1 Tuesday, 26 April 2016
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.31 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone in and around this
7 Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is case
9 IT-09-92-T, the Prosecutor versus Ratko Mladic.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
11 No preliminaries were announced. Therefore, we'll wait for the
12 witness to enter the courtroom.
13 Yes, Mr. File.
14 MR. FILE: Just one small point, Your Honour. Yesterday, D1464
15 was admitted into evidence, and I believe it should be under seal due to
16 the personal identifying information inside.
17 JUDGE ORIE: I think we'll keep on the safe side --
18 MR. IVETIC: Yeah, that's fine, Your Honours.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, we'll keep on the safe side, and
20 therefore D1464 is under seal and not a public exhibit any longer.
21 [The witness takes the stand]
22 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning, Ms. Radovanovic.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Before we continue, I'd like to remind you that
25 you're still bound by the solemn declaration you've given at the
1 beginning of your testimony that you'll speak the truth, the whole truth,
2 and nothing but the truth. Mr. Ivetic will now continue his examination.
3 Please proceed.
4 WITNESS: SVETLANA RADOVANOVIC [Resumed]
5 [Witness answered through interpreter]
6 Examination by Mr. Ivetic: [Continued]
7 Q. Good morning, Professor.
8 A. Good morning.
9 Q. We left off yesterday, and I'd like to call up again but not
10 broadcast, D1464, under seal. And if need be, I think there's still a
11 hard copy in the possession of the usher. And now we have the English on
12 our screens.
13 Yesterday we talked about this column that says new ethnicity and
14 has the value 5 which you indicated was for the Bosnian Muslims. Whose
15 ethnicity is it that is being reflected in this column? Which of the two
16 individuals in each -- which of the two individuals, one under the ICRC
17 and one under the population census, is reflected in this column as to
19 A. As ethnicity figures only in the document called the population
20 census and in the ICRC, with which this document is compared, ethnicity
21 does not figure, then the ethnicity is taken over from the population
22 census. I don't think that Dr. Tabeau took some other ethnicity as a
23 category, especially as she says in her methodology that she took over
24 ethnicities from the population census.
25 Q. And --
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, perhaps I briefly ask.
2 What is new about the ethnicity? Why is it new ethnicity instead
3 of just ethnicity?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, Dr. Tabeau could explain that
5 better. I can only assume that she placed new ethnicity because there is
6 no ethnicity as a category in the ICRC database, and she develops her
7 information in view of ethnicity and then applies that to the data
8 received from the ICRC.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
10 MR. IVETIC:
11 Q. And the column that says "matched," and yesterday you indicated
12 the value 1 indicates that a match has been declared. What, in your
13 opinion, is being matched?
14 A. Well, the word "match" implies a correspondence. When you apply
15 the method called matching, then everything depends on the criteria that
16 you set out for the correspondence. If you want to be sure, that is to
17 say that the degree of likelihood that the person is one and the same,
18 then you select several elements by which the persons would correspond
19 and for whom you can claim with a greater degree of likelihood that you
20 have found one and the same person in two different sources.
21 In other words, the person who is doing the matching establishes
22 the key for it, and the key must include a certain number of elements.
23 The more elements there are, the likelihood is closer to number 1 that
24 two items from two different sources will correspond. The fewer the
25 number of elements, the likelihood is smaller, and the likelihood is
1 within the range from 0 to 1, so you can say that that the likelihood is
2 very close to 1, and I can claim with a high degree of probability that
3 this is one and the same person.
4 The fewer the number of elements, you then have to make
5 calculations. You have to review everything personally to draw some
6 conclusions to say, yes, it is one and the same person, it could be, it
7 may be, and so on and so forth.
8 Q. Okay. I'd like --
9 JUDGE ORIE: Can I ask one additional question.
10 If here in this table you say the match is a 1 and not a 0, is
11 that exclusively on the basis what you've presented here in the ICRC 2009
12 and in the population census, or are other elements considered by Tabeau
13 as well when she concluded that it's a positive match?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In this case, I took out examples
15 of what Dr. Tabeau designated as matches. Now, whether she took into
16 account others or not, there is no footnote where she would indicate what
17 elements she took into account. But in the internal database, there is a
18 column entitled "combinations" without an explanation of what that
19 implies. So Dr. Tabeau could specify that.
20 JUDGE ORIE: So the emphasis that was laid yesterday on the fact
21 that people with the same family name, same surname, and same father's
22 name might be different persons, and that's all we see at this moment,
23 together with the date of birth, which is different, we do not know
24 exactly what it was that Tabeau may conclude that this was a match? It's
25 not visible in this table?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's right.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
3 Please proceed.
4 MR. IVETIC:
5 Q. Yesterday you identified the 2005 ICRC missing persons list as
6 something you did not receive.
7 MR. IVETIC: And I'd like now to call up P7449 in e-court, which
8 is Dr. Tabeau's report as to Tomasica, and I'd like to look at page 2, I
9 believe, in both languages. And again, we need page 2 in English as
11 Q. On the Serbian at the bottom of the page, and in the English it's
12 towards the bottom of the page from the -- I would say about two-thirds
13 of the way down, we see a listing of sources that Dr. Tabeau says she
14 used for the report. And under the first item, she has listed the 2009
15 edition of the ICRC list. If Dr. Tabeau indicates that she used the 2009
16 ICRC list as a source, why were you interested in the 2005 list, instead
17 of the 2009 list?
18 A. Because on the following page of the same report she says that
19 she did everything on the basis of the census from 2005. So here she
20 cites the source of 2009 ICRC, but on the following page she explains
21 that it's rather not 2009 but 2005.
22 Q. And just to clarify something that may be a translation issue,
23 you are recorded as saying:
24 "Because on the following page of the same report she says that
25 she did everything on the basis of the census from 2005."
1 Is that what you said or was something else said?
2 A. No, no. There is no population census from 2005. That is the
3 ICRC list from 2005.
4 Q. And if we could turn to the next page in both languages of
5 Dr. Tabeau's report, and if we could focus on the second paragraph under
6 the heading of "2.1 Missing Persons' Records of ICRC," and we see here
7 Dr. Tabeau says:
8 "The 2005 ICRC list of missing persons for all of Bosnia and
9 Herzegovina used for this report was provided directly by the Geneva
10 office of the ICRC on 17 August 2005. The data was arranged in five
11 groups, in total 22.212 records, of which 486 were no more relevant."
12 What you would have to say about this, based upon this selection?
13 A. Well, Dr. Tabeau says clearly the ICRC list of missing persons
14 from 2005 used for this report. That is to say, the report on Tomasica.
15 Q. And yesterday and today we've talked a little bit in passing of
16 the integrated mortality database. I want to return to the integrated
17 mortality database and ask you: Did you see sources identified in that
18 database which are regularly used in demography as to the investigation
19 of mortality?
20 A. I reviewed the database that I received and noted there were ten
21 sources. Of those ten sources, only one is used in the official
22 statistical research, and that's the database of births. I did not
23 really review in detail another database that has 10.000 items, but I
24 also didn't find there a single report from the register of births.
25 Q. What are the sources that are regularly used in the field of
1 professional academic and scientific demography as to the investigation
2 of mortality?
3 A. The source for investigating mortality are the registers of
4 death. For someone to be entered in the register of death, two documents
5 need to exist. One is called a certificate of death and it's signed by a
6 forensic doctor stating cause of death, and in most cases that happens
7 when death occurs naturally. In violent deaths as well, but when it's
8 known when and under what circumstances somebody died.
9 In the situation in which we are working here, or when this is
10 unknown, the court issues a decision and declares a person dead. The
11 registrar may enter in the registry of death only a person for whom a
12 certificate of death or a court decision that he is declared -- that he
13 or she is declared dead has been issued. And therefore, documents are
14 issued from the register of death later on about the deceased person.
15 These are official state documents and official sources for statistics
16 pertaining to deaths.
17 JUDGE FLUEGGE: May I put one clarification question to you,
18 Ms. Radovanovic.
19 In your previous answer, you were referring to another database
20 that has 10.000 items, which you didn't review in detail. Can you give a
21 little bit more information? What kind of database is that?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's the database on exhumed
23 persons, which contains the exact number of the exhumed persons, from
24 which grave they were exhumed, and so on.
25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Who compiled this database?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm not receiving interpretation.
2 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Then I repeat. Who compiled this database with
3 10.000 items?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I suppose that it was compiled by
5 Dr. Tabeau on the basis of some information that she received from
6 certain institutions responsible for exhumations. I also suppose that
7 the institution in question is the ICMP.
8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: That means you really don't know exactly what
9 list you didn't review.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I know exactly why I did not review
11 it, but it only reads database on exhumed persons, and this is a type of
12 information provided by ICMP. No databases has footnotes that would
13 point to specific sources.
14 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: I also have a question.
16 Madam, when you were answering the question on investigating
17 methodology, at page 7, line 3, you said:
18 "For someone to be entered in the register of death, two
19 documents need to exist. One is called a certificate of death..."
20 What is the other one?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Perhaps the interpretation wasn't
22 correct. No one can be entered in the register of deaths. According to
23 the law, a register of deaths needs to exist. It is a state document
24 which is kept in accordance with the Law on Registers of Deaths and
25 Births by designated officials.
1 The registry of deaths includes all persons who died. They are
2 entered in it. And there is a new register for death for every year and
3 covers the period from 1st of January to 31st of December of any given
5 The registrar may only enter into this register of deaths the
6 persons for whom a following document exists: A certificate of death
7 signed by a forensic medical officer, or a decision of a court to the
8 effect that the court has declared the specific person dead.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Either/or, not both documents. Thank you so much.
10 MR. IVETIC: If we could turn back a page in Dr. Tabeau's report
11 back to page 2.
12 Q. And I'd like to look at what Dr. Tabeau has written in the middle
13 of the third paragraph from the top that starts off with:
14 "The fate of the victims was tracked down by pursuing the logic
15 and chronology of the events: First the victim disappearance records
16 were studied, to be followed by their death records. Unfortunately,
17 among the known death cases, Tomasica victims were not reported, and thus
18 exhumation records had to be consulted and analysed, including the victim
19 autopsies, other post-mortem examination records of the remains, and
20 their DNA identification. The sources on the missing exhumation
21 identification were cross-referenced with each other, compared and
22 analysed in an attempt to produce a reliable proof of death of the
23 Tomasica victims. The resulting Tomasica victim list, comprising victim
24 personal, disappearance, exhumation and identification details is
25 attached in Annex 1 to this report. The POD list constitutes the core of
1 the report and the reference for any conclusions drawn regarding the
2 number [sic] of victims, their causes of death, basic demographic
3 characteristics, and time and place of disappearance."
4 Professor, how does this compare to what is looked at in
5 investigating mortality in demographic scientific work? Are these
6 sources used?
7 A. No. I have said that the only source, the only one that's
8 official is the registry of births and deaths; that is, the certificate
9 of death or a court decision declaring a specific person dead.
10 Q. And if we could turn to page 7 in the English in this same
11 report, and it will be page 9 in the Serbian, and at the bottom of the
12 page in English, and it's at the top of the page in the Serbian,
13 Dr. Tabeau lists various records of identification and autopsy of the
14 Bosnia and Herzegovina prosecutor's office.
15 Are the items that are listed here, and on the next page in
16 English but on the same page in Serbian, are these sources compatible
17 with the sources that would be used in the scientific study of mortality
18 in demographics?
19 A. No, none of these sources is used in scientific research because
20 they are not official sources.
21 Q. Is Dr. Tabeau, as a demographer, competent to analyse proof and
22 cause of death according to the generally accepted principles of
24 A. Well, as it is known in demography what is a source in terms of
25 mortality, a demographer does not try to prove anyone's death. He or she
1 just finds and takes over the information about persons whose death has
2 already been established. So in official scientific studies, I haven't
3 had an occasion to see something like this. I cannot assert that that
4 doesn't exist, but it's a fact that a demographer does not deal in
5 establishing or proving anyone's death, even if there are documents that
6 are available on the basis of which this can be proved, because death is
7 proved the very moment when someone is entered in the register of deaths.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask you the following. Was -- were the
9 register of death, were they fully up to date? That means comprising
10 most -- all or most of persons who had disappeared at the time? I mean,
11 was it feasible to work on the basis of what you call official
12 demography? Were those sources completely available?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, it was possible to work, and
14 Dr. Tabeau already was using the registers of deaths from Mostar. Now
15 whether they include all persons who are assumed to be dead, I don't
16 know. But it's a fact that persons that you can claim 100 per cent are
17 dead and have been identified are included. It's known exactly who they
18 are, where they are from, their dates of birth, and so on.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Let's be very practical. From the missing persons
20 in Prijedor area, for how many was it formally established in the
21 register of death that they had died when the -- well, let's say, in
22 2010, approximately, so well after the years of war?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If all those who deceased in 2010
24 are recorded in the registers of death, then there is no possibility that
25 somebody was not reported unless somebody was killed and buried and you
1 claim that they were not. So those who are deceased, there is no reason
2 for them not to be reported, so everything that happened in 2010 would be
4 JUDGE ORIE: You may have misunderstood my question. I was
5 talking about missing persons. Now, I take that in 2010 there were not
6 that many missing persons. I'm talking about those who went missing in
7 the war years. How many of them, what percentage of those missing were
8 officially entered in the death registers at a -- in later years? Could
9 you tell us how many approximately, what percentage.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I cannot tell you what the
11 percentage was. But each identified person, at the moment in time when
12 they are identified, would you be given a certificate of death or the
13 court would declare the person dead. That person would automatically be
14 recorded in the register of deaths. If somebody went missing in 1992 and
15 was identified in 2010, and if that process of identification is
16 completed, that missing person would be recorded in the register of
17 deaths for 2010. And then it would be precisely stated in the document
18 on what basis the person was registered, was it on the basis of a
19 certificate of death or a court declaration.
