1 Wednesday, 26 August 2015
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.32 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone in around this courtroom.
6 Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is case
8 IT-09-92-T, The Prosecutor versus Ratko Mladic.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
10 The Chamber was informed that the Prosecution wanted to raise a
11 preliminary matter.
12 MR. TIEGER: Yes, Mr. President. Thank you.
13 This is in respect of the matter that the Trial Chamber reminded
14 the Prosecution the other day had not been resolved with respect to MFI
15 745, and the Trial Chamber requested a response by the 27th of August.
16 By way of quick backdrop, this document, MFI 745, was tendered
17 through Witness Vlaski and, at the time, the Prosecution asked the
18 Defence about its provenance. The Defence did not have such information
19 at the time and advised the Chamber that the document should be MFI'd
20 pending further information.
21 On -- in May of this year, the Defence advised the Prosecution
22 that the document was provided to Vlaski by the Serbian security service;
23 that was the further information we were provided. Now, we note in
24 respect of that information that the document bears no facial indicators
25 of Serbian DB origin, such as a header or a stamp of the type that appear
1 in other documents of allegedly similar provenance.
2 We also note that had we been advised at the time of the Mr.
3 Vlaski's assertion that he received it from the Serbian DB, we would have
4 asked the witness about the circumstances of that alleged transfer as
5 well as his relationship to the DB.
6 While we consider that these factors clearly bear on any weight
7 that can be attributed to the document, we do not, in the interests of
8 comity, oppose the admission of the document on this occasion.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Tieger.
10 No other preliminaries.
11 Could the witness be escorted in the courtroom.
12 [Trial Chamber confers]
13 [The witness takes the stand]
14 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Before we continue, I'd like to remind you that
17 you're still bound by the solemn declaration, Ms. Radovanovic, you gave
18 at the beginning of your testimony.
19 Mr. File will now continue his cross-examination.
20 MR. FILE: Thank you, Your Honour. Good morning to everyone.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.
22 WITNESS: SVETLANA RADOVANOVIC [Resumed]
23 [Witness answered through interpreter]
24 Cross-examination by Mr. File: [Continued]
25 Q. When we left off yesterday, we were discussing whether you had
1 written a scientific journal article that had been accepted for
2 publication after an international peer-review process. You had
3 indicated that you had one from a journal of the Russian Academy of
4 Science but could not recall the precise title or the year of the
5 publication. Thank you for subsequently providing the details of this
6 publication which my office received yesterday afternoon.
7 If we could have 65 ter number 33044, we'll see the document that
8 we received. If we could please go to e-court page 2.
9 At the top, it says NGO Srebrenica historical project, the
10 Netherlands. And then you have the publication title which is:
11 International Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia: Activity, results,
13 And then it says: "Proceedings of the international scholarly
14 symposium at the Russian Academy of Sciences in Moscow, April 22 to 23,
15 2009, in collaboration with the Centre for the Study of the Contemporary
16 Balkan Crisis of the Institute for Slavic Studies of the Russian Academy
17 of Sciences.
18 At the bottom it is indicated it was published in Belgrade and
19 Moscow in 2010.
20 Could we go to e-court page 4, please. If you look at the
21 masthead for the people managing this publication, the editor-in-chief is
22 an individual named Stephen Karganovic and the scholarly advisors are
23 Dr. Nenad Kecmanovic, and Dr. Edward Herman. Are you familiar with these
24 individuals personally?
25 A. As for Dr. Nenad Kecmanovic, I know him by reputation only. I've
1 never met him. As for Dr. Edward Herman, I don't know him.
2 Q. And Stephen Karganovic?
3 A. I do know him, but I only met him when -- actually, I met him
4 before he invited me to the symposium once here in The Hague and then his
5 invitation followed to his international gathering. It was much later.
6 At some point much later than the time when I met him here.
7 Q. Just to clarify, when was the first time you met him?
8 A. I met him for the first time when I arrived here concerning the
9 Popovic case. At the time, he worked for or collaborated with
10 attorney-at-law, John Ostojic, and that's when I was able to meet him.
11 Q. Did you --
12 A. -- perhaps I went to Counsel Ostojic's office here to discuss
13 matters and I met Stephen Karganovic.
14 Q. So he was the one who invited you to present a paper at this
16 A. He asked me if I was willing to come and I received an official
17 invitation from the Slavic studies centre of the Russian Academy of
18 Sciences he simply gave me a phone call to inquire whether I was willing
19 to participate and contribute to this or that topic. The official
20 invitation was received from the Russian Academy of Science, its
21 institute for Slavic studies.
22 Q. Okay. Could we go to e-court page 6, please.
23 Now at the top of the page you can see your paper in the table of
24 contents. The title of the paper you presented there was: Demographic
25 Expert Reports of the ICTY Office of the Prosecutor as a Specific Model
1 of Targeted Statistical Constructs and Manipulations.
2 That was the title of your paper and the presentation at the
3 conference; right?
4 A. I'm not sure I understood it yet the way it was interpreted. My
5 article was entitled demographic expertise of the ICTY Office of the
6 Prosecutor as a specific method or model of targeted statistical
7 constructs and manipulations.
8 Q. Okay. You can see other papers presented that are listed on this
9 page, including topics like the third one down from the top about:
10 Violation of Vojislav Seselj's procedural rights at the ICTY.
11 And at the bottom, you can see one titled: How The Hague tribunal
12 ignores facts and evidence.
13 Were you present at the conference to hear those papers
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. So just to be perfectly clear: You physically went to the
17 Russian Academy of Science in Moscow and attended the conference there in
18 April of 2009?
19 A. Yes. And I also presented my paper and was present while the
20 other authors presented theirs.
21 Q. So you were a conference participant?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Now, did you remember attending this event when I asked you about
24 your publications yesterday and you mentioned the Russian Academy of
25 Science but said you couldn't remember the exact title or year?
1 A. You didn't ask me if I attended the conference or not. You asked
2 me whether I published something.
3 Q. Right. Well, did you not consider it important to mention what
4 you could remember about the facts or context in which you prepared and
5 delivered this paper?
6 MR. IVETIC: Object to the question. That wasn't asked by
7 counsel yesterday so asking for a witness to make comments on things that
8 were not asked is really badgering the witness and is not in line with
9 presenting the evidence that was presented yesterday. I would
10 strenuously object to this line of questioning.
11 JUDGE ORIE: The objection is denied. The witness was asked
12 whether she considered something yesterday which is a question of fact.
13 Please proceed.
14 MR. FILE:
15 Q. You can answer the question.
16 A. Mr. Prosecutor asked me if I published anything in foreign
17 journals, and I said yes, in the proceedings of the Russian Academy of
18 Sciences although I was unable to recall the precise title or year.
19 Then Judge Orie requested that I inquire, and then the discussion
20 followed because the Internet did not occur to me since I'm not well
21 versed in those terms when it comes to technology.
22 I was simply not asked whether I participated in anything or
23 presented anything, and that is how I managed to acquire this
24 information. I'm grateful for those who reminded me to do so.
25 JUDGE ORIE: You're not attacked in any way, so there's no need
1 to defend yourself. It's just a question, whether you have considered
2 that. Apparently, because you thought it was not related to the
3 question, you did not consider that. Is that well understood?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise, Your Honour. I wasn't
5 defending myself. I was merely responding to the question the way I
6 understood it. Nobody asked me if I participated anywhere. I was asked
7 whether I published anywhere.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You have not answered my question to you, but
9 I deduce that you didn't think this information to be directly related to
10 the question that was put to you.
11 Please proceed, Mr. File.
12 MR. FILE:
13 Q. So this publication is a book that is a collection of papers
14 presented at the conference; right?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. So the paper that appears here that you wrote was not
17 internationally peer-reviewed in the sense that did you not submit it to
18 a scientific journal so that it would be reviewed anonymously by
19 demographers or statisticians in order to determine whether to accept it
20 in the journal. You were invited to present this paper by
21 Mr. Karganovic?
22 A. I was personally invited by the Russian Academy of Sciences. As
23 for Mr. Karganovic he only inquired preliminarily whether I wanted to
24 take part or not. He wasn't the one to decide whether I would be
1 Q. Ma'am --
2 A. -- following his inquiry, I submitted my report, my paper.
3 As for what you say that following the event I could have given
4 my paper to a journal to have it reviewed by those you consider
5 competent, well, if a paper is published anywhere and then if you offer
6 it in the same form to someone else, it's a no-go because it had been
7 published previously.
8 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ...
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] And please do not take this to be
10 any kind of defence on my part but I just wanted to add something else.
11 JUDGE ORIE: If you would limit yourself to answer the question
12 because are you dealing with a lot of matters which are not, at least we
13 understand not to be part of the question.
14 Please proceed.
15 MR. FILE:
16 Q. Let's try it one more time. The paper that appears here that you
17 wrote, that was published in this book, was not internationally
18 peer-reviewed in the sense that you did not submit it through a
19 peer-review process for it to be published here?
20 MR. IVETIC: Object as to the form of question. Mixing and
21 matching two different things. He starts off talking about international
22 peer review. I would like to have a citation for international peer
23 review as being a rule for expert evidence that's required. I'm familiar
24 with peer review which is what all the literature on the topic talks
1 The second part of his question switches from international peer
2 review and starts talking about peer review. In that manner, that
3 question is confusing and inappropriate.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Let's try to keep matters short.
5 The contribution to the conference as published was not peer
6 reviewed before it was presented or published; is that correctly
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It was not correctly understood.
9 You can see here who reviewed it.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Was that prior to publication that others looked at
11 it and gave their comment in order to either give the green light or --
12 to perhaps give the green light for publication?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Reviews are always done prior
14 to publication.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. File.
16 MR. FILE:
17 Q. Who reviewed this prior to publication?
18 A. For the most part, papers that are being reviewed are coded. In
19 other words, no one is duty-bound to tell you who the reviewers are.
20 However, once the proceedings are published, then usually the reviewers
21 are mentioned.
22 Q. Dr. Radovanovic, what you're saying cannot possibly be correct.
23 Given that this book is a collection of papers that were presented at a
24 conference. It's not a journal of statistics, it's not a journal of
25 demography, it's a conference and this is a collection of papers that
1 were the proceedings; right?
2 A. But at an internal conference. When international conferences
3 are being organised then, according to the rules, we need to know who the
4 organisers are, who are the reviewers for the papers, what sections
5 individual authors will take part in. No international conference can be
6 set up ad hoc. There are procedures.
7 Have a look at any kind of documentation concerning an
8 international conference and its proceedings subsequently and can you
9 figure it out. In order for me to explain it all, it would take time.
10 But, in short, an international conference cannot be organised ad hoc,
11 especially if it involves people from different countries. No one
12 applies because they like to do so per se. People have to apply and
13 then, in the organising committee of the conference, there are people who
14 divide papers per section and by content. They say, This is a go; that
15 is a no-go; this will go to that section; that will go to the others. I
16 don't have the list of people who were --
17 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... you just said people had to
18 apply. But you didn't have to apply. You were invited; right?
19 A. What do you mean I didn't have to apply? Mr. Karganovic said,
20 There will be a conference in Moscow at this and that place. Do you want
21 to participate? I said I do. Then I received a letter from the
22 institute of Slavonic studies of the Academy of Sciences where they say
23 that they intend to organise a conference on that topic and to take place
24 on this and that date. They asked also if I was willing to contribute
25 through a paper, and I said yes. Then you need to send the title and a
1 summary. After a while, they ask you for your full paper. I followed
2 the procedure. Following it all, I was invited to attend the conference
3 to present my paper. I could have sent my paper without presenting it,
4 but I consented to being there.
5 Q. Okay. Thank you for that --
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. File, let's move on.
7 MR. FILE: Yes.
8 Q. Are you aware that one of the scholarly advisors for this
9 publication, Dr. Nenad Kecmanovic, appeared in this trial as a Defence
11 A. No. But I do know that Dr. Kecmanovic --
12 Q. [Previous translation continues] ...
13 A. -- was in some other --
14 Q. I want to ask you about the paper that you presented there and
15 published in this collection of articles. It contained themes that were
16 very similar to what you have presented in your expert report in this
17 case; right?
18 A. You can see that it involves demographic expert reports by the
19 OTP. I have to stick to the topic. I can't discuss any other
20 demographic expert reports other than those of the OTP. It referred to
21 those expert reports which had been published up to that moment in 2009.
22 Q. So I take it your answer is, yes, it did cover the same
23 [Microphone not activated]?
24 A. Then I must have misunderstood your question. I apologise.
25 Q. I asked you if it contained the same or similar themes as what
1 you've presented in your expert report in this case.
