1 Thursday, 13 March 2003
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.05 a.m.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. Case number
8 IT-98-29-T, the Prosecutor versus Stanislav Galic.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
10 MR. IERACE: Mr. President.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Ierace.
12 MR. IERACE: There's a matter I'd seek to raise in the absence of
13 the witness in relation to this witness. Thank you.
14 JUDGE ORIE: In relation to this witness.
15 Then General Radinovic, I'm sorry, but I have to ask you again to
16 leave the courtroom.
17 [The witness stands down]
18 JUDGE ORIE: And the Chamber appreciates your patience.
19 Mr. Ierace.
20 MR. IERACE: Thank you, Mr. President. If we could go into
21 private session briefly.
22 [Private session]
12 Page 21251 – redacted – private session
12 Page 21252 – redacted – private session
17 [Open session]
18 [The witness entered court]
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We are in open session again. Please proceed.
20 MR. IERACE: Thank you, Mr. President. Being the last day in all
21 likelihood of the Defence case, there are some matters of disclosure in
22 relation to rebuttal that I must attend to out of court. I'd be grateful
23 for an indication as to when I might revisit the issue of the fifth
24 videotape in relation to the evidence of Richard Gray.
25 JUDGE ORIE: I take it that we'll not spend much time any more on
1 General Radinovic, and perhaps we could deal with it then right
2 afterwards. That would be my suggestion.
3 Yes. General Radinovic, good morning.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.
5 JUDGE ORIE: And yesterday I reminded you, and I'm doing the same
6 again today, reminding you that you are still bound by the solemn
7 declaration you've given at the beginning of your testimony. We were
8 about to hear what questions Judge El Mahdi would have for you.
9 WITNESS: RADOVAN RADINOVIC [Resumed]
10 [Witness answered through interpreter]
11 Questioned by the Court: [Continued]
12 JUDGE EL MAHDI: Thank you, Mr. President.
13 [Interpretation] General, I would like to ask you two or three
14 questions. The first of them in a way picks up on a question that was
15 asked of you by Honourable Judge Nieto-Navia. It concerns the
16 relationship between the JNA and the forces of Republika Srpska. I would
17 like to take you back to your report, paragraph 2. Do you have your copy?
18 Yes, please.
19 If you can follow me, in the English version it's paragraph 2.
20 It's probably the same in your language. I'm quoting in English: [In
21 English] "The former Yugoslavia conducted in the period 1991-1995" - et je
22 voudrais precise en fait les dates que vous avez vous-meme mentionnees -
23 "Was an internal thus, a civil war and not an international conflict."
24 [Interpretation] You added, and I quote: [In English] "Conducted within
25 one international recognised nation-state. In this war, the forces
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 involved in the conflict were the forces of one and the same nation-state
2 and of its army JNA against the forces and movement of secessions."
3 [Interpretation] End of quote.
4 I would like now to refer you to your conclusions, number 7, which
5 is on page 175, also in the English version, where you mention, and I
6 quote: [In English]" -- Yugoslavia continued to support and aid VRS in an
7 expression of national solidarity which could have been done by any army
8 in the world but none of the forms of this assistance was violating the
9 principle of non-interference of Yugoslavia in this internal conflict in
10 BiH." [Interpretation] End of quote.
11 You answered yesterday in response to a question by
12 Judge Nieto-Navia that the only link between the two armies, if I can call
13 them like that, is that the Yugoslav Federation paid out pensions to the
14 families of the fighting men of the Republika Srpska army. My first
15 question would be this: You, as a military man, do you believe that the
16 nature of the conflict has an impact on the applicable law in the context
17 of the accusations -- of the charges levelled against General Galic, in
18 terms of military terms? The acts allegedly committed by General Galic,
19 would they be of a different nature, depending on how we qualify the
20 conflict? What is your position on this?
21 A. First of all, Your Honour, in the second paragraph of my report
22 you quoted the English version, and unfortunately it was not translated
23 well. You said the war was waged with one internationally recognised
24 state, whereas I wrote it was waged within one international recognised
25 state. Forces within that state were fighting each other, whereas you
1 read out the translation as reading that war was waged with one
2 internationally recognised state. That's not what I wrote. In my view,
3 the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina is an internal war waged between forces
4 between that state. Three ethnic communities had a conflict within their
5 ethnic rights, depending on their different perceptions.
6 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] Allow me. My question is
7 two-pronged. First of all, in military terms, the laws of war, the laws
8 of warfare, in the context of the charges levelled against General Galic -
9 I'm not speaking in general terms. I'm speaking about this
10 context - would the rules of armed conflict change depending on how you
11 qualify this conflict, as an international conflict or a national
12 conflict? And is this why you specified in your report - and this is my
13 second question - how were you able to arrive at this conclusion that you
14 stated in your report?
15 A. First of all, the first part of your question, would the nature of
16 the war affect the application of the law on warfare?
17 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] Yes, the applicable rules. You
18 as a military man, you are surely aware of rules that apply to an
19 international conflict, as opposed to a national conflict. Do you, as a
20 military expert, believe that the rules and provisions that apply would
21 change depending on the nature of the conflict; yes or no?
22 A. First of all, I am not a legal expert, but I know the demands and
23 requirements of international law.
24 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] You as a general.
25 A. Yes, I am aware of that. I know that. The nature of the war that
1 was waged in Bosnia and Herzegovina indisputably affects also the nature
2 of responsibility and liability of everyone in that war, including
3 General Galic, precisely because the rules of international law that apply
4 to every conflict, including this one, acquire a different meaning versus
5 a regular war, where you know exactly where the front lines are, where the
6 troops are, where the civilians are.
7 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] So my second question, if you
8 allow me: What was your basis for the conclusion that this particular
9 conflict was a national one?
10 A. I relied, first of all, on the relevant documents, on books
11 written by people whom I held in high esteem as people knowledgeable about
12 military matters, and on my knowledge gained over several decades about
13 war as the subject of military science. If we talk about this war in
14 Bosnia and Herzegovina, it happened within Bosnia and Herzegovina as a
15 state. Of course it started before.
16 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] Could you give me a couple of
17 references, perhaps, of the material you relied upon.
18 A. For instance, General Rose wrote in his book that the war in
19 Bosnia and Herzegovina was a civil war. You must believe me when I say
20 that I have great respect for what General Rose has done.
21 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] Did you read General Rose's book
22 in English?
23 A. I read the Serbian translation, and the Defence team has the book
24 in English, in both languages, in fact.
25 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] And you as a military expert, do
1 you believe that the conclusions and the interpretations of events stated
2 by General Rose reflect the real situation, are a genuine reflection of
3 reality? Has this been proven in your view in this work, and do you
4 believe in his impartiality?
5 A. First let me finish what -- about what I have read about this war
6 and its nature. So I read the book by Pierre-Marie Gallois, one of the
7 most prominent military theoreticians. The book's title --
8 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter missed the title.
9 A. I didn't mention it here but I mentioned it in other cases
10 testifying before this Tribunal. He wrote in detail about the nature of
11 the war, and he concluded in no uncertain terms that it was a civil war.
12 Professor Gavro Perazic, professor of military law in Podgorica, a
13 retired colonel who used to be a professor at the military academy of
14 military law also wrote a book where he very clearly emphasised that it
15 was an internal war.
16 Professor Smiga Avramov wrote a book entitled, "the Anti-heroic
17 War of the West against Yugoslavia," wrote that it was an internal war
18 within Yugoslavia with all the attributes of religious wars which are the
19 bloodiest of all.
20 From the beginning of the war to date, many scientific gatherings
21 have been held in Yugoslavia discussing the subject of war in the
22 territory of Yugoslavia, and these seminars and meetings concluded that it
23 was a civil war. Based on all the material that I have studied, I have
24 absolutely no reason not to accept this conclusion because my own findings
25 from my own research and studies about this war are identical because the
1 citizens of one state, Bosnia and Herzegovina, were involved, namely there
2 are three ethnic communities each of which in their own way perceived
3 their own rights within that state. When Yugoslavia was broken up, all
4 these three ethnic communities clashed over their rights. With the
5 intervention of the International Community, which was not efficient,
6 which tried to impose peace but failed, and instead let this internal
7 conflict happen. Each of these ethnic communities had their own army,
8 their strategy, their doctrine, and within the framework of those
9 doctrines they waged this war. We can analyse this very broadly and at
10 length, but in essence this is an internal civil war.
11 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] Thank you, General. But will you
12 please look at paragraph 7 --
13 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] My apologies, but the
14 interpreters, as the transcript says, missed the title of one of the books
15 that were used by this expert. It's a book by Pierre-Marie Gallois. Would
16 you please find out from the witness.
17 JUDGE ORIE: I take it that you're referring to General Radinovic
18 rather than General Galic.
19 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: Yes. [Interpretation] Yes. It's the end of
20 the trial. Yes, in fact. I apologise.
21 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] Could you please have a look at
22 paragraph 7 of your conclusions, where you say: [In English] "The Army of
23 Bosnia and Herzegovina continued to support and aid --"
24 A. Let me just find that place.
25 JUDGE EL MAHDI: " -- VRS in an expression of national solidarity."
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 [Interpretation] Are you following me, General?
2 A. Yes.
3 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] What did you mean exactly when
4 you said -- when you wrote that there was continuous support, that there
5 was continued support and aid from the Yugoslavia army, that is to say,
6 from the Federal army for the VRS in an expression of national solidarity?
7 Could you elaborate on that? What did you mean when you wrote this?
8 A. Your Honour, I meant what is stated here. There is no doubt as to
9 the meaning of this. The Army of Republika Srpska is the army of part of
10 the Serbian people. The Army of Yugoslavia was the army of the Serbian
11 people living in Serbia and Montenegro.
12 As far as national identity is concerned, these two armies are
13 absolutely identical. It assisted the Army of Republika Srpska in all
14 legitimate respects, with regard to everything that was legitimate. It
15 made efforts to attain just objectives, objectives not forbidden by
16 international agreements and conventions.
17 The Army of Yugoslavia did not prevent officers and
18 non-commissioned officers from its composition who were born in Bosnia and
19 Herzegovina or in Republika Srpska. They didn't prevent them from leaving
20 the Army of Yugoslavia and from fighting, because that was the patriotic
21 duty of every officer. Every officer has to be ready to defend his people
22 if they are threatened. So I'm not arguing for or against that war, but
23 it's a well-known fact that that people was involved in a war and every
24 officer, a non-commissioned officer had the patriotic duty of
25 participating in that war. The Army of Yugoslavia considered that every
1 honourable officer had the duty of going to fight for his people.
2 Furthermore, the Army of Yugoslavia took care in material and
3 social terms of officers, that is to say, of their families who remained
4 in Yugoslavia, and thus made -- didn't distinguish between the families of
5 officers and non-commissioned officers who remained within Yugoslavia.
6 Furthermore, the Army of Yugoslavia educated high-ranking officials of the
7 Army of Republika Srpska for the functions that were necessary. The Army
8 of Yugoslavia helped certain special industries to be reanimated in Bosnia
9 and Herzegovina through which this army could be supplied. The Army of
10 Yugoslavia helped within the framework of the entire state programme for
11 humanitarian aid. And furthermore, the Army of Yugoslavia, in terms of
12 doctrine, provided support, informed of all the rules and instructions
13 that were necessary for the organisation of that army. So in other words,
14 it did everything that a friendly country would do. Our country did this,
15 or rather, our army. So this is the form of assistance that I was
16 thinking of.
17 I also know that material was obtained, purchases were made. I
18 don't know whether this was cash or whether there were some sort of other
19 arrangements, but purchases were made, certain material resources were
20 purchased in order to supply that army. For example, certain spare parts,
21 parts for servicing equipment, repairing equipment that was a bit worn
22 out, et cetera. And there were certain assemblies too.
23 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] Thank you. I'll move on to
24 another subject. It's paragraph 36 in your conclusions. And you conclude
25 that Sarajevo was not a city either under siege or a city that had been
1 subject to a blockade. Are you following me?
2 A. Yes.
3 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] Having affirmed that - and I
4 quote - "[In English] -- Under siege or a city under blockade," - vous
5 avez dit - "blockade pertained to the Muslim part or more precisely to the
6 part under Muslim control. Blockade referred to the Muslim army."
7 [Interpretation] My first question is: You used the definition or,
8 rather, the definitions of siege and blockade. Are you using these
9 definitions or is this a military definition that could be quite different
10 from the legal definition of the terms "siege" and "blockade", because you
11 mentioned a siege and a blockade, and in the first part of the paragraph
12 you said that Sarajevo was neither under siege or under blockade.
13 A. Yes. First of all, I was referring to the terms used in the
14 indictment. In the indictment they mention the terms "siege" and
15 "blockade." And in the explanation of this conclusion, I was thinking of
16 what a blockade meant in military terms, what the term "blockade" meant in
17 military terms, not in legal terms, because I'm not a lawyer so I'm not in
18 a position to know what meaning this might contain, legally speaking. But
19 the term "blockade" in military doctrine is used for military action
20 around cities, around settled, inhabited places. These are very delicate
21 combat operations, military operation, because cities are the most
22 resistent points, the toughest points when it's a matter of conquering
23 them militarily. And the doctrine that prevailed, that was part of the
24 doctrine of the JNA, which is a doctrine that was adopted by all three
25 sides in the conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina, states that cities should
1 not be conquered but that cities should be blocked. They shouldn't be
2 taken over; they should be blocked. And a blockade imposed on a city,
3 according to military doctrine, the military doctrine that I'm referring
4 to here and the military doctrine about which I am writing, entails
5 controlling the main roads, the main points, the main features, the
6 entrances to and the exits out of the city for military forces. So it
7 refers to military forces.
