1 Wednesday, 24 September 2008
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 [The witness takes the stand]
6 --- Upon commencing at 8.51 a.m.
7 WITNESS: EWA TABEAU [Recalled]
8 JUDGE ROBINSON: Let the witness make the declaration. You've
9 already made the declaration. Well, then you remain subject to it.
10 Mr. Alarid.
11 MR. ALARID: I think it is my turn.
12 JUDGE ROBINSON: Your turn.
13 MR. ALARID: Thank you.
14 Cross-examination by Mr. Alarid:
15 Q. Good morning, Dr. Tabeau. How are you?
16 A. Good morning. Very well, thank you.
17 Q. My name is Jason Alarid and I represent Milan Lukic. I just want
18 to ask a few questions. I don't think this will take too long.
19 With regards to your analysis just to kind of have a rehash as
20 we're coming back a couple days later, the first set of data you used was
21 of course the 1991 census?
22 A. That's correct.
23 Q. And the second set of data you used was voter registration?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Now, had you done any long-standing demographic model that would
1 take into consideration earlier censuses, quite possibly?
2 A. Not for this study but there is a table in the report in which I
3 give numbers of the population in Visegrad since the 1948 census.
4 Q. And is that broken down by ethnicity?
5 A. No, it isn't. These are overall totals.
6 Q. Okay. What was the population growth over the model period?
7 A. The population growth in terms of how much population increase?
8 Q. Yeah. I mean, were you able to --
9 THE INTERPRETER: Could the speakers please observe a pause.
10 Thank you.
11 MR. ALARID:
12 Q. Birth rates, things like that.
13 A. I didn't study the population growth.
14 Q. And I'm sorry, I need to turn on my microphone. Or my ear piece,
16 And so you couldn't tell just from looking at the data what was
17 just people having children, of course, within the community versus
18 people actually emigrating or moving and populating the area?
19 A. Well, this is not what we did in this study. We didn't study
20 demographic trends, in fertility, in mortality, in migration. We
21 observed the population of Visegrad on two moments of time, at the
22 outbreak of the conflict 1991 census data and post-conflict population in
23 the voters registration.
24 Q. And in the post-conflict information, were there any other data
25 sets other than voter registration to compare against?
1 A. No, except there was a small data set from the UNHCR that we used
2 to -- for contextual purposes, and this data was on internally displaced
4 Q. And you didn't -- you didn't necessarily do any verification work
5 for the Red Cross list, did you?
6 A. Well, we have done a lot of work on the Red Cross data, but tell
7 me exactly what you mean with the verification.
8 Q. Meaning just investigative work to make sure that there's not any
9 errors in the list that may have slipped through the cracks from the Red
10 Cross perspective.
11 A. Well, this is what we've been always doing with every source and
12 we checked the ICRC data for deficiencies, for incompleteness, for
13 misreporting, but at the same time we cross-referenced this data with
14 other sources in this project but also in other projects. For instance,
15 in Srebrenica projects we cross-referenced the ICRC data with a DNA
16 identification records, that is part of exhumation records, and ended
17 with actually very good overlap of the DNA identifications with ICRC
18 missing data.
19 Q. Now, other than taking the list that was provided by the
20 Prosecution and comparing it against -- and I'd say it's a list of
21 Pionirska Street names and comparing it against the Red Cross database,
22 did you do anything else to verify for the Visegrad area?
23 A. You mean with other sources. We did compare the ICRC data --
24 well, records starting with the records from Pionirska Street. We used
25 the ICRC data for cross-referencing. We used data from Bosnian book of
1 death. We used ICMP records of the identified persons. We used BCMP
2 that is the Bosnia commission for tracing missing persons. So we have
3 done -- we used the RS mortality database to cross-reference these
4 records. A lot of comparisons actually had been done with respect to the
5 victim lists, including Pionirska records.
6 Q. Now, did you cleanse the census?
7 A. Well, cleanse, what you mean by cleansing?
8 Q. Well, what -- what efforts did you take to cleanse the 1991
9 census, to verify the accuracy of the census?
10 A. Well --
11 Q. Or do you know if it was done?
12 A. I know a lot of work has been done with the census data back in
13 Bosnia and Herzegovina and also in my unit. Our focus was the spelling
14 mistakes in the names, because we needed the names for matching with
15 other sources, and we have done a lot of work to clean the names from
16 mistakes, to end with good names that would be good overlapping with
17 other sources.
18 We of course studied JMBG and we studied date of birth. We
19 wanted to know how much information is missing. Well, I believe a lot of
20 work has been done here, and also a lot of work has been done in Bosnia,
21 although I must say one part of the census, agricultural part, which we
22 didn't use, wasn't actually cleansed.
23 Q. Okay.
24 A. Yeah.
25 Q. And --
1 JUDGE VAN DEN WYNGAERT: While we're waiting for the transcript,
2 Mr. Alarid, may I draw your attention that there is the list of
3 adjudicated facts and the census is part of the facts that we accepted as
4 adjudicated facts, and maybe this may allow you to focus your question.
5 MR. ALARID: That would, Your Honour, thank you, actually.
6 Q. Now, did you discover if Bosnia post-war post 1997 has undertaken
7 a census in the Republika Srpska?
8 A. The 1991 census actually was the last one undertaken in Bosnia
9 and Herzegovina.
10 Q. What was the -- in the United States it's every ten years. What
11 was the pattern in Bosnia?
12 A. Well, until 1991 it was every ten years. Since 1991 we haven't
13 had a census in Bosnia.
14 Q. Okay. Did you account for any kind of migration? I know that
15 the Serbian population went up slightly between the two data sets, from
16 1991 to 1997. Did you account whether this was birth rate or actually
17 migration, new people moving into the community?
18 A. Well, first of all Serbian population you mean the population of
19 Republika Srpska or --
20 Q. Of Visegrad, Visegrad?
21 A. Oh Visegrad.
22 Q. Of Visegrad.
23 A. The Serbs in Visegrad, Bosnian Serbs in Visegrad, well, how do
24 you know the actual size of the population after the conflict in
25 Visegrad --
1 Q. I --
2 A. -- and any other municipality as well? So there was no census.
3 We had the voters registration, which is a sample of the post-war
4 population, a big sample, but it is not that. It is the size that you
5 can conclude from this sample.
6 Q. Well, and I guess because -- were your numbers in Visegrad in the
7 1997 voter registration sample, was that strictly people that had
8 registered to vote?
9 A. That is what -- what it was, yes.
10 Q. So you don't have any accounting for their children who may not
11 be of voting age?
12 A. No. The children below age of 18 are not in the sample.
13 Q. And anyone between 18 and 80 that doesn't want to register, you
14 don't account for them?
15 A. These people who didn't want to register or they couldn't
16 register are not there.
17 Q. And in somewhat of a patriarchal society, you may not have women
18 represented fairly in the census?
19 A. I don't think so.
20 Q. Not the census. I'm sorry, voter registration.
21 A. I would be surprised if it was the case in Bosnia.
22 Q. Well, and just a standpoint it wouldn't be uncommon for one
23 spouse to register to vote and another spouse maybe not to register to
25 A. No, but I saw cases where one the same JMBG was used for the
1 spouses, the wife and the husband.
2 Q. Well, and understood, they might go as a couple to register but
3 also were you able to verify marital status from voter registration?
4 A. Why would I be interested in marital status?
5 Q. Only to compare and contrast the names, seeing if his wife is in
6 fact registered?
7 A. Well, actually our interest was just to see changes in the place
8 of residence of people. This was the crucial question of the study. So
9 we didn't look at other aspects of the population.
10 Q. Now, you can assume that there was some Muslim reintegration into
11 the population. People did come home.
12 A. What -- reintegration. When? What do you mean by integration?
13 Q. Well, I mean --
14 THE INTERPRETER: Could the speakers please observe a pause
15 between questions and answers. Thank you.
16 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, I'm sorry.
17 JUDGE ROBINSON: You have to observe a pause between question and
18 answer, both counsel and witness.
19 MR. ALARID:
20 Q. What I mean by integration is or reintegration is it's possible
21 some people did move back and simply didn't register to vote?
22 A. First of all, I don't think there were many returns of minority
23 groups on the first place Muslims being the minority group after the
24 conflict ended in December 1995 until the elections, 1997, 1998. Well,
25 this is one thing.
1 Second thing, if they returned, actually, and physically lived in
2 Visegrad, why wouldn't they register to vote and vote actually?
3 Q. Well, because maybe they're scared.
4 A. I don't get this point, to be honest, because you know first of
5 all you even didn't have to be there physically in Visegrad to vote for
7 Q. Well, if you move back and someone can go to a county building
8 and check your ethnicity and your address from voter registration, that
9 might be a fear factor for someone to reregister to vote?
10 A. But they didn't have to register in Visegrad to vote for
11 Visegrad. They could have done this from Sarajevo, from abroad, from
12 anyplace. They could have registered anywhere and still vote for
13 Visegrad. If you were so afraid to register, you could have gone to
14 another place and register and then you would escape the attention that
15 you voted actually for this municipality and your party?
16 Q. Well --
17 A. So I see no point in this.
18 Q. Well, because they were disenfranchised people. Isn't that true?
19 A. I don't know.
20 Q. I mean --
21 A. I --
22 Q. The conflict in and of itself disenfranchised them?
23 A. I believe that the registration rate and participation rate in
24 the elections of 1997 and 1998 was relatively high, so I can -- I even
25 give a -- I gave an estimate of this in the report, and I have it here in
1 the PowerPoint presentation. So we are speaking of a really big
2 participation in these elections. So the sample of voters that we used
3 in our analysis is without any doubt a big sample, solid data, absolutely
4 more than good enough to estimate the ethnic composition, not the size of
5 the population but most certainly the ethnic composition in the Visegrad
6 in the post-conflict area.
7 Q. Well, if you -- if you register to vote in Sarajevo, you can vote
8 for the local Visegrad election in Sarajevo?
9 A. If you registered, but if you can prove that you are eligible to
10 vote you could register in Sarajevo and vote for Visegrad.
11 Q. Okay. That would be very inconvenient, though, wouldn't you say
12 if you lived in Visegrad and you're poor?
13 A. I wouldn't go into this discussion, because this is not any part
14 of my report. So I gave you numbers. I gave you sample size. I gave
15 you a good description of the voters registration, how it was done, who
16 did it. I can tell you more about it, but I wouldn't like to go into
17 these kind of things, how convenient or inconvenient it was.
18 Q. Okay. Well, I'm just -- I'm just exploring the possibilities
19 that the Muslim side of that analysis from a voter registration
20 standpoint could have some potential shortcomings, some unreported
21 peoples that you just wouldn't be able to take into account. Not your
22 fault but just the limitation of the data set.
23 A. I wouldn't think so. I have never heard of ethnic differences in
24 the registration rate for these elections. What I'm trying to say, I am
25 absolutely unaware of the fact that one ethnic group in a given
1 territory, in a given region, would register for the elections less than
2 other ethnic groups. I -- I -- I have read several reports by the OSCE
3 related to these elections, some annual reports, and I have never seen
4 any comment of this kind in these reports. So I wouldn't believe there
5 is an ethnic inequality in the registration rate.
6 Q. Well, but -- but in fact the Visegrad Muslim -- oh, I'm sorry.
7 But in fact the Visegrad Muslim population was identified based on
8 ethnicity and then ultimately persecuted to a certain degree based on
9 their ethnicity. So that's why I'm saying maybe they would have a real
10 disincentive to reregister in the area for two reasons. One is simple
11 fear that they could be reidentified by a similar means at some future
12 conflict because they can't as a person eliminate that this wouldn't
13 happen again, and also recognising what maybe you saw, which is a larger
14 Serb population is now there so not registering from a well, my vote
15 doesn't count, anyway, what deference am I going to make in this
16 population because we are too few to gain seats. So there's two -- I
17 believe two reasons that someone just, I'm not going to register here.
18 Would that be plausible reasons?
19 A. No, sir, I'm not with you on this. I think that I showed in my
20 report that the Muslim population that was originally initially, the
21 disparate in the population census that we identified in the voters
22 registers, moved out from the municipality. I would take you now -- I
23 will take you now to one of the tables in the report.
24 Q. Which table, ma'am?
25 A. This is --
1 Q. Is it in your PowerPoint as well or just in the report?
2 A. Well, I prefer to go to the report. This is table 3B on page 13,
3 English version.
4 MS. MARCUS: If it can assist its's marked for identification as
5 Exhibit P118, 118.
6 MR. ALARID: P118. Page 13. If the court assistant would bring
7 that so we all can see.
