the Defence is just as
8 important as the security of everyone in this courtroom.
9 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, thank you for
10 your attention. Again, I am saying that security does a very good job,
11 although sometimes they screen us very carefully, Defence lawyers, but
12 obviously the security of Mr. Galic is not in question, is not at risk.
13 The security of the Defence lawyers of General Galic is not at risk.
14 Thank you.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, then I hope, Ms. Pilipovic, that you will
16 recover from it. I can imagine, the Chamber can imagine what is difficult
17 thing it is to experience, that if you are fulfilling your duty, if you
18 are doing what Defence counsel should do, that you are approached in this
20 Then, is the Prosecution ready to re-examine the witness? Mr.
21 Usher, could you please bring in the expert witness.
22 [The witness entered court]
23 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Tabeau, we had to deal with a procedural matter
24 for a couple of minutes that caused the delay.
25 Mr. Stamp, please proceed with the re-examination of the witness.
1 Re-examined by Mr. Stamp:
2 Q. You were shown page 102 of the report. In an answer to a question
3 about the two graphs on that page you agreed that women have suffered
4 relatively little during this period. When you say, "relatively,"
5 relative to what?
6 A. In relation to men, of course. This figure, the one numbered
7 A5K4, is a comparison of the mortality of killed -- rates of killed of men
8 and women.
9 Q. In the course of cross-examination you said that every source, it
10 is just a sample, it is incomplete. Can you explain what you mean by,
12 A. Incomplete means that not all actual events are included, are
13 covered by the sources. Sources are not exhaustive, simply, these type of
14 sources. Also our source, Household Survey, but these are still
16 Q. The fact that this is incomplete, what effect would that have on
17 the figures that you have found?
18 A. It is that from other sources it is likely, we would be able to
19 collect more information about cases of killed individuals and the numbers
20 presented in this report, presented here as at-least numbers, minimum
21 numbers, would be even higher than what is on paper by now.
22 MR. STAMP: Thank you very much. Nothing further, Mr. President.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Judge Nieto-Navia has one or more questions to you.
24 Questioned by the Court:
25 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: Thank you, Mr. President.
1 [Interpretation] This is in relation to what Mr. Piletta-Zanin
2 said this is document 154, this is the document from Geneva. And the
3 question is: What is the population of Geneva?
4 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour, for
5 this question. I am not an expert, as you know, but I can tell you that
6 the population of Geneva is approximately 350.000 people. And to be
7 perfectly honest, I have to say that when we look at the topographic
8 situation which is very specific to Geneva University Hospital were made
9 for a larger basis because the people from the border regions can have
10 access. So, in fact, the figure goes up to 400.000 people, if we include
11 the basin on the outside, because you know the Geneva is practically
12 inside the French basin. So the population is roughly 350.000. Does this
13 answer your question?
14 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: Yes, but now I would like to have an
15 explanation on the table that you presented. We have the first part under
16 the same heading, 24 hours, and we have the same hospitals. I believe
17 that the first one is referring to the admissions, hospital admissions,
18 and then the other two out-patients.
19 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] No, I am sorry, I am going to
20 try and explain as follows: There are two institutions which comprise
21 the -- what we call the HUG, which are the University Hospitals of Geneva.
22 These two institutions are the Cantonal Hospital and the second hospital
23 which is called Belle Idee which is basically used for psychiatric
24 services to the population. But here we only have the entries for under
25 24 hours for the two hospitals. These are the first two columns. And
1 then we have the entries of over 24 hours. These are the two following
2 columns. But this is both for accidents. So it is not for illnesses. So
3 it could be a traffic accident or a home accident and so on.
4 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: Thank you very much.
5 [In English] Now I have some questions to the witness. Will you
6 please have a look on page 24 of your report, please.
7 A. Yes.
8 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: The first paragraph after the table says, if I
9 understand that well, that the difference between the second column and
10 the third column of page 2 -- of table 2, I am sorry, second and third
11 column, is that the all events that occurred outside the siege period or
12 the siege area and such relevant events from outside the indictment period
13 were excluded in the third column?
14 A. Yes.
15 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: Is that true?
16 A. Yes.
17 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: Okay. Now my question is whether you have the
18 discrimination between those two things, what I mean is the discrimination
19 between events outside the area and outside the date? Because the figures
20 are high. It is more than 2.500 people between the second column and the
21 third one.
22 A. Yes.
23 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: So, do you have the discrimination according
24 to those events excluded because they are outside the date or those are
25 excluded because they are outside the area?
1 A. The difference between the 32.703 and 20.151, the difference are
2 events that are outside the indictment period and indictment area, the
3 area within the confrontation lines.
4 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: Yes. My question is whether you have the
5 figures for each one of those events excluded, the events excluded because
6 they are outside the area or excluded because they are --
7 A. Yes. Well, we can provide the statistics.
8 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: But you don't have it --
9 A. Not right now that I could say immediately how many events were
10 excluded because they are outside the period, outside the area, or both,
11 outside the period and the area. But we can compile the statistics --
12 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: But you have the information?
13 THE WITNESS: We have the information but a query database must be
14 made to show the statistics for killed, wounded and natural deaths. But,
15 generally, if we subtract these two columns in table two, so then we will
16 see the outcome of these exercises.
17 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: Yes, of course. It is total 12.552.
18 A. Yes, but specific answer to show how many events were excluded
19 because they were outside the indictment period or indictment area or
20 both. I would have to calculate this. I don't have these figures in this
21 report right now.
22 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: I don't know whether we can ask for that, if
23 the Chamber agrees.
24 [Trial Chamber confers]
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. If it would be possible for you --
1 A. Yes, of course.
2 JUDGE ORIE: -- To introduce--
3 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: Yes, thank you.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Judge El Mahdi has a question for you.
5 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] Could you please give me a
6 clarification on a question that was asked by the Defence. I thought I
7 understood that the Defence was interested in finding out your opinion or
8 your view as an expert in the matter of the rates, death rates, in normal
9 times, in normal circumstances, and how much was it higher or lower or the
10 same, in comparison to what happened in the period between summer 1992 and
11 summer 1994? I didn't quite follow your answer so I would be grateful for
12 it now.
13 A. Thank you, Your Honour, for this question. We presented a
14 comparison of this type in our report. And please if you could refer to
15 section in which the rates are discussed, I am speaking about page 40 and
16 page 42 of the report. At page 40, we present table 15. In this table,
17 we begin our discussion by showing rates obtained for six municipalities
18 relevant to this discussion in this report for two periods. One is the
19 year 1991, just one single year. And this is the column titled "death
20 rate 1991." At the bottom of this column, we see the death rate presented
21 for six municipalities together it is 676,2 deaths per 100.000 population.
22 This is how we should read this rate. And next to it we have death rate
23 shown for the two-year period for the year 1990 and 1991. This period is
24 directly comparable in terms of its length with the indictment period,
25 which is approximately two years, too.
1 The two-year rate equals 1.342,23 deaths per 100.000 population.
2 In table 16 under -- just directly under table 15, we present rates in the
3 first row of the table. For the killed population, natural death rate and
4 overall death rate. Killing rate, natural death rate, and overall death
5 rate. This rate can be directly compared with the rate for the years
6 1990, 1991, presented in table 15. Overall death rate is just the sum of
7 the two, the rate of killed and the rate of natural deaths.
