1 Monday, 18 November 2013
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.36 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone.
6 Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours.
8 This is the case IT-09-92-T, the Prosecutor versus Ratko Mladic.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
10 The Chamber was informed that both parties had preliminary --
11 Prosecution wants to raise, I think, three preliminary matters.
12 MS. MARCUS: Yes, good morning, Your Honours. Thank you very
14 The first matter relates to Exhibit D316. There was a problem
15 with the English translation, and now we'd inform the Chamber that we
16 have uploaded the correct English translation as doc ID 0320-2965-ET-1.
17 [Prosecution counsel confer]
18 JUDGE ORIE: Then Madam Registrar is instructed to replace the
19 current translation for D316 with the new uploaded one bearing doc
20 ID number 0320-2965-ET-1.
21 MS. MARCUS: Thank you, Your Honours.
22 Secondly, pursuant to the Trial Chamber's decision on the
23 Prosecution motion to admit evidence from the bar table relating to the
24 Foca municipality dated 14 November 2013, at paragraph 17, the
25 Prosecution advises that the redaction of the English translation has
1 been fixed.
2 [Prosecution counsel confer]
3 MS. MARCUS: That document is 65 ter 08429A.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, if I remember well, it was a condition for
5 admission, if I --
6 MS. MARCUS: That's correct, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then it's hereby on the record that the
8 condition has been fulfilled. Unless there's any -- I take it that the
9 Defence will have a look at it and can revisit the matter within the next
10 48 hours if there's anything to -- to -- to raise about this.
11 Please proceed, Ms. Marcus.
12 MS. MARCUS: Thank you, Your Honour.
13 I would finally like to inform the Chamber of the following:
14 In examining the materials the Defence intends to put to the
15 witness, Dr. Tabeau, we conducted some additional searches. We
16 identified a document which provides some potential additional
17 information regarding six of the victims analysed in Dr. Tabeau's POD
18 project. The document was disclosed to the Defence originally in batch 4
19 as Rule 68(ii), and upon our discovery of the document on Friday on that
20 same day we disclosed it again as Rule 68(i), in relation to Dr. Tabeau.
21 Although the document is not final in its conclusions regarding thighs
22 six victims, the document does raise the possibility that there may be
23 additional information possessed by ICMP which may impact upon the
24 results obtained by Dr. Tabeau in her analysis in relation to those six.
25 The Prosecution, therefore, would like to inform the Chamber and
1 the Defence that we are planning to send a request to the ICMP asking
2 them, as a matter of urgency, to provide us with any documentation they
3 may have in relation to these six victims. Thereafter --
4 THE INTERPRETER: Kindly slow down for the interpreters, please.
5 Thank you very much.
6 MS. MARCUS: Apologies. Thereafter, the Prosecution will ask
7 Dr. Tabeau to re-analyse these six victims if there was anything in the
8 ICMP response that impacts upon the victims.
9 In any case, we will keep the Chamber and the Defence fully
10 informed. If the material does result in any amendment to the analysis,
11 we will inform the Chamber and seek to tender that additional analysis or
12 file it as a written submission as the Chamber prefers.
13 Thank you, Your Honours.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Is there any submission at this moment about that?
15 Because, Ms. Marcus, it would not come as a great surprise if the Defence
16 would come with untimely adding materials and untimely further
17 investigations. So if you say, What the Chamber prefers, as far as
18 tendering is concerned, the Chamber might first want to hear the Defence
19 on the matter. Not necessarily immediately, but ...
20 MR. IVETIC: I can confirm that we did receive, I believe on
21 Friday or Saturday, the document in question and I have glanced at it. I
22 do not know -- I have not been able to check to see whether it was in
23 batch 4 or not so I have nothing that I can say in that regard at
25 JUDGE ORIE: Of course, the Prosecution is free to proceed as it
1 wishes, and if it has any results to present them in court and then we'll
2 find out what will happen with those results. Apart from that, the
3 Chamber has no idea, of course, what the document is about, whether it's
4 a 200-page complex document or a one-page simple document.
5 This being on the record, I think nothing prevents us from
6 continuing to hear the testimony of Ms. Tabeau in cross-examination.
7 Could the witness be escorted in the courtroom.
8 [The witness takes the stand]
9 THE WITNESS: Good morning.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning, Ms. Tabeau.
11 Before we continue, I'd like to remind that you that you're still
12 bound by the solemn declaration you've given at the beginning of your
14 WITNESS: EWA TABEAU [Resumed]
15 JUDGE ORIE: And Mr. Ivetic will now continue his
17 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic.
19 MR. IVETIC: Thank you, Your Honours.
20 Cross-examination by Mr. Ivetic: [Continued]
21 Q. Good morning, Dr. Tabeau.
22 A. Good morning.
23 Q. Last week we left off talking about Dr. Patrick Ball and
24 hacktivism, and I'd like to just raise with you the issue noted by Judge
25 Orie last week and ask you to explain to us if your view of hacktivism
1 which you were talking about included the aspect of illegal hacking to
2 promote a social cause which was the subject of the -- or was implied in
3 the article relating to Dr. Ball.
4 A. Well, as I said, I gave you an example of what my understanding
5 is of this so-called hacking process. In my understanding, and I spoke
6 about it with Patrick Ball, it is more about streaming the energy of this
7 young talented people into processes that are positive and beneficial to
8 the society instead of illegal hacking into governmental systems and
9 acquiring illegally information that is not meant for public use. So,
10 once again, young people with skills can use their energy to -- for
11 processes that can be good for the society. And that is my understanding
12 of the hacking idea that Patrick Ball addressed to me at that time.
13 Q. Can I say that you spoke with Patrick Ball and that he addressed
14 the idea to you. Would that have been before the drafting of the reports
15 in this case?
16 JUDGE ORIE: Could you explain what idea exactly you're referring
17 to, Mr. Ivetic.
18 MR. IVETIC:
19 Q. Page 5, line 8, where she said: It is my understanding of the
20 hacking idea that Patrick Ball addressed to me at that time.
21 My question is in relation to that. At what time was that? Was
22 it before the drafting of the reports in this case.
23 A. As I was in touch with Patrick Ball on the occasion of writing a
24 report acquired -- authored from us in relation to the Mirsad Tokaca
25 database on the victims of the war in Bosnia. It was many years ago. I
1 don't recall exactly the date but long before I was working on this case.
2 Q. Okay. Do you believe that it is appropriate for demographic
3 practitioner to make value judgements or advocate a particular legal or
4 political position in their demographic reports, or do you believe that
5 such demographic reports need to be clinical and scientific in nature,
6 just presenting the facts and not advocating a position?
7 A. I -- I think there are many different types of demographic
8 reports and there is a need to make a distinction for -- between the
9 reports that are made for use in the courts of law from reports that are
10 meant for other purposes, scientific articles, yeah, articles by
11 demographers in normal media, in the press. I think it is important to
12 separate yourself as a demographer from any speculation and unjustified
13 views in reports that are made for court, and, generally, it is important
14 not to speculate but base your work and articles, reports on -- on good
15 reasons, on a good foundation.
16 MR. IVETIC: If we can turn to 1D1437 in e-court, and page 37 of
17 the same. This will correlate to transcript page 21927 of the Prlic
19 Q. And if we can focus on lines 16 and forward, I'd like to ask you
20 to follow along as I read into the record the testimony at that time:
21 "Q. Very well. Then tell me: In the field of demography, what
22 is the definition of siege?
23 "A. There is no definition of siege within the field of
24 demography and --
25 "Q. What about ethnic cleansing? What is the definition of
1 ethnic cleansing within the field of demography as applied by your
3 "A. Well, I don't think there is a definition of ethnic
4 cleansing in demography.
5 "Q. Whose idea was it, ma'am, to use the term 'internally
6 displaced persons' or 'refugees' as you have done in your report to
7 identify," if we can go to the next page, "people who moved within the
8 country or moved outside the country, irrespective -- irrespective of the
9 reasons? Whose idea was it?
10 "A. Whose idea was it?
11 "Q. Yes.
12 "A. We just used the term in order to make it clear that we are
13 trying to statistically measure the displacement and we believe that is
14 the best term to resemble this idea. Well, I wouldn't be able to tell
15 you who figured out that this term should be used. We have been using
16 this term since the very beginning of this project."
17 Is this testimony accurate and truthful, so that you would
18 testify the same way today.
19 A. Yes, I would.
20 Q. Okay. Now, the current versions of your reports, do they --
21 they -- they use words like "massacre," "atrocity," "victimisation."
22 Could you consider that those are appropriate words to use in a
23 demographic report?
24 A. Well, in this transcript, you just read, there is no use of
25 words like "massacre," "atrocity," "victimisation." It is the term
1 internally displaced persons and refugees that were used. So this is one
2 thing and I confirm I would use these terms again today.
3 Q. I understand that, madam and I have moved on to another question
4 asking you about you about the terms "massacre," "atrocity,"
5 "victimisation." And I asked are those appropriate words to use in a
6 demographic report.
7 A. If you can give me, again, explanation what are you talking
8 about, I can take a position on this.
9 Q. I'm using the terms "massacre," "atrocity," and
10 "victimisation" --
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, it's clear that Ms. Tabeau seeks context
12 for the question in relation to her work, and I think it's fair to
13 provide it to her. So apart from starting with the -- let's -- let's get
14 to concrete moments where she -- as you suggest, she used those terms so
15 that she can express herself on it.
16 MR. IVETIC: Well, if we can look at 65 ter 11269.
17 MS. MARCUS: That's P1900, Your Honour, just to assist.
18 MR. IVETIC: Thank you. If we can turn to page 14 of the same.
19 The second-to-last paragraph uses the term "massacre."
20 Q. So let's take them one by one. Do you believe that the use of
21 the term "massacre" in a demographic report is appropriate?
22 A. Yes. The word of "massacre" is used in the second-last
23 paragraph. It is used in the 2009 Srebrenica report. That is related
24 to about 8.000 individuals who went missing during the fall of Srebrenica
25 and subsequently a large number of them were exhumed from mass and other
1 graves in the territory of Srebrenica and neighbouring municipalities.
2 And subsequently a large number of them were identified through DNA
3 analysis, and in this way the circle closed.
4 I think this is very good reason, in my eyes, to call Srebrenica
5 and victims of the fall of Srebrenica a massacre.
6 Q. My question was: In a demography sense do you think it is
7 professionally appropriate to use the term "massacre" in a demographic
9 A. There is it no demography sense in general. We can talk about a
10 report like Srebrenica report, about victims of the fall of Srebrenica,
11 and in this context, this term is used very appropriately.
12 Q. If we can turn to page 22. The heading of the section 2.5, is
13 entitled: "The scale of victimisation of the fall of Srebrenica."
14 And that word "victimisation" is used again on page 23, the following
15 page. Do you believe it is appropriate in a demographic report to use
16 terminology like "victimisation"?
17 A. In this particular demographic report it is used very
18 appropriately. It -- again, because the report itself is about the
19 victims of the fall of Srebrenica, large number of individuals that were
20 confirmed to be killed in a violent way and their bodies were exhumed
21 from mass and other graves in the territory of Srebrenica and surrounding
22 municipalities. And, again, identified through DNA analysis, et cetera,
23 et cetera.
24 So we are speaking of the same report, of the same situation, and
25 it is fully justified to speak about the scale of victimisation in this
1 particular case.
2 Q. If we can turn to page 24. At the top, the first paragraph
3 underneath the first table uses the term "atrocities." Same question:
4 Do you consider it appropriate in a demographic study to use the term
6 A. And the same answer. It is, again, the same report, the same
7 situation. We are dealing with missing persons, exhumation materials
8 related to their death. A lot of other evidence exists that describes
9 what happened. So I think it is, again, the same answer: It's
10 appropriate to use this term.
11 Q. Now, is it correct, ma'am, that the use of these terms by your
12 office was the result of hearing those words in the media and wanting to
13 reflect what was in the media?
14 A. No, it is not true, of course. I haven't used -- we haven't
15 used any media reports to make our Srebrenica reports. We based our
16 analysis on sources like missing persons records, DNA identification
17 reports, exhumation records. I wouldn't call any of these sources a
18 media report.
19 Q. What about for prior cases, did you use media reports to come up
20 with terminology to be used in your reports?
21 A. As far as I recall, I never used media reports as a source for
22 any demographic report related to victims of the war.
23 Q. Okay. We'll get back to that.
24 Let's turn to the tasking by the Prosecution and the methodology
25 that you employed.
1 MR. IVETIC: If we can have 1D1440 in e-court.
2 Q. And this will be the transcript of your testimony from the
3 Zupljanin and Stanisic case, and it will be at page 19 that we need to
4 go, which will be transcript page 15513 of that underlying case. If we
5 could zoom on the line 9 and following:
6 "Q. What type of demographics do you deal with? What is your
7 speciality, so to speak?
8 "A. Before I answer this question, please, sir, I would like to
9 draw your attention to Annex B2 of the addendum. The title of this annex
10 is 'Comparison of the Stanisic and Zupljanin case area with
11 Bosnia and Herzegovina.' Here, can you find the contextual statistics
12 for Bosnia in this section.
13 "Now, going back to the field of demographics I deal with, I deal
14 with general demography, I think, and in particular, I was specialised
15 years long in the study of mortality in developed countries, mostly
16 countries of Western Europe, Central Europe, and some East European
17 countries, and I studied life expectancy. So it is mortality, generally
19 "Now, the experience from the ten last years from this Tribunal
20 it would be most certainly war demography. This is a new area in
21 demography which is quite different from classical demography of western
22 counties or classical demography of another type. But that would be the
23 two," if you could go to the next page, I believe "areas, the study of
24 mortality in developed countries on one hand, and, in addition to this,
25 demography of war.
1 "I think there's a correction needed in the transcript, last
2 line. It was 'demography of war' I said in the end. This is page 19,
3 row 14. Demography of war. Thank you.
4 "Q. And you have worked on war demographics ever since your
5 collaboration with the OTP began. Sorry, I apologise. You deal with war
6 mortality issues since you began working with the OTP.
7 "A. Not only war mortality. If you look at what I have done
8 here in this Tribunal, there is a study of population displacement,
9 internal and external, a lot of reports on that. There would be these
10 two subjects. War mortality and forced migration, I would call it,
11 internal and external."
12 Do you stand by this testimony as being truthful and accurate,
13 such that you would testify the same way if asked these questions today?
14 A. Yes, I do.
15 Q. Now, this discussion raises a topic I'd like to discuss with you,
16 mortality studies, or I think they're also called morbidity studies.
17 Would you agree with me this aspect of your field involves determining
18 mortality statistics to estimate the average number of persons that
19 would become deceased in a year due to a variety of causes including
20 natural death, illness, traffic accidents, suicides, as well as murders,
21 et cetera?
22 A. Yes, generally I agree.
23 Q. Now I'd like to ask you: Such studies and statistical figures
24 are performed by people in the same field as you for every country and
25 every time-period such that they would be available for other
1 demographers or statisticians to utilise; am I correct?
2 A. Yes, among other things, yes.
3 Q. Such mortality figures would vary from country to country, region
4 to region, based on the unique factors in that area which affect such
5 things, size of population, environmental factors, health care
6 availability, things like that; is that also accurate?
7 A. Yes, among other things, yes.
8 Q. And in relations to the reports that you were asked to prepare in
9 this case by the Office of the Prosecutor did you utilise any of the
10 standardised and known mortality figures and statistics for either the
11 Balkans or for Bosnia-Herzegovina? Did you incorporate the same into
12 your studies to account for numbers of persons that would normally be
13 expected to become deceased even if nothing else was going on?
