1 Wednesday, 30 July 2008
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.15 a.m.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Good morning, everybody, and good morning to you,
6 Madam Registrar. Could you call the case, please.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is the case
8 number IT-05-88-T, the Prosecutor versus Vujadin Popovic et al.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
10 All the accused are here, for the record. From the Defence
11 teams, I just -- I note the absence of Mr. Bourgon. The Prosecution
12 today is represented today by Mr. McCloskey, Mr. Nicholls, and
13 Ms. Soljan.
14 I understand there is some kind of preliminary from you,
15 Mr. Nicholls.
16 MR. NICHOLLS: Yes, Your Honour. This will only take one moment.
17 You'll recall yesterday, during my cross-examination of
18 Mr. Vasovic, I was working off a partial translation and I wasn't able to
19 direct the Court to the exact language I was referring to about the
20 warning, and I was asked to check.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, yes, yes.
22 MR. NICHOLLS: If we could have 3601 up on e-court, please. I
23 now have a full translation. This is the statement I was referring the
24 witness to and using yesterday, which as my friend said was to the RS
1 If we look at page 2 of both, we can see the language I was
2 referring to, and if I could just read it: "Pursuant to Article 150,
3 paragraph 2 of the RS Law of Criminal Procedure, the witness has been
4 cautioned that he must tell the truth, that he must not withhold any
5 facts, and that giving a false statement is a criminal offence,
6 stipulated by Article 365 of the RS Criminal Code, for which a prison
7 sentence from six months to five years or one to eight years has been
9 "Do you understand this caution?
11 And the signature. This is the line which I was referring to
12 that I was not able to provide you with yesterday. I apologise for that.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Thank you.
14 MR. NICHOLLS: Thank you.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Are you satisfied with it, Mr. Lazarevic?
16 MR. LAZAREVIC: Well, yes, Your Honour, I think that it is
17 precisely what I was referencing at which I made that objection
19 JUDGE AGIUS: All right.
20 Ms. Nikolic.
21 JUDGE KWON: Before that: Mr. Nicholls, I would appreciate if
22 you could translate that Article 150 later on.
23 MR. NICHOLLS: Yes, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Ms. Nikolic, we were given advance notice of a
1 motion which should have been filed this morning or should be filed this
2 morning, sorry, and that's for a variation of -- I think I better go into
3 private session for a short while.
4 [Private session]
1 [Open session]
2 JUDGE AGIUS: Can we bring in the witness now? Yes, go ahead.
3 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session, Your Honour.
4 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, before the witness
5 enters the courtroom, I would like to use this time to introduce a new
6 member of our team. That's Mr. Ozren Ogrizovic, our new case manager.
7 Bojan Stefanovic, our former case manager, has left our team and gone to
8 the US
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, and welcome, sir.
10 [The witness takes the stand]
11 WITNESS: SVETLANA RADOVANOVIC [Resumed]
12 [The witness answered through interpreter]
13 JUDGE AGIUS: Good morning, Professor.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: We'll make an effort to finish with you today. If
16 not, you'll need to return again tomorrow.
17 Ms. Nikolic.
18 Examination by Ms. Nikolic: [Continued]
19 Q. Good morning, Professor.
20 A. Good morning.
21 Q. We discussed yesterday some of the sources used by the
22 Prosecution expert in making his report. I would like to ask you now:
23 What are the relevant sources that you used in your report that were not
24 used by Dr. Brunborg and his team?
25 A. In addition to all the sources used by Dr. Brunborg and his
1 associates, I also used the sources available at the Demographic Unit of
2 the OTP related to databases of the BH Army, databases about deceased
3 persons, DEM 2T, databases called Muslims Against Genocide, a database I
4 was able to peruse but not to check called The Bosnian Book of Dead, as
5 well as a series of documents disclosed by the Office of the Prosecutor.
6 Those are only the sources that were available at the Demographic Unit of
7 the Office of the Prosecutor.
8 Q. Thank you. Kindly tell us, what is the database of the BH Army?
9 A. The BH Army database is a database containing personal
10 information about soldiers, made available by the Ministry of the Defence
11 of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina in 2001. That database
12 contains a number of elements based on which one can establish the first
13 name, last name, father's name, date of birth, identification number,
14 affiliation, status, military or not, perhaps the military post number.
15 I'm not expert about this area. Database Tuzla, for instance, database
17 There are about 28.000 data about soldiers and other personnel of
18 the BH Army. All this information is accompanied by the personal
19 identification number of a given person.
20 THE INTERPRETER: Could Ms. Nikolic speak into the microphone.
21 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation]
22 Q. Could we call this database records?
23 A. We could.
24 Q. Records of military conscripts?
25 A. No, these are not records of military conscripts, not the way I
1 understand the concept of military conscript. In war, it could mean
2 anything. This is called "database of the BH Army," and I interpret it
3 to be a database of soldiers and other personnel for a given time period.
4 I'm not a military expert, but I would not call it "records" in the way
5 you characterized records.
6 Q. What were you able to determine on the basis of this extensive
8 A. By comparing this database with a list of missing and dead
9 persons made by Dr. Brunborg and his associates, I established that there
10 are a great number of overlaps between that database and the list.
11 Q. Are you talking about the OTP list, the missing in Srebrenica,
12 that contains 7.661 persons from 2005?
13 A. When I say "Dr. Brunborg's list," I always mean the OTP's list
14 called "The Missing and Dead" related to Srebrenica, containing 7.661
15 [Realtime transcript read in error "6.061"] persons.
16 Q. In order to establish the existence of a soldier in this OTP
17 list, which method did you use?
18 A. Well, I applied the same method as the experts of the
19 Prosecution, the method of matching, with a proviso that I did not use as
20 many criteria for matching. I used only two possible keys for matching.
21 I checked how many soldiers could be matched from the Prosecution list if
22 I had used a greater number of keys.
23 I want to emphasise one thing. When I use the word "key" for
24 matching, that means a number of elements that make up one key. I used
25 the key that says "name, surname, father's name, date of birth." That's
1 one criterion. So these four elements make up one key, that is, one
2 criterion. If I do the matching using that criterion, I get a little
3 over 2.000 soldiers. If I loosen that criterion a bit, using name,
4 surname, father's name, and just the year of birth, so again there are
5 four elements, but the reliability of matches is a bit looser because
6 there may be people who were born in the same year and have the same name
7 and surname, if I use that key, I get 3.277, or perhaps 3.377.
8 Q. We'll look at that document.
9 Just one correction in the transcript. Page 6, line 11, it said
10 "6.061 persons." It should be "7.661 persons."
11 May we now call up in e-court 3D398A, attachment A -- attachment
12 1, page 1, and 3D398B, page 1. If we could have them in parallel on the
13 screen. Those are various findings of the expert, and Dr. Radovanovic
14 could explain how she obtained them. 3D398A, that's attachment 1,
15 page 1, and 398, attachment 2, page 1.
16 Professor, we are getting on our screens the two attachments.
17 Would you be able to read the headings?
18 Page 1, please, for both attachments.
19 A. I'll try, although it's very small.
20 Q. I have hard copies with me that can be handed to the witness.
21 A. Please, I really can't see anything here. If you could perhaps
22 zoom in. We don't need to see the whole table. I just need to see the
24 Thank you. On the left, if I can see right, we see data on
25 matched soldiers from the Prosecution list, using the key, including
1 name, surname, father's name and date of birth. And you can see that
2 these are the same names, same surnames, same father's name, same date of
3 birth. I emphasise "date of birth." And here we have columns headed:
4 "Date of Disappearance," or "Date of Death," from the Prosecution list,
5 as opposed to the date of death given by the army. The last column is
6 the personal identification number of citizens. The personal
7 identification number of citizens is a number consisting of 13 digits,
8 and according to the laws of the former Yugoslavia, it was introduced in
10 The personal identification number, the seven digits -- the first
11 seven digits represents the date, month, and year of birth. The next
12 digit is the area of former republic; for instance, Serbia was 7,
13 Bosnia-Herzegovina was 8, Croatia
14 represent the sex of the person given that identification number.
15 Anything over 500 means female. Everything below 500 is male. And there
16 is another digit which defines not only the republic but the locality
17 issuing the personal ID. I cannot tell you now exactly about localities,
18 but if the ID was given out in Sarajevo
19 in Banja Luka, this digit will be 2.
20 Since personal IDs are issued by the Secretariat of Personal
21 Affairs, it is possible to establish exactly which locality issued the
22 card. And then there is a digit which is a verification number. There
23 is a certain number for verifying the personal identification number,
24 because, in principle, there should not exist two identical personal
25 identification numbers. Every number should be unique, and there should
1 not be two persons with the same personal ID number. This unique number
2 is an identification used by many services in many documents, so you
3 don't need the name and surname. It is amply sufficient to establish the
4 identity of the person.
5 The other table is the same kind of match, but with a looser
6 criterion that does not take into account the date of birth, but just the
7 year of birth. According to that second criterion, it is possible to
8 match almost 1.000 persons more.
9 In my report, I say that using a broad criterion, it's possible
10 to match around 5.000 persons, but saying that, I'm trying, in fact, to
11 emphasise the importance of the key used for matching, because if, within
12 one research project, within one study, you change the elements in the
13 identification key, then you open the door wide to speculation and you
14 decrease the reliability of the finding.
15 Q. Thank you. We won't be needing this document any longer, unless
16 you have something to add about these two attachments, Professor.
17 A. I can only draw your attention to this: The data contained in
18 these columns are taken over from originals. You will notice that in one
19 column the listing goes "Day, Month, Year," in another listing it's
20 "Month, Day, Year." That should not confuse you. Those are exactly the
21 same pieces of information. I just transposed them here from the
22 original, as they were originally listed.
23 Q. Thank you. In your report, on page 5, in paragraph 5, you listed
24 all the sources that you have told us earlier today the Prosecution had
25 not used in making their report, and there you said that there is no
1 explanation why all these sources were not taken into account, although
2 they are equal or better in quality compared to those used, and that has
3 significantly affected the objectivity of the objectivity of the
4 findings. The first source are the records of BH Army servicemen killed
5 during 1992-1995 conflict.
6 We have evidence here on transcript page 6.807, lines 19 through
7 25, evidence given by Demographer Brunborg, saying that Prosecution
8 experts, in order to establish who got killed before 1995, consulted
9 lists of soldiers killed. I want to ask you: In your research, when you
10 were making the report, and later, did you come across information that
11 Dr. Brunborg used the lists of the BH Army in making his report?
12 A. There's not a single report where Mr. Brunborg or his associates,
13 but in the Srebrenica report there is no mention of the use of the
14 BH Army sources.
15 Q. On the 25th of July, 2008, the Defence received from the
16 Prosecution some materials. That was last Friday. That's demographic
17 material, a letter from Madam Ewa Tabeau, entitled "The Matching of the
18 Military Records of the BH Army," with the Prosecution's list of the
19 missing from Srebrenica in 2005. That's document 3D457 in e-court.
20 In preparing for this testimony, did you inspect this document
21 and its annexes?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Is this the first time that you see that the Prosecution
24 demographers used the BH Army database in their analyses concerning
1 A. That was the first time concerning Srebrenica, but one of the
2 whole authors of the Srebrenica report, the one from 2005,
3 Dr. Ewa Tabeau, did use the BH Army database in the report on Sarajevo
4 that was in the Galic case, I testified in that trial, too, in order to
5 identify soldiers versus civilians, because that was at issue at the time
6 in the Galic case. That was the demographic report in the Galic case.
7 So in 2002, the report that was drafted by Dr. Ewa Tabeau does list among
8 the sources the BH Army database and also the Muslims Against Genocide,
9 among other sources.
10 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreters note, could the counsel please
11 switch off the microphones while the witness is speaking.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment. Madam Nikolic, did you hear what the
13 interpreters suggested; namely, that while the witness is speaking, you
14 should keep your microphone switched off.
15 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Yes. I will do so, Your Honour.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
17 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, and I do apologise to
18 the interpreters if I have caused them any problems.
19 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Can we now move to the previous
20 page of this document, where we have an explanation for the direct and
21 indirect method. This is what the professor has just told us about and
22 where we have the exact figures. So that would be the previous page in
23 the English version, and perhaps I think it's page 2 -- the next page in
24 B/C/S. So that would be page 1 in the English and page 2 in the B/C/S.
25 Here we have the text in bold, where it says: "Indirect
1 approach," and: "Direct approach."
2 Q. Professor, is this what you've just been telling us about?
3 A. Yes, this is what I've been telling you about, but let me
4 underline here, I think it's a way of translation or a different way of
5 thinking, but if we're talking about matching, there is no direct and
6 indirect approaches. You have a database, and have you to define your
7 key. So generally speaking, the first approach is where you have the
8 matching key, which is the personal ID numbers, you have two sources, the
9 list of soldiers from the BH Army, and the census list, and then you have
10 the matches. The second key is the element -- the attributes such as
11 first name, last name, father's name, date of birth, and you have again
12 the BH Army list and the Prosecution list, and here you have the
13 different number of matches, which is 4.964.
14 I apologise. Let me finish, please.
15 Ms. Tabeau here presents a conclusion that I really can't read
16 here. She says this finding proves a very high consistency of the direct
17 and indirect approaches. I cannot agree with this conclusion, either.
18 This example, it's a textbook example of how changing a key or the
19 criterion that you use to match your data yields different results. This
20 does not confirm that if you do something using one key, there is also
21 the other key. So to my mind, this conclusion is phrased in a way that
22 is unacceptable.
23 Q. Thank you. The annex 1, the table in this document, it's again
24 the same number, 3D457. If you could just zoom in a little bit. That's
25 page 4 in e-court. We're still on the same document. "Annex 1," that's
1 the title. It's an attachment to Ms. Tabeau's letter. That's page 4 in
2 the English version. We don't have the B/C/S version. Thank you.
3 Professor, in preparing for your testimony, did you see those
4 documents that were disclosed to us by the Prosecution, including this
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Could you please explain to us, as much as you can, this table?
8 A. This table. Well, first of all, I would like you to give me the
9 end of the table. Here it says that this was a comparison between the
10 BH Army list and persons identified using DNA analysis, and Ms. Tabeau
11 states that there are 5.198 matches here and that 4.705 of these were in
12 Srebrenica area or, in other words, that the matches with the identified
13 persons are as high as 73 per cent. So among the identified persons
14 listed here, well, I don't want to now go commenting about the figures
15 and the meaning of the word "identified," and so on, but at any rate,
16 according to her, there are 73 per cent of the soldiers that are
17 identified here.
18 Q. Thank you. I would now like us to move on to another database
19 that you used in working out your findings. That's the DEM 2T. So could
20 you please explain to us, what is DEM 2T as a database?
21 A. Pursuant to an order of the Tribunal in The Hague, the Bureau of
22 Statistics of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and the Bureau of Statistics of
23 Republika Srpska gathered data about deaths in the period between 1992
24 and 1995. This research was done in accordance with the rules of
25 statistics. I think that the findings were submitted to the Tribunal in
1 The Hague
2 This database contains all the persons recorded as having died
3 between 1992 and 1995, regardless of the cause of death. In other words,
4 if they are natural deaths or violent deaths. There are over 140.000
5 cases, 75.000 or 78.000 persons -- well, I can give you the precise data
6 once I've consulted the papers -- were registered as natural deaths, and
7 the remaining cases are violent deaths. And there are causes of deaths
8 in -- for natural deaths in about one half of the cases.
9 This base -- database was done by professionals, and it was
10 submitted to the Tribunal in The Hague. I don't know -- I've never read
11 anywhere any assessments or evaluations of the quality of this database,
12 but I consider it significant precisely because this is an official data
13 source, and I think that this official data source should have been
14 used -- should have been compared with the Prosecution list, because it
15 could improve the quality if you ascertain that if you try to match it,
16 you encounter some cases that can be either excluded or included. That's
18 I quote from a table in my report where it is apparent that there
19 is an inconsistency between the Prosecution list and this official
20 database, because you can see that there are same persons listed there,
21 if you apply the key, the matching key, but it is now controversial. You
22 don't know whether these people died or should be in the Prosecution
23 list, because --
24 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreters note, could the microphones please
25 be switched off at Defence bench. We cannot hear the witness because of
1 the background noise.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: I can see Ms. Nikolic's microphone is switched off.