8 A city in which military forces are based must be blocked in such
9 a way so as these forces can't leave the city or new forces can't enter
10 the city because this would disrupt the balance of military forces and the
11 side imposing the blockade on the city could find itself in an interior
12 position. So the blockade of Sarajevo - and when I refer to the blockade
13 of Sarajevo, I'm referring to the blockade of the forces of the 1st Corps
14 within Sarajevo, the attempt to prevent them from going to Igman or Ozren
15 and joining up with forces in the direction of Visoko, the direction of
16 Olovo or Igman, because in such a case the war in the Sarajevo theatre
17 would have been a lost cause for the SRK, for the Army of Republika
18 Srpska, and the war in Bosnia would have been a war lost by Republika
19 Srpska. So it was in that sense that I was referring to actions to cause
20 a blockade and not to a blockade in order to suffocate the city.
21 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] Yes. But my problem is that
22 initially you denied that the city was under siege or that there was a
23 blockade of the city, and then you carried on saying that the blockade was
24 imposed on the part that was under Muslim control, and this is where I
25 understood or misunderstood something. After having denied that the city
1 was under siege or that the city had been -- that there was a blockade of
2 the city, then you said that nevertheless there was a part of the city
3 that had been blockaded. And this is what is causing me certain
4 difficulties. If I understood you correctly, you said that there was a
5 blockade but you are making a distinction between a siege and a blockade
6 by referring to legal notions contained in the terms of siege or blockade.
7 So were you referring to legal notions or exclusively to military notions?
8 Initially you said that Sarajevo was under blockade, or at least the
9 Muslim part was under a blockade.
10 A. Well, there are a few distinctions I would like to make here.
11 First of all, in the second sentence of paragraph 36 of my conclusions it
12 doesn't say that the Muslim part of the city was under blockade but that
13 the blockade pertained to the Muslim army, the BH army. So it refers to
14 the military aspect alone.
15 And secondly, and the previous part of my answer refers to this, I
16 want to say that a blockade as a military action is a legitimate action.
17 From the point of view of military doctrine, it's entirely legitimate as
18 an action. What is important is how it is carried out. A blockade is a
19 legitimate action. What is important in this case is whether all other
20 measures taken are legitimate. So this is a general doctrine that I would
21 like you to take into account when I refer to a blockade here.
22 And now, was Sarajevo in fact under a blockade or were the
23 military forces in Sarajevo under a blockade? I don't think they were.
24 Or in fact, this is not just my opinion. I have documents, and I have
25 referred to these documents, some of them have been shown here, and these
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 documents clearly show that not even the military forces of the 1st Corps
2 of the BH army in Sarajevo were under blockade. This was not the case.
3 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] So you're introducing a nuance.
4 You are -- when you say that there was a blockade -- you said that there
5 was a blockade, but now you say that even with respect -- in regard of the
6 military forces, there was no blockade.
7 A. Well, in this conclusion, this follows from the entire report, my
8 entire analysis. But I have just exposed in a few words what was
9 explained. The army of the 1st Corps -- the troops of the 1st Corps of
10 the BH army wasn't under a blockade for the simple fact -- and documents
11 bear this out, and chief of staff of the 1st Corps Nedzad Ajnadzic wrote
12 about this in his book, "The Defence of Sarajevo," I think that's what
13 it's called. He says that the 1st Corps as of May of 1993, from each
14 brigade in Sarajevo would occasionally take a battalion out to Igman and
15 they would be trained there for future combat activity, in order to join
16 up with forces on the outside front, on the external front.
17 Furthermore, there is an entire series of documents from the
18 commander of the 1st Corps, General Karavelic, who testified before this
19 Tribunal. There is a document in which he orders the command of the
20 Dobrinja Brigade to take a battalion to Igman via the airport.
21 General Rose also mentioned the fact that Sarajevo wasn't under blockade.
22 Throughout the war the airport in Sarajevo was open.
23 International delegations would arrive there. There was -- there were a
24 lot of institutions, international institutions and organisations in
25 Sarajevo, humanitarian routes functioned, the blue routes were open. It
1 was possible to leave Sarajevo and it was possible to enter Sarajevo.
2 Naturally, under control because it was war.
3 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] Thank you. Now I will move on to
4 another subject. Could you please tell me, with regard to the objectives,
5 the targets that you marked on the map -- do you remember the map of the
7 A. Yes.
8 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] And you marked at least 1.500
9 military targets on that map. Do you remember that?
10 A. No, I mentioned 220, but I said that there were -- 1.500 or over
11 1.500 targets every day.
12 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] Yes. Very well. But my question
13 is: Did these targets exist towards the end of 1992? The number didn't
14 increase, or did it gradually increase with the passage of time? At the
15 end of 1992, how many military objectives were there? Your map and the
16 objectives, the targets that you marked there, do they represent the
17 targets at the end of the war or, rather, at the beginning of the war?
18 Because I'll clarify this: You referred to documents, for example, the
19 date of which was 1993 or 1994. So I suppose - and I think that this is
20 one of the questions that the Prosecution wanted to put to you. I didn't
21 follow your answer, and I would like to know whether the way that these
22 military targets were presented, the ones you referred to on the map, did
23 these targets exist throughout the conflict, from the very beginning of
24 the conflict to the end of the conflict?
25 A. The map I provided and the list of targets with the list of
1 documents should be viewed within the context with reference to the
2 central map where all the brigades of the warring sides in the Sarajevo
3 theatre were marked. And also, with reference to the map in the western
4 part of the front, that map refers to the position of the 102nd Motorised
5 Brigade of the 1st Corps of the BH army. On the big map I presented the
6 front, I represented the front, I represented the way it changed, and I
7 represented the main changes on that front. I mentioned that in 1992 the
8 front changed at Doglodi. At that time General Galic and his corps
9 improved that part of the front, improved the tactical position by taking
10 Otes and in December, but in the second half of December, the 1st Corps
11 took Zuc, Vis, Brijesce Brdo, and right up to Rajlovac and Vogosca and
12 significantly improved their tactical position in that way. Apart from
13 those changes there were no other changes throughout the wartime period.
14 So all the brigades that were in Sarajevo in the second half of 1992
15 remained there until the end of the war. The only thing that changed was
16 their names, and the brigades swelled up, so instead of one there were two
17 zones of responsibility. The number of targets did not change, and not
18 even their location changed. They remained where I marked them. They
19 could have moved to a very insignificant extent because those zones of
20 responsibility of the brigades and these zones were fixed zones throughout
21 the wartime period. They were always present; they were always there.
22 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] Yes. Thank you for your answer.
23 My last question has to do with the structure of the Republika Srpska
24 army. You make a distinction between the higher ranks who were former
25 officers of the Federation and paramilitary forces that formed the lower
1 ranks. In your opinion, did military discipline reign or did it not
2 reign? Was it in force in the strict sense throughout the wartime period
3 in the Republika Srpska army, and in particular in the Romanija Corps?
4 Was there discipline?
5 A. Well, this question relates to the influence of the character of
6 war and to how international rules regulating war are applied. As far as
7 the top levels of the army are concerned, as far as the main institutions
8 that are part of the command system are concerned --
9 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] I apologise, General, but I'm
10 referring to military discipline above all. Did the chain of command go
11 from the top levels down to the simple soldiers? Was this -- did this
12 function smoothly? But you also mentioned the existence of paramilitary
13 forces. You said that there was quite a bit of -- there was a significant
14 lack of discipline within the corps. And as an expert, would you have
15 judged -- would you have said that this army corps was a disciplined corps
16 that followed military rules?
17 A. Yes, this corps was a disciplined corps. It did respect the
18 discipline that was established by military rules. But there were certain
19 shortcomings, which I mentioned in the documents, and General Galic took
20 efforts, made efforts to deal with resistance that appeared in certain
21 paramilitary units and also to deal with the lack of discipline on the
22 part of certain brigade commanders who were under the direct influence of
23 local politicians, politicians who kept interfering with the system of
25 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] Thank you, General.
1 [In English] Thank you, Mr. President.
2 JUDGE ORIE: I have the following question for you: You have
3 answered questions in relation to strategic important hills around the
4 city. I do not know whether I could follow all the hills you mentioned,
5 but I would like to specifically ask you whether the higher grounds in the
6 north-east and eastern part of the city in the direction of Hresa or
7 Faletici or Mrkovici, were they of any strategic importance?
8 A. Yes. Yes, they were. And in that part, the Sarajevo Romanija
9 Corps had the advantage with regard to the BH army 1st Corps.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Sometimes it's difficult to find the geographic
11 names you mentioned. Could you tell us where in your report you described
12 that in this respect the SRK had an advantage. I see that the matter is
13 dealt with, I would say, in the spatial and geographic determinants.
14 That's, at least, where I try to find it. Could you guide me and tell me
15 where in the paragraphs 77 to 80 you are referring to these SRK positions
16 on higher grounds that gave an advantage.
17 A. Just a minute. Let me find my bearings.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Is it Ozren that you are referring to or ...?
19 A. That's part of the Sarajevo area from the Trebevic slopes to Hresa
20 and Ozren. That's the northern part. It's above Mrkovici and Radava.
21 JUDGE ORIE: And there was an advantage to the SRK, where exactly
22 do I find that?
23 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, if I can be of
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Item 157 after footnote 91. "Only
2 the SRK had the advantage from the part of the front up to Radava."
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't think that I left this out.
4 JUDGE ORIE: I'm not asking that.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that's it.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Sometimes I would mention certain villages that are
7 known in my mind, and perhaps you are referring to other villages in the
8 same area. So I'm just trying to compare where I find it. You said in
10 A. That is 157, second sentence.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. When you say Zlatiste to Radava, that's the
12 same area I just referred to, that is the same area, that is Hresa and
13 Faletici and Mrkovici.
14 A. Yes.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. I just wanted to know.
16 A. Even closer from Kneginjac, to Faletici, across Hresa, to Radava.
17 That is the semi-circle south, south-east, and north-east.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I was just trying to compare my points of
19 orientation with yours, and you take different ones but you're referring
20 to the same area.
21 My next question would be: You have told us that you studied many
22 books on the character of the conflict and that you concluded that the
23 character of the conflict was a internal conflict rather than an
24 international conflict, a civil war. Did you study the case law of this
25 Tribunal in this respect as well?
1 A. Yes. Not only with reference to this case but also when I
2 prepared to testify in other cases.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But even in cases where you perhaps did not
4 testify --
5 A. Yes.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You might have noticed that in some decision
7 the Tribunal concluded that the conflict in Bosnia-Herzegovina, whether in
8 whole or in part, was an international conflict. I take it that you
9 disagree with those conclusions?
10 A. No. No, I don't agree with that conclusion. And I have offered
11 my arguments against it.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Is it on the basis of, did you say, the
13 Tribunal has wrongly established facts or is it on the basis that you say
14 that on the facts that are established they have drawn the wrong legal
15 conclusions out of that? Is it -- do you disagree mainly on the basis of
16 the facts underlying the conclusion of the Tribunal or is it on the basis
17 of the conclusions drawn on the basis of the established facts?
18 A. Mr. President, I did not dare to criticise the conclusions of the
19 Tribunal here. I criticised implicitly, rather, the experts who had
20 prepared the background material that gave rise to such conclusions by the
21 Tribunal. I studied Gow and some other authors who I can't remember. But
22 in the Tadic case, the Talic case, in the Krstic case, Kunarac,
23 Dokmanovic, Krajisnik, all the cases that I could study, all the material
24 that I could lay my hands on, I studied. The part which qualifies the war
25 in Bosnia and Herzegovina as an international conflict is the part I
1 disagree with. I believe that I am right, and I have profound arguments
2 to support my view, but it is up to the Tribunal to decide, of course.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But I do understand you well that you say the
4 experts that have provided the facts underlying the conclusion of the
5 Tribunal, some changes of the Tribunal, that the conflict was of an
6 international character, those experts have not presented the facts in a
7 correct way or perhaps even wrongly?
8 A. Yes.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's clear.
10 General Radinovic, let me first ask the parties whether on the
11 basis of the questions asked by the Bench there's any need to put further
12 questions to you.
13 Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
14 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President.
15 Further examination by Mr. Piletta-Zanin:
16 Q. [Interpretation] Yes. First of all, I apologise. We still don't
17 have the title of that book that I wanted to get a moment ago when I
18 interrupted Honourable Judge El Mahdi. I did not mention the name of
19 General Galic but the author Gallois, who was by the interpreters and I
20 said that the interpreters had said that they missed the title of this
21 book. I did not get an answer to my question so I'm asking it of the
22 witness again so that we have it on record.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Would you again give us the title of the book you
24 just referred to, that is, the title of the book by Mr. Gallois, Pierre
25 Gallois, if I understood you well.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] General Pierre-Marie Gallois wrote a
2 book called "The Blood of Petrol Bosna," that is, at least, the Serbian
3 translation. I don't know the French title, the original title.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Any further questions?
5 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President.
6 Mr. President, I have three or four questions. The first two have
7 to do with the questions asked by Honourable Judge El Mahdi.
8 Q. [Interpretation] General, you were asked questions about by the
9 assistance of the JNA extended in this conflict, how it assisted and so on
10 and so forth. My question is as follows: Could you tell us, in terms of
11 distribution of weapons by the JNA, relative to the barracks in Sarajevo
12 during the events from the beginning of the war, namely, do you know
13 whether these weapons were distributed, if at all, to one side or the
14 weapons were distributed, if at all, to several parties, to several sides?