14 A. Actually I did. In one of the Sarajevo reports I made a
15 reference to observe mortality rates for the Sarajevo area in certain
17 Well, it is not, first of all, always necessary to make such
18 comparisons and sometimes it simply doesn't make sense to -- to compare
19 natural mortality with war mortality.
20 Q. Well, what about your report on the population changes in the --
21 in 22 municipalities. Do you think that mortality studies would have had
22 a role relevant to that study?
23 A. What role? What do you mean? What kind of role that mortality
24 could play in estimating population movements?
25 Q. Do you think that mortality statistics have a role when you're
1 reporting upon population changes in a particular area?
2 A. Well, sir, these reports, IDP's report -- IDP's and refugee
3 report for the Mladic case area had a subject of estimating the minimum
4 numbers of IDPs and refugees and these numbers were produced. So in this
5 particular report, no rates were presented of migration. If I would be
6 estimating rates then I would be thinking of all contributing factors to
7 the estimation of the rates. But it was not the subject of this report.
8 Q. Okay. What about in the Srebrenica reports? Were there
9 mortality rates or statistics used in the preparation of those reports
10 and those opinions?
11 A. As you might recall, there is a section in the integrated report
12 of 2009 where certain relative measures are presented, these are the
13 ratios, mortality ratios, not the rate, but ratios that have been
14 estimated and are discussed. So also in the Srebrenica report, there is
15 a short discussion of the relative measures.
16 Q. Would you agree that for traditional demographic studies there is
17 a well defined methodology to estimate the sampling variance of the
18 proportions involved so as to arrive at a margin of error?
19 A. Yes, it is. But, first of all, I don't understand why are you
20 insist on comparing traditional studies with war demographics studies.
21 That is one thing as we agreed, and I said in the other case, and it is
22 on the transcript that war demography is not necessarily the same area
23 of -- as the classical demography is, that is one thing; and, of course,
24 we can always calculate variance for rates and probabilities that are
25 being produced. But why we would do that for Srebrenica? I'm asking.
1 What kind of variability you want to discuss? It is the ratios that are
2 calculated for the actual observed persons who went missing from
3 Srebrenica. So it is a measure that expresses the very fact of going
4 missing in terms of relative value and no more than that. It -- we are
5 not talking of a sample of Srebrenica victims, as a matter of fact. We
6 made an effort to count them all, and we have been doing this for a very
7 long time, for more than ten years, in order to count them all and the
8 ratios calculated in the Srebrenica are presented for the counts of
9 missing persons that are almost complete. These are very good counts.
10 These are --
11 JUDGE ORIE: Before you continue, it seems that the basic
12 disagreement or misunderstanding seems to be that demographic reports
13 based on samples and then to draw conclusions from samples for the
14 totality is something that was not at all used in your reports.
15 Mr. Ivetic, if you could either explain to the Chamber or make
16 clear in questions, follow-up questions, why you think that sampling is
17 relevant where Ms. Tabeau tells us and it's clear from her reports that
18 no sampling at all was done, then the Chamber would appreciate that.
19 THE WITNESS: If I may add, Your Honour.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
21 THE WITNESS: Sampling methods were used in the IDPs and refugees
22 report when next to the minimum number of IDPs and refugees also an
23 estimated number is presented, the more complete estimated number of the
24 IDPs and refugees. And in this case, of course, there is the variance
25 analysis included in the form of presenting confidence intervals for
1 these counts. So --
2 JUDGE ORIE: But, if I understand the reports well their sampling
3 is based on a totally different basis than what you usually, I would
4 say, in the normal demographic reports that you find a kind of sample
5 which suits your methods best, whereas here it was more or less -- more
6 or less imposed by the circumstances.
7 THE WITNESS: Absolutely right. It was not random sampling --
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
9 THE WITNESS: -- picking up a sample according to certain
10 procedures. The purpose has always been in every report to produce the
11 count, the counts and not work with sample data.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please proceed, Mr. Ivetic.
13 MR. IVETIC: Thank you.
14 Q. In relation to the sources that are used in any demography study,
15 would you agree that the quality of the outcome depends on the quality of
16 the sources?
17 A. Of course, quality of the sources is very important.
18 Q. Okay. The methodology which you used for purposes of your
19 various reports am I correct that it is, in part, based on a concept in
20 demography called exploitation of links?
21 A. Yes. We used linkage of records as the foundation for the
23 Q. And when I used the term "exploitation of links," I mean when I
24 want to take a census from one year and then compare it with the census
25 of another year, or if I want to take the census for one municipality and
1 compare it to another municipality, if there is more than one link with
2 more than one source of information, I have to uses a precise key to do
3 this. When I need an exploitation of links it is because of multiple
4 links due to the quality of information and that means that I'm not using
5 a single key and constantly shifting this exploitation and these links.
6 Do you agree with -- is that the -- in essence the meaning behind
7 "exploitation of links" in a demography sense?
8 A. I'm sorry, but I cannot agree with what you said.
9 Q. Okay.
10 A. Linking is a simple thing, just, you know, comparing related
11 records into sources and deciding whether the similarity of these two
12 compared records is good enough to declare them representing one the same
14 Q. Would you agree with the statement that as a demographer you
15 cannot reliably exploit more than one link in a single source of
17 A. Well, if there is a single source of information, we don't talk
18 about linkage of records because there is no other source with which this
19 source could be linked.
20 Q. Would you agree that as one needs the exploitation of multiple
21 links due to the quality of the information that is essentially when you
22 need many different keys or criteria to successfully match or compare two
23 sets of data?
24 A. Well, again, I don't know exactly what you are talking. Perhaps
25 you are referring to the criteria of linking. Well, one can do it based
1 on a single numerical characteristic like record ID, if this
2 characteristic is the same in two compared records. One can do it also
3 based on other criteria like descriptive items included in the record,
4 like names, date of birth, other characteristics. So it is still linking
5 records, two records in two related sources of information but just based
6 on different criteria.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, the answer is again and again that
8 Ms. Tabeau is guessing what you are meaning with very abstract questions.
9 And that, therefore, she has some difficulties in answering them.
10 Why not be concrete and say, You used this system here, that and
11 that and that, would it not have been appropriate to use a different
12 method there because this one is flawed for that and that reason, then we
13 know what are you talking about, apart from very abstract statements
14 about methodology.
15 MR. IVETIC: Well, Your Honours, in application of expertise, one
16 had to go to the abstract and the study itself and to see what types of
17 concepts are common amongst other professionals in that same field of
18 study, and that's what I'm trying to do. And I'm using terminology that
19 I believe is very precise in that field of study.
20 JUDGE ORIE: But then, at a certain moment you have to link it to
21 the evidence which is before this Chamber. I mean, disagreed about
22 methods used or not used is not the core issue of this case. The core
23 issue of this case is the way in which the report was drafted, on what
24 basis it was drafted, what method it uses, and then, finally, we have to
25 come to the report, not to remain in the abstract area.
1 Please proceed.
2 MR. IVETIC:
3 Q. Let's use your term for it, "criteria." Would you agree that
4 with an increase in the number of criteria needed to identify a match,
5 the confidence rating or factor of the data you receive would be lowered?
6 A. I don't understand your question. So if you could re-phrase,
8 Q. Let me re-phrase it in another way. Are you familiar with the
9 concept of statistical overview?
10 A. What does it mean to you the statistical overview? There are
11 many overviews, statistical overviews, that one can make.
12 Q. I'm using the term "statistical overview" in the sense of when
13 using such a large number of criteria it would be appropriate to give a
14 statistical overview as to how many cases you linked using one criteria,
15 how many cases you linked varying two characteristics, and so on and so
17 A. I don't know what is this large number of criteria you are
18 referring to? If you could give it to me. I don't understand what you
20 Q. The criteria -- I used keys, [overlapping speakers]
21 A. Large number [overlapping speakers]
22 Q. -- you used criteria. Were over 70 criteria used in the
23 Srebrenica report?
24 A. Oh, these. Yeah. Well, this is -- now I finally got what you
25 are asking about. The criteria, 70 criteria to use too much the records
1 of Srebrenica victims with the census; right?
2 Q. Correct.
3 A. That is what you referring to. Yes. In this context you would
4 like to know whether the fact that we used that main criteria has lowered
5 or improved the quality of matching; right? Is that so?
6 Q. My question was: First of all, would you agree that with the
7 increase in the number of criteria necessary for a match whether the
8 confidence rating or confidence factor in that particular conclusion is
10 A. Well, I -- I would disagree with you. It is, I think, a
11 misperception of how the criteria were used in the process of matching.
12 If -- if there is no numerical record ID in every source match, then one
13 has to turn to use descriptive data items in the matching process.
14 Indeed, I at some point presented a list of the criteria used based on
15 this descriptive items, but it doesn't mean that all these criteria had
16 to be applied, all the 70 or 90 or whatever, in order to get a match.
17 So this is a list that gives ideas about what kind of requirement
18 were requested by those who were doing the matching, in order to declare
19 a true match. For instance, if first name, surname, father's name and
20 the date of birth were identical in two records matched, then a number of
21 records were taken as confirmed and matched and declared as true matches.
22 However, this number didn't comprise all the records that could
23 and should be matched. So in the next step, we move to another
24 criterion. We had to allow for the differences in the spellings of
25 names. Instead of comparing full names, first name, father's name,
1 surname, one can require that 75 per cent of the characters in the first
2 name, surname, father's name are consistently the same, between the two
3 records compared, plus the date of birth. That means that we allow for
4 25 per cent of spelling differences in the names.
5 So, after the first criterion, based on complete names, one moves
6 to the next criterion, based on 75 per cent of characters the same in
7 two compared records. And there will be a small group of records that
8 could be found identified as the same and declared true matches.
9 However, there are also mistakes in the dates of birth. So in
10 the next step, one would allow as well for differences in reporting the
11 date of birth and say that the year must be the same but the month can be
12 slightly different. Plus minus one, two, year, for instance. So --
13 Q. I'm going to interrupt you there. Was it plus or minus five
14 years your standard?
15 A. No, not standard. There were different queries, with different
16 restrictions related or conditions related to the year of birth. In some
17 cases you are absolutely right. Even a five-year difference was allowed.
18 That is very correct. And this is because the reporting of dates is very
19 bad in sources that are not based on documents like identification cards
20 from which the actual accurate date can be taken for reporting.
21 So this list of 70 criteria is a list of subsequent steps that
22 are taken in the matching process in order to find as many records
23 representing the same individuals in both sources as possible.
24 Q. Do you believe that it is the job of the demographer or
25 statistician to keep track of the percentage of matching once you deviate
1 from the original key so as to give a statistical overview of how many
2 matches were found using the first criteria, how many matches were found
3 using the second criteria, how many matches were found with the third,
4 and so on and so forth?
5 A. Well, ideally we would like to have such statistics, absolutely.
6 But if you think of how many millions of records had to be reviewed in
7 this kind of procedures and how many matches first indicated as
8 potential matches, then assessed and then rejected, or partly accepted,
9 and so on and so on, it is a process that have been continued years and
10 years long, since the beginning of the Demographic Unit. So keeping
11 these kind of statistics would eat up a lot of our time, if not all of
12 it, you see, and there was also other work to do in this period.
13 Q. Now for purposes of all of your reports you have utilised as a
14 starting point the 1991 census for the areas in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
15 Apart from your participation in a population census in Poland as a
16 student, is it correct that you -- that you did not take part in the
17 organisation or the taking of any other census data?
18 A. Well, I didn't take part in any other census. I also didn't
19 participate in the compilation of voters' register. I didn't participate
20 in ICRC project in which they collected records of the missing persons
21 from the families of the missing. I didn't participate in the work of
22 statistical authorities, collecting information about death
23 notifications, and so on and so on. I think that there is no need for
24 everybody to participate in making of every source we ever use for our
25 work. There are documents describing the compilation of sources and it
1 is possible to study how the sources were made.
2 Q. Do you consider to be a technical expert on the conduct of census
3 in Bosnia-Herzegovina?
4 A. I am not an expert in -- on the conduct of census, not in Bosnia,
5 not in other country. I am just knowledgeable and familiar with the
6 procedures and the methodology of how censuses are made.
7 MR. IVETIC: If we can turn to 1D1435 in e-court. And page 19 of
8 the same. This should correlate with transcript page 6459 of the Stakic
10 And if we can focus on lines 9 through 18. The question and
11 answer are recorded as follows:
12 "Q. Before we get into the actual errors within the names, what
13 my concern initially and what my question in part was, the census
14 controls that were missing in Bosnia-Herzegovina, so that I may have a
15 better understanding, would they be things that would include like a
16 pilot survey or a sample survey, which are two distinction things,
17 though; correct?
18 "A. Yes. Now, usually before the census starts, there is a
19 pilot, or -- a pilot census, microcensus, in which the questionnaire is
20 tested and possible mistakes are detected and conclusions from this pilot
21 are used in this census itself. As far as I know there was no pilot or
22 additional surveys."
23 Q. Do you stand by this testimony as being accurate and truthful.
24 There was no pilot survey done before the 1991 census?
25 A. I actually was wrong, if I really said so, because there was a
1 pilot census in Bosnia-Herzegovina before the 1991 census actually took
3 Q. And is it correct that you only found out about the pilot survey
4 sometime in 2002?
5 A. Oh, I wouldn't recall exactly when, but at some point, indeed,
6 more information was collected about the pilot census from the
7 authorities who actually were involved in it. I wouldn't recall exactly
8 the date. It was in early years of my employment at the OTP.
9 Q. And prior to discovering the existence of the pilot census, you
10 had already begun working with the census and drafting, I believe, at
11 least one report on the matter; is that correct?
12 A. Yes, it might have been the case. But -- okay. That -- that's
13 my answer, yeah.
14 MR. IVETIC: Your Honour, I see we're at the break.
15 JUDGE ORIE: If I could ask one question.
16 If you would have known at the time that there had been a pilot,
17 would that have in any way impacted on a report which you drafted before
18 having that knowledge?
19 THE WITNESS: Of course not, because pilot is never used
20 together with the actual census data. It is a pre-census survey,
21 relatively small survey, in which the questionnaire is actually tested.
22 So I -- in terms of data or knowledge from the pilot, there is nothing
23 that could be -- have been used in any of the reports I made using the
24 census data.
25 JUDGE ORIE: I can imagine that if you have assessed or expressed
1 views on the reliability of the census, the -- that whether or not there
2 have been a pilot may have some impact on the -- such an assessment.
3 THE WITNESS: Well, the pilot is namely -- predominantly to test
4 the survey questionnaire and the questions in the census are very
5 standard. So it is about details of the questionnaire, like the place of
6 the question, you know, how to ask the question. And the experience from
7 the pilot is used to improve the questionnaire but also to improve the
8 training of the actual interviewers that later participate in asking the
9 questions, so --
10 JUDGE ORIE: Which is aimed at improving the quality of the
11 results of the census. Is that --
12 THE WITNESS: Yes.
13 JUDGE ORIE: -- how I have to understand?
14 THE WITNESS: Yes, that's exactly what it is.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Then we'll take a break and after Ms. Tabeau has
16 been escorted out of the courtroom.
17 [The witness stands down]
18 JUDGE ORIE: We'll resume at ten minutes to 11.00.
19 --- Recess taken at 10.32 a.m.
20 --- On resuming at 10.54 a.m.
