1 Thursday, 23 August 2007
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 2.16 p.m.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar, please call the
7 THE REGISTRAR: This is case number IT-04-74-T, the Prosecutor
8 versus Prlic et al.
9 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
11 Let me greet everyone in this courtroom, the Prosecution, the
12 Defence, the accused. Today we have a witness to hear. As I indicated in
13 a written statement, both the Defence and the Prosecution will have three
15 Furthermore, I would like to tell you that the Trial Chamber has
16 issued a number of rulings these past few days. Yesterday two major
17 rulings have been filed. One of them is related to the admission of the
18 written statement made by an accused. The second decision is related to
19 the 23 additional hours that we granted to the Prosecution in order for
20 them to complete the presentation of their case. I would like to invite
21 all of you to read these decisions related to these two topics.
22 Furthermore, I'd like to tell the parties that there is bank
23 holiday in October, the 24th of October. It's a Wednesday. Because of
24 this -- because we should be sitting on Thursday the 25th of October, but
25 I think it would be better for everyone if the Prosecution did not have
1 any witnesses on the 25th of October in order to give a break for
2 everyone, and even more so since at that time we will be in the final
3 stretch of the of Prosecution case. That's a time when the Defence will
4 have to get ready for the rest of the proceedings. Therefore, I'd like to
5 invite the Prosecution not to have a witness testify on the 25th of
7 As you know, for reasons beyond our control we were not able to
8 sit two days this week, and the same will happen next week because next
9 week, on Wednesday the 29th, we won't be sitting because other trials are
10 taking place in the other courtrooms, in the courtrooms. Cases have to
11 take turns in the courtrooms, and as a result we won't be sitting next
13 Furthermore, I will immediately issue two oral rulings. The Trial
14 Chamber would like to ask the Defence to give an oral response to the
15 Chamber's legal officer in relation to protective measures that were
16 requested on the 12th of June, 2007 for a witness referred to in an
17 application for admission of evidence pursuant to Article 92 bis A and B,
18 Rule 92 bis A and B, Ljubuski.
19 I would like to ask you by the end of the day to tell the
20 Chamber's legal officer what is your position with respect to this
21 application for evidence.
22 Second ruling: The Defence asked for additional time to respond
23 to three motions. On the 21st of August, 2007, the Chamber received a
24 joint motion by the Defence where the Defence asked to be granted
25 additional time to be granted until the 8th of October, 2007 to respond to
1 three motions of the Prosecution, the first one being application for
2 admission of evidence pursuant to -- to Rule 92 bis A and B for Dretelj,
3 Gabela, and others, dated 13th of August, 2007.
4 Second Prosecution motion, application for admission of
5 documentary evidence with respect to the Heliodrom, dated 15th of August,
7 Third motion: Application for admission of documentary evidence
8 with respect to Dretelj and Gabela, dated 21st of August, 2007.
9 The Trial Chamber would like to remind the party that it has
10 already granted additional time for several responses, namely by its oral
11 decision of the 12th of July, 2007. Considering that the three
12 above-mentioned motions that the Defence needs to respond to require a
13 great deal of work, the Trial Chamber believes that additional time should
14 be granted to the Defence.
15 Having said that, the Trial Chamber believes that two additional
16 weeks will be amply sufficient. As a result, pursuant to Rule 126 bis,
17 the Trial Chamber partially grants the Defence motion and grants the
18 Defence 14 additional days to file their responses to the three motions.
19 Let me add that pursuant to Rule 126 bis, the Defence normally has 14 days
20 to respond to a motion. We grant them two additional weeks. In other
21 words, the Defence has now one month to respond to each one of these
23 We are now going to have the witness brought in for the hearing to
24 be organised properly, we need the Prosecution to complete the
25 examination-in-chief today, and the cross-examination will take place next
1 time, because the witness will come back to be cross-examined next week.
2 This is the way we are going to proceed today.
3 Let me ask the usher to bring the witness in.
4 Oh, yes. Mr. Karnavas, you wanted to take the floor.
5 MR. KARNAVAS: Yes. Two points. First with respect to the -- the
6 decision that was recently made with respect to the statement. I'm not
7 going to comment on behalf of my colleagues because they represent their
8 own clients, but it's my understanding that the statement comes in against
9 all of the accused, they may wish to speak up on that, but we would be
10 moving for certification, and because it is in French and we want to be
11 precise in how we respond, we would ask some additional time, say for
12 instance five days after it is fully translated into English to file our
13 motion for certification for appeal of that particular decision.
14 That's the first, and you may decide what to do with that, but
15 primarily I want to speak with respect to something else that I find
16 rather regrettable to speak about and rather disturbing.
17 Last Friday there was a hearing where apparently -- you were
18 presiding over that where Mr. Seselj indicated that I had been engaged in
19 illegal activity, including smuggling. Now, I am told -- I saw a part of
20 the transcript. I'm told that there was no reaction from the Bench. In
21 other words, one could interpret that as being an acquiescence or
22 appeasement to what Mr. Seselj was saying. Now, I'm not interested in
23 responding to that (redacted)
24 (redacted). I do not intend to do that. But I do expect
25 that when such matters are being brought before a Presiding Judge in this
1 particular trial where it affects my client because it affects my ability
2 to advocate properly for the client, I expect the Trial Chamber either to
3 ask for clarification or do what Judge May did on many occasions in
4 Milosevic, and that is to turn the mic off.
5 There are rules and procedures and everyone including Mr. Seselj
6 has to comply with those rules and procedures. The Judge cannot allow
7 that individual, albeit he might have the backing of one of the permanent
8 members of the Security Council, Russia in particular, it's an open
9 secret -- or I should say not secret, but it's been widely held that
10 Russia is pressuring this Tribunal to give Seselj whatever he wishes,
11 which may be the reason why it appears that this institution is rather
12 bankrupt when it comes to finding ways of controlling that gentleman, but
13 I think that when his goal, as he stated, is to undermine the integrity of
14 this Tribunal, is attacking another lawyer who is representing someone
15 else, a Croat, one of his -- a nation which he, during his period in his
16 activities, in his admissions were against -- was against, that is a point
17 in time where I must say something has to be done.
18 Now, if, Your Honour, you would believe what Mr. Seselj said, and
19 there may be individuals out there that believe that, but if you do indeed
20 believe that, but then I have no choice but to ask for your immediate
21 disqualification effectively as of this moment, to step down and let
22 somebody else preside, because that means that I have been casted as a
23 criminal, and I have been judged as such, and as a result Mr. Prlic cannot
24 get a fair trial.
25 If on the other hand, which is what I believe the case to be, you
1 do not believe what Mr. Seselj said, then I think that Mr. Seselj must be
2 publicly reprimanded and henceforth in any future proceedings you, as long
3 as you preside in that case, need to control that gentleman. He is not
4 afforded the opportunity, every time he comes into court, to disparage the
5 Prosecution or Defence counsel or witnesses or individuals that have
6 nothing to do with his case. He may represent himself, but he must
7 conduct himself in accordance with all the rules and the procedures and
8 the code of conduct that all lawyers must comply with. He is not above
9 the law, and on behalf of my colleagues here who have been on the
10 receiving end and on behalf of the an association whom I represent as a
11 president, I say this institution has to protect the integrity of the
12 Defence counsel. We are not punching bags. And individuals such as
13 Seselj are not permitted to make gratuitous remarks whenever they feel
14 like, however they feel like, with impunity.
15 I regret to have to say this, but I must say on behalf of my
16 client, because I am concerned that because of these sorts of remarks that
17 went unanswered now I'm less of an advocate, less capable to put my case
18 forward on behalf of Mr. Prlic. I care not for my reputation. I care for
19 my client's rights, and my client has been affected by those remarks.
20 Thank you.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Karnavas, for
22 these observations. Yes, indeed during the last Status Conference in the
23 Seselj case he made the statements you have mentioned. The Trial Chamber
24 will consider the matter and will consider your submissions, the
25 submissions you have made, and the Trial Chamber will consider whether
1 any -- anything should be done as a result of this.
2 Of course as a Pre-Trial Judge in that case, I'm in a position to
3 ask Mr. Seselj to supplement his previous statement. That's all I can say
4 at this stage. We'll now have the witness brought in.
5 Yes, Mr. Praljak?
6 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] I'd like to ask Your Honours
7 to allow half an hour longer for this witness, because it is a complicated
8 expert document, and if you could accord half an hour longer for the
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We'll consider the matter once
11 the examination-in-chief has been completed.
12 We'll now have the witness brought in.
13 We need IC numbers to be given to a number of documents. We'll do
14 that before we bring the witness in.
15 Mr. Registrar.
16 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
17 THE REGISTRAR: Several parties have submitted lists of documents
18 to be tendered through Witness Antoon van der Grinten and the following IC
19 numbers have been allocated to them. The list submitted by the OTP shall
20 be given Exhibit number IC 635; the list submitted by 3D shall be given
21 Exhibit number 636; the list submitted by 5D shall be given Exhibit number
22 IC 637; the list submitted by 6D shall be given Exhibit number 638; the
23 list submitted by OTP in -- concerning the witness Larry Forbes shall be
24 given Exhibit number 639; the list submitted by 3D concerning the same
25 witness shall be given IC 640; and the list submitted by 5D concerning
1 Larry Forbes shall be given IC number 641. Thank you, Your Honours.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine. Thank you very much.
3 [The witness entered court]
4 WITNESS: EWA TABEAU
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Madam, could I ask you to stand
7 Could you give me your first name, last name, and date of birth.
8 THE WITNESS: My name is Ewa Tabeau. I'm born 26th of April,
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] What is your current occupation?
11 THE WITNESS: I am a demographer. I'm working at the Office of
12 the Prosecutor.
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Madam, have you ever testified
14 in other cases in this Tribunal? If that's the case, in which trials have
15 you testified?
16 THE WITNESS: Yes, I did. I testified in this Tribunal at several
17 cases. I testified in cases such as Slobodan Milosevic,
18 Dragomir Milosevic. I have here a list of cases. In -- in Stakic,
19 indeed, and in other cases, several other cases.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Will you be testifying in other
21 cases in the near future?
22 THE WITNESS: Not that I am aware right now.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine. I'm going to ask you to
24 read the solemn declaration.
25 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the
1 whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you very much. You may be
4 Madam, I'm going to give you a few explanations, but I will be
5 short because you're a member of the OTP so you're familiar with the way
6 we proceed here. Furthermore, you've already been examined and
7 cross-examined. As a result all the information I could give you, you
8 already know.
9 You will first answer questions put to you by Mr. Stringer. That
10 will take place today. And next week you will be answering to the
11 questions put to you by the Defence as part of the cross-examination, and
12 also to questions put to you by one of the accused, because I think one of
13 the accused wants to put questions to you. That's what I wanted to tell
15 Mr. Stringer, you have the floor.
16 MR. STRINGER: Thank you, and good afternoon, Mr. President,
17 Your Honours, counsel, and everyone else in and around the courtroom.
18 As the Trial Chamber knows, we will be presenting three expert
19 reports prepared by Ms. Tabeau as well as some of her -- or together with
20 some of her colleagues in the Office of the Prosecutor Demographic Unit,
21 and the intent or the hope is that we'll be able to do that most
22 efficiently and hopefully in a way that's most clear for everyone by way
23 of a PowerPoint presentation that's been made by Ms. Tabeau and me working
24 together, and hopefully those have -- those slides have been distributed
25 to all counsel, Defence counsel, as well as the Judges and in the booths
1 to assist everyone's understanding of the testimony, so hopefully all of
2 you have those in front of you.
3 As well, we've loaded the PowerPoint presentation on our computer,
4 and I will ask that the technical people if they can put it on the video
5 screen so that I can follow along myself, and there it is.
6 Examination by Mr. Stringer:
7 Q. Ms. Tabeau, just starting with the first page of the presentation,
8 the slide, there's reference here to three reports that you'll be
9 addressing during the course of your testimony, and before we talk about
10 those I would like then to ask you just to give us a little bit of a
11 summary or a resume of your education, your educational background in the
12 field of demographics and then we'll talk a little bit more about some of
13 work that you've done in that field as well?
14 A. I have one question. Are we supposed to see the presentation
15 in -- on the screen as well or we don't?
16 Q. You should -- everyone should be seeing it. It may be --
17 A. I don't have it on the screen.
18 Q. Push the button there.
19 A. Okay. Could I have the presentation and the transcript at the
20 same time or is it possible or not? Sorry for this disruption. Okay.
21 Q. And for the benefit of all, at the top of this slide you'll see a
22 reference to the exhibit and the annex, and we'll be doing this throughout
23 the presentation, Your Honours. The slides will refer to specific parts
24 of the reports so that you can refer back to the reports if you wish.
25 A. Thank you very much.
1 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, with your permission
2 I'd like to make an observation. I highly regard this approach by my
3 colleagues of the Prosecution trying with the PowerPoint tool to improve
4 the quality of the presentation and to assist those are listening, but we
5 cannot forget that the accused have the right to receive it in their own
6 language. I know that it will be simultaneously interpreted but it won't
7 be the same because a PowerPoint is in fact a precis, a summary of the
8 testimony, although it is a tool of course, but it is a summary of sorts,
9 and it would be a good idea if that were to be prepared in Croatian. I
10 don't know whether a Croatian version or copy exists or not.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Since this is a presentation and
12 here we have a page related to the education of the witness, we can see
13 that the witness studied in Warsaw. No need to understand English to --
14 to see what it's all about. And then the questions that will be put to
15 the witness will serve to understand what's on the screen.
16 Please proceed, Mr. Stringer.
17 MR. STRINGER: Thank you, Mr. President.
18 Q. Ms. Tabeau, could you give us a brief resume of your educational
19 and professional background in the field of demographics?
20 A. As I said I'm a demographer. I studied and graduated statistics
21 and econometrics. I come from Poland and studied in Warsaw at the Warsaw
22 School of Economics. In 1991 I obtained my Ph.D in mathematical
23 demography there. In 1981, I obtained my masters degree in econometrics
24 and statistics.
25 As part of my education I would also like to mention several
1 scientific internships that I completed. I spent some time in the 90s,
2 mid-90s is in the French National Demographic Institute. I also visited
3 the German National Demographic Institute, and most recently in July, I
4 had the opportunity to participate in a course given by epidemiologists on
5 public health in human emergency situation.
6 Q. Excuse me, Ms. Tabeau, if I could just ask you to slow down just a
7 little bit so that the interpreters can work more accurately.
8 A. Thank you. I'm sorry. At this course, I also had the opportunity
9 to lecture in relation to issues of measurement and analysis of conflict
11 I now work at the Office of the Prosecutor. I am the project
12 leader of the Demographic Unit at the Office of the Prosecutor, and I have
13 been doing this since September 2000. Before I spent almost nine years in
14 the Dutch National Demographic Institute where I was conducting research
15 on mortality and public health issues, and longevity for countries such as
16 the Netherlands and other Western European countries, but also Central and
17 Eastern European countries.
18 Q. Okay.
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Let me just jump in there and ask you --
21 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Excuse me for interrupting, but on the first page
22 the degrees the witness obtained are described as "with honours", I think,
23 and I would just like to know whether this would correspond to "cum laude"
24 in the traditional academic qualifications or whether it is a different
1 THE WITNESS: At that time in the system we had in Poland "with
2 honours" had the meaning of obtaining the highest grade which at the time
3 was the 5. That was the best possible, and this is what I achieved in
4 both cases, but the cum laude as such was not explicitly used.
5 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Thank you very much.
6 MR. STRINGER:
7 Q. Now Ms. Tabeau, moving to the next slide that's on the screen
8 there are references to expert testimonies that you've given in other
9 cases here at the Tribunal as well as expert reports that have been
10 submitted in additional cases; is that correct?
11 A. Yes, it is correct. I already mentioned cases such as
12 Slobodan Milosevic, Dragomir Milosevic, General Galic, Stakic. I
13 testified twice in Stakic. I also testified in -- in the Simic et al.,
14 that is a case related to Bosanska Posavina. And in Lukic. There were
15 several more reports. I didn't have testimonies in relation to the other
16 reports, but the reports were used -- submitted, tendered into evidence
17 and used in the other cases as well, altogether more than 20 reports.
18 Q. And we will talk about this in some greater detail later, but in
19 general, can you tell us whether methods of analysis, sources of data that
20 you used to make the reports in this case are similar or correspond to
21 those that you've used in other cases in which you've appeared as an
23 A. The methods, sources and approaches that we've been using in all
24 these cases are similar. Worth mentioning is perhaps the approach we've
25 been using for the quantification of the numbers of internally displaced
1 persons and refugees. This approach has been used many years now, and it
2 was presented in several cases. We originally prepared these statistics
3 for use in the Slobodan Milosevic case where we presented an expert report
4 with the same type of statistics.
