1 Thursday, 1
2 [Open session]
3 [The witness entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.35 a.m.
5 [The accused entered court]
6 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Good
7 morning, ladies and gentlemen, the technical booth, the
8 interpreters. I see they are there. Good morning to
9 the court reporters, legal assistants. Good morning,
10 Mr. McCloskey, Mr. Harmon, Mr. Krstic, Mr. Visnjic,
11 Mr. Petrusic.
12 Good morning, Professor Brunborg. I hope I
13 pronounce your name correctly. How are you?
14 THE WITNESS: Fine, thank you.
15 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] You will
16 pronounce it better than I can, I'm sure.
17 You're going to read the solemn declaration
18 that the usher is going to give you, please.
19 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will
20 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
22 WITNESS: HELGE BRUNBORG
23 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Please be
24 seated. Thank you very much for coming. I think you
25 are very familiar with the court proceedings, so you
1 will be feeling at ease in the courtroom.
2 First of all, you will be answering questions
3 put to you by Mr. McCloskey.
4 Mr. McCloskey, you have the floor.
5 MR. McCLOSKEY: Thank you, and good morning,
6 Mr. President, Your Honours, Counsel.
7 Examined by Mr. McCloskey:
8 Q. Could you please state your name and spell
9 your last name for the record?
10 A. My name is Helge Brunborg. My last name is
11 spelled B-r-u-n-b-o-r-g.
12 Q. And you're of Norwegian nationality?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And what is your profession?
15 A. I'm a demographer.
16 Q. Can you briefly describe for us what
17 demography is, as relates to your profession?
18 A. Demography relates to population studies, the
19 changes of population, and the composition of a
21 Q. Can you give us your educational background?
22 A. Yes. I have an undergraduate degree from the
23 University of Oslo in mathematics and statistics and
24 physics, and a graduate degree from the University of
25 Oslo in economics, and a PhD from the University of
1 Michigan in economics, specialising in demography.
2 Q. And can you tell us your employment history?
3 A. I've been employed at Statistics Norway since
4 1974, but with several spells of employment elsewhere,
5 mostly in other countries.
6 Q. What is Statistics Norway?
7 A. It's a central agency for collecting and
8 disseminating statistics for Norway.
9 Q. Could you give us an example or two of the
10 kind of work you've done for Statistics Norway over the
12 A. I made population projections for Norway, for
13 the country and for all the regions. I've studied
14 fertility trends, historically and current, even new
15 patterns, cohabitational patterns, consensual unions,
16 that is, living together without being married,
17 mortality trends in particular.
18 Q. You say you've had various periods of leave.
19 Can you tell us some of the projects you were involved
20 in during those periods of leave?
21 A. I've been employed by the Central Statistics
22 Office of Botswana and by the University of Botswana
23 for two years altogether. I have worked here for one
24 and a half years on a permanent basis.
25 Q. Tell us what you were doing in Botswana.
1 A. I was working in the demography unit and
2 advising on analysis of census. And I was planning a
3 demographic survey, an interview survey, and in that
4 respect I went into the field with interviewers to
5 collect data.
6 Q. And I notice your curriculum vitae, which is
7 marked Exhibit 269. Under "Professional Activities",
8 can you give us an example of one of your professional
10 A. I've been travelling to several countries,
11 advising on various aspects of data collection and data
12 analysis, including Mozambique, Namibia, Zambia,
13 Albania and Bosnia.
14 Q. Were you part of the Norwegian delegation to
15 the United Nations?
16 A. Yes. I have represented Norway in the
17 Population Commission of the United Nations since 1991.
18 Q. And what was that in regard?
19 A. That is an advisory body under ECOSOC.
20 Q. What do they do?
21 A. They advise on the population policies and
22 data collection activities and give advice. They were
23 the planning body for the large international
24 population conference in Cairo in 1994, where I was
25 also representing Norway.
1 Q. And when did you come to work -- to assist
2 the Office of the Prosecutor?
3 A. End of June, 1997.
4 Q. And while you were working for the
5 Prosecutor, did you get a specific assignment regarding
6 the Srebrenica investigation?
7 A. Yes. First I worked on the general problem
8 of estimating the population consequences of the war in
9 Bosnia, and later I was asked to study Srebrenica in
10 particular and try to estimate and validate the number
11 of missing persons from Srebrenica.
12 Q. Were you basically asked to review the
13 International Committee for the Red Cross's missing
14 list, as well as another missing list from another
15 non-governmental organisation, as well as other
16 material, and determine their potential reliability and
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. So, first of all, can you describe who you
20 worked with on that project and how that was set up?
21 A. Well, first I had an assistant. I've had an
22 assistant since January 1998, because I soon realised
23 that the task, what I was supposed to do, was
24 overwhelming. And these assistants -- there have been
25 four of them -- have been Norwegian graduate students.
1 Q. Have they been they students of yours?
2 A. More or less. Some have, some have -- I've
3 gotten to know through other people, through
5 Q. I didn't ask you about your teaching
6 experience. What sort of teaching experience do you
8 A. Yes. I also do part-time teaching at the
9 University of Oslo, and I've been a teacher at the
10 University of Botswana as well.
11 Q. So what was the team that comprised your
12 population -- your study of Srebrenica missing?
13 A. Well, it was a student, the assistant, and
14 myself, and then we were working in close contact with
15 the team investigating Srebrenica.
16 Q. And what is your student's name?
17 A. Henrik Urdal and later Torkild Lyngstad, who
18 is here now. I should also mention perhaps that I went
19 back to Oslo in January 1998, 1999, and then worked
20 here on a part-time basis, coming here every two months
21 for a week but then talking to my assistant every day,
22 and he was also coming to Oslo every two months or so,
23 so we had very good contact with the project.
24 Q. Can you tell us a bit about how you attacked
25 this project, this task? What was the one of the first
1 things that you had to do?
2 A. Well, first, we needed to find out how the
3 data were collected by these two organisations that you
4 referred to, the ICRC, the International Committee of
5 the Red Cross, and PHR, the Physicians for Human
7 Is there a problem? Press this one also?
8 Q. That should get it.
9 A. All right. Now are there two.
10 Q. All right. Can you tell the Court what you
11 learned about the ICRC and specifically about their
12 missing lists?
13 A. Well, what I learned was that -- I'm a bit
14 uncomfortable hearing myself in stereo. Can I take
15 this off now? Is that okay? Okay.
16 Q. You'll notice if someone's speaking to you in
17 language you don't understand. Then put it right back
19 A. Yes. For the time being, if I may.
20 The ICRC is an organisation based in Geneva
21 that has worked for more than a hundred years in
22 relation to war and crisis. It has always emphasised,
23 as far as I know, to be neutral so that they have
24 access to both parties. For instance, visiting
25 prisoners of war.
1 One of their mandates, one of their tasks is
2 to trace people who have gone missing because of the
3 war. In war periods, families easily get split, and if
4 they are refugees or displaced, it's very hard for them
5 to unite. So to help in that, they take tracing
6 requests. People can register people as missing, and
7 they go through various national and international
8 channels to try to locate the missing people.
9 Q. Okay. Did you learn what specific methods
10 and procedures the ICRC used in regard to the war in
11 the former Yugoslavia?
12 A. Yes. They had offices all over the former
13 Yugoslavia or particularly in Bosnia and Croatia, and
14 they designed a questionnaire that people who wanted to
15 place a tracing request had to complete with the help
16 of an interviewer and then this information was entered
17 into a database. Parts of the information, some of the
18 items, were published in books.
19 Q. All right. Let me ask you, did they allow
20 anyone to come register someone missing or did they
21 have some standards regarding that?
22 A. Only -- no. Only close relatives were
23 supposed to register, and they had to record the name.
24 In fact, more than 95 per cent of the people who
25 reported a person as missing were close relatives.
1 That is, parents, children, spouses, and siblings.
2 Q. Did they ever make exceptions to that?
3 A. Occasionally friends and neighbours and more
4 distant relatives, because there is a problem in that
5 sometimes whole families went missing and there was
6 nobody to report them.
7 Q. Did they allow government agencies or bodies
8 like that to put in missing persons' names?
9 A. Not to my knowledge, and it is not listed,
11 Q. So this was for the entire conflict of the
12 former Yugoslavia?
13 A. Yes. The first person went listed as missing
14 in Bosnia in November 1991, in fact.
15 Q. How many different editions of missing lists
16 has the ICRC actually come out with?
17 A. Four.
18 Q. Can you explain that?
19 THE INTERPRETER: Could we ask counsel to
20 make breaks between the questions and answers, please.
21 A. Did you say something?
22 MR. McCLOSKEY:
23 Q. We speak the same language. We spoke briefly
24 beforehand. I need to make a break and perhaps you can
25 try to make a pause too.
1 A. Yes. I'm familiar with the last two editions
2 of this one, this book here, editions 3 and 4.
3 Edition 3 was published in January 1997 and the 4th in
4 July 1998, actually, the 2nd in September 1996, I
6 MR. McCLOSKEY: For the record, that was the
7 Exhibit number 270, the ICRC missing list.
8 Q. So which volumes did you pay attention to in
9 your review?
10 A. Volumes 3 and 4.
11 Q. Why wouldn't you just focus on the most
12 recent volume?
13 A. Because people were -- between each edition,
14 people were added because more were registered missing,
15 but also people were taken off the list because it was
16 shown that they were dead or, in a few cases, that they
17 were alive.
18 Q. So that was all of interest to you in forming
19 your final list.
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Now, can you tell us a little bit about what
22 you learned specifically about the effort to register
23 those missing from Srebrenica by the ICRC?
24 A. I've been told that the whole process started
25 in July 1995, when they learned about the events in
1 Srebrenica. In particular, it started because it
2 became known that many people were captured and were
3 imprisoned in Serbia.
4 Q. Those were the allegations or the --
5 A. Yes. And it started in Tuzla, where --
6 because many refugees came to Tuzla.
7 Q. What have you learned about any problems
8 related to that process?
9 A. Well, it was a very chaotic situation. It
10 must have been when people were separated, especially
11 women and children were separated from the men. They
12 had to flee at very short notice, bringing few
13 belongings. Some of them were refugees for the second
14 time, in fact, displaced. They had spent a long time
15 in Srebrenica, in the enclave, being displaced from
16 other places in Bosnia. They did not know what
17 happened to their relatives, and many of them must have
18 been in a state of shock.
19 So when they were asked to give particulars
20 about the missing persons, some, they did not always
21 have the exact data. For example, date of birth is
22 missing for a substantial -- exact date of birth is
23 missing for a substantial number of persons. The year
24 of birth is there for everybody but one.
25 Q. What was the important data that you used in
1 your study that came from the ICRC list?
2 A. The most important is, of course, the surname
3 of the missing person; first name; and father's name,
4 which is widely used in the former Yugoslavia, in the
5 Balkans, to identify people; date of birth; place of
6 birth; and not the least, place and date of
7 disappearance; and also the opstina, the municipality
8 of disappearance, with those data I had access to. The
9 ICRC collected more data but these were the only data
10 that were made public.
11 Q. Did they take down ethnicity?
12 A. Yes, according to the questionnaire, they did
13 that, but we never got access to that information.
14 Q. Were the missing from Srebrenica incorporated
15 into the publication for all of Bosnia?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. So in order to determine Srebrenica missing
18 from the ICRC list, you have to put in certain data to
19 determine who are actually missing from Srebrenica in
20 1995; is that right?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Okay. So that's the ICRC list. Do you have
23 any other observations about that list before we go
24 onto the other list?
25 A. The total list, if you include everybody who
1 has ever been reported, includes about 19.000 people.
2 Q. And initially when you first got the volume,
3 or what -- how many of those are related to Srebrenica,
4 according to the ICRC?
5 A. Some 7.400.
6 Q. All right. Now, tell us what you learned
7 about the Physicians for Human Rights missing list.
8 Who are they and what did you learn about them?
9 A. That's an American-based, non-governmental
10 organisation. I guess it's -- they're doing
11 humanitarian work, human rights related work, and they
12 wanted to assist particularly in identifying exhumed
13 bodies related to Srebrenica. So in 1996, they started
14 registering data on the missing persons much in the
15 same way as ICRC did, but the objective was different.
16 They wanted to use this information to identify people
17 who were exhumed.
18 So then in addition to asking the same
19 questions as ICRC about place and date of
20 disappearance, name, and so on, they also asked about
21 particulars about the missing persons. For example,
22 special physical characteristics, special clothing,
23 special -- and something special about the teeth, and
24 so on.
25 Q. How long did that project continue?
1 A. I believe it continued until January this
2 year when, apparently, they ran out of funds and it was
3 taken over by somebody else.
4 Q. Can you describe who they took statements
5 from? What kind of people did they allow to register?
6 A. Also close relatives. They were more -- they
7 were more liberal, but also in their case was that --
8 were the missing persons reported by close relatives in
9 more than 95 per cent of the cases.
10 Q. What about Srebrenica? Were they only
11 Srebrenica or would they allow other people?
12 A. The main purpose was -- objective was to map
13 Srebrenica, but they did not object to anybody coming
14 in to report people going missing from other places.
15 So of those 7.000-something, in their lists, in their
16 database, about 80 per cent are Srebrenica-related.
17 Q. Did you have access to the two volumes of the
18 ICRC and the PHR lists in an electronic format?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. All right. What was your next job, having
21 access to these lists that you've described? What was
22 the next job to meet your objective?
23 A. Well, first related to the ICRC lists, I have
24 two different versions, so we had to merge those,
25 making sure that nobody appeared twice. And also
1 finding out if somebody was removed from version 3 to
2 version 4, we needed to why were they removed; was it
3 because they were found to be dead or found to be
5 Q. So those that were found to be dead you would
6 want to keep on your list, because that related to
8 A. And we wanted, of course, to delete those
9 found to be alive.