21 JUDGE ORIE: While we are waiting for the witness to be brought
22 in, Ms. Marcus, the Chamber has considered whether it makes any sense at
23 this moment to already assign preliminary numbers to the Brown materials,
24 but the Chamber doesn't think that it speeds up considerably. So,
25 therefore, let's do it the usual way, as always, also, in view of the
1 fact that these are relatively small numbers.
2 [The witness takes the stand]
3 JUDGE ORIE: And, yes, associated exhibits is a different matter.
4 There are quite a few. That's always -- gives -- is of some concern to
5 the Chamber but I'm not -- I'll not elaborate on that at this very
7 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour. Could you just clarify, please,
8 Your Honour, if you would want that tendering to be done after
9 the initial -- after the 92 -- in the initial process or after the
10 conclusion of the witness's direct examination?
11 JUDGE ORIE: Well, I think, usually if it is put to the witness
12 then we assign a number and usually the Chamber decides almost always at
13 the end of the cross-examination for all of it.
14 Mr. Ivetic, you may proceed.
15 MR. IVETIC: Thank you, Your Honours.
16 Q. I'd like to revisit an area that we discussed earlier in relation
17 to whether you had used media reports as a source for any demographic
18 report related to victims of war as to terminology in -- that was at
19 temporary transcript page 10, lines 9 through 12.
20 MR. IVETIC: I'd now call up 1D1437 in e-court and ask for
21 page 39 of the same, which should correlate to transcript page 21929 of
22 the Prlic case. And if we could focus on lines 22 and onward.
23 Q. If you could follow along, please:
24 "Q. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. Now with respect to siege,
25 what is your definition of siege, number one. I'm asking a compound
1 question. But, number two, how is it that you determined, you, the
2 demography, that indeed what was happening in Mostar at that conflict it
3 was a siege or was this something that you decided to use, sort of, for
4 convenient purposes?
5 "A. Well, I didn't use it for convenient purposes. I rather
6 follow the common definition, definition, or common use, say better.
7 Well, in many press reports, videos, from this period the term 'siege' is
8 used and there is no other connotations behind my use of this term. I
9 just took it from the common use in the media in this period.
10 "Q. Okay. I take it you believe what you read in the media?
11 "A. Well, I don't.
12 "Q. Yes or no.
13 "A. This is not a yes and no question.
14 "Q. Okay, very well.
15 "A. The quality of information in the media is very different,
16 very, very different, and there is no reason to trust everything you hear
17 in the media.
18 "Q. Is there anything in your report where you qualify the term
19 'siege' or 'ethnic cleansing' to suggest, at least to the Court, trying
20 to be an objective and impartial and a [sic] expert witness that you are
21 using these terms merely because this is something that you read in the
22 press versus, say, the impression that I got from reading your report
23 that you believed that there was a siege and that there was ethnic
24 cleansing? Is there anywhere in your report where you -- where you alert
25 the reader as to your intentions behind using these particular terms?
1 "A. Well, there is no definitions of the terms 'siege' and
2 'ethnic cleansing,' you are right. There's no definitions as such,
3 but -- well, I am surprised you are talking about it as the ethnic
4 cleansing is a term that has been used also in many legal documents in
5 the Statute of this Tribunal.
6 "Q. Really?
7 "A. Yes, really it is.
8 "Q. There's a crime called ethnic cleansing, as far as you know?
9 "A. Okay, there's no definition in my report. Are you happy?
10 "Q. But you would agree with me, ma'am, that it's not your job
11 to determine whether ethnic cleansing occurred, assuming that it did
12 happen, and we know what it is, or that a siege was taking place. That
13 is not your job. Your job is to deal with figures and statistics;
15 "A. Yes, it is. But as far as I remember, I didn't make any --
16 in my final conclusions, any statements related to the fact that there
17 has been ethnic cleansing, there has been siege, and what is the meaning
18 of this."
19 Does this refresh your recollection as to the use of terminology
20 gleaned from the -- their usage in the media for the purposes of reports
21 that you authored for this Tribunal?
22 A. Well, the transcript you just read refers to the definition of --
23 of siege and ethnic cleansing. And as such, as I said, I haven't defined
24 these terms in my report. I rather use the term of 'siege' in common
25 sense, that is how it was used, and always has been in any reports that I
1 made, just a common-sense understanding of the term siege.
2 That is one thing.
3 Using of media as a source would mean that I used media reports
4 on victims to make statistics on victims of the siege of Mostar. I
5 haven't done this, and I haven't done this in other reports as well. So,
6 in this sense, I have not used media as a source for my report. But
7 other than that, we all, of course, read press and listen to television,
8 and we -- we just use media reports in everyday life. It is quite a
9 normal situation. This is what I do as well.
10 Q. Getting back to where we've started, we were talking about
11 terminology and we're talking about the victimisation of Srebrenica. The
12 use of the term "massacre" and the use of the term "atrocity" in your
13 integrated Srebrenica report, were those terms gleaned from the media and
14 inserted as a result of hearing them in the media?
15 A. No, sir, it was not the case. It was not following the media in
16 calling Srebrenica victims victims or that there was a massacre. All the
17 sources that were used for the report indicated this fact very clearly.
18 Q. Now, last week in the slide presentation that the Prosecution
19 used during your direct examination, in one of the slides, I believe it
20 was number 5, you had info on fallen soldiers among the three main
21 warring factions. I would like to switch gears and talk about all
22 casualties. First, can you tell us if there is a generally accepted
23 source or sources of information documenting the total number of war-time
24 casualties in Bosnia-Herzegovina?
25 A. Well, I myself made a source, if I can say, call it a source,
1 through compiling, merging a number of original sources. The integrated
2 database was established from which a number was produced of all victims
3 of the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina. There exists also another source.
4 This is the database on war victims that was compiled by Mirza Tokaca in
5 Sarajevo by the Research and Documentation Centre in Sarajevo. They also
6 have their own number of the victims of the war in Bosnia and
7 Herzegovina. And, of course, there are other numbers produced at various
8 occasions by other authors, even at some point made an overview of the
9 estimate of war victims available for Bosnia and Herzegovina so there
10 are -- there are numbers. There exist numbers on that.
11 Q. Based on your research and knowledge, can you confirm for us that
12 when looking at the war-time casualties as a percentage of the total
13 population of a particular ethnic group, the Bosnian Serbs were the
14 highest percentage of their population as war-time casualties some
15 2.6 per cent of their population was lost as opposed to 2.3 per cent of
16 the Bosnian Muslim population and 2 per cent of the Bosnian Croat
18 A. I would really feel comfortable if we would have this fragment
19 from my article on the screen. It might be so that there were these kind
20 of small differences among the ethnic groups. But I don't recall the
21 exact percentages, I'm sorry.
22 Q. Okay, that's fine.
23 THE INTERPRETER: Could council kindly speak closer to the
24 microphone, please. Thank you.
25 MR. IVETIC:
1 Q. I want to now to switch gears to talk about the Srebrenica
3 In relation to your department's work in this area, in relation
4 to the start of the hostilities in July 1995, the attack on Srebrenica
5 began 6 July 1995 and lasted until 11 July 1995.
6 Do you know the exact number of casualties on the side of the
7 Bosnian Muslim defenders of Srebrenica; that is, the number of person who
8 died as part of the combat undergoing the attack during those first few
9 days, 6 July to 11 July 1995?
10 A. As we all know, there are no distinctions between combatants and
11 non-combatants that we made in our reports on Srebrenica.
12 Q. Okay. Do you know, based upon your research, do you have any
13 data as to the precise number of individuals that would have become
14 deceased as part of the trek of the column of Bosnian males that left
15 Srebrenica and went through the forest, engaged in fighting with the
16 Serb, going through mind fields, committing suicide, and killing each
18 Do you have any data on either the precise number, ranges,
20 A. I don't have the precise number and these causes that you
21 mentioned, going through minefields, committing suicide, killing each
22 other. Of course, I don't have information about that. It's not in the
24 Q. Do you accept that the bodies of those casualties, albeit the
25 number you don't know, must be included in your figures of missing and
1 even amongst some of those exhumed?
2 A. Well, sir, I didn't study the causes, specific causes for every
3 Srebrenica victim, so I cannot comment on that. And, well, I can tell is
4 that a very large per cent of the missing persons related to the fall of
5 Srebrenica were buried in unmarked graves, many of them being mass
6 graves, that can be linked to incidents around the fall of Srebrenica.
7 That's all I can say.
8 Q. Now, we've become aware in this case of efforts by your unit to
9 obtain further information and clarification from the Bosnian
10 Ministry of Defence as to persons that were named on your missing list
11 who may be registered as soldiers. Can you please tell us what was the
12 event that alerted the demographics unit to check to see if there were
13 any fallen soldiers of the ABiH among the Srebrenica missing, and when
14 did that occur?
15 A. Well, it is not that I recall the actual event that made us look
16 for this information, but seeing the age distribution and sex
17 distribution of the Srebrenica missing, of course, it calls for attention
18 for this particular issue. So at some point, intensive efforts were made
19 to cross-reference the missing persons from Srebrenica with the military
20 records that were available at the unit.
21 Q. Were these intensive efforts begun in the year 2008 during the
22 course of the Popovic trial?
23 A. Well, no, I don't agree with that. It was much sooner than that.
24 But in the Popovic trial, indeed this issue was raised by the Defence and
25 certain activities have been redone again in that particular year.
1 Q. Do you consider the military records of the ABiH that are within
2 the possession of the Ministry of Defence to be a reliable data source,
3 demographically speaking?
4 A. I think it is a source that cannot be used to compile a list of
5 victims because certain important pieces of information are missing
6 there, like place of death is unavailable, or circumstances of death are
7 also unavailable. So it is a limited information. Moreover, these list
8 represent exits from ongoing registration of military personnel and other
9 personnel related to the militaries from the point of view of whether or
10 not they are alive or perhaps dead or they went missing. And, as such,
11 as every dynamic registration of this kind, there are certain
12 deficiencies in this lists.
13 Q. Do the ABiH records of fallen soldiers have JMBG unique
14 identification numbers for these soldiers?
15 A. Yes. Yes, they do.
16 MR. IVETIC: If we can turn to 65 ter number 06101.
17 Q. While we wait for that to come on the screen, I can say that this
18 is a memo dated 16 May 2008 from Arve Hetland through you and Mr. Treanor
19 to Mr. McCloskey. After you take a look at this, can you confirm for us
20 if this would be the first report from your unit regarding overlap found
21 on the ABiH fallen soldiers list with the 2005 Srebrenica missing list?
22 A. I cannot say with certainty that this is the first memo. I am
23 sure there were other memoranda on that. It is just a memo that -- yeah,
24 at some point reported the findings from previous years, so this number
25 was seen as very small at that time. Yeah, the numbers of militaries on
1 the OTP lest.
2 Q. If we can look together at the second paragraph from the top. It
3 is recorded there as follows:
4 "Overall, 313 records on the 2005 OTP list were found on the ABiH
5 list; i.e., 313 persons on the OTP list were reported as soldiers or
6 other military personnel at some stage. Of those 313 records, 198
7 records reflected inconsistent dates of death/disappearance; i.e., dates
8 falling outside the period considered relevant to the fall of
10 Was this the first time that there was clarification sought for
11 personnel that had inconsistent dates of death or disappearance by the
12 Office of the Prosecutor by your unit from the Ministry of Defence?
13 A. Not -- not the first time. Because, you know, in the same memo,
14 in the third paragraph from the top, you have a mention that in 2004
15 there was an RFA concerning ABiH list, a RFA from the OTP to the
16 authorities in Bosnia and Herzegovina. So it was not the first time. It
17 was already 2004 that there were inconsistencies found in the context of
18 ABiH records, that they were addressed to the authorities for
20 MR. IVETIC: Can we now take a look at D00344 in e-court
22 Q. This is dated just two months later. When it comes up on the
23 screen, we'll see it's dated the 24th of July, 2008, and it is authored
24 by you.
25 MS. MARCUS: Your Honours, just for the record, I'd like to note
1 that this is a MFI exhibit, as far as I know.
2 MR. IVETIC: It's possible. As a matter of fact, that's correct.
3 I remember examining another witness on this and saying we'll wait for
4 Ms. Tabeau to come.
5 Q. First of all, madam, looking at this document, it would appeared
6 to be authored by you, and it would appear that the Popovic trial team
7 urged your unit to take another look and compare the ABiH list with your
8 list of missing.
9 First of all, looking at this document, do you remember the
10 circumstances of you authoring the same?
11 A. The circumstances. What do you mean by "circumstances"?
12 Q. Do you remember being asked to take another look at the matching
13 between the ABiH list and your list of missing based upon a request of
14 the Popovic et al trial team.
15 A. It was, again, the inconsistencies, I think, between the military
16 records and the basic information about the fall of Srebrenica, like the
17 date and these kind of things, as far as I remember. The Defence was
18 raising this issue intensively in the Popovic case, so it was actually
19 part of the response to the claims that the Defence made in the Popovic.
20 Q. Now, looking at the middle of the page, am I reading this right
21 that using the indirect approach you were able to match 3.406 ABiH
22 records and that using the direct approach you matched 4.964 ABiH
23 records? Would those be matches with the list of missing?
24 A. No, it is about the matching with the census, I think. Sorry,
25 through the census, with the Srebrenica list, you are right, yes.
1 Q. Thank you.
2 A. But the matching went through the census, so the fallen soldiers
3 lists were made -- were matched with the census on the first place, in
4 the first case, right? Yeah. And in the second case, yeah, it was a
5 direct matching approach. Direct, that means military lists were matched
6 directly with the Srebrenica victims list.
7 Q. Okay. And than would be the 4.964?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Okay. Now, the memo we just looked at from two months prior had
10 only 313 matches, now we have a figure of 4.964.
11 MS. MARCUS: Objection. The -- at the bottom of the page we see
12 that number, so it's just citing to part of the memo without the bottom.
13 JUDGE ORIE: It's not quite clear whether there's an objection to
14 the question or to the circumstances under which it is put to the
16 MS. MARCUS: I just wanted the witness to have the benefit of
17 seeing the entire memo so that the question would not misrepresent the
19 MR. IVETIC:
20 Q. Well, why don't we make it easier. Why don't we look at the --
21 the last paragraph on this page, and it will be the first completion of
22 that paragraph on the next page that reads as follows:
23 "An additional group of matches was obtained for the ABiH records
24 from all regions other than Tuzla. Here, only 313 matches were produced.
25 Many of them were the same as these included in," if we can turn the
1 page, "5.273, but 98 matches were new. So, the overall total of matches
2 of BiH records with the OTP list became 5.371. This comprises about
3 70 per cent of the OTP list."
4 A. Yes, that is true. I recall this. And these results are part of
5 the 2009 integrated report. There is an annex in the integrated report
6 which is Annex 6, A6.4, which refers to the matching results of the
7 military lists with Srebrenica list.
8 So at the time when I was writing this memo, I also undertook a
9 review of all the sources that were underlying the military records from
10 especially the Tuzla region. Tuzla region is the main region from which
11 the ABiH soldiers reported missing from Srebrenica - so obviously we --
12 we see it from the 2009 report - were registered. And it -- in -- in --
13 obviously a large part of information from the Tuzla region was earlier
14 not used in the work of the Demographic Unit. It was related to the fact
15 that a summary of -- a summary table provided to us by the authorities
16 for Tuzla, the summary was incomplete.
17 If all the subsequent subregions were taken one by one and put
18 together, a different summary would emerge, a summary that included many
19 more military individuals listed. So for my memo I used this reviewed
20 data set from the Tuzla and obviously found many more matches between the
21 Srebrenica victims and the military records. So this 70 per cent of the
22 missing persons on the OTP list is the result obtained from these
23 reviewed procedure -- reviewed data that was used for matching.