5 Q. Okay. Now, I've moved to the next slide which has a reference to
6 some of your more latest projects, and there are references here to
7 publications that have appeared in the scholarly journals within your
8 profession, and those publications relate in part at least to the work
9 that you've been doing here at the Tribunal, and I simply wanted to ask
10 you whether in your own field whether the work that you've been doing here
11 has been received favourably within the field of the demography that
12 you're engaged in.
13 A. These titles that are shown right now on the screen are a few
14 latest achievements. They are all related to the quantitative analysis of
15 demographic consequences of conflict, mainly these papers are related to
16 the casualties, to the killed persons in relation to conflict, as
17 consequence of conflict. I certainly believe that several of these
18 publications had a lot of impact in the field, but also on public opinion.
19 We, at some point, published an article together with Jakub Bijak in which
20 we discussed the number of war casualties in the conflict in Bosnia and
21 Herzegovina, and I believe this particular paper certainly had a lot of
22 impact in terms of both the method, the approach we applied, the sources
23 we applied, but also the result that is obtained and presented in this
25 Another publication is a book which I edited with Helge Brunborg
1 and Henrik Urdal. Helge Brunborg used to work at OTP demographic before I
2 worked here and Henrik Urdal also spent some time working on this project.
3 We know each other from the past and the book is a collection of
4 articles that were presented at a seminar organised by -- by a working
5 group of which we are all members, and this working group is called, right
6 now, the scientific panel of -- on demography of conflict. I believe it
7 is an important working group that is a leading group of researchers in
8 demography in this area.
9 Q. Okay. Now, these are the three reports now appearing on the
10 screen, the first of which is a report that you and your colleagues made
11 in respect of ethnic composition, internally displaced persons and
12 refugees from eight municipalities of Herceg-Bosna, and after we talk
13 about that, we'll move on then to additional reports or studies that you
14 did that related to siege of East Mostar, killed persons, and wounded
15 persons during the course of those months in 1993 in East Mostar.
16 I can skip over this slide because I think we've already touched
17 on this. The fact that at least with respect to -- well, in addition, I
18 should say, to the study, the work that's been done on wounded and killed
19 in a siege situation, the methods that you're going to be talking about in
20 respect of your demographic studies of refugees and IDPs from these
21 municipalities, those same methods and sources have been used by you in
22 these additional cases; is that correct?
23 A. Yes, this is correct. The results come from one project made for
24 the case of Slobodan Milosevic and statistics are all consistent
25 throughout all these cases. So are the sources.
1 Q. Now focusing on the first of the studies that relates to IDPs and
2 refugees, just keying off this slide Ms. Tabeau in general can you tell us
3 what was the subject or objectives in performing this specific study?
4 A. Yes. This is a study of population movements, of migration that
5 we should see as forced migration, both internal and external, and in the
6 context of the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina, it's important to note that
7 population migration is the major consequence of the conflict as the size
8 of this migration, during and at the end of the conflict, was enormous.
9 More than 50 per cent of the original census pre-conflict population was
10 displaced externally or internally. So measurement of migration as a
11 consequence of conflict is a very important issue. At the same time, it
12 is very hard to find sources that could be used for this kind of work.
13 Sources of migration especially from the conflict period are not possible
14 to obtain. There is no statistical data, individual data that would
15 include personal information about the migrants that could be used for
16 this kind of study. This is why a different type of approach has to be
17 applied to measure the migration.
18 We used the approach which, in order to quantify the numbers of
19 migrants in our approach, we compare the population at the outbreak of the
20 conflict with the population at the end of the conflict, and we compare
21 place of residence of this population whether it remained the same or
22 changed during this period.
23 Q. Okay. Now, on this slide there's a reference under the first
24 point to eight municipalities and could you tell us please just what was
25 the geographical, if you will, universe in which you were operating for
1 purposes of this particular study?
2 A. Yes. We used as a study area the area of eight municipalities in
3 Bosnia and Herzegovina. The municipalities are listed on the slide. It
4 was Capljina, Gornji Vakuf, Jablanica, Ljubuski, Mostar, Prozor, Stolac,
5 and Vares. It is not that these eight municipalities we considered to be
6 the Herceg-Bosna area. This is our study area which belongs to a larger
7 area called Herceg-Bosna, but for this particular report we called these
8 eight municipalities the Herceg-Bosna area, but these two issues shouldn't
9 be confused.
10 Q. Okay. And then we'll talk in greater detail about the sources.
11 There were three general sources; is that correct, for this study the
12 population census from 1991 and then OSCE voter registers from 1997, 1998,
13 and then thirdly registration of IDPs and refugees that was begun by UNHCR
14 and then continued by the government of Bosnia-Herzegovina?
15 A. Yes. These are the three sources that we used. It is very
16 obvious right now that the sources are dated not necessarily as the
17 indictment period is defined. We deal here with a broader period starting
18 in March 1991, which gives us a measurement of the population at the
19 outbreak of the conflict and at the other end we have the voters
20 registration from 1997, 1998, and one additional source that is dated as
21 of the year 2000.
22 Well, we have good reasons that we actually used these sources,
23 and -- well, first reason was that sources that could be covering exactly
24 the indictment period don't exist. There is nothing that could be used
25 for this kind of analysis as presented here. So the best we can get is on
1 one hand the 1991 census and on the other hand is the voters registration
2 1997, 1998, and this is what we use.
3 Q. Okay. And on that again we're going to discuss these in greater
4 detail but when you say these are the best you can get, given that that is
5 the best, are these sources and the data contained in these sources
6 nonetheless, did they provide you with a sufficient basis to do this study
7 under the rules and practices that would be acceptable within the field of
8 statistics and demographics?
9 A. Well, the answer is certainly yes, although I must here note that
10 sources that are used in human emergency situations, and conflict is
11 certainly part of this human emergencies, perhaps the most important part,
12 sources used in analysis of human emergency situations are not necessarily
13 of the same quality and the same standard as sources used in, for
14 instance, official statistics. There are very good reasons for this but
15 in this particular case we shouldn't be complaining at all, because the
16 population census is the best source of information about the population
17 in any country. It is a complete population survey covering many aspects
18 of the population and including a lot of individual details, including
19 names and date of birth and father's name and place of birth and place of
20 residence and ethnicity and religion and socio-economic variables and
21 marital status and the children ever born and professional area is
22 covered, et cetera, et cetera. So the census is an excellent source.
23 Well, the beginning for our approach is excellent.
24 On the other hand, we used voters registration. Voters
25 registration is not a source that would be used by professional
1 statisticians and official statistics. Nevertheless for our purposes for
2 comparison with the census, this source is fairly satisfactory and can be
3 used in the analysis as those presented in these reports. Not to mention
4 the importance and value high value of the last source, the registration,
5 official registration of internally displaced persons and refugees. This
6 is also a very good source developed by -- very professionally and up to a
7 high standard.
8 Q. Okay. Now there's a reference here to methods and I think I'm
9 going to skip that now because we're going to address it in greater
10 details as we get closer to your findings.
11 Just to give some attention to the geographical area that you've
12 described, we're looking at a map now and this will contain shaded
13 municipalities. Are these the shaded municipalities here are the
14 municipalities that form the basis of your study?
15 A. Yes. These are the eight municipalities.
16 Q. Okay. And at this point I think it's necessary for us to address
17 the issue of the boundaries of the municipalities and how they changed
18 from this time in 1991 to 1997 and 1998, which is sort of the back end of
19 your study after the Dayton agreement, and so I'm going to move from this
20 slide to the next one, and perhaps you could just describe for us what
21 we're seeing in this next slide here with these greater number of
23 A. Yes. First of all what is marked with colour on this map is
24 exactly the same what we have just seen on the previous map. What is
25 different is the number of municipalities shown, and in several cases the
1 municipal borders are different as well.
2 On the previous map we saw pre-conflict municipalities. There
3 were 109 of them in Bosnia. This is that map, yes. And on the next map
4 we see many more municipalities, and in addition to this a red line
5 splitting the country into two political entities. This part is -- is the
6 part of Republika Srpska located at the eastern border with Serbia and in
7 the north of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the rest of the country is the
8 Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
9 Q. Okay. Let me --
10 A. And our study area is mainly located in the Federation of Bosnia
11 and Herzegovina.
12 Q. Okay, and on that point because it's one that affects the counting
13 that comes later, we went -- is it correct to say, then, that we're going
14 from eight pre-conflict or pre-Dayton municipalities to 14 post-Dayton
15 municipalities within what had been the original eight and that the only
16 two affected municipalities are Mostar, which was divided in, as part of
17 the Dayton agreement, into a number of smaller municipalities, and then
18 also Stolac which was divided into two municipalities, one of which
19 remained or is part of the federation and then the eastern half being --
20 falling within the Republika Srpska?
21 A. Well, it is basically the case only that the eight pre-war
22 municipalities became not 14 but 16 post-war municipalities. Fourteen of
23 them are in the federation area and two of them are in the area of
24 Republika Srpska. And the two is one part of Stolac, Stolac-Berkovici it
25 is called, and the other one which is composed of three small pieces is
1 the Mostar-Srpski Mostar. And the rest, the 14 municipalities to the left
2 of the Dayton line are in the federation area. So we will be basically
3 speaking -- I will be basically speaking about changes in the 14
5 Q. Okay. So we're going to be talking about eight municipalities,
6 pre-Dayton, that became 14 municipalities post-Dayton?
7 A. Yes, may I have one remark. So the major change introduced by the
8 Dayton peace agreement is that a number of municipalities were split
9 between the federation and the Republika Srpska and population movements
10 in the split municipalities were related to the fact that Bosnian Serbs
11 were moving from the federal area to the RS area and mainly Bosnian
12 Muslims were moving from the RS area to the area of the federation. There
13 were also some other changes. Some municipalities within the federation,
14 like Vlasenica for instance, were also divided in two and some other
15 municipalities, but right now these are less important.
16 Q. Okay. So that's the geographical area and how it changes or the
17 boundaries change pre-conflict and post conflict. Now you've already
18 discussed the census, and perhaps using this slide you could very
19 briefly - because I do want to keep going rather swiftly through this
20 part - tell us more about the census, what kind of data it provided, the
21 quality of the data that you found in the census?
22 A. Well, I said the census is the most complete population survey.
23 The principle of the census is to measure the population at a given moment
24 of time. It is for statistical authority probably the most important and
25 organisationally the most difficult and most challenging project. The
1 census is conducted once per 10 years in most countries. It's a
2 population census but in the case here of Bosnia and Herzegovina not only
3 population but also households, dwellings, and agriculture were part of
4 the census.
5 Census is conducted -- census is conducted by using a
6 questionnaire. A questionnaire is always prepared very carefully. It
7 is -- in the former Yugoslavia it was a standardised questionnaire that
8 was largely identical in all republics. The republics had the right to
9 add some questions. Not all republics used this opportunity, but the core
10 information was identical for every republic. The questionnaire included
11 questions as those I mentioned earlier related to personal information, to
12 place of birth, place of residence, et cetera. I don't want to repeat.
13 The questionnaire is extensive and gives a very detailed picture of every
14 individual registered in the census.
15 The information is collected or was collected, we are speaking of
16 1991, in face-to-face interviews. The group of interviewers employed in
17 the census was very large. These were several thousand of interviewers
18 who were going and talking to people and collected this information. Of
19 course the interviewers were prepared to do so because they were offered
20 intensive and extensive training on how to do that. There were also
21 guidelines printed in advance and distributed among interviewers and
22 instructors, municipal instructors and republican instructors in advance,
23 that data would be collected consistently, that the reporting would be
24 uniform across the country.
25 Well, the preparation of the census and the conduct of censuses is
1 a long talk and I don't want to go into details of that right now.
2 Q. And it's largely found in annex B of your report --
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. -- isn't it?
5 A. That's right.
6 Q. Okay, so the result being and let me then make a couple points and
7 ask you to comment on them, the result was that data was obtained as to
8 4.4 million individuals in the entire country, Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1991.
9 You make reference to some of the deficiencies in the data, in the
10 census, and there is a distinction between agriculture, dwelling and
11 population data that I'd like you to address, and then finally briefly if
12 you can just describe for us how you dealt with deficiencies that you
13 found in the data.
14 A. Yes. First my comment on the size. Yes, indeed, approximately
15 4.4 million records related to individuals residing in Bosnia as of 31st
16 of March, 1991, was collected in the census.
17 Regarding the deficiencies, indeed there are deficiencies, some
18 deficiencies, this the census. Here I want to say there is no survey and
19 no census anywhere else that is error free. This is impossible. Every
20 survey conducted, whether large or small, includes errors. So it is not
21 that the Bosnian census or census in Bosnia and Herzegovina is
22 exceptional. It has certain deficiencies but the deficiencies can be
23 dealt with in ways that prevent producing biased results.
24 Well, the major deficiency from the point of view of our work
25 comparing individual data from before the conflict with from after the
1 conflict, what is most important is the personal information about
3 Personal information includes names on the first place. Names
4 contain spelling mistakes, and the spelling mistakes are related to the
5 fact that the census material wasn't computerised. By using data entry it
6 was scanned and therefore spelling mistakes related to the optical
7 character recognition method used in the scanning.
8 Q. Just to be clear on that that's when a computer programme tries to
9 read writing and then to assign an electronic or a digital character to
10 that handwriting; is that correct?
11 A. That's right.
12 Q. Okay.
13 A. Yeah. Well, this is one deficiency. There are also other
14 problems with the census. For instance, duplicates is an issue, although
15 duplicates were checked and eliminated by the statistical authority in
16 Bosnia and Herzegovina. Not all duplicates were eliminated. We
17 additionally checked whether we could identify more and we did. These
18 are -- these were not big numbers, marginal numbers.
19 Another deficiency is that the usual checking of the survey
20 material and census in particular is not only the checking of the
21 completeness of the census and elimination of the duplicates from the
22 census. One more step is the so-called logical control, that is,
23 relationship between different data items reported for one the same person
24 in the census questionnaire. The logical control in the 1991 census for
25 Bosnia and Herzegovina was completed for the population part of the census
1 but it wasn't completed for the agriculture and dwelling. So actually
2 from our point of view, this is not a big issue because what we use is the
3 population data.
4 Q. You didn't rely on the agriculture or dwelling data?
5 A. No. No. No.
6 Q. Okay. So the population data that you contained was completed or
7 was --
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Now, again, very briefly how did you handle these deficiencies?
10 What did you do to overcome them?
11 A. Well, we invested a lot of time and effort in correcting spelling
12 mistakes in the names. For this purpose we -- we had run three different
13 projects. We, first of all, used computer programmes that checked the
14 spelling of the names and identified impossible combinations of letters,
15 impossible in the Bosnian language, and names with these combinations were
16 checked by native B/C/S speakers who corrected these impossible
17 combinations by replacing them with possible combinations.
18 Another method was that we compiled a table, a data table with
19 names, complete names, first names, and surnames, and native B/C/S
20 speakers were checking these names and proposing viable names for the
21 names that didn't exist in the B/C/S language.
22 And finally in the third project we used a household method to
23 correct the names. Well, household information is available in the census
24 so we were able to check within every household the names reported. And
25 if within households correct names were reported, then all other incorrect
1 names were replaced by the correct names.
2 Q. And just so we're clear because we've talked about how this data
3 has been used in other trials, what you're talking about here for the 1991
4 census was that done for just the eight municipalities in this report or
5 has it been done for the entire country?
6 A. No, it was done for the entire country, for the entire census, and
7 it took us several years to improve the names, to correct the spelling
9 Q. Okay.
10 A. There were several persons working on this project, B/C/S native
11 speakers, who were studying and correcting the results from our computer
12 programmes. There were people who were -- who wrote these programmes,
13 people who had the necessary IT background in order to make this kind of
14 work happen, yep.
15 Q. All right. Ms. Tabeau, I've moved to the next slide because this
16 is sort of the point that I'd like for you to address because you've
17 identified deficiencies in the data or the census and I'd like for you to
18 give us your overall impression of the quality or reliability of the data
19 for purposes of your study?
20 A. As I said there were some deficiencies in the census but many of
21 them have been improved, corrected. Not only spelling mistakes but also
22 some other data problems like inconsistent -- inconsistent date of birth
23 or some other issues of this kind.
24 I believe that data problems in the census do not discredit this
25 source as an excellent source of information about the pre-conflict
1 population in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and I don't think it is only my
2 opinion. Well, the statistical authorities in Bosnia and Herzegovina
3 published several bulletins and they also published this data in
4 statistical yearbooks. Authority, statistical authority of Croatia, also
5 published the census data for Bosnia and Herzegovina. So I believe the
6 fact of publishing these results is -- is obvious, right? The publication
7 would never take place if the quality of the source and deficiencies would
8 be unacceptable.
9 Q. All right. And for purposes of your report and your testimony in
10 this case, can the census be reliably used in producing the statistics and
11 the figures that you've provided in your report in this case?