8 THE WITNESS: Page 13, table 3B. This table is composed of two
9 parts. The upper panel are the absolute numbers, and the lower panel are
10 percentages. So if you look at the Muslims in the first panel, there was
11 an overall total of 6.799 individuals who initially were reported in the
12 1991 census data as part of the 1991 population, and this number we were
13 able to identify in the voters registers. This is a big sample. Believe
14 me, statistically speaking I'm very happy with it.
15 MR. ALARID:
16 Q. I know. I took statistics in college. I agree with you.
17 A. I'm happy we agree, so if we look at the distribution of --
18 JUDGE ROBINSON: That's the problem, Mr. Alarid.
19 MR. ALARID: I'm sorry, Your Honour?
20 JUDGE ROBINSON: That seems to be the problem. You took it in
22 MR. ALARID: It was a long time ago.
23 JUDGE ROBINSON: So you want to show off your knowledge.
24 MR. ALARID: Well, you know, Your Honour, sometimes I don't know
25 what's relevant in the end of this thing so I'm trying to anticipate.
1 I'm a little confused why we're dealing with so much statistics in an
2 eyewitness case, but the Prosecution brings it, and so I feel like I need
3 to address any inaccuracies if there can be, or limitations, but I agree.
4 I'm very short after this, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. I think you can move on now.
6 MR. ALARID: Yes.
7 THE WITNESS: Shall I continue with this table?
8 MR. ALARID:
9 Q. Yes, sure, explain the table?
10 A. So in the row for Muslims we see a distribution of the Muslim
11 population who initially was reported in the census and later found in
12 the voters register by place of post-conflict residence. So one person,
13 exactly one person stayed in Visegrad municipality. This is the first
14 column titled "This municipality." The next two columns, "Other
15 municipalities" and "Out of country" show us the numbers from the sample
16 of Muslims who moved out from Visegrad. So it is the overall number of
17 6.798 persons. Just the overall total minus one who are reported in
18 other places, not in Visegrad anymore. So it is not a question of
19 underregistration, of not being there in the sample. They are there.
20 They are in big numbers.
21 Q. In other places?
22 A. In other places.
23 Q. Okay.
24 A. So this is how it is.
25 Q. Just a couple more questions. Did you account for the fact that
1 there might have been a nonregistered-to-vote population before that
2 date, just from the rural and agrarian side of the population?
3 A. I don't get the question now.
4 Q. Well, I mean were there voter registrations in 1991?
5 A. The voters elections in 1991?
6 Q. The voter registration.
7 A. I don't understand the question, I believe.
8 Q. Did you look at voter registration in 1991?
9 A. No, I didn't.
10 Q. Okay. And I guess comparing the people that were registered to
11 vote, what percentage of the population because that's important in any
12 population is what percentage of the adult voting population that can
13 vote actually registered because there is of course a section of the
14 population that chooses not to.
15 A. Well, I now take you to my PowerPoint presentation, please, and
16 to page -- which page. I'm looking for the right page. Right. To page
17 15, please.
18 MS. MARCUS: If it would assist I can give a copy for the ELMO.
19 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, I think so.
20 THE WITNESS: So what we've been discussing today is actually
21 summarised on page 15 in my PowerPoint presentation. I never claimed
22 that the sample of voters is complete covering the entire population.
23 The children are there. The unregistered voters are there. On the
24 contrary, I on this sheet explicitly mention what is missing in the
25 voters. One of the issues I discuss is the unregistered voters. This is
1 the last paragraph. So you read there the exact number is unknown of
2 those who are unregistered, but following the OSCE we estimate that about
3 12 per cent of the population, 1997, 1998, population of eligible voters
4 did not register. The 12 per cent of eligible voters.
5 Now, the 12 per cent of eligible voters can be easily obtained
6 using the data from this report, because in one of the tables in the
7 report I give the overall total of eligible voters, which is 17.800
8 approximately. So 12 per cent of this total gives you the 2.146. That
9 would be the unregistered voters.
10 Q. Now, this -- I'm not sure the answer to this question, but did
11 you do a similar analysis for the Serb Muslim population on the other
12 side of the Dayton line?
13 A. Of the Dayton line. Well, you don't believe that the Muslims who
14 moved out from Visegrad stayed in the RS area. I believe there is a
15 table in the report that shows again where they went to.
16 Q. No. That's not really the question. Did you -- the country was
17 split in half?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And so my point is did you do an analysis for the other side of
20 the country?
21 A. Oh, yes. In several reports we analysed areas at both sites of
22 the Dayton line in both political entities.
23 Q. Did you -- were you able to show areas where the Serbian
24 population had gone down in a particular area and the Muslim population
25 of course had gone up probably from this side?
1 A. Yes. It is a two-way process. So the Muslim population was
2 moving out from the territories controlled by the RS authority, and the
3 Serbian population was moving out from the territories controlled by the
4 Bosnian government. So that was -- I never said it was a one-way
5 process. So Muslims moved out from Visegrad and Serbs moved out from
6 other territories.
7 Q. Okay. Did you do any --
8 A. Have new newcomers in Visegrad, Serbs mainly.
9 Q. And did you do any similar location analysis attempting to verify
10 where the Serbs went to where they in fact popped up maybe on the other
11 side of the line?
12 A. In this report in Visegrad report I have analysed all ethnic
13 groups including Serbs. So you have categories in the report in every
15 Q. Okay.
16 A. On the Serbs, on the Serb population. It is not that this is an
17 unfair analysis. I treat all ethnic groups exactly the same way.
18 Q. Thank you, ma'am, no further questions.
19 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Cepic.
20 MR. CEPIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
21 Cross-examination by Mr. Cepic:
22 Q. Good morning, madam. My name is Djuro Cepic. I must admit I
23 envy you because you're going on holiday on Friday.
24 A. Excuse me one second. Can I have my transcript back?
25 Q. [In English] May I?
1 A. Yes, yes, please.
2 Q. [Interpretation] As I have understood your work so far, for the
3 needs of the Prosecution you analysed the changes in the ethnic make-up,
4 and you've already done so in Krajisnik, Plavsic for 37 municipalities,
5 in the Milosevic case for 47 municipalities?
6 A. Yes, that's right.
7 Q. Samac, Odzaci, two municipalities, and so on and so forth?
8 A. That's correct.
9 Q. I would like to dwell only on the reports on the changes in the
10 ethnic make-up, and you will agree with me that there have been at least
12 A. I don't know exactly the number, but there were many, you are
13 right, yes.
14 Q. Thank you. And you will agree with me that all these expert
15 reports dealt with different cases and different time periods in the
16 indictment so that the changes in the make-up of the population were
17 researched for different time periods. Is that right?
18 A. Well, the indictment covered different territories and different
19 time frames, indeed. I agree.
20 Q. Thank you. You will agree with me that all these analyses of the
21 ethnic make-up, regardless of the case in question, refer to the period
22 from 1991 to 1997 or 1998.
23 A. That's right.
24 Q. Thank you. And the analysis concerning the changes in the ethnic
25 make-up was something you always did based on two sources of information,
1 the census of 1991 and the voting lists.
2 THE INTERPRETER: Could counsel please repeat the years.
3 MR. CEPIC: [Interpretation]
4 Q. That's what it says in the report. I'm sorry?
5 A. 1997, 8. I think this is what you meant.
6 Q. [In English] Yes, the voting list from 1997 and 1998, yes.
7 A. So the question was about the sources, census and the voters
8 1997 --
9 Q. Yes.
10 A. -- 8. Yes.
11 Q. [Interpretation] Do these two sources make it possible for you to
12 observe when radical changes in ethnic make-up occurred? For example,
13 whether it was between 1991 and 1992 or between 1993 and 1994?
14 A. No.
15 Q. Did I understand correctly based on the information in the census
16 from 1991 and the voting lists of 1997 and 1998 that these reports are
17 supposed to show what happened in a period covering seven or eight years,
18 but it is not possible to say precisely what happened between 1991 and
19 1992, or for example, between 1996 and 1997?
20 A. Well, these analyses we presented in all these reports indeed
21 compare only two moments of time, and this is not like a trend analysis
22 or analysis of what causes resulted in the change. That is correct.
23 Q. Thank you. Now I'll ask you as a demographic expert to explain
24 whether the census of 1991 and the voting lists of 1997 and 1998 are
25 compatible sources as far as methodology is concerned.
1 A. Well, it is a simple question, because voters registers is just a
2 sample of trends of data. So as it comes to the methodology of the
3 census I have no doubts this is the best data we can have, the most
4 complete survey covering the entire population made by statistical
5 authority, by professionals with a well-designed questionnaire. Many
6 work around it before the census, like a trial census, and after the
7 census, a post census, a control census, a lot of data, cleansing and so
8 on and so forth. And voters is just part of the census.
9 The voters lists were made by taking the census records. There
10 was no other census in Bosnia, so there was no other way of deciding who
11 is eligible to vote. So the eligible voters had to be included in the
12 census records in order to register to vote or to prove in another way by
13 ID card or residence permit or whatever else that they were eligible to
14 vote. For instance, newcomers from other regions of the former
15 Yugoslavia would have to prove additional because they were not on the
16 census records for Bosnia for '91.
17 So when it comes to the methodology of the voters there is not
18 much I can say. It is just excellent data, simply speaking, because it
19 comes from the census. Excellent in the sense that I don't have to worry
20 about the coverage. I know exactly what's the coverage. It's all
21 registered voters, a big number, and I have all the basic information I
22 need for my work in there included.
23 Of course the deficiencies are there as well as they are in the
24 census, but as long as we understand deficiencies and know how to deal
25 with deficiencies we have a very good chance that we would avoid mistakes
1 and mislead the audience by producing wrong statistics.
2 Q. Thank you. So we agree that as far as methodology goes these two
3 sources are not compatible?
4 A. Oh, they are compatible. Why they are not compatible? That it
5 wasn't -- voters register is not a survey but it does not mean the
6 sources are compatible. On the contrary, they are very compatible.
7 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Cepic, you didn't do statistics in college,
9 MR. ALARID: One semester, Your Honour, just one semester.
10 MR. CEPIC: Thank you.
11 Q. Madam, would you tell me whether there is any published paper
12 done outside the OTP which used as its source for an analysis of ethnic
13 make-up or migrations voters registers?
14 A. Well, for Bosnia I wouldn't know, really, not that I published.
15 I know for sure I didn't, but I -- I cannot say what others have used
16 for -- for that, the composition. For instance, I am aware of a source
17 which comes from the work of Hans Koschnik for instance in Mostar. He
18 presented his own statistics on the post-conflict population from his own
19 sources by ethnicity. I wouldn't know exactly what he used as a source.
20 Perhaps just municipal records to which he had access. I wouldn't know
21 exactly. But not that I explicitly have seen voters registers published
22 -- well, the ethnic make-up based on voters registration. And by the
23 way, Koschnik's data are very consistent with the results we obtained
24 from the voters lists, you know. You can check on the internet. I can
25 give you the web address for this.
1 Q. [In English] Thank you. [Interpretation] So we can agree that
2 you have no knowledge of any scholarly paper outside the OTP which uses
3 voters registers as a source for the assessment of ethnic make-up or
5 A. Well, not based on the voters registers. There were -- there are
6 other things available of course.
7 Q. [In English] Thank you, thank you. [Interpretation] And let's
8 agree about the census. It's been 13 years from the Dayton Accords and
9 peace in Bosnia and there is still no new census. Isn't that a bit odd?
10 A. Well, it's a pity for -- to see this, for me as a demographer,
11 because the census is an invaluable source of information about the
12 population, but I believe there have been very good reasons that there
13 was no census. I wouldn't know exactly what reasons.
14 Q. Thank you. The voters registers from 1997 and 1998 that you used
15 as a source of data, do they contain information on ethnic make-up?
16 A. No, they don't.
17 Q. [In English] Thank you. [Interpretation] As there is no original
18 data for '97 and '98, that would mean then that you in a way had to
19 produce it by taking it over from other sources. Is that correct?
20 A. Yes, this is correct. This is what we did using the matching
21 procedure. We matched the records of the voters registers with the
22 census records. It wasn't very difficult because, as I said, the voters
23 register is a part of census data. So linking the two or matching,
24 whatever term you use it's correct, is not very complicated, and in this
25 case a majority of records, at least 2 million, as a matter of fact, or
1 more can be matched immediately using one numeric character, that is
2 JMBG, which is in both, in the voters, in the census, so transferring
3 information between the two is really very, very easy because matching is
4 not a big --
5 Q. Thank you. [In English] Thank you, thank you. [Interpretation]
6 So the census is the only source from which you could derive the ethnic
7 make-up which you say reflects the actual situation in 1997, 1998?