20 And then would you have the day of death recorded, and there are
21 several options here. If the date of death is in 1992, you would have
22 the exact day, month, and year of death on the basis of statements
23 provided by people in the process of identification. There is a
24 different case as well: A court would declare a person dead on the basis
25 of witnesses or some other documents, and then once again that would be
1 recorded as that particular date of death. If somebody died in 1999 --
2 excuse me, 1992, and there is a document about that, they would be
3 registered in 2010 but the date of death would be given as it was
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And those who were not identified yet, dead
6 bodies that were not identified, or not found, still missing?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] They cannot be entered in the
8 register of deaths until you receive a certificate from the officials
9 that the person was identified pursuant to the rules, according to the
10 laws and regulations that apply to identification.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You say if you're formally registered as being
12 dead, that's what we consider. If that has not happened, if you are not
13 state-approved being dead, then we just ignore that?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, Judge Orie, I am
15 speaking of the legal procedure and what is used in scientific research,
16 and as for whether a demographer --
17 JUDGE ORIE: Let me just interrupt you there. I think I
18 perfectly understood what you said, but reality may sometimes even go
19 beyond what is legal procedure.
20 Let's move on. I think I have understood your explanation.
21 Please proceed.
22 MR. IVETIC: If we can look again at page 7 of Dr. Tabeau's
23 report in the English, and it will be page 8 in the Serbian.
24 Q. And here Dr. Tabeau is talking about Dr. Clark. And in the
25 second full paragraph from the top, she calls the lists of post-mortem
1 findings from Dr. Clark as being helpful. And later on, three
2 paragraphs down, she says that the:
3 "... cause of death information provided by Dr. Clark has been
4 invaluable in producing proof of death for Tomasica victims."
5 Do you have a comment from the standpoint of the practice of
7 A. From what I read in Dr. Clark's report, he states that the cause
8 of death most frequently corresponds to the cause of death that were
9 reported by his colleagues; Dr. Durmisevic and Sarajlic, I believe. He
10 does not mention the cases when this does not correspond, but he says
11 that most frequently they do correspond.
12 Dr. Clark also says that he had his own definition for cause of
13 death without explaining what that means, whereas Dr. Tabeau says that
14 while comparing different findings on death she made corrections -- some,
15 some corrections of these deaths.
16 Q. At this trial, Dr. Tabeau testifying as a Prosecution witness
17 testified as follows, and I'd like to read to you a portion of that
18 testimony and then have some questions. It's from transcript page 36798,
19 line 16, to 36799, line 7, and I'll begin the quotation:
20 "Q. Okay. If we can move on and look at page 7 in the English
21 and page 8 in the B/C/S. In the B/C/S, it will be the second
22 paragraph from the bottom; and in the English, it's the second
23 paragraph up from the subheading 2.6, and here you say, Doctor:
24 "'Cause of death information by Dr. Clark has been invaluable in
25 producing proof of death for Tomasica victims.'
1 "Doctor, would have you to defer to Dr. Clark as to cause of
2 death, or do you think there is some other source more reliable than
3 Dr. Clark as to cause of death for these persons found in Tomasica."
4 Dr. Tabeau's answer was as follows:
5 "A. I think that what I said in the report, that Clark's
6 information about causes of death is invaluable, I still stand by this
7 statement. I also used other sources for cause of deaths as you know,
8 because I mentioned this today. Jakarina Kosa autopsies. I also used
9 some autopsies from 2004 and 2006 excavations in Tomasica. But, me, as a
10 demographer and statisticians, I'm not the person to determine the cause
11 of death, so it has to be in the hands of other specialists,
12 pathologists; in this case, as Dr. Clark himself."
13 And the question for you, Professor: Do you agree with what
14 Dr. Tabeau said that as a demographer and statistician she is not the
15 person to determine the cause of death.
16 A. Absolutely. I agree.
17 Q. And in your review of Dr. Tabeau's work as to the Tomasica
18 evidence, did Dr. Tabeau adhere to this rule that you agree with her on?
19 A. No. In one part of her reports she indicates that she made
20 changes to some cause of death during computer comparisons. If she had
21 two findings, if they did not correspond, in some places it said that it
22 was established. I guess with Clark or somewhere else it was
23 unestablished, that she corrected that.
24 Q. If we can look at page 24 of Dr. Tabeau's report, which we have
25 before us in English, and it will be, I believe, page 29 in the Serbian.
1 It will be the second paragraph up from the bottom in the Serbian, and it
2 will be the first full paragraph at the top in the English that reads:
3 "Last but not least, I need to explain how I dealt with the
4 multiple CoDs available for JK victims from their associated DNA reports.
5 For the purpose of my summary presentation of causes of death of the
6 Tomasica victims, including those exhumed from Jakarina Kosa (see section
7 3.6, causes of death according to all sources jointly), I selected just
8 one condition from every set of the associated causes. Initially, I let
9 the computer choose one condition randomly. Then, I reviewed these
10 choices and made the final selection.
11 "I saw during my review that for some cases, most of the
12 associated causes remained unascertained and just one of associated
13 causes was well-defined. By 'well-defined,' I mean it was reported as
14 'gun-shot injuries of a body part'. In such cases, I corrected the
15 computer choice of the 'unascertained' CoD and replaced it by a
16 well-defined cause. In only a few cases I had to make a choice between
17 injuries of two different body parts.
18 "The logic of this approach was rooted in the purpose of this
19 analysis. I saw my task as providing evidence about the external factors
20 that led to the deaths or injuries of the Tomasica victims. So whenever
21 this type of evidence came to my attention, I included it as the
22 representation of these factors instead of leaving the answer blank
24 Now, Professor, what Dr. Tabeau is describing here, is this
25 something that is in accord with the generally accepted practice of
1 scientific demography or statistics, in your opinion?
2 A. A demographer, first of all, does not deal with causes of death
3 in this way, and a demographer is not competent to establish cause of
4 death regardless of how many autopsy reports they have. Cause of death, if
5 two forensic experts don't agree on, they either reach an agreement or call
6 a third colleague for assistance. So a demographer does not correct the
7 cause of death. If there are several reports in which one says unascertained
8 and another one would refer to gunshot injuries, then it would be absurd to
9 say that the logic of behaving in this way is the purpose of my analysis.
10 What is the purpose of Dr. Tabeau's analysis? If I understand it
11 correctly, it was to cause -- to prove external causes of death.
12 Demographers can deal with those external causes of death, but that would
13 imply the circumstances in which something occurred. And as far as the
14 doctor is concerned, if it says a gunshot injury to the head, that would
15 be the end-all and the be-all. As for whether it was caused during war
16 or whether it was because somebody was killed by somebody, these are now
17 external circumstances that could affect the outcome.
18 So without an explanation of what the purpose of the analysis was
19 and what was the logic applied, as far as I am concerned this is a very
20 partial analysis. So without going into further detail, I really believe
21 that it's really quite absurd.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: If I may just ask a question, please.
23 Madam, at page 15, lines 14, Mr. Ivetic asked you the question:
24 "And the question for you, Professor: Do you agree with what
25 Dr. Tabeau said that as a demographer and statistician she is not the
1 person to determine the cause of death?"
2 And you said you agreed with that.
3 And then the next question was whether Dr. Tabeau stuck to that
4 principle, and then this whole paragraph was then read to you.
5 My question to you is do you understand this paragraph to say
6 that Dr. Tabeau determined the cause of death, or that Dr. Tabeau was
7 confronted with more than one possible cause of death and asked the
8 computer to select one that was certain without her herself determining
9 what the cause of death was?
10 How do you understand this paragraph?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I understand it as Dr. Tabeau
12 establishing death. If there were several different ones and then
13 she changed that, the instant that she made a change in the document she
14 established it. So she established that it was no longer unascertained
15 but it was a gun-shot injury to the head, so she established that. And
16 when she was presenting that in her tables, she considered that to be a
17 death, the cause of which was well defined or ascertained.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: So when she picks up a cause that was already
19 written by somebody else, that's her determination. Do I understand you
20 correctly? She -- she is not making a diagnosis. She's picking from
21 various diagnoses. Somebody said "ascertained," another one said "not
22 ascertained," and she picks up "ascertained." So is that her
23 establishing the cause of death?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] She is presenting to you or to the
25 Trial Chamber what she chose and not what exists. I am not asserting
1 that she's changing the documents, but she is presenting what she changed
2 and what she established. She is saying that something that was
3 unascertained is now ascertained. She's not presenting a new document
4 but she is changing in the tables what does not exist in the documents.
5 If Dr. Tabeau did it professionally, she can note that and she
6 can exclude it or she can say: If I have two options, and if we're
7 talking about the same case, in how many cases this occurred, and what
8 she did in this case, and what she did in another case. She should not
9 say that the logic was the purpose of the analysis. Is the logic to
10 present the analysis to you with the highest number of ascertained
11 deaths? I don't know. All I know is what she wrote in the report.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
13 JUDGE ORIE: I have a short question -- oh, sorry.
14 JUDGE FLUEGGE: After this explanation, I take it that you no
15 longer claim that she made a finding about the cause of death. She just
16 presented a different document about an investigation by the respective
17 persons, about the cause of death; correct?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] At no point did I say that she made
19 a new finding. She already has two findings: One finding says
20 unascertained, and the other one says well defined. She is changing. I
21 don't believe -- I didn't have the opportunity to verify if she changed
22 the first finding. But by presenting her results instead of saying that
23 the finding is unascertained and instead of calculating that, she changes
24 that and she says: I have decided to present to the Trial Chamber that
25 that was changed.
1 I cannot believe that she would made -- make any changes to the
2 finding in the original documents, but she changes that by presenting the
3 cause of death in her tables and by presenting to you that all causes of
4 death were ascertained even though they were not; namely, in cases where
5 the option was either yes or no, she changed them to a "yes." I really
6 didn't have enough time to look at each of those documents to say: Well,
7 look, for this and this person, this pathologist says this, and the
8 second pathologist says that.
9 I don't believe that Dr. Tabeau changed documents written by a
10 pathologist, but she concluded: I have two findings. This one says
11 unascertained, this one arrived later as ascertained, so I'm going to
12 use the one that's ascertained and I'm going to present that in my
13 tables as an ascertained cause of death.
14 I believe that that is not professionally correct. Even in cases
15 such as this one.
16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you for this long explanation again. Now
17 you made it quite clear what you are presenting here in the courtroom.
18 At the beginning, you said Dr. Tabeau says that while comparing different
19 findings, she made corrections. Some corrections of these deaths.
20 What I -- what you now told us is not correction of death but
21 choosing a document which she finds more reliable and with more details.
22 This is what I now understand from your testimony; correct?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Dr. Tabeau does not say that. She
24 said: I changed the cause of death. I just assume that --
25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: You said that.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes -- no. But you can read.
2 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Sorry, sorry, I have to interrupt you. You said
3 that she changed the cause of death.
4 But let us continue.
5 JUDGE ORIE: I have one other question.
6 Dr. Tabeau describes situations where the causes of death are not
7 fully consistent, that she asked the computer to make a random choice,
8 and that she later then in a few cases has corrected that random choice
9 because she thought there was a good reason to choose for either of the
11 Could you tell us, approximately, have you verified, and how many
12 cases, because she describes this as a rather rare situation where she
13 made such corrections, do you have any idea about the quantity of those
14 cases and how they impact on the statistics, what -- what changes it
15 causes in the statistical analysis?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have an idea but Dr. Tabeau
17 should have stated that. That would have been professional. She changed
18 it via the computer. She should have said 10, 15, or 20. My idea is --
19 JUDGE ORIE: My question was not whether she should have done it
20 differently. That is clear from your explanation. You have, as you
21 say -- you have an idea about that.
