1 Wednesday, 13 November 2013
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.32 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone in and around this
7 Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours.
9 This is the case IT-09-92-T, the Prosecutor versus Ratko Mladic.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
11 The Chamber was informed that the Prosecution would like to raise
12 a preliminary matter.
13 MR. GROOME: Good morning, Your Honours.
14 The first matter relates to yesterday's decision by the
15 Appeals Chamber with respect to adjudicated facts. While we are still
16 reviewing the decision, it is clear that approximately 40 facts have been
17 now vacated by the Appeals Chamber. The Prosecution is proposing that it
18 be given approximately a week and that next Tuesday, I would report to
19 the Chamber what, if any, implications there are for this case.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's fine with the Chamber, Mr. Groome.
21 MR. GROOME: The second matter I want to bring your attention to
22 and I'm not seeking or making any applications at this time. The Chamber
23 will undoubtedly have heard about the new mass grave that has been
24 discovered and that is in Tomasica mine. We had a report from people
25 working on this project yesterday. As of yesterday, over 470 bodies have
1 been recovered. Remarkably, a number of these bodies still have soft
2 tissue and adipose so the pathology reports should be available to reveal
3 important evidence about how these people died.
4 This is of particular relevance to this case for two reasons.
5 One, there have been approximately ten preliminary identifications of
6 victims. That is, identifications based upon identity documents found
7 with the corpses. Ten of those are victim -- named victims in this case.
8 It's also relevant because if the Chamber were to look at an entry in the
9 Mladic diary of the 27th of May, 1993 - and that's P358 in evidence at
10 e-court P154 - the Chamber will see that Mr. Mladic has a conversation
11 with police officials about -- regarding 5.000 bodies that are at the
12 Tomasica mine, so there was the direct link to this case.
13 We are in very regular contact with local officials and ICMP.
14 There are about to begin the process of conducting DNA identifications
15 which they -- my last report with respect to when they had 374 bodies,
16 they believed they would have that process completed in the beginning of
17 January. I imagine with the extra 100 bodies it will be a bit longer.
18 John Clark, who testified before this Chamber is -- has already made
19 plans to go and do some of the pathology work.
20 So I'm just bringing this to the Chamber's attention. We are
21 considering our obligations and our position with respect to this very
22 important evidence that's been uncovered today and will be -- continue to
23 be uncovered over the coming days and we may have applications in the
24 future. But, again, I just wanted to bring the Chamber up to speed, as
25 it were, on this matter.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Groome. Earlier reference was made
2 to P358 in evidence at e-court P154. One of them most likely is the page
3 number --
4 MR. GROOME: Yes, I'm sorry --
5 JUDGE ORIE: -- and the other one is the exhibit number. What is
6 the page number?
7 MR. GROOME: It is page 154 in e-court in the English version.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you for that.
9 MR. GROOME: And, Your Honour, I have one application. If I
10 could go into private session for that application.
11 JUDGE ORIE: We move into private session.
12 [Private session]
23 [Open session]
24 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
1 While the witness is brought in, I briefly deal with the same
2 matter as you started with today, Mr. Groome.
3 On the 12th of November, the Appeals Chamber decided on the
4 Defence's appeal with regard to adjudicated facts, and as a result of the
5 Appeals Chamber's decision, the Chamber hereby decides that the
6 adjudicated facts listed in numbers 1 through 3 of the disposition of the
7 Appeals Chamber's decision are no longer judicially noticed. The Chamber
8 instructs the Prosecution to inform the Chamber and the Defence in the
9 time you told us, Mr. Groome, about what action, if any, it intends to
10 take as a result of this decision. But the instruction was anticipated
11 already by yourself.
12 [The witness takes the stand]
13 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning, Ms. Tabeau.
14 THE WITNESS: Good morning.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps needless to say, but I nevertheless remind
16 you that you're still bound by the solemn declaration you've given
17 yesterday at the beginning of your testimony.
18 THE WITNESS: Yes.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Marcus, you may proceed.
20 MS. MARCUS: Thank you very much, Your Honours. Good morning.
21 WITNESS: EWA TABEAU [Resumed]
22 Examination by Ms. Marcus [Continued]
23 Q. And good morning, Dr. Tabeau.
24 A. Good morning.
25 MS. MARCUS: Your Honours, Dr. Tabeau has prepared some slides to
1 facilitate the presentation of her evidence. The slides have been
2 assigned P2792, MFI. I'm going to ask Ms. Stewart to assist us in
3 displaying these slides in Sanction during the -- during the examination.
4 Ms. Stewart, could I please have slide 1. While that is coming
5 up, Your Honour, I'd note for the record that there are two acronyms
6 which will be commonly used in this examination. One is POD, which
7 already was introduced yesterday. That is proof of death. And the other
8 is DU, which stands for the Demographics Unit. That is the team that
9 Dr. Tabeau has been leading.
10 Could I please have slide 2.
11 Q. Dr. Tabeau, can you explain to us, please, briefly the import of
12 slide 2.
13 A. On this slide, reference is made to the first demographic expert
14 report presented at this Tribunal. It was a report on Srebrenica
15 victims, victims of the fall of Srebrenica. It was presented in the
16 Krstic case in the year 2000. In the table some numbers from this report
17 are presented, predominantly it is the Srebrenica missing number, 7.475,
18 which was the essential result of this report. This number was made
19 exclusively based on records of missing persons. At that time, only
20 68 individuals were identified. It wasn't a DNA identification. It was
21 a classical identification method and the overall per cent of identified
22 was less than 1 per cent.
23 So, even though this report was seen at that time as a very
24 significant result of the office, that the list like that could be made,
25 there was a feeling that there is a need to take next steps to improve
1 the evidence about the victims of the fall of Srebrenica. And our
2 thinking at the time was that improvements must be seen in
3 cross-referencing the evidence on the missing with the evidence on the
4 exhumed persons and identified persons.
5 MS. MARCUS: Could I please have slide 3.
6 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Before we move to the next one, I have one
8 There is an entry PIP with a number. What does that mean?
9 THE WITNESS: The PIP stands for Podrinje Identification Project.
10 It is a project run by local authorities was established with the
11 involvement of the ICMP in Bosnia-Herzegovina. It is a project that is
12 focussed on the identification of the victims on the first place of the
13 fall of Srebrenica. This refers to the source for 68 identifications.
14 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Can I ask one or two additional questions. The
16 number of 9 means that persons initially reported as being missing have
17 found to have been survivors. Is that correct?
18 THE WITNESS: Yes, that is correct. Initially reported as
19 missing related to the fall of Srebrenica, were confirmed as survivors in
20 other sources and excluded from the statistics in this report.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Then we have the accepted victims which is 7.477
22 which is number higher than the missing number of missing persons.
23 THE WITNESS: Yes. The two, missing persons and identified,
24 overlap largely but not one to one. So obviously there were two
25 additional victims from the identifications that were accepted in
1 addition to the missing persons from the OTP list.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then we have the per cent identified. Is that
3 the 68 against the 7.475 or 7.477?
4 THE WITNESS: I think it is related in the - if I'm not wrong -
5 in the missing persons exclusively. These percentages can be calculated
6 in various ways, sir.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Which has lost --
8 THE WITNESS: Two persons.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But which has lost much of its importance
10 because now we have a higher number of accepted victims not necessarily
12 THE WITNESS: I think we will be talking about these numbers
13 later today so this number will be updated. This was our springboard for
14 all the next reports, next analysis completed over the years.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
16 Please proceed, Ms. Marcus.
17 MS. MARCUS: Thank you, Your Honours.
18 Q. On slide 3, Dr. Tabeau, could you please explain what this
20 A. I -- in this slide visualise three universes: The universe of
21 missing persons which is red, the universe of exhumed human remains which
22 is blue, and the universe of identified persons in the colour green.
23 Certain questions are addressed here that can be answered in
24 research that is exploring each of these universes separately, but the
25 essential question -- essential question is: What is the result of the
1 comparison of a merge, of an integration, of the three universes, the
2 missing, exhumed and identified? This question is not yet answered in
3 this slide. This slide shows the sources and the research questions that
4 can be answered on each of the group of sources.
5 Q. Does this slide represent a POD analysis of sources applicable
6 both to Srebrenica as well as to the POD analysis for the rest of Bosnia?
7 A. Yes, it is the same foundation, conceptual foundation, analytical
8 foundation, that has been used in both projects, in the Srebrenica
9 projects and POD project completed for this case.
10 MS. MARCUS: Could I please ask Ms. Stewart to show slide 4.
11 Q. Dr. Tabeau, please tell us what we are looking at here.
12 A. This slide takes us one step further and shows the overlap of the
13 three groups of sources. Essentially we are talking about
14 cross-referencing the missing persons records with records of exhumed
15 persons and records of identified persons. Ideally we would like to see
16 the red part, the heart of the cross-referencing, very big. Ideally we
17 would like to see one-to-one correspondence between each of these
18 sources. In this way we could tell what happened to every missing person
19 from the moment the person was reported missing to the moment the remains
20 of this person were exhumed from a mass or other grave, and identified,
21 either classically or through the DNA analysis, to close the circle of
22 questions related to the fate of the person.
23 In practice, there is no one-to-one correspondence. The red part
24 grows over time, when more and more data becomes available and more
25 analysis becomes available, but because of this situation of war
1 situation, it is not possible to obtain one-to-one correspondence.
2 MS. MARCUS: Could I ask Ms. Stewart for slide 5 please.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Before we do that, it not possible or is it not
4 always possible?
5 THE WITNESS: I have never obtained one-to-one correspondence in
6 my practice. In my work on victims theoretically it is possible, but
7 because sources are so incomplete, sources are compiled according to the
8 different standards. There are also technical problems because of that,
9 so this linkage of sources practically remains below the 100 per cent.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you so much.
11 MS. MARCUS: Thank you, Your Honour.
12 Slide 5, please, Ms. Stewart.
13 Q. Can you explain the POD sources which are shown on this slide,
15 A. On this slide, reference is made to the POD project completed for
16 the Mladic case. I use the same colours on this slide as in the circles
17 in the previous slides. As sources for missing persons, ICRC records of
18 the missing were used as well as BCMP records were used. BCMP stands for
19 the Bosnian Commission for Missing Persons. The blue circle,
20 exhumations, is represented by very large documentation from exhumations
21 related to the incidents reported in the schedules to the Mladic
22 indictment; that would be exhumation reports, on-site investigative
23 reports, autopsy reports, and related death certificates. And the third
24 group, identification of victims, was analysed based on identification
25 reports mainly classical, some were available as DNA-based
2 In addition to these major core sources we also additionally used
3 sources related to the witness statements, that would be court rulings
4 from local courts in Bosnia and Herzegovina and those that related based
5 on witness statements. And very importantly, we also had completed a
6 search in a very large database established in my unit, the so-called
7 integrated database. Integrated database is a merge of a number of very
8 large sources reporting on war victims, sources of which we will be
9 talking later perhaps today.
10 Q. To clarify a bit, when you say at the top of this slide
11 "verification of scheduled victims," that refers to the scheduled victims
12 lists that the OTP had put together; is that correct?
13 A. Yes, it is correct.
14 Q. Did the Demographics Unit, the DU, use --
15 THE INTERPRETER: The speakers are kindly asked to pause between
16 question and answer. This is really complex and we need a little more
17 time to interpret everything correctly. Thank you very much.
18 MS. MARCUS: My apologies, I'll do my best.
19 Q. Did the DU use witness evidence from the Mladic case in its POD
20 analysis for the Mladic case?
21 A. No, we didn't.
22 Q. Now this is a slide of sources, POD sources. How would you
23 compare, again briefly, based on this slide, the sources used for the POD
24 analysis for Srebrenica with the POD sources used for the rest of Bosnia?
25 A. The rest of Bosnia. You mean the POD project for the Mladic
1 case, right?
2 Q. Yes.
3 A. Well, basically, as I said, it is the same type of sources and
4 the same -- same type of methodological approach that was applied in both
5 cases. For Srebrenica, the focus was on missing persons and DNA-based
6 identification records. Through the DNA identifications, information
7 became available on the exhumations and grave-sites from a large group of
8 sources that were not discussed in our Srebrenica report but were taken
9 by others.
10 In this particular case, in this particular case it is that in
11 addition to the missing persons records and identification records, we
12 work directly with sources from exhumations. So this package is more
13 complete in that sense because it shows all three aspects of the tracking
14 process in one report.
15 Q. So I take it from your answer that there have been fewer DNA
16 identifications related to the municipalities than there were from
17 Srebrenica. If that is -- if -- if my understanding is correct, can you
18 explain briefly why, if you know.
19 A. Yes, it is correct. There were fewer DNA identifications
20 available for the POD victims. POD victims are all coming from a
21 different war episode than Srebrenica, and we are talking about
22 earlier -- early months of the war 1992 versus Srebrenica 1995.
23 Srebrenica has been the highest priority of the ICMP for a long time, so
24 this was at the heart of the identification process of this organisation.
25 And obviously, we could see the results of this kind of prioritising in
1 the sense that very many DNA identifications have become available for
2 Srebrenica victim and many less for victims from other episodes of the
4 Q. I'd like to ask you a hypothetical question just for our
6 Let's say victim A has one source that provides evidence of the
7 circumstances of his death as compared with victim B who has five sources
8 that provide evidence of the circumstances of his death. How would you
9 compare your confidence in the results of the determination of the fate
10 of victim A with that for victim B?
11 A. Well, one remark, you, of course, didn't say anything about what
12 kind of documents are available, the five documents versus the one
13 available. It's relevant what kind of sources we have at our disposal,
14 but I think the main point, assuming that these documents, the one and
15 the five, all confirm consistently the fact that a person died in a
16 certain situation, in certain circumstances. Generally the question is
17 what is the importance of using multiple sources versus a single source
18 in this type of work, and the answer is that in the war situations, it's
19 very hard to be sure of what happened and how it happened. Because the
20 documentation of this is very fragmented, has gaps, has
21 miscommunications. It's the common practice.
22 So when we talk about the fate of victims and we are trying to
23 prove what happened, it's important, it's essential, to use as many
24 relevant and reliable sources as possible that they would compare,
25 corroborate the findings related to this victim. So this increases our
1 confidence in the result obtained.
2 MS. MARCUS: Ms. Stewart, can I please have slide 6.
3 Q. Dr. Tabeau, can you tell us a bit about the obstacles to the POD
4 analysis conducted by the DU.
5 A. This slide lists a number of such obstacles. We are talking
6 about comparing sources, about linking sources, which means we are
7 talking about declaring records of information representing the same
8 person in different sources as consistent.