10 Q. So did you go through that process?
11 A. Yes. So we merged those two lists, and also
12 together with a list of dead people published at the
13 back of this book, about 600 people.
14 Q. And what did you do with the PHR list?
15 A. Well, also there we had different versions.
16 We had to merge them, check for duplicates. We did not
17 want the same person to be represented twice. It could
18 be that some relatives went, actually, twice and were
19 recorded by two different people or there was a mix-up
20 in the data entry. And we did find some duplicates,
21 and we checked with PHR later and they confirmed that
22 we were right.
23 So then we had two lists, one ICRC combined
24 list, one PHR combined list. Then we merged those two
25 lists. That was much more difficult, because most of
1 the people appeared in both lists. So then we had to
2 be very careful that we did not include people twice.
3 We were conservative all the time, trying not
4 to inflate the number but to get an exact and true
5 picture of the number of missing as possible.
6 Q. Can you just give us a brief idea of what was
7 involved in the merging to --
8 A. Well, this was done using computers, of
9 course, because of the large numbers, and we used the
10 Access database programme and we searched for names
11 that are equal; family name, first name, father's name,
12 date of birth. If all those items are identical and
13 place and date of disappearance are also similar or
14 very similar, then we would accept this as being
15 information for the same person.
16 Now, a problem is that sometimes, as I told,
17 the exact date of birth was missing. Then it was more
18 difficult. Or there was misspellings in the names, and
19 then we had to check this manually also to confirm that
20 these were really the same people and not different
22 Q. Did you have another data source that helped
23 you with that, the problems of misspellings and lack of
25 A. Yes. We were fortunate in having a complete
1 copy of the population census of 1991 for Bosnia and
3 Q. Can you tell the Court what you learned about
4 that, how reliable you believe that to be?
5 A. That is a standard census which was -- it was
6 taken then in 1991 in all of the former Yugoslavia,
7 following similar censuses in 1981 and 1971 and so on.
8 They record at the household level; also name, date of
9 birth, ethnicity, in addition to lots of social
10 variables like educational attainment, occupation, and
11 so on.
12 Q. Is there a national ID number for people?
13 A. Yes. A national ID number called maticni
14 broj, meaning "unique number", was introduced in the
15 former Yugoslavia in 1981. It consists of the date of
16 birth, seven digits, and some additional six digits.
17 But, if I may, this was recorded in the 1991 census,
18 but not by everybody, unfortunately.
19 Q. What were the problems with the 1991 census?
20 I mean obviously 1991, in the former Yugoslavia, was
21 not an easy time.
22 A. The major problem, I think, was that they did
23 not have time to clean the data, as I said. The data
24 was written on forms using longhand by enumerators and
25 then entered into the computer by optical scanning.
1 Now, depending on the handwriting of the enumerator, if
2 the handwriting is poor, then there will be many
3 mistakes introduced. And usually, this should be
4 checked later, but because of the political problems
5 that started at that time, they never had time to clean
6 the data, clean and correct the data in the Bosnia
8 Q. Be that as it may, it did provide another
9 information source on particular names that might help
10 you clear out difficulties as you've described in the
11 other lists?
12 A. Yes, and we believe it is very complete.
13 Q. All right. Well, that gets us back to the
14 point where we have -- you've merged the ICRC list with
15 the PHR list. However, we know from your testimony
16 that the ICRC list contained people from the entire war
17 and the PHR list contained some, I believe you said, 20
18 per cent non-related to Srebrenica. So how did you
19 cull out from this big list the people that were just
20 related to the Srebrenica incidents of July 1995?
21 A. The investigation team of OTP told us that we
22 should only include people who were reported as missing
23 on the 11th of July or later and that we should only
24 include people who went missing from places in or near
25 Srebrenica or places related to the events. There were
1 people who have very good knowledge about the events
2 that happened in July 1995.
3 Q. So the investigative team provided you with
4 villages, and opstinas, and identification like that?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. How about an ended date for gone missing?
7 You mentioned July 11th as the beginning date. Was
8 there an end date?
9 A. 31st of August. However, we also included, I
10 believe, 99 cases of people who went missing between
11 the 1st of September and the 1st of December, because
12 the places in which they went missing from were very
13 related to the Srebrenica events.
14 Q. You're referring to 1995 when you say
16 A. 1995, yes. And we also included 68 cases of
17 people who went missing in July 1995 but without known
18 day of July. But other information shows that this was
19 only true for half a per cent, so we are fairly safe to
20 include those.
21 Q. All right.
22 A. There were, of course, also people who went
23 missing from Srebrenica before July 11th, but they were
24 not included.
25 Q. So were you able to, using those criteria and
1 those lists, come up with a number, an initial number
2 of total missing, after the fall of the Srebrenica
4 A. Based on both lists, we came up with a number
5 of 7.490 who went missing from both -- from Srebrenica.
6 Q. All right. And what quality-control
7 measures -- that's of course my term -- did you use to
8 test the reliability of this number, 7.490?
9 A. Well, we looked at the data themselves to see
10 if the age and sex structure of the data was consistent
11 with what we had learned from other sources about the
12 events, and that seemed to be the case, and we compared
13 the data with other sources. The three major sources
14 were the census of 1991, a list of voters who were
15 listed in 1997, and also exhumed bodies.
16 Q. All right. Was the list of voters one of the
17 principle lists that you used to compare to your lists?
18 A. Yes. There has been no post-war census in
19 Bosnia, which would solve a lot of problems. The only
20 comprehensive large-scale data collection activity has
21 been undertaken by OSCE, that is, the Organisation for
22 Security and Cooperation in Europe. That, as part of
23 its mandate, is organising and supervising elections
24 for democracy building, and they organised elections in
25 1996, 1997, 1998, and this year, 2000, and they
1 established special registration procedures in 1997 and
3 Q. Okay. Can you tell us, did you have access
4 to the OSCE registration records of 1996, 1997, 1998?
5 A. 1997 and 1998, yes. In 1996, there was no
6 electoral register, so we didn't have access to that.
7 Q. But there was elections?
8 A. Yes. So then they used the 1991 census as
9 the electoral register.
10 Q. All right. And so how did you deal with the
11 two registration lists for 1997 and 1998?
12 A. Well, again we had to go through the same
13 procedure, merge them, trying to avoid that the same
14 people were included twice. There was a sequential
15 number that helped us in doing that, but there were
16 errors even there, some duplicates and some errors here
17 and there.
18 Q. Did OSCE ask people to put down their
19 father's name?
20 A. Unfortunately not.
21 Q. Were there any other problems associated with
22 the OSCE list like that?
23 A. It was very limited information. They
24 collected only a few items; surname, first name, date
25 of birth, maticni broj, the ID number, and where the
1 people lived in 1991.
2 THE INTERPRETER: Could the speaker please be
3 asked to slow down?
4 A. Sorry, I heard.
5 MR. McCLOSKEY:
6 Q. You need to slow down.
7 A. Okay. And also where they were registered to
8 vote, in which municipality, and which municipality
9 they wanted to vote for. They did not collect any
10 information on ethnicity, for example, and, as you
11 said, not on father's name.
12 Q. And did you find that many people in Bosnia
13 had the same or similar names?
14 A. Yes. There are some names that occur
15 hundreds of times. The most common name in Bosnia is,
16 I believe, "Fatima Hodzic". There are at least 500
17 persons by that name.
18 Q. So that presented some unique problems when
19 comparing the OSCE voters registration lists to your
20 missing lists?
21 A. Well, you can't do any comparison without
22 more information on date of birth and, preferably,
23 father's name.
24 Q. All right. Once you were able to merge the
25 OSCE lists, what did you do in regard to the OSCE lists
1 and your list, and why?
2 A. Well, we wanted to be absolutely sure that
3 there were no people who were living amongst those
4 7.490 missing, so we matched that list, the missing
5 list, with the voters' list, which consists of about
6 2.6 million records, to see if there were any living
7 people, because that would make the missing list less
9 Q. And can you describe the process that you had
10 to go through to match these very voluminous lists? I
11 take it OSCE was also in electronic format.
12 A. Yes. This should seem like an easy procedure
13 if you have computers, and in a country like my own
14 where data are almost perfect, we would have an ID
15 number that is perfect, it would have been a very easy
16 task. But again, because of lack of information or
17 incomplete information in many fields, it was not so
19 Also, in the OSCE voters lists, there were
20 misprints of names. They also used optical scanners,
21 but the handwriting might have been better than the
22 enumerator's 1991 handwriting. So there are a few
23 errors. The maticni broj was also not recorded for
24 everybody. That wouldn't have helped anyway, because
25 that unique number is not represented in the missing
1 persons' list.
2 So we match on the basis of first name, last
3 name, date of birth and opstina. That is all we
4 actually could match.
5 We tried different approaches. First we did
6 that. Then -- and we got a long list. We looked at
7 them. Then we tried, for example, to include only the
8 initial of the last name, because of the misprints, and
9 first name and date of birth, or only the year of
10 birth, or the year of birth plus or minus one or plus
11 or minus two, to try to eliminate -- to find as many
12 possible or potential matches as possible. In fact, we
13 came up with about 3.000 potential candidates. This
14 was also done by the OSCE for the ICRC in Sarajevo. So
15 altogether I think there were approximately 3.000
16 potential candidates of matches between the missing
17 persons' list and the voters' list.
18 Q. So did you focus on those 3.000 potential
19 matches to see if they were true matches or not?
20 A. Yes. They were all inspected visually.
21 Sometimes it was -- usually it was very obvious that
22 these represented different persons.
23 Q. Have you brought with you some examples of
24 how you would have reviewed potential matches? I think
25 it's Exhibit 278. It should be right there near the
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Looking at Exhibit 278, could you -- there's
4 a pointer there. Can you take us through that and
5 explain the process that you looked at these 3.000
6 potential matches for?
7 A. Yes. So what we got from the ICRC lists, we
8 found a person -- there's a person by the name of
9 Abdulah Delic. His father's name is Husein. Born in
10 1955. Then the computer, doing automatic searching,
11 found a person by the same name, Abdulah Delic, born
12 1955, in the voters' registry in 1997.
13 Q. Let me interrupt you. I notice the year of
14 birth, all you've got here is "1955". Was that common,
15 that you didn't have a month or a day?
16 A. It happened. Not so common. In the majority
17 of the cases was the complete date of birth, but here I
18 chose an example where that was not the case.
19 Q. Keep it as simple as possible. Okay.
20 A. Yes. And it also shows the ambiguities that
21 we came across.
22 Q. Go ahead.
23 A. So on the basis of this information, we could
24 not tell -- we cannot tell whether these two records
25 represent the same physical person. But then,
1 fortunately, we had access to the census, and we looked
2 up the census and we found two Abdulah Delics. The
3 first person with a father Husein and the second whose
4 father's Kemal. Moreover, the second person had the
5 same maticni broj person who registered to vote.
6 Q. That's the ID number on the right of the
8 A. Yeah, 183954. So we can quite safely
9 conclude that these represent two different persons.
10 It is one person, Abdulah Delic, who is registered as
11 missing. There's another Abdulah Delic who registered
12 to vote, but they're not the same person.
13 Q. So this is an example of the kind of analysis
14 that you did for all 3.000 of those potential matches?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Were they all this easy?
17 A. Some were harder, but most were much easier.
18 Q. The census you're talking about now, did that
19 include all of Bosnia or was this a limited part of
20 Bosnia that you were using?
21 A. The census was taken for all of Bosnia, but
22 we made a census file including the seven opstinas in
23 Eastern Bosnia surrounding Srebrenica to get a more
24 manageable file.
25 Q. Otherwise, you would have had many more
1 Abdulah Delics?
2 A. Yes. And the five consisted of somewhat more
3 than 200.000 people.
4 Q. So you're considering that most of the
5 missing went missing from Eastern Bosnia. Is that why
6 that's a fair thing to do?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. That's what the investigation team has told
10 A. Actually, we checked that. Of a sample of
11 people who went -- are on the missing list, 93 per cent
12 went missing from Eastern Bosnia.
13 Q. All right. Now, do you have another example
14 of a true match?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And can you -- that is Exhibit 277. And can
17 you explain that? And you can point out the actual
18 things with your pointer, if you could.
19 A. Here on the ICRC list we have a man by the
20 name Mensur Gabeljic. His father's name is Avdo. He
21 was born in 1970. Then in the voters' register we
22 found again Mensud but there was a misspelling.
23 Sometimes the "LJ" is represented by a "Q," but this
24 was corrected. So we found it. We discovered that.
25 Without the father's name, because it's not recorded
1 there, born on the 28th of 11, 1971.
2 So here there are two inconsistencies. The
3 "LJ" became "Q," which is very obvious. So that's not
4 the problem really.
5 Now, the ICRC person was born in 1970, the
6 other in 1971, but as I said, there were -- sometimes
7 the date -- should I speak slower? -- the year of birth
8 was recorded slightly wrong.
9 So we looked up the census, and we found only
10 one person with this name or similar names, Gabeljic,
11 his father was listed as Avoo, not Avdo, but that's a
12 misprint, that's easy to understand, and he was born on
13 exactly the same date as in the voters' register.
14 Note that the maticni broj is missing in both
15 of those sources. So here we conclude that these two
16 names represent the same physical person.
17 This is one of the nine people, although, the
18 information has been changed to protect his identity.
19 Q. Well, I was going to ask you, after your
20 analysis of the comparing the OSCE with the missing
21 list you developed, how many matches or
22 believe-to-be-true matches did you come up with?
23 A. I already said, nine matches.
24 Q. Okay. Like this one in this example?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Okay. Have you provided those matches to the
2 investigative team for further investigation?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Okay. So what can you conclude from the
5 results of the OSCE comparison to your missing list
6 with nine matches, potential matches?
