1 Thursday, 22 March 2012
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.04 a.m.
6 JUDGE KWON: Good morning, everyone.
7 Good morning, Dr. Parsons.
8 THE WITNESS: Good morning.
9 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Karadzic, good morning to you.
10 Please continue your cross-examination.
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Excellencies.
12 Good morning to all.
13 WITNESS: THOMAS PARSONS [Resumed]
14 Cross-examination by Mr. Karadzic: [Continued]
15 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Dr. Parsons. I beg your pardon.
16 Yesterday we started dealing with this topic. Do you have a
17 single database or does it have some subdivisions or strata?
18 A. The answer that I gave yesterday to that question was that we do
19 maintain a single database within a forensic data management system, but
20 it is divided into subprojects.
21 Q. Thank you. Can you tell us which subprojects exist in relation
22 to Bosnia-Herzegovina, or is Bosnia-Herzegovina a single subproject?
23 A. Bosnia-Herzegovina is a single subproject.
24 Q. Thank you. So, when you work on the identification of DNA
25 profiles from all the Bosnian theatres of war, you have a single database
1 and a single code, a single code number, a general code number; right?
2 A. That's correct.
3 Q. These numbers that are ahead of the bar codes in your
4 identifications, for example, when it starts with an 8 or a 9, for
5 instance, 910, or 810, et cetera, does that mean anything? Is that
6 something that should be recognised? Is that something that has a
7 meaning of its own?
8 A. Yes. The initial number associated with the bar code indicates
9 some type of a subdivision within the database. So ones beginning with 9
10 would represent mortal remains samples, human remains samples, from
12 Q. Do any of the subsequent numbers further determine or further
13 specify the position, the origin, of that sample?
14 A. No. Everything after that is completely randomised.
15 Q. In the bar code, is there a number that denotes the type of
16 material involved?
17 A. In the bar code, no. It has absolutely no information about the
18 sample whatsoever.
19 Q. In 4107, that's the 65 ter number --
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Actually, could we please call up
21 this document. 4107. Actually, 4170.
22 246. Could we have that, please. 246 would be the ERN number.
23 Page 5 in e-court, or, actually, in this document.
24 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
25 Q. Can you explain this to us now: What are these numbers that
1 denote bar codes for blood; and are they different from the bone bar
3 A. It appears to me that you are referring to the first number of
4 lines on this page and where we have listed blood, bone, mini, and then
5 it shows the initial numbers from the bar codes that are associated with
6 those different categories, consistent with what I had explained a moment
8 Q. How do the bar codes start for other locations outside Bosnia,
9 outside the former Yugoslavia?
10 A. They have different numbers.
11 Q. And, for example, within Bosnia-Herzegovina, do all the numbers
12 from Srebrenica start with the number 9 or -- or how do you know it is
14 A. The entire point of our blinding system involving ascribing bar
15 codes to samples is that the DNA laboratory, when they work on these
16 remains, are unaware where they come from. So, indeed, it is the case
17 that all Srebrenica remains have the beginning 9 in the bar code number
18 but so do all the other mortal remains from Bosnia as well.
19 Q. Thank you. But then when you establish probability, which number
20 do you take as the number of missing persons? 1 to what?
21 A. Yes. When we have gone through the process to the point where a
22 match has actually been made, then the DNA process has been finished at
23 that point. It is at that point where the identification co-ordination
24 division establishes a DNA match report. And in that instance they take
25 account of two things, at least. One, being where the individual was
1 reported missing from that has been matched. And then, secondly, and
2 very importantly, where the sample did originate from; what grave, for
3 example. In the case of Srebrenica it would one of the graves known to
4 the ICTY and ICMP as being Srebrenica related.
5 Q. Thank you. So, again, the material is given a name and surname.
6 And there is no more anonymity; right?
7 A. That's the point of the identification process, yes.
8 Q. Can you tell us who hands over this material. Yesterday we said
9 that it was the pathologist. How can we be sure that the material that
10 arrived in the lab had not been taken elsewhere from a location or,
11 rather, from some bodies, mortal remains, that do not belong to the
12 target group that you are studying?
13 A. Well, that depends on a number of factors.
14 In many instances the ICMP archeological teams have been present
15 at the recovery and very carefully remove the remains from the grave with
16 extremely high standards of evidentiary documentation, and in many
17 instances of those, they were transferred to the Podrinje identification
18 project mortuary where the ICMP maintains seconded expert staff. And in
19 those instances, many, many of those instances, we would consider that
20 the samples have been under the custody or at least observation of the
21 ICMP continuously.
22 However, it is the case that we do receive samples from any
23 number of contributors, pathologists, as I mentioned before, et cetera,
24 where we're not directly involved in the -- in the recovery or all
25 sets -- all steps of handling of the remains, and then, therefore, the
1 chain of command that we maintain originates when that sample comes to
3 Q. Thank you. Can you now give us the alternative sources of
4 samples. What are the other places from which the sample could have
6 A. Again, there have been a number of mortuary facilities throughout
7 the former Yugoslavia, Bosnia, where we received samples. Most of them
8 from Srebrenica do go through the Podrinje identification project, others
9 in a commemorative centre in Tuzla, and for some time there was a
10 mortuary facility in Visoko.
11 Q. Am I right if I say that this centre was Podrinje was in
12 Kalesija? The autopsy centre, in the autopsy room.
13 A. I'm sorry, I don't know where Kalesija is. The Podrinje
14 identification project centre is in Tuzla, in Bosnia.
15 Q. I see. So in Tuzla itself, we have two types of samples: Those
16 that are under your control; and those that come from the mortuary in
18 A. Which mortuary are you referring to?
19 Q. Well, a moment ago, you said that there were alternative sources
20 of material, of samples, and that they originated from an autopsy room,
21 or whatever you said, in Tuzla, Visoko, and from this identification
22 centre in Podrinje.
23 What are all the places from which you could have and, indeed,
24 did receive samples?
25 A. To attempt to clarify a little bit, you've mentioned several
1 times a centre called Kalesija. I don't know what you are referring to
2 there. There's a clinical centre in Tuzla which is not related to the
3 ICMP. There's the Podrinje identification project, also in Tuzla, you
4 are correct, that is highly related to the ICMP. And then there are any
5 number of other mortuary facilities through which a very small number of
6 samples related to Srebrenica would have passed, including, for a short
7 period of time, one in the town of Visoko. I'm not able to give you a
8 complete list by memory of these places where they would originate, but,
9 again, I would emphasise a very, very small number that were not -- that
10 did not pass through the Podrinje identification project.
11 Q. Thank you. So that's what it's all about. In Tuzla, we have two
12 sources of material, of samples. One is under your control; one is in
13 the clinical centre; and there is a third one in Visoko. Those are the
14 major ones involved.
15 Are you trying to say that you do not know that in Kalesija there
16 was an autopsy centre, and during autopsies, material was being taken for
17 DNA analysis?
18 A. I believe this would be the third time that I stated that I am
19 unfamiliar with the name Kalesija.
20 Q. All right. On the basis of your notes, can we get information
21 about these other mortuaries that could have sent material and that,
22 indeed, did send material?
23 A. The ICMP would have the information as to where those came from,
24 yeah, in the some 15.000 samples that have been processed.
25 Q. 15.000 samples in relation to all of Bosnia-Herzegovina; right?
1 A. No. There are almost 15.000 DNA match reports relating to
2 individual samples specifically related to Srebrenica. So I misspoke.
3 The total number would be higher than those that have been DNA matched.
4 Q. Thank you. So in relation to Srebrenica, in July 1995, you found
5 15.000 pairs, am I right, or, rather, matches? One side of the pair or
6 match is the victim; and the other side is the relative.
7 A. As a broad general statement, I would answer in the affirmative.
8 Yes, that's correct.
9 Q. Thank you. Then we have 15.000 victims in Srebrenica; right?
10 A. No. That question betrays a lack of understanding of the nature
11 of our DNA match reports, and the context of the identification.
12 I said that there were almost 15.000 DNA match reports, each one
13 of which relates to a separate sample submitted for identification. The
14 problem that is faced in Srebrenica is that the large primary graves that
15 were established at a particular point in time in July 1995 were
16 subsequently disrupted by heavy machinery and transferred to a large
17 series of clandestine secondary mass graves throughout the country-side.
18 This resulted in fragmentation and destruction of the mortal remains in a
19 manner that caused multiple DNA tests to be applied to different body
20 parts, and these body parts from the same individual may be in multiple
21 different graves. And in fact, we have DNA linkages between the primary
22 graves, between some of the execution sites, and then a large number of
23 secondary mass graves that shows the patterns of linkage between these
25 So the 15.000 that we're referring to are different samples that
1 have been related to specific identified victims. I stated yesterday
2 that we have DNA evidence reflecting 6.772 unique victims associated with
3 the Srebrenica event. Many of the 15.000 DNA match reports are multiple
4 samples from the same individuals that have been recovered from
5 fragmentary remains in secondary graves.
6 Q. Thank you. So then we have to assume that about two and a half
7 samples belong to a single individual, on average. What is the largest
8 number of samples that pertained to a single individual, or a single
9 body? If it's 6.000-something, I mean, if we divide 15.000 by
10 6.000-something, we get 2.5, 2.8, on average. Samples from a single
11 body, that is. So what would the largest number be of samples that were
12 taken in relation to a single body; and what was the smallest number?
13 So what were the statistics in this regard?
14 A. Your last question is what were the statistics, and I cannot give
15 you a, by memory, distribution, nor can I tell you that I know for sure
16 what the maximum number is, but I think can I give you useful information
17 that we do have some cases -- the largest that I have in mind is
18 15 different DNA matches that were required to assemble the entire body.
19 And it's not rare that there are multiple ones, four, five, eight
20 sometimes. However, you also asked about the minimum number, and that
21 obviously would be one, and there are quite a few of those as well.
22 I'll mention also that it is by no means the case that all these
23 people who had been DNA matched had been fully reassociated. In many
24 instances, we're still missing portions of these bodies. If we were able
25 to recover all the remains and put them together, it would require yet
1 additional DNA matches.
2 Q. Thank you. Let us go a bit to -- back to the previous
4 Do you know what the total number of missing persons is that
5 should be taken into account for setting the posterior probability, is it
7 A. When we perform calculations on samples considered by their
8 location and then, eventually, by the individual that is being matched by
9 virtue of the -- place of reported missing, we use nominally today a
10 value of 1 in 7.000. That's based on the fact that -- there's a little
11 bit of a -- actually there's a little bit of a historical component to
12 this. And the fact of the matter is that the details of this number are
13 not extremely important with regard to our DNA match threshold.
14 So we consider based on the fact that we have about 7800 missing
15 individuals reported to us from Srebrenica and our matching rate, that
16 there are some 8.000 to 8.100 individuals associated with the Srebrenica
17 event. At the time we started performing statistical calculations,
18 already quite a few had been identified so we chose the remaining number
19 of unidentified at that time to be about 1 in 7.000. And so that's the
20 prior probability that we have used then.
21 In point of fact, once you have identified someone, it's no
22 longer possible that a different DNA profile comes from that individual,
23 so we could have, and maybe should have, lowered the prior probability
24 sequentially as we made identifications.
25 So today now that we have identified 6.772, probably the better
1 prior probability would be 8.000 minus 6.772 remaining unidentified
3 But, in fact, we simply haven't taken the step of changing that
4 calculation. Using the larger number is conservative, meaning it -- it's
5 a higher bar for identification, but small changes by factors of two or
6 three in the prior probability simply don't affect the vast statistics
7 that are obtained from DNA. So we don't take the step of routinely
8 altering the prior probability.
9 Q. Thank you. Wouldn't it be even more conservative and more
10 accurate if you took, say, 1 to 29.000, which is the number of people
11 that are being looked for in Bosnia that were included in your single
13 A. It would be more conservative. It would also be more
14 conservative to use the number of people that have ever existed on Earth.
15 But you also posed the question with regard to accuracy. And, no, it
16 would not be more accurate to use the 1 in 29.000. Because of the
17 regional distribution and what we know about where the remains come from,
18 the most accurate number would be those associated with the Srebrenica
20 Q. Thank you. Are you trying to say that you excluded population
21 movements during the war, and that in the area of Podrinje, no one from
22 Tuzla, Doboj, or any other part of Bosnia-Herzegovina was killed?
23 A. Well, we're not saying what you just suggested, but it doesn't
24 follow from my previous answer concerning prior probabilities either.
25 Q. But it does concern the issue of 7.000. Why 7.000, when the
1 samples could contain the remains of people from all over
2 Bosnia-Herzegovina, because it was all within a single theatre of war
3 where units moved or went through?
4 A. It's simply not the case that -- that -- that it's a reasonable
5 probability that someone killed in Operation Flash and Storm in
6 Western Bosnia was recovered from a Srebrenica-related grave near
8 Q. Very well. We'll leave Flash and Storm aside as it is in
9 Croatia. But do you know that units of the Army of the
10 Bosnia-Herzegovina were mobile, and that both individuals and parts of
11 units, and groups moved from one part of the front to another? And not
12 only Muslim units, but Serbs as well.
13 A. I'm not in a position to state any knowledge about movements of
14 Bosnian army troops. I'm simply reporting what is known with -- by
15 virtue of reported missing individuals from particular regions and
16 particular events in Bosnia. That's quite a bit different, I think, than
17 the assertion that armies moved around, which I, no doubt, believe is
19 Q. In that case, would prior probability be different if you took
20 1 to 30.000? Would the result of 99.9999 be different?
21 A. Changing the prior probability will change the final statistic.
22 If you remember, our minimum threshold for identification for issuing a
23 DNA match report, was 99.95 per cent.
24 Now, on our DNA match reports, the maximum number of 9s that we
25 use after the decimal point is five. And that's because we don't bother
1 to continue to list the 9s. So changing the prior probability from 1 in
2 7.000 to 1 in 30.000 would maybe remove one of those 9s from a list of
3 11 or 12 9s after the decimal point. So in a vast majority - virtually
4 all - of the DNA match reports we've issued, we would still be way in
5 excess of the minimum required surety for issuing a match report,
6 regardless of whether the value was in 1 in 7.000, 1 in 2.500, which is
7 probably the more accurate value now, or 1 in 30.000. It is simply an
8 identification process that is extremely robust to variations in the
9 prior probability of the order of magnitude that we are discussing here.
10 Q. Thank you. If this is so, then why didn't you take 30.000, but
11 you took 7.000, if there was no danger of your results being influenced
13 JUDGE KWON: I think the doctor has answered the question.
14 Why don't you move on, Mr. Karadzic.
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.
16 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. After identification, did you notice that there was a significant
18 amount of people who were not from Srebrenica? In other words, they were
19 born elsewhere or belonged to a different unit. Did you notice that?
20 A. We've taken no account of where people are born. This was a
21 United Nations safe haven that harboured refugees from all over the area.
22 The operational information that we're involved with is where the
23 individual has been reported missing from. And, in fact, no, we have not
24 noted a large number of individuals recovered from these graves who are
25 reported from places elsewhere than Srebrenica. In fact, virtually none.
1 Q. Thank you. Do you currently reside in Sarajevo?
2 A. No.
3 Q. Are you kept up to date with the new findings of the Bosnian side
4 about the number of missing, the number of people from Srebrenica, and
5 generally with any new developments regarding Srebrenica?
6 A. I think I can answer your question usefully, but it would
7 probably be wise for both parties for you to clarify what you mean by
8 "from the Bosnian side."
