1 Wednesday, 2 May 2012
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness takes the stand]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.02 a.m.
6 JUDGE KWON: Good morning, everyone.
7 THE WITNESS: Good morning.
8 JUDGE KWON: Before we begin today, Mr. Tieger, yesterday the
9 accused filed his response to motion to admit testimony of Milan Tupajic
10 in which he opposes the Prosecution motion filed on 16th of April, 2012.
11 As the response raises challenges not covered in the motion including the
12 applicability of Rule 92 quinquies to this case, in light of Rule 6 (D)
13 of the Rules the Chamber wishes to know whether the Prosecution intends
14 to file a reply to the response.
15 MR. TIEGER: Yes, Mr. President. Thank you.
16 JUDGE KWON: When can we expect to see that motion filed,
17 Mr. Tieger?
18 MR. TIEGER: Well, I was in the process of attempting to
19 determine just that this morning. If I could give the Court a more
20 accurate indication during the course of the day. Obviously, we
21 understand, it's -- the Court would prefer this as soon as possible.
22 That's our intention but I wanted to be realistic about that as well and
23 so engage in some discussions aimed at making that determination as
24 precisely as possible.
25 JUDGE KWON: I'd like -- I would like that motion -- no reply to
1 be filed no later than Thursday, tomorrow, COB.
2 MR. TIEGER: I understand, Mr. President. Thanks.
3 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
4 Yes, Mr. Karadzic please continue.
5 Yes, Mr. Robinson.
6 MR. ROBINSON: Yes, excuse me, Mr. President. I would like to
7 address an issue with respect to the note verbale that was filed by
8 France yesterday. If we could just go into private session for a moment
9 to do that.
10 JUDGE KWON: Can we discuss it in the presence of this witness,
11 Mr. Robinson.
12 MR. ROBINSON: Yes, I'm sure we can. Yes.
13 JUDGE KWON: Very well. Could the Chamber move into private
14 session briefly.
15 [Private session] [Confidentiality lifted by order of Chamber]
16 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Robinson.
17 MR. ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President,
18 yesterday -- or, actually, on Friday the government of France filed a
19 confidential note verbale concerning our request to meet Milomir Stakic
20 and pursuant to the Trial Chamber's public invitation, and I have two
21 requests with respect to that. First, if you would order that it be
22 reclassified as public because there is no reason whatsoever that the
23 response should be filed confidentially and also if you would grant us
24 leave to reply so that we could propose how to go forward from the
25 impasse that appears to be reflected in the note verbale.
1 JUDGE KWON: As to the filing issue, whether in public or in
2 confidentiality, the Chamber will take a look.
3 So unless specifically indicated, so it seems prudent at the
4 moment you -- if you file your reply confidentially as well, for the time
6 Thank you.
7 Could we move back to open session.
8 [Open session]
9 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Karadzic.
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. Good morning,
11 Excellencies. Good morning to everyone.
12 WITNESS: EWA TABEAU [Resumed]
13 Cross-examination by Mr. Karadzic: [Continued]
14 Q. Good morning, Dr. Tabeau.
15 A. Good morning.
16 Q. I would like to ask you about an item. The description dating
17 back to 1991, was it recognised -- did it recognise Yugoslavs as a
18 special category? I'm talking about 1991 census.
19 A. As I mentioned earlier, ethnicity was an open-ended question.
20 That means any ethnicity could be reported by respondents, including
21 Yugoslavs. There was no specific definition of who is a Yugoslav and who
22 is not.
23 Q. Very well. However, in your analysis, you didn't single out
24 Yugoslavs as a separate category. You mixed them with everybody else;
1 A. They were part of the group called "others," together with
2 ethnicities different than three major groups: Muslims, Serbs, and
4 Q. Thank you. Do you agree that among those "others" Yugoslavs were
5 so numerous that they account to a two-third to even three fourths of
6 those others? Do you agree that it would have been more natural to add
7 the others to the Yugoslavs rather than vice versa?
8 A. I don't know exactly how many Yugoslavs were there among others.
9 Whether it was two-thirds or three-quarters, I don't know exactly. But
10 the point of my analysis was to produce figures for three major ethnic
11 groups, and for all remaining ethnic groups, there were also statistics
12 to keep the analysis complete. But I had no particular interest in
13 distinguishing from others, Yugoslavs and any other ethnicity reported
15 Q. In your experience, who are those Yugoslavs? What is their
17 A. You know, for me, they are Yugoslavs, exactly as reported in the
18 census. But, of course, depending who is telling me who are the
19 Yugoslavs, in some case, Yugoslavs will be Serbs, in some other case,
20 Croat, in some other cases, Muslims.
21 So, for me, they are Yugoslavs, as reported in the census.
22 Q. Very well. Thank you. According to your experience, in 1991
23 when Yugoslavia was breaking up, how many Serbs were among Yugoslavs, and
24 how many Croats, and how many Muslims?
25 A. Well, Yugoslavs, for me, are Yugoslavs. So it is, you know, how
1 people perceive themselves to be. They wanted to report them as
2 Yugoslavs. Many of them were persons from mixed marriages. Many of them
3 were people living in urban populations. They just didn't see them as
4 one or another ethnic group. They wanted to report Yugoslavs.
5 Q. With all due respect to your personality and your work, if you
6 hailed from Armis [phoen] you would say that this was Communist
7 propaganda. We have to look at the essence not the form. The form is
8 that those were people who were in favour of the preservation of
9 Yugoslavia by sacrificing their own ethnicity. However, did you notice
10 that that category was very volatile? From one census to the next, their
11 numbers changed. It did not have the usual dynamics in birth rate and
12 mortality rate as the other three peoples?
13 A. What is often forgotten, and you forget it as well, Mr. Karadzic,
14 is that Yugoslavs and other reports on ethnicity are very sensitive to
15 the formulation of this census question about ethnicity, and to the
16 instructions the interviewers received when questioning people about
18 The thing is that until 1971 census this wasn't an open question.
19 Interviewers were deciding for people how to record their ethnicity. It
20 changed since 1971. Since that moment, people could report whatever they
21 wanted. This, of course, had a very serious impact on the numbers
22 produced about ethnic groups. I recently saw a study in a journal,
23 scientific journal, in which changes in ethnicity, definition of
24 ethnicity, in the census were discussed. So it was not possible in this
25 particular study to analyse phenomena by ethnicity for the entire period
1 after the Second World War, starting with the first census, I think it
2 was in 1948, until, and including the census of 1991. It was only
3 possible to study ethnicity for the latest censuses that consistently
4 reported about ethnic groups and about Yugoslavs.
5 So what I'm trying to say, the definition of the question on
6 ethnicity in the census has a fundamental importance on the numbers
7 produced later. So if you don't look at the definition, you neglect the
8 definition, and you look at the numbers, then you analyse something that
9 is not, in fact, in the data. You have to take into account the
10 consistency of definition on ethnicity used throughout the censuses or
11 any other source studied.
12 Q. Thank you. I will be very honest, Dr. Tabeau, and very open.
13 230-something thousand people were Yugoslavs in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
14 Of that number, in 1991, probably as many as 200.000 were Serbs and when
15 you separate them and join them with the others who account for one third
16 or one fourth of that figure, then the picture, the ethnic structure you
17 are portraying is completely distorted; isn't that right?
18 A. Well, it isn't right, of course. What is the reason that you
19 consider people who reported themselves as Yugoslavs to be Serbs? That
20 cannot be done. This is changing the responses in the census. This
21 is -- there is no justification of it and it is not right. You may not
22 do that.
23 Q. Very well. However, not even you can merge a category which is
24 fully recognised by the census with the others. We all know only too
25 well who was in favour of Yugoslavia in 1991. Why didn't you portray
1 them separately? Instead of doing that, you joined them with a minority.
2 JUDGE KWON: Now you become argumentative. I think you've
3 exhausted this issue.
4 Let us move on.
5 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. Please look at chapter 2 and Table 2. Or, rather, chapter 2,
7 bullet point 1 where it is referred to the percentage of Muslims in
8 Bosnia and Herzegovina in the municipalities referred to in the
9 indictment against Karadzic. 41 per cent in 1991 and 32.8 in 1992 were
10 the percentages we discussed yesterday.
11 Did you establish what were the factors that had an impact on
12 that decrease?
13 MS. WEST: I think it will be easier if we go to the document,
14 P4994. E-court page 9.
15 JUDGE KWON: Thank you, Ms. West.
16 THE WITNESS: Okay. My answer to the question, whether I studied
17 factors that had an impact on this decrease, the answer is no, I didn't.
18 However, there is a study of displacement of ethnic groups in the same
19 report. So the change in ethnic composition should be looked at,
20 together with the results on displacement.
21 If I may have one more comment, yesterday we ended the day with a
22 question why it is 19.9 per cent decrease and not 20 per cent. I
23 checked, and, of course, this is what I -- was it was. It is a rounding
24 error. The 41 per cent in fact is 40.9552. So these kind of small
25 differences that cannot not be seen when only one decimal place is shown
1 are responsible for this kind of little things in the report.
2 JUDGE KWON: Thank you, Doctor.
3 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
4 Q. And that was about 8 percental points or 19.something per cent.
5 Did you establish the difference between the Muslims who remained living
6 in those Serbian municipalities and those who left?
7 A. As a matter of fact, yes. If we go to the section 2.2, there
8 will be minimum numbers of displaced Muslims given. So in the second
9 paragraph in this section, we see the number 161.047 persons.
10 So the rest of the 1997 Muslim population remained in the
11 territory. In order to see how large the rest was, we have to go to the
12 annex, to Table 2 for Muslims.
13 MS. WEST: E-court page 42.
14 THE WITNESS: So to the -- we don't see it on the screen yet. I
15 will wait.
16 So if we can enlarge the first row, information for the Karadzic
17 case area, in the third-last column we can find the number 161.047.
18 These are the displaced Muslims. But the entire Muslim population
19 identified in 1997 is 283.199. It's the number to the left from 161.000.
20 So from this table, you can also see that the fraction of
21 displaced people in 1997 in the Muslim population was 56.9 per cent; also
22 given in the same table, in the second-last column. Almost 57 per cent.
23 So the rest are those who stayed. That would be 43 per cent,
24 approximately. That is how you can find these numbers in the report,
25 but, obviously, the focus of the report is on displacement. Therefore,
1 the figures of displaced are discussed explicitly.
2 It is also useful to take a look at the presentation discussed
3 previously. If we go to page 2 of the presentation.
4 MS. WEST: P05010.
5 THE WITNESS: To Table 4 at the bottom of this page.
6 MS. WEST: It's the next page.
7 THE WITNESS: Table 4. In the second column where the minimum
8 number of IDPs and refugees is mentioned, there is for Muslims the number
9 161.047, just discussed, and next to it, we have statistics on displaced
10 persons from other ethnic groups. So there is a total of 286.972
11 displaced persons. Muslim -- persons of Muslim ethnicity are by all
12 means the largest group of the displaced persons.
13 This, of course, doesn't mean that every Muslim moved out. There
14 is a group who stayed as well.
15 So if it would be helpful to the Trial Chamber, I could make the
16 same table for those who stayed, to have both statistics at hand.
17 JUDGE KWON: Doctor, could you repeat the number of -- the total
19 THE WITNESS: The total number of -- minimum number of displaced
20 persons from the Karadzic case area is 286.972.
21 JUDGE KWON: It's not shown on this table.
22 THE WITNESS: It is shown on this table. In the last row, in the
23 last row, where the totals are given --
24 JUDGE KWON: Oh, yes.
25 THE WITNESS: -- it is shown in the second column at the bottom.
1 JUDGE KWON: Yes, I see now. Thank you.
2 THE WITNESS: Yes.
3 And, of course, these are minimum numbers as we obtained the
4 numbers from a sample; a large sample, but a sample.
5 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Karadzic.
6 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
7 Q. And this is a specifically selected area or part of Bosnia and
8 Herzegovina and in that specific part you express the figures in
10 Let's look at the second line which refers to Muslims. Is it
11 true that in 1991, there were 481.109 Muslims; is that correct?
12 A. In this particular area of 27 municipalities, that's the number
13 of Muslims reported, those born before 1980.
14 Q. And now let's look at the next three columns.
15 161.000 is a minimum number. The estimated number is 284.000.
16 Could you not establish that for a fact without any estimates?
17 How would you have arrived at 59 per cent? Wouldn't it not have been
18 easier to take that figure from the list of refugees?
19 A. I -- I'm not sure what is the question about. If you could
20 perhaps rephrase.
21 Q. Why did you use estimates in the third and the fourth columns
22 where it says 284.000, to the fifth column where it says 285.000? Did
23 you have at your disposal the register of refugees? Why did you not use
24 the specific documentation issued by the Muslim government about
1 A. For -- for the reasons we discussed yesterday, that it is
2 important to be able to produce an independent study that would
3 corroborate -- corroborate results from other sources, but, of course,
4 there were also practical reasons. The register of internally displaced
5 persons and refugees, the one of UNHCR, together with the government of
6 Bosnia and Herzegovina, had an information that was limited, for
7 instance, in regard to ethnicity of persons, which, for us, was a crucial
9 Secondly, the register that we had at our disposal reports the
10 situation as of the year 2000 which is even later than what we studied
11 based on the voters' registration. For these reasons, among others, we
12 rather used the sources like the population census and the voters'
14 Q. And you believe that an estimate or a calculation, even though
15 you did not analyse trend, is more precise than the data provided by
16 government organs?
17 A. Well, I analysed the sources that I analysed because I found them
18 reliable and meaningful and possible to be used in the analysis as ours.
19 By the way, I checked the size of the voters' register of 1996
20 that we discussed yesterday, so at some point, there was a hesitation
21 whether the size was bigger of this register than the register of 1997.
22 So in 1996 elections, there were 2.396.000 voters registered. So
23 2.4 million individuals. In 1997, it is many more. So participation
24 rate estimated for 1996 is 82 per cent. For 1997, it is 88 per cent.
25 Q. Can we please take a look at Table 2A entitled: "Democratic
1 changes in some municipalities in the Karadzic area." My page is 35, but
2 I probably mixed them up because I was add some remarks of my own.
3 While we are still on this issue, are you aware that in our law
4 there is a distinction between residence and domicile? In our
5 translation, it is said residence, but I'm asking you whether you know
6 there is a difference between those two categories. If you don't know
7 what the difference is, I can tell you.
8 A. Well, in demography, we call it de facto and de jure populations.
9 Q. For example, you know where Zvornik is and Rastocnica is a big
10 Serbian village close to Zvornik but belongs to Kalesija municipality.
11 Now the residence of that person is in Rastocnica while his domicile is
12 in Zvornik. How did you register such persons?
13 A. Then I must say that my understanding of de facto and de jure is
14 a different thing. I am afraid I don't understand what domicile is.
15 Q. Domicile is a place of permanent residence, whereas, residence is
16 where a person lives and exercise many of his or her rights. But
17 basically a person belongs to Rastocnica and in spite of the fact that he
18 has to exercise many of his rights in Zvornik, in actual fact?
19 A. In statistics, we have, as I mentioned, de facto and de jure
20 populations. Census in the former Yugoslavia, and including the 1991
21 census, was related to the de jure population. Households where
22 interviews were -- at the places where they lived, head of household
23 actually was asked to provide information about any members of this
24 household. Those who didn't live at this particular location were
25 reported by the household and included in the questionnaire.
1 Q. And once the war broke out, this person went back to his domicile
2 and then registered for elections in another municipality. How do we
3 solve a situation like that?
4 A. Well, there are two issues in the -- in the -- related to the
5 registration of voters.
6 The place of registration to vote is one thing, and there is
7 another item, another variable. It is the municipality they wanted to
8 vote for. So, in principle, people were supposed to vote for the
9 municipalities where they used to live in 1991. However, if somebody
10 became a displaced person, the person could vote as well for another
11 municipality, a municipality where, in the future, this person wanted to
12 settle down.