12 A. I certainly believe it can be used in this kind of study.
13 Q. Okay. Now, the next slide is -- we're going to talk about the
14 census in relation to the eight municipalities of Herceg-Bosna that
15 you've -- you've described, and with this slide could you just tell us
16 what the numbers are. What are the census figures in respect of these
17 eight pre-Dayton municipalities?
18 A. Yes. We speak of -- of the population in eight municipalities,
19 eight -- in the eight Herceg-Bosna municipalities in 1991 being 281.366
20 persons. This is the entire population in these municipalities including
21 the children, as well as those at older ages.
22 Q. Okay. Now let me stop you there. That's the population of all
23 persons who were living in these municipalities at the time the census was
24 taken in 1991; correct?
25 A. That's right.
1 Q. Okay. Now the next point has a smaller number of those
2 individuals as people who were born before 1980, and I'm going to ask you
3 about this a little more later, but is that -- does that have to do with,
4 then, the voting age of the people who were actually people who were old
5 enough to vote in 1997, 1998, when you were then examining the other data,
6 the OSCE voter registration?
7 A. Yes. The age those born before 1980 of course has to do with the
8 age of being eligible to vote. Well, for the 1997-8 we could only use the
9 voters registers. That means only a group of the population. So in order
10 to compare two things that are comparable we had to adjust the census
11 population, and from the census we had to study only those born before a
12 certain year, 1980 in this case.
13 Q. Okay. So then to the third point. This 231.610 figure, this is
14 sort of the starting point of your -- of your study group for purposes of
15 your report then?
16 A. Yes. This is the study population which is coming from these
17 eight municipalities shown right now on the map. This is the population
18 born before 1980.
19 Q. Okay. Now, let's talk about the second source in a little more
20 detail, the voters registers from OSCE. This provides us with the ending
21 point or the sort of the --
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just a moment, please. I am
23 trying to follow the answers given by the witness, but I would like to
24 make sure that I understand something.
25 Madam, when you talk, we are under the impression that the entire
1 census that was carried out that you were the one carrying out the census.
2 I am slightly confused, because in your sources you talk about the 1991
3 census, the statistics of the former Yugoslavia, and they had taken 4.4
4 million people in order to carry out the census.
5 The charts that are in your document, these charts are your own
6 charts, aren't they, or are those charts that belong to the official
7 statistics office for the year of 1991.
8 THE WITNESS: Yes. This is a very good question. Well, I want to
9 stress that the 1991 census was conducted by the statistical authority of
10 the former Socialist Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. So this is a
11 source that comes from Bosnia and Herzegovina, was compiled there by the
12 statistical office in Sarajevo.
13 We do have a copy of the census data. We not only have aggregate
14 statistics from the census as those published by the statistical
15 authorities at several occasions. We do have individual census records
16 for every individual reported in the census. So we are able to use this
17 individual data to compile our own statistics.
18 When having individual data, we are able to make a selection or
19 take a group from the census and analyse this group. This is what we did
20 in this project. We took a group of the census records. The group was
21 the individuals born before 1980, and we studied this group and compared
22 this group with information that we had about the same people from other
24 So in fact we can summarise this as follows: We do use an
25 official source, that is the census, but because of having access to
1 individual census records we are in the position to compile any statistics
2 that we need for this or other projects. So in my reports -- reports,
3 charts, maps, data tables, even though the source is mentioned, the 1991
4 population census for Bosnia and Herzegovina, these statistics were
5 compiled in my unit, in the demographic unit here at the OTP.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Thank you very much.
7 I understand better. Thank you. You may proceed.
8 MR. STRINGER: Thank you, Mr. President.
9 Q. Just to clarify or to follow up on the president's question, you
10 were not -- you were not personally involved in the gathering of the
11 census data in 1991, were you?
12 A. No, I was not.
13 Q. And you received all of the census data from the authorities of
15 A. Yes, that's right.
16 Q. And then -- and then you've given us the number of 4.4 million
17 people. That's roughly or approximately the population of
18 Bosnia-Herzegovina as of 1991 according to the census?
19 A. Yes, that's right.
20 Q. Okay.
21 A. As of 31st of March, 1991.
22 Q. Okay.
23 A. Approximately 4.4.
24 Q. And then bringing that number of 4.4 million down to the eight
25 municipalities that are the subject of this report, how many people of
1 those -- from 4.4 million we're going to come down to a number that's
2 going to be the beginning point of your survey or your report, and what's
3 that number?
4 A. For me, it is the number 231.610.
5 Q. Okay.
6 A. This is the study population from the population census for Bosnia
7 and Herzegovina.
8 Q. And again, that's the population of -- your study population from
9 these eight municipalities?
10 A. Moreover it is not the entire population; only those born before
12 Q. That's right. And the reason you've excluded people born before
13 1980 relates then to this next source; isn't that right?
14 A. That's right. It is related to the voters registers from the 1997
15 municipal election and 1998 parliamentary elections in Bosnia and
17 Q. So what did you use this source for?
18 A. This source is used in our project to compare with the population
19 census. We used this source in order to study whether or not place of
20 residence of individuals listed in the '91 census changed when observed in
21 the period of '97, '98.
22 Q. Okay. Let me just stop you right there because I just want to --
23 so we're clear. This is a source that you used to study whether or not a
24 person's place of residence changed from 1991 to this time, 1997, 1998?
25 A. That's right.
1 Q. Okay. And this OSCE voters registration, did this cover people
2 who were living in Bosnia-Herzegovina as well as people who were living in
3 neighbouring countries in 1997, 1998?
4 A. It is a register of all voters eligible to vote. It covers people
5 in Bosnia and Herzegovina and people from Bosnia and Herzegovina but
6 living at the time of elections in other countries, in neighbouring
7 countries, in the area of the former Yugoslavia, but also in other
8 countries, in Western European countries and even other countries. So it
9 is the basis for the establishing of the voters registers, especially the
10 register of 1997, was actually the population reported in the 1991
11 population census. The lists of voters eligible to vote were made based
12 on the names reported in the census.
13 Q. Okay. So --
14 A. And even technically speaking, electronic files from the census
15 were used for the voters registration in 1997-8.
16 Q. So OSCE actually used the 1991 census data to facilitate making
17 these voter lists in 1997 and 1998?
18 A. Yes, that's right.
19 Q. Okay.
20 A. Of course, it was possible to add new names if a person was not
21 reported in the census, and there were a few cases like that.
22 Q. Okay.
23 A. But, basically, it is the 1991 census population later used in the
24 electoral lists.
25 Q. Okay. So now on this slide you make reference to these two lists
1 which were then merged into a single list which you used, and I'm going to
2 move to the next slide then and just ask you to talk about how then you
3 used this merged list of voters registration to come down to a number that
4 you used again to track the people who had moved or who had stayed in
5 those eight municipalities from 1991.
6 A. The voters registration -- the combined voters registration we
7 combined these voters registers because it was important for us to include
8 in our post-conflict sources as many names of survivors as possible. We
9 merged these two sources by taking the 1997 register as the primary source
10 and expanded this source by adding records of new voters registered in
11 1998. So it is basically the population of 1997 that is reported in the
12 merged sources here in the merged voters registers. Well, the voters
13 registers do not contain all the information from the census. They only
14 contain personal information of individuals, but the personal information,
15 this is what we actually need.
16 Q. Right.
17 A. As this together with the municipality where the voters register
18 gives us the information that is needed to study in this project.
19 Q. Okay. I'm going to move to the next slide and ask you then to
20 just bring it then down to the level of these eight municipalities, the
21 information that turns out to be the most useful to you from the voters
22 registration, how that relates then to the 1991 census.
23 A. Well, the first observation is that the size of the merged
24 1997-'98 voters register is approximately 2.700.000 individuals. This is
25 of course much less than 4.4 million individuals registered in the census.
1 But first of all this is because of the age groups covered by the voters
2 register. Voters register is just a smaller group. But secondly, not all
3 individuals eligible to vote registered to vote and participated in the
4 elections. So there is a group that is not in the register at all. So
5 this is another reason that we don't see it here.
6 So, for 1997-8, we don't speak of a complete population of record
7 of -- of the complete population of Bosnia and Herzegovina. We have a
8 huge sample of this population registered.
9 For the eight municipalities, this means quite some -- quite
10 different numbers. Registered voters who registered in the eight
11 Herceg-Bosna municipalities accounted to 145.061 voters. This is the
12 first statistic. This is what we have for the eight Herceg-Bosna
14 Now, when we want to show the voters who registered in 1997 and 8,
15 and at the same time were reported in the population census in the same
16 eight municipalities, this group is slightly smaller. It is 142.204
18 And this is a very important group, very important group. This is
19 the group that will be -- is studied in our report. Once again I would
20 like to repeat. These 142.000, approximately, voters are individuals who
21 registered to vote in the 1997-1998 elections, but at the same time they
22 were reported in the eight Herceg-Bosna municipalities in the 1991 census.
23 Q. Okay. So that what we've got now are 142.204 people, and you know
24 where each of those persons are in 1997, 1998, and you also know where
25 each of those people were in 1991; is that correct?
1 A. Yes, it is.
2 Q. Okay. So then is your study then looking at the differences in
3 the composition of the people, where they lived in 1991 versus where they
4 were found or where they were living in 1997, 1998?
5 A. Yes. This is actually the basic principle of our approach. We
6 have a starting population, pre-conflict population that is population
7 census for eight municipalities.
8 Q. Okay.
9 A. And we traced this population in other sources and of the
10 approximately 231.000 in 1991 we were able to find in the voters register
11 142.000, approximately, individuals. These are same individuals in both
12 sources. We have the names of these individuals, other details of these
13 individuals. We have place of residence of these individuals in 1991 and
14 also we know for these individuals where they registered to vote whether
15 in their home municipalities or in different places.
16 Q. Okay, so that you know if someone who lived in Jablanica, for
17 instance, someone living in Jablanica in 1991, for these 142.000 or so,
18 you're able to tell where that person was living when he registered to
19 vote in 1997 whether he was in Jablanica or in Stolac or in Germany?
20 A. Yes. Yes, we are able to say this.
21 Q. Okay. Now, we'll talk more about that matching process, but let's
22 move to the third source because, and I don't want to spend too much time
23 on this, because I know in the next slide it's an indication that this is
24 a sort of subsidiary source, but if you could describe this displaced
25 persons and refugees database and what use you made of it?
1 A. As you said, it is a subsidiary resource. We looked at it for
2 contextual purposes once we produced our statistics on displaced persons
3 and refugees. In this case, displaced persons in particular.
4 We wanted to check whether sources like the registration, official
5 registration, of internal displacement showed similar statistics or
6 similar geographic patterns. So our purpose was just contextual. We
7 didn't use this sort for producing any statistics in our report.
8 It is an important source, though, I must admit. It reports
9 internal displacement and refugees in Bosnia and Herzegovina. It contains
10 people -- records of people who acquired the legal status of an
11 internal -- internally displaced person or refugee. These records are
12 important in Bosnia and Herzegovina, because they offer a basis for
13 applications for compensations for the property lost. So this is a very
14 good source, basically speaking, only that it is reporting the data as of
15 the year 2000, which is even more distant from the conflict period than
16 what we used in our study.
17 Q. Okay. Now, I moved to the next slide in which you indicate that
18 this was a subsidiary source, it served as a reference for the OSCE
19 statistics only on IDPs. I think with that actually we can move to the
20 next slide.
21 You made reference to this marching of names from 1997, 1998 to
22 the names from the census data from 1991. Tell us about how the extent of
23 matching, the level of matching that you were able to accomplish as
24 between these two sources.
25 A. Perhaps it's important to explain a little bit what the matching
1 stands for. Matching and what I earlier said, tracing records of a group
2 of individuals in other sources is actually one the same thing. The idea
3 of matching is checking whether or not a given record from a given source
4 is also reported in another source. The method of matching is a
5 well-recognised standard in social sciences, and especially in
6 Scandinavian countries this method has been used for many years with a
7 great degree of success.
8 In the developed countries like the Scandinavian countries,
9 matching is done easily on the basis of individual identification numbers
10 reported for persons in sources through comparing these numbers. These
11 are just numeric characteristics, it's easy to conclude records the same,
12 into different sources or in more sources.
13 Matching does not necessarily have to be conducted exclusively on
14 the basis of numeric characteristics of individuals reported in the
15 records. Matching can be done also on the basis of non-numeric
16 characteristics like names, other personal information reported, including
17 date of birth, place of birth, place of residence, et cetera, et cetera.
18 Q. Could I just ask you there the matching process or the method that
19 you used in this study, is it a process or analysis that is accepted and
20 used more generally or would it be an accepted practice in the field of
21 statistics and demography?
22 A. It certainly is but it is much more than statistics and social
23 sciences or demography only. Matching has been used -- used by
24 institutions like life insurances, health insurances, tax offices.
25 Statistical authorities of countries use matching to increase the quantity
1 of information about individuals. Well, it's important to understand that
2 in many countries we don't have the population census as such at all. All
3 the information about the population comes, first of all, from population
4 register, which is matched or other term that is often used, linked with
5 additional sources of information.
6 Depending on the needs in developed countries, we can produce any
7 statistics on the population, and it is only a beginning to have the
8 population register. Having the register and individual identification
9 numbers, it is a common practice nowadays to increase the information
10 about individuals in any required way.
11 Q. Now, one the point here in the middle of the page, you indicate
12 that 80 per cent of those in the voter register were matched with
13 individuals found in the 1991 census. Is that a high or low matching
14 level for your needs?
15 MR. KARNAVAS: Well, as compared to what, Your Honour? As
16 compared to what, this 80 per cent? I think the question needs to be
17 rephrased. And I would go back also to the previous -- answer to the
18 previous question. Matching methods that she used, the particular ones,
19 are these the ones accepted within the scientific community, not in
20 general whether matching is, but when -- when -- the question -- the
21 question 80 per cent for her needs, what does that mean?
22 MR. STRINGER: I can clarify that question, Mr. President.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Those are usually
24 questions that should be put during the cross-examination, but, yes, you
25 may ask for some precision, Mr. Stringer.
1 MR. STRINGER:
2 Q. Ms. Tabeau, you heard --
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. -- counsel's comment. Would you like to address it?
5 A. Yes. First of all, it is 80 per cent of records in the voters
6 register that have been matched with the census. Well, whether it is a
7 big matching -- high matching rate or not, ideally, we would like to see
8 100 per cent matching rate. This is, of course, the purpose of any
9 matching. Well, whether it is possible to achieve 100 per cent of matches
10 in a certain source, I believe, yes, it is. If there is a good system of
11 individual, unique identification numbers, then, yes, it is. Of course
12 there will be always a small group of records that are deficient in some
13 way, just human errors or something like that that cannot be matched, but
14 we can achieve a matching rate in principle close to 100 per cent.
15 Q. Okay, let me --
16 A. In excellent sources. In excellent sources, not necessarily in
17 sources used in human emergency situations.
18 Q. Okay. Just so this is clear, are you saying that 80 per cent of
19 the names found on the combined voter register were individually matched
20 to a name appearing in the 1991 census?
21 A. 80 per cent of the names found on the combined voters register
22 were matched with the census.
23 Q. Okay. And that number of matched names, then, is that the 142.204
24 people you've described?
25 A. That's right.
1 Q. Okay.
2 A. Well, regarding the method of matching, I was just about to speak
3 about it. In the former Yugoslavia there was a system of individual
4 identification numbers available. These -- the so-called jedinski
5 [phoen], well, individual identification JMBG numbers were introduced
6 around the year 1980 in the former Yugoslavia, and for all those born
7 after this year, 1980, were received -- were issued at birth. For the
8 older population these numbers were issued subsequently at different
9 occasions but there was a deadline, at which, I think in the second half
10 of the'80s, at which the population was to acquire these numbers. In the
11 population census, the JMBG number is available. It is not 100 per cent
12 correct and not 100 per cent available for all individuals. But the JMBG
13 was the basis for our matching of the census with the voters
14 registration. Basis, but we also used other criteria, additional
16 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I would like to come back to question by
17 Mr. Springer which has prompted Mr. Karnavas to his feet.
18 80 per cent. We now know what 100 per cent would be, but if you
19 compare your study with comparable studies, is it something to be
20 expected, is it better than expected, is it lower than expected. To what
21 extent does it affect the reliability of the results?
22 THE WITNESS: It is a very good matching rate. We have been
23 matching sources since 1998 in this unit, and we've been matching all
24 kinds of sources, always with the population census, and the 80 per cent
25 matching rate is a very good matching rate. Only in a few more cases,
1 perhaps one, two, we obtained a matching rate higher than 80 per cent.
2 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Thank you.
3 MR. KARNAVAS: Well, Your Honour, your question wasn't answered.
4 I mean, compared to what? With her studies? But the way I read your
5 question was on outside matters, not just within the OTP. 80 per cent may
6 suffice for her, because she's a member of the OTP, paid by the OTP,
7 employed by the OTP but in comparison to outside is that an acceptable
8 standard of 20 per cent variance, plus or minus. I think -- that's what I
9 thought you wanted the answer to and I don't think she answered that
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Let me supplement the question.