24 Q. Okay. And --
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, the question was unclear to me, because
1 you started asking us to look at the only 313 matches and now having
2 something in the area of 5.000. And then there was an objection but what
3 exactly -- because then you read a portion of the document to the
4 witness, and then she started her answer, Yes, that is true, apparently
5 referring to the memo.
6 Now it is unclear to me what exactly your question in this
7 respect was.
8 MR. IVETIC: My question was going to be that the 313 needed to
9 be added to this figure at the -- we had at the top, 4.964, to get to the
10 final number which now we have linked all of that together, so that the
11 313 was not the totality of matches that they had at the beginning. It
12 was totality of matches from regions other than Tuzla, other military
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
15 MR. IVETIC: So --
16 JUDGE ORIE: Now this question, to some extent may have been
17 answered but not in full or has it --
18 MR. IVETIC: I think now it has been answered. The doctor can
19 perhaps assist me. If I'm --
20 Q. Am I accurately --
21 A. I think that I -- I -- probably you are right, but it is also
22 possible that these 313 are comprised in this bigger number, 5.000
23 something, produced from the review data set. But it might be -- there
24 is also another aspect of this situation that the 70 per cent is quite a
25 old number. It was based on the matches obtained from July 2008 ICMP
1 records, I think, eventually. Well, I'm now moving through missing
2 persons to the ICMP records, because this package that is coming
3 together, one aspect of the problem is how many of the missing are at the
4 same time reported as militaries. This is one aspect.
5 Second aspect of this situation is how many of those militaries
6 found on the OTP list are, at the same time, reported among the ICMP DNA
7 identifications, and what is the link for them with the information about
8 the graves. Are those graves mass graves, surface remains or other
9 graves? So, of course, it is a fact that at least 70 per cent of the
10 missing persons on the OTP missing persons list are militaries, because
11 they are reported in the military records. But, at the same time, a very
12 large number of them have been found identified through the DNA analysis
13 by the ICMP and are linked to certain grave-sites available from the
14 exhumation records.
15 So that -- that -- these are the facts and this is all I can tell
16 about it. Regarding numbers, these numbers are not final, that is my
17 conclusion. And this is the answer to the question of the counsel.
18 MR. IVETIC:
19 Q. If we could focus on the last paragraph of page 2 and then also
20 on the first part of the next page, it ...
21 JUDGE ORIE: We're still dealing with the same memo, Mr. --
22 MR. IVETIC: Yes. Yes, Your Honour.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Which was assigned as D344 --
24 MR. IVETIC: MFI.
25 JUDGE ORIE: MFI'd on the 20th of August of this year, and it was
1 announced that it would be dealt with with Ms. Tabeau.
2 MR. IVETIC: Correct.
3 Q. Looking at the last paragraph on the page, it says:
4 "A total of 220 ABiH records for those matched (5.371) with the
5 OTP list have inconsistent DOD. A complete overview of the 220
6 inconsistent cases is attached in Annex 2 to this memorandum. Of the 220
7 inconsistent cases," if we go on the next page, "140 have been confirmed
8 as identified and related to Srebrenica grave-sites by the ICMP
9 (according to the July 2008 update); 127 have been corrected by the FBH
10 Ministry of Defence in 2003 in response to the OTP request for
11 clarification of a number of inconsistent ABiH records identified by DU
12 prior to and in the course of 2003; the corrected DODs and additionally
13 provided PODs clearly point to the fact that these were all Srebrenica
15 Now the first question I have for you is in relation to this
16 memorandum and the findings contained therein. Do they -- does it
17 provide a complete picture of your unit's analysis of the matching
18 between the ABiH lists and the Srebrenica missing list as well as the
19 findings as of 2008?
20 A. I think so, yes. These 220 inconsistent cases of which a large
21 number have been already sorted out and there was still an outstanding
22 number of 38 cases to be clarified at that time.
23 Q. With -- with respect to this memo, has there been any subsequent
24 memo authored either by you or by someone else in your unit giving more
25 complete data or information about this particular topic?
1 A. No, not anymore. Not that I recall. So the actual -- this
2 analysis is where it stopped.
3 Q. Okay.
4 A. Because, actually, the unit stopped functioning at some point
5 because of subsequent departures from the unit.
6 Q. Do you stand by the conclusions that you have in this document?
7 A. I think so, yes. Well, if a new update would be made right now
8 of the military records with the ICRC records of missing persons, I don't
9 think the results would have been different, largely remain the same.
10 I -- I don't think there would be much new things here. There would be
11 quite some new information if we would do -- if I would do the matching
12 of the military records on the OTP list with the ICMP data. So this
13 number, 140 cases, mentioned here, as -- at that time confirmed in the
14 ICMP records of DNA identifications, this number certainly would have
15 been higher if the analysis would be done right now. That simply means
16 that more inconsistent cases could be clarified by matching with the DNA
17 identification, and a larger overlap would be available between the ICMP
18 and military records just increasing the 70 per cent -- 73 per cent,
19 actually, of the military records from the OTP lists confirmed to be
20 identified by DNA analysis. It would be higher percentages these days.
21 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, based upon the foundation now laid
22 with this witness, I would ask for D00344 MFI to be admitted as an
24 MS. MARCUS: No objections.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
1 Yes, the number is known already, so it is for me to -- to tell
2 you that D344 is admitted into evidence.
3 MR. IVETIC: And one other item. I don't know whether the list
4 is also one that should be under seal. I note that there is an annex
5 that appears to be a list of names. That perhaps should be under seal?
6 Q. Is that --
7 A. I think so, yes. Because many are just identifications, DNA
8 identifications that always remain a Rule 70.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Then the admission is under seal. Was it MFI'd
10 under seal?
11 MR. IVETIC: Your Honour, I can't remember. I don't have any
12 notes as to that, and I just saw the list now when I had a hard copy of
13 it --
14 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
15 THE REGISTRAR: If I may be of assistance, it was MFI'd as a
16 public document.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, which -- well, we can't change that any
18 further. It was MFI'd. It is now admitted under seal.
19 [Trial Chamber confers]
20 JUDGE ORIE: Now, let me just have a look. I see a list starting
21 on page 4. Let me have a look. Annex 2 gives names of individuals.
22 That's clear.
23 [Trial Chamber confers]
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, therefore, it's admitted under seal.
25 MR. IVETIC: We'll get back to the inconsistent cases in a little
1 bit. I'd like to first ask about the efforts to match with the ABiH
3 Q. Based upon your knowledge and information, doctor, what about
4 members of the civilian police in Srebrenica? Did you seek any records
5 as to casualties among the civilian police members to perform matching
6 with the Srebrenica missing list?
7 A. Civilian police, you mean the defence -- Territorial Defence
8 members or what -- well, in any case -
9 Q. Civilian police, Ministry of Internal Affairs, or MUP?
10 A. MUP, yes. The military lists contain records of soldiers but
11 also of police members and also the person, the civilian person, and of
12 the ministries of the defence as well. So in this sense, this group is
13 covered by the military records.
14 Q. What about paramilitary formations or criminal groups? Did you
15 have any data as to whether those were included amongst the ABiH lists or
16 would they be in addition to?
17 A. Well, I -- I don't think that military records cover
18 paramilitaries. But, well, at least there is no category indicated in
19 the data that paramilitaries are covered in the source.
20 Q. Okay. Now, let's take a step --
21 JUDGE ORIE: Do I have to understand your last answer to be that
22 even where paramilitary may have been registered or that criminals may
23 have been registered as being members of the -- of the military that they
24 do not appear as such in the military records.
25 THE WITNESS: They are not flagged in the data.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you.
2 THE WITNESS: I don't simply know. No.
3 MR. IVETIC:
4 Q. Now, in terms of the lists of fallen soldiers from the ABiH that
5 were received from the Ministry of Defence and used by your unit, do you
6 know if these were generated according to official records of the ABiH or
7 according to other statistical sources?
8 A. Well, I am not sure what is the meaning of official records of
9 the ABiH. That means army records?
10 These lists that I used were actually compiled in military units
11 and partly at the Ministry of Defence, and at some point they were
12 centralised, the ministries -- the Ministry of Defence. And I received
13 this -- a copy of the central -- centralised list directly from the
14 Ministry of Defence.
15 I don't think I -- I -- I cannot think how different they would
16 be from the official military records. It is the registration at the
17 military unit level, in military regions, then subsequently to the
18 central level, Ministry of Defence.
19 Q. Now, in your July 2008 memo that we just looked at, it was
20 identified that at that time 127 had been corrected where dates of death
21 and PODs, places of death, or disappearance had been corrected. If that
22 is the case, then we have a number of soldiers which were registered as
23 having a date of disappearance pre-dating the fall of Srebrenica and a --
24 in the years of 1994 or earlier, and some had different places.
25 Would the fact that these records changed after the Prosecution
1 sought more information, would that be a cause for concern in terms of
2 the reliability of the confirmations so received?
3 A. I think we need to remember that these are records of missing
4 persons largely. So that they are reported on military lists doesn't
5 change the fact that they are reported as missing. And, as such, for
6 missing persons, different dates can be reported as to when they were
7 seen last time. And it doesn't contradict the fact that after reviewing
8 a case, that the eventual data of going missing is later in time. And,
9 as I said, this is a very -- this psychodynamic register, these are
10 excerpts from a register that were provided to us at some point. It was
11 around the year 2000 or so. So later in time it is possible that
12 information was updated by additional facts about the persons.
13 So it is possible that the dates were corrected.
14 Q. Well, madam, we're talking about corrections of some of the dates
15 for 1992, 1993, and 1994. Does it cause concern for you that after
16 clarifications was sought these dates miraculously changed to 1995.
17 Doesn't it seem illogical that persons who are registered to have
18 disappeared in 1992, 1993, 1994, according to military records from their
19 specific units, could have just drastic changes or corrections in the
20 date of disappearance or death?
21 A. Well, at the same time we must remember the same individuals were
22 reported to the ICRC using the exact time frame of the fall of Srebrenica
23 and the places related to the fall of Srebrenica. So there is another
24 source, different than the military registration, that is telling us the
25 same individuals disappeared in the context of the fall of Srebrenica.
1 So drastic or not, the corrections made sense, and, of course, my
2 assumption was that the authorities who provided these clarifications and
3 indicated that the dates of disappearance should be different had a
4 foundation for these clarifications. They just didn't make it up.
5 Q. At the time the clarification was sought, did the Prosecution let
6 the Ministry of Defence know that these persons were on the Srebrenica
7 missing list or had been found exhumed in mass graves?
8 A. If you -- you are certainly familiar with the RFA format the OTP
9 has been using over the years, reference is made in RFAs to a particular
10 case for which the Prosecution is seeking clarification. So if the case
11 name was mentioned like Popovic, for instance, or other Srebrenica relate
12 case, even to this fact the authorities knew, of course, about the
13 circumstances of this missing.
14 JUDGE ORIE: It seems to me that there may be some
15 misunderstanding as the gist of the question.
16 I do understand but, please correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Ivetic,
17 that you would like to hear from Ms. Tabeau that when the RFA was sent,
18 whether information was sent at the same time about individuals that had
19 been found exhumed in mass graves. Is that --
20 MR. IVETIC: More concerned with whether the individuals for whom
21 the clarification were sought were identified by the OTP as being persons
22 on their list of missing. To say in essence, We have information that
23 these men were missing in Srebrenica, could you clarify. And if that's
24 the clarification that was sought or if it was a more neutral or generic
25 request sought [overlapping speakers]
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You are -- your concern may be that the
2 Prosecution more or less invited --
3 MR. IVETIC: Yes --
4 JUDGE ORIE: -- the authorities to move the disappearance from
5 the earlier years to 1995, because they would have suggested that in
6 their request.
7 MR. IVETIC: Right. Unintentionally or not.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, yes. I'm phrasing it as neutrally as possible.
9 THE WITNESS: Well, I don't recall exactly the wording. In my
10 view, we never try -- we always try to avoid to give this kind of
11 information in request for clarification. But I think it is very easy to
12 check the text of the RFAs. My initial answer would be we just don't do
13 this in RFAs. We provide request for clarification and we would provide
14 a list of names and request details of the date of death and place of
15 death or disappearance for a number of individuals listed on the military
16 lists. I don't think we shared information about identification and
17 graves for these individuals. For sure not.
18 MR. IVETIC:
19 Q. I understand --
20 JUDGE ORIE: And also not information that triggered the need for
21 verification; that is, This is what you told us, but we found the person
22 in a grave in -- near Srebrenica. That is more suggestive than just
23 saying, Could you please find out whether the date of birth was correct
24 or whether it needs to be corrected.
25 THE WITNESS: I -- I would believe we tend to skip all the
1 indications, possible indications. But we would mention that because of
2 inconsistencies found in a given list there is a need to check and
3 clarify this and that. But, as I'm saying, we can refer to the actual
4 RFAs. But this has been the practice of the office and of my unit as
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, it seems that the RFA would be
7 accessible. Is there any way you would like to have it in to evidence?
8 I mean, apparently you find it relevant. The witness says she doesn't
9 have a clear recollection on it but only on what they usually did. I
10 take it that Ms. Marcus would be glad to provide --
11 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, I have been working with Ms. Marcus to
12 locate the RFAs for, I think, a couple of weeks now, and I don't know
13 whether we still have a full set of all the RFAs. We're finding one or
14 two at a time or several at a time. So I would defer to Ms. Marcus as to
15 whether the RFAs that she and I have discussed are the totality of the
16 RFAs in relation to this topic.
17 JUDGE ORIE: The first -- yes. First things, of course, is the
18 RFA which triggered the correction.
19 Ms. Marcus.
20 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honours. We have provided and discussed
21 with Mr. Ivetic, as he says, 15 different RFAs and responses. If
22 Mr. Ivetic identifies for us which one of these he would like to tender,
23 I would -- I don't think we would have a problem with tendering any of
24 them if it is relevant to the evidence.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Of course, the Chamber is not seeking to have -- to
1 be overloaded with material which is available. But if apparently you
2 consider this to be important, so you could you please identify, together
3 with Ms. Marcus, which RFA is the relevant one so that we could have a
4 look at it.
5 MR. IVETIC: I can. I'll identify those --
6 JUDGE ORIE: And the Chamber appreciates that you sat together to
7 try to find out what RFAs had been produced.
8 Please proceed.
9 MR. IVETIC: Thank you. If we can at this time call up but not
10 broadcast number 25876. Actually, let's -- let's go into
11 private session. It will make it easier for purposes of the record.
12 JUDGE ORIE: We move into private session.
13 [Private session]
11 Pages 19438-19445 redacted. Private session.
8 [Open session]
9 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
11 [Trial Chamber confers]
12 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
13 MR. IVETIC:
14 Q. In relation to the methodology that you employed when using the
15 voter lists to determine population size and ethnicity, am I correct that
16 you would take a name from the voter list and try to match it to a name
17 on a census list and then determine the ethnicity or nationality by the
18 basis of what is reported in the census?
19 A. Yes, ethnicity was reported on the basis of the census.
20 Q. The other week you testified about there being 91 different ways
21 of expressing nationality in the former Yugoslavia at the time of the
22 1991 census. For purposes of your study, did you keep all
23 91 nationalities as expressed in the census or did you convert some by
24 assigning a nationality based upon the name of the individual, a
25 technique similar to that you used in Mostar for the Prlic case?