9 It would be a very easy job if we had a numerical characteristic
10 for every case the same in every source compared and the linkage would be
11 very easy, just comparing a number we would quickly and with a -- with a
12 set of links establish that. But it is not the case we are talking about
13 in -- in the POD project and also not in the Srebrenica projects. The
14 comparison is done based on descriptive items, like names, like dates of
15 birth, place of birth, and there are issues relates to comparing
16 descriptive items, like spelling mistakes, like swapping names, father's
17 with first name, like misreporting dates in related sources of
18 information. We are talking about occasional duplications and we are
19 talking about the possibility of survivors listed among the victims.
20 Q. And what do you do to overcome these obstacles to enable you to
21 reach conclusions with confidence?
22 A. We have done a lot of effort and spent a lot of time on removing
23 inconsistencies, differences, different formats between the sources,
24 checking for duplicates, checking for survivors, all this is described in
25 our reports. I would refer the Chamber and everybody to the annexes of
1 the 2009 integrated Srebrenica report as well as to the annexes from the
2 Slobodan Milosevic report.
3 But the essential message, yes, that next to the other work,
4 there is a need to use a reference standard, a good reference standard, a
5 source that could serve as such that would be telling how to see
6 inconsistencies in the reporting. And such a reference standard has
7 become the 1991 population census, the last pre-war population census
8 available for Bosnia and Herzegovina, which was the core of our
9 information system in the Demographic Unit with this source, the census,
10 all sources on victims, other sources, were always compared and links
11 were established between the sources using this reference census.
12 JUDGE FLUEGGE: May I ask you, Ms. Tabeau, to explain the
13 acronyms used in the second bullet point, especially those in red.
14 THE WITNESS: I am in the second bullet point referring to the
15 record IDs, numeric or alphanumeric record IDs from the three sources.
16 In ICRC data, the so-called BAZ number is used, which is not exclusively
17 a numeric number. It's alphanumeric but a numeric part is available.
18 Protocol ID, case ID, ICMP ID are three identifiers of cases used in the
19 ICMP data on DNA identification of victims. And case ID, which is
20 actually the label attached to the -- to a set of remains exhumed from a
21 given site, is also used in exhumation records.
22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: What does BAZ stand for?
23 THE WITNESS: It is just -- it doesn't have a meaning as such.
24 It is -- I cannot -- what is the full name, it is just a symbol which
25 probably has a meaning, but it is relevant from the point of view of how
1 it is used. It is just a reference number for every case. Every case
2 has a number which begins with the BAZ, or BAS if misspelled, or slightly
3 different form, plus a number and the -- the whole string of characters,
4 BAZ plus a number, is a record ID in the ICRC data.
5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much.
6 MS. MARCUS: Could I please have slide 7.
7 Q. Dr. Tabeau, you started to talk a bit in your last -- in your
8 answer a few answers ago about the major reference sources. Can you --
9 here on this slide you set them out. Can you explain how are these major
10 reference sources related to the other POD sources you discussed when we
11 were looking at slide 5.
12 A. Population census, 1991, for the entire country, 4.4 million
13 records was used as the central list of individuals as a reference source
14 to compare the names and other personal details with. Second bullet
15 point, OSCE voters' registers, 1997, 1998, 2000, 2.5 million each were
16 used a source on post-war survivors and were searched through in order to
17 verify whether or not victims have survived.
18 BH government register of internally displaced person and
19 refugees, 580.000 records served the same purpose. In addition, we in
20 our work systematically used military lists of all three armies - ABiH,
21 HVO and VRS - in order to flag victims to let everybody know who was
22 found on this list versus not. These are basic reference sources for our
24 MS. MARCUS: Ms. Stewart, may I please have slide 8.
25 Q. Dr. Tabeau, you are here today to present three major reports:
1 The POD update report for Srebrenica; the POD report for the
2 municipalities; and the IDPs and refugees report. What is the
3 relationship between the methodological framework for these three
5 A. This slide summarises the review routine used by my unit over the
6 years for each of these three types of analysis. It -- any victim lists,
7 missing persons, scheduled victims, other victims lists can be subjected
8 to the same routine as illustrated in this chart. At the core is the
9 population census and the sources on post-war survivors, in case of
10 victims, which are always used with every victim list to begin with to --
11 to -- to remove inconsistencies and survivors and to prepare for next
12 steps. So in case of IDPs and refugees report, it is the -- the middle
13 part is not so relevant. It is the population census and the
14 cross-referencing of the census with the post-war lists on survivors,
15 predominantly voters' registers, from which we can draw conclusions about
16 population movements during the time of war.
17 Q. I was just waiting for the translation.
18 MS. MARCUS: Ms. Stewart, could you please show slide 9.
19 Your Honours, with that overview that Dr. Tabeau has just
20 presented, I will now focus the next part of my examination on the
21 Srebrenica POD-related expert reports. For the record, Your Honours, the
22 Srebrenica evidence connected with Dr. Tabeau's testimony is as follows.
23 P1900 and P1901, both admitted through Helge Brunborg. P2794, MFI, which
24 is the 2013 Srebrenica update report provided by Dr. Tabeau for the
25 Mladic case. And P2795, MFI, which are the annexes to that update
2 Q. Dr. Tabeau, your Srebrenica expert report for this case updates
3 your prior report which was admitted through Helge Brunborg as P1900.
4 Could you please tell us what your 2013 update, which is P2794, MFI, adds
5 to the 2009 report.
6 A. The 2013 Srebrenica report I made focuses exclusively on the
7 analysis of new identifications issued by the ICMP between the time the
8 2009 integrated report was finished until February 2013. This was the
9 date I used for my report for the Mladic case. So, in total, there was
10 1.190 new identifications in this period. Of this number, quite a
11 considerable portion have been additionally matched with the 2009 OTP
12 victims list. I suggest we move to the table in order to see the
14 The table is taken from the report, 2009 report, it is Table 12
15 on page 28. It is not a complete table. It only presents the essential
16 columns from that table. The essential columns being Srebrenica missing,
17 Srebrenica identified, excluded survivors, potential survivors, accepted
18 integrated victims, and per cent identified.
19 We saw the first line of this table earlier today. Now I will be
20 talking about the last line that summarises the progress until this day.
21 So we see the number of Srebrenica missing slightly higher compared to
22 the first initial report from the year 2000. Not very much though. It
23 is a small increase that was added to the initial list.
24 In the second column, in the -- under identified persons, we
25 moved from the 68 identified based on the classical method, to, in total,
1 6.745 identified persons, including the results from the 2013 report I
2 just made this year.
3 The overlap of this number, 6.745, with the OTP list is 6.603,
4 which you can see from the notes, Note 2, under this table. It's a
5 considerable overlap, and if these two numbers are compared, 6.603 with
6 the number of missing on the -- on the OTP list, 7.692, the resulting
7 per cent is almost 86 per cent. 85.8.
8 So we moved from less than 1 per cent in the first row of the
9 table to 85.8 per cent.
10 The number of excluded potential survivors remained low. It is
11 still 12 today as it used to be since 2005. The integrated number of
12 victims increased from 7.477 to 8.047 victims.
13 These are the latest statistics incorporating the results from my
14 2013 Srebrenica update.
15 Q. So, in essence, the bottom row on the table we see on the slide
16 is the data emerging from the update for the Mladic case which is an
17 update from the 2009 report admitted through Helge Brunborg as P1900; is
18 that correct?
19 A. It's correct.
20 MS. MARCUS: I note for the record that Table 12 of the
21 2009 report, which, as it says here and as Dr. Tabeau says, is on page 28
22 in English and page 32 in B/C/S of that report, P1900, has also been
23 admitted under number another exhibit number which is P1902. So what we
24 see on the slide in front of us is an update to that exhibit as well.
25 Could I ask Ms. Stewart to show slide 13 please. We're going to
1 skip a few slides.
2 Q. Dr. Tabeau, could I ask you to briefly explain the import of
3 figure 7 that we see in front of us from P1900.
4 A. We don't see the reference on the slide if -- if we can move it a
5 little bit. This figure comes from -- from the 2009 integrated
6 Srebrenica report. It is not new. It is the same figure.
7 This figure would remain almost unchanged when the results would
8 be redone, including the identifications studied recently in the
9 2013 Srebrenica report, my report for the Mladic case.
10 If we now move the slide to see the title, please.
11 This slide shows certain percentages for three age groups, 45-49,
12 50-54, 55-59. We can focus exclusively on one age group for the
13 simplicity of explanation. The first one, the brown bars. The brown
14 bars represent Muslim men victims of the fall of Srebrenica as per cent
15 of the 1991 population in their municipalities of residence in 1991.
16 Once again, Muslim men victims as percentage of their 1991 population in
17 their place of residence in 1991.
18 JUDGE ORIE: And then you're referring to the same age group in
19 the 1991 census.
20 THE WITNESS: Yes, exactly. It is the same group of men, it is
21 the same exactly group of men. The results are presented based on a
22 linked records. Linked records. So it is the exactly same group of
23 people we are talking about here.
24 JUDGE ORIE: And the age groups are defined by 1991 or by the
25 1995 events where they went missing?
1 THE WITNESS: I think most likely 1991 age, but I will
2 double-check because I am not certain. But generally, it doesn't matter
3 that much but it would make a difference in age. I can check this for a
4 tomorrow. I can tell exactly.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. It may be important for us to know the age of
6 the men when they went missing.
7 THE WITNESS: Yeah, yeah, yeah. With the time they went missing,
8 what age were they, yes. That's the point.
9 So we see on this chart only five municipalities, Srebrenica,
10 Bratunac, Vlasenica, Zvornik, Han Pijesak. These are the five
11 municipalities that were affected most in the fall of Srebrenica. And
12 Srebrenica was by all means the one affected more than any one else. So
13 for Srebrenica for this age group, brown bars, 45-49, we see that about
14 50 per cent of men originally residing in this municipality in 1991 went
15 missing in the fall of Srebrenica, which is a very significant number and
16 illustrates the scale of suffering of the -- of the Muslim men from this
18 Another finding that can be read from this chart is that Zvornik
19 is affected relatively little compared to Srebrenica. Generally the
20 municipalities located geographically close to Srebrenica were affected
21 more. Zvornik is more distant and the distance from -- geographical
22 distance we think explains why the number for Zvornik is lower.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask you what you did take as your criterion
24 for qualifying as a victim? Is that missing, is that identified? Could
25 you tell us what qualifies for being a victim in this table.
1 THE WITNESS: I think in this table a victim is a missing person
2 on the first place. For the new victims that entered the Srebrenica
3 list, we don't have actually information about the disappearance as
4 specific as for the missing persons because ICMP does not provide this
5 information, so it is predominantly missing persons.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Ms. Marcus.
7 MS. MARCUS: Thank you, Your Honours.
8 Dr. Tabeau has provided in her reports extensive additional
9 information on this topic and therefore I will now turn to the proof of
10 death report for the municipalities.
11 Dr. Tabeau's POD expert evidence for municipalities includes the
12 following. The portion of the POD report admitted in the Stanisic and
13 Simatovic case now P2787, MFI; the POD report for the Mladic case, P2796,
14 MFI; the POD annex, P2797, MFI; the clarifications to this annex, P2793,
15 MFI; the addendum to the POD annex pertaining to four victims, P2790,
16 MFI; and, finally, the table of name correspondence, P2791, MFI.
17 Could Ms. Stewart please now show slide 14.
18 Q. Dr. Tabeau, based upon your knowledge and expertise, what is the
19 significance of conducting an analysis of POD of named victims in cases
20 such as this?
21 A. If I may ask for assistance, I would like to have also transcript
22 on the screen. Is it possible sometimes or ...
23 JUDGE ORIE: Is there any way that Ms. Tabeau could have on one
24 screen the transcript and on the other the exhibit shown?
25 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
1 JUDGE ORIE: If it's coming from the Sanction system, we are
3 THE WITNESS: Okay. It's okay.
4 JUDGE ORIE: But a division of work between Ms. Stewart and
5 Ms. Hellman may resolve the problem.
6 THE WITNESS: Okay. It is okay. I can do it without for now.
7 JUDGE ORIE: And don't hesitate to ask the question to be
9 THE WITNESS: Yes, I please do.
10 MS. MARCUS: I will do so.
11 Q. Based upon your knowledge and expertise, what is the significance
12 of conducting an analysis of the POD of named victims in cases such as
13 this case?
14 A. Well, the significance is, of course, fundamental because when we
15 know the names of the victims and we are in the position to find them,
16 identify them, in a number of related sources, we can provide lots of
17 useful information that would explain their fate, yeah.
18 Q. The POD report, P2796, MFI, and its annex, P2797, MFI, were the
19 result of an analysis of both POD documents as well as demographic
20 sources which you refer to as the integrated database. Would you say
21 that is accurate?
22 A. Yes, it is. Yeah.
23 Q. So as we look at slide 14, the top of the page, we see the POD
24 documents at the top, and when we move down, we will see the integrated
25 database at the bottom.
1 With respect to the POD documents at the top of this slide, you
2 list the major types of documents which were analysed. How would you
3 assess your degree of familiarity with the kinds of POD documents which
4 were analysed for the POD report?
5 A. I think my familiarity in my own eyes is very good. I have been
6 working with these type of documents for a long time. The first POD
7 report I made at this Tribunal dates 2002, so it was a report actually
8 related to the same episode of war to 1992 victims from Autonomous Region
9 of Krajina. Already at the time, the same type of sources were used
10 jointly with missing persons records to draw conclusions about the number
11 of victims and their fate.
12 It's perhaps important to note at this point that there is
13 usually a very large number of the exhumation documents, autopsies,
14 forensic reports, anthropological reports, exhumation reports itself,
15 investigative reports, it is a massive -- massive collection of
16 documents. So it is really very essential when working with these
17 sources to be very clear about how they link to victims scheduled on the
18 lists, to sort out the connections, to accept the relevant documents, to
19 reject irrelevant documents. So the work that we have done on the POD
20 project was meant to bring up this clarity, a picture that will -- that
21 would explain what happened to these people.
22 Q. During the course of reviewing these documents over the years of
23 your experience, have you become familiar with their usual form, the
24 functional position that would usually be held by a person who would sign
25 them or prepare them, and the specific organisations that created them in
1 Bosnia and Herzegovina?
2 A. Yes, of course, I -- during my employment at ICTY, I visited
3 several times the Bosnian Commission of Missing Persons in Sarajevo. I
4 also visited cantonal courts in Tuzla and in Sarajevo. I visited
5 Podrinje Identification Project. I visited ICMP several times. I spoke
6 personally with individuals who were involved in the exhumation process
7 itself and who were issuing the documents. I have worked myself with
8 these documents directly in several cases in this Tribunal, so I think
9 that -- at some point, I -- even my unit became a contact point for the
10 OTP for exhumation materials.
11 Q. Are you able to state with confidence that if a document had not
12 been an authentic POD document, based on your expertise, that the
13 Demographics Unit would not have relied upon it, in conducting this
15 A. Yes, of course. We -- it's for sure the case that if a
16 non-authentic document would be provided, we would be able to see this
17 fact and reject it. Yeah.
