1 Thursday, 30 August 2007
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court].
4 [The Accused Coric and Petkovic not present]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.00 a.m.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Registrar, kindly call the case,
8 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is case number
9 IT-04-74-T, the Prosecutor versus Prlic et al. Thank you.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine. This is Thursday, and I
11 welcome representatives from the Prosecution, Mr. Scott and Mr. Stringer.
12 Welcome counsel for Defence and our four accused. It seems that two are
13 ill, Mr. Coric and Mr. Petkovic.
14 I would ask Mr. Coric's counsel whether his client is really ill.
15 Is he ill?
16 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, Mr. Coric, as
17 far as we've been informed, suffers from some sort of virus. It's not a
18 serious illness, but he feels too sick to attend these proceedings. But
19 there's nothing seriously wrong with him, and I expect him to return to
20 the courtroom next week. Thank you.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you. I will now give the
22 floor to the registrar to obtain an IC number.
23 THE REGISTRAR: Thank you, Your Honour. Several parties have
24 submitted lists of documents to be tendered through Witness Marita
25 Vihervuori: The list submitted by the OTP shall be given Exhibit number
1 IC 645. The list submitted by 1D shall be given Exhibit number IC 646.
2 List of objections to be tendered: The OTP response to be -- to
3 the list of documents tendered by 2D through Witness Antoon van der
4 Grinten shall be given Exhibit number IC 647. The OTP response to the
5 list of documents tendered through Witness Antoon van der Grinten shall be
6 given be Exhibit number IC 648. That is the response to the list of
7 documents tendered through 3D. And next, the OTP response to the list of
8 documents tendered by 6D through Witness Antoon van der Grinten shall be
9 given Exhibit number IC 649. Thank you, Your Honours.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Registrar.
11 After the problem we had with the electrical power failure, we
12 have a decision to give and I will read it slowly.
13 Oral decision regarding the witness's impossibility to answer a
14 question on grounds of "force majeure." Following an interruption in the
15 hearing for reasons of "force majeure" on Tuesday, August 28, 2007, around
16 1.45 p.m., Prosecution was unable to obtain an answer from the witness
17 after a question asked.
18 The Trial Chamber believes that the question asked, which dealt
19 with an alleged ultimatum dating January 1993, is of limited interest
20 regarding Witness Vihervuori. The Trial Chamber believes that not
21 obtaining an answer to this question is not detrimental to Prosecution.
22 On these grounds, Chamber declares the hearing closed without having heard
23 the answer from this witness.
24 So this was a decision that was required in connection with the
25 hearing that was not -- that couldn't close normally because of this power
1 failure, the power failure that prohibited us from hearing the witness's
2 answer and also thanking the answer. I'm sure the witness understood this
3 was force majeure, act of God.
4 Furthermore, the Chamber would like to add one thing for
5 Mr. Kovacic and Mr. Praljak. Yesterday, we had the problem of the
6 cross-examination by the Accused Praljak. The Chamber stated yesterday,
7 and we confirm also today, that when an accused asks a question, he can
8 only do so within the ruling of May 10, 2007, paragraph 12.
9 For this reason, the Chamber is asking Mr. Praljak to meet its
10 counsel -- his counsel before the hearing, to meet with Mr. Kovacic, to
11 give him all necessary instructions regarding the questions that will be
12 asked during the cross-examination; if need be, to write down the question
13 and hand it over to the counsel who will read it, in order to distribute
14 the roles between the counsel which has a role to play and the accused
15 that can also take the floor but only exceptionally. And this should help
16 things run smoothly.
17 Furthermore, the Chamber -- the Trial Chamber underlines that,
18 when an accused will take the floor to ask questions, his counsel will
19 have to tell the Trial Chamber, prior to his taking the floor, what are
20 the reasons why the accused wants to take the floor. The Prosecution
21 might then object - I don't know whether it will or not - and Chamber can
22 immediately consult and allow or deny, which was what was written in the
23 decision of May 10.
24 We wanted to remind Mr. Praljak of these instruction.
25 Mr. Kovacic.
1 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, thank you for those
2 instructions. My client, General Praljak, and I myself have discussed the
3 matter, of course, already, and I have prepared short notes to put
4 forward. I can put forward those arguments at any point in time why we
5 consider that following the decision of the 10th of May should be given
6 the right and opportunity to cross-examine the witness. So I'm ready to
7 go ahead with those arguments whenever you wish to hear them.