9 Q. The Muslim side. You are correct: We are all Bosnian. But the
10 Muslims grabbed the term to designate themselves.
11 A. It's difficult for me to know precisely how to address such a
12 question but -- because I think it is sort of fundamentally unanswerable
13 as posed.
14 Let me just make a few comments that may relate to what -- to
15 some elements that you have in mind.
16 Yes, I am extremely well apprised of the continuing developments
17 of the ICMP identification project with regard to Srebrenica, as well as
18 all the other areas that the ICMP works in. I am continually and on an
19 ongoing basis working with my colleagues in Sarajevo, in Tuzla, and in
20 the archaeology and anthropology teams.
21 The ICMP doesn't operate in a realm that considers a Muslim side
22 or any other side. We try to identify people missing from the conflict
23 in the former Yugoslavia without reference to religion, ethnicity or any
24 other factor.
25 Q. Thank you. Do you know that the Serb side is completely
1 dissatisfied and that the disproportionate amounts of identified
2 individuals is much to the detriment of the Serbs?
3 A. Can you define "the Serb side," please.
4 Q. In Bosnia-Herzegovina, as you must have been told, there was an
5 interethnic conflict between the Bosnian Serbs, Bosnian Muslims, and
6 Bosnian Croats. The Bosnian Serbs had proportionally the same amount of
7 losses as the other two peoples. The Croats did have somewhat less than
8 the Muslims, but the Serb sides [as interpreted] were proportionate.
9 Now, the Serb side is basically completely dissatisfied with the
10 identification of its own people who had gone missing. Were you aware of
12 A. I just still don't know how mean by "the Serb side." You're
13 asking me to comment on the state of mind of individuals that you haven't
14 identified in any useful manner to me.
15 Q. Well, Doctor, it is not about the state of mind of an individual
16 but about institutions. Republika Srpska, the association of families of
17 those killed and missing, they are all now leaving the joint institutions
18 as they have concluded that the institutions in question are not busy
19 with trying to identify the missing Serbs.
20 Are you trying to say that are you completely unaware of that?
21 A. No, I'm not completely unaware of some dissatisfaction that has
22 been expressed by either agencies related to the Republika Srpska or, in
23 fact, some family organisations, and then some incendiary press as well.
24 I can only say that the ICMP's work is entirely unbiased and we are
25 delighted to identify anyone that we are able to do so in the former
2 Q. What is the proportion between the identified mortal remains or
3 individuals of Muslim, as opposed to Serb ethnicity? Perhaps we should
4 look into whether this dissatisfaction is justified.
5 JUDGE KWON: What -- I -- the doctor has answered the question
6 about the dissatisfaction. I don't follow your question.
7 Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye.
8 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
9 Yes, the question was unclear, and also I don't think it is
10 relative or germane to the issues that Dr. Parsons has been discussing.
11 So I would object to it on that basis.
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I am simply testing the origin, the
13 financing, and reliability of that institution, as well as their accuracy
14 and potential bias. This is what this Defence is trying to test here.
15 The Serb side in Bosnia-Herzegovina has strong objections. I have -- I
16 mean to say Serb officials, not individuals. Still, the results show
17 that they may well be right.
18 JUDGE KWON: What is your question, Mr. Karadzic?
19 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
20 Q. My question is this: What is the ratio of those identified on
21 the Serb side as opposed to those on the Muslim side? Perhaps we should
22 look into whether the dissatisfaction in question is based on sound
24 JUDGE KWON: Just ask one question. Your last comment is just an
25 unnecessary statement on your part. How many Serbs and how many Muslims
1 have been identified may be a fair question for the doctor to answer.
2 THE WITNESS: And the answer is that the ICMP does not track the
3 ethnicity of individuals that it identifies. Again this is related to
4 our fundamental charter of -- of unbiased action. We don't ask somebody,
5 Is your missing person a Serb, is your missing person a Muslim, and we
6 don't track those statistics in any way. Those would be, in fact, a
7 basis by which we could exercise bias or be perceived to exercise bias.
8 We simply don't operate that way.
9 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
10 Q. Thank you. I will put my position and the position of this
12 You are either biased or intentionally confused by your hosts who
13 served your task upon you, so to say.
14 JUDGE MORRISON: Dr. Karadzic, that is not a question. That's a
15 statement and an assertion of fact with no evidential basis.
16 JUDGE KWON: But that is Dr. Karadzic's case and you may comment
17 upon that, Dr. Parsons. If you so wish.
18 THE WITNESS: We're certainly not biased and I don't know who you
19 mean by "hosts."
20 We provide DNA assistance to the government of Bosnia under the
21 auspices of the Missing Persons Institute which was established as a
22 national body responsible for identification of missing persons without
23 regard to ethnicity. But I wouldn't call them our hosts.
24 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
25 Q. Thank you. Are you part of that institute? As you said that you
1 worked under "their auspices." Are you not a director of that institute?
2 A. No, I'm not a director of that institute.
3 Q. What is your position then? What are you, in the organisational
4 sense, institutional sense?
5 A. I'm the director of forensic science of the International
6 Commission on Missing Persons, which is not a part of the Missing Persons
8 Q. Thank you. We'll leave that topic then.
9 Did you hear that the Bosnian side, the Muslim side, on several
10 occasions stated that there are irregularities surrounding Srebrenica.
11 Some ten months ago, they stated that there were 500 living people and
12 70 people who had been killed elsewhere.
13 Have you heard of this initial statement and the figures?
14 A. I don't know what you mean by "the Muslim side."
15 And, so, therefore, no, I am unaware of anything that you just
17 Q. This institution you call the national institute, it is an
18 institution in Sarajevo controlled by the Muslim side. If you are so
19 naive and so not acquainted with the area you worked in, and if you don't
20 know that there were three ethnicities at war there, then I, indeed,
21 understand why you have no answer.
22 JUDGE KWON: No, Mr. Karadzic.
23 Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye.
24 MR. VANDERPUYE: Mr. President, I obviously object to the
25 question. It is argumentative and I think it's unnecessary in light of
1 the tenor of the -- Dr. Parsons's testimony and the examination so far.
2 If he has a direct question to put to Dr. Parsons, I don't see why he
3 doesn't just do that. But I think the hyperbole is unnecessary in this
5 [Trial Chamber confers]
6 JUDGE KWON: Yes, we agree, of course.
7 Mr. Karadzic, just put your question.
8 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. Dr. Parsons, are you trying to avoid providing answers by
10 resorting to statements such as you being unaware of what "the Muslim
11 side" means, or is?
12 JUDGE KWON: Just clarify what you meant by "Muslim side."
13 That's sufficient, Mr. Karadzic.
14 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
15 Q. Dr. Parsons, do you know that in Bosnia-Herzegovina, three ethnic
16 communities were at war and that Bosnia came out as a reorganised state
17 with three constituent peoples and two entities?
18 A. Of course.
19 Q. Do you know that in Bosnia-Herzegovina, the institutions in
20 Sarajevo - not in East Sarajevo but in the Federal Sarajevo - are
21 completely controlled by one of the three ethnic groups, which is the
22 Muslim side?
23 A. You made a reference to "the institutions in Sarajevo."
24 I have no idea what institutions you refer to. If you ask me a
25 specific question, I will give you a specific answer.
1 Q. Well, let's say the Institute for Missing Persons that your ICMP
2 co-operates with. Have you heard of Amor Masovic, Mirsad Tokaca and
3 other prominent representatives of the Muslim side involving the task of
4 search and identification?
5 A. You mentioned three things specific there that are different from
6 one another. One is the Missing Persons Institute which is not Muslim
7 controlled. It is, in fact, a national organisation that is constituted
8 with a directorate from each of the three previous ethnic groups. One of
9 whom is Amor Masovic. Mirsad Tokaca is an individual I don't know much
10 about and but, as far as I'm aware, is not associated with the Missing
11 Persons Institute.
12 Q. Thank you. Do you know that these structures - that you claim to
13 be national rather than ethnic - on a number of occasions stated that the
14 situation around Srebrenica was unclear? At first, they said there were
15 500 people who were still alive and 70 people who did not die in
16 July 1995?
17 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye.
18 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
19 I would ask that if Dr. Karadzic has a specific reference to
20 those statements that he -- that he put that to the witness or provide it
21 for the benefit of the witness and the Chamber in e-court. If he has it.
22 Otherwise, I'm sure that I can do that.
23 JUDGE KWON: But before putting the document, is he not entitled
24 to ask a question for the doctor? Whether this institution or ...
25 MR. VANDERPUYE: Yes, the --
1 JUDGE KWON: Whether the doctor knows.
2 MR. VANDERPUYE: Yes. The nature of the objection,
3 Mr. President, is that there's no evidence in the record yet as to what
4 these institutes have represented. So if the question is does he know
5 that they have made that representation, then he is assuming a fact which
6 is not yet in evidence in this case, as far as I'm aware. Certainly not
7 in the context of this witness's testimony. If he has heard -- if the
8 question is has he heard something of that nature, rather than the
9 specific attribution to the institute or the centre, then that's a
10 different question. But as he has phrased it, it's assuming a fact
11 that's not in evidence in this case and that is the basis of the
12 objection. And that's the reason why I have asked him to put that
13 evidence into the case in order to pose the question.
14 JUDGE KWON: Very well.
15 Mr. Karadzic, could you be more specific as to these structures
16 or by -- or what you meant by "they" in putting that question?
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. I will seek to tender
18 the appropriate documents when the time is right. But I'm simply
19 interested now in the basis of information of Dr. Parsons. I'm
20 interested in his knowledge. Mirsad Tokaca and Amor Masovic on two
21 occasions publicly stated the first time around that there were
22 500 people who are still alive who were included on the list of victims
23 by mistake and that there are another 70 people who were killed in
24 another place at a different time.
25 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
1 Q. Were you aware of that?
2 A. Well, I would like the Court to understand that I'm not wholly
3 ignorant of the context in which -- that he is referring to. But, again,
4 he -- he -- Mr. Karadzic makes statements that are very difficult for me
5 to respond to specifically.
6 First of all, I don't follow this information very closely at
7 all. I concern myself with the forensic activities of the ICMP with
8 regard to definitive analyses of forensic expertise.
9 With regard -- the biggest variable I have here -- I do know that
10 Mirsad Tokaca in his research -- his private research undertakings has
11 made reference to some individuals that, in some manner or other, have
12 been listed as victims of Srebrenica that -- that he claims - and I am
13 familiar with the number 500, very roughly - aren't actually the victims.
14 But I would like to postulate or, let me say, state, that these lists of
15 missing persons are very dynamic things to try to resolve. So at the
16 outset -- at the conclusion of a conflict there are going to be many,
17 many people reported missing and it takes a long time for these lists --
18 and different people maintain lists, the ICRC maintains a list. This
19 research undertaken by Tokaca has set out to do that.
20 I don't know what list these 500 were supposedly on that he now
21 claims that they shouldn't be on. I can tell you that I think it's --
22 that I don't believe it's on the list of individuals that the ICMP has
23 identified by DNA. I do not believe that that's the case. And if he
24 were to say so, I would say he's wrong.
25 Q. Thank you. Are you aware that recently something was stated that
1 had to concern you as well. That some persons were still alive but that
2 their amputated body parts reached the DNA lab.
3 Now this is what I'm interested in. How was that possible? How
4 was it possible for the material of living persons to appear in the DNA
5 lab? Amputees from operating rooms, their body parts were found in mass
7 How did that happen?
8 A. I'm not aware of those allegations. I consider them to be
9 extremely unlikely to be true. But, not having any information, I can't
10 comment further.
11 Q. Well, Dr. Parsons, with all due respect, these are not
12 accusations. These are admissions. The Muslim side admitted that there
13 were several hundred persons whose amputated body parts reached the DNA
15 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Karadzic, the doctor has said that he doesn't
16 know of such allegation. Then you say Muslim side admitted such and
18 Be specific or avoid a repetition.
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Excellency, my correction had
20 to do with what was stated, that these were accusations. No, the Muslim
21 side admitted publicly that some body parts of amputees reached the DNA
22 lab, and that directly has to do with Dr. Parsons.
23 JUDGE KWON: So what, Mr. Karadzic.
24 The doctor said he doesn't know. You put to him specific
25 information you have.
1 THE WITNESS: Well, I would like to make one -- one comment is,
2 first of all, you are correct, Your Honour. I am unaware of these
3 allegations. But these people that were amputees would not be reported
4 missing to us by the families from Srebrenica, and I consider it
5 completely improbable that any of them -- any of these putative samples
6 that come from amputees would be on this list of DNA matches to
7 Srebrenica victims that has been presented to this Court.
8 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. Thank you. We are going to move on from this topic, and we're
10 going to show that when the time comes.
11 This is what I'd like to ask you now: What did the base of
12 kinsmen look like? What does that exactly imply?
13 A. We have a family reference genetic database of -- obtained from
14 blood samples of family members that are seeking the persons missing from
15 the conflict.
16 I don't know much more about what I can say about that.
17 Can you please clarify what it is about that database you would
18 like me to comment on, sir?
19 Q. The line of kinship that you took into consideration.
20 A. Well, generally speaking, you want to obtain reference samples
21 from the most closely related individuals as possible. So ideal donors
22 for a missing individual would be his parents. Those are what are
23 considered to be first-degree relatives. The missing person's children
24 are also first-degree relatives, and particularly if you can also obtain
25 a DNA profile from the spouse, children are very, very helpful for an
1 identification process.
2 Siblings are very useful particularly in combination with, for
3 example, one parent, and that's a common situation that we might have in
4 Srebrenica where we would have a mother and maybe a sister or two that
5 are able to provide a reference sample. More distant relatives, aunts
6 and uncles and cousins, by themselves are generally not particularly
7 useful but sometimes in combination with other sets of relatives are
8 useful. And so we do collect as many reference samples as we can get at
9 the outset because we don't know the details of who we're going to, in
10 the end, completely collect for a particular individual.
11 Q. Thank you. What is the average number of relatives that you
12 dealt with for a single missing person? And what is the maximum number?
13 A. I'm sorry, I can't tell you the maximum number. I really don't
14 know. But our average number, the ratio of reference samples to reported
15 missing persons, is just slightly over three.
16 Q. Thank you. Is there a separate database of DNA of relatives of
17 the missing from Srebrenica separate from missing persons in other areas
18 in the former Yugoslavia?
19 A. No, there's not. Any bone sample coming to us from anywhere in
20 Bosnia is compared to all the reference profiles that we have from
22 Q. Thank you. Did you have a separate database for the relatives of
23 members of the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina?
24 A. No.
25 Q. Thank you. Did you have a database for relatives of missing
1 persons who are not related to the second week of July 1995 in
3 A. I will give you the same answer I gave you a moment ago: No.
4 Q. Thank you. Did you have a database of relatives of Serbs and
5 others who lived in Srebrenica and around Srebrenica and who are missing?
6 A. No.
7 Q. Thank you. DNA profiles from bone samples from the mass grave
8 that the Prosecution links up with Srebrenica in July 1995, were they
9 compared to other databases of relatives of other missing persons?
10 A. Yes, indeed. That's the answer I gave a moment ago as well.
11 Q. In which way did the ICMP obtain the names of missing persons?
12 A. Through a massive public outreach effort that took place all over
13 the former Yugoslavia and even extended internationally to try to cover
14 the diaspora of refugees and people that emigrated from the war. So we
15 had a public information campaign, set up many centres around Bosnia and
16 continue to this day to maintain standing facilities where family members
17 can come forward and report a missing person, report the circumstances of
18 that person's disappearance, in general, and then, most importantly,
19 provide a reference sample that would allow us to match that missing
20 person to the family should remains from that missing person ever be
21 submitted to our DNA laboratory.
