1 Monday, 24 August 2015
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.33 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone in and around this
7 Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is case
9 IT-09-92-T, The Prosecutor versus Ratko Mladic.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
11 No preliminaries were announced. Therefore, could the witness be
12 escorted in the courtroom.
13 [Trial Chamber confers]
14 [The witness entered court]
15 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning, Ms. Radovanovic.
16 THE WITNESS: Good morning.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Before you give evidence, the Rules require that you
18 make a solemn declaration --
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm not receiving any
21 JUDGE ORIE: Is it any better now? Is it any better now?
22 THE WITNESS: Yes.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. May I invite to you make that solemn
24 declaration of which the text has been handed out to you.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will
1 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
2 WITNESS: SVETLANA RADOVANOVIC
3 [Witness answered through interpreter]
4 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Please be seated.
5 Ms. Radovanovic, you'll first be examined by Mr. Ivetic. You
6 find Mr. Ivetic to your left. Mr. Ivetic is a member of the Defence team
7 of Mr. Mladic.
8 Mr. Ivetic please proceed.
9 MR. IVETIC: Thank you.
10 Examination by Mr. Ivetic:
11 Q. Good morning, Professor.
12 A. Good morning.
13 Q. Could you please state your full name for the purposes of the
15 A. Svetlana Radovanovic.
16 Q. And, Professor, I would like to call up 1D05357 which will be
17 your CV but in the meantime could you please introduce yourself by giving
18 a short resume of your work history?
19 A. I started my career in the bureau of statistics of the Republic
20 of Serbia where I worked until the end of 1991. I ended my career there
21 as head of the Department for Population Statistics. I took part in
22 several preparations for, and processings of, the census and also, ex
23 officio, I was in charge of a census. Also, I was an expert for
24 methodology attached to an expert group formed by the federal bureau of
1 In addition to that, I realised, organised a special census of
2 part of Kosovo-Metohija under the auspices of the Serb Academy of
3 Sciences and Arts.
4 In 1992, I started working at the Institute of Social Sciences,
5 the Centre for Demographic Research and I worked there until 1999
6 organising and carrying out certain projects related to the population.
7 Also, I worked in the centre of peace of the United Nations,
8 regarding these projects that had to do with different populations
9 especially in Montenegro.
10 In 1999, I started working at the Faculty of Geography of the
11 University of Belgrade and I stayed there until 2014.
12 In this CV of mine there is something missing namely that piece
13 of information. It says that I worked there until 2013 but simply I
14 handed in this CV early on. But in 2014, in July, I retired. I retired
15 as head of the Department for Demographics at the Faculty of Geography.
16 I worked on many scientific projects and --
17 JUDGE ORIE: Could I invite you to slow down so that the
18 interpreters can catch all your words.
19 THE WITNESS: Okay, okay.
20 JUDGE ORIE: And that nothing will be missed.
21 Please proceed.
22 You said you worked on many scientific projects. And then.
23 Could you please resume from there.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Projects organised by the Faculty
25 of Geography, projects organised by other institutions and as I said in
1 July I retired as head of Department for Demographics at the Faculty of
2 Geography. I held different posts there. I was also deputy dean for
3 finance, and so on and so forth.
4 Q. Could you tell us what subjects you taught while at university?
5 A. As regards undergraduate studies, as well as masters studies and
6 doctoral studies, I taught several subjects. Introduction to demography,
7 statistics of population, ethno-demography, methods of demographic
8 analysis, geopolitics and population.
9 Q. Now, if we look at the second page in both languages of your CV
10 in the section, "Other Professional Activities", which we now have on the
11 screen, you have reflected here that you have been an expert before the
12 ICTY. Can you please tell us how many times and which cases you appeared
14 A. I testified in the trial that dealt with the siege of Sarajevo.
15 I think it was General Galic's trial. Also, I testified about ethnical
16 structure and ethnical changes in Samac at the Blagojevic, et al trial.
17 Then at the Jadranko Prlic et al trial, and I guess I haven't forgotten
18 anything. I think it was five trials that I testified at and I cannot
19 remember the fifth one now. Oh, yes. Popovic. Popovic. Popovic et al.
20 Q. Apart from the date of your retirement, do you believe this
21 curriculum vitae to be complete and accurate?
22 A. Yes.
23 MR. IVETIC: I would tender 1D05357 as a public exhibit.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Any objections by the Prosecution.
25 MR. FILE: No objection, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Admitted into evidence, under number,
2 Madam Registrar.
3 THE REGISTRAR: 65 ter number 1D05357 receives exhibit number
4 D1210, Your Honours.
5 JUDGE ORIE: And, as I said, is admitted into evidence.
6 Please proceed.
7 MR. IVETIC:
8 Q. Now, Professor, you have prepared a written report for this case.
9 At this time I would call up 1D05356. And I have a hard copy here if you
10 need it.
11 A. I have my own copy, but if you wish, you can give me that one.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Well, it's usual that the parties provide the copies
13 you can consult because no one has inspected your copy.
14 THE WITNESS: Okay.
15 JUDGE ORIE: So would you please - whatever you have brought you
16 not consult it without having asked permission to do so and you'll be
17 provided with whatever you say you need.
18 THE WITNESS: Very well.
19 MR. IVETIC: And if we can open to the first page in both -- I
20 guess page 2 in e-court in both languages.
21 Q. And could you tell us what was the task or assignment that you
22 received for purposes of this case, the Mladic case.
23 A. I was supposed to see how well founded the information is, the
24 information presented in the expert report of the Prosecution to look at
25 all the sources they used, to give my comment regarding these sources, to
1 see whether they applied methodology that is used in the science of
2 demographics and statistics, to assess the results that they obtained and
3 to indicate many methodological problems that they have, if any, and also
4 to give my own assessment of the report that they made.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Could I just seek verification of the translation.
6 We received as the translation of what you said that you were
7 invited to assess the results that they have obtained and to indicate
8 many methodological problems that they have.
9 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: Any.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that's what I was thinking, that it would be
11 "any" rather than "many."
12 Please proceed.
13 MR. IVETIC:
14 Q. And you've identified the expert report of the Prosecution. Was
15 your task relating to one or more of the Prosecution experts?
16 A. Several of them. Simply because expert analyses were made by
17 several experts, not only one. One expert analysis that has to do with
18 ethnic changes was done by Dr. Ewa Tabeau, one expert. However, at the
19 end of her report, she also says that she was assisted by certain people.
20 Q. Okay. And if we can turn to page 3 in both languages. Starting
21 towards the bottom of the page, you begin listing reports analysed and it
22 goes on to the next page. And if we could turn to page 5 in both
23 languages, we come to the end of that list at 21 items. And then on that
24 fifth page you also list 15 data sources analysed.
25 Did you have occasion to review any additional materials, apart
1 from that which you have listed here, for purposes of doing your review
2 and drafting your report?
3 A. All the materials that were accessible and that I deemed could be
4 of significance when I reviewed the reports of the Prosecution experts, I
5 took a look at all of that. I also looked at the data sources that are
6 partly contained in the demographics office of the OTP, but also I looked
7 at sources that I did not see at the demographics office of the OTP.
8 That is to say, I reviewed everything that was made accessible to me.
9 Q. And just to we are clear about your testimony today, both your
10 testimony today and your report do not deal with or analyse Dr. Tabeau's
11 new report on Tomasica. Is that accurate?
12 A. Yes.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, I still have -- it's not entirely clear
14 to me. You said, "All the materials that were accessible and that I
15 deemed could be of significance when I reviewed the reports, I took a
16 look at all that."
17 Now, you have listed the 21 reports you analysed. You have given
18 15 data sources. What other materials or is that all that you have
19 looked at; and, if not, could you tell us what other material you looked
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is all that I studied
22 meticulously. But I also reviewed some other material that has to do
23 with statistics, say, statistics, recent statistics of Bosnia-Herzegovina
24 that I had occasion to see so that I could see whether they could be used
25 as such or not. I also reviewed, earlier on when I was in the
1 demographics department, some materials that might pertain to this. But
2 now they were not accessible to me. So I could not mention them in this
3 list --
4 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... two questions:
5 First of all, do we find a references to those sources you are now
6 telling us you consulted? That's the first question: Do we find that in
7 footnotes, or that I found that here or I found that there?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I provide footnotes for everything
9 that I refer to.
10 As for sources that I consulted apart from this and that I
11 decided I would not use, I did not mention them, and there is no
12 explanation or footnote regarding them. Each and every source, if I'm
13 quoting something, or if I am referring to something, it is stated where
14 it was taken from, from which report, from which book, from which
15 publication, what the page is, and so on.
16 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... so every
17 material you've used, you have considered, we find it referenced in
18 the -- either in the text or in the footnotes.
19 Second question is: You said I had no access to certain
20 materials. Did you try to find access? Because it's always of some
21 concern to the Chamber if experts say, We couldn't look at it because we
22 didn't have it. Because this Chamber often can assist in giving access
23 to or getting access to certain sources.
24 What is it exactly that you could not have access to?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I asked the Defence to make it
1 possible for me to go to the demographics office of the Office of the
2 Prosecutor to take a look at the materials used. For example, in 2004,
3 2005, I did have some insight, but it's been a while, so I thought that I
4 should take a look, again, at some of these sources and some of these
5 materials that were used by Prosecution experts.
6 As far as I know, the Prosecution did provide its consent.
7 However, the Registry said that the demographics office was closed right
8 now, if my understanding is correct, that they first have to discuss it
9 with Dr. Tabeau, that I should say what it is that I want to see and that
10 they would notify me when I could come, if at all. To this day, I
11 haven't heard from them and perhaps the Defence knows better than I do
12 what all of this is about.
13 JUDGE ORIE: And you told them what you wanted to see? Is
14 that ...
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. I mentioned all the sources
16 that I wished to look at.
17 For example, I never saw --
18 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... at this moment,
19 I'm not that much interested in the details. Rather, in how it went.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Uh-uh.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic.
22 MR. IVETIC: I can assist further.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please, because the Chamber, have we missed
24 something that there was something that --
25 MR. IVETIC: The Prosecution and the Defence have not had any
1 problems in regard to this. We've co-operated fully. The Registry has
2 not agreed to authorise that trip yet for Ms. Radovanovic and her
3 assistants who would be performing that work. Still in the process of
4 trying to arrange that for the Tomasica part of the case since this
5 expert has only recently been appointed as an expert for that portion of
6 the case, which we sought sometime ago, but only I think it was last week
7 or the week before has been appointed by the Registry for that function.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Do I understand that the only portions you had no
9 access to is the Tomasica materials? Or.
10 MR. IVETIC: No.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps I should ask.
12 MR. IVETIC: She has had not access since 2007 to any of the
13 materials from the OTP's demographic database.
14 JUDGE ORIE: And when was the request made? Because what you're
15 telling us that at this moment that Prosecution was not opposing but the
16 Registry blocked, more of less, or frustrated access to materials which
17 are apparently relevant.
18 When was the request made to have access to that material, so
19 when was it that the Registrar or the Registry blocked, more or less
21 MR. IVETIC: I wouldn't say blocked access. I'm talking about
22 funding which are two entirely different matters. They have invited the
23 Defence and the experts to basically go out of their own pocket to
24 perform this work. That most recent correspondence as to that was
25 approximately, I think, three weeks ago. The request having been made
1 months before for the -- specifically -- that part was specifically
2 dealing with Tomasica matter, once we did receive some additional hours
3 for her to be appointed as an expert for Tomasica.
4 JUDGE ORIE: That's -- Tomasica which is a -- I would say is a
5 separate issue. Was there any hindrance in getting access to all the
6 non-Tomasica materials? The witness says, Well, I had no access to
7 materials, but Tomasica.
8 MR. IVETIC: We have no funding. I don't know how else I can
9 explain to Your Honours. The Prosecution gave their consent, I believe,
10 both times and we didn't have funding. And we're still trying to arrange
11 funding for the expert and her assistants to come here and use the
12 facilities that the Office of the Prosecutor has offered for that matter,
13 and we're hoping to get that resolved, and then to allow her to have
14 access to do whatever she needs to do to verify whether any findings need
15 be to modified based upon having access to that material.
16 JUDGE ORIE: When was a request for funding made in relation to
17 the non-Tomasica material?
18 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, standing here on my feet I do not
19 know. It's been an ongoing process so I cannot -- I cannot guess and
20 mislead the Court as to when the original request was made. I can only
21 say that the most recent request was made approximately, I think, three
22 or four months ago.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
24 MR. IVETIC: With the appointment of the expert coming in the
25 last week or two and with the issue of funding for the assistants of the
1 expert's also still in limbo.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now the report was filed - let me just have a
3 look - in March 2015. Do I understand that -- were there any requests
4 for further funding made before March 2015 well, before that because then
5 the report apparently was concluded which is -- you understand that the
6 Chamber wants to know in detail what are the reasons that there may be
7 insufficient materials.
8 MR. IVETIC: Relying upon my memory and my memory alone, the
9 original request to review the documents came during the Prosecution's
10 case in-chief, at which time the Prosecution said that they did not have
11 an objection. And I think that was sometime in late 2014 when Ms. Tabeau
12 testified the first time.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Because that apparently is mixed up now and then.