15 MR. MUNDIS: Mr. President, that goes beyond the scope of
16 questions put by the Bench and could have properly been raised in direct
18 [Trial Chamber confers]
19 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] It seems to me, counsel, that you
20 are entitled to ask several questions, but this does go beyond the scope
21 of the questions I asked and the answers the general gave, so you're
22 entitled to ask a couple of questions.
23 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] It seems to me that you are
24 right. Thank you for this.
25 Q. Do you have, General, an answer to my question? In your
1 knowledge, what can you tell us about the assistance of the JNA, for
2 instance, in terms of the distribution of weapons by the former JNA?
3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Mundis.
4 MR. MUNDIS: Mr. President, perhaps a matter of clarification.
5 With respect to what Judge El Mahdi said, it's unclear whether or not the
6 objection was sustain or denied with respect to this question, which again
7 has been put to the witness, at least with respect to the English
9 [Trial Chamber confers]
10 JUDGE ORIE: Judge El Mahdi intended to deny the question but at
11 the same time said that it went beyond the questions. So I take it that
12 only to a limited extent questions will be allowed in this respect.
13 So could you tell us anything about the distribution,
14 General Radinovic.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Weapons were partly stored in depots
16 within the framework of the strategic reserves of Bosnia-Herzegovina that
17 were founded long before the war, and each side looted the depots that
18 were on its own territory. As for the weapons that were in use in units,
19 we know that on the 4th of May, 1992 the decision was made to withdraw the
20 JNA from Bosnia and Herzegovina within 15 days. This term was very short,
21 and it was absolutely impossible to withdraw the JNA within that term, so
22 military property and resources were looted and confiscated. Parts of
23 these resources, parts of the weaponry of the units that were within the
24 composition of the Sarajevo Romanija Corps remained within the Sarajevo
25 Romanija Corps, whereas some part of the weaponry was taken over by the
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 Muslim army in the course of lootings of depots and robberies. So parts
2 of the weaponry were kept and parts were taken away. That's the brief
4 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation]
5 Q. Thank you, General. But have you found during your studies a
6 document that would establish an interparty agreement on the distribution
7 of weapons?
8 MR. MUNDIS: Mr. President --
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Well, the question -- we have established that it was
11 beyond what was asked by Judge El Mahdi. Apart from that, the matter is
12 dealt with in the report. So therefore, please move to your next subject.
13 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you very much. I'll
14 move on to a different subject, Your Honour.
15 Q. General, in response to a question by Honourable Judge El Mahdi
16 you answered that the army, despite this blockade, the BH army still
17 managed to get out of what you call the interior circle and to transfer
18 its battalions. You mentioned specifically the territory of the airport
19 which gave breathing space to the city. Here is my question: Did you see
20 more than one document that would allow you to assert this, that is, the
21 existence of movement of troops from inside to the outside?
22 MR. MUNDIS: Objection.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Mundis.
24 MR. MUNDIS: That was answered by the witness in response to the
25 question from Judge El Mahdi.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
2 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, it was an
3 introductory question because what I really wanted to do, with the Court's
4 leave, is that we put on the ELMO a document that we have found - and
5 we'll give you a number soon - which illustrates this type of situation
6 from which we can see that it was on documentary basis that the general
7 was able to conclude this, and it has to do with the BH army. I think
8 this goes to the very essence of our proceedings.
9 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous interpretation continues] ... Concentrating
10 on the basis of the source of the answer, rather than to question --
11 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Precisely, precisely.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Then briefly you're allowed to do so.
13 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you.
14 Would you kindly put this on the ELMO. So let's put this one on
15 the overhead projector.
16 MR. MUNDIS: Mr. President, if we could either get a copy or an
17 indication of what the document is.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
19 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes. We have all the
20 documents for distribution, with the kind assistance of all involved,
21 together with translations.
22 Q. General, I believe you now have the document in front of you. Can
23 you see it?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. My first question: Is it one of the documents of whose existence
1 you just told us?
2 A. Yes. It is a document that the staff of the Supreme Command sends
3 to the command of the 1st Corps ordering the 1st Corps to take certain
4 action, certain movement from Sarajevo towards Igman.
5 Q. Thank you. I don't want to squander the time I have at my
6 disposal, but during your study and research, were you able to examine
7 other documents of the same nature and perhaps the same contents as this
9 A. Yes. I found documents where the plan is made for the use of
10 tunnels below the airport and ordering the brigade commander in whose area
11 of responsibility the tunnels are, specifying the precise timetable of
12 entrances and exits from the tunnel, and it has to do with movements of
14 Q. Now, let's look at the second part of the paragraph 2, which says
15 "crossing from."
16 A. "During the execution of the task, prevent self-removal"?
17 Q. No, the sentence that begins with "prelaz", "crossing."
18 A. I can't see it.
19 Q. The next sentence after the one you're in.
20 A. Yes, I see. The second sentence says: "Effect the crossing of
21 the runway by units and by parts of units reducing to the minimum the risk
22 and probability of conflict with UNPROFOR."
23 Q. Are we talking about days or nights? Because this document talks
24 about night-time crossings. So if troops are crossing the airport, would
25 that be a legitimate objective?
1 A. Yes, it would certainly represent a legitimate target for the
2 other side.
3 Q. My penultimate question: You told us briefly something about
4 discipline in an army corps, specifically relative to the forces that are
5 named paramilitary forces. Here is my question: Were you able to
6 find - and if yes, in what measure - documents from which we could clearly
7 see that General Galic made all efforts possible to control the situation,
8 in terms of discipline, precisely in order to avoid problems such as
9 disorganised elements, unwarranted opening of fire, et cetera? So if you
10 found such documents, what could you tell us about this?
11 A. When I was preparing to write my report, I found a wealth of
12 documents, starting from October, the first documents were dated in
13 October and the General Galic assumed command of the 7th of September, as
14 we know. From the beginning of his term in this position, General Galic
15 was resolutely fighting illegitimate behaviour, conduct by all such units
16 that were arriving to the front line, and improper conduct by some of his
17 subordinate commanders. He was also resolutely combatting the unwarranted
18 interference by local authorities - and here we have references to illegal
19 transfers of oil, robberies, threats by his own units and his own command,
20 that they would settle accounts with him, the replacement of Major Dunjic,
21 then the situation on the front when he sent a group of officers headed by
22 Marcetic, chief of staff, and another officer, when he established a
23 forward group on the front line in order to establish control over such
24 undisciplined units.
25 Q. Thank you. If I understood you correctly and if we proceed from
1 the principle that before General Galic assumed command --
2 JUDGE ORIE: You first said one question, and then you said the
3 last question, and then the last question became the penultimate question.
4 Is this your last question?
5 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] This is my very last question,
7 JUDGE ORIE: [No interpretation]
8 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] So I wasn't really translated.
9 I'm talking about the principle that -- the situation was a bedlam really,
10 a powder keg. The situation was like sitting on a powder keg, was a
11 bedlam, very chaotic, a bedlam really.
12 Q. So in view of that situation, how much time - just give us an
13 order of magnitude - how much time did it take a responsible person in the
14 military --
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
16 MR. MUNDIS: Mr. President, that question has characteristics of
17 being misleading. It also mischaracterises the testimony and the
19 JUDGE ORIE: You are -- Mr. Piletta-Zanin, to start with, you are
20 creating a picture first, a picture in which the witness only has to fill
21 in one element, and the picture is yours. That is leading. Could you
22 please put a question without first creating the picture --
23 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] All right.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Ask a question. Please proceed.
25 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] All right.
1 Q. Taking into account, General, what you just told us about the
2 situation concerning discipline and from your experience as a military
3 man, how much time would it take a corps commander to restore order to the
4 functioning of units in his command? In other words, if everything was
5 organised to perfection, it would take two days. And if not, how much
7 MR. MUNDIS: Objection, Mr. President. That's clearly a
8 hypothetical question. It calls for speculation. There's no factual
9 foundation in the question that would allow the witness to answer that.
10 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] May I respond, Mr. President?
11 This is absolutely not a hypothetical question for the reason that the
12 general was able to examine an important number of documents, that he was
13 able to see this, he was able to establish the level of organisation that
14 existed, and he knows as an expert - and his report shows it very
15 well - he knows very well what stages are necessary in such a
16 reorganisation. He should know whether General Galic was able to restore
17 order within two days or more. And that is -- it is in this capacity that
18 I'm asking him the question.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Mundis.
20 MR. MUNDIS: Mr. President, the Prosecution would have no
21 question -- no objection if he put the question in the way he just phrased
22 it to the Chamber with respect to this accused and this situation. In
23 terms of referring to a corps commander -- if the question was simply
24 rephrased, we would have no objection, if it's relating to the specific
25 facts of this case.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Would you please rephrase the question and
2 refrain from introducing all kind of elements which are not in evidence
3 and that are [Previous interpretation continues] ... Hear the answer of
4 the witness.
5 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] May I begin taking into
6 account your statement? Because it has to do with the answer he just
8 JUDGE ORIE: Let me just -- let me ask the question to you. In
9 the circumstances you described, how much time it would need for
10 General Galic to restore a disturbed order?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Under normal circumstances - and I'm
12 now talking about normal circumstances - the corps commander takes 15 to
13 30 days to assume his duties. So much time is given to him for the
14 transition of duties, to read all the reports, to inspect his units, and
15 to finish by saying "I have now assumed my new position."
16 In the situation when General Galic became corps commander and in
17 the operative situation, which I described in my testimony and in my
18 expert report, it is absolutely beyond reason to imagine that
19 General Galic could have restored order in the operative situation in less
20 than two months. From the end of 1992 to the beginning of 1993 he was
21 busy restoring order and certain deficiencies continued to cause failures
22 throughout the war in the command system.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you for your answer.
24 Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
25 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President. Thank you
1 for this question. That was my last question. But before we finish, we
2 just wanted to say that there are documents that we want to tender from
3 the bar table in the traditional way. I'm saying this so that it's clear
4 on the record.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Mundis, is it clear what documents --
6 MR. MUNDIS: Mr. President, before that, the Prosecution had two
7 questions arising from either the Bench or from --
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I should have given you an opportunity. I
10 MR. MUNDIS: Thank you.
11 Further cross-examination by Mr. Mundis:
12 Q. Witness, with respect to an answer given by you to a question from
13 Judge El Mahdi, you said that the Army of Yugoslavia did not prevent
14 Bosnian Serbs from returning to Bosnia to perform their patriotic duty,
15 fighting to defend their people. Did Bosnian Serbs in fact return to
16 Bosnia in order to do just that?
17 A. I am saying that they returned to do that, but if they returned
18 for only that reason I don't know. It was not the subject of my
19 particular study and it's not a proper question for me.
20 Q. You -- a few moments ago in response to a question from the
21 Defence, you indicated that the -- that Marcetic established a forward
22 group. Do you know the name of the group that was established?
23 A. I don't understand. Marcetic did not establish a forward group.
24 He established a forward command post on the orders of the corps commander
25 as his deputy.
1 Q. Okay. Do you know where that forward command post --
2 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
4 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] We have an objection, a
5 delayed one. We believe that again we are witnessing what we called
6 yesterday a fishing expedition and we don't want to fall into the -- run
7 into the same difficulties again.
8 MR. MUNDIS: Mr. President.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
10 MR. MUNDIS: Mr. President, on page 29, line 22 you will see
11 reference to - at least in the English transcript - or lines 21 and 22
12 Marcetic, chief of staff, and another officer when he "established a
13 forward group on the front line in order to establish control over such
14 undisciplined units." That was in response to a question from
15 the Defence. My question simply was: If there was a name of this forward
16 group. The witness has now told us it was a forward command post, and the
17 only remaining question I would put to the witness, if I'm permitted to do
18 so, is where on the front line that forward command post was located.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please put that question to the witness.
20 MR. MUNDIS:
21 Q. Witness, you've just told us that Marcetic established a forward
22 command post on the orders of the corps commander. Where on the front
23 line was this forward command post?
24 A. The forward command post was located in the barracks of the Butile
25 installation. It is the large depot in the western part of the Sarajevo
1 region. The forward command post was sometimes also located on the Nisic
2 elevation, in Ilidza, in Trnovo. Forward command posts are set up as
3 required. Whenever the need arises, a forward command post is sent out.
4 General Galic also formed a group of officers headed by Kosovac, who
5 was --
6 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous interpretation continues] ... Yes. I am
7 sorry for the interpreters that I interrupted. Until now you were only
8 asked where it was located. You've have answered that question.
9 MR. MUNDIS: Thank you, Mr. President. We have no further
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then General Radinovic, this concludes your
12 testimony in this court, and I should perhaps add to you "in this case."
13 We'd like to thank you very much for having come to The Hague and having
14 answered all questions from parties and from the Bench. And before I ask
15 the usher to escort you out of the courtroom, I'd like to say a few words
16 to you in private session.
17 Could we turn into private session.
18 [Private session]
12 Page 21290 – redacted – private session
12 Page 21291 – redacted – private session
12 Page 21292 – redacted – private session
10 [Open session]
11 JUDGE ORIE: Can we turn into private session.
12 [Private session]
18 [Open session]
19 JUDGE ORIE: And I would like to invite the parties to see whether
20 we can deal with the exhibits introduced through the witness Radinovic or
21 from the bench -- from the -- yes, from the bar table, yes. I'm still not
22 a trained common lawyer.
23 To do that at a later stage if the parties would agree so that in
24 order -- I do not know that I was aware that the expert witness to come
25 would not be available at the beginning of next week, but let's see how
1 far we come.