7 A. Well, it shouldn't be the case, of course,
8 that missing people can vote or register to vote, so
9 something is wrong. Either there was fraudulent
10 registration of a missing person, there was
11 fraudulent -- fraud in the registration of a voter,
12 or -- those are two reasons. The third reason, that
13 the missing person survived but does not want this
14 known to the world, to relatives for various reasons,
15 criminal, maybe he has remarried, you never know.
16 There are a few cases like that. And the fourth is the
17 mix-up of data. There is always errors in all data, so
18 that is the other reason.
19 Q. So this is the kind of thing that the
20 investigative team will be able to sort out?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. So nine potential matches out of all these
23 thousands of names. What does that do, in your
24 opinion, to the reliability of the 7.400-plus names?
25 A. In my opinion, this is insignificant. Out of
1 almost 7.500, nine people, that is approximately
2 one-tenth of a per cent, and it is insignificant
3 compared to the large number. So it shows that -- it
4 indicates -- it is not proof, of course, but it's a
5 strong indication that the missing persons are dead.
6 Q. All right. Can we go to Exhibit 272, where I
7 think you lay this out very clearly, and if you could
8 just explain each of the columns and the numbers.
9 A. Yes. After this merging procedure of
10 different files on missing persons, we found that 5.712
11 people came -- were registered both by ICRC and PHR.
12 So the majority were registered by both agencies.
13 In addition, there were 1.586 people
14 registered by ICRC only and 192 registered by PHR only,
15 adding up to 7.490, as explained previously.
16 Q. So with all of PHR's work, they only
17 registered 192 more than ICRC did?
18 A. Yes. And this is an indication that the
19 coverage of ICRC was very good and surprisingly good,
20 since PHR used different methods and in a more -- in a
21 less turbulent period. So you should think that people
22 should be more willing to come forward, but also PHR
23 had a lack of resources and could not collect that data
24 all over Bosnia and not abroad, as ICRC also did.
25 So it resulted only in 192 additional missing
1 people, although this was not the primary person to --
2 reason for them to collect data on additional people
3 but to get more information on everybody.
4 Q. Okay. So that leaves us with the 7.490 that
5 we've been talking about. Then what's the next
7 A. Then we had, to be on the safe side, to be
8 sure, we subtract the nine inconsistent cases that we
9 talked about. Those that were found -- also found in
10 the voters' register. The number may be lower but it
11 is nine at the most. So we end up with 7.481 missing
13 Q. Okay. And what's the next column about?
14 A. Then we asked the ICRC if they could provide
15 us with the names of those who were taken off the lists
16 of missing persons after January 1997 because they were
17 found to be alive, and they that said they cannot do
18 that, they will not reveal their identities, but we
19 were told that there were six related cases like that.
20 So we have subtracted those. We don't know their
21 identities, but we know there that are six people. So
22 we subtract that, to be on the safe side. Those six
23 could actually also be -- could be some of the same as
24 those nine, actually. It could be that -- it's very
25 likely that they are included in the nine, but we don't
1 know. So we end up with 7.475 missing people.
2 Q. Are those people and their names listed in
3 what is Exhibit 271?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Could you just hold that up so we could see
6 what that is?
7 A. Sorry.
8 Q. I think that's the other exhibit.
9 A. Sorry.
10 Q. So this is the published list that the ICTY
11 or the OTP has done reflecting your research?
12 A. I notice that it includes 7.481 names because
13 of those six names. We don't know their identities.
14 Q. Now, you've stated earlier that the ICRC
15 didn't take ethnicity down. So there must have been a
16 significant number of the missing where you don't have
18 A. Yes, but the PHR took that down, and of the
19 5.556 coming from the PHR list, there were 5.555
20 Bosniaks or Muslims and 1 Serb.
21 Q. So how many does that leave left over from
22 ICRC that you don't have a record for?
23 A. One thousand nine hundred and twenty-five.
24 Then we looked at the names of those people, and we
25 compared the names of these with the census and found
1 that there were probably around four additional --
2 three or four additional non-Muslims, one Yugoslav, one
3 Croat, one Serb, and one with unstated ethnicity or
5 So that leaves us with a total of five
6 non-Muslims of those 7.481 people.
7 Q. So how did you account for those non-Muslim
9 A. Why that would happen?
10 Q. Yes.
11 A. Well, this could be due to many causes.
12 Intermarriage is one of them.
13 Q. So did you choose to subtract those from the
15 A. No.
16 Q. Okay. You've discussed a couple of other
17 things you did for quality control of those numbers,
18 and I think you've got some exhibits that illustrate
19 that. You can put those on please. Tell us what
21 A. This is Exhibit 273. I think this could be
22 enlarged a little bit. This shows the age distribution
23 of the men who went missing from Srebrenica, and we see
24 that the most common -- yeah, that's better. The most
25 common age group is around 18, 19, 20, where more than
1 250 of that age went missing. The youngest here is 14,
2 two 14-year-olds. The oldest here is 89.
3 Q. As a demographer, how does this support the
4 quality of the list? Why isn't it just a reflection of
5 what the list tells you?
6 A. Well, we can look at the age structure here.
7 It is a bit jagged, there are peaks here, but probably
8 not more than you would expect of a small population
9 like this where this sampling varies.
10 Q. What is it about this figure that supports
11 the validity of the lists?
12 A. It is consistent with the reports that we
13 have heard, that there were mostly young men who were
14 separated from their families and who were reported as
15 missing, and that it's a reasonably smooth age
16 structure. Not perfect. That could also be due to
17 errors in the age reporting.
18 Q. What do you mean by smooth age structure?
19 A. Well --
20 Q. Why would we expect a smooth age structure?
21 A. Well, we wouldn't expect many more
22 30-year-olds missing than 29-year-olds and
23 31-year-olds. So approximately the same.
24 This trough here around age 50 is probably
25 due to lower number of births during the Second World
1 War, so there are fewer people in that age group, for
3 Q. Okay. Why don't we go to the next exhibit.
4 I believe it's -- well, whichever one you want to use.
5 A. 275 -- no, 274. More on the age structure.
6 Q. All right. Now, this exhibit actually gives
7 us the number of the various ages. Can you explain
9 A. Yeah. It shows us first that there were --
10 most of the people who are on the missing list are
11 men. There are only 48 women on the list of missing
12 persons and 2.433 men. It also shows us is that there
13 are a significant number of young and old men; 199
14 below the age of 17, which is normally believed to be
15 the military -- lowest military age. The youngest men
16 were, sorry, not 14 but 13. The youngest women were
17 two girls aged 8. There's also a high number of old
18 people, aged 60 and above, or 739.
19 Q. Was this chart something that the Prosecution
20 specifically asked you to do to illustrate the actual
22 A. Partly, but as a demographer, it's very
23 natural to produce tables by age and sex.
24 Q. All right. Thank you. You can go to the
25 next exhibit. Exhibit 275. What is this?
1 A. Here we have compared the age distribution of
2 the missing persons with the age distribution of the
3 exhumed bodies. There are very few bodies that have
4 been identified, only around 70 so far. So these are
5 the -- the red ones -- red bars show the -- show the
6 age distribution of the -- approximately 1.900 exhumed
7 bodies where the ages or age ranges have been estimated
8 using methods that you have heard about during the last
9 days. The blue bars represent the age distribution of
10 the missing persons, the 7.481 missing persons on the
12 We see -- so that the age distributions are
13 fairly similar. Not surprisingly similar but they are
14 very similar. This indicates that the exhumed bodies
15 come from the population of missing persons, that they
16 represent the same population, you could say.
17 Q. How could you account for the differences?
18 A. There are two causes of differences. The
19 most important is that estimating age on the basis of
20 bone fragments is not an exact science. This was
21 elaborated, I believe, over the last couple of days.
22 Secondly, the sampling variability. So when
23 you draw a sample, here of 1.900 from more than 7.000,
24 you are bound to get some sampling variations, some
25 errors in that.
1 Q. You had 1.900. That's about the number of
2 bodies recovered that the anthropologists worked with.
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. All right. Now, in addition to that work,
5 did the investigation present you with certain
6 published challenges to the credibility of the ICRC
8 A. Yes. We received four examples of that from
9 Belgrade sources.
10 Q. Could you turn to page 9 in your report where
11 I think you outline those challenges and you discuss
12 them, and if you could put page 9 on the ELMO.
13 A. I think we can focus on the top one first.
14 Yes, like that.
15 Q. Okay. So the one that's entitled "Lacking
16 the Date of Birth," where did that come from as far as
17 you know, based on what you were given, this particular
19 A. It came from the Law Project Centre in
20 Yugoslavia, as specified in footnote 20.
21 Q. Do you know anything about who or what that
23 A. No.
24 Q. That was just provided to you by the
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. What was that particular challenge?
3 A. I can read. It was -- it says that for 60
4 per cent of the people from the list there is no
5 information such as date of birth, which is quite
6 impossible, for they have been reported missing by
7 their closest family members.
8 Q. Okay. How do you explain that?
9 A. First -- at first glance, this seems like a
10 very reasonable allegation, I agree. Now, when we
11 looked at this more closely, we saw that it was not
12 quite true, that claim, since the year of birth is
13 missing for nobody -- or for only one person, and month
14 of birth is missing 44 per cent, and day of birth for
15 46 per cent. So the real -- it is complete, the date
16 of birth is complete for 53.5 per cent of the
17 population. So less than claimed here. I don't know
18 where date of birth, what they mean, whether they mean
19 complete date of birth or year of birth. We can
20 interpret it as being complete date of birth and then
21 the true figure should be 53.5 per cent.
22 And as I indicated earlier, it is not at all
23 surprising that the relatives and the informants did
24 not have exact information on the exact date of birth
25 of the missing persons, because the identification
1 papers and other documents of these people were carried
2 by the people who had disappeared. So they did not
3 have access to them.
4 Q. Still, these numbers of lack of specificity
5 of date of birth, does that make your work invalid
6 or --
7 A. Let me also add that it is very common in
8 many cultures not to put so much attention on the exact
9 date of birth. I think in our culture in Western
10 Europe and the United States, we are more concerned
11 about the date of birth, and in some other cultures,
12 where, for example, a father's name is a more important
13 piece of identification. And also many of the people
14 who informed the ICRC and PHR were old and did not
15 remember exactly the exact date of birth.
16 Q. So did this cripple your analysis?
17 A. Not at all, I think.
18 Q. Okay. Let's go to the next challenge.
19 Could you again, I think, just read it and --
20 A. Yes.
21 "On the list of 3.016 missing persons
22 officially recorded in the registers of the
23 International Red Cross, the names of 350 persons whose
24 identity has been established with certainty appear on
25 the electoral list of September 1996."
1 Q. So they are saying that the voters'
2 registration -- in their comparison of the voters'
3 registration to the ICRC, they come up with 350
4 matches. Can you explain that?
5 A. Well, as I indicated, there was no voters'
6 register in 1996. The voters' register was this census
7 of 1991. So it is not at all surprising that people
8 who went missing in 1995 were on the lists recorded in
9 1991. They should be there.
10 Q. But if basically you're saying they compared
11 the census to the census, why is there only 350 --
12 A. Sorry, not the census to the census but the
13 missing to the census.
14 Q. The missing to the census. Why is there only
16 A. Well, in the electoral, they said they had
17 only compared names beginning with the letters "A" and
18 "K", which is slightly more than half of the alphabet
19 when you're thinking of persons with those names, and
20 they only compared named with complete information on
21 both lists. That's complete name and complete date of
22 birth. Now, that is about half on each. One half
23 times one half is a quarter. If you then multiply by
24 there one half of the alphabet that was included, you
25 get about one-eighth. One-eighth of 3.000 is
1 approximately 350, so that would be the expected number
2 of matches -- no, 360, and that would be the expected
3 number of matches to be found in such an exercise, and
4 they found 350.
5 Q. So you went through the same exercise they
6 did and came up with the same number?
7 A. Well, this was just estimating the
8 probability that they would find, the expected number
9 of matches they would find, and I came up with
10 approximately the same number as they actually found.
11 Q. And can you again explain to me why that is
12 invalid again?
13 A. Because they did not find any -- this is no
14 claim that living -- they claim that -- excuse me --
15 that there were missing persons who registered to vote
16 by comparing the missing persons and what they said was
17 the voting lists. But there was no voting list. It
18 was the census they compared.
19 Q. People that were counted in 1991?
20 A. And of course most of them would be there.
21 Q. All right. Let's go to the next one down,
22 the next challenge.
23 A. In the book "Radovan Karadzic", it is claimed
24 that several persons reported as missing on the ICRC
25 list also appear on the voters' lists, and they list 17
1 persons by name, picked by random, related to men from
2 Srebrenica. We found 11 of those names on the voters'
3 lists, but when we checked the date of birth and ID
4 number with our census records, these were not true
5 matches. So they were false matches. So their names
6 were similar, but the dates of birth were not similar.
7 Q. You went through the process that you already
8 have described to us. You're able to exclude those
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. All right. Let's go down to the last one in
12 your report.
13 A. It was also claimed that many people were
14 listed as missing who died before 1995 from natural
15 causes or in combat, and they gave a list of names and
16 dates of birth taken from a cemetery in Kazani of
17 people who died between 1992 and early 1995. But when
18 we looked at the ICRC lists, we did not find any of
19 those names with the same date of birth or
20 approximately the same date of birth as alleged.
21 Q. Now, very recently has the investigation
22 provided you with another challenge to the credibility
23 that the investigation has received, very similar to
24 this last one regarding people dead prior to the fall?
25 A. Yes. The Office of the Prosecutor has
1 received lists originating from the Bosnian army, the
2 BiH army, of soldiers who were either killed, wounded,
3 captured, or missing in action before July 1995, some
4 in 1994. And the total of this list include 1.139
5 names of soldiers then, and they disclaim that these
6 people are registered as missing, although they died --
7 many of them died before July 1995.