14 Was that a request to also have the necessary funding or was it a request
15 to have access to the materials irrespective of any funding? Because in
16 the beginning I understood the testimony, to some extent, to be that the
17 Registrar had frustrated or blocked access to the materials. Whereas now
18 it turns out that it's at least also a financial matter, and asking
19 further details about when requests for funding were made and when
20 requests for access were made, that the request for funding you mentioned
21 is three, four months, four months ago, which is after the report had
22 been submitted.
23 MR. IVETIC: That was a renewed request because of the Tomasica
24 case reopening, and then we sought to have the expert qualified to
25 provide assistance for the Tomasica part of the case.
1 JUDGE ORIE: That's the reason why I asked for the non-Tomasica
2 materials. Because it's -- it's -- I understand that Tomasica is still
3 to be worked on. It's not part of this report. So, therefore, I'm
4 wondering what frustrated access to any materials for the report as it is
5 before us now: Is that a lack of co-operation by the Registry; and, if
6 so, is a matter of funding, or is it a matter of we have closed the
7 department, therefore you can't have access.
8 These the questions the Chamber would very clearly distinguish
9 and not mix them up. Do you have any further information, Mr. Ivetic?
10 MR. IVETIC: I do. I do.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
12 MR. IVETIC: My recollection is that originally there was a
13 concern that the department had to be opened up, but the Prosecution
14 agreed to do that and the Prosecution consented to having the expert and
15 the assistant who I think had assisted here on the prior trip to the
16 demography unit years ago. And it's an issue of funding. The funds for
17 the work of Ms. Radovanovic were expended in full and we did not have
18 additional hours available. We've been -- the issue the funding with the
19 Registry has been an ongoing matter for many experts, so that's why it's
20 a little bit difficult for me to recall every single detail since the
21 funding for experts for the Defence always an issue. And it's one that
22 we have made dealings both written, oral, and otherwise with the Registry
23 and it's a painstaking process. And like I said we finally were able to
24 get some additional -- to get Ms. Radovanovic appointed for additional
25 hours to look at Tomasica and we're trying to get approval for her
1 assistants and her to come and to review the material at the
2 Demographic Unit.
3 JUDGE ORIE: As a matter of fact, at this moment we have no
4 details about neither funding or access in the earlier stages when the
5 additional funding and additional access for Tomasica were not playing a
7 MR. IVETIC: I cannot provide those details, that's correct.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. File. Do you have any further comment on
9 the matter.
10 MR. FILE: In case it would be of assistance, I can give you some
11 further details on the request for access to the demographic databases in
12 the OTP. The request that I'm aware of was received on the 14th of
13 July of this year.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Was that for Tomasica or was that for the -- because
15 by then, the report had been produced already. Is there any earlier
16 request for access?
17 MR. FILE: I'm not aware of an earlier request for access and
18 that request did not specify Tomasica it was just for access to the
19 demographic database. And we responded on the 16th, I believe, of
20 July offering a series of dates that would be available between the
21 27th of July and the 7th of August, or any time in September, starting
22 from the 7th of September. And that's where we left our correspondence.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Now -- and now I'm addressing the witness. You said
24 that you heard that the department was closed and that was a problem.
25 Are you talking about the time between the 7th of August and September,
1 or are you talking about any earlier period when the demographic
2 department was closed temporarily or permanently?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm talking about an earlier
5 JUDGE ORIE: And what period was that?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] At the moment when I was
7 negotiating and hiring for the report that we will be discussing today, I
8 talked to the lawyers and told them that it would be good for me to have
9 access and review the material that I know only in part, and there's one
10 database that I don't know at all. And as far as I'm informed, a request
11 has been made for me to gain access and a response was given, but I don't
12 have it here, but nobody would mind. But because the demographics office
13 is currently closed, I have to specify what I want to see so that
14 Dr. Tabeau could get on that case and give me access to these databases.
15 After that, I didn't receive any more answers from anyone.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask you, you said: "And as far as I'm
17 informed a request has been made to gain access and a response was given
18 but I don't have it here but nobody would mind."
19 When was that? Was that this year? Was that one year ago? Two
20 years ago? Five years ago?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It was certainly last year, before
22 I finished my expert report relating to the subject we will be discussing
24 JUDGE ORIE: That's fine. And you say because the demographic
25 office is currently closed.
1 Are you also now referring to last year?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I can't be 100 per cent sure
3 but it was certainly before I submitted my report.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then you said: "I have to specify what I want
5 to see so that Dr. Tabeau could get on that case and give me access to
6 these databases."
7 When did you inform Dr. Tabeau about what you wanted to see?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I never informed Dr. Tabeau
9 directly. I make a request and pass it on to the lawyers, and they do
10 the rest.
11 JUDGE ORIE: I think I earlier raised this issue, but I have to
12 find it. One... let me see where ...
13 One second, please.
14 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Ivetic, could you switch off your microphone
15 in the meantime. The interpreters asked for that.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, the witness earlier said that when I asked
17 whether she had informed - and I think I said "them" - I may have had on
18 my mind the Demographic Unit or the Registry, but the witness then said:
19 "I mentioned all the" -- let me just ... "sources that I wished to look
21 Did you mention that to the Defence? Is that how I have to
22 understand that?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm not sure I understood you, but
24 the procedure is as follows. If I want to review --
25 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... no, I'd rather
1 deal with it on the basis of your testimony until now.
2 You said as far as you knew, the Prosecution had provided its
3 consent. Registry said demographic office was closed right now. And
4 that if your understanding is correct, they first have to discuss it with
5 Dr. Tabeau and that you should say what it is that you wanted to see and
6 that they would notify me when I could come, if at all.
7 Now, you said to this day, I haven't heard from them and perhaps
8 the Defence knows better than I do what all of this is about. And then I
9 asked you, and you told them what you wanted to see. And you said, yes,
10 I mentioned all the sources that I wished to look at.
11 To whom did you mention them?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It seems we didn't understand each
13 other well.
14 I write a request for the law firm for which I'm currently
15 working. Through them, I make all the requests. I never have direct
16 contact with experts, with the Registry, with anybody.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Did you specify to the Defence what materials you
18 wanted to see?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I write to the Defence,
20 specifying which materials I need.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Has that been -- and now I'm addressing you,
22 Mr. Ivetic. Has that been relayed to Dr. Tabeau?
23 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, I cannot have access with Dr. Tabeau.
24 We're waiting for approval of the mission to then make arrangements with
25 the OTP, which was the way that it was left, I believe by Mr. Tieger
1 saying, let us know what you need, we'll make it available, free
2 computers et cetera. We're all waiting for the mission to be, shall we
3 say, funded. I do have additional information as to the original request
4 that was in 2013, as I found the e-mail from Mr. McCloskey talking about
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, Mr. Ivetic, did you in way or another
7 relay the list of what Ms. Radovanovic wanted to see so that Dr. Tabeau
8 would know about, because she understood that the answer by the Registry
9 had been, tell us what you need and then we'll see what happens.
10 So my question simply is - and there may be good or bad reasons
11 for it - has the request to see certain materials, has that been, in one
12 way or another, been sent to Dr. Tabeau?
13 MR. IVETIC: It has been sent to the Prosecution with the
14 response that we also, when we got closer to the date of visit, specify
15 with more detail. Now I do not send things directly to Dr. Tabeau.
16 That's the problem with -- that I have with the question. Now I can read
17 to you the e-mail from October 28th with Mr. McCloskey.
18 JUDGE ORIE: No, perhaps -- yes, please do.
19 MR. IVETIC: Which says: "Yes, that is why I asked. We know her
20 and she has had access before which went off with no problem. As you
21 know, Ewa no longer works here, so logistically it won't be as easy as it
22 was before, but Max is in the best position to set this up and she will
23 be in touch soon." And so the original discussions were in October of
24 2013 which is why they're not so fresh in my memory.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger.
1 MR. TIEGER: And I have before me, Mr. President, the most recent
2 exchange of information to which Mr. Ivetic referred, and that entailed a
3 request by the Defence: "Dear colleagues, I hereby convey to you the
4 request of our demographic expert, Professor Radovanovic, to permit her
5 to gain access to the demographic databases, et cetera. Please apprise
6 us as soon as possible whether the Office of the Prosecutor consents,
7 under what terms that access would be, what time-frame or potential dates
8 would be available, et cetera."
9 That was sent on the 14th of July of this year and on the 17th of
10 July we responded that we consent, that we can set up computers for
11 Professor Radovanovic and her two assistants, and make arrangements for
12 them to have access to the requested sources, and database. And towards
13 that end we asked to be advised of the following: As precisely as
14 possible the number of days that the professor and her assistants would
15 require access, how many computers would be needed, whether those
16 computers needed to be connected with each other through a local network,
17 and a list of specific sources they wished to consult. And then we
18 advised of available dates as related by Mr. File earlier. And indicated
19 we would ask for approximately one week notice in order to make the -- to
20 organise access and set up the computers for any particular set of dates.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. I think we should leave it to that at this
22 very moment. But, of course, we'll understand, Mr. Ivetic, that it's of
23 some concern to the Chamber that an expert here says, Well, I didn't have
24 the necessary material to -- but let's proceed and the Chamber may want
25 to follow up this in more detail and to know exactly what was done when
1 and with what kinds of phrasing it was done.
2 Please proceed.
3 JUDGE FLUEGGE: May I put one additional question to Mr. Tieger.
4 You said you responded on 17th of July, consenting and giving more
5 details about the way it should be conducted.
6 Did you receive an additional letter from the Defence.
7 MR. TIEGER: No, Mr. President. Thank you. Or Your Honour,
8 excuse me.
9 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Well, we all were once were Presiding Judges so,
11 therefore, it's totally appropriately to now and then call my colleagues
12 Mr. President as well.
13 Mr. Ivetic, let's move on but we may want to pay attention to
14 this procedural aspect later.
15 Please proceed.
16 MR. IVETIC:
17 Q. Professor, can you explain for us, very briefly, the type of
18 methodology that you used when drafting your report; that is to say, how
19 did you set about analysing the work of the Prosecution experts.
20 A. Well, I applied the usual methodological procedure for this kind
21 of analysis. I first gathered all the sources of information that are
22 relevant to this analysis, I looked at all the databases that I had
23 access to, all the findings that I had related to these databases, then I
24 grouped these reports by topic and the literature and the data that I
25 have, and then I made an analysis and made some causal conclusions.
1 Q. Do you have an opinion as to whether the type of review and
2 reporting undertaken by the Prosecution experts adheres to the standards
3 normally used in the science of demography?
4 A. I think that the reports provided by the Prosecution experts are
5 a construction. They do not apply the scientific methodology used in
6 demographics and statistics. Instead, they use a model based on a
7 methodology that the Prosecution experts themselves call uniform
8 methodology. That methodology is adjusted to its own research and is not
9 applied in any other scientific research, only in the demographics office
10 of the OTP.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask again whether there may be ... you said
12 the Prosecution experts themselves call it a uniform methodology. I
13 think I read in the report that you were talking about a unique
14 methodology. Is that what you wanted to refer to or ...
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Unique, they call it unique. At
16 least that's the translation I get in Serbian.
17 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues]... yes.
18 Please proceed, Mr. Ivetic.
19 MR. IVETIC:
20 Q. Did you have occasion to review your report prior to today in its
21 entirety to make sure that everything is correctly noted in the Serbian
22 original of the same?
23 A. Yes, I looked at them. There is maybe a small problem with the
24 footnotes, especially in the translation into English, but I believe all
25 the footnotes were recorded properly. When I says there is a problem, I
1 don't mean that anybody intentionally did it, but the number of pages of
2 the report in Serbian and in English do not coincide.
3 Q. And you stand behind everything that is written in your report?
4 A. Yes.
5 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, we would ask for the report, 1D05356,
6 to be marked for identification at this time since we have been alerted
7 to some issues of the English translation in the introduction and as
8 Your Honours can see on the screen, for instance, there's the wrong date
9 even though the cover page of the English has the same date as -- in the
10 original. This page has a different date.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes apart from that, I think usually admission is --
12 MR. IVETIC: Yeah --
13 JUDGE ORIE: -- done only at the end of the examination of the
15 MR. IVETIC: That's correct.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, the number under which this report
17 would be MFI would be.
18 THE REGISTRAR: 65 ter number 1D05356 receives exhibit number
19 D1211, Your Honours.
20 JUDGE ORIE: And is marked for identification.
21 MR. IVETIC: Thank you.
22 Q. Now, if we can turn to page 15 in both languages of your report.
23 And while we wait for that, you have referred to unique methodology used
24 by the Prosecution experts. Could you tell us how that -- what that
25 means. How does that -- how does that relate to the methodology one
1 would expect for this time of work?
2 A. Dr. Brunborg explained in one of his works, elaborating on the
3 methodology they applied, he called it a unique methodology, and
4 Dr. Tabeau repeated that several times. By unique methodology, they
5 understand a modified scientific methodology. They modified it in a way
6 that is scientifically and technically inadmissible. That modification
7 can indeed, be called unique but it has no base in science. It is a
8 methodology that makes it possible for a statistician to target certain
9 statistical data, and I show that in my analysis.
10 Q. Could you first explain for us what it is you mean when you say
11 that they could target their data? And I think it's on this page in the
12 first paragraph you talk about targeted statistical findings. So what do
13 you mean when you say "targeted statistic findings"?