8 In table 17 on page 42, we show ratios of the rates of killed and
9 natural deaths and overall death rate. To the rate, empirical rate
10 observed for the Sarajevo Six in 1990 and 1991. So we take the rate
11 empirical rate for the years 1990, 1991, as a baseline standard and show,
12 in table 17, the ratios, the difference, relative difference of the rates
13 we obtained for the killed population and natural deaths and overall death
14 rates, in comparison to this empirical rate.
15 For instance, overall death rate in table 17 equal 1,65, means
16 that the rate obtained for the years of the indictment period, the overall
17 death rate for the indictment period, is by 65 per cent higher, by 65 per
18 cent higher than the prewar rate for the Sarajevo Six.
19 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] Very well.
20 We are still talking about the population of the same number? The
21 same size? Normally, is there an increase in the population?
22 A. The rates are relative measures which can be directly compared,
23 the population size is the same. It is 100.000 population. Rate shows
24 the number of events per a standard population which is 100.000
25 individuals. So, it is -- the size is adjusted therefore, we stress in
1 this report, rates are the measures to compare, not absolute numbers,
2 rates. And the rates tell us that mortality, overall mortality was higher
3 in the indictment period, compared to prewar mortality by 65 per cent.
4 Moreover, we see that rate for killings is higher than the rate for
5 natural deaths in the indictment period in relative terms. So deaths,
6 because of killing, were more frequent than deaths because of natural
7 causes of death.
8 And killing are generally violent deaths that would have never
9 happened if there were no conflict in Sarajevo in this period.
10 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] Thank you. Thank you.
11 Mr. President.
12 JUDGE ORIE: I have one question for you. I am just trying to
13 find out whether my understanding of your page 42 of the report is
14 correct. Am I right in understanding that the chance of being killed by
15 the war would be for children, between zero and four years, eight times as
16 high as the chance to die by natural causes?
17 A. Yes, generally, this is the understanding.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Would it -- is my understanding correct that if
19 I look at the population of 0 to 17 years, well, let's say the youth, that
20 the chance of being killed compared the chance of to die by natural causes
21 would be 18 times as high?
22 A. Approximately, yes.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Would it also be true that the chance of being killed
24 for war circumstances for these category of youngsters between 0 and 17
25 years would be comparatively lower than such a risk for people between 18
1 and 69 years, that is, approximately one-third. So that young children,
2 although they had a chance of dying because of the war circumstances
3 which, in general, would be up to almost 20 times as high, at the same
4 time, these children, the chance of being killed by war events would be
5 approximately one-third of the chance of being killed, compared to, I
6 would say, adults up to 70 years old?
7 A. Yes.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you very much. I am just trying to
9 understand the figures and see what they are all about.
10 Yes, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
11 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, counsel, please.
12 JUDGE ORIE: They are related to the questions of the Bench.
13 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, they are, indeed.
14 JUDGE ORIE: The matter that we talked about, figures as such, is
15 not something new from the Bench, but if is a specific aspect, please.
16 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, it's new. It's new
17 because if this witness has to bring new data, as it was suggested by His
18 Honour Judge Nieto-Navia what are we going to do with it and when are we
19 going to be able to question the witness? I don't know whether this data
20 can be given now, which would be the best. That is the first question I
21 am asking. But that is more a question for the Chamber and not the
23 JUDGE ORIE: Let's first ask the witness, at what -- in what time
24 she could produce the figures Judge Nieto-Navia was asking for, that is to
25 make a distinction between those excluded for being out of the
1 geographical area, those being excluded because being out of the time
2 limit or both?
3 A. It is possible to do it tomorrow. I am in court tomorrow in
4 another case, so late in the afternoon we could provide these figures.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Perhaps, if we first see that figures, then we
6 will see whether there is any specific need to put additional questions to
7 the witness.
8 Mr. Stamp, if that would be acceptable for the Prosecution?
9 MR. STAMP: Indeed, it would be. We are in the hands of the
11 JUDGE ORIE: I don't think it will take much time, but even if it
12 would -- yes.
13 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] So the methodology which goes
14 down to two, I have two questions that arise from the questions asked by
15 the Chamber.
16 Further cross-examination by Mr. Piletta-Zanin:
17 Q. [Interpretation] Madam Witness, you said earlier that the period
18 which was covered by the indictment, the rate, the mortality rate,
19 increased by 65 per cent. Do you remember that?
20 A. Yes, compared the period 1991.
21 Q. Indeed.
22 Now, Madam Witness, were you able to do the following, since you
23 had the figures going from January 1992 to September 1994, were you able
24 to examine what was the increase of the mortality rate for the three
25 months, May, June, July, that is the three months of the beginning of the
1 war before General Galic took over the command? Have you done this
2 exercise, and if you haven't, could you do it and give it together with
3 the responses that you are to give starting from tomorrow?
4 A. We haven't done it, but I believe I can do it.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So it is the wish of the Defence that the, may
6 I say, the death rates of the period covered by the indictment, would be
7 compared with the death rate of the first month of the conflict. Then, of
8 course, you asked some questions about that, Mr. Piletta-Zanin. Would you
9 please indicate when the conflict started or is it these three months?
10 THE WITNESS: Which area, this is also important for me --
11 JUDGE ORIE: Area, within the confrontation lines?
12 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] We are still talking about the
13 same area, since it is only about the six municipalities that we are
14 talking about and that Madam could deal with, and I think objectively
15 speaking, that is what she should be compared to.
16 JUDGE ORIE: What we are trying to find out whether the effects of
17 the war as far as death rates were different --
18 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes
19 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues]... compared the
20 later months covered by the indictment.
21 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] In fact, we could even take
22 the month of April, May, June and July, since we would then focus on these
23 four months.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Can this be done by months or periods of three months
25 because I can't imagine that the month of April might show a picture which
1 might not be easy to understand. So that's your question? Is there
2 any --
3 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes. Mr. President, I
4 apologise. There was a second question which was the following: In
5 relation to the clarification that you have asked for, in relation to the
6 child mortality and youth mortality, what I wanted is for the expert to
7 have a look at page 64 of her report.
8 THE WITNESS: Yes.
9 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation]
10 Q. Madam, so that we can understand this report as we should, the
11 figures that we have here, and I believe that is at the end of the table,
12 these numbers, are they years -- no, I apologise. Are these percentages,
13 the numbers below the table?
14 A. These are all absolute numbers, but the figure itself, the chart,
15 shows percentages.
16 Q. Thank you very much.
17 Madam, as far as the 5 per cent are concerned, let us take 5 per
18 cent on the side of men. What is the upper limit that we are unable to
19 read in the table?
20 A. Upper limit of percentage, you mean?
21 Q. No. We have a column here which represents 5 per cent of men.
22 The majority are civilians and about one-third or a smaller number are
23 military personnel. In order to be able to understand properly, could you
24 please tell us, what the maximum projection would be, when we are talking
25 about the age groups on the second axis of the chart.
1 A. Age group, 10 to 19, but, please, don't mix up things again. This
2 figure shows the structure of the sample and cannot be used in any
3 comparisons of intensities of death or wounding. Similar figure for
4 wounding. So this is just a structure, a structure of the sample, you
5 know. So these are not measures of intensity of death.
6 Q. We are talking about the same thing, but you would probably agree
7 with me that the upper limit is 18. Allow me to put the question to you.