3 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, I note that I haven't been given an
4 opportunity to respond. I don't seek it. I think there are more
5 important matters.
6 JUDGE ORIE: No. It's a matter -- it's a matter that doesn't need
7 any decision, I would say, at this very moment.
8 MR. IERACE: No.
9 JUDGE ORIE: So therefore, we heard that Mr. Piletta-Zanin was
10 complaining about what happened. We cannot change that any more.
11 MR. IERACE: No, Mr. President. And I won't put on the record the
12 Prosecution position in relation to what he said.
13 I should note that the transcript as to what was said before the
14 break in relation to my interjection is incomplete. What I in fact said
15 was "this should stop, Mr. President. This should stop."
16 Mr. President, moving on, there is the matter of the videotape,
17 and I note in relation --
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
19 MR. IERACE: -- To the remainder of the day, that earlier this
20 week you said that there might be some further sitting time this
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. It has not been arranged for, as a matter of
23 fact. But we could see -- I'm a bit surprised by the fact that the next
24 expert witness is not available in the beginning of next week any more.
25 But there were quite a lot of problems to continue this afternoon, but we
1 still could see whether we could gain an hour somewhere.
2 But the Chamber -- at least, I have some other arrangements as
3 well this afternoon, made only after we decided that we'd try not to rush
4 and push the matter. So therefore, we'll have to perhaps first ask the
5 expert witness when she could come.
6 But let's first start and see how far we come.
7 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
9 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] The response of the Defence is
10 obviously that we agree with your suggestion.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That is, to postpone the exhibits.
12 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, exactly.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
14 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] But I haven't heard the
15 Prosecution's response.
16 MR. MUNDIS: Yes. The Prosecution would have no objection to
17 that, Mr. President. But perhaps it might be helpful in order to prepare
18 our response to the various documents if the Defence perhaps later today
19 or this evening could indicate their specific position with respect to the
20 various categories of documents which have been dealt with by this
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. It's not quite clear to me what you asked them,
23 but perfectly out of court you'll be able to communicate with them what
24 you'd like them to inform you about.
25 Then, Madam Usher, could you please escort the next witness into
1 the courtroom.
2 Yes, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
3 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] You're not the only one,
4 Mr. President.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Well, therefore, you'll -- you'll be -- get more
7 [The witness entered court]
8 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, this witness will be cross-examined by
9 Mr. Stamp, who's on his way down at the moment.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
11 MR. IERACE: We hadn't anticipated we would start straight away.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
13 Good morning, Mrs. Radovanovic. You -- always my first question
14 is whether you hear me in a language you understand. You seemed not to do
15 a minute ago but ...
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I can hear you.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Radovanovic, before giving testimony in this
18 court, the Rules of Procedure and Evidence require you to make a solemn
19 declaration that you'll speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
20 the truth. May I invite you to make that declaration of which the text
21 will be handed out to you now by the usher.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak
23 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth..
24 WITNESS: SVETLANA RADOVANOVIC
25 [Witness answered through interpreter]
1 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you very much. Please be seated.
2 Ms. Pilipovic, please proceed.
3 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
4 Examined by Ms. Pilipovic:
5 Q. [Interpretation] Good day, Ms. Radovanovic.
6 A. Good day.
7 Q. Could you, first of all, introduce yourself to us. Could you tell
8 us where you were born, when, and what you are by profession.
9 A. My name is Svetlana Radovanovic. I was born in 1949 in Sombor. I
10 graduated from the Faculty of Philosophy, and I obtained my MA and Ph.D.
11 From the Faculty of Geography. At the moment I am the chief of the
12 department for demography and I work at the university in Belgrade in the
13 Faculty of Geography.
14 Q. Thank you. Dr. Radovanovic, at the Defence's request you
15 submitted a report, submitted it to the court on the 29th of January,
16 2003; is that correct?
17 A. Yes, it's correct.
18 Q. Do you stand by everything that you wrote in your report?
19 A. Yes. But there are certain amendments I would like to make.
20 When I compared the English and Serbian version, I realised that
21 certain errors were made. On page 4 of the English text, the translation
22 is not correct. You don't say -- it shouldn't say "incompetent," it
23 should say "incomplete."
24 On page 12 of the English version, there is another error. In the
25 Serbian translation I got table 2 and in the third column there is no
1 date. That date is contained in the English translation. Perhaps I used
2 more severe terms because I was sure that a translation couldn't contain
3 such an error. It's an official translation.
4 And on page 19 of the English text, instead of the number "6" --
5 instead of the number "600," the number should be "699."
6 Q. Is that all, Mrs. Radovanovic?
7 A. Yes, it is.
8 Q. Thank you.
9 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: I'm sorry. I'm sorry, Ms. Radovanovic. I
10 couldn't follow you. You mentioned page 4, and you said that a
11 word -- but I don't know where is the word. Which paragraph?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'll tell you immediately. I'll try
13 and do that right away.
14 In the Serbian version, under the title "Main conclusions," that's
15 page 4 of the English version, item A, it says "all the data sources used
16 for the analysis --"
17 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: I already -- I already found it. I already
18 found it.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It says "incomplete," but the
20 English translation says "incompetent."
21 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: And the second issue refers to page -- the
22 second issue refers to page --
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's on page 12.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Is there any problem with the audio?
25 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] No, Mr. President. I think
1 that the witness has problems with the headphones. I just wanted the
2 witness to be assisted. That's all.
3 JUDGE ORIE: I see.
4 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
6 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: And then you made the reference to page 12 of
7 the Serb -- Serbian version. But I would like you to repeat that.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] On page 12 of the English version.
9 And that's page 7 in the Serbian version. There is a table which says
10 "Representation of all the phenomenas represented in the PDS sample."
11 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: Yes.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That table consists of three
13 columns. In the third column, where it says "PDS 1994," in the
14 translation it didn't include this date that you have in the English text,
15 which says "10/9/92 until 30/9/94." In the Serbian version, it's on page
16 03032066. That date isn't there.
17 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: You mean the date which says
18 "01/01/92-30/09/94" in the English text is not in the original?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. No. That date, the 1st of
20 January, 1992 to the 30th of September, 1994, that date is there, but
21 there are three columns in the table. The first table says "all," and
22 then you have the date, the 1st of January, 1992 up until the 30th of
23 September, 1994. And then in the Serbian version you don't have anything
24 but in the English version you have the date, the 10th of September, 1992
25 to the 10th of August, 1994.
1 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President.
2 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: In fact, I was checking both versions, and I
3 think that they are identical. I don't see the difference.
4 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
6 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] To clarify the matter, may I
7 intervene? Just to save time.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
9 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I checked that with the
10 witness. The version that the witness is referring to is not the version
11 of her report. It's the translated version that was provided to her by
12 the Tribunal's service. It's the version of the -- of Tabeau's report.
13 In the translation of Tabeau's report - and I verified this myself - in
14 table 4, this table was not completely translated, and that's where the
15 error occurred. In the translated document, the document translated by
16 the Tribunal, and the expert worked on the Serbian version of this
17 document, in the translation you don't have this element which is in the
18 report submitted by the expert Ewa Tabeau.
19 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: Okay. It's a different issue. Thank you.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please proceed, Ms. Pilipovic.
21 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
22 Q. Mrs. Radovanovic, on page 1 of your report, you provided a summary
23 of the results to which your main conclusions were added.
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. The first question I would like to ask you is: The statistical
1 analysis in undefined parts of the six Sarajevo municipalities, could you
2 please explain what this means, the undefined parts of the six Sarajevo
3 municipalities, in statistical terms.
4 A. Those are part that is have not been defined in statistical terms
5 for the simple reason that there are no statistical limits reasons,
6 statistically determined limits. There are probably certain political or
7 military limits, data but not in statistical terms because there are
8 certain areas that are determined, that are taken into consideration. In
9 statistics there is a definite procedure according to which the
10 statistical boundaries of an area are assessed, in terms of my field.
11 Q. Mrs. Radovanovic, you said that there was a procedure. If a
12 statistician is carrying out an analysis, why is it necessary for these
13 statistical areas to be determined?
14 A. Well, whenever a census is made, a census of the population or of
15 households in particular, it's of great importance to define the
16 statistical areas concerned by the census, and this is also important to
17 avoid duplicating information or leaving out information. I can provide
18 you with a detailed explanation of this.
19 There is an elaborate procedure that is applied.
20 Q. Thank you, Mrs. Radovanovic. On page 6, item 2 in the Serbian
21 text - that's page 10 in the English version - you mention the
22 shortcomings in Ewa Tabeau's findings. You say that she relies on the
23 area where a census was carried out. You say that this included 88
24 municipalities. And my question would be: In those 89 local
25 municipalities, do these 89 local municipalities represent a statistically
1 defined area?
2 A. The municipalities -- the local communes weren't statistically or
3 administratively defined. They were associations of citizens,
4 associations that existed on a voluntary basis, and they would deal with
5 certain utility problems or residential problems.
6 Q. Thank you, Mrs. Radovanovic. You have explained to us what the
7 idea of a local commune is in your report. Bearing in mind our time
8 restrictions, I'll perhaps put a question of a general kind to you and
9 could you briefly answer it. What is necessary in order to carry out a
10 population census, a census of the population or a census of households?
11 A. First of all, you need a lot of money. Census populations or
12 household censuses, if you want to carry out a total -- a complete census,
13 this costs a lot of money. In every state these are some of the most
14 expensive actions that you can carry out in statistics. You intensify the
15 preparations for three or four years before this. There is a very broad
16 procedure and methodology that has to be used to prepare and carry out a
17 census. This has to be done if you want the census to be carried out
19 Q. Mrs. Radovanovic, when you mention methodology, what has to be
20 precisely determined?
21 A. First of all, you have to determine the exact area, you have to
22 define the area that is concerned by the census, and then you have to
23 determine what the objectives of the census are, you have to determine the
24 units of the census, that is to say, what will be included in the census,
25 and then it is necessary to determine the methodology which that will be
1 used or, rather, the way in which you are going to proceed. And if you
2 are carrying out such a wide statistical action, there are various kind of
3 methodologies. There's an organisational methodology, how is it going to
4 be organised, which organ will be concerned with certain fields, what does
5 the statistical department do, what does the cadastral department do, and
6 there is a methodology which refers to the instruments of the census.
7 To simplify, the methodology is the way in which you are going to
8 proceed, and everyone has to respect this procedure.
9 Q. Thank you. Mrs. Radovanovic, to the extent that I've understood
10 your answers, you said that it was a state action within a framework of
11 statistical methods. Are you aware of any census carried -- done by
12 institutions that were not statistical institutions in Bosnia-Herzegovina?
13 A. No. Or rather, if any such action was taken, all I can say is
14 that it was never officially verified by official statistical institutes
15 in the territory of the former Yugoslavia.
16 Q. Mrs. Radovanovic, you mentioned censuses carried out by
17 statistical institutes. If I've understood you, you said that methodology
18 was important. And with reference to the methodology, you mentioned those
19 carrying out the census. Is that correct?
20 A. Yes, that's correct. A census involves a large number of people.
21 For example, the 1991 census in the territory of the former Yugoslavia
22 involved over 100.000 people. Their tasks varied. Some people were
23 involved in statistics and they have a certain number of tasks and then
24 there are people who are not involved in statistics but similarly they are
25 assigned certain tasks. Whenever a population census is being carried
1 out, those carrying out the census out are the key people.
2 There is a special procedure that concerns how those involved in
3 the census are to be trained, et cetera. I apologise if that's of any
4 importance. There were over 60.000 people involved in taking the census
5 in the 1991 census. I can't say that that is the exact figure because it
6 depended on the area of the republic. It varied from republic to
8 Q. Thank you. Mrs. Radovanovic, as far as I have understood your
9 question, it's important for the person taking the census or the people
10 taking the census to have certain qualifications. Have I understood you
12 A. Absolutely. One of the conditions for carrying out a good census
13 is to have people who are qualified. They have to have a certain level of
14 literacy. They have to be of certain professional standards, because they
15 have to be trained in order to master the methodology that has to be used
16 when taking the census. The training that they are given provides them
17 with a certain methodology that must be applied, that must be strictly
18 applied if the census is to be valid, if it's to be carried out uniformly.
19 Q. If you're talking about the qualifications of those taking the
20 census and the necessity of ensuring that the census is unified, it has
21 certain uniformity, can you tell us what this means when you say it should
22 have a certain uniformity.
23 A. Uniformity, that means that you have to strictly adhere to the
24 methodology and you mustn't allow the census-taker to take decisions
25 himself about certain factors because this is a huge project. It includes
1 a lot of people, and you can't take decisions that do not conform. If you
2 want valid information, then it is necessary to provide instructions as to
3 how this is to be carried out. So the methodology has to be respected and
4 this ensures a certain uniformity. The census-taker has to adhere to what
5 is important for statistics. The census-taker is not free to assess
6 independently what the information should be.
7 Q. So Mrs. Radovanovic, you're telling us that the census-taker -- a
8 census-taker can't be someone who is allowed to interpret the information
9 provided to the census-taker when carrying out the census.
10 A. No, that's not allowed. There are penalties prescribed by the
11 law. The census-taker has to strictly adhere to the methodology. But in
12 statistics and especially in statistics that regard censuses, there are
13 legal articles and there were many meetings that dealt with the subject of
14 the influence excerpted by the census-taker. The census-taker can
15 strictly adhere to a methodology but can nevertheless influence the
16 results through his behaviour towards the subjects and by asking questions
17 in an imprecise way. So in censuses it's been possible to detect the
18 influence of the census-taker, especially in difficult times when the
19 population is either not well informed or does not want to provide
20 information because they fear certain things.