13 In my analysis, I didn't study the municipality they voted for
14 because it is not something not needed for my analysis. We studied the
15 place of registration, place of registration, the municipality of
16 registration, where people registered to vote. So this is a different
17 item and has nothing to do with the voters' rights, any other rights
18 people exercise at that time in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
19 Q. Uh-huh. But do you believe that a person could register in one
20 municipality and go to vote in another municipality? Wasn't a normal
21 situation that people registered themselves and voted in one and the same
22 municipality instead of sending their ballot papers by mail as people
23 did, people who lived abroad?
24 A. I believe registration is a process that took place before the
25 actual election, so I'm not interested in what was happening at the time
1 of election, when the actual voting was taking place. I'm looking at the
2 registration to vote. And there were strict rules established by OSCE
3 for the purpose of registration and for the purpose to prevent fraud. As
4 I'm saying, people actually had -- could register in the municipality
5 where they lived and voting could be later in person or by absentee
6 ballot. It really doesn't interest me. It is the place of registration
7 that I study because it is an approximation of the place of residence.
8 Q. But that was impossible, Dr. Tabeau. It wasn't possible for a
9 person to register, for example, in Brcko and then go to vote in
10 Banja Luka. You could only vote in the place where you are registered.
11 So if you're a refugee in Brcko and you wish to vote for
12 Banja Luka, the only way to do that is to register in Banja Luka; is that
13 correct, in your opinion?
14 A. Well, people could register, once again, wherever they lived, and
15 they had to register to vote in order to be able to vote. They could
16 register in Brcko to vote for Banja Luka. That is possible according to
17 the OSCE rules.
18 In order to vote for Banja Luka, a person either had to live
19 there by the time of 1991 census and be listed on the census of the
20 Banja Luka population, or, if it was a displaced person who didn't want
21 to return to Banja Luka, the person could register to vote for another
23 The municipality of future residence, in this case, the person
24 had to prove that it was possible for this person to settle down in this
25 future municipality of residence. All this is regulated in the election
1 procedures that was established by the OSCE and then monitored in the
2 course of elections.
3 Actually, the regulations were less strict in 1996 elections. So
4 in 1996 elections, the procedure was deficient and made it possible for
5 people to register to vote for several municipalities. And -- that was a
6 very well-known fact. And based on the experience from 1996 election,
7 the OSCE improved the regulations in order to prevent exactly this case.
8 But all this has nothing to do with the place of registration to
9 vote in 1997 elections. People had to register first in order to vote,
10 and what we used in our study is the place of registration to vote.
11 Q. But, Dr. Tabeau, let's clarify one thing.
12 If you have a person registering in Brcko and wants to vote in
13 Banja Luka, in which voters' register is this person registered? In
14 Brcko or in Banja Luka, regardless of whether he sent his registration to
15 Banja Luka or went there in person, which means that he doesn't exist in
16 the Brcko voters' register because he doesn't want to vote in the
17 municipality of Brcko?
18 A. Well, again, if this person lived in Brcko, as a displaced
19 person, and went to the registration centre next to his house in Brcko,
20 the person will be registered in Brcko. And this is all that matters,
21 for me.
22 Q. But it will not be registered in Brcko, but, rather, in
23 Banja Luka. There's no mention of this person in Brcko. He is going to
24 vote for Banja Luka, regardless of where he is registered. And this can
25 be a source of serious confusions if you believe that this person was
1 actually registered in Brcko. Maybe you had been given erroneous
3 MS. WEST: Mr. President, Your Honours --
4 THE WITNESS: I would like to comment on this, please.
5 MS. WEST: Doctor Tabeau, hold on a moment.
6 THE WITNESS: Okay.
7 MS. WEST: We have been over this subject for about 20 minutes,
8 and I don't understand -- it's unclear to me whether perhaps the accused
9 is misunderstanding what has been stated, but Dr. Tabeau several times
10 has indicated that the only thing that mattered to her in her study and
11 the only fact she took into consideration was where the person registered
12 and that's important because that shows that that person is in a
13 different location in 1997 than they were in 1991. For whom they voted
14 for or for which town they wanted to vote in is irrelevant to the study
15 at all, so --
16 JUDGE KWON: There seems to be confusion as to the place where --
17 used to be where the voter is to register. So, Doctor, I think -- that
18 seems to be pointed out. Why don't we let her continue.
19 MS. WEST: Thank you, Mr. President.
20 THE WITNESS: Yeah, my comment is that related to the operation,
21 way of operation of OSCE. During the 1997 elections, OSCE was extremely
22 well prepared this time to be able to check every eligible voter from the
23 point of view where they lived in 1991 because they had a complete list
24 of eligible voters in every registration office. So it was a huge
25 material printed census where people were listed, eligible voters were
1 listed, and it was possible to check from Brcko where the person lived in
3 So if the person lived in 1991 in Banja Luka, the person was
4 checked and registered as a voter from Banja Luka, that is, entitled to
5 vote for Banja Luka or a future municipality of residence according to
6 his choice. But the place of registration will be still Brcko.
7 So, in my view, there is absolutely no confusion about the place
8 of registration at all.
9 JUDGE KWON: So one can vote in other place than the place he
10 lives currently, only if he was registered in 1991 election.
11 THE WITNESS: So the previous --
12 JUDGE KWON: In the 1991 census.
13 THE WITNESS: Yeah. The precondition to vote and register to
14 vote was the fact of being registered in the 1991 census. And the place
15 of residence from the 1991 census was also part of the registration
16 procedure. Place -- these were municipal elections. People were
17 extremely motivated to participate because they were electing local
18 parliament. The people who will be at power after the election will end.
19 So if you used to live in a municipality in, like Banja Luka, and you had
20 your house there, and you became a displaced person, you were obviously
21 interested to return to your house. So disregarding where you ended
22 after the war, likely if you were a Muslim from Banja Luka, you ended in
23 a place in the Federation with your family or friends or in a collective
24 centre for refugees and displaced persons.
25 You could vote from there. You could register there where you
1 lived without travelling on the bus, or whatever else, and vote for your
2 own municipality, from the place you stayed at that time of elections.
3 Travel was very complicated at that time. It was not safe for all
4 displaced persons to travel back to their homes and register and vote
5 there. So this procedure OSCE developed was based on the actual
6 realities in the country at that period.
7 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Karadzic.
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
9 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
10 Q. Let's just clarify one thing. If we have a person from
11 Banja Luka registered in Zenica and he voted for Banja Luka, how did you
12 count this person as being residing in Banja Luka?
13 A. Well, if the person resided in Zenica and registered in Zenica,
14 the person is taken as registered in Zenica. At -- really, we should
15 forget about, you know, the municipalities they voted for because this
16 wasn't studied and this is an issue that is a separate issue. It only
17 confuses the matter. We should really keep in mind that we looked at the
18 place of registration where they registered to vote.
19 Q. Thank you. But hundreds of thousands of voters who were
20 registered in the US, Canada, European countries and voted for their
21 respective municipalities, in which category did you put these people?
22 A. These were out-of-country voters. They had the opportunity to
23 vote in the countries where they were staying at the time of elections.
24 There is a separate category developed for them by the OSCE and procedure
25 that was used in the election. So disregarding where they were living at
1 the time of 1991 census in Bosnia, they could register from abroad and
2 actually several hundreds thousands of out-of-country voters registered
3 in 1997 election.
4 Q. And they registered in New York City or in Salt Lake City, for
5 example, because there are many of them. However, they did not appear in
6 person. And you never included them in the tables because one has to
7 bear in mind the fact that the majority of those who left for the US and
8 other parts of America were Muslims but we don't see them here.
9 A. They are included in the tables as a joint category of internally
10 displaced persons and refugees. I always used in the report IDPs and
11 refugees jointly.
12 Of course, the first category, internal displacement, is a much
13 larger component than the out-of-country voters. In the Milosevic
14 report, Slobodan Milosevic report, there are several tables where this
15 figure, joint number of internally displaced and refugees, is broken down
16 into separately internal displacement and refugees.
17 Refugees are underrepresented though - that means out-of-country
18 voters are underrepresented, though - in my statistics, because the
19 participation rate was not as high as for people who lived at the time of
20 elections in the region of the former Yugoslavia.
21 Q. But for the elections in Bosnia-Herzegovina, particularly during
22 the first two or three elections, we had numerous sacks of ballot papers
23 that had arrived from abroad. But if you did not count those Muslims who
24 were the majority, there were, of course, some Serbs and Croats, then we
25 have lesser number of Muslims. How did it happen that there were so many
1 people scattered around the world and they were registered in different
2 countries? How can we find these persons?
3 Now let us look at chapter 6, Table 2A, which refers to Muslims.
4 Let's take an example, a municipality.
5 MS. WEST: This is e-court 24.
6 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
7 Q. Please take a look, for example, at Kljuc where I put an asterisk
8 next to. In your opinion, how many Muslims lived in Kljuc in 1997,
9 according to this table?
10 A. Well, this table doesn't report on 1997. It is only for 1995
11 that there is a number reported, and this number is 1.211.
12 Q. But there are some entries for 1997 as well. Am I right? There
13 are percentages.
14 A. Yes. For this, we have to go to my report, to Table 1 for
16 MS. WEST: E-court 30.
17 THE WITNESS: Or perhaps Table 2 for Muslims. The same number is
18 there. It is easier because we discussed this table already.
19 MS. WEST: 42.
20 THE WITNESS: So next page, please. And row 12.
21 Kljuc is a split municipality, and, therefore, two parts are
22 reported separately. Federation part is the first component. And
23 Kljuc Ribnik, it is the RS part, is the second component.
24 So if we go to the population of Muslims in 1997, which is the
25 fourth -- the middle column, actually. So in RS, there were only 21
1 persons identified; and 8.433 in the federal part.
2 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. Thank you. So if we look at this table where it says that Kljuc
4 had .1 per cent of Muslims in 1997 is incorrect; right?
5 I was referring to the previous table that we looked at under
6 chapter 6.
7 A. I think it is correct because what is given in the Table 2A for
8 Muslims, for 1997, takes only the RS part into account.
9 MS. WEST: Back to page 24.
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we have the next page. I think
11 it's page 25 in chapter 6.
12 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
13 Q. Let us look at how the Serbs and the Croats were registered in
14 these municipalities.
15 A. Well, I am not sure that everybody understands what is the
16 per cent mentioned in Table 2A for 1997 .01 per cent. It is the number
17 of Muslims that stayed in Kljuc, in the RS part of Kljuc, related to all
18 Muslims from Kljuc identified in 1997. Because the number of displaced
19 was 19, the number who stayed is obviously 2; very small. I'm talking
20 about the annex table, 2M.
21 JUDGE KWON: Shall we go back to page 43 briefly.
22 So could you explain to us how the per cent of .1 can be reached
23 from table.
24 THE WITNESS: Yes. So in the RS part of Kljuc, in total, 21
25 Muslims are reported for 1997.
1 JUDGE KWON: So --
2 THE WITNESS: Of them, 19 are displaced, so are gone, moved out.
3 JUDGE KWON: Mm-hm.
4 THE WITNESS: So just 2 remain in the same territory. 2 divided
5 by 21, that's the per cent.
6 JUDGE KWON: That's 10 per cent.
7 THE WITNESS: Oh. That is correct.
8 JUDGE KWON: How do you come to 0.1 per cent.
9 THE WITNESS: Perhaps it is a mistake in presentation here in
10 this table. I will check this.
11 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
12 THE WITNESS: Yeah.
13 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
14 Q. Do you know that the Serbian municipality of Kljuc, or, rather,
15 Kljuc Ribnik in Republika Srpska consists of exclusively Serbian
16 villages, and Ribnik not even in 1991 were there a lot of Muslims there?
17 Did you establish how many Muslims were there in that part that
18 eventually was given to Republika Srpska after the Dayton Accords were
20 A. Well, all I could establish is in this report. So I can again
21 refer to the same table, 2M, or 1M. This is the table for Muslims.
22 First one, 1M, reporting on the ethnic composition, and the second one on
23 displacement, so from which we can take the numbers.
24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we look at page 25 to see what
25 the situation with the Serbs was in these nine municipalities.
1 Thank you.
2 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. For example, let's look at Bosanska Krupa, and let's see how many
4 Serbs were there in 1997.
5 A. So if we can go to page 38, this is Table 1S, for Serbs.
6 Q. I apologise. And what about this table that we have just had on
7 the screen? What does it say to us?
8 Does this table say that in Bosanska Krupa, in 1995, Serbs were
9 the 100 percent population; in 1997, they were 99.5 per cent?
10 A. I'm thinking now what exactly these percentages show.
11 JUDGE KWON: We can see that number in e-court page 39.
12 So here we see 99.5 per cent in -- in the row of RS part of
13 Bosanska Krupa.
14 THE WITNESS: Yeah, I think it is -- well, this 100 per cent for
15 1991 -- 1995, I'm not sure, but I think was reported by the authorities,
16 RS authorities, who compiled these figures. I don't remember this. I
17 have to check this. So that would be 95 per cent. 100 per cent.
18 And 99.5 is the per cent that is given from this report for the
19 RS part of Bosanska Krupa, which can be found in Table 1S on the screen.
20 It is number 3, row number 3. Bosanska Krupa has three components, two
21 of them belong to the Federation, and the last one is Republika Srpska.
22 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
23 Q. Dr. Tabeau, do you know that only the village of Hasani was left
24 to Republika Srpska out of all of Bosanska Krupa and it is simply because
25 the great Serbian author Branko Copic hails from there? So there is no
1 reference whatsoever to Serbs in Bosanska Krupa, whereas Krupa on the Una
2 was renamed, and it had to do with the right bank of the Una river
3 because the Serbs did not accept this adjective "Bosanska."
4 How did that happen? Here it says that 99.6 per cent of Serbs
5 are present. That would mean that there should be 2.690 Serbs and
6 perhaps there are not even 26 of them left there.
7 A. Well, I don't want to comment on what you said about what
8 happened in these territories because I'm not familiar with this kind of
9 events. I can only comment on the numbers that you gave us, and, again,
10 the numbers from my report are telling us about the RS component, the
11 little component of pre-war Bosanska Krupa that in 1991 had only a
12 population of 4.478 people, as reported in Table 1S. Of those, in 1997,
13 980 were identified as Serbs. I'm sorry. 975 were identified as Serbs.
14 Sorry. Yes. And the entire population identified for this territory in
15 1997 was 980. So almost all of them of these identified individuals who
16 previously lived in this territory, almost all of them, 99.5 per cent,
17 were Serbs.
18 JUDGE KWON: So that means the whole population in that part was
19 reduced to 20 per cent.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Why 20 per cent?
21 JUDGE KWON: From 4500 to --
22 THE WITNESS: Yes. But this is a sample, 980. It is not that we
23 can take 980 as a complete population.
24 JUDGE KWON: Thank you, yes.
25 THE WITNESS: This is a sample we are discussing. And we can
1 relate the statistics, sample statistics, to each other, and this is what
2 I have done when producing this 99.5 per cent of Serbs on this territory,
3 as seen from the perspective of voters' data.
4 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
5 Q. May I ask you something? Is it correct that you said, for
6 example, this third one, Bosanska Krupa, Krupa Na Uni, the total
7 population according to the census of 1991 is 4.000, et cetera, and there
8 were 2.690 Serbs out of that total figure; is that right?
9 A. This is what it says in this table, for the 1991 census
11 Q. Thank you. In 1997, you say that 975 per cent [as interpreted]
12 of the population are Serbs so your finding is that the number of Serbs
13 increased from 2690 to 975. Well, that certainty doesn't look like an
14 increase to me.
15 A. And that how it has to be. Because for 1991 we have a complete
16 segment of the population, from the census. It is those born before
17 1980, all of them, as reported in the census.
18 In 1997 we work with a sample with those voters who registered to
19 vote. So there is a group who did not register to vote. It is the
20 12 per cent of the voters' population eligible to vote, did not register.
21 So 980 overall population in 1997 is a sample of the 1991 population.
22 975 Serbs reported here is a sample of 2.690. It's a sample. But it's a
23 big sample that can be used to estimate the fraction of Serbs in 1997 in
24 this territory. And this fraction is 99.5 per cent compared with
25 60 per cent in 1991 census.