2 A. There were no similar or same topics. There may have been
3 similar criticisms levied as presented here as well. But it has to do
4 with Srebrenica and the expert reports. I don't recall off the cuff
5 which expert reports they are that I took into account though.
6 Q. Could we please have 65 ter number 33050.
7 This is going to be the conclusion to this publication that
8 contains the conference recommendations. For this, we're going to look
9 at e-court page 3 and B/C/S page 7.
10 MR. FILE: Page 3 in the English, please.
11 Q. In the first paragraph, under conference recommendations, this is
12 at the bottom of the page in B/C/S and the top of the page in English, it
13 says: "Conference participants embraced the conclusion that ICTY should
14 be shut down immediately and that all its activity must be subjected to
15 serious review. In addition to crude violations of international law and
16 ICTY's own rules of procedure, the principle of rebus sic stantibus is in
17 itself sufficient to effect the Tribunal's immediate abolition."
18 Now if we skip down two paragraphs it says as follows:
19 "The responsibility of Judges and other Tribunal personnel for
20 violations of international law and of the Tribunal's own rules of
21 procedure should be raised and actively pursued.
22 "The issue of Srebrenica and the so-called genocide of Muslim
23 civilians and military personnel must be subjected to comprehensive and
24 exhaustive analysis in light of new facts and of all disposable evidence.
25 "Particular attention must be given to the case of General R.
1 Krstic, where ICTY, acting without any justification, classified events
2 in Srebrenica in July of 1995 as genocide."
3 Those were some of the conference recommendations of the
4 conference where you were a participant; correct?
5 A. I don't know what they have to do with me. These are obviously
6 recommendations but I didn't participate in the drafting of these
7 conclusions and I never signed this. I told you, every conference has
8 certain persons who do certain things. Nobody offered those conclusions
9 to me there and now whether they were drawn there, I don't know. I never
10 signed any one of these conclusions. I signed my paper.
11 Now, what somebody is going to conclude on that basis, well, no
12 one ever asked me any such thing. I really have nothing to do with any
13 of that. Just like I don't know what people here are going to conclude
14 about me. That has nothing to do with me. I have nothing to do with
16 Q. I just want to return to how you addressed this yesterday
17 afternoon. At T38290, I asked you whether it was still true that: "Have
18 you not published any articles in scientific journals that were the
19 subject of international peer review before publication."
20 Your answer was: "No, it's not correct. I just didn't write
21 this again. In the meantime, I published in a journal of the Russian
22 Academy of Science. I suppose you would treat that as international."
23 Now, Dr. Radovanovic, no reasonable scientist would consider this
24 a scientific journal. There was no peer-review process and this has
25 nothing to do with your field of demography and statistics. This is a
1 book whose sole purpose is to denounce this Tribunal, and I put to you
2 when you answered my question yesterday you did so untruthfully. That's
3 right, isn't it?
4 MR. IVETIC: Objection, compound question. Misstates the
5 evidence and misstates the question that was asked. If you're going to
6 cite to the question, read the question. You're starting in the middle
7 of your question, counsel. If you're going to read the question, the
8 question says: "Is your answer in the Prlic case still correct?"
9 She said what she said. She testified today about how the paper
10 was submitted, therefore you are misstating the evidence and you're
11 asking a compound question that requires 15 different answers.
12 MR. FILE: It's not the case, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE ORIE: The objection is granted.
14 Ms. Radovanovic yesterday testified about an article she
15 published and you're now taking here to the conclusions of a conference
16 of which the witness now testified that she was not involved in drawing
17 those conclusions.
18 Please proceed.
19 MR. FILE:
20 Q. Dr. Radovanovic, when I asked you yesterday whether you had
21 published articles in scientific journals that were the subject of
22 international peer review before publication, did you consider this
23 document a scientific journal?
24 A. Do I consider the document to be a scientific journal? I don't
25 understand what you're asking me.
1 Q. This book that we're talking about here, do you consider it a
2 scientific journal?
3 A. Well, you know, that's a lot, isn't it? I'm not competent to say
4 whether something is a scientific journal or not. I cannot do that on my
5 own. There is a procedure involved that says whether something is a
6 scientific journal or not. I cannot be the judge of that. I cannot
7 judge whether a journal is scientific but I absolutely assert that it was
8 an international conference and that a certain number of scholars took
9 part in it from different fields. If you have a review by international
10 experts or some experts that you considered to be competent and if they
11 wrote that this is not an international journal, I will accept that. I
12 do not consider myself to be that competent for everything, so that I
13 could assess whether each and every paper here is scientific or not. I
14 believe that the conclusion has nothing whatsoever to do with me and it's
15 certainly not science, but --
16 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: We could not understand
17 the last part of the sentence. Could the witness please stay a bit away
18 from the microphone. Thank you.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please repeat the last part of the last
20 sentence, and could you stay slightly away from the microphone.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I believe that the conclusion that
22 was presented here is not a scientific conclusion because I don't know
23 whether it was drawn from some other scientific papers that are
24 mentioned. I really do not know about procedural law. Many papers were
25 not from my field, and I cannot say whether they are scientific or
1 scholarly papers or not. I can see who the authors I can see what these
2 do otherwise but I really do not consider myself to be --
3 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, I invited you to repeat the last part of
4 the last sentence, but you started a new answer.
5 Mr. File, you should move on.
6 MR. FILE:
7 Q. If we can turn to your report in this case. On page 3 in both
8 versions, you have a heading entitled, "Reports analysed" and there you
9 list 21 documents that you analysed as part of this project.
10 MR. IVETIC: That's D1211, MFI, I think for Your Honour's
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, could we have it on our screens.
13 MR. IVETIC: I think it's 1211.
14 MR. FILE: That's correct.
15 If we could have page 3 of both versions.
16 Q. You can see there's a heading entitled, "Reports analysed." And
17 there you list 21 documents that you analysed as part of this project.
18 Would you agree that you reviewed these documents carefully?
19 A. I would agree that I reviewed these documents carefully.
20 Q. Okay. I'm going to ask you about some of the tables that you
21 included in your report.
22 If we could please go to English page 47, B/C/S page 46, and this
23 is not for broadcast.
24 As this comes up you're going to see that this is Table 5 where
25 you've listed 34 individuals together with their date and place of
1 disappearance and their grave-site. The source for the information in
2 this table is listed as the 2009 OTP list.
3 After this table in your report, you express scepticism about the
4 fact that they are listed as having been located in grave-sites in Serbia
5 or "unknown," and you say in that paragraph just beneath the table: "All
6 the above persons are on the Prosecution's list as Srebrenica victims
7 because they are registered as missing in July and August in the places
8 that the expert links with Srebrenica. If these people [sic] really went
9 missing in July and August and were last seen alive in the registered
10 places of disappearance, does it mean that they were taken to Serbia and
11 killed there, and who killed and buried them there? Where and what are
12 these unknown graves where Srebrenica victims were buried?"
13 Now in the introduction to your report that we were just looking
14 at, one of the documents you listed as having reviewed was the July 2013
15 research note called "Integration of the 2013 ICMP update with the 2009
16 OTP list of Srebrenica victims"; correct?
17 And, for the record, we're talking about P2794. We're talking --
18 A. Could you please tell me what number it is, what you mentioned
19 just now in the literature there? I'm unable to follow.
20 Q. It's number 20 at the bottom of page 4. We're talking about
21 page 4 of your report --
22 A. Yes, yes, I see it. I do see it.
23 Dr. Ewa Tabeau: "The integration of the 2013 ICMP update with
24 the 2009 OTP list of Srebrenica victims." Yes, I reviewed it very
25 carefully. Of course, I could not --
1 Q. [Previous translation continues] ...
2 A. -- go to the list itself and check it, but that is in the list
3 submitted by Dr. Brunborg. And, down there, it says very properly what
4 the source is.
5 Q. Can we go to P2794, page 7, please.
6 You see at the bottom of the page it says: "Attachment: Excel
7 file: Integration of 2013 ICMP update on Srebrenica and Zepa."
8 And then it describes what is included there. Is it your
9 testimony that you didn't look at that?
10 A. That's not correct. This integrated one has to be sent as a new
11 one and you cannot tell me here you are, a list from 2009 and then I'm
12 going to tell you that something I put together in 2013, some things I
13 threw out and other things I did not and you have to tell me what it is.
14 If you made an integrated list in 2013, then it has to be corrected and
15 it has to be corrected in the list of Srebrenica victims. I can trust
16 Dr. Tabeau, but I do not see this correction in the list of Srebrenica
17 victims and I don't know whether some day in the future again, it's going
18 to be the list from 2009 and whether there is a list from 2013. That is
19 to say, if you are updating something, you do not updating it by
20 mentioning what you did in one part.
21 Q. [Previous translation continues] ...
22 A. But this list that you present, that is being updated. What is
23 being thrown out of there, what is being kept and --
24 Q. My question was very simple. I was just asking you if you
25 reviewed this excel file when you were preparing your report.
1 A. I reviewed everything I had. I reviewed the list of cases but I
2 repeat once again --
3 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... Witness, the
4 question was not whether you reviewed everything you had but whether you
5 reviewed this document.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If I read and reviewed the expert
7 report, I reviewed this as well. It's cases that were found at such and
8 such places but these cases were not put into the general list.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I understand that you reviewed this document
10 as well.
11 Please proceed.
12 MR. FILE:
13 Q. So if we can go back to the list we were looking at, Table 5,
14 which is English page 47 ... oh, in D1211, MFI. English page 47; B/C/S
15 page 46. Again, not for broadcast.
16 So where it says at the bottom of this table that the source is
17 the 2009 OTP list and there's no reference to the 2013 update, it's
18 correct to understand that the information you excerpted from the 2009
19 list here has not been checked or does not incorporate 2013 updates;
21 A. No. I am not denying that they updated this in 2013, that they
22 found some cases that they want to delete from the list that they
23 published in 2009. However, in this list of 2009, they did not delete
24 that. Now do they have a new list in which they deleted that? That I
25 don't know. But it hasn't been attached.
1 So I am referring to the original list of victims. For me to
2 delete cases that Dr. Tabeau refers to, no way. There must be a list
3 from 2013 that was updated. Therefore, it cannot contain 7.600. Never
4 mind. But when you say updated list of cases then --
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Witness, I do understand that any corrections
6 that are not included in a new consolidated list that you consider that
7 you don't have to mention those corrections and you are not bound to
8 include it in your considerations.
9 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, I must say, I'm confused. I'm looking
10 at the annex to 2794 and I fail to see any of the names from this list so
11 I'm confused by counsel's question.
12 JUDGE ORIE: That is perhaps the next question whether there was
13 any reason to -- but we're still one step before that.
14 There's no consolidated list, you are telling us, and, therefore,
15 you relied on the 2009 and have not included the 2013 update in your
17 Is that well understood?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, well understood. You
19 understood that well.
20 MR. FILE:
21 Q. I also just want to confirm that you did not look at the report
22 of former OTP investigator Dusan Janc entitled: Update to the summary of
23 forensic evidence, exhumation of the graves and surface remains,
24 recoveries related to Srebrenica, June 2013, which is in evidence in this
25 case as P1987. You did not review that report; correct?
1 A. That report has to be reviewed by your experts. I could, but I
2 don't have to do it. I can -- if your experts mention something -- no
3 well, any way. I did not review it --
4 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... yes, that's an
5 answer to the question and whether you were bound to do it [Overlapping
6 speakers] ...
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] [Overlapping speakers] ... I did
9 JUDGE ORIE: Because the other question is a different one.
10 Please proceed.
11 MR. FILE: Could we please have 65 ter 33042 not for broadcast,
13 Q. These are the 34 individual that appear in Table 5 of your
14 report. We've expanded your table, we've kept the names in the same
15 order that you used, but we included additional information that can be
16 found in the 2013 update. All of the information on this table is
17 already in evidence in this case either in P1901, the 2009 list, where it
18 indicates on the screen ICRC, or P2795, which is the 2013 integration
19 where it indicates on the screen ICMP in the top columns, on the top row
20 I mean.
21 Just as a side note, I would also note in this chart we kept your
22 original spellings of the names from Table 5 although you made two
23 typographical errors when recording the names, these are noted in the
24 first two footnotes on page 2, but it was possible with a visual
25 inspection to determine which records you were talking about.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. File, we have now heard 12 --
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't have that, what you have
3 been speaking just now. I don't have that on my screen.
4 JUDGE ORIE: One second.
5 You've given comment now for some ten lines. If you would put a
6 question to the witness that would be appreciated.
7 MR. FILE: Yes, Your Honour.
8 If we could look at the top of the list on page one under Serbian
9 sites --
10 Q. Here you can see the first 16 individuals listed in your chart;
12 A. I don't know. I don't have Serb locations anywhere in the
13 heading. I don't know if we're looking at the same table.