21 I can provide you with an example that is interesting for
22 economical reasons. For example, very often the population, especially
23 those involved in agriculture, wanted to conceal the amount of land they
24 possessed and the amount of cattle they possessed in order to avoid taxes.
25 And if you have a census-taker who is not able to explain the reasons
1 for which a census is being taken, then you get a totally -- you get --
2 the information you get about the cattle possessed is totally false.
3 Q. Thank you. Mrs. Radovanovic, as someone who is involved in
4 statistics, and we're now talking about censuses and the methodology used
5 by census-takers, can you tell us what instruments, what tools are used
6 when taking a census?
7 A. Well, above all the tools could be divided into the main and
8 secondary tools. A large number of tools are involved. You have to
9 determine the statistical areas with precision. I have to determine all
10 the forms, all the instructions that accompany this, and one of the main
11 tools, if we're talking about population censuses or household censuses,
12 one of the main tools are questionnaires. For example, these are used for
13 censuses and you have those methodological instructions. And regular
14 censuses also have another important tool: That's a control method. You
15 have to record what sort of statistics are involved in that control
16 procedure. You have to try to avoid duplicating results, and you have
17 strictly defined -- strictly defined boundaries, strictly defined areas in
18 which the census-taker can move. For example, if it's defined as a
19 street. And you say the census-taker of a certain area, 52, shall adhere
20 to the left side of the Proletarski Brigada Street and shall deal with
21 houses 52 to 56 to 180 and then crosses the road at the traffic lights and
22 takes the census of the houses number 2 and 4 on the right-hand side of
23 the street.
24 Q. Mrs. Radovanovic, I'd like to stop you there. Although you have
25 answered my question, as one of the tools used in a census you mentioned,
1 if I have understood your answer -- you mentioned questionnaires, and you
2 said that that was the most important tool used in censuses. What should
3 a questionnaire contain when used as a tool in a census?
4 A. Well, above all, a questionnaire has to be clear and the questions
5 must be quite precisely defined, and it has to relate to the units that it
6 is interested in. It has to be understandable. It mustn't be ambiguous.
7 Very often questions are provided which can be answered by circling a
8 certain number or establishing a certain number or crossing out a certain
9 number. You very seldom give questions which can be answered by writing
10 an answer. But above all, it has to be clearly imagined, it has to be a
11 simple and it shouldn't contain elements that could scare or disturb the
12 person being questioned.
13 Q. Mrs. Radovanovic, when working on your report, did you have the
14 opportunity of seeing the questionnaire that was used for the household
15 census as it's stated in the report in the free territory of the city of
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Can you tell us whether that questionnaire which was used in the
19 census of households for the relevant period, the period that was relevant
20 to the Defence, can you tell us whether it conforms to statistical
22 A. No. First of all, it's not clear. And the units that are
23 being -- that are the subject of the census are not clearly defined,
24 certain concepts are not clear in it, it doesn't correspond to statistical
25 standards and it doesn't have any characteristic that could be used in a
1 statistical analysis. It doesn't have room for figures, et cetera, and
2 its main problem is that its questions are not clearly defined, the unit
3 that is the subject -- the units that are the subject of the census are
4 not clear, and it also contains questions which could be disturbing. And
5 I even have the impression that this questionnaire had a certain target
6 group in mind, and I think that question 4, 5 -- questions 4, 5, 6,
7 12 -- no, question 7 and question 12 are questions which might disturb the
8 subjects. And in my opinion, they're not very clear because I don't know
9 what they are referring to.
10 For example, question 4 says "the members of households who left
11 Sarajevo or were wounded outside of Sarajevo remained in the territory of
12 the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina which is under the control of the
14 Q. Mrs. Radovanovic, you said "wounded." I think that it says
15 "displaced" in item 4.
16 A. "Displaced." I apologise. It's not very legible. Who were
17 displaced outside of Sarajevo. And it says "under the control of the
19 Question 5 says "who died in the course of the aggression."
20 6 says "wounded in the household in the course of the aggression
21 aggression," "went missing from the household in the course of the
22 aggression" - that's question 7 - and question 12 is "died in their
23 household in the course of the aggression." It's not will -- clearly
24 defined here. The aggression referred to is not clearly defined, and the
25 target group is not clearly defined. Whether it's the entire population
1 living in that area and whether they can provide some kind of answer
2 without fearing anything because the population in that area is ethnically
4 Q. Mrs. Radovanovic, I think that in your expert report, in your
5 statement, these parts that we have read out from the questionnaire, you
6 characterised them as biased?
7 A. Yes, I considered them to be biased because they referred to a
8 certain target group which is to be the subject of the census. I can
9 explain this if you allow me.
10 Q. Mrs. Radovanovic, if we have time, we'll come back to this issue.
11 My next question would refer to methodology. What is the procedure for
12 carrying out a census?
13 A. Well, I don't know what the procedure applied was here. I can
14 tell you what kinds of procedure exist in taking a census. If you mean
15 direct census. In the procedure, first you determine the way in which it
16 is going to be carried out. It can be done by dealing out questionnaires.
17 It can also be carried out - and I assume this was done here, although I
18 have no firm facts to support it - to distribute questionnaires among
19 houses or to go to the local community and give a statement according to
20 these parameters. This is not the practice in regular censuses, regular
21 censuses imply the method of questionnaire. You go from house to house.
22 Q. Can you tell us, is there any control of how a census is taken,
23 and how is this control exerted?
24 A. In the very procedure of taking a census itself, the first or
25 second day of the census each census-taker has to show the material
1 gathered every evening to his municipal controller, and the controller has
2 to check whether the census-taker was adhering to methodology, whether he
3 was committing a systematical error and to caution the census-taker about
4 this so that the error should not persist until the end of the census. So
5 this is the immediate control during the execution of the census. Then
6 comes another control immediately after the census is taken. This is
7 random control. You take all the census areas and select certain
8 households to which you send a second round of census-takers. These
9 census-takers take the information again and then you make a comparison
10 between the first and the second census-taker and thus at the very start,
11 at the very outset, you can assess whether the methodology was strictly
12 observed, whether there is a possibility of systematic errors, whether
13 something was omitted. For instance, sometimes the census-taker that
14 comes in the second round comes across a household where the first
15 census-taker hasn't been. That is 10 to 20 days after the census was
17 Q. Mrs. Radovanovic, you gave us your opinion about the report of
18 Mrs. Ewa Tabeau and the methodology she used in your report. Could you by
19 analysing the material determine whether there was any control in that
21 A. When analysing the material, I couldn't even assess who did the
22 census, apart from the institution. I wasn't able to determine who the
23 census-takers were in the first place, let alone whether there was any
24 control. I didn't even know what was done. I just had information. The
25 only information I had was that so many households were covered by the
2 Q. Tell us, do sociopolitical conditions affect a census?
3 A. Yes. The areas of the former Yugoslavia are very characteristic
4 of this. After the Second World War, various areas in the former
5 Yugoslavia had different sociopolitical situations which determined
6 certain characteristics. This is the greatest impact and this is why you
7 can always wonder about the quality. For instance, on the issue of ethnic
8 structure, there could be certain problems with the '79 census in Croatia
9 because it coincided with the Maspok event. The '81 census was very
10 idiosyncratic when it came to Kosovo because of the demonstrations, et
11 cetera. The '81 census was very special for all areas of Yugoslavia
12 because the society was going through turbulent times and we have studies
13 about this saying that political parties took over the census for their
14 own purposes.
15 Q. Mrs. Radovanovic, bearing in mind that the census of households
16 analysed in the Tabeau report, and on which you have your own opinion, was
17 done during the war. Did this particular fact affect this census? And we
18 know what you think of it. Did it affect the census?
19 A. I never ever heard, regarding the Balkans or even Europe, that a
20 single census was taken during the war. All censuses are normally taken
21 after the war, for the simple reason that it is necessary to determine the
22 demographic picture. I never ever heard of a census taken during the war.
23 Q. Thank you.
24 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, my colleague will
25 continue with the questioning.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Please do so, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
2 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Gladly, Your Honour. Just one
3 clarification: What is the deadline that we have for this examination?
4 Because we're going to have to proceed as fast as possible.
5 JUDGE ORIE: I must check, to be quite honest, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
6 Examined by Mr. Piletta-Zanin:
7 Q. [Interpretation] Doctor, good day to you.
8 A. Good day.
9 Q. I would like to take you back to what you just told us. You told
10 us that you could give us certain explanations if we wanted it. As
11 briefly as possible, you would give us your impressions. I'm going to ask
12 for certain technical clarifications.
13 A. You mean about my explanation concerning target groups? If I read
14 the questionnaire and if certain questions in it referred to aggression,
15 saying "during the aggression," et cetera, and you have in mind that an
16 ethnically heterogenous population is contained in this area and if we
17 know that there was no attack by third states, that it is a civil war
18 that's going on, then I wonder how it is possible to know precisely who is
19 perceived as the aggressor by a certain ethnic group.
20 For instance, if you asked this question of a Muslim during the
21 aggression, he would think of one aggressor. If you ask this question of
22 a Serb, he would have a different perception. This is very tricky, and I
23 wouldn't like to go into it. But I suppose that not all ethnic groups
24 perceived one and the same aggressor.
25 Q. Thank you. Doctor, I would like to go back to one detail from the
1 questionnaire that you have in front of you, namely the place - I don't
2 have it here - but from memory it is a reference to "mesto," which means
3 "place." Have you found this spot?
4 A. Yes. Yes, I've found it. It's in question 6, if that's what you
5 mean, the area --
6 Q. All right. In this wording, what could you tell us about the
7 precision or lack of precision of this wording, "place of death" is meant
8 or the "place of wounding," because we have points 5 -- items 5 and 6?
9 A. In official statistics when you say "place," you have a dash and
10 then it goes on to say "settlement or populated area." You cannot use
11 local terms in official statistics. So in official statistics, when you
12 say "place," this has a very precise statistical meaning, a very clearly
13 defined populated area. I have the impression that in this questionnaire
14 that parts of a neighbourhood can be treated as a place, a certain
15 locality. And what could cause problems here is that certain parts of
16 neighbourhoods or populated areas can appear that are identical in name to
17 whole areas. For instance, I said that one of Sarajevo neighbourhoods is
18 called "neighbourhoods," whereas here you have one part of Dobrinja that
19 is named in the questionnaire. The same goes for Modrica and Jablanica,
20 that are taken as independent areas. Dobrinja here is part of one of
21 Sarajevo municipalities. You can also take a street and call it "place."
22 The assumption is that you should name the street like Marsala Tito
23 Street. No street is called like that any more. Times have changed. But
24 there was no street in Yugoslavia sometime ago which did not have a
25 Marsala Tito Street. If you have such a loose definition and you say that
1 it's Marsala Tito Street, how can you know for certain that it's in
2 Sarajevo and not in some other place. Or if in another item the answer
3 can read "died near the mosque, got killed near the mosque." What I'm
4 saying is that it is the duty of a statistician to consult a thick book
5 with place names defining areas in which these places are, defining the
6 municipalities. Then you can see that you have different areas which
7 places of the same name.
8 Q. Thank you. Doctor, I would like us now to go back, sticking to
9 your report. Do you have it in front of you?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Thank you. I would like you to specify a couple of things. You
12 said in item C that some of the results attained by your colleague,
13 Mrs. Tabeau, are exaggerated by about 20 per cent. I would like you to
14 tell us briefly how you arrived at this discrepancy of 20 per cent. On
15 what technical basis?
16 A. All I had was the Tabeau report. In this report, in the form of
17 some synthetic tables - and I have table 1 and table 3 and later table
18 18 - table 1 and table 3, which are identical - let me just have a
19 look - contain 3.798 killed and 12.919 wounded. But within one and the
20 same table, when you look at the breakdown by municipalities or part of
21 municipalities, because municipalities do not feature here, you will find
22 a place where it says "Sarajevo undefined." And this undefined Sarajevo
23 contains a certain incidence. If we were not able to define Sarajevo, if
24 these incidence are quoted for an undefined Sarajevo while at the same
25 time we have indicators by parts of municipalities, then of course you
1 have to wonder why it is said here that Sarajevo is undefined. Why didn't
2 they define it? In my opinion, this information does not belong in this
3 table or in the sum that is quoted here for the number of wounded.
4 In table 18, furthermore, Mrs. Tabeau shows -- shows us a datum
5 "wounded, 2.963," number of wounded. And I believe this is broken down
6 by ethnicity. Based on that figure, she proceeds to make certain
7 assessments. If there are 2.963 killed - and we are talking about the
8 same time frame, the same territory, the same census from which data was
9 taken - then how come 3.798 is the total sum? If you deduct what is
10 undefined, what is shown as a second sum for the wounded and the killed,
11 then you have to conclude that this in this table, the total sum, was
12 exaggerated by 20 per cent.
13 Q. Thank you, Doctor. We all have these tables in front of us to
14 follow your argument. I would like you to specify certain other figures
15 that you gave in your report. In the English version, page 10 of your
16 report, and the bottom of page 5 in Serbian, you are talking about tables
17 1 and 6, a number which is 3.225.
18 A. Sorry, I didn't find it and I didn't understand the question.
19 Q. In your report, there is a figure - and if you look at the Serbian
20 text, which is not paginated, there is a figure that you quote,
21 3.225 - and about this number I would like you to tell us how you arrived
22 at it, what were your arithmetics and calculations that allowed you to
23 come to this number. Did you understand?