1 So there is a significant increase in the fraction of Serbs in
3 Q. Where did these Serbs live in 1997? Did you establish that they
4 lived in Krupa or did they report from somewhere to vote in Krupa but
5 none of them actually lived in Krupa?
6 A. Well, it is again the same issue of voting for and registering
7 in. As I said previously, it is all registered in this territory
8 reported here.
9 Q. But, Dr. Tabeau, Serbs from the Serb Bosanska Krupa are simply no
10 longer there anymore in 1995 and onwards. There are no three parts. All
11 of Bosanska Krupa belonged to the Federation then.
12 Now let us look at the table in chapter 6, C, Serbs. Let us go
13 back to that. Let us see what this looks like. Petrovac. What is the
14 situation in Bosanski Petrovac? Can you tell us, while we're still on
15 this topic, what the situation was with regard to Bosanski Petrovac?
16 Line 5. Municipality 5.
17 MS. WEST: Page 25.
18 THE WITNESS: So I want to make a comment about the
19 municipalities studied in this report.
20 We used the list of municipalities as defined in the post-Dayton
21 classification of municipalities in Bosnia. This classification scheme
22 was obtained from the OSCE and it was the same one that was used in the
23 1997 elections. But this is a dynamic system, it is possible that
24 certain municipalities were redefined in a later time. So what is in my
25 tables in the report, municipalities report, is consistent with the OSCE
1 classification scheme for municipalities at that time.
2 Going back to the table on the screen, on Serbs and
3 Bosanski Petrovac for 1995, there is a number of 14.550 reported by the
4 Serb authorities, RS authorities. And the per cent of Serbs in the 1995
5 population based on RS sources is 99.7 per cent. And the number in the
6 next column for 1997, 99 per cent, can be -- can be found in Table 1S,
7 Bosanski Petrovac.
8 MS. WEST: Page 39.
9 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
10 Q. Please take a look -- please go ahead. Please do go ahead?
11 A. I just wanted to take everybody to the 99 percent in this table,
12 for Bosanski Petrovac, for the RS part of Petrovac. It's in the
13 second-last column. Petrovac RS it given 99 per cent.
14 So these two are quite consistent.
15 Q. So in Bosanski Petrovac in 1997, were there 99 per cent Serbs or
16 were there not that many Serbs?
17 A. So this is what we can read in Table 1S. In 1997, there were
18 99 per cent of Serbs in the sample, 1997 sample, used in the study for
19 the RS part of Petrovac.
20 Q. That's a village that's called Drinic. In 1991, there was a
21 population of 261 and then in 1997, 205.
22 So in Bosanski Petrovac itself, 99.1 of the Serb population is
23 missing, right, in the area that came to belong to the Federation; right?
24 A. I don't know. Where do you read that 99.1 of the person Serb
25 population is missing? If you can please tell.
1 Q. Well, this table that have on the screen now, Bosanski Petrovac,
2 and then Bosanski Petrovac in the Federation. The part in the
3 Federation, I mean. It has 23 Serbs out of those thousands. 11.000,
4 whatever. There are 23 Serbs left. So that is minus 99.1 per cent.
5 There aren't there [as interpreted]. Almost 100 per cent is the figure
6 of those who are no longer there.
7 A. Mr. Karadzic refers to the row above the one for the Petrovac RS.
8 There are, in this row, for all ethnicity, the sample in 1997 is 3.415,
9 of which 23 were Serbs. A very small per cent indeed, 0.7 per cent, not
10 even 1 per cent.
11 And my answer is, yes, that that is how it was.
12 So the population movements, what we see for Petrovac, is not
13 unusual. The population movements were having the opposite direction for
14 those who were living in the RS and were moving to the Federation, and
15 those who were living in the Federation and moving to RS. So it is
16 easily understood if we think of what happened. The Dayton line divided
17 certain areas into two parts: One was in RS; and one was in the
18 Federation. And people, in order to feel safe, were crossing the Dayton
19 line and going to their own people.
20 I think this picture will be seen for many more municipalities.
21 And if we go to the presentation that we discussed earlier, to page 2 of
22 this presentation --
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we please take a look at
24 chapter 6, Table B for Croats.
25 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
1 Q. While we're waiting for that, Dr. Tabeau, how can we use this
2 study in this criminal case? Who are we to hold accountable for what
3 happened? The civil war or one of the parties? Because if it's the
4 civil war that stands accused, I will join you in that. But what is the
6 MS. WEST: Objection.
7 JUDGE KWON: Not -- it's not for the witness to answer that
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, the witness said that she did
10 not deal with establishing responsibility. However, the OTP called her
11 with good reason and included a vast number of tables and 11 studies. So
12 I'm interested in that.
13 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
14 Q. Please look at this. 1995 in Banja Luka. There's 10.500 Croats
15 out of a population of 29.000, which was the case in 1991, as far as the
16 Croat population is concerned; right?
17 A. Right.
18 Q. That is 6.8 per cent, whereas in 1997 it is 2.6 per cent. From
19 Dayton until 1997, two-thirds of the Croats left from Banja Luka.
20 Percentage-wise that was less than in the period from 1991 to 1995;
22 A. Well, I -- I think that you are mixing up certain percentages.
23 It is, first of all, I don't know how do you know that two-thirds
24 of the Croats left from Banja Luka. And more certainly the 6.8 and 2.6
25 are different percentages that have nothing to do with those who left
1 here presented in this table. So I think it would be really useful to be
2 specific about what number you are discussing.
3 Q. The first column that involves the Croats. 14.8 per cent in 1991
4 and in 1995 they accounted for 6.8 per cent. That is to say, 10.000 in
5 relation to 29.000. So one-third remained. In 1997, again, one-third
6 had remained from the population that was there when Dayton was signed.
7 We're speaking in relative terms.
8 A. Well, you -- you can, indeed, compare 1991 number of Croats,
9 29.026, with 10.500, but this has nothing to do with 6.8 per cent which
10 is a different measure of a different thing. So obviously the number of
11 Croats in Banja Luka dropped, and considerably so. There is no doubt
12 about it. This is what we see based on the RS sources. But the
13 6.8 per cent is a measure of ethnic composition. It is how many Croats
14 were there among all ethnicities in Banja Luka in 1995. It is a
15 different presentation from what we see in my report and should be read
16 also in a different way.
17 Q. All right. But it is quite clear here that in the general
18 population there were 14.8 per cent in 1991. And then in 1995 they were
19 6.8 per cent in the general population. And in 1997 they were
20 2.6 per cent in the general population; right?
21 A. Yes, in Banja Luka.
22 Q. Percentage-wise in relative terms, this decrease from 6.8 to 2.6
23 is that not greater than the one from 14.8 to 6.8?
24 A. Well, I think it is a misreading of this table. For sure, this
25 table is not meant as a summary of the trend of what happened between
1 1995 and 1997. This table addresses a different issue, the issue of what
2 was happening between 1991 and the end of the war, 1995, and whether
3 figures from sources reporting on this provide a similar or different
4 picture compared with what was produced in -- in my report.
5 It is relevant to see how many people moved out from these
6 municipalities as of early 1993 and how many of them were reported at the
7 end of the war in 1995 and how their ethnic composition changed already
8 by 1995 as presented by the RS sources. So 1997 figures are not included
9 here as an expression of the trend between 1995 and 1997. It is just a
10 separate measurement, separate analysis, coming from a completely
11 different source than the RS sources, yet the numbers produced are
13 There is some uncertainty about these numbers, of course, so we
14 cannot compare them directly and tell that the trend was from 1995 to
15 1997, this changed like that. So I think the intention of this
16 presentation was completely different. Moreover, the RS sources were not
17 used by me and my colleagues to produce statistics on displacement.
18 Here, they are included for illustrative purposes of what was happening
19 as recorded by RS authorities during the war already.
20 JUDGE KWON: However, Doctor, in answer to the question of
21 Mr. Karadzic can you not see here from this table that ratio of Croat
22 people in Banja Luka has been reduced in 1997 compared to the situation
23 in 1995?
24 THE WITNESS: Yes, I can see that.
25 JUDGE KWON: Yes, the answer could be yes.
1 THE WITNESS: Okay. I can see that, but I still have some doubts
2 about the 6.8 per cent because the measurement was very approximate.
3 This is not a methodology that can be taken as a source to produce exact
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Excellency, I see that you're
6 mindful of the time.
7 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. But let me just ask this: Do we agree that 14.8 per cent
9 compared to 6.8 per cent is less of a difference than if we compare 6.8
10 to 2.6. That means that in relative terms there is a larger decline in
11 the shares of the Croats in the general population from 1995 to 1997 than
12 from 1991 to 1995.
13 That can be calculated easily. Say, 1.1 or 1.3, and here it's
14 basically 1 to 3.
15 A. I can't comment on it because I don't fully follow what
16 Mr. Karadzic is calculating. What is the 14.8 per cent, for instance?
17 Q. That is the share of Croats in the general population in 1991.
18 6.8 is the share of the Croat population in the general population in
19 1995. And 2.6 is the share of the Croats in the general population in
21 So I'm saying that the decline is less when we compare 14.8 to
22 6.8, rather than 6.8 to 2.6. Is that right or is that not right?
23 A. Yes, it's right. Yeah.
24 Q. Thank you.
25 JUDGE KWON: We'll take a break for half an hour and resume at
2 --- Recess taken at 10.34 a.m.
3 --- On resuming at 11.07 a.m.
4 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Karadzic.
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
6 Can I please ask for addendum B3 to be shown, demographic changes
7 of the population in the area relating to some of the municipalities
8 comprised by this case. That's Table B3.1.
9 THE WITNESS: Your Honour.
10 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Doctor.
11 THE WITNESS: While waiting for the right table may I comment on
12 the problem with Kljuc we discussed before the break.
13 We were looking at a wrong table. If we go to the right table in
14 the annex, which is Table 1M, for Kljuc, that we can find the right
15 number which is 0.1 per cent.
16 JUDGE KWON: Very well. Shall we see that table first? Could
17 you give us the number.
18 Yes, Ms. West.
19 MS. WEST: It's page 31.
20 JUDGE KWON: Oh, yes.
21 THE WITNESS: So if we go to RS part of Kljuc there was a
22 population in 1997 of 4.250 of all ethnicities and only 4 Muslims, which
23 give us the 0.1 per cent.
24 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
25 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
1 Q. But can we agree there were only 365 of them in 1991, and can we
2 also agree that this is a rural area that was abandoned by the Muslims?
3 That was not part of the urban area; right?
4 A. Well, I didn't study the character of these areas, whether they
5 were rural, urban and how the orientation changed. So I can't say.
6 Q. But do we agree that the number of the Serbs was halved in the
7 section of Kljuc that was given to the Serbs? The total was 8.200 minus
8 365, which means that in 1991 there were around 8.000-and-something
9 Serbs; whereas, in -- can you please help us -- yes. 4.250 in 1997.
10 Which means that the number of Serbs was also halved; right?
11 JUDGE KWON: That's a sample. Did she not say those are sample
12 numbers for 1997, Mr. Karadzic?
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I don't think so, Your Excellency.
14 Because this is an estimate of the overall population. They may have
15 made their estimates based on a sample, but this estimate relates to the
16 entire population.
17 THE WITNESS: 1997 figures is a sample. 1995 figures coming from
18 the RS sources, I understand is not a sample.
19 JUDGE KWON: Yes. This row says "1997 sample population."
20 THE WITNESS: Yes.
21 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
22 Q. But correct me if I'm wrong, based on a sample you estimated the
23 overall population of Serbs in Ribnik; is that correct? This is not a
24 sample. The sample was used as a basis for estimating the overall
1 A. Well, any figure for 1997 comes from a sample. I have never
2 estimated the overall population size in 1997 using the sample. I
3 estimated ethnic composition from that sample and numbers of displaced
4 persons and refugees as minimum numbers. It is a different type of
5 number than overall number.
6 Q. Again, it's not clear. What is 4.250? Is that a sample or is
7 that a figure that you reached based on a sample? And what was the size
8 of the sample?
9 A. If you can take me to the figure of 4.250, please. Where is it?
10 Q. Kljuc Ribnik 1997. Of 8.142 in 1997, this figure dropped to
11 900 ... to 4.250.
12 So how did you reach this figure?
13 Second line: .12 Ribnik, Republika Srpska, the total population
14 in 1997 of all ethnicities is 4.250, whereas, this figure itself does not
15 represent a sample. This is something that you reached on the basis of
16 the census.
17 A. I'm sorry, I am looking at the right table, which is Table 2S,
18 page 51 of my report --
19 Q. Please look at the screen. I'm referring to the one that is
20 currently on the screen.
21 MS. WEST: I think the confusion as Mr. Karadzic was talking
22 about the Serbs. This is a Muslim table. If we want to talk about the
23 Serbs, we need to go to the Serb table.
24 THE WITNESS: Yeah.
25 JUDGE KWON: Still, that all ethnicities -- numbers in all
1 ethnicities -- I'm sorry. Ethnicities. Represent sample numbers.
2 THE WITNESS: Yes, yes, yes.
3 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation].
4 Q. How can a sample exceed 50 per cent? How is a sample selected?
5 And what does it represent?
6 A. Well, we discussed very -- in a great detail how the sample was
7 created. It is the voters' register of 1997 that was created by the
8 OSCE, and a copy of which we received for our analysis. It's a sample of
9 2.5 million for 1997 individuals. That is how the sample was created.
10 If you distribute the numbers of voters from this sample
11 according to municipalities and ethnicity, and, of course, you -- first,
12 matched those records with the population census, this is how these
13 numbers, as those on the screen, were obtained. But it is a sample.
14 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
15 Q. But, please, what we see on the screen, Table 1M, we can see that
16 there were 8.142 inhabitants in Ribnik in 1991 out of which number there
17 were only 365 Muslims.
18 In 1997, the total number dropped to 4.250 with 4 Muslims only.
19 It doesn't matter that this relates to the Muslims. One can clearly see
20 that the drop in the number of Serbs is more than 50 per cent; is that
22 A. Well, this table is for -- for the Muslims. And 1997 data is a
23 sample. So you can't compare the absolute numbers from 1991 with that of
24 1997. For Kljuc Ribnik, for 1991, it is 8.142, and you can compared this
25 number with 4.250; overall size you are saying in 1997. This is not
1 correct. This is not the overall size in 1997. It is a sample for 1997.
2 Q. The sample of those registered to vote; right?
3 A. Yes. Those registered to vote and matched with the -- with their
4 census records.
5 Q. And how many Serbs were there in Ribnik in 1997?
6 A. So then we have to move to the Table 1S.
7 JUDGE KWON: Page, Ms. West.
8 THE WITNESS: Page 39.
9 JUDGE KWON: E-court 40, probably.
10 THE WITNESS: Then for Kljuc Ribnik, we can read the number of
11 Serbs is 4.207 out of 4.250 in the sample, which is 99 per cent.
12 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
13 Q. But in 1991, there was 7.686 Serbs. How many were there in 1997?
14 A. I can't say.
15 Q. Thank you.
16 A. At least --
17 Q. Thank you. Can we now look at Addendum B3, please.
18 Table B3.1.
19 MS. WEST: 105.
20 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. Let us look at the first table. Can we agree that in 1991 there
22 were 28.558 Muslims and 29.026 Croats in Banja Luka; correct?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And 106.000 Serbs.
25 Now let's look to the 1995 column. We have 10.000 Muslims,
1 10.500 Croats, and 125.000 Serbs; correct?
2 A. Correct.
3 Q. Do we agree that the percentage of the participation of Muslims
4 and Croats in the overall population is affected by two factors: Number
5 one, the real decrease of Muslims and Croats by two-thirds as a result of
6 their departure; and, secondly, a relatively increased number of Serbs by
7 two -- 19.000; is that correct?
8 A. Not entirely, but in big lines. I think the ethnic composition
9 is an effect of changes in every ethnic group specified in this table.
10 Q. Thank you. But 14.6 Muslims and 14.8 Croats in 1995 the
11 percentages are 6.4 and 6.8, respectively. It was affected by two
12 factors: The real drop in the number of Muslims and Croats and the real
13 increase of the number of Serbs, and it all had an impact on relative
14 numbers; is that correct?