16 Is that the table we're looking at. I mean, it doesn't say
17 Serbian sites anywhere.
18 MR. IVETIC: That was not to be broadcast.
19 MR. FILE:
20 Q. We're going to try to avoid using the names in these records. If
21 you would, please.
22 A. I do apologise. I do apologise. I do apologise.
23 Q. Could you -- you have your report in front of you in hard copy
24 form. If you --
25 A. Yes, I do. Just tell me which page.
1 Q. Page 46.
2 A. I have the report.
3 Q. You'll see that the first 16 people listed in that table in your
4 report are also the first 16 people listed in this table; right?
5 A. Well, I can take your word for it. I can do all the counting
6 now, all 16 and check, but I believe it when you say that that's the way
7 it is.
8 Q. And if you look on the screen in front of you, towards the middle
9 it says: Site name. And for those 16 individuals you see the same site
10 names in Serbia that are in your table, Table 5; correct?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. I would like to you look at the name of the person listed at
13 record 8 without saying it, as well as his ICMP case ID and the site
14 name, and I'd like you to find that record on the table in your report.
15 In the -- on the paper report in front of you, if you can find the
16 corresponding name.
17 A. I've found number 8, if that's what you mean. Yes, found it.
18 Q. Now, I want you to keep track of this information for record 8
19 because I'm going to show you as an example how to trace the basis for an
20 assertion that someone like this is a Srebrenica victim and then I will
21 ask you a question about it; is that understood?
22 A. I think so.
23 MR. FILE: I'm aware we're getting close to the time for the
24 break, Your Honour. I'm wondering if we could go into private session
25 briefly to confirm that we're talking about the same person and then it
1 might be a good time for a break.
2 JUDGE ORIE: We move into private session.
3 [Private session]
12 [Open session]
13 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
15 We'll take a break first. We'd like to see you back in 20
16 minutes. You may follow the usher.
17 [The witness stands down]
18 JUDGE ORIE: We resume at ten minutes to 11.00.
19 --- Recess taken at 10.29 a.m.
20 --- On resuming at 10.54 a.m.
21 [Trial Chamber confers]
22 JUDGE ORIE: I put on the record that D1211, which was MFI'd,
23 should have been MFI'd under seal and has this status from now on.
24 [The witness takes the stand]
25 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Radovanovic, we'll now continue, but may I urge
1 you to respond to the questions rather than to what you think may be on
2 the mind of Mr. File, right or wrong, but we're interested in your
3 answers to his questions.
4 Please proceed.
5 MR. FILE: Thank you, Your Honour.
6 Could we please have P1987.
7 Q. As this comes up, this is the 2013 report of former ICTY OTP
8 investigator, Dusan Janc, and if we could go to page 38 of the English
9 and page 42 of the B/C/S, please.
10 For context, this is Annex A of the report which provides a
11 summary of each Srebrenica grave. In the middle of the page under
12 "Serbian related," you see that Mr. Janc writes:
13 "There are several individuals on Srebrenica missing list whose
14 remains have been found in Serbia. According to the ICMP ... and
15 documentation provided by the authorities of the Republic of Serbia, the
16 mortal remains of these individuals were found in different locations
17 along the Drina or Sava riverbank."
18 Just below, we see a chart of three Serbia-related locations;
19 Sremska Mitrovica, Sabac and Beograd.
20 Those are the same three names of graves in Serbia, listed in
21 Table 5 of your report; correct?
22 A. They're probably the same, Sremska Mitrovica, Sabac and Belgrade,
23 plus the unknown locations.
24 Q. Okay, I'm focussing only on the Serbian ones now, not the unknown
25 ones. Under the column for code in the Sremska Mitrovica row, you can
1 see the ICMP case ID for the person I asked you to keep in mind earlier,
2 record 8 on your list; right?
3 A. I believe so. I did not memorize the code, but I absolutely
4 believe that is the same person.
5 MR. FILE: Could we have 65 ter 33043, please. Also this one is
6 not for broadcast.
7 Q. Now, in the previous document, we saw Mr. Janc referring to
8 document provided by the Serbian authorities. On page one of this
9 document it says time and place of finding a corpse. If you look in the
10 upper left-hand corner, do you see the same cases ID at the top for the
11 person who is record 8 on your list?
12 A. I'm not disputing that. I'm only asking how do they know it's
13 related to Srebrenica. All I see here is that the institute for
14 identification, according to their --
15 Q. [Previous translation continues] ...
16 A. Identification methods which is DNA cannot know the time and
17 location. But you claim that the doctor to whom you are referring claims
18 this is Srebrenica related.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, that wasn't the question. The question was
20 a different one -- yes.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, Judge Orie, may I ask
22 you something?
23 JUDGE ORIE: Well, it's not very usual, and I don't know whether
24 I want to respond to whatever you want to say. But I urged you to answer
25 the questions as put by Mr. File. The question was not on what basis
1 someone would have related this corpse to Srebrenica. That may be an
2 issue for this Chamber, and then we'll deal with that. It's not, at this
3 moment, within the purview of your cross-examination.
4 If there's anything apart from that you'd like to ask me, you
5 have an opportunity to do so; but please keep in mind what I said.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Maybe it's not clear to me, but
7 allow me to ask the question and then you will tell me if it is all right
8 or not.
9 I do not dispute whether a certain person is on the list. That's
10 clear. I have one other question: On which basis is it maintained that
11 this person is related to Srebrenica? The Prosecutor can show me simply
12 that there is an explanation here for the relation with Srebrenica.
13 JUDGE ORIE: The Prosecution doesn't have to show that to you.
14 They just put the question to you. And to the extent that question needs
15 further attention, the Chamber will pay attention to it.
16 Please proceed, Mr. File.
17 MR. FILE:
18 Q. As can you see at the top of this document, it says, "NN or
19 unidentified male body was found on 19 July 1995 in the Sava river near
20 the village of Bosut."
21 Under the description of the body, it reads: "The body is in an
22 advanced stage of decay, both of the outer tissue and the internal organs
23 and the parts of the brains are missing."
24 Further down, under autopsy, it reads: "It is noted that the
25 death was violent. According to the pathologist's estimate the body
1 stayed in the water for about eight days."
2 Now if the body was found on 19 July and had been in the water
3 for about eight days, that would take you back to 11 July 1995; correct?
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. File, don't ask for the obvious.
5 MR. FILE:
6 Q. If we could go do page 2 of the English and page 8 of the B/C/S,
8 I'd like to turn your attention to the second paragraph, which
9 reads: "At the back of the head was found a perforated skin and skull
10 defect continuing as a canal caused by a metal projectile fired from the
11 small arm [sic], which is most probably a direct cause of death of an
12 unidentified person."
13 Do you see that written there?
14 A. I do.
15 Q. And if we can turn to page 11 of the B/C/S and page 3 of English,
16 please, here we see a criminal report filed on 25 September 1995 in
17 Sremska Mitrovica.
18 Turning to the next page in the English under description of the
19 offence, please, it reads: "An unidentified perpetrator fired one bullet
20 from an unknown fire-arms at the NN victim, inflicted gun-shot wound to
21 his head and in that way took his life and then threw him into the Sava
23 "On 19 July 1995 at the institute of forensic medicine in
24 Novi Sad, an autopsy was carried out by pathologist, Dr. Simic, and at
25 that time it was established that the death was violent and it was caused
1 by gun-shot wound at the back of NN victim's head."
2 Do you see that written there as well?
3 A. I do.
4 Q. Could we please look at pages 3 to 4 of the B/C/S original side
5 by side because we don't have a translation for these pages.
6 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Could you repeat the page number.
7 MR. FILE: 3 and 4, please.
8 Q. As you can see, these are photographs of the body as it was found
9 on the riverbank.
10 If we could please just zoom in on the bottom photograph on B/C/S
11 page 4. We've not yet gotten this page translated, so could you please
12 read aloud the text written below that photograph.
13 A. If I can. It says: "Damage to the bone, bad."
14 If I can make it out because it's a very difficult handwriting.
15 "Damage to the bones of the corpse."
16 "Of the corpse."
17 Q. Finally, could we please turn to page 5 -- page 5 in the
18 original. This one is also not translated.
19 Here we see the ICMP DNA report for this individual dated 25
20 May 2006 --
21 JUDGE FLUEGGE: It should not be broadcast.
22 MR. FILE: That's correct. Thank you, Your Honour.
23 Q. Can you see the case ID in the upper left-hand corner that links
24 this to the prior criminal investigation reports?
25 A. I see this is a DNA report confirming that it was, indeed, that
1 person we discussed earlier, and nothing more.
2 Q. So my question to you is: Having seen this information, would
3 you reconsider the scepticism expressed in your report as to whether
4 remains found in Serbia can be associated with Srebrenica other than
5 their date of disappearance?
6 A. Well, I would not have any proof that would indicate that, apart
7 from the date of disappearance, and we know that dates of disappearance
8 are very questionable and they contain many errors.
9 Apart from the date of disappearance, there is no other fact or
10 factual evidence that it is a person who was killed as a result of the
11 events in Srebrenica.
12 Q. So am I right in understanding that you do not credit the ICRC
13 report of a missing person as an indication of the circumstances of this
14 person's death?
15 MR. IVETIC: I object, that changes now the question. We've not
16 seen the ICRC report. So if you're going to pose a new question, phrase
17 it as a new question, not as a continuation of the previous question but
18 as something different.
19 JUDGE ORIE: You're invited to rephrase your question, Mr. File.
20 MR. FILE:
21 Q. At the very beginning of discussing this subject, we saw a list
22 of individuals who came from the OTP list of missing based on reporting
23 by individual's loved ones, including this person, and so what I'm asking
24 you is does that fact not factor into your conclusion as to available
25 evidence of the circumstances of this person's disappearance.
1 MR. IVETIC: I would object. We have looked at multiple lists.
2 Can he specify the list. The one I remember was created by the OTP.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. File.
4 MR. FILE: We can talk about either P1901 which is the OTP list
5 that presents the information as to where the missing persons report came
7 JUDGE ORIE: You said either, about, and you mentioned one. I
8 expect two sources.
9 MR. FILE: Pardon me. The other source would the 2013
10 integration report which contains the same information.
11 MR. IVETIC: And which one identifies the source of that
12 information as being loved ones?
13 JUDGE ORIE: You say there may not have had a certain
14 relationship as being a loved one?
15 MR. IVETIC: I'm saying the question as phrased --
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, yes.
17 MR. IVETIC: Assumes facts not in evidence.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Someone reports the person as missing --
19 MR. IVETIC: Correct.
20 MR. FILE: That's fine.
21 JUDGE ORIE: And you think it very relevant to criticise that
22 they are concluded to be loved ones but they may not be.
23 MR. IVETIC: I think it's confusing the issue when we're talking
24 about this information that's not on the list. We have the particular
25 list and we are basing data that's on the list, that's one thing. If
1 we're adding things that are not in evidence, we're not getting --
2 JUDGE ORIE: I think Mr. File has corrected his wording, loved
3 ones, but the person who reported a person as having disappeared or went
5 Please proceed.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Before you do, Mr. File, a few minutes ago you
7 referred to an ICRC report which you asked the witness whether she
8 doesn't consider that as a source. Are you moving away from the ICRC
9 list now? Or are you -- are you -- now that you're talking about other
10 lists --
11 MR. FILE: No, Your Honour. The OTP list is a combination of the
12 ICRC list and PHR list.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you for that explanation.
14 MR. FILE: Your Honour, I --
15 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps you put the question to the witness again
16 now, and keeping in mind all the comments that were made on your
18 MR. FILE:
19 Q. Witness, on the basis that this individual was reported missing
20 and is on the OTP list, does that factor into your conclusion that there
21 is no other evidence linking this case to Srebrenica?
22 A. In the report of the ICRC and the report you mentioned here, the
23 only evidence is the date. I do not see any other evidence because DNA
24 does not prove when and where somebody died. DNA proves identity.
25 Q. I think this will be a lot more simple if we return to
1 65 ter 33042.
2 Before I do that, I would tender 65 ter 33043, which is the
3 documentation we just looked at.
4 MR. IVETIC: I think it should be MFI'd as we don't have a
5 translation of the whole thing.
6 JUDGE ORIE: There's no complete translation --
7 MR. FILE: Agreed. Agreed. MFI'd, under seal, please.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, what number would be attached?
9 THE REGISTRAR: 65 ter number 33043 receives exhibit number
10 P7513, Your Honours.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Is marked for identification, under seal.
12 MR. FILE: So if we could return to 33042; also not to be
13 broadcast, please.