1 A. We didn't use names to assign ethnicity to individuals. The
2 three major ethnic groups, the Muslim, Serbs and Croats, were taken as
3 reported in the census records, and the remaining ethnicities, being
4 mainly Yugoslavs or mixed ethnicities, Serbo-Croat, for instance,
5 Croat-Serb, other nationalities like German, these other than
6 different -- the three main groups were taken jointly under the name of
8 Q. Okay. Now in relation to the work reviewing the voter register,
9 did you at any point in time have access to any publications or manuals
10 published by the OSCE talking about the unreliability of the names as
11 recorded in the voter databases?
12 A. The OSCE maintains a web site where they include many reports
13 that are produced by the organisation, manuals, et cetera. So these
14 documents can be easily downloaded and studied. But I don't recall that
15 there were documents that I was studying relating to names.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Lukic, if I may just interrupt -- Mr. Ivetic.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Oh, Mr. Ivetic, yes.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Again, Madam Tabeau, at -- at page 32, starting
19 from lines 22, to page 33, line 2, you're talking about the three main
20 groups, Serbs, Bosniaks, and Croats. And then you listed the number of
21 smaller little groups, at the end of which you then said:
22 "... other nationalities like German, these other than
23 different -- the three main groups were taken jointly under the name of
25 Did you many to say the three main groups, meaning Serb-Croat and
1 Bosniak or did you mean these smaller groups were taken as others?
2 THE WITNESS: Of course, the smaller groups were taken as others
3 and the three main groups were taken separately.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you so much.
5 THE WITNESS: Each separately as one ethnic group.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you. The record is corrected.
7 Thank you, Mr. Ivetic.
8 MR. IVETIC: Okay. Now, if we can turn to 1D1441 briefly.
9 Q. While we wait for that, I can introduce it as a handbook issued
10 by the OSCE to its staff working on the 1997 voter lists. And once we
11 have both versions, if we can turn to page 2 in both versions. At the
12 very top of the same, we have this notation. It says:
13 "Very important: Due to a large number of incorrectly written
14 names in the database, it is best to use just the first few letters of
15 the last name followed by an asterix."
16 Were you a ware that the OSCE considered the database they were
17 using had a large number of incorrectly written names?
18 A. I recall I was speaking about it shortly last week that the
19 voters' register of 1997 was actually based on the 1991 census. So these
20 are the names from the census we are talking about. And, yes, of course,
21 many names from the census contained all kind of inconsistencies,
22 spelling mistakes and misformed characters, because the computerised
23 version of the census was obtained through optical scanning. During the
24 scanning process, many characters became misshaped. And, actually, my
25 unit spent a lot of time and effort on correcting and improving the
1 names, including making -- bridging tables between the misshaped names
2 and corrected names. The corrected names were obtained from a review
3 process in which native speakers, B/C/S speakers, were intensively
4 involved. So the misshaped characters were replaced by characters that
5 were correct. Also a computer programme was used that was detecting
6 impossible combinations of letters, impossible in the B/C/S language, and
7 the impossible combinations again were replaced by possible combinations,
8 most likely combinations. Also a household correction method was used.
9 Names within every household were checked, surnames, of course, on the
10 first place, and differences within households were studied. If they
11 were differently spelled names within a given household, they were
12 corrected by taking the name that was spelled correctly. So a lot of
13 effort was done in my unit to correct the names and the names have been
14 corrected in both, the 1991 census and also voters' registers.
15 Q. Do you have a statistic or percentage for the proportion of the
16 names that had to be corrected by personnel of the
17 Office of the Prosecutor in order to permit a match?
18 A. Well, I -- I -- I can tell you approximately that the number of
19 corrections of names was like 500.000. But I wouldn't tell these -- that
20 these were the corrections necessary to obtained as one match. These
21 were the corrections that were needed in order to engage seriously in the
22 matching process and obtain as many matches as possible.
23 JUDGE ORIE: And that was 500.000 upon a total of ...
24 THE WITNESS: Out of the census, 4.4 million records.
25 JUDGE ORIE: So close to anywhere between 10 and 15 per cent.
1 THE WITNESS: Yes, yes.
2 MR. IVETIC:
3 Q. Do we know in relation to the names reported in, let's say, the
4 Srebrenica list of missing how many of those had to be corrected from the
5 way that they were recorded in either the census or the voters records?
6 A. I -- I cannot tell how many Srebrenica related victims have
7 corrected names. But when I was talking about the corrections in the
8 census and the voters, right, that is how you addressed the issue. I
9 don't recall that a significant number of names were corrected on the
10 ICRC list of missing persons from Srebrenica. Although there will be
11 spelling differences between the ICRC list and the census list, of
12 course, there will be. But correcting this one way to deal with the
13 differences, another way of dealing with differences is allowing for some
14 spelling differences of one and the same name, like, you know, matching
15 based on 75 per cent consistency of characters in a given name.
16 JUDGE ORIE: I think Mr. Ivetic wanted to know whether the
17 percentage of names that had to be corrected was, percentage-wise, higher
18 in the Srebrenica selected population. I should say, the -- the victims
19 lists. And I would like to add to that, that if you would not know,
20 whether there's any reason to believe that such mistakes were more
21 frequent in the -- whether there is any indication that they would be
22 more frequent than elsewhere in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
23 THE WITNESS: So my answer would be they wouldn't be more
24 frequent because we are talking about optical scanning as the source for
25 the differences in -- and misshaping of characters and that's no reason
1 to believe that the optical scanning was selective and was more higher in
2 the case of Srebrenica victims than in case of any other individual
3 listed in the census. So, no, no particular bias for Srebrenica.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Ivetic.
5 MR. IVETIC: Thank you.
6 Q. Now, for purposes of your work, which relied upon the 1991
7 census, do you have concrete figures for how many people participated in
8 the 1991 census and then left voluntarily for work or other reasons
10 A. Um, I think we -- we did a study of the population living abroad
11 that was registered in the 1991 census, and the results of this study are
12 reported, I think, in the annex to the Slobodan Milosevic report. I
13 wouldn't recall a number, but I don't think it was a very high number.
14 Q. Okay. Now, we've had evidence at this trial that persons began
15 leaving Srebrenica in 1993 already, and, in fact that they had been
16 evacuated by the UN at that time. We have, for instance, Mr. Butler at
17 transcript page 16193 through 16194. Did you have that kind of
18 information or knowledge at the time that you were doing your reports?
19 A. I didn't have any source that would be listing the population
20 movements from Srebrenica before the fall of Srebrenica, and you are
21 talking about 1993. Not -- not that I had a list of names of these
22 persons. Except for perhaps a broader database that was, I think,
23 submitted to the OTP at some point around 1997, I guess, as far as I
24 remember. These were lists of -- of refugee, Srebrenica refugees, so I
25 guess there would be a number of them reported as having left Srebrenica
1 already in the years like 1993. So there was such a list, indeed. But I
2 didn't use this list, for many reasons, including, on the first place,
3 the incompleteness of the reporting; and, second, that a better source on
4 the IDPs and refugees was also available in my unit, which is the
5 so-called DDPR registration of IDPs and refugees that completed -- that
6 included match -- more completed information about internal displacement
7 and refugees.
8 Q. Would you agree that the number and boundaries of the Srebrenica
9 municipality and bordering municipalities have changed since 1991?
10 A. In some case, they did. Actually, for quite a number of
11 municipalities, the Dayton Agreement proposed a new division between the
12 Federation and Republika Srpska, so a number of municipalities became
13 split municipalities with two parts, instead of one bigger municipality.
14 But Srebrenica itself is not one of the split municipalities.
15 Q. What geographic region did you use to define the Srebrenica
16 municipality for purposes of your report and study?
17 A. We can read in the first annex to the 2009 report that the
18 Srebrenica area comprised actually ten municipalities, as far as I can
19 remember. Actually, it is Annex 2, page 34. And these are
20 municipalities including Bijeljina, Bratunac, Han Pijesak, Kalesija,
21 Kladanj, Rogatica, Sekovici, Srebrenica, Vlasenica and Zvornik. And also
22 areas in the bordering territory with Serbia, Bajina Basta, Ljubovija and
23 Valjevo were considered relevant.
24 Q. And those last three are on the territory -- are part of Serbia
25 proper; is that correct?
1 A. Yes, that's correct.
2 Q. Now, in relation to the PHR lists and the ICRC list, can you tell
3 us what percentage of corrections did you have to undertake in relation
4 to those sources to obtain a match and what criteria were utilised? Do
5 you have any records of that?
6 A. I think -- I -- I don't -- I can't tell you statistics. That is
7 one thing, and, well, corrections are a part of a regular process. Any
8 source received in the demographic unit were subject to cleaning, to
9 checking inconsistency, identifying problems, and correcting problems if
10 the problems could be corrected. So, for instance, things like
11 reformatting dates reported in all kinds of formats or correcting names,
12 this was part of a regular process. So it is not that I can link these
13 corrections and cleaning - I would call it cleaning and reformatting - of
14 sources with particular numbers of matches obtained later.
15 Q. Specifically for the work on Srebrenica, were you able to utilise
16 as a data source the official registries of recorded deaths; that is to
17 say, were these sources that could have been used understanding that you
18 did not use them?
19 A. The official death notifications you are referring to, those --
20 Q. Yes --
21 A. -- contain information about known deaths, deaths for which a
22 document is available in the form of a death certificate or another legal
23 document confirming a death of a given person. And we are talking about
24 missing person, in the context of Srebrenica, so persons for whom at the
25 time ICRC was compiling the list and the OTP was making our first report,
1 no death certificates were available and we -- nobody knew at that time
2 the whereabouts of these missing persons. The situation is much more
3 different these days, as we have DNA identifications, and based on which
4 there is a procedure in which death certificates are issued.
5 Q. Last week you were shown a slide presentation and slide -- at
6 slide number 13 you had a chart of the ages -- the age group of 50 years
7 and older. And the Chamber asked you last week at transcript page 19243
8 if the age groups defined in your graphic were defined by 1991 ages or by
9 the 1995 events when -- where they went missing, and you said that you
10 can check this. Did you in fact check this --
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. -- and can you give us a confirmation?
13 A. It is age in 1995. So That is this clear. Moreover, the second
14 question of the Chamber in relation to this particular table was whether
15 the procedure was related to all victims missing and identified persons,
16 and I wasn't sure. I said it was probably ICRC records of misses
17 persons, and I confirm it was the ICRC list of missing persons from which
18 a small -- not a complete number, including also new cases from the ICMP
19 DNA identifications. But the new cases from the DNA identifications is a
20 small number of 213 cases versus a large number of 7.000, almost 700
21 individuals missing.
22 So what I'm trying to say, it is, first, I confirm it is the ICRC
23 records of missing that were used for this table; and, second, if all the
24 records were used, including the 213 additional cases, there wouldn't be
25 any significant impact of re-doing the procedure for the results
2 Q. My recollection is that only one age group was identified in the
3 graphic. Why were the other age groups not similarly identified in full,
4 if you recall?
5 A. I recall there were three age groups --
6 Q. Three, okay.
7 A. -- shown on this chart. And, as a matter of fact, many more age
8 groups, actually, all age groups were studied to make a picture complete.
9 So it is just a presentation that the most affected age groups were shown
10 on this graphics.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Marcus.
12 MS. MARCUS: I just -- Your Honour, I just wanted to point out
13 that we have it on Sanction. If it would help Mr. Ivetic, we can show
14 it. The reason I rose before was to point out that there were three age
15 groups, as Dr. Tabeau just said.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, you are satisfied with the answer or ...
17 MR. IVETIC: I'm satisfied with the answer.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then let's proceed.
19 MR. IVETIC:
20 Q. The proof of death database that your office has prepared and
21 maintains you testified in direct that Dr. Jan Zwierzchowski helped with
22 this. The question I have for you is: What steps and efforts did he
23 undertake to check and verify the database after its compilation and
24 what, if any steps, did you or other persons undertake to check this
25 proof of death database in its final form?
1 A. Dr. Zwierzchowski -- well, first of all, POD is a project in
2 which a lot of actual documents were studied, compared with each other,
3 and conclusions drawn based on similarities of reporting victims across
4 the documents. And parallel, there was the process of automated matching
5 with the integrated database. So there are many ways to review the
6 results, but, basically, the major job was to review the results as put
7 in the annex and compare for many records -- about still a selection of
8 records whether the information in Annex A is consistent with the content
9 of the documents. This is one way of making a review of the results
11 We were trying to check the entire annex which is a huge document
12 of about 650 pages, and obviously it is possible but it takes a lot of
13 time to check every entry on the annex. So I personally focussed on
14 samples, large samples of records, that I reviewed. And
15 Mr. Zwierzchowski, who was able to spend more time at the OTP, is the one
16 who actually was checking every entry one by one and making the entries
17 as well, one by one.
18 Q. And was he checking every entry only of the new ones that were
19 input or of the entirety of the POD database, because I understood that
20 he came at the tail-end of the project?
21 A. He actually is the one who spent most time on this project. We
22 are talking of about 2.000 victims for whom entries have been made in the
23 annex with the number of underlying documents much higher than 2.000, I
24 think, approximately. On average, it is probably two and a half to three
25 documents per person. So, yes he was going through these documents in
1 the period of three and a half months or a bit longer, and compiling this
2 review, one by one.
3 Q. Okay. Thank you for that answer.
4 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, I think that completes my
6 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Ivetic.
7 Ms. Marcus any need to re-examine the witness.
8 MS. MARCUS: No, Your Honour, I have no questions for
10 I do, however, wish to tender the reports and I also have a
11 submission that I would like to make following the testimony,
12 Your Honour.
13 [Trial Chamber confers]
14 JUDGE ORIE: Since the Chamber also has no questions, you're
15 invited to proceed as you suggested, Ms. Marcus.
16 MS. MARCUS: Thank you, Your Honour.
17 The Prosecution at this time tenders the list of documents that
18 were preassigned with MFI numbers. Shall I list the MFI numbers,
19 Your Honour?
20 JUDGE ORIE: If you list them one by one, then we hear from
21 Mr. Ivetic.
22 MS. MARCUS: P2785, MFI, that is, the excerpt of the transcript
23 in the Stanisic and Simatovic case.
24 MR. IVETIC: No further objections beyond that which was already
25 identified in our response to the 92 ter motion.
1 [Trial Chamber confers]
2 JUDGE ORIE: P2785 is admitted into evidence.
3 MS. MARCUS: The next document will be P2786, MFI. That is the
4 excerpt of the transcript of the testimony of Dr. Tabeau in the Karadzic
6 MR. IVETIC: From the Defence, the same position as with the
7 prior transcript of excerpt.
8 JUDGE ORIE: P2786 is admitted into evidence. The objection is
10 MS. MARCUS: Exhibit P2787, MFI. This is a section of the report
11 of Dr. Tabeau on proof of death in the Stanisic and Simatovic case.
12 MR. IVETIC: I believe on that one we do not have any additional
13 objections apart from anything identified in our motion.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Having considered your motion, the Chamber
15 decides that Exhibit P2787 is admitted into evidence.
16 MS. MARCUS: The next document is P2788, MFI. This is a portion
17 of the IDPs report from the Milosevic case.
18 MR. IVETIC: No additional objection to that one.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Same decision. P2788 is admitted into evidence.
20 MS. MARCUS: Next is P2789. This the updated CV of Dr. Tabeau.
21 MR. IVETIC: No objection.
22 JUDGE ORIE: P2789 is admitted.
23 MS. MARCUS: P2790 is an addendum prepared by Dr. Tabeau in
24 advance of her testimony dealing with the few victims who had been
25 inadvertently excluded from the POD annex.