3 No? It was on. I see, I see, I see. Thank you.
4 Yes, sorry for the interruption, and thank you, Madam
5 Interpreter. Let's proceed. Thank you.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I would just briefly like to
7 explain the principle for gathering information about death rates in
8 statistics, what is the methodology.
9 Data is gathered on the basis of questionnaires that contain a
10 number of questions. Those questionnaires contain more questions than
11 the information that is contained in the death registries. The sources
12 for the mortality data are the death registry books. No death can be
13 registered in the registry book if you don't have a death certificate.
14 Death certificates are kept in perpetuity, they are kept in archives.
15 One death certificate is kept with the register, and it is kept in
16 perpetuity, or 100 years from now someone can go there and consult those
17 death certificates. The other certificate is sent to the statistics
18 bureau. There is a physician who knows how to code the death in
19 accordance with the cause and other elements, or it can be sent to other
20 institutions contracted by the Bureau of Statistics, where there are
21 physicians who are able to code the deaths appropriately.
22 Why am I saying this? Because there is this distinction between
23 the natural and violent deaths and because the principle of how the data
24 is collected is the same; registry books. And the DEM 2T database bears
25 the same designation as the official statistics for the mortality, so we
1 have the same designation, DEM 2 in statistics.
2 Q. Thank you. This is yet one source that the Prosecution experts
3 did not use, if I understood you correctly.
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Now I would like us to look at 3D398. It's in e-court. Page 21
6 in e-court. That's table 3 of the findings reached by Professor
7 Radovanovic. In B/C/S, that's page 21. In English, it's page 22. I
8 apologise, it's actually 23 in English, I have been told.
9 Thank you, I think that's it.
10 Professor, you have in front of you table 3. If you have any
11 problems --
12 A. Well, if you allow me, this is a table from my report. Can I
13 consult it in the hard copy of my report, table 3? That's what I have in
14 front of me.
15 Q. I don't think it's going to be a problem. Please go ahead.
16 A. Thank you.
17 This is -- this table shows examples where there is a discrepancy
18 between the date and place of death, between the DEM 2 database and the
19 Prosecution list. The Prosecution list contains 7.661 persons. The last
20 name, the first name, and the father's name are identical in both the DEM
21 2T database and the Prosecution list.
22 The first column, "Date of Birth," is taken from the Prosecution
23 list. The second column is the date of birth as recorded in the DEM 2
24 list. The next column is the date of death or disappearance listed by
25 the Prosecution. And then we have the date of death recorded in the DEM
1 2. Then we have the place of disappearance listed by the Prosecution in
2 its list that contains 7.661 persons, and the place of death from the DEM
3 2 database. You will see discrepancies that are particularly prominent
4 when it comes to the date of death for three persons, for instance,
5 because, for instance, the second, third and fourth persons in this list
6 have the date of death as collected by a specialised institution. The
7 dates are from April 1995 - that's the first person - but then you have
8 April 1993 for the second person, and May 1995 for the third person. I'm
9 using these persons as an example to show how, if we were to compare this
10 with a DEM 2T base, you could, to say the least, face a dilemma whether
11 these are really persons listed on the list as missing or dead. And the
12 date is listed as the 12th of July, 1995, for all of them.
13 The first person is interesting, from my point of view, because
14 we have the same date of death, the 12th of July, 1995, but the place of
15 death is Sarajevo
16 disappearance is listed as Buljim.
17 Q. Professor, I failed to mention that this should not be made
18 public, this table, because --
19 A. Well, I am not naming any of the persons.
20 Q. I know that you are not, but we can see it on our screens, and
21 those names should not be made public.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Have we been broadcasting or not? Yes, then you
23 need to attend to it. Okay, thank you.
24 JUDGE KWON: Just a minute, Professor.
25 You said the date of death are identical. Could you check it
1 once again, whether they are identical, in the case of the first one?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] 12th July and the 17th of July.
3 No, it's not identical. I'm sorry. According to the Prosecution, the
4 date of death is the 12th of July. According to DEM 2, it's the 17th of
5 July. The place of disappearance, according to Prosecution, is Buljim.
6 According to DEM 2, it's Sarajevo
7 I'm just listing these as indicative samples to show that if the
8 database DEM 2T had been used as well, it would have at least sown a
9 doubt as to whether the list of people made by the Prosecution of 7.661
10 persons is really so reliable, as the report claims, as Srebrenica
12 Q. We can remove this document from the screen. Professor, I would
13 like to move to a different database, another one that you used in your
14 report, and that is the list of persons displaced from Srebrenica in
16 Would you please tell us, what kind of database is this?
17 A. Based on the documentation disclosed by the Office of the
18 Prosecutor, I found two documents; one made by the World Health
19 Organisation and another made by the UN, a sector for civil military
20 operations. Both relate to population displaced from Srebrenica,
21 although one document is dated 29 July 1995 and the second one is dated 4
22 August 1995.
23 Q. Just a moment, Professor. Let us call up these two documents in
24 e-court. And while you are explaining, the Chamber will be able to look
25 at them.
1 3D408, page 1, and 3D374, page 2 in English. If they could be
2 put in a split screen, both of them, 3D408, English page 1, and 3D374,
3 English page 2.
4 They will soon be both up on our screens.
5 A. We're still waiting for the second one.
6 This one [indicates] is a document of the WHO dated 29th July
7 1995, and it provides -- the lettering is very small, I can't see the
8 numbers, but I'll try -- it gives us a total number of people displaced
9 from Srebrenica -- okay, this is much better -- and it also gives us a
10 distribution of, you know, private accommodation, collective centres,
11 et cetera. And the number listed is 34.341.
12 The other document, dated 4 August 1995, also deals with
13 displaced persons from Srebrenica, although it gives us a different
14 total. Then WHO, again with a breakdown by accommodation, private
15 accommodation, collective centres, et cetera.
16 Both these documents give totals around 34.000 persons. When
17 seeing this, I tried to find lists of these people, and in the material
18 disclosed I came across four lists with different totals of persons. All
19 these contain name, surname, father's name, and year of birth. My
20 assistants integrated these lists into one single list that contained
21 34.537 persons, and with this aggregated list I proceeded to compare it
22 with the Prosecution list of 7.661 persons. This attempt to match
23 yielded several dozen persons that match, in terms of name, surname,
24 father's name, and year of birth. That's also an indicator that shows us
25 a certain lack authenticity. At least it's a warning that we cannot take
1 the Prosecution list for granted. We cannot take it, based on the OTP
2 list, that these people are really dead.
3 Dr. Brunborg, for instance, when he doesn't find a match in the
4 list of voters, concludes that all these persons on his lists are
5 probably dead.
6 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Can we now have 3D398, annex 5.
7 It's the finding of Professor Radovanovic.
8 Q. You already said that you tried to match the list of missing and
9 dead from Srebrenica with data about displaced persons?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And 985. 3983E -- 3D398E, annex 5.
12 That's the document, thank you.
13 A. Okay, I see it. These are just examples. Maybe the heading is
14 not very clear. It's examples of matches between "B," Brunborg, and "R,"
15 for displaced persons. These are just examples. I found, both in the
16 displaced list and in the OTP list, certain persons with these names,
17 with these surnames, with these father's names, and born in these years.
18 So using this key, you will find absolute matches. That is again a
19 warning that by reducing the number of elements within the identification
20 key, you always open the door to your own subjective decisions, whether
21 these are indeed those same persons or not. I can make a decision and
22 say, yes, these people are matches, or, no, they are not. I have certain
23 elements, certainly. The question is whether these elements are
24 sufficient for me to claim, with a high degree of certainty, that those
25 are these same identical people.
1 This is just another example that changing the key, using a large
2 number of criteria and few elements within a key, cannot yield
3 scrupulously-correct results.
4 Q. On this topic, I have just one more question.
5 Based on your study, on the Prosecution list of missing and dead,
6 did you establish whether all these persons existed in reality?
7 A. From my point of view, it's a bit complex. I'll try to explain.
8 On the Prosecution list, from my study, there are a number of
9 non-existent persons, but let me first define "non-existent person," a
10 conditional definition, to be able to explain this more clearly.
11 Within the number of non-existent persons, there are some persons
12 that Dr. Brunborg himself says, "I did not find matches in the list of
13 population." There are 1.030 such persons -- or 13 persons [as
14 interpreted], Brunborg says. If the method used by the Prosecution
15 expert is geared at proving that somebody's alive and that they existed
16 in 1991, by matching with a population list from 1991, and Dr. Brunborg
17 failed to find matches for 13 per cent persons, then it means that these
18 persons did not exist, according to Dr. Brunborg's methodology, and then
19 the right thing would be to exclude them from the study. That's one
20 category of non-existent persons.
21 Another type of non-existent persons, let me call them fictional,
22 are those persons that Dr. Brunborg was able to match with the list of
23 population, but they don't necessarily have anything to do with
24 Srebrenica or they don't have anything to do with Srebrenica. There's a
25 number of people who died before the 10th of July, 1995. In our case,
1 they are conditionally fictional, because they -- although they do exist
2 in reality, but they pertain to another period.
3 Also, there is a number of persons who, territorially speaking,
4 although we don't have a definition even of what Srebrenica is, but these
5 people cannot territorially be identified as Srebrenica victims. These
6 people, too, exist in reality, but for our purposes, they are fictional.
7 Such persons amount to 1.000, approximately, according to Dr. Brunborg
8 himself, and another thousand are fictional, for our purposes. The
9 professional thing to do would be to exclude them from our study.
10 What is particularly confusing to me is this: Once Dr. Brunborg
11 established that over 13 per cent were not identified in the list of
12 population, so he himself decided that 13 per cent were not identified,
13 he should have excluded them. However, instead of excluding them,
14 Dr. Brunborg proceeds to distribute all these persons across
15 municipalities, and then he says between 500 and 700 of these persons
16 shall be placed in Srebrenica. Based on what facts? If you did not
17 match them with the population list, you don't know whose residents they
18 were? How do you know they should fall into Srebrenica? Not only does
19 he distribute them across territory, but in later tables that he makes,
20 where he includes age ranges, et cetera, he again places them in
21 Srebrenica, and I'm just talking about those people that Dr. Brunborg
22 himself found conditionally to be non-existent. Of course, this
23 increases not only the figures themselves but also relative comparative
24 findings, et cetera.
25 Q. To sum up what you've just said, compared to the Prosecution list
1 of 7.661 persons, what is the minimum of such non-existent persons?
2 A. If we take into account what Dr. Brunborg says, 13 per cent, and
3 if we take into account what is factually numerically proven to be
4 fictional, then it would be one-fourth, one-fourth of 7.661.
5 JUDGE KWON: Just for the record, page 22, line 7, "13 persons,"
6 I take it that those should read "13 per cent."
7 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Judge Kwon. I have just
8 been told the same thing. Thank you for this. It should be corrected.
9 And, again, with the table we have on the screen, it should not
10 be seen by the public, because personal information of certain persons is
12 Q. Professor Radovanovic, can we now discuss the methodology of
13 work? Can you tell us about your methodology that you used in your
15 A. I just wish to say that we have already discussed some aspects of
16 methodology. The choice of sources is the first step in methodology, and
17 so far we have been indeed discussing sources of information. The
18 methodology that I used is identical to the methodology applied by
19 Dr. Brunborg and his associates. It's just that I used the methodology
20 according to all the rules of the science of statistics and practice of
21 statistics. There is no difference in methodology; it's all about
22 conformity with the rules.
23 Q. Let me ask you something about special and statistical units.
24 What does that mean, and what are the possibilities for manipulation?
25 A. Before I proceed with this explanation about spatial and
1 statistical units, I want to define my bearings professionally.
2 We are working with a very sensitive subject here, victims, and I
3 define them professionally as statistical units. I sympathise most
4 profoundly with every victim, and I beg your understanding when I refer
5 to them as statistical units. It is only due to my professional
7 In statistical and demographic research, it is of crucial
8 importance to define the space, the area you are working with. Why?
9 Because that space delimits the population that you need to study. If
10 you have not defined the space, the area, then you again open the door
11 for speculation.
12 What is Srebrenica, territorially speaking? Nowhere has it been
13 defined in the Prosecution expert report. And when you read the reports
14 from year 2000 through the last one, the latest one, you come across
15 various possibilities of what Srebrenica is meant to be. Srebrenica can
16 be just the town of Srebrenica
17 Srebrenica can be the area that comprises 13 municipalities. Srebrenica
18 can be only the Srebrenica municipality, comprising 71 population
19 centres. Srebrenica is also sometimes defined as an enclave, but nobody
20 says exactly what that enclave is.
21 So there can be no statistical or demographic study if you are
22 not clear about the area from which you are collecting data and why these
23 statistical units belong precisely in that area.
24 So territorially speaking, there is not a single definition up to
25 now. Dr. Brunborg was entitled to define Srebrenica as he saw fit, of
1 course, but there is no such thing. So that's why if you look at all the
2 reports, there is a certain flexibility, elasticity to the territory.
3 When statistical units have to be gathered, and those statistical units
4 are ambiguously defined, then Srebrenica is an area comprising 13
5 municipalities, including the 3 municipalities in Serbia.
6 When these statistical units are to be distributed territorially
7 in order to obtain very important statistical indicators, then they are
8 distributed in an area that covers five municipalities. And since this
9 territory is so elastic, this opens the door to manipulations.
10 It is my belief, in light of the knowledge and experience of
11 Dr. Brunborg, the reason why there is no definition of the territory is
12 because Dr. Brunborg decided that Srebrenica shall be all those areas
13 where you have persons that have gone missing between July and December
14 1995. So instead of a spatial definition, you have a temporal
15 definition, so that would be the literal interpretation.
16 What you need to do is you need to take out all the persons that
17 have gone missing or were killed in the period between July and December
18 1995 from the ICRC database, and then I can decide whether I can include
19 persons from Valjevo who are -- that's 150 kilometres away, other cases
20 from Bijeljina or Rogatica, and so on. It's a temporal definition of an
21 event instead of a spatial definition, where you're then supposed to put
22 statistical units based on certain categories. This is completely
23 adapted to the purpose of the research of Mr. Brunborg, and it has
24 nothing to do with the scientific approach, which dictates that you have
25 to define your territory in order to be able to see what population
1 you're dealing with.
2 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Could we please have in e-court
3 Exhibit P2413. That's Mr. Brunborg's report, page 34 in B/C/S, English
4 version 29. That's table 11.
5 Q. Professor, you have in front of you table number 11. That's from
6 Mr. Brunborg's expert report. The date is 2005. So could you please
7 explain to us, what is this?
8 A. This table is the only analytical table in all the reports
9 produced by Dr. Brunborg. All the other tables are tables where he
10 presents his findings. This should be an analytical table for a very
11 simple reason; because it provides some comparisons between various
12 states. And this should be the crown of the report, because it talks
13 about the proportion of deaths found by Dr. Brunborg.
14 The first thing that is incorrect, professionally, is the fact
15 that you don't have the absolute figure anywhere. In my opinion, that's
16 because Dr. Brunborg fails to identify or to define his territory. Had
17 he defined his territory, he would have said, Okay, now Srebrenica
18 includes this population from 1991, or something that would be even more
19 important for us, from our point of view. Dr. Brunborg says that in some
20 documents he found that there were about 40.000 people living in
21 Srebrenica. Not going into whether this figure was 40.000, less or more,
22 from our aspect, from where I sit, it's immaterial. What is important is
23 if we have the 40.000 people who are assumed to have lived in Srebrenica,
24 what calculations were done on the basis of that? Since we don't have
25 the population figures, Mr. Brunborg uses data from 1991, and if you
1 compare data from a certain period of time with the information data from
2 another time period, that's completely proper, methodologically, but
3 Dr. Brunborg is not comparing just absolute figures. He breaks down this
4 population by age groups, so he presents the age structure for 1995. And
5 from the title of the table, we can see that he is doing that in relation
6 to the persons of the same age from 1991. So he says "total population
7 per age group" in 1995, the same thing in 1991. Since he doesn't have
8 the information about the population in 1995, Dr. Brunborg commits a
9 methodological error which I term "apples and oranges" principle. I may
10 be wrong, but at any rate there is no such thing as the calculations
11 based on apples and oranges. Of course, I was trying to be a little bit
12 ironical here, but what does it mean if we apply it to this table, apples
13 and oranges, and why we don't have the absolute figures listed here?