14 Q. Now, if you look again at record 8, you see there's another piece
15 of information that comes from the ICRC. In addition to the date of
16 disappearance, it's also the place of disappearance. And it says:
18 Would you consider that as a factor in your evaluation?
19 A. That information may be a factor in the estimate, but you know
20 that your experts claim that many places are missing, that there are
21 errors in the names and surnames, but I think it is acceptable. I don't
22 know if corrections were made to the ICRC list, but I think that piece of
23 information could be taken into account, but we could also take into
24 account who is providing the information. That's the place where the
25 person was last seen alive. It's not the place of disappearance.
1 Q. I'd like to turn your attention to the bottom part of this list
2 which starts at record 17.
3 If you could look at those names. On this page, you can see --
4 the numbers are 17 through 21. And if you compare that with your Table 5
5 in your report, on page 46 of your report, you will see that those five
6 names -- the first five names in your table which have a site name as
7 unknown; right?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And can we go to the second page of this.
10 A. I'm sorry, I just have one thing to say. It's not my table.
11 It's the table I took from Dr. Brunborg. I did not make a single table
13 Q. And for clarification, when I say "your table," I mean a table in
14 your report.
15 If you look at this list, which is the remainder from records 22
16 to 34, this is also the remainder of Table 5 in your report with site
17 names designated as unknown in your report; correct?
18 A. In the table you're talking about, these are not sites. These
19 are graves. Table number 5 that I took from Dr. Brunborg says graves,
20 not sites. And then it enumerates graves in Mitrovica, Belgrade, and
21 unknown graves.
22 Q. Are you aware that where it says "site name" that that
23 corresponds to grave-sites?
24 A. Grave-sites and graves are completely different concepts, but I'm
25 not saying that it's not possible to use them interchangeably. In the
1 material that I refer to as my source, it says graves, not grave-sites.
2 In the materials that you are showing me now, it says place of
3 disappearance. Your expert defines the place of disappearance as the
4 place where somebody was last seen alive.
5 Q. [Previous translation continues] ...
6 A. However, that is not necessarily --
7 Q. We're not talking about place of disappearance.
8 A. Well, you are confusing me. Location, site, place of
9 disappearance. I'm just trying to be detailed in my answers, to
10 translate what I'm reading.
11 Q. Is it your contention that the ICMP list of recovered
12 DNA-identified individuals contains both a site name and a grave-site for
13 each record?
14 A. I don't understand what you're asking me. Are you asking me in
15 relation to the table which is on the screen now? Is that the question?
16 Or are you asking me a general question?
17 Q. Let's try to keep it simple. In your --
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. File, if I may, it looks like there's a
19 confusion between place of disappearance which is right at the end, the
20 last column and site name, ICMP, which is somewhere in the middle.
21 Can you explain to the witness which of these two you're talking
23 MR. FILE: Yes.
24 Q. For clarification, if you look at the top row, which is grey, in
25 the middle you see a column that says, "site name, ICMP," and below it,
1 you have words like Srebrenica, Kamenica, Bratunac, et cetera.
2 And at the right-hand side of the screen --
3 A. Very well.
4 Q. -- it says, "place of disappearance, ICRC". And below that, it
5 says Potocari, Srebrenica, et cetera.
6 And what I'm putting to you is that the ICMP site name column in
7 the middle of the page corresponds to the column for grave-site in
8 Table 5 of your report.
9 A. No, it doesn't. In my report, in the tables provided by
10 Dr. Brunborg, we find grave-site. These people, according to the ICMP,
11 disappeared from the locations of Srebrenica, Kamenica, Liplja and so on
12 and so forth. I do not dispute the fact that they may have disappeared
13 at those locations. I'm simply saying that Dr. Brunborg lists
14 grave-sites linking those to date and place of disappearance, as well as
15 the site name provided by the ICMP, but he never explained that. If he
16 concluded that the date plus place of disappearance plus ICMP information
17 equals evidence that people were found in graves that are not at all in
18 Srebrenica or Bosnia, then I would be able to understand, but he doesn't
19 say that. In his list, he specifies the lists of Srebrenica victims and
20 the grave-sites where the victims were found.
21 Q. Okay.
22 A. And --
23 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, let me stop you for a second.
24 Do I understand that the column with the heading, "site name,
25 ICMP," refers not to the site of the grave what those persons were found?
1 Is that your understanding of this table?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is not my understanding. That
3 is the case. The grave-sites may be at those locations, but they have
4 completely different names or designations. There is no Srebrenica
5 grave-site. But the ICMP did some things and they grouped some locations
6 into municipalities or towns that they may belong to. Not all the
7 grave-sites are in the territory of Srebrenica municipality.
8 What we see here -- I apologise. What we see are not the
9 designations of grave-sites but of locations. I do not dispute that
10 perhaps there are some grave-sites in those locations though.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. File.
12 MR. FILE:
13 Q. So, Dr. Radovanovic, I feel like we're talking about a
14 distinction without a difference here. What I'm going to put to you is
15 that now that ICMP has identified site names for all of these individuals
16 with the exception of record 28 that you have listed with unknown
17 grave-sites in Table 5, that that has resolved this question of whether
18 their location of recovery is unknown.
19 Is that how you understand it?
20 A. I don't understand. I would have to read the report in more
21 detail and analyse it in order to agree or disagree. If it is the case
22 as you put it, then your expert must have provided a footnote and say,
23 This is what happened according to this or that report or finding. But
24 not inserting a footnote, the expert is confusing, not only me but the
25 reader in general. If the expert borrowed it from another report then
1 they have to reference it precisely. Off the top of my head I really
2 can't decide. I would need to read the report as well.
3 JUDGE ORIE: You don't have to decide anything, Witness.
4 The simple question was whether, on the basis of new information,
5 right or wrong, with a footnote or without a footnote, that the unknown
6 grave-sites have now been put as known grave-sites, although you may
7 challenge that it's not with sufficient precision, et cetera, but the
8 unknown is now replaced by known.
9 Would you agree with that?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know. I don't have
11 complete data.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. No, you don't have to prove anything.
13 You just see unknown and in the other table it says what now the known
14 site is.
15 Let's move on.
16 MR. FILE: Just one more question, if I may, Your Honour.
17 Q. You just testified that you would have to read the report in more
18 detail and analyse it. But earlier you testified that you chose not to
19 include information from the 2013 report. That information was already
20 there in the Excel spreadsheet for you to find; right?
21 MR. IVETIC: Objection to the question. Misstates the evidence
22 that this is not in the Excel spreadsheet you're talking about. The
23 spreadsheet you're talking about had entries for I believe [Overlapping
24 speakers] ...
25 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ... would you specify which
1 Excel sheet you had on your mind, Mr. File.
2 MR. FILE: I'm referring to P2795. These are the three annexes
3 to the 2013 ICMP Srebrenica update expert report, dated 21 July 2013.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Have you shown it at all this morning?
5 MR. FILE: Pardon me.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Have you shown this 2795 this morning? I've seen
8 MR. IVETIC: This has not been used yet today, Your Honours.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Microphone not activated]
10 JUDGE ORIE: Would you then introduce it in a proper way,
11 Mr. File.
12 MR. FILE: We'll come back to that because we may have to switch
13 to Sanction later to look at that.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, then.
15 MR. FILE:
16 Q. Just one last question. Are you aware that the Drina river flows
17 into the Sava river and into Serbia?
18 A. I am familiar with that.
19 Q. And so you're aware that the Sava river is down river from the
20 Zvornik area?
21 A. I am aware.
22 Q. Okay. We're going to talk about Table 2 in your report.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. File, could you assist me in telling exactly --
24 there was a place mentioned in the report of where the body was found on
25 the riverbank. Could you assist me in telling exactly what name that
2 MR. FILE: Yes, Your Honour it was in the Sava river near the
3 village of Bosut.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Bosut. That's what I was asking for.
5 Ms. Radovanovic, do you know what Bosut is?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Approximately.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Is that downstream or upstream from
8 approximately where --
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Downstream. Downstream.
10 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ...
11 I take it that you expected me to say upstream or downstream from
12 approximately the area in which Srebrenica is located.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm afraid I lost you there.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes well, upstream or downstream requires a place
15 from where you start looking. Basel is upstream from Rotterdam, but
16 Hoek van Holland is downstream of Rotterdam. So, you answered the
17 question and I took it that you expected me to ask you whether it would
18 be upstream or downstream from approximately where the river flows close
19 to Srebrenica.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Now I understand.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. And that doesn't change your answer, I
22 take it?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.
24 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... please proceed.
25 MR. FILE: Could we please return to D1211, MFI; English and
1 B/C/S page 36.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Remember, it's under seal.
3 MR. FILE: Yes, Your Honour.
4 Q. Now, in your report, for context, one of your criticisms of the
5 OTP list appears that it has missing people on it who have dates of death
6 recorded in other sources, like the ABiH list, or the DEM2 list from
7 local authorities in Bosnia, that predate the July 1995 executions in
8 Srebrenica. On this page you write: "The databases that the Prosecution
9 has had for years but never used confirm that some of these missing
10 persons on the Prosecution's list appear only for the purposes of
11 maintaining the total number as high as possible. For example, only a
12 cursory check of the database of the BH army and DEM2T reveals that the
13 Prosecution" --
14 A. I'm sorry, I can't follow. I can't see where you're quoting
15 from. On my page the text begins "for almost a decade now," and there is
16 a table.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. File is reading from the last portion of the
18 text before Table 2.
19 You found it?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] What is the beginning of the
22 MR. FILE:
23 Q. It starts from: "The databases that the Prosecution has had for
25 JUDGE ORIE: Last five lines before the title of the table.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes. Now I see it. Some of
2 these missing persons, et cetera, I found it.
3 MR. FILE:
4 Q. The last sentence I was reading says -- well, let's just start
6 "The databases that the Prosecution has had for years but never
7 used confirm that some of these 'missing persons' on the Prosecution's
8 list appear only for the purposes of maintaining the total number as high
9 as possible. For example, only a cursory check of the database of the BH
10 army and DEM2T reveals that the Prosecution is still 'searching' for
11 missing persons who died before Srebrenica events."
12 Then you have Table 2, which is on the next page in English - not
13 for broadcast as well - and in that table you list 31 names of missing
14 individuals on the OTP list who fit this description you gave of dates of
15 death recorded in other sources that pre-date July 1995; correct?
16 A. Correct.
17 Q. And at the bottom of this list, you also indicate that your
18 source is the 2009 OTP list. So I take it you have not updated this list
19 or checked to see whether any modifications would need to be made in
20 light of the 2013 ICMP integration; right?
21 A. I cannot update a list. It is done by your experts. Perhaps I
22 can get a table, saying this and that person has been found. Does it
23 mean that I have to go back to 2009 to delete them? No. Everything that
24 they discover in any year on top of what is in the list is up to them to
25 update, not up to me. Excuse me, I have to say this. As a source of
1 information --
2 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... Witness, you are
3 more or less repeating what you said earlier, that if an original list,
4 if there are any corrections known, that you don't have to care about it
5 as long as it is not integrated in a consolidated list. That's perfectly
6 clear to us. Also, that you don't have to create that new list, that's
7 clear as well.
8 This Chamber is interested primarily in the newest state of
9 knowledge, and we do understand that you have not considered these
10 corrections and that you commented on a list which the Prosecution claims
11 has lost its validity because new information is available.
12 That's where we stand. That needs no further explanation at this
13 moment. Please carefully listen To Mr. File's next question.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I would disagree with
15 you as well, with utmost respect. They have to provide a valid list with
16 the latest information to me or anyone else. If I receive information
17 for 2009 --
18 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... Witness, I
19 didn't say anything about whether new list have to be prepared, yes or
20 no. This Chamber will assess the totality of the evidence and has not
21 expressed itself - neither have I - about either the duty of others to
22 create a new consolidated list. Neither have I said anything about
23 whether you were bound to do that. I left that all open. So if you
24 disagree, you disagree with something which I did not express as my
1 Please proceed, Mr. File.
2 MR. FILE:
3 Q. So just to be perfectly clear about what actions you took and
4 what was available to you, when you were making this list and putting it
5 in your report, you could have looked at the 2013 update to verify for
6 each of these individuals whether that information continued to be
7 correct, but you chose not to do that; right?
8 A. No. I received the OTP list for 2009 that Dr. Brunborg explains
9 throughout his report. Based on that information, Dr. Brunborg drew his
10 conclusions. I had no access to the new databases and these matters. I
11 only had individual cases for which assertions were made as a yes or a
13 As for these individual cases, it never occurred to me that I
14 should delete them from the official list. All of the matches I was able
15 to carry out were done according to the source of the information for
16 Srebrenica relied upon by Dr. Helge Brunborg.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Please move on, Mr. File.