8 The question is simply: Is the upper range of the second column
9 approximately indicating up to the age of 18?
10 A. It is not --
11 Q. In the projection?
12 A. As it is given in the table above this figure these are 10 years
13 intervals or equal. First one is from 0 to 9. Next one is 10 to 19.
14 Third one, 20 to 29 and so on.
15 Q. So the upper limit is 20?
16 A. No, the upper limit of the second interval is 19.
17 Q. Very well. 19. Thank you.
18 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I have no further questions.
19 Further re-examination by Mr. Stamp:
20 MR. STAMP:
21 Q. The upper limit that you just spoke of is in respect of which
23 A. It is page 64, table 64 -- page 64, table A3.1 in which we show in
24 the standard demographic way the age distribution of the killed population
25 and we show the same figures in the chart at the bottom of the page. This
1 is A3.2. These are the same figures as in the table only shown as
2 percentages. And the -- it is a general information about the sample and
3 its age structure and nothing more than that. No comparisons can be made
4 on the basis of what we see here on this page.
5 Q. In other words, they are just absolute numbers?
6 A. They are just absolute numbers. It is the numbers, nothing more
7 than that, absolute numbers.
8 JUDGE ORIE: And the percentage of these --
9 THE WITNESS: The percentage of the particular group in the
10 sample, that's it.
11 MR. STAMP:
12 Q. And finally --
13 A. And the rates -- excuse me, if you let me to finish, allow me to
14 finish. Rates relate events in a particular age group, for instance, to
15 the population in this particular age group, which is a different thing.
16 Completely different thing. And this is a measure of intensity that can
17 be compared between age groups, between populations, between countries, in
18 time, in whatever way. That is the difference.
19 Q. Thank you.
20 In respect to age groups, you have also broken it down in table 1
21 to civilian casualties 10 to 17 years old, have you?
22 A. Yes, yes, yes. We basically have information about single years
23 of age, we can show the distribution by any age classification that is
24 needed. In the annexes, we use the standard demographic way of presenting
25 our statistics. In demography we use either one year age groups, 5 year
1 age groups or 10 year age groups. We have chosen 10 year age groups
2 because this is a brief way of summarising age distribution of the
4 MR. STAMP: Thank you very much.
5 JUDGE ORIE: So, since I see that there are no further questions
6 at this moment, I would like to thank you, Ms. Tabeau, but tell you at the
7 same time, that you are not finally excused, but if the parties would like
8 to add -- to ask questions in relation to the figures you are producing to
9 us. And I think the most proper way of doing it, Madam Registrar, is that
10 they will be sent to the Registry directly by you. So, we forget that you
11 are employed by the Office of the Prosecutor, and you directly deliver
12 your figures to the -- to the Registry.
13 May I then also ask you, especially since this might even be for a
14 bit longer period of time, that it was yesterday, I did not specifically
15 ask you, but from your answers I understood that it was clear to you that
16 you do not speak with anyone, not with colleagues, not someone with, not
17 someone outside of the OTP about your testimony in this court and that
18 remains valid until you will be finally excused. Thank you very much for
19 coming and answering questions of both parties and the Bench.
20 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
21 [The witness stands down]
22 JUDGE ORIE: May I take it, Mr. Stamp, that the Prosecution is
23 ready to call its next witness?
24 MR. STAMP: Indeed.
25 JUDGE ORIE: And that would be --
1 MR. STAMP: Ismet Hadzic.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, we will wait until -- yes, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
3 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I don't know if
4 we need to resolve the question of the documents first or should we wait
5 until the end of the testimony of Mrs. Tabeau?
6 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues]... do it by now. We
7 have not yet asked the usher to bring in the witness.
8 Madam Registrar, could you please assist us.
9 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P3731A, addendum to Prosecutor's
10 submission pursuant to Rule 94 bis of expert report Ewa Tabeau --
11 THE INTERPRETER: Is it possible to slow down, please. Thank you.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
13 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Your Honour, in view of
14 everything that relates to Mrs. Tabeau's report, perhaps we could do this
15 after we receive the additional information.
16 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues]... parts. I have no
17 objection against that. I don't know whether it makes a big difference,
18 but if the final figures would cast in whatever way, serious doubts as to
19 the other parts of the report but if it -- if the Defence would prefer
20 that, okay, let's then do it this way. Then, Madam Registrar, could you
21 please -- would the same be true for all the other documents that --
22 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] No. I think that all the
23 other documents which do not relate to the report could be dealt with now.
24 MR. STAMP: In respect to the issue as to the documents relevant
25 to the report itself, I would submit that there is sufficient evidence
1 before the Court for the Court to take that decision now, notwithstanding
2 that she has been asked to do some follow-up calculations or research.
3 That is not, it is my submission, a sufficient reason to prevent us from
4 dealing with matters which have been covered sufficiently for them to be
5 admitted into evidence.
6 JUDGE ORIE: I will first consult with my colleagues.
7 [Trial Chamber confers]
8 JUDGE ORIE: Taking into account that there might not be serious
9 reasons, legal reasons, not to do it now. On the other hand, it might be
10 very practical, if we're dealing with the numbers anyhow, that we do it
11 all at the same time. So, if we say that we do it later, then this has no
12 meaning whatsoever as far as the admissibility as such. It is just for
13 practical reasons, and whether that would change or not, of course you
14 would never know in advance. It is not in appreciation of the legal
15 situation, Mr. Stamp.
16 [Trial Chamber confers]
17 JUDGE ORIE: Then, Mr. Usher, could you please escort the next
18 witness into the courtroom.
19 [The witness entered court]
20 JUDGE ORIE: Can you hear me in a language you understand?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Before giving testimony in this court, the Rules of
23 Procedure and Evidence require you to make a solemn declaration that you
24 will speak the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. The text
25 of this declaration will be handed out to you by the usher, and may I
1 invite you to make that solemn declaration.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I solemnly declare that
3 I will speak the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you very much. Please be seated. You will
5 first be examined by counsel for it Prosecution. Mr. Stamp, please
7 WITNESS: ISMET HADZIC
8 [Witness answered through interpreter]
9 Examined by Mr. Stamp:
10 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Hadzic. Could you start by telling us your
11 full name.
12 A. Good afternoon. I am Ismet Hadzic, son of Dervis.
13 Q. And what was your occupation before the conflict broke out in
14 Sarajevo, say in January, February, of 1992?
15 A. I worked at Energoinvest in the control of --
16 THE INTERPRETER: And the interpreter did not catch what the
17 witness said.
18 MR. STAMP:
19 Q. Could you please repeat your answer. You said you worked at
20 Energoinvest and can you continue please.
21 A. Energoinvest working on the jobs of control without destruction.
22 I was a specialist for materials research, for nondestructive or
23 nonexplosive materials.
24 Q. Were you a mechanical engineer?
25 A. Yes, you could say that.
1 Q. Where did you live at that time?
2 A. I lived in Dobrinja.
3 Q. Did you live alone or did you live with a family at that time?
4 A. After the Olympic Games in 1984, I got an apartment in Dobrinja
5 and I lived there in the area -- in the neighbourhood of Dobrinja with my
6 wife and three children.
7 Q. Now, in the course of the conflict did you have any position in
8 relation to the parties to the conflict?