8 A. Yes. It is the only source and the only source that I wanted to
9 use. I didn't want to use reporting ethnicity.
10 Q. Mm-hmm, [In English] thank you.
11 A. From any other source because perceptions of ethnicity change
12 over time as we know and depend on political situation, economic
13 situation, all kinds of social processes. And in order to produce an
14 unbiased analysis you really have to eliminate the bias of reporting of
15 ethnicity and this is why the census ended.
16 Q. [In English] Okay. Thank you. [Interpretation] Can we agree
17 that you in fact are comparing information from 1991 on ethnicity which
18 other information from the same year on ethnicity, and that's only for
19 those voters for whom you were able to take over the ethnic make-up from
20 the census?
21 A. I am not sure that I understand the question, but I guess your
22 question is about ethnicity of voters. If you can confirm?
23 Q. [In English] Yes.
24 A. Ethnicity of voters, the matched records can be taken from the
25 census, and this is what we do; right? Having matched the sources, we
1 can assign ethnicity to every voter record, their ethnicity that was
2 reported in the census records. That means unbiased, unchanged, initial
3 ethnicity. People identified themselves at the outbreak of the conflict.
4 Q. And that was a considerably smaller number of inhabitants, right,
5 for whom you managed to take over their ethnicity from the census; is
6 that right?
7 A. Well, it is all in the report and in the PowerPoint presentation.
8 I disagree this was a small number, because the number of matched records
9 for the Visegrad municipality, out of 17.800, approximately, we achieved
10 to match 10.850 records in the voters register.
11 Q. Mm-hmm. [In English] We have that in report. We already have
12 that in report.
13 A. It's in the report so I disagree these are small numbers of
14 matched people.
15 Q. [Overlapping speakers].
16 A. Any number on ethnicity is a good number coming from a big
18 Q. Mm-hmm. [Interpretation] Very well. Now that we're dealing with
19 this topic, can you assess the degree of reliability of the information
20 on ethnic make-up which you present for the year 1997?
21 A. I think it's very reliable. I am speaking of percentages. As I
22 mentioned earlier the absolute size of the population cannot be concluded
23 from the sample size. Sample is just a sample.
24 Q. [In English] Thank you.
25 A. And we don't know the overall total in the post-conflict period,
1 but the percentages, that is the ethnic make-up, ethnic composition, are
2 excellent statistical measures that can be reliably used as for the
3 ethnic composition. So the 19 --
4 Q. [Interpretation] Can you tell me what the percentage is?
5 A. Well, it's all in the report. We can look at table 3A or page 16
6 in the PowerPoint presentation. So the percentage of the Serb population
7 dropped -- sorry, increased from about 32.62 to 95 --
8 Q. [Overlapping speakers] We have it in the report. We have it in
9 the report. Thank you. Thank you. But what I'd like to know now is the
10 difference of 40 per cent of the population seems to be missing from the
11 report. So my question is how can something be correct if 40 per cent is
13 A. So you refer to the unmatched records, aren't you? What is the
14 40 per cent?
15 Q. 40 per cent of the population is missing, madam.
16 A. In my view, nothing is missing from the population. I am
17 explicit about that for '91 we have a complete data that comes from the
18 census, and when it comes to eligible voters it is 17.883, and when it
19 comes to the post-conflict period voters registers we work with a sample,
20 a sample which is a big-size sample, an unbiased sample because there is
21 no underregistration of any ethnic group. So we have a sample of 9.241,
22 which is probably about 60 per cent. As you notice 40 are not there, but
23 a 60 per cent sample in statistics, believe me, it's a very, very good
24 sample. When we work with samples we don't work with these size of
25 samples because it's simply too expensive and nobody has the resources to
1 produce these size of samples.
2 Q. [In English] Thank you. [Interpretation] Well, the next thing
3 I'd like to know is the following: As you are representing the ethnic
4 make-up only for the population which is of age, could you tell us what
5 percentage of minors you have excluded from your observations? What is
6 the percentage?
7 A. Well, it is all in the report as well, and if you refer to the
8 slide 15 from the PowerPoint presentation. So the excluded persons who
9 were not eligible to vote is 3.316, which is 15.6 per cent of the 1991
11 Q. Mm-hmm. And we can only guess in the meantime what the birth
12 rate was, because we have no clear data on that; right?
13 A. Well, we didn't look at the birth rate, so why would I be
14 interested right now at the birth -- in the birth rate?
15 Q. Well, because newborn babies are also citizens, they're also part
16 of the population; right? If someone was born in 1992 or 1993, that
17 person is now 15.
18 A. No, sir. You're trying to say the new birth could significantly
19 change the ethnic makeup in the post-conflict period. I don't think so.
20 I don't think so. This kind of big sample as a voters register is really
21 very close to the overall statistics in the entire population. I will
22 give you an example from the report --
23 Q. Thank you. Thank you. I have heard your reply. Thank you. We
24 do have the report and I have studied it in great detail.
25 You will agree that in your analysis the percentage of 15.6, with
1 which is not small.
2 A. It's not small but it doesn't have a significant impact, if any,
3 on the ethnic composition obtained from the voters register.
4 Q. [In English] Thank you.
5 A. That's the beauty of the sample, sir, that we don't really have
6 to have all the individuals in the sample in order to produce good
7 statistics, sir.
8 Q. Could you tell us to what extent those who have been excluded
9 from the register influence the validity of your results for 1997?
10 A. I already answered. They don't significantly impact on the
11 results I obtained from my sample, not at all. Look, sir, we can refer
12 to the sample from the report.
13 Q. [In English] Thank you, thank you, thank you. You have answered
14 for me. Thank you and we have report, thank you, Doctor.
15 [Interpretation] Madam, all the voters in 1997, were you able to
16 verify that they actually existed in the census?
17 A. Well, if -- they come from the census so they existed in the
18 census. It is not data that was made up by anybody. It was taken -- the
19 voters register comes from the census. So the matching rate for the
20 voters as the entire data set is about 80 per cent. So 80 per cent were
21 matched directly with the census.
22 In my view, knowing that there are deficiencies in the census
23 data, spelling mistakes and some incompleteness of important items, if
24 you achieve a matching rate of 80 per cent, it is a very high matching
25 rate. So there is no doubt that the voters are, a vast majority of them,
1 in the census, because it has been proven through the matching.
2 Q. So it's not a hundred per cent. You've just told us it's 80 per
3 cent, one-fifth, that is. Does it mean that you're excluding a certain
4 number of people from the voters registers?
5 A. Yes, I do. The 20 per cent unmatched records are excluded.
6 Q. Thank you. And now I'll ask you a question as a statistician.
7 In statistics, can one tolerate poor coverage of the population or is
8 that to be considered an error?
9 A. What do you mean by poor coverage of the population?
10 Q. Well, I understand that your basic professional education is as a
11 statistician, so I'm asking you is poor coverage of the population in
12 statistics tolerated or is it considered an error?
13 A. But you are very vague in your question. In order to be able to
14 answer the question I need to understand what a poor coverage is. I
15 don't really know, because in my study here, census is definitely not the
16 case of poor coverage of the population. Neither are the voters.
17 JUDGE ROBINSON: How much is covered?
18 THE WITNESS: Census, it is basically the entire population, and
19 the voters is all -- very considerable part of the population. Well, how
20 much per cent it is? Let me think. Yeah, about 80 per cent or
21 something, if I'm not wrong. So it is again not a poor coverage. So
22 poor coverage, if -- if -- well, we sometimes work with small samples of
23 1.000 or 2.000 individuals who at present --
24 JUDGE ROBINSON: I rather expect that's what Mr. Cepic has in
1 Are you talking about the samples, Mr. Cepic?
2 MR. CEPIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we have a difference of
3 20 per cent. Those are people who have not been matched, and I'm
4 interested in that difference of 20 per cent. In statistics can it be
5 tolerated or is it an error, because it amounts to one-fifth of the
6 population which has not been matched, as the doctor has just confirmed.
7 JUDGE ROBINSON: All right. Let me just ask the doctor to
8 comment on that now.
9 THE WITNESS: Yes.
10 JUDGE ROBINSON: And then Judge David has a question.
11 THE WITNESS: Yes. Well, as I'm trying to explain, we work with
12 a sample from the voters register. That the 20 per cent are unmatched
13 and excluded doesn't mean that the remaining records constitute a poor
14 coverage sample, not at all. Not at all. There are no rules in
15 statistics how much of the population must be covered in order to work
16 with a good sample. If a sample is representative, even a small sample
17 of a few hundreds or thousands individuals will be considered a good
18 sample. It is a matter of how representative the sample is of the entire
19 population. And I am 100 per cent convinced in this case. There is no
20 doubt here about the poor -- the good coverage of the sample.
21 MR. CEPIC: I think that Honourable Judge David.
22 JUDGE DAVID: I would like to ask you two questions and these two
23 questions are not in order to show you my poor knowledge of inferential
24 statistics. As you know, you have mentioned always as a proof and
25 reliability and confidence of your conclusions chi-square.
1 THE WITNESS: Yes.
2 JUDGE DAVID: Which is a measure of discrepancy and to my poor
3 knowledge that measure of discrepancy exclude the possibility of the new
4 hypothesis which is to say an association by chance. So you are giving
5 us in chi-square a high degree of discrepancy which is to say a high
6 degree of probability that these inferences are unrelated to resolve by
8 THE WITNESS: Well, these results I put in the report are all
9 shown not to be resulting from chance. They are shown that the
10 probability of error is extremely low. It is --
11 JUDGE DAVID: Second question.
12 THE WITNESS: -- insignificant. This is very good question, Your
13 Honour, I must admit.
14 JUDGE DAVID: Second question. Can you be -- this is a part of
15 inferential statistics, isn't that correct? The chi-square is a measure
16 of deviation.
17 THE WITNESS: Yes, excellent, yes.
18 JUDGE DAVID: It's a measure of deviation. Could you say it's
19 part of inferential statistics, which is to say that based on these
20 values, you could obtain what is called empirical generalisations?
21 THE WITNESS: Yes.
22 JUDGE DAVID: Okay.
23 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
24 JUDGE DAVID: Okay. Empirical generalisations are not a
25 predictor in the sense of a priori adoptions but you could obtain
1 reliability and confidence playing from the viewpoint of a statistical
2 data. Is that correct?
3 THE WITNESS: Yes, that is correct.
4 JUDGE DAVID: That's all.
5 THE WITNESS: Thank you very much.
6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, Mr. Cepic, apparently you needed to have
7 Judge David as your teacher.
8 MR. CEPIC: Thank you. Thank you very much.
9 JUDGE ROBINSON: But we could go on like this for hours, you
10 know, but I hope you're bringing this to an end now.
11 MR. CEPIC: I'll try to be fast and to use --
12 JUDGE ROBINSON: We are not in a university seminar.
13 MR. CEPIC: [Interpretation]
14 Q. Doctor, is my understanding correct, you compare the census
15 results and the voters register. On the one hand you have information on
16 a part of the population constituted by adults and then on the other hand
17 you have the underage sections of the population comprising maybe 50 per
18 cent, maybe 60 per cent or up to 70 per cent. Methodologically speaking,
19 can you compare these two kinds of information from two different sources
20 that actually studied different sectors of the population?
21 A. I think you are wrong by saying that when I use the census data I
22 compare all ages with the voters being above 18 in 1997, '8. No. If you
23 look at the report then you see that I only work using the census data
24 with those born before 1980. This is those who later will become --
25 would become eligible to vote in 1997, '8 elections so I am working with
1 the same type of information, exactly the same type of information in
2 both cases. When it comes to age distribution, of course.
3 Q. I think I actually asked you something else. What about the
4 methodology? Is this comparable, the two sources that comprise different
5 sectors of the population, methodologically?
6 A. Well, sir, I think you -- you misread any report perhaps. Well,
7 I work with cohort data, that means these are individual data. I'm
8 following a group of individuals reported in the census all these
9 individuals I require to be born before 1980. I have the individual
10 data. I can do that. I can restrict the data. And I trace them in the
11 voters register. So these are exactly the same people we are talking
12 about. They come initially from the census. I look for them in the
13 voters. I find them in the voters, I take them and I compare so there is
14 nothing in the methodology you can criticise. It is a perfect way of
15 doing things, thanks to the fact that I have individual-level sources
16 like the census and the voters.
17 Q. As an expert, what would be a tolerable statistical aberration
18 [Realtime transcript read in error "statistic collaboration"] in serious
19 research or for the purposes of serious research?