8 Thank you.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine. So we will continue with
10 the witness's hearing. But before this, late afternoon, yesterday, we
11 found out that next week it would be impossible, technically, to hear the
12 witness that was scheduled, because his government must provide an
14 Mr. Scott, do you confirm this? The hearing of the witness that
15 was planned for next week is going to be postponed sine die.
16 MR. SCOTT: Good morning Your Honour, all of Your Honours,
17 Mr. President, all the Judges, and all those in the courtroom.
18 Your Honour, just out of an abundance of caution, if we could go
19 into private session, I would appreciate it.
20 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour, I object to going into private session
21 at this point. I think, it's obvious, there's an open record with respect
22 to the witness's prior occupation. (Redacted)
11 Page 21789 redacted.
1 MR. SCOTT: An unconfirmed allegation and rumour has been put on
2 the record.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The Trial Chamber has consulted
4 and believes that we need to go into private hearing, because the
5 Prosecution might going into topics that we don't know about. We can't
6 know ahead of time what's going to say. I'm not in Mr. Scott's brain nor
7 in Mr. Karnavas's brain.
8 So please could we a have a private session, Mr. Registrar.
9 [Private session]
11 Pages 21791-21800 redacted. Private session
21 [Open session]
22 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're in open session.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Now, as far as the upcoming
24 witness is concerned, the Prosecution had not completed its
25 examination-in-chief. There was another series of questions that needed
1 to be asked, and I think that Mr. Stringer will need something between 50
2 minutes and one hour to complete his examination-in-chief.
3 Mr. Stringer.
4 MR. STRINGER: That's correct, Mr. President. It is my
5 understanding that I have 50 minutes left, and I will be -- I expect to
6 use all of those 50 minutes, but hopefully cannot ask for anything more.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. As far as the
8 cross-examination is concerned, the Trial Chamber had indicated last week
9 that each accused would have 30 minutes. If we can't finish today, then,
10 of course, if we have some extra time, we will continue the testimony of
11 this witness on Monday afternoon, and we can then complete this witness's
12 testimony by Monday if we haven't finished --
13 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: Or on Monday.
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] But if the following situation
15 arises, and if we cannot finish this witness's testimony today but that on
16 Monday at a quarter past 2.00, the other witness is ready, then today's
17 witness will have to come back at a latter stage.
18 This is how we need to proceed. I think everybody agrees on this.
19 So we shall now bring in the witness into the courtroom.
20 [The witness entered court]
21 WITNESS: EWA TABEAU [Resumed]
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Good morning, Witness. I'd like
23 to welcome you on behalf of my colleagues. As you know, the
24 examination-in-chief will resume today, and the cross-examination will
25 also begin today.
1 I, therefore, give the floor to Mr. Stringer.
2 MR. STRINGER: Thank you, Mr. President.
3 Examination by Mr. Stringer: [Continued]
4 Q. Good morning, Witness. Good morning, Ms. Tabeau.
5 A. Good morning.
6 MR. SCOTT: Before we begin, I ask the gentleman in the technical
7 booth, we have the PowerPoint presentation loaded on the computer here, if
8 it is possible to put on the screen so that everyone can following along
9 with the PowerPoint.
10 Q. And while that's being done, Witness, just to bring us up to --
11 up-to-date, last week, during your direct examination, you testified about
12 a report that you'd prepared dealing with the issue of population
13 movements within eight municipalities of Herceg-Bosna; is that correct?
14 A. Yes, it's correct.
15 Q. Okay. And then, right at the end of that day, we were able to
16 conclude your testimony on that report with some conclusions. So now what
17 I'd like to do is go directly into the other two reports that you've
18 prepared, bearing in mind that we probably need to try and complete our
19 testimony here within the next 50 minutes or so.
20 On the screen, and just to continue with that, we've not had any
21 communication, so I'll just let you know that in preparing for this
22 morning, I'm going to skip through some of the slides that we previously
23 had intended to -- to look at and go directly to your conclusions.