15 A. Well, as I said, in big lines, it is correct.
16 Q. Thank you. Do we see, then, in the period 1997/1998, the
17 percentage of Muslims and Croats dropped to 2.1 per cent and 2.6
18 per cent, respectively?
19 A. Yes. This is what is given here.
20 Q. Thank you. If we are now going to draw certain conclusions, the
21 first drop from 14.6 to 6.4 was caused by the war. Can we agree that the
22 decrease from 6.4 to 2.1 was the result of the Dayton Agreements,
23 according to which people had liberty to choose where to live?
24 MS. WEST: Objection.
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] On what grounds? I don't see it.
1 She is a demographic statisticians. She draws conclusions based on
3 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
4 Q. Okay. I will put the question this way: How do you interpret
5 the fact that between 1995 and 1997, it dropped by two thirds? What was
6 cause -- the cause of that? If the first drop was caused by the civil
7 war, what was the cause of the -- of the second drop? That is what the
8 statistics is supposed to show us.
9 MS. WEST: Objection. In his question he has got a statement
10 that somehow suggests she said that the first cause was the civil war.
11 She never said this. She has never spoken about causes at all.
12 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
13 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
14 Q. Let me narrow it down. Do you agree that this peacetime drop may
15 have resulted from people's decision to change in -- entity?
16 A. I -- I -- I want to comment on something else. There is a slight
17 difference in how the two sets of numbers were produced. First of all,
18 sources were different. Methodology was different. Time-period on which
19 the sources' reports were different. So -- and the population covered by
20 1997/1998 and 1995 is different. 1995 is the entire population
21 supposedly, and 1997 is 18 plus.
22 Anyway, how I read these number, I look and assess the pattern in
23 the number, so I look at the entire distribution for all ethnic groups.
24 In 1991, 1995, and 1997/1998. And I see a change in the pattern that
25 indicates an increase in the share of Serbs and drops in the shares of
1 Muslims and Croats. That is my reading. And it has nothing to do with
2 causes and processes that led to these changes. I report on the change
3 in the pattern and that's it. That is all I am saying. And this is
4 how -- where my role ends here. To study causes of migration a totally
5 completely different approach would be needed. I would have to have a
6 separate survey, investigating causes of migration to those who moved
7 versus those who didn't.
8 So it is causes of migration is a very complex issue to study
9 in -- in a research.
10 Q. Thank you. Can we please move two tables down and let's look at
12 Do you agree that the number of Yugoslavs and others in Krupa
13 literally disappeared?
14 A. That is what is in the table. They are not reported in 1995.
15 Q. Thank you. Have you noticed that there is some consistency in
16 the drop of the number of Serbs and the drop of the number of others in
17 the Federation municipalities and, on the other hand, the increase of the
18 number of Serbs and the others in Serbian municipalities in
19 Republika Srpska?
20 A. Well, this is what I mentioned today already, this opposite
21 direction of movement of people from Republika Srpska and the Federation,
22 and I included figures to illustrate these movements in the presentation.
23 On page 2, Table 3, there is -- there are numbers who are showing this
24 opposite directions of movements in both parts, but we certainly can't
25 see that from the table for Bosanska Krupa in the annex which is on the
2 Q. Thank you. Please take a look the entries for Bosanski Novi.
3 There were 2.121 Yugoslavs which accounts for 5.1 per cent. In 1995, it
4 dropped to 1.7, and then in 1997 it increased to 4.5 which indicates that
5 the number of Yugoslavs in Bosanski Novi municipality is on the rise if
6 compared with the figures for 1995; right?
7 A. I completely disagree. Well, in these tables the reporting of
8 ethnicity is the same in 1999 census and 1997/1998 because it is the same
9 definition that is used. 1995 I have no idea, in the slightest idea, who
10 is a Serb, who is a Muslim, who is a Croat and who is a Yugoslav, because
11 it isn't the definition that was used in the census.
12 So because you mentioned today that whether I knew that a
13 majority of Yugoslavs were Serbs, so I assume that it is possible that
14 the RS authorities worked on the same assumption, and where there were
15 shifts between ethnicities and Yugoslavs in particular, which can be
16 clearly seen for Banja Luka, for instance.
17 Q. Am I right in thinking that here in the 1995 in the column of
18 percentages for Yugoslavs we see the percentage of 1.7, whereas the
19 estimates for 1994 and 1995 are 4.5. It is estimated that there will be
20 almost three times more Yugoslavs than before.
21 Please do not think that I am attacking you. I'm just trying to
22 establish whether the methodology was valid, and can it allow us to draw
23 conclusions about the movement of the population. I suppose that the OTP
24 will also try to establish responsibility for that.
25 Is it true that in 1995, it was 1.7, and then in 1997 and 1998 it
1 was 4.5?
2 A. But you have been doing exactly what you shouldn't be doing. You
3 are comparing things that are not directly comparable. And, as I said
4 earlier today, it is the intention to show the pattern in the ethnic
5 composition and the change in this pattern as estimated from different
6 sources. So I think it is wrong to compare the percentages as such. It
7 is correct to look at the pattern, how the pattern changed from 1991 in
8 1995 and in 1997.
9 The closer percentage to compare would be 1991 and 1997/1998
10 because of the same definition of ethnicity used in both cases. Even
11 though the census is an entire population not a segment, still the
12 voters' sample can be a good approximation of the entire population in
13 terms of ethnic composition.
14 JUDGE KWON: Then in terms of that pattern, how do you interpret
15 this number? Ratio rose from 1.7 to 4.5 as regard Yugoslav and others?
16 THE WITNESS: I interpret there was a decline in the Yugoslavs
17 from 5.1 per cent in 1991 to 4.5 per cent in 1997/1998.
18 JUDGE KWON: So can one now say that it rose from 1.7 in 1995 to
19 4.5 in 1997 and 1998.
20 THE WITNESS: I would be careful when saying this. Why? Because
21 it was not certain and likely it is not the fact that the Yugoslavs were
22 reported in exactly the same way in 1995 as in the other years.
23 JUDGE KWON: Then one should be also careful in comparing between
24 1991 and 1995.
25 THE WITNESS: Yes. Of course. Of course. What really matters
1 in this table is the population who moved out by 1993 because it is a
2 number even though this number as well will be subject to changes in the
3 definition of ethnicity.
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] May I continue, Excellency?
5 JUDGE KWON: Yes, yes.
6 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
7 Q. Then I don't understand what the purpose is of highlighting these
8 two percentages after the war, 1.7 in 1995, and then 4.5 in the latter
9 years if it doesn't show that the segment of Yugoslavs and others was
10 recovering in Serbian municipalities and falling in Muslim
12 Here we can see that from 1.7 it grew to 4.5, almost reaching the
13 percentage that was present in 1991; is that correct?
14 A. Well, what can I say? I can say comparing the percentages is not
15 good, is not correct, because there are differences in the methodology
16 and sources, how the percentages were obtained.
17 But for illustrative purposes of the movement of population in
18 1993 and a result of this movement in 1995, as reported by completely
19 different sources from what we used in this study, it is useful to
20 present these tables.
21 Q. Thank you. Okay. On day one we agreed that the sources were
22 different. I thought that there was no comparison between them. And
23 that, on the one hand, we had the 1991 census, and on the other, all
24 sorts of approximations and voluntarily registration for votes, and that
25 those two -- those two could not be compared. Those are apples and
1 pears, apples and oranges, and then you said that they were comparable
2 and now you're saying that they are comparable [as interpreted], that
3 different sources do not allow for any comparisons to be drawn, although
4 you included all that in your tables.
5 A. So, Mr. Karadzic, what do you want me to say? They are there as
6 an illustration of what others were saying about processes that were
7 happening during the war.
8 My position is that the statistics I produced are reliable source
9 for assessing of the migration during the war and changes in the ethnic
11 So that is the position. If you want a number, then please go to
12 my work and take a number from there because I know how this number was
13 produced and this number is reliable. About sources like this ones, I
14 wouldn't advise to use them as statistics expressing exactly of what
15 happened, but they do illustrate that things were happening in the war.
16 That's it. That is the only thing that I am saying about it.
17 JUDGE KWON: You used, Dr. Tabeau, the 1997 voters' registration
18 and you just stated the numbers you reached is a reliable one. And --
19 but at the same time you are saying that the 1997 census that statistics
20 is not 100 percent reliable. So that may be the question of
21 Mr. Karadzic.
22 Do you follow my question?
23 THE WITNESS: I believe so.
24 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
25 THE WITNESS: So it is that -- let's summarise. That the 1997
1 voters' register is not a 100 percent reliable source, yet I used this
2 source to produce statistics. This is how I understand the question.
3 JUDGE KWON: [Microphone not activated] Yes.
4 THE WITNESS: Of course, voters' register is not a perfect
5 source. Ideally we would like to see the next population census for
6 Bosnia and Herzegovina to work with it instead of the voters' register.
7 This census is unavailable.
8 Voters' registration, as a matter of fact, is not as good as a
9 census but it is broadly acceptable, reliable for the type of analysis in
10 this report, presented in this report, a far better source, by all means,
11 than the RS sources for 1993 and 1995. There is no doubt about it.
12 The -- the numbers in these tables that we have on the screen are
13 extremely approximate. How they were collected, for sure there was no
14 questionnaire involved. There were probably inspections in these
15 territories and rough estimates of how many people lived there. For sure
16 there were no lists of names. For sure ethnicity was taken from, I don't
17 know where. Certainly these were not respondents telling the inspectors
18 about their ethnicity.
19 So compared with the RS sources, voters' register is incomparably
20 better. That is what I'm saying. And what I am saying is knowing that
21 the RS sources are so approximate it is not good idea to get attached to
22 these numbers too much because these are very rough approximations. The
23 RS sources are good enough to tell, Look, people were moving out from
24 these territories during the war, because as of early 1993, large
25 population groups were registered to move out, and especially these were
1 non-Serbs who were moving out from these territories. This led to a
2 change in the ethnic composition. Already by 1995 the RS authorities
3 noted this change because this is what they put in these tables. But in
4 order to have a reliable estimate of ethnic composition, I rather would
5 take everybody to look at the results from the voters' register because
6 the estimation method was far more reliable.
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we now look at the following
8 page and let's see what the situation was in Kotor Varos, for example.
9 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
10 Q. Do we agree, Dr. Tabeau, that the absolute number of Serbs in
11 Kotor Varos remained more or less the same? We had 14.056 in 1991 and
12 1.400 [as interpreted] in 1995.
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Thank you. In 1995, by using the estimate method, it was
15 established that there were 1800 Muslims and a thousand Croats. And that
16 was 10.7 and 6 per cent, respectively, in 1995. And now let's see how
17 that percentage continued to fall between 1995 and 1997. The number of
18 Serbs did not change meanwhile. And a possible increase in the number of
19 Serbs did not influence the increase in the percentage of Serbs. The
20 possible increase in the percentage of Serbs was influenced exclusively
21 by the population movements of Croats and Muslims; is that correct?
22 A. Well, what I see is that the share of Serbs increased from 1991
23 in 1995 and 1997 and the shares of other ethnic groups dropped. So
24 disregarding the fact that the number of Serbs remained more or less the
25 same, the other groups left, which increased the share of Serbs in the
1 population. And a similar picture will be seen in other municipalities
2 in this annex. In some cases, the numbers of Serbs will be higher in
3 absolute terms, but, again, I would every time look at the pattern, how
4 the ethnic composition as a whole evolved.
5 Q. And now let's look at the percentage of Yugoslavs and others in
6 Kotor Varos, a municipality that remained in Republika Srpska.
7 The participation of Yugoslavs and others rose from 2.7 to
8 3.4 per cent; right?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Let's conclude then. And before that, can we go to the following
11 page and look at Prijedor and that will allow me to draw some
13 Is it correct that we can see both factors here. Both of the
14 decrease in the numbers of Muslims and Croats, as well as the increase in
15 the number of Serbs from 47.000 to 61.000. In 1995 there were 3.600
16 Muslims in Prijedor and 500 Croats at the same time -- - oh, sorry, a
17 thousand Croats. And that was 5.4 per cent in the general population or
18 1.5 per cent in the sample.
19 In 1997, the participation of Croats was higher than in 1995 and
20 the number of Muslims dropped. In other words, Croats, Yugoslavs, and
21 others returned to Prijedor after the end of the war and Muslims left.
22 Would -- would you agree?
23 A. Well, my reading is different of this table. Prijedor is a mixed
24 municipality in 1991. The shares of Muslims and Serbs are comparable,
25 about 43 per cent. Others, Croats and Yugoslavs and others, play a much
1 less significant role. If I look at 1995 and 1997/1998, I see that this
2 is a municipality strongly dominated by the Serbs in terms of their share
3 in the population. The Muslims that were a significant ethnic group
4 before the war are not there anymore and it is consistently seen in the
5 data for 1995 and 1997/1998.
6 Moreover, if we look at 1993, for Muslim, the population that
7 moved out is 42.000 out of 49. It's a very huge number. This is what I
8 am reading from this table. And the same for Prijedor can be seen in the
9 municipal data in the annexes of my report where the population that
10 became displaced of Prijedor, Muslim population, is extremely large.
11 Q. And what about Yugoslavs? How many Yugoslavs were there in
12 Prijedor; do you remember?
13 A. Of course I don't remember. But Yugoslavs and other ethnic
14 groups reported in Annex A5 for Prijedor is 9.295. That's the number
15 from the 1991 census.
16 Q. Of which two-thirds were Yugoslavs, and one-third were others; is
17 that correct?
18 A. This is what you are saying. I can provide this share, these
19 percentages, but I have to produce them.
20 Q. Look at the 1991 census. There were 6.371 Yugoslavs and 2.600
21 others, according to that census. And among the 6.371 there were 6.000
22 Serbs in 1991 which was a large majority of the total number of Serbs.
23 6.371 on the one hand, 2.600 on the other. 2:1 ratio and this is a full
24 picture. And with all due respect, this is what we call a Communist
25 propaganda. They wanted to represent as many Serbs as possible as
1 Yugoslavs in order to distort the ethnic picture of the population.
2 MS. WEST: Objection as to it being a statement.
3 JUDGE KWON: What table are we looking at, Mr. ...
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'm reading from the census, from
5 the 1991 census which makes a distinction between Yugoslavs and others.
6 And in all of the municipalities you can see that there are two times
7 more Yugoslavs than others. Two-thirds of what Dr. Tabeau had under the
8 category of others were Yugoslavs. And if you are familiar with the
9 political movements in 1991 you would see that they're all Serbs. We
10 will see what the population movement was. Serbs and others returned to
11 the Serbian municipalities, whereas their number fell in the federal
13 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
14 Q. Please look at Sanski Most. Was there a fall in the number of
15 Yugoslavs and others there from 4.2? We don't have anything for 1995,
16 but we have 4.2 in 1991 and then 2.4 in 1997.
17 A. So if we look at the Sanski Most table, these percentages indeed
18 are there, 4.2 Yugoslavs and others. I would call this group is just
19 others as in my report. The percentage is 4.2, and in 1997/1998, 2.4.
20 And, again, I want to stress, I didn't separate Yugoslavs. I studied
21 them jointly with all remaining ethnicities different from the three main
22 ethnic groups and this is how this data is also here presented, and I --
23 I didn't study how many Yugoslavs proportionally are there in this joint
24 category, but I don't think it is relevant for -- for -- for -- for our
25 discussion here because what matters is, as a matter of fact, the -- the
1 changes related to the three main ethnic groups.
2 Q. It is our position that this is very relevant because among
3 Yugoslavs there were a lot of Serbs and that changes in the Serbian
4 community are not presented as they should be because Yugoslavs were
5 estimated wrongly and merged with all the others who were a big minority.
6 It would have been correct, Dr. Tabeau, if you said Yugoslavs and then
7 joined others to them because the participation of the latter was
8 smaller. Instead, you merged Yugoslavs with others, and that's how you
9 eliminated a huge number of Serbs from your calculations.