14 If you have the population broken down by age in 1995, in order
15 to calculate the percentages, for instance, population aged between 10
16 and 14, the proportion of dead or missing is 0.4, so I have the age in
17 1995. Now I would have to compare this with the overall population
18 broken down in the same manner in 1991.
19 This structural piece of information, if it is not confined in
20 this manner, is unusable, from the point of view of methodology. What
21 does it mean? Now I've calculated for a segment of a population, of a
22 known population, what age they were in 1991 and 1995, and now I'm trying
23 to ascertain the age at 1995 and what is the proportion in the population
24 of 1991. This is simplified, of course, but statistics is a science of
25 mass populations.
1 For instance, Svetlana Radovanovic was between the age of 41 and
2 44 in 1991. I would have liked that, although it is not true. But the
3 very same Svetlana Radovanovic, in 1995, is four years older, so she
4 moves into a different age group, the age group between 45 and 49.
5 Dr. Brunborg now takes this Svetlana Radovanovic from 1995, and
6 he doesn't look for her in the parallel age group, because he doesn't
7 have the information for 1991, but he compares Svetlana Radovanovic with
8 an age group that she does not belong to. This is, methodologically
9 speaking, improper, and it cannot yield results that could be considered
10 even minimally reliable.
11 JUDGE KWON: Madam Nikolic, can I draw your attention to the
12 e-court. Does it show the correct B/C/S version or the English version
13 is wrong?
14 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I didn't want to
15 interrupt the professor. The B/C/S version is not correct, but Professor
16 Radovanovic understands English and was able to explain this table to the
17 Trial Chamber. But we have the correct table on the left-hand side. We
18 don't have the correct page in B/C/S. We only have some graphs. But I
19 didn't want to interrupt the professor.
20 At any rate, thank you very much, Professor. So the page is 29
21 in English.
22 Could we now move on to a different exhibit. This is a
23 comparison using the example from Potocari, from your findings, that
24 3D398, pages 32 in B/C/S. In English it is 33 and goes on to 34. That's
25 table 8 in Professor Radovanovic's report, 32 in B/C/S.
1 THE INTERPRETER: Could Ms. Nikolic please speak into the
2 microphone or turn on the other microphone to her right.
3 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. I apologise to the
5 Could we please zoom in on table 8, because we would need to see
6 table 9 from Helge Brunborg's report in parallel. Now, I don't know how
7 this can be done, since we now have four documents because we have both
8 tables in both languages.
9 Q. Perhaps you could first talk about table 8 and then go on to
10 discuss table 9 of Dr. Brunborg. But at any rate, have you in front of
11 you your table 8. You analysed the principle and methodology using the
12 example of Potocari.
13 A. This is an example that shows that if you took absolute figures
14 from the 1991 census and the findings about the places of disappearance,
15 I'm using Potocari here because Professor Brunborg only presents data for
16 the whole of Srebrenica, for Potocari and for the forest.
17 I took the data from the official census, population census from
18 1991, broken down by age group. That's the official results for
19 Potocari. This is the first column, and it says here the 1991 census.
20 The second column is the findings of the Prosecution for the
21 missing and the dead, and we have the total figure. Again, by age group,
22 according to the data that Dr. Brunborg presented in table 6A, I think.
23 So we see the absurd thing here. This is particularly present
24 when you have small figures. If you have hundreds of thousands, millions
25 and so on, perhaps it would not be so glaring, but if we apply
1 Dr. Brunborg's methodology using the age groups from 1991 and comparing
2 them with the age groups from 1995, then you would have some absurd
4 I note once again that we are talking about the dead and the
5 missing by place, so you will see that a greater number of people went
6 missing in a certain age group than actually existed in the same age
7 group in 1991. And so we see those absurd results that are presented
8 here by way of an example.
9 Q. The table?
10 A. I'm sorry. The first column shows the percentages for the total
11 number of dead and missing, and the second one only for those who were
12 really ascertained to have died. And since Dr. Brunborg has committed
13 yet another error or omission, in my view, he treats all the persons
14 missing or dead as dead, although he does have data for persons who were
15 really certified dead. So we have here missing and dead and the data for
16 dead alone, and there are differences in the percentages. The
17 percentages show that there was a wrong methodological approach that was
18 adopted here.
19 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
20 Your Honours, this could be a good time for a break. We have two
21 minutes left, but I have maybe four or five questions to ask and then I
22 will complete my examination.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Ms. Nikolic, we'll have a 30-minute
24 break starting from now. We'll reconvene at 10 past 11.00.
25 Thank you.
1 --- Recess taken at 10.39 a.m.
2 --- On resuming at 11.15 a.m.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. For the record, I waited to see whether there
4 would be any developments, but Judge Stole won't be able to make it
5 today, so we'll continue sitting pursuant to Rule 15 bis.
6 Ms. Nikolic, please.
7 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
8 Q. Professor Radovanovic, to save time, we put both tables for
9 Potocari during the break up on the screen. On the right, we see table
10 8. That's the one from your expert report. And on the left side, it's
11 table 9B, Potocari table, from Dr. Brunborg's report.
12 A. I've said it already, when we didn't see the table. This table
13 B, Potocari, Dr. Brunborg breaks down the population gone missing in
14 Potocari by age groups from 1995, and he calculates certain percentages,
15 and he interprets them in his own way. The information from table B has
16 been taken over into my table 8 in their entirety, in absolute terms, but
17 I also added data from 1991 in order to show the methodological error
18 involved; namely, data cannot be compared in this way if they were not
19 reduced to the same moment in time.
20 I don't know if I managed to explain this well, but Svetlana
21 Radovanovic, aged such-and-such in 1995, cannot be sought in a category
22 of population that is four years younger. So I just wanted to show that
23 this was a table where age groups were derived for Potocari and for the
24 forest, plus totals for everything that Dr. Brunborg considers to be
25 Srebrenica, that is, five municipalities. Professionally, it would be
1 right if you are giving percentages and if you are considering Srebrenica
2 to consist of five municipalities.
3 In the key table 11, you should list absolute numbers and your
4 own information so that we can see, on the basis of which state of the
5 population, because we don't know what was the case in 1994.
6 Dr. Brunborg says that one-fourth is from Srebrenica and half of the
7 population from 39 to 44 fell victim, and on this basis he makes the
8 conclusion of enormous casualties and great tragedy.
9 I'm not saying that there was no tragedy. I'm just saying that
10 the numbers arrived at by Dr. Brunborg are methodologically compromised.
11 They were not derived in a methodologically proper way.
12 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] I would like to call up 3D398 in
13 e-court. That's page 30 in B/C/S and 32 in English, table 6.
14 Q. Professor, when we see these tables, in fact, you can explain
15 before that. What is a correct methodological approach and what this
16 table 6 represents?
17 A. You mean table 6 in my report?
18 Q. Yes, in your report.
19 A. Table 6 in my report also represents an example of how, relative
20 to the total population, it would have been intellectually and
21 professionally correct to show these percentages. Table 6 shows how many
22 Bosniaks there were in total in 1991 in all the five municipalities. I'm
23 taking only these five municipalities taken by Dr. Brunborg to be
24 Srebrenica. Then how many of this total of Bosniaks are men? And
25 there's one error here. It says "55.000," sorry, "559.000." It's in
1 fact 59.000. This is a typo.
2 Q. Just a moment, Professor. I don't think the figures were
3 recorded properly in the transcript. Just a moment. Please explain this
4 mistake in the second column.
5 A. Second column, Bosniak men, it says "559.258." It's a
6 typographical error. It's in fact 59.258. The first digit, "5," should
7 not be there.
8 According to the data indicated in Dr. Brunborg's report, closed
9 cases total of 2.372, and the search was still going on for 2.389. I
10 have already emphasised that Dr. Brunborg always shows the missing and
11 the dead as one and the same category. It's not one and the same
12 category. It should be professionally correct to separate these two
14 If you were to compare that to the total population, you would
15 get that relative to the total population of what Dr. Brunborg takes to
16 be Srebrenica, in fact, not even the total population but only Bosniaks,
17 4.5 per cent would be missing, whereas those cases that are considered to
18 be closed, resolved, in the total population there would be 4 per cent of
19 these, and if you take only men into consideration, Bosniak men, then we
20 would say it's 9 per cent missing among the Bosniak male population.
21 I have to say one more thing. Total Bosniaks, 1991, that's the
22 first column, that's all Bosniaks without reference to age, all Bosniaks
23 from zero age, and that is also professionally correct, because
24 Mr. Brunborg makes his calculations, I think, in the age group starting
25 with 15, or 15 to 19. He only takes into account the male population
1 that does not take into account one-third of the population; namely, the
2 age group from 0 to 14. This category exists, and it has to be taken
3 into account in the numbers when such relevant figures are given. You
4 cannot just ignore the presence of this population.
5 I think that table 11 precisely, due to various attempts to
6 wriggle out of the fact that one does not know the population in 1995 or
7 1994, and the fact that what does exist in the 1991 census is not
8 represented correctly, in the key analytical table we have no absolute
9 numbers. What is shown are only relative numbers.
10 JUDGE KWON: Table 11 of Dr. Brunborg's report?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. That's the only table that I
12 consider as an analytical table. It can be qualified as analytical, but
13 I also believe it to be a kind of statistical exhibitionism, because if
14 you don't have the elements on the basis of which you are able to
15 establish whether your calculations are correct, then there's always a
16 doubt that you are hiding something.
17 We cannot check, we cannot establish, and we cannot take without
18 reservation that one-third of Srebrenica's men fell victim, either as
19 missing or as dead, if we don't know what it is one-third of. We have to
20 bear in mind that the number of the population in 1991 and the population
21 in Srebrenica, whatever "Srebrenica" means, in 1995 are completely
22 different things, not only in quantitative terms but also in qualitative
23 terms. In 1991, we have the number and the quality. We see the age
24 structure, and the age structure gives us a certain quality of the
25 population. However, in table 11 of Dr. Brunborg's, we see some sort of
1 quality, but we don't know relative to what quantity. So it would have
2 been professionally fair to see relative to what this calculation was
3 made. We can only have a vague idea about that from the heading of the
4 table, table 11.
5 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] May I call up in e-court 3D398.
6 It's again Professor Radovanovic's report, pages 31 in B/C/S and 32-33 in
7 English. That's table 7.
8 Q. While we are waiting for this document, my question to you would
9 be: Did you perform a correct analysis for Bratunac, Zvornik,
10 Han Pijesak, Vlasenica municipality, applying the correct methodology,
11 all the municipalities that Dr. Brunborg also deals with?
12 A. Well, that's another example of what would have been the
13 professionally fair way of showing a table. This table does not suggest
14 that my findings are scrupulously correct and accurate. I'm just trying,
15 through this table to say that Dr. Brunborg, if he had broken down the
16 population for 1991, and if he had broken up the categories instead of
17 saying that the missing and the dead are one and the same category, and
18 if he had done it methodologically properly, and if he had matched it
19 methodologically properly, he would have obtained completely different
20 results. I am not claiming these are the most reliable data in the
21 world, but I am claiming that with the criterion that I'm using, these
22 results may be obtained.
23 Table 7 shows the findings about the missing and the dead, and
24 their proportion in total population, according to Dr. Brunborg, and the
25 findings that I obtained by matching names, surname, father's name and
1 year of birth, when I compared the list of Dr. Brunborg with the list of
2 the population. So according to that criterion containing the elements I
3 enumerated, it is possible, in all five municipalities, to match 3.225
4 residents, and then we see how many relate to Srebrenica, how many to
5 Bratunac, how many to Vlasenica, et cetera, by their place of permanent
6 residence, since at that moment, because I spent seven days doing this
7 and it's a huge amount of work, you are dealing with a great number of
8 rubrics, and by that I mean listing a great number of personal
9 information in one line for each resident, I could only see in this work
10 what is correct. I could not see, out of these 3.225, which are still
11 treated as missing and which have been identified as dead. I proceeded
12 from the assumption that all those that I matched have been identified as
13 dead. Only when you have the fact that all those matched are really
14 identified as dead, you can talk about the rates of mortality. You
15 cannot talk about rates of mortality if you are not sure that certain
16 people are dead, which Dr. Brunborg really does, because he takes all
17 7.661 persons to be dead, and he calculates the proportions of mortality
18 for the missing and dead, which is logical nonsense. You cannot apply
19 rates of mortality to people whom you are not sure to be dead, at least
20 at the moment when this was done.
21 This is just one example how different these ratios would be and
22 how these calculations would need to have been done to be
23 methodologically correct.
24 Q. Could you give us an example? For example, in Srebrenica, to
25 interpret this table?
1 A. In his table, Dr. Brunborg talks about the municipality of
2 Srebrenica and says that the mortality rate has been calculated as
3 33.9 per cent, which means that about 34 per cent of the total
4 population, according to Dr. Brunborg's findings, fell victim in
5 Srebrenica in proportion to the year 1991. He excluded -- if he had
6 excluded everything that he was not sure about and if he started from the
7 real mortality rate, based on the facts, on those who were established,
8 that the result would have been completely different and it would be
9 about 12 per cent. And that would apply to every municipality, of
11 Q. If we were to look at the total, the overall result?
12 A. The overall result, in comparison with what most of Dr. Brunborg
13 considered to be Srebrenica, with respect to the five municipalities, it
14 would result to some 6 per cent, which means that the -- a share of those
15 male Bosniaks who were dead would amount to approximately 6 per cent in
16 respect of the five municipalities and in respect of the total number of
17 population in 1991.
18 I would like to emphasise that the number of population in 1991
19 and the number of population which was unknown in 1995 shows a
20 qualitative -- a difference -- a major qualitative difference. And when
21 it comes to the quantitative characteristics, according to what
22 Dr. Brunborg says, there were some 40.000 people, and in quantitative
23 terms that may well be acceptable in comparison with the year 1991. But
24 that is also something I can't be sure of, because this is just what is
25 rumoured, and rumours are not part of the statistics and are not taken
1 into account as part of the statistical research.
2 MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have no further
4 Thank you, Professor Radovanovic.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Ms. Nikolic.
6 Mr. Ostojic.
7 MR. OSTOJIC: Good morning, Mr. President.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Good morning to you. She is also your witness.
9 Please go ahead.
10 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: How much do you think --
12 MR. OSTOJIC: It's difficult to say. About an hour, I think.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Go ahead.
14 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you.
15 Examination by Mr. Ostojic:
16 Q. Good morning, Professor.
17 A. Good morning.
18 Q. I'll try not to repeat any of the questions that my learned
19 colleague asked, and I know that you are very precise in your answers as
20 well as in your report, and thank you for that.
21 My first question to you, if I may, is: Do you have an opinion
22 as to whether --
23 A. I apologise. You are speaking too fast, and the interpreters
24 have to speed up. And for me to be able to follow you, I have to have
25 the two things really synchronised. I apologise. Could you please slow
1 down, and then the interpreters will slow down and I'll be able to follow
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Even the witness recognised that you are
4 incorrigible, Mr. Ostojic.
5 MR. OSTOJIC: We are unanimous and I'm grateful for assistance in
7 Q. Doctor, I will thank you for reminding of that.
8 Do you have an opinion as to whether Mr. Brunborg, based on his
9 unreasonable selection and limitations of sources utilised, his flawed
10 methodology, and the erroneous conclusions, were result driven or result
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Ms. Soljan.
13 MS. SOLJAN: Your Honour, this is not cross. These are leading
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Ostojic.