22 Q. Did the ICMP check this; and, if so, how did they do this? Did
23 the persons who were reported as missing really go missing in relation to
24 what had happened in the second week of July in Srebrenica?
25 A. The ICMP has not conducted investigations into individual cases
1 in that manner, no. We record the information that the family members
2 report to us.
3 Q. Thank you. Yesterday you said that you worked on the basis of an
4 assumption that you had developed, that the ICMP had developed; namely,
5 that this has to do with persons that are linked to what happened in
6 Srebrenica in July 1995.
7 What is your position now? Are you saying that what you
8 identified were victims from the second week of July 1995?
9 A. Let me talk a little bit about how names come to be listed on the
10 DNA match report list that we described yesterday.
11 In the first instance, and a most important initial element for
12 someone to be listed on that list, is that the family member reported the
13 individual missing from the fall of Srebrenica in 1995 with the
14 designations of either missing with regard to having departed overland,
15 to try to reach Tuzla in the days prior to July 10 and 11, or in having
16 remained in the so-called UN safe haven Potocari and later disappeared as
17 a result of the fall of Srebrenica. So that's the primary line of
18 information that gave rise to the original list that we have provided.
19 We have additionally, however, done cross-checking of this list,
20 and the second component that relates to how people get on this list that
21 is in vast, vast majority of the cases consistent with the previous issue
22 that I mentioned, which is where the families are reported missing, is
23 where the sample was recovered from.
24 So all but 177 cases listed in that list that I gave come from
25 recovery sites considered by the ICTY to be associated with the fall of
2 Q. Thank you. The process of reduction and exclusion, has it been
3 completed? Can we say that the names that we have now are the names that
4 we have? That that's it?
5 A. In -- in -- for the most part, I would say yes.
6 If I remember, I made reference yesterday to 11 names that were
7 on a previous list that the ICMP, through its cross-checking, removed
8 from the list, that we consider no longer to be associated with
9 Srebrenica, and we discussed yesterday some of the considerations that
10 went into that. We continue to make identifications and -- and
11 cross-check this information and we haven't found any additional ones for
12 about a year now. So I would suspect that the list that we have
13 presently, absent new identifications that we undoubtedly will make,
14 won't change.
15 Q. Thank you. I would now like to read out to you your reply from
16 page 77 of yesterday's transcript and I will read it out in English. It
17 will be interpreted for other participants:
18 "[In English] This is a list of DNA match reports that have been
19 issued by the ICMP from the period of November 2001 to August 2011
20 representing DNA match reports considered by the ICMP to be related to
21 the fall of Srebrenica in 1995."
22 [Interpretation] Did you receive the information or did you
23 yourself establish it, linking the DNA match reports and the events of
24 Srebrenica 1995?
25 "[In English] Considered by the ICMP."
1 A. When I made use of the words "considered by the ICMP to be
2 related to the fall of Srebrenica," the basis of that consideration was
3 the explanation that I just gave for how the names got on that list. So
4 that is what I meant by that.
5 Q. [Interpretation] Thank you. Do we then -- should we then
6 understand that your position is that those DNA profiles that you
7 established and linked to the events in Srebrenica in 1995, should we
8 understand -- or can you tell us whether you have established the manner
9 of their death?
10 A. The manner of death has been established in a very, very large
11 number of those cases by the pathologists in question. But the manner of
12 death played no role in the establishment of this list.
13 Q. Thank you. And do you know that the indictment here, one of the
14 charges is unlawful killings and executions.
15 So is it your claim that those people whose DNA profiles you have
16 established were killed in an unlawful manner and did you separate that
17 from those who were killed in action?
18 A. The ICMP does not concern itself with whether -- with the legal
19 question of how these people were killed or -- particularly with whether
20 their deaths were lawful or not. I'm reporting on the identifications
21 that have been made with regard to mortal remains recovered from these
22 graves. Now the ICMP has performed a great deal of work with regard to
23 excavations of these sites, and -- and the evidence that was recovered
24 there and much of which is -- has been covered in previous trials and, as
25 I understand it, roughly also with regard to this, there's a lot of
1 evidence that goes to whether or not -- to the circumstances under which
2 these people lost their lives. But, of course, the DNA matches
3 themselves don't indicate that.
4 Q. Thank you.
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we now briefly be shown
6 65 ter -- or, rather, P4642. That is the latest list, and it was
7 admitted into evidence yesterday.
8 JUDGE KWON: Is this not what we saw through Sanction yesterday?
9 Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye.
10 MR. VANDERPUYE: Mr. President, it appears to be. I also just
11 want to confirm that it's not being broadcast at this time.
12 JUDGE KWON: Very well.
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we now be shown number 9944,
14 please. 9944. This is the sequential number, 9944.
15 JUDGE KWON: Probably you need to specify what sheet we should
16 look in. There are several sheets, as you know.
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I believe we are there.
18 Well, now we have this ordered alphabetically.
19 Could you please bear with me, because I'm looking at a different
20 list. I have the list of 2008. But I would like to be shown --
21 JUDGE KWON: I -- Mr. Vanderpuye or Mr. Reid, I take it as a
22 spreadsheet it should have a search function.
23 THE WITNESS: It does, yeah.
24 JUDGE KWON: Could you search 9944 and -- is it by Mr. Stevanovic
25 or Mr. Reid, I don't know. This is run by Mr. Stevanovic.
1 MR. VANDERPUYE: I'm not sure --
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] We have it. We have it. It's the
3 fourth from the bottom.
4 I won't read out the name, but this name under 9944, I don't see
5 if you can see the number, but this is the third or fourth from the
6 bottom. Now could we see the following columns now. Here it says --
7 well, we see that Bratunac is mentioned.
8 Could we move further to the right, please. The Federal
9 Commission, where we see jurisdiction. Could we move further on. We see
10 the date, 11th July, and then forest, "suma."
11 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. What can you tell us with authority about this victim? Is this a
13 victim that would be included in this indictment?
14 A. The ICMP does not concern itself with who is and is not included
15 in the indictment.
16 But you also asked me what I can tell you - I think you said with
17 certainty - about this victim. I'm going to make sure that I'm looking
18 at the right -- can you please specify again the line in question?
19 Because you made reference to reassociation and the one I thought you
20 were talking about is a main case, as far as I can tell, on line 9944.
21 Q. Yes, that's quite possible. It is probably my error. Yes, main
23 We see the columns: Forest, 11th of July, 1995. What can this
24 Trial Chamber conclude based on this list? Or, rather, this name that's
25 mentioned on the list.
1 A. That his remains were recovered from the site listed here,
2 submitted to the ICMP for DNA testing, matched against a database of
3 all -- family references of all missing people -- persons in Bosnia, and
4 found to match a family that had reported this named individual as
5 missing from the fall of Srebrenica in 1995 and having been part of the
6 column of men that departed through the forest.
7 Q. Where was this body recovered?
8 A. You know, I just don't recall. I think it says here Bratunac,
9 but I'm not able to provide you with additional information.
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'm looking at the time.
11 Excellencies, should we continue with our questioning or, rather, would
12 we go on break?
13 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye.
14 MR. VANDERPUYE: Mr. President, I just wanted, before we broke or
15 moved on from this -- from this screen and this exhibit, that we maybe go
16 into private session and put on the record the name of the individual
17 concerned so there's no confusion later on. I know that Dr. Karadzic has
18 indicated the row number, but --
19 JUDGE KWON: Yes. Could the Chamber move into private session
21 [Private session]
2 [Open session]
3 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye.
4 MR. VANDERPUYE: The second thing Mr. President is, as with
5 respect this individual and all others, there is a column in this
6 spreadsheet that indicates the site code which would suggest where the
7 body or the body part was recovered. And also the site co-ordinates. So
8 if that's an issue, we can certainly clear that up.
9 JUDGE KWON: Thank you, Mr. Vanderpuye.
10 We will take a break for half an hour and resume at 11.00.
11 --- Recess taken at 10.30 a.m.
12 --- On resuming at 11.03 a.m.
13 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Karadzic, please continue.
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
15 Could we now look again at 9944 to establish what mass grave it
16 was recovered from.
17 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
18 Q. Perhaps can you help us, Dr. Parsons.
19 Could we see the column showing the site. Is that B Liplje?
20 What is that a reference to? Is it under case ID or -- could you tell us
21 which column would show the mass grave from which the remains were
23 A. The column case ID number with BLIP, which undoubtedly stands for
24 Liplje, would give us one indication. The site code is typically
25 representative of the location it comes from. The site name is another
1 column here. Where it is listed as Bratunac, that would be the most
2 specific information that I would be able to provide looking at this.
3 And to be honest with you, I don't know the site codes and I can't tell
4 you where this came from right now.
5 This list is a condensed list representing general information
6 that we have. There is additional information regarding precisely where
7 this came from, but I don't have any more information that I'm looking at
8 here, and I can't tell you.
9 JUDGE KWON: Shall we move to the right so that we can see the
10 remaining column. Slowly. Yes. And further. H ...
11 Move it to the right, yes. Oh, I see.
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
13 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
14 Q. Please tell the Trial Chamber what "main case" actually means?
15 A. "Main case" would be the first instance with which we've made a
16 match to this particular missing person, as opposed to a reassociation
17 case which would -- when a subsequent body part was found that was also
18 identified to the same individual.
19 Q. Thank you. Looking at 9944 --
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] My apologies, Your Excellencies.
21 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Vanderpuye, with respect to this item, the site
22 code is empty. Do you agree? You said we can find it at that column.
23 MR. VANDERPUYE: Yes, Mr. President. In this instance, it is
25 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
1 Yes, please continue, Mr. Karadzic.
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
3 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
4 Q. Dr. Parsons, should the Trial Chamber infer from this that 9944
5 was killed in July 1995, buried -- or, rather, recovered from a mass
6 grave, D so-and-so. Is that the case?
7 A. He was reported missing by his family in association with the
8 fall of Srebrenica in 1995, yes. And that's the indication of the site
9 where he was recovered from. I can assure the Court that more specific
10 information concerning that site exists. It is simply not listed in this
11 brief summary.
12 Q. Thank you.
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we leave this as it is, but
14 briefly take a look at 65 ter 4418.
15 Please bear this one particular case, 9944, in mind. Perhaps you
16 can jot down the elements. We'll get back to it later. But, for now,
17 can we take a look at 4418.
18 65 ter 4418.
19 JUDGE KWON: Let us bear in mind we do not broadcast all the ICMP
20 report out of abundance of caution.
21 Probably we need to switch to e-court from Sanction.
22 I think this is also a CD. All we see is a surrogate sheet.
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we now be shown 1308.
24 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
25 Q. Can we agree that this is the same person?
1 A. Based on the information I'm looking at right now and the
2 corresponding birth date, I would not contest that this is the same
4 Q. Thank you. Can we take a look at the other columns --
5 A. Oh, excuse me. Pardon me, I very much apologise. I did not
6 cross-correlate to what appeared to be a newspaper article that was up.
7 I wasn't answering with respect to that, if that's what the question was.
8 I was merely looking at the -- what appears to be a new Excel sheet and
9 confirming that the information on that Excel sheet seemed to match the
10 information on the previous one I had seen.
11 I'm not sure if the question was posed with relation to the
12 newspaper article or whatever that was.
13 JUDGE BAIRD: So can we have the answer one more time, then,
15 THE WITNESS: I need the question again. I'm sorry.
16 JUDGE BAIRD: All right.
17 Mr. Karadzic.
18 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
19 Q. The victim, under number 1308, is that the same person that we
20 saw earlier on that list, under number 9944?
21 Can you see it? You can see the name, the date of birth, and
22 then we see BLIP 1. And then perhaps if we can be shown the other
23 columns because this list might be more exhaustive.
24 First of all, can we agree this is the same person, because we
25 see it's the same first name, last name, and date of birth. And also
1 there is a reference to Liplje there. As well as Bratunac.
2 A. Yes, it certainly appears to be.
3 The critical thing that would indicates that this is, in fact,
4 the very same match report being listed twice would be the protocol
5 numbers and ID numbers, and I forgot to note those. But I have no doubt
6 that this relates to the same DNA match report for the same individual.
7 Q. Thank you.
8 Could we now scroll to the right and see if there's any
9 additional information on this person. We see the date when he went
10 missing. That too is consistent. And then it says forest, so in other
11 words, that's where he disappeared, and then main case.
12 So this database has the same type of information. Would it be
13 necessary to have more information in order for this Trial Chamber to
14 establish that these remains were recovered from a mass grave that is
15 associated with July 1995?
16 A. Yes. This list certainly doesn't constitute an evidentiary
17 record that is clear and complete with regard to what other information
18 may be known that would link this to a grave and, in fact, that grave to
19 the larger event of the fall of Srebrenica and the associated mass
20 killings and formation of clandestine graves.
21 Q. So this cannot be used as evidence; correct?
22 A. No, that is incorrect.
23 Q. "[In English] This list certainly doesn't constitute an
24 evidentiary record that is clear and complete with regard to the other
25 information may be known that would link this to a grave and, in fact,
1 that grave to the larger event of the fall of Srebrenica and the
2 associated mass killings and the formation of clandestine graves."
3 [Interpretation] Can you explain, then, what this list can be
4 used for. What is it that the Trial Chamber can conclude based on this
6 A. That an individual reported as missing from the fall of
7 Srebrenica was definitively identified by DNA from this particular
9 Q. Thank you. And it is one of those 6.006 [as interpreted] persons
10 that you were able to identify; is that correct?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Can the Trial Chamber, based on your findings, establish that
13 this person was a victim of an execution?
14 A. Very possibly by examining the specific records in association
15 with this case, to go to the excavation findings of the site where the
16 body was recovered, to go to the autopsy report and anthropology
17 findings, and to consider the DNA linkages between different graves that
18 indicate their causal association one with another, this entire body of
19 evidence could certainly be brought to bear in any one of these cases and
20 very possibly answer exactly the question that you posed.
21 Q. Would that be a conservative conclusion or a liberal one? What
22 could be established beyond a reasonable doubt that this person was a
23 victim of execution?
24 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Karadzic, it's not for the witness to tell that
25 to the Chamber.
1 Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye.
2 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
3 I would also add that Dr. Karadzic seems to be proceeding along
4 an assumption with respect to this particular individual. Dr. Parsons
5 indicates these mortal remains were recovered in a number of different
6 contexts, some relating to mass graves, secondary graves, fragmented body
7 parts, surface remains included. So we seem to be proceeding along the
8 presumption that this particular individual is a victim of an execution
9 resulting in -- is -- his mortal remains being deposited in a mass grave
10 and that is not clear, first of all, from the evidence in question as it
11 stands now. And so I don't think that that is an appropriate means to --
12 an appropriate way of questioning the witness since the circumstances
13 under which the recovery of these mortal remains are not clear from the
14 record or from the exhibit that's in front of him now.
15 JUDGE KWON: Yes. What is your question, Mr. Karadzic, having
16 heard Mr. Vanderpuye's intervention?
17 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
18 Q. Well, my question is this: How can the Trial Chamber use the
19 findings of your report? This list is the product of your work. So what
20 can the Trial Chamber conclude based on it?
21 Is it what you've just said a moment ago, that that person was
22 identified as no longer living, and perhaps also that it was -- that its
23 remains were recovered from some mass grave; correct?