10 A. I -- I can assure you I did not eliminate the Serbs from my
11 calculation. I just processed the data according to how respondents
12 defined themselves in terms of ethnic affiliations. Yugoslavs are
13 reported, exactly as I am saying, Yugoslavs, and this is how I treated
14 them in the analysis disregarding what you think, were they the
15 Yugoslavs. You were saying a majority were Serbs, but it is not what I
16 read from the census records. Yugoslavs are Yugoslavs.
17 Q. Very well. Very well. But why didn't you represent them
18 separately from others, because the 1991 census recognises them which you
19 don't do? In addition to having unreliable sources in 1995 and 1997,
20 sources of different orders, we compound things even more by merging
21 Yugoslavs with others, and, thus, we make any conclusion processed even
22 more difficult than it should be.
23 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Karadzic, I think we heard enough as to the
24 issue and notion of Yugoslav and others. It's for you to make submission
25 later on, based upon this table and evidence of Dr. Tabeau.
1 Why don't we move on.
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
3 JUDGE KWON: Just one question for you, Mr. Karadzic.
4 You -- several times you ask the witness as to the changes or
5 causes of -- in the ratio of population between 1995, 1997. How are they
6 relevant to your case, Mr. Karadzic?
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Excellency, there was a period of
8 peace during which there was no enforcement or coercion, and there were
9 demographic changes which were much bigger in relative figures than
10 during war time.
11 JUDGE KWON: My question is how it is relevant to your
12 indictment, the changes between 1995 and 1997?
13 Or, Mr. Robinson, yes.
14 MR. ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. President, I think it is only relevant in
15 the sense that this witness has used 1997 demographic figures. If she
16 hadn't done that, it would not be relevant at all. But those figures
17 necessarily include movements that took place after Dayton and other
18 developments. I think that's the point of talking about that period
19 between 1995 and 1997.
20 JUDGE KWON: Thank you, Mr. Robinson.
21 Yes, please continue, Mr. Karadzic.
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
23 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. And now can we deal with comparisons. Let's compare those
25 municipalities which belong to the Karadzic case area in
1 Bosnia and Herzegovina.
2 Let us look at Table 2B1. I apologise. Image B2.1.
3 MS. WEST: That's 102.
4 THE ACCUSED: Next page, I suppose.
5 THE WITNESS: It's page 100; the previous page. Yeah.
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Then it's the previous one
9 THE WITNESS: Page 100.
10 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. Dr. Tabeau, please help us understand these graphs pertaining to
12 population movements.
13 The first table on the left -- or, rather, that image speaks of
14 the share of the Serbs in the population as well as of Muslims and
15 Croats, right, in 1991 and 1997? So we have 1997 marked with these
16 lines; right?
17 A. Right.
18 Q. So, in Bosnia-Herzegovina, as a whole, the number of Serbs in
19 1997 was mildly on the increase, also, the number of Muslims. Whereas,
20 the number of Croats is slightly declining; is that right?
21 A. Yes. This is ethnic composition but these are not absolute
22 numbers. These are fractions, percentages, that are shown for the entire
23 territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Yes.
24 Q. Thank you. The next one is in the area that is called the
25 Karadzic case area, 1997. There is a certain increase in the number of
1 Serbs and a certain decline in the share of Muslims and a decline in the
2 number of Croats; right?
3 A. Right.
4 Q. If we look at these graphs, Dr. Tabeau, does this seem fairly
5 similar to you?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Thank you.
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we please take a look at the
9 one further down.
10 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. In the part of Bosnia-Herzegovina that belonged to
12 Republika Srpska, we have a further increase - relative - in the number
13 of Serbs and the number of Muslims was decreased by some 60 per cent,
14 right -- sorry the number of Serbs compared to 1991 and 1995 and then
15 compared to 1997, there's an increase in the number of Serbs; right?
16 A. Right.
17 Q. Thank you. And we also see the situation as far as the Croats
18 are concerned. Can we have a look at the next one now.
19 Now the numbers of the Serbs in the Karadzic case area, so that
20 is less that Republika Srpska, as such. Do we agree that in the Karadzic
21 case area that belonged to Republika Srpska the number of Muslims -- or,
22 rather, the share of Muslims is somewhat greater. Can you please explain
23 this to us?
24 A. What can I explain? These are two areas. One is the entire
25 country and Karadzic case area are 27 municipalities. For these two
1 areas, the same type of statistics were compiled and are shown here on
2 these charts.
3 There are slight differences, indeed, in the number -- in the
4 share of Muslims in Republika Srpska compared with the entire Bosnia and
5 Herzegovina. So the share of Muslims in the Karadzic case area is very
6 slightly higher than in the entire Bosnia, which is absolutely possible,
7 because this is ethnic composition percentages, so it's possible. I
8 wouldn't say that the difference is really very significant here. What
9 is striking in case of Republika Srpska is that the share of Serbs
10 increased very significantly in both areas, in the entire Bosnia and
11 Herzegovina -- in the RS part of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the RS part
12 of Karadzic case area. And the opposite is seen, the lower charts
13 showing the Federation part of Bosnia and Federation part of Karadzic
14 case area, then we see that the share of Serbs declined and the share of
15 Muslims increased.
16 Q. Now you're talking about the last one on the right; right? So
17 what was under Serb control. The Karadzic case area, that is. Once it
18 came under the control of the Federation after Dayton, the share of
19 Muslims in that area is over 80 per cent and that is more than in 1991;
21 A. On next page, there are numbers -- well, percentages shown. So
22 for Muslims in 1997 in the FBiH part of Karadzic case area, we see
23 86.4 per cent.
24 Q. Thank you. Do we agree then that in peacetime, in the territory
25 that was under Serb control, changes occurred, demographic changes in the
1 following way: Serbs practically disappeared from areas that they had
2 controlled up until Dayton; and the number of Muslims rose to
3 80 per cent, so there was exchange of population in peacetime. There was
4 an exchange of population or population movements in peacetime.
5 Can we go back to the previous page. They're practically no
6 Serbs in the territory that used to be under their control. But am I
7 right if I say that? Am I right if I say there are no Serbs left,
8 although they had had it under their control? But, ultimately, it came
9 to belong to the Federation and then there were no Serbs left, whereas
10 there are more Muslims than there were in 1991?
11 A. No. First of all, you said changes were happening after the
12 Dayton Agreement was signed in the peacetime. So I can't agree with this
13 because we already had a very long discussions this morning about changes
14 that were happening in the course of the war. In 1993 already large
15 numbers of the population moved out from municipalities in the Karadzic
16 case area.
17 But, indeed, what we see in these charts is -- is a summary of
18 how the changes were happening. So from RS part, non-Serbs were moving
19 out, and from the FBiH part, the Serbs were moving out. That is what
20 summarised in Figure B2.1 and we see it very clearly for both, for RS and
21 FBiH areas of Bosnia and Herzegovina and for RS and FBiH part of the
22 Karadzic case area. That is the picture that is obtained from voters'
23 register but similar charts were produced by other organisations,
24 including the UNHCR.
25 Q. Please, let us now focus on the second and sixth graph.
1 In the second one, the entire Karadzic case area is included, in
2 the Federation and Republika Srpska. And we see there an increase, not
3 that sharp an increase in the number of Serbs and not that sharp a
4 decrease in the number of Muslims. So that would be the area that was
5 under Serb control. However, not all of it came to belong to them.
6 Now the area that was under Serb control and that came to belong
7 to the Federation, that is graph 6, we see a drastic decline in the
8 number of Serbs, a significant increase in the number of Croats, and a
9 drop in the number of Croats, and so on.
10 Is that right?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Thank you.
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Excellencies, how much time
14 will I have? That is what I'd like to ask.
15 JUDGE KWON: How much do you need, Mr. Karadzic, more?
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I believe that I'm not even
17 close. I have all of today, don't I? That's the amount of time that you
18 had allocated to me, or perhaps there's 15 or 20 minutes left. Could Ram
19 help, please.
20 JUDGE KWON: I was of the impression you may not need all of
21 that. But, so far you have used four hours and 40 minute, which means
22 you have this session and some time -- an hour in the next session.
23 Probably you can finish by the end of today. It's better to conclude
24 Dr. Tabeau's evidence, including re-examination, by today. But we'll
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. I'll do my best. Thank
3 Could we now please take a look at 2A that has to do with
5 It's page 80 in my papers. But perhaps we should just take a
6 look at 2A, the results for Srebrenica.
7 MS. WEST: Is Mr. Karadzic talking about Srebrenica internally
8 displaced people or the Srebrenica report because I don't think we know
9 what report we're talking about here.
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Results for Srebrenica: Share of
11 the Muslims in the population of Srebrenica. And then after that is
12 Table 2A.1.
13 THE WITNESS: Page 68.
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we please move onto the next
15 page for a moment, page 69.
16 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. Am I right if I say that towards the top where it says Table
18 A2.2, you say that there's a distinction between an internally displaced
19 persons who lived elsewhere in Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1997 and
20 refugees, persons who lived abroad in 1997?
21 Did you apply the same criterion into those 27 municipalities, or
22 nine municipalities, and all of Bosnia and Herzegovina, or is it believed
23 that only the people of Srebrenica lived abroad?
24 A. Well, all municipalities were subject to the same methodology.
25 But for Srebrenica, here in this annex, more detailed results are also
2 Q. Thank you. But this is what I'm interested in: For those 27, or
3 those nine municipalities, or for all municipalities for that matter, in
4 all of Bosnia-Herzegovina, did you establish the number of persons who
5 were abroad?
6 A. The same analysis was completed for all municipalities as well,
7 for the entire Bosnia and Herzegovina.
8 Q. Then I must have been inattentive because in other
9 municipalities, I did not see that you singled them out in this way,
10 saying who lived abroad. If you help me, I will be glad to accept that.
11 A. Well, we didn't present separate figures on internal displacement
12 and external displacement, that is the refugees for all municipalities,
13 in the same way as for Srebrenica. It is just an sample. Srebrenica is
14 an example included in Annex A2.
15 Q. Well, that is exactly what I asked about. What about the other
16 municipalities, as far as that segment is concerned? The same
17 methodology was not used for all municipalities, right, or not all
18 results were shown according to the same methodology?
19 A. The results shown in the report is a selection of major figures.
20 If the need will be, then if you are interested in refugees, also these
21 figures can be produced separately.
22 Q. But for Srebrenica, we can get the number of refugees aboard and
23 we cannot do that for other municipalities; right?
24 A. Not right now, but in Slobodan Milosevic report there is a
25 selection of more municipalities presented in exactly same way as
1 Srebrenica, yes.
2 Well, I -- I don't think it is really crucial to make this
3 distinction between internal displacement and refugees, but if needed and
4 essential, these figures can be additionally provided.
5 Q. Thank you. Very well.
6 Now that we're op this page -- actually, it would be better to go
7 back to the first page, if possible, please.
8 Please let us take a look at Table A2.1. In 1991, in Srebrenica,
9 there was a population of over 29.000; isn't that right? And
10 21.300-something were Muslims --
11 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters cannot keep up with figures
12 that are being read at this pace.
13 JUDGE KWON: The interpreters cannot catch up with your speed if
14 you read that fast.
15 Could you repeat.
16 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. Well, we see the numbers here, don't we? The total population in
18 1991 was 29.198, as established in the census. Out of that figure,
19 two-thirds were Muslims; one-third were Serbs; and almost 600 others;
20 whereas, Croats accounted for 35 persons.
21 Now applying the methods -- or, rather, the information that you
22 had collected by different sources for different purposes, isn't that
23 right, the total number of inhabitants in 1997 was estimated at 7.422;
24 7 Muslims, 7.169 Serbs. Do we agree that --
25 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Karadzic, where did you get that idea of total
1 number of inhabitants in 1997 having followed Dr. Tabeau's evidence so
3 Dr. Tabeau?
4 THE WITNESS: It is a sample of those registered in 1997 in the
5 municipality of Srebrenica.
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] But, Your Excellency, here in the
7 first column, line 2, it says: All. And then it says 7.442. That
8 cannot be a sample. That can only be the total population. If this is
9 just a sample, what would be the total number of inhabitants?
10 THE WITNESS: If I may say, the "all" refers to all ethnic
11 groups. That is the indication who is reported, "all ethnicities"
12 jointly. But, of course, the 1997 numbers are obtained from the voters'
13 register. That means it is a sample, not the size of the population in
15 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
16 Q. Please, if 7.442 is the -- a sample, what is the total number of
17 inhabitants in 1997?
18 A. I already said today, I don't know. I don't have this number. I
19 don't have the overall size of the population in 1997.
20 Q. How then, if we look at column 1, line 1, how can that be linked
21 up to column 2? What is the point of placing these numbers one next to
22 the other?
23 A. The point is that we can calculate - and rightly so -
24 percentages. That means we can obtain the ethnic makeup for 1991 and, as
25 well, for 1997. For this, we work for 1997 with a sample data and the
1 percentages calculated are in the second part of the same table.
2 Percentages can be compared between 1991 and 1997. That is justified and
3 correct. Not the absolute numbers though.
4 JUDGE KWON: How shall we read the third and the last row? 1991,
5 1997 change.
6 THE WITNESS: That this is relative difference that we discussed
7 yesterday. So 73.2 is the per cent of Muslims in 1991 --
8 JUDGE KWON: No, the last one.
9 THE WITNESS: Yes, that is what I'm going to. And in 1997, the
10 percent of Muslims is 0.1. So the difference between the two, 01 minus
11 73.2, divided by 73.2, makes 99.9 with a minus. Is the change in the
12 share of Muslims between 1997 and 1991, expressed in relative terms.
13 JUDGE KWON: How shall we read the next number: Plus 290.4.
14 THE WITNESS: It is 96.3 per cent of Serbs, minus 24.7 per cent,
15 divided by 24.7 per cent.
16 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. And there are three times more Croats; right? Plus 281.
18 A. Yes, this is what it says here. Yep.
19 Q. Now, let us go back to the first two lines. Are these absolute
21 A. Yes, these are absolute numbers, for 1991 and 1997 in the second
23 Q. Is it correct that in 1997, there were about 50 less Serbs than
24 in 1991?
25 A. Hmm. We just discussed that 1997 is a sample and 1991 is the
1 overall size of the population.
2 So what we can do we can think of comparing 7.169 with all
3 ethnicities number, which is 7.442 which give us 96.3 per cent of Serbs
4 in 1997 population.
5 Q. I don't know, Dr. Tabeau, how you can say that these are absolute
6 numbers. How did you --
7 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Karadzic, I think, Mr. Robinson, now, I take it
8 you understood Dr. Tabeau's point. All the number, absolute numbers in
9 relation to 1997 are related to voters' register.
10 I don't think Mr. Karadzic has understood that.
11 MR. ROBINSON: I'm sure he understands that, that that's the only
12 number that -- otherwise any discussion of the report is meaningless
13 because that's the only number she used to compare the 1991 results. So
14 even though we all understand that that is a sample or it's not just
15 precise as the census, it's the basis of the discussion of her report.
16 So I think he understands that very clearly.
17 JUDGE KWON: He may continue this same question with respect to
18 every table.
19 Shall we take the break now and then ...
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] That would be fine. I just wanted
21 to take a look at the table for a minute, the next one, but if you wish,
22 we can do it after the break.
23 Table A2.2.
24 JUDGE KWON: Very well.
25 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
1 Q. It has to do with 1997 voters originating from Srebrenica, right?
2 And then in Srebrenica, there are -- actually, they're there in 1997.
3 Can you explain this to us, 3.237. These are voters who are still in
4 Srebrenica; right?
5 A. Yes. This is the voters who were still in Srebrenica in 1997.
6 Well, this table is a different type of statistics than what we
7 discussed previously. In order to define population movements and decide
8 who moved, who didn't, it is necessary to trace in the voters' register
9 the entire population who originally lived in a given municipality.
10 It's, in this case, Srebrenica.
11 So in the voters' register, there was a total of 13.891 voters
12 who used, in 1991, to live in Srebrenica. That's the total, 13.891.