16 MR. OSTOJIC: I'm asking her if she has an opinion based upon
17 that. I think in her report it's rather clear. I think it's a fair
18 question, and I think we -- which I could direct her to page 8 of her
19 report --
20 JUDGE AGIUS: The question would have been okay if you had just
21 asked her for her opinion, but you are putting to her that Mr. Brunborg's
22 conclusions, selections, and limitations of sources, are flawed, his
23 methodology is flawed, his conclusions are erroneous.
24 MR. OSTOJIC: Yes. I was merely laying a foundation. I thought
25 she had that in her report. I could go through it and we could come back
1 to each of those three things, but I think does --
2 JUDGE AGIUS: I think she has it in her report, too, but once
3 you've got a notice from the Prosecution that they are going to object to
4 direct questions, please -- or leading questions, then proceed
6 MR. OSTOJIC: I just have to say for the record, I don't believe
7 that the objection is warranted, and I don't believe that it's a leading
8 question, but I will restate the question, in the interests of time.
9 Q. Professor, do you have an opinion as to whether or not
10 Mr. Brunborg's selection of methodology, his analysis, as well as his
11 conclusions were in any way result driven?
12 A. I believe that my entire report speaks about that. It is not my
13 opinion, without any foundations.
14 Starting with the selected source of information to the erroneous
15 methodological procedures, when it comes to the matching of the
16 information, when it comes to the definition of the area concerned, all
17 these were methodological errors. So this is not my opinion. It is not
18 that I am thinking that. This is what I established, and from my point
19 of view they're facts to prove that the whole thing was professionally
20 incorrect. In that, I did not try to put my opinion. I believe that
21 Dr. Brunborg is a professional, that he has an educational background and
22 experience to support that, and if a professional ignores such key things
23 in professional and scientific terms, I'm not of the opinion that he will
24 do that out of sheer ignorance.
25 Q. We're certainly not saying that of Mr. Brunborg or any of the
1 witnesses or scientists and demographers that the Prosecution has brought
2 forth, but I'd like to just -- to follow up on my question, direct your
3 attention to page 8 of your report, where I think you highlight, in the
4 paragraph that starts with: "Age," in the middle of that paragraph,
5 where you highlight two aspects of what you found in Mr. Brunborg's
6 report, and you let me know when you find it, Professor, and then I'll
7 ask you a direct question on that.
8 A. I found it.
9 Q. Now, you state here with respect to Mr. Brunborg's, among other
10 things, analysis, that it was your conclusion that it has absolutely
11 nothing to do with scientific statistics or demography, and what I'd like
12 to do is to elaborate on that. And just so everyone's following along,
13 again it's page 8 of your report, which is 3D398. And you highlight two
14 things that Mr. Brunborg states. First, and I think you have it in
15 quotes with some text which is bold, but I'll just read it under quotes,
16 quote: "A question is thus: How many victims must be established to
17 convict someone of genocide?"
18 And you thankfully have a citation to where you found that in his
20 My question to you is: Is it -- have you, in your experience as
21 a demographer, and in your educational background, and in your teaching
22 positions, as well as the articles that you've written and published,
23 have demographers ever been, when they do statistics or this type of
24 work, do they first try to establish, as it says here, what is necessary
25 in order to convict someone of a crime, much less genocide? Have you
1 ever experienced that in your profession?
2 A. No, in demography there is no definition of genocide. Demography
3 is not a science that would consider the issues of genocide and state
4 whether one thing is genocide and the other not. Demography deals with
5 the demographic losses that may be direct or indirect and that may have a
6 bearing on the vital force of a certain population, but it does not
7 determine what is or what is not genocide. So in my career, I've never
8 had an opportunity -- I know that there is no definition of genocide,
9 which obviously doesn't mean that none among colleagues dealt with
10 genocide. And here Dr. Brunborg also proffers an opinion that this large
11 number may be characterized as genocide.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, one moment.
13 Yes, Mr. Soljan.
14 MS. SOLJAN: Your Honours, I just wanted to clarify for the
15 record. This is not a report by Dr. Brunborg, this is an article that
16 was published on 10 July 2002
17 Thank you.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Go ahead.
19 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you. It does say in the footnote "Report,"
20 Your Honour, so we weren't trying to mislead anyone.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: No, no one is suggesting that.
22 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you.
23 Q. What I'd like to do --
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise. I would like to add
1 This article has been enclosed and the Prosecutor has it. I have
2 enclosed it as one of the positions by Dr. Brunborg. I did not come
3 across it in a piece of literature that does not exist in this Court.
4 That's why I said "report," because I see it as one of the positions and
5 pieces of evidence that Mr. Brunborg has published and offered to this
6 Tribunal as part of the way he saw things that he was dealing with. I
7 did not consider - maybe I should have - that you can have one position
8 when writing the report for the Tribunal and a different position as part
9 of your scientific publication, and you still write about the same thing,
11 Q. Thank you for that explanation. And we're not personally
12 criticising Mr. Brunborg, as I earlier stated, but I'd like to go back
13 to, a little bit, you had mentioned that -- you know, when we talked
14 about the flaws and the errors that we see, really, am I correct that in
15 essence what you're saying is that the methodology that was used fell
16 below the acceptable, reasonable standards that demographers would
17 utilise in making or having analyses to come up with a conclusion? Is
18 that the essence of it, if I may?
19 A. Yes. Yes, that would be the essence. The methodology is not
20 standardised, it's not scientific. A standard statistical method is
21 modified and adjusted to the end result. In other words, in most
22 statistical research or serious a demographic research will you be able
23 to find that the standard matching procedure has 71 keys. It's
24 non-existent. You can define your own key and say what it consists of,
25 and you can stand by that, but within one and the same research, you
1 define 71 different possibilities. So if something is found unsuitable
2 to my needs, I still have an opportunity to interchange within those
3 different keys.
4 Q. And I'll discuss keys with you, hopefully, in a few minutes or a
5 little later, but what I want to talk about now briefly are the sources
6 that were utilised.
7 You mentioned earlier today that when methodology is being
8 utilised, the first and perhaps most important step is the choice of
9 sources. Do you remember that?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Let me just put the question to you. Thank you for just
12 recollecting that.
13 Now, you list several sources on page 5 of your report, and just
14 so you can follow along and others can follow along, you list the sources
15 that Mr. Brunborg utilised and the sources that he didn't utilise that
16 were readily available. What I'd like to know is that whether
17 demographers, such as yourself, and statisticians, do they typically
18 utilise these sources that are listed in conducting this type of
19 analysis, and, secondly, because I know you're going to give longer
20 answers, are these sources considered --
21 A. Can you take things one at a time or can I take them one at a
23 Q. Sure.
24 A. When you qualify the sources of data, then there is something
25 that we call a general breakup of data. They can be official and
2 What is the difference between the official and unofficial
3 sources of data? When it comes to the official sources of data, such as
4 a census, the date on mortality and so on and so forth, there is an
5 authority behind these sources, the authority of a specialised
6 institution or the authority of the state. At the moment, I'm not
7 saying -- discussing the quality of these data, but the quality of a
8 certain professional organisation does provide a guarantee that these
9 data are at least minimally reliable. The authority of an official
10 organisation goes even to such an extent to warn the end user about the
11 degree of the reliability of the data, whether they are scrupulously
12 correct or should be taken with reservations.
13 For example, when it comes to vital statistics, when you're
14 talking about the rates of mortality or natality, you will see some dates
15 in brackets. This means that the end user is warned that the data in
16 brackets is of dubious quality, and then there is an explanation: "We
17 believe that there was a shortfall in the registration of certain facts,"
18 and so on and so forth.
19 Behind official sources of data, there is an authority, and this
20 authority is in charge of verifying those data. When it comes to an
21 unofficial source of data, there may be an authority behind, but it
22 doesn't have to be. Unofficial sources of data may be an association, an
23 organisation, which do not deal with statistics as their primary
24 activity, but a statistician who obtains that information will be able to
25 turn these data into official data.
1 For example, the Red Cross does not practice the methods and
2 standards of methodological research, but a statistician who obtains that
3 data is duty-bound to apply the standards and methods of the profession
4 and turn the unofficial data into more or less reliable data.
5 There are various unofficial sources. For example, there are
6 unofficial sources whose authors are not known, and you also have those
7 unofficial sources of data which are never verified or publicly
8 announced. I've mentioned the PHR here. I may be mistaken, but I have
9 not come across, in my work, and if I'm mistaken I apologise in advance,
10 that a list or the source of data collected by the PHR has ever been
11 disclosed anywhere but here in this Tribunal.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: You're being infected by Mr. Ostojic.
13 MR. OSTOJIC:
14 Q. Doctor, can you tell me if it would be reasonable for a
15 demographer and a statistician to use these sources as part of their
16 methodology for purposes of evaluating or analysing things such as that
17 which occurred in Srebrenica in 1995? And specifically I'm relating to
18 the seven sources that you cite on page 5 of your report. Would it be
19 reasonable for demographers and statisticians to utilise those sources?
20 A. You mean the ones that he did not use? Is that what you mean,
21 the sources that the Prosecution expert did not use? Not only would it
22 have been reasonable, but it would have been professionally honest.
23 Why am I saying this? A selective choice of a source of data,
24 when you have more at your disposal than you have chosen automatically
25 means that you are adjusting some research to what you expect to obtain
1 as your end result. And not only is it a selective choice of data, which
2 makes you rely on certain choices that may be of certain quality or not,
3 and at the same time you're ignoring certain sources which are either
4 similar or of better quality.
5 In addition to that, if you compare several sources of data, you
6 obtain more reliable data, and you can say with a higher degree of
7 certainty what would be the minimally reliable figures, or you can limit
8 yourself and say this is possible or this is probable because you have
9 various sources of data. The more sources of data you have, the higher
10 degree of reliability in your statistical research you may expect to
12 Q. And slightly -- the next question, I think you may have covered
13 it, but just so I'm clear and we have it clear on the record: Is the
14 failure or refusal, with all due respect, to use these sources that you
15 even highlighted, which are readily available, does that raise doubt as
16 to the reliability and the validity of the OTP demographic experts and
17 their reports in connection with the missing and dead?
18 A. I personally do harbour reasonable doubt. If the sources have
19 been at your disposal since 2001 and you are using them in one case and
20 not in the other, then I really do not have a logical explanation why you
21 decided to use it in one case, and you know that it would provide you
22 with good information or at least you could say, "This is what I used,"
23 but reject it for certain reasons.
24 A statistician, a demographer, has the right to consult various
25 sources, but ignore them, but there has to be an explanation for that.
1 "I have consulted something, but not take it into account for certain
2 reasons." There's no single expert opinion by Dr. Brunborg and his
3 associate with regard to Srebrenica, and the first one was drafted in
4 2000 and the last one in 2005, so they have not mentioned the BH Army,
5 the DEM 2, the MA [indiscernible], so these are not sources that were not
6 available. They are available -- they have been available to them in the
7 demographic department of the OTP.
8 Q. Thank you. Did you find, doctor, in your research and study of
9 the reports that you evaluated for us, did you find whether Mr. Brunborg
10 or Madam Ewa Tabeau gave any explanation or reason as to why they decided
11 not to utilise these reasonable sources for purposes of either
12 verification or for purposes of cross-checking to further validate their
13 analyses and conclusions? Did they give any explanations in any of their
14 reports as to why they didn't use these sources?
15 A. There's no explanation whatsoever why they didn't use them. They
16 don't even say that they exist. However, in the material that I've seen
17 here by Ms. Ewa Tabeau, who matched the data from the BH Army and the
18 census of the population; i.e., the list of the missing and dead that was
19 compiled by the Prosecutor, gives one sentence and says that this source
20 of data is really not of high quality. This is the first time I ever saw
22 I have also listened to the examination-in-chief of Dr. Brunborg,
23 who said that in order for him -- that he would have established that
24 there were no dead before 1995 if he had matched that with the list of
25 fallen soldiers. In other words, I have not seen that recorded in any of
1 the reports.
2 Q. In your opinion, Doctor, would using these readily-available
3 sources assist us in having a more complete, thorough and accurate
4 assessment, from a demographics perspective, of determining the missing
5 and dead?
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Ms. Soljan.
7 MS. SOLJAN: Your Honours, I object. This is very leading.
8 MR. OSTOJIC: I have to be very honest to my learned colleague.
9 I've been a practitioner for over 25 years, and I've actually given
10 lectures on leading questions and provided students with specifically
11 what is or is not. This is in no way a leading question whatsoever. I'm
12 asking the doctor whether she has an opinion as to whether or not these
13 sources, which they've had in their possession, which they acknowledge
14 are reasonable, whether or not that could assist us in getting a more
15 thorough, complete, and accurate description of that which their
16 demographics experts were trying to utilise. I do take offence to the
17 issue that it's leading. I think it's not leading. I think that it's a
18 very appropriate question.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Ms. Soljan.
20 MS. SOLJAN: Your Honours, I think simply asking, "How would
21 these sources be used," would be a more appropriate question and not
22 leading at all.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, thank you. I need to consult with my
24 colleagues, and we'll come back to you shortly.
25 [Trial Chamber confers]
1 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Mr. Ostojic, our conclusion is that this area
2 has already been dealt with by the witness, so you can move to your next
3 question and to specific areas.
4 MR. OSTOJIC: More specific than sources, Mr. President; is that
5 what you're asking me? This area is a specific area. It's --
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, but you have to be specific, in other words,
7 and ask no leading questions on specific matters.
8 MR. OSTOJIC: Fair enough. Thank you, Mr. President.
9 Q. Doctor, looking at these sources, if we can stick with that for a
10 moment, do you have an opinion as to whether or not, by reviewing these
11 sources, they would assist us in providing a more complete, thorough, and
12 accurate assessment of the missing and dead?
13 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Ms. Soljan.
14 MS. SOLJAN: Your Honours, this is not --
15 JUDGE AGIUS: We are back to square one.
16 MS. SOLJAN: Yes.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: We are back to square one. I mean, we avoided
18 telling you whether we considered it a direct question, a leading
19 question, or not.
20 MR. OSTOJIC: Fair enough. I'll move on to the next question.
21 Q. If you could draw your attention to page 6 of your report, and I
22 just notice in the top there you have a statement, and it was translated
23 into English as being inadmissible. And if you just follow with me,
24 right before the bold point. And I think, Doctor, it doesn't really have
25 the meaning as it does in the B/C/S version, if I'm not mistaken, but I'm
1 going to have you help us understand that, because your report is
2 sprinkled, quite candidly, with a lot of words such as "inadmissible."
3 Are you telling us with respect to the report that you provide
4 that it's more of a question of reliability and validity, because I think
5 it falls within the parlance of the Trial Chamber to determine whether
6 something is admissible or not. And with the most respect to you, when
7 you say that "the methodological errors or flaws are inadmissible," can
8 you tell us whether -- what you mean by that?
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Ms. Soljan.
10 MS. SOLJAN: Your Honours, objection. What does "admissibility"
11 mean? Is this leading to a legal conclusion? And it's a leading
13 MR. OSTOJIC: I quite frankly think there was, in the translation
14 part, they have utilised the word "inadmissible" rather broadly, and I'm
15 asking her to clarify. If she says that she thinks it's inadmissible,
16 but I think we heard from her testimony and the translators today, that
17 in fact when she utilised the same word, she was referring to reliability
18 as well as validity, and I'm just asking her to clarify that in her
19 report, so when the Court reviews it in English, which I presume it will
20 review it in English, that you have a clearer picture.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Haynes.
22 MR. HAYNES: Yes. I join that position. It was one of the few
23 questions I was going to ask Ms. Radovanovic, and the report repeatedly
24 uses the word, and it doesn't appear to make any sense in English. And
25 I think it's a perfectly proper question for the Trial Chamber to have
1 that matter clarified so they understand the report.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: With two such distinguished lawyers disagreeing
3 with you, you can't be right, Ms. Soljan.