18 MS. MARCUS: Your Honours, I see that we have about one minute
19 till the break. This is a good stopping point in the examination. If
20 you're so inclined, we could take the break now.
21 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber is so inclined.
22 Ms. Tabeau, we'll take a break, and we'll resume in 20 minutes
23 from now. You're invited to follow the usher.
24 [The witness stands down]
25 JUDGE ORIE: We take a break, and we resume at ten minutes
1 to 11.00.
2 --- Recess taken at 10.30 a.m.
3 --- On resuming at 10.53 a.m.
4 [The witness takes the stand]
5 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Ms. Marcus.
6 MS. MARCUS: Thank you, Your Honours.
7 Could the Court Officer now please call up P2796, MFI, at the
8 bottom of page 2 in both languages?
9 Q. While that is coming up, Dr. Tabeau, when did the Demographics
10 Unit of the OTP close?
11 A. In September 2011, with my departure from ICTY.
12 Q. And what did this mean practically in terms of the demographics
13 and proof of death data contained within the OTP?
14 A. All the output of the unit's work stayed with the office and are
15 available, can be used, but there is no continuation other than
16 occasional visits of myself and others to finish pieces like Karadzic
17 testimony or this testimony.
18 Q. Now, on the bottom of page 2 of your POD expert report which we
19 see on our screens, it says that your colleague, Dr. Jan Zwierzchowski is
20 mentioned. Is his work on this project the equivalent of the work of the
21 previous active Demographics Unit team under your supervision?
22 A. Yes, it is. Dr. Zwierzchowski was part of the demographic unit
23 in the final stages of unit's existence. We have done together several
24 reports and he was the one who -- for whom it was possible to come to the
25 OTP and work on the POD report for the Mladic case.
1 Q. So would it be fair to say, then, that the Demographics Unit was
2 sort of resurrected for the purposes of preparing this -- this report,
3 the reports for this case?
4 A. Yes. Of course, Dr. Zwierzchowski spent approximately three and
5 a half months working on the POD project. I myself spent more than one
6 month working on this project, and on other issues. So it is certainly
7 that we can say so.
8 MS. MARCUS: Okay. I'm going to ask Ms. Stewart, please, now, in
9 Sanction to show us the bottom of slide 14.
10 Q. In the segment of your report prepared for the Stanisic and
11 Simatovic case, which we have now as P2787, MFI, you set out a
12 methodology underlying the creation of the integrated database. Was the
13 POD project for the Mladic case carried out in a manner consistent with
14 the methodology as set out in this segment of the Stanisic and Simatovic
16 A. Yes, it was. There were two parallel processes that were
17 completed in the POD project. One process was the review of exhumation
18 documents and missing persons records and linking them, based on the
19 results of this review one by one manually, and there was a parallel
20 process of using the integrated database and establishing links
21 automatically between scheduled victims lists and the integrated
22 database, in order to increase the quantity of information available for
23 every scheduled victims. But the methodology was, in both cases, exactly
24 the same.
25 Q. Now, we can see in front of us the sources included in the
1 integrated database. Can you explain in as simple as terms as possible
2 what the integrated database is.
3 A. The integrated database is a match of a number of significant
4 sources, large sources, reporting on victims of war.
5 This database includes sources, such as the statistical death
6 notifications, official death notifications reported by the families of
7 the -- of the deceased. It includes all military lists. It includes
8 missing persons records. It includes exhumation records and includes a
9 number of sources compiled by other organisations, by NGOs, like MAG,
10 Muslims Against Genocide, or Knjiga Nestalih Prijedor, which is the
11 Prijedor Book of Missing. It also includes identification records for
12 the Srebrenica victims, those based on DNA analysis. All these sources
13 are large and extensive, and cover the war victims quite well, yet the --
14 even the merge of all these sources does not give a complete number of
15 victims of war.
16 Q. Can I ask you to explain your role in the OTP with respect to the
17 gathering of the data and the creation of the integrated database itself.
18 A. The sources were collected by my unit and me personally over the
19 years, and it was our idea to come up eventually with a good information
20 system that could be used office-wide for tracing victims of war. The
21 system that we eventually developed started with the population at the
22 outbreak of the war, included a number of sources reported on victims as
23 those in the integrated database, and ended with sources on post-war
24 survivors. It was a tracking system that was meant to be used in all
25 kinds of situations. Integrated database is just one step further in
1 developing the -- the office-wide -- this information system. It just
2 puts the sources together to make it easier to compile all kinds of lists
3 of victims based on the merge and not on source by source and by source
4 and by source.
5 MS. MARCUS: Your Honours, I have distributed to the Chamber and
6 the Defence some handouts. These are not intended to be tendered at all.
7 They're not uploaded. This is merely to assist in presenting the Chamber
8 with the POD annex and how -- how this analysis was conducted.
9 So I have one set in English and one set in B/C/S, which has been
10 given to the Defence, and we're going to be referring to these handouts
11 in conjunction with what we see on our screens. It will enable us to
12 look at two documents at the same time.
13 Q. Dr. Tabeau, we're going to turn to the POD annex to provide the
14 Court with a few examples of how this analysis was done and to thereby
15 explain how the annex can be used by the Chamber.
16 MS. MARCUS: Could the Court Officer please call up on our
17 screens P2797, MFI. This is the POD annex. And please turn to e-court
18 page 254 in English. The B/C/S version is on the handouts for the B/C/S
19 speakers. Because the chart is so large, I would respectively show that
20 we show the English on the screens. I'll note that it corresponds to
21 pages 261 to 2 in B/C/S. Your Honours, this is reflected on handout 1
22 for your ease of reference.
23 This page is part of the analysis for incident A7.2, in which the
24 accused has been charged with the killing of a number of people in
25 Hrustovo village, in Sanski Most, on or about 31 May 1992.
1 Q. Dr. Tabeau, could I call your attention to victim 3 on this page,
2 Almina Keranovic. As we move through the columns from the left, I would
3 like to ask you some questions. Starting at the left we see the victim
4 number, the last name, then first name, father's name, date and place of
5 birth, and sex. Can you tell us what the source of information for this
6 personal data would have been?
7 A. The source for these items is the population census, 1991, after
8 having linked the personal information about this victim as reported on
9 the scheduled list.
10 Q. Now, continuing over, we see the ICRC ID. Can you explain why
11 neither Almina Keranovic nor her apparent relatives on this page have
12 ICRC ID numbers?
13 A. Because the link with the ICRC list is obviously not established
14 here through the census record, there is no ICRC number.
15 Q. Do you have any idea why that might be?
16 A. Well, as I said, sources are not complete. Some individuals
17 reported the missing persons to the ICRC commission. Some others
18 reported to BCMP commission and others perhaps to ICMP. So it is not
19 necessarily that we will see every victim reported under the ICRC missing
20 persons, yeah.
21 Q. Continuing onto the next column, we see military status. On
22 page 10 in English of your report and B/C/S page 13, you describe the
23 military status as noted here in the POD annex. You say:
24 "The military lists merely give a membership in the army but do
25 not specify combat or non-combat circumstances of these deaths."
1 Can you explain what you mean by this.
2 A. The military lists were made for the purpose of registering
3 deaths or missing of individuals, members of the army and others, like
4 members of the Ministry of Defence or police, or even some people working
5 for production sector providing services and goods to the army. The
6 purpose of post-mortem pensions of these people. The place of death is
7 reported very broadly as either being killed or missing. Circumstances
8 of death are not discussed. Place of death is unavailable. So the
9 military lists cannot be seen as a source that would contribute to the
10 information on the fate of a missing person or a killed person. It is
11 merely a source reporting on the membership.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask one question in this respect.
13 The -- if someone does not appear on a military list, did you
14 qualify that person as a civilian?
15 THE WITNESS: Yes, I did.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Is my understanding correct, that even when
17 qualified as a civilian in this table, that is, not being registered in
18 the military sources as a military, that they still have -- could have
19 been combatants at the point of time when they went missing or died?
20 THE WITNESS: Yes, it is correct. It can go both directions.
21 There might be a group of civilians who were in fact combatants, and of
22 the militaries reported of the list, a group that were killed in
23 non-combatant situations. And there is actually lots of information
24 about it for Srebrenica projects that they were.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
1 Please proceed.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: If I might just ask a question.
3 Madam Tabeau, you have explained to us that one -- the first five
4 columns your -- for your -- the source for your first five columns was
5 the population register. And then you said the ICRC ID number is missing
6 for this person because this person was not necessarily reported to the
8 You indicated also that there were other places like ICMP and
9 BCMP. I don't see any columns for those other sources on this chart.
10 Now, am I right to say that the population register will only
11 tell us that this person exists? Then that this person should be
12 reported as missing to some kind of institution or authority, like the
13 ICRC, which is mentioned here. And my question to you then is: How did
14 we first determine that this person is missing? From which source?
15 Because there's no -- the ICRC is not -- is not that source. Which
16 source told us that this person is missing?
17 THE WITNESS: Yeah. For this person, we have three documents or
18 three sources that have been linked to -- to this person which are
19 reported under POD source, 1, 2, 3, and source type is listed as first
20 one autopsy report, court record of exhumation is the source number 2,
21 and there is an entry from the integrated database as under the number 3.
22 There is no source that would report this person as a missing person.
23 Yet this person's body has been found in a grave which is explained here
24 in the table in what grave and when and where. That simply means even
25 though we don't have the missing person record for this person, and this
1 information is unavailable, there is other evidence confirming what
2 happened to this person. And it might be so that this person would have
3 been reported to BCMP and ICMP which are not listed here. But somehow we
4 were unable to link this information, to prove that the person was
5 eventually reported as missing by somebody to an organisation.
6 It is -- it -- this is all I can say. We -- we are not even able
7 to tell whether or not this person was reported missing. It -- I can
8 only say that the result of this exercise is showing that we didn't find
9 a record of missing of this person in the sources used for this project.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Do I then have to understand that the conclusion
11 that we come to that this person is a missing person is -- is a victim of
12 war is derived from the autopsy reports which tells us of the nature of
13 his -- of her death?
14 THE WITNESS: Not only that. If -- if we go through the -- the
15 sources, yeah, there is an autopsy report that was made at the occasion
16 of the exhumation of the body of this person which is describing the body
17 exhumed in detail with the injuries and direct cause of death. There is
18 court record of exhumation, which confirms what the autopsy report says,
19 and there is a record from the integrated database under number 3. If --
20 if we look carefully at this source, in the last line under the -- the
21 source type, integrated database, and there is an ID -- a record ID
22 number there and there is in brackets number 4. Number 4. This tells us
23 that we confirmed this person in source number 4 in the integrated
25 In order to understand what kind of source was it, we need to go
1 to Table 2 in the POD report, which is on page 11 in the report.
2 MS. MARCUS: Your Honours, it's handout page 2. It's the next
3 page in your handout.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: That's exhumations 2009.
5 THE WITNESS: Yes. That is the database or list or source
6 called: "Exhumations 2009, merged."
7 What does it mean? This means this is a summary list of actually
8 missing persons who were confirmed by finding their remains in certain
9 graves and identified in the exhumation process, and this summary list
10 was provided to us by the BCMP commission, Bosnian Commission for Missing
11 Persons, in addition to the actual exhumation reports and autopsy report
12 that were collected completely independently from -- from this particular
13 list. Yet these two came together. The summary information that was
14 provided by the BCMP directly to my unit, and ended in the integrated
15 database as a list of missing persons confirmed and identified in
16 exhumations. This information came together consistently, fully with two
17 other documents collected separately and studied directly in the POD
19 So going back to Your Honour's question, even though there is no
20 reference for this person, based on the ICRC record of missing, there is
21 other evidence that tells us this person eventually was reported missing
22 to somebody, in this case being BCMP commission, and the evidence is
23 included in this material.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Madam Tabeau.
25 My last question perhaps would be: How do we determine the date
1 of death of this person as the 1st of June, 1992?
2 THE WITNESS: This determination is based on the records of the
3 BCMP commission. The BCMP commission could have given us the data of
4 missing, last seen of this person, but at the stage when the exhumation
5 was completed, there was also, most likely, on-site investigation report
6 available, which would include witness statements as to the incidents
7 that led to burying -- killing people and burying them in an unmarked
8 grave like this one. So the date of death here can be based actually
9 also on this type of information, information about the incident.
10 JUDGE ORIE: And do I understand that the reference to source
11 number 4 in the integrated database also tells us that the reliability of
12 the time of death or disappearance is relatively low?
13 THE WITNESS: I am not sure that we can draw this conclusion
14 from -- from -- from the fact that source 4 is reported. Where, for
15 missing persons, the best we can have usually is the report on when they
16 were last seen. Also, in -- in Srebrenica studies, the exact date of
17 death is very hard to establish. All we have are the dates of
18 disappearance as reported by informants, being, in case of ICRC, close
19 relatives of the victims, or eye-witnesses. It's the same source for the
20 BCMP commission. So the same source, not different. How reliable it is,
21 it is only as reliable as -- as the memories of the family members are,
22 but the exact date of death, yeah, I think there must be additional
23 sources that can determine the exact date of death.
24 JUDGE ORIE: But in the sources in the integrated database,
25 source number 4, exhumations 2009, merged, gives high reliability of the
1 place of death or disappearance reporting and a low score for reliability
2 of the time of death, disappearance reporting.
3 JUDGE FLUEGGE: If we can go to the next page --
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that's on the --
5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: The second page.
6 JUDGE ORIE: It's the second page in the handout but not
7 necessarily the second page in the exhibit.
8 THE WITNESS: I think Your Honour is talking about Table 2,
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, table 2.
11 THE WITNESS: Yes. So it is indeed so that there is a certain
12 hierarchy of sources that we used in the integrated database. ICRC list
13 is mentioned under number 3, and exhumations 2009 under number 4. It is
14 less reliable as information from statistical reporting, the two
15 databases as we call them, death notifications because it's a different
16 type of reporting. For known deaths we have death certificates signed by
17 physicians who can determine very precisely when and how, what cause of
18 death was. In case of missing persons, the best we can have is the ICRC
19 and next after is -- after ICRC, BCMP commission comes as second.
20 So I wouldn't call it completely unreliable because it is
21 certainly not the same as the exact date of death, but it is just the
22 best we can have.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I'm not saying it's not the best. I was
24 talking about relatively unreliable --
25 THE WITNESS: Yes --
1 JUDGE ORIE: -- less reliable than other sources.
2 THE WITNESS: Yes, less reliable, yes. Yes.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Please proceed.
4 MS. MARCUS: Thank you, Your Honours. I'm actually intending to
5 take us step by step through the analysis for this victim. I hope that
6 this will assist the Chamber even more extensively than Dr. Tabeau's
7 answers. Perhaps I could take one step back and just clarify a few
8 things for the Chamber.
