1 Wednesday, 8 July 2015
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.38 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone in and around this
7 Mr. Registrar, would you please call the case.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is case
9 IT-09-92-T, The Prosecutor versus Ratko Mladic.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
11 I apologise. Due to a technical reason, I arrived late this
12 morning which caused us a late start.
13 I have a kind of an echo in my earphones. I see that others have
14 it as well. I don't know what happened. Meanwhile, we could already ask
15 the witness to be escorted into the courtroom.
16 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
17 JUDGE ORIE: The echo is not such that it prevents us from
18 working, but if it could be repaired, that would be appreciated.
19 [The witness takes the stand]
20 THE WITNESS: Good morning.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning, Ms. Tabeau.
22 THE WITNESS: Good morning.
23 JUDGE ORIE: I'd-like to remind you that you're still bound by
24 the solemn declaration you've given at the very, very beginning of your
1 THE WITNESS: Of course.
2 [Trial Chamber confers]
3 JUDGE ORIE: And Mr. Ivetic will now continue his
4 cross-examination. I think, by the way, that the sound problem is that
5 everything comes not through the earphones but through our microphones.
6 And -- but let's proceed for the time being. Court recording is still
7 okay, but we are close to where it starts -- the sound starts repeating
8 itself in the microphones. And since this is true for all of the
9 microphones, apparently, it must be a systematic problem rather than
10 a ...
11 Mr. Ivetic, let's slowly start. Perhaps it's a good reason to
12 make pauses between question and answer and answer and question.
13 Let's proceed.
14 MR. IVETIC: Thank you.
15 WITNESS: EWA TABEAU [Resumed]
16 Cross-examination by Mr. Ivetic: [Continued]
17 Q. Dr. Tabeau, before we take up where we left off yesterday, I'd
18 like to see if I can better understand --
19 JUDGE ORIE: No, I think however good we try ...
20 [Trial Chamber confers]
21 JUDGE ORIE: As soon as Judges start resolving technical
22 problems, then we are really in trouble.
23 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
24 [Trial Chamber confers]
25 JUDGE ORIE: Most likely, we need five minutes to restart the
1 system. Therefore, we take a short break. Everyone is invited to remain
3 Ms. Tabeau, we'd like to see you back in a couple of minutes.
4 [The witness stands down]
5 JUDGE ORIE: We take a short break [Microphone not activated].
6 --- Break taken at 9.45 a.m.
7 --- On resuming at 9.50 a.m.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Let's do a test. I think that the sound problem has
9 been resolved. Let's make a new start. It's not resolved? It is.
10 [Trial Chamber confers]
11 [The witness takes the stand]
12 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning again, Ms. Tabeau.
14 THE WITNESS: Good morning.
15 JUDGE ORIE: We make a new start, and it seems that at least our
16 sound problems have been resolved. Let's wait for what other problems
17 may cross other path.
18 Mr. Ivetic, please proceed.
19 MR. IVETIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
20 Q. Dr. Tabeau, before we take up where we left off yesterday, I want
21 to see if I can better understand the testimony that you gave and your
22 report. In the field of demography, what exactly is the commonly
23 accepted definition of ethnic cleansing?
24 A. Well, ethnic cleansing is not defined within the field of
25 demography. It is the demography of war, or conflict demography, that
1 has been dealing with issues like ethnic cleansing, among other things.
2 Q. Can you then tell us, Doctor, for purposes of your report on
3 Tomasica, what is the definition of ethnic cleansing that you used and
4 had in mind when you drafted that report?
5 A. I didn't use any particular definition of ethnic cleansing. I
6 interpreted certain demographic distributions as illustrative and
7 indicative of ethnic cleansing in this area, in the area ARK and Prijedor
8 in particular.
9 JUDGE ORIE: But, Ms. Tabeau, that requires a certain
10 understanding of what you understand ethnic cleansing to be, and I think
11 that was the question that Mr. Ivetic put to you.
12 THE WITNESS: So if I may continue then.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Please.
14 THE WITNESS: I didn't use any particular definition of ethnic
15 cleansing. I used my own understanding of ethnic cleansing, which I
16 understand as focusing certain actions on a given group of population
17 leading to eradication, largely, of this group from a certain territory.
18 And I saw it from the distributions of the missing persons by ethnicity,
19 by age and sex, which I interpreted as supportive and indicative of
20 ethnic cleansing in the territory of ARK.
21 Q. Okay. Now, would you agree with me that in the fields of
22 statistics and demography, violent death is categorised into three
23 category: Accidental death, suicide, and homicide?
24 A. Yes. Broadly speaking, yes.
25 Q. And would you agree homicide is further subdivided into
1 justifiable homicide and murder?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Now when you conclude in your report that all Tomasica victims
4 died violent deaths, can you differentiate between accidental death,
5 suicide, and the two forms of homicide, or are all these forms of violent
6 death included in your finding?
7 A. Of course, I couldn't differentiate as my knowledge of the
8 circumstances was not enough to make these kind of divides or
10 Q. Okay. Is it correct that your office at the Office of the
11 Prosecutor has a detailed list from the BiH Ministry of Defence listing
12 their records of their own soldiers who are listed as having been
13 deceased in combat?
14 A. Yes, it is correct. The Office of the Prosecution has the lists,
15 the so-called army records, obtained not from the BiH Ministry of Defence
16 but former ministries of Federation and Republika Srpska. Ministries of
17 Defence, of course.
18 Q. Okay. Would you consider ABiH soldiers listed as having been
19 deceased in combat as victims of ethnic cleansing?
20 A. Well, it is combat activities you are -- well, casualties you are
21 talking about, so I think combat is just combat. So I wouldn't.
22 Q. Okay. Now, in your report for Tomasica and in the slide show
23 that we looked at the last few day, I noticed that the tables that were
24 offered do not have at their bottom a footnote or an identification of
25 the source material that is the provenance of the data. Would you agree
1 that for professional reports authored by someone in your field, it is
2 customary for tables to have such information about the source or
3 provenance of the data that is reflected therein?
4 A. Well, I discussed sources used in the analysis extensively in
5 early sections of the report, and of course I can insert under each table
6 the same sources again and again. That is possible and I can do that if
7 you wish so.
8 Q. I thank you for that offer. Now, could you please answer my
9 question, which was: Is it customary in the field for such a report
10 authored by someone in your field to have such information at the bottom
11 of a table?
12 A. Well, it is -- well, yes and no. Some reports do contain this
13 information and some don't.
14 Q. Okay. Now, if we have in e-court P2797. And while we wait for
15 that, Madam, I think you'll see this is one of your revised annexes from
16 your prior report from 2013. And we should probably not broadcast the
17 same just to be on the safe side.
18 And I would like to have page 98 in the English and page 118 in
19 the B/C/S of this document.
20 Actually, it should be the next -- next page in the English.
21 Thank you.
22 Now, Doctor, looking at this, would you agree with me that these
23 entries are for individuals from Prijedor municipality?
24 A. I believe so, yes.
25 Q. And here we see, if we could actually scroll a little bit to the
1 right, that's -- a little more actually. That's fine.
2 We see here that for each of these individuals you have
3 differentiated between civilian on the one hand and soldier on the other
4 hand, and for item number 19 at the top, we see a soldier and it says he
5 was killed on 26/05/1992 near Kozarac Prijedor. And for the next entry,
6 which would be number 20, we see a civilian who also disappeared in
7 Kozarac Prijedor on the same date, and it says a court ruling on death
8 has determined he was killed in combat on 26/05/1992, the same date as
9 the prior individual.
10 Now if we could scroll to the right, I'd like to see what your
11 conclusions were as to these individuals. Number 19 the soldier it says
12 "confirmed." And number 20 the civilian it says "inconclusive."
13 First of all, is this approach consistent with the methodology
14 that you employed in preparing this report?
15 A. Well, I mentioned yesterday that I didn't mark the Tomasica
16 victims as civilians or soldiers. I also mentioned that I can provide
17 such a distinction between the civilians and soldiers. Rather than that,
18 other than that, the methodology was the same.
19 Q. Perhaps I was imprecise in my question. Is this methodology that
20 we've gone through for these two individuals indicative of the
21 methodology used for this report that we have on the screen which is your
22 2013 annex P2797?
23 A. Well, I confirm -- just confirm that it was the same methodology.
24 Q. Okay. And so if I'm understanding your results right, the
25 soldier, number 19, when it says "confirmed" that is confirming him as a
1 victim; is that right?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Okay.
4 A. And the confirmation also relates to the consistency of all the
5 reporting from each source available for this individual.
6 Q. Okay. And so does that mean that you have excluded him as having
7 been killed in combat, perhaps even the combat that the other individual
8 disappearing in the same area on the same date was killed by?
9 A. I don't understand the question. So I excluded the second
10 individual, the individual whose record is in red you are saying, right?
11 Q. Yes, yes. So the soldier -- the soldier who you confirmed as a
12 victim disappeared on the same day on the same location and it says was
13 killed on that date, and the person in red it says "killed in combat."
14 So I assume that you excluded the first individual, the soldier,
15 from being involved in that same combat that caused the person in red to
16 be deceased, did you?
17 A. Sir, I would need to study this record again, the underlying
18 sources to give you the foundation for calling one record confirmed and
19 the other inconclusive. I don't know what was the actual reason reading
20 from this table.
21 Q. Okay.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, is this a public exhibit?
23 MR. IVETIC: Have I been told it is, Your Honours. I just wasn't
24 sure in terms of -- we've not been displaying some of the other tables
25 and I didn't want to run afoul if it -- so it's an abundance of caution
1 that I said not to publish it.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, not to -- okay.
3 THE WITNESS: May I have one request? I would like to see the
4 left side of this table and the victim number, if I may.
5 MR. IVETIC:
6 Q. Yes. If we could perhaps leave English on the screen alone so
7 that the Doctor can have the full table.
8 A. Thank you.
9 Q. So we're talking about number 19 and number 20.
10 A. Yes. I still cannot give you an answer right now, so I need to
11 check my records in order to be more specific about why.
12 Q. Thank you. Fair enough. Now, yesterday we talked about part of
13 your report, and now I'm talking about P7449, that started at page 30 in
14 the English and page 38 in the B/C/S, where the first four sections dealt
15 with Prijedor alone and only the last part after that dealt with Tomasica
17 The part of your analysis in that report that deals with Prijedor
18 and evidence that the Prosecution had before in 2013 goes from page 30 to
19 page 39 of your report, which is almost one-third of your whole report.
20 Do you consider this part of your report dealing with Prijedor and based
21 on old evidence to be important to the work you came back to complete at
22 this Tribunal in March of 2014?
23 A. Well, are you, sir, asking me if it was my own interest in
24 Prijedor that I spent so much space on the report in it?
25 Q. I'm asking whether you considered that part of your report to be
1 important to the work you came back to complete at this Tribunal in
2 March of 2014.
3 A. Well, I, of course, consider anything that is in this report very
4 important to be presented as part of the Tomasica study. So also the
5 Prijedor missing is an important part of this work.
6 Q. Okay. And was there a feeling on your part that your prior
7 reports and prior evidence on Prijedor were insufficient or not enough
8 that led you to include in one-third of your report on Tomasica a further
9 analysis of the evidence that did not deal with Tomasica?
10 A. Well, I think you are not right by saying that the analysis of
11 the missing persons from Prijedor, and even broadly ARK, is not relevant
12 to Tomasica. It is a context which is very important for properly
13 assessing the scale and the -- yeah, the victimisation of the events that
14 led to burying the victims in Tomasica. So, I -- first of all, I think
15 it is important to speak about the missing persons in Prijedor and the
16 ARK. Second -- what was the question, actually?
17 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps you re-read it, about your feeling whether
18 there was a need to complete --
19 THE WITNESS: Yeah, that's right. Yes. I of course did have
20 this feeling that it was important to revisit the Prijedor missing
21 because it was for the first time that such large number of individuals
22 reported missing in the year 1992 in the ARK and in Prijedor have been
23 identified. So a good data set became available for the Tomasica
25 MR. IVETIC:
1 Q. But, Doctor, you'll agree with me that the Jakarina Kosa
2 excavations identified a significant number of individuals, many of the
3 same individuals that later were also identified from Tomasica. So the
4 great number of victims was already available to you, and in fact
5 identities were included in your proof of death that was filed in 2013.