24 A. I'm exceptionally hesitant to make statements regarding what the
25 Trial Chamber could and could not conclude. I don't know what other
1 evidence has been presented to the Court and that is the area of the
2 Trial Chamber. I'm sorry, I can't do --
3 JUDGE KWON: Absolutely.
4 Dr. Parsons said that what he can conclude from this is, line 23
5 to line 25, on page 35:
6 "... that an individual reported as missing from the fall of
7 Srebrenica was definitely identified by DNA from this particular
9 Yes, please move on, Mr. Karadzic.
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. Can we have from this
11 list number 1740.
12 Yes. We find it twice.
13 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
14 Q. How did this repetition come about, Doctor?
15 A. I would ask, please, that we could scroll to the right. And
16 further, please. I guess we have to continue. There we go.
17 Two different parts of this individual were recovered separately
18 and separately identified by DNA because they had been dissociated in the
19 process of the creation of a clandestine secondary mass grave.
20 JUDGE KWON: Can we see the column C, third column? The one
21 below has an additional letter, R. What does it mean?
22 THE WITNESS: That R indicates that it is a reassociation of a
23 different sample from the same individual as the preceding case.
24 JUDGE KWON: So that tells that one is main case and the other
1 THE WITNESS: That is correct.
2 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. Could we note this person down as well. So, for the time being,
4 we have two people, or two numbers. 1308 and 1740. Could we have next
6 Doctor, would you prefer to see the other list or is this one
7 more complete?
8 A. I'm not sure which list this is. I apologise. Is this the one
9 that was received just the other day, this week?
10 Q. No. This one is from 2008 and the other one came a bit later.
11 I thought the previous, the earlier one, may have more elements
12 that may assist you in identifying where and where from the remains
14 A. Well, no. The most recent list would be the most informative
15 list to be using, but I'm comfortable with the information that is on
16 this list as well. If you have particular questions relating to it, it's
17 fine with me to use it.
18 Q. Thank you. What do you conclude or how do you interpret the
19 location of the remains under this number, 2403 to 2405? Where were they
20 found, how they ended up there, and what are they associated with?
21 A. Well, I'm sorry that I don't have site codes memorised, so I
22 can't tell you definitively where these came from.
23 I noticed that the -- the prefix in each of the sample numbers,
24 B.KAM.BR are all the same and that indicates to me that they came from
25 the same grave that would have been associated with a general locality
1 known as Kamenica. Also, I happen to know that's an alternative name for
2 the Cancari road series of secondary mass graves.
3 So how -- if I am correct in that and I'm quite confident that I
4 am, then I would say that these remains came to be in this grave-site
5 because they were brought there by the perpetrators of the death of these
6 individuals and buried in that site sometime in the fall of 1995, after
7 having been previously buried in a different primary grave-site.
8 Q. Could we note down this number too or keep these elements in
10 Next, could we have 2743 from the same list.
11 What can be said about this body or this set of remains, in
12 addition to the date of birth, starting from column C and further?
13 A. This apparently comes from one of the Liplje secondary mass
14 graves and the date of birth would be as listed.
15 Q. Can anything else can be concluded? Was it found in a mass
16 grave, is it a mass grave location?
17 A. I'm not prepared to indicate that I can give you definitive
18 information about these particular grave-sites, but I don't want to
19 dissemble either, and I will tell you based on this code it looks very
20 much like it is a Liplje grave, Liplje 04, which, if I remember
21 correctly, is a secondary grave associated with the primary execution
22 site of the Petkovici dam by DNA linkages.
23 Q. Thank you. Can we take note of this case too, the elements
24 concerning this person.
25 Then we should move to 8623 on the same list.
1 So we have 2, 3, 4, 5. You see that there are two possible
2 names. Can you tell us where this body was collected? Is it Lazete 2B?
3 A. Again, I'm hesitant to appear definitive with regard to these
4 site codes and their locations, but that would certainly be what I
5 understand from looking at this. The highly probable correct answer is
6 that, yes, it is from Lazete grave.
7 Q. Thank you. Can we note down this case too.
8 Can we then go to 3670 to 3673.
9 Can you tell us pretty much the same thing regarding this name?
10 You can interpret the findings of your institution, of course. What does
11 all this mean?
12 A. It would appear that these series of remains were recovered from
14 Q. Thank you. I won't insist on further individual examples.
15 Let us try to sum it up.
16 Dr. Parsons, did you know that in the area where these bodies
17 were extracted, the war went on for 44 months. There were many
18 casualties who were buried in mass graves before July 1995. Did you know
19 about this category of people who were killed before the 10th of July,
21 A. Certainly I am aware that people were killed throughout the
22 course of the war and it wouldn't surprise me to discover that they had
23 been buried. That's an extremely general statement. You've asked me to
24 comment on this. Are you suggesting that bodies were collected over the
25 44 months of the year and then around July 11th, 1995, all these bodies
1 that had been collected were deposited into large primary mass graves and
2 then, for whatever reason, subsequently exhumed and buried in a series of
3 secondary mass graves? Is that the scenario you're trying to suggest
4 that I respond to?
5 Q. No, but I will put a scenario to you. It is as follows. As of
6 April 1992 until April 1993, there was daily intensive fighting. The
7 burial of enemy casualties took place on the spot, for the most part.
8 Later on, during the sanitation and hygiene measures procedures,
9 following some other fighting, other casualties were buried there. As of
10 April 1993 until July 1994, there was less fighting. There was fighting
11 against sabotage groups and fighting expeditions and incursions into Serb
12 territory. The casualties which took place then were buried in smaller
13 or larger mass graves.
14 In July 1995 -- well, let me ask you this first: Do you accept
15 that it could have been as I put it?
16 A. As a general statement, yes. But with regard to the cases that
17 you just walked me through, that would not be consistent with my
18 understanding of those sites.
19 Q. Thank you. Did you know that in the second week of July 1995,
20 there were victims due to fighting between the column and the Serb army,
21 as well as mutual fighting amongst the Muslims in the column? There were
22 victims of minefields.
23 Does this finding of yours, does this report differentiate
24 between the types of victims so as to know who were the victims of
1 A. Well, the cases that we've walked through so far, based on the
2 information that you asked me about and that I saw here, indicate that
3 these are related to a number of well-documented large primary execution
4 events and very large primary mass graves that resulted from that. Of
5 course, I consider it reasonable that some individuals were killed
6 en route and died in multiple circumstances with regard to the column
7 that attempted to escape from Srebrenica, but none -- none of these are,
8 for example, surface remains that -- that have been recovered from that
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we have the transcript
11 page 22677. It is the testimony of Witness 045.
12 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
13 Q. You will see, Doctor, that all these people, or all these
14 remains, were found in a number of mass graves but were killed in a
15 single location in the presence of the witness whose testimony we will
16 look into, and as a result of combat?
17 JUDGE KWON: Why do we have to show a testimony of protected
18 witness to Dr. Parsons? Why don't you just put it to ...
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I would kindly ask that we see one
20 page. It doesn't need to be broadcast. This is where we have the names
21 identified by first name, father's name, and the witness confirmed that
22 he saw it with his own eyes, those people being killed in fighting.
23 There were no executions, especially not in a single location, and the
24 people were not buried in a single location. The same witness said that
25 they left their dead and carried away their wounded, and the Serbs buried
1 the dead later on.
2 This is a very illustrative page, and I would kindly ask that we
3 see it.
4 [Trial Chamber confers]
5 JUDGE KWON: Very well. Shall we -- that -- I have to confer
6 with the Registrar whether it was examined in private session.
7 Then we go into private session.
8 [Private session] [Confidentiality partially lifted by order of Chamber]
11 Pages 26651-26652 redacted. Private session.
19 Why don't we upload the spreadsheet? 65 ter number 4418.
20 Or Mr. Vanderpuye can help us, whether you do not challenge the
21 names referred to are the same ones appearing in the spreadsheet.
22 MR. VANDERPUYE: There is no challenge, Mr. President. Thank
24 JUDGE KWON: Could you proceed on that basis, Doctor?
25 THE WITNESS: I think we would be wise to get going and if we
1 need to do further cross-correlation we could do that. I, of course,
2 don't know anything about the witness that was quoted in the most recent
3 document we've seen, but one of the things that I think would be
4 necessary for us to keep in mind with regard to this issue is the true
5 identity of the individuals who were named by that witness in comparison
6 to the individuals on the list of DNA match reports, notwithstanding that
7 they have the same names.
8 It's quite remarkable, the -- how frequent names are in the
9 Bosnian Muslim population. Very, very many people share the same first
10 name and the same last name, and because the first names are very common,
11 people actually share the same father's name as well.
12 I happened to look into this recently. We have in our missing
13 persons database 25.000 different missing persons represented. Fully
14 2.000 of those individuals share the same first and last name. And we
15 have 83 incidences where the -- of different individuals saying --
16 sharing the same first name, the same last name, and the same father's
17 name. So I would not be prepared to jump to the conclusion that even if
18 these names appear the same, that they actually refer to the same
20 And if you look at the -- list of DNA match reports that these --
21 that this series of names were pulled out of, I noticed in many of the
22 instances that there were scores of individuals in the Srebrenica missing
23 persons list that had, for example, the same last name as the individual
24 in question.
25 JUDGE KWON: Let us put it in a somewhat different perspective,
1 Doctor. Among those 6.600, approximately, persons identified, you would
2 not exclude a possibility that there are some victims or there are some
3 persons who died not as a result of execution, whatever its ratio may be.
4 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir, I would agree with that statement. But I
5 also think it's likely that within this set of 6.600, or certainly within
6 the larger number of people involved in the Srebrenica event, that there
7 might be people that share the same first, last, and father's name, and
8 I'm not convinced based on what I've seen that the individuals referred
9 to by the witness are actually the same individuals that were highlighted
10 in the Excel sheet.
11 It is a possibility.
12 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
13 Yes, Mr. Karadzic.
14 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
15 Q. All right. Had two men got killed, I mean, the first two on this
16 list who have the same name and surname and the same father, how would
17 you identify them? Would there be two profiles?
18 JUDGE KWON: Just a second. Just a second. And then as long as
19 we do not mention those specific names and then we do not show the
20 transcript page, we can go back to open session.
21 Mr. Karadzic?
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Are we in public session?
23 JUDGE KWON: No. We are still in private session. So shall we
24 go back to open session? Yes.
25 [Open session]
1 JUDGE KWON: Yes, we are now in open session.
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'm sorry that we were in closed
3 session. I don't think any of has to be redacted. It is only the names
4 that don't have to displayed.
5 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. Now let me ask you this, Dr. Parsons, in view of everything that
7 you said, that perhaps these are some other people with the same names
8 and surnames and the same father's name. If we had two such names, would
9 you identify both of them and would we have a different DNA profile?
10 A. Yes. They would be identified genetically, not with regard to
11 names, because we could see the relationships that each of these
12 different individuals would have to their specific family members. So we
13 have many instances of DNA match reports with the same person's name on
14 them but with different ICMP ID numbers that relate to different people.
15 And, yes, you are correct, they would have different DNA profiles.
16 Q. And if I were to put it to you that in your list of identified
17 DNA profiles there are no duplicates, as far as these persons are
18 concerned, is it probable that these were the same persons from this
19 witness 's testimony? Or, rather, that that's on the rise.
20 A. I have a hard time commenting on that probability because I don't
21 know -- like this witness, I don't know what would have happened to the
22 remains of the individuals he was referring to, and so I really don't
23 know the probability with which those individuals would have made their
24 way into the grave-sites that were in question in the list. I will admit
25 it is a possibility that bears consideration.
1 And you said if you were to put to me that there is no one in the
2 list that has those duplications, that's an if. I don't know that that's
3 the case and I would be a little bit surprised if it were.
4 Q. My question is, since we have not found anywhere in the list any
5 other names, except from these, with these fathers, and we find them in
6 the testimony as well, is it then probable that these are one and the
7 same persons? Is that very likely, because there are no duplicates with
8 different DNAs?
9 A. You state that. I don't -- I don't know the basis upon which
10 you've done that search or -- or have any reason to have confidence in
11 that statement. It may well be true; I just don't know.
12 JUDGE KWON: In the meantime, Mr. Vanderpuye, if you could scroll
13 back your transcript page. From page 47 of today, from line 3, I think
14 we can redact the confidentiality of -- of those parts of the transcript.
15 From then on.
16 MR. VANDERPUYE: Yes, thank you, Mr. President. I agree.
17 JUDGE KWON: Yes, that will be done.
18 Yes, Mr. Karadzic, please continue.
19 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
20 Q. Dr. Parsons, we can do that through a search, all of us here. In
21 your very own documents, there are no other persons with this name and
22 surname and father's name, and they appear in testimony as well. How can
23 there be any doubt in our minds as to whether these are one and the same
24 persons, when, in your list, there are no other persons with the same
1 A. Have you searched the ICMP ID numbers and compared -- okay.
2 First of all, there were in the list we were seeing numerous
3 entries with the same first name, last name, and father's name. And then
4 the question is whether these would have different ICMP ID numbers or
5 not, and I don't know the answer to that question. I'm not trying to be
6 obtuse, it could be well be what you say is true, but I'm skeptical that
7 it's been checked.
8 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Karadzic, I think you've exhausted this issue.
9 We can move on. Your time is limited. And I should have said "lift the
10 confidentiality" instead of "redacting the confidentiality."
11 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. All right. Thank you. Can you tell the Trial Chamber briefly
13 what are STR markers and what is their role in all of this that you did?
14 A. STR markers is a generic name for the type of genetic loci that
15 are used in these identifications. STR stands for short tandem repeat.
16 And these are short elements of DNA within everyone's genome. The genome
17 is the total collection of DNA that you have. And the short tandem
18 repeat part of it refers to small blocks of DNA letters, A, G, C and T,
19 normally in quadruplets that are repeated different numbers of times. So
20 what that corresponds to is a locus or a particular place on the DNA
21 which is the STRs are, so the STR locus is a particular place on the DNA,
22 and that locus is highly variable between individuals in the population,
23 having to do with the number of these little repeat units that are in
25 Now, so, in -- in one individual chromosome you may have --
1 actually let me go back.
2 Another thing I need to add is that everyone has two copies of
3 their DNA, so we have paired chromosomes with copies of DNA, one that you
4 got from your mother and one that you got from your father. So for each
5 locus, which is the word we're using that corresponds to these STR
6 markers, everybody has two different copies, but each of those copies may
7 have a different number of these little short tandem repeats in them. So
8 what that means is when you check the DNA at these different loci and see
9 how many repeats an individual has in each of his two copies, one from
10 the mother and one from the father, you can very quickly distinguish
11 individuals one from the other.
12 Now, these different loci -- loci simply means a position. I've
13 used that word a few times and I'm going to try to use it consistently.
14 Each of these STR markers exists at a different locus, a different
15 position on the chromosome, and each one of those is independent of the
16 other ones. So using the type of test that we do standardly, we
17 investigate 15 different independent STR loci, each one of which is
18 highly variable. So it is by comparing the number of repeats in each of
19 the two copies everyone has at each of these 15 locations that we develop
20 a DNA profile that can be considered as unique to an individual.
21 Q. Thank you. Am I right if I say that on the basis of STR markers,
22 nothing can be concluded about that particular person except for the fact
23 that that is person? You cannot establish that the person had been ill,
24 you cannot establish what that person's health was, you cannot establish
25 that person's ethnicity, none of that.
1 Am I right when I say that?
2 A. In broad stroke, yes. And for the practical purposes of this
3 courtroom, what you said is correct. I will add that one thing you can
4 tell is who this individual is related to. So it's not just his
5 identity, but his identity relative to his family members also.
6 Q. Is it necessary then to code these findings established in STR or
7 expressed in STR, and what is the reason for that?