13 Q. 10.654 out of that number voted for Srebrenica, outside
14 Srebrenica; right?
15 A. I don't know and don't want do know how they voted for which
16 municipality. I only know that 10.654 registered to vote in a different
17 area than the Srebrenica municipality, where they used to live in 1991.
18 And only 3.237 of the original 1991 population of Srebrenica municipality
19 registered in Srebrenica. As we see, almost all of them were Serbs.
20 JUDGE KWON: Just a second, Dr. Tabeau.
21 How does this number square with the previous number we saw in
22 the previous page, if you remember, the number of 7.442?
23 THE WITNESS: Yes, I was waiting for this question. It's a
24 different population. It's a different population in the sense that
25 voters who registered in certain places can be regrouped in various ways.
1 In the previous table, we have the number of all those who were
2 identified themselves, registered themselves, in Srebrenica. All of
3 them. Not originally living in Srebrenica, all of them. There are
4 newcomers in Srebrenica. So one group of population goes, and another
5 one comes.
6 So if we count all of them in Srebrenica in 1997, then we have
7 the number, 7.442. This number comprises the number of 3.237 from
8 Table A2.2. But the 13.000 is a different population. Different in the
9 sense that voters here are regrouped according to the place of residence
10 in 1991, which obviously, for a large number of them, was different in
11 1997. This is 10.654.
12 So these two perspectives are there in the report, and it is not
13 a mistake that in Table 2.2, we have the 13.000 related to Srebrenica,
14 and a different number in Table 2.1.
15 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. Just a second --
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] We can take the break now,
18 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Karadzic.
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] We can take the break now, and then
20 we can pursue this topic after the break.
21 JUDGE KWON: Yes. I would like you to organise your -- the
22 remainder of your cross-examination to be concluded in an hour's time in
23 the next session.
24 We'll resume at 1.30.
25 --- Luncheon recess taken at 12.33 p.m.
1 --- On resuming at 1.32 p.m.
2 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Karadzic.
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. I would just briefly
4 deal with Srebrenica and then we will move to Sarajevo.
5 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. Let us look at Table A2.2. According to that table, there is an
7 estimate which shouldn't be an estimate but, rather, an established fact
8 that 9.726 Muslims registered to vote in the 1991 elections; is that
10 A. I think that there is a number of 9.730 Muslims have been
11 identified, who, initially lived in 1991 in Srebrenica municipality.
12 Q. But they were registered to vote in the 1997 elections. Look at
13 the title of the table under A2.2.
14 A. This is what I just said. 9.730 Muslims from originally
15 Srebrenica municipality registered to vote in 1997 elections.
16 Q. Thank you. They registered where?
17 A. Four of them, in Srebrenica; and 9.726 at other locations.
18 Q. Thank you. In other words, they were not represented in those
19 places where they registered; but, rather, in that place or those places
20 where they wanted to vote and where they voted.
21 A. I'm not sure what is the question. I just confirm that 9.730
22 from Srebrenica municipality who used to live in Srebrenica municipality,
23 according to 1991 census, this group of Muslims from Srebrenica
24 registered partly in Srebrenica, only four of them, and the rest of them,
25 9.726, at other places.
1 Q. For voting in Srebrenica; right?
2 A. I didn't check what -- for what municipality they voted. I am
3 not interested. I am interested in where they registered to vote: Four
4 of them in Srebrenica; 9.726 not in Srebrenica.
5 Q. But they were registered elsewhere; right?
6 A. Elsewhere means not in the Srebrenica municipality.
7 Q. Thank you. Does it also comprises [as interpreted] the so-called
8 third countries, either in Europe or overseas, in America?
9 A. Yes. We can move to Table A2.3, on page 71.
10 So in the first table A2.3a, we see for Muslims the overall
11 total, 9.730 in the last column. Of this number four were located in the
12 Srebrenica municipality and therefore are considered to be not displaced.
13 The rest is falling under two categories. There is 8.002 of IDPs, that
14 is internally displaced persons, and that 1.724 in the next column are
15 the refugees from Srebrenica in third countries other than Bosnia and
17 Q. And of that number in Serbia, in Bosnia-Herzegovina, in
18 Montenegro, in Europe, and in America, you think that only that many were
19 refugees or only that many registered to vote?
20 A. Well, this is the registered voters, of course, and it is a
21 sample, not the complete population of refugees in third countries from
22 Srebrenica. So it's a small group, very small group. And most of them
23 were outside the region of the former Yugoslavia, as shown in Table A2.3c
24 the last table on this page.
25 Q. Thank you. Did you perhaps notice that the participation of
1 Serbs in percentages among the displaced, those who died, and so on and
2 so forth, equals to the participation of Serbs in the overall population,
3 and that in Muslims, that number is somewhat higher on account of the
4 fact that it is somewhat smaller among Croats?
5 A. Well, I think you are taking here a shortcut, speaking of those
6 who died. So far, we haven't discussed any deaths at all. So I don't
7 really know what are you referring to.
8 Q. I'm actually implying all the suffering, including displacement
9 and other things. Did you notice, did you try to find out how many Serbs
10 suffered through the war, and what was their representation in that
11 number with regard to the representation of the Serbs in the overall
13 A. If you are referring to rates of suffering, as you call it, by
14 ethnic group, all I can offer you is this report, which, actually,
15 doesn't contain any rates, just numbers, minimum numbers and certain
16 percentages describing this number, the estimated number, in relative
17 terms. I have made a number of other reports on victims in all these
18 reports. I tried to quantify numbers of victims, again, in most cases,
19 this would be minimum numbers for all ethnic groups, including the Serbs.
20 I think that is all I can offer you, but you wouldn't like to
21 engage in a discussion that would lead to comparing the suffering of
22 ethnic groups among themselves. I don't think -- I wouldn't like to do
24 Q. Very well. Can we now look at Table 1.BH. This is the
25 percentage of the population, and we're talking somewhere on page 70.
1 MS. WEST: I think this is 66.
2 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. So the percentage of given ethnic groups in the population of
4 Bosnia and Herzegovina status as of 1991 and 1997.
5 Help us understand this. We're looking at the population as it
6 was in 1991 and then what you call the sample and, in my view, this is a
7 percentage that was obtained based on the sample as it was in 1997.
8 Do we agree, can we agree that there were three and a half
9 million adults and there were about 1.150.000 Serbs?
10 A. Can I have the page number? Because I can't see on the screen
11 all the numbers. Then I can find it in my report.
12 MS. WEST: Page 65.
13 THE WITNESS: Well, you were saying there were 2.565.000,
14 approximately, all ethnicities population in 1991, of which 1.147.900,
15 so 148.000 almost, were Serbs.
16 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. Those are all the people who were born before the year 1980;
19 A. Right.
20 Q. Thank you. What is the meaning of the next absolute figure of
21 1.800.000 of all ethnicities? That would be a sample of the total
22 population of Bosnia and Herzegovina, about one-half of the actual total
23 population; right?
24 A. Yes. This is the voters' records from 1997 elections that were
25 used in the analysis for Bosnia and Herzegovina. This is all
1 ethnicities; 1.800.000. 1.8 million.
2 Q. What would be the total participation in that? How did you
3 arrive at the figure that there were 3 per cent more Serbs in Bosnia and
4 Herzegovina? You say that the participation of Serbs rose by
5 3.1 per cent in Bosnia-Herzegovina; right?
6 A. It would be helpful if you would tell me exactly where I am
7 saying this. I -- I can't -- I don't understand.
8 Q. Line 1 is about the share of Serbs in the overall population in
9 1991 and the sample in 1997. And you say that the number of Serbs rose
10 by 3.1 percentile points, or 9.7 per cents?
11 A. Yes, that is correct. I can see it now.
12 Q. How did you arrive at that?
13 A. I thought we discussed the methodology at length earlier during
14 my testimony, at several occasions. So I don't think I really need to
15 repeat all this again.
16 JUDGE KWON: Doctor, to understand the context, where did
17 0.7 million go? Because I remember the total number of registered in
18 1997 was 2.5 million.
19 THE WITNESS: Yes, that is correct. But here we are talking
20 about the matched records exclusively, so this number, 2 and a half
21 million is, of course, lower.
22 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
23 THE WITNESS: And the percentage, the 32.2, from the census, and
24 the 35.3, are just the shares of the Serb population in both years. So
25 what more can I say about it?
1 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
2 Q. But look at Muslims. We have 42.2 per cent and then we have an
3 increase to 45.5 per cent accounting for 2.3 percentage points, and in
4 your analysis, that was 7.7 per cent more. And all that at the expense
5 of Croats whose percentage or share fell from 17.7 to 13.4 per cent. And
6 the others, the other ethnicities also lost in numbers.
7 A. I still don't know what -- what is the question.
8 Q. I just wanted to see how can this table be of benefit when we are
9 looking at the movement the population.
10 Do you know what part of the territory in Bosnia and Herzegovina
11 was controlled by the Serbian side during the war? Do you know that the
12 surface of that territory accounted for more than 70 per cent of the
13 total territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina at times?
14 A. Now, this is your claim. I -- I didn't produce these kind of
15 numbers in these reports.
16 Q. Thank you.
17 Can we now look at the third table in here, 3BH.
18 Help us, please, to understand. Is this an estimate, according
19 to which all there were about -- or exactly 1.306.000 displaced persons
20 and refugees and that 406.000 to 410.000 of them were Serbs?
21 A. Yes, that is the correct reading of this table.
22 Q. Thank you. Now I'm going to tell you that in the DP population
23 that was 31.4 per cent, whereas there was 32 per cent of the Serbs in the
24 overall population. I wanted to ask you that. I made my calculation and
25 I'm asking you whether you noticed that the share of Serbs among the
1 displaced persons and refugees more or less corresponds in the -- to the
2 share of Serbs in the overall population.
3 Did you notice that?
4 A. Well, it might. I -- I -- and -- what -- what does it mean?
5 Q. Please, I'm -- again, I'm not attacking you. I am on trial here
6 because the Serbian side allegedly prosecuted [as interpreted] all the
7 others, and I want to see the entire picture. Let's look at the Muslims.
8 Among the same number of displaced persons, there are 42.4 per cent of
9 Muslims, whereas the share of Muslims in the overall population was 44
10 per cent; right?
11 A. Again, it might be so. And I don't feel attacked, Mr. Karadzic.
12 I don't take your questions as being attacked. I try to answer your
13 questions, but who said that the losses, or displacement in this case, of
14 each ethnic group have to be proportional to the size of this group. It
15 might be proportional or not, depending on what happened. The purpose of
16 my report this -- on municipalities is to provide numbers of displaced
17 persons, in terms of both minimum numbers and estimated, overall numbers,
18 and that is what we see, estimate, in the Table 3BH, for the entire
19 country. And that is all what I'm saying. I have the numbers and
20 whether they are proportional or not is a different thing here.
21 Q. Thank you. Dr. Tabeau, you are testifying in a criminal matter
22 concerned with establishing my guilt. Are you -- you were right -- you
23 would be right if you were working on behalf of a government. But I have
24 to drive them -- the matter home and I am trying to show to you that the
25 shares of Muslims, Croats, and Serbs in the overall population are the
1 same as their shares in the -- in the population of displaced persons.
2 Let's look at the Croats. Their number is about 1.300.000.
3 Actually, the overall population is 1.300.000, and there are about
4 18 per cent Croats. And you will remember that the participation or
5 share of Croats in the overall population was also 18 per cent?
6 A. And? If it was?
7 Q. It is my thesis, Dr. Tabeau, that what happened over there was a
8 civil war. It was not that the Serbs persecuted others and nothing
9 happened to the Serbs and everything happened to the others. You will
10 realise that everything is proportionate here. There is always a good
12 JUDGE KWON: I think Dr. Tabeau has given her answer already and
13 how to interpret and how to make your submission it is for you to do
14 later on and it is ultimately for the Chamber.
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] That's correct, Excellency. Thank
16 you. However, you would be right in saying later perhaps or asking me
17 why I did not present my -- that interpretation of figures for
18 Dr. Tabeau, and this is what I am doing, in order to prevent that.
19 JUDGE KWON: I intervened because you asked for the causes of
20 this displacement.
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
22 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
23 Q. And now, let's move onto Sarajevo.
24 You mentioned several things that concern the criminal, legal
25 qualification or perhaps political qualification, and so on and so forth,
1 and let me ask you this: Did you establish that Sarajevo was under
3 Did you do it yourself or did you take over that qualification
4 from others?
5 A. I didn't establish or I didn't work with the qualification that
6 Sarajevo was under siege. I just used a survey conducted by others to
7 produce numbers of victims.
8 Q. But you said that Sarajevo was under siege. Are you saying that
9 Sarajevo was under siege or will you agree with me that Sarajevo was a
10 city divided, not Leningrad, but, rather, a Beirut?
11 A. I would suggest to go to footnote 1 in the first Sarajevo report,
12 Karadzic report, which the term "siege" is used to refer to events in
13 Sarajevo as they become popularly known.
14 Q. Well, I must fight what people see as a notorious facts.
15 Let's move on.
16 Did you mention the fact that victims in Sarajevo were victims of
18 A. It was one of the conclusions that, most likely, yes, there was a
19 terror campaign against, in particular, civilian victims in Sarajevo.
20 Q. This calls for a bit of analysis. You said that you arrived at
21 that conclusion when you applied a formula on the proportion of civilian
22 casualties on the one hand and military casualties on the other; right?
23 A. Yes. These two were compared.
24 Q. Thank you. This proportion, or, rather, this formula, is it the
25 same when it comes to international conflicts and when it comes to
1 internal conflicts or civil wars?
2 A. Well, I don't know why would be this relevant, what kind of
3 conclusions can be drawn from this.
4 Q. I'm kindly asking you to tell me just this: Is this a single
5 formula and a single proportion that is equally applicable to
6 international conflicts as well? Yes or no. Both to international
7 conflicts and civil wars, is it equally applicable?
8 A. Well, I think that it is a part of the law of war, that civilians
9 need to be protected in any conflict. So equally, as well in the
10 international conflict or internal civil war, civilians are a protected
11 group of the population during any armed conflict.
12 Q. We're not disputing that. What I'm interested in is: When you
13 draw a conclusion that more civilians were killed than collateral damage
14 as such would be permissible, did you have in mind international
15 conflicts as well, and did you think that the same criterion applies to
16 them, or no?
17 A. I didn't discuss the collateral damage explicitly as such in my
18 reports. I did a sample analysis in which I compared the number of
19 killed civilians with the number of killed soldiers. As exactly the same
20 thing is with the collateral damage, there is no prescription, no exact
21 number that could be used as a reference standard in any court
22 proceedings to tell what is the cut-off point beyond which we -- we don't
23 speak anymore about the collateral damage. The same refers to the work I
24 provided on Sarajevo, so there are no prescriptions and reference
25 standards, but the common understanding tells us if the number of killed
1 civilians are much higher than those of killed soldiers and for -- on
2 many days during the combat activities, then something is wrong with this
4 Q. Did I misunderstand, that there exists some kind of coefficient
5 which indicates whether those were accidental civilian victims or
6 intentional victims? Is there any way to establish exactly the ratio
7 between the killed and wounded civilians and killed and wounded soldiers.
8 Am I right?
9 A. I said there exist no reference standard as such to be used in
10 analysis like the one I -- I completed. And in court proceedings, it is
11 a term, collateral damage, or, you know, disproportional killings,
12 civilians in relation to soldiers. It is a phenomenon that needs to be
13 carefully studied and decided upon what is in the results of an analysis.
14 Q. Are you trying to say that the coefficient that you applied when
15 you were deciding when the number of victims was excessive, was it
16 something that you, yourself, created or did you adopt it from somewhere
18 But, first of all, refresh our memory. Did you say that a
19 coefficient is to be applied and that if it is less than one or more than
20 one it means something; right?
21 A. What I did -- I didn't create a coefficient. I studied two
22 variables: One was killing of civilians observed day by day and the same
23 with killings of soldiers. It was just a comparison of the two I
24 completed in order to draw certain conclusions. This kind of comparisons
25 are often made also in other conflicts but it doesn't mean that we have a
1 coefficient here. It is a simple comparison of two types of killings:
2 One of civilians, one of soldiers, and that has been done much more
3 frequently than just me.