6 Would you not agree?
7 A. Well, it did -- Jakarina Kosa identifications were available much
8 earlier, but became extremely relevant to the report on Tomasica. Only
9 in the beginning of my work on it, when I came in March 2014 to work on
10 Tomasica, there was a belief that only 10, perhaps maximally 15, bodies
11 were moved from Tomasica to Jakarina Kosa, and only in the course of my
12 project it became obvious that these were large numbers, not 10 or 15 but
13 98 and recently 99. It is about 100 individuals. So this made
14 Jakarina Kosa an important site to study.
15 Q. Okay. Now let's call up 1D5781 in e-court. Dr. Tabeau, this is
16 your professional biographical profile as maintained on the internet site
17 LinkedIn. Can I confirm if you drafted your own biographical profile on
18 LinkedIn by yourself?
19 A. Yes, I did.
20 Q. And do you recognise this as being that profile?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Okay. And is everything written here by you in your LinkedIn
23 profile entirely truthful and accurate?
24 A. I believe it is.
25 Q. Let's look together at your most recent entry under experience
1 from March 2014 to the present, that's the second entry up from the
2 bottom, and if we can look at the last sentence in the same:
3 "I returned to the ICTY after a break of 2.5 years, to assist the
4 OTP in the completion of the last ICTY cases."
5 Dr. Tabeau, will you confirm for me that this is how you see your
6 role at this trial, to assist the OTP with completing the Mladic case?
7 A. Well, this is what I wrote on the web site. And I just told you
8 that I wrote the truth there.
9 Q. Okay.
10 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, I would tender this document as the
11 next Defence exhibit.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
13 MS. D'ASCOLI: No objections.
14 JUDGE ORIE: No objection.
15 Mr. Registrar.
16 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit D1093, Your Honours.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Admitted into evidence.
18 MR. IVETIC: Thank you.
19 Q. Dr. Tabeau, thank you for answering my questions.
20 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, that completes the cross-examination.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Ivetic.
22 Any need for further questions?
23 MS. D'ASCOLI: Yes, Your Honours. I do have re-examination. Can
24 I have a minute just to get set up.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
1 MS. D'ASCOLI: Thanks.
2 Thank you, Your Honours.
3 Re-examination by Ms. D'Ascoli:
4 Q. Dr. Tabeau, good morning.
5 A. Good morning.
6 Q. Mr. Ivetic asked you yesterday about whether -- and today as
7 well, about whether the identified individuals that you analysed in your
8 report died in combat or not, and I have a few questions about this.
9 First, many of the victims exhumed from Tomasica and/or
10 Jakarina Kosa who we have been discussing during your testimony in these
11 days were also analysed for your proof of death report that we have also
12 just discussed, P2797, in 2013; correct?
13 A. Correct.
14 Q. And that would include the scheduled victims for incidents
15 charged in this case; right?
16 A. Correct.
17 Q. Now in that report, did you opine on whether demographic sources
18 you analysed allowed you to confirm the victims' death within the context
19 of the incident?
20 A. Well, I used the demographic information to check the consistency
21 of their reported missing or -- or deaths within the context of the
22 incident scheduled in the indictment. So whatever information I had at
23 my disposal about the timing and the places and also the status of
24 individuals, I displayed included in the POD annex.
25 Q. Okay. You were asked during your testimony in 2013, we find
1 these at transcript page 19260, line 25 to 19261, line 3, I refer to the
2 testimony in November 2013 regarding -- so you were asked during this
3 testimony regarding your proof of death report:
4 "If the evidence that your team had analysed indicated that that
5 person, the victim, indeed died in a combat situation, you would have
6 listed that person as excluded; is that correct?"
7 And you answered:
8 "Yes, there were sources like witness statements from court
9 rulings that could indicate this, and such victims would then be excluded
10 from the victims' list."
11 Do you stand by that testimony?
12 A. Yes.
13 MR. IVETIC: Objection, Your Honour. They're allowed to have
14 re-direct on the cross I did, not the cross I did in 2013. That case is
16 MS. D'ASCOLI: Your Honours, this goes directly into the
17 questions related to the combat status of the victim and how Dr. Tabeau
18 has assessed that within P2797, questions that we heard this morning as
19 well by Mr. Ivetic.
20 [Trial Chamber confers]
21 JUDGE ORIE: The objection is denied.
22 Please proceed.
23 THE WITNESS: Yes, this is correct. If there was any document
24 available for a given victim which reported about this victim being
25 involved in combat. That was taken as the first-priority information.
1 MS. D'ASCOLI: And, Your Honours, to provide the Chamber and the
2 Defence with the specific reference in the report, the discussion of the
3 proof of death confirmation methodology used in the proof of death report
4 is to be found in P2796, which is the proof of death report, at page 12
5 of the English and 15 of the B/C/S.
6 Q. Now, I'll continue. Dr. Tabeau, if none of the people exhumed
7 from Tomasica or Jakarina Kosa who are listed in your proof of death
8 annex were excluded, would that allow you to draw any conclusions as to
9 what the sources you consulted say about whether those victims died in
10 combat or not?
11 MR. IVETIC: Objection as it misstates the evidence. The witness
12 has already said that she did not, for purposes of Tomasica report, do
13 that type of analysis, so intimating that she did is now contradicting
14 the witness.
15 MS. D'ASCOLI: Your Honours, the victims that Dr. Tabeau analysed
16 in her Tomasica report and that she connected to Scheduled Incidents in
17 this case are part of the proof of death annex, P2797, and my questions
18 refers to those victims that are listed in the annex for whom Dr. Tabeau
19 has done such analysis.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Let me just try to -- the objection was that
21 Ms. D'Ascoli would have misstated the evidence. Where in the question is
22 she stating what the evidence is, Mr. Ivetic?
23 MR. IVETIC: She's asking --
24 JUDGE ORIE: She says if none of the --
25 MR. IVETIC: "... would that allow to you draw any conclusions as
1 to what the sources you constituted [sic] say about whether those victims
2 died in combat or not?"
3 All day yesterday --
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: It says "you consulted" not "constituted."
5 MR. IVETIC: "Consulted." I apologise. And all day yesterday
6 Dr. Tabeau kept telling me she did not perform any analysis to check if
7 the victims from Tomasica were listed as being soldiers or being in
8 combat, so now asking her to draw conclusions on something she didn't
9 look at is argument not based upon the work she did.
10 MS. D'ASCOLI: Your Honours, my question was --
11 JUDGE ORIE: The objection is denied.
12 Ms. Tabeau can answer the question. She has followed the
13 discussions. If there's anything either Ms. D'Ascoli or Mr. Ivetic might
14 have misunderstood of your evidence, Ms. Tabeau, you're invited to point
15 that out as well.
16 THE WITNESS: Well, so the question was, just to repeat it?
17 MS. D'ASCOLI:
18 Q. Yes.
19 A. That I understand it correctly.
20 Q. Yes. You can follow the transcript, right?
21 A. Yes, exactly.
22 Q. Okay. So I'll repeat the question. So my question was if none
23 of the people exhumed from Tomasica or Jakarina Kosa who are listed in
24 your proof of death annex were excluded, would that allow you to draw any
25 conclusions as to what the sources say about whether those victims died
1 in combat or not?
2 A. Well --
3 Q. Do you understand my question?
4 A. I understand. If none was excluded, then none of the sources
5 reported the person as combatant actually engaged and dying -- died in
7 Q. Yeah, that was my question.
8 A. So that is a clear-cut situation. That means there were no
9 combatants, of course.
10 Q. Okay. Now, you have --
11 A. It's as simple as that. Among those, of course --
12 THE INTERPRETER: The speakers are kindly asked not to overlap
13 for purposes of interpretation into B/C/S. Thank you.
14 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry.
15 MS. D'ASCOLI: Yes, I apologise to the interpreters.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Even in apologising you are overlapping.
17 Ms. Tabeau, could you please finish your answer and say what you
18 wanted to add, and after that Ms. D'Ascoli will put her next question to
20 THE WITNESS: Well, my answer I can see in transcript is all
21 correct. I said there wouldn't be any combatants then on the list.
22 MS. D'ASCOLI:
23 Q. Okay. Well, Your Honours, we have done this analysis, and --
24 well, it is the position of the Prosecution that -- [Overlapping
25 speakers] ...
1 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, I object. Now we're hearing argument
2 and testimony from counsel which is wholly inappropriate.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. D'Ascoli, whatever you have done, we'll hear
4 from you at a later stage, I think, when we hear arguments of the
5 parties. Only in exceptional circumstances you're allowed to do what you
6 I think started to do.
7 Please proceed.
8 MS. D'ASCOLI: Yes, I continue.
9 Q. We seen yesterday through slides 18 and 20 of your courtroom
10 presentation, P7453 MFI, the links that you established between the
11 identified victims from Tomasica and Jakarina Kosa and the incidents
12 charged in the Mladic indictment; right?
13 A. Right.
14 Q. And I don't know if I need to repeat what those slides reproduced
15 for the record, but can I do so. I mean, Table 42 at page 43 of the
16 witness expert report, P7449, at table on the Tomasica identified
17 individuals confirmed among the incidents charged in this case, and slide
18 20 reproduces table 1 that we found at P7455 on the Jakarina Kosa
19 identified individuals confirmed among the incidents charged in this
21 Now, can I please have the proof of death annex, P2797 on the
22 screens. And I would also ask out of caution that this not be
23 broadcasted in light of the links that I will make to the identified
24 individuals in Tomasica and Jakarina Kosa.
25 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
1 JUDGE ORIE: Of course, if the caution always requires us not to
2 show something to the public, we are coming closer and closer to the
3 point where it shouldn't be a public exhibit. Let's keep that in mind
4 and consider that.
5 [Trial Chamber confers]
6 MS. D'ASCOLI:
7 Q. Now, Dr. Tabeau, you will see the proof of death annex to your
8 expert report coming up on the screen.
9 Now, Mr. Ivetic asked you some questions about this document,
10 and -- well, this was a question that Mr. Ivetic was about to put
11 yesterday at the end of the case and did put. As the witness didn't
12 conclude her answers, I'll leave it to that. I mean, I'll -- yeah, no,
13 no --
14 MR. IVETIC: Is this a question? Are we --
15 MS. D'ASCOLI: No, no. I was -- no. Just because I didn't have
16 the reference to yesterday transcript the final one, so I couldn't
18 But anyway, if we can go to page 181 of the English and 196 of
19 the B/C/S.
20 Q. Dr. Tabeau, I'm directing your attention to the victim listed as
21 number 19. Now maybe if we can have only the English just for a bit on
22 the screens, enlarged, so that Dr. Tabeau can look at the whole entry.
23 And again, Dr. Tabeau, I will ask you not to read out loud the
24 name of the victim. So this is one of the victims listed for
25 Scheduled Incident A6.6, which charges the accused with the killing of a
1 number of men in the village of Biscani and surrounding hamlets on or
2 about the 20th of July.
3 If you have -- if you have finished reviewing this entry, we can
4 move to the next page because entry number 19 continues on that page.
5 A. Yes.
6 MS. D'ASCOLI: So if we can please have page 182 of the English.
7 Q. Now, the entry continues at the top of the page. Can you tell us
8 from looking at this page, at this entry, whether any connection was
9 drawn for this individual to the Jakarina Kosa grave-site.
10 A. Several --
11 MR. IVETIC: I object, Your Honours. That is again outside the
12 scope. If it's not Tomasica, it's not part of the reopening. This is a
13 document they had in 2013. This is information they had in 2013. Now
14 we're hearing about it in the re-direct. That is a violation of
15 everything we've been working under for the past several months.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. D'Ascoli.
17 MS. D'ASCOLI: Your Honours, Mr. Ivetic has put some questions
18 regarding why the information on the exhumed victims from Jakarina Kosa
19 which was already available in 2013 wasn't then analysed, and these
20 questions go to that part of his cross.