22 Could you tell us what that idea is, and then talking in terms of
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My idea is that if you conceal a
25 piece of data like that, it's probably not something that is just small.
1 I'm not saying that I'm right. But as for whether it was minimal, what
2 does it mean in a number of cases? She could have said it was in 0.2
3 per cent or 0.3 per cent of cases. I was not able to do that. I didn't
4 have enough time. But my idea is that if the demographer and
5 statistician does not present that, as a demographer you have a reason
6 probably for omitting this particular data.
7 JUDGE ORIE: If you want to conceal something, would you openly
8 explain what you did?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, in order to be able to say --
10 but, yes, I did cite that in a number of cases. But if it's a number of
11 cases, then can you please express it in the way that an expert, a
12 professional, would express it?
13 JUDGE ORIE: No, my question was whether if you want to conceal
14 something, whether you would openly explain what you did.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You and I don't agree that this is
16 an open explanation.
17 JUDGE ORIE: We --
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I -- I believe that this is not an
19 open explanation. This is an expert here who cannot just say in a number
20 of. Why didn't she put three in parentheses, for example, or one? Our
21 profession asks us to present things in an exact way with numbers, so
22 this number of several or a few causes me to doubt things. I don't know
23 if it's a lot or just a few. But I am setting out from the fact that if
24 you are an expert and you say a number, then you open parentheses and you
25 say three, seven cases, one, and this is what is causing me to doubt it
1 because if you're a professional you know how a statistician or a
2 demographer would express themselves: By using numbers.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You're questioning her integrity.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I believe that she is not
5 professionally correct.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Well, that wasn't my question. My question was
7 whether you are questioning her integrity, which is more than not acting
8 professionally but intentionally doing so to hide something. That's what
9 are you saying Dr. Tabeau has done.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If that is how we define integrity,
11 then yes.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed -- oh, no, I'm looking at the clock.
13 I think I should advise you not to proceed at this moment, Mr. Ivetic.
14 Professor Radovanovic, we'll take a break and we'd like to see
15 you back in 20 minutes. You may follow the usher.
16 [The witness stands down]
17 JUDGE ORIE: We resume at five minutes to 11.00.
18 --- Recess taken at 10.33 a.m.
19 --- On resuming at 10.59 a.m.
20 JUDGE ORIE: We're waiting for the witness to be escorted in the
22 [The witness takes the stand]
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, you may proceed.
24 MR. IVETIC:
25 Q. Professor, can you tell us in the generally accepted practice of
1 scientific demography, how are violent deaths categorised?
2 A. Violent deaths caused by murder, accident, or suicide.
3 Q. Now, at our trial Dr. Tabeau testified as follows at transcript
4 page 36855, line 21, to 36856, line 9:
5 "Q. Okay. Now, would you agree with me that in the fields of
6 statistics and demography, violent death is categorised into three
7 category: Accidental death, suicide, and homicide?
8 "A. Yes. Broadly speaking, yes.
9 "Q. And would you agree homicide is further subdivided into
10 justifiable homicide and murder?
11 "A. Yes.
12 "Q. Now when you conclude in your report that all Tomasica
13 victims died violent deaths, can you differentiate between accidental
14 death, suicide, and the two forms of homicide, or are all these forms of
15 violent death included in your finding?
16 "A. Of course, I couldn't differentiate as my knowledge of the
17 circumstances was not enough to make these kind of divides or
19 Professor, what would be your comment as to Dr. Tabeau's
21 A. Dr. Tabeau perhaps could not distribute them exactly according to
22 circumstances and show how these persons lost their lives, but it would
23 have been professionally correct if she had at least hinted that within
24 all these deaths may be also the deaths that were -- that occurred in
25 combat. Whether she was able to divide between the two, I don't think
1 so. Probably not because there is not sufficient information. But there
2 are documents available that confirm that some persons did lose their
3 lives in combat.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: If I may just ask a question. How would you
5 delineate a person who has died in combat, ma'am, as a demographer?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That is a violent death which is
7 not a result of execution but which occurred in combat, which is greatly
8 different from execution.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: How do you come to that conclusion when you are
10 looking at a body that is dead already with bullets in it? How do you
11 conclude that these bullets were fired in combat and not in execution?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There are documents saying that on
13 a specific date there was combat under way and that some persons were
14 killed in combat. There is also a report by a French policeman who says
15 that persons whose first and last names are known and who were members of
16 Territorial Defence were excluded because they perished in combat.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: And it would not be a professional determination
18 in demography or which -- you're quoting other sources that tell us how
19 the person died? Can she make a professional determination as a
20 demographer that a person died in combat or not? That's my question, not
21 whether she can -- she uses other sources.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, if she has documents saying
23 so, then she may indicate that not all deaths that she presents occurred
24 outside combat or if she could indicate that they occurred in and out of
25 combat, because as it is it's insinuated that all the deaths presented by
1 Dr. Tabeau were caused by execution or ethnic cleansing.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Does she say they were caused by execution or does
3 she say they were caused violently? Let's just be clear what she says.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] She says that all the deaths
5 were -- that all deaths occurred under identical circumstances due to an
6 ethnic cleansing campaign, and it is a fact that all deaths did not occur
7 under identical circumstances because there are documents showing that
8 the circumstances were not identical; that is to say, which confirm that
9 there was combat too.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: We have now moved away from the question I was
11 asking. The question I was asking is how you distinguish death by
12 execution from death by -- in combat where people -- where the
13 description is just violent deaths and how you make that distinction
14 professionally as a demographer.
15 You have given your answer. Thank you so much.
16 Yes, Mr. Ivetic, you may proceed.
17 JUDGE ORIE: I would have -- nevertheless, have one question.
18 Ms. Radovanovic, you're saying there are documents which says
19 there were combat, and I consider that important for this Court. Would
20 that allow to distinguish between those who died in combat or those who
21 died as from execution? I mean, the fact that there was combat, would
22 that be sufficient to enable someone to determine that the persons died
23 in combat?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Depends on what a document you
25 consult. If, for example, there is a list from the BiH army, the Army of
1 Bosnia-Herzegovina, and if the list mentions soldiers who died, you can
2 then take the data, and I cannot claim that some of them died in combat
3 and some not, but it's a fact that they are soldiers, not civilians. And
4 it's only in 2009 that Dr. Tabeau says in Srebrenica 70 per cent were
5 soldiers. Up until 2009 they were all treated, and it was suggested,
6 that they were all civilians. So it's one of the documents where you can
7 distinguish troops from civilians.
8 Another -- or, rather, other documents are individual documents.
9 I've stated some of them. And these documents mention that fighting
10 occurred on a specific date, at a specific place, and that there were
11 casualties. Now, Dr. Tabeau perhaps may not individually state who was
12 killed in combat and who was not, but she could say that possibly some of
13 the deaths occurred in combat. As, for example, Nicolas Sebire does in
14 his report. I'm not sure if I am pronouncing his name right. He even
15 says that there is a database including issue -- decisions issued by
16 court declaring those persons dead.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, the question still is, I think, what is within
18 the competence of demographers and what is within the competence of a
19 court which is to combine all the information to come to conclusions.
20 But let's leave it to that. I have heard your explanation.
21 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Again, I have a follow-up question because all
22 this was triggered by one sentence, that's on page 24, lines 21 to 23.
23 You said, I quote:
24 "But there are documents available that confirm that some persons
25 did lose their lives in combat."
1 How many persons and on the basis of which documents did you say
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In my report, I note which
4 documents I have in mind, but I don't know how many persons. Dr. Tabeau
5 would have been professionally correct if she had at least suggested the
6 possibility that some of those that she lists as those who died and who
7 were victims of Tomasica may have died in combat. She could have
8 suggested the same thing for Srebrenica. But up until 2009, not a single
9 word to that effect was ever uttered and --
10 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I am asking you. And we are dealing here with
11 Tomasica, not with Srebrenica. How many? If you say there are documents
12 available that some persons did lose their lives in combat, how many and
13 on the basis of which documents? If you don't know, then we can proceed,
14 but please answer this question.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The documents which I listed. I
16 can't tell you off the top of my head, but it's mentioned in those
17 documents that on such and such a day there was combat in such and such a
18 place. If Dr. Tabeau draws conclusions at the end of her report about
19 incidents per day, in accordance with the indictment against
20 General Mladic, then on the basis of these incidents, dates, and places,
21 she could have concluded that some combat took place as well. She
22 perhaps couldn't have said this specific person died in combat or not and
23 this one didn't.
24 JUDGE FLUEGGE: You didn't answer my question, but let's
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, excuse me, I really wish to
2 answer your question. But perhaps I don't understand. If the question
3 is whether it's possible to distinguish who exactly died in combat and
4 who didn't, then it's no.
5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Ms. Radovanovic, I quoted a sentence you said
6 earlier, and I wanted to know the background of that, and you were not
7 able to give me the background. Thank you.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, please proceed.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise. I have misunderstood
10 you then.
11 MR. IVETIC: I don't know if translation is an issue, but in
12 paragraph 7 of Professor Radovanovic she says there are documents
13 confirming that victims could have also died, and in -- apart from that
14 one section Your Honour has read, every other answer she has given today,
15 that I've paid attention to, has talked about possibilities and not
16 actualities. And unfortunately I did not listen to the B/C/S of that one
17 part that was cited to or missed, whether it was "could" or "could have."
18 But I do want to point out that the --
19 JUDGE FLUEGGE: That can you verified, as you know.
20 MR. IVETIC: I know, I know.
21 JUDGE ORIE: If there is any reason to have the interpretation
22 verified, we'll do that in order to avoid whatever misunderstandings,
23 Mr. Ivetic, and you know that.
24 Then please proceed.
25 MR. IVETIC: If we can then turn to 1D6184 in e-court, and that
1 will be Professor Radovanovic's report.
2 And just for the record, the paragraph 7 that I mentioned is on
3 page 6 in English and page 6 in Serbian. But I'd like to turn to page 11
4 in English and page 13 in Serbian and paragraph 25 of
5 Professor Radovanovic's report.
6 I don't know if everyone else is looking at a black screen or if
7 it's just me, but ...
8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: No, we don't have anything on the screen.
9 JUDGE ORIE: It's saving power.
10 [Trial Chamber confers]
11 JUDGE ORIE: I think we find something on our screens now, so we
12 can proceed.
13 MR. IVETIC: Thank you, Your Honours.
14 If we can now then have the English version, which is to be found
15 on page number 11, and it will be paragraph 25 of the report, that reads:
16 "The fact that sources containing court rulings of death existing
17 in the Demographic Unit have been discarded without any explanation
18 having been given" --
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm sorry, I cannot follow. That's
20 which paragraph?
21 MR. IVETIC:
22 Q. Paragraph 25.
23 A. All right.
24 Q. "The fact that sources containing court rulings of death existing
25 in the Demographic Unit" --
1 MR. IVETIC: Apparently the English is bleeding through on the
2 B/C/S channel, at least on this side.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Then let's restart. If you slowly read again and
4 I'll follow on the B/C/S channel whether that gives, indeed, B/C/S
6 Please proceed.
7 MR. IVETIC:
8 Q. "The fact that sources containing court rulings of death existing
9 in the Demographic Unit have been discarded without any explanation
10 having been given for not using them in the Report of 20 August 2014,
11 gives rise to reasonable suspicion that these documents are being ignored
12 in a calculated manner. Perhaps because in the decisions of some courts
13 it is stated 'some individuals were last seen while they were involved in
14 the local Territorial Defence (TO). As it is possible that they died in
15 the course of combat activities, they were not taken into consideration,
16 except when other evidence indicates that they were captured and/or
17 detained by the opponent forces and later killed.' Thus, it was possible
18 at least to suggest, if not precisely establish, ... that not all victims
19 had died under the same circumstances, i.e., had been executed, as the
20 expert witness insinuates. Apart from that, an account should be taken
21 of the fact that the expert witness, announcing problems in establishing
22 military versus civilian status, observes that it 'can be seen
23 differently, depending on circumstances of death. A soldier shot dead
24 when he/she was not participating in combat (e.g. while on leave) must be
25 seen as a civilian. And a civilian shot in fighting in which he/she used
1 a gun and thus was engaged in combat would be a combatant' why does the
2 expert witness 'overlook' the possibility that there had been both
3 soldiers and combatants among the victims of Tomasica and Prijedor
5 Is this the section that you earlier identified as talking about
6 reports that were in the Demographic Unit that talks about combat and the
7 possibility that certain individuals may have been deceased in combat?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Here one of the items you reference in the footnotes is a 2002
10 report of Prosecution Investigator Nicolas Sebire. Given that the
11 Prosecution's Office has this information, dated 2002, precisely as to
12 Prijedor, as to persons last seen in the TO that possibly died in combat,
13 would a demographer following generally accepted scientific methodology
14 consider such a report relevant to investigating the death of persons
15 from Tomasica in Prijedor to determine how they may have died?