20 A. Collaboration.
21 Q. Statistical aberration.
22 A. Aberration, sorry, aberration. Well, collaboration is in the
23 transcript. This is why. Well, commonly accepted level of error in
24 inferential statistics is about -- is 5 per cent, say. So that would
25 satisfy your question?
1 Q. Statistical error, 5 per cent, yes indeed, that's true. And what
2 was the percentage of error in the way names were written in the census
3 and what was the percentage in voters registers?
4 A. Well, I'm -- I am afraid that this question doesn't make sense at
5 all. I wouldn't be able to give you an assessment of the error level in
6 the spelling of names, and this is not inferential statistics of course
7 so we are not using any test or anything right now. I have no answer to
8 this question.
9 Q. You have no answer?
10 A. If I may add --
11 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, please let her add what she wishes.
12 THE WITNESS: Well, I think this 5 per cent level, it is just a
13 commonly I said accepted, but there are no strict rules in statistics
14 that 5 per cent is accepted but 5.1 is not accepted. It -- well, error
15 level is an indication of the quality of the find -- of the result. So I
16 think sticking to these kinds of rules I -- I don't like it simply, you
17 know. So I could give you an assessment of the errors in the spelling
18 names by, for instance, presenting you with samples of names as
19 originally reported in the census and then later as we corrected them.
20 This can be done and then you can think of the error level, but the thing
21 is that the corrections that we made in the names were very thorough
22 based on three separate procedures which resulted in a great improvement.
23 We see this great improvement when comparing the census data with other
24 sources in cross-referencing with other sources in which the numeric
25 JMBG, the ID, personal ID is unavailable and names have to be used in
1 matching. So there is a great degree of consistency in our corrected
2 names with names reported in other sources and we have a lot of other
3 sources and good sources as well. For instance, for mortality we have
4 two great databases established by professional statisticians from both
5 RS and federal statistical institutes, and the names in these sources
6 they are huge databases, all together 140.000 death records and there is
7 a great overlap of the names.
8 Q. Mm-hmm.
9 A. So this tells you that the corrections were very good actually,
10 although I cannot assign an error level right now, but I can give you in
11 a descriptive way my assessment of the -- of the corrections and of the
13 Q. Thank you. Do you have complete records on this?
14 A. What do you mean by complete records? Statistics you mean?
15 Q. The errors while you were working and getting this confirmed.
16 Did you keep any sort of records on this?
17 A. A quantitative error measure you mean, do I have that I can give
18 you for the corrections in the names? This is what you meant?
19 Q. Errors, individual errors that you spotted in relation to
20 Visegrad municipality. Did you keep track of those? Did you keep any
22 A. Well, we keep track of the corrections. Most definitely we do,
24 Q. With all the names?
25 A. From Visegrad and other municipalities, yes.
1 Q. Can we see that, please? Can that be handed over to us
3 A. I believe it is part of the census data. You can see it most
4 certainly. At our premises in the OTP we will disclose this part of the
5 census data for your study. I cannot give you a hard copy because it's
6 impossible. But you can certainly have access to it and study it without
7 any problem.
8 Q. I need your records on that, on these errors. That's what I
9 need, on an individual basis. Do you have that or not?
10 A. I'm not sure that we understand each other, but in my view you
11 are requesting me -- from me two lists, names as originally reported in
12 the census and corrected names. Is this what you want?
13 Q. Madam, I'm looking for records on these errors that were noticed.
14 You did some work. You cross-referenced the names from the voters
15 register to those in the census. I suppose you kept records on the side.
16 I need records on every name in Visegrad. That's what I need now. Do
17 you have that or do you not?
18 A. Well, I just answered that I do have it and you can have it.
19 Q. For each name.
20 A. For each name. Of course I do.
21 Q. Thank you.
22 JUDGE ROBINSON: Just a minute. Just a minute. Ms. Marcus, why
23 have you brought this evidence? It's a simple question. I think we
24 believe we all know the answer.
25 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honours. Thank you for the question. The
1 evidence was brought as a contextual background to the case, to put the
2 crimes that have been charged in the contextual setting of the pattern,
3 of the overall pattern.
4 JUDGE ROBINSON: Does it go to the proof of any --
5 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the President, please.
6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Does it go to the proof of any of the -- of any
7 of the charges?
8 MS. MARCUS: Your Honours, we would say it goes to the proof of
9 the common elements of the crimes charged, widespread, systematic.
10 JUDGE ROBINSON: I see. So it does go beyond mere background.
11 MS. MARCUS: Yes. In that respect, Your Honours, yes.
12 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Cepic. I think you should be coming to
13 an end now.
14 MR. CEPIC: I'm trying to do my best, Your Honour. I'm trying,
15 but this witness is expert, and I -- I really compressed all my questions
16 to make it short and to have the shortest Defence case.
17 JUDGE ROBINSON: All right. Proceed.
18 MR. CEPIC: Thank you very much.
19 Q. [Interpretation] Madam, about these records. Did you enter
20 corrections in relation to names as contained in the original records,
21 the census and so on and so forth?
22 A. Well, as I said, I have both, the original names and the
23 corrected names. So the corrections are there. But without the original
24 items to be changed.
25 Q. And this will all be made available to us for a look; right?
1 A. Yes, here at the OTP. Yes, you can have access to this.
2 Q. Mm-hmm. All right. Now -- now, I want to know about this
3 source --
4 MR. CEPIC: May I continue, Your Honour?
5 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
6 MR. CEPIC: [Interpretation]
7 Q. The third source, the ICRC lists, something you mention. This is
8 from 1998.
9 A. No. The ICRC list used in the updated report is from 2005.
10 Q. Mm-hmm. And that list contains numerous errors. There are
11 numerous discrepancies between the list that you showed us yesterday and
12 the ICRC list; right? Because I actually cross-referenced the names in
13 the two lists, and my assistant helped me with that and we realised there
14 were numerous discrepancies. Would you agree with that?
15 A. Well, there are some deficiencies in the ICRC list, but I don't
16 think I agree fully with you that the -- there are -- there is a high
17 degree of inconsistencies between the ICRC list and other sources. I
18 wouldn't agree. There are inconsistencies. As I said on Monday, there
19 are errors in the date of birth or date of disappearance. Yes, there are
20 errors, but this is not -- I wouldn't see it as a large-scale errors.
21 Q. Sir -- or madam, Mr. Domazet asked you in the Vasiljevic trial
22 that only 20 something persons went missing on the 14th of June according
23 to the ICRC list. However, according to the indictment that figure, at
24 least according to what the OTP are trying to tell us is quite higher.
25 You will agree with me that this is a striking discrepancy.
1 A. It depends how you see the ICRC list. If you expect that the
2 ICRC list is a complete source as the census is, then I would say this
3 discrepancy is striking, but the ICRC nobody claimed is a complete
4 information about victims from any area in Bosnia. This list is a very
5 special source, very different from sources reporting on known deaths.
6 ICRC list only reports on missing persons of whom we don't know what
7 happened to these individuals. The families reported them missing at
8 some point. So this is --
9 Q. [In English] Thank you.
10 A. This explains the discrepancy. We are speaking in the indictment
11 of both, known deaths and missing persons, and ICRC only reports on the
12 missing persons. There is no way these two sources would give you the
13 exact same overall total of victims on a date.
14 Q. [Interpretation] Thank you. And you will agree with me no doubt
15 that when we look at the ICRC information, the only thing that's recorded
16 is the last time a person was seen by whoever reports this missing
17 person. Is that right? This is information about when someone was last
18 seen somewhere at a certain point in time.
19 A. Yes, this is correct.
20 Q. Thank you. And the two 0s, if you look at those lists, that
21 means we don't know the exact date or month when a person was last seen.
22 Is that not what it means?
23 A. In the reported dates, yes. The code two 0s means no date, no
25 Q. Therefore, we may now conclude that the records are actually
1 records of when persons were last seen, the ICRC means, I mean.
2 A. Well, this is what -- what we agreed on. These are records on
3 persons who were last seen at some point.
4 Q. In your analysis did you compare the list of missing persons or
5 when persons were last seen with the list of members of the BH army?
6 A. Of what army?
7 Q. BH army.
8 A. BH army.
9 Q. [In English] BH army, yes.
10 A. At some point we did, especially recently for the use in the
11 Popovic case, we made such a comparison, we cross-referenced the ICRC
12 list with the military records of the BH army, yes.
13 Q. But that wasn't done in the Visegrad trial because this is not
14 reflected in the report, is it?
15 A. Yes, it wasn't done, and it can be done if you wish to see this
16 cross-referencing. I don't see any problem. Such a result can be easily
17 produced if you wish to see it. But I want to add that military records
18 is not a proof that the person died in combat situation. It is just a
19 membership in the army or in an institution related to the army like for
20 instance the Minister of Defence or a person who would work in the
21 production sector providing goods or services to army and died in the
22 conflict would be reported as well. So I don't think it is -- it depends
23 on what you want to do. It is just an indication like a monitoring of
24 the status of victims reported by other sources.
25 Q. Did you perhaps request information in order to ascertain whether
1 maybe some of the missing persons had taken part in combat, in armed
2 action and perhaps perished as a result?
3 A. Well, I didn't request any information from anybody.
4 Q. [In English] Thank you.
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. I'll try to put you questions as fast as I can. [Interpretation]
7 Something about your methodology. Is this the kind of methodology that
8 is used for purposes of scientific research?
9 A. Well, yes, most certainly it is.
10 Q. Thank you. In each of your reports you use the matching method.
11 Is this a method that is normally used by demographers?
12 A. I think it is. It's used overall. If you do a Google search,
13 you are talking about nothing else but matching. There is a big
14 literature body related to matching. Matching resulted from the field of
15 IT information technology studies and developed very rapidly in recent
16 years, so there is a great number of publications. If you want I can
17 give you a list.
18 Q. This method, Doctor, please, I'm trying to get through this as
19 quickly as possible. Is this method something that is used by
20 demographers generally speaking, yes or no, please, if you can?
21 A. Yes, especially in historical demography.
22 Q. Thank you. Thank you. Meaning this method is -- [In English] I
23 apologise, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE DAVID: Dr. Tabeau, is there a possibility to construct
25 through inference some empirical generalisations from your data and,
1 without asking you to venture now, do you conceive the possibility of
2 establishing some generalisations or to verbalise these interrelations
3 that you have shown in your study in a sort of inferential systematic
5 THE WITNESS: Yes, I see it possible, yes, yes.
6 JUDGE DAVID: Could you give me an example so everybody will
7 grasp what I'm saying?
8 THE WITNESS: Yes. Well, for instance confidence intervals
9 [Realtime transcript omitted "intervals"] can be associated with the
10 estimated ethnic composition. This is the first example I can easy think
12 JUDGE ROBINSON: We didn't get that. What is it that can be
14 THE WITNESS: Confidence intervals can be associated with the
15 estimated ethnic composition based on the voters data. So this would be
16 a formal error measurement that can be offered in order to tell the
17 reliability statistically speaking of these results. When it comes to
18 matching, there can be formal measures of error associated with the
19 matching results as well, and this can be presented in a formal way as
21 JUDGE DAVID: Thank you very much.
22 THE WITNESS: Yes.
23 MR. CEPIC: I'm sorry, may I continue, Your Honour?
24 JUDGE ROBINSON: I'm still trying to see whether I understood
25 confidence intervals.
1 THE WITNESS: Yes. This is a statistical concept showing as a
2 matter of fact more than just the point estimate that is now presented in
3 the report. In table 3A as far as I remember I am showing ethnic
4 composition as percentages, and these are actually like point estimates.
5 Just one single number for every ethnic group. But as a matter of fact,
6 because I've been working with a sample, this is just one of possible
7 values for this per cent. There might be a range of values associated
8 with the point estimate, and this range can be required to contain values
9 that are highly probable. Let me say 95 per cent confidence interval
10 would show us the values that are -- were produced with 95 per cent of
11 confidence, so at the 5 per cent error level. And I can assure you we
12 have done something exercise of this kind that confidence intervals
13 associated with these kind of measures of ethnic composition will be very
14 narrow because of the big sample size.
15 JUDGE DAVID: A second point, Dr. Tabeau. As to the
16 interrelations of the variables of ethnicity that you have in location
17 that you have detected, could also be that they could be -- we could
18 generalise and establish interrelations, you know, in a sort of axiomatic
20 THE WITNESS: Well, I'm not sure I understand the question fully.
21 JUDGE DAVID: The -- from empirical generalisations could we
22 construct an orderly system of inferences around the interrelation of
23 variables that you have shown in the study?