12 Witness, you stated that you made a comparison to the level of 80 per cent
13 of the registers vote. This total of 80 per cent leaves 20 per cent we
14 don't know anything about. Is that approach, is that work method
15 compatible with a standard applied the world over in your field, and
16 furthermore, when you have an 80 per cent matching rate, can you deem the
17 result to be reliable in terms of international standards? And I'm not
18 talking about the standards applied at the OTP. I believe that you're
19 perfectly capable of answering this question, which is quite
21 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. Well, thank you for the question. I must
22 say I am perhaps alone here at the OTP in doing this work. I have myself
23 at my unit, of course, for these kind of issues, but I'm lucky to have
24 been in touch with several other experts working in the field, including
25 great people like Helge Brunborg, Patrick Ball, who are also experts and
1 presented their reports here. I also worked with other experts, recently
2 with Mr. Philip Verwimp. We had a joint project which I presented earlier
3 today in which we made an assessment of a very exceptional source on
4 casualties of the Bosnian war.
5 I don't think that there is a problem here with this matching rate
6 80 per cent. I certainly can tell you that this is a generally very good
7 matching rate for this kind of work and for these sources.
8 Of course, there are methods to increase the matching rate, but
9 we've been conservative with matching sources because it's better to
10 undermatch sources than to overmatch.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You're not answering my
12 question. What I would like to know is the following: Is this 80 per
13 cent rate compatible with methods used by other experts? You've named a
14 number of experts. Is it compatible with the methods used in other
15 countries where the same methodology is applied and where it is thought
16 that a rate of 80 per cent, a figure of 80 per cent is a reliable figure?
17 THE WITNESS: Well, we speak of research into consequences of
18 conflict, and I don't think it is -- that it is -- we are speaking of a
19 situation that is not a huge research field in the sense that I could
20 present you here with 10 comparable studies to the study that I'm
21 discussing here. This work is exceptional, the work I'm presenting here.
22 It's exceptional and people follow our example, other people working in
23 the field.
24 So what I'm trying to say, the most of the existing experience
25 comes from this office, and I can compare the results in this project I
1 obtained in very many other projects, and at the same time I know this
2 method has been used by several other experts I know personally, with whom
3 I even worked, and they use this approach the way we do it, and we are all
4 aware of problems when applying this approach, and we apply similar
5 solutions to these problems. And as I said, it's possible to increase the
6 matching rate by using statistical techniques, but then we run the risk
7 that wrong records are mapped. I believe that there is a limit when a
8 match can be declared a true match and this limit cannot be crossed
9 because the risk of making an error when declaring two wrong matches a
10 good match is too high. It's better not to increase the matching rate by
11 statistical method and computer algorithms but better stick to results
12 that are very reliable and at the same time offer a very good matching
13 rate, 80 per cent.
14 MR. KARNAVAS: Again, Mr. President, the employee of the Office of
15 the Prosecution has refused to answer the question concretely and
17 MR. STRINGER: Well, Mr. President, I --
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] If I understand correctly,
19 Witness, to my question that was extremely specific you responded that the
20 work you conducted is rather -- is unique, because the consequences of a
21 conflict on a given population is a unique type of work that to your
22 knowledge only the OTP was able to conduct in relation to the former
23 Yugoslavia. As a result of this, you are not in a position to compare
24 your work could work accomplished on other conflicts because according to
25 you the work you have done is unique.
1 Is it really what you're telling us?
2 THE WITNESS: Well, I think what is really unique is the scale of
3 the analysis. I don't think that I could give you examples, other
4 examples of other research groups who would conduct the matching of the
5 census data with another large source like the voters register. I cannot
6 give you these kind of examples. So the scale is absolutely unique. But
7 not the method as such. I can give more examples of the matching done
8 between sources of smaller scale.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We need to take a break now.
10 We'll resume at 10 past 4.00.
11 --- Recess taken at 3.53 p.m.
12 [The witness stood down]
13 --- On resuming at 4.14 p.m.
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine. The hearing is resumed.
15 Before we bring the witness in, let me read a short oral decision
16 related to the admissibility of exhibits related to witness who testified
17 on the 15th of March, 2007. The Trial Chamber has decided to admit
18 Exhibit P 09882 under seal, as well as P 02732. These exhibits had been
19 submitted by the Prosecution through list IC 00492. They have been
20 admitted since they have a certain probative value and certain relevance.
21 The Trial Chamber most that the Defence has not requested the
22 admission of any exhibits.
23 Let's have the witness brought in.
24 MR. MURPHY: Your Honour, while the witness is being brought in,
25 there's no objection to her hearing any part of this, I would like to make
1 an oral application in the interests of saving time that the Trial Chamber
2 dispense with any further evidence from this witness. There is a basic
3 requirement in the case of an expert witness that there should be at least
4 some degree of scientific comparison and validity to the scientific
5 methodology which is being used --
6 MR. STRINGER: Excuse me, counsel. Mr. President, do believe that
7 this is an argument that should take place out of the hearing of the
8 witness. Sorry for the interruption.
9 MR. MURPHY: I'm in the Chamber's hands. I have no objection to
10 the witness hearing it.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Stringer will proceed with
12 the examination-in-chief, and he will deal again with the methods used for
13 comparison purposes. That will shed some light on the matter.
14 Having said that, Mr. Murphy, this witness has already testified
15 many times here in this Tribunal.
16 Mr. Stringer, you have the floor.
17 MR. STRINGER: Thank you, Mr. President.
18 Q. Witness, before the break you were getting questions from me and
19 then subsequently counsel and then -- and then the Trial Chamber itself
20 about the 80 per cent matching issue. What I want to do is to take it one
21 step beyond that and maybe that will shed light on the 80 per cent issue.
22 And we're looking at the same slide again as we were before, and I'm
23 looking at the second-to-last point in which you say as a -- the total
24 number of linked or matched individuals for the eight municipalities came
25 to 142.204. You see that?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Now, my question is whether that number of individuals, that
3 number of cases, 142.204, whether that provided you with a large enough
4 sample --
5 A. Yes, of course.
6 Q. -- in which to conduct your studies and particularly whether it's
7 a large enough sample within the standards that would prevail in your
9 A. Certainly it is. It is a sample which is approximately 46 per
10 cent of the census population from these eight municipalities, and it's a
11 large sample and as such it can be safely used in the analysis.
12 I want to comment on this 80 per cent as well if I may. Well, the
13 80 per cent should be seen in the broader perspective of our work, of our
14 project. It wasn't our goal to achieve complete numbers of displaced
15 persons and refugees because that is impossible. Through matching, what
16 could be achieved and has been achieved in this project is the minimum
17 number of the displaced persons and refugees. So if the matching rate
18 could have been 100 per cent, our statistics on the displacement could
19 have been better, higher numbers. They are based on 80 per cent matching
20 rate and they are minimum numbers, but they are coming from a very good
21 sample. In addition to them, to the minimum numbers, we produce more
22 complete numbers based on the statistical estimation, and I think we will
23 discuss these numbers later today.
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, I want things to be
25 very clear. There's no problem as far as I'm concerned, but apparently
1 it's not the case for everyone, but at paragraph 5 on the screen you're
2 saying that the vast majority of individuals included in the voters
3 register were matched with individuals found in the 1991 population
5 When I read that sentence on the screen in English, it leads me to
6 think that you and your associates went through the voters registers and
7 you took note of the fact that amongst the people who had voted 80 per
8 cent were to be found in the 1991 population census, and the 20 per cent
9 difference might be either new voters or people who had not been
10 registered as part of the 1991 population census.
11 Is that the way you assess this 80 per cent figure?
12 THE WITNESS: The 80 per cent the matching rate which relates to
13 the registered voters. 80 per cent of the registered voters have been
14 matched with the census. The registered voters is not a complete
15 population and it has nothing to do with the 20 per cent unmatched
16 records. Those voters who are not in the register simply are not there
17 because they didn't register, and there is another group which is not in
18 the voters register. This is population younger than 18 years. So it is
19 per se a sample, right, of the 1997, 1998 population, the voters register.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Murphy, have you understood?
21 Is it clear now?
22 MR. MURPHY: Your Honour, I think -- I think that is clear. At
23 least we can clear it up during cross-examination. I'm trying to save
24 time. The other point I wanted to make, if I may, is perhaps Mr.
25 Stringer -- Your Honour, may I just add this: That Mr. Stringer could
1 assist also explaining the relevance of this evidence given that the
2 comparison runs from a date in 1991 a date before anything significant
3 happened in our case to a point between three and four years after the
4 indictment period.
5 MR. STRINGER: We will be addressing all of that, Mr. President.
6 If I could just ask perhaps to -- to go back into the presentation and
7 then if -- if points like that haven't been addressed to everyone's
8 satisfaction --
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, please proceed.
10 MR. STRINGER:
11 Q. Ms. Tabeau, in order to move things on a little more quickly
12 because I want to get -- we haven't really gotten into the numbers yet and
13 I think that's obviously of greatest interest to everyone, so I'm going to
14 sort of move quickly through the next couple of slides. The information
15 in them is already found in your reports which everyone has.
16 With those 142.000 individuals now that you've got both a
17 beginning point and a ending point in terms of their place of residence,
18 you're then going to assign an ethnicity to those individuals, and on this
19 slide you indicate that essentially the ethnic grouping that you applied
20 is the one that that individual -- each of those 142.000 individuals
21 reported for themselves in the 1991 census; is that correct?
22 A. Yes, it is correct. They reported this in an open-ended question.
23 They had no restrictions, no lists to -- to choose from. They reported
24 what they thought they were at the time of the census.
25 Q. Okay. So you didn't change that.
1 A. No.
2 Q. All right. And then that resulted in four principal groupings
3 that you used in your report.
4 A. Yes. We -- actually, the reported ethnicities are much more than
5 just three major groups, Bosnian Croats, Bosnian Muslims, and Bosnian
6 Serbs. There are also other groups reported including Yugoslavs and mixed
7 ethnicities. Well, we used the original reporting to regroup the
8 individuals. We separated those who reported themselves explicitly as
9 Muslims, Croats and Serbs and took them as reported, and the rest was
10 assigned a new name, "Others."
11 JUDGE PRANDLER: Mr. Stringer.
12 MR. STRINGER: Yes, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE PRANDLER: I'm sorry to interrupt you. I would like to ask
14 only one question from the witness about the second paragraph in what we
15 have now before us as far as the methods are concerned, and in paragraph
16 two it says that "in the original 1991 census forms, the citizens of
17 Bosnia and Herzegovina mentioned several hundreds of ethnic categories.
18 We regrouped these categories into four major clusters," which is clear.
19 So for me frankly, it's a bit strange when you mention here several
20 hundreds of the ethnic categories. To my knowledge, both in Yugoslavia
21 and in neighbouring countries, I do not believe that we have several
22 hundreds of ethnic categories either in Yugoslavia or Hungary or in
23 Austria or Bulgaria, et cetera. So I wonder if you may clarify this issue
24 Ms. Tabeau.
25 THE WITNESS: Yes, thank you very much. I actually paid
1 particular attention to this particular formulation this morning. I was
2 checking this in the census 1991 and exactly 91 ethnic categories were
3 reported. So, sorry for the several hundred, but 91 is certainly more
4 than just three plus one major groups.
5 Well, why that many? Why 91? Categories like Poles, French,
6 German, Norwegian, Australian, whatever, and small regional groups also
7 reported themselves separately are there in the original report. Mixed
8 marriages, Serbo-Croat, for instance, is there as well in several
9 combinations. So that's the reason why.
10 JUDGE PRANDLER: Thank you.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Let me follow up this question
12 and my question might help us to save time.
13 As for the categories, in the tables you've prepared we see the
14 following categories: Croats, Muslims, Serbs, and at page 25, we see
15 Yugoslavs, others and unknown. So in actual fact we have five categories.
16 Further on we find tables where you've included the Yugoslavs in --
17 under "Unknown" and "Others," but at page 25 of your report on Mostar, we
18 see that almost 10 per cent of the population has registered -- have
19 registered themselves as being Yugoslavs, whereas in the other
20 municipalities the rates are much lower. In Mostar, we have something
21 rather unusual because these people register themselves as Yugoslavs and
22 not as Croats, Serbs, or Muslims.
23 In the other tables did you not take that into account or did you
24 believe that it had no impact at all, this particular fact?
25 THE WITNESS: If I may have a question about which report,
1 Your Honour, we're talking. I -- the first report? I -- yes.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, the first report. Yes.
3 It's the first report. Page 25 of the first report. We find a table --
4 THE WITNESS: Yes, I see it. I see this table, and this table is
5 taken from publication. The source for this table is mentioned under the
6 table. So it doesn't come from our work.
7 In our project, we didn't separate the category "Yugoslavs", and
8 we didn't look at this category separately. This category is included in
9 the "Others" in all analysis we presented in our report. And we did it
10 the same in the first report as also in the other reports, the reports on
11 the killed and wounded persons. We looked at three major groups, Bosnian
12 Croats, Bosnian Muslims, Bosnian Serbs, and the rest was just taken
13 together. But this table is for reference purposes taken as originally
14 published. This is why.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine. At least that's clear
16 now. Thank you very much.
17 You may proceed.
18 MR. STRINGER: Thank you, Mr. President.
19 Q. So that was assigning ethnicity for purposes of your report. And
20 the next question, again I'm hoping to be brief, is just for you to tell
21 us how then you determined or classified an individual within this 142.000
22 group as an IDP, that is, an internally displaced person, or a refugee.
23 A. We used statistical definition of a displaced person or a refugee,
24 which is not necessarily -- which is not the same as legal definition used
25 by the UNHCR. In our definition, a person was declared a displaced person
1 or a refugee if the place of residence in 1991 was different than the
2 place of registration to vote in 1997-8. The place of registration to
3 vote in 1997 and '8 was used as a proxy for the place of residence in this
4 period. All those individuals who reported different place of residence
5 in 1991 versus 1997-8, different places of residence in these two periods
6 of time, were declared as -- well, declared by us in this study as
7 displaced persons or refugees. Displaced person is a person who stayed in
8 Bosnia but moved to a different municipality. A refugee is no more in
9 Bosnia by 1997-8, who left the country and was reported as a voter in a
10 different country.
11 Q. Okay. Now, you have also --
12 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I'm sorry. Would a person who was born in
13 another country but then registered in 1997, 1998 in Bosnia, would that
14 also be a refugee, or did you not include such persons?
15 THE WITNESS: Well, the basis for this comparison is the
16 population census of 1991. The population census of 1991. So we compared
17 the places only for the persons enumerated in the census. So if the
18 person was not reported in the census in 1991 but still was reported in
19 the voters register, it is not in our study. This person is not in our
20 study, cannot be in our study because we can't match the person with the
22 JUDGE TRECHSEL: So it's a one-way definition in a way.
23 THE WITNESS: Yes.
24 JUDGE TRECHSEL: And persons who do not register but stay in the
25 country would nevertheless have figured as refugees in your books.
1 THE WITNESS: If they would never register but stay at the same
2 place of residence would be not shown in the minimum numbers.
3 JUDGE TRECHSEL: They would be regarded as refugees.
4 THE WITNESS: No, they wouldn't be shown in my statistics.
5 JUDGE TRECHSEL: How do you how did you make a difference between
6 these and the refugees, because you will not have figures of refugees
7 properly, will you?
8 THE WITNESS: Perhaps I misunderstood the question. If you could
9 perhaps repeat the question, please.
10 JUDGE TRECHSEL: The starting point is you define refugees as
11 persons who in 1991 lived somewhere in Bosnia-Herzegovina, and in 1997,
12 1998 had the residence abroad.
13 THE WITNESS: That's right.
14 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Now, you had, of course, no means, I suppose, but
15 perhaps I'm wrong, to trace persons that in 1997, 1998 were residing --
16 were --
17 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
18 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Somebody -- were residing outside of Bosnia and
19 Herzegovina, which then would lead me to the conclusion that you cannot
20 distinguish between people who have stayed in the country but for some
21 reason or other did not choose to register and persons who were de facto
22 refugees who had, in fact, left Bosnia and Herzegovina; is that correct?
23 THE WITNESS: First if -- the registered voters, it is not only
24 people in Bosnia. It is also people in other countries. So the register
25 includes names of those voters who registered to vote outside Bosnia as
1 well, most of them from the neighbouring countries in the region of the
2 former Yugoslavia. But in my project my starting point is the original
3 pre-conflict population. Original pre-conflict population. I'm
4 interested in this group, and I want to find out what happened to this
5 group. If the person did not register, I am unable to say what happened
6 to this person, and this person is not matched with the census and the
7 person is out from my statistics, is not included.