16 A. Yes.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic which footnote were you referring to.
18 MR. IVETIC: That would be footnote number 16, I believe. Let me
19 just turn to that.
20 JUDGE ORIE: It was 15.
21 JUDGE FLUEGGE: It should be 15.
22 MR. IVETIC: 15, yes.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Is that in evidence, for us? Just for us to know.
24 MR. IVETIC: It is not. It is on our list. We could -- I could
25 get you the number of that. I don't have the list in front of me right
1 now, but it is uploaded, I believe, in e-court.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Well, I just wondered whether we have that
4 MR. FILE: Your Honour, there are excerpts of this document
5 already in evidence upped P3282, and the entire document is 65 ter 26260.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Then you consider, I don't know how long the
7 document is, what we would need and what would assist us in evaluating
9 Please proceed.
10 MR. IVETIC: Okay.
11 Q. And you list several other documents in footnote number 17 that
12 you say show that there was armed conflict in certain areas. Would you
13 have expected Dr. Tabeau, if following a generally accepted professional
14 scientific methodology, to have looked at such information contained in
15 such documents?
16 A. Yes. It would have been correct on her side to study them. She
17 may have noted why she wouldn't use them, but she shouldn't pretend as if
18 they did not exist.
19 Q. And if we can go to the next page in the Serbian, and it will be
20 the same page of your report in the English --
21 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Before you do that, may I ask for a
23 Mr. Ivetic, when you started this line of questioning, you were
24 referring to paragraph 7 on page 6 in the English and page 6 in Serbian.
25 There, I read, in paragraph 7:
1 "The expert witness insinuates but does not prove that all
2 victims were executed although there exist documents confirming that the
3 victims could also have died in combat."
4 This is in paragraph 7 of the witness's report.
5 I would like to know from Ms. Radovanovic, now we heard about the
6 report of Mr. Nicolas Sebire of 2002. Is that the only report you are
7 referring to here, the only document, or have you anything else in mind?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This paragraph 7 is a summary so
9 it's shortened, and it's not the only one. This refers also to other
10 documents under footnote 17 from paragraph 25. As this is a summary, I
11 did not write about it expansively. I did in further text. But this is
12 just a conclusion drawn from what follows.
13 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you. But in footnote 17 we have only a
14 list of documents with ERN numbers. Can you summarise what kind of
15 documents are these? There are no titles, and we have no idea what kind
16 of documents these are.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I cannot remember exactly how
18 they are called, but those are mostly reports -- I have them in my room,
19 so if you like I can bring them. Reports submitted by certain persons
20 about what happened on a specific day, where there was combat, and so on
21 and so forth. I can't remember who it was that submitted them, but I can
22 look, I have them in my bag in my room, and tell you exactly what
23 documents these are. These are some kinds of minutes that were then sent
24 with reports on what was going on, on specific dates.
25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Do you have any information if one or more of
1 these victims of combat mentioned in these documents ended up in the
2 Tomasica mass grave?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I did not examine this. I took it more as
4 an example that there was combat on specific dates and in specific places.
5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Ivetic.
7 MR. IVETIC:
8 Q. And now looking at paragraph number 26, and here you deal with
9 Dr. Tabeau's reference to machine-gun fire. For a demographer, does one
10 ever deal with whether someone is killed by a gun, machine-gun, or by
11 other means; and, if so, when?
12 A. No, they deal with causes of death that were given by forensic
13 specialists. They can say a gun-shot wound to the head, but whether it's
14 from a machine-gun or a pistol or something would have nothing to do with
16 Q. Now if I could ask you about something that Dr. Tabeau testified
17 about during our trial, and that was at transcript page 36800, lines 8
18 through 20. I will read as follows when I asked her about the testimony
19 of Dr. Clark, and it went like this:
20 "Q. I would like to put one last question regarding this topic
21 by way of a conclusion.
22 "Is it correct that, as a scientist, you cannot exclude the
23 possibility that any or some of the people were killed in combat?
24 "A. Yes, I can't -- I can't exclude that."
25 And that's citing now Dr. Clark. And then I asked Dr. Tabeau
1 about this testimony of Dr. Clark as follows:
2 "Is this finding by Dr. Clark highly consistent with your results
3 in doing your work as to the bodies recovered from Tomasica?
4 "A. Sir, I didn't any -- I didn't study any sources based on
5 which I could say that someone died in combat or in non-combat situation.
6 I actually draw no conclusions about that. So whatever Mr. Clark said in
7 his testimony, it is his opinion, but I cannot make any statements at
8 this moment on that."
9 And that's the end of the citation.
10 Professor, what would be your comments as to this testimony.
11 A. Dr. Tabeau said it well, that she did not look at any other
12 sources that would indicate something else, and Dr. Clark presents the
13 causes of death. I do not recall Dr. Clark writing that anybody died
14 from machine-gun fire. I don't think there's anything like that in his
15 reports. But he does talk about pistol shots, how many shots, and so on
16 and so forth, but for a demographer that would not be something of
17 significance. Even Dr. Clark, if I recall, does not rule out the
18 possibility that some persons were killed in combat.
19 Q. In the continuation of her testimony on this topic, Dr. Tabeau at
20 transcript page 36810, lines 9 through 14, testified as follows:
21 "Q. Dr. Tabeau, do you think differentiating between
22 combat-related deaths and those from ethnic cleansing is irrelevant for
23 purposes of your report?
24 "A. I never said it is irrelevant for the purposes of my report,
25 but I was just not able to study sources that would be telling me about
1 the combat and non-combat incidents."
2 Professor, what would be your comment as to this part of the
4 A. I would ask why Dr. Tabeau did not have that opportunity. She
5 has a database that she formed herself with her associates. I assume
6 that she knows the content of the database. If she did not have the
7 opportunity, she should have given a reason; perhaps lack of time, lack
8 of available material. The fact that she did not have the opportunity to
9 do something does not mean that that particular thing does not exist.
10 Q. Did Dr. Tabeau have access at the Demographic Unit to other
11 sources of army documents listing casualties, apart from the
12 Nicolas Sebire report that you cited to in your report.
13 A. The Demographic Unit has everything that Dr. Tabeau and her
14 assistants created, meaning different databases based on the special
15 project that she was heading at the Office of the Prosecutor. She knows
16 everything that those databases contain, and she knows which documents
17 are available.
18 If I was able to receive some things from the Defence, I don't
19 think that the Defence found them on the street. These documents were
20 recorded, registered if they refer to the population. I mean, I assume
21 that Dr. Tabeau had these same documents as well. I don't know
22 everything that is contained in the database -- in the databases of the
23 Demographic Unit because I never had access to the overall data of the
24 Demographic Unit. I am not aware of any catalogue existing which would
25 say we have these documents at our disposal, so that I would be able to
1 go through that list and say: Well, this would be interesting to me.
2 The demographic database familiarity with it and its contents is
3 something that is known to Dr. Tabeau, so she can make a selection. I'm
4 not able to make a selection. I can rely on what she refers to in her
5 report. I can ask for that. Also, things that I get. If the lawyers
6 help me, they find a report; for example, I received Nicolas Sebire's
7 report in The Hague. I did not know about that report earlier.
8 Q. You --
9 JUDGE ORIE: Could I try to get a focused comment on the
10 following matter.
11 What Dr. Tabeau says, as quoted, is that she was unable to
12 distinguish between combat-related death and death from ethnic cleansing
13 because she was not able to study sources that would be telling her about
14 the combat and non-combat incidents.
15 Now, you are saying: You should have told us I have no time,
16 et cetera. Are you aware - and I really would be interested in it - are
17 you aware of sources which clearly distinguish between incidents as a
18 result of combat and incidents which are considered to be part of ethnic
19 cleansing? Because we -- over the last hour, we discussed in quite some
20 detail that whereas almost everyone concedes that people may have died in
21 combat, and there may have been combat, but it's very difficult to
22 specifically identify this was a combat victim and this was an ethnic
23 cleansing victim.
24 So where you say she should have explained that she had no time,
25 but she should have done it, or explained why she didn't do it, here, at
1 least as I understand it, she says: I didn't have such sources.
2 My question for you, therefore, is: Are you aware of sources
3 which identify clearly between this incident is a combat victim and that
4 incident is an ethnic cleansing victim?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't have such information, but
6 I think that the Demographic Unit at least has parts or sections --
7 JUDGE ORIE: Let me stop you there.
8 Ms. Tabeau says, I don't have such sources. You're saying, I'm
9 not aware of such sources but she must have them. Could you tell us why
10 you conclude that where she says, I have no such sources, what makes you
11 believe - and I really would be interested to know - what makes you
12 believe that she did have such sources?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] She does not say that she does not
14 have them. She just says that she did not study them. At least that's
15 what I got in the translation that I had.
16 JUDGE ORIE: No. Then let me read it exactly.
17 "I was just not able to study sources that would be telling me
18 about the combat and non-combat incidents."
19 You apparently understood this as such sources do exist, but I
20 was unable - lack of time, whatever it would be - and you have not
21 considered this possibly to be understood as I wasn't able because they
22 do not exist.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If she did not have these sources,
24 at least this is my reasoning, the doctor would say, I do not have
25 sources on the basis of which I could make that conclusion. If she does
1 say I was not able to study, then these sources do exist, or at least a
2 part of such sources exists.
3 JUDGE ORIE: But that's your linguistic analysis of the answer.
4 Let's proceed.
5 MR. IVETIC: If we could look at paragraph --
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: I have a question in respect of paragraph 26.
7 Ms. Radovanovic, you say in paragraphs 26 that:
8 For Dr. Tabeau to say that shooting was from machine-gun,
9 machine -- or sometimes handguns is intellectually dishonest if account
10 is not taken of the fact that there had also been combatants amongst the
12 My question is: Is it your position that combatants would not be
13 killed by machine-guns or handguns.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You can't say it if you have data
15 anywhere that there was fire from a machine-gun or machine-guns. Based
16 on the sources cited by Dr. Tabeau, and then during questioning, she says
17 that this is something she saw at John Clark's reports and then this is
18 missing in the -- in the analysis of John Clark.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm sorry, I'm going to interrupt you because
20 you're not answering my question at all.
21 My question is: Is it your position that combatants cannot be
22 killed with machine or sometimes handguns because you're saying by
23 alleging that people were killed with machine or sometimes handguns is
24 intellectually dishonest because it does not take account of the fact
25 that others were combatants. My question to you is are saying combatants
1 cannot be killed with machine or handguns.
2 MR. IVETIC: And, Your Honours, if you're asking for the
3 conclusion of the witness, you have to read the full conclusion, which
4 after the comma says:
5 "... as well as that not a single document that the expert
6 witness uses contains information about machine-gun fire."
7 That's the finding in that paragraph, so you can't take one part
8 of it --
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. --
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. --
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, I think you wanted to make a suggestion,
12 a brief suggestion to Judge Moloto.
13 MR. IVETIC: Yes.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Well, that's not the language you used. You told
15 him what he had to do, yes? Okay, therefore I leave it in the hands of
16 Judge Moloto again.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
18 JUDGE ORIE: But next time you may suggest but not tell
19 Judge Moloto what he should have done, whether it's right or wrong what
20 you're telling, but that's not the way we address one of my colleagues.
21 Please proceed.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: I am aware of the rest of that sentence, and the
23 rest of that sentence really doesn't turn around the question I'm asking.
24 The fact that there is not a single document that the expert witness uses
25 contains information about machine-guns, it's -- should then -- the --
1 the expert should be challenged on the basis that she has -- doesn't give
2 us a source of where she get the information that machine-guns were used.
3 I'm dealing with a question of where she is being accused of
4 being intellectually dishonest simply because she uses -- she says the
5 bodies were shot at with machine or sometimes handguns. Now if you --
6 and my question is: Is it the position of this expert that combatants
7 are not shot at -- cannot be shot at with machine or sometimes hand guns?
8 That's all I'm asking. It has nothing to do with the rest of the
10 And, Madam Radovanovic, will you please answer my question, if
11 you can?
12 And I just want to say I take a strong exception to your
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Combatants can be shot at with
15 anything, machine-guns, rockets, bombs. If this is what you're asking me
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, that's what I'm asking.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- and if Dr. Tabeau concluded
19 that --
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: But this is what you're concluding. You're
21 concluding that because she says machine-guns and guns were used,
22 therefore, she is excluding combatants. Now you're saying that
23 combatants can also be shot at with machine-guns, which in fact then
24 contradicts what you are saying.
25 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours I would have to object to the question
1 as posed and give Your Honours some instruction as advice that the
2 conclusion, as stated in the report, contains additional matters which
3 you have not raised which go towards the conclusion. So to say and to
4 pull out one half of the conclusion and say your conclusion is based on A
5 while ignoring part B, which is also part of the conclusion, I believe is
6 creating a false record.