21 [Trial Chamber confers]
22 JUDGE ORIE: The objection is denied. Please proceed.
23 THE WITNESS: There is mention of the number JK01-187BP, several
24 times for this victim, and that indicates that this victim was exhumed
25 from the Jakarina Kosa site, and 187BP tells it was a body part taken
1 from a set of remains, 187.
2 MS. D'ASCOLI:
3 Q. So if we look at this POD source number 3, is this a case of a
4 DNA match report issued on the basis of only body part?
5 A. Yes, it is a DNA match report issued for a body part.
6 Q. And if other body parts belonging to the same individual were
7 found in the Tomasica mass grave, would we see this case appearing also
8 in the annexes to your Tomasica report, in particular, Annex 2?
9 A. Yes, yes. Absolutely.
10 Q. Now, Dr. Tabeau, would you expect to find in the POD annex P2797
11 also cases of victims exhumed from Jakarina Kosa who were not
12 reassociated to remains found in the Tomasica mass grave?
13 A. Well, there were 61 such victims that I confirmed were in the POD
15 Q. Okay. Can we go to page 205 of the English and that would be 219
16 of the B/C/S, but I would ask again that we look at the English, if that
17 is okay.
18 Dr. Tabeau, I will now ask you to review the entry marked with
19 victim number 128, and we're still within Scheduled Incident A6.6, and
20 this is one of the additional victims that you identified in this annex
21 back in 2013 as a link to this Scheduled Incident. And again, please do
22 not read out loud the name. And I would ask you if you can focus on the
23 sources and the circumstances of death.
24 A. Under source number 2?
25 Q. Yes, just look at the three sources and I'll have a question
1 about that.
2 A. Okay.
3 Q. Now, again, can you tell us from looking at this page whether any
4 connection was drawn for this individual to the Jakarina Kosa grave-site?
5 A. Yes, under source number 2, there is an ICMP match report listed.
6 Q. And is this again a case of a DNA match report issued on the
7 basis of only a body part?
8 A. It's again a body part and this body part is from Jakarina Kosa.
9 Q. Now, you have analysed the DNA identifications on both the
10 Tomasica grave-site and the Jakarina Kosa one on the exhumed individuals,
11 of course. Now, would such cases, and I mean cases like this where a DNA
12 match report would be issued only on the basis of a body part and not,
13 you know, a whole body available, would such cases be frequent for the
14 human remains exhumed from Jakarina Kosa?
15 A. Very frequent for Jakarina Kosa. Most of the identifications for
16 Jakarina Kosa were for body parts as the bodies were very fragmented in
17 this site.
18 Q. Now, in the description provided for source number 1, we also see
19 that many bones were missing and that the cause of death remained
20 unascertained; right?
21 A. That is the common situation for victims from Jakarina Kosa.
22 Q. And, Dr. Tabeau, if the remaining bones related to these same
23 individuals were not found in Tomasica, this would be one of those 211
24 cases of Jakarina Kosa exhumed individuals that were not reassociated to
25 Tomasica and that you analysed in the context of your three additional
1 documents regarding the grave-site of Jakarina Kosa; correct?
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic.
3 MR. IVETIC: Objection, Your Honour. This goes well beyond any
4 cross-examination I did yesterday or today.
5 MS. D'ASCOLI: Yes, Your Honours. This goes, again, to the part
6 where Mr. Ivetic challenged the relevance of the information provided on
7 Jakarina Kosa with regard to the analysis that could have been done
9 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, I challenge the part relating to
10 Prijedor, which is pages 30 through 39 of the report, which goes well
11 beyond Jakarina Kosa. It's not Jakarina Kosa. It's all the evidence
12 that they had about Prijedor which now Dr. Tabeau has said she felt was
13 incomplete and needed to be better explained.
14 JUDGE ORIE: The relation with cross-examination exists in the
15 analysis of what exactly this report presents and how we have to
16 understand the entries in these lists, and that's the reason.
17 MR. IVETIC: But, Your Honours, this report is from 2013. You
18 already have that. You already had evidence on that. So if you need the
19 Prosecution's help to understand a document tendered in their prior case,
20 I believe reopening now is not the proper time to do it.
21 JUDGE ORIE: But didn't you ask questions about it?
22 MR. IVETIC: About this document? Yes.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
24 MR. IVETIC: Two questions I asked about it.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The objection is denied.
1 You may proceed, Ms. D'Ascoli.
2 MS. D'ASCOLI:
3 Q. Dr. Tabeau, I am wondering if you -- can you read my last
4 question from the transcript or is it better that I repeat it?
5 A. I remember it. It is a case that would belong to 211 cases that
6 were not confirmed as split between Jakarina Kosa and Tomasica.
7 Q. Okay. Dr. Tabeau, from a demographic perspective do these
8 examples and the others that you have analysed in your report, in your
9 Tomasica report, allow you to draw any conclusions about the connections
10 between Tomasica and Jakarina Kosa?
11 A. Yes, these examples are part of the reasons I draw my conclusion
12 about the connection between the two sites, so the -- the large overlap
13 between the records from the Jakarina Kosa 211 with the POD annex, but
14 also the similar or simply speaking for 100, about, individuals of the
15 211 identical places of disappearance, dates of disappearance, as the
16 Tomasica victims. That makes me think that there has been a very strong
17 connection of these two sites, that these two sites belong together.
18 Q. Thank you Dr. Tabeau.
19 MS. D'ASCOLI: That concludes my re-examination, Your Honours.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic any --
21 MR. IVETIC: Two questions in re-cross.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Please put them to the witnesses.
23 MR. IVETIC: Thank you.
24 Further cross-examination by Mr. Ivetic:
25 Q. Dr. Tabeau, at transcript page 36800 I asked you a question about
1 the bodies recovered from Tomasica, and your answer at line 15 starts off
3 "Sir, I didn't any -- I didn't study any sources based on which I
4 could say that someone died in combat or in non-combat situations. I
5 actually draw no conclusions about that."
6 And then you started talking about Dr. Clark's findings.
7 Do you stand by that part of your testimony yesterday that I've
8 just read to you?
9 A. Yes, I didn't study any sources that would assist me in
10 distinguishing combat and non-combat cases.
11 Q. Did you or did you not analyse for purposes of the Tomasica
12 report if these persons were excluded as combatants in prior reports
13 authored by you, as suggested by the Prosecution?
14 A. Not explicitly. I did run some checks but didn't make any
15 explicit analysis of it, of this type.
16 Q. Well, then I apologise, I have a third question: How do you
17 reconcile saying -- confirming that you did not check any sources -- did
18 not study any sources and did not draw conclusions to now telling us you
19 did run some checks but didn't make any explicit analysis? Which is
20 true, Doctor?
21 A. Both are true. You asked me first in the context of our
22 discussion of lists of combatants or people to be mobilised, and I
23 answered truly that I didn't use any sources of this type. I didn't use
24 the army records, for example, so explicitly I didn't study it, but I
25 have been running checks of various list, including the POD annex, and
1 that project, POD annex, did use army records and other sources.
2 So it all depends on the context. You cannot ask me questions
3 without any context at all.
4 Q. Well, madam, if for purposes of the Tomasica report you were not
5 interested in determining the civilian/army status of an individual, what
6 was your rationale or objective in sometimes running tests based upon
7 prior reports? Was it to confirm military/civilian status or was it
8 something else?
9 A. Well, it was -- the purpose of comparing Tomasica victim lists
10 with death in the POD annex what -- was just checking whether there is a
11 common part of these two lists and learning more about the incidents
12 possibly in which the Tomasica victims died. So it was just one of the
13 checks that was meant to give an answer about the incidents. Because my
14 demographic data on disappearance is not yet enough to speak of the
15 incidents. They give the timing and the places of the incidents, but
16 there is more in the defining of an incident than just time and place.
17 Q. Okay. I thank you again for answering my questions.
18 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, that's all I had for re-cross.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Ivetic.
20 Since the Judges have no further questions for you, Ms. Tabeau,
21 this concludes your testimony. I'd like to thank you very much for
22 coming to this courtroom. Often I have to say the long way but that
23 would not apply in your case, and therefore wishing you a safe return
24 home again is also not what is makes much sense. Therefore, I leave it
25 to thanking you. You may follow the usher.
1 THE WITNESS: Thank you very much.
2 [The witness withdrew]
3 [Trial Chamber confers]
4 JUDGE ORIE: Before we take the break, I'd like to briefly
5 address a matter related to Witness Tabeau.
6 The Chamber noticed that reference was made to the proofing of
7 Witness Tabeau. Now, in its oral decision on Tabeau's expertise on the
8 24th of February, 2015, the Chamber granted the witness's re-call. As a
9 result, there should have been no contact between the parties and the
10 witness, and there may have been some misunderstanding, or there may have
11 been a view that the re-calling consequences do not apply because of the
12 separate subject matter dealt with now, the separate subject matter of
13 Ms. Tabeau's second appearance compared to her first one. In any event,
14 since the Defence has not touched upon the issue, there appears to be no
15 concern, and the Chamber leaves it to that.
16 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, I've just checked. The other --
17 Mr. Parsons was also subjected to proofing, another expert who had been
18 re-called. I just checked with my colleagues as to that.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And there was no concern expressed. It was
20 not touched upon during Mr. Parsons's testimony, was it?
21 MR. IVETIC: I wasn't here for the entirety of it to be able to
23 JUDGE ORIE: So if there was no such attention paid to it, I
24 certainly would have remembered. Then therefore, the same applies for
25 Mr. Parsons as applies for Ms. Tabeau. The Chamber just wanted to put
1 this on the record.
2 Ms. D'Ascoli.
3 MS. D'ASCOLI: Your Honours, with regard to the tendering of the
4 report, probably we do it after the break?
5 JUDGE ORIE: Let's do it now right away then, so that we can move
6 after the break to continue to hear the Defence case.
7 MS. D'ASCOLI: Okay.
8 So the Prosecution tenders the marked for -- the reports marked
9 for identification. So this would be the proof of death analysis, the
10 main report, marked for identification with P7449.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Let's take them one by one.
12 Mr. Ivetic, P7449 is tendered now.
13 MR. IVETIC: We would actually object, Your Honours. I
14 apologise, I was putting my headset back on. We expand upon the
15 objections that we made in our filings. As the witness has testified
16 now, we now see we don't have access to her keys; therefore, the report
17 is not clear as to methodology used for the matching and does not permit
18 a transparency of that. And furthermore, we would state that, of course,
19 the numerous errors in the report and the perceived bias of the witness
20 do not render the report to be of an expert such as it would assist the
22 JUDGE ORIE: One second, please.
23 [Trial Chamber confers]
24 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. D'Ascoli, if you want to reply to that.
25 MS. D'ASCOLI: Yes, Your Honour. We submit that the Prosecution
1 submits that the -- in response to Mr. Ivetic's objection, the
2 methodology is clearly spelled out in the report, and he also refers
3 to -- applies methodology previously explained in previous reports that
4 have been admitted into evidence, and the report is reliable and should
5 be admitted into evidence.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, any further submission.
7 MR. IVETIC: Yes, Your Honours. Dr. Tabeau stated that she does
8 not have the keys. The prior reports for Srebrenica and the others had
9 keys, so we knew how she did her matching. In this case we don't know.
10 Dr. Tabeau offered to go and recreate what she did, but we don't
11 have that. That makes it impossible to actually ascertain how the
12 matching was done, and therefore there is no foundation for the
13 methodology of this report which is presented for Tomasica, which is not
14 identical to the prior report because it doesn't have all the same
15 information as the prior reports.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. D'Ascoli, but really a last opportunity.
17 MS. D'ASCOLI: Yes, Your Honours.
18 JUDGE ORIE: If would you have immediately answered to the key
19 issue, if I may call it that way, then that would have shortened the
21 MS. D'ASCOLI: Yes, I'm so sorry.
22 Dr. Tabeau did not say that she doesn't have the keys. She just
23 said that the keys would not be like immediately available, and she would
24 need to reconstruct the process that she followed, and she offered to
25 explain how -- how this could be done but simply they didn't follow. But
1 she offered.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
3 Mr. Ivetic.
4 MR. IVETIC: The keys don't exist on paper. I don't know how
5 they can be available to us to review if they don't exist on paper.