4 MS. SOLJAN: I respectfully disagree with that, Your Honours.
5 They could simply ask, "How is it inadmissible," or, "What does
6 'admissible' mean," as opposed leading with a conclusion.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: I think we have no problem here, being assumed that
8 the word "inadmissible" could in itself be inherently confusing, they're
9 asking for a clarification, so please go ahead, Mr. Ostojic, or, Madam,
10 if you could answer the question, please, and clarify it for us.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think that now we have a confused
12 terminology. When I say "nedopustivo," it means impermissible from a
13 methodological point of view. I use this term quite often, not only here
14 but in scientific literature in my language. To say that something is
15 impermissible, it means that this is improper from a methodological point
16 of view. You simply cannot do it that way. And that's why I used this
17 term. I wanted to be a little bit more polite. I wasn't aware of the
18 legal implications of the discrepancy between the two terms in my
19 language versus in the English language. So when I say "unacceptable" or
20 "inadmissible," as it was used in the report, I'm not saying that I'm
21 going to allow it in and then let somebody else evaluate it. When I say
22 "nedopustivo," "impermissible," it means that it is improper, deficient
23 in methodological terms.
24 Q. Okay. It helps a little, I think.
25 Doctor, it's my understanding that a few days ago, you reviewed
1 also some material, I think, on the 25th of July, 2008. Did you?
2 A. That's true, yes.
3 Q. Just so that we're clear, and I wasn't around at that time and
4 I'm sorry for that, can you just tell us what is it that you reviewed?
5 A. I reviewed the Prosecutor's disclosure that refers to soldiers.
6 The Prosecutor disclosed that by matching the BiH Army base, the census
7 and the list of missing persons on the Prosecutor's list of missing and
8 dead, resulted in some figures, i.e., that over 70 per cent of the
9 soldiers are on the Prosecutor's list of dead and missing. Up to the
10 disclosure of this material, this list could have been perceived as a
11 list that contained exclusively civilians, especially if you read
12 previous reports; i.e., if you read what Dr. Brunborg wrote, and he wrote
13 that those were exclusively non-combatant men.
14 Q. Okay. And, again, I don't want to go back to sources, but that's
15 another source that could have been utilised in connection with providing
16 a -- without offending my colleague -- a report, I guess, as opposed to a
17 reasonable or a reliable or a valid report, if you will? That's a source
18 that could be used; correct?
19 A. Absolutely. That is a source that has been in existence since
20 2001 at the Prosecutor's office.
21 Q. Fair enough. Let me move on now to the next issue that I wanted
22 to discuss with you, and that is matching as well as identification key.
23 I know in your report, in the summary section, you discuss both
24 of those items, matching and key. I'd like to direct our attention to
25 page 31 of your report, where you identify -- and just so that we're
1 clear, and I know you gave the example yesterday utilising an ATM card
2 with the four numbers. Is using four numbers actually the key or are
3 those four numbers an element within an identification key?
4 A. I may have not explained that properly. When I say "a key,"
5 every matching key consists of several elements, and a key may contain
6 ten elements or two elements, seven, eight. There is never one single
7 element in a key.
8 So when it comes to the personal identification number, you have
9 13 elements, because there are 13 digits that make up the identification
10 number for every citizen. When you design a matching key, you determine
11 the elements, and that is what Dr. Brunborg says when he presents his 71
12 keys. The first key is the name, the father's name, the date of birth,
13 which means that one key or one criterion contains more than one element.
14 The more there are elements, the more possibilities that the result will
15 be more accurate. As you exclude one element after another, you modify
16 your key, and then you --
17 Q. Sorry, I don't mean to be rude, to interrupt you, but you're
18 getting a little --
19 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
20 MR. OSTOJIC:
21 Q. And I apologise to the Court and to you, Doctor, for interrupting
22 you, but you're getting just a little bit ahead of me, and I wanted to
23 have a better appreciation for this identification key, if you will, and
24 the elements within this key.
25 But help us understand this: How many different keys does
1 Dr. Brunborg utilise when presenting his analysis when looking at this
2 material that you've shared; how many?
3 A. Dr. Brunborg provides a list of keys that he used for the
4 matching exercise with the census. The list contains 71 keys.
5 Q. And that's what I understood, and we'll take it one step at a
7 So he has 71 different keys, and within each of those keys there
8 are these elements that you say, such as name, last name, place of --
9 date of birth, if you will, or place of residence, I think as you list on
10 page 31 of your report. What effect, if any, or what significance, if
11 any, does utilising different identification keys in this matching
12 process have on the ultimate result that Dr. Brunborg has given or
13 provided to us?
14 A. The significance is major. First of all, the methodological rule
15 says that you should not change your keys within the course of one
16 activity process, which means if Dr. Brunborg has set up a key that
17 consists of, for example, seven elements, the name, the last name, then
18 father's name, the date, the month and the year of birth, and the place
19 of residence, he should have used that key to do the matching of all the
20 sources of data, which means I have a list, I have seven elements for one
21 key, and then I run the seven elements through the census. And in order
22 for something to be matched with something else, or, rather, for
23 something to be identified, there should be an absolute match between the
24 name, the last name, the father's name, the date of birth, the place of
25 residence. So there should be an absolute match.
1 After this is completed, you end up with data, and you can say
2 with confidence, "I have found 500, but I'm not happy with that, it's too
3 little," so I reduce the key by one element and I say, "I am looking for
4 an identical name, the date of birth," but I have changed the key because
5 I have omitted something from the key, such as the place of residence.
6 Then I run that key through the census, and then I have a perfect match
7 for a thousand people, for example. And then I do say, "Well, it's not
8 enough," and then I reduce the key by another element and I say, "I want
9 the name, the last name, the father's name, but I don't want the date of
10 birth, I just want the month and the year of birth." And again I repeat
11 the exercise. I'm just doing this for academic exercise. And finally I
12 end up with 3.000 identical names. Again, I'm not happy, so I reduce the
13 key by the element of the date of birth, I just reduce it to the name. I
14 end up with 4.000. I'm still not happy.
15 I can't give you that for all the 71 keys, but finally end up
16 with the initial of the first name, the father's name, and the year of
17 birth, and I end up with, let's say, 5.000 matches according to a certain
18 criteria. I don't know whether it is criterion 40, 41, or 42, where
19 Dr. Brunborg sets up, as his criteria, the initial and the year of birth
20 plus/minus five years. He can then end up with everybody with initial
21 "S", the last name "Radovanovic," who was born in the year 1949,
22 plus/minus five years, which means that person may have been born any
23 time between the year 1994 and 1999, and when he gets matches based on
24 that criteria, he will then apply the so-called visual method, and he can
25 end up with thousands upon thousands of such cases.
1 I believe that according to the Rule 40, he could have ended up
2 with over 100.000 such cases. Then you do the eliminating exercise and
3 you end up with 6.000 or 7.000, because what you do, you do a visual
4 exercise. You're looking for elements that suit you, that suit your end
5 result, which means you can be very subjective in determining what you
6 want to end up with; i.e., you can open a space to your decision being
7 more decisive and more relevant than the appropriate key or the objective
8 findings. If you want an objective finding, you have to have an
9 objective source of data and an objective key.
10 Every expert, every professional, can set up a more relaxed or
11 more strict key. A more relaxed key will make your end result less
12 reliable. And this is what I said yesterday, but I may not have been
13 clear enough.
14 Had Dr. Brunborg provided any statistics in any of his reports
15 and stated: "I used 71," five, whatever keys, and then indicated the
16 first key that contains such-and-such elements, "I managed to match
17 10 per cent. Using the second key that contains such-and-such element,
18 I matched 30 per cent, the fifth," and so on, if he had given us an
19 overview of how keys were used, and what keys were used, and the
20 possibility of matching, then we could assess the reliability of the
21 match that he obtained.
22 We could see the combinatorics of it in the combination of those
23 keys, and combinatorics of course affects the reliability of the results.
24 Q. Let me --
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Microphone.
1 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you.
2 Q. I think you just said, in essence, among many other things, that
3 the more relaxed key, the less reliable. In this -- in your evaluation
4 and review of the materials from Dr. Brunborg and others, did you find
5 that there were -- there was this more relaxed key or not?
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Ms. Soljan.
7 MS. SOLJAN: Objection, Your Honours. This has been asked and
8 answered over the last day and a half.
9 MR. OSTOJIC: Well, you know, I'll move on because I'm going to
10 get to this point eventually, but I thought I'd short-circuit it.
11 Q. When you look at these relaxed keys, you'd have to look at each
12 element, would you not, as we discussed and as reflected in your report
13 on page 31, by utilising -- let's take it one step further so that -- or
14 actually the essence of it.
15 If you utilise different elements and many different elements,
16 that creates a situation -- or you tell me, does that create a more
17 relaxed or more stringent key for purposes of reliability and/or
19 A. If you don't have numerical indicators, such as the personal ID
20 number, which is a reliable key, but if you provide the elements of a key
21 for some person, then the more elements, the more certain you are that
22 the datum is reliable. If someone is looking for Svetlana Radovanovic in
23 the Bosnia-Herzegovina census results, I gave that as an example
24 yesterday, and if the key is "Svetlana, father's name, last name
25 Radovanovic," such-and-such date of birth, month of birth, year of birth,
1 place of birth, permanent residence, then the probability that the person
2 identified as Svetlana Radovanovic will be the one you're looking for
3 will be greater.
4 If somebody asks you to look for Svetlana Radovanovic, who may
5 have been born between '44 and '54, the probability that the reliability
6 of the datum that you obtain is going to be reliable is very low. And
7 there is always this possibility that the person does the matching
8 decides whether it is matched or not. The matching is highly dubious,
9 the moment you introduce the element of subjectivity.
10 I tried to explain that. Perhaps I wasn't really successful in
11 it. But would any of us agree, when taking money out of the bank
12 machine, to -- not to know the PIN but to just use any random selection
13 of numbers? In that case, nobody would keep their money in the bank.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Ostojic and Dr. Radovanovic, we have a feeling
15 that the testimony, and that includes the questions as well, is becoming
16 too repetitive, so if you could avoid putting questions to the witness
17 which, if answered, can only be repetitive, please, both of you, try to
18 do that.
19 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Mr. President.
20 Q. Doctor, in your field of study and in demographics, in creating
21 these identification keys while performing this type of analysis, do
22 demographers typically look for uniformity and standardised and/or fixed
23 elements in order to create this identification key?
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Ms. Soljan.
25 MS. SOLJAN: Your Honours, this is leading.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. ...
2 MR. OSTOJIC: Okay.
3 Q. Doctor, in the field of demographics, what do experts such as
4 yourself look for or what is necessary in order to maintain some level of
5 objectivity in creating these elements and identification keys?
6 A. The matching method is used in statistics. It has been used for
7 a long time in statistics, particularly when you have a census and when
8 you want to match the population, households, things like that. In this
9 kind of research of the type done by Dr. Brunborg, individual data have
10 never been used, ever, in order to present something in this manner, so
11 this is not controversial in statistics. You have a code, you say, "Look
12 for 1287 and 12." In every questionnaire, you have those codes, so you
13 never ask for -- look -- you never say, "Look for such-and-such a person
14 by name." In scientific statistician-type research, you don't have this
15 kind of thing.
16 In demographic research, this is the first time that somebody did
17 this kind of research, comparing individual data through several data
18 sources, using such keys.
19 Q. Thank you. But let me just move on to another topic, in the
20 interests of time, and maybe we won't -- and I think we understand it a
21 little bit better, and thank you for that.
22 I want to direct your attention back to subparagraph (h) in your
23 report on page 8 in English, where you talk about a failure to discount,
24 and you talk about the fictitious names that appear and all that. I
25 really didn't understand that fully, and with all due respect, Doctor, it
1 says, and I'll read it, although we can all read it there: "It is
2 methodologically inadmissible to fail -- to discount from the study all
3 persons for whom there are reasonable grounds to suspect that they are
5 And not to ask you a leading question, but why, why do you hold
6 that opinion? Like why would it be impermissible or inadmissible, if you
8 A. Well, if you have a methodological requirement to the fact that
9 in order to prove that a person exists, I have to verify that person's
10 existence in the 1991 census by identifying that person through a
11 matching procedure, if this is one of the requirements for the proof of
12 the existence of an individual, and then if you prove by matching that
13 87 per cent of persons were identified through this matching process --
14 now, I'm not even going into whether the key is good or bad, whether
15 there was 71 criteria or whatever, but you prove that 87 of those persons
16 existed, that means that in your research you managed to prove that
17 13 per cent of these people does not exist in accordance with the results
18 of your research.
19 It would be professionally proper to exclude them and to say,
20 "Okay, I'm going to work with this sample of people I have proven exist."
21 But Dr.
22 13 per cent, but I distributed them around." So you don't know if this
23 person exists, because they are not in the census, how can you then put
24 them in Srebrenica, how do you know that they are Muslims or Bosniaks?
25 Mr. Brunborg, in his tables, in his reports, shows that he has
1 999 persons whose ethnic background is unknown to him, 999 people whose
2 ethnic background you don't know, and you take them from the census, so
3 you don't even know where they live or where they were at the time.
4 I apologise, I'm really getting into the stride.
5 Q. And it's very interesting, as am I as well, and thank you and I
7 And what I really want to know, Doctor, is: What effect, if any,
8 does this have, the failure to discount, in your opinion, of course, with
9 respect to the overall report and the conclusions that were rendered by
10 Dr. Brunborg; what affect does it have?
11 A. Well, it should have significant impact on the end results.
12 Q. I know, but share with us what effect, in your opinion, it has on
13 the overall results. I understand that it's significant, but just share
14 with us what impact that you believe that it has.
15 A. All of the results are significantly increased, and there is
16 statistical evidence. I'm not even going into whether the figure is
17 correct or incorrect. I don't know what the figure is for the victims.
18 But using an erroneous methodological number, you increase the certain
19 statistical mass knowingly, because if you increase the statistical mass,
20 you automatically increase other relative indicators.
21 Q. Now, let me just maybe -- I think it's related, but --
22 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
23 MR. OSTOJIC:
24 Q. -- I think it's related, but can you tell me what a "empty field"
25 is or "empty fields"? And you mentioned it yesterday in your testimony
1 on page 81, lines 15 through 21, I believe. Just explain that concept to
2 me, and then I have a couple of questions in connection with that, "empty
4 A. Empty fields have to do with the quality of data sources. Here,
5 I tried to agree -- or, rather, I agree with Dr. Brunborg, when he lists
6 three key reasons determining the quality of the data sources. The first
7 is the problem of coverage. If I don't know the area covered or
8 included, then I can include or exclude whatever I want. The second
9 problem is the data that exists, but are incorrect.
10 What does it mean? If you have a questionnaire or if you have
11 datum, first name, last name, but you don't have the date of birth, "date
12 of birth," then, is an empty field. Or if you have an existing datum,
13 for instance, first name, last name, father's name, and the date of birth
14 is wrong, it indicates that somebody was born on the 1st of January,
15 1949, whereas the actual date of birth is the 10th of May, 1952, so the
16 empty field is -- indicates that there is no information.
17 You remember that we made this comparison with the soldiers and
18 using just a year of birth or the full date, or when we said that the Red
19 Cross and the Brunborg list does not contain 35 -- that 35 entries --
20 35 per cent of the entries do not have date of birth indicated, these are
21 the empty fields.
22 Q. Thank you. And you said this goes more to the qualitativeness as
23 opposed to the quantitativeness of the report, but is it significant or
24 what is the significance if you have an increase in the number of empty
25 fields within the demographic study and/or statistical study, if any?
1 A. Well, it is highly significant. If you don't have a datum, how
2 can you match information? How would Dr. Brunborg match 70 per cent of
3 the people using very strict keys? In his -- among his data, he has
4 35 per cent of entries that do not have date of birth listed, so it
5 automatically lowers the quality of the data, of the results. And how
6 can Dr. Brunborg decide who was killed after the 10th of July, 1995
7 for 35 per cent of the entries he does not have the date? Were these
8 people killed on the 1st of July, the 2nd of July, the 3rd? Dr. Brunborg
9 sets the 10th as his limit, so all the people in his list that do not
10 have the date of disappearance entered, how are they distributed in the
11 graphs or when he has a day-by-day breakdown. Dr. Brunborg does not show
12 information for people who were killed up until the 10th of July. It is
13 impossible to have it because it's not on the list, it's not on the Red
14 Cross list. How does Dr. Brunborg then put these people among those who
15 were killed in relation to the events in Srebrenica from 11 July onwards?