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic I would like to first understand the
15 beginning of the answer of the witness.
16 You said by unique methodology, they understand a modified
17 scientific methodology, so I do understand that they deviated from what
18 is standard and called that unique. You say they modified it in a way
19 that ask scientifically and technically inadmissible. Could you tell us
20 what exactly they changed so that we know what you mean by scientifically
21 and technically inadmissible?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] They modified but they don't
23 explain. They present it as if it were the real methodology. And from
24 that I conclude that they are making a methodological patent.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Even if they don't explain it, what did they change
1 without explanation?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Very well. First of all, they
3 don't apply the method of matching in a standard statistical way, they
4 invent new definitions that do not exist. They invent and present
5 results in a way that is, to put it mildly, comparing apples and oranges.
6 They compare completely different groups to make conclusions. They show
7 certain parameters that are statistically and demographically groundless
8 and they used them to explain demographic phenomena.
9 JUDGE ORIE: This is all very abstract. Could you point at us
10 what they are doing, where are they, as you said, comparing apples and
11 oranges. In order for us to understand, it is not purely your judgement
12 on it but we'd like to understand what exactly it is.
13 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, we plan on going through each and
14 every single one of those. We're still at the introductory phase of the
15 expertise now.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but I still want to understand these kind of
17 things, and if that's just the introduction, Mr. Ivetic, then I would
18 suggest that you go first through that. Because you started asking
19 further details about targeted statistical findings, whereas I thought
20 the previous part of the answer was in need of some further elaboration
21 as well.
22 But if you think that it would be good to do it this way, then
23 please proceed, but be aware that it raises already many questions.
24 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I would like ask the witness to clarify one
1 A minute ago you said it is a methodology that makes it
2 possible -- as I read it in the transcript, for a statistician to target
3 certain statistical data and I note that in my analysis. Did you say it
4 made it impossible or possible?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The method -- with the method they
6 are using, it's possible, with a modified method of matching. And I was
7 intending to show you all this. If you give 71 criteria, you can match
8 whatever you please.
9 JUDGE FLUEGGE: That means --
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] For example, that's just one
12 JUDGE FLUEGGE: [Previous translation continues] ... if you said
13 possible or impossible. I understand you now that you said it is a
14 methodology that makes it possible.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's possible to target.
16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: [Previous translation continues] ... that's what I
17 wanted to ask.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, I think it's time for the break.
19 Ms. Radovanovic, we'll take a break. We'd like to see you back
20 in 20 minutes because we'll resume at ten minutes to 11.00.
21 [The witness stands down]
22 JUDGE ORIE: We resume at ten minutes to 11.00.
23 --- Recess taken at 10.30 a.m.
24 --- On resuming at 10.52 a.m.
25 [The witness takes the stand]
1 JUDGE ORIE: You may proceed, Mr. Ivetic.
2 MR. IVETIC:
3 Q. Professor, on page 15 of your report, the last paragraph, that
4 starts: "The Prosecution experts know that the 'unique methodology' has
5 no real scientific and professional foundation so they just to justify it
6 with an incredible explanation that 'there exists as well methodological
7 limitations in court analysis, observed counts are the most favourable
8 type of statistics, demographic rates, ratio, probabilities and other
9 relative measures of intensity of death or missing or migration will
10 already be questioned and complex statistical estimates and results of
11 statistical modelling and extrapolation are always strongly challenged or
12 totally neglected.'"
13 Now, the quote you have is from Dr. Tabeau. In preparing your
14 expertise and report, did you experience any methodological limitations
15 of the type described by Dr. Tabeau?
16 A. I know for sure that there aren't any methodological limitations
17 for court analyses and other analyses. There are scientific or
18 non-scientific analyses. Now for what purpose or occasion they were
19 prepared for, that has nothing to do with any of this, as far as I know,
20 and as far as I know within my own profession that court analyses are
21 prepared using some different methodology in which one should not express
22 probability and so on.
23 So there is no such thing as court analyses. Actually, there are
24 court analyses, but there is not some kind of a border between court
25 analyses and other types of analysis, on the other hand.
1 Q. Now, if we could return to the first paragraph, I'd ask that
2 we'd -- not had an answer. You used a term "targeted statistical
3 findings" in relation to the methodology, the unique methodology of the
4 Prosecution. Can you explain for us what it is you mean when you use the
5 words "targeted statistical findings."
6 A. If you use certain methods and you do not use them the way they
7 are actually used in scientific analysis, if you modify them, rather,
8 then precisely due to that modification, you expect, in advance, to get
9 something that suits you and, as I've already said, the modified method
10 of matching used by the OTP experts is an excellent example of that. If
11 you cannot apply a definition that is customary and that is used in
12 science and the demographic science if you have to, if I can put it that
13 way, invent a new definition or rather invent a name for something
14 without explaining what this new name means and what this new definition
15 means, then, again, by adjusting the definition that does not exist in
16 demographic science, you are actually paving the way for yourself to
17 declare something that you have done to be scientific in some way.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, you say if you change the definitions,
19 we'd like to go to the concrete - I don't know whether you are going to
20 ask the witness where definitions are changed, how they are challenged
21 and what the impact is. Because, until now it's all abstract.
22 Similarly, you in your report, as it was quoted by Mr. Ivetic, you are
23 apparently dealing or are you quoting from a report of 2009, which is not
24 in evidence, as far as I'm aware of, or is it, Mr. Ivetic?
25 MR. IVETIC: I believe it is not.
1 JUDGE ORIE: And therefore we don't know the context. We don't
2 know what it's all about. It's just a quote of five, six lines, also
3 rather abstract.
4 So therefore what we'd like to know is how this all impacts, how
5 this finds its way into the reports that are in evidence and how that
6 impacts on findings and what you would consider to be the proper findings
7 instead of what you are criticizing.
8 Please proceed. Let's get to understand ...
9 I leave it to Mr. Ivetic to put further questions.
10 MR. IVETIC: And, Your Honours, with a difficult field like
11 demography we need to first understand the basic premises before going to
12 specific examples. Unless Your Honour has a degree, I don't. And this
13 is how I intend to do it to understand and appreciate it, and so that's
14 how I feel it's most helpful, to go through and to establish these
15 foundations, as you will, and then go to the application.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. If they are too abstract we are not even, in
17 the early stages to link them to what we find in the report and to follow
18 the critics to the criticism to that report. But I leave it again in
19 your hands, but I just wanted to express clearly again what we finally
20 would like to understand and -- because we finally have to decide on
21 who's giving -- we have to weigh this evidence, the evidence of this
22 witness against the evidence of Ms. Tabeau.
23 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, I'm confused now, because I have been
24 citing exactly to where she talks about in her report, asking her to
25 explain about it. I don't know how can I link her testimony to her
1 report any better than that. I say the page number, I read from her
2 report, and I ask her to comment upon that. There's no other method I
3 can use to link it to hear report better. It's --
4 JUDGE ORIE: I mean to link it to the reports which are reviewed
5 by this witness, not in the report here because we see that as a quote
6 from something that was apparently published in 2009.
7 MR. IVETIC: Talking about her work for the Tribunal, yes. By
8 Dr. Tabeau, the Prosecution expert. It's 1D5340.
9 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ... all very much in the
11 Please proceed.
12 MR. IVETIC: Okay.
13 Q. Now, if we could turn to page 16 of your report in both languages
14 and in both languages, just down a few lines from the top, and you are
15 again quoting Dr. Tabeau's 2009 publication where she said:
16 "Trial Chambers are not experts in the statistical methodology, and
17 explaining difficult methods does not work well in courtrooms, the result
18 of presenting complicated calculations as part of expert reports and
19 testimonies usually is less successful than simple results obtained from
20 reliable and well-documented sources."
21 What is your understanding of this method that Dr. Tabeau is
22 talking about? Would you agree that these affect what you can present to
24 A. That's not a method. This is the position of Dr. Tabeau. She
25 thinks that the Trial Chamber are not experts in statistics, which is a
1 fact, but I cannot believe that if you are an expert in a particular
2 field, you cannot explain that thing to the Trial Chamber so that they
3 can understand.
4 So I disagree with that position, and I believe that it is
5 absolutely wrong, regardless of the field involved. If someone who is
6 knowledgeable in his own profession, then he or she can always give an
7 answer to any question put by the Trial Chamber, so I think this position
8 is totally wrong.
9 Q. Okay. Next I want to look at two things by Dr. Brunborg before
10 we go to the specifics.
11 Now in relation to Dr. Brunborg at the bottom of the same page in
12 your report, we have the quotation from his publication: "Demographers
13 are trained to be very critical towards data and methods and to present
14 and discuss their weaknesses. In a report presented to a court such
15 issues should not play such a major role in the presentation such as to
16 overshadow the major findings."
17 Is Dr. Brunborg's depiction of how demographers are to present
18 things to a court in accord with the field of demography as you and
19 others in the same field know it?
20 A. I absolutely disagree with this position as well. I believe that
21 it is important for the Trial Chamber and how to understand the
22 methodology used by someone. It's not for demographers to discuss the
23 methodology only amongst themselves so the methodology applied in any
24 analysis, if the Trial Chamber does not understand it, it is absurd for
25 us to discuss it between and among ourselves as experts in a particular
1 field. So I don't think that such questions do not play a major role. I
2 think the methodological questions play a very, very important role.
3 Because to present one's main findings and not to explain the way in
4 which you arrived at these major findings and not to confirm that you
5 used a methodology that is based on scientific methodology is pointless.
6 If I'm supposed to present findings without explaining my methodology,
7 then you're supposed to take my word for something and in sciences no one
8 takes anyone's word for anything. You have to have proof, of course,
9 depending on the science that you work in, so I disagree with the
10 position of Dr. Brunborg, just like I disagreed with Dr. Tabeau's
12 Q. What do you consider is the appropriate way of dealing with
13 weaknesses in one's own methodology and findings in a demographic sense
14 when presenting evidence before a court?
15 A. I think it is very important to be honest, vis-à-vis one's own
16 science. I think it is important to abide by scientific methods and that
17 you should confirm everything that you arrived at, scientifically,
18 methodologically. I think that ethics is an integral part of science,
19 irrespective of all the education and training you've had. Science is a
20 painstaking effort but there can be no science without ethnics. That is
21 to say, a demographer who receives certain material in order to work on
22 an analysis, has to be absolutely honest in assessing each and every step
23 that you're supposed to take in order to finalize a paper.
24 Also, I believe that it is important to present the data that is
25 acceptable, that is reliable, at least minimally reliable. Although we
1 may have some idea of that not being that convincing, but for -- if you
2 say that something is reliable and if you used a proper methodology then
3 you can say, yes, this is what I could establish while applying
4 scientific methodology. Now whether there is something else or whether
5 there is not anything else, that's a different matter. You cannot just
6 assume that this other thing, if scientific methodology was not applied,
7 can be justified by reliable results.
8 Q. Do you believe that the reports authored by Dr. Brunborg and
9 Dr. Tabeau and entered into evidence in this case honestly discuss the
10 weakness of their methods and findings?
11 A. Well, this word honest, doesn't sound right to me at this point
12 in time; [B/C/S spoken] posteno. If view of the schooling they've had,
13 the knowledge that they have, the experience they have on the basis of
14 their CV, they could have approached this job in a completely different
15 way, methodologically proper. And they could stand by their results, and
16 without any problems they could explain that and they could claim that
17 these data are relatively reliable.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, if I -- you would allow me to just put
19 one question in between.
20 Ms. Radovanovic, did you read the testimony of the expert
21 witnesses in this case? I mean, the demographic expert witness. It was
22 Dr. Tabeau mainly who testified.
23 Did you read the testimony as given in this Court?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I didn't read it in this case. In
25 the previous cases, yes. But there are no transcripts in Serbian in this
1 case. However, I listened to all the testimony, the video footage, of
2 Dr. Brunborg and Dr. Tabeau.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Also in this case?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, this case. This case.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yeah, please proceed.
6 MR. IVETIC:
7 Q. Now if we take a look at the next part of the same paragraph, you
8 highlight Dr. Brunborg where he said: "The critical question is how --
9 is thus how many victims must be established to convict someone of
10 genocide." First of all, do you consider such a question as an
11 appropriate starting premise for one to undertake when engaged in
12 demographic or statistical analysis?
13 A. Well, first of all, I don't know who put this key question. Was
14 it put by an expert demographer or was it somebody else who put this key
16 At any rate, a key question cannot be a number that has to be
17 established. If you have as your task a number that has to be
18 established, then you have to try to find your way, do this and that,
19 just try to get to that figure. But the key question is the reliability
20 of the results obtained, not a number, a figure, that has to be
22 Q. Now, the article that you cite to by Dr. Brunborg is called:
23 Accounting for Genocide: How Many were Killed in Srebrenica?
24 What is the commonly accepted definition of genocide that is used
25 in the practice of professional demography?
1 A. In scientific demography, there is no definition of genocide.
2 When a demographer - if he starts dealing with such analysis at all -
3 then he or she uses definitions of the UN. I'm not saying that there are
4 not any other definitions. I assume that at this Court there is also a
5 definition of genocide. As an author, this person can use that
6 definition as well. However, from a professionally honest point of view,
7 then one should put a footnote and say: Genocide denotes such and such a
8 thing as stated by the Court or the UN or an author who dealt with this
10 So a demographer does not have a definition of genocide.
11 However, since demography is a multi-faceted science, you can use all
12 scientific findings and all professional findings from other fields, from
13 other sciences. However, as I said you have to have professional
14 integrity and say that is that. And this is what I mean by that.