6 There is no foundation for the methodology in evidence --
7 [Overlapping speakers] ...
8 JUDGE ORIE: That's repetition. You say they're not on paper;
9 therefore, they do not exist. The Chamber will decide on admission in
10 due course and will do that in a short oral decision.
11 Next one.
12 MS. D'ASCOLI: Well, the next one would be the corrigendum to the
13 expert report marked for identification with P7450.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Is there any reason to repeat all the -- I take it
15 that the same arguments apply as --
16 MR. IVETIC: Agreed.
17 JUDGE ORIE: -- to the original report.
18 MR. IVETIC: Agreed, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber therefore will decide that in due course
20 as well.
21 MS. D'ASCOLI: And the next one would be the annexes P7451.
22 JUDGE ORIE: So much linked to the report that the same arguments
23 would apply. Therefore --
24 MS. D'ASCOLI: Yes.
25 MR. IVETIC: Correct.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Therefore the Chamber will also decide on the
2 annexes in P7451 in due course.
3 MS. D'ASCOLI: The next one would the addendum to annex 2, P7452.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, same arguments?
5 MR. IVETIC: Is this the one we previously did not object to?
6 That the --
7 MS. D'ASCOLI: No, no. This is the addendum to annex
8 [Overlapping speakers] ...
9 MR. IVETIC: The addendum, then -- yeah, same arguments.
10 JUDGE ORIE: The same procedure applies. The Chamber will decide
11 on admission in due course.
12 MS. D'ASCOLI: And now there are the three documents that
13 Mr. Ivetic did not object to, which are P7454 marked for identification,
14 the under-seal list of DNA identifications.
15 MR. IVETIC: And I still do not have an objection to those.
16 JUDGE ORIE: P7454 is admitted into evidence, under seal.
17 MS. D'ASCOLI: Then the second of these three documents is P7455,
18 the basic statistics on Jakarina Kosa.
19 MR. IVETIC: Same, no objection.
20 JUDGE ORIE: P7455 is admitted into evidence.
21 MS. D'ASCOLI: No need to be under seal.
22 JUDGE ORIE: There's no need have it under seal.
23 And the last one, Ms. D'Ascoli.
24 MS. D'ASCOLI: Is the table titled Jakarina Kosa marked for
25 identification with P7456, the third of these documents, and this should
1 be under seal.
2 MR. IVETIC: Also no objection.
3 JUDGE ORIE: P7456 is admitted into evidence, under seal.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Ms. D'Ascoli, can we just remind me what was the
5 fate of P7453?
6 MS. D'ASCOLI: That was my next -- that was my next item on the
7 list. There was also marked for identification and that is the courtroom
8 presentation, so I was about to tender also P7453, the PowerPoint
9 presentation, as the last item on the list.
10 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, we would object twofold. One is based
11 upon the report. Number two, to the extent it provides additional
12 information, it was not provided in a timely manner in accord with
13 Rule 94 bis since it was given to the Defence 30th June 2015, just days
14 before the witness testified.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
16 MS. D'ASCOLI: Your Honour, this is basically an exemplification
17 like -- of the report, so it doesn't have any [Overlapping speakers] ...
18 JUDGE ORIE: You say there's nothing new in that. Everything --
19 MS. D'ASCOLI: Yes. And it just has -- it doesn't have
20 evidentiary value, really. It was just a tool to facilitate the
21 presentation of the evidence.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic.
23 JUDGE FLUEGGE: In my recollection, Ms. Tabeau added or made some
24 corrections and said the number has now changed, not drastically. But
25 she added here and there a number, and therefore it's different from what
1 she wrote in the report.
2 MS. D'ASCOLI: But that is encompassed also in the corrigendum
3 that was tendered as well at the beginning of her testimony. So the
4 slides simply reflect the corrected version of the report as expressed in
5 the corrigendum.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, you stand by your objection.
7 MR. IVETIC: Yes, if something has no evidentiary value it should
8 not be in evidence.
9 MS. D'ASCOLI: The purpose would be to facilitate the review of
10 her evidence when reading the transcript and the presentation of her
11 evidence since she is referring to this PowerPoint presentation.
12 [Trial Chamber confers]
13 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber will also decide on admission,
14 considering both the evidentiary value and the link to the report and
15 give its decision in due course.
16 MS. D'ASCOLI: Thank you, Your Honours.
17 JUDGE ORIE: We are -- have a -- we had a late start. We now
18 have a late moment where we take a break.
19 Is the Defence ready after the break to call its next witness?
20 MR. IVETIC: Your Honour, is the Prosecution closing their case
21 as Tomasica? I think that's the first procedural step.
22 MS. D'ASCOLI: Yes, Your Honours. There are still some MFI
23 documents. So clearly subject to the discussion and these pending
24 issues, then, yes.
25 JUDGE ORIE: But the Prosecution does not present any further
2 MS. D'ASCOLI: No, no, no, Your Honours.
3 JUDGE ORIE: And only evidence already tendered is still keeping
4 you off from stating that your case is --
5 MS. D'ASCOLI: Yes, that's correct.
6 JUDGE ORIE: The reopening case is closed.
7 Then I think that's sufficiently clear for procedural purposes.
8 We take a break and we resume at ten minutes past 11.00 and
9 expect the Defence then to call its next witness.
10 --- Recess taken at 10.50 a.m.
11 --- On resuming at 11.12 a.m.
12 [Trial Chamber confers]
13 JUDGE ORIE: I was just briefly looking at the very last moment
14 before the break. There's still some overlapping speakers. It is clear
15 that the Prosecution is still waiting for decisions on tendered evidence.
16 But apart from that, the Prosecution closed its reopening case - that is,
17 presenting evidence on Tomasica, and that was the purpose of the
19 MR. TIEGER: That is correct, Mr. President.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Then that's now very clear on the record.
21 Mr. Lukic, are you ready to call your next witness?
22 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour, we are. We would call
23 Mr. Milutin Misic.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Could the witness be escorted in the courtroom.
25 [Trial Chamber confers]
1 [The witness entered court]
2 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning, Mr. Misic. Before you give
3 evidence --
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.
5 JUDGE ORIE: -- the Rules require that you make a solemn
6 declaration of which the text is now handed out to you by the usher. May
7 I invite you to make that solemn declaration.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will
9 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
10 WITNESS: MILUTIN MISIC
11 [Witness answered through interpreter]
12 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Please be seated.
13 Mr. Misic, you'll first be examined by Mr. Lukic. You find
14 Mr. Lukic to your left. Mr. Lukic is counsel for Mr. Mladic.
15 Please proceed.
16 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honours. But before I proceed, I
17 wanted to address one issue or one question, but Your Honours were pretty
18 busy. I didn't want to interrupt you. We want to add one more document
19 on our 65 ter list for this witness, and I spoke this morning with
20 Mr. Jeremy. He is aware of it. I don't know whether he would object or
22 MR. JEREMY: No objection.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Before I can grant leave, you at least should
24 identify that document otherwise --
25 MR. LUKIC: It's 1D05786.
1 JUDGE ORIE: And could you briefly say what the document is so
2 that we know what we are deciding.
3 MR. LUKIC: It's a request for the information in regard of
4 missing persons in B and H.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
6 MR. LUKIC: For a certain person.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Leave is granted.
8 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
9 Examination by Mr. Lukic:
10 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Misic.
11 A. Good morning.
12 Q. For the record, kindly tell us your first and last name.
13 A. My name is Milutin Misic.
14 Q. What is your father's name?
15 A. My father's name is Branko; my mother's name is Gospa. I was
16 born on the 3rd of March, 1957, in Zavidovici, the municipality of
17 Zavidovici. I currently reside in Doboj.
18 Q. In terms of education what level have you reached?
19 A. I completed the Military Academy of the land forces. My
20 specialty is infantry, and I concluded it in Belgrade.
21 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: Would the witness kindly
22 repeat the year of his graduation and slow down. Thank you.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Could you --
24 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
25 Q. Please repeat the year of graduation?
1 A. 1980.
2 Q. Mr. Misic, tell us, please, where do you work currently?
3 A. I am a member of the collegium of directors of the Institute for
4 Missing Persons for Bosnia-Herzegovina. My mandate lasts for four years,
5 and it is still under way.
6 Q. I will pause between question and answer so as to allow the
7 interpreters to complete their work.
8 What is the basic task of the institute for missing persons of
10 A. Under the international agreement through which the institute was
11 formed, its basic tasks are to promote the search process, the
12 production, and verification of central records of missing persons in
13 Bosnia-Herzegovina. The institute works on the basis of two basic legal
14 documents: The one is the agreement on the take-over of a role of
15 co-founder from the ministerial council of Bosnia-Herzegovina; and the
16 second law that forms its basis is the Law on Missing Persons of
17 Bosnia-Herzegovina, and the institute was provided with administrative
18 authority to implement the law by way of that piece of legislation.
19 Q. Let me ask you something about the central records of missing
20 persons. In Bosnia-Herzegovina, was there -- were there central records
21 of missing persons established?
22 A. Although it is not clearly defined what it means to set up
23 central records, one may say that it has been established with certain
24 shortcomings, though. It was -- it -- or, rather, it has been set up,
25 meaning that it has been amended and expanded in terms of databases that
1 disappeared or were even kept secret. One may say that it has been
2 established. However, our basic task is also to verify the central
3 records, and that central archive has not been verified.
4 Q. Thank you. That was going to be my last -- my next question.
5 Since you already gave that answer, tell us, please, who is supposed to
6 verify the central records?
7 A. The process of verification of central records entails the
8 verification of each individual report and each individual person. That
9 verification is performed or should perform the commission for
10 verification of the Institute for Missing Persons of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
11 That commission is part of our sector called the sector of central
12 records of the missing persons in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
13 Q. This verification process, has it been completed?
14 A. Unfortunately, no. Although the law foresaw that the
15 verification of the central records of missing persons be completed by
16 the end of 2008, I think, my personal view and assessment is that we are
17 not even halfway there to complete the process.
18 Q. Can you tell us why the central records have not been verified?
19 A. There is a plethora of reasons. It includes internal omissions
20 or weakness, so to speak, by us, the employees at the institute, but the
21 basic reason is that it works to someone's benefit that the central
22 records are actually never verified.
23 When I say that, I'll try to confirm that by saying the
24 following. First of all, the process of verification was not initiated
25 in keeping with the law. I think it falls under Article 9 of the law
1 which states -- or actually defines a missing person. In terms of
2 verification, we started with people who do not have the status of
3 missing persons. Now I need to go back to Article 9 of the Law on
4 Missing Persons of Bosnia-Herzegovina, which states as follows: A person
5 is no longer accorded the status of missing person in case they are
6 found, identified, and their mortal remains handed over to their families
7 for burial.
8 Unfortunately, we initiated the process of verification of the
9 central records with people who had not been accorded the status of
10 missing persons.
11 Q. Thank you.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Can I get a clarification before you go,
13 Mr. Lukic.
14 MR. LUKIC: Sure.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sir, you said -- or you're recorded as having
17 "But the basic reason is that it works to someone's benefit that
18 the central records are actually never verified."
19 I've got two questions here. For whose benefit; and what is the
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You see, seven years later, we
22 still have not completed the verification process of the central records,
23 and no one bothers to ask why, since we are legally obliged to do so.