9 Q. The victim names on this annex are the names from the schedules
10 in the indictment; is that correct?
11 A. Yes.
12 MS. MARCUS: And we will talk about additional victims a little
13 bit later. I'll give Your Honours a example of an additional victim that
14 that was found. This particular victim, Almina Keranovic, is from a
15 schedule for A7.2.
16 Q. My other question, perhaps to clarify for -- for the Chamber,
17 Dr. Tabeau, is it correct that the analysis as to the fate of Almina was
18 done by a combined analysis of all three POD sources? That would be the
19 autopsy report, the court record of exhumation and the integrated
20 database analysed in conjunction?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. So let me -- I'm going take us through it. Before I take us to
23 one of the underlying documents, could I just ask you one more question
24 about military status.
25 If the evidence that your team had analysed indicated that the
1 person, the victim, indeed, died in a combat situation, you would have
2 listed that person as excluded; is that correct?
3 A. Yes. There were sources like witness statements from court
4 rulings that could indicate this and such victims would be then excluded
5 from victims' lists.
6 Q. Okay. So we see the next two columns, as we've already started
7 talking about, the POD source and the source type. I think -- I was
8 going ask you to explain these columns, but I think you may have already
9 done that in answer to the Chamber's questions.
10 Looking at source 3, we see the number 4. And, for this, we've
11 already gone to the handout page 2 to see which database in the
12 integrated database this covers.
13 Now, if we go to the next column, we see circumstances of death.
14 Can you tell us where that information in the annex was taken from.
15 A. These are -- this is information from the actual documents that
16 were reviewed in the project, summarised next to each document.
17 Q. Now we're going to turn to those documents in just a moment. I
18 just complete -- the columns.
19 As we move to the right, we have the place of exhumation. Can
20 you tell us where that comes from?
21 A. Also from -- from the documents.
22 Q. And then we have a final conclusion.
23 A. Yes. This is in this case confirmed, a confirmed victim of war.
24 We developed a simple categorisation for victims. Confirmed is the most
25 important category. For cases like this one, where all documents
1 consistently indicate that the time of death, the place of death and
2 circumstances of death as consistent with the incident, then the victim
3 could be declared as confirmed. Other categories will be discussed in a
4 minute. It is confirmed but mis-assigned, inconclusive, and exclusions.
5 JUDGE ORIE: May I ask one further question when we've gone
6 through all the columns.
7 The autopsy report, the -- the -- the various source, the three
8 sources, are linked to this person. I do not find specifics on the
9 identification of this person. Exhumation means that a body was exhumed.
10 Autopsy report means that the cause of death was, to the extent possible,
11 determined. But now where do we find the confirmation that the body
12 which was exhumed and which -- which relates to the autopsy report is
13 this person?
14 THE WITNESS: Yes. In the court record of exhumations, we will
15 see in a minute, there is mention that a family -- family members and
16 names of these members are given, identified the remains of this person
17 as -- with name and other details. That is included in the court record,
18 identification, and this is --
19 JUDGE ORIE: May I take it, if it had been impossible to identify
20 an exhumed body that it -- the person, which would then still be without
21 a name, would not appear in this report?
22 THE WITNESS: Yes, that is very correct.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
24 Please proceed.
25 MS. MARCUS: Thank you, Your Honours --
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Let me be sure I understand the operation of the
2 integrated database.
3 As I understand it, looking at this page 1 and page 2 of the
4 handout, the integrated database is the sum total of the sources of
5 information about the missing person. And page 2 of the handout explains
6 to us what is so integrated. That is FIS mortality database, RS
7 mortality database, up to that.
8 Is it therefore correct, on the first page here where we're
9 dealing with this victim number 3, to mention integrated database as a
10 source when, in fact, it's just a summary of the sources. The source is
11 mentioned here as item number 4 on the integrated database, which is
12 exhumations of 2009.
13 Now, we seem to be using the integrated database as further proof
14 of the source when, in fact, it is not. It is just a recording of the
16 Am I coming clear?
17 THE WITNESS: Yes, yes, absolutely. Absolutely.
18 I think integrated database is -- in itself, is not a new source.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Absolutely. That's my point.
20 THE WITNESS: It reports on a number of sources that are
21 integrated in it. And it gives the opportunity to review all the sources
22 that reported on a given victim. At the same time, it can be used to
23 pin-point the best source and take it as -- as -- for further analysis,
24 information from that source.
25 It is just a tool that we developed that makes it easier for
1 analysts and for everybody to follow up on reporting of a given victim.
2 And, as such - if I may finish - it gives a double-check to the review
3 process of the actual exhumation documents. It can either corroborate
4 or -- or -- yeah, disprove the results from -- from the individual
6 I am not sure I answered, but I tried.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: I thank you for that attempt. Thank you so much.
8 JUDGE ORIE: And I have one other question.
9 Looking at the screen and focussing on number 6,
10 Sejida Keranovic, we see as under the source type, integrated database
11 and then between brackets (14). Do I have to understand that as being
12 1 and 4, where the sources are all single-digit numbers and therefore not
13 to be read as 14 but as 1 and 4?
14 THE WITNESS: Yes.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
16 MS. MARCUS:
17 Q. Dr. Tabeau, perhaps to follow-up just with one question in
18 relation to His Honour Judge Moloto's question, if Judge Moloto or any
19 other member of the Chamber would like to see an underlying record that
20 underlies these results that emerge from the integrated database, that
21 would be technically possible. Isn't that correct?
22 A. Yes, yes.
23 Q. So the databases underlying the integrated database are
24 collections of hundreds of thousands and, in some case, millions of
25 individual records; is that correct?
1 A. Well, integrated database itself comprises, as far as I remember,
2 100 -- about 190.000 individual records, representing different cases.
3 This includes multiple records for -- for -- for a given victim as
4 reported in various sources. So it is not millions in this particular
5 database, but it is also linked with the population census and sources on
6 survivors. It is part of a broader information system which, indeed,
7 includes millions of records.
8 MS. MARCUS: Could I ask the Court Officer to please call up
9 source 1. We're going open each of the underlying documents to show to
10 the Chamber how this was done.
11 This is uploaded as 65 ter 12727A. We've created that as an
12 excerpt of the full document.
13 This document, Your Honours, can also be viewed on handout
14 page 3.
15 Q. Source 1 for Almina Keranovic is an autopsy report. Dr. Tabeau,
16 is this autopsy report one of the many types of POD documents with which
17 you have become familiar over the course of your work with the Tribunal?
18 A. Yes, it is.
19 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
20 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar tells me that it's not in e-court.
21 Perhaps it's not released. But it is just an excerpt --
22 MS. MARCUS: Yes --
23 JUDGE ORIE: -- therefore, you are not tendering it as a separate
25 MS. MARCUS: At the moment, we're not tendering it, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Then perhaps it would be good to have it uploaded
2 and/or released in e-court as soon as possible so that we have an
3 opportunity to later look at it, if need be.
4 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour. I have been informed by
5 Ms. Stewart that it has been released now.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
7 MS. MARCUS: Thank you, Your Honour.
8 We have it on our handout. When the Court Officer is ready, I
9 would ask the Court Officer to turn in the English to page 2 on our
10 screens, but we see the entire document on handout page 3.
11 As we look down at the bottom of this autopsy report we can see
12 two conclusions at the bottom. The death was violent and a direct
13 consequence of the shattering of the head. The head was shattered by a
14 shot from a fire-arm from contact range.
15 Q. Is this where the information entered into the POD annex in the
16 column entitled "Circumstances of death" according to the source
18 A. Yes, that was the source for this information.
19 Q. Thank you.
20 MS. MARCUS: And now I would ask Your Honours to turn to the next
21 page in the handout. If the Court Officer is able to, I would ask her to
22 call up 65 ter 12728, pages 6 and 7 in B/C/S, and page 6 in English.
23 This is the court record of exhumation, the second source for Almina.
24 I will note for the record that we have tendered this court
25 record of exhumation in the 31 October 2013 residual bar table motion and
1 also that one excerpt from this document has already been admitted as
3 As we look at handout 4, we turn to the court record of
4 exhumation for Hrustovo 1. This court record of exhumation is a document
5 which covers a number of victims, the bodies exhumed from that mass
6 grave. Is that accurate?
7 A. Yes, it is.
8 Q. So in relation to His Honour Judge Moloto's question - I believe,
9 unless it was His Honour Judge Orie, I think it was Judge Moloto - we see
10 above body number 7 an infant with no name and therefore we would not in
11 that case, for example, be able to link that only on this document if
12 that were a victim on our list; is that correct?
13 A. Yes, it would be correct.
14 Q. So now below we see body number 8, that of Almina Keranovic. Is
15 this now where the information entered in the POD annex in the column on
16 circumstances of death from the court record of exhumation originated?
17 A. Yes. As we see, there is a mention here of the identification
18 by -- of this victim by family members Ramiza Keranovic and
19 Ala Meradanovic. And the full victim name with the date of birth, place
20 of residence, names of father and mother are included.
21 Q. Now, could I ask you, what in this material would have led to you
22 confirm her as a victim, because your confirmation, as you explained in
23 your reports, is not only that Almina Keranovic is dead but also that her
24 death occurred in the circumstances of this Scheduled Incident, A7.2.
25 Could you tell us what in this material led to you confirm her as
1 a victim of A7.2.
2 A. There is a description of injuries and cause of death in this
3 document, and it says death was violent and immediate as a result of the
4 head having been shattered. The head was shattered by a shot from a
5 fire-arm at contact range. So this leaves no doubt as to the way that
6 victim died. It is just that we took it and moved and placed in the
7 annex that was prepared in the POD project, and then it's easy to see
8 immediately what the cause of death was.
9 Q. And in addition to the cause of death, the link to the date and
10 time, place of death, came from which source, in relation to Almina?
11 A. As we discussed earlier today, this come -- come -- came from the
12 BCMP records of the missing persons, and this is how the person was
13 reported by the family members and other -- likely other witnesses to
14 this incident.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Can I also -- can we agree also that the
16 approximate date or the date of death of this person is 1985 as mentioned
17 here on the -- on the court record? And not 1975 as mentioned on the
18 autopsy report.
19 THE WITNESS: Yes, this is most certainly a typo which is
20 incorrect because there is also reference in the reports to the age of
21 the victim, and --
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: In both there is --
23 THE WITNESS: In both, yes. So it is 1985, not 1975.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you so much.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Could I further ask you whether you have considered
1 any possible inconsistencies between the various sources. Just to give
2 you an example -- well, just to look at this one, I see that the autopsy
3 report describes the clothing as a black jacket; whereas the court report
4 describes as the clothing wearing a red button-up jacket, a different
6 Would have you considered that, or would you have ignored that?
7 Not to say that for that reason they are different persons and not to say
8 that it may be rather difficult after a certain period of time to
9 determine the colour, but did you notice it, and did you consider it in
10 any way in your findings?
11 THE WITNESS: Well, we studied the whole document, so every part
12 was taken into account, and this type of inconsistencies are quite
13 common. As Your Honour mentioned, it is related to the long time
14 since -- since the death that have passed. It is very difficult to
15 identify and describe the clothes as they were initially. I think there
16 is a core information here that is consistent across all the sources.
17 This is the information about what kind of person this victim is. The
18 age is clearly determined. The cause of death is clearly established.
19 There is consistency in the reporting by the family members about the
20 time of death and the place of death. There is a report on the missing.
21 All together, it adds up to a very consistent picture.
22 So we -- in this situation, the conclusion is the description of
23 clothing is less significant because it is less reliable.
24 But inconsistencies, as Your Honour mentioned, across the sources
25 are there. Absolutely. Are there. And therefore we developed this
1 categorisation and highlighted cases that cannot be considered
2 consistent, the confirmed cases. There are exclusions and inconsistent
3 cases that we also flagged in the annex. These are cases which didn't
4 coming together that well.
5 JUDGE ORIE: So you made an assessment as to whether
6 inconsistencies that were found are of such significance that you would
7 have to put a question mark to the bodies described to be the same
9 THE WITNESS: Yes.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
11 MS. MARCUS:
12 Q. Dr. Tabeau, to add to this discussion, would it -- each -- it
13 seems from your report that each incident was analysed as a whole. How
14 would the total analysis of all of the victims of a particular incident
15 assist you in analysing the -- the fate of any one of the individual
16 victims of that incident? Would that also assist or was that not -- not
18 A. Yes, of course. The general description of every incident did
19 matter, even though the description as available from the indictment is
20 not very extensive, but important elements are there. The place of the
21 incident, the date of incident, the type of what happened. So we also
22 search for consistency of this kind of broader picture in the report on
23 the missing of -- of these individuals and in the exhumation records,
25 Q. Thank you.
1 MS. MARCUS: Could I now ask the Court Officer, please, to call
2 up the POD annex again. That is P2797, MFI, and please show us page 91
3 in English. This will correspond to pages 108 and 9 in B/C/S, and it is
4 on handout 5.
5 Q. Dr. Tabeau, we are looking at this page in front of us which
6 refers to Scheduled Incident A4.4, in which the accused has been charged
7 with the killing of a number of men in or around the school in Grabovica
8 on or about the 3rd of November, 1992.
9 If we look at the list of victims in the POD annex, we see that,
10 as per the indictment schedules, there are only five named scheduled
11 victims, but the POD project has -- has revealed 142 additional victims
12 for this incident under A4.4.
13 So before we go into one example, could I just ask you to advise
14 the Chamber generally how it was determined that these individuals were
15 additional victims of this incident.
16 A. The search for additional victims was conducted in exactly the
17 same way as the search for a -- for regular victims included in the
18 schedules. So the initial point was a full-system search in the OTP
19 resources for relevant documents that would be reporting on -- on the
20 circumstances of death of people of certain incidents. This full search
21 was also -- was also bringing additional results when we were looking for
22 regular victims, scheduled victims at this occasion, certain documents
23 were identified in which more victims were reported. So this was one
24 approach. Certainly we also had other possibilities. Having the
25 integrated database made it possible for us to search for victims
1 according to date and place as defined in the incidents lists, like ICRC
2 list are very easy from this point of view to search through and to come
3 up with broader lists of victims reported disappeared at the same dates,
4 the same places.
5 Further, when studying documents like exhumation reports and
6 whole sets of autopsy reports, next to the regular scheduled victims,
7 there were additional victims documented in exactly same way. So there
8 have been very good reasons for us to decide that, in addition to the
9 scheduled victims, there must have been other victims, not included in
10 the schedules.