16 Q. What effect, if any, Doctor, does this have -- the
17 qualitativeness aspect of these empty fields, as you described them in
18 detail, what effect does it have, in your opinion as a demographer, on
19 the reliability of such conclusions?
20 A. Well, it is extremely significant, because the results you obtain
21 are not even minimally reliable. So it has a major influence on the
22 reliability of the results.
23 Q. Because they translate the -- what about the validity of the
24 results? Do you have an opinion as to what affect does that
25 qualitativeness that we were discussing with respect to the empty fields,
1 what affect does it have on the validity of the conclusions that were
2 reached, if any?
3 A. Well, it affects the validity of the way in which conclusions are
4 drawn. You make conclusions on the basis of statistical indicators that
5 you obtained. If you obtained deficient or unreliable statistical
6 indicators, well, then you can't draw any reliable conclusions or
7 scrupulously correct conclusions, so it is very important. Because of
8 the quality of the sources, because of deficient methodology, you obtain
9 deficient statistical -- deficient statistical base, I don't know how you
10 can expect to draw reliable conclusions about what you are considering.
11 Q. Thank you, Doctor. I'm moving on, if I may, and I'm just
12 directing your attention to this, as opposed to leading you into this
13 part, and that would be to the issue of locality and a municipality. You
14 touched on it briefly today, but I'd like, for our purposes, that you
15 walk me through two tables from Dr. Brunborg, and the first table is
16 table 1 from his 2003 report, which I believe is identified on my learned
17 friend's 65 ter list as P2410.
18 And the Court will duly note, as I'm sure my learned friends
19 have, it does state on that exhibit that it's a 2004 report, but in
20 looking for it, it's actually a 2003 report, April of 2003. So can we
21 please have table 1.
22 And then next to that, Doctor, as you're following along with me,
23 can we have the report from Mr. Brunborg, table 6, but the report P2413,
24 which is the November 16, 2005 report; table 6 of that report.
25 Let me just repeat it. I would like to have, first of all, from
1 the 2003 report, table number 1. That number, 65 ter number, is P2410.
2 And I'd also, if possible, like to compare that table 1 from this 2003
3 report with table 6, again Brunborg's report of November 2005?
4 Are you following me, at least, Doctor, and when we get it, we'll
5 look at it?
6 A. Yes, I can.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Provide us with a page number.
8 MR. OSTOJIC: I'm sorry. It's towards the end, and it's
9 page number 22 of the November 2005 report, so Exhibit P2413, which is
10 table 6, is on page 22, and specifically the page number for table 1 of
11 the 2003 report appears on page -- it's the second page, but I don't
12 believe that they are numbered, actually. Thank you.
13 Q. Doctor, I'm going to ask you --
14 A. Yes, please go ahead. I apologise.
15 Q. No, no, and I want you to read it, but just tell me first: What
16 is this table 1 that appears in Dr. Brunborg's 2003 report? Just give us
17 an overview of what it is.
18 A. In the 2003 report, Dr. Brunborg sets up a list of the missing
19 and dead that contains 7.433 entries. Using the same methodology that
20 was used in 2005, he takes the 7.433 persons and distributes them into
21 municipalities of residence, because on the basis of the census he was
22 able to determine that this is where they lived, resided. Again, the
23 same percentage of matches, 87 per cent, both in 2003 and 2005.
24 The point of this table is in the fact that Dr. Brunborg
25 distributes them not only in the five municipalities that are considered
1 by him to be Srebrenica in the 2005 report, but you will see a column
2 here where it says "other municipalities" in this table. This indicates
3 that Srebrenica comprises these five municipalities and some other
5 In the 2005 report, there is no --
6 Q. [Previous translation continues]... that's reflected on the
7 screen under table 6; correct?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Thank you. I just wanted to follow up --
10 A. I beg your pardon. So the table 1 from 2003 has a note
11 indicating that 13 per cent of the persons have not been matched, but
12 please bear in mind that all the persons are distributed, broken down,
13 100 per cent, regardless of the 13 per cent that was not matched.
14 Table 6 is the mirror image of this table, but with a twist
15 that's presented by Dr. Brunborg in his 2005 report. Here, Dr. Brunborg
16 does not show the breakdown municipality by municipality, municipality of
17 residence, but place of disappearance.
18 Let me just note here the table 1 from 2003 should be the
19 breakdown according to place of residence, whereas table 6 from 2005 is
20 broken down into accordance with the place of disappearance. There are
21 14 sites, locations, listed here. If you look at them, they are in five
22 municipalities; Srebrenica, Bratunac, Vlasenica, Zvornik, Han Pijesak.
23 Dr. Brunborg says that the Prosecution has provided them with those
24 locations, but those same locations are also listed in the ICRC list.
25 But the ICRC list states both the location and the municipality where
1 this location is. So if you have "Potocari," it says
2 "Potocari-Srebrenica, Kravica-Bratunac," and so on. Those fourteen [as
3 interpreted] locations cover six -- or, rather, five municipalities that
4 Dr. Brunborg lists, Srebrenica, Bratunac, Vlasenica, Zvornik,
5 Han Pijesak, but Dr. Brunborg does not say, and here he says the total
6 for those -- for these -- for the localities is 4.880 persons, but if you
7 add up all of it, the total is 7.661.
8 What is the point of this table? There are some figures,
9 amounting to about 540 - we can find them below the total - for some
10 locations that are not in those municipalities, so instead of listing
11 other municipalities or other locations, Dr. Brunborg says: "Dead and
12 missing, less than 50." That's less than 50 per location, per site. And
13 these are locations or sites that cannot be classified in any of the five
14 municipalities using other criteria such as, we're talking about
15 Valjevo -- I have to read because I can't recall all the municipalities,
16 Loznica, Rogatica, for instance, Bijeljina. These are not locations that
17 could be put in there, on any logic, except for the fact that in those
18 locations he encountered cases where people died between July and the end
19 of the year 1995, so this was the criterion for putting these people --
20 including them on the list.
21 Yet another location is Sekovici.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Ms. Soljan.
23 MS. SOLJAN: Your Honours, I apologise for interrupting, but I
24 just want to make clear for the record that table 1 is representing
25 missing men by municipality of residence, per census 1991, while table 2
1 is representing number of Srebrenica-related missing by place of
2 disappearance, just for clarity of record.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Ostojic.
4 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you for that.
5 Q. What affect --
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise. That's precisely what
7 I said, and you can read it in the record. I said that the 1991 table is
8 by place of residence and the 2005 is by location of disappearance, place
9 of disappearance.
10 MR. OSTOJIC:
11 Q. And just so we're clear, what affect does any, doing it that way,
12 and you said that there is a -- he puts plus or minus 50 or greater than
13 -- strike that, he didn't say plus or minus. You say he lists, as we can
14 see on the table, greater than 50 or less than 50, and I know you've
15 stated you found 540 or so individuals that do not belong within that
16 grouping. What affect does it have on his overall conclusions, if you
18 A. Well, in my opinion, Dr. Brunborg really wanted, at any cost, to
19 find as many missing and dead as possible, and it does have an impact
20 because it significantly increases the number. But methodologically
21 speaking, it is quite impossible to do that, if you are doing your job
22 properly, lege artis.
23 Q. And Doctor, with the highest of respect to you, we're not looking
24 for the motivations behind Dr. Brunborg. My question was
25 straightforward, and I think you answered it, but just so that we're
1 clear: The significance of doing it when you do these localities and
2 municipalities, as we've seen in table 1 and table 6 of his 2003 and 2005
3 reports respectively, is there is an increase in the conclusions, or what
4 affect does it have on the conclusions, an increase or a decrease?
5 That's the number of men missing and/or dead.
6 A. Well, I'll have to admit that I don't understand your question.
7 Increase or decrease of a certain mass has to impact everything, but the
8 only question is whether you reached a number by methodologically
9 improper means. If you had applied the correct methodology, then you
10 would have ruled out all the increases that you have here. That is the
11 basic problem with this. So if you had applied the rules -- the
12 professional standards, you would have not have obtained the results that
13 you obtained. So failure to apply -- failure to comply with the
14 professional standards in your field leads to something that is,
15 professionally speaking and methodologically speaking, proper.
16 Q. And let me turn to a different topic and a different subject, if
17 I may.
18 If we could look at P515, please, and I have a question because
19 there's been some evidence in connection with this. And since you deal
20 with mortality and morbidity and demographics and statistics, I wanted to
21 direct your attention specifically to paragraph 6 of P515, please.
22 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreters note, page 70, line 18, it should
23 read "is not proper."
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Ostojic, it's time for the lunch break, so we
25 can stop here, and you can start with your new chapter after lunch one
1 hour from now.
2 So we'll start at 10 to 2.00.
3 --- Recess taken at 12.50 p.m.
4 --- On resuming at 1.58 p.m.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: So good afternoon, everybody.
6 Yes, Mr. Ostojic. I saw you standing. Is there a problem?
7 MR. OSTOJIC: No. I thought, Mr. President --
8 JUDGE AGIUS: No, no, go ahead.
9 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you. I just didn't know if you had anything
10 else --
11 JUDGE AGIUS: I saw you standing, then I saw you sit down, and
12 then I saw Mr. Nikolic switch on his microphone, so I didn't know what
13 was happening.
14 MR. OSTOJIC: It was just, I wasn't sure if you had something
15 else to say, so I didn't want to stand up. I was trying to be polite.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: I better keep my mouth shut.
17 MR. OSTOJIC: No, no.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Ostojic.
19 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Mr. President.
20 Q. Doctor, if we can just proceed, I asked just before the break for
21 us to look at Exhibit P515, and I think it should be up on the e-court or
22 the screen before you. And specifically I'm directing your attention to
23 paragraph number 6 of this exhibit, and it discusses, actually, what
24 seems to be someone reporting the birth rate on a given day in 1995,
25 namely, the 13th or 12th of July, 1995. And my question to you, although
1 it's somewhat related, the significance, given you're a demographer and
2 we're talking about statistics, have you encountered in your years of
3 experience and profession that 50 babies were delivered on one given day
4 in that region or in that area?
5 A. First, I have to intervene along the professional line.
6 I -- and the translation I received was "the birth rate," but
7 it's a different thing. The birth rate is the frequency of birth with
8 respect to a certain population, and if it was said the natality rate was
9 three per mil, then I would note that three babies were born in a
10 population of 1.000. Here we're talking about the number of babies who
11 were born on the 13th of July, and the number was 50. I wouldn't be able
12 to tell you whether this is okay or not. At this moment, I think that
13 the number is exaggerated, because there is no single data speaking about
14 previous numbers of babies born on one day, so the figure of 50 on the
15 13th of July, without an insight into some other information as to how
16 many women, how many of them fertile, I wouldn't be able to tell you. I
17 can't tell you with any degree of certainty or reliability. It seems,
18 according to some information about births, which is not very reliable in
19 large areas with a high number of population, it is possible that 50 may
20 be born in one day, but I'm not even sure whether 50 were born on that
21 one day, on the 13th of July. So I wouldn't be able to give you any
22 reliable assessment.
23 In my view, this seems like an exaggerated number, but ...
24 Q. Okay. Thank you for that, and I just raised it as a point, and I
25 apologise maybe for even asking you that.
1 Let me ask you if we can direct your attention to your report
2 again, 3D398, specifically page 22, and I wanted to just go over the
3 table 3 that you discussed with my learned friend, Madam Nikolic, because
4 I'm not sure I understood what you're trying to show us here. And this
5 involves, obviously, the DET or DEM 2T, which is the database of deaths
6 for 1992 and 1995.
7 Now, you've given us a couple of examples, and I know we looked
8 at one of them, but I wanted to look at the other three that you've
9 highlighted for us here.
10 First tell us briefly what this table represents, and what is the
11 point of it?
12 A. The table 3? This is just an example.
13 Q. Let's catch up, Doctor. Thank you. It's, I think, on page 20,
14 in the B/C/S, and on page 22 of the English version.
15 A. This is an example how the data-matching exercise between the
16 sources DEM 2T and the list of missing and dead offered by the
17 Prosecutor's office, may result in the identical overlapping of first
18 names, last names, the dates of birth, or the years of birth, but
19 offering some different data. To say the least, this is just a good
20 indication, indicating the reliability of data, to say whether
21 individuals 2, 3, or 4, who have identical data in the Prosecutor's list
22 and the DEM 2T, but with different dates of death and different places of
23 death. If, on the one hand, you have the source of data compiled by the
24 statisticians and, on the other hand, a source of data relying on
25 erroneous reports, then we have to question the reliability of the data
1 that we obtain, i.e., we have to ask ourselves whether there are some
2 other people on the Prosecutor's list that may be qualified as
4 Q. I know you highlighted those before, but I need -- for more
5 precision or to be more precise, would that be, the fact that you think
6 it's unreliable, goes to the methodology that's used, or is that the lack
7 of using all the sources or a more complete set of sources, or does it go
8 directly towards the analysis that the demographer to utilised when they
9 these people, for example, based on the Prosecution's estimate as to date
10 of death within their demographic studies?
11 A. I did the matching exercise, and the Prosecutor's experts never
12 used the DEM 2 database. I'm trying to explain how a selective choice of
13 data may influence the quality of the data obtained by the Prosecutor's
15 Q. And certainly for our case, because we're dealing with
16 Srebrenica, you highlighted two, I think, specific instances in which you
17 found through the DEM 2T database, that these two individuals, when you
18 look specifically at either the identification key or the elements within
19 the identification key, you found that their date of death preceded, and
20 in one instance two years, the events that unfolded July 1995 in
21 Srebrenica; is that basically what you're trying to show here?
22 A. Yes. I have an example. When you do the matching exercise
23 between the Prosecutor's list and the identified persons, and you will
24 find that in tables, whose number I know at the moment [as interpreted],
25 you will find the cases of a mismatch, although the Prosecutor takes them
1 as being identified, although they involve different dates. I'm talking
2 about tables 1 and 2 in my report. So there is a match between the
3 dates, the names, last name, and the father's name, but there is no match
4 between the dates of birth. The Prosecutor says that they have
5 identified or matched, as identified dead bodies, even cases like this.
6 Table 1 says these are people on the Prosecutor's list, and, for example,
7 the name, the last name, the father's name on the Prosecutor's list bears
8 the date of birth "8 February 1957
9 adopted from the ICRC database. In the list of identified dead persons,
10 the same person, i.e., the person with the same name, last name, father's
11 name, and the same BAZ identification provided by the ICRC, shows a
12 completely different date of birth.
13 Now, the question arises whether these two persons are one and
14 the same, and if the Prosecutor says that they have had a match, then one
15 of these persons is fictitious. If your match is based on a different
16 list of persons and accepted that that was the correct date of birth,
17 then I don't understand the facts that you rely on to provide the date of
18 birth 11 September 1955 rather than 8 February 1957. What happens then
19 with the people who appear under the same ID as in the first list? What
20 the Prosecutor does, they leave them in the list as if they really
21 existed, and then they feature in that list both as the dead person and
22 as the missing person.
23 The correct procedure would be this: If you identify somebody
24 and then you find another better match, then you have to eliminate the
25 first person from your first list. That would be the correct procedure.
1 Q. Thank you, Doctor. And let me ask you this so that we can all
2 get a better appreciation for how we would do this matching: Can you
3 give us an idea of when you did this DEM 2T match with the other data as
4 you've highlighted in your report with these four samples, can you tell
5 us how extensive that project is to do that type of matching, if at all?
6 A. If you use the correct key, then the process lasts for as long as
7 you are able to apply all the elements. For example, you take a key in
8 order to match people from one list to another list, and if you're asking
9 me about the time frame, it would take a certain time, but only if your
10 databases are in order. I have looked at DEM 2T. I have not analysed
11 its quality, I have not controlled its quality. Within half an hour or
12 one hour, I have -- I was able to obtain results from which I singled out
13 these particular examples as typical and characteristic. Seven days was
14 just not enough for me to check all the possibilities and all the
15 variations that are possible, but I still wanted to take something
16 reliable to show all the things that exist. My time was rather limited,
17 and I could not embark on the most detailed and most reliable analysis.