9 A. At the beginning of the conflict, no.
10 Q. Very well.
11 Now, during the conflict, in for example, 1993, did you have any
12 position in relation to any of the parties in the conflict?
13 A. The -- I was appointed Commander of the Dobrinja Brigade on the
14 6th of July 1992.
15 Q. Thank you.
16 Before your appointment as Commander of the Dobrinja Brigade,
17 could you tell us briefly, if you can, or describe events which lead up to
18 the outbreak of fighting in the area around Dobrinja?
19 A. The most important things to say are that Dobrinja was closed on
20 the 4th of May, 1992. What I mean by that is that it was blocked by
21 checkpoints towards the city. It was isolated from the city.
22 Q. By whom? By whom was it isolated do you know, or which group?
23 A. By Serb forces. The Serb forces put up a checkpoint between the
24 Olympic settlement in Mojmilo and the area of Dobrinja, they placed trucks
25 and logs there so that was the only road that led to the city and that was
1 closed, thereby cutting us off from the city.
2 Q. Did you, apart from these checkpoints, did you observe any other
3 movement of troops in the community before the outbreak of fighting?
4 A. At the end of 1991, while the conflicts in Slovenia and Croatia
5 were going on, large numbers of the Serb or the Yugoslav Army forces were
6 withdrawing from those areas. So they were passing through the roads and
7 streets of Dobrinja, which lead to Lukavica with all their soldiers and
8 equipment. There were hundreds of tanks and APCs that arrived at the
9 Lukavica Barracks. With the arrival of all those people, they were
10 already coming into the Dobrinja neighbourhood and being very rowdy in the
11 local cafes in that area.
12 Q. And before the outbreak of fighting did the civilians or the
13 people in Dobrinja do anything or organise in any way?
14 A. Before I answer your question, I would like to say that something
15 that made the people of Dobrinja organise themselves was the fact that the
16 Serb forces came out to the water supplies around the Mojmilo hills.
17 These were the water reservoirs outside of the city. This is the
18 reservoir that supplied almost 70 per cent of the city of Sarajevo with
19 water. So that is something that made the people organise themselves.
20 After these units came out with the tanks and the APCs, the
21 organisation idea already started to take root because people could sense
22 that perhaps war was coming.
23 Q. During the -- during the period of the 4th to the 13th of May,
24 1992, did anything in particular happen in that area?
25 A. From the 4th to the 13th of May, the most important event was the
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 exodus of the population of Dobrinja over -- using the hill of Mojmilo to
2 do that.
3 Q. Exactly what happened, if you could tell us in that period, from
4 the 4th to the 13th of May?
5 A. After Dobrinja was physically sealed off until about the 10th of
6 May, nothing significant happened. The most significant event in
7 Dobrinja, as I said, was the 13th of May. That's the exodus of the
8 civilian population from Dobrinja towards the city.
9 Q. About how many people from Dobrinja went towards the city?
10 A. I can't say exactly, but the people that I spoke to assume that,
11 under terrible psychological pressure, some 3 to 5.000 citizens of
12 Dobrinja left to go to the city.
13 Q. Can you say under what circumstances or why they left?
14 A. That morning, one tank and two APCs appeared on a small bridge
15 that links the banks of the Dobrinja river, which is -- the bridge is
16 right across the part of the settlement that is called Dobrinja IV. They
17 started firing at the neighbourhood from automatic weapons. After that,
18 they used loudspeakers to inform the population that they had the
19 possibility from the morning until 5.00 in the afternoon to leave
20 Dobrinja, and that nothing would happen to them, that they can carry with
21 them only what they were able to carry in their hands, and that members of
22 the army would help them to cross into Sarajevo.
23 Very quickly, a large column of people was formed, women,
24 children, men, with bags in their hands, with clothes, and they were
25 hurrying towards that section of the road held by the at that time, the
1 Serb army.
2 Q. You said that 3 to 5.000 people left. By what route did they
4 A. The route went below the Mojmilo reservoir via the reservoir all
5 the way to the next neighbourhood, that was the Olympic village.
6 Q. Approximately what was the population of Dobrinja at the time when
7 these people left, the 13th, 14th of May 1992?
8 A. I can't give you a precise number because a lot of the Serb
9 population had already left Dobrinja. But Dobrinja had a population of
10 about 45.000 before the war.
11 Q. Very well.
12 After these 3 to 5.000 people left, approximately how many people
13 remained in Dobrinja?
14 A. We had an authoritative number according to the lists which were
15 required to be given to the international forces in order for humanitarian
16 aid to be given. And this number ranged from 24 to 27.000 people.
17 Q. Now, following the departure of these people, 3 to 5.000, did
18 anything happen in your community just around the 15th of May, 1992?
19 A. These were days full of chaos for the population of Dobrinja, and
20 they were crucial for the survival of Dobrinja. The next day was fairly
21 quiet, but the day after that, the most terrible shelling occurred from
22 all sides of Dobrinja. This was a big surprise for the population.
23 People didn't know what was going on, so they would come out to
24 look at where a shell had landed, but after that, when they could see the
25 consequences, then people started to flee whenever they could, all around
1 the Dobrinja buildings.
2 Q. When you say, "people would come out when a shell had landed,"
3 what do you mean?
4 A. What I meant to say is that I had the sense that people simply
5 didn't know what war was, and they would come out to see what this looked
6 like, how this was manifested in the location where the shell fell.
7 Q. Did this have any effect on the rate or level of casualties on the
8 earlier period, earlier period of the conflict when people were
9 unaccustomed to shells falling around them?
10 A. In the beginning, no.
11 Q. Thank you.
12 Now, you said you became the commander of the Dobrinja Brigade.
13 Was that in the Army of the Bosnian Federation?
14 A. There was no Federation at that time. There was the Army of
15 Bosnia-Herzegovina. Since we were under siege, the organisation or the
16 forming of the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina proceeded in May and June. We
17 were the last brigade to be formed in the Sarajevo Corps.
18 Q. Could you briefly describe the origins and the formation of the
19 brigade, the Dobrinja Brigade?
20 A. To tell you the truth, I was surprised when I was appointed
21 commander of the brigade. I wasn't a military person, and this was a
22 serious and difficult and responsible task. The only thing that I new
23 regarding military matters was what I knew from serving in the JNA.
24 Q. For how long did you serve in the JNA?
25 A. When I was called up, the duty lasted for 18 months. But in the
1 army, when I served in 1970 to 71, there were these things that were going
2 on in Croatia the mass movement and the term of duty was shortened to 15
4 Q. Thank you. Forgive me if I say so. But I am trying to move
5 through pretty speedily, but if you could answer the questions I am asking
6 you --
7 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps, I explain to you. The Prosecution is under
8 certain time limits. So if you give additional information, not
9 specifically asked for, that takes time while the Prosecution might have
10 several other things they are more interested in to know. And if any of
11 the additional things you would like to say specifically is what the
12 Prosecution wants to hear, they will certainly ask you for that. Yes.
13 MR. STAMP: Thank you, Mr. President.
14 Q. Now, could you briefly describe for us how the brigade was formed?
15 A. I found a colonel who lived in Dobrinja and I asked him if he
16 could make up the structure of a brigade, if he could remember what the
17 structure was, and very quickly, he established the brigade. And this is
18 how we began to get organised. So this was the structure of the brigade,
19 based on the recollection of this ex-JNA colonel.