1 MR. IVETIC: No objection.
2 JUDGE ORIE: P2790 is admitted.
3 MS. MARCUS: P2791 is a table of named correspondents between the
4 POD annex and the indictment prepared by Dr. Tabeau in advance of her
6 MR. IVETIC: No objection.
7 JUDGE ORIE: P2791 is admitted.
8 MS. MARCUS: P2792, MFI, is the courtroom presentation, the
9 slides, that Dr. Tabeau used during her testimony.
10 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, I thought that was to be a
11 demonstrative exhibit that was not being tendered.
12 MS. MARCUS: The hand-outs that I distributed and used for
13 examples was what was not uploaded and I did not intend to tender. The
14 courtroom presentation was a -- was a product of Dr. Tabeau's
15 presentation -- preparation - my apologies - for her testimony. I think
16 that the transcript will be very difficult to follow without the uploaded
17 presentation. So I don't intend to rely on it from an evidentiary point
18 of view but I would like it admitted so that the transcript is -- is
20 MR. IVETIC: I leave it in Your Honours' hands whether to admit
21 it or not. We would object that it's a demonstrative exhibit. It should
22 not be tendered for the proof of the matters asserted therein. It is not
23 a separate expert report of hers.
24 [Trial Chamber confers]
25 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber admits into evidence P2792, is aware of
1 the explanation given by Ms. Marcus, and, at the same time, of course,
2 the courtroom presentation is related to the underlying material and
3 it -- in that respect, of course, is linked to the substance.
4 Please proceed.
5 MS. MARCUS: P2793, MFI, is the expert report on proof of death
6 prepared for the Mladic case.
7 MR. IVETIC: No separate objections to that --
8 MS. MARCUS: No, no. I believe I made a mistake in my
9 description of that, Your Honour. That's the -- that's the table of --
10 that's the corrections and clarifications to the expert report. My
12 MR. IVETIC: Then no separate objection to that.
13 JUDGE ORIE: P2793 table and corrections to the expert report is
14 admitted into evidence.
15 MS. MARCUS: P2794, MFI, is the Srebrenica report for -- prepared
16 for the Mladic case.
17 MR. IVETIC: For this one, we would object. In addition to the
18 reasons that we specified in our response, the report deals with Zepa
19 which is not a part of this proceeding and deals with matters that go
20 beyond the expertise of this witness, specifically DNA-rated matters for
21 which the witness cannot offer opinions.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Marcus, any response to the objection?
23 MS. MARCUS: Your Honours, this update report updates the report,
24 P1900, admitted through Mr. Brunborg, so it is -- that evidence on
25 Srebrenica is not complete without this report. This is what Dr. Tabeau
1 has prepared. She has done it in numerous cases before. I think it's
2 well within her expertise.
3 [Trial Chamber confers]
4 JUDGE ORIE: Having considered the previous objections and the
5 one added a minute ago, the Chamber denies the objection and admits into
6 evidence P2794.
7 MS. MARCUS: Thank you, Your Honour. Next is P2795, MFI. These
8 are the annexes to that Mladic 2013 Srebrenica update expert report.
9 MR. IVETIC: No additional objections apart from those already
10 specified in our prior filings.
11 JUDGE ORIE: The objections are denied. P2795 is admitted into
13 MS. MARCUS: P2796, MFI. That is the proof of death report
14 prepared by Dr. Tabeau for the Mladic case.
15 MR. IVETIC: No additional objections apart from those already
16 specified in our 94 bis and 92 ter filings.
17 JUDGE ORIE: P2796 is admitted into evidence. The objections are
19 MS. MARCUS: P2797, MFI, is the POD annex.
20 MR. IVETIC: No specific objection to that document.
21 JUDGE ORIE: P2797 is admitted.
22 MS. MARCUS: Thank you. And finally, Your Honours, P2798, MFI.
23 That is the IDPs and refugees report prepared by Dr. Tabeau for the
24 Mladic case.
25 MR. IVETIC: No additional objections apart from those already
1 specified in our precise filings.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Denying those objections specified in the prior
3 filings, the Chamber admits into evidence P2798.
4 MS. MARCUS: Your Honour, one more matter I wanted to inform the
5 Chamber about, that 11269A, that is the redact the version of P1900 is --
6 has been upload and is ready to replace the other exhibit.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, leave is granted to replace the
8 existing document under P1900 by 65 ter 11269A.
9 Ms. Marcus, anything else before we move on, because the witness
10 is still with us. I don't know whether we need her any further.
11 MS. MARCUS: Your Honours, I have another submission but
12 certainly do not need Dr. Tabeau to be present for that.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then, Ms. Tabeau, I'd like to thank you very
14 much for a coming - it was not for the first time - to the courtroom, and
15 for having answered all the questions that were put to you by the parties
16 and by the Bench, and although the journey may not be that long, I still
17 wish you a safe return home again.
18 THE WITNESS: Thank you very much. Thank you.
19 [The witness withdrew]
20 JUDGE ORIE: What would be best? To take the break now or to
21 start for a short while with the next witness? But only after you have
22 made the submissions you intend to make, Ms. Marcus.
23 MS. MARCUS: Your Honour, I must say that the submission is a bit
24 lengthy, let's say, 15 minutes or so. Ten to 15 minutes, certainly if
25 there's going to be a discussion. So I'm in your hands as to how to
1 handle the break and the commencement of the next witness.
2 [Trial Chamber confers]
3 JUDGE ORIE: First of all, Ms. Marcus, the Chamber has no idea
4 what you intend to talk about, whether that should necessarily take 15
5 minutes or whether it could be dealt with in the 10 minutes which
6 would -- the time normally until the break. I also do not know,
7 therefore, whether the Defence would need the break to consider whether
8 or not to respond. Perhaps if there's any way that you would start
9 trying to keep it to not the full 15 minutes but a little bit less and
10 then we would know where we are. And perhaps you introduce the matter
11 right in the beginning.
12 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour, I'll do my best.
13 The final matter I would like to address Your Honours in relation
14 to Dr. Tabeau's testimony relates to the proof of death documentary
15 evidence that the Prosecution seeks to tender from the bar table in the
16 connection with Dr. Tabeau's evidence.
17 With this motion, the Prosecution seeks admission of the
18 documents used in the POD annex, P2797, from the bar table. The
19 Prosecution is in the process of preparing the final list of those
20 documents, conducting yet another review to ensure that the selection is
21 as stream-lined as possible. As the POD documents share the same basis
22 of relevance and probative value, we make this submission to tender the
23 documents. We will provide the Chamber and the Defence with the final
24 list as soon as possible.
25 As I believe Your Honours may have understood from the expert
1 evidence of Dr. Tabeau, proving the deaths of victims of charged
2 incidents in this case differs incident by incident, depending upon many
3 factors, including, the manner in which the victims were killed, where
4 they were buried, whether there were exhumations, and whether there is
5 witness evidence. For a many of the non-Srebrenica incidents, there have
6 been no exhumations and no DNA identifications. For other incident,
7 there were exhumations and autopsies but no DNA identifications, rather
8 classical identifications. In many cases there were numerous alleges,
9 both national and international, involved in the exhumations, autopsies,
10 identifications, producing a varied body of evidence. As Dr. Tabeau
11 explained during her testimony, the war situation in which much of this
12 evidence was gathered, has resulted in a collection of evidence which
13 must be analysed as a whole in order to determine the fate of the named
15 The Prosecution's evidence in relation to the named victims
16 comprises three components: Witness evidence is the first, for the most
17 part already adduced; Dr. Tabeau's analysis and conclusions in her POD
18 expert report and the annex is the second; and the third is the body of
19 documentary evidence relating to the deaths of the named victims, which
20 the Prosecution is now tendering.
21 The Prosecution will be relying on these three evidentiary groups
22 taken together as a whole in order to prove beyond a reasonable doubt
23 that a particular named victim was a victim of a specific incident with
24 which the accused has been charged in the indictment.
25 As Your Honours could appreciate during the testimony of
1 Dr. Tabeau, for example, when we analysed the evidence relating to
2 6-year-old Almina Keranovic, even taking Dr. Tabeau's evidence at its
3 highest, without the actual documents in evidence, the Chamber might have
4 been left curious as to how certain information was gathered and how
5 conclusions were drawn in the POD annex which analyses these documents.
6 The Prosecution submits that these documents are all relevant to
7 the fate of the specific victim they refer to and will provide
8 significant assistance to the Chamber in considering all the evidence
9 available when determining the fate of the named victims of the charged
11 The Prosecution will thus be providing in the near future a list
12 of approximately 1.400 documents that are used in the POD annex as
13 sources analysed to determine the fate of the victims. The list will, of
14 course, not include the POD documents that have already been admitted nor
15 will it conclude -- include the 261 documents that were tendered in our
16 bar table motion of the 31st of October. We are in the process of
17 organising the documents in a very clear manner incident by incident and
18 victim by victim to facilitate their review in tandem with the POD annex
19 of the Tabeau report.
20 The Prosecution is mindful of the number of these documents.
21 However, we are also mindful of the large number of victims of the crimes
22 with which Mr. Mladic has been charged. There are tens of thousands of
23 victims of the crimes charged in the indictment, yet the Prosecution's
24 filed victim lists for the municipalities and Sarajevo contains
25 approximately 1.450 names. Further, Dr. Tabeau has identified in her
1 analysis approximately 740 additional named victims, bringing the total
2 number of victims to be specifically named in this case to approximately
3 2.200. I emphasise the word "named," Your Honours, because the named
4 victims do not make up the entirety of the victim group. They are, in
5 fact, but a fraction of the total number of victims of these crimes.
6 The Prosecution thus submits that considering the number of
7 victims charged in this case, less than one document per named victim is,
8 in fact, a very modest stream-lined body of evidence. In judgements at
9 international tribunals and courts, often there are either no named
10 victims or very few named victims. There is most often no forensic
11 evidence of any kind available to prove the deaths of the victims. This
12 Prosecution team views it as its duty to make effective use of the
13 remarkable amount of documentary evidence available relating to the
14 victims' deaths.
15 The Prosecution views the unnamed victims as akin to those buried
16 in unmarked graves. Place holders for individuals who may be victims of
17 crimes --
18 JUDGE ORIE: Could I --
19 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour.
20 Thank you, Your Honour.
21 We view them as place holders for individuals who may be victims
22 of crimes ultimately attributed to the accused, but who, due to an
23 absence of evidence of their identities, cannot be named. The
24 Prosecution view is that, to the extent that we are able to prove - and
25 the Chamber is able to find - beyond a reasonable doubt that an
1 individual named person is a victim of a crime attributed to the accused,
2 that person and their surviving family members deserve for their
3 daughter, brother, mother, and sister, to be named as a victim in the
4 final judgement.
5 Thank you, Your Honours.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, do you want to respond right away or
7 would you like to take the time --
8 MR. IVETIC: Well, Your Honours, I think, if I understood
9 correctly, they are still working on a final list, so I reserve my
10 comments until we actually see what we're talking about, instead of
11 talking in the abstract.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Marcus, you'll steadily go on working and then
13 find out whether there are any objections?
14 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour, that's fine.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Okay.
16 Then we don't -- the Chamber has heard the submission and we'll
17 see what it results in and then we'll hear from the Defence.
18 We'll take the break and we resume at 25 minutes to 2.00.
19 And then the next witness will be called and be examined by
20 Mr. Traldi.
21 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honour.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And that -- you next witness is?
23 MS. MARCUS: Mr. Brown. Dr. Brown.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Brown. Dr. Ewan Brown.
25 We'll take the break and -- well, let's resume at 20 minutes
1 to 2.00.
2 --- Recess taken at 1.17 p.m.
3 --- On resuming at 1.41 p.m.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Could the next witness be escorted into the
6 Meanwhile, I used the time to put on the record that when we were
7 in private session at the beginning of the previous session this morning,
8 that two decisions were rendered, both granting a request by the Defence
9 to extend time for response to motions.
10 That's hereby on the record.
11 Mr. Traldi.
12 MR. TRALDI: Thank you, Mr. President. Good afternoon.
13 I have a couple of notes about exhibits before we begin.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
15 MR. TRALDI: I note Your Honours' decision this morning not to
16 preassign MFI numbers, and I also note your comment, Mr. President,
17 regarding associated exhibit. We'll significantly reduce the number --
18 in fact, we have significantly reduced the number to be tendered. For
19 efficiency, I'd propose putting that off until after cross.
20 The other urgent matter at the moment, Your Honour, is the
21 witness has requested a binder of certain documents. I have showed it --
22 the binder to Mr. Lukic who has told me he has no objection. In a moment
23 I will put what those documents are on the record.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. If the parties have no problems, then the
25 Chamber allows you to proceed as you suggest.
1 [The witness entered court]
2 JUDGE ORIE: Good afternoon, Mr. Brown.
3 THE WITNESS: Good afternoon, sir.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Brown, before you give evidence, the Rules
5 require that you make a solemn declaration. The text is handed out to
7 May I invite you to make that solemn declaration.
8 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the
9 whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
10 WITNESS: EWAN McGREGOR BROWN
11 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Brown. Please be seated.
12 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE ORIE: You'll be first examined by Mr. Traldi. You'll find
14 him to your right. And Mr. Traldi is counsel for the Prosecution.
15 Mr. Traldi.
16 MR. TRALDI: Your Honour, before commencing the examination, to
17 finish the description of the binder for the witness.
18 That includes the following documents: Mr. Brown's Krajina and
19 Manjaca reports and the two errata sheets to his Krajina report; a
20 previous report the witness did focussed on Prijedor municipality which
21 is not being tendered in this case; and then two documents cited
22 repeatedly in the witness's reports, the combat readiness report,
23 Exhibit P338 in this case, and the transcript of the 16th Assembly
24 Session, Exhibit P431, which the witness requested to have available.
25 Again, Mr. Lukic has informed me he has no objection. And I
1 request that the usher assist in providing the witness with the binder.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
3 MR. TRALDI: I should note, Your Honours, we provided the witness
4 clean copies. The witness has inserted tabs for the documents and I
5 believe has written on the tabs which document is which.
6 JUDGE ORIE: That's all acceptable. Please proceed.
7 MR. TRALDI: Your Honour, the final preliminary matter which is
8 of some urgency. There are two exhibits which I'd like to use with the
9 witnesses which are not yet on our 65 ter list. One is 65 ter 30391,
10 tentatively. We requested to add that in our 92 ter filing, and I don't
11 know that we've had a position from the Defence on it.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic or Mr. Lukic, whom to address?
13 Mr. Lukic.
14 MR. LUKIC: Just trying to organise and I want to see what is the
16 JUDGE ORIE: It is about two documents to be added to the 65 ter
17 list because leave should be granted for that before Mr. Traldi could
18 even consider to tender them.
19 MR. LUKIC: Those are 30184?
20 MR. TRALDI: 30184, 184A and 18 -- sorry, 30184 and 188 the
21 Chamber has granted leave to add in a previous decision. 30391,
22 Mr. Lukic, I believe that will be the fourth on your list.
23 THE COURT REPORTER: Mr. Traldi, can you read the numbers slower,
25 MR. TRALDI: I apologise, ma'am.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Let's take it very practically. As soon as you come
2 to that document you remind us that that was one of the document which is
3 not yet on the 65 ter list. Mr. Lukic then knows what it is about. And
4 we'll then decide most likely on adding to the 65 ter list and on any
5 objections at that moment.