4 Second, what I said, that there is no threshold for collateral
5 damage or for the number of killed civilians per one soldier. That is
6 all I said.
7 Q. But did you explain to us the coefficient that is using Index 1?
8 A. Well, it is not a coefficient. It just if you divide one by
9 another, then the value might be one, might be lower than one, or higher
10 by one. That's all I am saying. If it is one, then the number of
11 civilians is exactly the same as the number of killed soldiers, and
12 that's it.
13 Q. And who set this standard?
14 A. This is how it is. If you divide two by two, the number is one.
15 Exactly the same if you add two plus two, the result is four. There is
16 no rule, no regulation, no coefficient. This is how it is. You divide
17 one number by another. If they are the same, the result is one.
18 Q. All right. And then in certain armed conflicts, there is
19 something that is described as acceptable number of victims or collateral
20 damage, et cetera. And tell me, what is the ratio between the killed
21 soldiers and the killed civilians that does not constitute terrorising a
22 population which is, if I may say so, an acceptable collateral damage?
23 When does it reach certain point of ratio between the military
24 and civilian victims when it is not acceptable?
25 A. I can't give you such a point. However, I -- you are simplifying
1 my work, especially the work presented in the Karadzic Sarajevo report.
2 I have done much more than just calculating the ratio and telling that
3 the ratio is excessively high on more than 30 per cent of days. That was
4 just the beginning of the analysis I completed.
5 If I can take you to the report --
6 Q. We'll come to that later. We'll come to that. I'm only
7 interested in the basics.
8 You deduce that the civilian casualties among the residents of
9 Sarajevo were the result of terror. I am asking you now to explain the
10 criteria to us.
11 And I also wanted to ask you about the methodology. Firstly, is
12 the ratio the same in international conflicts and in civil wars? Is it
13 the same in urban fighting or in fighting in open battle-fields? So if
14 you propose some assertion, have you to explain to us how you arrived at
15 that; and can you tell us which is this permissible line that has to be
16 crossed in order for this to be considered terrorising?
17 A. Well, you are right that if would be very useful to study this
18 ratio in a number of conflicts. You are absolutely right. But this is a
19 separate project which would be taking quite some resources as acquiring
20 information, detailed information, and reliable information, about
21 killings of civilians as part of armed conflict, is a challenge, I think.
22 So what I did is much simpler than a study that would be broad in
23 placing Sarajevo in a context of several other conflicts, and I explained
24 the methodology in the report, and specifically so. So I can tell about
25 what I did, and my conclusion related to terror is related to, first of
1 all, causes of death of the killed civilians. There is a specific
2 section in the report, Karadzic report and other Sarajevo reports, in
3 which causes are expressed in terms of shelling and sniping, and other
4 shooting. And a large per cent of killings was because of these causes.
5 If there is no similarity and correspondence between killings of
6 civilians and soldiers with time, and we know that soldiers are killed
7 because of combat because they are part of the combat, so what would
8 be -- what would be the reason for the killings of civilians is if causes
9 of death are shelling, sniping, other shooting?
10 So I think there is a very good reason that I said it was most
11 likely a terror campaign, in which arms were involved that were killing
12 civilians in Sarajevo.
13 Q. In other words, you are trying to say that the Serbs preferred to
14 shoot at the civilians rather than at the Muslim soldiers.
15 A. Sir, I am not discussing the combat activities. I'm not
16 discussing the army, the Serb army, the Bosniak army. I am telling what
17 is the observation from the data used for Sarajevo killings.
18 JUDGE KWON: Doctor, yesterday or in last week, you stated that
19 civilians were deliberately targeted.
20 THE WITNESS: Yes.
21 JUDGE KWON: Do you remember having said that?
22 THE WITNESS: Yes.
23 JUDGE KWON: What would that mean? So the soldiers intentionally
24 tried to kill civilians?
25 THE WITNESS: I have no information about the intentions. I
1 can't say about the intentions.
2 JUDGE KWON: Because deliberate has some connotation in legal
4 How do you interpret that word, deliberate, deliberately
5 targeting the civilians?
6 THE WITNESS: The meaning for me, deliberate, was not related to
7 combat activities. Causes of death being related to using arms against
9 JUDGE KWON: So would be differentiate "deliberate" with -- I
10 will -- strike that.
11 So how would that -- that meaning deliberate shelling or
12 deliberate targeting differentiate with -- from, for example, reckless
13 shelling, indiscriminate shelling, or disproportional shelling, in your
14 opinion, as far as you can answer the question?
15 THE WITNESS: Yes, I would rather think of disproportionate
16 shelling and sniping. Why? Because that they were shelled and killed by
17 sniper is a fact. There are causes of death for the killed civilians
18 that expressed the fact and because of the fact that there were many,
19 many days on which the numbers of killed civilians were higher than
20 soldiers. For me, in my assessment, it is disproportionate.
21 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
22 JUDGE BAIRD: Dr. Tabeau, while we're on this subject, I want to
23 take your mind back to a part of the cross-examination where Mr. Karadzic
24 had put his case to you.
25 Now what happened there, he -- he had squeezed in several
1 questions in concertina fashion, you understand, and you weren't in a
2 position to answer any of those questions.
3 Now what I would like to do now is to dismantle that compound
4 question and get your answers on each component of it, if possible.
5 He said: First of all, my thesis is what happened there was a
6 civil war.
7 Are you in a position to answer yes or no to this question at
9 THE WITNESS: Well, I think I would rather not because I don't
10 feel really familiar enough with legal aspect.
11 JUDGE BAIRD: Fair enough, all right. Thank you.
12 He then said:
13 "It was not that the Serbs persecuted others and nothing happened
14 to the Serbs, and everything happened to others."
15 Are you in a position to comment on that, one way or the other?
16 THE WITNESS: Well, as a layperson who reads about wars and
17 conflicts, I know that every war is a complex situation, and there are
18 more than just one party involved.
19 So, also in the war in Bosnia, one party involved were the Serbs
20 and the army and the paramilitaries but there were also other parties to
21 conflict. And, again, I wouldn't like to go deeper than just that.
22 JUDGE BAIRD: Thank you. And the last component of that compound
23 suggestion was:
24 "You will realise that everything was proportional there."
25 Are you in a position to comment on that?
1 THE WITNESS: I'm sure that not everything was proportionate in
2 this war. I studied people killed in this war, both civilians and
3 soldiers for the entire country of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and I am sure
4 that it is not that people lost their lives proportionally to ethnic
5 composition pre-war ethnic composition or anything like that. Certain
6 groups, I think, had lost more lives than other groups. But every --
7 every ethnic group, every people, every people suffered in this war, and
8 considerably so.
9 JUDGE BAIRD: Thank you very much, indeed, Doctor.
10 Yes, Dr. Karadzic.
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Excellency. I was
12 waiting for the interpretation. Thank you for these clarifications. I
13 am in a hurry, and therefore, I'm putting such questions.
14 JUDGE KWON: Yes. Please continue now.
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] French language is a Baroque
16 language and takes longer for interpretation.
17 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
18 Q. So, in view of what His Excellency Baird asked you about, if I
19 tell you that from your table among the displaced and the refugees, we
20 have 32 percentages, or 34, it corresponds to the share in the overall
21 population, and that equally applies to all three ethnic groups.
22 This is the case with those who were killed as well.
23 Approximately 32 percentage -- per cents of Serbs were among those who
24 were killed, which is equal to their share, and my understand
25 [as interpreted] of statistical analysis is to demonstrate these ratios.
1 A. So -- so -- what -- what I need to say, for me, it is, if you
2 want to calculate the shares, you can calculate the shares, but I don't
3 think ... yeah, I don't know what to say. Sorry. You know ...
4 Q. All right. Thank you. Do you know that one party declared war
5 on another party; that is to say, that the Muslims declared war on us?
6 JUDGE KWON: No, it is not for the doctor to comment on.
7 THE WITNESS: No.
8 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation] All right.
9 Q. Do you know that there was the 1st Corps of the
10 Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina in Sarajevo, that they were blended among the
11 population, and that it had the numbers which were three times larger
12 than members of our army?
13 A. Well, I -- I -- I don't know. I don't want to know perhaps even.
14 I heard this theory before that Bosniak army was mixed up and was killing
15 their own people, but I don't think I can comment on this.
16 Q. Well, if, for example, we look the number of victims in 1994 from
17 your report, starting from the 5th of February, and you noticed a large
18 number of victims in that period, and I am sure that your coefficient
19 definitely exceeded one.
20 Just bear with me a minute. I need to find the year 1994 - I'm
21 sure you have it in front of you - relating to Sarajevo.
22 A. I guess you are referring to the Dragomir Milosevic report;
23 right? Or Galic report? 1994, it is February. Galic report.
24 Q. Yes. Table number 13. You say that:
25 "On the 5th of February, 1994, 45 civilians and 14 soldiers were
1 killed, which totals 60, and the ratio is 1:4."
2 Is that correct? Does this constitute terrorising civilians?
3 A. Well, I don't have this ratio or this table calculated
4 explicitly, but it might be that I have it somewhere in the text.
5 This is a sample of days on which six or more civilians were
6 killed. That is, Table 13, page 36, in the Galic report.
7 Q. Thank you. Do you know what happened on the
8 5th of February, 1994, in Sarajevo which resulted in this number of
9 victims? Have you ever heard of Markale I incident?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Do you know who caused it?
12 JUDGE KWON: It's not for the witness.
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Excellency, if it is said that
14 on the 8th of June, 1992, so-and-so number of civilians were killed in
15 Sarajevo without taking into account that the Muslims launched their
16 offensive on the 8th of June, 1992 -- look at this. It sayings eight
17 civilians, 108 soldiers, total number is 116, and ratio 1:5.
18 So if you take any date in which a considerable number of victims
19 is recorded, then this requires to look into the matter who started this
20 offensive, what was going on in the military terms, and whether this was
21 merely a campaign of terror conducted by the Serbs. And, in addition to
22 that, whether there was a siege or not in existence.
23 MS. WEST: Mr. President --
24 JUDGE KWON: I note it is time to conclude your
25 cross-examination, Mr. Karadzic. It is purely a waste of time to put
1 such questions to Dr. Tabeau.
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, Your Excellency, if the
3 witness is taking the liberty to define what a siege is and what a
4 terrorising campaign is, it is my right to say that this is incomplete
5 data and that there is no proper contextualization. And I need to draw
6 the attention of this witness that on those dates offensives were
7 launched, that the 1st Corps of the BH Army had many more soldiers than
8 we did, and they were more dangerous than our army.
9 But, anyway, let's go back to the findings pertaining to
11 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. Do you know that during the war there existed part of the town
13 which was called the Serbian Sarajevo and nowadays it is called eastern
15 A. You are referring to Pale, I guess.
16 Q. No. I'm not talking about Pale. 80 per cent of the territory in
17 Sarajevo was Serb controlled, and Serbs were a majority there. Do you
18 know that there was a Serb majority in Ilijas, for example, but that we
19 handed it over post-Dayton?
20 A. Well, I -- I don't know what is the 80 per cent of the territory
21 of Sarajevo that Serbs controlled territory and was it exactly. And
22 Ilijas was indeed a Serb majority. But what's the question, actually?
23 Q. The question is: Are you aware that throughout the whole war
24 there existed two cities in Sarajevo, that the Serbian part of the town
25 and Serbs territories by definition were located and were surrounding the
1 Muslim part, and that did not mean that the town was under siege.
2 That's why I'm asking you whether you know what Serb Sarajevo
4 A. Well, I don't know exactly what you mean by "Serb Sarajevo."
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Excellency, I need two more
6 hours. Actually, I will try to finish until the end of today's working
7 hours, but I would need more time.
8 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. Now please take a look at Sarajevo in the Karadzic case, and let
10 us go together through the tables that you put.
11 MS. WEST: Sorry for the interruption. Just for the
12 Trial Chamber's information, I do have some re-direct. My re-direct
13 would be about five minutes long.
14 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
15 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
16 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. Addendum A3. Table 1M.
18 A. So that would be the municipalities report?
19 Q. Yes, Sarajevo Ten.
20 MS. WEST: This is P4994, e-court page 74.
21 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
22 Q. Could we now please take a look at this page. I cannot give you
23 the exact number. Yes. This is it.
24 Could we now please take a look at this. There were over 43.000
25 adults in Sarajevo in 1991; right?
1 A. 438.605 in Sarajevo Ten in 1991. All ethnicities.
2 Q. All right. How did you get this figure, that in the Serb part of
3 Sarajevo there were only 24.000 when Serb Sarajevo included Trnovo, half
4 of Ilidza, half of Hadzici, all of Vogosca, all of Ilijas, a small part
5 of the old city and all of Pale?
6 A. This table is made for post-Dayton municipalities. So the part
7 reported here as Republika Srpska includes parts out of a number of
8 Sarajevo Ten municipalities that, after the Dayton Agreement, were
9 assigned to Republika Srpska.
10 Q. All right. Less look further on the sample of the population for
11 1997. What you indicate is that there was an increase in the Serb
12 population to 29.000. Now what would you say if I were to tell you that
13 now the population of Serb Sarajevo is 100.000?
14 A. What is the Serb Sarajevo now? Is it the RS part?
15 Q. Yes. Because we returned Hadzici, the Serb part of Hadzici. We
16 returned the Serb part of Ilidza, almost all of Ilidza that is. Then we
17 returned all of Vogosca and all of Ilijas, and that happened at the
18 negotiating table in Dayton. What remained out of Sarajevo, Lukavica,
19 and the rest, Pale and so on, that has a population of 100.000.
20 A. It might be. I don't know exactly.
21 Q. All right. Now take a look at this. You say that in the
22 Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Sarajevo Ten in 1991, there were
23 205.000 Muslims and as for 1997, you give a lower figure.
24 How did that happen?
25 A. It's a sample. It's a sample. Not a figure, complete figure.
1 It's just a sample of Muslims identified in the voters' register which is
3 Q. Can we see Vogosca here? No, no.
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we please have the next page
6 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
7 Q. Do you know that Vogosca was in Serb hands throughout the war and
8 that it was peacefully handed over after Dayton?
9 A. Well, sir, I know that there was a Dayton Agreement in which the
10 country was divided into Republika Srpska and the Federation of Bosniak
11 and Croats. The analysis I made is using the post-Dayton municipalities.
12 So I didn't study who had Vogosca before the war and after the
13 war because it wasn't the subject of my report.
14 Q. Thank you. Let us take a look at 1C, the next table. Let us see
15 how the Croats of Sarajevo faired.
16 So let us take a look at this now. There were 31.000 Croats in
17 Sarajevo in 1991. They accounted for 7.1 per cent. And let us see how
18 things ended. 10.000 is the estimate, 4.4 per cent, or 37 per cent less;
20 A. 10.000 is a sample. 1997 voters' register.
21 Q. What does the sample show us? Does it not represent the whole?
22 A. No. This is a sample of Croats registered in the 1997 voters'
24 I don't think, Mr. Karadzic, that you will find in these numbers
25 the answer to who was in charge of certain territories before the war and
1 who became to be in charge after the war. Well, it is just a simple
2 study of ethnic composition in 1991 and 1997, and no more than that.
3 Things that happened during the war are not in this table, as a matter of
4 fact, not explicitly reported as numbers.
5 Q. And conclusions cannot be made in a criminal case; right?
6 JUDGE KWON: That's not for the witness, Mr. Karadzic.
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right. Then nothing -- can we
8 have 1S. Can we just cast a glance and see how the Serbs faired? And
9 then we'll move on to something different.
10 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. Is this correct, that in Sarajevo in 1991, there were 133.000
12 Serbs who were adults; namely, born before 1980.
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And if I were to tell you that in Sarajevo at the time there were
15 157.000 Serbs, persons who declared themselves that way, and 23.000 who
16 declared themselves as Yugoslav, and that included an enormous number of
17 Serbs, does that correspond to the number that you have there of persons
18 born before 1980?