8 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Right. And my mistake has been that you do know
9 about those who left the country, because they register and they indicate
10 that they are living outside the country in 1997, 1998.
11 THE WITNESS: Well, if they are living outside country, they are
12 in the voters register if they registered to vote.
13 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Yes. Okay. Thank you.
14 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour, just a follow-up to your question
15 though, does that mean that the expert knows exactly when they moved and
16 the reasons? So in other words if somebody in 1995, post-Dayton, moved to
17 Scandinavia legally for reasons whatever, you know, has nothing to do
18 with -- is that a refugee? Because -- is there a distinction? I think
19 that was part of your question.
20 JUDGE TRECHSEL: No --
21 MR. KARNAVAS: Well, it's related to it at least.
22 JUDGE TRECHSEL: It is -- it is your interest in the question,
23 because with the -- those who changed their place of residence within
24 Bosnia and Herzegovina, there is no indication whether they left because
25 they wanted to stay with their mother-in-law or whatever. So in this
1 respect it's the same for both categories, and that's why I didn't ask the
3 MR. STRINGER: Thank you, Mr. --
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Please proceed, Mr. Stringer.
5 MR. STRINGER: Thank you, Mr. President.
6 Q. I'm going to move to the next slide, because you've made reference
7 now a couple of times to a minimum number, and this is something that
8 appears in actually all three of your reports, what's called an absolute
9 minimum number and what you call a more complete minimum number, and it's
10 important but I'm also watching the clock.
11 The absolute minimum numbers are the concrete 142.000 names that
12 were matched between the two sources; is that correct?
13 A. Well, no. This 142.000 of names are the matches.
14 Q. Yes.
15 A. Out of them some stayed in home municipalities. Some of them
16 moved out and lived elsewhere by 1997-8. So these 142 are all. 142.000,
17 of course.
18 Q. Okay. So people who were part of that initial 142.000 who were
19 living elsewhere in 1997, 1998, they've been classified as refugee or IDP,
20 and you can actually give us a list of the names of those people; correct?
21 A. That's right.
22 Q. And those are your absolute minimum number individuals.
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Okay.
25 A. That's right.
1 Q. Okay. Now, the bottom two points here then refer to more complete
2 absolute minimum numbers, and this is based on estimation method. And if
3 you could describe for us what the more complete numbers are and describe
4 the estimation method that you used to arrive at that more complete
5 minimum number.
6 A. Yes. Knowing that the absolute minimum numbers are incomplete and
7 knowing the reasons why they are incomplete, we made a very strong attempt
8 to compensate for the incompleteness, and we tried to come up with better
10 In statistics, sampling methods are often used to produce values
11 of the unknown characteristics of the entire populations. Also, in this
12 project we applied sampling approach, a sample-based method in order to
13 produce more complete numbers.
14 From the matches and statistics of -- on minimum numbers of IDPs
15 and refugees, we were able to estimate for every ethnic group in every
16 municipality the proportion of the displaced and refugees in the entire
17 voters population of this ethnic group in this municipality. The
18 proportion is a sample-based measure that can be used in relation to the
19 population from the 1991 census and the proportion can be used to obtain
20 more complete minimum numbers of displaced persons and refugees. It is a
21 simple statistical approach. Very old, a well-established standard used
22 all the time in many areas in science, in research, and also in practical
24 Q. Okay. And much of what you've said then is already -- is
25 contained on the next slide which I've moved to. You describe in greater
1 detail --
2 MR. STRINGER: Mr. President and Your Honours, all the mathematics
3 are found in Annex C2 and I do not propose to go into the mathematics of
4 it. It's all there for everyone to use as they wish.
5 Q. Ms. Tabeau, I do want to take you to the very last point on this
6 slide which relates to confidence intervals and we'll be seeing those and
7 so again briefly a description of what a confidence interval is.
8 A. It's a concept that is used to provide a measure of uncertainty of
9 a statistical estimate. Take, as an example, the proportion P of IDPs and
10 refugees in a given ethnic group in a certain municipality.
11 Q. Can I just interrupt you there. I'm looking at the transcript
12 that says -- you indicated that it's a concept that is used to provide a
13 measure of uncertainty is what it says and I don't know whether you
14 intended to say uncertainty or certainty in terms of a statistical
16 A. Yes, these two terms are related. Of course, we want our estimate
17 to be as certain as possible, as good as possible. That means the
18 uncertainty of estimation must be as low as possible. So these are two
19 related concepts. Uncertainty tell us at the same time how good the
20 estimate is. Simply speaking, uncertainty tells us how large the error of
21 the estimation is.
22 When -- going back to the example of the proportion P of the IDPs
23 and refugees of a given ethnicity in a given municipality based on the
24 voters registration, this proportion is a sample-based measure of the
25 unknown, generally unknown proportion of all IDPs and refugees in the
1 entire population that was exposed to risk. So the sample-based
2 proportion comes from the voters register which is our sample, but if we
3 would take another sample, I wouldn't know what sample, but if we would
4 take another source and estimate another proportion based on another
5 sample, then most likely we would end with a slightly different estimate
6 of this proportion. This is how the sampling methods work.
7 So in order to have an idea of how large the error is of our point
8 estimate of proportion, we come up with the concept of confidence interval
9 which shows the lower end and upper end and between those two ends, lower
10 and upper, our estimates based on different samples would fall in.
11 If the interval is narrow, the quality of the estimation is good.
12 The error we make is made -- is small. We present in our report
13 confidence intervals for 5 per cent error or 95 per cent confidence
14 intervals. That means with 95 per cent we can say that our point estimate
15 of proportion of IDPs and refugees of a given ethnicity in a given
16 municipality will always fall within this interval.
17 Q. Okay. Two questions then from that. The estimation method, the
18 formulas, the principles that you used in moving from absolute minimum
19 numbers to the more complete, are those methods and principles generally
20 accepted and used in your field?
21 A. Of course. This is a standard. This is in textbooks for
22 statistics. Students have to learn how to do this and why.
23 Q. And the next question then is whether in this case in your study
24 whether the confidence intervals that you determined are -- are acceptable
25 within your field.
1 A. Well, these, very narrow intervals which give us 95 per cent of
2 confidence that our estimate of -- of P, of the proportion P, is covered
3 by this interval. So I can only say it is an excellent result.
4 Q. Okay. Now, we're talking about more complete minimum numbers, and
5 I'd like for you to briefly tell us why you're not able to say that these
6 are complete numbers. And I've moved on to the next slide.
7 A. Yes. There are three reasons. First reason is that people
8 younger than 18 years at the time of elections are not in our study. They
9 are excluded.
10 Second reason is that the voters population did not -- the voters
11 population, the matched population, only is related to voters who
12 registered to vote. So those who didn't register could not be matched,
13 and they are out.
14 Q. Okay. So that's -- you say you matched 80 per cent of the voters
15 registration. So these are the 20 per cent who were excluded because they
16 were not matched.
17 A. Yes. They were not matched. And there is another group of voters
18 who did not register, so they could not be matched as well, and here we
19 can only present our guesstimate of how large this group is. There are no
20 statistics, no numbers, no sources that could be used for better
21 assessment of this group of people.
22 Q. Okay. So now that we've --
23 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Just a small question. What about people who
24 died between 1991 and 1997, 1998.
25 THE WITNESS: They are excluded as well. They could not be
1 included. But at the same time we are unable to mark all that in the
2 census, because we don't have these names. I will discuss later today the
3 report on the killed persons, and then I will explain the difficulties of
4 measuring and collecting even information about the deaths.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Madam, let's not waste any time
6 on statistical data or math. We know and we can understand the figures.
7 Those who have studied mathematics will be able to add up by themselves,
8 but what we see on page 98, we can see that according to what you're
9 telling us, the rate would be 95 per cent of almost certainty and that
10 there would be a rate of 5 per cent left. So all these calculations bring
11 us to the following conclusions, that the figures that you will give us
12 later, you gave us those figures based on 95 per cent of certainty.
13 Should I understand you this way?
14 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, we're talking about the estimated more
15 complete minimum numbers of IDPs and refugees. And indeed these figures
16 tell us with 95 per cent of confidence, of certainty, that these will be
17 the right numbers.
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Please pursue, Mr. Stringer.
19 MR. STRINGER: Thank you, Mr. President.
20 Q. Now, Ms. Tabeau, we're actually going to get into the findings,
21 and the next slide -- the next couple of slides are going to relate to the
22 composition, the ethnic composition of the municipalities and how the
23 ethnic composition of the municipalities changed as from 1991, based on
24 census, and then based on where those 142.000 people were living when they
25 registered in 1997, 1998.
1 So if you could just perhaps go through these -- these points and
2 give us this information in terms of general overview, differences
3 pre-conflict and post-conflict?
4 A. Well, generally speaking, we will be looking at 14 post-Dayton
5 municipalities within the area of the Federation of Bosnia and
6 Herzegovina. Fourteen municipalities in total.
7 Before the conflict, in 1991, eight of these municipalities had a
8 relatively majority of one ethnic group and six had an absolute majority.
9 What is an absolute majority? What's the relative majority? Absolute
10 majority is when one ethnic group is at least 50 per cent of the
11 population in a given municipality. Fifty per cent or more is absolute
13 Relative majority is when the largest group is smaller than 50 per
14 cent but the difference between the largest and the second largest is at
15 least 5 per cent. That is the relative majority. All other cases would
16 be considered cases of mixed ethnic composition.
17 So in the case of eight Herceg-Bosna municipality, pre-war
18 municipalities and 14 post-war municipalities we speak of eight
19 municipalities in 1991 with a relative majority and six municipalities
20 with absolute majority.
21 Q. Witness, while you're talking I'm going to move to the next slide
22 which has the table that I think might assist everyone in following, then,
23 what you're saying.
24 A. Yes. It is a list here in this table of all municipalities. It
25 is not only federation but also Republika Srpska. If we will be looking
1 at the municipalities marked or labelled in this table as the Federation,
2 and if we would be looking at light colours, perhaps here it is a good
3 moment to explain that I used green for the Bosnian Muslims, blue for the
4 Bosnian Croats, and red for the Bosnian Serbs. If these are dark colours,
5 they mean absolute majorities of these groups. The same colours but light
6 would symbolise the relative majorities in the municipalities.
7 For instance, if we take Vares as an example, in 1991, the colour
8 is light blue. This means it was a municipality with a relative majority
9 of Croats. The percentage, 40.6, is the size of this population in this
10 municipality. After the conflict, in 1997, 1998, the colour changed. It
11 is not blue any more, it is green, dark green. That means in this
12 municipality we observe an absolute majority of the Bosnian Muslims. With
13 the size of the Muslims 63.3 per cent.
14 So if we now look at the light colours in 1991, then it is eight
15 municipalities that are marked with light colours, disregarding whether
16 blue or green or whatever else. There are eight such municipalities in
17 the federal part of the area.
18 If we look at 1997-8, there are no light colours at all. All
19 municipalities are showing absolute majorities. It is when we look at the
20 federation either an absolute majority of the Bosnian Croats or absolute
21 majority of the Bosnian Muslims. And the numbers in 1997 are 7 and 7. It
22 is 7 absolute majorities of Muslims, 7 absolute majorities of Croats.
23 So the conclusion is that in this period, from 1991 to 1997, 1998,
24 the population in this area had become divided very strongly along the
25 ethnic lines.
1 Q. All right. So then, Ms. Tabeau, for all of these municipalities,
2 and these are now with the post-Dayton boundaries in order to -- so that
3 you can move from one to the next in terms of pre- and post-conflict --
4 well, let me do this. I want to use the ELMO, with the assistance of the
5 usher if I could, because I think it may be useful to show everyone then
6 how this information in this table, this information on the screen,
7 relates to the annexes that are found in your report, because what you're
8 going to be able to find in these annexes then is specific numbers in
9 terms of absolute minimum numbers of -- and how those numbers then changed
10 for each of these municipalities, and it may be useful just to show how
11 these tables fit in with that.
12 Well, I don't know how useful that's going to be because the one
13 I'm looking at is not very well in focus. I don't know whether they can
14 improve that or whether each of us can go straight to our own copy of the
15 report. Are they able to bring that up at all?
16 MR. KARNAVAS: Perhaps in part of this exercise, the gentleman
17 could also get from the witness how these figures of 1991 in the Mostar
18 municipalities, how they were arrived given that this was one municipality
19 and now we have several municipalities. How did those percentage arrive?
20 Based on what? I think that's relevant information for the
21 cross-examination that should be elicited on direct.
22 MR. STRINGER: Well, counsel can ask the question, Mr. President.
23 I'm in the middle of something that I consider to be important.
24 Q. I don't know that we're going to be able to use the ELMO for this.
25 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I believed that Mr. Karnavas
2 raised a good point. I actually wanted to intervene myself.
3 Madam, let's go back to the coloured chart, the previous one. Not
4 this one but the previous one that we just saw where we had Mostar in
5 various different parts. So I'm referring to the previous chart. So not
6 the one -- yes.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, the chart, indeed, the
8 table. This table, ma'am, could you very briefly give us some comments on
9 the changes in Mostar? I take it those are various areas of Mostar,
10 Mostar Zapad, Mostar Centre. What was the evolution? How did it change?
11 Can you briefly tell us?
12 THE WITNESS: I mentioned earlier that the administrative division
13 of Bosnia and Herzegovina into municipalities changed with the Dayton
14 peace agreement. Instead of 109 pre-war municipalities there were many
15 more established. Mostar is one of the municipalities that had been
16 split. Mostar had been split into eight municipalities. The precise
17 territorial division was not available until approximately mid-1997. At
18 mid-1997, we were able to acquire from the statistical authority in Bosnia
19 and Herzegovina a detailed bridging system of -- that allowed us to
20 recalculate the census data according to the new post-Dayton division of
22 A bridging system is, basically speaking, a big table in which
23 there are two types of territorial units, coded, of course. One is a
24 municipality, and another one is a settlement. A settlement is used in
25 statistics, official statistics usually, as the basic statistical unit.
1 It's a small area. Settlements can be grouped in different ways. We can
2 group settlements in order to obtain the pre-war municipalities, post-war
3 municipalities, whatever, other larger areas required for whatever
5 This is basically how statistics are compiled. We need
6 information, a code, for every record in a source related to a place of a
7 residence and for us this small -- smallest area used in the aggregation
8 of data is the settlement. There are also other systems like census
9 enumeration areas, other systems. We worked with settlements as it is
10 normally done in official statistics.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. I'm not talking
12 about the method, however. I'm just talking about the results. If I look
13 at Mostar, Mostar is divided in eight parts. I can conclude, according to
14 your table, that Mostar Jug went from 89 to 76. So it means that the
15 Croats have increased. The number of Croats had increased. And that
16 increase of Croats is also visible in Mostar Jugozapad, 47.9 versus 78.2.
17 And when we look at Mostar Zapad, 41.6 and 75.2. However, in the other
18 areas, it's an increase of Muslims that we note and in increase of Serbs
19 and for Mostar Srpski, for instance. That's what we see. Is this what we
20 can conclude upon reading your table?
21 THE WITNESS: Yes. This is exactly what is in there.
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. That's all I needed
23 you to say. Thank you. Please proceed, Mr. Stringer.
24 MR. STRINGER: Thank you, Mr. President.
25 Q. So I would like to try to bring this back to one of the tables and
1 maybe rather than the ELMO if I could direct you to page 43 of your report
2 Ms. Tabeau. This is annex 2(A), and all of this information by
3 municipality and by ethnic group is contained in annex 2(A) in the series
4 of tables that are found there. So page 43 has the table 2M for Muslim in
5 Annex 2. And just looking at the first municipality there, Capljina,
6 perhaps you could -- let me ask you a couple questions about that. Again
7 my intention is to hopefully bring us back to this table that we've
8 been -- that we've been looking at. I'm sorry, I should have directed you
9 to the table on page 38, Annex A1, because we're in Annex A1, not Annex
11 A. That's right.
12 Q. My apologies. Okay. Now, are you able to indicate for us in this
13 table how -- well, the relationship between this -- this annex 1M and the
14 table which is the PowerPoint slide? And you can pick any of the
15 municipalities you wish.
16 A. Yes, I suggest to pick Gornji Vakuf, which is the next one after
17 Vares. Gornji Vakuf. If we refer now to the table, in the first part of
18 the table which is related to the 1991 population, in the third column for
19 Gornji Vakuf we see the number 55.4 per cent. That's the number in the
21 Q. That's the percentage of Muslims living in Gornji Vakuf in 1991.
22 A. That's right.
23 Q. Okay.
24 A. So if we move within the same table to the second panel of the
25 table with three columns again, this panel is titled 1997 sample
1 population, in the third column in this panel we read the number 61.5.
2 61.5. And this is what we see for Gornji Vakuf in this table.
3 So for Gornji Vakuf, the ethnic composition was characterised in
4 both years, 1991 and 1997-8, by absolute majority of Muslims. This is how
5 to read this table.