8 Q. And have you, in the last couple of days,
9 been able to make an attempt to analyse this
11 A. Yes. The problem is that some of the data is
12 very deficient. But for one list of 242 people, date
13 of birth is given, and we compared it with the list of
14 missing persons, a number found. So none of those 242
15 dead and/or captured or wounded soldiers have been
16 reported as missing.
17 In addition, there were then eight,
18 nine hundred people we checked, but they without date
19 of birth. So it was only the name, only first name and
20 last name. This is very hard to identify.
21 We found 188 of these names on the list of
22 missing persons based on only first name and last name,
23 but that does not necessarily mean that these are
24 registered as missing, because some of these names are
25 very common. Some of these names occur 26 times in the
1 census of Eastern Bosnia in 1991. So we cannot be sure
2 that that name found here in this list by first name
3 and last name does not mean -- necessarily mean that it
4 represents one of these dead soldiers.
5 Q. Were you able to narrow down that number, one
6 hundred and -- what did you say it was?
7 A. One eighty-eight.
8 Q. -- 188 at all?
9 A. Yes. We found -- for 183 of those, we found
10 more than one occurrence of the name in the census, so
11 it means that there could be -- there are more people,
12 there are more Mehemed Hodzics than the one reported --
13 than the dead soldier in the lists. For five people,
14 we found only one, but the investigations are
15 continuing, and it could be that some of these
16 registered were enumerated outside Eastern Bosnia in
17 1991, and we are currently looking into that.
18 Q. And did I ask you this morning just to
19 analyse how many people went missing from Potocari
20 according to your lists?
21 A. I believe there are 2.380 or 2.280, something
22 like that. But that includes also some -- includes
23 many people who were later seen elsewhere -- 2.280,
24 yes -- because they could be reported as missing from
25 Potocari to the ICRC and missing from elsewhere to
1 PHR. But 2.280.
2 Q. Now, we've been talking about missing lists.
3 Did you, in your report, discuss the issue of whether
4 these missing were, in fact, truly missing or were
5 probably dead?
6 A. Well, our analysis indicated that they are
7 dead, as we have found very few potential examples of
8 survivors. I mention nine and those six from ICRC.
9 That is a maximum of 15. We have checked -- compared
10 with various lists, and they do not seem to be many, if
11 any, survivors.
12 We also looked at a list of 70 exhumed bodies
13 who were identified, and we found -- on that list, we
14 found 66 people who were also on the missing lists.
15 Then there were two who are missing in the
16 Srebrenica-related graves, but they were not on the
17 lists so they have not been reported as missing, and
18 two who went missing before July 1995. So that's a
19 fairly high percentage of people who are known to be
20 dead but who are also on the missing lists.
21 Q. You mentioned people that have been
22 identified. Now, is that -- what organisation is
23 attempting the identifications?
24 A. It's something called the Podrinje
25 Identification Project, and also the PHR are working on
1 or were working on identifying people, in addition to
2 the ICTY.
3 Q. Now, can you conclude with the summary of why
4 you believe that the total number, 7.433, is a reliable
5 number, and tell us whether or not it's a conservative
7 A. I think it's quite reliable or very reliable
8 and that it is a minimum estimate of all of the number
9 of missing persons. We have been very conservative,
10 very cautious, tried to avoid including duplicates or
11 avoiding other errors, and we have deleted actually a
12 number of cases which could be included.
13 Several hundred cases have been excluded
14 because there was some inconsistency between the
15 information reported to ICRC and to PHR; for example,
16 on the date of birth or place of disappearance. But it
17 is likely that some of these several hundred are also
18 missing from Srebrenica.
19 In addition, we believe that there are quite
20 a few people who did not report their relatives as
21 missing, as we just mentioned an example of two
22 persons. That could be many reasons. One is that the
23 whole family disappeared. Others have given --
24 families have given up all hope of seeing these
25 relatives again.
1 Remember that this is a part of a tracing
2 exercise, tracing operation, so the purpose for people
3 to trace -- record people as missing was to be united
4 with their families, to trace them, to find out what
5 happened, not really to come up with an aggregate
6 number of missing people. I don't think that was in
7 people's minds. So a combination, and some people were
8 obviously sick, or mental problems, or there were many
9 reasons why everybody would not report a person as
11 But 7.475 should be considered a minimum
12 number, a conservative number. The actual number is
13 probably higher.
14 Q. So is it fair to say that fundamentally, the
15 credibility of these lists is founded upon the Bosnian
16 families that made the reporting to the various
18 A. Yes, but not only, because we have checked
19 with other data sources and we have found that all the
20 data that they reported are true. These are not
21 made-up persons, they are not phantom persons, because
22 almost whenever we tried to find a person in the
23 census, 1991 census, we found him or her, as I said, in
24 93 per cent of the cases. And it could be that those
25 seven additional per cent were enumerated elsewhere in
1 Bosnia, not in Eastern Bosnia.
2 MR. McCLOSKEY: Thank you.
3 Mr. President, I don't have any further
5 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you
6 very much, Mr. McCloskey.
7 I think this is a convenient time for a
8 break. We will have a 20-minute break now.
9 --- Recess taken at 10.50 a.m.
10 --- On resuming at 11.15 a.m.
11 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Professor
12 Brunborg, you are now going to answer questions which I
13 see Mr. Petrusic, Defence attorney, is going to ask
15 Mr. Petrusic, you have the floor. You may
17 MR. PETRUSIC: Good morning, Your Honours, my
18 learned friends from the Prosecution; and good morning,
19 Mr. Brunborg.
20 Cross-examined by Mr. Petrusic:
21 Q. My first question is a general one, and that
22 is, regarding your report on the number of dead and
23 missing in Srebrenica, of the 12th of February, 2000,
24 the list of the missing, is that a component part of
25 your report?
1 A. I think it should be considered an addendum
2 to the report or an appendix, if you like.
3 Q. Thank you. On page 2 of your report, you
4 talk about the methods used in your study, and one of
5 the methods is the evaluation of the quality of data
6 sources, particularly those regarding missing persons.
7 Did you or your associates in this project
8 check the quality of the data sources?
9 A. Yes. We looked carefully at all the data
10 collected. We also talked to representatives of the
11 ICRC in Sarajevo. We started a questionnaire, and we
12 evaluated each field recorded, the names, date of
13 birth, father's name, and so on.
14 Q. As far as I am able to understand from your
15 answer, your direct contacts were with representatives
16 of the International Red Cross, if we're talking about
17 their list.
18 A. Yes, that's correct.
19 Q. Representatives of that organisation or the
20 Physicians for Human Rights who compiled those lists in
21 the way you have described, they collected those data
22 on the basis of direct contacts with relatives who
23 reported their missing members, family members.
24 A. Yes, that's correct.
25 Q. Did you or the representatives of your team
1 have any direct contact to check the allegations made
2 by relatives who reported their family members as
4 A. Yes. Let me first say that we also met
5 several times with the representatives of the
6 Physicians for Human Rights, and we also met with some
7 relatives of missing persons who had reported their
8 relatives as missing.
9 Q. So this was a limited number of people that
10 you or members of your team had contact with among the
12 A. Yes. We did not have the capacity to meet a
13 large number of those 7.500 people.
14 Q. Page 8 of your report, you discuss the age
15 group of the missing people from Srebrenica.
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. The Defence was not able to review your list
18 for technical reasons, because it was just prior to the
19 beginning of today's hearing that we received the list,
20 but a very superficial review of that list shows that a
21 very large number of people have their date of birth
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. My question is, in that connection, whether
25 the table that you have given, that is table number 2,
1 could it have been more precise regarding the able
2 structure in view of the fact that for a very large
3 number of people the date of birth is given in the
4 list, especially the people in the age group between
5 15 to 60 or 16 to 60?
6 A. No. This list was available, of course,
7 finished before the 12th of July, and the day -- the
8 year of birth is recorded for everybody but one
9 person. So that decides the age. So we know that age
10 for everybody but one, and this is also indicated in
11 table 2," Men, age unkown". There's only one person.
12 The dates of birth reported in the list is
13 taken either from the ICRC list or from the PHR lists,
14 depending on whether it appeared. If it is missing
15 from the ICRC list, it's taken from the PHR list and
16 vice versa.
17 Q. But the range from 16 to 60 as an age group,
18 couldn't it have been narrowed down, broken down into
19 two or three groups within that age range?
20 A. Definitely, that's possible, yes.
21 Q. Mr. Brunborg, on page 12 of your report -- in
22 the English version it may be page 11 -- you refer to
23 the number of 1.909. Page 11 of the English version.
24 I beg your pardon. The number of people found in mass
25 graves is 1.909?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. The team of experts, including
3 anthropologists, in their study and report give the
4 figure of 1.883 persons. When compiling this list and
5 compiling these numbers, including the one I have
6 referred to regarding dead bodies found so far of
7 1.909, did you bear in mind the reports issued by the
8 pathologists and anthropologists regarding the same
10 A. My figure is based on report dated December 8
11 last year, when we -- when I wrote my report, and the
12 most recent anthropological report had not been
13 available to me.
14 But the number of exhumed bodies has changed
15 a little bit, I notice. I don't know the reasons for
16 that. It could be that it is often based on fragments
17 of bodies and it is difficult to give exact estimates.
18 Anyway, it is close to 1.900.
19 Q. In your report, when you referred to defining
20 the term of victims from Srebrenica -- this is on
21 page 3 and "Definition of Terms" is the heading -- you
22 talk about the place of disappearance, among other
23 things. In view of the fact that the term "when a
24 person was last seen" is used, could it be possible for
25 a person to be reported as missing twice and maybe more
1 times because it may have been seen for the last time
2 by a certain group of people in several places?
3 You have given an example here of a person
4 who may have been seen for the last time in Nova
5 Kasaba, or Srebrenica, I'm sorry, and after that in
6 Zume or Nova Kasaba, in the forest or in Nova Kasaba.
7 A. Yes, let me answer. For more than 5.700
8 people were reported twice, both by the -- that is,
9 both by the ICRC and by PHR, so they reported twice.
10 And as I explained, we took great care, when merging
11 the lists, to avoid keeping such person for more than
12 once. It should not be -- deleting duplicates. We
13 also found some duplicates in the ICRC lists and in the
14 PHR lists on the basis of name, date of birth, and
15 other information, and we deleted such cases.
16 Q. Towards the end, you also speak about the
17 unique identification number of citizens established in
18 the territory of the former Yugoslavia and that that
19 national ID number was used as an element for
20 identification in the census of 1991. You said that it
21 provoked a lot of -- that it had many imprecisions
22 because of the way in which the enumerators registered
23 the data they collected.
24 Mr. Brunborg, this national ID number was
25 established in the territory of the former Yugoslavia
1 in 1981, so in the census of 1991 it was already -- it
2 was being used for the second time, so it had been
3 tested in practice.
4 In view of that being a unique national ID
5 number, could it have been a more reliable element to
6 be used in the course of your studies?
7 A. Now, I checked the maticni broj for those
8 people from the Srebrenica area, those seven
9 municipalities, and it appears to be correct for two
10 thirds of the cases; 67 per cent, it is absolutely
11 correct. So it means that it is incorrect or, I would
12 say, partly missing or -- for one third. In the
13 voters' register in 1997, it appears to be correct for
14 more than 80 per cent of those cases.
15 I believe that the number was used not only
16 in the census, 1991, but was also used for other
17 purposes, so that many people had some experience using
18 the number and they knew the number.
19 MR. PETRUSIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President,
20 I have no further questions.
21 Thank you very much, Witness.
22 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you
23 very much, Mr. Petrusic.
24 Mr. McCloskey, have you any re-examination
25 for the witness?
1 MR. McCLOSKEY: No, Mr. President.
2 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you
3 very much, Mr. McCloskey.
4 Judge Fouad Riad, if you please.
5 JUDGE RIAD: [Interpretation] Thank you,
6 Mr. President.
7 Questioned by the Court
8 JUDGE RIAD: [In English] Mr. Brunborg, good
10 A. Good morning.
11 JUDGE RIAD: I just have two global
12 questions, not being a great expert like you.
13 You mentioned that according to your
14 analysis, you reached the conclusion that the missing
15 persons would be either 7.475 or 7.481, whatever the
16 number is. According to your long experience, what
17 could be the margin of inaccuracies in such analysis?
18 A. That is a very difficult answer to question
19 [sic], Your Honour.
20 JUDGE RIAD: Excuse me. Would it be just in
21 the number, whether instead of being 7.000 it could be
22 6.000, or would it be in the totality?
23 A. No. I think that this is very close to the
24 lower number. It is a minimum estimate. And I do not
25 believe that the real number can be much lower than
1 7.475. Maybe a handful or two, but very few. But it
2 could be considerably higher. So the range of
3 uncertainty is very little, on the low side, but it
4 is -- it could extend by several hundred, at least,
5 upwards, because, as I said, we have been very
6 conservative and excluded all cases where we were in
7 doubt about.
8 JUDGE RIAD: That's good to know. My second
9 question: You mentioned that -- because perhaps it's
10 related to this answer, you said that everybody did not
11 report missing persons and perhaps you consider that
12 the number must have been higher, and you affirmed it
13 as a fact. Do you have any evidence that some people
14 really did not report, or is it your logical conclusion
15 according to your experience?
16 A. Your Honour, it is mentioned in the report
17 that two people who were identified bodies found in a
18 grave with other -- with Srebrenica-related bodies were
19 not on the list. So there we have an example of two
20 dead people who went missing from Srebrenica. They're
21 reported as missing and then also found in a grave.