8 A. Well, these STR markers are the same markers that are used in a
9 large number of different types of databases worldwide. One of them is a
10 criminal offender databases that are maintained by many, many countries.
11 So it has been recognised in the European Court of Human Rights and
12 various other places that this type of information should be considered
13 private and sensitive. It is a unique identifier, and if you have
14 someone's DNA profile, you can establish your own database, potentially,
15 and use it for your own purposes, whatever those may be.
16 That mere fact alone is the kind of thing that has caused
17 widespread concern in today's societies with regard to the protection of
18 genetic information, who has access to it, and how you may be identified.
19 In the contexts of this missing persons activity and the conflict
20 in the former Yugoslavia, we have families that have been traumatised by
21 the loss of their loved ones and the overall impact -- the shattering
22 impact of war. They're extremely psychologically affected and they want
23 to have their loved ones back. Very important to them. In order to do
24 so we need to obtain genetic samples from them, but we don't want to have
25 to tell them that in order to get their loved one back not only do they
1 have to give us their DNA, but that we will happily turn it over to the
2 individuals that they consider complicit in the death of their family
4 So that would be the primary reason why we would maintain that
5 information as confidential.
6 Q. Is that information confidential for the pathologist who provided
7 the material? Why is coded information being sent to him as well?
8 A. Well, I think the word has been used in this courtroom which is
9 abundance of caution. I -- more or less a need to know basis. In fact
10 the pathologists don't do anything useful with the real genetic data that
11 they couldn't do with the coded genetic data, and so to prevent the
12 occurrence of that DNA match report falling out the window and blowing
13 down the street and thereby allowing somebody else to have access to it,
14 we have instead included coded information which in no means compromises
15 the identification process. Many DNA laboratories in the United States
16 and elsewhere that report official DNA findings do not include DNA
17 profiles at all on their DNA match reports.
18 Q. Thank you. If a family would like to check ICMP data, what would
19 the proper course of action be; and would it be possible, to begin with?
20 A. We haven't encountered that situation very much. We consider
21 that the DNA profile and biological sample that the family member have
22 provided to the ICMP to be essentially their property. So as I said, we
23 haven't encountered this very much, but I believe that if a family member
24 were to ask, we would provide them with their DNA profile.
25 We would not, I think, provide them with the DNA profiles of
1 other family members, and as you're aware, or as has been mentioned
2 previously in this courtroom, in fact this DNA data can provide
3 information regarding the relationships of family members that may be
4 different than one or more of the family members understand them to be.
5 These nuclear STR markers, for example, are the standard method by which
6 DNA paternity testings are conducted, and if a family were -- if an
7 individual were to come to us with a paternity question with relation to
8 the samples that had been provided to the ICMP, we would not provide that
9 information. In other words, we would not provide information about any
10 other individual than that person. If an entire family came to us and
11 said, We would like our profiles, each of them individually requesting,
12 we would individually hand them over and they would be free to compare
13 them if they wish.
14 Again, I'll say we have not encountered this situation. Although
15 I think we have got one or two inquiries related to paternity kind of
16 issues that we have declined to release information for.
17 Q. But can the family not draw any conclusions on the basis of the
18 coded formulas as well?
19 A. Yes, theoretically they could.
20 Q. Thank you. This is what I'm interested in now: How can I be
21 sure that you have 6.600 unique profiles in your base? Am I supposed to
22 take your word for it or do I have a way of verifying this?
23 A. The mechanism for verification that ICMP has proposed as early as
24 2009 is to provide to you a random and representative selection of ICMP
25 case files containing all information that you're able to review and --
1 and -- and test their authenticity and accuracy.
2 Q. You certainly know that we asked for five, according to our own
3 choice, and 295 random samples. And out of the five we only got four.
4 We haven't received the fifth one yet.
5 Do you know that?
6 A. I do.
7 Q. Thank you. Let me ask you this, please: We agreed that the
8 probability would have been slightly lower had you taken into account
9 29.000, right, instead of 7.000?
10 A. That's correct.
11 Q. And what about CLR? Actually, can you tell the Trial Chamber
12 what CLR is? Briefly.
13 A. We may have some kind of a communication problem. I don't know
14 what CLR is. You may be talking about VLR. Does that sound correct? LR
15 standing for likelihood ratio. And that is one of the statistics
16 included in our conclusion statements.
17 Q. Maybe in our language it's called something different. It should
18 be combined likelihood ratio. Does that ring a bell?
19 A. Yes. The ICMP doesn't refer to it as a combined likelihood ratio
20 but we refer to it simply as the likelihood ratio. But I'm confident
21 we're talking about the same thing.
22 And, no, the estimate of the prior probability does not have an
23 effect on the likelihood ratio. That's independent of the circumstances
24 of the case, which the prior odds are dependent upon.
25 Q. So had you taken 29.000 or 30.000 missing persons instead of
1 7.000, you said that the probability would have decreased to a certain
3 Is that correct that you use a population base database that
4 pertains to all of the former Yugoslavia? Is that what you use in your
6 A. Yes. In order to calculate the statistics that we use, you have
7 to know how common these different STR types are in the general
8 population and it is then common practice to use a population reference
9 database. And the one that we use is representative of the overall
10 constituency of the Bosnian population representing some of each of the
11 ethnic groups.
12 Q. For example, when calculating probability if you had not taken,
13 say, these 29.000 but the population base of the former Yugoslavia, would
14 the coefficient of probability be even lower? Would that approach have
15 been even more conservative?
16 A. I'm sorry, I'm going to have to request that you repeat your
17 question. I didn't catch exactly the "if" part of it. If what?
18 Q. For example, when calculating probability in Srebrenica you took
19 1 to 7.000. We agreed that had you taken 30.000 instead of 7.000, the
20 ratio would have been somewhat lower. Would it have been even lower had
21 you taken 2.900.000 Muslims, the population base of Muslims or the
22 population base of all of Yugoslavia? The one that you use -- the one
23 that you refer to, rather.
24 A. Yeah. I doubt it would change significantly at all.
25 Q. But it would introduce a change, wouldn't it?
1 A. Yeah. Potentially a very small change in some of the final
2 digits. But I will say that it doesn't mean that the change is uniformly
3 going to be lower. It could very well increase the statistics just as
4 easily with this minor fluctuation.
5 Q. Whatever. Why didn't you take the population base of the
6 Muslims, 2.900.000?
7 A. I think it's a bit expensive to test 2 million people when the
8 database can serve adequately and completely correctly with a much
9 smaller sample size.
10 Q. Thank you. Had you been told that one of these victims was not a
11 victim from Srebrenica from July 1995, would your statistics look
13 JUDGE KWON: We didn't get the interpretation. My -- my head
14 phone was out of order.
15 Yes, please continue.
16 THE WITNESS: I would please ask that the -- I'm struggling for
17 the sense of the question and maybe if it were repeated again, I could
18 understand it better.
19 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
20 Q. Would the prior probability be different if you had been told
21 that there were victims there who were not victims from the second week
22 of July 1995?
23 A. What would change the prior probability is the number of
24 individuals missing in a particular region or event that -- that gives
25 rise to our expectation of finding an individual within that -- within
1 that pool of victims. So I think -- I guess theoretically the answer to
2 your question is yes, but I can't answer it in a very systematic manner.
3 If we feel that there are a certain number of victims pertaining to a
4 particular area, in other words, that if we pick up a set of remains
5 what's the total number of individuals that this could relate to, we --
6 we take our estimate, our best estimate of the number of missing from
7 that region or event and use that. If we had a different understanding
8 of that number, we would use a different number.
9 Q. So something had to be presumed there, that these were victims
10 from the second week of July 1995 and that they were victims of an
11 execution. And that was quite a determining factor for you, wasn't it?
12 A. With regard to the issue of whether they were executed versus
13 killed in combat or what have you, no, that wouldn't affect the
14 possibility. Again, cause and manner of death doesn't have anything to
15 do with the identification of the -- of the individual. But if we
16 thought there were a substantially different number of people involved,
17 we would have been wise to use a different number.
18 I will note that having now identified almost 7.000 people from
19 this region -- so we have done the experiment, we're recovered bodies,
20 we've seen how many individuals there are there, and I think the number
21 of 6.772 is quite similar to the prior probability of 1 in 7.000 that we
22 did, so I have very little concern that we have much of a problem here.
23 Q. Is it your position that all of these 6.000-something persons
24 were victims from July 1995?
25 A. No, it's not my position that they all were, but I would say it's
1 my position that the vast majority of them are. 5.354 of them can be
2 related to one of the five primary large graves or assemblages of large
3 secondary mass graves for which there exists a vast amount of evidence
4 regarding their formation.
5 Q. Thank you. Have you ever been told what happened with the people
6 who were killed before July 1995 and where they were buried?
7 A. I have no information about that, no.
8 Q. Thank you. We can also not distinguish between victims of
9 executions and combat victims if we remain with the second week of
10 July 1995; correct?
11 JUDGE KWON: You are asking repetitive questions. It's time to
12 conclude your cross-examination, Mr. Karadzic.
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well. Well, if I can use the
14 remaining time before the break, I will complete my examination.
15 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
16 Q. Mr. Parsons --
17 JUDGE KWON: No. Mr. Karadzic, you passed your time long ago.
18 How long would you need for your re-examination, Mr. Vanderpuye?
19 MR. VANDERPUYE: Mr. President, I don't have a re-direct
20 examination planned for this witness.
21 JUDGE KWON: Very well.
22 Continue, Mr. Karadzic, please.
23 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. Do you know what the population of Srebrenica was before the war?
25 JUDGE KWON: No, it is not for the witness to tell us about that.
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.
2 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. Yesterday, on page 79 you said "men and boys."
4 What do you mean by "boys"? What is your definition of "boys"?
5 Is that your own definition or is that something that you actually took
6 over from the indictment or somewhere else?
7 A. Yes. I will confess that that is language that has lapsed into
8 common usage and I suppose I didn't have anything highly specific in
9 mind. I have seen from the Podrinje identification project age
10 distributions of the identified victims and there are people that --
11 within that that would certainly be considered minors. So if you would
12 press me now, I might say below 18. And there are certainly enough
13 individuals in that age range that would be -- if I adopt that as a
14 definition, that it would be proper to refer to the -- the victims as
15 being men and boys.
16 Q. Could you then define the word "boys" in your own understanding?
17 A. I can. Let me pick, 18 years and younger.
18 Q. Do you know that the Muslim side regularly recruited men between
19 the ages of 16 and 59?
20 JUDGE KWON: Also it is not for the witness to testify about
22 Let us conclude.
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.
24 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
25 Q. Tell us, what was the extent of your co-operation with this OTP,
1 the Office of the Prosecutor?
2 A. Well, we have been asked to provide summary records such as have
3 been entered into evidence here. That's our predominant interaction. I
4 will say that we've spent a great deal of time over the years interacting
5 with the Office of the Prosecutor in attempting to negotiate with your
6 team the simple expedient of providing a random and representative sample
7 of case files for your Defence review. That would be another area where
8 we've had a lot of interactions.
9 But everything that we have in -- interacted with the OTP with,
10 with regard to this Tribunal, I think has been perfectly apparent in
11 these proceedings.
12 Q. Can I then ask you why you refused to meet with the Defence?
13 A. I -- I thought -- I felt like the extensive interactions that we
14 were already having with you through the OTP would more than suffice
15 for -- for our interests.
16 Q. What interests do you have? What are they?
17 A. To provide to this Court an objective record of what the ICMP's
18 findings have been that are considered relevant to these proceedings.
19 Q. But if you consider them relevant to the Defence as well, why did
20 you refuse to meet with the Defence? Or is it, rather, your position
21 that they're only relevant for the Prosecution?
22 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye.
23 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
24 First, I think Dr. Parsons has already answered the question
25 directly and also implicitly in a number of ways.
1 The second thing I wanted to point out is that there appears to
2 an error in the transcript with respect to one of his answers at page 59,
3 lines 19 through 20. And in -- in that line, Dr. Parsons stated that he
4 had very little concern that there was much of a problem and that
5 concerned the use of prior odds. It's recorded incorrectly in the
6 transcript. If necessary, perhaps he can -- he can restate that answer.
7 So I just wanted to bring that to the attention of the Court, in addition
8 to the objection.
9 MR. ROBINSON: Also, Mr. President, I've noticed that the witness
10 has not had the LiveNote access. He just -- both of his monitors are in
11 e-court so it's maybe made it more difficult for him to follow.
12 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
13 Doctor, do you confirm that Mr. Vanderpuye just said?
14 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, I don't -- if you're referring to a
15 previous statement that was incorrectly transcribed, I'm not familiar. I
16 would have to look at it. I'm sorry.
17 JUDGE KWON: Could you -- could you ask -- Mr. Vanderpuye, could
18 you confirm with the witness as to what you brought up earlier on.
19 Page 59, lines 19 to 20.
20 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you very much, Mr. President.
21 Yes. In response to a question that was put to you by
22 Dr. Karadzic, the question was:
23 "So something had to be presumed there, that these were victims
24 from the second week of July 1995 and that they were victims of an
25 execution. And that was quite a determining factor for you, wasn't it?"
1 And your answer was:
2 "With regard to the issue of whether they were executed versus
3 killed in combat, or what have you, no. That went" -- I think it should
4 read "wouldn't," but it says "that went affect the possibility. Again,
5 cause and manner of death doesn't have anything to do with the
6 identification of the individual. But if we thought there were a
7 substantially different number of people involved, we would have been
8 wise to use a different number.
9 "I will note that having now identified almost 7.000 people from
10 this region -- so we have done the -- so we've done the experiment, we've
11 recovered bodies, I think the number of 6.772 is quite similar to the
12 prior probability of 1 in 7.000."
13 And then reads:
14 "So I have a concern that we don't have very much of a problem
15 here," and there's an indication that there was some part of your answer
16 there that was not recorded.
17 So the question is: In relation to the last part of your answer,
18 if you could restate it so the record is clear that would be helpful.
19 THE WITNESS: Yes. Thank you for that clarification.
20 I meant to say based on the similarity between 6.772 and 7.000,
21 that I don't have a concern with regard to the use of the value 1 in
22 7.000 as a prior probability.
23 JUDGE KWON: Thank you, Mr. Vanderpuye. I remember he said
24 "little concern."
25 Yes, Mr. Karadzic, where were we? It's time to conclude. And
1 you just asked a repetitive question, but I would allow you to wrap it
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Excellency.
4 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
5 Q. Dr. Parsons, you were not an expert witness before any other
6 court. Can we agree that you are a participant in these proceedings, and
7 that your position on the possible suspiciousness of the findings should
8 be carefully balanced?
9 JUDGE KWON: Again, it's not for the witness to testify about
11 Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye.
12 MR. VANDERPUYE: Mr. President, I was going to register my
13 objection but I also wanted to ask leave of the Court to ask one question
14 on redirect examination. As I believe that Dr. Karadzic is about to
15 conclude, I thought I would bring that up.
16 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
17 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
18 Q. I just wanted to ask you, Mr. Parsons, whether you understand the
19 significance of certain unclarities and doubts about the findings. Are
20 you aware what their effect on these proceedings are and do you realise
21 that all these doubts and discrepancies are very important for the
23 A. I don't know what doubts and discrepancies you refer to. That is
24 such a wide-ranging set of statements that I can't provide a useful
25 answer. I certainly have a strong sense of the way forensic evidence
1 fits together in combination to provide an overall picture. And I have a
2 great deal of confidence in this courtroom to evaluate the significance,
3 and I hope the objective presentation of the findings of the ICMP will
4 help them to reach those conclusions.