6 Q. Okay. Let me just ask you to look at Stolac while we're on this
8 A. Mm-hmm.
9 Q. And again this table, 1M, will only have the numbers and the
10 percentages for Muslim populations.
11 A. Mm-hmm.
12 Q. Table 2C would have the information that would correspond to the
13 Croat populations in these -- in these areas, but for Stolac, anyway,
14 again we have a pre-conflict Muslim population of 48 per cent.
15 A. Yes, which is a relative majority, a relative majority of Bosnian
17 Q. Okay. And then moving across to the post-conflict population of
18 Muslims in Stolac.
19 A. We would need to take another table from the report. At this
20 moment we were using the table 1M, the letter M indicates it's the table
21 for the Muslims, and we have to look now for the table 1C.
22 Q. Okay, but before we do that, I just want to stay with this in
23 terms of staying with the Muslim population there in Stolac. Moving to
24 the far right column, then, does this indicate that the Muslim population,
25 percentages of Muslims living in Stolac after the conflict had decreased
1 by greater than 99 per cent?
2 A. Yes, this is right.
3 Q. Okay.
4 A. The last -- very last column to the right tells us the percentage
5 change in the size of this group in this municipality, and it is more than
6 99 decrease, 99 per cent decrease.
7 Q. Okay. Okay. So that is hopefully offered to assist the Trial
8 Chamber and the parties in linking up the information and the table on the
9 PowerPoint slide to the individual tables that are contained in Annex 1.
10 And we've included -- as well, Witness, I think just perhaps we could --
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Madam, for Stolac, in 1991
12 Stolac-Berkovici, there was 714 Muslims, and in 1997 there was only 1
13 left, is that right?
14 THE WITNESS: Yes. This is what is in the table.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Thank you. Please
17 MR. STRINGER:
18 Q. And just to clarify on this now, with these numbers, these numbers
19 of individuals that are referred to, these people, who figure in this
20 table, are these the 142.000 that were the absolute minimum number of
21 matches or does this include some level of estimation?
22 A. Well, it doesn't include any estimation. It is the statistics
23 that relate to the sample of voters that we had in our data. There is no
24 estimation included here.
25 Q. Okay. All right. Now, if you were to turn to page 39 then, which
1 you wanted to do, and look at the numbers in respect of the ethnic Croats
2 in these municipalities, what do you find in respect of Stolac?
3 A. Well, for Stolac, for 1991, the percentage of the Croats was 35.4,
4 and it increased in 1997-8 to 95.5 per cent.
5 Q. Okay. So that figure 95.5, that's an absolute majority that's
6 reflected, then, on the table that is found in the PowerPoint slide, this
8 A. Yes. Yes, that's right. That's exactly the same figure.
9 Q. Okay. So then would this indicate that the percentage of Croats
10 living in Stolac, the federation part of Stolac, increased by 169 per cent
11 as between 1991 and 1997, 1998?
12 A. Yes. This is what is here in the table.
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, one should always be
14 aware of figures and percentages. When you look at Stolac, FBH, number of
15 Croats, in 1991 I see 4.663 Croats. Do you agree with me? In 1997,
16 however, people who were registered on voting list 4.959 people. Is that
18 THE WITNESS: Yes, that's right. That's the effect of population
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. But in reality this
21 movement of population concerns 600 people; is that right? 600 people out
22 of 4.000 people, because there are 600 additional Croats. Is that right?
23 So the increase is 600 people with respect to 4.000 people. And when you
24 say there is an increase of 169.5, or 600 out of 4.000, this does not add
25 up to 165.
1 MR. STRINGER: Mr. President, if I could clarify that, because I
2 had some difficulty with this one as well.
3 Q. Ms. Tabeau, pre-conflict in the federation part of Stolac can we
4 say that 35.4 per cent of the population in Stolac, this part of Stolac,
5 was Croat?
6 A. Yes, we can.
7 Q. Okay. And that there were 4.363 Croats according to the census
9 A. Yes, that's right.
10 Q. Okay. And then after the conflict, first of all, it would appear
11 that the -- the total population of this part of Stolac diminished by
12 greater than half over the course of the conflict because originally there
13 had been 12.000?
14 A. That's right. But this is the only a sample in 1997 but that is
15 the case.
16 Q. These are the absolute minimum numbers?
17 A. That's right, yes.
18 Q. So post-conflict we have 5.192 people living there, of which 95.5
19 per cent are Croats.
20 A. That's right.
21 Q. So the figure then to the right the 169.5 per cent, that reflects
22 the change in the percentages, not the changes in the number of people.
23 So moving from 35.4 per cent to 95.5 per cent represents 169 per cent
24 increase in the percentages. So that's --
25 A. That's very correct. That's very correct. This is how it was
2 Q. Okay.
3 A. But basically this percentage just resembles the change that we
4 see in absolute numbers in some sense as well.
5 Q. Okay.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Madam, this is what I notice:
7 There were 4.300 Croats in 1991. 4.300 Croats; is that right? Now in
8 1997, we find 4.959 Croats. So there are 600 Croats more with respect to
9 the ones who were there in 1991. Those additional 600 Croats, if I
10 compare it to the 4.300 who were there originally, I can notice in
11 relative figures an increase of Croats of 15 per cent. We agree on this,
12 do we?
13 THE WITNESS: You -- Your Honour is right, only that we are not
14 allowed methodologically, not allowed to work with absolute numbers. This
15 is wrong, because on one hand, we have 1991 population census, complete
16 population and on the other hand we have a sample of this population. So
17 absolute numbers should not be compared. They may not be impaired. What
18 may be compared are percentages. The percentages are, statistically
19 speaking, reliable measures of the ethnic composition and we may compare
20 them. It's basically the same thing we did only we did it with
21 percentages not with absolute numbers as Your Honour did.
22 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Remaining for a moment with absolute figures,
23 it's important to know that of 5.905 Muslims in this period some 5.887
24 left in the time, because only 18 remained and this is -- this is the big
25 change in absolute numbers. Here we have the drain really.
1 THE WITNESS: This is how it is.
2 MR. STRINGER: Yes --
3 THE WITNESS: But still we measure this in terms of terms of
4 percentages because that's a good way to do it.
5 MR. STRINGER: And that was going to be the next point,
6 Your Honour, actually is that really it's useful to move from one table to
7 the other because, obviously, you can only put so much information on one
8 piece of paper, and so that really I guess the point would be that we
9 would be offering these as a unitary picture that really can't be viewed
10 in isolation in only one table. It really requires some assimilation of
11 all of the information.
12 I'll move to the next couple of slides, and it will hopefully
13 illustrate graphically what we've been talking about only with respect to
14 all the eight municipalities, and these slides are in your packages so you
15 can put them together or side by side if you wish?
16 Q. Ms. Tabeau, this is the configuration of the ethnic composition
17 for the pre-conflict; is that correct?
18 A. Yes, this is 1991.
19 Q. Okay. And again, with relative and absolute majorities indicated
20 by the colour.
21 A. Exactly the same system of colours is used here as in the table.
22 Q. And then this is now the slide that relates to the post-conflict
23 configuration; is that correct?
24 A. Yes, it is correct.
25 Q. Okay. And now what we see are all of the municipalities in
1 absolute majority.
2 A. Yes, that's true.
3 Q. And so that one can get some idea of comparing these two maps
4 which direction the populations moved; is that correct?
5 A. Yes. It's -- it's good to pay attention to two municipalities,
6 Vares and Stolac, Vares and Stolac. It's light blue, light blue in 1991,
7 and dark green in 1997-8. And Stolac, light green in 1991, dark blue in
8 1997-8. So this is not only a change from relative to absolute majority.
9 It is a change from one ethnicity to the other, and it happens that these
10 two groups were engaged in the conflict in Herceg-Bosna.
11 Q. That's a glimpse of the ethnic composition of the municipalities
12 and, Mr. President, what I propose to do now is to move on to examine more
13 closely the ethnic composition of these refugees and IDPs, the 142.000
14 that we've been discussing and conclusions that can be taken from -- from
16 Again, bringing it back to the matching process, can you tell us
17 again number -- how many people are we looking at now, those who didn't
18 live in their 1991 place of residence when you captured them in the voter
19 records in 1997 and 1998?
20 A. So the minimum number, absolute minimum number of internally
21 displaced persons and refugees who at 1997-8 did not live at their pre-war
22 residence is 61.487 in the eight Herceg-Bosna municipalities. It's the
23 absolute minimum number. This is people whose names can be documented
24 from the results of the matching, 61.487 individuals.
25 And in addition to this number of which we know it's severely
1 incomplete, we present on the same slide and in the report the second
2 number, which is the more complete, still minimum number obtained based on
3 sample-based estimation, more complete absolute minimum number is 101.107.
4 Q. Excuse me, Ms. Tabeau, I don't mean to cut you off.
5 MR. STRINGER: Mr. President, there is some discussion taking
6 place in the courtroom that is becoming a distraction to me, and I believe
7 to the witness as well, and I wonder if counsel could try to refrain. I
8 know that it's difficult sometimes, but we're trying to do a direct
9 examination, and it's quite noisy.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I don't know. I looked at the
11 counsels and they were hanging at your every word. I did not hear them
12 talk amongst themselves, but maybe there is some interferences. We are
13 hanging to your lips, all of us.
14 MR. STRINGER: Thank you, Mr. President. I'll choose my words
15 very carefully then.
16 Q. Okay. Ms. Tabeau, you were then describing the more complete
17 minimum number which has been arrived at through the estimation of process
18 and the statistical analysis that you described earlier; is that correct?
19 A. Yes, it is correct.
20 Q. Okay. All right. So then for the following numbers we're going
21 to be presenting, Mr. President, both the absolute minimums based on the
22 known 142.000 people that is followed, and then the more complete number
23 that is based on the estimation methods that have been described. And
24 this is getting into a series of tables and figures that are found in
25 annex 2 of Ms. Tabeau's report; is that correct?
1 A. Yes, it is.
2 Q. And it may be that this is a table that we can use on the ELMO
3 with greater success if I can find one. But I can't find one at the
4 moment, so we'll continue looking, and I'll just direct everyone to the
5 slide that is in front of each of you. Here it is. Thank you. Okay.
6 It's on the ELMO, and it may be useful, Ms. Tabeau, you may want to use
7 the pen and point to the numbers as you talk about them. Tell us what
8 this table is about. Now that we're talking about the ethnic composition
9 of the people and not the municipalities?
10 A. Yes. This table contains some more statistics that are related to
11 the area of eight Herceg-Bosna municipalities studies -- studied. The
12 first familiar number here in this table is 231 - approximately -
13 thousand. This is the population from the 1991 census. This is the
14 population born before 1980 that we studied in this project.
15 The second familiar number is the 142.000 approximately. This is
16 a record from the voters registration. These are records that had been
17 matched with the census, so the 142.000 are at the same time here as part
18 of this population. This is complete population. This is our sample.
19 Based on this sample, we were able to identify approximately
20 61.000 of internally displaced persons and refugees. The rest of this
21 group were persons who stayed after the conflict at the time of elections
22 at their pre-war place of residence, but 61.000 did not. 61.000. This is
23 the minimum number.
24 Q. So the 61.487, again this is a documented number of persons who
25 were not living at their 1991 place of residence?
1 A. That's right.
2 Q. Okay. And again moving across to the estimated number, what would
3 that be?
4 A. It is 101.107.
5 Q. Okay. All right. So if I could direct you to the third column,
6 which is the observed minimum number of IDPs and refugees, let's look at
7 the composition of those 61.487. First of all -- well, can you just move
8 down that column and tell us what it means.
9 A. This column tells us the ethnic composition of the IDPs and
10 refugees. It shows us the size of every ethnic group of IDPs and
11 refugees, and the first number given for Muslims here, I skip the first
12 row which is for all known Croats jointly, first number, the 26.663, is
13 the number of IDPs and refugees of Muslim ethnicity who didn't stay at
14 their pre-war residence in 1997-8.
15 Q. Then moving across, Muslims account for 43.4 per cent of all of
16 these people who don't live any more at their 1991 place of residence.
17 A. Yes, that's right. That's right. This is the largest group, 43.4
18 per cent. The second largest is the Croats with 25.6 per cent, then the
19 Serbs 23.8 and others jointly at 7.3 per cent.
20 Q. And what you've demon the final column is to apply your estimates
21 to what you call the more complete minimum number?
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Praljak, yes.
23 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] I just have a question. Why
24 aren't relevant percentages being used here in relation to the population
25 but, rather, absolute figures? If the refugees were to be compared with
1 the previous population, then these percentages wouldn't be valid, so we
2 are having double standards here.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, indeed. Why did you
4 not use the same method.
5 THE WITNESS: I believe I did use the same method. I first of all
6 present both, absolute numbers and percentages. I made it clear that the
7 1991 population is a complete population, and that 1997-8 is a sample.
8 For my sample, which is very big and solid, statistically speaking, I am
9 allowed to calculate ethnic composition, the same as I did for the 1991
10 census population. There is nothing wrong in this method absolutely. I
11 see no methodological bias in this table.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Thank you. You may
14 MR. STRINGER:
15 Q. And just one last question about this then. In terms of absolute
16 minimum numbers of documented persons as well as the estimated more
17 complete, what is the percentage of non-Croats who no longer live at their
18 1991 residence?
19 A. Well, it is according to the observed minimum 74.4 per cent, and
20 according to the estimated minimum it is approximately 75 per cent,
22 Q. Now, I would like to direct you to your table found at page 43 of
23 the --
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Prlic?
25 THE ACCUSED PRLIC: I just need one clarification because I'm not
1 able to understand. This is not the essence of -- now we are dealing with
2 the 61.000 refugees and displaced persons. Before we dealt with 118.792
3 those who remain in municipalities. So the total number is 179.000. But
4 we are dealing all the time with 142.000. You told just before on page
5 75, line 19 and 20, that out of 142.000 we should reduce for this 61.000
6 to have those who remain in the their municipalities. So it should be
7 less than 81.000 but before we all -- we have all percentages, all data
8 based on this 118.000. I really don't understand. This is just the issue
9 of clarification of numbers; I'm not speaking about methodology or
10 anything. Because I'm not able to analyse that without that.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, madam.
12 THE WITNESS: Yes. I want to explain again that in this table we
13 show first census population complete, then the sample incomplete. The
14 sample size is 142.000 approximately. And then this total can be further
15 distributed into two groups. One group is IDPs and refugees. They are
16 mentioned in the table here. There are 61.000 approximately mentioned in
17 the table. The other component is not included in the table, and this is
18 perhaps what you are missing.
19 THE ACCUSED PRLIC: [Interpretation], no, I'm not missing anything,
20 but we are dealing with page 39.
21 THE WITNESS: 39 of the report --
22 THE INTERPRETER: Please slow down for the record.
23 THE ACCUSED PRLIC: [Interpretation] [Previous translation
24 continues] ... 118.
25 THE INTERPRETER: Please do not overlap, thank you.
1 THE INTERPRETER: We cannot follow. It's going too fast and
3 MR. KARNAVAS: I wish if the OTP witness an employee would
4 allow --
5 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Mr. Karnavas, it is not necessary at every
6 occasion to polemically refer to the employment situation of the witness.
7 It is pure polemics.
8 MR. KARNAVAS: Well, she is an employee. Very well. If this
9 expert witness would allow my client to make his record and not be
10 interrupted because he's asking for clarification which is obviously
11 needed, given -- given that she's mixing percentages and figures.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Madam, Mr. Prlic asked you to
13 give him some precisions regarding the table that we have on the screen
14 or, rather, in 1991 population census and 1997 register of voters, and we
15 have another figure, 142.000 people, then we have 61.487 people, and then
16 101.107 people. So would you be able to give an answer to Mr. Prlic
17 regarding his -- these questions -- or to these questions?
18 THE WITNESS: I can. The reference was made to table in Annex A1.
19 This is the table 39, and this is table 1C, as I understand. And in this
20 table, this is again I repeat table 1C, page 39 of the report. I think
21 the question is related to this table and not to the table that is on the
22 screen or although these two are, of course, related to each other.
23 The 1997 population in table 1C, page 39, is 118.792. And this is
24 a very good point you made. We have measured population in 1997 in two
25 different ways. One is the so-called "in" population. Someone the
1 so-called "from" population. If you will refer to the report where the
2 table 2 is included, then you will see that in the report you will see two
3 totals for 1997-8, the in population and from population. So the 118.000
4 approximately is included in the table in the report. For simplicity, we
5 skipped it here.
6 But what is this 118.000? This is the registered voters in --
7 observed in the eight Herceg-Bosna municipalities, in, disregarding,
8 disregarding where did they come from. We didn't pay attention at this
9 moment where did they come from. It is 1997-8 in population. But next to
10 this there is another population. There is this from population, and this
11 from population is very different, because from population is closely
12 related to the census population. It is a subgroup from the census
13 population that we traced in the voters register, and this is this
14 142.000. Part of them are in as part of the in population, but part of
15 them are elsewhere, in other municipalities.