22 So those are examples of people not included
23 in our list, not reported as missing. It could be that
24 they were reported as missing but with insufficient
25 information, unclear information for us to include
2 JUDGE RIAD: That was the only perhaps
3 example of people not reported or some people in your
4 contacts expressed the fact that they don't care to
6 A. I don't remember that we met such persons,
7 but we met -- we asked whether people knew about whole
8 families that were not reported, and we learned about a
9 couple of cases of such family. Names of such families
10 were mentioned. One of those families were indeed
11 reported, where whole families had disappeared, and the
12 other family was not reported. So there are such
13 cases. But we did not have the capacity to do a lot of
14 work, to trace people who did not report -- were not
15 reported as missing.
16 JUDGE RIAD: Thank you very much,
17 Mr. Brunborg.
18 A. Thank you.
19 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you
20 very much, Judge Fouad Riad.
21 Madam Judge Wald, please.
22 JUDGE WALD: Professor Brunborg, was any
23 attempt made to take into consideration whether or not
24 people, during these turbulent times, who were reported
25 as missing might eventually have left the entire
1 country of Bosnia? We have had many witnesses who have
2 come back from other countries. Would there be any way
3 of knowing if that happened?
4 A. We did not know where the people were
5 registered as missing, but I believe that it was
6 possible to do that all over the world, either to local
7 ICRC offices or perhaps there was a mail system. I'm
8 not aware how that was done, but I know there were
9 people registered as missing in other countries by
11 JUDGE WALD: So that if, if supposedly one of
12 the missing people here eventually survived and later
13 emigrated to some neighbouring country, there was some
14 possibility or likelihood that that would be reported
15 back to the ICRC so that they take them off the missing
17 A. Yes. If such a person has relatives who
18 reported that person as missing or know somebody else
19 who know that his name is on the list, they will
20 probably report to the ICRC, but I don't think there is
21 an automatic mechanism for that.
22 JUDGE WALD: That was my next question.
23 A. Yes.
24 JUDGE WALD: You told us a little bit about
25 the intake methods of the ICRC, the relatives or
1 close -- relatives making reports. Is there any
2 organised method by which the ICRC receives reports
3 that people who are originally reported as missing
4 later have been found and -- I mean do they have a
5 regular system? Do they ask the people who originally
6 report to let them know if the person turns up or is
7 that just up to chance?
8 A. I don't know -- I do not know the system in
9 detail, but many people are taken off the lists,
10 several hundred between the different versions. ICRC
11 has regular meetings in Sarajevo with the three parties
12 involved in the armed conflict and they exchange
13 information. When they learn about a death either
14 through exhumations or otherwise, that person is taken
15 off the list. Likewise, I believe that when they learn
16 about a person who is alive and not dead, they will
17 take that person off the list.
18 JUDGE WALD: My third question relates to the
19 volume of Srebrenica missing. You touched on this a
20 little bit in your testimony on cross-examination, the
21 fact that under the column "Date and Place of
22 Disappearance," in many cases -- this is a general
23 question -- in many cases, the place of disappearance
24 may not be Srebrenica or Potocari but will be Bratunac
25 or Zvornik, one of those places that is in the
1 immediate area and that has been involved in the exodus
2 from Srebrenica. But my question specifically is:
3 Before somebody gets on this list, what kind of a link
4 to the exodus from Srebrenica is necessary? Does the
5 relative have to say, "He used to live in Srebrenica,"
6 or, "He was part of the exodus"? How would you avoid
7 getting somebody, say, who lived in Bratunac or was
8 killed in some little combat thing in Bratunac? How do
9 you link that -- people who have a different location
10 in that column to the whole Srebrenica exodus?
11 A. Your Honour, the PHR asked -- had a specific
12 question on whether the person went missing after the
13 fall of the enclave, relative to that fall. So that's
14 a specific question.
15 JUDGE WALD: How about the ICRC?
16 A. They did not have a specific question, but
17 they say that often the person reported would say that,
18 volunteer that information. However, we did not have
19 access to that information, so we decided whether it
20 was related to the fall of Srebrenica through the place
21 of disappearance.
22 JUDGE WALD: And the time.
23 A. And the time. The places of disappearance
24 were provided to us by the investigators and people
25 knowledgeable about this. Some of the place names on
1 these lists are very small, very small places. Most of
2 the places can be found on the map. When they cannot
3 be found on the map, we went to local people and asked,
4 "Where is this place?" We did not ask them -- tell
5 them why we asked this question, "Could you tell us
6 where is this place?" They pointed to the map and saw
7 this was a small hamlet or something. When that was
8 related to the exodus or the events in Srebrenica it
9 was included, otherwise, not.
10 JUDGE WALD: Thank you.
11 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you
12 very much, Judge Wald.
13 Professor Brunborg, I have five very brief
14 questions for you, and in a way, all of my questions
15 are of a general nature.
16 You have told us that for a demographer, age
17 and sex are two main criteria in research. What was
18 the role and what would be your conclusions -- your
19 conclusions in connection with that of the military
21 A. Now, women are not considered to be of
22 military age. We can keep those out.
23 I have been told that as shown in one of the
24 exhibits, that the military ages are between, say, 16
25 and 60. Now, after more detailed discussions with
1 people knowledgeable about that, I included in the
2 Exhibit 274, 17 through 59 -- sorry, 17 as the lower
3 age. People are drafted as age 18 but they can be
4 registered as soldiers from age 17. When they turn 60,
5 they are not part of the -- cannot be considered part
6 of the armed forces any more. So that's why it's
7 59 inclusive and 17 inclusive.
8 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] My second
9 question for you, Professor, is the following, it is a
10 follow-up to my first question, actually: On page 8 of
11 your report you have table number 2. I told you it's
12 probably a follow-up to my first question, but I should
13 like to know what were the criteria to establish age
14 groups that are indicated in this table? Was the
15 military age taken into account or was it the case
16 where another criterion was applied?
17 A. These are the military ages as told to me
18 half a year ago, but then after a more -- as I said,
19 thorough discussions, I decided to include 17 through
20 59. There are not so many people in those age group.
21 There are 104 or something 16-year-old men and a
22 similar number or a little bit lower of 60-year-old
23 men. So it does not affect the results very much.
24 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] In your
25 report, you make mention of the Exhibit number 275. It
1 is a table that shows age distribution of missing
2 persons together with exhumed bodies. Yes. This is
3 the one that I'm referring to. I don't know whether
4 you have spoken about it, and I apologise if this was
5 the case, but I should like to know why the number of
6 exhumations is higher than the number of missing
8 A. The total number is not higher, Your Honour.
9 It is 1.900 versus 7.481. It is true that it is
10 slightly higher in one age group, the youngest, 8
11 through 12, where we have only recorded two missing
12 persons, two men 13 years old, whereas there were
13 exhumed six or seven bodies in that age group. But as
14 you heard yesterday and the day before, it is very
15 difficult to estimate those ages and it could very well
16 be that some of the 13- and 14-year-olds were wrongly
17 classified as belonging to the youngest age group, 8 to
19 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] You spoke
20 about contacts that you had with families who provided
21 you with the information. Why did you make those
22 contacts? I do not wish to lead you in any way, but
23 could you tell me, what was the reason of those
24 contacts with families?
25 A. The major reason was to find out about the
1 interview situation; what happened, how did they react
2 to it, what did they think about it. I did not use
3 those contacts to gather information on more missing
4 persons, just to get some feeling for how they reacted
5 in that situation. And I would say they were not
6 always positive. They felt sometimes they were treated
7 not very well, treated impolitely by some other
8 organisations. And this should be seen in the light of
9 the very traumatic situation they were experiencing.
10 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Let's say
11 that it was a humane reason. You did not contact the
12 families in order to test the reliability of the
13 information or in order to resolve a specific problem;
14 you did it for, if I may say so, humanitarian reasons?
15 A. Not really. Just to understand more about
16 the process. The data were checked not with the
17 families but with the census 1991, where the persons
18 themselves came forward with information. So we
19 thought that was a more reliable source and also a more
20 comprehensive source.
21 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Let me
22 finish, Professor, with another question I think you
23 spoke about. To what extent can we say that missing
24 people equals dead people?
25 A. Now, of course, ordinarily to declare that a
1 person is dead requires either a -- in statistics,
2 requires a medical certificate or, if that cannot be
3 obtained, by a certificate provided by a judge. So
4 there should be medical or legal evidence that a person
5 is dead, and we do not have that for these people
6 because most of the bodies have not been found and
7 there is a lack of witnesses. So we cannot be sure,
8 but all indications -- all these investigations and
9 analyses point in one direction, that the people are
10 dead, supposed to be dead. There are also some people
11 we know to be dead amongst these and, as I said, at the
12 most 15 people of them may be alive; probably less. So
13 I think comparing with all kinds of sources, with the
14 voters' register and exhumed bodies and otherwise, they
15 all indicate that these people are dead.
16 Let me also add that the ICRC has repeatedly
17 visited prisons in Serbia because of claims that many
18 of these missing people are in detention in Serbia and
19 elsewhere, and they did find some at the beginning, who
20 were then taken off the lists, but recently -- my
21 understanding is that in recent years, they haven't
22 found anybody.
23 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you
24 very much, Professor.
25 I think that we have to take care of the
1 exhibits that have been tendered. Mr. McCloskey, I
2 believe that you wish to tender some exhibits at this
4 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, Mr. President. Those
5 exhibits are number 269, the CV, resume; 270, the ICRC
6 report; 271, the ICTY compilation report; 272; 273;
7 274; 275, which are some of the charts, I believe; 276,
8 which is the missing reports, 276A and B, which are in
9 Bosnian and French; 277 and 278.
10 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation]
11 Mr. Petrusic, any objections?
12 MR. PETRUSIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President,
13 the Defence has one general objection in respect of
14 Exhibits 271 and 270. The reason of our objection is
15 that we received all of the exhibits only today. But
16 these two exhibits are quite voluminous. It is an
17 appendix to the report composed by Mr. Brunborg. The
18 other exhibit, number 270, is a report of the ICRC in
19 connection with missing persons from that area.
20 The Defence simply was not in a position to
21 verify the allegations made in these two exhibits
22 because of the method of a random sample that was
23 used. So we should like to ask the Trial Chamber to
24 give us some additional time to present our arguments
25 regarding these two exhibits.
1 As regards other exhibits that have been
2 tendered by the Prosecutor, we do not have any
3 objections, although they are in close connection with
4 the two exhibits we object to. However, in view of the
5 fact that they are of a statistical nature, we will
6 accept them.
7 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation]
8 Mr. McCloskey.
9 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, Mr. President. I would
10 point out that the Defence has had Mr. Brunborg's
11 report, and I don't know the exact date, but since
12 April. The references to the source material are very
13 clear in that report.
14 The ICRC missing list is a publication that
15 can be acquired everywhere, especially in the former
16 Yugoslavia, and we have never received a request to
17 obtain the list otherwise, which would amount to, I
18 believe it was, 182 additional names that the ICRC list
19 did not have until right now.
20 Having said that, if counsel needs more time
21 to review it, I don't believe we have any objection to
22 that and understand the situation they are in.
23 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well,
24 then. Mr. Petrusic, do you wish to add anything?
25 MR. PETRUSIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President,
1 only in order to avoid confusion. Mr. McCloskey is
2 referring to the report. It is true that we received
3 it, and we used it for cross-examination. However, as
4 regards Exhibit 271 which is being tendered, it is in
5 respect of that document that we raise an objection.
6 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you,
7 Mr. Petrusic. I will consult my colleagues. You may
8 sit down.
9 [Trial Chamber deliberates]
10 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] The Chamber
11 will admit all of the exhibits that have been
13 As regards to exhibits 270 and 271, we will
14 grant additional time to the Defence to review or
15 verify the data that are contained therein.
16 Mr. Petrusic, I don't think that you will need more
17 than one month to do that. Is one month enough?
18 MR. PETRUSIC: [Interpretation] Yes,
19 Mr. President.
20 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation]
21 Mr. McCloskey, do you agree with this additional time,
22 one additional month for the Defence to review the
24 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, Mr. President.
25 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] So the
1 Chamber grants additional time, one month, for the
2 Defence to review the documents. All other exhibits
3 have been admitted into evidence.
4 Professor Brunborg, we have finished with
5 your testimony. Thank you very much once again for
6 coming here to testify. Thank you for your
7 cooperation, and you have accomplished very valuable
8 work here. Thank you once again.
9 [The witness withdrew]
10 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I can see
11 Mr. Harmon coming to take the floor, but Mr. Visnjic is
12 also standing. Perhaps I should give the floor to him
14 Mr. Visnjic.
15 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President,
16 if I may take five minutes of the Court's time in order
17 to follow up on the situation that has been raised just
19 We have noticed a problem here which might
20 have significance in terms of the disclosure process as
21 regards expert witness reports.
22 The position adopted by the Defence is as
23 follows: If the documents are significant for the
24 testimony, or if the documents are a component part of
25 the report of the expert witness, then in that case
1 such documentation, such evidence, should be disclosed
2 or made available to the Defence at the same time as
3 the expert witness report, in accordance with Rule 94
4 bis. Let me state two examples in support of this
6 We have just seen one example. One of the
7 main reasons why the Defence has used, in terms of
8 cross-examination, was the fact that the list of
9 missing persons was not addended [sic] to the report,
10 it was not annexed to the report of the expert witness
11 that has just testified here, so we were not in a
12 position to check his allegations. On the other hand,
13 on the 18th of May, in accordance with Rule 94 bis A,
14 the Prosecutor submitted a report to the Court in
15 connection to a specific document.
16 When we received the report, we realised that
17 the said document had not been disclosed to us, and we
18 were not in a position to make submissions on something
19 that we did not see at all. So we contacted the
20 Prosecution in respect of that, and upon our request,
21 the Prosecutor has made it available to us, the said
22 document which was subject of the expert witness
23 analysis. That document would probably be accepted by
24 us without even using our right to cross-examination.
25 In that sense, we believe -- it is our
1 position that in addition to each expert witness report
2 tendered by the Prosecutor in accordance with Rule 94
3 bis, additional evidence should also be disclosed,
4 namely, evidence that is also part of that testimony
5 or, rather, the expert witness report.