7 JUDGE ORIE: It is the implicit suggestion which was dealt with
8 by Judge Moloto, and you may now proceed.
9 MR. IVETIC:
10 Q. Now, let's turn to paragraph 24 of the report, on page 10 in
11 English at the bottom, and it will be page 13 in Serbian, and here we can
12 see what Dr. Tabeau said about her access to other documents. Here you
13 are citing Dr. Tabeau's article from 2005 that says:
14 "Only a few sources can be taken as safe and sound, for instance,
15 records from" --
16 MR. IVETIC: And I think we have to turn the page in English.
17 Q. "... death certificates, court decisions proclaiming persons
18 dead, and death records of armed forces from the archives of the Ministry
19 of Defence."
20 Has Dr. Tabeau utilized death records from the archives in the
21 Ministry of Defence in other reports that you have reviewed?
22 A. No, she did not use these documents anywhere in the reports that
23 I reviewed. Except in 2009, the Ministry of Defence, in Srebrenica, so
24 only in 2009, but can I also say that it's not actually an official
25 document. I can agree with Dr. Tabeau that she included it in the -- as
1 an official document, but in scientific work it's not counted as an
2 official document. An official document would only be the certificate of
3 death or a court decision to that effect.
4 Q. And if we return to paragraph 25 of your report, we have another
5 citation, I believe, from the same 2005 article of Dr. Tabeau. I read it
6 before, so I won't read it again, but it is in relation to footnote
7 number 18 in paragraph 25 of your report. Can you reconcile with what
8 Dr. Tabeau has written in 2005 and what she has not done in Tomasica?
9 A. If Dr. Tabeau knows what the documents are that are certain and
10 valid and if she informs the expert public about that, then I think that
11 it would have been professionally correct for her to also inform the
12 Trial Chamber and to say: These are documents that are used in
13 scientific expert studies, but I'm not using that, I'm using something
15 Q. Now, on the same topic at transcript page 36810, lines 15 through
16 20, Dr. Tabeau testified as follows:
17 "Q. Given that you concede combat is also a violent death,
18 different than people killed as non-combatants or killed not in combat,
19 will you agree that there exists a possibility that some or all Tomasica
20 bodies may equally be from combat as they may be from what you've called
21 ethnic cleansing?
22 "A. I cannot exclude this option."
23 What comment do you have on this testimony of Dr. Tabeau in
24 relation to her expert report as to Tomasica.
25 A. She did not write that anywhere in her report. Quite to the
1 contrary. She concludes that all of that is a consequence of ethnic
2 cleansing, and a widespread campaign of ethnic cleansing at that.
3 Nowhere does she indicate the possibility that this could have been in
4 different circumstances.
5 Q. If we can look at Dr. Tabeau's report, it will be P7449 in
6 e-court. It will be page 47 in the English and page 60 in the B/C/S.
7 And it will be under the heading "Conclusions," which appears two pages
8 prior, so that's the section of the report we're dealing with. And it
9 will be the last paragraph in the report before the listing of annexes to
10 the report.
11 MR. IVETIC: We're still waiting for the Serbian. If I can
12 assist, it's page 60 in the Serbian. And it's at the very bottom of the
13 page in the Serbian.
14 Q. And here Dr. Tabeau, as the very last thing she writes in her
15 report, says:
16 "All in all, a significant evidence was presented in this report
17 which supports the conclusion that all Tomasica victims died violent
18 deaths in extremely dramatic circumstances of a broader campaign of
19 ethnic cleansing in the Prijedor municipality and as part of the ARK
20 ethnic cleansing campaign."
21 First of all, how do you understand this? Is this a conclusion
22 of Dr. Tabeau or something else?
23 A. It's Dr. Tabeau's final conclusion. It's in the section entitled
24 "Conclusion" as the final point of the overall conclusion.
25 Q. If we can now take a look at 1D6184 again, that would be your
1 report, and paragraph 31 of the same, which is found on page 13 in the
2 English, page 16 in the Serbian.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask you a question.
4 You said this is Dr. Tabeau's conclusion. What is her
5 conclusion, that there is evidence which supports; or is it her
6 conclusion that this is what happened, that all Tomasica victims died
7 violent death in extremely dramatic circumstances, et cetera?
8 What is her conclusion, that there is significant evidence to
9 support that or that this is what happened?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Her conclusion is that there is
11 evidence but that it happened in a ethnic cleansing campaign in extremely
12 dramatic circumstances. I accept the number of the dead from Tomasica.
13 I'm not going to dispute the number or the fact that they are dead. I am
14 just asking: What led her to conclude that it was a consequence of a
15 broader campaign of ethnic cleansing in extremely dramatic circumstances.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Let me try to again explain to you what my problem
18 My problem is that Dr. Tabeau points at the existence of what she
19 calls significant evidence that something may have happened. She doesn't
20 say that's what happened, but she says there's significant evidence that
21 supports that it has happened, which I understand - but please correct me
22 when you read it in a different way - that she does not draw that final
23 conclusion, although she points at the significance of the evidence which
24 would support such a conclusion. That's the reason why I'm asking you.
25 Because the question put to you by Mr. Ivetic was: Is this here
1 conclusion. And therefore, I asked you: Is her conclusion that
2 significant evidence exists where she refrains from saying that it's what
3 happened, or is it her conclusion that this is what happened.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] She says that that is what really
5 happened and that Tomasica corroborates the widespread campaign; namely,
6 that that really happened and that that is evidence of a broader campaign
7 of ethnic cleansing. That is how I understand this conclusion.
8 JUDGE ORIE: That's how you read the conclusion which was quoted.
9 That's your linguistical analysis of the lines that were read to you.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour, Judge Orie. I am
11 reading what Dr. Tabeau wrote, and what the attorney read to me as a
12 direct quote of what Dr. Tabeau wrote --
13 JUDGE ORIE: Let's -- let's --
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- in the last lines of her
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's how you interpret what was read to you.
17 Please proceed.
18 MR. IVETIC: I think we're at the time for the break again,
19 Your Honours.
20 JUDGE ORIE: It's time for a break, indeed.
21 Professor Radovanovic, we'd like to see you back in 20 minutes.
22 [The witness stands down]
23 JUDGE ORIE: We'll resume at 20 minutes past midday.
24 --- Recess taken at 12.00 p.m.
25 --- On resuming at 12.20 p.m.
1 JUDGE ORIE: We'll briefly move into private session.
2 [Private session]
19 [Open session]
20 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
22 Mr. Lukic, would you remind your client that he's supposed not to
23 speak aloud.
24 [The witness takes the stand]
25 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Ivetic.
1 MR. IVETIC:
2 Q. I had wanted to ask about paragraph 31 of your report where you
3 say that Dr. Tabeau has stepped outside her profession for the purposes
4 of the analysis and that is obviously biased in selecting sources of
6 In this regard, I'd like to -- first of all, do you stand by
7 paragraph 31 of your report, as written?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Now I'd like to address the use of the term "ethnic cleansing" by
10 Dr. Tabeau since the Trial Chamber had several questions about it in the
11 last session.
12 I'd like to present to you various testimony of Dr. Tabeau
13 precisely on the use of the term "ethnic cleansing," and I'll take each
14 of the sections of her testimony one by one and then ask for comments as
15 to each. So the entire section of the transcript that I will be talking
16 about is from transcript page 36802, line 18, through 36804, line 12.
17 The first part of the testimony is as follows:
18 "Q. Then do you feel that your conclusions as to ethnic
19 cleansing are complete since you did not take into account the potential
20 impact or role of combat as to the bodies recovered from Tomasica?"
21 And the answer of Dr. Tabeau was as follows:
22 "A. I think that the report I made is not about the ethnic
23 cleansing in the first place. It is about the victims from Tomasica in
24 the first place --"
25 And then in the continuation of the transcript, the second
1 question was asked:
2 "Q. Doctor, I beg to differ. The conclusion I just read is the
3 penultimate conclusion of your report. I put it to you that it is the
4 basis of your report and it is the key part of your report. If you do
5 not want us to rely upon that conclusion, please say so."
6 And Dr. Tabeau's answer was:
7 "Well, to me I see a clear picture of ethnic cleansing based on
8 the records I studied, based on the records of missing persons, from the
9 Prijedor municipality - in particular from the Prijedor municipality and
10 from the ARK area as such. The fact that many victims went missing on a
11 few days in July, the 20th, 23, 4th, and 5th, these are huge numbers."
12 Professor, what comment do you have as to Dr. Tabeau's testimony
13 on this matter.
14 A. In my opinion, it is contradictory. First of all she says that
15 she believes her report is not on ethnic cleansing, but she draws the
16 conclusion that the victims were victims in a wide-ranging ethnic
17 cleansing campaign. She also says that she can see a clear picture of
18 ethnic cleansing based on the records on the ARK and Prijedor. She could
19 have included a footnote and let us know, let me know, or the Trial
20 Chamber, where we could see that too.
21 What Dr. Tabeau sees, any demographer has to document in a
22 scholarly work and say on the basis of this, this, and this, I draw
23 such-and-such conclusions and that's why I see it like that. I believe
24 that personal views don't have a scientific basis unless they are well
1 Q. And in the last part of the transcript range that I cited, more
2 precisely I believe it is 36804, lines 1 through 12, Dr. Tabeau went
3 further as to ethnic cleansing and testified as follows:
4 "Yes, I discuss the ethnic cleansing in my report as the context
5 for the Tomasica victims. It is unavoidable to mention the words 'ethnic
6 cleansing' as in my view the deaths, the killings of the Tomasica victims
7 were part of the ethnic cleansing.
8 "And, of course, there is some results, quite some results in my
9 report that support ethnic cleansing considerably. I am speaking of
10 ethnic cleansing from my own experience. It is not the first time that I
11 have been working on the 92 victim, Tomasica victims, also victims from
12 the ARK and Prijedor municipality. I studied other sources of
13 information and made other reports. From my experience and from the work
14 I have done in the past as well, there is quite some support in this
15 report in this work for the ethnic cleansing."
16 From the standpoint of the generally accepted practice of
17 scientific and professional demography, do you consider Dr. Tabeau's
18 discussion of ethnic cleansing to be in line with the accepted
19 terminology and type of review seen in that field?
20 A. No. There is no definition of ethnic cleansing in demography.
21 What Dr. Tabeau deems to be very important and that she must unavoidably
22 mention ethnic cleansing in her conclusion and that she proved through
23 various reports, while working on Prijedor and the Autonomous Region of
24 Krajina, or the ARK, she has to note in a professionally correct manner
25 in a footnote what are the reports on the basis of which she concludes
1 that this is a case of ethnic cleansing, because a demographer does not
2 have such a definition, and she could then tell us on the basis of this,
3 this, and this, including the experience which Dr. Tabeau says she has.
4 But once again, it has to be founded on a scientific basis.
5 In the report as presented by Dr. Tabeau where she talks about
6 the ethnic cleansing campaign, I did not find a single footnote that
7 would indicate on what basis she concludes that the Tomasica victims are
8 the result of an ethnic cleansing campaign. I also do not know what
9 Dr. Tabeau considers as ethnic cleansing.
10 Q. At transcript page 36854, line 20, through 36855, also line 20 --
11 MR. IVETIC: That can't be right. I believe it's 36855 -- just
12 one moment. It's 36854 and onwards, Dr. Tabeau told us in an answer:
13 "Well, ethnic cleansing is not defined within the field of
14 demography. It is the demography of war, or conflict demography, that
15 has been dealing with issues like ethnic cleansing, among other things."
16 First of all, what is your comment on this.
17 A. Dr. Tabeau says herself that there is no definition of ethnic
18 cleansing in demography, but then she notes that war demography, or
19 demography of war, deals with that. If there is such a discipline of
20 demography as the demography of war, and I don't think that's the case,
21 because Dr. Brunborg in a document of his says that it is about to be
22 constituted. Whether it's being constituted or not, I wouldn't know.
23 But if there is such a thing as demography of war that Dr. Tabeau is
24 aware of and I am not, then the demography of war also must provide some
25 sort of definition of ethnic cleansing, and then this demography of war
1 says we do not apply the legal definition of the United Nations but for
2 us ethnic cleansing represents such and such a thing. And then it may be
3 discussed within demography and agree or disagree whether this definition
4 is good or not.
5 But in any case, it needs to be said what the demography of war
6 implies under this category, ethnic cleansing. If Dr. Tabeau is a war
7 demographer and deals with the demography of war. I believe myself to be
8 no less a demographer of war, but I'm not aware of any definition of
9 the demography of war. It would be nice for me to learn something new or
10 to say, all right, fine, now we have a new definition in demography, or
11 perhaps I might object to it.