18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I'm struggling with your last answer and I would
19 like to clarify.
20 You say: I had no access to the new databases in these
21 matters ..."
22 If I'm not mistaken we're talking about item 20 you listed on
23 page 4 of your report, the integration of the 2013 ICMP update with 2009
24 OTP list by Dr. Tabeau.
25 You had -- yourself referring to that list, and now you say you
1 had no access to that? I don't understand that. Can you clarify?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no, we didn't understand each
4 When working on Srebrenica, Dr. Brunborg did it on the basis of
5 the 2009 list, which is this list. When I worked on Srebrenica, I relied
6 upon that list for all of the possible matches and comparisons.
7 Dr. Tabeau, in 2013, provides specific cases and says yes or no this
8 person may or may not have been on the list. As for these individual
9 cases from 2013, I saw it unnecessary to correct the 7.000-plus list from
10 2009 being the source of information from Dr. Brunborg. That was one
12 Another thing: If she made that correction she could offered a
13 new total list for 2013. That was my reasoning. So I saw a part of it
14 only. When I said that I had no access, I did not come here to check the
15 latest situation with the list. There may well be an updated total list
16 of 7.000-plus people but I'm not aware of it. I meant to say that I had
17 no occasion to see the whole new updated list for 2013.
18 JUDGE ORIE: The matter seems to be perfectly clear how you
19 operated and what you would have expected Dr. Tabeau to do.
20 Let's move on, Mr. File.
21 MR. FILE: We may be time for a break.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, let's move on to the break.
23 Ms. Radovanovic, we'd -- we take a break of 20 minutes, and we'd
24 like to see you back at ten minutes past 12.00.
25 [The witness stands down]
1 JUDGE ORIE: We will resume at ten minutes past 12.00.
2 --- Recess taken at 11.49 a.m.
3 --- On resuming at 12.12 p.m.
4 [Trial Chamber confers]
5 MR. FILE: While we're waiting, Your Honour, I would tender into
6 evidence 65 ter 33044 and 33050 which were two parts of the publication
7 we discussed earlier this morning.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Is the --
9 MR. IVETIC: Which publication? Is it the list we're talking
11 MR. FILE: It's the publication --
12 JUDGE ORIE: Of the conference.
13 MR. FILE: From the conference. Correct, Your Honour.
14 MR. IVETIC: No objection to those.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
16 THE REGISTRAR: 65 ter number 33044 receives exhibit number
17 P7514, Your Honours.
18 [The witness takes the stand]
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes please proceed.
20 THE REGISTRAR: 65 ter 33050 receives exhibit number P7515,
21 Your Honours.
22 JUDGE ORIE: P7514 and P7515 are admitted into evidence.
23 MR. FILE: And before we move on to the next topic, I'd also
24 tender 65 ter 33042 which is the chart that we referred to with Serbian
25 and unknown locations.
1 MR. IVETIC: The Defence would object. We have no information as
2 to who prepared the chart using what data. There are no footnotes. It
3 refers to an ICMP list, an ICRC list. We've had several in this case and
4 we have no way of cross-checking to see which one is at issue without a
5 great deal of extra work and expending of resources. Therefore we would
6 object unless we bring a witness to testify about these factors.
7 MR. FILE: Your Honour, it's purely a demonstrative exhibit based
8 on other exhibits for the convenience of the[Overlapping speakers] ...
9 JUDGE ORIE: It's extracted for those lists.
10 MR. FILE: That's correct.
11 MR. IVETIC: And is it identified on the chart what tables come
12 from which? A demonstrative exhibit has to have footnotes identifying
13 where data comes from or a witness to explain how it's created using that
14 data. Otherwise we're left to guess.
15 JUDGE ORIE: If is an extraction were you able, Mr. File to offer
16 a cup of tea or cup of coffee to Mr. Ivetic, and point where you
17 extracted from those lists. I take it that the
18 person [Overlapping speakers] ...
19 MR. FILE: [Overlapping speakers] ... I can do that, yes.
20 JUDGE ORIE: You can do that. A cup of tea or a cup of coffee is
21 offered, Mr. Ivetic.
22 Meanwhile, if it's just an extract we can proceed to admit into
23 evidence but you have an opportunity to revisit the matter after the
24 coffee or tea.
25 MR. IVETIC: Yes, but if it's a demonstrative exhibit, does it
1 need to be introduced into evidence [Overlapping speakers] ...
2 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ... Well, Mr. Ivetic, you are
3 telling us that it takes such an effort to find in the other ones --
4 MR. IVETIC: Yes.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Now it is offered to you that it's demonstrated.
6 And now you're inviting the Chamber to find out for themselves what you
7 apparently consider too much work.
8 MR. IVETIC: That's not what I'm saying. You're misrepresenting
9 what I'm saying. I'm saying that looking at theirs lists without
10 citations, it is too much work to find out where their list is. I'm not
11 saying it's too much work to look at the source documents themselves
12 which might give more information.
13 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber is assisted by having is in evidence
14 even if is just an extract. And if there's any doubt as to the accuracy
15 of the extract then you may revisit the matter.
16 One second, please.
17 [Trial Chamber confers]
18 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please repeat the numbers because there
19 were overlapping speakers from what lists you extracted this information.
20 MR. FILE: The exhibit number itself is 33042. The source --
21 JUDGE ORIE: You mean the 65 ter number?
22 MR. FILE: That's correct.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that's not an exhibit number.
24 MR. FILE: Thank you, Your Honour. The exhibit numbers that
25 provide the information for this table are P2795 and P1901.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Don't forget to bring them if you have the
2 coffee or tea with Mr. Ivetic.
3 For 65 ter 33402 you have assigned what number.
4 THE REGISTRAR: P7516, Your Honours.
5 JUDGE ORIE: P7516 is admitted into evidence under seal.
6 Please proceed.
7 MR. FILE: Okay.
8 Q. Final question before we move on. Could we have 65 ter number
9 33041; also not for broadcast.
10 Witness, if you would look at Table 2 of your own report on pages
11 36 and 37 --
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. -- and can you verify that you see on this list in the second
14 column under names -- pardon me, in the third column under "names, ICRC,"
15 the same names that appear in your table? Up to line 17.
16 A. Well, now I need time to check all of this, but I'll take your
17 word for it. I will believe that all of these are the same names.
18 Q. Okay. Can we go to page 2, please. And, again, the third column
19 contains the remainder of the same names from your table; right?
20 A. Let's say that that's the way it is. Again, I'm taking your word
21 for it.
22 Q. And what you see in the title column "case ID," towards the
23 middle right part of the page, in some of these entries you see that
24 there is a case ID; correct?
25 A. Could you define what you mean by that? "Case ID"?
1 Q. Well, the case ID that the ICMP would create for each located set
2 of remains. You see that some of these records have those.
3 A. If you mean, for example, in the case (redacted)
4 JUDGE FLUEGGE: You shouldn't mention any name.
5 MR. FILE:
6 Q. Please just use the number, please.
7 A. Oh, please, I am so sorry. I do apologise. I'm getting old. If
8 you mean where IT says, "case ID," yes, I see that.
9 MR. FILE: Your Honour, I would just tender on the same basis as
10 the previous chart as a demonstrative exhibit, which uses the same
11 sources as the previous chart we just saw.
12 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, a demonstrative exhibit is one that is
13 used in this court to elicit evidence there has been no evidence elicited
14 as to this document. It's a document, again, that has been prepared by
15 the Office of the Prosecutor and has not been given to us prior to this
16 witness's testimony. We're getting into, then, argument and
17 presentation. That is for the final stage of the case not any evidence.
18 Again, there's not been any substantive testimony elicited using this
19 demonstrative exhibit, therefore it is not demonstrative. It is
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, doesn't this focus on the difference
22 between the tables the witness has used and the corrections that were
23 made later on, which were at the core of quite a number of questions in
25 MR. IVETIC: And we've not had any questions as to this document
1 that is presented as a demonstrative exhibit that go towards those ideas
2 such that we can use it demonstrate something. The nature of a
3 demonstrative exhibit is that you use it with the testimony of a witness
4 to demonstrate something. A demonstrative exhibit is not something that
5 is presented for the truth of matter asserted. This is being presented
6 for the truth of the matter asserted without going though testimony or
7 evidence to have it linked to be demonstrative in nature. So it is not a
8 demonstrative exhibit in the manner that is being used by Prosecution
10 [Trial Chamber confers]
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, admission into evidence would assist the
12 Chamber. At the same time, as with the previous table, it could be
13 discussed over a cup of coffee or tea whether this is really an extract
14 of what you claim it is an extract of, Mr. File. And you said it's the
15 same as the previous one in respect exactly of what information? Site
16 name or ...?
17 MR. FILE: The cases ID.
18 JUDGE ORIE: The case ID, yes. If it's about linking the names
19 to the case IDs, then I take it that a comparison of the more recent
20 lists would assist the Chamber.
21 MR. IVETIC: Your Honour, I would like to have it put on the
22 record that having coffee or tea with the Prosecutor cannot change my
23 position that this is not a demonstrative exhibit in the manner that is
24 presented, and is being presented as argument for the truth of the matter
25 asserted rather than demonstrating and being used with a witness in court
1 to explain and understand the testimony.
2 JUDGE ORIE: This table assists the Chamber in finding easily and
3 quickly those entries in the tables of the witness which seems not to
4 fully correspond with the latest information on the other lists and for
5 that purpose will be admitted into evidence.
6 Madam Registrar, the number would be.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Document 33041 receives exhibit number P7517,
8 Your Honours.
9 JUDGE ORIE: P7517 is admitted into evidence, under seal.
10 [Trial Chamber confers]
11 MR. FILE: Okay. We no longer need this document. We're going
12 to switch topics.
13 [Trial Chamber confers]
14 MR. FILE:
15 Q. I'm going to ask you about one of the major subjects of your
16 report and testimony which relates to how Dr. Tabeau matched individual
17 records from different data sources and which applies to Dr. Tabeau's
18 analysis of both displaced persons as well as Srebrenica.
19 In the context of the Srebrenica report, you discuss spelling
20 errors and missing information occurring in more than 37 per cent, more
21 than 37 per cent of the time in the ICRC and PHR lists; that's in your
22 report D1211, at English page 38, B/C/S page 37.
23 At that part of your report, you claim Dr. Tabeau is being
24 "knowingly misleading," because "official statistical research tolerates
25 deviation, possible errors, of up to 5 per cent."
1 On Monday, at transcript page 38168, you said this error rate was
2 2 to 5 per cent. Then you said 2 to 4 per cent when you discussed the
3 issue again at transcript page 38175 to 38177.
4 But isn't it true that the 5-per cent guide-line is for the
5 margin of error of statistical estimates, not the frequency of errors in
6 raw data? Is that your understanding?
7 A. First of all, you said that I say 37 per cent. I'm not saying
8 anything. I am just doing the calculations and quoting what your experts
10 As for statistical error from 2 to 4, or 2 to 5 per cent, in my
11 practice, in my country, it is 2 to 4. However, your expert, Dr. Tabeau,
12 in her Mladic report, provides a methodology and when she speaks of
13 certain matches, she says, This corresponds to what is considered
14 statistical error from 2 to 5 per cent.
15 So then I said, okay, let it be 2 to 5 per cent and that should
16 not be in dispute. I agree with Dr. Tabeau that it can also be from 2 to
17 5 per cent --
18 Q. [Previous translation continues] ...
19 A. -- in statistics where I work, it is 2 to 4 per cent.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please answer the question.
21 MR. FILE:
22 Q. My question was related to a more specific distinction. I'm
23 distinguishing between the margin of error for statistical estimates and
24 the frequency of errors in raw data. The percentage that we're talking
25 about here is a margin of error for statistical estimates, not the
1 frequency of error in raw data; correct?
2 A. I disagree with you. Read the paragraph carefully and you will
3 see - at least this one that you've indicated - it is not an estimate.
4 These are errors in data sources.
5 JUDGE ORIE: That's exactly what Mr. File puts to you and that
6 the margin of errors applies to the statistical estimates and not to
7 errors in the raw material.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That is what I've said just now, I
9 that that is not correct. This error is applied to raw data because that
10 is how you assess whether your material is good or not. And if you
11 establish that after all reviews, you still have a number that is larger
12 than what is considered to be a normal statistical error, then that
13 pertains to the raw data that you worked with. Not only in terms of
14 estimates. Estimates are a specific thing, and you can have a margin of
15 error -- well, I don't have to explain all of this now. This is
16 something completely different. You cannot assess a single data source
17 if you do not know what the error is. If you establish that the share is
18 larger than permitted, then you have to make an effort, if at all
19 possible, to reduce this to a permissible share. Here the Prosecution
20 experts said what the margin of error that they established was. In
21 2009, in their report -- or, rather, in his report, Dr. Brunborg says,
22 Now it is 28.9 per cent. So after all corrections, after everything they
23 did. This is a margin of error of one-third.