6 In case of delay, in case an expert witness
7 report is disclosed first and additional documents are
8 disclosed only later on, in that case we believe that
9 we should be given an opportunity -- and this should,
10 of course, apply to the Prosecutor during the Defence
11 case -- that the time limits stated in Rule 94 bis,
12 namely, the 14-day deadline, should be extended, taking
13 into account the delay that has elapsed.
14 So we should like to hear the Chamber. We
15 should like to hear the position of the Chamber in
16 respect to this issue in order to avoid any future
18 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Harmon,
19 before answering the question raised by Mr. Visnjic, I
20 should like to ask you first, do you have other
21 witnesses or other experts to call and bring into the
22 courtroom for today and tomorrow?
23 MR. HARMON: No, we do not.
24 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Can we know
25 then what we're going to do afterwards.
1 MR. HARMON: In respect of today's hearing,
2 Mr. President, yes.
3 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Tomorrow.
4 MR. HARMON: Today we will have a videotape
5 of testimony that was taken in 1996 from a gentleman,
6 Mr. Pasaga Mesic, that was given in the Rule 61
7 hearing, in the Karadzic and Mladic Rule 61 hearing.
8 It's approximately 29 minutes long. We're going to
9 tender that as our next piece of evidence.
10 Thereafter, I intend to introduce an expert
11 report that has been consented to by the Defence. It
12 is the expert report of Mark Mills, who is an expert on
13 watches. Thereafter, I have a series of documents that
14 I will be tendering to the Court. And at some point
15 today, I've been informed by the Defence that they want
16 to cross-examine Mr. Manning, whose cross-examination
17 has been deferred. We will ask Mr. Manning to come
18 back into the courtroom and be available for
19 cross-examination by the Defence and Your Honours'
20 questions and any redirect examination by the
21 Prosecutor, and that concludes today's session, if we
22 can get through all of that.
23 I would need to go into a private session,
24 perhaps, in respect of the remainder of the schedule.
25 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I asked you
1 this because I should like to make a distinction
2 between the hearing time when we have witnesses and
3 experts waiting and matters relating to the
4 organisation of work, which we can leave for another
5 time, specifically the afternoon. But I think now we
6 can hear Mr. Harmon's response to the questions asked
7 by Mr. Visnjic, which doesn't mean that next time we
8 can have a Status Conference in the afternoon to
9 discuss these matters to avoid witnesses waiting.
10 I wish to have this distinction and avoid
11 discussing organisational matters during the time
12 reserved for hearings, making the witnesses wait,
13 sometimes over the weekend. If we make this
14 distinction, then we have guaranteed time to hear the
15 witnesses and to discuss organisational matters in the
17 Mr. Harmon, can we have your response,
19 MR. HARMON: Thank you, Mr. President, Your
20 Honours, counsel. The issue raised by my colleague is
21 one that I think should have additional reflection,
22 additional time to discuss amongst the parties to this
23 litigation. However, let me respond, at least in the
24 beginning, by saying under the Rule, which is 94 bis,
25 the requirement under 94 bis (A) requires the full
1 statement of any expert witness, and in many cases it
2 clearly does not state the full statement and all
3 supporting documentation.
4 Now, I think Rule 94 bis has to be read in
5 context with the other Rules. The other Rules -- let
6 me say, it has to be read in context with the other
7 Rules so as not to eviscerate other important rules in
8 this set of comprehensive rules. Let me give you an
10 Under Rule 66(B): "The Prosecutor shall,
11 upon request, permit the Defence to inspect any books,
12 documents, photographs, and tangible objects in the
13 Prosecutor's custody or control which are material to
14 the preparation of the defence or are intended for use
15 by the Prosecutor as evidence at trial or were obtained
16 from or belong to the accused."
17 Now, what this Rule clearly says is if the
18 Defence wants to see those kinds of documents, they
19 have to make a request. And there's a quid pro quo.
20 The quid pro quo is found in the reciprocal discovery
21 provision found in Rule 67(C). If they make the
22 request, then the Prosecutor, likewise, is able to
23 examine all of the material that the Defence -- any
24 books, documents, photographs, and tangible objects
25 which are in their control and which they intend to use
1 as evidence at trial.
2 Conceivably, an interpretation of Rule 94 bis
3 as suggested by the Defence, which asked for not only
4 the statement of the expert but all the supporting
5 documentation, can drive a hole through this balance
6 that is found presently in these Rules.
7 For example, if the Prosecutor intends to
8 call an expert that deals with the central elements of
9 this case and in support of that expert would submit,
10 eventually as pieces of evidence, a hundred documents,
11 by making the request that my colleague has made, not
12 only to see the statement but, in addition, all the
13 documents that support the witness, you will have the
14 consequence of eviscerating the reciprocal discovery
16 So it is our position that under Rule 94 bis,
17 the testimony of an expert witness, these witnesses
18 have prepared statements, those statements have been
19 produced, but it's our position that the Defence is not
20 entitled to see all of the documents that support those
21 expert statements because they have to make a request
22 to see those under 67.
23 That's the position that we take. We've
24 invited the Defence, on many occasions -- I've informed
25 them in writing and orally, that we intend to produce
1 many documents, a large volume of documents in the
2 upcoming sessions of this proceeding. I've invited
3 them to inspect those documents if they're willing to
4 make a request under the Rule 67, and we'll make them
5 available, and the Defence has explicitly declined both
6 my oral request and my written request.
7 So our view is one has to read the Rules in
8 their entirety, and our interpretation of these Rules
9 in their entirety favour a balance, a balance that can
10 be seen by providing the statement of the expert to the
11 Defence, the Defence can consult with their own experts
12 based on the statement of the expert, but to entitle
13 them to see all of the supporting material behind that
14 is, in our view, something that creates an imbalance
15 and could the purpose and effect of the other Rules in
16 the whole scheme.
17 So that's our position. I think this issue
18 may bear additional reflection, but that's my initial
20 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation]
21 Mr. Visnjic, you are entitled to a response.
22 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President,
23 the Defence has given thought to the submission made by
24 Mr. Harmon, so we would have a brief response to it.
25 Within the framework of the complete set of
1 Rules, one of the Rules envisaged is the Rule that the
2 accused must be entitled to a timely defence. In the
3 conviction of the Defence, the Prosecutor must, at a
4 certain point of time, disclose all of the documents
5 and submit them to the Trial Chamber and thereby also
6 to the Defence.
7 Now if we would reduce the matter to
8 procedural economy. Let us assume that the Prosecutor
9 has an expert witness to whose testimony they wish to
10 attach about a hundred documents which are of
11 substantive importance for the trial. In that case, if
12 these are indeed important documents and the Defence
13 did not have a chance to verify them, we assume that
14 the Defence will most probably object to those
15 documents, in which case again, in light of all the
16 other Rules, it would be granted additional time from
17 the time those documents were disclosed, additional
18 time to review those documents, and then that would
19 mean bringing back the expert at least on one other
21 I do not think that the right of the
22 Prosecution to disclose of documents as envisaged under
23 66(B), that is, rather, retaining those documents,
24 would be at risk if those documents were to be
25 disclosed only 21 days in advance, at the same time as
1 the expert report, in other words.
2 In that case, the Defence would have
3 sufficient time, or we can assume it would have
4 sufficient time not only to study the documents but
5 also to prepare questions for the expert, which would
6 mean that he would be testifying in court only once.
7 What I have just said regarding the Defence
8 will be a problem for the Prosecution during the
9 Defence case when the Defence brings its own expert
10 witnesses to testify in court.
11 Therefore, our submission would be, and
12 request, that you review this request in that light.
13 And regarding 66 bis, I think that the spirit of the
14 Rule really relates to the period prior to the
15 beginning of trial in essence, though it can also be
16 applied in the course of the trial itself.
17 That would be my submission, Your Honour.
18 [Trial Chamber confers]
19 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation]
20 Mr. Visnjic, we have a question here which was not in
21 our minds when we granted you a month-long delay. Do
22 you intend to have the witness called back or not? The
23 answer may be that that depends on your re-reading and
24 studying of the document, but I would like to have an
1 Do you imagine calling the witness back to
2 cross-examine him or not?
3 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] If you're
4 asking me about this particular witness, most probably
5 no. I can't say with certainty, but most probably no.
6 But in principle, if such a situation were to occur
7 again, the answer would probably be yes.
8 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I thought
9 that Mr. Petrusic was not going to call back the
10 witness, and that is why we gave you this time to
11 review the document. Have you anything to add or shall
12 I convey my ruling?
13 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] No, nothing
14 more, Mr. President.
15 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] At the end
16 of the day, as Mr. Visnjic has said, the Chamber has
17 been asked for some guidelines, some guidance. So we
18 don't really have a particular issue to rule on, but we
19 will convey to you what we think about the matter, what
20 we think about the matter right now, regarding this
21 particular issue.
22 I think that it is clear, Professor Brunborg,
23 in answer to a question by Mr. Petrusic, said that this
24 booklet or this document was an annex to his report
25 and, therefore, I think that we cannot go so far as to
1 ask the Prosecutor to send to the Defence all the
2 materials which the expert witness used to compile his
3 report. Perhaps the whole Demography Institute of
4 Norway would have to come here to the courtroom. Of
5 course, I'm exaggerating, but it is also true that we
6 cannot limit ourselves to the eight- or nine-page
7 report of the expert witness.
8 Therefore, in this particular case, I think
9 that it was reasonable for the report of the expert
10 witness to have been accompanied with this document,
11 which was very closely and directly used as a basis for
12 the whole study.
13 We agree with the interpretation Mr. Harmon
14 made of the Rules, but I think that in this particular
15 case it is quite possible that when the Prosecutor
16 intends to use this document as an exhibit to be
17 tendered, it is quite reasonable. And, anyway, there
18 is no problem in sending it to the Defence, I think.
19 So as I said, Mr. Visnjic asked for the
20 opinion of the Chamber. This is our opinion. But I
21 think that we will have to reconsider this question
22 again at a status conference, and then we can go into
23 the practical matters, because Mr. Visnjic has already
24 gone further by saying that, "We would like to know,
25 for our own guidance, what we should provide to the
1 Prosecution when our turn comes."
2 So I think that for the moment, the question
3 is closed regarding this particular case, but I think
4 we shall have to reopen the discussion at a status
5 conference so as to be able to organise our work
7 I think now we have to switch over to hearing
8 time, which means resume our proceedings. I think
9 Mr. Harmon was talking about a 20 or something --
10 29-minute video, exactly the amount of time we need
11 before a break.
12 Mr. Harmon, is that possible?
13 MR. HARMON: It is.
14 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] So we can
15 now have the video.
16 MR. HARMON: Before we play Prosecutor's
17 Exhibit 56, which is the number on the video, I would
18 ask that the documents that accompany that video, which
19 are 56A, the English transcript, and 56B, the French
20 transcript, be distributed.
21 And to put this video into context, into
22 proper context, let me explain what Your Honours will
23 see and what the audience will see.
24 This exhibit, for the record, is an exhibit,
25 as I said, that was taken from a Rule 61 hearing
1 conducted in 1996. For purposes of the record, the
2 Defence has consented to this video being played, and
3 therefore we did not call Mr. Mesic, who is the person
4 testifying, to the stand live.
5 In 1996, we had available -- the Office of
6 the Prosecutor had available to us film footage taken
7 in Potocari in July -- on July the 12th and the 13th.
8 I've introduced into evidence those clips of the film
9 showing men being separated from women.
10 When we received that film, we asked
11 representatives of the Bosnian government to attempt to
12 identify the individuals who were in the film, the
13 Muslim men who were being separated and the Muslim men
14 who were being detained at a location called the "white
15 house". Prior to the testimony of Mr. Mesic in 1996, I
16 was informed that a certain number of those people had
17 been identified, and therefore Mr. Mesic came to the
18 Rule 61 hearing, he was shown the film, and he made
19 those identifications.
20 Now, with that in mind, I need to also inform
21 the Chamber that on the 10th of February of this year,
22 I was informed that one of the individuals who had been
23 identified by Mr. Mesic had been incorrectly
24 identified, and that identification relates to an
25 individual who will be seen in the Photograph Z37, an
1 individual by the name of Mustafa Mujcinovic. It
2 turned out the individual who had identified
3 Mr. Mujcinovic was mistaken, and subsequently the
4 Bosnian government learned of that mistaken
5 identification. Mr. Mesic, when he testified, believed
6 that to be an accurate identification, but with that
7 correction by the Bosnian government, then this film
8 can be properly viewed. The reference to the Z37 will
9 be found in the transcripts that I've provided to Your
11 One last piece of information for Your
12 Honours. I have been informed that the film, which is
13 the official record of the Rule 61 hearing and which
14 was provided to us for purposes of this exhibit, lacks
15 a matter of minutes at the end of the film. A few
16 minutes are missing. However, I'm also informed that
17 the French and the English transcripts of that
18 proceeding are complete.
19 So with that introduction, Mr. President and
20 Your Honours, if we could now proceed by dimming the
21 lights and we could see Mr. Mesic's testimony in
22 Prosecutor's Exhibit 56.
23 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Harmon,
24 perhaps before we start viewing the video and for the
25 record, I should like to ask the Defence if what
1 Mr. Harmon is saying is true and are you accepting the
3 MR. PETRUSIC: [Interpretation] Yes, we are,
4 Mr. President.
5 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you.
6 This was only for the purposes of the record. Thank
7 you very much.
8 Now we can begin with the viewing.
9 [Videotape played].
10 ANSWER: [Voiceover] I solemnly declare that I
11 will speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
12 the truth.
13 THE PRESIDING JUDGE: Thank you. Please be
15 ANSWER: [Voiceover] Thank you.
16 THE PRESIDING JUDGE: You have been called as
17 a witness by the Prosecution, so I'm going to ask Mr.