19 A. It doesn't. But I would like to hear about your sources.
20 Q. The official census in Sarajevo. There were 157.000 Serbs; a bit
21 more than that. And there were 23.000-something Yugoslavs. All of them,
22 not only those who were of age.
23 A. Yes. This is correct. I have the published number of Serbs in
24 Sarajevo, all ten municipalities, all ages, and this is 157.000 Serbs.
25 Q. Thank you. So let us please take a look at this.
1 In the area that belonged to Republika Srpska, you believed that
2 there are persons who were born before 1980 and that there
3 18.000-something of them and in the federal part, 115.000; right?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And the estimate is, or, what, that in 1997, there's 82 per cent
6 less Serbs, Serbs in relation to Serbs. That would be 91 per cent less,
7 according to my calculations, in the federal part and 55.4 per cent more
8 in the Serb part of Sarajevo?
9 A. Well, I have 82.2 per cent less Serbs in the federal part of
11 Q. But my calculation is 91 in relation to the 115.000. That is the
12 number of people who were there in 1991. But, all right. This cannot be
13 used because we don't know what a sample is and what the population it
14 represents is.
15 At any rate, the estimate is that in 1997 there are only
16 5 per cent Serbs in Sarajevo.
17 A. In the federal part of Sarajevo.
18 Q. Yes, yes, in the federal part of Sarajevo.
19 And there were 30 per cent of them; right? There used to be 30
20 per cent?
21 A. 28. So about. Correct.
22 Q. Thank you.
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we take a look at 2S?
24 Table 2S.
25 MS. WEST: E-court 88.
1 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
2 Q. Can you help me with this. This minimum number of internally
3 displaced persons from Sarajevo Ten, the Serb's status as of 1997; right?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And, in 1997, isn't that right, 76.100 Serbs, 11.000 of which are
6 Republika Srpska, and 64.000 in the Federation of BH. That is to say,
7 displaced persons and refugees; right?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Thank you.
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we now see 1D05559 in
12 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
13 Q. Can you recognise this table?
14 A. Yes. You -- not you, but Mr. Robinson asked me to provide
15 statistics, if I had them, on deaths and disappearances of Muslims from a
16 number of municipalities in 1992-1995.
17 Q. Thank you. So in Bratunac, there were 21.535 Muslims; right?
18 And there are 3.281 killed or disappeared, which is
19 15.2 per cent.
20 A. Yes, this is what is -- it is in the table.
21 Q. Thank you. Please let's go through the whole table so that I
22 don't have to read all of it.
23 Foca, 20.790.
24 Kljuc, 17.696 Muslims, 600 Muslims killed and disappeared,
25 3.4 per cent.
1 Prijedor, 49.351 inhabitants, 2.627 killed and disappeared,
2 3.5 per cent.
3 Sanski Most, 28.136, 619 killed and disappeared, 2.2 per cent.
4 Vlasenica, 18.727, 1.197 Muslims killed and disappeared,
5 6.4 per cent.
6 Zvornik, 48.102, 3.411 Muslims killed and disappeared, 2.7 -- 7.1
7 per cent.
8 For all of Bosnia and Herzegovina there were 1.902.956 Muslims.
9 49.111 Muslims killed and disappeared, 2.6 per cent.
10 Did these figures include combatants who were killed in fighting?
11 A. I guess so.
12 Q. Thank you. Does it include persons who died a natural death?
13 A. No. No, natural deaths.
14 Q. Does the Bratunac figure include the number of persons who lost
15 their lives in 1995?
16 A. It is the complete war period. Until end of war in 1995, yes.
17 Q. Thank you. Would it be correct to conclude that throughout the
18 war less than 3 per cent of the Muslim population lost their lives,
19 2.6 per cent?
20 A. This is what the table says.
21 Q. Thank you. Do you happen to know what the percentage would be of
22 Jews who lost their lives in Europe during the Holocaust in the
23 Second World War?
24 MS. WEST: Objection.
25 JUDGE KWON: Not relevant.
1 MR. ROBINSON: Actually, Mr. President, if I could just be heard
2 on that. I think it is relevant. Maybe she knows or she doesn't. But
3 these are the seven municipalities that the Prosecution has alleged in
4 the indictment, paragraph 38, which constituted genocide as charged in
5 count 1 of the indictment and one of the elements of genocide is that
6 there has to be an intend to destroy a substantial part of the group.
7 You see here that 2.6 per cent were "destroyed," and I think it's
8 relevant to compare that with other instances where there have been
9 findings of genocide such as the Holocaust or --
10 JUDGE KWON: Pardon, Mr. Robinson. I'm sorry to cut you off, but
11 is this for this witness to confirm?
12 MR. ROBINSON: Well, he's asking her for a piece of information.
13 If she has it then it would be useful to the Chamber, if she doesn't then
14 we will have to find it through some other source.
15 JUDGE KWON: I think we can safely skip this issue with this
17 Mr. Karadzic, please conclude your cross-examination in five
18 minutes' time from now.
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] May I say, then, to Dr. Tabeau what
20 my case is?
21 JUDGE KWON: If necessary.
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
23 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. In Rwanda, Dr. Tabeau, about 70 per cent of the Tutsi population
25 was destroyed, and in Europe about 58 per cent of the population that
1 were Jews --
2 JUDGE KWON: Dr. Tabeau didn't deal with the legal motion of
3 genocide deportation or anything else.
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can this table be admitted? Quite
5 simply, so that it would be an instrument, a tool, so that you could see.
6 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit D2250, Your Honours.
8 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. Thank you, Dr. Tabeau. And my apologies. I was just after the
10 facts. I appreciate your work and I appreciate your testimony.
11 A. Thank you.
12 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Ms. West.
13 MS. WEST: Thank you, Mr. President.
14 Re-examination by Ms. West:
15 Q. Dr. Tabeau, earlier today you had a few questions from the
16 President and Judge Baird and they regarded the parts of your report in
17 which -- part of your Sarajevo report in which you spoke about timing,
18 and you spoke about the timing of deaths of civilians versus the timing
19 of deaths versus soldiers [sic].
20 Do you remember that discussion?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And at one point, you were specifically asked how the meaning
23 deliberate shelling or deliberate targeting differentiate with, for
24 example, from reckless shelling, indiscriminate shelling or
25 disproportional shelling. And you were asked whether you could give an
1 answer to that. And answer you said would -- you rather thought would be
2 disproportionate shelling and sniping, and then you went on to say:
3 "There are causes of death that for the killed civilians that
4 expressed the fact and because of that fact there were many, many days on
5 which the numbers of killed civilians were higher than soldiers. For me,
6 in my assessment, it is disproportionate."
7 When you were using the term "disproportionate," were you using
8 that term as a statistical definition, one that regarded numbers, or were
9 you using it in a legal sense?
10 A. I was using it in a statistical sense. I cannot use a legal term
11 because I am not a lawyer. I didn't go to the law school.
12 Q. And did your study on this particular issue of timing speak to
13 any legal determinations as to cause of death or were you only doing a
14 comparison between numbers, between civilian deaths versus soldiers'
16 A. We are comparing civilian deaths with soldiers' deaths and causes
17 of death are studied in these context.
18 Q. Dr. Tabeau, I also want to speak to you about something that has
19 been brought up yesterday and today and it is the reliability of the OSCE
20 records as a source in matching. This was brought up yesterday at
21 transcript 28304, 28305, and then today. The President very precisely
22 put the question about whether you were saying that 1997 census was not
23 100 percent reliable, and I would like to discuss that issue now.
24 In a perfect statistical or demographic world, what two sources
25 or what source would you deem to be the most reliable to be used as
1 bookends in a matching exercise?
2 A. Well, I mentioned this during my testimony, that ideally I would
3 like to work with two censuses, one at the outbreak of the conflict and
4 another thereafter.
5 Q. And can you tell us the reasons for that, why a census is a very
6 good source?
7 A. There are many, many reasons for this, I think. It is the
8 methodology of census and the coverage of census and the way of reporting
9 of data in the census that make it so special and so reliable.
10 Q. Dr. Tabeau, if another source, if you found another source that
11 adopted the census data or, say, copied the census data, would you
12 consider that second source to also be reliable?
13 A. Yes, of course. If it would be copied, yeah.
14 Q. So let's look at the OSCE voters' registration and the
15 information upon it was based.
16 First tell us this: What was the pre-condition with which
17 perspective voters had to comply in order to be eligible to vote?
18 A. They have to be at age 18 or older and they had to be listed on
19 the census, of course. Yeah.
20 Q. And when that person came in to register to vote how was it
21 checked that they were on the census?
22 A. Actually, a copy of the census records, a portion of the census,
23 personal items, including JMBG and names and the date of birth and
24 municipality of residence in 1991, there was a copy of the census in
25 every registration office and actually there were hard copies. That
1 means, I don't know, volumes, ten volumes or so, books with the census
2 information. There also was an electronic version of the census
3 available as well.
4 Q. May we have 65 ter 17956, please.
5 JUDGE KWON: Can I intervene briefly, Ms. West.
6 Going back to the 1997 voters' register, talking about
7 2.5 million, you just stated that they had to be listed on the census
9 THE WITNESS: Yes.
10 JUDGE KWON: Do you remember my previous question, where the .7
11 million go? We discussed 1.8 million.
12 THE WITNESS: Yes, yes, yes.
13 JUDGE KWON: And your answer was they should be matched with --
14 THE WITNESS: Yeah, yeah, with the census. Yeah, match with the
15 census, yeah.
16 JUDGE KWON: But 2.5 million are already listed on the census.
17 That means they should have been matched.
18 THE WITNESS: I think more are listed in the census. More are
19 listed in the census. Actually, all eligible voters available from 1991
20 should be listed on the census, I think.
21 JUDGE KWON: No.
22 THE WITNESS: I don't understand.
23 JUDGE KWON: We talk about 2.5 million --
24 THE WITNESS: Million. Yes, yes, yes.
25 JUDGE KWON: -- in voters' register.
1 THE WITNESS: Yes, exactly, yeah.
2 JUDGE KWON: In order to register, they already should already --
3 they should appear --
4 THE WITNESS: On the census, yes, yes.
5 JUDGE KWON: -- on the 1991 census. So 2.5 million are those who
6 already were matched with the census, were they not?
7 THE WITNESS: Not electronically. You know, in principle, as a
8 matter of principle, yes. All should have been matched but matching this
9 quantities of information is a challenging activity. There are many
10 little things that prevent 100 per cent matching rate. And these are,
11 you know, like, differences in formats of items like JMBG could have been
12 formatted slightly differently. Commas could have been inserted or
13 spaces, and names perhaps could have been presented differently. So it
14 is a huge mass of material that were processed by different people.
15 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
16 Yes, Ms. West.
17 MS. WEST: Thank you.
18 Q. And following up on Mr. President's question, so in theory the
19 match you did was the second match between the OSCE records and the
20 census; is that right?
21 A. Yes. I guess the OSCE was the first ones to match because they
22 had to prepare the register, which was used for the registration of
23 individuals. Yes, absolutely. OSCE were the first ones to -- to work
24 with this material. Yes.
25 Q. So here in front of us we see a letter dated November 2008.
1 Are you familiar with this letter?
2 A. Yes, yes, yes, yes. That is a letter from OSCE to the Prosecutor
3 of ICTY in which actually he confirms the fact that the OSCE was using
4 the census data for the register, yes.
5 Q. And here it says:
6 "After meticulous review of our records we can confirm that the
7 1991 census for BiH was used as the sole basis for the registration of
8 eligible voters in the 1997 ... elections. Besides, the same records
9 reveal that both electronic and paper versions of the 1991
10 census ... were made available to each and every registration centre
11 throughout the entire 1997 voters registration exercise."
12 Did OTP receive this letter as a result of your inquiry?
13 A. Yes. Yep.
14 Q. So, from your understanding, did the OSCE registration process
15 include adopting or copying over the census information onto the
16 registration for those who wanted to vote?
17 A. Well, I guess so, yes. They were working with the census
19 Q. And knowing that, what is your opinion as to the reliability of
20 the information in the voters' registration regarding name, date of
21 birth, and JMBG number?
22 A. It is very good. As I said earlier today, it is a very reliable
23 source to be used in this kind of analysis as I used it.
24 Q. In the absence of a census-to-census matching exercise, what is
25 your opinion as to the statistical reliability of the 1991 census match
1 to the OSCE voters' registration?
2 A. I think it is very reliable way of doing things.
3 MS. WEST: Thank you, Mr. President.
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Just one brief question, please,
5 Excellencies. I'll tell you what it is. What happened to those who did
6 not register, who didn't wish to vote? Where are they? Are they
7 considered to be missing, disappeared, because registering to vote is a
8 voluntarily matter?
9 JUDGE KWON: I think that is clear from the previous answer.
10 THE WITNESS: But can I confirm that they are just not in the
11 register. That only means that.
12 JUDGE KWON: Unless my colleagues have questions for you.
13 Oh, yes, I have one matter. I am raising this, Ms. West, because
14 I already noted the Defence letter to the OSCE.
15 Dr. Tabeau during the course of your evidence you stated that
16 the -- all the source material must have been disclose to the Defence but
17 as regards 1996 voters' register, I don't know the exact name, but 1996
18 election material was not disclosed to the Defence because it was not the
19 practice of the Tribunal, since it was not used in your report.
20 THE WITNESS: I didn't use it, and I even don't have a copy of
22 JUDGE KWON: You don't have a copy of it.
23 THE WITNESS: If a copy is needed, then Karadzic has to address
24 this request to the OSCE, of course.
25 JUDGE KWON: Yes, my question was -- I'm sorry, I was
2 My question was whether have you in your possession that material
3 but it is clear it doesn't -- you do not have it.
4 THE WITNESS: No.
5 JUDGE KWON: And the Prosecution does not have it either.
6 MS. WEST: I will double-check, but I'm fairly certain we do not.
7 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
8 Then that concludes your evidence, Dr. Tabeau.
9 THE WITNESS: Thank you very much.
10 JUDGE KWON: On behalf of my colleagues I would like to thank you
11 for your coming to The Hague to give it.
12 THE WITNESS: Thank you very much.
13 JUDGE KWON: Just one -- after one matter, we'll rise all
15 THE WITNESS: Yes.
16 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Tieger, we are seized of your motion to
17 temporarily stay the application of the Chamber's decision on ICMP
18 exhibits and we also received the Defence response.
19 To me, it's not clear what you are seeking. Are you seeking the
20 stay in relation to all the exhibits or only in relation to those which
21 are to be reclassified fully, that is, without any redaction?
22 Oh, yes, Ms. West.
23 MS. WEST: Thank you, Mr. President.
24 We are seeking an extension of time for those exhibits that we
25 listed in our response. Included in those exhibits are some of the very
1 large ones which is why we have asked for the 18th which would include
2 the ICMP database --
3 JUDGE KWON: So, i.e., you are seeking only an extension of time
4 for Exhibit P4639, 4640, and P4641.
5 MS. WEST: I don't have it in front of me, but I don't believe
6 so. I think more than that are listed.
7 JUDGE KWON: You listed about nine or -- or 11. So you -- you
8 are seeking a stay with respect to all = the documents therein.
9 MS. WEST: Indeed.
10 JUDGE KWON: So my question was whether you had different Rule 70
11 conditions or ...
12 MS. WEST: In addition to that, we're seeking a stay, we're also
13 seeking a stay as regards discussions with ICMP and any potential Rule 70
14 conditions. I can tell you that we are in the process of having those
15 discussions and there is an expectation we will be filing something else
16 as well.
17 JUDGE KWON: Do you have any observation on the Defence's
19 MS. WEST: I did see the Defence response, and it regarded those
20 discussions with ICMP. I can report to the Court at this point that the
21 second response is being drafted as we speak, and it will be a motion for
22 reconsideration based on those discussions. But in the meanwhile, since
23 the due date is today and the material is so voluminous, that is why we
24 filed the separate motion.
25 [Trial Chamber confers]
1 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
2 Hearing is now adjourned for today, and we resume tomorrow at
4 [The witness withdrew]
5 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 3.06 p.m.,
6 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 3rd day of May,
7 2012, at 9.00 a.m.