5 Q. Thank you, Mr. Parsons.
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Excellency, I have no further
8 JUDGE KWON: Yes Mr. Vanderpuye.
9 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you very much, Mr. President.
10 Re-examination by Mr. Vanderpuye:
11 Q. Just one question, Dr. Parsons. At page 56, lines 4 through 7,
12 Dr. Karadzic mentioned that the Defence had requested some five case
13 files in addition to some 295 randomly selected ones. He asked you
14 whether you were aware that the Defence had only received four of the
15 five specifically selected files. Can you tell us -- you indicated that
16 you were aware of that. Can you tell us why the Defence hasn't received
17 all five of these files as yet?
18 A. Well, it is a very involved process to reach out to the family
19 members to request consent, and then, of course, it is up to them to
20 determine whether they want to comply with that consent request. In this
21 instance, the fifth of the five families has not yet been able to fill
22 out the consent forms and -- and take part in the process. They live in
23 different parts of Europe. It's simply communications. It's my
24 understanding that -- that they will provide consent, but prior to them
25 having done so, I'm not prepared to assume that they will, but our
1 understanding is that they will.
2 Q. Thank you.
3 MR. VANDERPUYE: Mr. President, I have no further questions on
5 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
6 Unless my colleagues have questions for you, Doctor, that
7 concludes your evidence. On behalf of this Chamber, as well as the
8 Tribunal as a whole, I'd like to thank you for your coming to The Hague
9 to give it again, and now you're free to go.
10 THE WITNESS: Thank you very much.
11 JUDGE KWON: Before we rise, the Chamber grants the Prosecution
12 motion to amend its Rule 65 ter witness list filed on 20th of March,
13 2012, which the Defence did not oppose, and orders that the Prosecution
14 file a revised 65 ter witness list of witnesses reflecting these
15 amendments no later than Monday, 26th of March, 2012.
16 We'll break for an hour and resume at 1.35.
17 Please have a safe journey back home.
18 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
19 [The witness withdrew]
20 --- Luncheon recess taken at 12.35 p.m.
21 --- On resuming at 1.37 p.m.
22 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Robinson.
23 MR. ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. President. I'd like to put something on
24 the record relating to a witness who testified in closed session.
25 So we may go into private session for that for a moment.
1 JUDGE KWON: Very well. Could the Chamber move into private
3 [Private session]
14 [Open session]
15 JUDGE KWON: Shall we bring in the witness?
16 MR. TIEGER: Yes, that's fine, Mr. President. I just wanted to
17 address one quick housekeeping matter while that was taking place.
18 Yesterday, at transcript pages 21482 through 84, the
19 Trial Chamber inquired about an English translation for 65 ter 21043
20 which is now marked for identification as P4645. I simply wanted to
21 advise the Court that a translation is available, and if the exhibit is
22 released by the Registry, it can be uploaded and we seek to admit it in
24 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. That will be done.
25 Yes, Mr. Karadzic.
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] May I?
2 Could I tender the document that we received from the witness
3 about the countries supporting ICMP.
4 JUDGE KWON: Yes. I -- is there any opposition, Mr. Tieger? Did
5 you follow the proceedings?
6 MR. TIEGER: Not to a large extent but I think that that --
7 because there was discussion between Mr. Robinson and Mr. Vanderpuye, I
8 think I'd prefer to inquire before I simply acquiesced.
9 JUDGE KWON: I think -- excuse me. Personally I understand that
10 that's the information available from the web site of that organisation.
11 So we shall admit -- we will admit it and give a number. But could
12 you -- why don't you take a look at that -- that document.
13 MR. TIEGER: I don't have any reason at the moment to think
14 there's a problem, but it seems likely it's the appropriate thing to do.
15 JUDGE KWON: Yes, we'll wait for you.
16 [The witness entered court]
17 JUDGE KWON: Good afternoon, madam. Could you take the solemn
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good afternoon.
20 I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the whole truth,
21 and nothing but the truth.
22 WITNESS: TEUFIKA IBRAHIMEFENDIC
23 [Witness answered through interpreter]
24 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. Please be seated.
25 Yes, Mr. Tieger.
1 MR. TIEGER: Thank you, Mr. President. And good afternoon,
2 Mr. President, Your Honours.
3 Examination by Mr. Tieger:
4 Q. And good afternoon, Witness.
5 Can we begin by having you state your full name, please.
6 A. My name is Teufika Ibrahimefendic.
7 Q. And, Ms. Ibrahimefendic, is it correct that you have testified
8 before this Tribunal on three previous occasions, in the Tolimir case in
9 February of 2011; in the Plavsic case in December 2002; and particularly,
10 in the case of Prosecutor versus Krstic on the 27th of July, 2000?
11 A. Yes, that's correct.
12 Q. I understand that you had the opportunity to review your
13 testimony in the Krstic case. Bearing in mind that that related to what
14 was known in the year 2000, do you confirm that the Krstic testimony
15 accurately reflects your evidence before that Court, that it was
16 truthful, and if you were asked about the same matters here, you would
17 provide the same information to the Court. That is, you stand by your
18 testimony in the Krstic case.
19 A. Yes. I do stand by it.
20 MR. TIEGER: Mr. President, I would tender 65 ter 03261, the
21 Krstic testimony.
22 JUDGE KWON: Yes, that would be admitted as the next Prosecution
24 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P4646, Your Honour. Thank you.
25 MR. TIEGER:
1 Q. Ms. Ibrahimefendic, I will now read a very brief summary of your
2 testimony in the Krstic case so that the public can know generally what
3 that was about.
4 The witness is a psychotherapist who has worked with women and
5 children traumatised by war. Since 1994 she has worked for Vive Zene, a
6 multi-disciplinary organisation specialising in the treatment of victims
7 of war, including hundreds of women and children traumatised by the
8 July 1995 events in Srebrenica. The witness testified about the effects
9 of the trauma on the Srebrenica victims, including various forms of
10 emotional and behavioural damage.
11 Witness, that concludes the summary and I have just a few
12 additional questions for you.
13 First, I want to quickly cover some of your experiences since you
14 testified in the Krstic case.
15 Is it correct that you have continued as a psychotherapist at
16 Vive Zene and are currently the co-ordinator of the education and
17 training programme?
18 A. Yes, it is correct.
19 Q. Is it also correct that since the year 2000, you have continued
20 to work in the field of trauma treatment, that you have specialised as a
21 trauma treatment specialist, including conducting trainings for other
22 professionals, for researchers, for investigators, law enforcement
23 officials and so on?
24 A. Yes, that's correct. I am the co-ordinator of the education
1 Q. And beyond your management and training responsibilities, have
2 you carried an active case-load yourself, which, in fact, takes up the
3 bulk of your professional time?
4 A. Most of my time, about 60 per cent, goes on my work with people
5 who were victims of trauma.
6 Q. Is it correct that you are a member of the European Association
7 for Psychotherapists and of the European Association of Gestalt
8 Psychotherapy experts?
9 A. Yes, that's correct. As of 2004, I am a member of the
10 European Association of Gestalt Psychotherapy.
11 Q. And finally, is it correct that you have worked with Serb victims
12 of war as well as Bosniaks victims?
13 A. Yes. Yes, I worked with Serb victims, people who suffered
15 Q. Let me ask you a few questions in connection with your Krstic
17 At page 5814 of your Krstic testimony, you spoke about the
18 exceptionally high level of trauma experienced by the Srebrenica
19 survivors and the various effects of that trauma on their lives. And at
20 page 5824, you referred to the fact that this was not a natural disaster
21 which made it even more traumatic.
22 I wanted, therefore, to ask you: With respect to the effect of
23 events involving the loss of family members, is there a difference
24 between so-called normal or conventional losses and traumatic loss?
25 A. In the course of a life, each individual goes through a
1 developmental period, period of maturation and then of aging, and
2 throughout life, everyone suffers various losses, and these losses are
3 considered natural, normal losses. For instance, if an adult, 60 years
4 of age, losses a parent who is 80 years old that would be considered a
5 normal loss and such losses may lead to temporary changes, or, rather,
6 require additional adaptation to life. However, after a while, the
7 family and the individual would stabilise and continue on with their
9 So there is a big differences between losses that are part of
10 life, as it were, and traumatic losses. Traumatic losses may be the loss
11 of a child, even -- not in war-time circumstances, because it is not
12 normal for a child to die before their parent.
13 Traumatic losses incurred in the course of war are especially
14 stressful because they come out of the blue. They are unpredictable
15 because there are also many cases where the parents lose their children.
16 The children were taken away, or they go missing. In the case of male
17 family members that also had a great impact on the family and the
18 structure of the family, the relationships between the family members,
19 different roles within it, and so on and so forth, and, on the other
20 hand, it also has a major impact on the development of the children.
21 So these traumatic losses are always followed by post-traumatic
22 effects that the survivors have to go through for the rest of their
24 Q. Thank you. You described for the Krstic Trial Chamber about
25 five years after the events of July 1995 some of the effects of the
1 trauma that the victims had suffered, including women who experienced
2 nightmares, depression, apathy, and whose psychological condition was
3 "extremely grave," and children who suffered, depending on their age
4 group, from various effects ranging from nightmares to learning disorders
5 to generalised fears and withdrawal.
6 I'd like to ask you, in light of your continuing work with the
7 victims, if you can tell us whether - and what - effects are still
8 experienced by the victims, as a result of the trauma they experienced,
9 and if it is helpful to break that down into broad categories and then
10 give us some examples from each category, please feel free to do so.
11 A. The consequences as a result of an initial trauma, or perhaps we
12 should say a trauma that starts at the beginning of a war, can be divided
13 into consequences that have to do with the emotional life. There would
14 be consequences of cognitive nature. Then there would be consequences
15 that would have an effect on the physical or that would affect
16 interactions with other people.
17 As for emotional reactions the most frequent consequence is fear,
18 fear that becomes dominant, the fear for oneself and for one's family,
19 the worry about and anxiety about one's own life and the lives of family
20 members, the anxiety about the physical danger and threat. There were
21 also other emotions such as helplessness and loss of control over one's
22 own life. Then there is grief, anger.
23 People were angry. Why was all this happening? Why to them, in
24 particular. Even to this day, there are people who would put this
25 question to me: Why did this happen to me? Why was I there? And then
1 follows the question: Could I have done something else? Could I have
2 done something, taken some measures to save my loved ones, and so on and
3 so forth.
4 So there's a whole range of emotions that are at play. Changes
5 of mood, mood swings, up to the feeling of betrayal, deceit, that there's
6 no other instance that one can have faith in anymore.
7 As for the physical consequences, these have to do with the
8 constant stress of the body. People feel constantly stressed out. They
9 have insomnia problems, problems with eating, transpiration and so on,
10 and they would frequently seek medical assistance in those cases.
11 The behavioural problems also have to do with these people
12 seeking to be alone or else they would establish links and become too
13 dependent on other people. But there would also be effects within
14 families where traumatised members of a family or those who are
15 traumatised to a greater degree tend not to share this with other family
16 members and they disassociate themselves from family members. This would
17 lead to problems with memory, memory loss, decision-making. It becomes
18 very difficult to take any decision. They become rigid and are unable to
19 do things that they used to be able to do. Frequently, there would be
20 flashbacks although they try not to bring up those memories. But they
21 have flashbacks that are involuntary memories of their loss and this
22 would impede their day-to-day functions.
23 But the greatest impact and consequences are in their
24 interactions with other people. These are damaged. People do not trust
25 each other. They do not have the ability to empathise with others so
1 they avoid talking to others about themselves, and especially not with
2 their family members or friends, or their children, because they want to
3 spare their children this trauma. But, in this way, this leads to loss
4 of contacts, and much of this remains hidden away from the rest.
5 And this all leads to various effects on the emotional,
6 cognitive, behavioural, or physical existence which are at the base of
7 such traumatic events. Of course, this has to do -- this is related to
8 the trauma that they have been living through from the very beginning up
9 to this day.
10 Q. Thank you, Witness. And, finally, I wanted to ask you about a
11 related matter. You've just described some of the continuing effects of
12 the trauma they suffered. I wanted to ask you whether you were able to
13 observe what effect the events of -- the trauma they experienced in
14 July of 1995 and those events had on the normal sources of support to
15 whom people routinely turn when they have experienced traumatic loss.
16 A. When such an extremely traumatic event takes place, if an
17 individual is hurt, and that individual is part of a family, then it
18 affects the whole family. If several members of the family are hurt, the
19 total destruction of the family becomes even greater.
20 Every family is part of a network. If one family is damaged,
21 then a whole -- the whole network of families is damaged. If the network
22 is damaged, the community is damaged. If one thinks about such enormous
23 traumatic events, it means that the entire community is affected by this
24 sorrow, despair and suffering. Under such circumstances, the victims
25 have to fall back on their own resources, and it is typical for the human
1 body to turn on the survival instincts in such circumstances by either
2 fleeing or fighting. In this case they had nowhere to flee, they
3 couldn't go away. And then they focus on their own resources as to how
4 to survive, how to take care of themselves and their loved ones since
5 they felt responsible for them.
6 Q. Thank you, Witness.
7 MR. TIEGER: I have no further questions, Mr. President. Thank
9 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
10 Ms. Ibrahimefendic, your evidence in-chief was admitted in lieu
11 of your oral testimony in written form, as you noted. You will now
12 further be asked by Mr. Karadzic in his cross-examination.
13 Yes, Mr. Karadzic.
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
15 Cross-examination by Mr. Karadzic:
16 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Ms. Ibrahimefendic.
17 A. Good afternoon.
18 Q. Let's start with what was said here today, as I'm slightly
19 confused with the way Mr. Tieger was interpreted as well as what you
21 You said that you were engaged in the education of the -- those
22 affected by the trauma, whereas it seems that in the interpretation it
23 was interpreted as if you treated them.
24 A. I treated the professionals, but I tried to re-educate those
25 affected. The organisation I work for has additional educational
1 channels, from Europe, from a number of different trauma centres. Our
2 entire team is educated to work with the victims of trauma or torture and
3 now we try to disseminate that knowledge in order to help medical
4 professionals to try and cope with the influx and size of problems, as
5 well as the number of people seeking help. Usually such people do not
6 recognise the fact that their problems are related to a trauma or loss
7 but tend to see their problems in a different light.
8 Q. Thank you. At page 72 today, you mentioned that there were
9 normal losses, so to say. Let us try and establish what the category is.
10 Should we call them abnormal or unforeseen or unexpected losses? Which
11 of these alternative or analogous terms would you use?
12 A. As regards traumatic losses I would use what I have. It is
13 unpredictable. It is abnormal. If someone is sick, then, in a way, the
14 family and those close to him or her have time to prepare themselves for
15 the loss of a family member.
16 So it's all I've said. It is unpredictable, abnormal, because it
17 is abnormal for someone to lose 20 family members.
18 Q. Thank you. At page 73, you continued discussing the phenomena
19 and symptoms. You discussed the consequences on the emotional,
20 cognitive, physical, and interpersonal level.
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. How do such phenomena figure in the general population which had
23 not been traumatised?
24 A. One could say that the number of those who were not touched by
25 trauma is truly very small. Even I am affected as I work with people who
1 have experienced trauma. There are differences, though. Those who carry
2 their anxiety or sorrow related to the war do not share those feelings.
3 They close in and there's this constant feeling that no one can help
4 them. Although, I must say that as of late, more and more people come in
5 seeking help as they realise that they no longer can cope alone and that
6 they have to share it with someone and that they have to face up to what
7 is inside. They become aware of the fact that years have gone by without
8 them being able to forget.