11 That was the procedure that we used when searching for additional
13 Q. Now, calling our attention to victim 139 on the page in front of
14 us, that is Sulejman Turudic, we see under the integrated database entry
15 four different databases. And you explain in your report and you've just
16 explained to the Chamber that this means the victim is reported in four
17 separate databases.
18 MS. MARCUS: Could I ask the Court Officer to keep this page up
19 on the screen. Perhaps we could just look at the English only, as I
20 suggested earlier, if possible, and Your Honours, please, to turn to --
21 to consult to handout 6.
22 Q. This is an entry from the integrated database for this victim,
23 Sulejman Turudic. Can you tell us about this entry and what you -- what
24 you learned from the -- this entry for this victim.
25 A. This victim, number 139, is an additional victim. It is an
1 additional victim that obviously is reported here as confirmed. How we
2 identified this victim, it was mainly based on the searching of the ICRC
3 list of missing persons where he was reported as disappeared from
4 Grabovica on 3rd November 1992, that we could base our decision upon.
5 But it is not only the ICRC list of missing persons. It is also
6 other sources.
7 So on next page, where excerpts from the integrated database are
8 shown, we can see this victim is reported in source number 1, which in
9 this case is RS; then 2, mortality database, this is the statistical
10 notifications of deaths. He's also included in the fallen soldiers or
11 military list of the ABiH army. Further, as I said, ICRC list of missing
12 persons, and eventually also in the MAG 2002 database.
13 There will be some differences or even gaps, you know, between
14 the sources, but generally from these excerpts, we see that the reporting
15 has been quite consistent across the sources. The list complete source
16 is the MAG 2002 database, but the first source, RS DEM-2 database is
17 quite specific about personal information, about date of death, which in
18 this case is date of death because the DEM-2 RS mortality database is
19 use. Place of death, municipality of death, there is an ICRC number for
20 this victim. And there is an indication he was included in the military
21 list and that the ethnicity from the census is Muslim.
22 So this page gives a good overview of all the information --
23 essential pieces of information, not all the information, essential
24 pieces of information that we could quickly extract from the integration
25 database for this victim.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: If I might ask, source number 2, fallen soldiers,
2 does it tell us that, at the time of disappearance or death, the person
3 was an active soldier or is he just -- is it just a person who is listed
4 in the army?
5 THE WITNESS: It is just a person listed in the army records.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: I see. So that would explain why a person of --
7 born in 1920 is still on the army list?
8 THE WITNESS: Well, that is a very important point. This is an
9 age inconsistency. It is a man who is far too old being --
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: To be active.
11 THE WITNESS: -- to be actively engaged in combat activities and
12 being -- serving, for serving in the army, of course. But, well, he is
13 on the record, so ... he is reported and flagged as a military.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: And do we have the circumstances of his death?
15 THE WITNESS: Not from the army records. And he's --
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: But from other sources we do.
17 THE WITNESS: It is the RS mortality database that would report a
18 cause of death. In this case, the entry in the mortality database is
19 made based on a court ruling. Court ruling or declarations of death by
20 local courts in Bosnia and Herzegovina were accepted by statistical
21 authority to make an entry in the records. Why? Because the court
22 decision a legally binding decision, and there is also a death
23 certificate that is issued by the courts that can be used to -- to make
24 an entry in the statistical registration of deaths.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
1 JUDGE ORIE: May I ask you the following.
2 First of all, I can imagine, but that's just an observation, that
3 one could take issue with the fact that someone of -- at the age of 72
4 could not be actively involved in military operations.
5 But apart from that, the place of birth and the municipality of
6 birth shows quite a variety of -- of places. Do I understand that, on
7 the whole of the information, that is, the date of birth, name of the
8 father, place of death and disappearance, that you considered this to be
9 a minor inconsistency which was not given such weight that you would
10 consider that there was a possible misidentification?
11 THE WITNESS: Well, we always take into account any
12 inconsistencies and study them, but this is why we -- there is a need to
13 use a good reference source, like the population census. Because if we
14 link every of these four sources back with the population census, and
15 search for individuals named Sulejman Turudic, father Salih, with this
16 particular date of birth, then we end with just one census record. That
17 tells us that this particular individual was born at this particular date
18 of birth and this particular place of death. And this is for us our
19 guidance on how we should see the inconsistencies.
20 The inconsistencies can be easily explained because sources like
21 MAG or fallen soldiers lists even, these are not sources made by
22 professional statisticians. The approach is different. So statistics
23 office use certain bridging systems in their reporting. Places are coded
24 according to certain classifications. There are certain -- for
25 everything there is a rule. There are questionnaires developed in which
1 victims are reported in the same way. It's not the case with other
3 Therefore, when it comes to reporting places and dates
4 especially, there will be a lot of differences across the sources. It is
5 unavoidable. But checking back every victim with the population census
6 and confirming that there was -- there was just one person that fits
7 the -- this combination of names, date of birth, place of birth, gives us
8 much more confidence that we are talking about one and the same person.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
10 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Can you tell me what MAG stands for, MAG?
11 THE WITNESS: Yes. It stands for Muslims Against Genocide --
12 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.
13 THE WITNESS: It was an organisation operating in early years
14 after the conflict in Bosnia, based in Sarajevo.
15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.
16 JUDGE ORIE: I'm looking at the clock.
17 Ms. Marcus, could you tell us where we are in terms of time? The
18 Chamber is aware that it put a lot of questions which may have disturbed
19 your line of questioning and certainly has had an impact on the time you
21 MS. MARCUS: Thank you very much, Your Honour. I would certainly
22 not say disturbed. I -- I would estimate with my best efforts
23 approximately 20 to 25 more minutes.
24 JUDGE ORIE: That would compensate, more or less, for the
25 questions put by the Chamber.
1 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
2 JUDGE ORIE: I'm just informed about the net time you used, that
3 is, and that if you would use another 25 minutes net time, you're still
4 within your estimate.
5 Ms. Tabeau, we take a break. We resume in 20 minutes. Could you
6 please follow the usher.
7 [The witness stands down]
8 JUDGE ORIE: We will resume at 20 minutes past 12.00.
9 --- Recess taken at 11.59 a.m.
10 --- On resuming at 12.22 p.m.
11 JUDGE ORIE: We received a message which is relevant for
12 scheduling next week. That is, that next week we would have trial days
13 extended for half an hour. Would that be for all four days scheduled for
14 next week, Mr. Stojanovic? Which brings it to two hours extra.
15 [The witness takes the stand]
16 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I asked our
17 Case Manager to inform you that tomorrow's witness will need two hours
18 instead of the initially anticipated two and a half in cross-examination.
19 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, I think there's a misunderstanding.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, there must be a misunderstanding. I may have
21 misunderstood the message. It is about Witness Brown.
22 MR. IVETIC: That would be our colleague Mr. Lukic, so he might
23 have sent something. I've not had a chance to [overlapping speakers] --
24 JUDGE ORIE: It is a message sent by Mr. Lukic. Then we ignore
25 it -- well, we do not ignore it, but we do not deal with it any further
1 at this moment but, rather, focus on the testimony of Ms. Tabeau.
2 You may proceed, Ms. Marcus.
3 MS. MARCUS: Thank you, Your Honours.
4 I just like to note two points for the record before we continue.
5 One is that some of the evidence relied upon by the Demographics
6 Unit in conducting this analysis was contained in the POD documents which
7 were pending addition to the 65 ter list at the time that this analysis
8 was conducted and that is why Your Honours will see some ERNs still on
9 the POD annex.
10 The second matter I'd like to put on the record is that, in
11 relation to this particular incident, that is, Grabovica, A4.4, I would
12 just like to note that 65 ter 28969 is pending evidence of Witness RM377
13 in the 29th 92 bis motion. We hope this will assist the Chamber in
14 analysing the POD evidence in relation to this incident.
15 Your Honours, could I ask you, for one clarification from our
16 last discussion, to turn back for one moment to handout page 1. The
17 Court Officer can leave the screen as it is, I think, for the purposes of
18 this question. I'm going to back to Almina for one clarification with
19 Dr. Tabeau.
20 Q. Dr. Tabeau, today earlier at -- temporary page 43, line 17, I
21 asked you about Almina. I asked you what it was that had led you to
22 confirm her as a victim of this incident, not only as someone deceased.
23 And I asked you: In addition to the cause of death, the link to the date
24 and time and place of death came from which source in relation to
1 And you said:
2 "As we discussed earlier today, this came from the BCMP records
3 of the missing persons and this is how the person was reported by the
4 family members and other -- likely other witnesses to this incident?"
5 Now I'd just like to ask you specifically, we see that for Almina
6 you have an entry in the integrated database number 4. This is an
7 exhumation database. Can you explain to us how did that database give
8 you the information that's in the POD annex that says: Died on 1st of
9 June 1992 in Hrustovo, Sanski Most. Because that information is not
10 contained in the court record of exhumation we looked at just above.
11 How did that database give you that additional information?
12 A. I think we also discussed this in the context of Your Honour's
13 question earlier today. I was telling that the exhumations 2009 database
14 is a list of victims basically, a summary of all individuals that were
15 reported to the BCMP commission as missing for whom evidence has been
16 obtained over the years about their exhumations and identifications.
17 So this summary lists of missing persons and exhumed individuals
18 and identified individuals compiled originally by the BCMP commission had
19 been provided systematically to the OTP, and my unit was receiving them
20 as the central contact point and integrating them, and now they are part
21 of the integrated database.
22 Q. So just to be sure we understand this point. Does the entry for
23 this victim in the integrated database number 4 add anything in addition
24 to the exhumation report itself or is it a duplication of information?
25 A. On one hand, it is not a duplication but a corroboration of the
1 evidence contained in other exhumation documents, but it also adds to the
2 information from the exhumation documents. It tells us about the missing
3 date and place of this person.
4 Q. Thank you very much.
5 MS. MARCUS: Could the Court Officer please go to page -- in the
6 annex in front of us, that's P2797, MFI, page 490 in English. I would
7 ask again for the English to be displayed on the screen. I would note
8 for the B/C/S speakers that it's pages 463 and 464 in B/C/S.
9 And, Your Honours, this corresponds to handout page 8.
10 Q. Turning to another example of another victim from another
11 incident, Dr. Tabeau, this page in front of us relates to
12 Scheduled Incident B13.2 in which the accused has been charged with the
13 killing of a number of people at Omarska camp and at various places after
14 they were taken from the camp between the 27th of May and the
15 21st of August, 1992.
16 Looking at the final conclusions for victims 9 and 10,
17 Hamdija Avdagic and Emsud Bahonjic, can you explain to the Chamber why
18 victim 9 was confirmed but mis-assigned, in other words, confirmed as a
19 victim of another charged incident, whereas victim 10 is considered
21 A. First, victim number 9, he is a person born in the village of
22 Kozarac in municipality of Prijedor. This can be seen under date of
23 birth, place of birth column. And if we move to the circumstances of
24 death, we see that the person is consistently reported as missing from
25 Kozarac in Prijedor, body was exhumed in Kozarac, Prijedor, and there is
1 ICMP DNA identification also referring to exhumation in Kozarac Kalata
3 Yet the incident B13.2 relates to victims of Omarska. Obviously
4 Kozarac is not Omarska, and this victim, although we can say he is a
5 confirmed -- for Kozarac in Prijedor, he's not a confirmed victim for the
6 incident B13.2.
7 There is another incident on the schedules. This is A6.1. And
8 if we refer to the list of incidents in our report, Table 1, page 3, so
9 we see the incident A6.1 relates to killing of a number of people in
10 Kozarac in -- and surrounding areas between 24th of May and June 1992.
11 Going back to -- to the handouts, as we already discussed, the
12 place of disappearance and exhumation is Kozarac, Prijedor. And the date
13 of death in this particular case is reported as 15th of June, 1992, also
14 in Kozarac, Prijedor. Based on the integrated database, number 3 is ICRC
15 list and number 7 is Knjiga Nestalih. That wouldn't be a date of death.
16 It is a date of disappearance. All this is consistent with Incident
17 A6.1. So we just shift this victim from B13.2 to A6.1.
18 Regarding victim 10, this victim is reported as exhumed from
19 Pasinac grave, and in court rulings he is told to be killed at the
20 Keraterm camp in Prijedor. Also death certificate confirms death. And
21 integrated database confirmed death. Yet B13.2 is the incident relating
22 to killings in Omarska, and when it comes to Keraterm there is only one
23 incident, B13.2, incident that is very narrowly defined. It relates to
24 killings in Room 3 in the Keraterm camp on 24, 25th of July, 1992. This
25 incident is not suitable for this victim to be assigned to. So we have
1 to exclude him altogether from the victims that can be taken and included
2 in the annex to our POD report.
3 Q. Now, Dr. Tabeau, the --
4 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask one or two questions in relation to
6 As far as number 10 is concerned, I do understand that you have a
7 court ruling which then apparently states what the place of death was.
8 Now, for 9, we do not have a similar court ruling. It says that
9 he disappeared from Kozarac and where the body was found. Now the
10 Chamber has heard some evidence about Kozarac being very close to the
11 Omarska camp and also that persons arrested in the Kozarac -- in Kozarac
12 or the surrounding area ended up in Omarska. What made you decide that
13 this really is a mis-assignment rather than a body found which may have
14 died in Omarska?
15 THE WITNESS: Well, I didn't have any additional information
16 Your Honours might have had for this victim. This is one thing. And
17 from the documents studied in the POD project, it seems that it is more
18 appropriate to assign this victim to A6.1 instead of B13.2. But in case
19 if additional information would be made available to me based on which I
20 could conclude that, after all, this victim should be placed under B13.2,
21 then, of course, this decision would have to be revised.
22 It is certainly hard to be 100 per cent sure to which incident
23 this victim belongs. Based on the description from the documents, it was
24 our decision to place this one under 6.1 rather than B13.2.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I did not refer to any specific information,
1 but, rather, overall information about persons ending up in Omarska.
2 But, therefore, you would say it's not beyond any discussion if
3 there would be further evidence and then it may be that there is a chance
4 that the mis-assignment should be corrected.
5 THE WITNESS: It can always be corrected at the point when
6 additional evidence becomes available.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, please proceed.
8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: May I put another question.
9 You said the incident B13.2 is a very narrowly defined because it
10 relates to killings in Room 3 in the Keraterm camp. Where can I find
11 this in relation to Room 3? I don't find something like that in the --
12 in the Schedule B13.2 of the indictment.
13 THE WITNESS: Yeah, it was not this incident, B13.2. It is a
14 different incident.
15 It is 13 -- D13.1, Your Honour, I'm sorry. It was my mistake.
16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you for this clarification. Now I see it.