20 Q. Now, why did you need to form a unit in Dobrinja at the time, and
21 about when did you and this colonel organise the structure of this
23 A. To tell you the truth, we needed two months in order to get the
24 brigade going in its initial phase of activity.
25 Q. And when was this two months?
1 A. From the 6th of July to -- so July and August. By September, we
2 had already had a formed brigade after a fashion, and this was thanks to
3 the help of this colonel.
4 Q. Now, just could you say why it was necessary, in your view, to
5 form a brigade in Dobrinja at that time?
6 A. In the area where we were, the only response to the aggression,
7 which was coming our way, was to unite all the patriotic forces and to
8 respond with a unified system which had already been set up throughout the
9 Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina with the forming of the army.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
11 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes Mr. President. Since I
12 never know which aggression we are talking about here, and also I would
13 like to make it a rule, perhaps the witness could be informed about the
14 way that we are treating this word "aggression" before your Chamber.
15 Thank you.
16 JUDGE ORIE: First of all, Mr. Piletta-Zanin, there would be no
17 misunderstanding as to what the witness meant. Second, the witness was
18 referring to a response to what he called an aggression, which is
19 different from if we are, in general terms, talking about the conflict.
20 Mr. Hadzic, usually, unless there is a specific reason to use
21 words like, "aggression," we usually are talking about the conflict or the
22 armed conflict, since this Chamber has still to make all the
23 determinations necessary. So if you could use a neutral term, please do
24 so. If there is a specific reason why you would use a word like,"defence"
25 or "aggression," please make clear to us why you use that word.
1 Please proceed, Mr. Stamp.
2 MR. STAMP: Thank you, Mr. President.
3 Q. What was the name of the brigade when it was formed?
4 A. The 1st Dobrinja Brigade.
5 Q. And did that name remain the same during the conflict or did it
7 A. The name changed several times throughout the war.
8 Q. Well, let's go to the first two changes. When was the changed
9 first and what was the new name?
10 A. As far as I can remember, this was in the first half of 1993, the
11 brigade was called the 5th Motorised Brigade.
12 Q. And then later, what was it re-named to?
13 A. I don't know which period this is, but there was a restructuring
14 of the army, and then it was renamed the 125th Mountain Brigade.
15 Q. What was the strength of the brigade upon formation, in terms of
16 the amount of men it had?
17 A. At the initial phase, it had from 1.800 to 2000 men. In this
18 first restructuring, then it had about 3.000 men.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stamp, if you can find a suitable moment for a
21 MR. STAMP: This is convenient.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We will adjourn for 20 minutes, so we will
23 adjourn until 6.00.
24 --- Recess taken at 5.40 p.m.
25 --- On resuming at 6.02 p.m.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stamp, please proceed.
2 MR. STAMP: Thank you, Mr. President.
3 Q. Mr. Hadzic, if we could move through quickly, how many battalions
4 did you have in 1992 and 1993 and 1994?
5 A. In 1992, we had four battalions. In 1993, we had five battalions.
6 And then later on after the restructuring, we had again, four battalions.
7 Q. And what was the ethnic composition of the brigade?
8 A. 21 per cent were non-Bosniaks and the rest were Bosniaks. About 6
9 per cent of Croats, the rest were Serbs and there was a small number
10 perhaps 2 Hungarians, a few Romani and then there was one Jew, I think.
11 Q. About what percentage were Serb?
12 A. I think about 13 per cent of the whole number, that is, out of
13 2000, there were perhaps 200 or so Serbs.
14 Q. Now, on the 29th of October last year, did you mark a map for an
15 OTP investigator which showed certain positions in Dobrinja during the
17 A. Yes.
18 MR. STAMP: With your leave, Mr. President, Your Honours, could
19 the witness be handed Exhibit P3732.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Usher, could you please assist.
21 MR. STAMP:
22 Q. The document which you have, Mr. Hadzic, do you see where you have
23 signed and dated the 29th of October 2001?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And do you have some markings on that map in red ink?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. I would like you to describe for us what those markings are.
3 MR. STAMP: Before you do so, can the map be placed on the ELMO.
4 Q. You have drawn a line from the area of the top of the map where
5 there is the word, "Mojmilo," going down to approximately the middle of
6 the map. What does that line indicate?
7 A. This line indicates the demarcation line or the last line that the
8 brigade was in control of towards Nedzarici and the Airport Settlement.
9 Q. Was there any structure or fortification in this area along this
11 A. Do you mean in the area that we did not have the control of?
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
13 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I object in relation to the
14 not very specific term of the word, "structure." It seems to be very
15 vague as definition, the word, "structure."
16 MR. STAMP: Very well. I will rephrase.
17 Q. That line that you have shown us, did you or your brigade
18 construct anything along that line?
19 A. These are our trenches and the area from which we defended
20 ourselves in the event of an attack.
21 Q. So that is what I am asking you. You said, "these are our
22 trenches." Did you construct trenches along those lines?
23 A. Where there is a natural configuration of the ground to dig the
24 trenches where it was easier, we dug trenches and when we -- there were
25 buildings and if they were abandoned then we would make fortifications and
1 then in between buildings, if the ground allowed it, then we created
2 trenches. We had this system of trenches, a network of trenches, and also
3 the buildings that formed our line of defence.
4 Q. Thank you.
5 Now, on the right-hand side of the map there is a red line which
6 is above the word, "Dobrinja" in italics and below the word, "Novi Grad."
7 A. Well, that's our second line, which was the last line that we had
8 under our control towards Lukavica and towards Kula.
9 Q. And below that line, there is another set of lines going down the
10 map ending above where the word, "Bijelo Polje, is written. Do you see
11 the word "Bijelo Polje," to the right --
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Above that, there are lines. What do those lines depict?
14 A. That is the airport runway and the communication between Kula and
15 Kasindolska Street.
16 Q. Thank you.
17 Now, I am asking you about the red line drawn above the word,
18 "Bijelo Polje." What is that?
19 A. That is part of our line. In fact, the last line that we had
20 under our control, combination of defence from the buildings, and then we
21 had trenches as much as the ground allowed it.
22 Q. There is a line ending with a dot and two dashes which comes off
23 that line. Do you see it? Could you point to it please.
24 A. [Indicates]
25 Q. And that dot is just below the word, "Dobrinja." What does that
1 red line indicate?
2 A. Yes. That is part of the trench that we had under our control.
3 Below the school that before the war was called Dusan Pajic-Dasic
4 [Realtime transcript read in error "Dusan"], that's what we had that was
5 under our control.
6 Q. During the war, was the school functioning?
7 A. No. It was destroyed.
8 Q. Thank you.
9 Now there is a line with a circle on it which runs across the
10 airport --
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
12 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President. For the
13 same reasons of usefulness for the cross-examination, it would be good if
14 the school's name is clearly indicated in the transcript. Perhaps
15 spelled, in fact. We only have Dusan, which is the first name. Line 6 of
16 page 68.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Would you ask the witness to spell the name of the
18 school, unless it is in his statement, Mr. Piletta-Zanin. Of course,
19 then --
20 MR. STAMP: I don't think it is in the statement, however --
21 JUDGE ORIE: It is not in the statement.
22 MR. STAMP:
23 Q. The school that you just mentioned, what is the name of it and can
24 you spell that name please.