24 Then one can only presume that perhaps it is not necessary or needed by
25 those who founded us. The central records should amount to the truth
1 about every person, location, and circumstances of death. It is a key
2 issue why it seems not to be needed by anyone.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Can I go back to my question. Whose benefit; and
4 what is the benefit?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, those who wished to
6 manipulate such data that is supposed to be verified may benefit from it
7 or it is in their interest. It may be governmental or non-governmental
8 institutions or certain groups of people, even in the judiciary of
9 Bosnia-Herzegovina. I don't know. Because there's manipulation with
10 lists that are not valid and they should have been validated by now.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: So actually this is an assumption. Can I take it
12 that you are assuming? Because you don't actually know who it is,
13 governmental institutions, groups of people, judiciary. So you really
14 don't know whose benefit?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Let's leave it at that, yes.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Now, do you know what the benefit is? If -- if it
17 is legislated that this commission must exist, what is the benefit of not
18 making it succeed?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You know, from 1996 -- actually,
20 from 1992 onwards, different centres of power, different institutions,
21 different individuals presented highly disputed figures about the number
22 of people killed, the circumstances of their death and locations. Those
23 who were outspoken the most in presenting such a situation probably find
24 it that it is not in their interest for our work to be done, and these
25 people still hold high positions in Bosnia-Herzegovina, and I suppose it
1 is not in their interest to arrive at any truthful lists and to establish
2 the right circumstances that I am discussing, at least not in the short
4 If I may add, the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina has long finished,
5 but unfortunately not psychologically, it seems.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'll leave it at that.
7 JUDGE ORIE: But I'd like to ask you, in your answers still to be
8 given, to be concrete. Because if you're talking about those being most
9 outspoken, we still have no idea who you are referring to. I leave it to
10 that at the very moment. But could you please answer the questions in a
11 concrete manner.
12 And could you put the questions in such a way, Mr. Lukic, that
13 you receive such answers.
14 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour. I would kindly ask to go to
15 the private session for a moment.
16 JUDGE ORIE: We move into private session.
17 [Private session]
11 Pages 36893-36894 redacted. Private session.
23 [Open session]
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: If I might just ask the same questions about the
25 Muslims and the Croats. Do you believe that the interests --
1 JUDGE ORIE: If we stay with the same subject matter, is there
2 any need, Mr. Lukic, you asked for private session. You may have had
3 your reasons for that.
4 MR. LUKIC: I think it would be, with all due respect, better to
5 go back to private session.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Then we'll go back to private session so that
7 the witness is more free to talk about persons without having concerns
8 about any negative effects for that.
9 [Private session]
11 Pages 36897-36899 redacted. Private session.
22 [Open session]
23 THE REGISTRAR: We're now in open session, Your Honours.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
25 MR. LUKIC: Can we have on our screens 1D05450.
1 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Is there an English translation, Mr. Lukic?
2 MR. LUKIC: I know that I saw English version. I cannot vouch
3 that it's uploaded though if it's not up.
4 MR. JEREMY: I think I've got the same document on the
5 Prosecution list, so we could take look at 32617 that does have an
6 English translation. It might assist.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Could we have that on our screens in two languages.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Mr. Jeremy, it's not released as yet.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Let's move on and have -- once it's released,
10 you inform us.
11 MR. JEREMY: Yeah, that's been released now. Thank you.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Then could we have it on our screens.
13 There we are. Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.
14 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
15 Q. [Interpretation] This is the missing persons law. You mentioned
16 Article 2 and Article 9. First of all, let us look at "Chapter III -
17 Status of Missing Person."
18 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] That's on page 4.
19 [In English] It's different version than mine so it's page 5.
20 Again, page 5 in B/C/S as well. I apologise.
21 Q. [Interpretation] So a short paragraph. As you've told us, the
22 status of the missing persons ceases on the date of identification, and
23 the process of searching for a missing person is concluded.
24 So did such persons find their way into the central records of
25 missing persons?
1 A. The process of verification started with these persons in the
2 first place. I do not dispute that sometimes these persons, too, should
3 be verified. However, the point of verification is not only entering
4 something into the records. The verification and the central records
5 should have been -- were supposed to be a tool. By verifying the central
6 records, we were supposed to promote the process of search, and we
7 started verification with persons we are not searching for at all. And
8 in the database of verified persons, for each individual name we entered
9 less information than the minimum prescribed by the law.
10 Q. Just a minute. We will go back to the article later, but off the
11 top of your head do you know what is the minimum information required
12 that needs to be entered?
13 A. The minimum level of information pursuant to Article 2, para (4),
14 included the name, last name, the name of one parent, the date and --
15 actually, month and year of birth, municipality and location of
16 disappearance, circumstances of disappearance, and I don't remember
17 whether there was anything else. But that's it, for the most part.
18 Q. As far as I could read, that's it.
19 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Could we now go back to page number
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Before we do that, could we see the English
22 version of the bold typed sentence at the end of this Article 9.
23 MR. LUKIC: I think we see the complete Article 9 in English as
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: But in the B/C/S, there's a bold typing at the end
2 JUDGE ORIE: That's the title of the next chapter I think.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: It is before chapter 4 -- chapter 10 is mentioned.
4 JUDGE ORIE: That's Article 10. In the English version, we see
5 that the heading above Article 10 is "Chapter IV - Rights of Family
6 Members of Missing Persons."
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Oh okay.
8 JUDGE ORIE: And we have Article 9 consisting of two double
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you. We have seen it now.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Yes, I apologise for already looking into the
12 English version.
13 MR. LUKIC: If we can go to page 1 in both versions. Actually --
14 yeah, different again. Article 2 starts on the second page in B/C/S, but
15 we would need page 2 in B/C/S then and page 2 in English as well. Since
16 we need paragraph 4 from this article.
17 Q. [Interpretation] You will see paragraph 4 of Article 2 shortly.
18 Is that the minimum data you mentioned?
19 A. Yes. I see there is a little bit more in the paragraph itself.
20 Q. What is it that you omitted?
21 A. I think I failed to mention --
22 Q. It's back.
23 JUDGE FLUEGGE: And don't touch the screen, please.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm not sure. I think I actually
25 listed all of them.
1 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
2 Q. You told us what the dispute was at the very beginning of the
3 process of verification. Which part of the process was lacking the most
4 at the outset, if you can recall?
5 A. There are two key points. First of all, the verification process
6 was not performed according to the legally prescribed documentation,
7 meaning the rules on the central records as well as the activities to be
8 undertaken according to that -- those documents. Namely, verification
9 was done pursuant to notes on identification. All of the persons
10 involved were identified through the DNA method, so their identity is not
11 in question. However, neither the law nor the rules identify the notes
12 of identification as a document based on which verification is conducted.
13 Q. Thank you. We'll get to that.
14 A. That was one thing. Another thing: Such notes did not contain
15 the minimum data prescribed by the law, so these two things are crucial
16 in terms of disputing the beginning of the process of verification.
17 Q. At the outset, my question was: Which pieces of information were
19 A. What was missing was the alleged place, time, and circumstances
20 of disappearance.
21 Q. As regards the very beginning of the verification process, what
22 else was questionable?
23 A. Well, the process began with persons who had lost their status of
24 missing person, meaning that the tool employed could not further the
25 process in any way. It also began with people from only one locality,
1 the locality being Podrinje; the identification project Podrinje. The
2 people who went missing in that area had priority in the process of
4 Q. Has any procedure of background checks been done in the process
5 relying on other sources in Bosnia-Herzegovina?
6 A. Of course, it wasn't. Unfortunately, verification was done
7 solely on the basis of the notes. And let me clarify: The rules and law
8 prescribe that verification is conducted based on reports for searching
9 for missing persons, and the commission at the time did not have any
10 access to such reports. They were not in its possession.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, your microphone.
12 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
13 Q. Please tell us what records were available in Bosnia-Herzegovina
14 and were not consulted.
15 A. In order for someone to be verified under the law, all available
16 reports had to be taken into account. For the most part, such reports
17 were submitted to the ICRC, to the Federal Commission for Missing
18 Persons, to the Commission for Searching for Missing Persons in Republika
19 Srpska, the International Commission for Searching for Missing Persons,
20 which was later on introduced in the process and expanded, as well as all
21 other sources existing before 2008 when the work of the institute began.
22 All of that should have been handed over to the institute for missing
24 What is even more important is that checks should have been made
25 for every person which would include registered -- that were and are
1 still being kept in Bosnia-Herzegovina, i.e., all official records. I
2 think in Bosnia-Herzegovina the register of citizens of all inhabitants
3 of Bosnia-Herzegovina was done quite properly in the past. It includes
4 the so-called CIPS database and the new database, the so-called IDDEEA or
5 I-D-D-E-E-A. The first 10.000-plus people were not screened according to
6 that procedure whatsoever, and the documentation prescribed by the law
7 was not taken into account. Also, checks were not made by consulting the
8 registers that were kept or are still being kept in Bosnia-Herzegovina
9 about its citizens.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, I'm looking at the clock. I think we --
11 MR. LUKIC: I think we started 20, but I can break now.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Oh, we started 20. We started at 10 past, I think.
13 MR. LUKIC: I stand corrected. It's a good time for the break.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Could the witness be escorted --
15 We'd like to see you back in 20 minutes, Mr. Misic.
16 [The witness stands down]
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, I must admit that I'm somewhat lost.
18 Apparently lists of persons were drawn not in the official way, and of
19 course what -- it's still rather unclear what exactly was missing, how it
20 affected the reliability of those lists. Then, of course, the question
21 who used those lists to draw any further conclusions. If that could be
22 clarified so that we do know whether the flaws described by the witness,
23 although not that much in detail apart that these were flaws, and one
24 flaw is not another flaw, and to what extent it affects the accuracy of
25 the information is still to be seen. But also, how that affects any
1 other evidence. If it's -- is it the evidence of Ms. Tabeau or is it any
2 other evidence that is affected by -- is invalidated by it and how.
3 MR. LUKIC: I think I have everything in my questions,
4 Your Honour [Overlapping speakers] ...
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but if you'd get to that directly.
6 MR. LUKIC: Start from the law and I -- that's all we had to see
7 from this law. Paragraph 9 and paragraph 2, and we'll move to another
9 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Then you take the witness to the law and you
10 say could you look at this, you have one or two questions, and then you
11 move to another article.
12 But the witness explained what he thought was in Article 2,
13 paragraph 4. Then you confirmed that that was all what it was. And then
14 we looked at it again, and then we -- let's try to get focused and let's
15 try to get soon to what you want to establish through this witness. And
16 cut off vague answers as soon as we can, assumptions, presumptions,
17 conclusions, and let's get to the facts as quickly as we can.
18 We'll take a break first, and we will resume at 25 minutes to
20 --- Recess taken at 12.12 p.m.
21 --- On resuming at 12.38 p.m.
22 [Trial Chamber confers]
23 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps before the witness enters the courtroom,
24 could the Defence pay attention specifically to the translation of D768.
25 Initially there was no translation. Then later it was introduced through
1 another witness. We asked several times for an update on the
2 availability of the English translation, and I think we have not received
3 any answer. So if the Defence would revisit this matter and tell us --
4 update --
5 MR. LUKIC: We will, Your Honour. Thank you.
6 JUDGE ORIE: And then preferably this week.
7 [The witness takes the stand]
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, please proceed.
9 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
10 First we would like to offer the previous document but the OTP
11 version into evidence. It's 65 ter 32617.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
13 MR. JEREMY: Yeah, no objection.
14 JUDGE ORIE: No objection. Surprise, surprise.
15 Mr. Registrar, the number would be.
16 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit D1094, Your Honours.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Admitted into evidence.
18 Please proceed.
19 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
20 Can we have 1D05443 on our screens, please.
21 Q. [Interpretation] We don't have the translation of this document,
22 Mr. Misic, so could you please read what this is.
23 A. This is -- these are the rules on the central records of missing
24 persons for Bosnia and Herzegovina.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jeremy, any chance that would you have an
1 English version?
2 MR. JEREMY: We'll double-check, but I don't think so.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
4 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
5 Q. So tell us who enacted this document and on what basis? Because
6 we don't have the translation, just read the preamble before the title.
7 A. This is a bylaw.
8 "Pursuant to Article 23, paras 2 and 5 of the Law on Missing
9 Persons of Bosnia-Herzegovina, Official Gazette of Bosnia-Herzegovina,
10 issue number 50/04, and Article 18 and Article 36 of the statute of the
11 missing persons institute of Bosnia-Herzegovina, number 01-40-UO-122/07,
12 dated 2nd August 2007, the board of management of the Institute of
13 Missing Persons for Bosnia-Herzegovina with the consent of the founders
14 adopted at its 28th Session held on 5 December 2008 the following
15 rules ..."