9 As for the normal population, such people tend to share. There
10 is no sense of blame, shame. Perhaps they can feel anger, but such
11 people are more ready to share their feelings and seek help. That's how
12 I see the difference.
13 Q. Thank you. Am I correct, then, if I believe that you carried out
14 some research as opposed to the -- a control group in the general
15 population to show specific differences in order to see what the
16 differences are between the people who underwent trauma as opposed to
17 those who did not?
18 A. We did conduct quality research and quantity, although most of it
19 is quality research. We worked with some other organisations as well,
20 including the University of Tuzla and the University of Basel. We had an
21 interdisciplinary research, where also NGOs participated, as well as the
22 University of Basel. They did their quality research, and this is what
23 we would say as to the difference. It is a fact that traumatised people
24 are more susceptible, more prone to depression, more anxious, and that
25 they have other symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder. They have
1 obsessive and compulsive symptoms as opposed to the control group. What
2 prevails very much is the interpersonal level in relationships. There's
3 this high sensitivity in contacts with others, and the quality of life
4 suffers as a consequence. It becomes extremely poor in people who had
5 undergone trauma.
6 Q. Thank you. Who headed the research project?
7 A. It was headed by the deans and professors of the medical school,
8 as well as the school of rehabilitation, and the Basel school for social
9 welfare, as well as the school for social welfare in Tuzla.
10 Q. Thank you. Can we make use of the results of that research?
11 A. Not for the time being, as it was a qualitative research and the
12 data is still being processed.
13 The results for the research I mentioned have more to do with
14 juvenile delinquency, so there will be different aspects that we will
15 study, and for the time being the research has not been completed. We do
16 have a lot of individual cases which we processed and analysed.
17 Q. Do I have to conclude, then, that what you said in the Krstic
18 case and what you have testified so far in this case is not based on the
19 results of that research but based on your impressions?
20 A. No. We regularly participate in all conferences in
21 Bosnia-Herzegovina and beyond, and we use the results of research and
22 study conducted by our psychiatrist colleagues, say, in Tuzla. We rely
23 on their results and we test them. A study needn't necessarily be ours
24 but we can still verify it in practice. There are Ph.D. theses on the
25 topic of traumatic and post-traumatic stress disorder as well as
1 Ph.D. theses on the research into missing family members and a comparison
2 with control groups with families which did not miss family members.
3 So all such results are well-known. We mostly deal with
4 treatment, though. All that research is only there to make a diagnosis
5 but we want to treat, and that is our primary goal. In Bosnia, including
6 Republika Srpska, there are no such institutions. There are mental
7 health centres which have only started setting up offices to assist
8 people who had survived the war. In the Federation, there are also
9 mental health centres which are now being equipped to see people with
10 such issues.
11 There is a problem when they go to their local health centre.
12 That is to say, the primary medical system or care. They need to ask for
13 a referral, so they have to travel all this path to meet a person with
14 whom they can discuss their losses and have their trauma recognised and
15 acknowledged so that they would, in turn, would receive respect, pride,
16 faith in people, et cetera.
17 Q. Thank you. But we now have to establish together whether you are
18 testifying based on others' Ph.D. thesis and research or based on your
19 own professional and expert work.
20 A. I can testify on the basis of my experience, and that's where I
21 feel at home the most. My experience in the work with traumatised people
22 as well as based on the theoretical knowledge I have gained in the past
23 20 years as it was virtually non-existent before that.
24 I can also testify on the basis of my work with world experts in
25 the field of trauma and on the basis of some 2.000 hours of work under
1 their supervision. When I became a member of the European association I
2 had to document it all. We had local psychiatric supervision but also
3 outside supervision. We engaged in serious analyses of the situation or
4 situations involved in the trauma process. We do not see trauma as a
5 disease or PTSD as a single diagnosis. We look at trauma as a process,
6 which started at the beginning of the war and has been ongoing. Today,
7 we have traumatised people still undergoing different processes. The
8 symptoms are not always the same.
9 Perhaps I could put it in a different way. According to the
10 expert, let's take the Keilson's model about sequential traumatisation
11 which was developed by a trauma specialist, by Dr. Baker. As part of
12 that concept, trauma is seen as a process. The author divides, for
13 example, refugee trauma in seven sequential parts. The first sequence is
14 the pre-traumatic situation which is in the pre-war period, when the
15 person was still living a normal life. Then we have the situation of
16 expulsion, of leaving home voluntarily or under pressure, or the
17 individual left on his or her own, or the whole family left. Then
18 there's the period of flight.
19 Q. Thank you. As I believe I won't have more than one hour, we need
20 to conclude this.
21 It is all very plausible and your work is very useful, but for
22 the needs of this trial I would like to establish what is objective and
23 objectified as to separated from the subjective. What was objective
24 among the things you determined? You mentioned the model where the group
25 itself is its control group. Before the event, the same people are
1 followed through the trauma. Did you have any research into the
2 Srebrenica population before the events so as to be able to compare?
3 A. No, we didn't.
4 Q. Very well. Did you have any research into the control group so
5 as to establish what emotional, cognitive, physical, and interpersonal
6 disorders the traumatised people have as opposed to the people who were
7 not traumatised?
8 A. Our organisation, and I, did not participate in that kind of
9 research, but I did participate when the research was presented. Any
10 research requires funds. We believed that someone -- if someone had
11 studied or researched something, there was no need to repeat it, and that
12 we can take it on board and fully confide it and use it for our work. We
13 did not do research ourselves.
14 Q. Of course, for your work, you can use their research.
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Do you agree that you cannot rely on their research in your
18 A. I don't think I am. I am relying on my experience and the
19 experience of the Vive Zene expert team. I base my testimony on the
20 findings and tests we carried out. For example, we tested thousands of
21 people for trauma. The tests were approved and certified. If, in such
22 tests, we established that people did have such symptoms, it is based on
23 those tests we could determine the direction of our work. If these
24 people are established as being re-traumatised or reliving the events or
25 avoiding the recollection of traumatic events, then, in that way, we get
1 some landmarks or directions as to how to approach them, and that was the
2 basis of the Vive Zene work.
3 Q. Thank you. I believe it sufficed for your work with your
4 clients, and I do believe you have the possibility or ability of empathy.
5 Would you characterise yourself as an empathic person?
6 A. Yes. A person who cannot picture or feel the situation of
7 another, then that person cannot help either. It's the basis of a
8 therapeutic relationship, and only from that angle one can help another
9 seeking assistance.
10 Q. Thank you. If we remove your work with your clients from this
11 testimony, I need to tell you openly what it is that I'm trying to
13 Your previous testimony in the Krstic case is full of theoretical
14 assertions which are correct. The testimony is also full of your emotion
15 depicting your empathy and your ability to feel the suffering of another.
16 For the need of these proceedings, we need to separate your theoretical
17 knowledge from your emotional and -- your emotional experience from what
18 was objectively ascertained.
19 Can you tell us what was it that you determined objectively,
20 scientifically, with the use of a control group? How did you determine
21 differentia specifica?
22 JUDGE KWON: Just before you answer. Yes, Mr. Tieger.
23 MR. TIEGER: Perhaps I'm not able to follow the -- this
24 discussion as accurately as possible, but by my count, this is
25 approximately the third time the same question has been posed and the
1 witness has clearly indicated the basis for the positions she's outlined
2 previously, and I would object.
3 One other matter is, I mean, first of all, there's a -- she is
4 asked to deconstruct the entirety of the Krstic testimony; that is
5 clearly impossible. But in the context of this examination, the accused
6 has asked -- has basically posed the position that her testimony is based
7 on theoretical propositions and she said at least twice that it was based
8 on her experience and experience of those with whom she worked at
9 Vive Zene.
10 JUDGE KWON: Given that I noted the witness started answering the
11 question and Mr. Karadzic put his case about the nature of her testimony,
12 I would allow the witness to proceed to answer.
13 Could you answer as far as you can? If you remember the
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have to admit that I don't recall
16 all of it because there were several topics mentioned there. One of them
17 was empathy. The other was the theory or theoretical portion of the
18 testimony. And the third had to do with the emotional aspect of my
20 So I would like it to be repeated, if that's possible, the
22 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
23 Q. Very well. Would you say for yourself that are you a sensitive
24 or sensual person?
25 A. Do you mean sensitive or sensible?
1 Q. Yes. Would you say for yourself that you are both or one or the
3 A. Well, I would say I'm a sensitive person.
4 Q. Could you please tell the Trial Chamber what the difference is
5 between empathy and projection and projective identification?
6 A. Well, empathy is an important component or feature -- or ability,
7 in fact. It's the ability of the therapist, in the course of therapy, to
8 understand what the client or the patient is undergoing. In other words,
9 the therapist should not be judgemental but, rather, try to identify with
10 the situation, in order to live through the patient's experience, to see
11 what it is that is happening with that person or what has happened to the
12 person who is now talking about his or her suffering.
13 To make this a bit clearer, let me give you an example. For
14 instance, if a person is two metres tall -- I need to describe it in this
15 way although it might not be the most appropriate way. But how can a
16 person who is two metres tall -- how does that person feel, being
17 two metres tall? If I were to empathise with that person, I should be
18 able to recognise how this person sees the world because I am not
19 two metres tall. So this is the best way that I can describe this.
20 Q. All right. But the projective identification, how did you shield
21 yourself from that?
22 A. Well, I have to say that trying to shield oneself from
23 projecting -- from projections, projecting one's own on to the patient,
24 is a very difficult task for each therapist if you want to be a good
25 therapist. And in this, I needed help from my supervisors, where you
1 repeatedly have to question your own experience and your own feelings as
2 you're listening to what the person sitting across from you is
3 undergoing. So is this -- am I empathising with the feelings of the
4 person or is this something that I'm going through myself? This is a
5 fight that a therapist has to fight for many years, and I think it is
6 very important for a therapist to be aware of it, in order not to put him
7 or herself into a position where they are not objective any longer. And
8 with all my heart, or rather, with all my abilities, I constantly try to
9 build up this mechanism that would shield me from that, and if that would
10 not be the case, at least to be aware of what was happening to me.
11 Q. Thank you. So you would agree with me, wouldn't you, that
12 projective identification is something that is subconscious and how can
13 you bring the subconscious into the conscious?
14 A. Well, if I am to have a role in therapy, and if that intervention
15 is a reflection on the counter-transfer, then, of course -- then I have
16 to bring this into my conscious, not by myself but with the assistance of
17 my supervisor. So I have to be able to distinguish my own projections
18 from what is objective because working with traumatised people without
19 supervision is very difficult and it can lead to the therapist being
20 traumatised as well.
21 Q. Very well. Let's move on to a different topic.
22 As you know, a person cannot do this on one -- on one's own.
23 Have you ever undergone any treatment or any therapy?
24 A. Yes. During my training for Gestalt psychotherapy I had to
25 undergo 100 hours of therapy of myself, and in addition to that, there
1 were other occasions where I had to undergo therapy myself and this had
2 to do with -- this was done in the process of my obtaining my diploma. I
3 had occasion to be treated by -- to be -- to discuss this with all types
4 of therapists, acting therapists, acting-out therapists, and I was -- I
5 should be able -- I was supposed to be able to express the way in which
6 people express their sorrow.
7 Q. Thank you. Now let's just go back to something you've said
8 today. Would you say that in war-time conditions, losses are
9 unpredictable, unforeseen, and are they less foreseeable than, for
10 instance, a loss in a car accident?
11 A. Well, when a war starts, there is this great sense of the
12 unknown. We know when it has begun but we don't know when it is going to
13 end, and I think that this adds to the stressful situation.
14 As for car accidents, they occur, and people accept the risk. In
15 other words, people make a conscious choice. But in a war, people do not
16 have any choice. For instance, I flew to The Hague, and I can say for
17 myself that I never thought of a possible accident, but -- I never gave
18 it a single thought. But this would have been my choice in any case,
19 because I have chosen to travel. In war time, people do not have a
20 choice. They do not take decisions on their own. They're not their
21 decisions, or they may choose to take a decision that may turn out to be
22 very bad for them in the long run.
23 Q. Thank you. But I will try to be as brief as possible in my
24 questions and you, too, please try to be as brief as possible in your
1 A. Thank you. I will.
2 Q. Do you know that the 28th Division alone in Srebrenica before the
3 month of July 1995 had suffered some 2.000 losses?
4 A. No, I didn't know that because that type of information did not
5 reach Tuzla. We did not get that kind of information. I didn't know
6 anything about that.
7 Q. Thank you. Did you work with anyone who had lost someone before
8 July 1995?
9 A. Yes. I had occasion to work with people who had lost people
10 before July 1995. If these people had -- were killed and if the rites
11 were performed where they had the time to grieve, then the consequences
12 would have been much later.
13 Q. Thank you. But could you -- did you observe that most of those
14 losses were in Serb territory and that there were no funerals in
15 Srebrenica, that these people were killed when they tried to go out to
16 Serb territory?
17 A. I can't really answer that question. I don't know anything about
18 that. The stories that I do know about, they were stories told by my
19 patients. Most of them women and children.
20 Q. On page 5814, you said that the degree of trauma or the level of
21 trauma was very high. High in comparison to what? What was your point
22 of reference?
23 A. Well, we compared that, or we had as our reference individuals
24 who were refugees in 1992. Well, I began my work in 1994. In 1994, we
25 had a group of women who were in-patient -- in-house patients whose
1 husbands were in Srebrenica, not all of them, or we had cases where
2 entire families were refugees in Tuzla, and we could use them as a
3 reference point when comparing them to the refugees who came in 1995 who
4 were panic-stricken, completely lost, and we saw that these people could
5 not find their bearings. They had no idea what was going on, what was
6 happening to them.
7 Q. Thank you. Now, was this based on your own experience, or do we
8 have some objective criteria?
9 A. We do have objective criteria as well. These criteria were
10 developed by other organisations that we worked with. I took part in
11 that research. I took part in the filling out of the questionnaires that
12 were used in the research. But I also could observe their conduct
13 because it was very easy to observe. There was a big difference between
14 the behaviour of the people who arrived as refugees in 1995 as opposed to
15 those before.
16 Q. Thank you. Now, did you ever establish why it was that these
17 people were separated before July 1995? In other words, there were men
18 who remained in Srebrenica, whereas their family members were in Tuzla.
19 A. I did not understand what you meant by "separation."
20 What did -- did we establish what?
21 Q. Well, you have just said that in 1994 and before July 1995, you
22 had cases of family members being separated, where the women and -- and
23 children were in Tuzla, whereas the men remained in Srebrenica.
24 A. Well, yes. Most of the refugees were from Zvornik and Vlasenica,
25 while a number of men had gone to Srebrenica. And based on the stories
1 of these women, it appears that they left their villages quite suddenly,
2 so they got separated then. For the most part, the women had been at
3 home, and then they were forced to be transferred to Tuzla, whereas the
4 men stayed line, and that's how they were forced to be separated from one
6 Q. Very well. Now, who was it that separated them?
7 A. Who?
8 Q. Well, who took this decision on behalf of these men to remain in
9 Srebrenica rather than leave with their families to Tuzla?
10 A. Well, what I've just mentioned had to do with 1992 and 1993.
11 This was the beginning of the war, and from the stories of the men who
12 survived, as well as the women, it could be inferred that they thought
13 that Srebrenica was a safe area until it became a safe haven, which was a
14 tiny area in a wider surrounding, and it was only then that they realised
15 that they had taken the wrong choice because there was a lot of sense of
16 guilt there: Why didn't we go with our families; why did we allow us to
17 be separated from them, and so on and so forth.
18 Q. So these men actually took the wrong decision. They decided to
19 remain, whereas they sent their families to Tuzla?