24 MR. FILE: Could we look at 65 ter number 32997, please?
25 Q. As this comes up, you will see that it is a 2006 paper by
1 William Winkler, a senior researcher in the Statistical Research Division
2 of the United States Census Bureau. For the record, Dr. Tabeau cites
3 this in her 2009 Srebrenica report, P1900, at page 70.
4 If we could please go to e-court page 10. B/C/S is only a
5 partial translation. I believe we need to go to page 2 of the B/C/S.
6 Actually I don't see the translation for this one so this may have to --
7 we'll refer just to the English for now.
8 In this article, doctor --
9 A. I don't have the translation in front of me.
10 Q. I'm going to read you to the part, the relevant part.
11 A. No offence, but I would prefer to see the translation, if
12 possible, but if it's a problem, then I will just listen to the
14 Q. I'm going to read to you the paragraph under a heading entitled:
15 String comparitors, which is 3.3.
16 He writes: "In many matching situations, it is not possibly to
17 compare two strings exactly (character by character) because of
18 typographical error. Dealing with typographical error via approximate
19 string comparison has been a major research project in computer
20 science ... in record linkage, one needs to have a function that
21 represents approximate agreement, with agreement being represented by 1
22 and degrees of partial agreement being represented by numbers between
23 zero and 1. One also needs to adjust the likelihood ratios according to
24 the partial agreement values. Having such methods is crucial to
25 matching. For instance, in a major census application for measuring
1 undercount, more than 25 per cent of matches would not have been found
2 via exact character-by-character matching."
3 And it goes on to say: "In the St. Louis region, for instance,
4 25 percent of first names and 15 per cent of last names did not agree
5 character by character among pairs that are matches."
6 So my question to you is: It is not unique or rare for
7 statisticians to encounter an error rate in the underlying raw data that
8 is well in excess of 5 per cent; correct?
9 A. They have to deal with where the error is 5 per cent but the
10 question is how they publish all of that. They do all of that at
11 aggregate level. They never do that at individual level. And you see
12 here? Statistics, as he says, I match such and such and what is right so
13 on and so forth and I cannot match such and such a number as Dr. Tabeau
14 says she cannot. The census of the US or any European country, and this
15 method of matching, your expert, Dr. Tabeau, also explains that in the
16 methodology provided for the report in the Mladic case, and she says
17 hardly any country, if any, she doesn't say which one does it, rarely,
18 carries out matching at individual levels as far as population censuses
19 are concerned. Please, of course, I'm paraphrasing. I cannot say
20 exactly. But I can bring it in later. Because data protection is very
21 important there. So it's done according to --
22 Q. [Previous translation continues] ...
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. File --
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Do allow me to finish.
25 JUDGE ORIE: No, no, as a matter of fact --
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Please, I consider that to be an
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. What you are doing is you're answering a lot
4 of questions but not the question that was put to you by Mr. File and
5 it's not the first time it happens.
6 Mr. File, you may proceed or move on.
7 MR. IVETIC: Actually, Your Honours, I think the --
8 MR. FILE: [Overlapping speakers] ...
9 MR. IVETIC: [Overlapping speakers] ... if I might be allowed to
10 make a statement. Looking at the question that was asked: Is it unique
11 or rare for statisticians in a country for an error rate to be well in
12 excess of 5 per cent; correct? Explaining what is or isn't unique or
13 rare the expert has to talk about all these factors relating to
14 countries. So the question as phrased invites an explanation.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Your observation is put on the record.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Overlapping speakers] ...
17 JUDGE ORIE: Apart from that, Mr. Ivetic, the proper way is to
18 first answer the question and then if need be to explain especially if
19 any further explanation is required. But it's not [Overlapping
20 speakers] ...
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] [Overlapping speakers] ...
22 JUDGE ORIE: Would you please not interrupt --
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] [Overlapping speakers] ... I
24 started answering and you didn't let me finish ...
25 JUDGE ORIE: No. As a matter of fact, I made my observations.
1 That's it. It's not an incident. It's a repeated event during your
2 testimony. Your observation is on the record, Mr. Ivetic.
3 MR. IVETIC: And then did you not let the witness answer the
4 question, Your Honour, because your comments [Overlapping speakers] ...
5 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ...
6 MR. IVETIC: [Overlapping speakers] ...
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, Mr. Ivetic, I gave a ruling.
8 Please proceed, Mr. File.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Just before we do, I thought I heard Mr. File
10 where the word "country" is mentioned say -- I heard him say "encounter."
11 And if you read the sentence "country" doesn't make sense and "encounter"
12 would make better sense.
13 MR. FILE: That's correct. That's what's what I believe I said,
14 Your Honour.
15 MR. IVETIC: And that's why I stumbled over the word "country"
16 because I wasn't sure if that's what I heard. But it does not change the
17 point of my objections that asking for [Overlapping speakers] ...
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Overlapping speakers] ...
19 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ...
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm just correcting the record.
21 JUDGE ORIE: It's hereby corrected. Mr. File may move on.
22 MR. FILE:
23 Q. Dr. Radovanovic, it's true and I think you can answer this with
24 just a yes or no, it's true, isn't it, that you have not cited any
25 scientific source like a journal article or a textbook anywhere in your
1 report showing that standard statistical practice would not accept data
2 with an error rate of more than 5 per cent. Is that true? Yes or no,
4 A. That's in every statistical textbook. That didn't occur to me --
5 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... Witness, the
6 question is not -- the question is not whether one could find a basis for
7 it but whether you gave it. And may I take it from your answer that you
8 didn't need it necessarily to give a reference to scientific sources for
9 that position?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Precisely. Especially since
11 Dr. Tabeau wrote that in her report when she was explaining the
13 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
14 MR. FILE:
15 Q. I'd like to turn to page 25 of your report, D1211, MFI, under
17 MR. FILE: 25 in both versions.
18 Q. Now if you see at the bottom of the page, again in both versions
19 you say: "The personal identification number is a good matching key,
20 provided that it is correctly written in both or several sources used."
21 And if we can go to page 26 in both versions, you go on to say:
22 "The advantage of the personal identification number is that it is
23 unique. That is, two or more people cannot be allocated the same
24 personal identification number, and therefore there can be no duplication
25 or 'fixing' of matching. In other words, matching with correct personal
1 identification numbers excludes any subjective influence on the final
2 results obtained."
3 So I want to discuss how Dr. Tabeau and her team did this
4 matching by looking at P1900; English page 85, B/C/S page 90.
5 So here we should be clear that we're talking about linking
6 records between the voters' register and the 1991 census, so we're
7 talking about millions of records. Later I'm going ask you about the
8 table that you spent some time on direct examination with the list of 71
9 matching keys for the ICRC PHR list but we're not going to talk about
10 that right now.
11 Here, you can see the very first matching criteria that were used
12 based on the following identification key. It has the same first name,
13 in both records, same last name, same date of birth, and the same JMBG ID
14 number --
15 A. Then we don't have the same data. If you are reading to me this
16 table here below, it says these are variables according to which they are
18 Q. [Previous translation continues] ...
19 A. Well, then I don't know what you are telling me.
20 Q. We're looking at the second paragraph from the top in the B/C/S.
21 There are two bullet points. We're looking at the first bullet point.
22 A. All right. Identical names, surnames.
23 Q. And identical date of birth. And identical --
24 A. All right.
25 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... and identical ID number?
1 A. Right, I see it. Yes. That's rule number 5.
2 Q. Yes. IDQ indicates that the JMBG number is fully valid and
3 internally consistent; right?
4 MR. IVETIC: I have to at this point --
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, that's not what it means. But
6 IDQ explains this table here in the footnote and then it says the date of
7 birth and the identification number are correct and coincide --
8 MR. IVETIC: Counsel has now at line 10 of this temporary
9 transcript page said "identical." I see "identity." Not identical in
10 those two bullet points that we're talking about the ones in the middle
11 of the page that link to IDQ number 5.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Let's just -- are you quoting from the bullet point
13 or are you quoting from the transcript? Or from the --
14 MR. IVETIC: I'm quoting from the transcript at page -- page -- I
15 apologise. Page 59, line number 7 which is directing us to the first
16 bullet point and starts saying identical names, surname, identical date
17 of birth and that's not in the document that I see before us. If that's
18 the bullet point [Overlapping speakers] ...
19 MR. FILE: [Overlapping speakers] ...
20 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ...
21 MR. IVETIC: Your question --
22 JUDGE ORIE: One second. One second. The witness started
23 answering when not yet a question has been put to her.
24 Now, let's see whether -- I do agree with Mr. Ivetic that the
25 word "identical" is not used. But if you match two data or two persons
1 on the basis of the identity of the first name, and I think nowhere in
2 the list of 71 you get other matters, but I do understand that identity
3 in matching on the basis of the name means that you establish that they
4 are the same, which is identical. So matching on the basis of identity
5 as we see it here, identity and identical may be the same.
6 I just --
7 MR. IVETIC: I don't think they are necessarily, Your Honours.
8 If you make a conclusion of a match and that they have the same identity
9 that's not the same as they are identical, that all the factors are
10 identical. Those are two distinct words that have two distinct points of
11 meaning. This bullet point says one, counsel said another. That's all
12 I'm saying.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, okay. Then the word used here are identity of
14 first name, apparently also identity of last name, identity of date of
15 birth, that's how I read this line and I'm open for any comment on how I
16 read it.
17 Please proceed. And please put a question to the witness.
18 And would you wait for a question before you start answering
19 because it would come down to commenting rather than answering a question
20 which is not yet put.
21 Mr. File.
22 MR. FILE:
23 Q. You understand the term "identity" of first name, last name, date
24 of birth, to mean that they -- each one of those fields is identical in
25 two different sources; correct?
1 A. Excuse me, by now, I have forgotten the question. You're asking
2 me whether these identical names first name, last name, DOB, MB, and IDQ,
3 footnote 70, if that is correct. Is that the question?
4 Q. I'm simply asking you that when you look at the first bullet
5 point where it says identity of first name, last name, date of birth, you
6 understand that to mean that each one of those fields in a record matches
7 identically to that same field in another record. That's what that
9 A. It may be, but not necessarily. Because it says IDQ equals 5 and
10 then look at footnote 70. It gives 5 values for IDQ. The third and the
11 fifth value both note that it could be okay.
12 Q. And the fifth value is the highest quality indicator; correct?
13 A. Yes. The fifth value is the highest quality.
14 Q. And that quality indicator applies to the ID number; right?
15 A. Well, probably. If the IDQ is 5 then it must relate to that ID
17 Q. So when we're talking about identity of first name, last name,
18 date of birth for those it means it's the same, it's identical in both
19 records; correct?
20 A. It could be, but not necessarily, but the fact is that the
21 identity number is good here and it doesn't matter whether the names or
22 surnames are good. The identity number, the unique identity number means
23 that it is that person.
24 Q. As you can see, this generated 1.151.559 matches?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. So this approach, we heard how you previously said in your
2 statement that identical personnel identification numbers are
3 advantageous. This approach encompassed not only that matching key of
4 the identical identification number but further match indicators as well,
5 such as first name, last name, and date of birth; correct? This is a
6 match that doesn't involve only the identification number but also other
7 fields as well.
8 A. That's correct. But it's pointless. Because if you have the
9 correct identity number, the rest doesn't matter so much. Maybe your
10 expert wants to prove -- to show that he has found all the correct names,
11 surname, dates of birth, et cetera. If you have the identity number you
12 have it all.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic.
14 MR. IVETIC: --
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] And I'm not disputing that it's a
16 million and 500.000.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic.
18 MR. IVETIC: We started off by talking about JMBG ID numbers,
19 that was counsel's question at temporary transcript page 58, line 23
20 onwards and now we're at the stage where we're talking about this linking
21 that was done, matching that was done by ID number which is not one of
22 the criteria that is listed in the bullet point.
23 Now I'm getting confused by this, but I think that what we're
24 doing is we're trying -- we're starting with one concept moving to
25 another and getting confusing information in court. An ID number, a JMBG
1 we've had evidence, consists of more factors than are listed in here. So
2 by presenting number one and then referring to this is matching done by
3 an ID number what are we talking about considering that the beginning
4 question was about a JMBG which is a unique identity number which has
5 more information and that is listed here.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
7 MR. FILE: Your Honour, I don't see the issue of confusion. I
8 think it's clear.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Well, Mr. Ivetic commented on what he considered to
10 be confusing. I do understand that you do not understand what exactly
11 would be confusing. You may proceed.