6 MR. TRALDI: It's possible we won't get to them today so I can
7 meet with him this afternoon as well.
8 JUDGE ORIE: That's appreciated.
9 Examination by Mr. Traldi:
10 Q. Good afternoon, then.
11 MR. TRALDI: And, Your Honour, if there are no questions from the
12 Bench, I'd be ready to proceed at this point.
13 JUDGE ORIE: You may proceed.
14 MR. TRALDI:
15 Q. Could you please state your name for the record.
16 A. My name is Ewan McGregor Brown.
17 MR. TRALDI: And could we please have in e-court the witness's
18 CV, 65 ter 30184. It should not be broadcast.
19 THE INTERPRETER: Kindly slow down for the interpreters. Thank
20 you very much.
21 MR. TRALDI:
22 Q. Mr. Brown, is this the CV that you've provided to the
23 Office of the Prosecutor?
24 A. Yes, it is, sir.
25 Q. And does it accurately set out your professional
2 A. Yes, it does.
3 Q. The second entry relates to your work here at ICTY between 1998
4 and 2004. Can you describe that work briefly for the Chamber.
5 A. I was appointed as a military analyst in the Military Analysts
6 Team team in August 1998. I worked in that team through my career at the
7 ICTY until 2004. I was both a military analyst and also the team leader
8 of the Military Analysis Team.
9 MR. TRALDI: Your Honours, I tender 65 ter 30184 under seal.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic.
11 MR. IVETIC: No objections.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
13 THE REGISTRAR: Document 30184 receives number P2858,
14 Your Honours.
15 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted. You asked for it to be under seal?
16 MR. TRALDI: Yes, Your Honour.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Is admitted under seal.
18 MR. TRALDI: And, Your Honour, I'd note, we've also uploaded a
19 redact version, 65 ter 30184A, which I would tender as a public exhibit.
20 JUDGE ORIE: I think the system here is that they should not be
21 tendered, but let's review that, that they should be filed at a later
22 stage rather than become then for the second time part of the body of
23 evidence in this case.
24 MR. TRALDI: I'm entirely in Your Honours' hands as to that.
25 I'd ask next that the Court Officer call up 65 ter 11012.
1 Q. And, sir, what we're seeing here is a report. It has your name
2 at the bottom, the date 27 November 1992. Can you describe for us --
3 JUDGE ORIE: 2002.
4 MR. TRALDI: 2002. I apologise, Your Honour.
5 Q. Can you describe for us the scope and purpose of this report?
6 A. Your Honours, when I arrived at the ICTY I was tasked with
7 exploiting a series of documents from the 1st Krajina Corps archive.
8 When I started working on that material, there were documents which were
9 of interest to the investigative teams but I also felt that potentially
10 as a whole they might form the basis of an analytical report that would,
11 first and foremost, give me an understanding of the operations of the
12 1st Krajina Corps, but then later, Ms. Joanna Korner, who is Senior Trial
13 Attorney, felt that it would be useful to have as part of her work a more
14 comprehensive report on the activities of the 1st Krajina Corps in the
15 Bosanska Krajina in 199.2 and that's when the report was tasked. I set
16 the framework for the report. I utilised predominantly documents from
17 the 1st Krajina Corps archive along with some other police documents and
18 some political documents and a smaller number of open-source materials.
19 But that, in general, is the background to the report.
20 Q. Can you describe the limitations of the report, if any.
21 A. Yes, the report is limited. It's limited in terms of its time.
22 It predominantly deals with 1992. There are some references in 1993, if
23 they reflect back on activity in 1992. The document predominantly deals
24 with materials from the 1st Krajina Corps archives, so contemporaneous
25 documents from that military structure. Obviously within that archive
1 there are other document from other locations such as the Main Staff or
2 from lower level brigade units, for example. But it is documentary
3 based, and so it doesn't deal with other types of sources.
4 MR. TRALDI: Your Honour, I'd ask that 65 ter 11012 be marked for
6 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar the number ...
7 THE REGISTRAR: Document 11012 receives number P2859,
8 Your Honours.
9 JUDGE ORIE: P2859 is admitted -- is marked for identification.
10 MR. TRALDI: And I ask that the Court Officer call up
11 65 ter 20003.
12 Q. As this comes up, sir, I understand over the years two errata
13 sheets to the Krajina report have been put together. When it comes up,
14 I'll just ask you to look at the screen and tell us is this one of those
16 A. This one is, yes, sir.
17 MR. TRALDI: And, Your Honour, I'd ask that that be marked for
19 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
20 THE REGISTRAR: Document 20003 receives number P2860,
21 Your Honours.
22 JUDGE ORIE: And is marked for identification.
23 MR. TRALDI: Could we have 65 ter 11000.
24 Q. Sir, is this the other such sheet?
25 A. Yes, it is.
1 MR. TRALDI: And, Your Honour, I'd ask that this be marked for
2 identification as well.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Do we have a translation for it? Because we see on
4 our left screen -- yes. There seems to be -- no, as a matter of fact,
5 they're both in English.
6 MR. TRALDI: Your Honour, we'll check that over the course of the
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, that's then a second reason to have it
9 marked for identification.
10 MR. TRALDI: Yes, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
12 THE REGISTRAR: Document 11000 receives number P2861,
13 Your Honours.
14 JUDGE ORIE: And is marked for identification but not for the
15 reason any further that there's no B/C/S translation because there seems
16 to be one.
17 Please proceed.
18 MR. TRALDI: I won't specify who, Your Honour, but it's been
19 corrected very quickly.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
21 MR. TRALDI: I'd ask that the Court officer --
22 Q. Sorry, before I do that. Is there one additional correction to
23 this report that footnote 41 refers in fact to parts of two documents,
24 one from April 28th and one from May 2nd?
25 A. That's correct, sir, yes.
1 MR. TRALDI: I'd ask that the Court Officer call up 65 ter 30188.
2 Q. Do you recognise this report?
3 A. Yes, I do.
4 Q. And can you describe, again, the scope and purpose for the
6 A. I believe in late 2012 I was asked by the trial team, Mr. Groome,
7 in particular, if I would consider doing a report on the subject here
8 which is Manjaca detention camp. That report I agreed to do, and the
9 tasking was slightly expanded too to give a contextual analysis to the --
10 to the report in relation to the VRS Main Staff as well. So that report
11 was requested, I believe, in November 2012 and it was completed by me in
12 March 2013.
13 Q. Did it refer as well to additional material beyond the
14 1st Krajina Corps collection?
15 A. Yes, it did. In part, it also contains a number of documents
16 which were also in the 1st Krajina Corps or other documents, but I was
17 provided with documents from Manjaca camp, a number of which form the
18 basis of this document -- these were documents that I hadn't seen before
19 in writing the Krajina report.
20 MR. TRALDI: I'd ask that this document be marked for
22 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
23 THE REGISTRAR: Document 30188 receives number P2862,
24 Your Honours.
25 JUDGE ORIE: And is marked for identification.
1 MR. TRALDI: I'd ask that the Court Officer call up 65 ter 30467.
2 Q. Do you recognise this statement, sir?
3 A. Yes, I do.
4 Q. Does it reflect your comments on various other documents?
5 A. Yes. This was a statement I gave when asked to comment on
6 documents I hadn't used for the Krajina Corps report but had come into
7 the possession of the OTP since then. At that time I was -- I was no
8 longer working within the ICTY.
9 Q. Have you reviewed the statement in preparation for your
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Do you still hold the opinions reflected herein?
13 A. Yes, I do.
14 Q. And having taken the solemn declaration, do you affirm that the
15 statement truthfully and correctly records your opinions?
16 A. Yes, it does.
17 MR. TRALDI: Your Honour, I'd ask that this also be marked for
19 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, the number of the statement would
20 be ...
21 THE REGISTRAR: Document 30467 receives number P2863,
22 Your Honours.
23 JUDGE ORIE: And is marked for identification.
24 MR. TRALDI: Your Honour, because of the nature of the statement,
25 I suggest not to do a Rule 92 ter summary.
1 JUDGE ORIE: That -- the public will understand what the
2 testimony of this witness is about, even when no summary is read.
3 Therefore, please proceed.
4 MR. TRALDI: I hope so, Your Honour.
5 Q. Turning, then, back to your review of the documents in the
6 1st Krajina Corps archive, did any patterns arise from your review of
7 those documents?
8 A. Yes. And I believe a number of those are -- are laid out in
9 the -- the report itself. Some of those patterns include, for example, a
10 convergence between the JNA and the SDS in the spring of 1992, the moving
11 back of some units from Western Slavonia in 5th Corps zone back to
12 municipalities in the Krajina, patterns in relation to disarmament
13 operations, and some patterns in relation to the seizing control of
14 municipalities in the Krajina in -- the spring of 1992. But a number of
15 the other patterns are laid out in the report.
16 Q. I'll just ask you about a couple of those.
17 The report describes linkage between military operations and
18 strategic objectives at, for instance, page 5. Is that one of the
19 patterns that emerged for you?
20 A. Yes. I think it was one of the issues that seemed to raise
21 itself from the review and materials in the document that I saw.
22 Q. Since you drafted the Krajina report, you've reviewed a large
23 number of additional documents, including General Mladic's notebooks. I
24 will ask you about certainly of those as we go on, but for now I have a
25 simple question: Has your review of those addition documents altered or
1 reinforced your conclusions as to the patterns of events described in the
2 Krajina report?
3 A. I don't think the -- the review of the additional materials that
4 I have seen has necessarily altered the underlying conclusions in the
5 report. And, in fact, in many areas, the documents have added and
6 reinforced the conclusions. So I -- I don't think it changes much, but I
7 think what it does is given additional weight to some of those
9 MR. TRALDI: I'd ask the Court Officer call up Exhibit P02367.
10 Q. For efficiency and because we have limited time, I will sometimes
11 direct your attention to particular portions of a document. However, for
12 clarity, I'll start with an example and ask you to help us understand the
14 First, this document is dated June 1st, 1992. Can you give us a
15 sense of what has been happening in the 1st Krajina Corps' area of
16 responsibility right before that date?
17 A. Yes. This is an example of a daily combat report that the
18 1st Krajina Corps sent to the Main Staff. It actually is a report that
19 didn't change in terms of format when the 5th Corps or the JNA
20 transformed into the 1st Krajina Corps. All that changed was that the
21 distribution to the Main Staff changed.
22 At this time, the 5th Corps has renamed itself -- sorry, the
23 1st Krajina Corps has renamed itself to the 1st Krajina Corps and there
24 have been a number of municipality operations in and around the Krajina
25 at this time which the corps was involved in and which it's reporting in
1 this daily combat report. It also makes mention that a large number of
2 prisoners have been taken as part of these operations.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sorry, Mr. Traldi, if I may just interrupt.
4 Mr. Brown, the record says that the Krajina Corps has renamed
5 itself to the 1st -- the 1st Krajina Corps has renamed itself to the
6 1st Krajina Corps. Is that all you meant to say?
7 THE WITNESS: I meant to say the 5th Corps. It was the JNA
8 5th Corps prior to this, then it became the 1st Krajina Corps after the
9 transition into the VRS.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
11 MR. TRALDI: Could we turn to page 2 in both languages, please.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic.
13 MR. LUKIC: Sorry for interrupting at this moment. But I don't
14 see this document on the list proposed with this witness.
15 MR. TRALDI: As always, Mr. Lukic, the list for an expert witness
16 includes clearly on the list reference to all of the exhibits in the
17 expert witness's report. This one, for instance, is cited at
18 footnote 619 of the Krajina report. And in our e-mail sending out the
19 list, I don't have the exact language in front of me, but we referred to
20 the annex to our 92 ter filing setting out those exhibits by footnote.
21 JUDGE ORIE: And it's used as an example rather than ...
22 MR. TRALDI: In this case, yes, Your Honour.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, in this case. Yes.
24 MR. LUKIC: One more thing. I don't know, maybe I don't have the
25 right version, but on my version of 65 ter list there is no sentence that
1 would indicate that materials from the expert report would be used.
2 MR. TRALDI: I'd refer Mr. Lukic to our e-mail of November 11th
3 at 5.50. It's in my copy of the list as well. But, of course, I don't
4 have his copy. The last sentence on page 2. Sorry, page 6.
5 MR. LUKIC: I'll try to find that one. Okay. Thanks.
6 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
7 MR. TRALDI: If we could have page 3 in the B/C/S, actually, 2 in
8 the English.
9 Q. Here it refers to mopping up operations under clause 8. Do you
10 see that language?
11 A. Yes, I do.
12 Q. We'll come to those operations more later. But if -- at this
13 time can you provide us with a general sense of the consequences for
14 non-Serbs of what are referred to as mopping up activities?
15 A. At the time of writing of this document, units of the
16 1st Krajina Corps had been involved in operations in the municipalities
17 mentioned in section 8. And they had taken control of those
18 municipalities, often resulting in the movement out and capturing of
19 detainees from non-Serb villages. And this reference would seem to
20 indicate that they're continuing this process and continuing to mop up
21 those particular areas.
22 MR. TRALDI: And if we could turn to page 3 in the English as
24 Q. Is that a 1st Krajina Corps stamp or a 5th Corps stamp?
25 A. It's annotated as a 5th Corps stamp. This was probably because
1 the transition between the 5th Corps and the 1st Krajina Corps had only
2 been a few weeks before this --
3 JUDGE ORIE: There seems to be a problem. Mr. Stojanovic, could
4 you --
5 [Trial Chamber confers]
6 JUDGE ORIE: Could you check with Mr. Mladic what his problem is.
7 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, I can, Your Honours.
8 Mr. Mladic has asked me to ask the Prosecutor to slow down
9 because he is unable to follow the discussion at this pace. Thank you.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Traldi, that's a clear request not only from the
11 interpreters but also from the accused to slow down.
12 Would you please keep that in mind.
13 MR. TRALDI: I will. I'd ask that the Court Officer call up
14 65 ter 16492.
15 Q. And for your reference, sir, I'll start with some brief questions
16 about the JNA 5th Corps. Can you tell us what this document is.
17 A. This is a hand-over certificate for the command of the JNA
18 5th Corps on the 19th of March, 1992, and a handing over to General
19 Talic, who, up until that time, had been the deputy commander of the
20 corps. He took command on this date. He remained the 5th Corps
21 commander and the 1st Krajina Corps commander on establishment of the VRS
22 and remained corps commander for the war.
23 MR. TRALDI: Your Honours, I'd tendered 65 ter 16492.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
25 THE REGISTRAR: Document 16492 receives number P2864,
1 Your Honours.
2 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
3 MR. TRALDI: And I'd ask that the Court Officer call up
4 65 ter 28398. This is an order from the 5th Corps dated the
5 1st of April.
6 Q. As it comes up, sir, in your report, you describe a twin-track
7 policy that the JNA was on at that time. Could you describe that for the
9 A. Yes, this is a -- near the beginning of my report when the
10 documents indicated to me that in the early months of 1992, in -- in
11 particular, in Bosnia, the situation was deteriorating, and the JNA were
12 redeployed into areas in Bosnia with the intention -- or with the
13 instruction of reducing ethnic tensions. And it would seem that that was
14 a task that they were given, presumably in part because they wished
15 Bosnia to remain as part of a federal -- within the Federal Republic of
17 So on the one hand there are those tasks, but there are other
18 documents indicating that the JNA was providing weapons to the
19 Bosnian Serbs, that it was siding very much with the position of the
20 Bosnian Serbs. So, on the one hand, there was this policy of trying to
21 reduce ethnic tensions, I would argue, in an attempt to maintain as much
22 of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia as possible, and on the other hand
23 and more covertly providing assistance to the Bosnian Serbs and their
24 position. And that's where I think I would argue the twin-track policy.