25 A. Before the war it was called Dusan that is D-U-S-A-N,
2 JUDGE ORIE: May I ask you to clarify one issue, Mr. Stamp. The
3 witness was just pointing out a relatively large structure just below the
4 dot. Is that the school or was the school within the red dot? It is a
5 bit unclear to me.
6 MR. STAMP:
7 Q. Could you please tell us which one is the school, the dot or the
8 structure that you are pointing now, below the dot.
9 A. This building is the school, the one that I a indicating right
11 MR. STAMP: For the record, that is the building below that red
12 dot. Thank you.
13 Q. Now, there is a red line going across what you earlier pointed out
14 the runway. What is that red line demarcating?
15 A. This is the tunnel Dobrinja which was dug from below Dobrinja to
16 the Donji Kotorac.
17 Q. At the top or the end of the tunnel where it ends at what is shown
18 as the building, could you describe the line from that area to the circle
19 on the line is demarcating?
20 A. From this building I am indicating from the circle, it wasn't a
21 tunnel, it was a trench. And then the entrance to the tunnel is marked
22 with the small red circle.
23 Q. You have also marked on the map with dots with numbers adjacent to
24 these dots, could you indicate to us what the dot beside the number "1"
1 A. This point 1 indicates the location where the command of the
2 brigade was located.
3 Q. There is a dot with a number "2" adjacent to it. What is that
5 A. This is a place where the Logistics Battalion was located.
6 Q. And there is a dot with the number "3" beside it. What is that,
8 A. Also the location where, to start with, this place was also part
9 of the Logistics Battalion. Initially, it was a warehouse storage for the
10 Logistics Battalion.
11 Q. Was the Logistics Battalion or -- I withdraw that. When you speak
12 of the Logistics Battalion, are you referring to the headquarters of the
14 A. No. I am talking about the support services of the brigade. I am
15 talking about people who cooked for the brigade, cooks, people from the
16 medical services. Those services that support a brigade, in terms of
17 formationally speaking.
18 Q. So when you say that the dot at number "2" indicates a Logistics
19 Battalion, what do you mean? What was located at that dot?
20 A. People from that battalion, that is where the kitchens were and
21 storage warehouses, if we had any food, any equipment. Anything that was
22 necessary to support the brigade for the supplies, for anything for our
23 living conditions.
24 Q. Thank you.
25 And I take it from your evidence that at number "2" that was where
1 the Logistics Battalion initially was at?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Now in respect to number "3", are you saying that the place
4 housing the Logistics Battalion was divided or that the battalion moved
5 from position number "2" to position number "3"?
6 A. I think that this is where the police company was. I think that
7 this number also refers to the police company that was also part of the
9 Q. And you are pointing to number "3."
10 A. Yes. Because all of this location was Logistics Battalion where
11 warehouses and part of the premises were used by the company of the
12 Military Police. This is where they were located.
13 Q. You marked on the map with a dot and a number "4" beside it, a
14 particular position. Could you tell us what that position is.
15 A. That's commander of the one of the battalions. I think that was
16 the command of the 2nd Battalion.
17 Q. And you marked on the map a dot with a number "5" beside it. Can
18 you tell us what that is referring to?
19 A. Command of the 1st Battalion.
20 Q. And you marked on the map a dot with a "6" beside it. Could you
21 tell us what that refers to?
22 A. Command of the 3rd Battalion.
23 Q. You said there were four battalions, and you have told us about
24 three. Could you say where the command of the other battalion was
1 A. There were three military battalions, one, two, three, and the
2 fourth one was the Logistics Battalion.
3 Q. Now, did your brigade headquarters remain at the same place during
4 1992, 1993, and 1994, or did it move at any time?
5 A. During the conflict, the location of the headquarters changed.
6 The headquarters went to the building marked by "2" for a period of time,
7 and then it moved again closer to number "5" for a period of time, and
8 then again returned to the position number "2" and stayed there until the
9 end of the war.
10 Q. When you say, "it moved to a position closer to number '5,'" could
11 you point out exactly where it is that it moved to?
12 A. Here, right in the middle of this building, there was a middle
13 passage, and there on the right-hand side, there was entrance to former
14 business premises. This is where the headquarters was located.
15 Q. Could you keep the pointer where it is, please.
16 Did you say, and perhaps the record -- or please tell us. Did you
17 say that it moved again closer to number "5" for a period of time?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Could you tell us where that was it moved to, when it moved closer
20 to number "5"?
21 A. That was perhaps lower down, two or three entrances to buildings,
22 from this number.
23 Q. When you say it moved closer to position number "5" are you
24 referring to the position number "5" as you have marked on the map in red?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. And that is what you are pointing to just now?
2 A. Yes.
3 MR. STAMP: For the record, the witness is pointing to position
4 number "2".
5 Q. Could you have a look at -- could you turn the map around because
6 the numbers are upside down. Do you see a number "5" there with a dot
7 beside it?
8 A. Yes. Yes.
9 Q. And that is one of the battalion headquarters?
10 A. Command of the battalion.
11 Q. Did the brigade headquarters ever move to that place, to that
12 vicinity? Did the brigade headquarters ever move to that place or to that
14 A. The headquarters of the battalion never came to this location of
15 the brigade.
16 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter correction, the headquarters of that
17 brigade never came to that location.
18 MR. STAMP:
19 Q. The lines, as you showed us earlier where the trenches were, did
20 these lines remain in the same position or approximately the same position
21 during the latter part of 1992 through to the summer of 1994 or were there
22 any significant changes in these lines?
23 A. The line remained here throughout the whole of the conflict.
24 Q. Are you referring to all the lines that you have drawn showing the
25 lines of your defences? Did they remain the same during the years 1993
1 and 1994?
2 A. Yes, they did.
3 Q. Thank you.
4 Now, were there companies which were subordinated to the
5 battalions in your brigade?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Did these companies have headquarters?
8 A. The company commands were on the lines that they controlled.
9 There were no commands in the settlements which would be separate. They
10 were directly on the lines. Because the command and control system
11 functioned in the best possible way like that, when the command was
12 together with the men in the trenches or in the areas or buildings which
13 they controlled.
14 Q. So I take it when you say the company commands, and the lines, you
15 mean the lines of confrontation?
16 A. Yes, yes.
17 Q. Briefly, tell us how well or badly armed you were at the beginning
18 of the conflict, and if and how the situation evolved during the conflict
19 up to the summer of 1994.
20 A. We were extremely poorly equipped, especially at the beginning of
21 the war. And it didn't really improve until the end of the war. So what
22 happened was that supplies for our brigade were not as good as supplies
23 for the other brigades.
24 Q. Did your brigade have mortars or artillery?
25 A. At the end of 1993, we received an 81-millimetre mortar which is
1 between calibres. Because -- so we didn't use it, because we didn't have
2 the shells for it. At the start of assault activities on Treskavica, we
3 received mortars which we used on Treskavica on the locations of
4 Dobrinja. During 1994, we received 60-millimetre mortars, a very small
5 number of them, which we deployed in the battalions, and we used them only
6 in cases of infantry attacks in order to break the infantry, in case they
7 should attack. But we had a few shells for those mortars as well.
8 Q. When did you receive the 60-millimetre mortars, if you could just
9 give us a month and the year?