12 Q. In the continuation of the pages I cited, 36854, line 20, through
13 36855, line 20, Dr. Tabeau was asked about which definition of ethnic
14 cleansing she used. And the testimony went like this:
15 "Q. Can you tell us, Doctor, for purposes of your report on
16 Tomasica, what is the definition of ethnic cleansing that you used and
17 had in mind when you drafted the report?
18 "A. I didn't use any particular definition of ethnic cleansing.
19 I interpreted certain demographic distributions as illustrative and
20 indicative of ethnic cleansing in this area, in the area of the ARK and
21 Prijedor in particular."
22 Now before I continue with the rest of the answer, do you have a
23 comment as to what Dr. Tabeau has said thus far?
24 A. Well, that's really contradictory. First, she says it does not
25 exist in demography as such but it does in the demography of war, but
1 then she says, I didn't use any particular definition but I interpreted
2 distributions. What Dr. Tabeau implies under that I don't know - but
3 specific distributions are made on the basis of ethnicity but there are
4 no special distributions on the basis of ethnic cleansing. You can make
5 a distribution of population based on ethnicity and then draw certain
6 conclusions: this one is rising, this one is falling, this one has
7 remained the same. So as regards this answer of Dr. Tabeau, I don't know
8 how to understand it. It turns out that she used a definition from the
9 demography of war, then she didn't. We know for certain that a
10 definition does not exist in demography and so on.
11 Q. In the continuation of the transcript, we see as follows:
12 "Judge Orie: But, Ms. Tabeau, that requires a certain
13 understanding of what you understand ethnic cleansing to be, and I think
14 that was the question that Mr. Ivetic put to you.
15 "The Witness: So if I may continue then.
16 "Judge Orie: Please.
17 "The Witness: I didn't use any particular definition of ethnic
18 cleansing. I used my own understanding of ethnic cleansing, which I
19 understand as focusing certain actions on a given group of population
20 leading to eradication, largely, of this group from a certain territory,
21 and I saw it from the distributions of the missing persons by ethnicity,
22 by age and sex, which I interpreted as supportive and indicative of
23 ethnic cleansing in the territory of ARK."
24 Professor, from the standpoint of the generally accepted practice
25 of the field of demography as a colleague and fellow demographer, can you
1 comment on these words of Dr. Tabeau.
2 A. Well, someone who is involved in a certain field professionally
3 would deem this answer incomplete and scientifically incorrect. Because
4 Dr. Tabeau says, I didn't use any particular definition, but I used my
5 own understanding. We don't know what one's own understanding is. She
6 had a right to draw such conclusions but she would need to explain that.
7 In my own understanding, ethnic cleansing, it means when you kill only
8 men or only men aged from 5 to 105 or another category.
9 So she had to define what her own understanding was. It wouldn't
10 have been scientifically based because a legal definition in demography
11 is known. But perhaps we could have accepted her understanding if she
12 had provided a definition and relevant argumentation supporting it. But
13 to say that in your expertise, which pretends to be scientifically based,
14 you have your own understanding without providing explanation and
15 arguments and that you only rely on a distribution of some structures
16 without having relevant sources for the distribution, this distribution
17 of the ethnic composition is drawn up by Dr. Tabeau on the basis of one
18 source which is accepted in the scientific world, and that's the
19 population census, and the source that is not accepted anywhere among
20 scientists, and these are electoral roles.
21 So such a distribution on the basis of such sources is not
22 recognised as relevant anywhere among scholars. But if she had explained
23 what her own understanding was and why she thought so we may have agreed,
24 and I may have said all right, that's fine, though I doubt it as the
25 other source which is used as source of the survived population, which is
1 absurd. Electoral roles are not sources from which you can determine
2 what population survived anywhere in the world, so I don't think that
3 this is scientifically acceptable.
4 Q. If we could look at Dr. Tabeau's report, it's P7449, page 11
5 Serbian, page 9 in the English, and it will be the last part of the third
6 paragraph under 2.8 in relation to methodology.
7 MR. IVETIC: Again, we should have page 11 in the Serbian and
8 page 9 in the English. I may have misspoken. And we'll need ... one
9 moment, please. We'll need page 11 in the Serbian. We see page 7, I
10 believe, up on the screen now.
11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Do they correspond, Mr. Ivetic?
12 MR. IVETIC: I don't think so. I'm trying to -- trying to see
13 which part is being displayed so as to give advice. We need to go --
14 actually, yes. No, no. No. You can go back to the...
15 JUDGE ORIE: I think what was found in the English on the lower
16 part of the page is found in the upper part in the B/C/S.
17 MR. IVETIC: Yes.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
19 MR. IVETIC: So the paragraph in question is the third from the
20 top in the B/C/S.
21 JUDGE ORIE: And the semi-last in English?
22 MR. IVETIC: Well, the English starts off with "in this report,
23 in the first place." It should be the third paragraph under the heading
24 2.8, which I think will be on perhaps the prior page in the B/C/S.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that's indeed not.
1 MR. IVETIC: Okay.
2 Q. So the paragraph at issue is the last one on the page in the
3 Serbian. The part I want to focus on will be on the next page in Serbian
4 and it will be the last part of that paragraph up at the top. And it
5 reads as follows:
6 "The methodology is simple but powerful. It's strength relates
7 to using reliable sources and to benefitting from matching and merging of
8 the various sources at the individual record level. When matching and
9 merging of the source, I always pay particular attention to the
10 identification and elimination of duplicates."
11 Professor, can you comment as to this part of Dr. Tabeau's
13 A. The methodology is simple but powerful. What does powerful
14 methodology mean? You have scientific and non-scientific methodology.
15 In scientific research and methodology, there is nothing that's powerful.
16 This something that is beyond the scientific or its more scientific than
17 the scientific method. So it's not comprehensible what powerful
18 methodology is. There's no explanation.
19 But based on all the procedures used, it can be noted that this
20 methodology is special and does not comport with scientific methodology.
21 This profitable methodology is not practiced, not applied in the
22 scientific world, as far as I know, because it represents an adaptation
23 of some methodological solutions which are applied in scientific work to
24 the needs of one's own research. Therefore, when you say that the
25 methodology is simple but profitable without explaining what the
1 profitable part would mean, this is just a pure phrase or terminology
2 that has no meaning. I underline it does not have any significance
3 without an explanation, unless one understands it as selecting what you
4 need and choosing what you need for your own research purposes.
5 Q. Now, if we could turn to 1D6187, and this will be an article
6 published by Dr. Tabeau from 2005. And it will be on page 20 in the
7 Serbian and page 22 in the English language. And it will be in the
8 middle of the page in the English, and I think it's the fifth
9 paragraph up from the bottom of the page in Serbian.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. File.
11 MR. FILE: Just one minor point, Your Honour. Counsel
12 represented this as an article by Dr. Tabeau. I believe it's an
13 article -- it's co-authored by Dr. Tabeau, and I just think that should
14 be on the record.
15 MR. IVETIC: And it will be in the middle of the page of the
16 B/C/S, starting [B/C/S spoken], and I'll --
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm sorry, I cannot follow, which
18 paragraph is it in the Serbian?
19 MR. IVETIC:
20 Q. The fifth paragraph up from the top which should be at
21 approximately the middle of the page which starts out [B/C/S spoken].
22 A. All right.
23 Q. And now I'll read.
24 "International organisations operating in Bosnia, such as, for
25 example, ICRC, ICMP, and UNHCR, made considerable contributions to the
1 process of collecting information about war-time missing persons, deaths,
2 identification of victims, and internal and external migration. The
3 mandates of these organisations have, however, other major objectives
4 than producing statistical information about casualties of war. Their
5 contributions can therefore not be seen as a substitute of the outcomes
6 of regular statistical activities normally conducted in peacetime."
7 Then the next paragraph, it starts:
8 "The contributions of (local and international) non-governmental
9 organisations operating in Bosnia, being meaningful and important, can
10 for the same reasons not be considered as replacements for regular
12 What do you have to say about what is written in this article
13 co-authored by Dr. Tabeau?
14 A. Dr. Tabeau knows exactly what can and what cannot be considered
15 as valid official data in demography or mortality or in official
16 documents. In this study of hers, which is intended for the broader
17 professional public, she correctly delineates the point of I know what
18 should be done, and that these were the things that the international
19 organisations did who don't usually do this kind of work. So in the
20 analysis that I looked at, she does not inform any Trial Chamber about
21 this, and she does not say: These sources of data that I acquired from
22 non-governmental organisations do not substitute the work of regular
23 statistical services because they would result in such-and-such a
25 So this approach would be a kind of caution about the overall
1 quality of the expertise that is being done. If it cannot be measured
2 with official statistical sources of data, then there must be some kind
3 of observation about the quality of the expertise that you are producing.
4 In many expert reports, including this one, Dr. Tabeau says that the
5 objective is to present accurate data. However, she does not have a
6 source for accurate data.
7 Q. If we could turn to page 4 in the same work in Serbian and in
8 English, and it will be, I believe, at the middle of the page in both.
9 So it's the middle paragraph that in Serbian begins,
10 "[Interpretation] Note that our research results ..."
11 [In English] And in English I will continue reading:
12 "Note that our research results were obtained from a project
13 somewhat different from the usual statistical and academic work. Our
14 perspective was in line with that of expert reports submitted to the
15 Trial Chambers at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former
16 Yugoslavia (ICTY) as part of the (prosecution) evidence. The goal of
17 such reports is to provide the Chambers with high-standard war-related
18 population statistics satisfying the requirement of being 'beyond a
19 reasonable doubt' and consistent with the framework of the international
20 humanitarian law."
21 Professor, from the standpoint of the generally accepted practice
22 of professional demographic science, what comment do you have on this
23 approach as stated in this article co-authored by Dr. Tabeau?
24 A. Dr. Tabeau, quite rightly, says that this is not in accordance
25 with the usual academic work without explaining what it's supposed to be
1 in accordance with.
2 Unless we accept as an explanation that their perspective is in
3 keeping with the -- is in line with that of the Trial Chambers at the
4 International Criminal Tribunal or the Prosecution, what would be that
5 perspective in line with the Prosecution if it deviates from customary
6 professional procedures? I mean, we would need an explanation for that.
7 She then notes that the research is not in line with academic work and
8 then that the sources of data are not the customary sources used in
9 research that is in line with academic work and that these are
10 organisations whose results are not even close to official results. I
11 don't know exactly which words she used.
12 How can then the conclusion be made that the results offered to
13 the Prosecution are of high quality which satisfy criteria of the
14 Tribunal and are in accordance with international criminal law? In my
15 deep conviction, the criteria of the court, and I assume of the
16 Prosecution as well, can only be satisfied by the criteria and results
17 that are scientifically founded, methodology that is applied in
18 scientific academic research.
19 If Dr. Tabeau does believe that this is in line with
20 international humanitarian law, then again she would need to footnote
21 that and say that international humanitarian law perhaps recognises the
22 methodology that one would devise oneself and that that can deviate from
23 all kinds of things, but then I believe that in that case that would be
24 proper and correct.
25 I don't know -- of course, I don't claim to know everything, but
1 I don't know that international humanitarian law insists on getting
2 reports that deviate from scientific professional conditions needed for
3 such a report to be acceptable. I don't know about the court. I mean, I
4 don't know. And perhaps Dr. Tabeau does know that and perhaps she could
5 explain this to us how this special methodology, which is not in line
6 with the science, has significance for the Tribunal and the Prosecution,
7 or how, on the basis of special methodology, one would acquire
8 statistical data of high quality.
9 Also, it is very interesting - I would like to know - for
10 example, had Dr. Tabeau put in a footnote explaining what it is that
11 would satisfy the criteria of the Tribunal. What is it that would
12 satisfy the Court's criteria? There is a partial explanation for that in
13 Srebrenica. I described that in my own report. In that case it is
14 considered that a large number, even though the Court never says that
15 anywhere, is one of the elements to satisfy the criteria of the Court.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask you the following.
17 A small portion was read, and you commented in a long answer on
18 that. What conclusions does Dr. Tabeau draw from the fact that the usual
19 statistical academic work could not be applied? What triggers that in
20 her mind in this paragraph; could you tell us?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] She makes a distinction between
22 what is applied in science and what is applied in court, and she says
23 properly that in science such and such a thing and such and such sources.
24 However, our expert report was done from the perspective in accordance
25 with such and such a thing.
1 JUDGE ORIE: What she says you then should do?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] She doesn't say anything in this
3 report about what should be done. She, however, presents --
4 JUDGE ORIE: In the article, I meant.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In the article that she published
6 in a professional publication, she does not say what should be done.
7 If I may explain it briefly. She says we're going to present the
8 war-time victims. It should be like this, but we're actually doing it
9 like this.