25 Q. This report refers to the 6th brigade and say it should be
1 deployed in the Sanski Most area. Based on a your review of documents,
2 was that carried out?
3 A. Yes, it was. It was moved back from Western Slavonia where it
4 had been operating in combat operations there and it was moved back to
5 Sanski Most at this time.
6 Q. In the next paragraph the document states:
7 "Establish full co-operation with the organs of government in
8 Sanski Most municipality and collaboration with TO and police units."
9 Again, based on your review of documents, was this sort of
10 co-operation between 5th Corps units and the civilian authorities
12 A. Yes. And in the case of the 6th Brigade, in particular, it -- it
13 was conducting this co-operation with organs on the ground, and later,
14 very much so, when Crisis Staffs were established and, in fact, the
15 brigade commander of this brigade was -- was very much an active member
16 of the Crisis Staff in Sanski Most.
17 Q. When you say the Crisis Staff you're referring to the
18 Bosnian Serb Crisis Staff?
19 A. Yes, I am, sir.
20 Q. Do you relate that co-operation to what the 1st Krajina Corps was
21 doing after the transformation of the JNA and the creation of the VRS?
22 A. Yes. And, in fact, immediately on the transition into the VRS on
23 the 19th/20th of May, 1992, General Talic, as the corps commander,
24 stressed this in a number of his documents and actively stressed that
25 co-operation was to be expected.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Traldi, I'm looking at the clock.
2 MR. TRALDI: Yes, Your Honour. I believe we had extended
3 sessions this week but I'm happy to break now --
4 JUDGE ORIE: Oh, yes, we --
5 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
6 JUDGE ORIE: You're right, Mr. Traldi. I had forgotten that.
7 Therefore please proceed for another half an hour.
8 MR. TRALDI: Thank you, Your Honour. I would start by tendering
9 this document as a public exhibit.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
11 MR. LUKIC: No objection.
12 THE REGISTRAR: Document 28398 receives number P2865,
13 Your Honours.
14 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
15 MR. TRALDI: And I'd request now 65 ter 06586. It is a report of
16 12 May 1992 from the 5th Corps Command to the 2nd Military District.
17 Q. Sir --
18 JUDGE ORIE: Before we do so, I think the -- Madam Registrar
19 mentioned the 65 ter of P2865 which doesn't appear on the transcript yet.
20 THE REGISTRAR: That was number 28398 that received number P2865,
21 Your Honours.
22 JUDGE ORIE: And was admitted. Please proceed.
23 MR. TRALDI:
24 Q. As this document comes up, sir, thinking now of early May 1992
25 can you characterise the 5th Corps at that point in general terms?
1 A. I'm not sure exactly the question. Are you talking about where
2 it was deployed and what it was doing.
3 Q. Let's start with what it was doing.
4 A. Part of the corps was withdrawing from Western Slavonia having
5 been involved in operations there since that later part of 1991. Other
6 parts were in municipalities within its zone of operation.
7 Q. And in terms of professionalism, can you express an opinion as to
8 the 5th Corps?
9 A. It was a corps that was quite seasoned. It had significant
10 combat experience in Western Slavonia. It was led by a commander who had
11 been involved in those operations -- a deputy commander and then a
12 commander. It was a corps that had significant hardware and military
13 hardware, armoured units, tank units, heavy artillery, and it was
14 certainly an effective corps.
15 Q. In this document, here on page 1 of the English and page 3 of the
16 B/C/S, the 5th Corps reports:
17 "The Muslim and Croat population is moving out of the area of
18 Donji Vakuf towards Bugojno."
19 Can you explain the importance of that note in your view.
20 A. Well, Donji Vakuf area was part of the 5th Corps zone, and it's
21 evident that the 5th Corps at this time is acutely aware of what is going
22 on there and that Muslims and Croats are leaving that area, and it is
23 being reported up as a significant issue to the 2nd Military District.
24 Q. The document is dated 12 May. Who was in charge of the
25 2nd Military District at that time?
1 A. General Mladic was in charge at that time.
2 MR. TRALDI: I'd tendered that document as the next public
3 Prosecution Exhibit.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Document 06586 receives number P2866,
6 Your Honours.
7 JUDGE ORIE: P2866 is admitted.
8 MR. TRALDI:
9 Q. You described earlier a process of convergence between the JNA
10 and Serb authorities. By this point, roughly 12 May, what was the status
11 of that convergence process?
12 A. Basically in the first weeks of May 1992 there were a number of
13 meetings, in essence to transform the JNA units left behind by the JNA in
14 Bosnia into the VRS culminating on the 12th of May with the
15 16th Assembly Session and the announcement of the VRS, establishment of
16 the army. So there had been discussions prior to this about the process
17 of how that was going to happen, including with senior JNA officer, SDS
18 leaders, and General Mladic in -- in -- in this case, who later became
19 the head of the VRS, of course.
20 Q. So you describe a process. How far down the road of that process
21 were the JNA and the Bosnian Serbs by this point?
22 A. By the 12th of May, I think this combat report - I'm not sure of
23 the timing - but by the 12th of May, in essence, it had been announced
24 that the VRS would be established.
25 Q. We'll get to some of the meetings you describe in a moment. But
1 before we do, you discussed the professionalism of the 5th Corps. In
2 your Krajina report, paragraphs 1.67 to 1.69 you refer to portion of the
3 VRS combat readiness report, Exhibit 338, which refers to two phases of
4 development of the VRS.
5 Did you see those phases in the Krajina Corps' area of
7 A. Yes, I did, very much so. I think the combat analysis report
8 indicates that the first phase was concerned with liberating municipality
9 territories and the establishment of the Main Staff, and I believe that
10 documentary references from that early part up until June very much
11 reflect that -- reflected that in -- and the second phase is annotated as
12 one where directives are used and -- and on -- wider strategic goals are
13 implemented. But I saw that very much so in -- in the 5th Corps
15 Q. One of the other things that portion of the report discusses is
16 the first phase being heavily consisting of locally organised units. Is
17 that something that you saw in the 5th Corps' area of responsibility?
18 A. In terms of locally organised units, no. There were TO units,
19 mobilised TO units that were part of that process of taking over
20 municipalities, yes. But in terms of the 5th Corps, many of the units
21 that were involved were actually the same units that had been working in
22 Western Slavonia. They were the formed units of the corps, so, for
23 example, the 43rd Motorised Brigade was involved in Prijedor. We have
24 just seen the document about the 6th Brigade in Sanski Most. They were
25 the units that were also involved in the operations in the municipalities
1 in May and June and later. So it wasn't, if you like, units that are
2 outside of that -- that -- that corps.
3 MR. TRALDI: I'd ask now that we have Exhibit P352, page 211 in
4 the English, 213 in the B/C/S.
5 Q. Sir, what we're calling up now is one of General Mladic's
6 notebooks. Have you studied those notebooks yourself?
7 A. Yes, I reviewed them as part of my testimony and I had reviewed
8 them previously.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Traldi, can you give us the number of the
10 exhibit again, please.
11 MR. TRALDI: Yes, Your Honour. P352, page 211 in the English,
12 and I believe it's 213 in the B/C/S.
13 Q. This notebook entry records a meeting including, among others,
14 Mladic and General Adzic on 30 April 1992. What importance do you attach
15 to this meeting?
16 A. I think this meeting, in particular, is -- very much talks to
17 this issue of convergence. The context, I think, behind this meeting was
18 that obviously there had been a declaration of the new FRY, which was to
19 only consist of Serbia and Montenegro, and so it put the JNA in a
20 slightly difficult position in relation to its formations in Bosnia and
21 also how that was going to affect the Bosnian Serbs within Bosnia.
22 And this meeting on the 30th, General Adzic, who was the acting
23 federal secretary for National Defence and Chief of Staff of the JNA, is
24 explaining, I believe, that no matter what, the FRY, the new FRY, is
25 something of a fait accompli, and it's negotiating how they can support
1 the Bosnian Serbs from a military perspective if, as -- as -- as and when
2 that technical JNA withdrawal occurs, which was to happen around the
3 19th, or middle of May. And what happens here is General Adzic suggests
4 or says that -- that the JNA, in essence, would be -- will remain, there
5 will be forces remaining in Serbian areas.
6 MR. TRALDI: Could we have page 224 in the English and 228 in the
8 Q. Here, General Mladic records at the bottom of the English page:
9 "Great damage," refers to Arkan in Bijeljina, the destruction of Foca,
10 lootings and torchings, torching of Croatian villages at Kupres,
11 bombardment of the old part of Sarajevo.
12 What importance do you attach to this language?
13 A. Well, it would seem that General Mladic is -- is aware very much
14 of the activities in those areas and the potential criminal activity that
15 seems to be going on, in terms of looting and torching of villages.
16 MR. TRALDI: Could we have page 246 now, please, in the English;
17 250 in the B/C/S.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Traldi, could you give us a time-frame for the
19 last portion we looked at, page 224?
20 MR. TRALDI: The same meeting, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Same meeting still.
22 MR. TRALDI:
23 Q. Here, we see at the top of the page the date 5 May 1992. And it
24 reflects some questions General Mladic has noted down. What importance
25 do you ascribe to that, if any?
1 A. I might have to go back to the 30th of August [sic]. But I
2 believe later in that document Adzic lays out that they will be
3 protecting the Serbs and that units will be moved back, or suggested that
4 units will be moved back into Serb areas. And I think in between that
5 meeting and here, the decision has clearly been taken that there's going
6 to be a new -- that the -- that the -- the remnants of the JNA in Bosnia
7 will form the basis of the new Bosnian Serb army. And I -- it would
8 appear that on 5th May that General Mladic is noting down issues or
9 aspects that need to be resolved in order for the VRS -- well, the new
10 VRS, to be established and -- and points for discussions. So objectives,
11 for example, the character of the army, relationship with the territory,
12 relationship between non-Serbs and Serbian inhabitants, and all the other
13 issues of -- the headquarters.
14 So, in essence, it seems like a decisions that been taken that
15 this is going to happen, and here are some of the issues that need
16 resolution or discussion.
17 Q. At the beginning of your answer, sir, you were recorded to refer
18 to the 30th of August. Was that the date you meant to refer to?
19 A. 30th of May I -- I apologise. Sorry, 30th April. The one we
20 just realised at -- looked at, the Adzic meeting prior to this.
21 Q. If we turn to the next page, page 247 in the English, 251 in the
23 In the middle, under 1330 hours, we see Mladic recording talks
24 with General Adzic. Have you reviewed that discussion in preparation for
25 your testimony?
1 A. Yes, I have.
2 Q. Do you have any comment on the substance of this conversation?
3 A. Again, this is following on from the practical issues of
4 establishing the VRS. If possible, I'd like to see the next section.
5 MR. TRALDI: Could we have the next page, please.
6 THE WITNESS: Yes. It -- it continues along this vein about --
7 discussions about how practically they're going to establish the VRS.
8 MR. TRALDI: If we turn to page 253. It's 258 in the B/C/S.
9 Q. We see the beginning of a meeting on 6 May. And there's a
10 discussion of killings by SDS representatives in Bratunac.
11 Turning to the next page in each version, Mladic records: "Send
12 someone to Bratunac to calm them down."
13 JUDGE ORIE: There seems to be...
14 No -- no loud speaking.
15 [Defence counsel confer]
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. -- Mr. Mladic, you may speak at low voice.
17 MR. TRALDI:
18 Q. Below that if the B/C/S has -- the B/C/S appears to have come up,
19 it writes: "Karadzic to send someone to pacify the extremists."
20 What importance do you ascribe to this language?
21 A. Could I see the previous page again, please.
22 Q. Sure.
23 MR. TRALDI: Can we go back to 253 in the English.
24 THE WITNESS: It would seem, again, that General Mladic has
25 received some briefing about the activities in Bratunac, which has
1 included the killing of non-Serbs. And there is a reference to the TO
2 there being involved, or inviting individuals in. It seems that the
3 emphasis here is to try and calm the situation, rather than to
4 investigate or even potentially prosecute anyone who may have conducted
5 some kind of criminal act.
6 MR. TRALDI: If we could turn, then, to the next page in the
8 Sorry, I think my notes are in error and we should go one page
10 And one page further in the B/C/S for Mr. Mladic as well.
11 Q. Here we see a list of things to do. What importance do you
12 ascribe to that list?
13 A. I think this follows on in chronology concerning General Mladic's
14 tasks or issues of -- to resolve in the establishment of the new VRS. It
15 would seem to be that General Mladic here is already thinking about what
16 tasks he needs to conduct or carry out in order to establish the
17 headquarters and to ensure an effective military. So cleaning the
18 commands of dead wood, presumably meaning getting rid of ineffective
19 commanders. So it's a follow-on from the checklist earlier on, I think.
20 Q. Turning now to page 262 in the English; 270 in the transcript in
22 We see the date, 7 May 1992, meeting, Krajisnik, and then it lays
23 out a number of strategic -- of what are termed strategic goals.
24 What importance do you attach to these?
25 A. I think this is an important meeting in which one of the comments
1 that General Mladic had noted earlier on about objectives were clearly
2 discussed. In order to resolve this issue: What should the new army, or
3 the VRS's, objectives be.
4 Here Krajisnik lists them, and they are -- although there's seven
5 here, they are very -- in fact, they are identical to the ones that were
6 presented at the 16th Assembly Session on 12th of May.
7 So, to me, this period - 5th, 6th, 7th of May - is about the
8 establishment of the VRS and -- and -- and getting an idea of what the
9 objectives of the VRS are to be. And, of course, they are publicly
10 announced that -- or at least they're announced at the Assembly session a
11 few days later.
12 And if we go back to the Main Staff analysis readiness report, it
13 makes mention that the -- the beginning of the VRS started in those early
14 days of May, 1992, and this would seem to reflect that.
15 Q. Turning to page 264. That's page 272 in the B/C/S.
16 Can you explain the diagram that's been recorded here.
17 A. This is an annotation of the proposed new VRS. Again, this is
18 this preliminary process of analysis and decision, and this would seem to
19 be a structural diagram of what the -- what General Mladic expected the
20 VRS or -- the VRS to be. And, indeed, this is very similar to what it
21 became, although they added an extra corps later in 1992.
22 So here you have annotation of the 1st Krajina Corps,
23 (Banja Luka), that's why where the 5th Corps was. And this seems to be
24 his wiring diagram, structural diagram of what the VRS is going to be in
25 the preceding weeks -- days and weeks.
1 MR. TRALDI: Your Honours, at this point, I would turn to the
2 16th Assembly Session. I would imagine it would take us past the end
3 time for today, and so for continuity, I'd suggest we might break a
4 couple of minutes early.
5 JUDGE ORIE: We'll then do so.
6 I'd like to instruct you, Mr. Brown, that you should not speak or
7 communicate in whatever way with whomever, about your testimony. Whether
8 that is testimony you have given already today, or that's testimony still
9 to be given in the days to follow.
10 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
11 JUDGE ORIE: You may follow the usher, and we'd like to see you
12 back tomorrow morning at 9.30 in this same courtroom.
13 [The witness stands down]
14 JUDGE ORIE: We adjourn for the day, and we'll resume tomorrow,
15 Tuesday, the 19th of November, 9.30 in the morning, in this same
16 courtroom, III.
17 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.39 p.m.,
18 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 19th day of
19 November, 2013, at 9.30 a.m.