12 MR. FILE:
13 Q. Just to clarify, Witness, when we're talking about this ID
14 number, you understand that also to mean a JMBG; right?
15 A. No, that's not right. When we talk about an ID number here, then
16 in footnote 20 or whichever it is, that's an explanation of the values
17 that Dr. Brunborg and Dr. Tabeau took and these values are explained
18 here. This first point here says identical name, surname, and MB number.
19 IDQ equals 5 which means the date of birth is correct as well as the MB
20 number and the sex is also consistent so in the first comparison, he used
21 one of these --
22 Q. When you refer to identification number, I will be referring to
23 JMBG but I'll do my best to say JMBG so we're all clear about which
24 number we're talking about. That's also the number that is listed here?
25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: For the record, it is not footnote 20 but 70.
1 MR. FILE: Thank you, Your Honour.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: And it might just help to read the remainder of
3 that footnote 70. Anybody can read it for him or herself.
4 MR. FILE: Thank you, Your Honour.
5 Q. I'll ask another question.
6 You are aware that once these 1.15 million individuals had their
7 records matched they would be excluded from the next round of matching;
9 A. Well, if he got all the matchings, it's logical he let them out.
10 He would say, I got 55 per cent of exact matches, I'm leaving out the
11 rest. But I have to --
12 Q. [Previous translation continues] ...
13 A. -- make a little introduction. The Prosecutor is asking me bit
14 by bit, not the whole. The reference here is to the comparison of
15 censuses and voters' registers. These two lists do not contain the same
16 data but they would have one thing in common, the MB number. The voters'
17 register does not have the name of father and the ethnicity. It does
18 contain name and surname, date of birth, and the MB number where it
19 exists. The census contains the MB number, if it's good, the date of
20 birth, ethnicity, name, surname, and father's name.
21 Q. [Previous translation continues] ...
22 A. If you go about matching -- I have to explain this because this
23 is a special system of matching.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, you have to answer the question. The
25 question was whether in the next round of matching, whether the positive
1 matches from the first round were excluded. That was the question. And
2 if you think and if Mr. Ivetic thinks that things are taken out of
3 context, then he certainly in re-examination will put any additional
4 questions to you. Therefore, I think you have confirmed that in the next
5 round that the positive matches from the first round were further left
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Judge, Your Honour, if they don't
8 contain the same data, there could be two stages of matching for the same
9 matching. I took the MB number from the voters' register -- I have to
10 explain this because we have a misunderstanding here. The Prosecutor
11 doesn't understand me. If you take the MB number from the voters'
12 register and by that number you find Svetlana Radovanovic --
13 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... I'm stopping
14 you there. You're invited to answer the questions, and whether the
15 Prosecutor misunderstands you or not is a matter which will be dealt with
16 by Mr. Ivetic in re-examination.
17 Please proceed, Mr. File.
18 MR. FILE:
19 Q. I'd like to draw your attention to the second --
20 JUDGE ORIE: You're supposed not to interrupt neither Mr. File,
21 nor Mr. Ivetic nor any of the Judges.
22 Please proceed.
23 MR. FILE:
24 Q. I'd like to draw your attention to the second bullet point. This
25 shows the next match criteria based on identity of first name or last
1 name, date of birth, MB or identification number or JMBG, sex, and,
2 again, IDQ equals 5. The quality indicator we were talking about before.
3 So to clarify, this match involved the same identification
4 number, JMBG that you talked about in your report, but also additional
5 factors like date of birth and sex, the only difference is that one
6 allows for typographical errors or bad scans or other inaccuracies for
7 someone's first or last name. Is that correct?
8 A. No. The MB number doesn't need the date of birth and the gender
9 because they are contained in the MB number. When you have the MB
10 number, you can see on which date, in which month, in which year, the
11 person was born, in which territory they were registered and received
12 their MB number, what their gender is, and there is also a control
13 number. And then, they derive the consistencies and the only thing they
14 cannot get a match for is the father's name because that doesn't exist in
15 the voters' register and the ethnicity doesn't exist either in the
16 voters' register.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Madam Radovanovic, I understand what you have
18 testified to what you suggest the correct way of doing it is, that once
19 you have the ID number you have all these other things, sex and date of
20 birth. But I think the question to you was is it correct that this
21 report here uses these qualities as matching data, irrespective of
22 whether they are wrong or right. Says identity first name or last name
23 is not there. Date of birth, MB, sex, IDQ.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The MB number is always used alone,
25 if you have it.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. We don't understand each other. Let's stop
3 MR. FILE:
4 Q. Let's use an example. Take, for example, the records that you
5 misspelled in Table 5 of your report that we talked about earlier today.
6 Where you misspelled someone's first name let's assume that we have all
7 this information, we have their ID number, their JMBG in the record. We
8 have all the fields that we could use to match with the census. If we
9 ran this first set of criteria using identity of first name, last name,
10 date of birth, and identification number, it wouldn't get picked up, that
11 match, because of the misspelling of the first name. However, if you ran
12 that against the second set of criteria that permits a misspelling of
13 either the first name or the last name but matches on date of birth and
14 identification number, in that case, the computer would have picked up
15 that match, the one that we saw with our own eyes is a match; right?
16 A. No. When you release matches, you release only the MB number and
17 that MB number gets you also the name, surname and all the other data
18 contained in that document. It's useless to put out the name, surname
19 and the MB number because precisely because of misspellings in the name,
20 you can fail to get a match. If you have the correct MB number, you take
21 no risks. You get with certainty the right person with all the correct
22 data. That MB number says this is, indeed, Svetlana Radovanovic, date of
23 birth such and such, and you get all the other information. When you
24 have two sources and you're not sure that the name and surname and some
25 other data are not correct, it's absurd to put out or to insert the MB
1 number plus bits of information that could contain misspellings because
2 if you use that as a criteria, the MB number has 13 digits and to this
3 you add a name which has five letters and a surname with ten letters.
4 That's absurd. If you have the MB number, you insert the MB number. If
5 you are not sure that the MB number is correct only then you insert some
6 other information.
7 Q. Okay.
8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: May I put one question for clarification.
9 Ms. Radovanovic, you say: The 13 digits of the MB number. If
10 you have that, no other criteria is needed.
11 But if the -- if you think the number is right but it isn't, what
12 are you doing then?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Then you would expand. If the MB
14 is not correct, you didn't get matches, and you didn't get anyone at all.
15 If the MB number, for instance, is incorrectly listed in the voters'
16 register, then it cannot produce anyone. There is no such case here.
17 For somebody to be matched, the matchings have to be absolute. An MB
18 number otherwise would not produce any result. Then that's why you
19 wouldn't use partial information. If the MB number is incorrect, then
20 you would use the name or surname, then maybe add another DOB, et cetera.
21 JUDGE FLUEGGE: [Previous translation continues] ... thank you.
22 MR. FILE:
23 Q. Last question before I think it's time for a break, I want to ask
24 you this -- if you take these two sets of matching criteria you can see
25 that they -- the second one generated 404.662 matches, which takes the
1 total of over 1.5 million. So you would agree even putting aside all of
2 the other criteria that these 1.5 million matches came from at a minimum
3 matching the JMBG; right?
4 A. Partially correct. Because not all of the JMBGs were correct.
5 If you look at the fifth criterion, it says the date of birth is correct,
6 the MB number is correct, which corresponds with sex and date, which
7 means it coincides with eight figures rather than 13 or maybe ten. So
8 it's not an absolute or absolutely correct MB.
9 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... okay --
10 A. But I'm willing to accept that these 1.5 million may represent
11 relatively certain matches.
12 Q. I didn't ask whether they represented relatively certain matches?
13 A. I asked you whether they represented matches based on the JMBG
14 being identical in both records that's what I'm interested in. I will
15 ask you that question but I want to distinguish between the IDQ which is
16 a measure of internal consistency or quality of a single JMBG; right?
17 It's not about whether the match is a quality match, it's about the
18 quality of the JMBG number; correct?
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic.
20 MR. IVETIC: Well, I don't know if is comment or question but the
21 first part of the question says, I asked you whether they represented
22 matches based on JMBG being identical. The answer of the witness in
23 lines 14 through 15 is talking about that doesn't absolutely coincide,
24 therefore it's not identical. So counsel's comments that she is not
25 answering the question evade the fact that she is actually answering the
1 question in precisely the manner that he has asked her to answer the
2 question because she is explaining that the JMBG's are not identical,
3 because they do not coincide.
4 Now, as for the second part of the question, with this comment
5 aside, I think it's a compound question.
6 JUDGE ORIE: I think Mr. File has 20 minutes to think about
7 whether he rephrases the question or not. And we have some time,
8 although I have no access to the transcript sitting at my desk, whether,
9 indeed, the witness answered the question, yes or no. I would need nor
10 time to find that out.
11 Mr. File, you have 20 minutes.
12 And, Witness, we'd like to see you back in 20 minutes from now.
13 You may follow the usher.
14 [The witness stands down]
15 JUDGE ORIE: We resume at 25 minutes to 2.00.
16 --- Recess taken at 1.13 p.m.
17 --- On resuming at 1.42 p.m.
18 [The witness takes the stand]
19 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. File.
20 MR. FILE: Thank you, Your Honour.
21 Q. So we were just talking about the number of matches from these
22 first two criteria used as matching keys. If you look on the third
23 bullet point on this document, you see a third set of criteria that say
24 first name, last name, date of birth, IDQ greater than 2. And if you
25 look at the footnote greater than 2 is the date of birth is complete and
1 valid although there's a missing or invalid MB identification number.
2 You see that generated 409.137, and what I want to do is show you
3 P2788, English page 30, B/C/S page 28. And what you will see here, this
4 is Annex B5 to the displaced persons report.
5 I think we need two pages back in the B/C/S and also two pages
6 forward in the English. At the bottom of the page in English it should
7 say 219.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Now, we have not the usual way of presentation on
9 our screens. Usually we have B/C/S to the left, English to the right.
10 Therefore, also in my public view, in English I receive the B/C/S.
11 Could we get that as we usually get it. Now the right pages.
12 Is this the page you were asking for Mr. File?
13 MR. FILE: Yes, Your Honour.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
15 MR. FILE:
16 Q. If you look in the second paragraph, approximately in the middle
17 of the paragraph, what you can see is that the total number of matches
18 generated between the voters' register and the census was 2.125.999. So
19 if you add the three figures from just those three criteria that you were
20 used in the previous document we were looking at we get 1 million --
21 A. I apologise. I don't know where to look at. I don't see the
23 Q. It's in the middle of the second paragraph, the first full
24 paragraph in the middle of that paragraph to the right-hand side.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Microphone not activated]
1 MR. FILE:
2 Q. It says: "Out of the 2.67 million records about 2.13 million,
3 i.e., 2.125.999 voters were matched in our project with the 1991
4 population census."
5 Do you see that?
6 A. I do.
7 Q. So if you take the number of matches generated by the three
8 criteria that we looked at before, you have 1.965.358, and if you divide
9 by this figure, it shows that 92.4 per cent of the matches were made with
10 matching of at least three of the four categories that we saw: The ID
11 number, the first name, the last name, and the date of birth; right?
12 A. No. Please look at the line that follows, where Dr. Tabeau says
13 only 79.5 per cent. It doesn't mean they only relied on the criteria
14 specified because the criteria used by Dr. Tabeau, which she explains in
15 this part as part of the methodological explanation for the Mladic case
16 area, are not identical to the criteria used by Dr. Brunborg, or at least
17 they did not present them identically.
18 Q. [Previous translation continues] ...
19 A. Dr. Tabeau said the first step was this, the second that. So,
20 no, I disagree.
21 Q. My question was the percentage of matches that were made, not the
22 percentage of the voters' register that was matched. That's the
24 A. It's the same thing. She matched the voters' register with the
25 census. There was nothing else that she could compare. Out of 2.600.000
1 records, they managed to match 2.130.000 voters and that they had a
2 certain number of them outside of the country. I really don't understand
3 what you're asking me.
4 Q. Of those 2.13 million matches that they made, the percentage of
5 those matches, of that 2.13 million that were made using just those three
6 sets of criteria that we looked at before is 92.4 per cent. That's the
7 percentage I'm talking about, not the percentage of matches for the
8 entire voters' register.
9 Do you understand that distinction?
10 A. I don't. I don't see the difference. Please explain.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. File, could you tell us exactly what number you
12 divided by what?
13 MR. FILE: I divided 1.965.358 which is the --
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, where is that to be found?