24 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, I think I understand what my brother is
25 saying, because I don't think you answered his question. I believe his
1 question was whether from all the data that you have garnered you're able
2 to -- to make some generalisations. So the confidential interval is not
3 a generalisation. He's asking whether you can make some inferential
4 generalisation on the basis of the data that you have.
5 THE WITNESS: Well, I -- I'm not sure that I understand, but I
6 believe that certain general conclusions I try to put forward in this
7 report, and I didn't associate any error level for these general
8 observations, but I think that general conclusions based on results
9 obtained in a statistically responsible manner most certainly can be seen
10 as reliable. So I concentrated in this report on presenting the
11 statistics as reliable because they are reliable. This is good
12 statistical material, and when drawing general conclusions I didn't
13 actually repeat the fact that they are solid statistical conclusions but
14 they are. They are. Any general observation of the kind, for instance,
15 as I am saying that these dramatic change in the ethnic composition could
16 not result from normal demographic or socioeconomic factors.
17 JUDGE ROBINSON: I see. So you have in fact --
18 THE WITNESS: Yes, I do have in this report.
19 JUDGE ROBINSON: -- made conclusions, drawn conclusions.
20 THE WITNESS: And they are summarised in the report and
22 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
23 THE WITNESS: So they are all based on solid statistical material
24 which can be formally associated with error levels and therefore the
25 conclusions can be taken as responsible and statistically reliable.
1 JUDGE ROBINSON: In fact, the purpose of Mr. Cepic's
2 cross-examination is to challenge the validity of those conclusions,
3 because to the extent that he succeeds in challenging them, then he -- he
4 plants a dent in that part of the Prosecution's case that relies on -- on
5 your data as evidence of, say, widespread and systematic crimes.
6 THE WITNESS: Well, it is --
7 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Judge --
8 JUDGE VAN DEN WYNGAERT: I, too, have a question, Dr. Tabeau,
9 just to be clear about your conclusion at the end of your PowerPoint.
10 Maybe it is in your report, but what I would like to know is in terms of
11 the numbers in the Visegrad region for the month of -- month of May and
12 June, 1992, how many persons went missing, how many disappeared, and how
13 many died. Do we have -- I'm sure it's somewhere in your report, but can
14 you, just to guide me through your report give me those precise numbers.
15 THE WITNESS: Yes.
16 JUDGE VAN DEN WYNGAERT: How many went missing, how many
17 disappeared, and now deceased.
18 THE WITNESS: Well, actually the term disappeared and missing are
19 used as synonyms so it is both the same category. This is just a --
20 JUDGE VAN DEN WYNGAERT: Because you say 62 per cent of
21 missing all missing disappeared so ...
22 THE WITNESS: Yes. Of all missing in '92, these appeared during
23 these two months.
24 JUDGE VAN DEN WYNGAERT: Right, I see.
25 THE WITNESS: So this is another [overlapping speakers] ...
1 JUDGE VAN DEN WYNGAERT: [Overlapping speakers].
2 THE WITNESS: Yes, exactly. Well, if I can -- in relation to
3 this conclusion, if we can perhaps can use slide 25 of the PowerPoint
5 MS. MARCUS: I have it for the ELMO if you'd like. Sorry, I have
6 it for the ELMO.
7 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
8 THE WITNESS: So slide 25. I show in this table, which is in the
9 report, the distribution of going missing by month of disappearance
10 starting with April 1992 until December 1992. It is just the year 1992.
11 All ten municipalities in the Visegrad region are included. We are
12 looking at the Visegrad, which is of course the main point of interest,
13 and starting from May and then continuing in June and in July the numbers
14 are extraordinary high. So -- and this is actually typical of the
15 region, so that means in other municipalities we see the same pattern,
16 and when only the two numbers for May and June of the missing persons are
17 taken into account, all together these two months account for about 62
18 per cent of all missing in 1992. This is a very big number knowing --
19 JUDGE VAN DEN WYNGAERT: Do we know how many people deceased? Do
20 we know that?
21 THE WITNESS: Well, we don't know this. I can't answer straight
22 away. It would be necessary to put pieces of information together. We
23 have victim lists from the indictment. We have additional victims. We
24 have missing persons. All these put together would result in overall
25 numbers of victims. I would have to do that, but it can be done. But
1 the number of missing in '92, the entire year '92 as shown on slide 22 is
2 2.528, which is a big number, which is a very big number, yes. Yes.
3 Thank you.
4 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Cepic -- well, we are now a minute
5 beyond the time for the break, so we'll adjourn.
6 --- Recess taken at 10.21 a.m.
7 --- On resuming at 10.43 a.m.
8 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Cepic.
9 MR. CEPIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
10 Q. Dr. Tabeau, I'll try to make the specific questions, and if you
11 are able to give me short and precise answers just to pass this as fast
12 as we can. Thank you.
13 [Interpretation] Madam, looking at these tables, let's have a
14 look at table number 9. It's on the screen, so let's look at it briefly,
15 because I'm intrigued by something I noticed in this data.
16 [In English] Could we have on the screen page -- the previous
17 page, please.
18 MS. MARCUS: If you tell us which page I'll be happy to give you
19 the page for the ELMO.
20 MR. CEPIC: 21st page in hard copy.
21 MS. MARCUS: Is this on the report or the PowerPoint?
22 MR. CEPIC: From report.
23 MS. MARCUS: I'm sorry. That's Exhibit P118 marked for
25 MR. CEPIC: [Interpretation]
1 Q. Madam, while we're waiting for it to come up, Mr. Helge Brunborg
2 and you on the -- you drew up a report on Srebrenica, did you not?
3 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter missed the date.
4 THE WITNESS: We actually wrote several reports together on
5 Srebrenica with Helge Brunborg, yes.
6 MR. CEPIC: [Interpretation]
7 Q. I'm asking you about the one of the 16th of November. In that
8 report it says with respect to the Srebrenica municipality, and it caught
9 my eye, that 6.000-odd people are missing, but in your report I see 3.144
10 persons missing in Srebrenica and that's a considerable difference.
11 A. Yes, but if you would paid more attention and read more parts of
12 this 16 November report then you will see that we used the term
13 Srebrenica area, not just for one municipality, Srebrenica. It was a
14 broader area including Srebrenica and a number of neighbouring
15 municipalities in the region. So this explains the difference. It was
16 not just one municipality, Srebrenica. It was a region of Srebrenica, a
17 broader area. As people were moving from Srebrenica, you know, through
18 the woods towards Tuzla and to Potocari.
19 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you. You have given the explanation.
20 Let's move on.
21 MR. CEPIC: Thank you.
22 Q. [Interpretation] We mentioned your method. The method you spoke
23 about is used by institutions with a good operative system which makes
24 reliable matching possible. In other words, it's used by countries where
25 every citizen has a personal identification number or an ID number which
1 is known to be reliable; is that right?
2 A. Well, there are two things. There is linking and matching.
3 Actually some people including us use these terms as synonyms. As a
4 matter of fact, linking would be what you just mentioned, combining
5 sources, at the individual case level through numeric characteristic like
6 unique personal ID, but there is a broader approach which is called
7 matching and this approach is used as well in the absence of such unique
8 numeric characteristics of individual. Instead of one number, one
9 personal ID used in linking, in matching we use the number of descriptive
10 data items in order to find related person of record representing one the
11 same person. And matching is also used by renown institutions and
12 scholars --
13 Q. Thank you.
14 A. -- everywhere.
15 Q. [Interpretation] I understand that this method of matching is
16 reliable. Is there a reliable operative system ensuring precise
17 correspondence in the demographic department? Have you established a
18 system that will enable reliable matching and reliable identification of
19 every person? Just reply briefly, please.
20 A. Yes, we do a system. Otherwise we wouldn't be able to show these
21 results. It is a system based on a database software programme, MS
22 Access. We have a system of databases, linked databases that are all
23 programmes in MS Access.
24 Q. [In English] Thank you. [Interpretation] How many criteria are
25 needed for matching to considered reliable?
1 A. Well, sometimes you need three, sometimes one, sometimes 50,
2 sometimes 20, sometimes 70. It depends on the specificity of your
3 sources and the matching rate of course. Sometimes it is possible using
4 three simple criteria to match 85 per cent of records from a given
5 source, and you can use a lot of additional criteria to achieve a
6 marginal matching improvement of 2 per cent or something, and then I
7 would say it's enough to use three matching criteria in this case, but
8 you might disagree and say not at all. You might need 70.
9 Q. How many did you use, how many criteria?
10 A. As I mentioned earlier today, matching the census with the voters
11 was relatively easy because of the availability of the personal ID
12 numbers JMBG in both the census and the voters, so using this one single
13 criteria we were able to match more than two million records. There were
14 few additional criteria used. I wouldn't be able to mention the exact
15 number, say five whatever, so it was a relatively few criteria, and this
16 is related to the specificity of these two sources but when we were
17 matching the ICRC list of missing persons with the census, in this case
18 the list was far longer. It was about the 70 criteria that we used and
19 in this case we didn't have the JMBG in the ICRC records so we had to use
20 the descriptive item such as names, date of birth, place of birth and in
21 this case a large number of criteria are required and the results of
22 identifying the potential candidate matches have to be inspected
23 visually, most of them if not all, in order to declare the true matches.
24 Q. Thank you. Do you know how many people there are in the census
25 or the voters registers who have the same first and last name and the
1 same year of birth?
2 A. Oh, the same first name? I wouldn't give you an immediate
3 answer. If you are interested I can check this in the census records and
4 come up here with the numbers. I can tell that it is very unlikely that
5 in a small area as Visegrad, for instance, it is just a municipality of
6 about 21.000 individuals, that you would see many duplicated records with
7 the same names, first name, father's name, surname, date of birth and
8 additionally place of birth, although there might be some with common
9 names but not many. It's very unlikely to have duplicates on all these
10 descriptive items.
11 Q. I'll give you an example and you can check it in your department.
12 There are 69 persons in the voters registers called Mirsad Halilovic.
13 Eight of them were born in 1965. In the census there are 86 people named
14 Mirsad Halilovic, and 14 of them were born in 1965.
15 When matching data by first and last name and year of birth in
16 the voters registers and the census, these people will match. As the
17 father's name is not mentioned in the voters registers, how do you know
18 which Mirsad is the right one to be included in the data for Visegrad?
19 A. First of all it is a wrong example because the matching was done
20 using the JMBG for most records, so we wouldn't see these problems, and I
21 believe that also among these records with the same names some would be
22 matched during -- using the JMBG. So we wouldn't have to answer the
23 question. But -- well, there is a technique called blocking in matching,
24 so that means blocking is eliminating records from a given source that
25 are unlikely to be matched with a certain group of records. So blocking
1 increases the probability of finding the true match in -- between the
2 matched pairs of records and we applied the blocking technique when
3 matching the data on missing persons, for Visegrad in particular. So
4 these two charts that we prepared and were marked for identification next
5 to -- to my expert report. So matching was done using blocking
6 techniques, meaning eliminating records unlikely to be the true matches,
7 which was --
8 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Cepic, you have used one hour.
9 MR. CEPIC: Yes, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE ROBINSON: I'm not really inclined to allow you much more.
11 I would say another ten minutes.
12 MR. CEPIC: Thank you, Your Honour. I'll try to do my best.
13 Q. [Interpretation] Madam, in many cases you have to make a decision
14 only based on a visual inspection in order to identify a person
15 correctly; is that right?
16 A. That is correct, but I wouldn't call it only, you know. The
17 latest development -- well. Okay.
18 Q. Thank you.
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Will you tell me in your report for Visegrad, how many visual
21 corrections did you enter?
22 A. Visual corrections in matching you mean or --
23 Q. Yes.
24 A. Well, we didn't make any corrections. Visual inspection is
25 something what we do when inspecting potential or candidate matches. We
1 compare the complete record of information. That is much more
2 information than what is used in matching. In every source. So we have
3 a complete census record on one hand and a complete census record from
4 the missing persons list, and the visual inspection is just studying
5 these two records and declaring whether this match is the true match and
6 not only just a candidate, right?
7 Q. [In English] Thank you, thank you.
8 A. So this is why it is not only inspection. It is all the best we
9 can have in this case. For instance, in the latest matching techniques
10 artificial intelligence is used but training sets are provided to the
11 computer based on visual inspection by a person, by a human being.