18 Ostberg to proceed.
19 MR. OSTBERG: Thank you, Your Honour.
20 QUESTION: Will you please state your name
21 and also spell it for the record?
22 ANSWER: [Voiceover] Pasaga Mesic.
23 P-a-s-a-g-a, M-e-s-i-c.
24 QUESTION: Would you also state your present
1 ANSWER: [Voiceover] Head of the police
2 department in Tuzla which, among other things, collects
3 facts about crimes committed in the territory of
5 QUESTION: Could you tell us about what this
6 police department in Tuzla encompassed, the cities or
7 places we have been talking about in the context of
9 ANSWER: [Voiceover] My department covered the
10 territory of North-East Bosnia. Before the war, there
11 was the administrative region of Tuzla. It belonged to
12 the Tuzla region which, among other common
13 municipalities, covers the municipalities of
14 Srebrenica, Bratunac, and others.
15 QUESTION: Thank you. Did you, in your
16 office, try to identify missing people?
17 ANSWER: [Voiceover] Yes, we did.
18 QUESTION: How did you go about that?
19 ANSWER: [Voiceover] We did it in several
20 ways. The chief method was that when people expelled
21 from Srebrenica arrived when the Serb army took the
22 enclave of Srebrenica, in those places where the
23 expelled were accommodated in their settlements, we
24 conducted a questionnaire of all citizens of age who
25 had arrived there.
1 The questionnaire included -- in addition to
2 the name and particulars, it also included a question
3 of where their next of kin were. In those
4 questionnaires, they listed the names of their close
5 relatives who either had been kept by the Serb army in
6 Potocari or tried to reach the free territory through
7 the woods.
8 Another question in the questionnaire was
9 whether they had witnessed a murder or some other
10 crime, that is, some other violation of international
11 humanitarian law.
12 QUESTION: Thank you. Can you provide the
13 Court with the figure of numbers of missing people from
14 the U.N. safe area of Srebrenica?
15 ANSWER: [Voiceover] After we had collected
16 all the information and facts in this and other ways,
17 we were able to make some estimates about the number of
18 persons missing. It is, however, still impossible to
19 identify all the missing persons.
20 The information we have gathered so far says
21 that during the attack of the Serb army against the
22 enclave, that is, the protected zone of Srebrenica,
23 between 6.000 to 6.500 people went missing.
24 QUESTION: And what means did you use to
25 reach this result, apart from what you already told us
1 about this questionnaire?
2 ANSWER: [Voiceover] In addition to this, we
3 also used lists of missing persons compiled by the
4 International Committee of the Red Cross, and that is
5 their office in Tuzla, which was also supplied to the
6 Commission for the Exchange of Prisoners in Tuzla.
7 We also used information from the lists of
8 missing persons compiled by representatives of the
9 municipalities of Srebrenica, Bratunac and Vlasenica,
10 and on the basis of all this information and by
11 subtracting from that number the of persons who arrived
12 in the free territory in the meantime, including the
13 surrender of persons to IFOR in Zvornik, it was 3.469
14 [sic] missing persons.
15 QUESTION: Will you name the figure again? I
16 did not quite get it.
17 ANSWER: [Voiceover] 9.349 persons.
18 QUESTION: Thank you. Now, during this
19 period, the free territory was reached by a certain
20 number of members of the army of Bosnia and Herzegovina
21 who managed to break through the Serb blockade. We do
22 not have the exact figure because it is a military
23 secret and therefore may not be divulged. However, on
24 the basis of the information we have, we estimate it is
25 about 30 per cent of the last figure I mentioned, which
1 means that between 3.000 and 3.500 members of the army
2 arrived in the free territory. And when this is
3 subtracted from those 9.349, we arrive at the first
4 figure, that is, that about 6.000 to 6.500 people are
5 still missing.
6 QUESTION: Thank you very much. Now I would
7 like to turn to another matter, namely, photographs
8 which I'm soon going to show you. I will first ask you
10 Did the Office of the Prosecutor present you
11 with photographs of prisoners from the Srebrenica
13 ANSWER: [Voiceover] Yes.
14 QUESTION: Do you know where these
15 photographs came from?
16 ANSWER: [Voiceover] No, I don't know that,
17 but I know that the photographs were taken of a film
18 which was in the possession of an investigating team of
19 the Tribunal.
20 QUESTION: What were you asked to do with
21 these photos?
22 ANSWER: [Voiceover] The investigator's team
23 of the Tribunal asked us to try to identify those
24 persons with those who had arrived in the territory, as
25 they were showing men who were members of the Serb army
1 in Potocari and other places in the Srebrenica area
2 were separated by the Serb army from their families and
3 then taken into an unknown direction.
4 QUESTION: What methods did you use to try to
5 identify these prisoners?
6 ANSWER: [Voiceover] We began by showing those
7 photographs to the expelled people from Srebrenica in
8 refugee camps in which they were accommodated. But
9 since they were scattered all over the territory,
10 almost throughout the territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina,
11 we were not able to identify them for those missing
13 A fortnight ago, we used the cantonal
14 television of Tuzla and we broadcasted those
15 photographs and invited anyone who could identify
16 anyone in those photographs to come to our office and
17 then identify any of those persons who they could
18 recognise or they knew from the photographs that we
20 QUESTION: Thank you. How many photographs
21 were you presented with?
22 ANSWER: [Voiceover] We were shown 30
24 QUESTION: And were you able to determine the
25 identities of the persons in these photos?
1 ANSWER: [Voiceover] Yes. We identified 28
3 QUESTION: Thank you. Now I'm going to show
4 you some photos, and you tell us what you found out
5 concerning the people we are going to show you. I
6 think it is, in total, 16 photos, and the first one is
7 Exhibit 8A.
8 Can the Court see that photograph also?
9 I now ask you, can you identify any persons
10 on that photo? Were you able to identify any one of
12 ANSWER: [Voiceover] On this photograph, we
13 identified three persons.
14 QUESTION: Thank you. Please proceed.
15 Again, my question was: Can you identify any one of
16 these people on that photograph?
17 ANSWER: [Voiceover] Yes. The person I'm
18 pointing at now is Sevko Mujic, son of Omer.
19 QUESTION: Do you have a pointer? Can we
20 point with -- has he something to point with? On the
21 ELMO, I think you have to do it.
22 ANSWER: [Voiceover] The person I'm pointing
23 at now is Sevko Mujic.
24 QUESTION: Who did identify him?
25 ANSWER: [Voiceover] He was identified by a
2 QUESTION: Can you tell us about his fate?
3 ANSWER: [Voiceover] He disappeared, he's
4 missing, and nothing is known about his fate.
5 QUESTION: Thank you. Are there any other
6 persons on this photo that you can identify?
7 ANSWER: [Voiceover] Yes.
8 QUESTION: And who is this person?
9 ANSWER: [Voiceover] This is Ahmo Mehmedovic,
10 son of Sulejman, age 58. He was identified by a
12 QUESTION: And his fate?
13 ANSWER: [Voiceover] He's also missing.
14 QUESTION: Thank you. Any other on this
16 ANSWER: [Voiceover] Yes. This person here,
17 this is Meho Mehmedovic, also son of Sulejman, Ahmo's
18 brother, age 56, also identified by neighbours.
19 QUESTION: And his fate?
20 ANSWER: [Voiceover] He's missing too.
21 QUESTION: Thank you. As Your Honours may
22 recall, these are photos that were shown by our
23 investigator Rene Ruez during his examination. So you
24 have seen them before, and now we show them again just
25 for this purpose.
1 Can I have Exhibit 8B, please. Can you
2 identify anybody on this photograph?
3 ANSWER: [Voiceover] It is this person. He
4 was also in Exhibit 8A. This is Meho Mehmedovic.
5 QUESTION: And who identified him?
6 ANSWER: [Voiceover] He was identified by his
7 neighbour or, rather, two persons who were his
8 neighbours while they were in the area of Srebrenica.
9 QUESTION: What do we know about him?
10 ANSWER: [Voiceover] He's missing.
11 QUESTION: Now we look at Exhibit 10B. Can
12 you identify anybody on this photo?
13 ANSWER: [Voiceover] Yes.
14 QUESTION: And that is?
15 ANSWER: [Voiceover] This person's name is
16 Kasim Hafizovic, son of Mehmed, age 58, and was
17 identified by his close relatives.
18 QUESTION: And what do we know about him?
19 ANSWER: [Voiceover] He's missing too.
20 QUESTION: Is there anybody else on this
21 photo who you can --
22 ANSWER: [Voiceover] Yes. Senahid Hafizovic,
23 son of Mehmed, aged 54, also identified by neighbours,
24 also on the list of missing persons.
25 QUESTION: Thank you. We go on to Exhibit
1 11A, and we can really see two persons on it. Can you
2 identify them?
3 ANSWER: [Voiceover] Yes, this person is Misa
4 Efendic, son of Meho, age 63, identified by a
5 neighbour, also on the list of missing persons.
6 QUESTION: Thank you. And the other one?
7 ANSWER: [Voiceover] The other person is Ibro
8 Huseinovic, son of Ahmo, aged 51, identified by his
9 close relatives, listed as a missing person.
10 QUESTION: Can we now please go to Exhibit
11 12D. Do you have any -- can we -- I can't see anything
12 on my screen for the moment. Here we are. Thank you.
13 ANSWER: [Voiceover] Only this person was
14 identified on this photograph. This is Nazif Krdzic,
15 aged 54, identified by his colleague.
16 QUESTION: And his fate?
17 ANSWER: [Voiceover] He's also missing.
18 QUESTION: And now, please, we go to Exhibit
19 13A. Could you point us out the people there? Yes,
20 and who is that?
21 ANSWER: [Voiceover] Yes. This is Bajro
22 Malkic, son of Hilmo, aged 53, identified by his
23 relatives, listed as a missing person.
24 QUESTION: Thank you. Any other people on
25 this photo?
1 ANSWER: [Voiceover] Next person is Mevludin
2 Pasagic, aged 56, identified by his close relatives on
3 the list of missing persons. One more person on this
4 photograph, Hamza Gudic, aged 52, identified by
5 colleagues. He's also on the list of missing persons.
6 QUESTION: Thank you. And then I will ask
7 for number 13B.
8 ANSWER: [Voiceover] Here we see Hamza Gudic
9 again. We saw him in number 13A. Then this person
10 here, his name is Idriz Suljic, son of Sanaban, aged
11 60, identified by friends, on the list of missing
13 QUESTION: Yes.
14 ANSWER: [Voiceover] This person here is
15 Ibrahim Jelkic, son of Bahrija, aged 59, identified by
16 a friend, also on the list of missing persons.
17 QUESTION: Thank you. Can I ask for Exhibit
18 number 14B. You will recognise him. That was the
19 person who was forced to call out for his comrades in
20 the hills. Yes, please?
21 ANSWER: [Voiceover] This person here is Ramo
22 Osmanovic, son of Omer, age 42, identified by
23 relatives, on the list of missing persons. On this
24 photograph, we also identified this person here. There
25 is Miralem Mujic, son of Rasim, aged 47, identified by
1 close relatives, also on the list of missing persons.
2 QUESTION: Thank you. May I have Exhibit
3 number 15B? You do also, Your Honours, recognise him.
4 That was the person who was interviewed by a television
5 reporter. Yes, please?
6 ANSWER: [Voiceover] This person is Ramo
7 Mustafic, son of Meho, age 54, identified by
9 QUESTION: Thank you. Now I would ask for
10 Exhibit number 16A.
11 ANSWER: [Voiceover] On this photograph we see
12 Salih Salihovic, aged 49, identified by friends, on the
13 list of missing persons.
14 QUESTION: Thank you. May I ask for number
16 ANSWER: [Voiceover] On this photograph we
17 identified two persons. This is Ramo Kabilovic, son of
18 Hajro, aged 34, was identified by close relatives, on
19 the list of missing persons. In the middle and behind
20 him on the stretcher is Mujo Mesanovic, son of Abdulah,
21 aged 22, identified by close relatives, on the list of
22 missing persons.
23 QUESTION: Thank you. I would ask for
24 Exhibit number 18A.
25 ANSWER: [Voiceover] This person here is Salih
1 Isbisevic, son of Ibrahim, 36 years old. He was
2 identified by his close relatives, and he's on the list
3 of missing persons.
4 QUESTION: Thank you and now 19B, please.
5 ANSWER: [Voiceover] On this photograph, this
6 young man has been identified. His name is Almir
7 Salcinovic, son of Turabija, 21 years old, and he was
8 identified by a friend. Then Halil Gabeljic, son of
9 Mahmut, who was identified by a friend and who is also
10 on the list of missing persons.
11 QUESTION: Both of these people are missing,
13 ANSWER: [Voiceover] Yes.
14 QUESTION: Thank you. That takes us to 20B,
16 ANSWER: [Voiceover] This person's name is
17 Muhamed Malagic, son of Ramiz, 23 years old. He was
18 identified by his close relatives and he is on the list
19 of missing persons now.
20 QUESTION: Thank you. And now 21B, please.
21 ANSWER: [Voiceover] On this photograph, Nezir
22 Ibisevic was identified. He's the son of Juso, 20
23 years old. He was identified by his friends. He's on
24 the missing-persons' list now.
25 QUESTION: Now we're going to show you the
1 last photograph, and that is 22B.
2 ANSWER: [Voiceover] This person's name is
3 Bajazit Delic, son of Amil. He was identified by
4 distant relatives, and he's on the missing-persons'
5 list now. This here is Mustafa Mujcinovic, son of
6 Mujo, 38 years old, was identified by an acquaintance,
7 and he's on the missing-persons' list now.
8 QUESTION: All these people we have now shown
9 photos of, are they all missing?