15 Q. And the last part from here that I want to talk about is the very
16 next citation again from Dr. Brunborg: "The ICTY genocide criteria:
17 Acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or" --
18 MR. IVETIC: And we have to go to the next page in English.
19 Q. "... in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group."
20 And then you continue to quote Dr. Brunborg that the ICTY
21 definition does not state, however" -- and we have to go to the next page
22 in Serbian: "... the number or proportion inquired for a genocide
23 charge. It is generally assumed that the number or proportion needs to
24 be significant."
25 What is your opinion or comment as to the description of
1 Dr. Brunborg of the assumed number -- assume that the number of
2 proportion needs to be significant in a demographic sense?
3 A. First of all, I believe it is improper, because I say this again,
4 the criteria of the Court, the international Court, the ICTY, have to be
5 met. That is not a criterion. That's a definition. Then it is proper
6 to say the criteria are such and such. If a person believes that numbers
7 are criteria and are assumed to be important, now, is this Dr. Brunborg's
8 finding, is this his conclusion? And no one is cited here so I believe
9 that this is his general position that he established at the very outset
10 of his paper and that that was, if I can put it that way, his guide-line
11 in drafting his report, from the very outset up until this conclusion.
12 Q. Now, apart from the statements of Dr. Tabeau and Dr. Brunborg
13 talking about the work that they did at the Tribunal, did you find
14 specific fault --
15 A. I'm not receiving interpretation.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Is it any better now?
17 Please proceed.
18 THE WITNESS: Yes.
19 MR. IVETIC: Let's start from the beginning.
20 Q. Now apart from these statements by Dr. Tabeau and Dr. Brunborg
21 talking about the work they did at this Tribunal, did you find specific
22 faults with the actual work product as submitted to the Tribunal which
23 you believed to be outside the standards of scientific demography? If
24 you could now list for us some of the -- some of these.
25 A. There are shortcomings that are primarily methodological
1 problems. A methodological problem is when you are doing a demographic
2 expert report without defining precisely the area that you are working
3 on. It's also a methodological problem if you are manipulating that
4 area. If there is no definition of that area, you can stretch it and
5 shrink it. Srebrenica is a typical example. There is not a single
6 report that gives a definition of what the experts understand by
7 Srebrenica. They call it enclave one moment, then they call it a
8 demilitarised territory, then they represent Srebrenica as an area of 15
9 municipalities and some settlements which are not actually
10 Srebrenica-related populated areas, and they include even four
11 municipalities of western Serbia, Valjevo, Loznica, Bajina Basta, and
12 Ljim. Ljig - correction. And they gather data about everything they
13 found in those municipalities on a particular date, but when they
14 represent data related to Srebrenica, they show it for five
15 municipalities. If they had defined precisely what they understand by
16 Srebrenica, there would be no problem, but they have to know, especially
17 when they are representing various statistical parameters, the exact
18 population number, and they have to work with the particular number
19 because methodology says that the groups have to be comparable. The area
20 you are working on has to be specified. That's one of the most important
21 problems. The lack of definition of a particular territory.
22 In the ethnic structure of the population in migrations, the
23 problem is less serious, but, again, it is not explained to which area it
24 pertains. Dr. Tabeau presents her data relative to the new
25 administrative division which was established in Bosnia-Herzegovina after
1 1995, that is to say, after the Dayton Accords, while everything that
2 happened and that is encompassed by the indictment happened - and I
3 include also the census - happened in an area with a different
4 administrative division. This change between the old and the new is
5 significant in as far as it's explained nowhere why you represent Bosnia
6 now as Republika Srpska and the Federation and not the old Republic of
7 Bosnia-Herzegovina. Why not explain, if you are using the new
8 administrative division, which number of the population you omitted from
9 the new settlements? Dr. Tabeau says "a small number." In statistics
10 there is no such thing as a small number. You can say, one, five, ten.
11 I think that it is a kind of misrepresentation, precisely because the
12 Prosecution experts think it insignificant. They say Srebrenica victims,
13 but, to me, it's not defined, and they didn't define anywhere showing the
14 ethnic structure why you are using the new administrative division. I
15 don't think it's professionally proper.
16 Q. As you know, we'll get to pointing to the specific findings of
17 the experts. Could you now briefly detail for us apart from the flaws
18 you believe as to the naming of the territory and the territory used for
19 various studies, what other types of deficiencies did you note from the
20 reports of the Prosecution experts? And then we'll go through each one
21 of them one by one with looking at the actual material.
22 A. They never provided anywhere the correct assessment of the data.
23 They put in a piece of information here and there, but the assessment
24 they give at the end is not defined. They say regardless of the
25 shortcomings, these results are reliable. Then they deal with the broad
1 concept of something without defining what the broad context is, except
2 saying that they take information for 1991 and 1997, in the case of
3 Dr. Tabeau, when they are showing forced migrations. The broad context
4 doesn't mean taking two years or two sources that exist. A broad context
5 means explaining what happened between 1991 and 1998, and what could have
6 happened demographically. So this broad context is not correct.
7 It doesn't mean dealing with what exists and calling that broad
8 contexts. For instance, Dr. Tabeau says that the broad context became an
9 imperative at the ICTY, but she never explains who imposed that
10 imperative. Were they told: You have to take the broad context or they
11 decided themselves that, since there are no other sources, they deal with
12 the broad context.
13 Q. Professor, if I can ask you to clarify one thing. In the
14 scientific demography, the field of scientific demography, how -- what
15 is -- or how is a source graded or assessed, and in that answer if you
16 could please explain what are statistics of error?
17 A. You assess a source by looking at what it contains and how many
18 errors there are in that source. In serious scientific studies, what is
19 tolerated is the so-called statistical error, which ranges from 2 to 5
20 per cent. All, all sources used by the Prosecution experts have a much
21 higher statistical error than is acceptable in science. For instance,
22 the Red Cross at the time when I checked it, did not have 35 per cent of
23 information on years of birth. In the latest report, Dr. Brunborg says
24 that 25 percent is now lacking. So, in the meantime, they managed to
25 increase it by 7 or 8 per cent. There is also lacking information about
1 the place of disappearance, but they say with smaller errors. But they
2 don't define smaller. Is it 7, 10 or 50? And then they say we made
3 corrections on hundreds of thousands of names. Hundreds of thousands out
4 of which number? So it's very approximate.
5 Scientifically, you have to grade every source statistically,
6 give it a quality assessment. You can't just say there are many blanks
7 and gaps but generally the source is good, electoral lists and the census
8 have approximately the same data. That's not good enough. It's not a
9 serious way to deal with this, statistically, demographically.
10 There is no such assessment, there are no corrections in any of
11 the reports I looked at. Corrections were made, perhaps, to the first
12 expert reports, but they ignore such an important thing. When grading a
13 source, you can't just say it lacks 35 per cent of this particular
14 information, but generally it's good. And also they say all together
15 with the Red Cross information, when combined, these two sources appear
16 good. No, that's not the way it's done.
17 Q. Doctor, what comment do you have as to the manner in which the
18 information from the Bosnian Ministry of Defence was utilised in the
19 reports authorised by the Prosecution experts and introduced into
21 A. One of the really major methodological problems is a very
22 selective choice of sources. All the way up to 1997, the date of the
23 latest Brunborg report, there is not an analysis related to Srebrenica
24 that mentions the existence of a source of information from the BH army
25 on the fallen soldiers and other military personnel from 1992 to 1995.
1 In the latest report, Prosecution experts mention it, but only because
2 in -- in 2008 at the insistence of the Defence, they were forced to
3 disclose some information that their lists include some soldiers.
4 According to their own findings, 70 per cent of soldiers in their list,
5 without going into whether it's good or bad, there are 70 per cent of
6 soldiers. In the -- in the expert reports of 2002 and 2003, Dr. Brunborg
7 claims that these are noncombatants whereas, in 2000 he had no sources
8 from the BH army. In 2001, he did because they were provided. But when
9 Dr. Brunborg was makes his first analysis he could have taken raw
10 material, that is to say, questionnaires, of the Red Cross which record
11 registered persons as missing. That questionnaire contains information
12 on whether somebody is a soldier or not, and even including the rank. If
13 he overlooked that in 2000, how come that in other reports in 2003 or
14 2005, the 2005 report is written together with Dr. Tabeau who knows that
15 there exists a database on soldiers, and in 2002, in the Galic trial at
16 the question of Judge Orie, whether it's a reliable database, she calls
17 it very reliable. And in 2005, as a co-author, she agrees that that
18 database is not reliable. Because she was materially motivated. She was
19 materially motivated in 2002 as well, and she says as much to Judge Orie.
20 So if you take that selective approach to analysis, it's a
21 serious methodological problem.
22 MR. IVETIC: Now, you've mentioned questionnaires. If we could
23 have 1D7033 in e-court.
24 Q. Now, first of all, Professor, you gave this to me just the other
25 day. Can you tell us how you went about obtaining this document?
1 A. I obtained it in the case of -- I can't remember now. Give me a
3 Michael Karnavas was the Defence lawyer. I can't recall the name
4 of the accused at this moment.
5 At my own request, I received it from the demographics office of
6 the Prosecutor. And the case was Blagojevic. I'm getting old.
7 Q. How does this document relate to the -- well, what -- what is
8 your understanding of how this document was used?
9 A. It's not my understanding. It's a questionnaire that you get
10 when you come to report somebody as missing. You get a certain form to
11 fill in. That form, as you can see, contains a number of questions, and
12 I would only like to draw your attention to this question here -- now I
13 lost it from the screen. There it is. Rank --
14 JUDGE FLUEGGE: [Microphone not activated] please don't touch the
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm not touching anything. I'm
17 just trying to read with a magnifier. It says rank, unit, military
18 affiliation. I think that Dr. Brunborg did not take this material into
19 account at all, or maybe he was not able to because it's too large. He
20 didn't sort it according to all the rules of our profession and science.
21 He didn't take this statistical data. Instead, he used publications of
22 the Red Cross where they give a distribution, according to certain
23 characteristics, name, father's name, date of birth, date of
24 disappearance, place of disappearance, they provide everything that they
25 recorded about people who were registered or reported as dead or missing.
1 This information is on the Internet.
2 The Red Cross regularly revises and puts up new information, and
3 Dr. Brunborg used the latest one from 2005.
4 I'm trying to say that this was unprofessional of Dr. Brunborg
5 because he could have looked at these questionnaires of the Red Cross.
6 He could have said, I've seen it but I cannot process it, it's too
7 difficult, it's too expensive, et cetera. But it wouldn't be a first
8 action. I know that that in the Sarajevo case, costs were covered for
9 processing households. That was done by the demographics office here.
10 There should have been an indication, at least, of why these inquires
11 were excluded from the basic material and why instead only lists of the
12 Red Cross with a certain number of parameters are being used instead as
13 the base material.
14 Q. If we could tender this as a public exhibit at this time.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can't hear. Could you please
17 speak up a little?
18 MR. IVETIC: I just asked for the document to be tendered as an
20 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, the number would be.
21 THE REGISTRAR: 65 ter number 1D07033 --
22 JUDGE ORIE: There's something.
23 THE REGISTRAR: Excuse me, Your Honours. Document number 1D07033
24 receives exhibit number D1212, Your Honours.
25 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
1 MR. IVETIC: Next I'd like to look at P1900, which is the 2009
2 integrated report signed by both doctors Tabeau and Brunborg for the
3 Tribunal. And once we get to that document I'd be looking at page 16 in
4 the English and page 18 in the Serbian and what should be Table 6A.
5 Q. And, Professor, using this table from the actual report admitted
6 into evidence, could you highlight for us how this demonstrates the
7 changing of the territorial scope that you earlier talked generally
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: The changing of the what scope?
10 MR. IVETIC: Territorial.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Can I speak now?
12 This table shows the municipalities for which Dr. Brunborg
13 collected data. He formed these municipalities according to places of
14 disappearance. How he did that, I don't know because he never explains
15 anywhere, but I am willing to accept that he did it honestly.
16 As you can see, these are municipalities in which people went
17 missing, and they contain a number of municipalities that have nothing to
18 do with Srebrenica. A person could have gone missing if Dr. Brunborg
19 knows in Loznica, which is in Serbia, in Valjevo, another municipality in
21 On the Tara mountain, I don't know what that means. Such a
22 municipality doesn't exist. In Ljubovija, which is a municipality in
23 Serbia. In Krnjaca, which is not a municipality at all. It's a
24 settlement in a municipality called Priboj. So there are a number of
25 places here that are totally unrelated but he says that people
1 disappeared in these municipalities which is very interesting, you must
2 admit. He also cites totally unknown municipalities. How does he know
3 that? What are these unknown municipalities that do not belong to any
5 Another point I want to draw your attention to: All these
6 municipalities unrelated to Srebrenica, he doesn't show any numbers for
7 them or very small numbers. Because in earlier reports, he didn't show
8 it by municipalities but by locality. I can't understand now why he
9 cites these municipalities at all, although he says in his methodology
10 where people could have gone missing in which places but he doesn't have
11 any data. So why is he showing all this? If we know the fact, and I
12 don't go into whether I agree or not with these data, if the fact is that
13 the largest number of people disappeared in municipalities related to
14 Srebrenica, then why show these places with statistical numbers that are
15 minor, statistically speaking. Only in order to increase the number, 1,
16 2 here, or 3, 4 there.