12 There's nothing better than that.
13 Q. Thank you. [Interpretation] Why is there not a single piece of
14 information in your report on how many criteria you used and how many
15 cases were matched according to which criteria? For example, if you used
16 the first and last name, the father's name, the date and place of birth
17 and the place of residence as your criteria and you matched 20 per cent,
18 and if you used just the first and last name without the father's name
19 and so on, you match 50 per cent of the cases. Would it not be
20 professional and correct for you to have indicated this in your report?
21 A. Well, I think my report is very professional and if I would
22 disclose in this report every single step I have made to achieve these
23 results, believe me, you wouldn't be able to go through these thousands
24 of pages. This is why not everything is documented in this way. Most
25 certainly we do register the type of matching criterion for every record
1 matched. So if you want it, we can make such an exhibit for you that you
2 could study these criterion by criterion, but as I mentioned in the case
3 of missing-persons list it was about 70 criterion we used for matching
4 the census and an overview of matching results can provided by the
6 Q. [In English] Thank you. [Interpretation] Did you conceal this
7 information, because based on it we could evaluate the reliability of
8 your results and to what extent your results are actually a product of
9 your calculations?
10 A. I'm not sure I understand the question, but, well, any questions
11 you may have in relation to the matching results you can have from me.
12 Moreover, I included the list of missing persons from Visegrad by name in
13 the report. Any single name from this list can be cross-referenced with
14 any other list that you may have or the Prosecution may have. So I don't
15 think there is much secrecy here. I can -- whatever you want, please put
16 forward a request and I will do my best to -- to provide you with what
17 you need.
18 Q. I already have, but I was refused.
19 A. This is not true. I said you will have the names that you
21 Q. Why did you not include the statistics of comparison in your
23 A. What kind of comparisons do you mean?
24 Q. Well, we've spoken about it up to now. It's for you to give me a
25 response, madam.
1 A. I'm not sure I know what the comparisons are, but I think --
2 well, anything more you want can be provided.
3 Q. Very well. Thank you. Through a -- using a table you explained
4 to my colleague Mr. Alarid that many people moved away and you explained
5 this through percentages, but you will agree with me that you cannot
6 establish when this was occurring most intensively, because you don't
7 have the relevant information for that. Is that right?
8 A. You are speaking about the analysis of IDPs and refugees. I
9 would disagree that I cannot establish when people are going missing,
10 because I used an additional source in the same report, this is the
11 missing persons list, and the missing persons list --
12 Q. But the missing persons list is not the same as the displaced
13 persons list. These are two completely different categories, madam, and
14 you'll agree with me that these two categories are completely different,
15 displaced persons and missing persons. Just answer me this: Is this the
16 same category or are they two different categories?
17 A. Missing persons -- report on missing persons, however, it can be
18 seen that distribution, time distribution of going missing as an
19 indication of increased activity, perhaps combat activities, perhaps
20 other activities in the same territory, and this additional information
21 on the timing of going missing tells you in what area there were
22 extraordinary events causing large number of missing persons. And if we
23 look at the distribution of the missing persons for Visegrad
24 municipality, then you will see a totally different distribution than the
25 one for Srebrenica and Bratunac. For Srebrenica and Bratunac you will
1 see the highest number of missing in 1995. And if you do it by month you
2 will see it around July 1995 and later.
3 Q. [In English] My apologies for interrupting. I didn't ask you for
4 Bratunac, Srebrenica and other municipalities. I put you a specific
5 question. So I just ask you to distinguish. Is it the same category
6 missing person and internally displaced person or refugee, yes or no?
7 A. These are different categories of the [overlapping speakers] ...
8 [Realtime transcript read in error "These are the same category"]
9 Q. You haven't got reliable sources for that kind of information,
10 yes or no, please?
11 A. I believe I did use reliable sources on both, IDPs, refugees, and
12 missing persons.
13 Q. [Interpretation] Madam, we have just established that the only
14 reliable information you acquired was the one from the census and the
15 voters registers. There is a Red Cross report on missing persons, yes or
17 A. I disagree. I didn't agree that only census and the voters are
18 reliable sources, not the missing persons. I didn't agree on this.
19 Q. Why didn't you mention those additional sources in your report,
20 and what additional sources are they?
21 A. I think -- I just mentioned that I did use the missing persons
22 list, but you mean IDPs and refugees, additional sources on that; right?
23 Q. Madam, I'm the one asking questions here. Thank you. Would you
24 please assess the degree of reliability of your data on changes in the
25 ethnic make-up in Visegrad and explain to us to what extent your findings
1 from the period from 1991 to 1997 are relevant in the case of Visegrad
2 where you are supposed to show that was happening between 1992 and 1994?
3 A. Well, we agreed that the sources I used show that make-up on two
4 moments of time and this is not a time serious trend analysis, anything
5 like that. We agreed on that. However, you should read this report as a
6 whom, not pieces of it. So the period between '91 and '97, that is the
7 conflict period we are talking about, from '92 to '95 is first of all
8 covered by the UNHCR statistics that I also for contextual purposes
9 included in my report, and this is table --
10 Q. [In English] I haven't seen UNHCR report.
11 A. It's there.
12 Q. You used that in Srebrenica case, in some other cases.
13 A. It's there, believe me. I know. This is table 4, page 15 in the
14 report. These are internally displaced persons from Visegrad reported by
15 UNHCR as of 1998.
16 Q. [Interpretation] But you have not a single report from the
17 relevant period; is that right?
18 A. Well, it is not that this reports for relevant periods exist,
19 sir. This is why we're using other sources. And the statistics of '98
20 by UNHCR is again the result of the process of going missing -- sorry, of
21 the process of displacement that was happening during the conflict.
22 Q. [In English] Thank you. [Interpretation] And if we look at table
23 4 nowhere can we see Visegrad municipality. Tuzla, Kakanj, Visoko,
24 Sarajevo and so on are the municipalities mentioned, but there's no
25 mention of Visegrad or any other municipality in Eastern Bosnia.
1 A. But you are misreading the table, because here is the destination
2 municipality where they arrived after having left Visegrad. So this --
3 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Cepic, three more questions and then we must
5 MR. CEPIC: I just have two, Your Honour.
6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
7 MR. CEPIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. Madam, please assess the degree of reliability of your missing
9 persons list and tell us whether you checked whether there are fictitious
10 persons on that list. That's the question before last.
11 A. Well, fictitious persons is a very interesting issue. You would
12 have to define the fictitious person first for me, but I did check the
13 ICRC list of missing persons first by cross-referencing this list with
14 the census, and the matching rate was very high for the ICRC list, not
15 lower than 40 voters. It was certainly more than 80 per cent, one thing.
16 The other thing could -- I also cross-referenced the list of ICRC
17 missing persons for the Srebrenica area with the records of DNA
18 identification obtained from the international commission for missing
19 persons in Sarajevo, and the overlap of the -- the DNA identifications is
20 a very reliable source. This is actually the best way individuals
21 exhumed from mass graves can be identified with a great degree of
23 The overlap of these two lists for Srebrenica, Visegrad is part
24 of the Srebrenica area, was very extremely high. About 96 per cent or
25 more of the ICMP records of the DNA identifications have been reported in
1 the ICRC missing persons list.
2 Q. [In English] Thank you, thank you, thank you.
3 A. So that is the assessment of reliability.
4 Q. Thank you. We have expert for that issue. It is not related to
5 you and to demographic changes. We heard Dr. Clark about some other
6 things. And I disagree with you, Srebrenica is not a part of Visegrad,
7 the opposite.
8 And the last question: [Interpretation] In drawing up your
9 reports, you receive instructions from the OTP. You're asked to analyse
10 a certain or data for a certain period of time, and if you do not have
11 the relevant information for the relevant time, do you then receive
12 instructions to use what you have or is that a decision you make on your
14 A. I am not instructed by my colleagues from the Prosecution what I
15 am supposed to do. I have the indictment, and I myself choose sources
16 and methods and compose my report.
17 Q. Thank you very much.
18 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Cepic.
19 MR. CEPIC: Thank you very much, doctor. Thank you, Your Honour.
20 I apologise for a little bit longer examination. I haven't got any
21 further questions. Thank you one more time.
22 JUDGE ROBINSON: Ms. Marcus.
23 MS. MARCUS: Thank you, Your Honours.
24 Re-examination by Ms. Marcus:
25 Q. Dr. Tabeau, just before my colleague Mr. Cepic asked you, and I'm
1 quoting from the transcript page 51, line 11, Mr. Cepic said "I ask you
2 to distinguish is it the same category missing person and displaced
3 persons or no?" Your answer there at line 13 is recorded as: "These are
4 the same category." Can you clarify this answer, please?
5 A. No, this wasn't my answer. I said these are not the same
6 categories, displaced and missing persons.
7 Q. Thank you. Dr. Tabeau, what is the most updated version of the
8 ICRC missing persons list?
9 A. Well, this list is constantly updated. We use for this report
10 the 2005 version but in 2007 I think the eighth edition of the ICRC list
11 was published and there is a web site on the internet in which this data
12 is updated four times a year or something like that.
13 Q. When -- when someone is listed as missing on the ICRC list and
14 then turns up alive, is the ICRC list then adjusted?
15 A. Yes, it is. These persons are taken off from the list. So are
16 other unrelated individuals. There are -- there is another category of
17 administrative exclusions that are possible. Misreported records,
18 administrative exclusions might relate to duplicated records, things like
19 that, so these two categories are taken off from the list.
20 Q. So similarly, following from that if a body is exhumed and
21 identified with DNA evidence is that name then removed from the missing
22 persons list?
23 A. From this one on the web site because the web site reports only
24 on this --
25 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Cepic.
1 THE WITNESS: -- listing --
2 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Cepic.
3 MR. CEPIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, by your leave, DNA
4 analysis and these other questions have to do with another expert and
5 another expert report.
6 JUDGE ROBINSON: How do they arise, these questions?
7 MS. MARCUS: There was a lot of discussion about the reliability
8 of the ICRC missing persons list. In fact, this line of questioning, I
9 only have one more, is directly in response to Judge van den Wyngaert's
10 questions in relation to the missing persons list, just to clarify about
11 dead and what is supposed -- what the relationship is according to
12 Dr. Tabeau between the missing persons and persons who are dead.
13 JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, ask it quickly.
14 MS. MARCUS:
15 Q. What would you say is the likelihood that someone is still on the
16 ICRC missing persons list from 2005 or 2007 and is still living?
17 A. I think it is very low, the per -- the survivors are just taken
18 off. I think what they do, ICRC also closes their cases when they have
19 evidence about the death of a missing person so they actually have
20 separate categories of still missing, known dead, closed cases and
21 another category is still missing with information about the body
22 available but case not yet closed. So by presenting the data in this way
23 they try to keep the audience informed about the progress in the
24 identifications and they cooperate closely with ICMP for instance with
25 respect to identifying individuals and closing cases.
1 Q. Thank you very much, Dr. Tabeau.
2 MS. MARCUS: Your Honours, I have no further questions. I would
3 just like to tender into evidence the three exhibits which are pending.
4 The first one of course is the updated expert report. I recognise this
5 is the subject of a pending motion so of course that's up to Your
6 Honours. That's Exhibit P118.
7 And then there are the two demonstrative exhibits, P119 and P120.
8 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Cepic.
9 MR. CEPIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, by your leave these
10 demonstrative exhibits, I don't see any foundation for them. I don't see
11 any grounds, because we have clear annexes in Dr. Tabeau's report,
12 whereas these tables are composed solely on the criteria of the
13 indictment. I don't see their relevance. I don't see how documents
14 composed in this manner can be admitted as exhibits, because we already
15 have the annexes in the indictment where the victims are clearly
16 enumerated. Thank you.
17 MS. MARCUS: Your Honours, there's been much debate about these
18 charts. I'll just say that Dr. Tabeau authenticated these -- both these
19 charts one by one on the 22nd of September, two days ago, on pages 78 and
20 79 of the transcript and they are the only way that the Chamber can
21 find -- it's a simplification the Chamber's work and the Defence work of
22 searching through the full missing persons list of all persons missing in
23 Visegrad. Dr. Tabeau and her unit have pulled out the records of the
24 names from the indictment and some additional names that have come up in
25 the evidence from that list to facilitate the work. It's merely answer
1 exercise in facilitating the work of the Chamber.
2 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Cepic.
3 MR. CEPIC: [Interpretation] By your leave, Your Honours, we have
4 a clear source, the Red Cross and then on the other hand we have the
5 indictment, but this is a third thing. This is a hybrid source in my
6 view. Thank you.
7 JUDGE ROBINSON: Are you saying it's one too many?
8 [Trial Chamber confers]
9 JUDGE ROBINSON: We'll admit the exhibits.
10 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, Exhibit number P118, P119, P120
11 will change their status and will become exhibits.