17 Thank you, indeed.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Ms. Marcus.
19 MS. MARCUS: Thank you, Your Honours.
20 Q. Dr. Tabeau, the POD analysis that we see resulting in this annex
21 considered only victims of incidents in Schedules A, B, F, and G; is that
23 A. It is correct.
24 Q. So if there were an incident in Schedule C, such as C15.3 which
25 pertains to crimes including killings committed in the Keraterm camp
1 between 25th May and 21st August 1992, it may still be possible to
2 confirm this victim, number 10, Emsud Bahonjic, as a victim of that
3 Scheduled Incident. Would you agree with that?
4 A. Yes, I would.
5 Q. And this would then be the case with any other victims who may be
6 noted in your analysis as excluded but who, based on the POD materials,
7 could be confirmed as victims of crimes charged in Schedule C to the
8 indictment. Isn't that the case?
9 A. Yes, of course.
10 MS. MARCUS: Could I now ask the Court Officer to please call up
11 page 318 of this document. That's P2797, MFI. That's the English page
12 and to display that, please. That corresponds to page 314 in B/C/S.
13 And, Your Honours, this is the final example and it appears on handout
14 page 9.
15 Q. I'd like to look at victim 3 on this page. This is the incident
16 B5.1. Scheduled victim Miralem Altoka, for whom the determination of his
17 fate in the context of this incident is considered inconclusive. How
18 would your analysis determine when discrepancies would make it impossible
19 to confirm a victim as having been killed in the context of a particular
21 A. In the case of this particular victim I wouldn't say these were
22 the discrepancies in the reporting across the sources. It was, rather,
23 that the level of reporting, generality of this level made it impossible
24 to assign this victim or to link this victim with these killings in
25 KP Dom Foca between June and December 1992. If we go to the column
1 circumstances of death again and go through the sources, POD sources
2 included for this victim, then we see in source number 1 in the ruling on
3 death, he was taken away on 13th of April, 1992, from his house in Foca.
4 Integrated database, ICRC missing persons record tells us he disappeared
5 on 20th of May, 1992, in Foca. And BCMP record of the missing of this
6 person tells he was registered as a missing person as of May 1992
8 It is not possible to link this victim in a straightforward way
9 with KP Dom Foca and what was happening there in June/December 1992. So
10 the decision is to mark this case as inconclusive.
11 MS. MARCUS: Your Honours, I would like to note for the Chamber
12 in this context, P982. That's the witness statement of RM013 which we
13 hope will assist the Chamber in analysing the POD evidence in relation to
14 this victim and other victims of this incident.
15 Your Honours, that concludes our examples. Could I ask now to
16 switch to Sanction and could Ms. Stewart please show slide 16. This is
17 Table 3 from the POD report, P2796, MFI, from pages 32 and 33 in English,
18 and pages 36 to 37 in B/C/S. We note that this table on this slide has
19 been updated as per the table of corrections that has been given the
20 number P2793, MFI.
21 Q. Dr. Tabeau, what does this table tell us about the results of
22 your POD analysis for the municipalities?
23 A. This table gives some summary statistics calculated on the basis
24 of the annex to the POD project. Actually, the annex that takes -- has
25 taken into account the latest corrections submitted yesterday to
1 Your Honours, and the statistics are the following.
2 So I will move column by column, starting with the number of
3 confirmed victims. As a reference number for this table, I would like to
4 mention the number 1.457, which is the number of scheduled victims on the
5 Prosecution lists provided for verification. 1.457. Out of this number,
6 1.185 have been confirmed. This is the total in the first column.
7 In addition to this number, there have been another 43 confirmed
8 that were reported under certain incidents but we decided should be
9 placed under different incidents. They are listed as died in another
10 incident. And in the next column, this is the same number but
11 redistributed differently, according to our decisions.
12 So overall number of confirmed victims is 1.228, which is the sum
13 of the first column and those mis-assigned, 43. So, once again, I
14 repeat: The number of confirmed victims is 1.228.
15 In addition to these victims that have been confirmed on the
16 schedules, there is another number of additional victims. 737 have been
17 added to the scheduled lists as new additional victims not listed by the
18 Prosecution. Therefore, the overall number of verified victims confirmed
19 to be related to the incidents studied in the POD report is 1.965. That
20 is the total in the last column, total, final. 1.965.
21 In addition to this, 107 cases have been declared as
22 inconclusive. These cases are not taken for the final total. And
23 122 cases have been excluded. These cases are also not taken for the
24 final total.
25 And this is the end of the overview.
1 Q. Thank you, Dr. Tabeau. Unless the Chamber has other questions
2 about this table, I would move in my last few minutes onto the IDPs
4 JUDGE ORIE: We have no further questions, although I have one
5 but not related to this table. Where you have drawn our attention to
6 P982, Witness -- I think it was RM013, yes, you considered that we find
7 there and then, I take it, in paragraph 40, primarily information in
8 addition to what was available to Ms. Tabeau which would allow the
9 Chamber to -- to consider unconfirmed at the end, looking at the entirety
10 of the evidence, might need to be requalified.
11 MS. MARCUS: That's precisely right, Your Honour. In fact, the
12 Prosecution's POD evidence is Dr. Tabeau's analysis, the underlying
13 documents, and witness evidence. Separately combined. And that was the
14 reason for all the discussion we have about what evidence to tender in
15 relation to proof of death.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Where Mr. Altoka is situated in -- in KP Dom
17 in Foca.
18 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you.
20 MS. MARCUS: Could I finally ask Ms. Stewart to please show
21 slide 17.
22 Your Honours, Dr. Tabeau's IDPs and refugees report is
23 extensively covered not only in the report and its update itself but also
24 in the portion of the Karadzic testimony that I sought to tender via
25 Rule 92 ter. For this reason, we will give an extremely brief
1 presentation basically using this slide.
2 Q. Drawing the Chamber's attention to Table 1 and Figure 1 on
3 slide 17, Dr. Tabeau, can you please briefly tell the Chamber what
4 conclusions are represented in these tables which come from your report,
5 P2798, MFI.
6 A. Table 1 is made based on figures presented in the annex, Annex A,
7 as far as I remember, to the IDPs and refugees report. The figure as
8 such is not available in the report but all the underlying numbers used
9 to draw these charts are included in the annex. Reference to specific
10 pages is given under the chart.
11 Table 1 gives an overview of the change in the ethnic composition
12 in the 22 municipalities of the Mladic case area by 1991 versus 1997.
13 The comparison is made separately for the area of Republika Srpska and
14 the area of the Federation. The comparison is only based on figures of
15 those born before 1980 because for 1997, as a source for these figures,
16 voters' registers were used of 1997/1998 election. So in order to
17 compare the comparable, we had to exclude a segment of the population
18 from the 1991 census.
19 In the panel of the table showing the percentages, for 1991, we
20 have a row in which shares of each ethnic group are shown for both.
21 First, RS, and then Federation areas. So, first for 1991. The same for
23 Without going into the details of these figures of percentages
24 and absolute numbers, I would like to move to the chart which is a
25 graphical illustration of these percentages. First, for RS, to the left;
1 and for the Federation, on the right. As we see in the RS, there is a
2 very considerable, not to say dramatic, decline of the Muslim population
3 by 1997, the green bars, as well for Croats, the blue bars, and a
4 considerable increase of the Serb population by 1997, the red bars. And
5 then exact opposite picture is seen for the Federation. A decline, very
6 considerable decline in the Serb population, in the share of the Serb
7 population, and an increase in the Muslim population, while Croats and
8 others didn't show such significant changes.
9 The message that I would like to address here, there is -- is the
10 follow -- is the following. There is no doubt there have been very
11 significant changes in the ethnic composition in the municipalities
12 belonging to the 22 municipalities of the Mladic case. These changes
13 were -- had different character in the RS and in the Federation, but they
14 suggest that non-Serb population was departing from the areas of the RS,
15 whereas Serb population was departing from the areas of the Federation.
16 Well, as a background for the next subject that is discussed in
17 the report, the numbers of IDPs and refugees, the change in the ethnic
18 composition makes it absolutely clear that there were significant,
19 massive population movements in these territories, and there is a need to
20 have a quantification of these movements.
21 MS. MARCUS: Your Honours, I have been informed that my time is
22 up. I have three more questions, with your leave.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Three more questions are allowed.
24 MS. MARCUS: Thank you, Your Honours.
25 Q. Dr. Tabeau, could we look at Table 3 and could you please very
1 briefly tell us what we see represented in Table 3.
2 A. This table comes from the report. It is Table 3, page 11. It
3 summarises the -- the minimum numbers of IDPs and refugees in the
4 22 municipalities for each ethnic group separately. This is
5 row number 1, altogether 230.804 IDPs and refugees by 1997 from these
6 22 municipalities, with the largest number for Muslims, approximately
7 122.000. These are minimum numbers. Row number 1 shows only minimum
9 Row number 2 shows estimated more complete numbers. Minimum
10 numbers are incomplete for many reasons which are explained in the
11 report, and, in particular, annex to Slobodan Milosevic report, but the
12 estimation proves that the overall number should be in line with
13 436.034 IDPs and refugees, and for Muslims this more complete estimated
14 number is close to 218.000 individuals.
15 The procedure, the estimation of the related confidence intervals
16 summarising the uncertainty of this estimation, it's all described in the
17 annex to Slobodan Milosevic report. These are very significant numbers
18 from just 22 municipalities. These numbers are very high, such that I
19 cannot think of justifying these numbers by the usual causes of
20 migration, that would be educational migration, work-related migration,
21 family reunions, et cetera, et cetera. So there must have been other
22 causes behind this population movement related to war.
23 Q. Finally, Dr. Tabeau, you have given evidence in this Tribunal
24 over the course of 11 years and approximately 15 prior cases, and this is
25 probably your final case at the ICTY. Why should the Chamber have
1 confidence in the reliability of your methodology and conclusions?
2 A. Well, it's a very -- yeah, challenging question. I think the
3 main reason is all the effort made over the years resulted in collecting
4 a lot of very significant and reliable sources of information. The
5 efforts made also resulted in establishing an integrated comprehensive
6 information system that can be used to trace victims but also
7 non-victims, starting from the time before the conflict, through the
8 conflict, until the early years after the war.
9 These kind of information systems are not very common. This is
10 something unique that has been made here at this Tribunal. It is the
11 best we can offer, and I think the use of this information system should
12 not be really neglected. I don't -- I am unaware of any other Tribunal
13 that would be in the position to have something like that at their
15 Q. I'd like to thank you very much for answering all my questions.
16 MS. MARCUS: Your Honours, I have no further questions for the
18 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Ms. Marcus.
19 Mr. Ivetic, are you ready to cross-examine the witness?
20 MR. IVETIC: I am, Your Honours.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Tabeau, you'll now be cross-examined by
22 Mr. Ivetic. Mr. Ivetic is a member of the Defence team of Mr. Mladic.
23 Please proceed.
24 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honours.
25 Cross-examination by Mr. Ivetic:
1 Q. Good day, Dr. Tabeau.
2 A. Hello.
3 Q. Before I get to your background and qualifications, I'd like to
4 take up where we left off and the study of the municipalities.
5 MR. IVETIC: And I'd like to call up 65 ter -- pardon me.
6 Exhibit number P2798, MFI.
7 I apologise, we still don't have it on the screen. Or at least I
9 JUDGE ORIE: Hard work seems to be done at this moment,
10 Mr. Ivetic. There we are.
11 MR. IVETIC: Thank you.
12 Q. Madam, the chart and the data that you were just talking about,
13 would this be the corresponding report which generated all that
14 information or reports on that all that information?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. For purposes of this report, you utilised the 1997 OSCE voter
17 record list to estimate populations for various parts of
18 Bosnia-Herzegovina and to analyse and reach conclusions based upon the
19 same. Is this, in essence, a summary of the methodology that was
20 employed for this report?
21 A. Not only the voters' register of 1997 but also 1991 population
23 Q. And the reason for using the voter registration records was that
24 a current completed and verified census on the territory of
25 Bosnia-Herzegovina had not been completed by the time this report was
1 generated. Is that accurate?
2 A. Yes, it is.
3 Q. Would you agree that voter lists do not as a general matter
4 collect and contain data as to ethnicity or religious affiliation of a
6 A. Yes, they don't.
7 MR. IVETIC: If we can turn to page 5 in both versions of the
9 Q. And I'd like to focus with you on the middle of the second
10 paragraph in the English, and there you state:
11 "The post-war voter registers represent the most extensive
12 population data that exists. This data can be analysed in the absence of
13 the post-war or war-time census or surveys."
14 I want to ask you, do you believe that the 1997 OSCE voter
15 registration table that was used, do you -- do you regard it as a
16 reliable source of this information?
17 A. Yes, I do. I regard this source as very reliable.
18 Q. Do you regard subsequent voter registration lists to likewise be
20 A. Subsequent meaning 1998? Because I also used that. Yes, I do.
21 MR. IVETIC: If we can turn to 1D1437 in e-court, page 68. That
22 should correlate to the Prlic transcript at 21958. And I would like to
23 focus on line 3 and go through line 21.
24 Q. You can follow along as I read the questions and answers and I'll
25 have some follow-up questions.
1 "Q. Now, just to be sure, help me out here, that was -- people
2 volunteered actually to be [sic] registered, to register to vote; right?
3 "A. Right.
4 "Q. It wasn't mandatory.
5 "A. No.
6 "Q. And it's not the sort of source that one could look at -- a
7 demographer would normally look at; correct?
8 "A. No.
9 "Q. And in this particular -- this particular source also had
10 some limitations; right?
11 "A. Right.
12 "Q. One of the limitations was that, for instance, if we're
13 trying to determine ethnicity, for instance, the voters were not required
14 and indeed did not indicate their ethnicity; correct?
15 "A. The ethnicity wasn't available.
16 "Q. And we know that prior to -- prior to the conflict, at least
17 when the 1991 census was done, I believe there were 29 different ways
18 that one could describe themselves?
19 "A. There were 91 ways."
20 Would you stand by this testimony as being truthful and accurate?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Now, given that the voter list did not have ethnicity, is it
23 correct that your staff looked towards the 1991 census to match persons
24 from the voter lists with that census to estimate what nationality they
25 would have?
1 A. Yes and no. I want to clarify that 1997 voters' register was
2 based on the census, 1991 census, in order to register voters. Every
3 registration office during the elections had two copies of the
4 1991 population census. One was a hard copy, 20 volumes also, and an
5 electronic database containing excerpts from the 1991 census records, in
6 which names and date of birth and the JMBG were included. These lists,
7 1991 census, that were used to register eligible voters -- actually being
8 listed in the census was a precondition of registering as a voter at all.