10 JUDGE ORIE: I'll phrase the question in a different way.
11 What I read in this report immediately following the portion that
12 was read to you, she writes, or they write:
13 "The first prerequisite implies that questionable, deficient,
14 incomplete sources and/or individual death causes [sic] are excluded from
15 our statistics."
16 Cases. Where I said "causes" I should have read "cases."
17 I understand that to be that if you are using this unusual method
18 that you should be very careful in excluding sources which are, as she
19 writes, deficient, incomplete.
20 That's apparently the conclusion she draws. Is that something
21 you would consider wise to do and acceptable to do under those
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. First of all, these are
24 sources that are never used in the scientific research for what
25 Dr. Tabeau is writing. And then she says we are using those that are not
1 used, but the first preconditions in those which are usually not used for
2 scientific research would be to exclude duplicates.
3 JUDGE ORIE: You'd say that questionable, deficient and
4 incomplete sources, you consider that a reference to duplicates?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. What is meant are the
6 insufficient, questionable, incomplete sources from the Red Cross, ICMP,
7 and so on, which also contain, among other things, duplicates, and then
8 those sources that are used by the doctor are verified, they're checked.
9 And then when you find duplicates, because there were cases that in the
10 Red Cross or in several sources you have one person appearing a number of
11 times because it was reported by different relatives, so when you take a
12 source where a same person is found to have been reported three or five
13 times, that would be excluded and leave just one such report and not
14 five. So that is their procedure regarding the incomplete sources which
15 is not usually applied in scientific research in demography.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
17 Please proceed, Mr. Ivetic.
18 MR. IVETIC:
19 Q. Now if we could turn to your report, 1D6184, and page 14 in the
20 English and page 18 in the Serbian and paragraph number 35 of the same.
21 In paragraph 35, you pose a question:
22 "What is the specialist and scientific significance and what is
23 the real value of results obtained in research different from the usual,
24 statistical, and academic work without being comparable to any
25 methodologically, scientific, and specialist procedure recognised in
1 statistical and demographic research in the world?"
2 What do you mean here? How would you answer?
3 A. I meant that Dr. Tabeau was obliged to explain this. Since
4 Dr. Tabeau did not explain that, I am putting this question to the Trial
5 Chamber, even though I don't have a right to that. However, my answer to
6 that question would be that all the findings would be pretty suspect,
7 that they are not scientifically grounded, and that Dr. Tabeau explains
8 this nicely in her work but not in the report. Because I really don't
9 know, if it's only Dr. Tabeau who asserts that her work is sound in the
10 report to the Chamber but that it is not done according to the customary
11 rules, I don't know to what extent this is acceptable because it's not
12 scientifically grounded. So I think that the answer to that is very
14 Q. And, Professor, in the next paragraph you pose a second question:
15 "To what extent does the expert's project, being somewhat
16 different from the usual statistical and academic work contribute to
18 Do you have an opinion as to the answer to that question?
19 A. I have. Dr. Tabeau always says there are some differences. That
20 can mean that there are drastic or minimal differences, that they can be
21 neglected or not. I don't believe that there are negligible differences.
22 I believe that there are substantial, drastic differences. And if such
23 differences exist in the opinion of Dr. Tabeau, and if they're just
24 slight, or if she believes that they are not just slight, then she should
25 answer the question of how much do they contribute to correct, accurate,
1 information of the Trial Chamber, or to the misinformation of the
3 JUDGE ORIE: Just to put matters very clear. Your answer, if I
4 understand you well, is that this project is considerably contributing to
5 misinformation. Is that how I should understand your answer?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I would really need to look at all
7 the projects now.
8 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please repeat her last
10 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please repeat your last sentence.
11 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please be asked to step away
12 from the microphone.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Could you come a little bit further away from the
14 microphone. That's what the interpreters ask. Yes.
15 THE WITNESS: I believe that the project did contribute to
16 misinformation, and it's not only the Tomasica project but also about the
17 change of the ethnic structure, the ascertaining of the number of dead, and
18 warranting that they are dead, and so on and so forth, because it is founded
19 on data sources which, had they been professionally done and had it not
20 been aspired to a large number but to things that could be proven reliably
21 and definitely, the findings would have been much more acceptable as such.
22 However, the projects or the reports make it evident that the
23 accent was on the number, on presenting the highest possible number. I
24 cannot claim that certain sections in some reports are not acceptable,
25 but I can assert with a great degree of certainty that some parts from a
1 large number of the expert reports are absolutely unacceptable in the
2 methodological sense.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
4 MR. IVETIC:
5 Q. In paragraph 37, Professor, you pose a third question, which I
6 will not read but we have before us. What, if anything, would you like
7 to say in regards to this question posed?
8 A. Nowhere - and I mean nowhere - does Dr. Tabeau in this report,
9 and in the majority of others, give her opinion on the degree of the
10 reliability of the results. If you use unusual or uncommon sources, then
11 it would be logical to talk about the degree of reliability as well,
12 which is arrived at on the basis of an assessment of the sources that you
13 are using. If Dr. Tabeau did assess the sources that she was using,
14 trying to be professional, and she could say there are many empty fields
15 or some data is still missing, she never expresses that in the way that a
16 demographer or a statistics expert would say.
17 There are some places where she would say 1.300-odd pieces of
18 information are not correct, but then at the end of it all she concludes
19 that all of that is acceptable.
20 In this report, for example, she says the Red Cross does have
21 some omissions, there are still some empty fields. The Prijedor Book of
22 the Dead has many more failings, and then she lists them saying that
23 almost a half of the persons registered in the Prijedor Book of the Dead,
24 I think it's about half, are not given the place of death, if I'm not
25 mistaken. I can check that.
1 But as I said, when you merge those two sources, then they are
2 acceptable. How can you get one good source from two bad ones? All I
3 can conclude is it can happen because Dr. Tabeau did the matching. What
4 I didn't find in the Prijedor Book of the Dead, I'm going to find in the
5 records of the Red Cross, and that's how we get to that. So again, we
6 come to the problem of not knowing how she did the matching. She does
7 not say in any of the reports: This is the criteria we used to move
8 things, to match things, and then these three criteria or these five
9 criteria. In this report she says: According to the methodology used in
10 the case of Srebrenica, which means that 72 criteria were used, if you
11 use 72 criteria, you can match whatever you want.
12 Q. We'll get to the criteria. I would like, first of all, to have
13 you explain to us what you mean when you say "degree of reliability," and
14 what is, in the generally accepted field of demographic work, how is that
15 degree of reliability usually expressed?
16 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps the witness could think over the answer --
17 MR. IVETIC: Yes.
18 JUDGE ORIE: -- and that we take a break first. And could you
19 please give focused answers rather than very lengthy answers which often
20 move away from what is really asked.
21 You may follow the usher.
22 [The witness stands down]
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, is there any way that you could keep the
24 witness a bit closer to your questions, because the question you are
25 putting to her now is -- is similar to the previous question where
1 apparently no answer was given which would satisfy you. Therefore, the
2 balance between the length of the questions and the length of the answers
3 seems not to be optimal.
4 We take a break, and we resume at 20 minutes to 2.00.
5 --- Recess taken at 1.21 p.m.
6 --- On resuming at 1.42 p.m.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger, the Chamber was informed that you would
8 like to raise a procedural matter. Can we deal with it in open session?
9 MR. TIEGER: Yes, Mr. President. We can.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Then please proceed.
11 MR. TIEGER: Thank you, Mr. President.
12 I advised my colleagues from the Defence that I wanted to raise
13 this issue at this juncture because I considered that it would not
14 implications for the timing of the rest of the week and was also a matter
15 that should be raised as soon as possible in our ongoing efforts to
16 expeditiously conclude the case, and that is the Trial Chamber's
17 invitation in its recent decisions on the bar table motions, specifically
18 in the ninth decision at paragraph 14, to make submissions on the timing
19 of the tendered documents in the context of the bar table motions.
20 Now, I note preliminarily that this submission is about the issue
21 of timing, not about the appropriateness or even necessity of the
22 admission of the documents that have been tendered by the Defence -- by
23 the Prosecution in order to contextualise or clarify or that are
24 otherwise intimately related to a document tendered by the Defence.
25 And we consider that given the practice in this case in related
1 matters, and in particular the message from the Court in its recent
2 decisions, that the issues seem to be about timing and not about the
3 issue of admissibility per se.
4 We consider that the answer to that question lies in the
5 distinction between rebuttal and this particular process, irrespective of
6 the fact that both may be vehicles for the admission of evidence that may
7 ultimately shed light on the probative value to be accorded documents
8 tendered by the Defence.
9 Thus, rebuttal is and refers to evidence introduced by one party
10 to contract or nullify the evidence introduced by another. Now, that is
11 necessarily a sequential process; that is, you can't rebut evidence until
12 it's admitted. And as we all know, the process of evidence admission
13 takes place in a sequential basis pursuant to defined aspects or phases
14 of the case.
15 Now that is different from the process of admitting documents
16 because that process, the question of considering the admissibility of a
17 document and the possible admission of related documents, necessarily
18 involves the consideration of other documents that bear on the tendered
19 doc, and that is something that the Trial Chamber itself has acknowledged
20 in the eighth and ninth bar table motions when it made reference to the
21 factors that it was considering in connection with the admissibility of
22 those documents; their probative value, their reliability, and so on. I
23 would also note that this was the approach that was adopted and
24 implemented by the Karadzic chamber when it considered Defence bar table
25 motions. That is, it considered the submissions of the Prosecution in
1 connection with the -- with the issue of other contextualising,
2 clarifying, or otherwise intimately related documents to the documents
3 submitted by the Defence, and in many cases it denied admission of the
4 documents tendered by the Defence on that basis but in at least one case
5 it admitted the tendered Defence document along with a couple of
6 contextualising documents submitted by the Prosecution.
7 In short, Your Honours, we consider that the process of evidence
8 admission is -- which includes consideration of other documents apart
9 from the specific tendered document, and the possible admission of those
10 intimately related documents, is part of an integral and
11 compartmentalised process that is separate from rebuttal despite the fact
12 that they both are vehicles for admission.
13 And I would say in that regard that if the Trial Chamber were to
14 find that the documents the Prosecution has submitted were not related to
15 the Defence tendered documents in that fashion, then those documents
16 would be suitable instead for rebuttal.
17 And finally I would make this plea to the Chamber, and that is to
18 ask the Trial Chamber to do its utmost to complete its decisions on the
19 bar table submissions at the earliest possible opportunity and if at all
20 possible before the conclusion or before the commencement of the week of
21 the 30th, recognising that -- that -- that we're all pressed for
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: The 30th of April?
24 MR. TIEGER: The 30th of May. Did I say April? Thank you.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: No, you didn't say a month. You didn't give a
2 MR. TIEGER: Yes. And I'm relating that, of course, to the end
3 of presentation of Defence evidence.
4 I think it's clear that that would result in the greatest
5 possible efficiency and certainty for the parties and avoid the risk that
6 we may found ourselves litigating matters or even deciding matters
7 related to evidence as we approach the very last parts of the case
8 related to the submission of the final brief.
9 So I thank you for your time, Your Honours, and hope you
10 understand why the Prosecution chose to raise this matter at this
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic.
13 MR. IVETIC: Well, Your Honours, I think I will not surprise
14 anyone by saying I wasn't exactly prepared to respond today to these --
15 JUDGE ORIE: No one expects you to immediately respond to
16 something not earlier announced.
17 MR. IVETIC: So I would defer then, and I'll try to, at the
18 earliest possible, perhaps even by the end of the week, come back with
19 something perhaps in writing which would then save us time from the court
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Which also gives us an opportunity to
22 carefully read your submissions, Mr. Tieger, because I think it's a
23 rather delicate line between related to the documents or clarifying, and
24 then the timing, whether it should be done now or at the rebuttal phase,
25 that apparently is the issue the --
1 MR. TIEGER: Understood, Mr. President. And if I could
2 identified a bright line along that spectrum, I would have. I
3 certainly -- I would agree that there are documents that clearly fall on
4 one end of the spectrum and the other end. Where those two merge is a
5 little bit more difficult and nuanced.
6 JUDGE ORIE: We leave it to that for the time being. Perhaps you
7 may revisit the matter. And I think since we are sitting on Thursday and
8 not on Friday, perhaps it would be good if you briefly respond -- if the
9 Defence would briefly respond by Thursday so that we can further consider
10 the matter.
11 Could the witness be escorted in the courtroom.
12 [Trial Chamber confers]
13 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps a very practical matter. I think for
14 interpretation purposes, Mr. Segers was scheduled for this Thursday.