24 Now, did you prepare, Ms. Tabeau, a report related to the numbers
25 of persons killed in East Mostar during the course of the conflict there
1 in 1993?
2 A. Yes, I did.
3 Q. And could you tell the Trial Chamber, please, in general and
4 briefly, what were your objectives in preparing that report? Tell us what
5 are the sources of information on which you relied, and, again, very
6 briefly and in general, the methods used in preparing that report.
7 A. The objective of this report was to produce reliable statistics on
8 that coast in the city of East Mostar in the period from the 9th of May,
9 1993 until approximately April 1994. Sources that can be used in these
10 kind of study are infrequent. East Mostar is a very small area that is
11 not easy statistically defined. So the choice of sources that we used had
12 to take this into account.
13 There was one source that actually suited the needs of this
14 project very well. This was the hospital records of Mostar war hospital
15 books, from Mostar war hospital books. This hospital was located in East
16 Mostar, and all patients treated in this hospital actually were coming
17 from East Mostar area. And this was the area where they acquired their
18 injuries and where they killed -- they were killed. But, of course, this
19 source covered only a small group of victims. As victims who were killed
20 were directly and were dead immediately were not brought to the hospital,
21 we had to use additional sources.
22 The additional sources was the records from Mostar death
23 registries. This is the source that is very commonly used in statistics
24 and demography. This is the registration part of the vital events
25 registration system in every country. In this particular case, we used
1 the death registries from the area that was -- from the area in Mostar
2 that was controlled by the -- by the Bosnian -- by the Bosniaks. So,
3 because of this split of Mostar at the beginning of the conflict into two
4 parts, the West and East Mostar, the authorities started around that time
5 in early 1993 to keep their records separately.
6 So we used the death registries that were reporting on the deaths
7 of Bosniaks, of the Muslim population. So this was another source that
8 was very useful and very good for our study. We had to be careful with
9 the selection of records. As I said, East Mostar is a small area. So we
10 had to make sure that records we included were relevant and were -- could
11 be considered as deaths related to the city of East Mostar.
12 One more source that we included are the military records of
13 soldiers and other military personnel killed during the Bosnian war. We
14 have in our unit three lists, military lists from three armies; the ABiH
15 army, the VRS army, and the HVO. All together these lists cover
16 approximately 48.000 records, and they covered the entire conflict period.
17 We used this source as a reference source. In our sources, such as West
18 Mostar war hospital books and Mostar death registries, the reporting of
19 the military civilian status is not complete. It's deficient. So it was
20 important to use the military lists in order to mark militaries in our
21 records from the major sources.
22 I want to stress the military records include more than just
23 fallen soldiers. This list includes also persons or personnel who worked
24 in the Ministry of Defence in every political entity. They also include
25 deaths of the people working in production section providing service and
1 goods for the army. So these sources, as a reference, it includes more
2 than just the fallen soldiers, the combatants who died in combat.
3 Q. Okay, and the methods, as indicated on the slide, you employed a
4 counting approach and then combined that with some statistical estimation?
5 A. Yes, that's correct. Our basic approach is always counting. We
6 try to -- to collect as many records as we can, and we try to present
7 counts, minimum numbers of victims. But depending on -- on the situation
8 with sources, in most cases sources are very incomplete. We try to
9 compensate for the deficiencies and incompleteness of sources, and we
10 combine the counting approach with some statistical estimation.
11 Q. Okay. Now I want to focus briefly on the war hospital, the war
12 hospital books?
13 MR. STRINGER: Mr. President, these war hospital records are
14 already in evidence in this case. They were admitted in the course of the
15 testimony of a witness who appeared, one of the doctors who worked at the
16 hospital, and he testified in this case last January.
17 And with the assistance of the technical booth, I'd ask if we
18 could, perhaps from e-court, put up Exhibit P 02786 on the screens. This
19 is one of the hospital books that is in evidence that was testified about,
20 and it's the smallest one, so we're able to work with it.
21 Do we have that on the screen? We don't need translation. We can
22 use the full screen for this. Okay. Thank you.