24 A. Yes, I understood now. This figure can also be calculated on the
25 basis of table 1, which I just mentioned. If you look at table 1, it
1 gives us a breakdown by municipality of the population. And if you take
2 into account the undefined Sarajevo, it gives us the number of 3.225 and
3 not 3.798.
4 Q. Under the chapter "General conclusions," you told us that the
5 method of Dr. Tabeau, who applied her methodology to an area unit that
6 includes 100.000 citizens, you tell us that this is not only
7 methodologically incorrect but could amount to a manipulation of figures.
8 I would like you to tell us exactly on the basis of what you assert this.
9 A. In demographic statistics, we know very well about the rates
10 expressed in terms of 100.000 citizens. They are very rarely done. But
11 in the statistics of Bosnia and Herzegovina, all rates are expressed per
12 1.000 citizens. We can open a small discussion about this, about the
13 reasons why this is so. Why this is manipulated here, I think the aim is
14 to aggrandise the importance of certain things because even some
15 statistics that are expressed in -- normally per 1.000 citizens are
16 calculated here in terms of 100.000. For instance, you have the mortality
17 rate per 1.000 citizens by municipality and you arrive at the number that
18 for the municipality of Vogosca this is a certain number. And Vogosca has
19 a population of 25.000. I don't know whether even in the twenty-second
20 century it will have a population of 100.000. I believe this is playing
21 with statistics because the entire statistics of the Balkans and the
22 former Yugoslavia uses the denominator of 1.000. I am not saying that the
23 other denominator is never used in demographics. I'm just saying that it
24 is inappropriate in this particular instance.
25 Q. Thank you, Doctor. I would like to come back in general terms to
1 the problem of what we called duplication. And you have indicated one
2 thing here. We know that the report of Dr. Tabeau attempted to rule out
3 as much as possible such duplication, to eliminate it as much as possible.
4 What would you say was the result as far as duplication is concerned?
5 Accurate, more or less so, to what degree?
6 A. The report says that there are 85.000 questionnaires intended for
7 households covered by the census. Out of this number, 40.000
8 questionnaires were singled out. That includes incidents of death or
9 wounding. And these 45.000 that remained were processed, trying to
10 eliminate duplication. One possible way in which duplication can occur is
11 if you try to match something, compare it, and see if there is
12 duplication. This matching is done in a way which I never heard of being
13 applied in a single census, and I don't think it is appropriate here.
14 Namely, without having precise identification data for this, instead you
15 use the first and second name with the help of an expert for names and
16 surnames, which I also ignore the meaning of, and if you have the name and
17 surname misquoted you can do with initials and the year of birth. If you
18 proceed in this way, I don't think the result can be good or precise.
19 Q. Thank you, Doctor. My following question would be the following:
20 When we are doing this kind of census and if you take a person who
21 declares themselves, be it an official or a regular person, a soldier or a
22 civilian, were there rules that would enable you to define clearly a
23 worker. Is this person, this person is an official, this person is a
24 soldier or a civilian?
25 A. No, not -- or rather, yes, they exist in official statistics but
1 not in this census. In this census I was unable to find a single
2 definition, either of a household or a soldier or a civilian.
3 Q. You told us yes, in principle but not in this specific situation.
4 In principle, what was there or what would have existed then at the time
5 in the former Yugoslavia, specifically in Sarajevo, that would enable us
6 to determine clearly who is who, to separate, for instance, soldiers from
8 A. Well, I can only assume. I don't know what was actually done. In
9 such a situation, in my conviction, all men of military age could be
10 treated as soldiers. If not, you can take those who are officially
11 employed by the army, who officially serve in the army. I don't know what
12 was done, because it was a state of war.
13 Q. My question was this: In the former Yugoslavia, if one was doing
14 one's regular military service or if one was a career military man, would
15 one be registered somewhere, a register of servicemen, for instance, so
16 that we know how many military personnel there are as opposed to
18 A. I don't know that.
19 Q. Thank you, Doctor. I would like us to move on now, to come to the
20 question of figures given by the second source of the report Bakija, the
21 funeral parlour, who was used as a source in this report. Please, may I
22 refer you to page 24 of your report and ask you to clarify this because
23 you indicated there was a contradiction in terms. Insofar as, if I
24 understood correctly, this funeral parlour buried more persons than this
25 figure would seem to allow. In the Serbian version of the report, it's in
1 the beginning of page 20 -- sorry, 14, 14.
2 A. If I have understood you correctly, you want me to comment on the
3 sources, on the Bakija -- on the Bakija source and you want me to
4 comment on these figures here.
5 Q. Yes, exactly.
6 A. The only source of my information was the Tabeau report. And in
7 this report, one of the sources mentioned was the Bakija source. In my
8 opinion, it's a very partial source because it only mentions the Muslims
9 buried. According to what the Tabeau report says, from the Bakija source
10 they were provided with the information that 6.266 Muslims were buried
11 during the period we are interested in. And at the same time this
12 concerns the same period, the information from the 1994 census shows that
13 2.340 Muslims were killed. I worked out the difference if only Muslims
14 were buried. So if we take the number killed -- if we take this number
15 killed, then we have the number 3.926 Muslims whose death was caused by
16 natural causes. But according to the census of 1994, it says that those
17 who died of natural causes - and this concerns all nationalities, the
18 Muslims, the Serbs, and the Croats, and it also concerns those who did not
19 declare themselves to have a particular nationality, that means
20 Yugoslavs - the number for this category is 3.434. So there is certain
21 paradox here. If Bakija a buried 3.926 and the deaths caused by natural
22 causes was also of a certain figure, it shows that the sources for this
23 information was not quite correct.
24 Q. Very well. Thank you for this information. Doctor, could you
25 also mention certain figures in the table that you reproduced. It's on
1 page 31 of the English transcript, page 18 of the Serbian transcript, and
2 there's just one matter I would like you to clarify. Have you found this
3 table, Doctor?
4 A. In my report, on page 18, yes, I have found it.
5 Q. If I have a look at what it says under table 2, for example, I can
6 see that there are only two pieces of information, whereas table 2
7 consists of three columns. Could you please comment on that.
8 A. My purpose wasn't to reproduce all the information in the tables.
9 I just wanted to mention certain information that showed that the sources
10 were not consistent, that they were illogical. This phenomenon is the
11 same, the same period of time, and the same area is concerned. If this is
12 how one proceeds, there is only one source for the -- if there is only one
13 source for the census, then it's illogical to have various figures. Why
14 didn't I mention this in table 2? Because in table 2 the third column
15 contains absolutely identical information as the information we can find
16 in table 1 for the killed and for those wounded. That was the only
17 reason. So I wanted to mention certain differences, and I can't conclude
18 what the relevant figures are on this basis.
19 Q. Doctor, thank you. On page 19 of the Serbian text - it's item B,
20 and Mr. President, it's page 33, item B - there are certain figures that
21 appear. And I would like you to comment on them too. You mentioned an
22 artificially blowing up the numbers, increasing the numbers. Could you
23 just comment briefly on the methodology used to reach these findings. And
24 I would like to ask you the same question with regard to item C.
25 A. Well, the procedure is identical, the same procedure as that in
1 table 1. The sources are table 1 and table 18 for me. In table 1,
2 something that hasn't been defined was also contained, something not
3 defined in the municipalities. And I didn't take this into consideration.
4 I've already told you why. So that's why I think that the figure was
5 increased. I can make some calculations. If you take this figure
6 contained here and you deduct this total number of killed and wounded,
7 then the result is this difference, this figure, and that shows that the
8 number was augmented by 20 per cent.
9 Q. Thank you. We're only checking the figures now, so I would like
10 to go back to the table on page 41 in the English version and page 24 in
11 the Serbian version. And I simply wanted to verify a figure that appears
12 in the third column at the top. We have the number 11.191 wounded. How
13 did you arrive at this figure, 11.191?
14 A. Table 18 and table 1 were my sources, but without the
15 cases -- cases whose nationality was not identified.
16 Q. To be more specific, was this deducted?
17 A. Well, in this table, I took away the nationalities which were
18 unidentified from the total number. And in table 1, for example, you have
19 "killed and wounded," the total number of Croats, of Muslims, the total
20 number of others and of Serbs and of those who were unknown.
21 Q. Very well. Why did you proceed in this manner?
22 A. Well, I think that having such a category, unknown nationality, I
23 don't know how this was introduced. You have a case but you don't have a
24 nationality. I thought that this was a matter of matching up something
25 between the census of 1991 and 1994. This is all a matter of guesswork
1 now. What I have to emphasise is that my report wanted to indicate that
2 the sources of information were not reliable, that they couldn't provide
3 good results, that they couldn't provide good samples. To simplify, it's
4 as if we started discussing what the roof of our house looked like without
5 having the foundations.
6 Q. Mrs. Radovanovic, we'll return to some of the conclusions in your
8 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] But first of all,
9 Mr. President, I would like to know -- I don't want to make any errors.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, I think that three hours have been
11 granted, if I'm correct. But I must say that I am not quite sure about
12 the source. If there's any --
13 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] No, I think two hours are in
14 question, but I'll accept three, quite gladly, although it will only take
15 me two.
16 JUDGE ORIE: I expressed already some doubt. I asked for the
17 latest list, and I'll check it. But if both parties agree that the
18 decision was two hours, then perhaps I got a list of three hours having
19 been asked for. I'll check it during the break. And I always rely
20 heavily upon the parties agreeing. So therefore, we should start with two
21 hours and let's just assume, as an exception, that I'm wrong.
22 That would mean that we have approximately one hour and five
23 minutes used. That would remain 55 minutes.
24 But that creates another issue: Mrs. Radovanovic, I was informed
25 that you are not available any more after today. Is that correct?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's correct. But I was told that
2 perhaps we wouldn't finish today.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] So I asked whether it would be
5 possible to postpone my duties and then perhaps it will be possible for me
6 to stay on.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You asked for that. You have got no answer
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I haven't received an answer yet. I
10 was told that I would receive an answer in the course of the break. I
11 don't know if there's going to be a break now or not though.
12 JUDGE ORIE: We'll have a break, and we'll hope that you get a
13 positive answer for us. But let's just wait and see.
14 We'll adjourn until ten minutes to 1.00.
15 --- Recess taken at 12.32 p.m.
16 --- On resuming at 12.56 p.m.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, on the 25th of February, page
18 20.173, I indicated that two hours was granted. So I made a mistake
19 before the break. And as always, the joint position of the parties is the
20 right one.
21 Ms. Radovanovic, may I first ask you whether you received an
22 answer to your question.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I did. Because of the tragedy
24 that has struck our country, the prime minister was killed, everything has
25 been postponed, everything has been put on hold, so I can stay on, I can
1 be present here tomorrow and on Monday too.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you very much for your cooperation. Of
3 course the circumstances are sad enough, that cause that you are
4 available, but nevertheless the Chamber appreciates that you still will be
6 Then, Mr. Piletta-Zanin, please proceed.
7 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
8 Thank you for what you said.
9 Q. Doctor, I would like to go back to your report. And I'm
10 particularly interested in page 43 in the English version, the first
11 paragraph of the English version, and I'll provide you with the reference
12 for the Serb -- for the Serbian version immediately. It's towards the
13 end. I'll guide you. Doctor, at a certain point you mentioned the fact
14 that it was impossible to understand how Mrs. Tabeau's calculations had
15 been made, her calculations with regard to the number of Muslims who
16 allegedly died. It's page 25 in the Serbian version.
17 A. 25? Which paragraph is it?
18 Q. It's the third paragraph, if you look at it carefully. It starts
19 with the words "U drugom," that is to say, "in the second." Have you
20 found the paragraph?
21 A. Yes, I have. Am I to comment on this?
22 Q. Yes, please do.
23 A. Well, I really didn't understand what the author wanted to say. I
24 can read it out. It says, "In the second step the authors apply real
25 distribution of the killed and to those who died from natural causes, to
1 the overall population covered by the PDS 1994 census. And I quote, "In
2 order to divide the calculated number of the estimated total number of
3 Muslims who died into those who were killed and those who died of natural
4 causes." This mean that is we should first calculate the proportion of
5 those killed within the entire population from the household census of
6 1994 and then we should multiply this by a factor in order to calculate
7 the number of -- the estimated number of all Muslims. Since not a single
8 figure is included, no information -- no piece of information is included,
9 this formulation, this way of putting it, is totally unclear to me.
10 Naturally, I could tell you what I think the writers of the report were
11 thinking about, but I don't think that this would be a serious way to
12 proceed. I can't get involved in guesswork.
13 Q. Thank you very much. Just one matter. In the Serbian version,
14 page 46, you make a reference; is that correct?
15 A. I don't have the Serbian version. I don't have page 46 in the
16 Serbian version. It's page 24 or 25.
17 Q. After the word "Muslims."
18 A. Do you mean the second paragraph, the next paragraph?
19 Q. The reference, where it says "Ibid" on page 46.
20 A. Yes. I said I'm quoting. That is from the text they found in the
21 record. And that's on page 46.
22 Q. Because in the English version it says "Ibid," page 4. I just
23 wanted to point this out in order to verify this matter.
24 Doctor, I would now like to ask you a series of questions that
25 concern the issue of snipers. In the census document, did you see a
1 methodological indication of any kind that would have made it possible to
2 distinguish, for example, a shot fired by a sniper from a shot fired from
3 some other weapon?