9 This takes me to the second answer of my question. So this was
10 the known. It was not us but the OSCE who was using that census records
11 during the elections, and from the very same census records ethnicity
12 could be taken as well. But in our work, when we were matching the 1991
13 census with the voters' lists of the OSCE, we, indeed, were working with
14 one and the same thing. These are the 1991 census, a subset from the
15 1997/1998 election, and the original census records, 1991. So matching
16 them and taking the ethnicity reports from the census was done in my
17 project as well. That would be the yes.
18 Q. Would you agree that voters lists especially in
19 Bosnia-Herzegovina are ripe for fraud and manipulations and therefore
21 A. Well, I never studied the extent of fraud on the voters' lists.
22 I am aware of some cases that I actually saw in my work of individuals
23 that were listed there and actually couldn't vote because they died.
24 Q. Do you think the potential for voter registration fraud to be
25 substantial, insignificant, how would you quantify that?
1 A. Well, I think it's a question rather to OSCE than to me. All I
2 can tell is that the -- the -- there was -- there were reports on fraud
3 in 1996 election, and considerable extent of it was reported in the
4 papers that I studied. Well, so I guess the general answer is: There is
5 a potential for fraud. Was, at least, you know. But 1997 election was
6 prepared very carefully by the OSCE, and I believe they learned from the
7 experience of 1996 election and this is why, among others, that the
8 1991 census data was actually used during the registration.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, I would like to ask one clarifying
11 You said you -- you were aware of reports of fraud. Now, was
12 these -- were these cases of individual fraud or were these cases of mass
13 organised fraud?
14 THE WITNESS: There were very few cases of individual cases that
15 were inconsistently reported in the voters' register of dead people who
16 could not vote simply. No mass fraud, of course. I am unaware of it,
17 and there is no mention of this kind of fraud in any OSCE reports on the
18 1997 or 1998 election. Absolutely nothing like that.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
20 Please proceed, Mr. Ivetic.
21 MR. IVETIC:
22 Q. Does the OSCE still have a role in the voter lists in Bosnia and
24 A. I wouldn't know exactly because I don't pay attention.
25 Q. Okay.
1 MR. IVETIC: I'd like to call up 1D1443.
2 Q. While we wait for it, I can introduce it as a news report from
3 last week and so I don't know if you've been alerted to it or not.
4 And, first of all, madam, are you aware that the preliminary
5 census results have been announced for Bosnia-Herzegovina on the
6 5th of November, last week? Could you answer my question, ma'am?
7 A. Well, what was actually the question, whether I'm aware of the
8 population census --
9 Q. Whether you're aware --
10 A. -- just conducted?
11 Q. Whether you're aware that the preliminary census results were
12 issued by the agency in charge of the census in Bosnia and Herzegovina
13 last week?
14 A. Yes, I am.
15 Q. Now if we can turn to the article that we have before us. The
16 title says: "More voters than listed." Underneath it says:
17 "Census of population. Households and dwellings in BiH have
18 shown that in some municipalities in BiH has more registered voters than
19 listed, which opens the door to manipulation especially during the
20 election process."
21 Have you had occasion to become familiar with this news report or
22 other news reports on this topic from last week?
23 A. No. Not at all. But it relates to the latest census, I
24 understand, which is kind conducted very recently.
25 Q. Okay. If we can look at the next part underneath the photograph,
1 as an example they list the following: "In Kozarska Dubica, right to
2 vote in the last election had 23.696 citizens. Preliminary census data
3 shows that in this municipality listed 23.074 inhabitants. The situation
4 is similar in the municipality of Krupa na Uni, where according to the
5 central election commission, the right to vote has 1.799 inhabitants and
6 the total number of registered as 1.687."
7 Madam, would you agree that if these figures are found to be
8 correct, this would be a very serious indicator of something potentially
9 unreliable with the voter registration lists on a massive scale?
10 A. Not at all. I would disagree. Well, it was -- for many reasons
11 I would disagree. But, first of all, I think it is possible that not all
12 individuals from a given municipality have -- are included in the census
13 record because of the absence at the census moment, so it is possible
14 that the census records list less individuals than are actually living in
15 a given place, right? But I think there are two issues here. So the
16 consistency of the number is one, but also, you know, who compiles the
17 list, it is two. Right? I am unaware completely of how the OSCE
18 completed their list of eligible voters for the upcoming election and I
19 cannot therefore compare this methodology with the census numbers.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Lukic -- Mr. Ivetic, I beg your pardon. I
21 always make this mistake.
22 MR. IVETIC: It's not a problem, Your Honours.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Ivetic, are you able to provide us and, in
24 particular, the witness, for her to be able to answer, the date of the
25 census that gives the number 23.074 and the date of the voters'
1 registration -- of the compilation of the register that gives number
3 MR. IVETIC: Unfortunately, Your Honours, as this came up last
4 week, I believe, Thursday or thereabouts was the date of the -- when I
5 became aware of this recent information, I have not been able to track
6 down all the information. I do have a copy of the preliminary results of
7 the census. That is 1D1443. And that was also issued on the
8 5th of November, but I don't have the ability to do that type of research
9 to give all the data that I would expect and that Your Honours would
10 expect to link all that.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Right. You do appreciate therefore that depending
12 on the dates, this discrepancy could be explainable, for argument's sake,
13 if the census were taken a year or two before the register was compiled.
14 Somebody who was a year under the age of voting, a year later, would be
15 age of voting, and therefore, that's -- the statistic would change.
16 Did you hear my --
17 MR. IVETIC: Yes, I did. I did.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Do you agree with my reasoning?
19 MR. IVETIC: I agree that more work needs to be done and more
20 analysis needs to be --
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you so much.
22 JUDGE ORIE: I have a very factual question. Last election was
24 THE WITNESS: In Bosnia?
25 JUDGE ORIE: Well, it's report -- it says: Kozarska Dubica,
1 right to vote in the last election.
2 THE WITNESS: I don't know exactly.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic.
4 MR. IVETIC: For the national post it was three years ago. For
5 the local post it was last year.
6 JUDGE ORIE: And which does this refer to?
7 MR. IVETIC: It doesn't specify, Your Honours.
8 JUDGE ORIE: No, I see that but I'm -- I do understand that you
9 would not have a full insight in all the details, but if it talks about
10 the last election, I would at least want to know what we are talking
11 about. Globally --
12 THE WITNESS: But if I may add, when it comes to the processing
13 of the census data, it also takes a lot of time and initially preliminary
14 figures are published which are later corrected when the final state of
15 processing is reached. So I would also like to know about the published
16 figures here as I am very skeptical about the quality and the final
17 character of these figures.
18 So this was what I meant as, you know, I need to know about the
19 methodology, about who compiled when, what, exactly, and what is the
20 final or non-final status of these figures that are presented here.
21 On the top of it, it is related to very recent elections and the
22 latest census, so I'm wondering how come one can draw conclusions based
23 on the current situation as to voters' electoral roles from 1997/1998.
24 It is a -- you know, whatever will be the finding of today's assessment,
25 how can we extrapolate from this finding back and over 1997/1998?
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Perhaps more fundamentally, Mr. Ivetic, is that
2 this report is so far removed from the indictment period that whether or
3 not there is fraud here, it doesn't tell us anything about what happened
4 during the period of the indictment.
5 MR. IVETIC: Well, Your Honours, unfortunately there has not been
6 a census since before the war so this is the first time that fraud would
7 come to light.
8 Q. Since, correct me if I'm wrong, Dr. Tabeau, there's not been a
9 census since 1991 in Bosnia and Herzegovina; is that correct?
10 A. Yes.
11 MR. IVETIC: So it is of -- it is germane to our decision that if
12 there was this scale of fraud it would not have been detected by other
13 means potentially. Until a new census was completed.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Fair enough. Be that as it may, the war ended in
15 1995. We are now in 2013, and a lot has happened between 1995 and 2013
16 that would affect population statistics.
17 MR. IVETIC: Agreed.
18 Your Honour, I see, I think we're at the time for the break.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But before we take the break, I would have one
21 Just based on the assumption that these would be reliable
22 figures, where we see for some of the municipalities there seems to be a
23 discrepancy of under 5 per cent, whereas for Banja Luka it seems to be --
24 well, less than -- certainly less than 10 per cent. What if these were
25 reliable figures, would that change the overall picture significantly, or
1 would it be of some importance but of limited importance?
2 THE WITNESS: I don't think it would change the picture
3 fundamentally of the outcomes obtained in my report. This is, after all,
4 no significant differences that I can see here. But I am absolutely -- I
5 wouldn't like to speculate based on figures that are completely, you
6 know, out of the sky. I don't understand the meaning of the figures, you
7 know, and it's very important to understand what the figures are telling
9 And when it comes to population census, the first census after
10 1991, it is a very sensitive issue. It -- it's a very sensitive issue
11 that is taken by many people and census figures are assessed in this
12 context and that context, and I think it is best if we wait until the
13 final census figures are available because a difference of 100 as we see
14 for -- for the municipality of Krupa na Uni, how -- how can we be sure
15 that this will stand? I think in statistics these kind of differences
16 have to be finalised in the first step in order to have a reasonable
17 discussion of discrepancies of this kind.
18 JUDGE ORIE: We'll take a break. May I invite to you follow the
19 usher, and we'd like to see you back in 20 minutes.
20 [The witness stands down]
21 JUDGE ORIE: We resume at quarter to 2.00.
22 --- Recess taken at 1.25 p.m.
23 --- On resuming at 1.48 p.m.
24 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber was informed that there was a
25 preliminary matter to be raised.
1 MS. MARCUS: Yes, thank you, Your Honours.
2 This is regarding scheduling. As we foreshadowed earlier this
3 week, we're going to run into a scheduling problem for this week. It is
4 it clear that Dr. Tabeau's cross-examination will not be finished today.
5 The next witness, Mr. Kalbarczyk, has flown in from Poland. He is ready
6 to testify tomorrow and we've also engaged three Polish interpreters for
7 today and tomorrow. Now, as Dr. Tabeau lives in Netherlands, although
8 she does have several commitments in the coming weeks, it is our hope
9 that she may be available to conclude her examination on the
10 25th of November. That would be Monday of week 54 in which our current
11 witness planning schedule is rather light.
12 So we're requesting of the Chamber either to ask through VWS or
13 ask Dr. Tabeau directly if she would be available to conclude on that
14 day, in which case we would maybe terminate her -- her testimony at the
15 end of today and start with Mr. Kalbarczyk tomorrow morning so that we
16 can conclude his testimony tomorrow.
17 That's the proposal, Your Honours. I have spoken preliminarily
18 with Mr. Ivetic. He says from his perspective he doesn't see a problem,
19 as far as I understand.
20 MR. IVETIC: That's correct, Your Honours. We would not object
21 so long as we are assured that Mr. -- that the next expert, Mr. Brown
22 would not start tomorrow as our colleague is still preparing for that.
23 JUDGE ORIE: That apparently is not planned. We'll therefore ask
24 Dr. Tabeau whether she's available on the 25th of November.
25 Could the witness be escorted in the courtroom.
1 The scheduling problems for Mr. Brown are still unclear or ...
2 MS. MARCUS: As far as I know, Your Honour, the Defence has
3 increased their estimate to eight hours but we have also agreed with the
4 Defence, with Your Honours' leave, that each day would be increased by a
5 half an hour. So, as far as I know, at the moment, we seem to be on
7 [The witness takes the stand]
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And it also appears that -- my question was
9 whether that would be half an hour on every of the four days.
10 MR. IVETIC: I think it would have to be, it would have to be,
11 mathematically speaking, to get the extra two hours that were sought, I
12 think, so --
13 MS. MARCUS: Your Honours --
14 MR. IVETIC: -- I think it's a fair assumption.
15 MS. MARCUS: Sorry. Yes, Your Honours, that was our
16 understanding from Mr. Lukic.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then we'll proceed on that basis.
18 Before we continue, Ms. Tabeau, we have some scheduling problems,
19 and we wonder whether you would be available, because it's foreseen that
20 we would not conclude your testimony and another witness arrives from far
21 away tomorrow and is very limited in his time, whether you would be
22 available to conclude your testimony on the 25th of November. If you
23 want to check that ...
24 THE WITNESS: Hmm. Well, I don't have my agenda with me.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Then we'll --
1 THE WITNESS: I think, if possible, I would like to conclude as
2 soon as possible. Because it makes very difficult for me to come again.
3 It's -- it's -- the job I have, it's very busy and there's a lot of
4 things I have to do. And I will be travelling as well, towards the end
5 of November, so I won't be here in the Netherlands.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
7 Mr. Ivetic, would you oppose direct communication between the
8 Prosecution and Ms. Tabeau on exclusively scheduling issues?
9 MR. IVETIC: I would not.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Then ...
11 [Trial Chamber confers]
12 JUDGE ORIE: Under those circumstances, Ms. Marcus, we would like
13 to -- to hear as soon as possible when it would be possible that
14 Ms. Tabeau would re-appear and, as she expressed, as soon as possible.
15 Mr. Ivetic, please proceed.
16 MR. IVETIC: Thank you, Your Honours.
17 Q. Doctor, I'd like to finish up on this topic before we go further.
18 Generally speaking, statistically speaking, what would the
19 percentage of a settlement, town, village, or city's population that one
20 would expect to find registered to vote on a voters list in
22 A. There are two factors. One factor is the age, of course. It is
23 the age structure of the population of this village and it might vary
24 across the villages and towns. And there is also the participation
25 issue. It is not that everybody eligible to vote is registered to vote
1 and takes part in elections.
2 Q. And so to understand better your comments about -- I think you
3 mentioned Krupa na Una, where you talked about 100 individuals, again,
4 taking into account that these figures are not verified, but if they are
5 verified, would you find it troubling that more than 100 per cent of the
6 population is registered to vote?
7 A. It is not troubling to me. It might be troubling to OSCE, if
8 their procedure is correct. But I want to make clear that whatever you
9 will find here, it has no impact on the results produced for
10 22 municipalities in the Mladic case. It is that I could have had a much
11 smaller sample from the voters' registration than what we used in this
12 analysis and the results would stand, because this is a sample that is
13 enormous that has been used for producing the results for the IDPs and
14 refugees report. For the entire country of Bosnia-Herzegovina all
15 available registrations of voters were used. We are speaking of more
16 than 2 million. This is a huge number. It is not a sample, simply. It
17 is a very large representation of the real population of 1997, 1998.
18 Q. But in your work you've utilised voter registration lists which
19 were also compiled by the OSCE. Are you aware of any changes in the
20 method in which they maintained those lists and added people to those
21 lists that would account for problems with one year but not with prior
23 A. I studied the methodology and the approach very carefully in the
24 context of 1997, 1998 and 2000 elections that were used in my work. For
25 this particular report, it was 1997/1998 elections and the merge of the
1 two registers that was used. So -- and this is where it stops. I was
2 not in the position to follow up on the work in OSCE in the years -- in
3 recent years. It is just not part of what I do. But you -- you are
4 really challenging OSCE as to their methodology and fraud, and I'm sure
5 that the OSCE should be contacted, first of all, to explain these
6 inconsistencies and I'm sure there is an explanation. Unless you are
7 speaking of lists made by political parties and then this is a total
8 separately different issue.