15 MR. IVETIC: That's correct.
16 JUDGE ORIE: And I think we should stick to that. There is a
17 fair chance, if I look at all the estimates now, that we'll not conclude
18 to hear the evidence of Ms. Radovanovic this week. So therefore, we
19 should continue with Mr. Segers and interrupt hearing the evidence of
20 Ms. Radovanovic on Thursday.
21 MR. IVETIC: That's correct, Your Honours. And my understanding
22 is that the Dutch language translators are available from the first thing
23 on Thursday, so our plan was to start with him, complete him and get him
24 on his way, and resume with Professor Radovanovic.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that's clear.
1 [The witness takes the stand]
2 JUDGE ORIE: And could I ask the parties, and I'm already
3 addressing the Prosecution as well, to try to keep the witness on track
4 in responding to the questions rather than to give long explanations
5 which go further and further away from what was asked.
6 I'm also saying this, Mr. File, because I saw that there was an
7 extended estimate of time, and please reconsider whether you can reduce
8 it again.
9 MR. FILE: Thank you, Your Honour. I will do everything to be as
10 efficient as possible.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, please proceed.
12 MR. IVETIC:
13 Q. Professor, I have been asked to try to ask you to keep your
14 answers as short and concise as possible so that we can complete the
15 remaining portions of your testimony.
16 In that regard, let me try to shorten the question that I posed
17 before the break and just simply ask you: In what manner is degree of
18 reliability usually expressed in demographic work?
19 A. First of all, by judging the quality of the sources you are using
20 and then the demographic indicators based on which you express what you
21 found, and it's known exactly what's the demographic indicator for
23 Q. And in what format is degree of reliability reported in
24 demographic work?
25 A. In a numerical format, which you may later describe and say the
1 error is such and such, I accept or I do not. And, of course, the errors
2 depend on the characteristics. And the source is -- the more valid, the
3 fewer errors it contains.
4 Q. At transcript page 36819, line 22, to 36822, line 14, Dr. Tabeau
5 testified about this topic. We'll take the items of the testimony one by
6 one to try to keep things as concise as possible.
7 The first question posed to Dr. Tabeau and her answers are as
9 "Q. Wouldn't it be accepted practice in the field of demography
10 to assign a grade or reliability factor to a particular source that is
11 being used and to report the same in your demography report?
12 "A. Yes, Mr. Ivetic. Absolutely."
13 And in relation to this part, Professor, do you agree with
14 Dr. Tabeau.
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And does Dr. Tabeau's Tomasica report give any such grade or
17 degree of reliability for all the sources she used in her report as you
18 would except to see from a colleague engaged in the field of demography?
19 A. Partly. She mostly describes the insufficiencies of a certain
20 source; for example, the Book of Dead from Prijedor. And, for example,
21 with regard to ICRC, she says there are still many shortcomings and some
22 errors do occur. So she does not provide that as usual. I cannot say
23 that she doesn't mention certain numbers with regard to the Prijedor Book
24 of Dead, but she does not provide a final assessment but she just says
25 overall the source may be accepted, or all in all when we combine these
1 two sources then they may be accepted. In scientific demographics
2 "overall" or "all in all" is not an acceptable description.
3 Q. Before we continue with Dr. Tabeau's testimony, what is accepted
4 in demographic studies? What degree of reliability is required for a
5 work to be deemed acceptable for scientific work? What degree of
6 reliability as to a source is required?
7 A. The percentage of error within a source that is later published
8 may be between 2 and 5 per cent.
9 Q. Now, in the continuation of Dr. Tabeau's testimony in the
10 transcript range that I read out earlier, the second -- the next question
11 posed was as follows:
12 "Q. And so could you please help me then why are you unable to
13 provide such a grade or reliability factor for the data from ICMP
14 demographically speaking?
15 "A. Yes, for the simple reason that I don't rely on this source.
16 When I discussed the disappearance information of the victims, I used
17 mainly the ICRC records in combination with the records from the Book of
18 Missing, Prijedor Book of Missing, and I'm not using basically the ICMP
19 disappearance information."
20 Do you have a comment as to this, Professor?
21 A. Yes. She could have provided an assessment of ICRC, perhaps not
22 a descriptive one as "all in all it's good" and "I accept it as such."
23 She provides a descriptive assessment for 2005 by saying that from 2000
24 and something until 2013, not the number of the missing, but she doesn't
25 say in 2005 there are still some fields that are missing -- I am
1 paraphrasing now, I don't know how to quote it exactly but I can read the
2 quotation if you like.
3 Q. We'll get to that if need be. For now, I'd like to stick to the
4 development of Dr. Tabeau's answers.
5 In the next question posed to Dr. Tabeau in that transcript's
6 range I read earlier read as follows:
7 "Q. Are you in a position to report a grade or reliability
8 factor for these other sources that you did rely upon?
9 "A. Well, it depends on what you want me to provide. If you
10 want a number, a single number, then I don't have such a number. But I
11 do have an opinion about the reliability of both ICRC and the Prijedor
12 Book of Missing. I have been working with ICRC, in particular, for many
13 years, and several times I studied the reliability of this list and
14 assessed the list as very reliable, as a matter of fact, although not
15 free of certain deficiencies like gaps in the data or incorrect dates of
16 birth, for example, victims. These kind of issues are there, of course."
17 Professor, what would you have to say in comment to this
18 testimony of Dr. Tabeau, especially that the reliability factor she can't
19 express any number?
20 A. The degree of reliability can always be expressed numerically.
21 But when Dr. Tabeau says I don't have a number but I have an opinion,
22 what does she base her opinion on if it's not on some relative ratio of
23 errors in a specific source? If she says there are still certain
24 shortcomings, also that is unacceptable. Are these shortcomings
25 1 per cent, 30 per cent, or what? It means that you are basing your
1 opinion on the reliability based on the parameters that you use to
2 evaluate a specific source.
3 Q. In the continuation of Dr. Tabeau's testimony in the stated
4 transcript range, the testimony developed as follows:
5 "Q. Okay. You've told us about the ICRC list. What about the
6 other sources you use? Can you give us an assessment in demographic
7 terms of the quality or reliability factor of the other sources you use
8 for the Tomasica report?
9 "A. The most important source is, of course, the ICMP list of
10 DNA matched note officials, and I certainly have a very high opinion
11 about the ICMP records, and this is a reliable list that I have no
12 reasons to doubt.
13 "ICMP have been used -- again many times. I have used the ICMP
14 list many times in various cases. I unfortunately have to mention
15 Srebrenica again, Mr. Ivetic, as it was the most substantial case in
16 which these records were used, but also in other cases. I used the
17 Prijedor Book of Missing which is a sources made locally in the Prijedor
18 municipality. This source is less reliable than the ICRC list, yet it
19 highly overlaps with the ICRC list; however, there are many more
20 deficiencies in the Prijedor Book of Missing like missing pieces of
21 information or errors in the date of birth.
22 "I studied also the 1991 census which I assessed several times
23 also during other projects presented in this case about which I testified
24 in November 2013. I used the integrated mortality database which was a
25 source for cross-referencing the records of the missing and checking
1 whether the reporting of the disappearance is consistently reported there
2 as well and to exclude the possibility that someone has survived
3 Tomasica, but they didn't, or were confirmed dead."
4 "Q. What reliability factor? You told me what you use, I
5 believe, in your report. I'm asking for a reliability factor for, for
6 instance, the 1991 census and the integrated mortality database which you
7 just mentioned? Could you please answer that question."
8 And the answer of Dr. Tabeau was:
9 "Well, I again cannot give you a single number on the scale from
10 one to ten, for example, because I don't have such a scale. But as I'm
11 saying, census, for example, 1991 census, even though it has its
12 problems, it's a very useful source for checking -- improving the
13 validity of the reporting by other sources. Well, we as the
14 demographic unit invested a lot of time and effort to eliminate mistakes
15 from the census and improve the reporting of the names in the census. It
16 took us several years until we established a version that could be
17 reliably used in our work, and honestly I believe it is a very reliable
18 source of information, very reliable source of information that proved to
19 be helping me to make decisions about many things, like, you know,
20 matching on the first place, consistency of lists, places of residence,
21 places of disappearance, ethnicity, age, many, many, many, many aspects
22 that I studied in my reports, integrated database is a very large
23 database that is a compilation of several sources --
24 "Q. How reliable is it, ma'am?
25 "A. In my eyes, very reliable."
1 Professor, as a practitioner in the field of demography, what if
2 anything do you have to say about the testimony and answers of Dr. Tabeau
3 in this section I've just read?
4 A. For most of the explanation, Dr. Tabeau is telling you about the
5 population census in 1991, and she says that it's reliable and I agree
6 with her absolutely. It is highly reliable because it's official data,
7 and I'm sure that the institution took care about the range of error.
8 However, the name, surname, and father's name are not statistical
9 data, and Dr. Tabeau says that they lost time and time to correct that
10 statistical data. There is no other source which we could refer to so
11 that we could say the corrections were well made or were not well made,
12 but it could have been said that in the census we corrected 40 per cent
13 of names, last names, father's names, some where these were just typing
14 errors, some where we had completely different names, and so on and so
15 forth. One must keep in mind that the population census was done in the
16 Latin script and the Cyrillic script, so the translation from Cyrillic
17 into Latin script can result in errors. So professionally, it would be
18 correct to say we corrected 30 per cent, 50 per cent, 60 per cent,
19 2 per cent of names and surnames.
20 Everything else other than names are facts indicating that the
21 census is a reliable source. But the -- Dr. Tabeau used the census to
22 compare data from the Red Cross. For example, the person that she found
23 in the Red Cross records, she would check back to see if they were in the
24 census, and so in the case of Srebrenica they used that to consider -- or
25 to establish that the persons that they believed to be victims in
1 Srebrenica were not fictitious persons and they really did exist.
2 I don't know how they did this matching. I'm not going to go
3 into that. I saw the table. But I don't know what it was they took into
4 account in the matching. But again, it would have been professionally
5 correct for them to say: Okay. I matched this list according to this
6 criteria, that criteria, and other criteria. In Srebrenica we saw that
7 they compared the Red Cross with the population census, and they used
8 this criteria: First name, last name, father's name, and the date of
9 birth, the rate of matching was 16 per cent. And this is in relation to
10 the Red Cross, which has 22.000 entries for missing persons.
11 What Dr. Tabeau took from the population census, let's say the
12 ethnicity, because no other sources contain the ethnicity, so again she
13 takes it again according to the decisions used in matching. We used --
14 we saw how she used it in that particular graph, how she matched the
15 ethnicity. As for what she says, that she could check the place of
16 disappearance in the census, there is no information in the population
17 census about the place of disappearance. The population records the
19 Q. Professor, if I could ask you very briefly, does a professional a
20 demographer and statistician keep a record of what matching keys or
21 criteria are used, and if so how would this be reported in relation to
22 the scientific research or report that is authored resulting from the
23 matching inquiry?
24 A. In professional work, this is done. Not how, but which. We know
25 what matching is and what this implies, that something is matched.
1 However, you must note the criteria that were applied. Dr. Tabeau says
2 that in the mortality database there is no chart of that. So how is the
3 matching done if you don't know what criteria you are using? You devise
4 a criterion which you believe is good and which you believe will show you
5 with high degree of probability that -- that's the right person, and
6 that's the criterion you start with. And then when you get results on
7 the basis of that criterion, you can then say: Okay. I got 16 per cent.
8 I don't like 16 per cent. And then I can shorten the...
9 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, the simple question was whether a record
10 would be kept professionally. You've answered that question already in
11 the first two lines. I'm also looking at the clock, Mr. Ivetic.
12 MR. IVETIC: Okay.
13 JUDGE ORIE: It's quarter past 2.00.
14 Ms. Radovanovic, we'll adjourn for the day. We'll not sit
15 tomorrow because in this country the birthday of the king will be
16 celebrated, which is a day off, and the United Nations has adopted that
17 as a holiday as well. So you know what to expect tomorrow in this
18 country. We'd like to see you back on Thursday, although we'll start
19 with a brief examination of another witness for which we need special
20 interpretation, so it will not be at 9.30 that we would start but would
21 the assessment that it would be -- how long? 11.00, 12.00 approximately?
22 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, in direct I have only about ten
23 questions, and then I believe the Prosecution has an hour and a half
24 estimate so ...
25 JUDGE ORIE: So all together some two hours, so we expect that it
1 will be around 12.00, perhaps shortly before 12.00, that we'd like to see
2 you back, so would you please keep that in mind.
3 I again instruct you that even not on the king's birthday you
4 should discuss with anyone on the streets your testimony. Don't discuss
5 it with anyone or communicate in any other way. You may now follow the
6 usher, and we'd like to see you back on Thursday.
7 [The witness stands down]
8 JUDGE ORIE: We'll adjourn for the day, and we'll resume
9 Thursday, the 28th of April, 9.30 in the morning, in this same courtroom,
11 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.17 p.m.,
12 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 28th day of
13 April, 2016, at 9.30 a.m.