17 The important thing is that the methodology by which he gathers
18 data on the disappeared are not only for Srebrenica, and he says in his
19 own methodology that the place of disappearance is not the same as the
20 place of death. And even, for example, the person was taken away by the
21 Army of Republika Srpska, then Dr. Brunborg should explain why this is so
22 important to him. But the fact is he doesn't collect data according to
23 the place of disappearance but the date of disappearance. And he takes
24 into account, he includes everything that happened beginning with July,
25 ending with April 1996.
1 Also it's a fact that the largest number of these disappeared
2 people were reported in July. But what is the justification? He should
3 put it in a footnote. For me not only July and August matter. I also
4 took into account September, October, November, December, and
5 February and April 1996. I'm not saying now whether it's a large or
6 small number. The fact is he never explains that. It's a fact that it
7 matters to him to maintain a certain number that he's cited in his first
8 report, and he wants to keep it at all costs. All the work in the past
9 years is concentrated on that, on maintaining that number. That's one of
10 the most important methodological problems. And I point it out as a
11 methodological problem for the simple reason that it was not done with
12 professional honesty. Dr. Brunborg has the right to include New Zealand
13 into Srebrenica but he has to explain why. There is no such explanation
14 here. Not only here, not in a single expert report.
15 Q. If we can next look at page 42 in Serbian and page 38 in the
16 English of this same 2009 report. And I'd look to focus on the bottom of
17 both pages in both languages. And, here, I think are the statistics you
18 are talking. It says: "It is noteworthy that even though ICRC" --
19 A. I'm sorry, I can't hear the interpreter.
20 Q. Let's try again. Can you hear me now?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. The Prosecution experts say: "It is noteworthy that even though
23 ICRC obviously has improved their records throughout the years since the
24 publication of the first list in 1996, empty or incomplete fields are
25 still seen on the 2005 ICRC list. The most frequently incomplete items
1 are date of birth (6.403 or 28.8 per cent incomplete of 22.212 records,
2 but only 12 without year of birth), and date of disappearance (2.624 or
3 11.8 per cent incomplete, but only one record without year of
4 disappearance). The other variables are recorded for almost everybody
5 but that does not necessarily mean that they are always correct. Errors
6 are seen in the spelling of names of persons and places. Moreover, from
7 comparing several lists, we know that there are errors, although mostly
8 small, in variables such as date of birth. Such errors are common all
9 over the world in data collected through questionnaires in surveys,
10 censuses, and elsewhere. It is, therefore, not surprising that there are
11 errors in variables concerning tragic events collected in a chaotic and
12 traumatic situation."
13 Now, Professor, as a demographer using the standards for
14 appraising the quality of a source, how would you grade a source such as
15 this one with these percentages of incomplete data?
16 A. Well, that what's I've spoken about already. In statistics, the
17 margin of error is 2 to 4. As can you see here, the date of birth in
18 line 4 it says doesn't really matter. There are 28.8 per cent mistakes
19 in terms of date of birth. Date of birth is very important. And how?
20 Because it is one of the main characteristics when you are conducting
21 matching in order to be sure that it is one and the same person and that
22 is what I'm saying now. There are some minor errors, et cetera,
23 et cetera, but it doesn't mean a thing. The information is not
24 necessarily correct. What does that mean? When it says there are others
25 but it doesn't matter necessarily. 20 per cent, 3 per cent, what is the
1 percentage involved? That is no way to deal with this in a professional
3 The justification for such errors is usual, conducted through a
4 questionnaires and surveys, not in censuses. I'm not saying that there
5 aren't any mistakes in censuses; at least not in the territory of the
6 former Yugoslavia, but there was never a major difference. I mean, it is
7 checked, 2 to 5 per cent. So these are not actually errors but usually
8 it is someone, say, who hasn't filled out a questionnaire or you are
9 talking to an old woman who does not know her date of birth but mentions
10 that she was born around a holiday, a particular day. So again I'm
11 speaking about the former Yugoslavia, and the censuses carried out after
12 the Second World War, there are mistakes in dates of birth but they are
13 within the margin of error that is statistically acceptable.
14 MR. IVETIC: Your Honour, I see the time. I think we are at the
15 time for the break.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, indeed, it's time for a break.
17 Ms. Radovanovic, we'd like to see you back in 20 minutes. We'll
18 resume at quarter past 12.00.
19 [The witness stands down]
20 --- Recess taken at 11.55 a.m.
21 --- On resuming at 12.17 p.m.
22 JUDGE ORIE: We're waiting for the witness to enter the
24 [The witness takes the stand]
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, please proceed.
1 MR. IVETIC:
2 Q. Professor, could you please now explain for us the process of
3 matching as used in the field of scientific demography.
4 A. Matching is a standard statistical method that is applied far
5 more broadly than demography or statistics as such. Perhaps the most
6 evident example of what matching is, the fact that every day we carry out
7 some kind of matching. Everybody who has a pin card and uses it in a
8 cash dispenser, that person has to provide that pin code, right, so then
9 that pin code is typed in and then it is matched to your details there at
10 the bank, and if you have money on your account, you are given money,
11 and, if not, you don't get any money. You cannot change that money
12 without the approval of the bank. Quite simply you cannot get your own
14 I don't know what it's like in the Netherlands but, for example,
15 in Serbia, if you forget your pin code and if you type in the wrong
16 number three times, the cash dispenser just takes your card.
17 Matching is a method that means that, on the basis of some
18 information that I call a key, from one source of data, you will match
19 the data from another source. In order to do that, you have to see what
20 the key is. You will have to assign all of this a key. This key
21 consists of several elements. It can be a numerical key, and it can
22 contain certain numbers like pin codes do, for cash dispensers. But if
23 you're not a position to give a numerical key which is the case in these
24 reports, these matchings, then you combine that key or rather you a
25 combination that will, with a high degree of probability, guarantee that
1 you are going to match the same kind of units.
2 What does that mean? If you have one's exact name, father's name
3 and last name and, for example, a correct date of birth, when I say date
4 of birth that is the day, month and year of birth and if that is your key
5 for matching, then the unit thanks contain the name, last name, father's
6 name, date of birth that you release from one source, say, the Red Cross,
7 Red Cross files, and then if you match that with the census, then you
8 will get the same individuals that have identical details. That would be
9 an ideal matching process.
10 In order to carry out this process of matching, you have to have
11 the right information. If you do not have the right information, then
12 you have to adjust the key. However, in scientific statistics, the
13 method is as follows. You are the safest if you use the same key
14 throughout the matching process because the very moment have you to
15 change your key, depending on which elements you're changing, you are
16 give yourself a certain freedom to target something. That's what I meant
17 when I said targeted information. If the matching does not work the
18 first time, the exact name, surname, father's name, date of birth, I can
19 change the key and I can say, no, don't give me all of that, don't give
20 me the date. Just give me the name, father's name, and the year of
21 birth, without the actual date. And then I run it again. And I see what
22 happens. Since I'm changing the key and then say I'm not satisfied with
23 that either. Then I use a criteria that's even looser. And then I say
24 don't give the full name, the full surname, the full father's name, give
25 me the initials. For instance, the initials of the name, surname and
1 father's name and I'm going to, say, work with an algorithm for the date
2 of birth. Now what does that mean? That means setting certain rules
3 that have to be observed.
4 In order to be clear, perhaps I should say that there is an
5 algorithm for tea making. For instance, you set a rule, saying if tea is
6 supposed to be proper, then water has to boil and then have you to put,
7 say, a spoonful of tea into a cup and so on and so forth. So there's
8 also an algorithm of years that you have to work out. Usually you give a
9 range of years, that is to say, for example, Svetlana D. Radovanovic who
10 may be born, say, from 1946 until 1956 or say until 1952, you gave any
11 range you want. Then they look for all the S. Radovanovics that were
12 born in 1947, 1948 and so on and so forth, the numbers that you provided
13 for this algorithm. And, of course, if there is S. Radovanovic then, of
14 course, there are a lot more people that are found and you don't exactly
15 get to me, do you?
16 Now, when a certain number of units are matched on the basis of
17 this criterion, then the expert has to assess, decide, on the basis of a
18 visual method as they call it, they have it decide on the basis of some
19 other elements that need not necessarily be contained in all the
20 documents, whether that is precisely the Svetlana Radovanovic who is on
21 the Red Cross list or on the list of the Srebrenica victims or the list
22 of refugees, displaced persons, and so on and so forth.
23 Now what is the problem here with the Prosecution experts. They
24 give 73 possibilities for matching. The first time, they show, for
25 example, how they match Red Cross lists and PHR lists, the first time.
1 The first time in terms of all the reports they wrote. They never gave
2 the statistics for matching, but now this last report, there are some
3 absolute numbers that are given, then there can be a certain statistics
4 of matching so the method of matching applied by the Prosecution experts
5 was modified in a way which would satisfy what was that they were looking
6 for. Now why are they unfair? They are unfair, they are not being
7 intellectually honest because they could have said the following:
8 According to criterion 1, the first time they did it, I matched such and
9 such a number. Criterion 2, such and such a number. And within 71
10 criteria, they have 45, if I'm not mistaken - it can be checked - 45
11 criteria that are an algorithm of the year of birth, the possible place
12 of birth and the place of permanent residence. So that is what I was
13 speaking about in the beginning, the modification of the standard method
14 that is used in statistics.
15 Q. If we can perhaps look at page 86 in the Serbian and page 81 in
16 the English of this same 2009 report, which has been admitted as P1900,
17 Table 6.2, I believe, has the keys or criteria that you have been talking
19 Now, when you explain --
20 A. Before I refer to these criterion, could you please show the
21 title of this chapter as well? Again, I touched it. I'm so sorry. I
22 need the heading towards the top of the page. And then we can go back to
23 the criteria if possible.
24 Q. It will be [Microphone not activated]?
25 A. A bit more, a bit more. Possibly that's not the way it was in
1 the Serbian version. So could I please see the previous page.
2 Q. [Previous translation continues] ...
3 A. No, this is not the previous page. The same page where the
4 criteria are. It is Annex 6.2. That's how it starts.
5 Q. There, I think we have both in the English and the Serbian, both
6 the title of the section and title of the table. Could you tell us what
7 is significant there?
8 A. I'm sorry, I couldn't see well. Precisely that's what I see.
9 Before I indicate certain criteria --
10 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Could you please first wait for the question.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I do apologise. I thought that the
12 question had already been put. I'm sorry.
13 MR. IVETIC: I thought I had put the question at line 21 and 22.
14 Q. Can you tell what you say is significant that we see here.
15 A. Yes. And before I start, before I draw your attention to certain
16 criteria, could we please read 6.2 first, where it says matching the OTP
17 list from 2005 with the 1991 population census.
18 Then let us read the title of Table 6.2 that says: "Description
19 of the matching of the consolidated ICRC-PHR list of missing persons with
20 the 1991 population census." In this table, there is a completely
21 different list. It is that list that the Prosecution has proffered as
22 the Srebrenica victims, 7600-something persons taken out of these two
23 lists, established on the basis of these two lists. However it would be
24 intellectually honest to show to us how they match their own list, not
25 how they matched the ICRC list with the census. You see here that there
1 are 71 and we see 47 right now criteria for matching.
2 And could you please focus, for example, on the first criterion.
3 That says first name, father's name, last name, and date of birth. About
4 20.000 questionnaires and then 3.325 cases were matched. And this is a
5 relatively reliable criterion.
6 Already the second one, which is absurd there's no explanation,
7 maybe the experts do have an explanation for that, it says initial of the
8 first name, father's name, last name, date of birth, and place of death.
9 Please. The population census registered only living persons. There can
10 be no matching with place of death in the census but between the two
11 lists, the International Committee of the Red Cross, and PHR I really
12 have no idea what this criterion means. Probably the expert would know
13 how to explain this. But it was never explained anywhere.
14 The first time --
15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Can I please briefly interrupt you.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Please go ahead.
17 JUDGE FLUEGGE: If you look at match number 1, there's a
18 difference between the English and the B/C/S.
19 In the English version, and you will see it as well, there is
20 also Mood which is missing on -- in the B/C/S translation.
21 So just to make you aware that [Overlapping speakers] ...
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Are you absolutely right.
23 JUDGE FLUEGGE: And if you interpret what is to be seen on the
24 screen, it is the original is the English one and the B/C/S is perhaps
25 not a complete --
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I agree --
2 JUDGE FLUEGGE: -- translation.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I fully agree. In that case, the
4 first criterion is also absurd because it asks for matching the first
5 name, father's name, last name, date of birth, and municipality of death.
6 So I started from the fact that nobody could match the
7 municipality of death and then I accept the first name, father's name,
8 last name, date of birth, that is relatively acceptable or relatively
9 acceptable criterion because municipality of death there is no
10 theoretical way of finding this in a population census. A population
11 census only records living people who are permanent residents of the
12 place where the census is being carried out. From that point of view,
13 the second one is absurd too and there is even less of a match,
14 considerably less, although it is only initials. I can believe or not
15 believe this matching but this is the first time that it was presented
16 what could have been matched often the basis of some criteria.