16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Your microphone.
17 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
18 Q. [Interpretation] Does your institute work according to these
20 A. Unfortunately, no.
21 Q. Why do you say that?
22 A. These rules elaborated how the process of verification should
23 proceed, and it contains the provisions that I mentioned earlier; namely,
24 that verifications had been done based on documents that these rules do
25 not recognise. Also, the rules envisaged that three registers should be
1 made. The first would be a register of verified persons, including the
2 legally prescribed minimum of information; second, the register of
3 unverified persons; and third, the register of deleted persons.
4 Unfortunately, we did not make any of the three registers in keeping with
5 these rules.
6 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Can we look at page 9. We need
7 paragraph 21.
8 [Trial Chamber confers]
9 Q. [Interpretation] I'll read it because we have no translation.
10 Article 21: "Conclusion on Verification.
11 "(1) When the commission, after cross-checking and verifying the
12 information for the purposes of Articles 12 to 21 of the rules, has
13 established that the information on the missing persons matches, the
14 commission will adopt the conclusion on verification and establish a
15 unified verification number (INO number).
16 "(2) the collegium shall determine the contents and the format of
17 the conclusion referred to in para (1) of this article and that shall be
18 an integral part of the rules."
19 Would you please explain the significance of this article.
20 A. Well, this article stipulates on the basis of which documents
21 information about a missing person can be verified and which data is to
22 be verified. Until 2013, I believe - and I'm now talking about para (2)
23 of this article - the previous collegium of directors had prescribed what
24 minutes should contain and what the conclusions should be and that was
25 below the minimum of information prescribed by the law. And I believe it
1 was in 2013 that we changed the guide-lines and we adopted a new format
2 on the basis of which to verify the legally prescribed minimum of
3 information. It was not perfect but at least we had come to some sort of
4 agreement. It was not completely in conformity with these rules, but it
5 was acceptable to all the three members of the collegium, and we had
6 managed to find a comprise.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Before we continue, Mr. Lukic - but I'm also looking
8 at you, Mr. Jeremy - the flawed results of this institute, as the witness
9 presented to us, where does the Prosecution rely on it? And I'm asking
10 you as well, Mr. Lukic, because if it affects other evidence, then, of
11 course, it's very relevant. If it's -- if there's no evidence which
12 relies on this flawed information, then it would not affect the evidence
13 and then it's -- becomes rather irrelevant to hear what an institute
14 produced for bad results, results not known to us and not in evidence.
15 Could you please tell us where and what experts? And for example, I just
16 looked at something we heard recently; that is, for example, the Tomasica
17 report of Ms. Tabeau, I don't think she uses this as one of the sources.
18 But I may miss something because there were a lot of cross-references
19 here and there.
20 Could I ask you, Mr. Lukic, first of all, what evidence you are
21 challenging through these flaws in the work of this institute?
22 MR. LUKIC: Can I continue through the questions to this witness,
23 Your Honour?
24 JUDGE ORIE: No, I want to have an answer to that, and then, of
25 course, you can continue if it turns out to be relevant.
1 MR. LUKIC: Your Honour, I would still insist to ask this
2 witness. I think he is more knowledgeable than me.
3 JUDGE ORIE: You are the one who calls the witness and you are
4 the one who is in a position to determine the relevance of the evidence
5 you are presenting. The witness can't do that. And the witness wouldn't
6 know where in the evidence of this case one of the parties relied on the
7 results of their work.
8 Mr. Jeremy.
9 MR. JEREMY: Your Honours, I rise because you also addressed me.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I mean, it's -- it's for the relevance, of
11 course, I'm asking you as well whether somewhere you rely on the
12 now-challenged results of the work of this institute.
13 MR. JEREMY: Yes, Your Honours. My -- the understanding of the
14 Prosecution is that the -- in terms of material that has been generated
15 by the missing persons institute, which is relied on by the Prosecution
16 or Prosecution experts in this case, what we're talking about is the
17 report on the municipalities, the death report prepared by
18 Witness Ewa Tabeau, that's P2797. And within that report, she relies as
19 the sources that she looked at on 193 missing persons certificates that
20 were provided by the missing persons institute, and I would add that she
21 relies on those never as a single source, and I also understand there are
22 an additional 30 missing persons certificates from the missing persons
23 institute that were bar tabled.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. So we are talking about a number of cases
25 Ms. Tabeau relied upon in the municipalities report where she doesn't use
1 this institute's report as exclusive sources but as cross-references --
2 cross-referenced them with other sources.
3 MR. JEREMY: Yes, Your Honours. Of the five and a half thousand
4 documents or so that she relies on in that report, the missing persons
5 institute certificates make up 193 of those.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now we know at least what we're talking about.
7 Mr. Lukic, that's apparently where the evidence of this witness
8 gains some relevance. Would you then please focus on, for example, what
9 the flaws are and to what extent this is not repaired by the
10 cross-referencing of Ms. Tabeau. For example -- I'm not saying that
11 that's the case, but if for example you'd say the name of the mother was
12 missing, that even all the other sources Tabeau uses, the mother's name
13 is mentioned, then it -- the impact may be less.
14 The mere fact, Mr. Lukic, that you couldn't immediately give an
15 answer whereas Mr. Jeremy gave an answer, I don't know whether it's the
16 complete answer or not, is of some concern to this Chamber.
17 Please proceed.
18 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.
19 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Misic, which institutions use your
20 information? What about your co-operation with the ICMP and the courts?
21 A. Our information is used -- well, the law envisaged that all
22 institutions could use our information, but it's mainly the ones who are
23 verified; that is to say, the judicial institutions, the authorities, the
24 courts in Bosnia-Herzegovina which deal with cases involving that
25 information, or courts dealing with cases that have to establish certain
1 entitlements or cases before the prosecutor's office for war crimes of
3 Q. We'll cite some specific examples later. But to answer in more
4 general terms Judge Orie's question now, when establishing the date and
5 place of disappearance or death a mistake is made, could that replicate
6 the mistake in other institutions?
7 A. Because we are the only institution authorised to established
8 this information about the circumstances, the time and place of
9 disappearance, when we make an error, it's very important. We do our job
10 using all the records available, including all the records that were kept
11 on missing persons, and I've named them already: The ICRC one
12 commission; the second commission; and the ICMP. And I say with full
13 responsibility that every database, every database, has a lot of flaws, a
14 lot of shortcomings, and the purpose of the verification commission is to
15 cross-check all these databases mutually and get to correct information.
16 Let me just tell you this. ICMP established one database that
17 was included in the central records of missing persons, but we have one
18 problem with that: That database, apart from containing a lot of
19 inaccuracies on key elements, also contains a number of elements that are
20 not subject to verification at all, so that database can sometimes create
21 a false picture of a missing person on key parameters that I mentioned.
22 I also want to add that these databases containing inaccurate
23 information without one consent, and that is another deficiency in the
24 implementation of this law, are being used by courts which, at the
25 request of families, proclaim a missing person dead, and while doing so,
1 they do not take the trouble to ascertain all these things that I've
2 mentioned. So it happens occasionally that concerning one individual in
3 three different databases, we have a place and time and circumstances of
4 disappearance which the court was not aware of at all when it was making
5 its decision. And the court makes its decision and proclaims the person
6 as dead as of a certain date - let's say the 11th of July - and in three
7 databases, we have information that that person had disappeared, had gone
8 missing in 1993 or 1994.
9 The problem is that if we don't do that job till the end, then
10 somebody else deals with it - like the courts are doing now - in a
11 chaotic way, and what should be the purpose, the end purpose of the
12 central records on missing persons is just not achieved, and that purpose
13 is to find out the truth about every individual. So now we are in a
14 situation where we have to note that various sorts of manipulation are
15 going on with these lists.
16 JUDGE ORIE: I have a question.
17 Sir, you told us before the break of just how difficult it is in
18 your institution to come up with proper records of the missing persons
19 because there are people who are obstructing this information, and you
20 told us that people are said to have died during the war when they
21 haven't. Now, this time now you're telling us about same problems
22 about -- from -- with the ICMP.
23 What I want to find out from you, and you say the ICMP also gives
24 incorrect information, how do you determine that the ICMP information is
25 incorrect when you yourself don't have the correct information?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is our duty to establish
2 information as accurately as possible. That is why I said that there is
3 no completely accurate database.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: I understand your duty. Let me stop you. I
5 understand your duty. I want you to explain to me how you implement that
6 duty. Your duty is to make sure that the information is correct. Now
7 you don't have correct information. You're criticising another
8 institution for giving incorrect information, how do you determine that
9 that information from that other institution is incorrect if you yourself
10 don't have correct information?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Sir, it is our duty to compare all
12 databases and all registers. We are the ones who are at the position to
13 do so rather than other institutions providing databases. We are in
14 charge of keeping information about persons from registers that were and
15 still are being kept in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
16 For example, there's a person on the ICMP database who is
17 considered missing, and we run checks through certain records kept in
18 Bosnia-Herzegovina to establish that the person in question is alive. So
19 it is a procedure prescribed by the law. We are the ones who are
20 supposed to do that in a complete way so as to be able to say these lists
21 and those registers are accurate.
22 So we check whatever we receive, and the ICMP provides input to
23 that database without having carried out previous checks, as did other
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: I understand what you are saying. You're telling
1 me the law and what you are supposed to do, and I said I do understand
2 that's what you're supposed to do. That's your duty.
3 What I'm asking you is -- I'm saying to you, you told us this
4 morning how chaotic things are in your institution. People are doing
5 things for their own benefit and not doing it according to the law. Now,
6 the result is, and you told us this this morning, that as a result the
7 information you have about missing people is incorrect and incomplete.
8 Now, my question to you is if you working on the basis of
9 incorrect and incomplete information, how do you come to the conclusion
10 that the work of another institution whose processes you don't know is
11 incorrect? You can only say something is wrong if you can tell me what
12 the right thing is.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's not that I can say that they
14 are wrong. I can prove they are. If we are to discuss any base,
15 database --
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Then if you can prove they are, then you must have
17 the truth. But you don't by your own admission.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. What I said was that we
19 started the verification process in a poor way. I mentioned the
20 10.000-plus people for whom the procedure was not undertaken entailing
21 all the checks I mentioned. As of 2013 --
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: You've also told us that you haven't verified
23 because you are unable to complete this job because of the problems that
24 you're having.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] But I mentioned the 10.000-plus
1 people. After that, we amended our regulation. And in terms of some
2 7.000 people, we established what I mentioned here. I said that there
3 are shortcomings there as well but that the process was significantly
4 improved precisely because for every person processed under the new rules
5 and regulations, since I am a member of the collegium, checks were done
6 in the databases of other bodies and authorities in terms of registers
7 kept in Bosnia-Herzegovina. I told you there is no completely accurate
8 database. That is why all information must be checked. Once
9 verification is complete, once we have conducted all the checks for the
10 person in question, then that person may be considered fully verified.
11 Just so that you do not misunderstand me. What I'm saying is
12 that, yes, we do have omissions in the process of verification which
13 occurred before 2013. After that, when we employed a different modus
14 operandi, we established that no database was accurate, which is
15 something to be expected. However, our problem is that we no longer go
16 back to check the 10.000-plus people so that we apply the correct legal
17 procedure so that we are able say that list is accurate because the
18 analysis was conducted by the competent institution.
19 Because of those wrong findings, municipal courts work the way I
20 explained. I reiterate that the courts do not take into account all the
21 relevant documents and information about missing persons.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Let me stop you. You've gone far beyond my
23 question. Just this morning I said to you -- based on the information
24 you told us about the situation in your institution, I said to you:
25 Isn't it better that we just pack and go home, and you said that would be
1 a good solution.