23 Q. Again, and just I think it's useful, Ms. Tabeau, let's focus on
24 the third entry. First of all, is this a page from -- does this appear to
25 be a page from the war hospital records that you relied on in making your
2 A. Yes. This is this page, yes.
3 Q. And this is also the same war hospital book that you used in
4 making the other study that you're going to be talking about in a few
5 minutes which relates to the wounded people in Mostar?
6 A. Yes. It's the same source, the same books.
7 Q. Okay. Now, just focusing on the third entry there, I think it may
8 be useful for everyone to understand how you worked. What we see here is
9 an entry, number 4545, I believe. Do you see that?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. With the name -- well, can you tell us, moving across from left to
12 right, what the information on this page means to you in respect of your
14 A. Yes. In the war hospital books, patients are registered as they
15 were arriving in the hospital. Each patient received a number in the
16 books; and, in the case we are looking at, it is the number 4545. So
17 patients have consecutive numbers, and the books are organised according
18 to the calendar time of their arrival.
19 Q. If I could just jump in there.
20 MR. STRINGER: For the record, Mr. President, as we are counting
21 backwards, it looks as though we're talking about entry number 4543.
22 THE WITNESS: Yes, I'm sorry. I misread that. Yes, that's right.
24 Well, there are date stamps in the hospital books. The first
25 patient arriving at a given day also received a day stamp, which I can't
1 see on this particular page. But I'm pretty sure if we could go down or
2 up a little bit, then -- not on this page. Perhaps down. Next one
4 Well, from the date stamp, it clear when exactly the patient
5 arrived; then we have the name of the patient reported. In this
6 particular case, it is Senad Bacejevic, I think. I might have read it
7 incorrectly. In the next field, it is reported that the person was a
8 Vojnik, which is a soldier; and in the last field, there is the diagnosis.
9 It's given in Latin.
10 What I can see here is a familiar term, "V. explosiva," which
11 comes from "vulnus explosiva." This is a term that was consequently used
12 for victims of shelling. There are also some other terms in the field of
13 diagnosis, different than "vulnus explosiva." It might be "vulnus
14 trans-sclopetarium," or sclopetarium," which would be the term used for a
15 person wounded by a gunshot.
16 Q. Okay. Now --
17 A. But going back to this record we are discussing, I would also like
18 to draw attention to the circle around the number of this patient, 4543.
19 The circle is one of the markers that were used in the books. The circle
20 were used for people that died, didn't survive. And in the field of
21 diagnosis, you can read in the last line that this patient is "adit exit
22 sletelus" [phoen], or something like that, which means that the person
24 Q. Okay. According to this record, then, this tells us that this
25 individual was a soldier, that he was admitted to the hospital for some
1 sort of explosive wound -- explosive wounding, and that he ultimately died
2 then from his wounds.
3 A. Yes. This is what it says. We have the name of the person. We
4 don't have the year of birth of the person, but we know that he was a
6 Q. Okay. All right. Now, just to anticipate this issue in respect
7 of your other report on the wounded people, let's just talk now about
8 this. For all of these patients who are -- who are referenced in these
9 records -- and by the way, did you review all of the war hospital records
10 that we have on this?
11 A. Yes. We reviewed all these records, one by one. The reason was
12 that we didn't computerise the records. We received an electronic version
13 of the records, and we wanted to make sure that there are no mistakes, no
14 omissions, that everything is correct. So all these records have been
16 Q. Okay. All right. Now, on the basis your analysis of this -- this
17 report, then, did you not then take this information and merge it with
18 other data that was available to you and the other sources that you've
19 described, the death registers and the military lists?
20 A. In the end we did, but we also studied each source separately and
21 we compared the sources. But in the end, we merged the sources, combined
22 the sources. Two major sources combined were the records from the war
23 hospital books and the records from the death registries. Each of these
24 source have been also matched with the military lists; and through the
25 links with the military lists, we improved the reporting of the military
1 civilian status of the victims in our master list.
2 Q. Okay. So, now, if we could just return to the PowerPoint slide,
3 because I'm going to skip ahead to one that I want to ask you about and
4 that is this. Again, the Trial Chamber heard your explanation about this
5 before, but I think it may bear repeating very briefly: The distinction
6 or the difference between absolute minimum numbers and the more complete
7 minimum numbers based on the actual counting and then the estimation
8 method that you employed.