17 For example, please focus on say the 22nd criteria, over 2.000
18 persons are being matched there. Over there, you see the Y and then the
19 municipality of death and you see that this was algorithm run. I already
20 said what algorithm means: Setting rules. I did not see that in any
21 report or in any of the replies provided by Dr. Brunborg and what -- and
22 Dr. Tabeau, what kind of rules they had set.
23 When I was here in 2007, 2008 I saw that the range of years can
24 be much more than five years but usually it's between two and five years.
25 Now all the criteria that follow after 22, you will see again are
1 algorithm run, municipality of death, place of birth and so on. Then the
2 71st criterion, if I'm not mistaken, could you please have it displayed
3 here, and on that basis, no matches were found at all.
4 MR. IVETIC: Should be on the next page in both languages.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] For example, 70, there's one. And
6 71, there's one. What I cannot understand, really, is why you said that
7 criterion? Which is so loose. And then you match just one. In other
8 words, I'm trying to say that I do not really trust the Prosecution
10 My matchings a while ago, not of these data but some other ones
11 when I matched on the basis of one criterion only, they provided certain
12 data, and then when I extended the criteria using certain criteria that
13 are mentioned here, I could match whatever I wanted.
14 Dr. Brunborg and Dr. Tabeau mentioned here that out of
15 19.000-something from the Red Cross, they matched 16.000-something. That
16 is 81 per cent. That means not that they could match 200 per cent but by
17 using a visual method they came to conclusions that something could not
18 be a particular person. Now what parameters they had and what data
19 sources they had I don't know that now we said they saw this from other
20 sources. They did not mention item by item what their sources were, so I
21 cannot be the judge of that now except that -- or what I can say is that
22 is that 81 per cent is their matching here and they claim in all of their
23 reports that from the OTP list of Srebrenica victims they matched 87
24 per cent with the population census. That is why I believe that it would
25 have been professionally honest for them to provide their own list. But
1 I'm very satisfied that this is the very first time that I see any of
2 these numbers, as far as matching is concerned.
3 MR. IVETIC:
4 Q. And now, Professor, could you explain for us what are in the
5 field of scientific demography and statistics so-called statistics of
6 matching and whether what is expressed here is in the appropriate format
7 that one would expect for a statistic of matching?
8 A. Statistic of matching means that in the process of matching you
9 keep certain statistics of what you've matched. For example, in this
10 case, it says I matched 3.000-plus something. On this criteria, 3.000 is
11 let's say 20 per cent of material. On another criterion, I matched 5
12 per cent. On a third criterion, 10 per cent. That's the statistics of
14 Here we can draw the statistics of matching because for the first
15 time we have absolute numbers. So I can say if you matched so many out
16 of 19.000 on one or two or three criteria, I can make my own conclusions.
17 That's what's usually done in the statistics of matching. I had two
18 censuses I worked with, and you always keep statistics. If you match
19 something according to one criteria, you say this is so many and so many,
20 and you know what percentage it makes on the total number. And then you
21 have to deal with the problem of the remaining number.
22 So the statistics of matching is very important.
23 Q. If I can -- yes?
24 JUDGE ORIE: I see in the one version we have the legenda right
25 under it and everyone expects, I think, that we know all the
1 abbreviations in English as well. I do understand that DOB which is
2 [B/C/S spoken] datum rodenja, is the date of birth.
3 MR. IVETIC: That's correct.
4 JUDGE ORIE: The OOD it starts for opstina of disappearance, I
5 take it, but the OOB is not entirely clear to me yet.
6 MR. IVETIC: If we could scroll down in the -- oh, there it is.
7 It's not opstina of disappearance, it's opstina of death.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Opstina of death is the D. OOB.
9 MR. IVETIC: OOB would be opstina of birth, place of birth.
10 JUDGE ORIE: And we find that where exactly?
11 MR. IVETIC: It's OOB in the Serbian.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I see that, but where do we see the explanation
13 in the English for the OOD? I mean, I see abbreviations [Overlapping
14 speakers] ... I see no legenda.
15 MR. IVETIC: I don't think there is one in the English. I don't
16 think doctors Tabeau and Brunborg put one, unless it's on the first page.
17 JUDGE ORIE: So the opstina of death, if I perhaps mistakenly
18 read that as opstina of disappearance, that would then be equally valid
19 since there's no explanation. Is nowhere in the report do we find -- I
20 just don't remember, I hope you'll understand that.
21 MR. IVETIC: I do understand, Your Honour, I have the same
22 problem myself.
23 JUDGE ORIE: No, because the witness is testifying on the basis
24 of opstina of death. Could we see where it is translated, it reads --
25 Witness, perhaps you could assist us, in the B/C/S version it says [B/C/S
1 spoken] were you see that?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
3 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... could you
4 slowly read that so that we at least have an interpretation of those
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can.
7 "DOB is the municipality -- sorry. It's the date of birth. DOB.
8 OOD is the municipality, where the person died. OOB is the municipality
9 where the person was born. Initials, you understand. There are other --
10 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... all the rest is
11 clear to me, but the OOD was not entirely clear.
12 Please proceed.
13 MR. IVETIC: If I can --
14 Q. You've just said that the statistics of matching is important.
15 I'd like to talk about something that Dr. Tabeau said at this trial at
16 transcript page 19409, line 24 through 19410, line 12, I will read the
17 question and answer to you so you get the translation and then I'll have
18 a question about it after I'm completed.
19 So please bear with me, and I begin:
20 "Q. Do you believe that it is the job of the demographer or
21 statistician to keep track of the percentage of matching once you deviate
22 from the original key so as to give a statistical overview of how many
23 matches were found using the first criteria, how many matches were found
24 using the second criteria, how many matches were found from the third and
25 so on and so forth."
1 Her answer was: "Well, ideally we would like to have such
2 statistics, absolutely. But if you think of how many millions of records
3 had to be reviewed in this kind of procedures and how many matches first
4 indicated as potential matches, then assessed, and then rejected, or
5 partly accepted and so on and so on, it is a process that have been
6 continued years and years long since the beginning of the
7 Demographic Unit. So keeping these kind of statistics would eat up a lot
8 of our time, if not all of it, you see, and there was also other work to
9 be done in this period."
10 And that ends Dr. Tabeau's answer.
11 As a demographer, Professor, what do you say about her claim
12 that -- as to why they could not keep statistics of matching when doing
13 the work in the Demographic Unit.
14 A. Statistics of matching is very important for the simple reason
15 that you can use it to assess the degree of combinatorics used in
16 matching. Dr. Tabeau may be unintentionally mixing things up here.
17 Correcting mistakes has nothing do with the statistics of matching.
18 First, you correct the material to make matching possible because names
19 are not correct, et cetera. In every process of matching I, and I
20 believe all demographers and I know for a fact that statisticians do it
21 when they work on official materials, they can keep statistics. What
22 does that mean? First criterion, I managed to find so many matches. So,
23 if after a while, some data has changed, I again say, I matched so many
24 people on the first criteria. Why I don't agree with Dr. Tabeau, she is
25 a co-author of that work, I suppose she has reviewed it. I suppose she
1 knows that it's possible to draw the statistics of matching on the basis
2 of what has already been matched. I'm not going into whether it was
3 correctly matched or not. I think that these experts avoid statistics of
4 matching because it reveals the degree of combinatorics that you used and
5 that's why I find Dr. Tabeau's explanation surprising.
6 Q. You say that Dr. Tabeau is a co-author of the work and you
7 suppose she reviewed it. What part of this report leads you to believe
8 that Dr. Tabeau had to know that they had statistics of matching?
9 A. First of all, I don't know whether they have it, but it would be
10 logical that they've made it without statistics of matching there's no
11 point in working. You can keep matching one and the same material over
12 and over again. When you have made a match, you remove it. When I've
13 matched 3.000 persons or samples, for instance, I do not count them in
14 the total number anymore. I go on matching with the rest. Whether they
15 have it or not, I don't know, but from the very start, from the moment I
16 saw the first report, I asked them to provide me with the criteria and
17 the statistics of matching. I never got an answer on the statistics. I
18 got an answer that has nothing do with matching. Namely, that they
19 corrected thousands and thousands of data. Hundreds of thousands,
20 Dr. Brunborg says for names and surnames. I'm not asking them how many
21 names they have corrected. That's totally different. I'm asking them,
22 after matching something with the first source, how many did you get in
23 the first matching and how many did you get in the second matching.
24 Dr. Tabeau is a co-author. I don't know whether she's read this or not.
25 But when I sign something, I am careful about what I am signing. I
1 suppose that if she is a co-author of this report, I suppose she's read
3 There is a possibility but it's seems pretty incredible to me
4 that Dr. Tabeau does not understand what statistics of matching means.
5 Because from what you've just read out, she seems to be confusing things.
6 The fact that they've corrected hundreds of thousands of something has
7 nothing to do with this. That's not what I'm asking for. Statistics of
8 matching is something completely different.
9 Q. If we can go back to the prior page in both versions to the top
10 of this table that we looked at --
11 JUDGE ORIE: Have you done with the statistics, Mr. Ivetic?
12 MR. IVETIC: No, this is a follow-up on the same question.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Then I'll wait.
14 MR. IVETIC:
15 Q. Professor, the data that is reflected on this table, can this be
16 used to help the Office of the Prosecutor experts determine the
17 statistics of matching that Dr. Tabeau said that they couldn't do?
18 A. You know, it already existed, but it exists in the absolute
19 amount. When you present it in the relative amount, it's much clearer.
20 If you say that according to the first criterion, he matched 3.325 cases,
21 if only it could be converted into percentages, 19 -- that would be 26
22 per cent. That is also statistics of matching. I can't believe that
23 Dr. Tabeau does not consider that to be statistics.
24 MR. IVETIC: I'm about to move to a different point but if you
25 have a question.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. What can you learn -- let's just assume that
2 the statistics of matching were to be applied. What would it tell us? I
3 mean, why would we be better able to understand or could it correct any
4 inaccuracies in what is here presented as matchings?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If we had statistics of matching,
6 we would be able to determine precisely what is acceptable as a piece of
7 information and what is under a big question mark.
8 You have a situation here where there are 45 criteria with
9 modified or algorithmed years of birth. If Prosecution experts maintain
10 that their sources of information are good, then they cannot claim at the
11 same time that this degree of combinatorics is justified. If the experts
12 had said, We'll take only three criteria, even then you would ask
13 yourself whether a person who has an exact father's name, year of birth,
14 place of birth could be found somewhere else and be a totally different
15 person. It's possible, but it's highly improbable. But if you have the
16 initial of the father, the initial of the surname, or maybe the whole
17 surname with an algorithmed municipality and year of birth whether that
18 person found in another list is really that same person, we can't know.
19 The Prosecution expert says that, for instance, S. Radovanovic, born
20 between 1945 and 1985, is probably me. No. The main source even though
21 you use other sources is the main source. So I say, out of these 12
22 people called S. Radovanovic, born between these years, is probably this
23 Svetlana Radovanovic.
24 So there are no good quality sources of information that enable
25 us to make a reliable matching. The main source is censuses. With the
1 name and surname, it contains relatively the most reliable data: Name
2 and surname, were never a datum in statistics, they were never processed.
3 This is scanned material received by the Prosecution experts and that's
4 why it features here and that's why it contains so many errors and that's
5 why they made hundreds of thousands of corrections. The census was
6 conducted in two scripts, Cyrillic and Roman; in different handwritings;
7 pencils that are different. But I'm not going into the fact that they
8 have corrected 100 thousands of names and surnames I can believe that
9 they made good corrections. But if the numbers don't coincide, for
10 instance, if the year of birth is not accurate, if you don't have an
11 accurate place of birth, then how can I believe you that you've really
12 checked that that Svetlana Radovanovic is indeed me. For instance, I can
13 say I went to PHR or the Red Cross or the electoral lists --
14 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... isn't it true
15 that you're going far beyond my question? What statistics could learn
16 us. Because what you're telling us that you don't believe them.
17 Would statistics have overcome that, your lack of belief in
18 reliability of the accuracy of the sources?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's not my lack of belief. I know
20 for a fact, because I've looked for mistakes and I found mistakes. I
21 know that these sources are not what we call good sources in statistics.
22 What you before you, if we draw out these statistics, the first
23 criterion is what a relatively good piece of information offers us. All
24 the other criteria are questionable. We see that percentages that have
25 been calculated show what degree of combinatorics they use to represent
1 that something they claim is, indeed, what they claim it to be.
2 JUDGE ORIE: What do they exactly claim on the basis of this
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] They claim with precision that with
5 the census, their own list, not the one we're looking at but the one that
6 contains 7600-something victims matched to 77 per cent -- 87 per cent.
7 But they don't say out of which -- out of these 87 per cent we matched so
8 many on this criterion, so many on that criterion, et cetera. I am not
9 inclined to believe that these are relatively reliable data. And it's
10 not even about belief. There is no belief in science. We need to show
11 what is and isn't.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps I'm -- I'm misunderstanding it. But I see
13 that at least that's how I understand this list, that if you match --
14 and, first of all, it is -- no, let me just see.