16 So the displacement, if you think about it, is not necessarily
17 within the Herceg-Bosna only. The displacement is much broader than that.
18 People can move within Herceg-Bosna from one municipality to another,
19 but also from Herceg-Bosna municipalities to any municipality in Bosnia,
20 or to other countries.
21 So there is a very considerable difference between population
22 called "in" and population called "from". Population called "from" is
23 essentially for the assessment of displacement, but population called
24 "from" cannot be used for assessment of ethnic composition, of attempting
25 the ethnic composition.
1 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour, I object to the word "displacement"
2 unless she can prove that there is actual displacement. When somebody
3 moves from one place to another it doesn't necessarily mean that they're
4 being displaced. It could be voluntarily. I think that was the essence
5 of Judge Trechsel's earlier question to which I sought some clarification.
6 So I just think that -- And I don't wish to engage in polemics, but
7 let's stay with statistics, mathematics but not political or legal terms
8 such as "displacement."
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Madam, while you were talking I
10 was thinking exactly along the same lines as Mr. Karnavas. You're talking
11 about the movement, movement of a population or a displaced people. Maybe
12 there is a Croat who, for instance, lives in an X municipality and for
13 some reason this particular person decides to go to another municipality,
14 let's call it municipality Y. So this person just changes places but that
15 person can also change whether he will be registered or not in the voters
16 list, but this person is not displaced in the sense that he was displaced
17 because of the conflict. Maybe in your figures you can find people who
18 for various reasons they changed the place of residence because they
19 bought another apartment, they bought another house and they decided to
21 So when you use the term "displacement" in your mind, who do you
22 cover with that term? You talk about displaced people, but who are these
23 people exactly?
24 THE WITNESS: I simply use this term for people who change their
25 residence between 1995 and 1997-8. There is no negative connotations.
1 There is nothing. I made a distinction earlier today. I said I use
2 statistical definition of displacement; I don't use legal definition.
3 There is no notion of the fear of being persecuted. There is nothing like
4 that in the way I'm using this term.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. I believe it's time
6 to take a break. Mr. Stringer, how much time do you need? How much more
7 time do you need?
8 MR. STRINGER: I need all of my three hours, Mr. President. I'm
9 not sure where I -- I'm not sure where I stand at this moment.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, you must have taken and
11 I'm going to tell you almost two hours. We will actually count it for you
12 if you wish.
13 You've used 110 minutes so far, so one hour and 50 minutes.
14 MR. STRINGER: That's consistent with our count. So --
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. So you may not be
16 able to finish today, I suppose.
17 Let's take a short 15-minute break because I would like to finish
18 at five to 7.00. If you are not finished, we will continue next time.
19 Since Mrs. Tabeau is always here anyway, I do not believe that it will be
20 difficult for her to come back to -- at another date. But since you
21 haven't talked about the injured and the dead people, I think you wanted
22 to talk about that.
23 THE INTERPRETER: The killed and the wounded, correction.
24 MR. STRINGER: I think it's still possible to get through this
25 today, Mr. President. I'm halfway through the slides, and we already know
1 a lot about the estimation methods and things that we won't have to cover
2 again when we talk about the other studies. So it's possible. I'm
3 certainly going to do my best to try and finish the direct today if I can
4 at all.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. So we will take a
6 short 15-minute break.
7 --- Recess taken at 5.41 p.m.
8 --- On resuming at 5.58 p.m.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Stringer, you may proceed.
10 Sorry, Mr. Prlic. I had not seen you.
11 THE ACCUSED PRLIC: I didn't get the answer on my question. If
12 you are satisfied, that's fine, but I think nobody is able to follow
13 further direct examination without clarification. We heard many times
14 during the afternoon that the total number of matched applied for voting
15 was 142.214. Again, many times we mentioned and we made all those
16 calculation with colours, with the Vares municipalities with 118.792
17 registered in those eight municipalities. So the differences -- the
18 difference between those two data is 23.412. So those data should apply
19 to those registered for voting out of those eight municipalities or
21 Now we receive information that the minimum number of those apply
22 for voting in 1997, 1998 abroad or in different municipality is 61.487.
23 If we, very simple, add those 61.000 to 118 registered in those
24 municipalities and we have all those percentages, based on that, we are
25 going to have the total number of registered for voting 180.289, those who
1 matches with the data from census. So the difference between the first
2 information, 142.000 and this one is almost 40.000. So all calculation
3 based on those differences are not credible, and I think without
4 clarification of that it is impossible to continue.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, Mr. Prlic has just made
6 a demonstration for our benefit. He took into account the 140.000, and he
7 looked at the figure of 118.792. He tells us, based on what I don't know,
8 but he probably will be able to establish it, he says that 61.487 persons
9 were registered abroad to vote. In other words, the total number of
10 voters was 180.299 and not 140.000 something. In other words, according
11 to Mr. Prlic, there is a difference of 40.000 people, and according to him
12 this could have an impact on your statistics, on your figures on your
13 conclusions what do you have to respond to his submissions?
14 THE WITNESS: Well, making these kind of calculations is a
15 dangerous exercise. This shouldn't be done, simply speaking. These two
16 populations cannot be compared in the way you did. The population in the
17 118.000 is the population coming from the voters register, the voters who
18 registered in the eight municipalities. Some of them are originally from
19 1991 census population and some are not. Some are newcomers who arrived
20 in these municipalities between 1991 and 1997-8 for whatever reason. So
21 this is included in 118.000. So there is an overlap, an overlap between
22 this population, 118.000, and the 142.000 and the census population, but
23 this is only an overlap, not one-to-one correspondence.
24 So what I'm trying to say, the from population, 142.000, as a
25 whole can be traced back in the census, the population, census population,
1 from these eight municipalities, which cannot be said about the population
2 in 118.000.
3 MR. STRINGER:
4 Q. Ms. Tabeau, let me just ask you a couple of questions to follow
6 THE ACCUSED PRLIC: If you are satisfied, I am satisfied. I'm
7 completely fine with it.
8 THE WITNESS: Yes.
9 THE ACCUSED PRLIC: But, madam, you made calculation based on
10 that, for Stolac and for other municipalities showing the real data. Very
11 clearly, you told the total registration which matches this 142.000.
12 Those registration consisted of registration in municipalities, plus out
13 of municipalities in municipalities 118.000 registered, "yes," or "no", in
14 eight municipalities?
15 THE WITNESS: Well --
16 MR. STRINGER: Mr. President, this is for cross-examination.
17 THE ACCUSED PRLIC: You are not able to continue.
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Wait a minute. Mr. Prlic very
19 rarely takes the floor here, and when he decides to take the floor he
20 always does it in a very sensible manner.
21 According to him there is a major problem here, so let us listen
22 to his questions. Of course, the questions might be asked during
23 cross-examination, but if we can save time, let's go for it. So I'll ask
24 the witness to answer these technical questions. Amongst other things a
25 question you have not answered yet, the number of people registered
1 abroad, 61.487, does this have an impact on your conclusions? Because it
2 seems to me that this has not been taken into account. So I'd like to ask
3 you to answer Mr. Prlic's questions very specifically.
4 Mr. Prlic, can you please repeat your question.
5 THE ACCUSED PRLIC: So madam, you told that 118.000 eligible
6 voters registered for voting in those eight municipalities. I'm not
7 making any distinction between them, are they from 1991 or not. So this
8 is the result.
9 THE WITNESS: Yes. 118.000 registered in the eight
10 municipalities, yes.
11 THE ACCUSED PRLIC: Yes.
12 THE WITNESS: Disregarding where they come from.
13 THE ACCUSED PRLIC: The second number to get this 142.000 is
14 registered abroad.
15 THE WITNESS: Not abroad.
16 THE ACCUSED PRLIC: Abroad or in other municipalities.
17 THE WITNESS: Displaced and refugees.
18 THE ACCUSED PRLIC: I am speaking for the third time, and I'm
19 speaking about refugees and displaced persons, I am using your definition.
20 So those registered out of these eight municipalities in
21 Bosnia-Herzegovina or abroad; is it correct?
22 THE WITNESS: What number did you mention?
23 THE ACCUSED PRLIC: [Interpretation] You mentioned 61.000.
24 THE WITNESS: Yes.
25 THE ACCUSED PRLIC: [Interpretation] But in accordance with this
1 those information we have 118.000 registered in those municipalities plus
2 23.000 is 142. I don't know what is the root of this 38.000. This is
3 crucial for understanding. Maybe I'm wrong but --
4 THE WITNESS: I will read your numbers first on the screen.
5 MR. STRINGER: Mr. President, could I ask two questions of the
6 witness in the hope that I can clear this up?
7 MR. KARNAVAS: I believe a question has been posed to the witness.
8 The witness should be entitled to answer it.
9 MR. STRINGER: It's my direct examination. That's my response,
10 Mr. President.
11 MR. KARNAVAS: I believe, Your Honour, that you've given leave to
12 Mr. Prlic to ask questions and I believe there is no need to assist this
14 THE WITNESS: Well, the 61.000 if I --
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Please answer, madam, because
16 Mr. Prlic has raised an objection so we need to deal with this. Please
17 answer the question put to you by Mr. Prlic. You've asked to be able to
18 have a look at the screen, then of course Mr. Stringer will be able later
19 to ask additional questions. Please give us your answer, madam.
20 THE WITNESS: Regarding the 61.000, these are people who did not
21 register at the pre-war place of residence. 61.487, these are the IDPs
22 and refugees. So these are -- this is the minimum number of IDPs and
23 refugees. This is what is in the table number 2 which I still have on the
24 screen. I don't understand the question perhaps.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, this figure of 61.487
1 corresponds apparently to persons who are registered to vote abroad, but
2 amongst these 61.487 individuals there might be people, Muslims working in
3 Berlin, for example, and who were registered to vote abroad, but it does
4 not necessarily mean that we have to do with refugees or IDPs.
5 THE WITNESS: But what's the question? I still don't understand
6 the question. What question am I supposed to answer?
7 I, again, repeat the 61.486 is the number of internally displaced
8 persons and refugees at whatever location they are in 1997-8. Partly they
9 are in 8 Herceg-Bosna municipalities, partly they are or not in other
10 municipalities in Bosnia-Herzegovina, partly in other countries. And it
11 has very little to do with the 118 population registered in the eight
12 municipalities. Very little to do because I suppose some of the 61.000,
13 some of the 61.000, are still in the eight Herceg-Bosna municipalities,
14 only different municipalities than in 1991, but not all. It is not that
15 simple that you can add up these numbers and compare them, because these
16 groups overlap simply with each other. It's not that simple.
17 JUDGE TRECHSEL: If I may take your term "overlap." Is it so that
18 part of those 61.000 are included in the 118.000.
19 THE WITNESS: Very correct. This is how it is. Part, but not
20 all. I can answer this. If you are interested which part, I can answer
21 that. I can run queries and compare this, but it is not right now I can
22 give you this number.
23 Some are in 118.000, some of 61.000. Certain not all, 100 per
24 cent sure.
25 JUDGE TRECHSEL: In other terms, the figures, the quantities that
1 you mention can be visualised as partly overlapping circles.
2 THE WITNESS: Excellent, yes. This is how it is. This is a
3 complex statistical analysis that is made on the basis of individual data.
4 Moreover, several concepts are used that are usually used in the
5 analysis of migration. There is a municipality of departure. There is a
6 municipality of arrival or destination. We have a study area and a
7 broader universe that is Bosnia and Herzegovina. So these are complex
8 population movements, and it is very hard to measure them and to express
9 them in a simple way. We think we did it in a simple way, but adding
10 sources like this cannot be done.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] In other words, what you're
12 saying in response to Mr. Prlic is that these 61.487 persons are included
13 in the 118.000, partly included, and that we should not add them up as
14 Mr. Prlic had done. That's your answer.
15 THE WITNESS: That's my answer. That's my answer.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Stringer, you may proceed.
17 MR. STRINGER: Thank you, Mr. President.
18 Q. Witness, I've put on the ELMO there during the break a table or
19 two from Annex 2, because again to bring it back to where I'm at, which is
20 the composition of the 62.487, that is, the ethnic composition, the
21 profile of those people who were not there any more, they were there in
22 1991, they were gone elsewhere, maybe a different municipality in
23 Herceg-Bosna, maybe a different municipality of Bosnia-Herzegovina, maybe
24 a different country, but I want to talk about the ethnic composition of
25 those 61.487 people who weren't there any more in 1997, 1998. They were
1 not at the place they'd been living in in 1991. Okay?
2 Now, the ELMO is table 2M. This relates to the ethnic composition
3 of -- of Muslims as within those 61.000; is that correct?
4 A. Yes, it is.
5 Q. Okay. And again just to give us some general numbers, moving
6 across the top line again we have the 61.000 who are -- you're -- you've
7 called IDPs or refugees because they're not living at their 1991 residence
8 any more.
9 A. Yes, that's right.
10 Q. Okay. And you've got numbers for Muslims there then; right?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Okay. Now, there's a 49, 49 per cent. What does that relate to?
13 A. This is the proportion of Muslims, IDPs, and refugees of Muslim
14 ethnicity, in the total of IDPs and refugees in 1997-8, that is, 26.663 as
15 related to 61.487, and that's the proportion, 43.4 per cent.
16 Q. Okay. So 43.4 per cent of all the people who had moved were
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Now moving to the left one column there's the 49 --
20 A. Well, excuse me, no. 43.4 is the fraction of Muslims within all
21 IDPs and refugees.
22 Q. Yes. So you've got Muslims, Croats, Serbs.
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And others, all of whom fall within the 61.000.
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Muslim account for 43 --
2 A. -- 3 per cent.
3 Q. 43.4 per cent of all of those people?
4 A. That's right.
5 Q. Okay, and moving to the left. The 49, what does the 49 per cent
6 relate to?
7 A. This is the proportion or the fraction or per cent of Muslims,
8 IDPs and refugees of Muslim ethnicity in the population of Muslims
9 identified in the voters register 1997-8, which says how many of them in
10 the sample are displaced in 1997-8.
11 Q. So now that's looking only at all the displaced Muslims.
12 A. Right.
13 Q. And what you're finding or saying is that 49 per cent of all the
14 Muslims who lived in these municipalities were living somewhere else in
15 1997, 1998?
16 A. Yes. Yes, based on the sample voters register 1997-8.
17 Q. Okay. Taking it down to the municipality level, let's talk about
18 Capljina there is number 1?
19 A. Yes. The proportion is 96 per cent.
20 Q. Okay. 96 per cent of all the people who left were Muslims? I'm
21 sorry, no.
22 A. No, no. It is the Muslims identified in the voters register, all
23 of them, and 96 per cent are IDPs and refugees.
24 Q. Okay. So 96 per cent of --
25 A. It is the -- oh, sorry.
1 Q. 96 per cent of the Muslims who lived in Capljina before the
2 conflict weren't there in 1997, 1998?
3 A. No, not really. 96 per cent is that based on the sample of voters
4 we estimated the proportion of displaced and refugees of Muslim ethnicity.
5 It is 96 per cent of them are no more at their place of residence.
6 Almost everybody had become displaced.
7 Q. Okay?
8 A. Within this group. We are looking just now at one group.
9 Q. The Muslim group?
10 A. The Muslim group.
11 Q. And then moving one come up to the right --
12 A. Right.
13 Q. -- this is a 65 per cent figure. What does that signify?
14 A. 65 per cent, it is the proportion of Muslims among all IDPs and
15 refugees. So this is two different measures, very different measures.
16 Q. Okay.
17 A. We have an ethnic composition of all IDPs and refugees. Ethnic
18 composition tells us the ethnic structure within the IDPs and refugees.
19 This is the last column. For Capljina there are 65 per cent of Muslim
20 IDPs and refugees.
21 Q. So for all the people, Croats, Serb --
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. -- whatever who left Capljina --
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. -- 65 per cent of all of those were Muslims?
1 A. That's right, that's right.
2 Q. Okay. And then I don't know if you have it, the next page of your
3 report is page 44. This one relates to the Croat component of all of the
4 IDPs and refugees; is that correct?
5 A. Yes, it is.
6 Q. Okay. Okay. So then the numbers and the percentages here again
7 would be the same only as applied to Croats.
8 A. Yes, that's right.
9 Q. Okay. And then in your report you have additional tables for the
10 Serbs and for the others and for --
11 A. Yeah.
12 Q. And then you've actually got at page 46 a table that captures that
13 information for all the groups in a summary fashion. Do you have -- do
14 you see that?
15 A. Yes. Yes.
16 Q. So on page 46 of your report then just to connect the numbers,
17 again if you look at the second group which are the Muslim group on this.