12 JUDGE ROBINSON: Doctor, that concludes your evidence. We thank
13 you for giving it, and you may now leave.
14 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
15 JUDGE ROBINSON: The next witness.
16 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, the Prosecution would be recalling
17 Mr. Kustura to complete his cross-examination. As you recall,
18 yesterday --
19 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
20 MR. GROOME: -- we interrupted because of the translation
21 problem. Your Honour, the translations are just beginning to arrive. I
22 think two of them have been provided. The rest should be imminently
23 available. Perhaps I may suggest a practical solution to this problem.
24 Both Defence teams now have a lawyer on the team that is fluent in the
25 language of the original document. Perhaps they could assist whoever is
1 doing the examination in reviewing the documents. Perhaps they've
2 already done this. I mean the documents only take about five minutes to
3 read, and then before the cross-examination concludes I expect the
4 translations would be available so if they wish to tender any of the
5 translations they would be available for tendering.
6 JUDGE ROBINSON: And I rely on you when you say the documents
7 only take about five minutes to read.
8 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, the total material is about eight and a
9 half pages of written material.
10 JUDGE ROBINSON: Let the witness be recalled.
11 [The witness entered court]
12 JUDGE ROBINSON: Please show the witness to his seat.
13 [The witness takes the stand]
14 WITNESS: ISLAM KUSTURA [Recalled]
15 [Witness answered through interpreter]
16 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Kustura, yesterday you made a declaration to
17 the effect that you would speak the truth and nothing but the truth, and
18 I want to let you know that you remain subject to that declaration.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I understand.
20 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. -- is it Mr. Alarid or Mr. Cepic?
21 MR. ALARID: No, I was finished, Your Honour.
22 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Cepic then -- Mr. Dieckmann.
23 MR. DIECKMANN: Thank you, Your Honours.
24 Cross-examination by Mr. Dieckmann:
25 Q. Good morning, Mr. Kustura.
1 A. Good morning.
2 Q. My name is Jens Dieckmann, and I am Defence counsel for
3 Mr. Sredoje Lukic.
4 A. [Microphone not activated] hear you probably.
5 Q. Thank you very much.
6 MS. MARCUS: I'm sorry, the witness just said he can't hear you
8 MR. DIECKMANN: He can't.
9 JUDGE ROBINSON: He can't hear --
10 MR. DIECKMANN: Can't, okay.
11 JUDGE ROBINSON: He can't hear properly.
12 MR. DIECKMANN:
13 Q. Is it better now? Can you hear me better?
14 A. Yes. Yes, it's better.
15 Q. Thank you. Let me say again my name is Jens Dieckmann and I am
16 Defence counsel for Mr. Sredoje Lukic.
17 A. All right. I understand.
18 Q. Thank you. First and foremost, I want to offer you on behalf of
19 the Defence team of Mr. Sredoje Lukic and of my client condolences for
20 the loss of your sons and the suffering you went through.
21 A. Thank you.
22 Q. I will put my questions to you with all respect for this pain you
23 suffered. I have only a few questions, and I will put them to you as
24 short and as precisely as possible, and I would highly appreciate if you
25 could answer my questions in the same manner, short and precise if it's
2 A. Fine.
3 Q. If you do not understand the question, please indicate it
4 immediately and I will try to rephrase my question.
5 A. All right.
6 Q. Mr. Kustura, yesterday during the examination by the Prosecution
7 you were asked to provide names of detainees in the Uzamnica camp who
8 were members of the army of Bosnia and Herzegovina. I refer to page 63,
9 line 1 of the provisional transcript.
10 MS. MARCUS: Your Honours, could I request private session if any
11 names are going to be mentioned? The witness cannot use a pseudonym
12 sheet for reference.
13 MR. DIECKMANN: I'm well aware of it. Thank you very much.
14 JUDGE ROBINSON: Okay. Private session then.
15 [Private session] [Confidentiality partially lifted by order of Chamber]
16 MR. DIECKMANN: And your answer was, I quote -- I'm sorry.
17 THE REGISTRAR: We're in private session, Your Honours.
18 MR. DIECKMANN:
19 Q. And your answer was, and I quote: "There was one. The name
20 escapes me now."
22 Q. Thank you. Thank you, sir. This answer of you leads me to my
23 first question to you. Mr. Kustura, do you agree with me that in general
24 it is easier to recall details of recent events than to recall details of
25 events that occurred a long time ago? Would you agree with me?
1 A. A long time ago, yes, yes. I don't remember. One forgets
2 everything, doesn't one.
3 Q. Thank you, sir. Another question: With regards to the time you
4 spent in the Uzamnica camp, yesterday you stated that you have been
5 detained in the Uzamnica camp for three years and ten days. This is page
6 71, line 23.
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Could you please reflect upon this once again. Would it be
9 possible that you have been detained during --
10 A. Two years and ten days. That's how long I was detained in that
12 Q. Thank you, sir. This would be my question: It was from the 3rd
13 October 1992, up to the exchange of prisoners in October 1994?
14 A. 1992 to 1994, yes.
15 Q. Excellent. Thank you very much. Since we are in private
16 session, I can ask you, you were with (redacted) during your time of
17 detention in Uzamnica; true?
18 A. Yes. Yes. I found him when I arrived there. He had been
19 captured earlier on.
20 Q. For how many months you have been together at the Uzamnica camp
21 with him? Do you remember this?
22 A. Up until the very end when I was exchanged.
23 Q. Thank you. And (redacted) was also detained in Uzamnica
24 together with you. True?
25 A. Yes. Yes. He was a soldier. They captured him at Meremislje.
1 Q. And for how many months have you been together with him in
3 A. Sorry?
4 Q. How many months you have been together with (redacted) in
6 A. Well, I found him when I got there.
7 Q. And did you spend the whole time up to 1994 or left he before in
8 another time?
9 A. All the time. All the time throughout.
10 Q. Thank you. I think we could go in public session now.
11 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, open session.
12 [Open session]
13 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're back in open session.
14 MR. DIECKMANN:
15 Q. And the third person I would like to ask you is Nurko Dervisevic.
16 You have been together with him?
17 A. Yes, yes. They took 22 of them away. My uncle was there and
18 another man from Dobrun. Twenty-two of them taken away.
19 Q. Thank you.
20 A. Nurko was left there so he could milk the cows for them.
21 Q. Thank you, sir. And Mr. Dervisevic was together with you the
22 whole time up till October 1994? Is it true?
23 A. Yes, the whole time.
24 Q. And he was there when you arrived in Uzamnica camp, true? He was
25 already there?
1 A. Who?
2 Q. Mr. Dervisevic.
3 A. Yes. Yes. He was there when I got there.
4 Q. Thank you very much. And you lived with them in the same hangar
5 the whole time you were in Uzamnica up to October 1994?
6 A. All together in this building, the hangar.
7 Q. And when will soldiers came to mistreat you or others, you were
8 mistreated in this one hangar; true?
9 A. All of us there in that one building, yes.
10 Q. Was it in this way that the soldiers took prisoners one by one to
11 a corner of the room and mistreated them there in a corner of the hangar?
12 A. No. It wasn't like that. When Milan would come by he would
13 first kick everyone in the stomach, and then he would go on beating them.
14 Q. Thank you. So when you were beaten inside this hangar by these
15 soldiers, these beating were automatically observed by the other male
16 detainees in this hangar. True?
17 A. All -- all the others, yes. There was me. There were other
18 people. There were yet some other people, and everybody saw that.
19 Q. Thank you. Mr. Kustura, you knew Sredoje Lukic prior to 1992.
20 Is it true?
21 A. Yes. Yes. He was with the police in Visegrad.
22 Q. How long had you known him for prior to 1992?
23 A. Well, I can't quite remember. I know that he was a policeman in
25 Q. Could you tell us what is the colour of Sredoje Lukic's hair?
1 A. He was kind of blondish at the time. I'm not sure about now.
2 Q. Yesterday you stated that Milan Lukic is one metre 90, or 180
3 centimetres tall. I refer to page 83, line 21. My question is, is Milan
4 Lukic taller than Sredoje Lukic as far as you remember?
5 A. Yes. Yes.
6 Q. Could you estimate how much taller Milan Lukic is than Sredoje
7 Lukic, in centimetres perhaps?
8 A. Taller by about 20 cent.
9 Q. 20 centimetres, yes. Did I understand you correctly, 20
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Thank you.
13 MR. DIECKMANN: I'm sorry, Your Honours.
14 [Defence counsel confer]
15 MR. DIECKMANN:
16 Q. Sir, I put it to you that Sredoje Lukic has always had brown hair
17 and that he is in fact taller than Milan Lukic.
18 A. No, no. He isn't taller.
19 Q. Sir, I put it to you that Sredoje Lukic did not mistreat you
20 during the two years you were detained in Uzamnica camp and that your
21 memory is so far not reliable. Do you understand what I put it to you?
22 A. What do you mean my memory's not reliable? Sredoje and Milan
23 both beat us, together.
24 Q. Mr. Kustura, you gave an interview to the security service centre
25 in Sarajevo in 18 November 1994. Is it true? Could you remember this?
1 A. Yes. I've given countless statements in Sarajevo. That's why I
2 was in the camp for so long.
3 Q. It must be five weeks after your release this first interview you
4 gave in November 1994. Is it true?
5 A. Yes. And then I was interviewed near the Miljacka river.
6 MR. DIECKMANN: I would ask the court usher to call the document
7 2D02-0026. Could we please scroll down to page 3 of the B/C/S version.
8 I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Perhaps please go back to the first page of he
9 B/C/S version, please.
10 Q. At the beginning, the first paragraph, it is said that you are
11 born the 15th February 1930 in the locality of Zlatnik, Visegrad
12 municipality. Is it true?
13 A. Yes. Yes, that's true.
14 Q. Thank you. Now I would like to go to the last page, to page 3 on
15 the B/C/S version. And if it's possible, perhaps could we show the part
16 with the signatures at the bottom bigger. Yes. Thank you very much.
17 Mr. Kustura, I saw you entering the courtroom without a cane or
18 any physical support of the court usher, and therefore by knowing that
19 you have problems with your eyes, I would like to ask you to look at the
20 screen, and I would like to ask you if you could see there your name on
21 the screen in front of you.
22 A. The -- I see a little, but not really.
23 Q. So you cannot see that there is your signature on the screen? Is
24 that your signature on the screen?
25 A. Kustura Islam.
1 Q. And below this line Kustura Islam, what you see there, this is
2 your signature. True?
3 A. Does it say Kustura there?
4 Q. Yes.
5 A. Yes, I see that. Kustura, that's what it says.
6 Q. And this is your signature? Is it true?
7 A. Yes. Yes.
8 Q. Thank you very much. In this interview, you had the opportunity
9 to give all names of victims and perpetrators you were aware of and you
10 know at the time; correct?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And I would like to read to you the last part before the
13 signatures. "With regard --" I quote: "With regard to the above, I have
14 nothing else to add. The statement has been read out to me loud and
15 clear, my words have been inserted in it, I accept it as my own and as
16 such and I put my signature on it.
17 "The conduct of authorised officials during this interview was
19 This was the statement you have signed?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Thank you, sir. Mr. Kustura, in this statement from 1994 given
22 five weeks after your release, you have been able to provide a total of
23 16 names of several Serbian guards and outside soldiers who allegedly
24 mistreated you and others in Uzamnica. True?
25 A. Yes, but I think I must have forgotten the first and last names
1 by now.
2 Q. So in November 1994, you were able to recollect in detail names
3 of individuals who allegedly mistreated you and others?
4 A. Yes. Yes, all of the names. I could still remember all of the
5 names back then, but I've since forgotten them.
6 Q. Thank you, sir. And, Mr. Kustura, is it not true that you did
7 not mention Sredoje Lukic a single time in this statement you gave just
8 five weeks after your exchange? True?
9 A. I know why I didn't mention him, because Sredoje was always
10 together with Milan, and whenever I mentioned one I thought the other was
12 Q. Thank you, sir.
13 MR. DIECKMANN: We would like to tender this into evidence, this
14 document. Is it admitted?
15 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
16 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, it will be admitted as Exhibit
17 number 2D19.
18 MR. DIECKMANN:
19 Q. Mr. Kustura, now I want to read a text to you, and later on I
20 will ask you to tell me and the Court if you know this text as a
21 statement of you. Yes? Do you understand?
22 A. No, not really. The text, what text?
23 Q. I will read to you a text to you and later on I will ask you
24 questions regarding this text. Could we proceed in this way?