15 I understand this list to be that comparing the information on
16 that consolidated list, that if you take into account A, B, C and D there
17 are so many matches. If you take into account C and D, it gives so many
18 matches. If you take into account B, C, D, X and Y. I do not fully
19 understand if you say --
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'll try to explain.
21 Precisely in order to conceal certain things, they represent this
22 list which is a consolidated list of the Red Cross and PHR, not their own
23 list as they show in the title. If they have shown matches of their own
24 list featuring 7600 people, this dilemma would not exist. If they had
25 provided matchings of the Red Cross, how could they not provide their own
1 matchings? It's a completely identical process. I have a list of 7.600
2 names with different data, et cetera, I will put it through that
3 procedure, and I will get so many matches. And intellectually what they
4 are doing is very dishonest, they put one thing in the title and show
5 something entirely different.
6 JUDGE ORIE: What exactly in the title is it that is a lie? Is
7 it the matching of the 2005 list OTP list with the 1991 population
8 census? That what you had on your mind?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. There is a inconsistency
10 between the main title which says matching the Prosecution list from
11 1995 -- from 2005 with the census of 1991. And now in the table it says
12 an overview of the matchings of the consolidated list of missing persons
13 of the Red Cross and Doctors for Human Rights, when we compare that, we
14 get 19.000. His -- Brunborg's list is a consolidated list but it
15 contains 7.000-something names.
16 Now when I tell you consolidated list, you have to think for
17 yourself whether it's a Red Cross list or it's consolidated with
18 something else. There is no obstacle for me to release my own list which
19 contains 7.000-something names and to match it with what I wish.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And now ... yes, and you say that they're
21 doing that to conceal something? What exactly are they concealing?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know whether they wanted to
23 conceal something, but I do say that with full responsibility that it's
24 intellectually dishonest.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Let me just quote the beginning of your previous
1 answer. "Precisely in order to conceal certain things they represent
2 this list which is a consolidated list of the Red Cross," et cetera, et
4 So when I ask you what are they concealing and if you are telling
5 us that I don't know whether they wanted to conceal something, that was
6 the beginning of your previous answer, that that was their intention.
7 So therefore I'm --
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You are right. I was trying to be
9 nice. But the fact that you are not showing what you are supposed to
10 show, that's something I interpret as concealing. Because you have all
11 the prerequisites for showing it. You are not showing what you are
12 supposed to show but what you think you need to show. But it's precisely
13 this inconsistency between the title and the body that makes me think
14 that they are concealing something.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Now you say the fact that you are not showing what
16 you're supposed to show, that's something you interpret as concealing.
17 Where do we find what these experts were supposed to show other
18 than what they said they showed? Where is it found that this is not what
19 they should have shown but that they should have shown what you've said
20 would have been better to show?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In the title of this chapter 2.
22 Please look at the title because it says: List of the OTP. You although
23 that the list of the OTP contains 7.000-plus names of victims. That's
24 the OTP list. And you probably know from the Prosecution testimony how
25 that list was formed. It was based on the ICRC and Doctors for Human
1 Rights. So if you say matching the OTP list and then you give a title
2 of -- for the table which says consolidated list of ICRC missing persons,
3 according to the ICRC information, about 20.000 people went missing.
4 PHR, according to Prosecution expert testimony, recorded about 6.000
5 persons that coincide with the ICRC list. So if it's a consolidated list
6 of the OTP, it contains 20.000 names, because these 5 or 6.000 are
7 already contained therein.
8 It's not a Prosecution list. That's the information from which
9 the Prosecution formed their own list.
10 MR. IVETIC: And if I can help, if you look at the text what
11 they're comparing is 2000, whereas it is represented in the heading title
12 that it's going to be compared to the 2005 list. So the combined list
13 being shown to the reader of the document is not from 2005. It's from
15 JUDGE ORIE: I see in the text at least what looks as in --
16 inconsistency, but... okay.
17 It's clear what your position is.
18 Please proceed, Mr. Ivetic.
19 MR. IVETIC: Thank you.
20 Q. I'd like now to return to the Table 6A that we looked at. That
21 should be page 16 in English, page 18 of the Serbian of this report.
22 And, Professor, you've already outlined for us that there are
23 municipalities listed here that are actually in Serbia, such as
24 Bajina Basta, Olovo, Loznica, Tara mountain, Valjevo, Ljubovija.
25 What I want to do is focus right now on the total number of
1 missing which includes those that are said to be from Serbian
2 municipalities and we see 7.692. If we could turn to the very next page
3 in this report and Table 6B and if we could zoom in on that, and now we
4 have a table showing again 7.692 missing persons and this time it's place
5 of disappearance, not by municipality, and by my observation, there are
6 no places in Serbia that are identified on this table.
7 Do you have a comment given between these two graphs about that?
8 A. Locations are taken into account here as well. As I look at
9 this, I believe that not a single one of these locations is from Serbia.
10 Q. And if we could now -- let's turn to page --
11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Ivetic, let me ask a question --
12 MR. IVETIC: Yes.
13 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Witness, Mr. Ivetic referred to the number 7.692.
14 Above that number, there's a number 312 and above that, bold numbers
15 7.380. Can you explain the number of 312.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Yes, it cannot be seen here,
17 but Dr. Brunborg in some of his previous reports said unknown locations,
18 unrelated and so on, all of these are provided here without any
19 explanation whatsoever.
20 As you can see here, he says more than less, less -- more than
21 20, less than 20, those that contained more or less than 20 and
22 irrespective of where they were. That is what I'm talking about, this
23 superficial nature of this report that we just have to accept everything
24 that the doctor says.
25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: That was not part of my question.
1 Is it possible that in the number of 312, all Serbian
2 municipalities or locations were included?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] According to all the documents that
4 I had the opportunity to see, Dr. Brunborg mentions some locations that
5 are in Serbia but have nothing to do with these towns. For instance, he
6 found graves in Belgrade and --
7 JUDGE FLUEGGE: That is not my question.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I understand.
9 JUDGE FLUEGGE: We saw first Table 6A and you claimed that there
10 were many municipalities or locations which are in Serbia. Are these
11 possibly included in the number of 312 people disappeared? That means
12 from locations less than 20?
13 Is that possible?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Anything is possible. I don't
16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Can we go back to Table 6A, the previous page.
17 Can you please look at this table again and tell me -- indicate
18 the municipality in Serbia with the highest number of the so-called
19 Srebrenica missing?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Bajina Basta, and then it says
21 seven persons went missing.
22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Is it therefore possible because it's less than
23 20 that this and the other locations in Serbia are included in the line
24 total less than 20 in the next table, B.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't think so. Because if it
1 says seven persons in Bajina Basta, why would there not be ten in
2 Loznica, for instance, 15 in Valjevo? Why would those numbers be
4 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Can we go to Table 6B again? Next page.
5 You say they are omitted. Is it possible that they are
6 contained, that they are not omitted but contained in the line: Total
7 less than 20, with the total number of 312 would not be to be considered
8 as omitted.
9 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, I disagree. If they don't have the
10 names, they are definitely omitted.
11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I'm not asking you, Mr. Ivetic.
12 MR. IVETIC: But if Your Honour's question confuses the
13 witness --
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic.
15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Don't interrupt me.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Don't interrupt Judge Fluegge.
17 Please proceed.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't think so because I think
19 that in any previous report that he wrote that contains these
20 municipalities, he would have mentioned that in municipalities in Serbia
21 he found such and such a number. And there's no mention of any such
22 thing. If you look at all the previous reports according to locations,
23 again, he says that he took into account those with more and those with
24 less than 20, but he doesn't give the number for the municipalities as
25 mentioned here. 320 is not a small number.
1 I am deeply convinced that they were found in the municipalities
2 of Serbia and that they went missing there so that Dr. Brunborg could
3 write that. 320 is not a negligible number -- sorry, 312.
4 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I received the answer I was asking for. Thank
6 MR. IVETIC: I think we're at the time for the break.
7 [Trial Chamber confers]
8 JUDGE ORIE: We'll soon take a break, but you may already follow
9 the usher.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
11 [The witness stands down]
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, I didn't allow you to interrupt
13 Judge Fluegge but if you wanted to say something which would assist us in
14 answering these tables in the absence of the witness you have an
15 opportunity to do so now.
16 MR. IVETIC: Yes, Your Honour, and I think it's the witness
17 answered in the last part of the question where she says I am deeply
18 convinced that they were found in the municipalities of Serbia. And so
19 the point is when a number is linked to Serbia instead of putting the
20 place in Serbia, making it clear to the reader of the report that these
21 are found in Serbia so that one could see how close or how far from
22 Srebrenica they are lumped together in a category that says, "Total, less
23 than 20," thereby hiding the fact that they're in Serbia not in Bosnia,
24 which would be the focus or is the stated focus of the report.
25 That's what I would have to say.
1 JUDGE FLUEGGE: That was not what the witness said at the
2 beginning of this line of questions. She said the locations were not
3 included although --
4 MR. IVETIC: And she's correct.
5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Although the number, the total number, is exactly
6 the same.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: And I just wanted to find out if she has any
9 explanation for the total number less than 20 so I received the answer
10 she was able to provide.
11 MR. IVETIC: Yes.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
13 MR. IVETIC: And my only problem was that by saying locations
14 were omitted in a language, in English even, locations omitted means the
15 names are omitted. So they are omitted.
16 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ...
17 MR. IVETIC: [Overlapping speakers] ...
18 JUDGE ORIE: The number of disappeared persons have been
19 represented also in Table 6B, although as far as they are in Table 6A
20 found to have disappeared in municipalities which are in Serbia, which
21 all show a number lower than 20, they are put together in the Table 6B
22 and it is particularly to us that necessarily, because all the Serbian
23 locations are below 20, that not only considerable number but exactly a
24 number which can be reconstructed on the basis of the first one, which is
25 Serbian, which is not Serbian, to know exactly whether they were found
1 within Bosnia-Herzegovina, or whether they have been found although in
2 lower numbers in Serbia.
3 Is that something --
4 MR. IVETIC: Yes. Except we don't know what place in Serbia. We
5 don't know the municipality.
6 JUDGE ORIE: We don't know that. I would agree with you.
7 Looking at the fact that the total number is the same, that although we
8 do not know the place that, at least the location as we find it in
9 Table 6A seems to be - and again I would have to look exactly in the
10 Chamber would have to look exactly as to how far these locations are away
11 from Srebrenica whether they are all pretty close to it. But that's, of
12 course, something to be further considered.
13 We leave it by that at the time being. We take a break, and we
14 resume at quarter to 2.00.
15 --- Recess taken at 1.23 p.m.
16 --- On resuming at 1.46 p.m.
17 JUDGE ORIE: We're waiting for the witness to be escorted in the
19 [The witness takes the stand]
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, you may proceed.
21 MR. IVETIC: Thank you. If we could turn to page 14 in English,
22 page 16 in the Serbian and look at Table 5.
23 Q. Earlier, Professor, you had told us that the Prosecution experts
24 had expanded the time to go even to 1996. I believe here is the table in
25 the report that gives the information as to what percentage of victims on
1 their list actually have dates of disappearance that are in the months
2 after July of 1995 and even going into April of 1996.
3 Did you have anything else you wanted to tell us in relation to
4 the Prosecution experts and their use of time scope in relation to this
5 part of the report?
6 A. Well, no. I'm trying so say that this is one of the cases that
7 shows that they wished to get as many as victims as possible, I mean,
8 really, that is not a significant figure, statistically. Of course, it
9 is important when speaking of death as such, but then why this is being
10 done, that something that I don't understand. When they provide a
11 certain framework, they have to say I did this for such and such a reason
12 and I did that for some other reason. If I'm not mistaken, the time for
13 Srebrenica pertains to July. Again, as I've said, I can understand
14 August as well. However, whether all of that went on until April 1996
15 that I really don't know.
16 Q. Now, if we could look at another part of this 2009 report, page
17 23 in the English and page 27 in the Serbian and we'll have before us
18 Table 10.
19 And well, on the English Table 10B is on the next page but let's
20 see if we can work with what we have here.
21 Now, Professor, in relation to these -- this table, in two parts,
22 what would you wish to point out to us here that demonstrates a point of
23 concern from this report of the Prosecution experts?
24 A. Well, this is a table where the experts of the Prosecution are
25 distributing data. Now they're reducing Srebrenica to these five
1 municipalities and adding some other municipalities. Because, again, we
2 don't know what the remaining municipalities are except for the point
3 that what is included there, Serbia, I'm deeply convinced not. So now
4 these are these 24 [as interpreted] cases so it's unclear. It is in
5 sufficiently professional, say what is the remaining municipalities. Say
6 what is Srebrenica and so on.
7 Now something that is very interesting, the missing persons and
8 dead persons, according to ethnicity from 1991, how could they obtain
9 this ethnicity? By matching with the population census, and as far as we
10 could see they did not use the questionnaires of the Red Cross and there
11 is no reference to ethnicity there. However, what is less controversial
12 is how they came to this ethnicity in the first place. The problem is
13 that they claim there are 7.428 persons that are on their list of
14 victims, and they claim that 87 per cent of these persons were matched
15 with the population census and they distribute them according to these
16 municipalities that they provided. They, themselves, say that they did
17 not match 1.000-something persons I cannot see whether it is 1.013 or
18 what it is. So they did not observe even their own methodology. Their
19 methodology says the following. In order to prove that there aren't any
20 fictitious persons on our list but that it's all about real persons, we
21 matched this to the population census because the population census
22 contains real persons who were alive in 1991, and we did not manage to
23 match 1.000 such persons. So there are 1.000 persons that are unknown.