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. I see the 49 per cent as being the percentage of Muslim -- the
20 Muslim population that moved?
21 A. Mm-hmm.
22 Q. And then the 43.4 being the Muslim component of all of the
24 A. Very correct.
25 Q. Okay.
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Okay. Now, Mr. President, for whatever assistance it may provide,
3 there is a map that attempts to capture this information as well, and it's
4 one to be careful with.
5 Ms. Tabeau, is this a map that tells us the ethnic composition of
6 the people who had left from these municipalities?
7 A. Yes. Ethnic majority of these people.
8 Q. So, again, say pointing to Vares because it's easy and right up
9 there by itself, this would indicate that Croats were the greatest number
10 of people to leave Vares?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And something less than 50 per cent of the Croats left?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Okay. And then -- sorry. Prozor, then, again indicating here
15 that greater than 50 per cent of the Muslims left Prozor.
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Okay.
18 A. This was the largest group to leave Prozor.
19 Q. Okay. That was the largest group.
20 MR. STRINGER: And anyway, so the colours are self-explanatory,
21 Mr. President, but this is just an attempt to show graphically the
22 composition of those who left these municipalities.
23 THE WITNESS: Yes.
24 MR. STRINGER:
25 Q. Now, the next slide, Ms. Tabeau is one that gets a little bit into
1 the issues, some of the issues that have been raised in some of the
2 questions, and it relates to the composition of -- we've been talking
3 about the people who left; correct?
4 A. That's right.
5 Q. All right. Now, is there a different population that figures in
6 your report, that is, those who stayed or who were found in these
7 municipalities as of 1997, 1998?
8 A. Yes. This population is called non-DPs in the table that we are
9 now seeing on the screen.
10 Q. Tell us about these non-DPs. Do these match with the ones you've
11 been able to track from the 1991 census?
12 A. Yes, this is all the same group matched with the people with the
13 census 142.000 approximately, and as I have been repeating, one part of
14 this group are people who had become displaced or refugees, and another
15 group is those who simply stayed at their home municipalities. This table
16 shows the specific distribution into those who stayed, those who left, and
17 those who left are separated in two groups, IDPs and refugees.
18 Q. So that of the 142.000 who were matched initially, the non-DPs,
19 then, are people who we know were there both in 1991 and who were still
20 there as of 1997, 1998?
21 A. Yes, that's right.
22 Q. Okay. So that total number would be 80.717 persons?
23 A. Yes, that's right. Approximately 57 per cent.
24 Q. Okay you mentioned overlap and actually, I think it was
25 Judge Trechsel also. Is there overlap between this number of people still
1 present in 1997, 1998, and those 118.000 who were put in these
2 municipalities by the voters register?
3 A. Yeah. Yeah, thank you for the question. Of course it is 80.000
4 that are included in 118.000 in the population called "in". This is the
5 component. This is the 80.000 people who are as well included in the
6 population, 1991 population in of 118.000. That's the overlap of the two.
7 Q. Okay. Now, by the way, are these -- these are absolute minimum
8 numbers based on distinct matching.
9 A. That's right.
10 Q. Okay. No estimation.
11 A. No.
12 Q. All right. Moving down to the percentage then, percentages
13 according to your findings, what's the largest group of -- of persons who
15 A. Well, it is the Croats, which is almost 75 per cent. It is 74.8
16 per cent of them stayed at the pre-war residence.
17 Q. Okay. And then 50 per cent of the Muslims stayed?
18 A. Yes, that's right.
19 Q. And again just to be clear, this table does not indicate movement
20 within the eight municipalities?
21 A. Well, partly perhaps it does, but generally it is a distinction
22 between those who stayed and those who moved.
23 Q. Okay. I am going to -- well, just to summarise then this next
24 slide, are these -- are these -- would you summarise the findings in
25 respect of Muslims, Croats, and non-Croats in the way indicated on this
2 A. It is actually repeating some statistics from the tables that we
3 have just seen. First statement says 43.2 per cent of all non-Croats, all
4 non-Croats who lived in 1991 in Herceg-Bosna, in the eight Herceg-Bosna
5 municipalities, were still displaced in 1997-8, and for Muslims this
6 proportion was 49 per cent and for Croats 25.2 per cent.
7 Q. Okay. Now, I've got a series of slides now that relate to
8 applying those percentages to the absolute minimum numbers and yielding
9 more complete absolute minimum numbers, but in view of the time and the
10 explanations that have already been given by you about the difference
11 between those two figures, I think I'm going to skip that and just go
12 straight to then the overall conclusions about this report so that we can
13 then move on to other reports.
14 So here's the slide. Can you just summarise for us the findings
15 as indicated in this report on refugees and IDPs?
16 A. Well, the first observation is that the scale of population
17 movements, especially the size of internal and external migration are
18 extraordinarily high and cannot be seen as consequences of usual
19 demographic or socio-economic forces. There had to be other factors that
20 caused this migration, this size of migration, within such a short period
21 of time.
22 Secondly, the Herceg-Bosna population in the eight municipalities
23 became divided very strongly along ethnic lines after the conflict.
24 Thirdly, 32 -- 43.2, sorry, of the pre-conflict population was not
25 living in their 1991 places of residence after the conflict. This is a
1 very high percentage.
2 Q. This is a percentage of non-Croats?
3 A. This is the percentage of non-Croats. And 49 per cent of the
4 pre-conflict population of Muslims was not living at their pre-war
5 residences. 49, almost 50 per cent of this ethnic group.
6 So to conclude, I would like to stress that certainly every ethnic
7 group suffered in this conflict and was affected by migration. That in
8 most cases was a forced migration. There is no doubt about it.
9 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour, I'm going to object at this point
10 unless there's a foundation. She is not a political scientist. She's
11 here as an expert on statistics and demographics. Now she's drawing legal
12 conclusions. This is well beyond the scope of her expertise.
13 MR. STRINGER: Mr. President, I think I could clear that up with a
14 question. I'm happy to let the witness address that -- that point,
15 because it's in the report, and so if I could just propose to do that.
16 MR. KARNAVAS: It don't mean because it's in the report that it
17 should be in the report. That's the whole -- that's the whole point of
18 this objection, that she is not here -- you know, it's bad enough that
19 she's used technical terms, terms of art, displaced persons, refugees,
20 into the report in order to give it the added umph, speak of polemics, but
21 it seems to me that now she's opining as to what happened in the field,
22 and if that is the case, Your Honours, I will definitely go into certain
23 issues that at least in the Simic case she indicated she was unqualified
24 to testify about.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The Chamber will take that into
1 account in the light of what you said, because apparently in the Simic
2 case the witness said that she was not able to deal with these matters. I
3 don't know.
4 Mr. Stringer, there are conclusions in that report. You wanted
5 the witness to explain where these figures came from or --
6 JUDGE TRECHSEL: We are here again at the spot where we have been
7 twice today, namely the explanation for movements, and I have indicated
8 that there are movements all the time. Everywhere people change places.
9 And you ventured to give a reason here when you speak of violent forces.
10 I think that is indeed something which you cannot say as a -- as a result
11 of your figures. But what you can say is whether normal, general figures
12 of population movement are known, whether there are norms, as to what
13 percentage of a given population moves within a time lapse of six to seven
15 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour, with all due respect and I understand
16 that you're entitled to an answer to that particular question.
17 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Yes.
18 MR. KARNAVAS: But if I may, with all due respect --
19 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I think I am entitled to the answer as you
20 correctly state and you speak afterwards, I would suggest.
21 MR. KARNAVAS: Very well. I would like the record to reflect
22 there is no foundation for that, for the basis of that question, but very
23 well, I will.
24 THE WITNESS: Thank you for the question, Your Honours. Well, my
25 main -- first main conclusion is related to the scale of this migration.
1 I clearly say that scale is extraordinary. It is such large scale of
2 migration that it cannot be seen as to be explained by the usual factors.
3 Well, in case of migration in normal situation when there is no conflict
4 we think of economic migration, educational migration, other types of
5 migration, but it never comes to 40 -- more than 40 of the population that
6 goes away within a short period of seven, eight years. That is not
7 possible, simply speaking.
8 So the first reason is the scale.
9 Secondly, I did indeed not study determinants of this movement in
10 this particular report but I am aware of additional materials related to
11 conflict in Herceg-Bosna. I had been studying reports by international
12 observers. I had been studying books written by journalists who were also
13 present in the conflict area during the conflict as observers, war
14 reporters. I saw videos showing scenes from the conflict period, and I
15 think there is very little doubt that there were violent sources active in
16 this period.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [No interpretation]
18 THE INTERPRETER: Testing. Can you hear the interpretation into
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Okay. You can hear me now.
21 Let's take a demographer. Let's take an expert demographer. When
22 highlighting statistics, figures, that's what you do in your conclusions.
23 You say that about 43.2 per cent of the non-Croat populations in eight
24 Herceg-Bosna municipalities was -- was not on -- or in the location where
25 they resided before when they resided in 1991, and you say that on the
1 basis of figures from 1997, 1998. When as a demographer you reach that
2 conclusion, can you and should you give the reasons for these changes, the
4 THE WITNESS: No, I cannot. I have no sources, and I didn't use
5 any sources to quantify the causes of these movements.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I am putting that question to
7 you because some demographers, for example, studied migrations in cities
8 or towns that were partly reconstructed, and you might reach conclusions
9 on population transfers. Therefore, thanks to a demographic study you may
10 say that this phenomenon is due to the reconstruction of the society.
11 Let's take Beijing in China because of the preparations for the Olympic
12 Games populations are moving around and a demographer might say that the
13 cause for this phenomenon in Beijing is the Olympic Games. But when we
14 are talking about the work you conducted, you carried out, are you in a
15 position to come to any conclusions regarding the causes of these
17 A. When this comes to quantification and use of the actual data on
18 determinants on factors that caused these movements I cannot. But I am
19 aware of sources, serious sources that indicate that the movements were
20 not voluntary. For instance, the database that I also included in this
21 study, internally displaced persons and refugees, the registration of
22 internally displaced persons and refugees in this report, maintained by
23 the government of Bosnia and Herzegovina and which was started by the
24 UNHCR. This is a very serious source. It contains 600 - almost -
25 thousand records of internally displaced persons and refugees as of the
1 year 2.000. This is the huge number for the entire Bosnia, of course.
2 And there were many more. There are many more in the earlier
3 years and this is a legal database. This is a legal database. This means
4 that these people who are registered there have the legal status of
5 internally displaced persons and refugees. So that is one good reason I
6 can use for my statement about the forced migration.
7 Second reason is I am aware of transit visa database that was
8 established as a registration system in Croatia by the Croatian
9 authorities for people who were transferred from Bosnia through Croatia to
10 other countries.
11 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour, now we're going beyond the scope of
12 the -- of the expert report. Now, I don't object to her testifying in
13 these matters. If that is the case, we're going to need an additional day
14 or two for this particular witness because now you're allowing this
15 witness to go out of the scope.
16 Now, in the Simic case, page 10805, she is asked a question about
17 certain international agreements at which point a member of the
18 Prosecution stands up and says: "I object to that question. This witness
19 is not a political expert." Goes on and then says: "She is a
20 demographer, and it is unfair on her to ask her questions unless her
21 expertise in the area has been established."
22 Now, her expertise into these other matters has not been
23 established. We do know she has written an article where she does
24 indicate after now saying on the record under oath that she is not
25 qualified to talk about these issues because on page 10806 she says: "I
1 know many things from different areas but I really don't feel qualified to
2 say anything about these types of issues."
3 Here she says in one of the articles which she's going to be
4 questioned on it's on page 188 of an article she wrote, "War-related death
5 1992-1995," it's referenced by the Prosecution, she says on page 188 she
6 says: "Bosnian Serbs and later also Bosnian Croats fought (often through
7 ethnic cleansing and terror campaigns) to take and control territories
8 that otherwise would be subject to the rule of Bosnian Muslims from
9 Sarajevo. The Muslims fought for these territories as they believe they
10 did not have much choice."
11 Now, if that is not a political statement coming from someone who
12 claims not to be an expert in politics but a demographer, a science that
13 deals with -- that deals with logic, that deals with statistics, that
14 deals with mathematics. She's not here as a politician. She is not here
15 as a political expert. She is not here as a politician. She is here as a
16 demographer and that's why Mr. President and that's why Judge Trechsel I
17 stress over and over again you may call it polemics that's why I stress
18 that she is an employee of the Office of the Prosecutor, making a fairly
19 good living as an employee of the United Nations.
20 MR. STRINGER: Objection to that last statement. It's
22 MR. KARNAVAS: I mention that because -- I mention that because
23 this part, this part of her testimony is clearly beyond the scope and is
24 part of the Prosecution's theory of the case. That's why.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Mr. Stringer, you
1 will have the floor in a while but I believe that Judge Trechsel wanted to
2 say something.
3 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I ask for the floor internally before
4 Mr. Karnavas rose. I am hundred per cent in agreement with what you said,
5 Mr. Karnavas.
6 And I want to tell the witness that you were called as an expert
7 in demography. That is in dealing with figures, relating figures and
8 that's it. What you have added is your personal opinion as a citizen
9 which you entitled to have but which we cannot hear as evidence because
10 they are not part of your scientific knowledge. Therefore, the Defence
11 counsel was right on this.
12 What I wanted to ask you is whether you have, whether your science
13 has any figures, figures, on what a "normal" migration is in a given area
14 and over a period of six, seven years.
15 THE WITNESS: Not that I have these kind of figures at hand right
16 now, but I believe figures on normal migration in the region of the former
17 Yugoslavia do exist, and for reference purposes, I certainly can look for
18 these figures and I can provide this Chamber with these figures for
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Stringer, I will give you
21 the floor in a few seconds, but the best would be to conclude your
22 questions on this portion and next week you may start asking questions
23 about this other topic. So you may perhaps finish today on this topic and
24 then you may continue next week.
25 MR. STRINGER:
1 Q. Actually, I think the only question I've got on this and it goes
2 to something Judge Trechsel asked about earlier an I -- if I could direct
3 you to your report, Ms. Tabeau, page 10, the bottom paragraph, which I
4 think gets to some of what has been raised.
5 In this paragraph you say that it needs to be noted that internal
6 migration in the former socialist countries such as Yugoslavia, and in
7 particular Bosnia-Herzegovina, was limited in the years until 1991. And
8 then you make your reference to analysis of the difference in places, but
9 you talk about pre-conflict internal migration as being negligible, prior
10 to the conflict that is, and you make reference to the usual causes of
11 internal migration, labour market, housing, et cetera, those did not
12 operate during the conflict.
13 So just keying off that paragraph and, you know, bringing it back
14 to the point one of -- of the graphic which is this: The point being that
15 the facts were incomparable with those of usual demographic or
16 socio-economic factors. Now, as a demographer perhaps you can address the
17 issue of, as Judge Trechsel mentioned earlier, what would have been normal
18 migration patterns in this country or in any country as compared to the
19 migration patterns that you've seen in this study?
20 A. Well, as I said, I will look for the figures that are relevant to
21 this issue, and I will bring the figures. Let's talk about figures.
22 Q. But just in general terms, can you address what would be normal
23 factors and --
24 A. Yes. Oh, factors.
25 Q. -- as you mention in your report here?
1 A. Well, as you mentioned already, this is work migration; this is
2 housing; this is education. These are the normal causes that operate in
3 normal situations where there are no other factors. All people want to
4 have good education, a good house, and a better life, and these are the
5 major factors that drive people to move from one place to another.
6 Q. Okay. Now, based on your work here, based on your work for nine
7 years in the Dutch government here as a demographer, do those normal
8 factors, economics, housing, et cetera, do those sorts of factors result
9 in the scale of population movement that one finds in your report here?
10 A. Certainly not. And in official statistics the conflict-related
11 migration is largest component of all migratory movements. It's not
12 accidental that we have had a lot of discussions of the issues of refugees
13 in the Western European countries recently. There were several large
14 waves of refugees arriving in Western Europe from countries affected by
15 conflict, Bosnia and Herzegovina being just one of them. So this group of
16 migrants is the most serious issue because of the size and rapidity of the
18 So we certainly speak here of not the usual migration. It is
19 different type of migration. There is no doubt about it.
20 Q. Okay.
21 MR. STRINGER: Mr. President, that's all I have on this particular
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Regarding the oral request made
24 by Mr. Karnavas as to the additional five days, the Chamber will grant a
25 request to Mr. Karnavas. You will get the delay that you requested.
1 Madam, you will come back next week. We will continue, and we
2 will talk about the second report, and we will start with Mr. Stringer and
3 then we'll begin the cross-examination, and you don't have time you will
4 also have to come back another time, but because you are here in this
5 building I don't suppose that this will be a problem for you.
6 We have another witness for two days next week, so the first part
7 will be examination-in-chief, cross-examination, and for this witness --
8 by the Defence.
9 This is all I wanted to tell you. Thank you very much, and we
10 will see each other next Monday.
11 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 6.49 p.m.,
12 to be reconvened on Monday, the 27th day
13 of August, 2007, at 2.15 p.m.