9 A. Yes. As I said, minimum, absolute minimum numbers, come from the
10 counting approach. These numbers are just obtained by looking at the
11 master list of combined sources, and we take the victims reported in the
12 master list and count how many are there and this is the absolute
13 minimum. But because the sources are deficient and several information
14 items are missing, it is important to compensate for this, and this is
15 when the proportion-based approach comes into work.
16 Q. Okay. And again the proportion-based approach is the one that
17 yields what you called a more complete absolute minimum number.
18 A. Yes, that's right.
19 Q. Now, what I want to do is cut right to the end of this part of the
20 PowerPoint, and just go straight to the conclusions so that we're sure to
21 cover all of those here; and then as time permits, either I or counsel for
22 the Defence can bring you back to these individual items for more
24 So, Ms. Tabeau, why don't you just go down these points and tell
25 us the conclusions, the final results that you reached in course of this
1 study of the deaths of the killed people in East Mostar?
2 A. Yes. The absolute minimum number of deaths obtained from the
3 counting approach and based on the master list of combined sources is 539
4 deaths. Of this number, we certainly know this is a heavy
5 underestimation. There was certainly many more deaths resulting from the
6 siege of East Mostar. But because of the deficiencies and incompleteness
7 of the sources, we are unable to include more deaths in the absolute
8 minimum number.
9 Q. Now, again, the absolute minimum number being the number of --
10 this is the number of individuals whose names you can provide based on the
11 sources that you've already described?
12 A. Yes, that's right. The more complete number of deaths within
13 should be 1.023, and this is a number that tries to compensate for the
14 incompleteness of sources. One major deficiency of the war hospital
15 records is that a number of pages are missing in these books. In total,
16 465 records are reported on the missing pages, so we had to exclude this
17 number of records from the calculation of the absolute minimum.
18 In the death registries, the major deficiency is that a large
19 number of records, approximately 460, have no place of death reported,
20 even though we know that a large number of them are from Mostar. We are
21 unable to decide whether these deaths are from exactly East Mostar or not;
22 otherwise, these records would be consistent with the time frame of the
23 siege. So these records had to be excluded from the absolute number as
24 well. But taking this into account, we believe that the more complete
25 minimum number is the 1.023 deaths that we report here.
1 Q. Okay.
2 A. Further, we studied the civilian military distribution of the
3 victims. We applied two methods to make an assessment of this
4 distribution, and the result of both methods was similar. There is
5 approximately 50 per cent of deaths that should be considered as deaths of
7 Further, approximately 90 per cent, specifically speaking 87.8 per
8 cent of deaths, were of Muslims. This is the largest group of victims.
9 Q. Let me just jump in there and ask if you could tell the Trial
10 Chamber, please, how you went about determining who were civilians versus
11 militaries, and also how you went about determining ethnicity?
12 A. Civilian military status was reported in the war hospital books.
13 The reporting was not fully complete, but it was complete enough to look
14 at the distribution of civilians versus militaries. So this was one way
15 that we estimated the percentage of civilian victims in our total. We
16 just obtained a proportion of civilians and militaries from the war
17 hospital books and applied this proportion to the master list of combined
18 sources. That was methods one.
19 But to make sure that our estimate is correct, that there is no
20 error involvement, we have redone the estimation based on the improved
21 reporting of the military civilian status. This improved reporting was
22 obtained through the matches of the records from Mostar war hospital books
23 and from Mostar death registries with the military lists. Every person
24 matched with the military list was considered to be a military person.
25 For others, we kept the reporting as available.
1 The results of these two methods are exactly the same, almost
2 exactly the same, very similar. This is 50/50 approximately.
3 Q. Okay. Let me jump in. I want to make sure we understand that.
4 You used two methods to calculate the proportion of civilian versus
5 military deaths; is that correct?
6 A. Yes, that's correct.
7 Q. And the first method was -- was based on the review of the war
8 hospital records themselves, the document that we've looked at already.
9 A. Yes. Yes, that's correct.
10 Q. And then after that, you got a proportion based on that, that
12 A. Yes. It had to be war hospital books because it was the only
13 source where the reporting was available.
14 Q. Right.
15 A. In the death registries, there is no information about
16 civilian-military distribution of victims.