2 Now you are saying to us that you had initial problems, you have
3 improved on them, 7.000 are now better out of 10.000, and things are
4 going according to law. This doesn't accord with what you told us this
5 morning because this morning the problem was perpetuating even as we
6 speak; that is, this gentleman who you mentioned who is frustrating
8 So I'm just saying to you, I'm finding it a little difficult to
9 follow your evidence now because I'm not sure I -- we are on the same
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, please proceed.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I say something? I stand by
13 what I said previously. It's better that we do nothing and disband if we
14 are unwilling to verify the 10.000-plus as prescribed by the law. That
15 is the problem in terms of this obstruction. Well, we may leave it at
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, please proceed, and let's try to get to
18 the core of the relevance of the evidence of this witness.
19 MR. LUKIC: I was. I thought to go through the legislation
20 first, but obviously I'll have to jump to the concrete cases so maybe it
21 would be easier, understandable for everybody.
22 So I would offer this document and actually to ask this document
23 to be MFI'd since there is no translation. And it's --
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
25 MR. LUKIC: -- 1D05443.
1 THE REGISTRAR: That will be MFI D1095, Your Honours.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Marked for identification.
3 Please proceed.
4 MR. LUKIC: Can we have 1D5388, please. I think that we should
5 have translation for this document. Yeah, this is -- the English --
6 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Can that be broadcast?
7 MR. LUKIC: May be better to stay without broadcasting this
9 JUDGE ORIE: Not to be shown to the public, therefore. And then
10 perhaps everyone reads what this record is about. As far as the name of
11 the person concerned, we have it on our screens now, and that we refer to
12 "this person."
13 Please proceed.
14 And, Mr. Jeremy, could you check whether this is one of the 193
15 Ms. Tabeau relied upon.
16 Please proceed.
17 MR. LUKIC: Thank you. I would start with page 36 from this
19 JUDGE FLUEGGE: At the moment we have English on both sides of
20 the screen.
21 MR. LUKIC: It's just cover page for the names, Your Honour.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Same person on either side?
23 MR. LUKIC: No, no. We have ...
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
25 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.
1 Q. [Interpretation] Without mentioning the name of the person,
2 Mr. Misic, since we don't want the names to be known publicly -- well,
3 you can see who the person in question is?
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: We have English on both sides.
5 MR. LUKIC: It's that kind of form. There are bilingual. We
6 have B/C/S and English.
7 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Misic, kindly start your explanation.
8 A. We need to look at other documents in terms of this person as
9 well to understand my point. We see here the circumstances and time of
10 disappearance as well as the date when the report is submitted. So we
11 need to take note of that in order to understand the issue on hand.
12 Am I going to read out the circumstances, because it may identify
13 the person?
14 Q. Just a general information.
15 A. After -- on the 13th of March, 1993, the sought person
16 disappeared after the RS person took over (redacted) She
17 stayed -- I'm sorry, I touched the screen.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, Witness, Witness --
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] So the report was submitted in
20 February 1996.
21 JUDGE ORIE: If would you not to read out aloud the possible
22 identifying elements such as the exact village, we don't need it, I take
23 it, for your explanation. So that she stayed in her house, and we'll not
24 read where that was, where other inhabitants ran away. That's the
25 circumstances contained in this ICRC report.
1 Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.
2 MR. LUKIC: Can we see the next page, please.
3 Q. [Interpretation] This is an ICMP document.
4 A. Yes. This document is the same as the previous one in terms of
5 date and place.
6 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Let's go to the next page, please.
7 We have this page in English only but we will need it in both versions.
8 Page 39 in both versions.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] On this page, we have an ICMP
10 comment when they took blood samples from members of the family. They
11 also created a file that information can be extracted from. So
12 previously we had information about the person from two previous
13 databases, those of the ICMP and the ICRC. Here we have additional
14 information as well as explanation provided by the ICMP.
15 Let us move on.
16 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. Let me remind you. On the first document, it says that she
18 disappeared on the 13th of March, 1993, after the attack by the VRS in
19 (redacted) We see here that she was killed
20 and buried in Nova Kasaba.
21 A. Yes. Let us move on because there are further databases.
22 Q. Very well.
23 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Let's go to the next page.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The third primary database. More
25 or less, the data is the same.
1 Let us move on to reach the final document. So we have three
2 databases so far with approximately similar information. So this person
3 should have been verified according to the information we have seen thus
4 far, but let us go to the next document.
5 So we have the three primary databases which were entered in the
6 central records of missing persons. This person was verified pursuant to
7 the record of identification, which was not done pursuant to the law.
8 There we find that she went missing on the 17th of July, 1995. So this
9 is completely off. She is one of the 10.000-plus people. So
10 verification was done circumventing the legally prescribed method. This
11 document is not recognised by the law, and information contained therein
12 is completely inaccurate, creating a completely wrong picture of how this
13 person disappeared.
14 This document was also signed by a representative of the
15 competent prosecutor's office. So when they create this record of
16 identification, they do not carry out background checks. If the
17 procedure had been followed under the law, there would have been no
18 problem legally speaking, but further work was carried out based on a
19 document which was completely wrong.
20 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. Now before the break, let us look at a few more pages in this
23 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Could we see --
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jeremy.
25 MR. JEREMY: Sorry, Your Honours. Just to come back to you on
1 your query. So the individual that we were looking at isn't encompassed
2 within the 193 missing persons certificates that I referred to as -- that
3 were referenced in Ms. Tabeau's report, although that relates to the
4 municipalities rather than Srebrenica. Here we're looking at documents
5 that I understand do not originate from the missing persons institute
6 about relate to Srebrenica missing, and the individual that we're looking
7 at here isn't included in the report relating to Srebrenica missing,
9 JUDGE ORIE: So whatever mistakes there may have been made, it
10 has no effect as far as you are concerned on the evidence which is before
11 this Chamber?
12 MR. JEREMY: That's correct, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic. I mean, if mistakes are made, of course
14 our great concern is whether it affects the reliability of the evidence
15 before this Chamber.
16 MR. LUKIC: It does, Your Honour, because it is always implied in
17 the majority of the cases that these killed persons are killed in
18 connection with Srebrenica killings.
19 JUDGE ORIE: But if nowhere this faulty document was relied upon,
20 then at least that mistake has been avoided.
21 MR. LUKIC: Maybe not by Ms. Tabeau. But we have ICMP lists of
22 killed persons.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Then what we need to establish to find that
24 there is an effect, we should see a record by this institute which is
25 then copied, duplicated in the ICMP records, and then see whether the
1 mistakes are copied.
2 Now, I do understand that here the ICMP data are different from
3 what is found in this report signed by this institute. So therefore, in
4 this case, apparently, it has not had any effect on the ICMP records.
5 That's how I understand it, but ...
6 I mean, just establishing somewhere in the world mistakes were
7 made which are to some extent related to what happened in the Balkans
8 1992, 1995, is not sufficient to make it relevant for our case. What we
9 need is that it effects the reliability of the evidence which is before
10 this Chamber.
11 MR. LUKIC: We are establishing relevance, and we will have
12 demographer who would go into details. I cannot go into details --
13 JUDGE ORIE: But if it's not related in any way to the evidence
14 before us, it could not affect the reliability of that evidence
15 irrespective of what a demographer will tell us unless that demographer
16 is going to tell us that this information slipped in somewhere. And
17 that's the reason why I asked you that question, where does it affect the
18 reliability of the evidence as it is before us; that is, the evidence
19 presented by the Prosecution.
20 Please proceed, but keep this in mind.
21 MR. LUKIC: I have to jump from one question to another because
22 I'm really pushed hard today. I had my very smooth flow, but I'll try to
23 accommodate you.
24 We'll need to see 1D05786, please.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Just before we leave this document, can we confirm
1 that this document comes -- the institute it comes from is the Tuzla
2 clinic centre?
3 MR. LUKIC: We can ask the witness, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sir, what institution produced that document that
5 we just looked at, as we saw that it was at the Tuzla clinic centre or
6 clinical centre, as was translated.
7 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Don't look at the screen. It was related to the
8 previous document.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: It's the previous document.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's a document from the clinical
11 centre of Tuzla. It's their regular format, and it's about the final
12 identification of a person based on a DNA report.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you so much. You have answered my question.
14 Thank you, Mr. Lukic.
15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Lukic, can that be broadcast? What we have
16 on the screen?
17 MR. LUKIC: [Microphone not activated] Probably not.
18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Yes. You should always first indicate if it can
19 be broadcast or not. Then it should not.
20 MR. LUKIC: Yeah, thank you.
21 Q. [Interpretation] You see, Mr. Misic, before us we have a
22 document, and we won't mention the name. What can you tell us about this
23 document of the Red Cross?
24 A. Again, it's a document from only one database, and that's not
25 enough for a person to be verified. However, all the documents we are
1 looking at, when one and the same person is in issue, the information
2 about the dates and place and circumstances of disappearance differ from
3 one database to another. We see that this person has not been verified,
4 but the problem is that this document is completely inaccurate, although
5 it was generated in May 1996. It's inaccurate according to our checks.
6 I don't know if I need to explain.
7 This person died as the result of an accident, not in the way
8 it's stated here, and it should have been rejected as a missing person.
9 The report of a missing person was incorrect. And I'm telling you there
10 are many cases like this, in the federal commission, in the
11 Republika Srpska database, in the ICRC base. We can talk about missing
12 persons only about the basis of the central register. This person died
13 after the war in a misadventure. He was killed accidentally by a member
14 of his own unit.
15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Can you specify when was he killed?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] December 1995, I think.
17 JUDGE FLUEGGE: And when did your institution receive the
18 information about his death?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] He was killed by accident. I can't
20 tell you exactly when we received the report, but we ran checks on this
21 person looking at all the documents that were available about him, and
22 then we established that this report was incorrect.
23 JUDGE FLUEGGE: When was this check carried out?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Last year, I believe. And that
25 person was not verified. He should be entered into the list of
1 unverified persons.
2 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Was the information about his death available to
3 the institute on the 23rd of May, 1996?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.
5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: How can you say that this is a wrong certificate,
6 what we have on the screen now? Because, at that time - May 1996 - the
7 information about his death was not available. It states here only that
8 he was, at that time, missing. Or did I miss something?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Every report, including this one,
10 is subject to our verification. We carried out checks on this person,
11 and the information we found out is that he didn't disappear on this
12 date, he didn't disappear in this place, and the circumstances are
13 completely wrong. In December 1995, he was patrolling along the
14 separation line --
15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I understand that but --
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] And the person who submitted this
17 report that was after the war --
18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Yes, I understand that. But at the beginning,
19 you gave the impression that this was a kind of false information
20 contained in this document. At that time, it was not false because it
21 was not known. You agree?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It might have been a mistake, but
23 what I'm trying to say again is that not a single list, not a single
24 database, not a single name could pass without complete verification.
25 Not even the ICMP.
1 I don't know how this report came about, whether it was
2 deliberate manipulation. It could be. I don't know for a fact. But in
3 any case, not a single list can be considered as correct until we have
4 carried out our verifications.
5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: At the moment we are not discussing a list but
6 this document. How can you say it could be a deliberate manipulation if
7 you yourself say at that time, when this document was created, it was not
8 known that this person died by an accident or a killing?
9 How could it be a deliberate manipulation if the facts were not
10 known to those who reported him missing? And I'm talking about May 1996.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Sir, if I remember well about this
12 person, I described to you the circumstances. I know them. If he really
13 died under the circumstances that I know, he couldn't have been found in
14 a mass grave. There's no way that a person who is accidentally killed by
15 a member of his own unit ended up in a mass grave. I'm trying to tell
16 you nothing is correct until a full verification is carried out.
17 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I stop you. Please tell me where I can find any
18 mentioning of a mass grave in this document.
19 MR. LUKIC: Page 6 of this document, Your Honour.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, let's go on then.
21 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Yes please. But the witness is talking about
22 this document as it is on the screen now. And then please continue.
23 MR. LUKIC: I'm sorry.
24 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Please continue.
25 MR. LUKIC: Yeah, because you didn't have a chance to see the
1 whole document. It's -- no, I mean, the bad side of this electronic
2 version, but at page 6 we'll see the list, and it's mentioned graveyard
3 634 where 112 persons were exhumed. And under yellow underline, has
4 underlined this person from the mass grave.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Can I ask a slightly unconnected question.