25 A. All right.
1 Q. Thank you.
2 A. Go ahead.
3 MR. DIECKMANN: I would ask the court usher to call the document
5 JUDGE ROBINSON: What is this? Mr. Dieckmann?
6 MR. DIECKMANN: Yes. This is an excerpt of a book. I have here
7 the title, "Hronika Genocida nad --" "Chronicle of the Genocide in
8 Bosnia, published in 1996 and the author is Mr. Ibrahim Kljum, and it
9 contains on page 293 and 294 an excerpt, a transcript of an interview the
10 witness has given to television company in Bosnia-Herzegovina, and this
11 is complete quotation of this document, and I would like to read out the
12 first paragraph to him.
13 JUDGE ROBINSON: Let me understand. You say it contains an
14 excerpt of an interview given by the witness, meaning this witness.
15 MR. DIECKMANN: This witness, yes. This witness. And perhaps --
16 yeah. That's it.
17 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Let me hear it.
18 MR. DIECKMANN: Thank you.
19 Q. "I --"
20 MS. MARCUS: Your Honours, excuse me.
21 JUDGE ROBINSON: You have the date? What date was this? What
22 date? What was the date of this interview?
23 MR. DIECKMANN: I'm sorry, I didn't --
24 JUDGE ROBINSON: What was the date of the interview?
25 MR. DIECKMANN: The date of the interview broadcasted is the
1 21st -- pardon, the 22nd January, 1995. It was broadcasted in the TV of
2 Bosnia and Herzegovina studio Sarajevo.
3 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
4 MS. MARCUS: Your Honours, perhaps counsel could lay a foundation
5 to make sure this is the same person.
6 MR. DIECKMANN: This is exactly the reason why I would like to
7 read it out to him and to ask him about this text, if this is his
8 statement and if he could recollect --
9 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Go ahead.
10 MR. DIECKMANN: Thank you.
11 Q. "I.K. ... at the beginning of April, when our neighbours from
12 the neighbouring village Jablanica started firing at my village Zlatnik,
13 we fled to Visegrad, and afterwards to Gorazde.
14 A. [No interpretation]
15 Q. Without expecting what would happen to us later on, we returned
16 home after Uzice Corps of the JNA came to Visegrad. In the beginning --
17 A. [No interpretation]
18 MR. DIECKMANN: Perhaps the transcript could reflect the comments
19 of the witness we could hear. He said two times yes, as I've heard.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
21 MR. DIECKMANN:
22 Q. "In the beginning it was calm. We were working on the land
23 planting vegetables."
24 A. Yes. Yes.
25 Q. "All until the JNA departed from Visegrad."
1 A. From Visegrad, yes.
2 Q. It was then that Chetniks started conducting crimes?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. So on 25 of May 1992. "They invaded Zlatnik?"
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. "They captured me, my son Ahmet and two other neighbours?"
7 A. Ibrahim and Ahmet and all those women were taken prisoner.
8 Q. "They brought us to the nearby creek. They beat and maltreated
9 us, and afterwards they took Ahmet to the creek."
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. "We heard gunfire."
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. "Then they brought Avdo as well, and we again heard --"
14 A. Ibrahim, yes.
15 Q. " ... and we again heard gunshots."
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. "One Chetnik took me and another neighbour, and on the way he
18 told us to run, that he will not shoot."
19 A. That he wouldn't shoot, yes.
20 Q. "We did not believe him."
21 A. No, we didn't.
22 Q. "But we set off quickly along the creek and we heard shots being
23 fired in the sky."
24 A. Yes.
25 JUDGE ROBINSON: How much longer is this?
1 MR. DIECKMANN: I think --
2 JUDGE ROBINSON: Are you getting to the point?
3 MR. DIECKMANN: Yes.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I saw my son in the creek, and
5 Ahmet. I saw my Ibrahim and him lying in the creek, in the water. My --
6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you.
7 MR. DIECKMANN: Thank you.
8 Q. Mr. Kustura, do you remember that you have given this statement
9 to Bosnian television and that this interview was broadcasted later on?
10 A. Yes. Yes, yes. Certainly. Now I remember, yes.
11 Q. And isn't it true that you did not mention Sredoje Lukic in this
12 interview being broadcasted on the 22nd January, 1995, as being one of
13 the perpetrators in Uzamnica? Isn't it true that you did not mention him
14 at all?
15 A. No, no. He wasn't there. It was our neighbours, Serbs. Sredoje
16 was on the other side.
17 JUDGE ROBINSON: When you say the other side, what do you mean?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In Visegrad. He was slaughtering
19 and killing people in Visegrad.
20 MS. MARCUS: Your Honours, I think there may be some confusion.
21 I think that because of the passage that Mr. Dieckmann read to the
22 witness he's speaking about a portion prior to the Uzamnica. This may
23 have led to the witness to be somewhat confused. Perhaps a clarification
24 would help.
25 MR. DIECKMANN: Yes, Your Honours. There is later a passage
1 regarding the Uzamnica camp and I propose that I put this part of the
2 statement to the witness regarding the situation in Uzamnica camp which
3 has more things to do we are talking about.
4 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
5 THE INTERPRETER: Could counsel's microphone be switched off when
6 the witness is responding because the shuffling of papers is very loud in
7 the microphone and makes it difficult to understand the witness.
8 MR. DIECKMANN: Yes. Thank you.
9 Q. Mr. Kustura, I will read you another part of this TV programme.
10 It is in the middle of the second paragraph of the English version.
11 "They took us to the Uzamnica camp where many captured Bosniak civilians
12 were held.
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. "The men were in one hangar while women and children were in
15 another hangar."
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. "Which was 13 and 13 metres."
18 A. Yes, more or less.
19 Q. "At night drunken Chetniks together with Milan Lukic came to the
20 camp. They mercilessly beat us with their hands, feet, sticks, piling,
21 with everything ..."
22 A. Yes, that's right. Yes, with everything.
23 Q. And this is your statement about the situation in Uzamnica camp.
25 A. Yes, in the Uzamnica camp.
1 Q. And I ask you again, you did not mention Sredoje Lukic at all in
2 this statement from January 1995 broadcasted in Bosnian television?
3 A. I didn't recall him at the time, which is why I didn't mention
4 him, but he was always together with Milan.
5 Q. Thank you, sir. Thank you very much.
6 MR. DIECKMANN: Your Honours, we would like to tender this part
7 of this book into evidence.
8 MS. MARCUS: Objection.
9 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
10 MS. MARCUS: Your Honours, I'd like to object. The witness has
11 confirmed some parts and has made corrections. In fact his son's name
12 was not even mentioned and his son's name was first -- they said his son
13 was Ahmet. He corrected two corrections, and only certain portions were
14 have been put to him. This statement has not been read back to him.
15 It's a transcript of an interview. He never had an opportunity to
16 actually authenticate the entirety and therefore it's not authenticated
17 by the witness.
18 MR. DIECKMANN: I'm well able to read the whole transcript to him
19 if I may with the leave of the Chamber.
20 [Trial Chamber confers]
21 JUDGE ROBINSON: Okay, the Trial Chamber, I dissent, will not
22 allow it.
23 MR. DIECKMANN: Your Honours, we just found this material
24 recently, and in the moment we are conducting investigations to find this
25 broadcasted interview with him, and we would submit this DVD with this
1 programme in a later stage with the leave of the Chamber.
2 JUDGE ROBINSON: A later stage of the --
3 MR. DIECKMANN: When we receive it.
4 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
5 MR. DIECKMANN: As soon as -- if we receive it.
6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Is that the one that we just refused?
7 MR. DIECKMANN: It is the -- the part of the programme that was
8 broadcasted with him in person, yes.
9 JUDGE ROBINSON: We just denied the -- its admission.
10 MR. DIECKMANN: I thought it was just the transcript which was
11 published in the book.
12 MR. CEPIC: Your Honour, with your leave I think the witness
13 confirmed that he gave the interview to the broadcasting company from
14 Bosnia. He confirmed the date. He confirmed that that happened.
15 JUDGE ROBINSON: The Trial Chamber has given its decision and I
16 see no need to reconsider it.
17 MR. DIECKMANN:
18 Q. Mr. Kustura, I have finally some question referring your
19 testimony yesterday, and I would like to go in private session for just
20 one question.
21 JUDGE ROBINSON: Private session.
22 [Private session] [Confidentiality partially lifted by order of Chamber]
23 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're in private session.
24 MR. DIECKMANN:
25 Q. Mr. Kustura, you told us yesterday and I refer to page 73, line
1 10 to 16, that Mr. (redacted) and Mr. (redacted), and I
2 refer to page 63 and line 2 of the provisional transcript, both suffered
3 the same mistreatments by Sredoje Lukic as you and the other men in the
4 hangar. This was your testimony yesterday. True?
5 A. Yes, that's correct. It's correct.
6 Q. Thank you.
7 A. Sredoje and Milan, both of them.
8 Q. Thank you.
9 MR. DIECKMANN: We could go back to public session.
10 JUDGE ROBINSON: Open session.
11 [Open session]
12 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're back in open session.
13 MR. DIECKMANN:
14 Q. Mr. Kustura, I read your testimony very carefully, and if I
15 counted correctly, you mentioned 12 times in an almost stereotypical
16 manner that Sredoje Lukic allegedly did exactly the same things as Milan
17 Lukic did to you and to the other people in the hangar. For example, on
18 page 66, line --
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. "Sredoje was with him, it means Milan always."
21 A. Always. He was always with Milan. Whenever Sredoje arrived,
22 Milan arrived also. Whenever Milan arrived, Sredoje arrived also.
23 Q. Mr. Kustura, did you know that Nurko Dervisevic knew Sredoje
24 Lukic for 15 years before 1992?
25 A. Yes, he certainly knew him because Nurko lived in the town. I
1 lived in the village. He knew Sredoje certainly, and Nurko was in the
3 Q. And did you know that Nurko Dervisevic was detained in total 28
4 months in Uzamnica, from June 1992 to October 1994?
5 A. I found him in the camp. I found Nurko in the camp, and we were
6 exchanged together.
7 Q. Did you know that Nurko Dervisevic has also lost two of his sons
8 during the war?
9 A. I didn't know that, but the Chetniks always said they'd killed
10 his son here and killed his son there, but whether or not that was
11 correct after I was exchanged, I didn't see Nurko again.
12 Q. Would you change your mind today if I tell you that Nurko
13 Dervisevic testified before this Court that he allegedly saw Sredoje
14 Lukic only one occasion during the whole period of his 28 months
15 imprisonment in Uzamnica camp?
16 A. How can that be? He always came together with Milan. Whenever
17 Milan arrived, Sredoje arrived also.
18 Q. Sir, do you know -- do you know any reason why Nurko Dervisevic,
19 who lost two of his sons and suffered in consequence of his imprisonment
20 would lie?
21 MS. MARCUS: Objection. This is calling for speculation, asking
22 one witness to challenge the credibility of another. Not appropriate.
23 MR. DIECKMANN: I asked him if he know a reason.
24 [Trial Chamber confers]
25 JUDGE ROBINSON: Answer the question, Witness.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know that he lost two of
2 his sons. The Chetniks would always tell him, "This son of yours was
3 killed here. That one was killed there," but what actually happened, I
4 don't know because I didn't see Nurko again after we were exchanged.
5 MR. DIECKMANN:
6 Q. Excuse me, sir, just one more time. Do you know any reason why
7 Nurko Dervisevic should lie?
8 A. I don't know why he would lie that he lost two sons. I don't
9 know that he lost any sons.
10 MR. DIECKMANN: I don't have any further questions. Thank you.
11 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you. Ms. Marcus.
12 MS. MARCUS: Your Honour, I have no further questions for this
14 JUDGE ROBINSON: Now, Mr. Kustura, you have given your evidence,
15 and it is now concluded. You may leave.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I may leave.
17 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, you may leave. You don't want to stay, I
18 presume. Perhaps you're beginning --
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Take this off.
20 JUDGE ROBINSON: -- to like the court.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] [Microphone not activated] [No
23 [The witness withdrew]
24 JUDGE ROBINSON: Now, the next witness.
25 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, the Prosecution has no additional
1 witnesses for today. We would ask that we adjourn until tomorrow morning
2 when Zehra Turjacanin will be ready to testify, Your Honour.
3 JUDGE ROBINSON: In the circumstances, we an adjourn until
4 tomorrow at 10 minutes to 9.00.
5 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 12.01 p.m.,
6 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 25th day of
7 September, 2008, at 8.50 a.m.