4 A. In the document that I had, in the report written by Mrs. Tabeau,
5 there is not a single methodological explanation, but I had the
6 opportunity to have reviewing another document which also deals with --
7 Q. Just a minute, please. Can you tell us what the other or other
8 documents are that you consulted with regard to the issue of sniping in
10 A. Well, just a minute, please.
11 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, in the
12 meantime, with the assistance of the usher, I would like to hand out a
13 document which I think will be numbered 1928, and similarly I'd like to
14 hand out another document, 1927 is the number of the second document. And
15 there will probably be a third document. And we will be told what the
16 number of this document is later.
17 Q. Doctor, the documents that you have will be provided to you in the
18 English version. And my first question is as follows: Have you seen
19 these documents translated into the Serbian language? And I'm referring
20 to document 1928, first of all.
21 A. Yes, I've seen this document.
22 Q. Doctor, what is the document that you are looking at? You went
23 through a document. I want to check this.
24 A. I'm looking at a document which says "Review of those who have
25 been killed and wounded so far as a result of sniper activity from the
1 10th of September, 1992 until the 10th of August, 1994 in the city of
2 Sarajevo." It's been introduced here under number 0098 --
3 Q. Could I see the document that you have in front of you. I just
4 want to check. Thank you.
5 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, there's just a
6 page that we would like to copy later on. So I'll ask the expert about
7 this. This is the page concerned. It's a page that wasn't in the document
8 that we provided, but there is just the title which is on this page, which
9 is numbered 1928.
10 MR. STAMP: I --
11 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Madam, could you put the first
12 page on the ELMO, please.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stamp. I think the document would be put on the
14 ELMO, would that --
15 MR. STAMP: If there are no copies. If there are no copies, we'll
16 have to work with that.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
18 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation]
19 Q. Witness, could you read what it says? It's page 00986275. Could
20 you read it out aloud so that it can be translated and entered into the
22 A. "Review of those who have been identified, the civilians who were
23 killed and wounded as a result of sniper activity in the period 10
24 September 1992 until 10 August 1994 in the city of Sarajevo."
25 Q. Thank you very much. And let's do the same thing for the next
1 page in the report, the second page. Just the title. And could we see
2 the ERN number, please. Thank you. The number is 0 -- it's 76 at the
3 end. Could you read the first four lines, please, from "sniper."
4 A. "Sniper, from the 10th of September 1992 until the 10th of August
5 1994. 870 cases of sniper activity directed at civilian targets in
6 Sarajevo in the period 10 September 1992 until the 10th of August 1994."
7 Q. Please carry on, the following title.
8 A. "Consequences -- results. Total killed, 361, of which men, 218;
9 women, 110; children, 33. The total number of wounded, 758."
10 Could you please put it up a bit.
11 "Of whom: Men, 513; women, 168; and children, 75."
12 Q. Doctor, just one thing. I can see some handwritten parts, and I
13 can see that some things have been circled. Whose hand is it? Whose
14 handwriting is it?
15 A. Well, I did that. Unfortunately, I often scribble on documents.
16 Q. Very well. Doctor, in this entire list that we have as an annex,
17 what can you tell us in general, and then in relation to the figure that
18 is you provide in your report.
19 A. I saw this document in December or January - I'm not sure
20 exactly - and when I was writing this report, I was wondering why this
21 document wasn't used as a source of information because in my opinion it's
22 a far more reliable source than the population census or the Bakija source
23 or the MAG source, the association of Muslims against genocide. And why
24 is this my opinion? Because this document is based on facts which were
25 determined by certain organs, either medical institutions or the police,
1 et cetera. And many of the cases contain explanations as to where and
2 what happened, a record of the -- from the site, a letter of discharge
3 from hospital -- certificates from hospitals, or a statement that was
4 signed by the person who was wounded. This document provides various
5 kinds of information about the number who were killed or wounded by
6 snipers. The information is different from that that I came across in the
7 Tabeau report, in tables 3 and 6 of the Serbian translation of her expert
8 report, which is where she categorised the various causes and she said
9 that 619 people were killed by sniper fire and 3.111 were wounded. In
10 this document, it says that the number of killed was 361 and 756 people
11 were wounded. I also have to say that this document that we are
12 discussing right now is illogical in one respect, and that is because 207
13 cases are mentioned with regard to an unknown -- unidentified location
14 where the persons were wounded but not in the sense of the total number of
15 people but in cases where something was recorded -- this refers to place
16 where something was recorded but place where the person was wounded is
17 unknown. This seems to be absurd to me because if a person is wounded, he
18 should probably know where he was wounded. And because of such
19 imprecision, well, one can draw certain conclusions. I'm not going to
20 address the matter as to whether this is correct or not, but it could be
21 that the person wasn't wounded in Sarajevo at all. It could be that the
22 person was a member of the military, a soldier, not a civilian.
23 I'd also like to point out that the number of unknown locations is
24 not identical to the number of those killed or wounded. For example, if
25 you make the relevant calculations, there are 207 unknown places where
1 people were wounded, but in the columns when they mentioned people who
2 were wounded then you can arrive at the figure of 457 people.
3 Q. Thank you, Doctor. I was trying to read certain information. Is
4 this what you are referring to, these sources when you deal with the
5 subject of figures in your report? On page 19 in the English version,
6 which corresponds to -- which has a different page in the Serbian version,
7 and at that point you point out that half of the cases are not explicit.
8 On page 19 of the English version - and I'll provide you with the
9 reference for the Serbian version - you mention the fact that there is a
10 significant number of places that are unidentified, both with regard to
11 people killed and with regard to people wounded.
12 A. Could you please provide me with the reference -- the page in the
13 Serbian text because I haven't understood your question quite well.
14 Q. It is page 11, if you please. More precisely, in the Serbian text
15 which I now have in front of me, it's paragraph 1, in fact the first
16 paragraph after the end of the middle -- in fact, the third third of the
17 first paragraph, the sentence beginning with a number six times higher for
18 the wounded.
19 A. Yes. I can see that.
20 Q. So in this part here, just above what I quoted, this discrepancy,
21 is it these documents that you used as a basis?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Thank you. And now, Doctor, I would like us to examine the
24 document number 1927, and we could even put it on the overhead projector,
25 having before us at the same time the Serbian version. Page 6, which is
1 strangely enough the second page, ERN number 00982902.
2 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: 00982902. And this page could be put on the
3 overhead projector with the assistance of the usher, if she finds it.
4 There is also document 1928 -- sorry, 27.
5 I believe, Madam Usher, that this document begins with --
6 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous interpretation continues] ... The bundle, I
7 think. Yes, there we are.
8 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes. Thank you. Madam Usher,
9 would you take the second page from the bundle.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Before you continue, Mr. Piletta-Zanin, we just
11 reviewed and received comments on a document of which I've got no idea
12 where it comes from, what it is. It seems to be contradicting other
13 documents. It seems not to be logical in every respect. But I would
14 first like to know what it is, who made it, what the sources were, whether
15 systematically reviewed these sources or -- I've got no idea, apart from
16 that the expert witness came across this document.
17 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President. It's a
18 question that we could deal with very soon. What is curious is that this
19 document was given us by the Prosecution themselves because they all bear
20 ERN numbers. And what we know for sure is that they emanate from the
21 circles of Sarajevo. And what circles, as usual the Prosecution
22 doesn't --
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But Mr. Piletta-Zanin, I take it that if you
24 want to use these documents, that you have made yourself acquainted with
25 the -- what the document is, from where it comes because it would prevent
1 you being surprised later on that to say that this is paper used in
2 kindergarten or something. I mean, I take it this wherever it comes from,
3 if it's provided by the Prosecution, that you nevertheless when you use it
4 are able to elicit from the expert witness who came across this document
5 what it is, who made it. What is it?
6 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President. Quite
7 simply, one observation: The witness said just a moment ago that with
8 regard to this census she doesn't even know which institution handled it.
9 We don't know who carried out the census. I will look this up and come
10 back to you with my answer after I consult with Mrs. Pilipovic and look it
12 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous interpretation continues] ... The question
13 in respect of this document or to the other document, of course, is in the
14 air approximately if we do not know what this is.
15 [Defence counsel confer]
16 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Microphone not activated]
17 JUDGE ORIE: No. I'm just -- well, to understand questions and to
18 understand answers, we should first of all know what we're looking at.
19 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I am now focussed
20 on other things, and I would have to go through the entire volume of this
21 document to decide exactly what answer I should give you. I'll do this in
22 a moment. But all I know is that this document comes from the Sarajevan
23 side. My colleague will assist me, and I'll be able to give you an answer
24 very soon.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You can continue. Perhaps we would know then
1 from this next document what it is. And I am rather surprised that when
2 you put questions to the witness -- and I take it, then, that you know
3 what this document is. Or don't you know either? Since you explained to
4 us that it seems to be a more reliable source than other sources. Then at
5 least one would expect that you know what it is.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You would have to define -- I
7 know -- I got this document registered under a certain number, and I
8 suppose that it comes from this Tribunal. The document bears this title,
9 has a Table of Contents, and all this information. If you mean do I know
10 who made it, who drafted it, I don't know.
11 JUDGE ORIE: On the basis of what? You don't know?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] On the basis of what? I'm sorry, I
13 don't understand your question, sir. On the basis of what this document
14 was developed or ...?
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I know on the basis of what it was
17 developed. It was developed based on records, reports, and it says
18 exactly who submitted these records. I don't know who did this. What I
19 don't know is on the -- you have data from emergency services, from
20 medical records, from the record of incidents --
21 JUDGE ORIE: One moment, please. I do understand that this
22 document contains information as to the source of the information
23 contained in it, but the way this information was obtained, whether this
24 was a systematic flow of information from those sources or that it was
25 incidental -- incidentally obtained information. Do you know anything
1 about that?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I know the document as a whole. I
3 know in systematic terms, in view of the source. But if you are asking me
4 who put these individual incidents together to make this report, I don't
5 know that. I received it as a list, as a document which is in the
6 possession of the Tribunal in The Hague, and I thought that it was well
7 known who and why drafted it. I didn't go into its provenance, who and
8 why made it. I just reviewed it from the point of view whether it was
9 authentic and valid as a source of statistical data. In my opinion, it is
10 more valid than the census. Why? Because there is underlying
11 documentation. If it says here the person that provided the data --
12 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous interpretation continues] ... To put all
13 the questions to you. The only thing I would like to know is whether you
14 have any information as to whether this completely covers the sources
15 mentioned or not, whether you verified that. It says in the first column
16 "source." Does this completely cover what is contained in the sources
17 mentioned? Did you verify that or didn't you?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] What I had occasion to see is this
19 big a pile of documentation which contain by name and surname all the
20 incidents that happened, and I looked up randomly certain years.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But --
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I didn't --
23 JUDGE ORIE: My question was whether you verified whether the
24 sources mentioned in the first column were completely covered by this
25 compilation or not and whether you verified that. That's my only
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I verified insofar as it is
3 official. It bears a seal. In some cases there are even death
4 certificates. In that sense, I did verify. If I understood you
5 correctly. And as to whether I individually verified, then that I did not
7 JUDGE ORIE: I -- I do understand that you verified whether there
8 was a document underlying the entry in this survey. Did you also verify
9 whether there were any similar documents in -- for example, the institute
10 of statistics or the book of SJB - I don't know what it is but - or ZHMP,
11 whether all the information from the ZHMP or CSB or Institute of
12 Statistics is reflected in this survey. I mean, could there be -- for
13 example, let's just say here four entries of the 10th of September, 1992.
14 Did you check in the book of events of the SJB which gives us two entries
15 in this survey, whether there might be a third or a fourth or -- that does
16 not appear in the survey.
17 THE WITNESS: [No audible response]
18 JUDGE ORIE: You are nodding, and nodding does not appear in the
19 transcript. So you did that.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. I understand, I understand.
21 But these sources are not accessible to me. The book of events are is not
22 available to me. The record of events --
23 JUDGE ORIE: Let me stop you. There might be very good reasons
24 not to have verified. My first question is whether you did verify. Do I
25 take it from your answer that you are not able to verify that?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I was not in a position to verify
3 JUDGE ORIE: Okay.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Because it's impossible.
5 JUDGE ORIE: That's a clear answer. But I'm asking you, of
6 course, these questions because you referred to this survey as a far more
7 reliable source as the other sources you criticised, and I've got no
8 problem in criticising sources but I just wanted to verify to what extent
9 the completeness of this survey was verified by you.
10 Please proceed, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
11 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. You
12 are --
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Could I please possibly --
14 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] In order to provide an answer
15 to one of the questions you asked, Mr. President, we see on page 1, that
16 is, the first page of document 1928, the ERN number which identifies it.
17 And in the left bottom corner we see that it is an emergency centre,
18 emergency medical centre, and the police station of Sarajevo. It seems
19 that this data here is matched with one part of the --
20 MR. STAMP: Can I just interrupt --
21 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] The list of information --
22 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous interpretation continues] ... Are you
23 interpreting what you read on this document, or are you -- do you have
24 knowledge or --
25 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] No, Mr. President. I am
1 trying to give you an answer. You asked what type of document is this.
2 JUDGE ORIE: I can read a document and I can guess what it means.
3 If you would know where it comes from, who compiled it, whether these
4 sources were covered completely, I'd like to know. But if you are taking
5 me to the document itself and are interpreting for the Chamber what could
6 mean what is on the bottom of the page, I think it would not assist that
7 much because the Chamber would be able to do that. Yes.