18 I am just showing you the inconsistencies that exist, and I'm also trying
19 to indicate everything that may have an influence on the acceptability
20 and permissibility of data, starting with the source to the matching
22 Q. Thank you, Doctor. I just have a couple more question, but just
23 to follow up on your answer here: When you talk about correctness, and
24 I'm not sure if it's a translation issue or not, but when you say they
25 have to use the correct key, and I apologise for having to lead on this
1 issue but I think it's important, are you saying that the identification
2 keys and is in its elements, within it, that they have to be uniform or
3 do you think they do not have to be uniform, or standardised or not
4 standardised, because I don't know what you mean when you say "correct"?
5 A. "Correct" means that after the matching exercise, you will end up
6 with a degree of reliability of the data you have obtained. Maybe I'm
7 not able to give you a precise explanation. A degree of reliability is
8 based on the fact that I have several elements that allow me to state
9 that the person was X/Y, but if I only have the name, the date of birth,
10 and the father's name, the reliability or the probability that you have
11 obtained the right match decreases. The more elements I have in a key,
12 the better -- the more likelihood that your data will be more reliable,
13 and vice versa.
14 Q. Did you find, in the reports from the demographers that the OTP
15 put forth, that there was a uniformity in the identification keys that
16 were utilised, or matching?
17 A. How can you talk about uniformity if you have 71 keys?
18 Q. Thank you. And let me just put the next -- and I understand, and
19 I just wanted to get a better appreciation for it. Thank you.
20 In looking at this table 3, and I admittedly -- as you've
21 acknowledged, you've done a short amount of time on it or did not have
22 sufficient time to look at it, can you tell us, based upon a reasonable
23 degree of certainty, what the significance is of your findings in
24 connection with this DEM 2T report, and considering that you've done this
1 A. I can tell you with a high degree of certainty that the DEM 2T
2 base would have contributed to a high reliability of the results, whether
3 there are only 4 or maybe 40 or 400 or 4.000 cases in this base, at this
4 moment, I can't tell you. However, the cases that I have analysed
5 without any specific control, without any specific key, just adopting
6 what the Prosecutor says, show that the use of this base would have
7 contributed to a higher reliability of results. It would be only if I
8 were able to control the whole base, if I had ample of time at my
9 disposal, that I could say that the DEM 2T base should be rejected
10 because a matching exercise with the Prosecutor's list does not give
11 significant results that might have an influence on the Prosecutor's
12 list. It would be only then that I would be able to say that the base
13 should be rejected. Before that, I'm not able to say whether this source
14 of information is good or not. I only know that this database is
15 official. And if this database is official, then I would have to take it
16 into account when I controlled my own results; i.e., the rest of the
17 results compiled by the Prosecutor's office.
18 Q. Thank you, and I think I'm near the end. You talked about
19 reliability and in utilising these types of sources. Can you tell us if
20 you have an opinion as to whether or not utilising these types of sources
21 would assist us in looking at these matchings and ultimately determining
22 the missing and the dead, as to the accuracy and the thoroughness? Would
23 it assist us in that vein as well?
24 A. Yes, I think it would. It is not just the inclusion of certain
25 sources of data that matters. It is also the exclusion. So if I have a
1 higher number of databases made besides 615, and if each of these source
2 of data is controlled by me, then I can say this one will be rejected for
3 a good reason and the other one will be adopted. And then this would be
4 a good-enough guarantee that I will achieve a higher degree of
5 reliability in my results.
6 If I concentrate in advance only on those sources of data that I
7 have used since 2000 and that have yielded certain results, and I'm not
8 interested in any other source of data, I don't think that the approach
9 is really good, and you cannot say with any degree of certainty that your
10 results are reliable. All the sources of data that I have used point to
11 the fact that the reliability of the results obtained by the Prosecutor
12 would have been much higher if they had used other bases, and they would
13 have dispelled various myths or errors, the error about the number of
14 people before the event, their status, and many other things.
15 Q. Thank you. Would examining those types of sources, and
16 specifically the one we're discussing, would that also assist us for
17 purposes of completeness?
18 A. The conclusions would be more reliable and more significant, in
19 qualitative terms. The Prosecutor's experts had only quantity in mind.
20 In any demographic research, what matters is also quality, not just
21 quantity. Quantity does not have to bear witness to the quality, but if
22 you have certain structures, then you have certain information about the
23 quality of the population. If you have the status of certain
24 individuals, that is also quality, but you don't show that. We don't
25 have the whole picture. Not only do we not have the whole picture, but
1 we have a problem highlighted only from one side, and that's where the
2 problem arises from.
3 Q. Thank you, Doctor, and I'm done with my questions.
4 And thank you, Mr. President, for allowing me if I've gone over
5 the estimate of an hour and a half.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
7 Mr. Haynes.
8 MR. HAYNES: Thank you, Mr. President. I'll wait for Mr. Ostojic
9 to sit down so that we can see one another.
10 Examination by Mr. Haynes:
11 Q. Well, good afternoon, Dr. Radovanovic. It's --
12 A. Good afternoon.
13 Q. -- sometime since we last saw one another. I've got a few
14 questions for you, I think, on topics you haven't been asked about
15 before, and I'd like to ask by asking you about the 1991 census.
16 That was a census that was conducted before the war began in
17 Bosnia and Herzegovina, wasn't it?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And can you help us as to the time frame over which the
20 information that produced that census was gathered?
21 A. In the former Yugoslavia
22 There were long preparations preceding every census, but there's also a
23 law regulating the methodology, the instruments, and when I say
24 "instruments," I mean the forms, and also the duration of every census,
25 how many days. Also, it prescribes the critical moment. It also
1 prescribes the time needed for the analysis of all the collected data,
2 how much time you have to produce tables, how much time you have before
3 you publish the results. In other words, there is a schedule that has to
4 be complied with.
5 The 1991 census, in technical terms, complied with the prescribed
6 deadlines, although there was a quite an unsettlement in the air at the
7 time. The processes of data did not comply with the deadlines, as far as
8 I know.
9 The first results at the level of the Federation of Yugoslavia
10 were published within a month and a half to two months. The first -- the
11 initial results imply that all the former republics had to submit to
12 the-then Federal Bureau of Statistics of the Socialist Federal Republic
13 of Yugoslavia
14 which had to do with the total number of population, and at that moment
15 also the national breakdown, the total number of household. At that
16 time, the census also took into account farming households and a certain
17 head-of-cattle information. These initial results had to be submitted by
18 all the former republics of Yugoslavia
19 Statistics. As for the final results, they are a different thing.
20 Unlike the initial results, the final results are much more
21 elaborate. They don't show just the numbers of population, but also the
22 structures of population. They break down population according to
23 certain characteristics and attributes, and they also show information in
24 a layered form, starting with the settlement to the republic and the
1 The processing of all the material collected in Bosnia and
3 the moment because of the war, did not follow the prescribed routine, and
4 the first book as a result of the census, the first analysis that had
5 been carried out in Zagreb
6 first book, that that -- the first statistical book contains the total
7 number of population in Bosnia-Herzegovina, broken down by ethnic
8 affiliation, starting with the State of Bosnia and Herzegovina, all its
9 municipalities, all the settlements within the municipalities of the
10 State of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
11 Q. Thank you for that very complete answer, and you've pre-empted my
12 next question, which is that the information in the census of 1991 covers
13 all municipalities of Bosnia and Herzegovina and all ethnic groups;
14 doesn't it?
15 A. Yes, but I have to say something about that.
16 In statistics, there is something which was complied with in
17 Bosnia-Herzegovina and in Croatia
18 classification and the narrow national classification. Both may be
19 applied when publishing data. Sometimes it is pointless to publish data
20 according to the broad national classification. We were an ethnically
21 heterogenous country which had a number of ethnic groups and communities
22 that were all concentrated predominantly in one republic and did not
23 exist in another, for example, the so-called Sokci, or at least their
24 majority, reside in Vojvodina. However, the broad national
25 classification for the whole of Yugoslavia
1 did not publish their data according to the national criteria with the
2 element Sokci. That doesn't exist.
3 After the broad national classification, there is something known
4 as narrow national classification, so that the census in
5 Bosnia-Herzegovina comprised only Serbs, Croats, Bosniaks, Yugoslavs, and
6 as far as I can remember, other nationalities and non-applicable or
7 unknown. Amongst other nationalities or non-applicable, there is other
8 ethnic communities that declared their national status in the census.
9 They could have said that they were either Roma, Jews, English, Polish,
10 but when the results are published in statistical books, you cannot find
11 that broad national classification.
12 Most probably there is a census on magnetic media where you can
13 obtain statistical data applying also that broader national
14 classification, not just the narrow one.
15 Q. Thank you again for that. Now, the principal purpose in using
16 the 1991 census as a point of reference by Mr. Brunborg is, effectively,
17 to establish that people on missing persons lists were real people; would
18 you agree with that?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And I'd like to ask you, please, about your observations in
21 relation to the 1991 census, firstly in relation to its reliability as a
22 source of data about persons.
23 A. Generally speaking, I believe that the census of Bosnia and
25 cannot apply the same assessment to all the characteristics. There are
1 some characteristics or attributes which were obtained based on
2 subjective criteria. Nationality is a subjective criterion.
3 In one census, I can declare myself as a Serb, in another one as
4 a Yugoslav, and a third one as a -- a national [indiscernible], so I have
5 the right to declare myself differently with respect to my nationality.
6 All these questions that rely on a subjective criterion may
7 always be disputed. Questions that have an objective element to it; for
8 example, where I was born, what schools I completed, cannot be disputed.
9 They are very reliable. However, the 1991 census is specific in some
10 other terms. It is not specific in terms of the questions in the
11 questionnaire and not in terms of the quality of the data obtained as a
12 result of these questions. The 1991 census is the only census which,
13 because of the way it was processed, that was scanning, bears the first
14 name, the last name, the father's name. These data are not census data.
15 They are never checked, and they had never been entered in the system.
16 It was done for the first time in 1991.
17 So when you're talking about the first and the last names and the
18 father's name of a person, as the data in the census, this is erroneous.
19 This is not something that was checked by statistical methods, because it
20 is simply impossible. The first and the last names are technical, random
21 entries that found themselves there because of the scanning process that
22 was applied.
23 If you look at all the censuses and the way they were processed
24 at any of the republics of the former Yugoslavia before the war and after
25 the war, because after the war, save for Bosnia and Herzegovina and
1 Kosovo and Metohija, all the former republics of today's state had
2 carried out their censuses.
3 Before 1991 and after 1991, you cannot find a single census
4 material that would contain the first and the last names. An individual
5 piece of information in statistics, it is protected by the law of
6 statistics. In other words, statistics only deals in mass phenomena. I,
7 as an individual, do not represent anything in a census. I'm just one of
8 the individuals that feeds her own characteristics, such as date of
9 birth, sex, education, into the collective body of population, and based
10 on that the picture of the overall population will be obtained with me as
11 one of its members. That is why you can say the population of Holland
12 so-and-so, the share of young is so-and-so, the average age is so-and-so.
13 An individual does not exist, because statistics is not interested in
14 individual characteristics, as such.
15 MR. HAYNES: Thank you. And just moving slightly on from that --
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Ms. Soljan.
17 MS. SOLJAN: I'm afraid I came a little late, but I just found
18 this answer to be totally non-responsive.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: And I would suggest that you try to avoid,
20 Professor, as well answering at this much length. I think you can --
21 MR. HAYNES: Yes, I'll interject at this point.
22 Q. I'm trying my best, Dr. Radovanovic, to ask you questions that
23 really should lead you to give fairly short answers. Because you are
24 technically my witness, if I put words into your mouth, Ms. Soljan
25 doubtless jump up and object, but I'm really not looking for long
1 explanations at this point in time. So let's try another one and see how
2 we go on.
3 Did the 1991 census experience any difficulties in terms of the
4 accuracy of its recorded detail?
5 A. Well, that's a question it's impossible to answer clearly, or,
6 rather, it's impossible to give a short answer. I can give a clear
7 answer. I misspoke.
8 If an official institution processes everything according to
9 standard procedure, from gathering to encoding, to verification, to
10 publishment [as interpreted], and nobody contests the data, and the
11 institution itself does not express any doubt, then there's no
12 difficulty. Whether we like it or not, this is official information
13 about the population of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and as such we have to
14 accept it.
15 Of course, as I've said already, certain issues can be
16 challenged, but the census, as such, I don't believe has been challenged
17 by anyone.
18 Q. Well, let me see if I can jog you as to which direction I'm
20 Were names, both surnames and forenames, in the 1991 census
21 recorded in both Cyrillic and Latin?
22 A. Yes. But let me underline, I don't think I explained it very
23 well again, the name, surname, and father's name are not statistical
24 information, and nobody ever checked it but in The Hague.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Ms. Soljan.
1 MS. SOLJAN: Objection, Your Honours. This is non-responsive.
2 MR. HAYNES: Well, I'm not -- I'm not quite sure what that means.
3 Ms. Soljan has the right to cross-examine this witness. She can object
4 to questions I ask. I'm not sure she's entitled to object to a witness's
6 JUDGE AGIUS: In fact, we stopped the witness halfway through. I
7 don't know what she was going to state. So, please, Dr. Radovanovic,
8 please go ahead.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I didn't quite finish my answer. I
10 just wanted to remind you that this is not information that statistics
11 checked, and it is common knowledge that in Bosnia two scripts were used.
12 I believe they are still used today, the Latinic script, the Roman
13 script, and Cyrillic. Both were official. It depended on the census
14 employees. Some information was written in Cyrillic. Other information
15 was written in Roman script. Nobody ever checked the accuracy of the
16 writing of the registration of these names. This is the first time I'm
17 hearing that some names were corrected here in The Hague. Correcting the
18 spelling of names is rather a complex thing. It could be done perhaps
19 using the machine. We have lots of letters with diacritics, "ce," "ze,"
20 "se," and others. It is possible to do it with a machine, but I don't
21 really think so. And if you look at typed or printed texts, some letters
22 are missing.
23 Dr. Brunborg says that the spelling of names was corrected -- was
24 done with the assistance of experts who are familiar with names and
25 surnames from that region. I have certain reservations. I believe that
1 anyone who lived in the region could proclaim themselves to be experts in
2 our names and surnames. But to what extent it's possible to correct
3 them, to correct the spelling, I really doubt that.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.
5 MS. SOLJAN: Your Honours, this is non-responsive. The simple
6 question was whether it was Latin or Cyrillic alphabet that the 1991
7 census was written in. This has gone way beyond the question that was
9 MR. HAYNES: No, but it's answered the next question I was going
11 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. So perhaps you can put again the
12 question that hasn't been answered.
13 MR. HAYNES:
14 Q. Is it your understanding that, as it were, the state of the
15 census record made a proper understanding of what had been recorded as
16 people's names difficult, for example, for the OSCE?
17 A. Well, I could not answer the question this way, but what I know
18 for a fact is that in the instructions of OSCE for enrolling voters for
19 elections, there is a comment: "In view of the low quality of name
20 registration from the previous census, it's enough to give the first
21 three letters." And this instruction was given because all the voters
22 who wanted to register themselves for elections had to say where they
23 lived in 1991, and then the interviewer, to make his life easier, took a
24 list of population, with names and surnames, but had huge problems
25 locating the names spelled correctly.
1 Q. Thank you. Now, I'm going to move on, as it were, from the state
2 of the census as a record of names, and move on to its status as a means
3 of comparison with missing persons lists.
4 I think it's right that you have used information available --
5 made available to you by the Office of the Prosecution to calculate how
6 many people had died in Bosnia and Herzegovina between 1992 and 1995. Is
7 that correct?
8 A. I didn't understand your question.
9 Q. I'll put it more simply. According to your understanding, how
10 many people died in Bosnia and Herzegovina between 1992 and 1995?