9 Q. Well, perhaps can you assist us. The list that was referenced as
10 the central election commission, based upon your knowledge and research,
11 would that be a list maintained by the political parties or would it be
12 the official list maintained in the central government administered by
13 the OSCE?
14 A. I -- I would agree that that would be a list compiled with the
15 participation of OSCE.
16 Q. Okay. Now I'd like to leave this topic and go first back to --
17 or to 65 ter number 29144, and this is one of your earlier curriculum
18 vitaes. And if we can turn to page 2, I'd like to first focus on your
19 time as a lecturer at the Institute for Statistics and Demography at the
20 Warsaw School of Economics. Can you tell us if that position entailed
21 any significant work experience doing the kinds of studies that you later
22 did for the Tribunal, demographic analysis relating to war zones and
23 populations subjected to an ongoing war?
24 A. I think most certainly did. I was a lecturer in statistics and
25 demography and I taught students of undergraduate courses about
1 statistical methods, including inferential statistics and descriptive
2 statistics, socio-economic statistics. So this part of my career very
3 much relates to the methodologies that I applied here in this Tribunal.
4 Q. And what about war demographics specifically, was that a topic
5 that you lectured on?
6 A. No, I didn't. At that time I had nothing -- no research that
7 would be related to war demographics.
8 Q. I'd like to now move on to your employment at the Netherlands
9 Interdisciplinary Demographic Institute, and I would ask you if that
10 position entailed any significant work experience doing war demographics.
11 A. It didn't in the sense of the work done here at this Tribunal.
12 Yet there were aspects of this work that are very relevant to my work
13 here. I studied mortality trends and patterns and determinants, causes
14 of death, public health issues, and this comes back, you know, when you
15 study war victims. We are talking about causes of death, medical
16 histories of -- of certain diseases as compared to violent deaths. So
17 the general broader framework, I think, of my work at NIDI is very
18 relevant to the work in this Tribunal.
19 Q. Prior to becoming employed at the Office of the Prosecutor of the
20 ICTY, had you authored any peer-reviewed articles on the topics that you
21 have identified as war demographics?
22 A. Not -- not prior to the work at this Tribunal. There were other
24 Q. Now, I think it's on the same page, you mentioned some research
25 consultancies for some NGOs in Zagreb, Belgrade and Sarajevo. Was that
1 work at the direction of your employer and within the course of your
2 employment with the Office of the Prosecutor, or were you acting in a
3 separate personal professional capacity in those instances?
4 A. Where is this on my CV if I may -- if you can take me there?
5 Q. Yes. If I can ... it might be on the first page. If we go back
6 to the first page. You see under "International Research Experience" you
7 have research consultancies and then you have some NGOs listed there from
8 Zagreb --
9 A. Yes, yes.
10 Q. -- the Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in Belgrade, and the
11 Research and Documentation Centre in Sarajevo. In relation to those,
12 were you acting within the source of your employment with the Office of
13 the Prosecutor and at their direction, or were you acting in a separate
14 personal professional capacity in those instances?
15 A. It was during the time I was employed here at the ICTY in the
16 Prosecutor's office and I didn't act in any way in the name of the
17 office. I was acting in my individual professional capacity.
18 Q. Okay. Were you compensated or funded for that work, and if so,
19 by whom?
20 A. I was never compensated for this work. I -- I never was paid any
21 money for this.
22 Q. Okay. Thank you. Now if we could return to page 2. Under the
23 category of "Scholarships, grants and prizes," you have identified
24 17 expert testimonies in the UN ICTY trials. Did you, in fact, receive
25 some kind of award, grant or scholarship to appear as an expert witness
1 in these cases, or if not, could you explain for us what you mean by
2 placing them under this category of your curriculum vitae?
3 A. You are right, I have never received any prizes, any scholarships
4 or grants in relation to my testimonies. But I consider it a very
5 honourable function and I had the opportunity to act on behalf of -- of
6 the work, actually, that was done, for the OTP in this capacity. This is
7 why I mentioned it here.
8 Q. Now, for purposes of the work that was done and the reports that
9 were generated, I think it's clear to everyone you had to have a team.
10 You had to have assistants helping you. In relation to those assistants
11 that assisted you, could you identify for us what field of study or
12 degrees these assistants had at the time that they were performing the
13 work with you?
14 A. I worked with young professionals, I would put it this way. We
15 are speaking of persons such as Torkild Lyngstad, Jakub Bijak. We are
16 talking of Marcin Zoltkowski. We are talking of Jan Zwierzchowski. All
17 of them had very good educational background in quantitative methods and
18 degrees, at that time not yet Ph.D.'s but some of them had masters
19 degrees in their areas, but in the course of time, they all obtained
20 Ph.D.'s. And now Torkild Lyngstad works in Norway as a lecturer at the
21 University of Oslo. Jakub Bijak is a lecturer in the Southampton
22 University in demography. Further, Marcin Zoltkowski has a Ph.D. in
23 mathematics and in economics, and he works at a top position in the
24 banking system in Poland. And finally, Jan Zwierzchowski has a Ph.D. in
25 economics, field statistics and demography, and works as a lecturer at
1 the Economic University of Warsaw. I think these were highly skilled
2 young professionals and very talented, all of them, extremely talented
3 people, and thanks to this combination, talent and skill and the
4 motivation of all of us, this work could be done.
5 Q. And could you tell us what methodology you employed to perform --
6 to maintain oversight over the other persons working with you. That is,
7 did use consistency checks, random checks, or whatever method you used to
8 mandate contain oversight over and check their work?
9 A. We were work together. I was just part of the team, so whatever
10 we were doing, the matching, discussing the result, sorting out
11 inconsistencies, it was a team job. I was part of job, I was doing this
12 work, and through doing, I was maintaining my team. And, of course,
13 there were checks, constant checks of the results obtained at every stage
14 of their analysis and data work. Perhaps my role was more being involved
15 in collecting of sources. It was predominantly me who was thinking of
16 strategic issues, what sources were needed for this work, making
17 missions, talking to those who developed the sources. I was also
18 responsible for the methodological issues, and mostly it was me who have
19 done all the analysis. I'm not saying exclusively me because it wouldn't
20 be true. They contributed greatly, all of them, to the stage of analysis
21 as well. But it was mostly me who did the analysis and who wrote the
23 Q. Now, in relation to the methodology, I'd like to take a look at
24 something from one of your prior testimonies.
25 MR. IVETIC: If we can have 1D1437, page 36 in e-court and this
1 ought to be the Prlic case at transcript page 21.926.
2 Q. And I'd like to focus on the questions and answers at lines 4
3 through 22:
4 "Q. Very well. Were the methods that you used and Brunborg
5 used, were those methods used by other demographers prior to your
6 employment with the OTP and prior to his employment with the OTP?
7 "A. Well, the methods we use are not new and non-standard.
8 There is one statistic and there are statistical methods. The context of
9 the method are used is new. I think it is for the first time that these
10 kind of studies were made as the ones by Brunborg and myself, but also
11 Patrick Ball made many reports of this kind in the context of other
12 conflicts. It is not only the ICTY where these kind of studies that are
14 "Q. But the method you used, the methodology, the way that you
15 took certain sources, the way that you cleaned up the sources, if I can
16 use that term, the way you applied the sources thereafter, the matching
17 or grafting, whatever you want to call it, that methodology, was that
18 used with other conflicts, in other courtrooms, in order to come up with
19 some figure the way you folks have?
20 "A. Well, I wouldn't think of other courtrooms but there were
21 certainly reports made for truth commissions. Patrick Ball has made
22 several these kind of reports [sic] using the same methodology."
23 Dr. Tabeau, do you stand by and affirm this section of the
24 testimony from the prior proceeding as being accurate and truthful, such
25 that you would so testify today?
1 A. Yes, of course. I could perhaps add a few things, but I -- I
2 still stand with it, yeah.
3 Q. Now, in relation to Mr. Patrick Ball, you have worked with him
4 and indeed co-authored some articles with him; is that correct?
5 A. Yes, we authored one report, actually, together, a report that
6 actually relates to the victims of the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
7 Q. Did Mr. Ball's work in the field pre-date your own? That is to
8 say, do you base his work on his or did you just work parallelly at the
9 same time?
10 A. I would say we worked parallel.
11 Q. Now, in relation to Mr. Ball, do you consider that the type of
12 work that he is doing in the field of demography and human rights is
13 closely analogous to your own?
14 A. In some sense it is but the focus of his work is not necessarily
15 exactly as it was of the work I did. Patrick is very much interested
16 in -- in modelling, statistical modelling, so lots of his work relates to
17 statistical estimation of victims.
18 Q. I'd like to highlight for you specifically what I mean and then
19 ask the same question again.
20 MR. IVETIC: If we can call up 1D1432 in e-court. And if we can
21 zoom in. This is an article about hacktivism of which apparently
22 Mr. Ball is a proponent. If we could perhaps zoom in a little more on
23 the text. We only need the first four or so paragraphs.
24 And I would like to --
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, could you repeat. This is an article of
2 MR. IVETIC: And I apologise, it's an article about hacktivism
3 from, I believe, PCWorld magazine. If we scroll down to the bottom it
4 should have the source of the --
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ball is a proponent of hacktivism? Is that --
6 MR. IVETIC: According to this article, that's correct. He is
7 listed -- he's interviewed in it. And that's where I was going to go to
8 his description of the work he does to see what Ms. Tabeau can add to our
9 discussion of it.
10 If I can -- I guess to be fair I'll start at the beginning:
11 "Las Vegas: Hacktivism means hacking for a political cause or
12 statement. To many executives and security personnel, the word conjures
13 unsavoury images, tattooed and pierced activists hunched over PCs, acting
14 out against web sites or servers.
15 "But hacktivism need not follow that deprecatory script, says
16 members of the hacker group Cult of the Dead Cow, CDC, and human rights
17 activists in a panel discussion held at the Def Con hacker convention
18 here Saturday.
19 "'Hacking is finding things out, discovery ... of hidden, obscure
20 and important information,' says Patrick Ball, the deputy director of the
21 science and human rights programme at the American Association for the
22 Advancement of Science in Washington DC, who spoke in the event.
23 "Hacking to help others: Hacktivism is using technology in the
24 service of human rights, Ball says. He has worked on United Nations
25 human rights projects investigating war crimes and genocide as well on
1 projects in Guatemala, Haiti and South Africa. Hacktivism isn't any sort
2 of cyber terrorism, says CDC member and panelist Reid Fleming. Instead,
3 the panelists agree hacktivism is part of a balanced, disciplined
4 programme to use data and technology to improve human rights. Ball, a
5 participant in many such programmes, detailed his experiences using
6 technology to gather and document cases of human rights abuses. Simply
7 gathering and documents isn't enough. Without a sufficient amount of
8 data, oppressive governments can still deny that any systematic campaigns
9 were underway, he says: 'If you want to say something has happened as a
10 result of policy, you need an awful lot of data,' he says, adding that
11 proving such policies are at work in violating human rights is the only
12 way to indict people or remove them from power."
13 Now, madam, were you aware of Mr. Ball's position and his efforts
14 in activism or, rather hacktivism using demography to effectuate change,
15 indict people or remove them from power?
16 A. Well, I am not that much of a friend of Mr. Ball to know these
17 kind of things about him. But I think you presented hacktivism in a very
18 negative sense. Yet, let me tell you, about two years ago I participated
19 in a conferences organised by a very serious British NGO working on human
20 rights. And there was a wonderful presentation at this conference of
21 somebody who was speaking about hack -- how young talented hackers can
22 serve the good cause of even counting victims of war and identifying
23 incidents that happened in a conflict. And he was speaking about social
24 media and he was speaking of a project his organisation conducted at the
25 request of the United Nations. This hacktivism you called very
1 negatively through this article is actually a fantastic way of collecting
2 information that is generally unavailable, especially in conflicts that
3 are ongoing, where things are happening extremely quickly and there is no
4 coverage of what is happening by regular statistical sources or
5 governmental -- other governmental sources.
6 The social media and the talent of people who can process these
7 massive amounts of information can contribute greatly to improving the
8 knowledge of the conflict itself of what happened, where happened, how
9 happened, who became a victim of what happened. Well, I -- I don't want
10 to go more into this detail, but this is where we ended. Social media is
11 an important tool in collecting information about conflicts and victims
12 of war, and people with skills are highly valued in -- in these
14 Q. If can I have --
15 JUDGE ORIE: It's time for a break.
16 I'm a bit puzzled by both questions and your answer. Hacktivism,
17 I understood to be that you are illegally intruding into another
18 electronic similar, whereas you were -- your answer was focussed not on
19 something which I understood to be a reference to any illegality. So,
20 therefore, there seems to be a bit of a difference between question and
22 And, Mr. Ivetic, you earlier said -- you asked a question:
23 "Now, in relation to Mr. Ball, do you consider that the type of
24 work that he is doing in the field of demography and human rights is
25 closely analogous to your own?"
1 When the witness said then some terms it is and sometimes -- in
2 some terms it's not. Then your next question was:
3 "I'd like to highlight for you specifically what I mean."
4 If you would have been fair to the witness in the first question,
5 you would have already stated clearly what you meant, that is, and that's
6 at least what seems to be in the context of the two questions the case,
7 that by putting a very general question you would more or less elicit an
8 answer and then say, to say it bluntly: So you're a hacktivist yourself.
9 MR. IVETIC: No, Your Honours [overlapping speakers] --
10 JUDGE ORIE: Well, at least that's how --
11 MR. IVETIC: If you read my question, I said: Then I'll ask you
12 the same question again. So I think as that's a very fair question.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Therefore, I said in the first question it should
14 have been clear already what you meant, that is, to link this witness to
15 hacktivist activities. That's at least how I understood it. And that
16 should have been clear in your question.
17 Ms. Tabeau, we'll finish for the day. Again, I can't say when we
18 expect you back, but all your communications with the Prosecution should
19 be limited to scheduling issues, nothing else, because you are hereby
20 instructed that you should not communicate with whomever, in whatever
21 way, about your testimony, either given today or still to be given upon
22 your return.
23 You may follow the usher.
24 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
25 [The witness stands down]
1 JUDGE ORIE: We adjourn for the day, and we will resume tomorrow,
2 Thursday, the 14th of November, in this same courtroom, III, at 9.30 in
3 the morning.
4 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.22 p.m.,
5 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 14th day of
6 November, 2013, at 9.30 a.m.