8 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Indeed. But sometimes we can
9 forget a detail that doesn't strike us immediately. It happens to all of
10 us. It certainly does happen to the Defence. But to know who is the
11 author of this document and how the document was developed, the Defence
12 cannot know this because this document comes from the Prosecution and only
13 they can give us an answer, as they should do indeed now.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's a clue, Mr. Piletta-Zanin. If you don't
15 know something and if someone else does know, the ordinary way of
16 proceeding if you would like to know is to ask the one who knows. But I
17 then take it that you have not enquired into what this document is.
18 I don't know, Mr. Stamp, whether you could help us out in one way
19 or another.
20 MR. STAMP: The document and some others in the batch form part
21 of -- I should say -- well, let me be very clear. We received from
22 authorities in Sarajevo, not all of them official, a variety of documents,
23 some of which for a variety of reasons are determined to be reliable.
24 There are some things which perhaps ought not to be said in the presence
25 of the witness. However -- however, they -- it is for the party who seeks
1 to use a document to satisfy themselves, prior to using it, as to the
2 provenance of a document and the methodology in which it is prepared.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Okay. Let's -- we'll not finish anyhow today.
4 Could we perhaps leave this -- these documents for the time being.
5 If you have any other questions to put to the witness, and although you
6 would have left only five minutes at the next -- the next sitting day,
7 that you try to find out what documents are used to draw conclusions of,
8 so that it's -- yes.
9 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Very gladly, Mr. President,
10 with the proviso to say that I want to continue this exercise, namely to
11 look at not only this exhibit but the next exhibit, 1927.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
13 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] So we still have on the
14 monitor page 2. And in order to identify the document, I asked whether
15 the witness was able to read apart from the word "Sarajevo" in the two
16 script, Cyrillic and Latin, if the witness is able to read the edge of the
17 stamp, which could enable us to identify this stamp with certainty.
18 A. This is very illegible. I do see "Sarajevo" written in both the
19 Cyrillic and Latinic scripts, but I can't see the rest.
20 Q. Very well. Will you look at the first page of the document, where
21 we see the word "proof." And we have some information on the provenance.
22 Will you please read this out loud.
23 A. "Proof. Excerpt from the book of protocols of the Institute for
24 Urgent Medical Assistance Sarajevo, in the name of wounded persons."
25 Q. Tell us, can you identify this stamp. If you are not able to do
1 so, please feel free to say you can't.
2 A. It's a very bad copy.
3 Q. Thank you. But now, will you --
4 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: Sorry, Mr. Piletta-Zanin. Maybe the
5 witness -- maybe the witness should look at the document. I don't know
6 whether you are looking at the document itself or the screen.
7 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you. Thank you,
8 Judge Nieto-Navia.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The document in the original, in the
10 facsimile, rather, is also illegible.
11 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] With the assistance of the
12 usher, may I refer you to page 5 of this document, number 54 is the
13 end -- are the end digits of the ERN number.
14 Thank you. This is it.
15 Q. Kindly read the heading in the upper left corner.
16 A. "Salim Satara [phoen], employee of the police. SJB, Public
17 Security Station Novi Grad, Sarajevo. First police station Sarajevo,
18 number 19/13-1. Date, 22nd January 1996. Addressed to first police
19 station, Public Security Station, Novi Grad, Sarajevo."
20 Q. Then kindly take the next page and look at document ending with
21 digits 55. We will do the same thing, that is, read the heading. Thank
23 A. "Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Ministry of the Interior.
24 Security services centre, Sarajevo. Date, 23rd September 1992. Official
25 record," and then comes the handwritten number "17-1/02-738/92."
1 Q. Thank you very much. And the last thing I would ask of you. I
2 don't know if you will be able to read this, but I would nonetheless like
3 us to see it. Page 00982987.
4 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] We will need your assistance,
5 Madam Usher. Several pages later -- 967.
6 [In English] 976 at the end of the document. [Interpretation]
7 That's it. Thank you.
8 Q. Witness, do you have it? There is a stamp which seems to be
9 always the same. Can you decipher what we see? Most of all, the stamp
10 and are you able to read it?
11 A. I would appreciate it if you would let me take it. I can't see it
12 on the screen. If you gave me a magnifying glass, I would be able to read
13 it because it is legible, but with my vision I can't do it without a
14 magnifying glass. "Socialist Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, medical
15 centre Sarajevo." Then comes "very short shrift" in the third line.
16 Q. Could it be "institute of medicine of the University of Sarajevo"?
17 A. "University institute of medicine, Sarajevo" yes, that could be
19 Q. Thank you.
20 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I think we are
21 now waiting for your instructions.
22 JUDGE ORIE: I have enquired into the possibility of sitting
23 tomorrow. That creates a lot of uncertainties and would cause the court
24 maintenance to take place on Monday, which in the worst case scenario
25 would even bring us to Tuesday to conclude. Therefore, we'd like to
1 continue next Monday, as scheduled, and that is the afternoon session, as
2 far as I'm aware of for next Monday, quarter past 2.00.
3 Ms. Pilipovic, you have --
4 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I don't know if this
5 is the right time for me to ask about the schedule for next week, since we
6 are working on Monday. I had planned to leave tomorrow, so I need this
7 information. And General Galic is receiving his family tomorrow. And we
8 would just like to know what the schedule would be for next week.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That is a very good reason not to sit tomorrow,
10 when you receive your family visit tomorrow, General Galic.
11 I think we are scheduled next week for the afternoon, aren't we?
12 Yes. That would mean that we'd continue next Monday. And looking at the
13 clock, that we would conclude with the evidence of this witness, which is,
14 as I understand, the last witness, apart from a still pending issue, that
15 is, you asked for a subpoena of the witnesses MacKenzie and Nambiar. A
16 decision will be taken on that.
17 [Trial Chamber confers]
18 JUDGE ORIE: I still have to sign that decision, but --
19 [Defence counsel confer]
20 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes. Well, Mr. President,
21 just to notify the Chamber that we wouldn't have much more for Monday. We
22 only have a couple of more questions concerning this document and we will
23 be finished.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
25 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Just to allow all sides to
1 make arrangements and organise themselves.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I take it that you enquire over the weekend
3 with those who provided these documents, that you can put questions or at
4 least inform the Chamber what we are talking about. And of course you
5 might have understood that especially the completeness of the information
6 contained therein might be of some importance for the Chamber.
7 Mr. Stamp.
8 MR. STAMP: On that point, I had deliberately refrained from
9 commenting while -- during the examination of the witness present.
10 Perhaps I could do so now having closed taking evidence from the witness
11 for the day.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. For the day. But of course not on this
14 MR. STAMP: On ...?
15 JUDGE ORIE: On the subject of this document.
16 MR. STAMP: Yes.
17 JUDGE ORIE: There might be further questions, but I'm uncertain
18 about it because it seems to be the case that Mr. Piletta-Zanin and
19 Ms. Pilipovic are not fully aware of what the exact source and what the
20 methods are. Perhaps we could do that, then, perhaps to start with on
21 next Monday. Is that -- would that be --
22 MR. STAMP: Well, may I just indicate that --
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. What we could do is we could first ask the
24 expert witness to leave the courtroom and invite her to come back next
25 Monday at quarter past 2.00, and we'll sit in this same courtroom.
1 And may I instruct you not to speak with anyone, either with the
2 parties nor with whoever you meet, about the testimony you have given and
3 you're still about to give. Yes? Thank you. Then we'd like to see you
4 back next Monday.
5 [The witness stands down]
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Stamp, if you could briefly --
7 MR. STAMP: Very briefly. Because of time constraint, I had
8 restrained to objecting to what the Defence is doing with these documents.
9 A cursory examination of these documents would indicate that they appear
10 to be a mix of different documents from different areas and which the
11 witness apparently cannot identify. It is for the Defence, it is my
12 submission, to put the documents in a particular -- or to organise the
13 documents and to use only those documents which the witness can speak to.
14 We can, and if they had asked we would have given them whatever
15 information we had in respect to the source, although it should be
16 understood now that the source can be interpreted in two ways. Source can
17 be the persons that handed batches of documents to us. The particular
18 authors, the system of retrieval or whatever information might mean a
19 variety of documents. If that is the source we might not in all cases be
20 able to provide that information.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I do understand. If the Defence would try to
22 get as much information so that the Chamber would know, at least, what
23 documents we are talking about.
24 Apart from that, I noticed that in the second bundle that there
25 are quite some documents without translation and a few lines were read by
1 the expert witness. But I do not see among these documents translations.
2 And for the Chamber to understand the documents, we would need
4 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I'll be glad to.
5 Mr. President, I will quote you in saying that parties are always
6 right when they agree. I want to say that we have the weekend in front of
7 us and the Prosecution suggested to quote to me all the sources. They
8 should do so this weekend so that I can give you all the necessary
9 information on Monday, so that everything is clear.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Let's just -- let's just make one thing clear,
11 Mr. Piletta-Zanin: As a result of the disclosure obligations, I take it
12 these documents were provided to you. You used them while examining this
13 expert witness without knowing even what they were about. The expert
14 witness draws conclusions on the basis of these documents, neither knowing
15 how they were compiled, et cetera, et cetera. I think it's not fair that
16 where the Prosecution offered to assist as good as they could but not be
17 in a position perhaps to answer every single question -- and I can imagine
18 that they did not concentrate on that very much because they did not use
19 this document as evidence. You cannot now just order the Prosecution to
20 provide you with all this information where you have not asked it
21 before -- ask it before to be provided this information. I would say that
22 it is a fair offer that the Prosecution assists you and I think it would
23 be wise to accept that offer and see that we can make the best out of it.
24 I think that's the position of the parties at this moment in this
1 Then I have one other issue I would like to deal with.
2 [Trial Chamber confers]
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But Judge Nieto-Navia first has a question.
4 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: Thank you, Mr. President.
5 I have a question for Mr. Stamp: You were saying that sometimes
6 the Prosecutor analysed the documents and just to look whether they are or
7 not reliable. You said that.
8 MR. STAMP: Yes, we do.
9 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: Yes. So my question is: Does the Prosecutor
10 consider these documents to be reliable?
11 MR. STAMP: The problem is what are these documents? There are
12 many different documents from different sources in these batches, which is
13 why I wanted to indicate that whatever the Defence wants to ask about
14 sources they should separate the documents and put them in the batches.
15 Some documents --
16 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: I'm sorry, but when the Prosecutor --
17 MR. STAMP: Yes.
18 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: -- Discloses a document, it's because it
19 considers that it's reliable or any document?
20 MR. STAMP: Any -- because this is a case involving reciprocal
22 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: Okay. Thank you.
23 MR. STAMP: Any document that is relevant in Sarajevo from that
24 period is disclosed.
25 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: Thank you.
1 JUDGE ORIE: We have to stop.
2 Quickly, I have one issue left: Ms. Radovanovic is the last
3 witness left. The Defence can expect a decision on the subpoena which
4 denies the motion. The Chamber has tried to do our utmost best to make
5 all witnesses appear in this court. At least you should expect that the
6 subpoenas will not be granted. That means that this is the last witness
7 of the Defence case, when I understand the decision of the Prosecution
8 well -- of the Defence well.
9 We, as a matter of fact, Mr. Stamp, intended to continue as
10 quickly as possible with rebuttal evidence. Since I do not expect that
11 the assumption on which this ruling is based. Since we do not expect more
12 factual or important factual information to receive through this witness
13 which will be examined only for another 15 or 20 minutes, the Chamber
14 would very much like you to file the rebuttal evidence by the end of this
16 MR. STAMP: By the end of next week.
17 JUDGE ORIE: This week.
18 MR. STAMP: That is, by tomorrow?
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that's by tomorrow. Because we would have
20 expected to finish today with this last witness.
21 MR. STAMP: Very well.
22 JUDGE ORIE: And one of the reasons why the Prosecution did not
23 want to file it earlier is to reserve the rights. You never know what
24 happens. Well, the only thing that could still happen now is another 20
25 minutes of evidence of Ms. Radovanovic. And on the basis of this
1 assumption - if it would be a wrong assumption then I'd like to be
2 informed - but on the basis of this assumption, the Prosecution is
3 expected to do what it had done anyhow if the course of events this week
4 would have been more smoothly, as it -- as it went, there were
5 some -- well, there were some events during the course of the trial that
6 could not be expected, some issues we dealt with in private session. If
7 they would have not been there, we might have been able to finish by today
8 and then the Prosecution would have been under an obligation to file
9 immediately after the close of the Defence case why they suggest as
10 rebuttal evidence. Therefore, being to some extent due also to these
11 procedural incidents, the Chamber expects you to file what you would have
12 filed if we would have closed today and do that by the end of tomorrow.
13 MR. STAMP: I'm grateful, Mr. President. We are guided by that.
14 We will comply and file by tomorrow. If I could ask subject to the
15 availability of translations, official translations of some material --
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please indicate -- please indicate clearly --
17 MR. STAMP: Yes.
18 JUDGE ORIE: -- Where a translation is missing or then perhaps --
19 so that at least the Defence can prepare for taking a position in respect
20 of rebuttal evidence so that we don't have to start only in the middle of
21 next week but that we are prepared to continue as quickly as possible next
23 MR. STAMP: Very well, Mr. President.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Is there any other procedural issue? I hope not,
25 because we really should leave the courtroom now, as soon as possible.
1 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Absolutely, Your Honour.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then we'll adjourn until next Monday at quarter
3 past 2.00, but not after having thanked both technical assistants and
4 interpreters for their patience and flexibility and of course not in the
5 last case our registrar.
6 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned
7 at 2.00 p.m., to be reconvened on Monday,
8 the 17th day of March, 2003, at 2.15 p.m.