6 What is the name of the unit of this person which a member of
7 whom killed him?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It was one of the medical units of
9 the 28th Division from Srebrenica. He was a member of a medical company
10 or something like that.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: And on what date was he killed?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think it's somewhere in the next
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yeah, but I'm asking you.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The date. December 1995. I know
16 it was after the signing of the Dayton Accords.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: And where was the 28th Division at that time, on
18 that day? Or the medical unit of the 28th Division.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, according to the information
20 that became available to us, they were on the separation line on patrol
21 duty, at least some of the members of the 28th Division were on patrol
22 duty. By that time, the 28th Division had been reorganised to some
23 extent. They were involved in reconnaissance activities --
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: On what date in December 1995 was the
25 28th Division at that place on the reconnaissance mission?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The date is in the next document.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Previous translation continues] ...
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The 5th of December, I believe.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: The next document tells us about the whereabouts
5 of the 28th Division?
6 [Trial Chamber confers]
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, it's about the activities of
8 a part of the 28th Division which wasn't called the 28th Division at that
9 time. Not all of their units were engaged. The operative units were not
10 involved in types of -- in -- in this type of task.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, I think it would be better that we allow
12 you now to continue.
13 What we could do is to continue for another ten minutes, then
14 adjourn for the day because -- not to take any further break. And that
15 you take us page by page through this document. And, of course, having a
16 slightly longer session but an earlier break would, of course, be --
17 Mr. Mladic should agree with that. If not, then we'll take a break and
18 then we'll have the ten minutes later.
19 [Defence counsel confer]
20 JUDGE ORIE: No speaking aloud.
21 Mr. Lukic, does Mr. Mladic agree that we continue for another ten
22 minutes and then adjourn for the day?
23 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE ORIE: So if you take us page by page through this
1 Mr. Jeremy.
2 MR. JEREMY: Just a question for Mr. Lukic necessitated by the
3 lack of a translation. There's been a reference to accidental killing,
4 and I just wonder if that is included in the B/C/S documents and perhaps
5 there isn't an English translation of it. I don't see it in the
6 documents that we're looking at.
7 JUDGE ORIE: I see at least something from a university clinic on
8 the second page.
9 Is that the one?
10 But, please take us through the document and -- so that we know
11 where potential problems are. It's indeed that problem that we don't
12 have an English translation, Mr. Lukic.
13 MR. LUKIC: It is. I know. I'm aware of it. But this document
14 came late. I just today asked you to add it on the 65 ter list.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please proceed.
16 MR. LUKIC: Thank you. Can we -- we saw the first page. Can we
17 see the second page now.
18 Q. [Interpretation] On this document, we also see that he was killed
19 on the 12th of July, 1995. It was issued on the 27th of November, 2006.
20 A. Yes, unfortunately. This is precisely what I was referring to.
21 Somebody manipulates information with a certain intent, or perhaps
22 unintentionally, in terms of circumstances and time of death.
23 Q. Just to advise you, my learned friend Mr. Jeremy also raised the
24 issue. In the documents that I have and which was uploaded in the
25 system, I did not come across manslaughter; that is to say, the
1 unintentional killing by a member of his unit in December 1995.
2 A. Then I have to direct you to the monograph of the 28th Division
3 produced by a group of authors.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Before we continue, reference was made to a date in
5 November. Where do we find a date in November on this document?
6 [Trial Chamber confers]
7 MR. LUKIC: November? I said April.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Oh, let me just see. It says --
9 MR. LUKIC: [Overlapping speakers] ...
10 JUDGE ORIE: -- "On this document we also see that he was killed
11 on the 12th of July. It was issued on the 27th of November ..."
12 MR. LUKIC: April.
13 JUDGE ORIE: April. Okay, yes. Then I understand it, Mr. Lukic.
14 Please proceed.
15 MR. LUKIC: Your Honour, I can --
16 JUDGE ORIE: And what does it then say? So this document again
17 repeats that he was killed on the 12th of July.
18 MR. LUKIC: Yeah, it's one day after than the first one. But
19 it's not a big issue.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. And where do we find that exactly so that --
21 MR. LUKIC: The first one is 11th -- I'm sorry.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Could we -- I'm just trying to find that date. I
23 see it's in green, 12th/7/1995.
24 MR. LUKIC: The previous page is 11th July 1995, previous
1 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. And this comes from a university clinic in
3 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE ORIE: And could the witness read what the place is where
5 this person is supposed to have died? It says "mijesto."
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Snagovo, Zvornik.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. And could you confirm that this document
8 comes from a clinical centre and states that this person, (redacted)
9 (redacted) died on the 12th of July, 1995, in Zvornik.
10 Is that what the document tells us?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The document was signed by members
12 of the family, a representative of the prosecutor's office, and a
13 representative of the institute. The date is stated as we can see here.
14 Through additional checks, it was established --
15 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, why not answer my question? Does the
16 document state that this person died on the 12th of July in Zvornik?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that's what we can see.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Then there are three names at the bottom.
19 The first, is that a reference to a family member?
20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Can we scroll down?
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Where it starts on the left, there are three
22 columns at the bottom. The very left starting with "identitet." What
23 does that mean? Is that a family member or ...
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. In the lower part, there's a
25 friend's name and it states that one of the parents confirmed the
2 Towards the top, it was signed by a forensic pathologist and the
3 authorised official who is usually a representative of the cantonal
4 prosecutor's office in Tuzla.
5 JUDGE ORIE: I think we have the basic in fact about this
6 document now.
7 Mr. Lukic, could you take us to the next page.
8 Oh, but Judge Moloto has one question.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sir, can you just confirm is the university clinic
10 in Tuzla the same as the Tuzla clinical centre? Is it one and the same
11 institution or are they two separate institutions?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is the same institution.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, do we know enough about this one and go
15 to the next one?
16 MR. LUKIC: The next page is only DNA report. Can we go to next
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, there's nothing in dispute
20 JUDGE ORIE: Well, if this is a DNA report, from where was the
21 sample taken? Anything to that effect that we know what exactly is
22 compared with what?
23 MR. LUKIC: In the middle part, Your Honour. We have it in both
24 English and B/C/S.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And we see the name of the father between
1 brackets. And we see further down the three persons apparently who gave
2 samples with which they were compared.
3 Now, is there -- yes. And I take it that the site is where the
4 body part or the body was found, that is, in Snagovo, which then was used
5 for a DNA sampling. Is that how we should understand this?
6 MR. LUKIC: At least I do understand that way. Maybe the witness
7 could confirm. He has more knowledge.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, if the witness has any -- is there anything we
9 said until now which is inaccurate, Witness?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It makes no sense that the mortal
11 remains were found in the mass grave at Snagovo. They could have only
12 have been found at the place where he died. This person in other
13 words --
14 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, that's jumping to conclusions. We are just
15 looking at what this report tells us and whether we made any mistake in
16 summarising what is in this report irrespective of whether it makes sense
17 or not. We'll move to the next page.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's fine.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Please, next page.
20 MR. LUKIC: I think the next page is the same, only has a stamp.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Let's have a look at the next page.
22 MR. JEREMY: I see the date below the signature, it's different.
23 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Can we go [Overlapping speakers] ...
24 JUDGE ORIE: The signature is different, the date is different,
25 and the -- I think the probability, 99. -- which appears somewhere, I
1 take it that's the probability that it is a match, and that is in many
2 respects, this report, therefore, is different, both in numbers. So
3 apparently it is a different DNA test.
4 MR. LUKIC: It is.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Let's proceed. If you say it's just the same,
6 Mr. Lukic, it apparently is not.
7 MR. LUKIC: I stand corrected, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
9 MR. LUKIC: So the next page, please.
10 Q. [Interpretation] We have no translation of this, Mr. Misic.
11 Therefore, tell us briefly what this is about.
12 A. This is a file I referred to previously, extracted from the
13 databases kept for the citizens of BiH which had been updated previously
14 in terms of post-war data.
15 So this is a record confirming that a person was alive and then
16 passed away. In other words, it is a result of some checks.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Who made this report?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There's nothing questionable about
20 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. The Judge asked you who produced it.
22 A. It is, as we can see, the report of our state agency about some
23 particulars kept for all inhabitants on citizens of BiH. As the
24 institute, we have access to that data. This one was printed on the 17th
25 of October, 2013. Members of the commission of the institute for missing
1 persons can enter the database and print out this form to confirm that
2 the person existed, passed away, or may still be alive.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. What does this document say? Is the person
4 still alive or did he pass away?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Here we only have the particulars.
6 We don't have that piece of information.
7 JUDGE ORIE: But this apparently refers to a person which once
8 existed and it's extracted from a database.
9 Ready to go to page 6 or should we stop, perhaps, for the day?
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: I have a question about this document.
11 You said, sir, this -- as we can see the report is of our state
12 agency. How do we -- where do we see in the report that it is of a state
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The acronym IDDEEA. It is the
15 acronym of the state agency which keeps all registers providing the
16 central database for all citizens of BiH.
17 JUDGE FLUEGGE: It is [Overlapping speakers] ...
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The commission must take a report
19 of this kind into account so as to confirm that the person in question
20 is, indeed, a citizen of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: And the acronym is IDDEEA.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's correct. You can see it in
24 the heading.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Now we see two dates in this document. The one,
1 20th of April, 1965, is corresponding with the date of birth of this
2 person as we saw it in the other documents. We also see a date, the 3rd
3 of June, 1981. Could you tell us what that date stands for?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The 3rd of June 1981, I suppose it
5 had to do with the unique personal number of that citizen.
6 JUDGE ORIE: It very much looks like a date and not as a personal
7 number, but --
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The date when the number was
9 assigned. You can see the unique number at the very top.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Then I think it would be best -- unless, Mr. Lukic,
11 you consider it better, and if Mr. Mladic would agree, to go to pages 6
12 and 7. There are two left. I think 6 we looked at already.
13 MR. LUKIC: Yes. 7 --
14 JUDGE ORIE: And I don't know whether you want to go to 7 or
15 adjourn for the day.
16 MR. LUKIC: 7 is just a continuation of 6, probably.
17 [Trial Chamber confers]
18 JUDGE ORIE: I think I'll ask one thing from the witness and
19 then, Mr. Lukic, perhaps it would be better to adjourn.
20 And, Witness, could you please read the entry which the chapter
21 which comes immediately after the green highlighted portion, which
22 apparently started "podaci o."
23 You see that is preceding the first entry where the date of the
24 3rd of June, 1981 appears. Could you read that line.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is additional information. The
1 municipality Bratunac. The date, the 3rd of June.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, date of what? Could you read? It says
3 "datum," and then a word follows. Could you read that out aloud.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Date of determination.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now I see a little bit higher up, also
6 preceding the date the 3rd of June, and forgive me for my pronunciation
7 but it -- I would pronounce it as "datum prebivalista."
8 Do you see that? In the middle of the page.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Could you read that so that we receive translation
11 of what it stands for?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Residence date.
13 JUDGE ORIE: That's when -- yes.
14 We'll adjourn for the day.
15 Mr. Lukic, you'll understand that on the basis of this document,
16 the inconsistency with what seems to be a traffic accident or something
17 like that is not yet there, so I take it that we'll further hear from
18 that tomorrow.
19 We adjourn for the day and with apologies for having gone beyond
20 the time-limit we indicated earlier.
21 Witness, before we adjourn, I'd like to instruct you that you
22 should not speak or communicate with whomever about your testimony,
23 whether that is testimony you've given today or whether that is testimony
24 you are still about to give tomorrow.
25 If that is clear to you, we'd like to see you back tomorrow
1 morning, 9.30, and you may now follow the usher.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.
3 [The witness stands down]
4 JUDGE ORIE: We adjourn for the day, and we will resume tomorrow,
5 Thursday, the 9th of July, 9.30 in the morning, in this same courtroom,
7 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.01 p.m.,
8 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 9th day of July,
9 2015, at 9.30 a.m.