15 MR. FILE: That is derived from adding the three numbers that we
16 saw as creating matches in P1900, the previous document we were looking
17 at, at page 85 in the English.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that's the -- you would say the cumulated
19 matches on the basis of the first three sets of criteria.
20 MR. FILE: That's correct.
21 JUDGE ORIE: And then divided by what.
22 MR. FILE: I divided by this figure in this paragraph 2.125.999
23 which is the total number of records in the voters' register that were
24 matched with the census.
25 So of the entire number of matches that were made, the percentage
1 that is generated, if you divide the number of matches created by just
2 those three criteria, you get 92.4 per cent of all of those 2.13 million
3 matched voters.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, you're now talking about the percentage of
5 matches on the basis of the first three sets of criteria. What
6 percentage that is of the totality of the matches.
7 MR. FILE: Precisely.
8 JUDGE ORIE: That's what you are talking about. That's clear
10 Witness, you've understood --
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Now I understand, but it is
13 JUDGE ORIE: Well, whether -- is the outcome of the division
14 incorrect or are you saying that Mr. File shouldn't do that?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. The Prosecutor claims that it
16 was arrived at according to three criteria, and I say that is incorrect.
17 He probably refers to the criteria we saw a moment ago. The criteria was
18 provided by Dr. Brunborg in his expert report on Srebrenica. Dr. Tabeau,
19 in her methodological explanation, provides the steps in the matching
20 process, explaining them in a completely different way. If you look at
21 Dr. Brunborg's report, he states that they matched according to two
22 criteria we looked at, so the MB number, yes or no, then the figure is
23 about 1.5 million of matches, which is 50-plus per cent. Dr. Tabeau only
24 mentions the figure of 79.5 per cent, but it is still unclear precisely
25 which criteria she used.
1 I also want to draw your attention that this -- pertains to all
2 of Bosnia and Herzegovina which doesn't mean that the matches can be
3 linked to the Mladic case area because we don't know whether these
4 matches -- okay. Okay.
5 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... Witness, you do
6 not challenge the calculation. You do challenge that it is meaningful at
7 all to do it because the starting numbers, the initial matches, that
8 there is inconsistency between Dr. Brunborg and Dr. Tabeau. That's your
9 answer to the question, then, I understand.
10 Mr. File, please proceed.
11 MR. FILE: Could we return, please, to the witness's report,
12 D1211, MFI, under seal. We'll be looking at English page 52 and B/C/S
13 page 51, please.
14 Q. If we look at the bottom paragraph, you say: "The overall
15 estimates of internally displaced persons and refugees were obtained
16 using the method of proportions. They are particularly interesting
17 because the method of proportions is never used in scientific and
18 professional research on migration, and according to the United Nations
19 recommendations, this method was also abandoned a long time ago in
20 estimating the population age structure. The method was abandoned
21 because it does not ensure reliable results, as its final outcomes are
22 known and they are considered to be targeted."
23 You also made a similar point in court at transcript 38208.
24 Now, at this point in your report, it's true - and I think you
25 can answer this yes or no as well - that you have not cited any
1 scientific source, like a journal article or a textbook, showing that
2 proportions are "never used in scientific and professional research on
3 migration" or that it was "abandoned a long time ago in estimating the
4 population age structure" pursuant to United Nations recommendations;
6 A. I explained the recommendations of the UN without referencing the
7 book where they can be found.
8 Q. In fact, nowhere in your report do you cite any scholarly sources
9 to support any claims about what is standard, commonly accepted practice
10 or methodology in statistics or demographics; right? And, again, I'm not
11 asking for an explanation. Just a yes or no.
12 A. These are elementary things known by first-year students. I did
13 not reference any professional or scientific source.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Do I understand that the whole of your report would
15 then be elementary things known by first-year students because there's no
16 citation whatsoever? I have some difficulties in accepting that.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, that should not be your
18 understanding. When it comes to elementary matters --
19 JUDGE ORIE: And you considered this to be an elementary matter.
20 The question was about --
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is well known, generally
23 JUDGE ORIE: The question was about no citations at all to be
24 found in the whole of the report. That was what was the question about.
25 But I understand that there are no citations --
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise. There are citations,
2 there are sources. You are incorrect in that. But not for what the
3 Prosecutor is asking about.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Let's, then, go back to the question of the
6 He says: "In fact, nowhere in your report do you cite any
7 scholarly sources to support any claims about what is standard commonly
8 accepted practice or methodology in statistics or demographics."
9 That was the question. Now you're telling us that you did.
10 Where in the report -- and it's maybe easy to contradict Mr. File. Where
11 in the report do we find references to scholarly sources?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We're not on the same page. As for
13 these elementary areas, I did not reference those, but you said there
14 were no citations. In terms of this, there are no citations.
15 JUDGE ORIE: The question was put to you in a general way.
16 Nowhere in the report you cite scholarly productions, citations, which
17 support your claims you are now telling us that that is totally wrong,
18 and then my question is: Where, what footnote, where do we find the
19 reference, citations of scholarly -- give us one or two and then Mr. --
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, when you say your
21 assertions it pertains to all rather than just to this part. That was my
22 understanding of the question. And I said that it was incorrect that I
23 did not provide citations. I cited all the reports -- sorry, that was my
25 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... tell us where we
1 find them. Give one or two examples. Not the UN said this or -- but a
2 quotation, a footnote in which it says there, that author, supports my
3 claim. Where do we find one?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can't name any authors now, but I
5 can recommend a book where you can find it published by the demographic
6 unit of the UN where they recommend that the method of proportion not be
7 used --
8 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ...
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- especially not --
10 JUDGE ORIE: You're telling us what others have written but by
11 not citing them, we have some problems in verifying the accuracy, and the
12 Prosecution also may have - and perhaps Mr. Ivetic as well - may have
13 some problems in verifying the accuracy of your claims.
14 I invite the parties to see whether there is any such UN document
15 which could possibly provide the support for that claim and then also
16 present it to the -- give it to Chambers staff too so that we have a
17 source for.
18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: And I would like to add, a UN report is not a
19 scholarly publication.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Apart from that. But let's move on.
21 Mr. File.
22 MR. FILE: Could we please have 65 ter 33029.
23 Q. I'm going to read to you paragraph 637 of the Popovic Trial
24 Judgement from 2010 which refers to you in a context of a discussion of
25 your failure to specify documents were relying on beyond just providing a
2 It says: "In calculating the number of the displaced persons
3 following the fall of Srebrenica" --
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Do we have it on the screen already.
5 MR. FILE: I have it on my screen.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: I don't.
7 JUDGE ORIE: I do not know from what paragraph are you reading,
8 we have paragraph 637, 638 and 639 on our screens.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay, yes.
10 JUDGE ORIE: You're reading from?
11 MR. FILE: At line 2 I mentioned paragraph 637 is the paragraph.
12 "In calculating the number of displaced persons following the
13 fall of Srebrenica both Kovacevic and Radovanovic use documents
14 identified in their reports only by number. Neither report explains the
15 source nor the content of these documents. When Radovanovic was asked
16 about the origin of these documents, she replied that she did not know
17 where they came from. The Trial Chamber notes in this regard that
18 Radovanovic and Kovacevic both rely upon documents and sources which
19 provide the Trial Chamber with no basis to assess their reliability.
20 This is particularly so in the case of Radovanovic, given that she cannot
21 identify the source of these documents when asked. Without sufficient
22 information to substantiate the findings of Radovanovic and Kovacevic,
23 the Trial Chamber considers their evidence to be pure speculation."
24 Now, before you wrote your report for this case, were you aware
25 of this paragraph of the judgement which would have put you on notice
1 about the importance of clearly specifying your sources, not only in
2 scientific papers but also there expert reports submitted to Chambers of
3 this Tribunal.
4 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, I'll object. What the document in
5 front of us says and what Mr. File says do not match. He is saying
6 things that are not in this document, so he cannot say that this document
7 which says A should have put you on notice about B. He has been doing in
8 entire cross-examination he says one thing and then he changes it.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Well, let's try to cut this short.
10 MR. IVETIC: [Overlapping speakers] ... This relates to a report
11 that is not in evidence.
12 JUDGE ORIE: I see that. Mr. File, this is a comment which is
13 based on the evidence presented in that other case and I understand,
14 perhaps, why you asked this question, but let me put the question to the
16 Were you aware that in another case in a judgement on the
17 testimony you gave and the report you gave in that case, that you were
18 criticised for not having provided sufficiently the sources for your
19 claims and for your conclusions?
20 Were you aware of that?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
23 [Trial Chamber confers]
24 MR. FILE: Could we please have 65 ter number 33022.
25 Q. When this comes up, you will see it is a United Nations handbook
1 preparing migration data for subnational population projections prepared
2 by Alden Speare of Brown University on behalf of the UN Department of
3 International, Economic and Social Affairs in New York. Can we go to
4 e-court, English, page 12, and B/C/S page 3.
5 I'll read to you what this paragraph says --
6 JUDGE ORIE: Before do you so, could you give us at least the
7 year of publication of what you're reading from.
8 MR. FILE: 1992, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE ORIE: 1992.
10 Please proceed.
11 MR. FILE:
12 Q. "In addition to household registers" --
13 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Where is that to be found in B/C/S?
14 MR. FILE: Yes, it is. I believe it's the first paragraph in
15 B/C/S at the top of the page.
16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: It may be, indeed.
17 MR. FILE: Yes.
18 Q. "In addition to household registers, the amount of information
19 collected by governments for other purposes may be useful in estimating
20 migration. In the United States, base data on migration streams between
21 states is obtained from tax records. Because a substantial majority of
22 American households file tax forms each year and because they are
23 required by law to enter their social security numbers and current
24 address, computers are able to match records for adjacent years and count
25 the number of movers (see Wetrogen and Long, 1990) however, because
1 low-income persons are not required to file tax forms and because persons
2 entering the labour force or entering the country may not have filed in
3 the previous year, only about 80 per cent of the population are covered
4 by matching tax records for adjacent years. Although migration rates are
5 based only on matched records, when these rates are applied to the total
6 population, it is assumed that the uncovered population moves at this
7 same rate. Wetrogen and Long (1990) compared these rates for census and
8 current population survey rates for comparable periods are found the
9 differences are small."
10 So my question for you is when this UN handbook says although
11 migration rates are based only on matched records when the rates are
12 applied to the total population it is assumed that the uncovered
13 population moves at the same rate, that is specifically referring to the
14 distribution or proportion method; right? And again, just a yes or no
15 will suffice.
16 A. For America yes, for here, no.
17 Q. Could we go to P1900 -- I would tender that article, Your Honour.
18 MR. IVETIC: Is it the whole article or just the part? Because
19 if it's the whole article, we don't have a translation.
20 JUDGE ORIE:
21 MR. FILE: We can tender just this part, Your Honour.
22 JUDGE ORIE: It looks as if there's more text, but perhaps ... I
23 see a 3 -- there seems to be more in the B/C/S than there is in the
25 MR. FILE: Oh, yes, that's right. We should extract that from
1 the B/C/S translation.
2 JUDGE FLUEGGE: And you have read the entire English text into
3 the transcript.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes.
5 JUDGE ORIE: If so --
6 MR. FILE: I think it might be useful to have some of the initial
7 pages that show the author and --
8 JUDGE ORIE: When you are having coffee or tea anyhow with
9 Mr. Ivetic, unless you had it already, could you try to find out whether
10 the Defence would like to have additional portions in evidence and then
11 make a selection preferably supported by both parties, what should be
13 Meanwhile, we'll MFI it.
14 Madam Registrar, the number would be.
15 THE REGISTRAR: P7518, Your Honours.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Is marked for identification.
17 I'm looking at the clock. It's time to adjourn.
18 Ms. Radovanovic, I'm not very original, but we'd like to see you
19 back again tomorrow morning again at 9.30 in this same courtroom. I,
20 again, instruct you that you should not speak or communicate in whatever
21 way, with whomever, about your testimony.
22 You may now follow the usher.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
24 [The witness stands down]
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. File, could you tell us where we are
1 approximately in terms of time.
2 MR. FILE: I believe can I finish by the end of the first
3 session tomorrow.
4 JUDGE ORIE: End of the first session.
5 Mr. Ivetic, as matters stand now, what would be your estimate of
7 MR. IVETIC: Less than a full session.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Less than a full session. That's clear. The Judges
9 may have some questions as well.
10 We adjourn for the day, and we'll resume tomorrow, Thursday, the
11 27th of August, 9.30 in the morning, in this same courtroom, I.
12 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.16 p.m.,
13 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 27th day of
14 August, 2015, at 9.30 a.m.