10 ANSWER: [Voiceover] Yes, all these persons
11 are on the missing-persons' list. We said that
12 28 persons have been identified. We saw 26 persons,
13 because two persons reached the free territory and
14 their photographs, for security reasons, we will not be
15 showing. One man is 62 years old, and a boy who's only
17 QUESTION: Thank you. And all the others are
19 ANSWER: [Voiceover] Yes.
20 MR. OSTRBERG: Thank you very much. This
21 concludes the questions I have to put to you, thank you
22 very much.
23 THE PRESIDING JUDGE: [Voiceover] Do you have
24 a question, Madam Judge?
25 JUDGE ODIO BENITO: Mr. Pasaga Mesic, you
1 spoke of about 6.000, 6.500 missing persons. Could you
2 tell the Court how many are men, how many are women,
3 how many are children?
4 ANSWER: [Voiceover] No. At this moment I
5 cannot tell the Court that because we do not know
6 exactly even the number of missing people nor the
7 composition of those missing persons. Since the
8 activities to complete data on missing persons are
9 still underway and, the government of
10 Bosnia-Herzegovina, that is formed a commission for
11 missing persons which should also take part take in the
12 final establishment of the number of missing persons
13 and their composition during the takeover by the
14 Srebrenica enclave by the Serb army.
15 JUDGE ODIO BENITO: So that means that you
16 couldn't say if mostly they are elderly people.
17 ANSWER: [Voiceover] Mostly they were males
18 over 17 years of age, since most of the women and
19 children were transported out of Srebrenica ..."
20 MR. HARMON: That concludes the tape,
21 Mr. President. As I said, part of it is missing but
22 the transcripts are complete, and we would tender as
23 exhibits copies of Prosecutor's Exhibit 56, which is
24 the tape; and 56A, the English transcript of the
25 proceedings; and 56B, the French transcript of the
2 JUDGE WALD: Mr. Harmon, do we know whether
3 any of those people who are identified in the video and
4 were then on the missing list have since been found?
5 MR. HARMON: I don't know the answer to
6 that. All I know is that the Bosnia government has
7 informed me that one person was misidentified. Whether
8 that person was misidentified and is now alive, I'm not
10 JUDGE WALD: Okay.
11 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation]
12 Mr. Petrusic, do you have any objections in respect of
13 this exhibit?
14 MR. PETRUSIC: [Interpretation] No, I don't,
15 Mr. President.
16 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you
17 very much. The exhibits will be admitted into
19 I think that this is a very convenient time
20 for a break. However, before the break, I think I
21 should mention something for the benefit of the
23 Mr. Harmon, you stated that we should go into
24 closed session to discuss the work of the next week.
25 Can we do it before the break or maybe after the break,
1 or maybe we can discuss it now and then after the break
2 inform the public about the schedule for next week.
3 So we will now go into closed session. After
4 the closed session, there will be a break, and we will
5 be back around half past 1.00.
6 Closed session, please.
7 [Closed session]
19 --- Recess taken at 1.10 p.m.
20 --- On resuming at 1.42 p.m.
21 [Open session]
22 [The witness entered court]
23 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation]
24 Mr. Manning, thank you very much for coming back.
25 We're going to treat this as the continuation of your
1 testimony, and you are now going to answer questions
2 which I think Mr. Visnjic is going to put to you within
3 the framework of the cross-examination.
4 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Thank you,
5 Mr. President. As we said when asking for the delay
6 for Mr. Manning, most of the questions that we had
7 prepared for him have been answered for us by the
8 expert witnesses, so that our cross-examination of
9 Mr. Manning will be very brief and consists of only a
10 few questions.
11 WITNESS: DEAN MANNING [Resumed]
12 Cross-examined by Mr. Visnjic:
13 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Manning. Your report of
14 the 16th of May contains parts which are written in
15 italics. I hope the interpreters will be able to
16 interpret this.
17 A. Yes, that's correct.
18 Q. Can you explain? Are those parts, also a
19 component part of expert findings or are they another
20 kind of proof?
21 A. I think you would have to refer to a specific
22 section of italics. I believe each separate grave area
23 has an italic area, if that's what you're referring
25 Q. On page 5 of your report, and items 1, 2, 3,
1 and then again on page 6. In fact, on every page
2 containing descriptions of grave sites, there is what
3 one might call an introductory paragraph.
4 A. That's correct. That's the section that I've
5 marked with italics, if you like. It was simply to
6 highlight the introduction, if you like, to each of the
7 crime scenes in that I was trying to summarise it.
8 That was just to highlight the introduction.
9 Q. Were those parts taken from expert reports or
10 were they compiled in the form of an introduction to
11 the report?
12 A. In the main, they were taken either from the
13 indictment or from a summary of the witness such as you
14 see with Witness S40 on the bottom of page 5.
15 Q. Thank you. My second question relates to
16 page 20 of your report, and page 21, containing tables
17 on ligatures and blindfolds. I have noted a certain
18 discrepancy in the numbers given in this report and the
19 numbers that were given to us by the experts. So I
20 should like to ask you about one or two specific
21 examples to see whether you can explain the difference
22 for me.
23 On page 20, it is stated that the total
24 number of ligatures for Kozluk is 168. At the same
25 time, I compared that number with the number given by
1 Dr. Clark in his report, on page 7.
2 MR. VISNJIC: I have that page of the report,
3 and I would like to ask the usher for his assistance,
4 to show it to Mr. Manning.
5 A. Thank you.
6 MR. VISNJIC:
7 Q. I think that the number of ligatures in your
8 report is slightly higher than the one given in his.
9 A. Yes. Just looking at those figures, my
10 indication of the number of ligatures is higher. I
11 believe I spoke about that during my evidence in chief,
12 in that I looked at what was found at the site, what
13 was found by the pathologists, and what was found
14 loose, if you like, at the morgue, and I indicated
15 then, I believe, that there would be differences in
16 what the archaeologists found and what the pathologists
17 in the morgue found and what I said was the number.
18 Q. The number that you gave, would that be a
19 compilation of all the numbers found by the
20 anthropologists and the pathologists or is there
21 another source that collected evidence?
22 A. My figure represents ligatures in this case
23 that were located during the exhumation and autopsy
24 process only; that is, ligatures found at the grave
25 site, ligatures found at the morgue site by those
1 people you mentioned, plus also scientific officers
2 examining the artefacts at the morgue. I assume that
3 Dr. Clark did not examine all the ligatures,
4 specifically ones that weren't located with the body.
5 Q. Thank you. On that same page, it is stated
6 that at the Petkovci dam, one ligature was found.
7 However, the Prosecution has shown us two exhibits
8 showing two ligatures. One is Exhibit number 22/8, and
9 the other one is 131/1.
10 This is Exhibit 22/8, showing a ligature
11 found by Mr. Jean-Rene Ruez during his stay there in
12 April 1997. I think that is the final date
13 established. And Exhibit 131/1, showing another
14 ligature, was produced during your testimony in chief.
15 My question is whether you could explain to
16 us this particular discrepancy. A second part of that
17 question is the actual technique applied to collect
18 this kind of physical evidence or artefacts.
19 A. To answer the first part of your question,
20 this ligature here, the string ligature marked DG-118,
21 was located during the autopsy -- sorry, exhumation
22 process at the dam conducted by Professor Wright. I
23 included that as a ligature located at Petkovci dam or
24 the dam near Petkovci on the basis that it was found
25 during that process, and I was summarising evidence
1 located during the exhumation/autopsy process.
2 The other ligature which is shown in this
3 photograph was, as you pointed out, located by
4 Mr. Ruez, not as part of the exhumation/autopsy
5 process. It wasn't examined by the archaeologists or
6 the scientific officers or by the pathologists.
7 Therefore, as I said, it was a conservative number of
8 ligatures and blindfolds, and that one was not counted
9 by myself as part of this process.
10 Q. Could you please explain in a little greater
11 detail the technique, the method applied regarding, for
12 example, Exhibit 22/8. It was found on site and then
14 A. You're referring to this exhibit here?
15 Q. For example, that one, yes.
16 A. I was not present when that item was
17 located. Indeed, I wasn't at the Tribunal. Mr. Ruez
18 handled this exhibit, so I'm afraid you'll have to ask
19 him those details.
20 Q. But generally speaking, for instance, Exhibit
21 131, I'm interested in the actual procedure of
22 registering and safekeeping of these artefacts.
23 A. In relation to this item, DG-118, and I have
24 to generalise because I haven't got the details of this
25 particular item in front of me, but when an exhumation
1 is conducted, each item or body that is identified, the
2 individual who finds it or identifies it calls out to
3 the register keeper or a scientific officer present at
4 the site for a number. The process has changed and
5 evolved from 1998, but it's essentially the same.
6 A number was issued for that item. It was
7 either tagged immediately or tagged, and by "tagged" I
8 mean that little metal tag that you see in that
9 photograph or some other tag, removed from the grave,
10 placed in a bag, reported on a ledger which would then
11 accompany that item to the morgue. It may be that that
12 item stayed with the body and is placed in the body
13 bag, and it would then be removed at the morgue on
14 examination. Again speaking generally, it could be
15 that that item would not be discovered until it came to
16 the morgue. It may be dirty or tangled with other
17 things, in which case it would be cleaned, registered
18 at the morgue, photographed, bagged, and placed into an
19 exhibit locker or room.
20 Basically, that's the general processing of
21 an exhibit.
22 Q. Thank you. Mr. Manning, according to the
23 evidence produced by the Prosecution so far, and
24 judging by the statement of witnesses who, in part of
25 their testimony, claimed that in the area from Nova
1 Kasaba to Konjevic Polje, while a column of males was
2 going through the woods in the direction of Zvornik,
3 that in that area there were numerous ambushes and a
4 certain number of casualties. In the course of your
5 investigations, were you aware of the fact of the
6 burial place of those victims who fell as casualties
7 during these events?
8 A. No, I'm not aware of the burial of those
10 Q. According to the evidence produced by the
11 Prosecution also, and judging by the statements of
12 witnesses, one can infer that in the area of Bajkovici,
13 of Zvornik, there were also armed conflicts between a
14 column that was breaking through to the territory of
15 the Federation. I have reviewed very briefly the list
16 of missing persons, and, for instance, under the letter
17 "A" alone, that is, persons whose surnames begin with
18 the letter "A", the place of disappearance for 50
19 persons under that letter of the alphabet, Bajkovici
20 and Udrc, territory in Zvornik municipality, are
21 given. Also, according to certain sources, the Serb
22 forces alone in a single day had more than 100 men put
23 out of action; some killed, some wounded. Do you
24 perhaps know where and whether the victims of those
25 conflicts were buried?
1 A. No, I don't.
2 MR. VISNJIC: Thank you, Mr. Manning.
3 Mr. President, that ends my
5 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you
6 very much, Mr. Visnjic.
7 Mr. Harmon, have you any re-examination?
8 MR. HARMON: Mr. President, I do not.
9 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Judge Fouad
10 Riad, do you have any questions?
11 Madam Judge Wald, have you any questions?
12 JUDGE WALD: I have one.
13 Questioned by the Court:
14 JUDGE WALD: During your testimony, Mr.
15 Manning, I don't have the chart in front of me but I
16 believe there was a chart that showed the graves that
17 had been disturbed, the primary graves that had been
18 disturbed, and those that had not, and the secondary
19 graves. My question is basically whether or not, based
20 upon your observation and research, you were able to
21 come up with any hypothesis or clues as to why
22 particular primary graves were disturbed, relocated to
23 secondary graves, and others were left alone, based
24 upon their location or any other factor that you might
25 may have come across?
1 A. Your Honour, I could surmise that graves that
2 were undisturbed seemed to be in a particular area.
3 JUDGE WALD: Which area?
4 A. The graves around Cerska, Konjevic Polje,
5 Nova Kasaba. I assume that because of that location,
6 it was a difficulty in disturbing them or some other
7 reason that they were not disturbed. I also believe
8 that at least for the case of some of the graves, they
9 were easily identified, particularly in light of the
10 aerial images that were released.
11 JUDGE WALD: So just to nail that down, the
12 first group that you said there would be difficulty in
13 disturbing them, those were less accessible?
14 A. Your Honour, no less accessible than Cancari
15 road or -- sorry.
16 JUDGE WALD: Well, they were less accessible
17 than some of the other primary graves that were
18 disturbed or not?
19 A. I don't believe that's the reason. As I say,
20 I believe it may be due to the location. Those graves
21 are as accessible as the others.
22 JUDGE WALD: But when you say "location",
24 A. I would have to answer that simply by saying
25 that they seemed to be graves that are grouped together
1 that have not been disturbed. So for some reason that
2 I don't know, those graves were not disturbed. Perhaps
3 they were too close to something, perhaps they had been
4 in a different -- I don't know.
5 JUDGE WALD: Okay, all right. Thank you.
6 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you
7 very much, Judge Wald.
8 So, Mr. Manning, I think that we have
9 finished your testimony.
10 I think there are no exhibits to deal with in
11 this case. Is that correct, Mr. Harmon, Mr. Visnjic?
12 I don't think we have any outstanding exhibits to
13 tender, or reports.
14 The report is Exhibit 150, I think, is it
15 not? No, 140. I'm sorry.
16 MR. HARMON: In the course of Mr. Manning's
17 direct examination, the exhibits were tendered and
18 accepted by the Trial Chamber.
19 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well,
20 then. Everything has been dealt with.
21 Thank you very much, Mr. Manning, for coming
22 to the courtroom and for answering the questions put to
24 We are now going to adjourn.
25 For the benefit of the public, I have to say
1 that the whole day tomorrow, hearings will be held in
2 closed session. So from the standpoint of the public,
3 the case is closed for this week. So we will be
4 resuming this trial, but in a different framework.
5 The hearing is adjourned.
6 [The witness withdrew]
7 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at
8 2.13 p.m., to be reconvened on
9 Friday, the 2nd day of June, 2000,
10 at 9.30 a.m.