20 A. Well, I don't know anything about that. I don't know what it was
21 that that person -- that any particular person decided was the factor
22 where they felt that it was threatening for them.
23 THE INTERPRETER: Could the accused please repeat his question.
24 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Karadzic, please repeat your question.
25 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
1 Q. On page 5815, the witness said "men and boys."
2 How did you come up with the boys? Did you establish that there
3 were boys there or is this something that you just took over, this
5 A. Well, no, I did not take this over from some official documents.
6 Rather, this was something that I picked up from my clients, from these
7 women, because they would frequently tell you, My husband left and -- but
8 he -- and then my -- he was a boy. He left, he was just a boy.
9 Sometimes we would ask them how old these boys were. Sometimes they
10 would tell us that they were 8 years old or so. We frequently had women
11 telling us stories about their own children, and they would say then: He
12 was just a boy. So this was not a -- the language that I picked up from
13 some official documents or from TV.
14 Q. Thank you. So you were not in Srebrenica then yourself to see
15 that for yourself. Rather, if a woman told you, My son was just a boy,
16 you would just accept that?
17 A. Well, the basic principle of mine is that I would trust what the
18 patient tells me. So if they say that it was their child, it was their
19 boy, and if they keep repeating that this was a child, a boy who was 14
20 or 11, then I don't see why not believe that woman. Because that boy was
21 no longer with her.
22 We had cases of other children who suffered and whose behaviour
23 was inappropriate. For instance, there were cases where a woman would
24 celebrate a -- or throw a birthday party for a son who wasn't there.
25 THE INTERPRETER: Could the accused please repeat and kindly
1 pause between question and answer and answer and question.
2 JUDGE KWON: Just a second. The interpreters find it very
3 difficult to catch up with your speed if you do not pause between the
4 question and answer.
5 Mr. Karadzic, could you repeat your question.
6 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
7 Q. I asked the witness because I saw during this previous testimony
8 that she personally was rather successful and this method was rather
9 successful. That was my question; is that correct?
10 A. Yes, that is correct.
11 Q. So these things are curable, aren't they?
12 A. No. I cannot say that they are curable. However, people can get
13 used to living with loss. They can accept the past. And, in the
14 present, they can find certain contents that will give them strength to
15 go on in the future.
16 Q. Thank you. When you speak about case histories, for instance,
17 you are not writing a scientific paper that involves other things.
18 You're just writing up a case history. Did you know about that person
19 before the trauma?
20 A. No. No, I did not. However, when working with a woman or with a
21 person, a patient, one can see how she had functioned before that
22 happened. You can see on the basis of the interview what her educational
23 background was, how she grew up, what her family relations were, and so
24 on. On the basis of that, one can foresee what kind of a person she may
25 have been before all that happened.
1 Q. On page 2827, you did not fully answer Judge Riad's question so
2 please answer me. Is it in the same way and with same attention that you
3 worked with Serbs -- Serb women and Croat women?
4 A. Yes, with the same intentions, and with the same attention.
5 Because pain is pain. Any person who loses a family member suffers
6 deeply. I appreciate that pain and suffering, and I believe that it
7 deserves the best kind of treatment that I am capable of offering.
8 Q. Thank you. Your professional findings or, rather, impressions,
9 because we don't have before us the results of an objective research,
10 everything that you've said, does it equally pertain to Serb, Muslim, and
11 Croat women?
12 A. Yes. Yes, it does. Because every person that experienced
13 extreme violence, a trauma, and a total breakdown, irrespective of ethnic
14 or religious background or geography, such a person is in pain.
15 Q. I'm a bit confused by this. Are you specific, are you precise,
16 are you careful when you speak about things? When you say, for instance,
17 that every family is seeking 20 of its male members, is this exaggeration
18 or what?
19 A. I did not say that each family was looking for 20 family members.
20 I just said it was not a normal thing for a person to lose 20 male family
21 members. I say that on the basis of the information I have. I didn't
22 say that that was the case for each and every family. Some persons say,
23 I have one family member missing; others say, I'm fortunate in not having
24 any of my family members missing. But it is a fact that this kind of
25 thing happened.
1 Q. 5830, that's the page I would like to draw your attention to.
2 Lines 7 and 8. I'm going to read it out in English because you probably
3 do not have the transcript with you.
4 This is part of your answer:
5 "[In English] But there isn't a single family in Zvornik, for
6 example, that hasn't 20 male members of its family missing ..."
7 [Interpretation] And I did a bit of arithmetic. Then the
8 population of Zvornik was 81.111. That is 24.000 families if three
9 members are an average.
10 JUDGE KWON: Just a second. I'm not sure whether the transcript
11 has been correctly translated because you overlapped.
12 Did you hear what you said in Krstic? I will read it out for
13 you, Ms. Ibrahimefendic.
14 This is what you said:
15 "But there isn't a single family in Zvornik, for example, that
16 hasn't 20 male members of its family missing ..."
17 That's the passage Mr. Karadzic is referring to.
18 What is your question, Mr. Karadzic?
19 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
20 Q. Is this an exaggeration, Ms. Ibrahimefendic?
21 A. I think -- well, I think there's something missing there. Is it
22 one person, is it 20 persons? But I cannot accept this. Maybe I was not
23 precise enough, as you said. But this does not correspond to reality
24 because 1.700 persons from Zvornik were missing. That the total number
25 of missing persons from Zvornik.
1 Q. Thank you. Out of 24.000 families, 1.700 persons are missing.
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Do you include Serbs in that figure?
4 A. The Serb association is separate so I don't have the information.
5 I heard that actually at a conference but I cannot tell you exactly now
6 what the figures were. Because there were associations of missing
7 persons who were ethnic Muslims, Croats and Serbs, but I cannot remember
8 the exact number now.
9 Q. Thank you. On page 5834, Judge Riad went on and asked you a
10 question about the difference. I'm going to read this out in English:
11 "[In English] So some of the women who had to bury their dead, so
12 they have that problem now as to the burial site of their family
13 members ..."
14 [Interpretation] Is this also incorrect? Is it correct that
15 Srebrenica victims were buried in Potocari?
16 A. Yes. But in 2000, when I said that, Potocari was not there. I
17 mean, it hadn't been established as such. I think the year was 2003.
18 That's when the burials in Potocari started.
19 Q. And then on the next page, 5835, you said that during the first
20 two days -- or, rather, on the first day of the evacuation, boys aged 10
21 to 12 boarded buses. And then, on the next day, children aged 12 and
22 older were no longer allowed to board buses.
23 What was the fate of these children who were 12 or younger? How
24 many of them were there; and where did they end up?
25 A. According to the information I have, these children are in mass
1 graves. Some have been identified. A few women who were very
2 traumatised were in our centre at that time. They had lost children who
3 were younger. On the basis of their statements and the statements of
4 other women that on the first day and the second day it was easier to
5 leave Potocari than it was on the third day, for instance.
6 Q. Thank you. Did you find out then how many mortal remains were
7 found of children aged 10 to 12?
8 A. We are a therapy and rehabilitation centre. We really do not
9 work on that kind of research. We attend conferences, we receive
10 information, but we do not consider this information to be part of our
11 own work. Things that we have to communicate. I don't know. I mean, I
12 don't deal with this. My team doesn't deal with this. The number of
13 exhumed persons, no. We treat people.
14 Q. Fair enough. Thank you. So this is information or data provided
15 by others; right?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Thank you. On page 5844, you mentioned that 75 persons were
18 killed in Srebrenica at the stadium when a shell fell. Do you know who
19 had fired that shell? Did anyone tell you anything about that?
20 A. No. I don't know. I did not ask who had fired that shell.
21 Rather, there were a few persons who had been at the stadium then, in
22 1993, who mentioned to me that several persons got killed in the stadium,
23 and they were very angry because these victims were not being mentioned
24 when the victims of 1995 were being mentioned. That's the only thing I
1 Q. Thank you.
2 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters did not hear the beginning of
3 Mr. Karadzic's question.
4 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Karadzic, could you repeat your question.
5 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation] I apologise.
6 Q. On page 5846, from lines 5 and 6 onwards, you say that these
7 treatments were successful. When a woman manages to express all her
8 emotions, the next time it's not that painful; right?
9 A. That is right. At one point, therapy is very successful.
10 However, if we take trauma as a process, and if we look at the problems
11 that have to be faced within the context involved, then she relives
12 everything that happened once again. Of course, she never reaches the
13 stage that she was in originally but there are certain problems. For
14 instance, if, on the 11th of July, there is going to be a burial in
15 Potocari, then that is when women exhibit more symptoms, or, for example,
16 when there are birthdays, anniversaries, et cetera. So there is
17 regression then. Of course, they never go back to the point where they
18 were when therapy had started, but there are now problems every now and
19 then. And they are not capable of dealing with them sometimes. That
20 means that they do need help for a long time.
21 Q. Thank you. On page 5851 you say that people who receive support
22 and therapy are very content, but the problem is that you cannot deal
23 with everyone; right?
24 A. Well, yes, that is right. A lot of people need help and there
25 are many groups that need help.
1 People do not recognise their reactions. They think that if they
2 do not share their pain and if they just remain silent - and this goes
3 for all ethnic groups - in some way something is going to happen. But
4 then they realise that nothing will happen and that they really have to
5 seek help. They have to share their pain. They have to see that they
6 are not alone. They have to become competent to deal with all of this.
7 Q. Thank you. And on the next page, 5852, you say that you had some
8 very good results among children who were treated in your centre, that a
9 great deal of progress was achieved in terms of their behaviour.
10 A. Well, that's true. Because we worked with the mothers at the
11 same time as well.
12 If we work with children separately, we do not have results that
13 are as good as they are when we work with the mothers too. The mothers
14 are pre-occupied with their existential problems. They are physically
15 present but emotionally absent, so working together yields better results
16 as far as children are concerned.
17 Q. Thank you. Do you agree, Ms. Ibrahimefendic, that all the
18 techniques that we know, starting with Freud psychoanalysis all the way
19 to Gestalt behavioural therapy and so on, were created in peacetime and
20 that the populations involved had not been through a war? These
21 therapies were developed among the general population.
22 A. I agree with you. But over the past ten years or so, we have
23 come to realise how much research is being done on trauma research. And
24 special techniques and methods have been developed in terms of working
25 with traumatised persons.
1 It is a fact that when the war broke out, we did not know how to
2 work with trauma victims. We could intervene in cases of crises
3 initially, but then what? So during the war, experts arrived from many
4 different parts of the world, from trauma centres, from Copenhagen, for
5 instance, and so on, and they trained us. So we learned how to deal with
6 traumatised persons, how to establish the right kind of relationship with
7 them, how to win their trust, and how to help these traumatised persons,
8 in general.
9 Working in the field of trauma is a special kind of work and does
10 not begin or end in the therapy room, if you will. Because everything
11 that happens around the persons involved seriously affect the patients,
12 and how.
13 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Karadzic, do you have more questions for this
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Three or four, Your Excellency,
16 very brief ones.
17 JUDGE KWON: I will consult the Registrar.
18 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
19 JUDGE KWON: With the indulgence, we will continue for
20 five minutes.
21 Could you conclude in five minutes? Yes, Mr. Karadzic.
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
23 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. I would like to ask you then - and I will try to phrase my
25 question so you can just answer with a yes or no - is it true that you
1 completed the intermediate medical school?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And then you worked as a nurse for how long?
4 A. I worked as a nurse for four years, but after that, I also worked
5 with children, because I had gone to the school of pedagogy and I worked
6 with children who were hospitalised over longer periods of time. They
7 were treated for diabetes or tuberculosis or asthma, and I provided
8 support to these kids because of their absence from school.
9 Q. Thank you. Now the pedagogic school, that is a college-level
10 school, correct? That's after your secondary education?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Then you graduated from the University of Sarajevo, the school of
13 psychology. Did you -- were you a full time student or a part-time
15 A. I was a part-time student in Sarajevo but we had classes in
16 Tuzla. This was a department that existed in Tuzla at the time.
17 Q. Thank you. You are not a clinical psychologist by background?
18 A. No. I had to undergo additional training for that,
19 psychotherapeutic training.
20 Q. Very well. Are you a war veteran and since when? Is this a
21 status that was awarded you?
22 A. Well, before the war, I worked at the clinical centre, and during
23 the war, too, I worked at the medical centre. In 1994, I worked
24 afternoons, four hours every afternoon with Vive Zene, and as of
25 March 1st, 1996, I left the medical centre and I began working at the
1 therapy and training centre. Now I did have a war-time work obligation,
2 but I do not have the status of a war veteran, as you said. I just did
3 my job at the hospital throughout those years.
4 Q. Yes. But did you receive the certificate, the well-known
5 certificate that was awarded people for their work during the war?
6 A. Well, we all were issued these certificates because we worked for
7 free during the war. We didn't receive any salaries or any pay, so
8 everyone who worked at the hospital during the war, including the
9 cleaning ladies, the porters, everyone, was issued these certificates.
10 Q. Is your certificate, certificate number -- or, rather, can you
11 tell us the number of your certificate?
12 A. Well, you are talking about money; correct?
13 Q. Well, yes. The certificate which allowed you to purchase an
14 apartment, for instance.
15 A. Well, no, I can't remember it. This was a certificate, I can't
16 recall what it was now, but I did use some of the money that I received
17 then to purchase an apartment, my husband and I. That is correct.
18 Q. Very well. Was this a certificate that you and your husband were
19 issued for your role during the war or your participation in the war?
20 A. Well, this was a certificate that was issued -- well, I don't
21 know. My late father was also -- he was a retired person, and he, too,
22 was issued a certificate, so I don't know what that would mean. My
23 mother wasn't issued any such certificate because she had never been
24 employed but my father did, although did he not take part in the war. He
25 did not have any role. I mean, he was there. I was in Tuzla --
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Excellencies, for
2 your patience.
3 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
4 Q. Thank you, Ms. Ibrahimefendic.
5 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
6 Yes, Mr. Tieger, do you have re-examination.
7 MR. TIEGER: No, Mr. President.
8 I do have one matter to inquire about unrelated to this witness's
9 testimony before the Court leaves the bench of about 30-seconds' worth, a
10 clarification from -- based on an order made by the Court earlier.
11 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
12 Ms. Ibrahimefendic, that concludes your evidence. On behalf of
13 my colleagues, I would like to thank you for your coming to The Hague to
14 give it. We'll rise all together.
15 Yes, Mr. Tieger.
16 MR. TIEGER: Thank you, Mr. President. I think it's clear from
17 the Court's order but I thought it best simply to confirm. When the
18 Court indicated that it wished to have a revised list of the witnesses,
19 the -- the 65 ter list, I understand that to mean just the list of
20 witnesses not accompanying summaries or anything else. You just want to
21 know what the list of witnesses -- you just want a list of witnesses to
22 know who they are.
23 JUDGE KWON: Is it not our practice whenever there's a change we
24 have a revised 65 ter witnesses list.
25 MR. TIEGER: I'm simply trying to avoid the unnecessary work that
1 accompanies the submission of the original list. All the parties and the
2 Court have all that information and simply provide the -- what's changed,
3 which is the -- the -- the witnesses themselves and file something
4 accordingly that assists the Court in that manner but doesn't entail
5 unnecessary work on the part of the Prosecution.
6 JUDGE KWON: We'll come back tomorrow morning.
7 Hearing is adjourned. We will resume tomorrow morning at 9.00.
8 [The witness withdrew]
9 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 3.06 p.m.,
10 to be reconvened on Friday, the 23rd day of March,
11 2012, at 9.00 a.m.