10 A. I think this was in the beginning of 1994, the end of 1993, the
11 beginning of 1994.
12 Q. Now, you showed us on that map where your lines of defence were.
13 Beyond those lines going into Dobrinja, were there any other lines of
15 A. I didn't understand your question.
16 Q. You have indicated to us, on the map, the certain lines which you
17 say were the lines of defence.
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Now, going from those lines, further into Dobrinja itself, were
20 there any other lines of defence?
21 A. No. That was the only line of defence.
22 Q. Was -- having regard to the size of Dobrinja and the population of
23 Dobrinja, was there -- were you able to defend Dobrinja in depth, so to
25 A. We could defend Dobrinja only along these lines. There was no
1 other way.
2 Q. Beyond these trenches, going further into Dobrinja, did -- was
3 anything done or organised for the protection of the population that lived
4 in Dobrinja?
5 A. Along the depth of Dobrinja there were some communication trenches
6 which were used by the citizens to go from one settlement to the next in
7 order to protect themselves from snipers.
8 Q. When were these communication trenches built or over what period
9 of time?
10 A. I think that at the beginning of the war, maybe in 1993, I think
11 that this was done. I don't know the exact date.
12 Q. In order to protect the civilians, you spoke of sniping. Did you
13 do anything else apart from building trenches, communication trenches?
14 A. Wherever we were able to use anything to protect people from
15 getting killed, we would do it. For example, we couldn't dig across
16 rivers or bridges so we would fill containers with earth and we would
17 place them on the edges, like a fence, so the citizens would be able to
18 cross from one side of the river to the other. Or we would place trucks
19 from Dobrinja V practically all the way to the health centre to Mojmilo.
20 These trucks were full of cement. We would place them one behind the
21 other in order to protect Dobrinja from sniper activities from sniper
22 nests in Nedzarici and from the theological -- the Faculty of Theology.
23 Even later when we received foil from the international forces to
24 protect roofs that were damaged, we would place this foil in some areas in
25 order to create a kind of protective curtain from sniper activity.
1 Q. Was there a Civil Defence organised in Dobrinja during the
3 A. Yes. Not right from the beginning, but it was established later.
4 Q. If I may just go back a little bit. Did your soldiers fire from
5 these communications trenches which you say were in the depths of
7 A. Never.
8 Q. Thank you.
9 What was the relation of the Civil Defence organisation to the
11 MR. STAMP: Mr. Usher, you may get that map, please.
12 Q. Do you understand the question?
13 A. Yes. I think it was good.
14 Q. Could you describe the relationship please. Was the Civil Defence
15 under the command of the army or was it separate or the same organisation?
16 A. It was separate. It wasn't under the military command. So I
17 repeat, it had a separate command. We didn't have command over it, but we
18 did help them. Because they had a lot of duties, so when they lacked the
19 manpower, we would provide our manpower for them, so they could accomplish
20 the tasks that they were supposed to accomplish.
21 Q. What were the tasks and duties of the Civil Defence?
22 A. To provide the removal of garbage in Dobrinja, to try to ensure
23 water supply, they created improvised ovens or stoves for cooking because
24 there was no fuel. They would assist in placing the wounded into
25 hospital. Also, they took care that they had food. So these were the
1 tasks that the civil protection would carry out anywhere else. Civil
2 protection even had a group of people who were acting as firefighters and
3 they went out to put out fires wherever they could.
4 Q. Did the Civil Defence have role in constructing or building any of
5 the structures that you mentioned for the protection of civilians?
6 A. I said that they dug these special pits where garbage was
7 deposited, in order to prevent outbreaks of infectious diseases. Also, we
8 were digging wells in order to get supplies of drinking water because
9 drinking water was one of the biggest problems for the normal life in
10 Dobrinja. The civil protection also organised from building to building,
11 kindergartens. Also it organised elementary and secondary schools so that
12 they could start working in the central parts of the settlement. The
13 opening of school for art, a press centre, a cultural centre.
14 Q. You said that there was sniping going on and efforts had to be
15 made to protect the population from sniping.
16 Did the civilian defence play a part in these efforts to protect
17 the population from sniping?
18 A. Since members of the civil protection were usually elderly people
19 or people unfit for military service, if somebody was hit, they wouldn't
20 be the ones to pull that person out. This was usually done by soldiers.
21 They wouldn't send people like that to carry out things like that, if a
22 person was killed or died. The civil protection then took care about
23 organising the funerals of those people, their burial.
24 MR. STAMP: With your leave, Mr. President, may I recall and show
25 the witness Exhibit D85.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, you may do so. Would you also keep in mind, I
2 don't know how much time you would need, that we need some time for
3 procedural issues, and I think I said the last 15 minutes. If it is a
4 matter of one or two minutes, fine. Otherwise, perhaps we should have a
5 break. Not a break but we should interrupt the --
6 MR. STAMP: I would probably spend about 5 or more minutes on this
7 document. I don't know if it would be worthwhile proceeding with it now.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps, we better first interrupt the examination of
9 the witness.
10 Mr. Hadzic, since we have a few procedural issues to discuss, and
11 since we have to stop at 7.00, we have to interrupt your examination now.
12 But it will continue tomorrow. So would you please not talk to anyone
13 about the testimony that you gave in this court, and would you please come
14 back tomorrow at quarter past 2.00 in the same courtroom. Yes.
15 Mr. Usher, would you then please escort Mr. Hadzic out of the
17 [The witness stands down]
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, or Ms. Pilipovic. I don't know
19 who to --
20 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE ORIE: I had put a few questions to you, you would still
22 inform the Chamber about the witnesses, the presentation of the Defence
23 case and we had another outstanding issue. Could you please inform the
25 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I think that Ms. Pilipovic is
1 better suited for this -- these matters.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
3 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the Defence, since
4 we are continuously here in The Hague and the proceedings are being
5 conducted every day, in principle, the Defence would first of all like to
6 say that it will have 7 expert witnesses. We were planning 55 work hours.
7 Now, I am speaking in general lines. 55 work hours in order to examine
8 them. So according to our estimates, that is 12 working days.
9 Then --
10 JUDGE ORIE: May I just ask you, you are talking about the time
11 the Defence would need to examine the witnesses, not to --.
12 MS. PILIPOVIC: Yes. Yes.
13 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: So that is an average of 7 and a half hours of
14 each expert witness? 7 expert witnesses, 55 hours according to my
15 arithmetics, it's even a bit over-
16 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, perhaps my
17 calculations are -- I need to recheck them. But the Defence estimates
18 that the examination of our military analyst and strategist will probably
19 take at least 5 or 6 working days. Perhaps this is where the discrepancy
20 comes from.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, then the average becomes even if the
22 others will take not much time. Would that mean that no, you do not
23 intend to present a report of expert witnesses, which is the usual way of
24 doing it under 94 bis?
25 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the Defence will
1 present the findings of the experts but the Defence would like to examine
2 each of the Defence experts, particularly the military analyst and
3 strategist, and also the expert for shelling and artillery, as well as the
4 ballistics expert, the forensic medicine experts, as well as the experts
5 who will talk about artillery weapons, the firing weapons. And also, one
6 who will discuss the medical evidence or documents which have already been
7 adopted, admitted into evidence.
8 So if you would like, I could specify the time in general lines
9 for each of these experts, if you so wish.