11 A. There are official statistics commissioned by the Office of the
12 Prosecutor of the ICTY. The source of DEM 2T, done by the statistics of
13 the Republika Srpska and the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, speak
14 of 140.000 persons who died between 1992 and 1995. If you want me, I can
15 look it up and see how many died of natural causes, how many died a
16 violent death. But, in any case, this is the figure that official
17 statistical services have produced at the request of the ICTY.
18 Q. Thank you very much, Dr. Radovanovic. And is it your
19 understanding that the comparison of missing persons lists with the
20 census of 1991 was made without the removal of the names of any of those
21 persons, however they died?
22 A. No, that source was not purified from this segment. The
23 information from 1991 was treated as if all these people still existed.
24 If, from 1991 until 10 July 1995
25 revised to exclude the deceased. They were all taken and treated as
1 people who still existed in 1995, although some had died before 1995,
2 some had moved away. All that population from 1991 was regarded as if
3 nothing had changed in the meantime, those sources, those databases, were
4 not revised.
5 Q. Thank you. Now, the next question is similar, but rather
6 different, and that is: Is it your understanding that the comparison of
7 the missing persons list relating to Srebrenica was made against the
8 whole census information, i.e., all the people who were recorded there as
9 living in the whole of Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1991?
10 A. No. Dr. Brunborg says he did that relative to Eastern Bosnia,
11 without defining, really, what he meant by "Eastern Bosnia."
12 Q. Thank you again. Now, I want to move away from the census of
13 1991 and move very briefly to a topic about which you have been asked
14 quite a lot of questions. And I hope this is sufficiently novel.
15 You've mentioned the 71 keys used by the Prosecution demographers
16 in determining whether a match could be found between persons on missing
17 persons lists and, for example, the census. Without going through all of
18 them, and I think you mentioned key 42 earlier on, I wonder if you could
19 just detail for us which of the keys you found to be, as it were, the
20 lowest common denominator, as it were, the least points of reference used
21 to declare a match.
22 A. Depending on the degree of reliability, I mentioned that the more
23 elements in the key, the greater reliability. Personally, I think that
24 in view of the possibilities provided by various sources, relative
25 reliability would also be gained by matching names, surname, father's
1 name, date of birth, et cetera. I'm saying "probably," meaning that the
2 likelihood that you are meeting at least minimal standards that would
3 produce reliable results increases, and I would accept additional
4 sources. I'm saying "minimal," because using such a key with such a
5 great number of elements is not possible to use with all the sources.
6 Of course, you can put in just the name and the year of birth,
7 but then it would be professionally proper to say "the elements of the
8 key are the following." The likelihood of accurate findings is greater
9 in the first case than in the second case, so you should provide two
10 possibilities, although statistically speaking, according to the rules,
11 you use one identification key and you do not change that key throughout
12 the study.
13 Q. So that we're clear, were there keys used in establishing matches
14 by Mr. Brunborg and his team that didn't, in fact, require knowledge of
15 anything more than an initial of the missing person's name and surname?
16 A. I had mentioned it, but again maybe I have failed to explain it
18 Dr. Brunborg offers a list of criteria or, if you wish, keys that
19 he uses to make matches with the list of population. On that list, there
20 are 71 keys, each containing different elements. I don't know them all
21 by heart, but some keys start with full name, full surname, full father's
22 name, full date of birth, et cetera. And as the number of keys
23 increases, certain elements are either excluded or they are reduced to
24 initial. I can't remember now whether it's the 40th or the 41st key, but
25 it reads an initial will suffice, an initial of the first name, an
1 initial of the surname, an initial of the father's name, et cetera. Then
2 there's another key that says initials are allowed, the year of birth,
3 plus/minus five. So each of the keys contains a differing number of
4 elements. Not only are the elements different, but they can be modified.
5 "Name" can be represented by an initial. "Year" can be year -- the year
6 plus/minus five.
7 I'm not saying all the keys are like that, but there are certain
8 keys like that.
9 Q. And as to the so-called visual test, was there any protocol as to
10 how a member of the team established a match by the visual test?
11 A. A member of the team, like me, for instance -- which member of
12 the team do you mean? Do you mean that was I able to check how much was
13 ascertained by the visual method?
14 Q. No. I'm asking you whether you could establish whether, within
15 Dr. Brunborg's team, there was any protocol to establishing a visual
16 match or whether it was simply a matter of discretion on the part of the
17 team member.
18 A. No, I didn't even try to establish that. I only tried to get an
19 explanation, a clarification, how many visual matches were made on the
20 Srebrenica material. I have a letter in my expert report that I will try
21 to retell.
22 They say that in thousands of cases, of course, not only relating
23 to Srebrenica, visual corrections were put in the basis of our report.
24 So I can't say in Srebrenica we had 1, 2, 3, 5.000 visual corrections.
25 Q. Thank you very much. I want to move on now, please, to the
1 voters lists of 1997 and 1998, and as briefly as you can, can you tell
2 us, if you know, how they were compiled.
3 A. Voters lists are lists of over-18 residents of Bosnia and
5 They could register from the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina, from
6 various municipalities, or municipalities where they resided in 1991, and
7 they could register also from abroad. So those are lists of people who
8 voluntarily registered to participate in elections, and who were over 18.
9 Q. Are the lists, as it were, area specific? Do they relate to a
10 municipality, each list?
11 A. Yes, yes, they were area specific, because there is a certain
12 procedure within the municipality. There is a certain place where you
13 vote. It's not just one place in a municipality. Those lists are made
14 not only for these elections. Though, there existed voters lists from
15 1991. They were obviously unusable. That's why the list of population,
16 the census, was used. It's an aid. It helps to see where the voters
17 come from, which area, et cetera. Of course, it's not centralised.
18 Later on, when you collect all the lists, it's centralised, but initially
19 they referred to a specific municipality.
20 Q. Now, the use of voters lists by the Prosecution demographers was
21 for a different reason than the use of the census of 1991. The use of
22 the voters lists was to show that people on missing persons lists were
23 not alive; would you agree with that?
24 A. Yes. That's how Dr. Brunborg defines it. Why am I using voters
25 lists? To show that no one is alive among those who are on the
1 Prosecution's list of 7.661 persons.
2 Q. Thank you. Now --
3 A. Sorry, I have to be fair. Dr. Brunborg found 9 people alive in
4 his first study and around 20 in the second study, and he excluded them.
5 Q. Now, there was quite a lot of population movement between 1991
6 and 1997 in Bosnia
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Did Dr. Brunborg, in trying to ascertain whether those are on
9 missing persons lists from Srebrenica, check all the voters lists of 1997
10 or just some of them?
11 A. I said yesterday not all the voters. Dr. Brunborg did not
12 release his list to be compared to the voters of Bosnia and Herzegovina
13 I said yesterday people from Srebrenica could be found in Tuzla, Jajce,
14 or other places. Dr. Brunborg reduced the comparison between the lists
15 to the boundaries, and I cannot tell you which boundaries exactly because
16 it's not defined, to the boundaries of the municipality with which he
17 compared Srebrenica as he defined -- or, rather, didn't define it, and he
18 says -- he says there is a large degree of overlap.
19 The key is bad. We have to bear in mind that voters lists do not
20 include father's name, and if you release your own list without that
21 piece of information, but not under 71 criteria, and I don't know how
22 many criteria Dr. Brunborg used with voters lists because he doesn't say
23 so, he just provides the list to be compared with the list of population.
24 He evaluates, and he says due to a great amount of overlap, we had to
25 reduce the comparison of voters lists to the territory of Srebrenica
1 Perhaps I didn't quote it very well, and it's not a proper
2 quotation. I would have to find the passage to give you the exact words.
3 And this automatically excluded from Dr. Brunborg's lists many
4 people who were originally natives of Srebrenica, but at the moment when
5 they registered to vote, lived either in other municipalities or they
6 lived abroad.
7 I said yesterday that only from Srebrenica municipality I found
8 voters who had been in Srebrenica in 1991, and in 1997-1998, registered
9 to vote in Sarajevo
10 taken into account by Dr. Brunborg when he compared with his own list.
11 Q. To simplify this, I'm going to ask that 3D398 be put on the
12 e-court, page 15 in the English and page 14 in the B/C/S, please.
13 And so that you can remind yourself of the quote that you took
14 from his report, it's at the very bottom of the page, Dr. Radovanovic.
15 A. Fine. Should I read it so that we get the exact quote?
16 Q. Read it to yourself or out loud. I don't really mind.
17 A. This is what Dr. Brunborg says, I quote: "A match of missing
18 people and registered voters was not accepted if the locations were
19 clearly inconsistent. For example, if a person was born, lived, and went
20 missing in Eastern Bosnia, according to the missing lists, but registered
21 to vote in and for a municipality in a completely different part of the
22 country, according to the voters list."
23 So a match was not accepted if that person was born and lived in
24 Eastern Bosnia
1 course abroad, and voters abroad could also register to vote. So these
2 matches were not accepted. You could live in the municipalities
3 considered by Dr. Brunborg to be Srebrenica, and you could only register
4 to vote there, or, rather, these are the only data or the only voters
5 that he took into account.
6 Q. Dr. Radovanovic, is the effect of that that the list of dead and
7 missing contains entries where other information from voters lists would
8 tend to show that those people were alive and well but just living in
9 another part of Bosnia
10 A. Had Dr. Brunborg applied all the criteria that he applied in
11 comparing the data with the census, he would have found quite a few of
12 the people who were still alive. But Dr. Brunborg applied the strictest
13 possible key. Not only that, he also restricts the area where he does
14 the matching process. I can't really tell you what results would have
15 been obtained had proper methodology been applied. The only thing I can
16 tell you is that Dr. Brunborg committed two methodological errors, did
17 things that were unacceptable in methodological terms, because he took
18 the same statistical mass, the same statistical research, and in one part
19 he applied a broad spectrum of keys, and in the other he did not. That's
20 partiality, and it cannot be justified in methodological terms at all.
21 MS. SOLJAN: I object to this. Again, the same, it is that the
22 answer went well beyond the question that was asked of this witness.
23 MR. HAYNES: I'm nearly at the end of my examination of this
24 witness. I'm still nonplussed by the objection, but I'll move on.
25 I wonder if we could put P2413 into e-court, please. I'd like
1 page 20 in the English and I think page 22 in the B/C/S.
2 Q. In case you've still got a hard copy somewhere near you,
3 Dr. Radovanovic, that would be easier to read, it's table 4 in
4 Dr. Brunborg's 2005 report. It's at the bottom of the page in B/C/S and
5 at the top in English.
6 A. Yes, I have it in front of me. I do apologise. I don't know if
7 I have to state this for the record or not. I have a report here that is
8 full of my notes. This was the report that I used while I worked.
9 Q. I'm sure it will be all right, just so long as you answer my
10 question and don't go too far beyond it.
11 There was a revision of the number of dead and missing persons
12 made in 2005 by Dr. Brunborg; that's correct, isn't it?
13 A. Yes. This revision included the inclusion of new persons, 186 of
15 Q. Well, we can see table 4, as it were, how the total numbers and
16 the categories of them have been amended, and we see at the top -- well,
17 if we see in the "Pros," it says the number of additional missing persons
18 on the 2005 OTP list is about 400, i.e., 397. Do you see that?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And if we add 397 to 7.264, I think we get 7.661, don't we?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. If we go to the very top of that particular table and we add 397
23 to 4.969, we get 5.266. So all of the apparently additional missing
24 persons have been added in to the category "Still Missing," haven't they?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. If we look at the closed cases, dead people, that number has
2 increased, hasn't it, from 1.979 to 2.054?
3 A. [No interpretation]
4 Q. I know it's a comment you made in your report. Shouldn't the
5 people who've since been discovered to be dead have been subtracted from
6 those who are still missing?
7 A. If you have a mass, a statistical mass, where you have two
8 elements, and you treat one of the elements as "missing," according to
9 the characteristics, and the other element is "the dead," this very same
10 statistical mass, if you increase one element, you don't have to be a
11 statistician, it's only logical for the other element decrease, whereas
12 here you have the opposite occurring. Both the number of persons
13 ascertained dead is increased, as is the number of the people in the
14 category of missing.
15 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Haynes --
16 MR. HAYNES: Your Honour, I can't see --
17 JUDGE KWON: I'm fine. 5.266 minus 4.969 is 297, isn't it?
18 MR. HAYNES: That's my mistake, then.
19 Dr. Radovanovic, thank you very much. I've got no further
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise. I have to intervene
22 here, because there is a little bit of confusion here.
23 In table 4, for the year 2000, we have 7.264 people as the total.
24 Dr. Brunborg, for that year, has the finding of 7.457. So if you look at
25 the first report, the one from the year 2000, you can see that the
1 number -- and here there is this confusion, because he takes in the data
2 from the ICRC, and there is not full compatibility. That is why you can
3 have a slight variation or deviation if you compared the two.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay, thank you. And thank you, Mr. Haynes.
5 Mr. Zivanovic.
6 MR. ZIVANOVIC: I'll not cross-examine Dr. Radovanovic, Your
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Lazarevic.
9 MR. LAZAREVIC: Good afternoon, Your Honours. Thank you. I do
10 have some cross-examination for Madam Radovanovic.
11 Cross-examination by Mr. Lazarevic:
12 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Dr. Radovanovic.
13 A. Good afternoon.
14 Q. We've met before, but just for the record let me state my name is
15 Aleksandar Lazarevic, and together with my colleagues, I represent
16 Mr. Ljubomir Borovcanin before this Tribunal, and I will be
17 cross-examining you now. So unlike my colleagues, the first three
18 colleagues, they conducted the examination-in-chief because you were
19 their expert, and I will be cross-examining you.
20 The day before yesterday, we had a brief meeting, about half an
21 hour, if you'll recall, and on that occasion I showed you some documents
22 that I would like us to go through today in the course of your
23 cross-examination. But apart from these documents, I will be showing you
24 some other documents that you have not had an opportunity to go through
25 because we didn't have much time, so now I'm going to ask you for your
1 patience and forbearance when we get to this point when we'll have to
2 discuss the documents that you haven't seen before.
3 Could we please have in e-court document 3159A, but I would like
4 this document not to be broadcast. It's already admitted into evidence,
5 but under seal.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Madam Registrar, you will take care of that.
7 MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.
8 Q. I would like us to look at page 1 of this document. That's the
9 document entitled "The Srebrenica Missing." That was the report for the
10 year 2007, and the identification by the ICMP. It was last updated on
11 the 11th of January, 2008.
12 You had an opportunity to look at this document?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. In the course of the cross-examination, we will be going back to
15 this document often, and I also wanted to stress that I showed you this
16 document in the course of this brief meeting. Could you please confirm
17 that for the record, that this was an opportunity for you to look at this
19 A. Yes.
20 MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation] Now I would like to ask the
21 usher's assistance, because I think it would be best to provide this
22 document and other documents in hard copy to Professor Radovanovic. That
23 would be the most efficient way to proceed. It would save us quite a lot
24 of time, I think. And if my colleagues from the Prosecution want to look
25 at it just to make sure that these are the documents that they have
1 already received notice would be used in the cross-examination.
2 Q. Ms. Radovanovic, I beg your pardon, but because we are now going
3 to mention some names, perhaps it would be best to go into private
4 session, because I don't want any of that to be made public. This
5 document has been used before, and every time we used it, we went into
6 private session, so I think, out of an abundance of caution, we should do
7 that too, again.
8 [Private session]
11 Pages 24444-24447 redacted. Private session.
13 [Open session]
14 JUDGE AGIUS: We have to adjourn because our time is up. We are
15 continue tomorrow at 9.00 in the morning.
16 Ms. Fauveau, will you be cross-examining this witness?
17 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] No, I won't, Mr. President.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: And Mr. Krgovic or Mr. Josse?
19 MR. JOSSE: Certainly not, Your Honours.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay, thank you. And you, Ms. Soljan, how long do
21 you think you will --
22 MS. SOLJAN: Your Honours, I'll try to whittle it down to under
23 two hours.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay, so we can finish the witness tomorrow.
25 Okay. We'll stand adjourned until 9.00 tomorrow morning.
1 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 3.31 p.m.
2 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 31st day of July,
3 2008, at 9.00 a.m.