24 They did not manage to manage this with a population census of a very
25 high number. According to their methodology, whatever you do not manage
1 to match is fictitious, does not exist. Now, how did the Prosecution
2 experts describe the fact that they take into account something that
3 they're own methodology says, no this is not necessary. How did they
4 prove that these 1.000 persons are citizens of Bosnia-Herzegovina? I can
5 admit, because later on they include them in -- under Muslims. Because
6 these are Bosniaks who fell victim. I can -- or, rather, the Prosecution
7 experts proves that at least 1.000 persons from his list are not citizens
8 of Bosnia-Herzegovina. I don't know whether they're Muslims. They may
9 be Muslims. If they are not citizens of Bosnia-Herzegovina, how do they
10 affect the situation and everything that happened in relation to
11 Srebrenica? The expert was trying to calculate all of this and shows two
12 variants - we'll see this later on - with and without these matches
14 Now this is what the point is here. They do not observe their
15 own modified methodology.
16 Q. If we could --
17 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Just for the clarity of the record there was one
18 number which is probably incorrect the -- I think -- I don't refer to
19 page it started with pages again. You said the following: So now these
20 are the -- these 24 cases, so it's unclear.
21 You were referring to remaining municipalities. In the table I
22 see 124. Did you say 124?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I said 124 or maybe I wasn't close
24 enough to the microphone or something. 124 remaining municipalities,
1 JUDGE FLUEGGE: This is now corrected on the record.
2 MR. IVETIC: And if we could also correct if we could zoom in on
3 the column that is under unknown and unknown on the B/C/S original, you
4 had said at one point in time, 1.000, and I can't see whether it is -- I
5 can't see whether it is 13 or just a little over 1.000.
6 Q. Does that assist in confirming the exact number for unknowns?
7 A. 1.001.
8 Q. Now focussing on those 1.001 persons which according to the
9 Prosecution expert's methodology they could not imagine with the census,
10 I'd like to look at 10B. And to do that, we have to go to the next page
11 in the English and stay on the same page in the B/C/S. And if we could
12 zoom in on the note below 10B, or on 10B itself, doesn't matter, we see
13 that the figures for the municipalities have been adjusted by taking into
14 account the unmatched records, the unknown, 1.001 for men, according to
15 the original distribution of the matched records by their 1991
16 municipality of residence and ethnicity.
17 Professor, what type of method or methodology is the author of
18 this document using in distributing those 1.001 unknowns amongst the
19 municipalities that are listed, despite not being able to match them to a
20 person in the census?
21 A. The method of proportion. The method of proportion implies that
22 you know a certain mass for which you have data and then you have a
23 certain other mass, and you don't know what it is. Here we know a
24 definite number of victims in Srebrenica, Bratunac, et cetera, and
25 that's, let's say, 100 per cent, and then we calculate how many of the
1 total number Srebrenica makes. Let's say 30 per cent.
2 Now from this unknown mass, 1.001, we take away 30 per cent,
3 that's 300-something and we place it in Srebrenica. Then we take
4 Vlasenica, let's say it's 20 per cent of the total. We take away from
5 the remaining mass 20 per cent and we place it in Vlasenica. That's the
6 method of proportion, wherein you take the proportions in known relations
7 and transfer them -- transpose them onto an unknown equation. That
8 method has been abandoned a long time ago.
9 According to UN recommendations, the method of projection is
10 excluded, especially pertaining to age structure. And it's excluded
11 precisely because that's a way to target certain numbers to get desired
12 results. That's why it's excluded on UN recommendation. Every
13 questionnaire has to be filled in and age cannot be not assessed by the
14 method of proportion, and that has applied since 2000, and it applies to
15 all the countries that conduct censuses in the classical way. That's why
16 in the latest censuses you cannot find age unknown. In censuses of 1971,
17 1981, 1991, you can find age unknown, but then, again, only within the
18 allowed margin of error, statistically speaking.
19 Q. Professor, in your opinion what would have been the more proper
20 approach to take as to those 1.001 unknown individuals that could not be
21 matched to anyone in the census?
22 A. It cannot be matched. The experts show that it cannot be
23 matched. If it cannot be matched, then how do they know that these
24 people lived in 1991 in Bosnia-Herzegovina? Their methodology says if
25 you haven't made a match, then you haven't proven that they lived in
1 1991. It would be professional on their part to exclude them. I'm not
2 saying this because they should have to lower the number in that case,
3 but at least they should explain. If they have 1.000 unmatched persons,
4 where do they come from? How come there is 1.000 of them? Did I do the
5 matching badly? Or were the sources bad? How come that the data is so
6 poor that they could not be matched according to none of the criteria?
7 At least an explanation should be provided as to why, from the first
8 expert report to the last one, these persons still feature there.
9 Q. If we can turn to the next page in the Serbian and stay on the
10 same page in the English, I'd like to look at the next table, Table
11 number 11.
12 What can you tell us about the manner in which the Prosecution
13 experts have presented the breakdown of the population divided into age
14 groups? Do you note any problems with this?
15 A. This is absolute and conscious manipulation. It continues from
16 the first report to the latest one.
17 Why is it manipulation? We see here only relative numbers. You
18 never see an absolute number. Relative numbers, according to a certain
19 methodology, are obtained from absolute numbers. Please, pay attention
20 to the heading, the first item that says: Population, age group, 1995,
21 and then it goes in five years -- five-year intervals, concluding with
22 1990. How does the expert know which age group that is? In order to
23 know that, he would have to know the total population in 1995 and out of
24 that total mass of population for each municipality, they should find out
25 the age structure. For instance, I have 300 persons aged between 10 and
1 14. I find a total number of victims from Srebrenica of X and 300 is 0.4
2 per cent of that. To do that - and he should get a Nobel prize if he
3 managed to do that - he would have to calculate it with the methods that
4 are normally practiced and that are very difficult to manipulate and an
5 assessment is made on the basis of a certain known number. It would be
6 the census of 1991 and censuses are usually used for that purpose. Then
7 with that number from the census of 1991, they would have to add all
8 those born in 1992, 1993, 1994, and 1995 and then take into account all
9 those who died in 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995. The difference between the two
10 are the population growth and then they would have to calculate which age
11 groups account for how many. Then you have to know the migration trends
12 and then you would have to say in 1992 so many people migrated out and so
13 many people migrated into the municipality. They would then have to
14 calculate the difference.
15 First of all, there are no vital statistics about the number of
16 those born in 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995 in these municipalities, nor do we
17 have a migration balance. But even without the migration balance
18 assessments are never made based on population growth alone. Such data
19 does not exist. Even if they did, the expert would have to tell us so
20 many people were born in Srebrenica in 1992, so many people died in 1993,
21 1994, 1995. And then the age group is calculated starting from age zero.
22 You add all the newborns, and every age group moves by one year because
23 each of these categories applies to a certain moment. In 1995, in the
24 category, let's say, between 40 and 49 years old, there are people aged
25 45, 46, 47, 48, and 49. In the previous year, it was not the same
1 category because those who aged between 1994 and 1995 and turned 50 move
2 into a different category.
3 So without accurate data about births and deaths, it's absolutely
4 impossible to create the age structure for 1995. Since the expert tells
5 us that this is the age structure for 1995, it would have been nice if
6 she could explain it but she doesn't explain it. Instead, on the
7 previous page, she says that these numbers were based on the age
8 structure in 1995, and here we come to the apples and oranges I
9 mentioned. The person who was in the 40 to 49 category in 1991 is no
10 longer there in 1995. It would have been nice if it were possible but
11 it's not. That person has moved into the 50 to 54 age group. With the
12 victims of Srebrenica, if they calculated how old they were in 1995 and
13 related that to the number of population in 1995, those are apples and
14 oranges. You cannot in 1995, when I am aged 50-something, you cannot
15 look for me in the category in which I was in 1991. You cannot. So this
16 is pure manipulation. And I'm deeply convinced that Dr. Brunborg and
17 Dr. Tabeau know perfectly well that these calculations have absolutely no
18 base in any methodology practiced anywhere and they even pretend that
19 it's science. This table in this form including only relative numbers
20 exists in all the previous reports. To this table in all the previous
21 cases, I objected, and I asked: How did you get these numbers? The only
22 change that was made was that here, the age was indicated in 1991 not in
23 1995. So the only correction is that in the title, they put age 1995,
24 but on the previous page it still explained it's not 1995. Actually,
25 it's 1991. The only difference is that these tables are now separated
1 and they show those 1.000 persons who are not in Bosnia-Herzegovina and
2 another table which does not include them. Even a layperson can
3 understand that it's manipulation. If you look at another category, that
4 is to say, the total, if you look at the total, you will see how obvious
5 the manipulation is. Total implies that I have a certain mass of
6 population. The total here should be the population for 1991, all the
7 ages, from zero to 100 or from 10 upwards. We don't know which age
8 they're using. And now from that total population, you derive the
9 numbers for each municipality. And then the experts say in Srebrenica is
10 34 per cent, in Bratunac is 19.something in Vlasenica 11.something, in
11 Zvornik 1.9 and in Han Pijesak 8.6. When you add up all these
12 percentages, they do not make up 100 per cent. They come to 75 per cent.
13 Where is the rest of the population? We don't know.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Where do we have the 75 per cent? Let me just try
15 to follow you.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You add up 34.2 plus 19.4 plus
17 11.3, plus --
18 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... instead of
19 giving numbers, could you tell us what exactly you are adding at this
20 moment. What table? What column are you adding up at this moment?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Table 11. It says "total" at the
22 end of the table. That total shows --
23 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ...
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- the share. The share of victims
25 in the total population. A total mass which is to us unknown. But in
1 relative terms, it should be, it must be 100 per cent. If you add up the
2 shares shown by the experts, 34, 11, et cetera, et cetera, that comes to
3 75 per cent or thereabouts.
4 If that 75 per cent --
5 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... where again I
6 do find that 34? Perhaps I'm --
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Here it's in the last line.
8 Total --
9 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues]... yes.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm going to do the math now.
11 There we are. If you add up all these numbers without the first
12 column, it comes to 75.4 per cent. It's -- if it's total, it has to be
13 100 per cent regardless of which mass you are dealing with. The expert
14 should have said, I'm only talking about population between 10 and 89.
15 He could have taken the whole population from zero to 89.
16 It's precisely because of the fact that he is transposing the
17 calculations does he get these apples from oranges.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
19 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I'm not sure if your calculation is correct.
20 It's not. But it's not 1 00 per cent, that's true.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: I get 89.6.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You should not take into account
23 14.2 because that's the total for all municipalities. That's the ratio
24 for all the municipalities in this total. You take only the
25 municipalities Vlasenica, Zvornik, Bratunac, Srebrenica, et cetera. And
1 the rest is the sum, the share of all these municipalities in the total
2 by age group.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Is the percentage in relation to the overall number
4 of victims, or is it in relation to the number of victims as found in
5 Srebrenica, Bratunac, Zvornik, Vlasenica, and Han Pijesak.
6 Can you tell us which of the two it is because whether or not you
7 end up 200 per cent, depends on what your total is.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. These ratios should have been
9 calculated from the number of victims on OTP lists, 7.000-something,
10 broken down by municipality. And this indication of years, there should
11 be absolute numbers according to age in 1995. Absolute numbers.
12 So he had to know how much population there is in each
13 municipality by age group. For instance, in Srebrenica, in 1995, there
14 were 20.000 total population. 100 of them aged from zero to 10, et
15 cetera. And then add up until you get 20.000. And then you say, I have
16 victims aged 10 to 14. Five of them aged 10 to 14. 25 aged up to 19.
17 And then in this absolute mass given for each municipality individually,
18 you look for the share of a certain age group, and then you say -- This
19 is interesting, for instance, the category 45 to 49. It says 10.4
20 per cent in Srebrenica. Out of the total men, 50.4 per cent were killed.
21 In 1991, there were 808 men in Srebrenica of that age. In 1995, we have
22 no idea. He had to show us this and he would have to tell us, again, we
23 have 800 or we have 900 or we have 300 and then we would know.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, you've given us some thought for -- to
25 think about overnight so that's perhaps further questions may follow
1 tomorrow morning. Because we'll adjourn for the day. And
2 Ms. Radovanovic, we'd like to see you back tomorrow morning at 9.30 in
3 this same courtroom. But before you leave, I would like to instruct you
4 that you should not speak to anyone about your testimony, whether that is
5 testimony you have given already today or whether that is testimony still
6 to be given tomorrow.
7 If that is clear to you, you may follow the usher.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is clear to me. Thank you.
9 [The witness stands down]
10 JUDGE ORIE: We adjourn for the day, and we'll resume tomorrow,
11 Tuesday, the 25th of August, 9.30 in the morning, in this same courtroom,
13 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.22 p.m.,
14 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 25th day of
15 August, 2015, at 9.30 a.m.