10 JUDGE ORIE: So I understand you well, so that is 55 hours, there
11 are the 7 expert witnesses, and then --
12 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, may I continue, Your Honour?
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
14 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. When we are talking
15 about witnesses, at present, the Defence estimates that we need to call 93
16 witnesses. The Defence plans on average to spend two hours per witness,
17 two hours and 30 minutes per witness. If my calculations are correct, 93
18 witnesses at two and a half hours each, this comes to 240 hours or 60
19 working days. The 12 working days that will be necessary to examine the
20 experts, plus the 60 days, that would come to 72 working days, roughly.
21 Then we will also probably examine some witnesses via videolink,
22 and right now we are not able to predict evidence in accordance with Rule
23 92 bis. So when we are talking about the videolink and 92 bis, the
24 Defence estimates roughly that this could take up more time. So we might
25 need more than the 72 working days, due to technical difficulties, for
1 example, when we are talking about the videolink, and then also when we
2 are talking about Rule 92 bis, we don't know whether the Prosecution would
3 like to cross-examine such witnesses and we are calculating here also our
4 time which is necessary for the opening or the introductory questioning.
5 We will also have a large number of documents and maps to be tendered into
6 evidence, particularly through the experts. And that is why, when we were
7 making our estimates about this 55 hours and 12 working days, this is our
8 estimate that applies to the military expert and the expert for the
9 shelling, the artillery and ballistics.
10 Then we will also have an expert who will be a psychiatrist. He
11 will talk about fear. We will have an expert who will talk about the
12 causes of the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina. But, once again, I would like to
13 say that if we need to specify our time requirements in more detail, we
14 can do that. But this is just a rough estimate of the time we will need
15 in view -- having in mind the fact that we have spent the past 7 months
16 here in The Hague, that proceedings were conducted every day. So this
17 makes it more difficult for the Defence to communicate with other members
18 of our team in order to arrive at a more precise estimate.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. May I just ask you a few questions. You tell
20 the Chamber that you would need, apart from the possible experts you just
21 mentioned for witnesses, 60 working days in court, 12 days for the
22 experts. That makes 72 days in court. And that is just the time the
23 Defence would need. So if we would have a situation where the
24 Prosecution -- let's just assume that the Prosecution does what the
25 Defence has done, that is, to make more time than the examination-in-chief
1 for cross-examination, that would be -- well, let's just assume that that
2 will take just as much time as the Defence did, that makes 144 days. And
3 let's just assume that the parties are just as efficient as they have been
4 during the presentation of the Prosecution case. That means that the time
5 used for examining witnesses is approximately, well, let's say, 75 per
6 cent. So you should add one-third to 144 days. That would mean
7 approximately 48 days.
8 That would then make 192 days for the Defence, where we are now at
9 day 121 for the Prosecution. That would mean approximately half extra
10 compared to the Prosecutions' case, where if you would look at the
11 statistics, you would find that Defence case, the presentation of the
12 Defence cases, on average, takes approximately 70 per cent of the time of
13 the presentation of the Prosecution case. I am just trying to understand
14 and to think over the arethmetical part of what you are telling us, just
15 in order to know for sure that I do understand the Defence well.
16 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I entirely understand
17 what you have just said, and I did say that this was a rough schedule. In
18 view of the time and the percentages that you have given us now, I am
19 trying right now in my head to give you some kind of response. I will
20 analyse all that we have heard right now, and if you permit us a little
21 bit more time, we will reconsider and then state our position. But I
22 would like to repeat again, that this is a rough schedule.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But I am not asking for much details. But I am
24 just pointing out to you where the examination-in-chief of the Prosecution
25 took, until now, and, of course, we have still approximately 10 days to
1 go, some 160 hours. And on the rough schedule you are presenting, you are
2 quite close to 300 hours, which is approximately double of the time.
3 Well, I am just trying to add 55 hours for the experts and 240 hours
4 roughly for 93 witnesses, as you indicated for 2 hours and 30 minutes for
5 each witness.
6 But, okay, at least I do understand. Are there any other -- is
7 there any -- has the Defence any idea as to when we are talking about
8 witnesses, what type of witnesses. As you might have noticed, the
9 Prosecution has split up its witnesses in certain categories, like sniping
10 incident witnesses. Or do you have a similar, I mean, among these 93
11 witnesses, is there any categorisation made?
12 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the witnesses have
13 not yet been put into categories. So when we are talking about
14 categorising witnesses, the Defence would request enough time so that we
15 could provide you this information this week, which witnesses would
16 testify to which matters.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Was this the rough schedule you wanted to
18 provide or are there any other elements that you have not mentioned yet?
19 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President --
20 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] This is a rough schedule that I
21 have just given.
22 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, what we did not
23 mention, and I believe that it is important to state it now, is that we
24 had the impression that the Defence would have a lot of trouble to keep up
25 the rhythm of five days per week, five working days a week, which we have
1 done so far quite valiantly. Because I think we will need some time to
2 present the Defence case, time to prepare. I will be ready to present
3 this in an oral argument whenever you wish me to do so, but I think it is
4 important to do that.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ierace, I know that most of the time was given to
6 the Defence. If you have any observations to make, any submissions please
7 do so.
8 MR. IERACE: Very quickly, Mr. President. I notice that the
9 outline does not include the accused and I assume he would take some days
10 in chief and certainly he would take many days in cross-examination. I
11 think that is important for time estimates.
12 Secondly, Mr. President I would be grateful if we could receive
13 before, well, as soon as possible, some idea of the timetable that will
14 operate in terms of no case to answer and should we get so far, in
15 particular, the names of the witnesses that the Defence proposes to call
16 and the 65 ter summaries.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
18 MR. IERACE: Thank you.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps I give you and perhaps the most important
20 part some guidance, and that is what will happen with a -- if the Defence
21 would file a no case to answer motion. The -- I think we indicated
22 already or I don't know whether we did or not. But the three weeks recess
23 should be respected. I think everyone needs that. We have been sitting
24 in court five days a week. So that would mean that the -- if the
25 Prosecution concludes its case the second of August, then we would first
1 have three weeks of recess, and then there would be one week for the
2 Defence to file a motion of no case to answer.
3 The Chamber considers it reasonable if the Defence would then file
4 its response in two weeks' time, and that the Chamber assumes that it
5 could take a decision in two weeks' time as well. So altogether, five
7 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, just a point of clarification. You
8 said the Chamber considers it reasonable if the Defence would then file
9 its response in two weeks' time --
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, it should be the Prosecution. Speaking to
11 yourself is sometimes useful, but that is not what I intended to say. So
12 in general terms, I would say on from late August, that would be five
13 weeks, that would also mean that if this schedule would be followed, that
14 the Defence would start its case, I think, the last Monday in the month of
15 September, which would be, I am not quite sure, but it is 29th or the 30th
16 of September.
17 MR. IERACE: That would still leave the issue of the date by which
18 the Prosecution is to receive the list of witnesses and also the list of
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I will give you an answer to that on very short
21 notice. Yes.
22 I think that we have to adjourn now until tomorrow. The Chamber
23 thanks the Defence for giving its first rough estimate of what time it
24 would take to present its case.
25 We will adjourn until tomorrow, a quarter past 2.00.
1 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at
2 7.05 p.m., to be reconvened on Wednesday,
3 the 24th day of July, 2002, at 2.15 p.m.