17 Q. And then you introduced additional data, that being from the
18 military lists?
19 A. Yes, that's right.
20 Q. And then after using that second method, then, how did the results
21 compare as between the two methods?
22 A. Well, as I said several times already, the results are very
23 similar. So the method based on improved reporting of the
24 military-civilian status through the links with the military lists
25 resulted in the same type of distribution.
1 Q. Okay. And that distribution indicated here would be 49.5 per cent
2 of the siege-related deaths were civilian.
3 A. Yes, it's correct. We believed that it might have been more
4 civilians, as I know that our military lists overestimated the -- the
5 combatants and militaries, generally speaking.
6 Q. Okay. And then in terms of ethnicity, I'm not sure, how did you
7 determine ethnicity for this purpose?
8 A. Well, ethnicity was not originally was not reported in the
9 sources. In the war hospital books, ethnicity was determination on the
10 basis of studying the names of the victims; and, in this project, the
11 ethnicity was determined by native B/C/S speakers familiar with the naming
12 traditions in this area.
13 So this wasn't done in my unit. It was done before I received the
14 data for my analysis, but we didn't have to do anything. This is often
15 done and, well, there are differences in naming tradition between the
16 ethnic groups. And people who are from the region are able to decide
17 based on names the ethnicity of a person.
18 Q. Okay.
19 A. With the death registries, we applied a different approach. We
20 used information from the 1991 population census; namely, we studied the
21 ethnic distribution of the same names as those reported in the death
22 registries. We studied the ethnic distribution of these names in the
23 population census, and we took for every person the prevailing reporting
24 of ethnicity for a given name.
25 Q. Okay.
1 A. So it was a statistical approach, an approach based on what was
2 observed in the population census, and we just followed the results. We
3 decided for every person that the ethnic group that most frequently had
4 this given name is the ethnicity that should be assigned to this name.
5 Q. Okay. Now, I should have asked you this at the beginning: What's
6 the time frame for this study? What is the period of time that you
7 examined in reaching these numbers?
8 A. Well, it is from May 1993 to approximately April -- actually, in
9 war hospital books, it is also May 1994 that is included. It's
10 approximately one-year period.
11 Q. Now, at the beginning period, is it from the 9th of May or is it
12 from the 1st of May?
13 A. Yeah, it is the 9th of May. This is the first date where the
14 records from war hospital books --
15 Q. Okay.
16 A. -- are available, yes.
17 Q. Okay. Now the next point here indicates the frequency of death
18 seen in the records was greatest during August and September, and you
19 indicate this is contrary to what would be expected. Can you explain
21 A. Well, expected is what we expect in relation to a phenomenon based
22 on the knowledge of the phenomenon we have, and here the expected seasonal
23 mortality pattern is what we often see in mortality pattern when observed
24 over time. It is not that people die equally, frequently throughout the
25 whole year. In the period of summer, we observe that the level of
1 mortality is much lower in the summer and in the fall, than in the winter
2 and early spring. So winter months are usually the months when the levels
3 of mortality are the highest, winter and early spring months.
4 Q. Okay. So finding that the greatest number of deaths here occurred
5 during August and September is inconsistent with what one finds in a
6 normal population?
7 A. It is not only inconsistent; it is just opposite to what is
8 normally seen when you look at mortality pattern over time.
9 Q. Okay. Now --
10 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour, point of clarification. Normal
11 population. Are we speaking about Bosnia-Herzegovina or we speaking about
12 in general, you know, Asia, the Middle East, Africa? Is this the general
13 wide-sweeping conclusion, or is this in relation to Bosnia and
14 Herzegovina, that people die more frequently in the winter than they do,
15 say, in the spring or summertime.
16 MR. STRINGER:
17 Q. You can answer that question.
18 A. It is -- of course, I'm speaking of Europe and the same climate
19 zone in which Bosnia and Herzegovina is located. Well, in Europe in this
20 climate, that is the observation of seasonality that we have.
21 Q. The next item, then, you break down the cause of death. Could you
22 explain -- well, it's obviously self-evident: Shelling deaths, gunshot
23 deaths, and then 44.3 deaths being of violent nature but unspecified.
24 First of all, on the shelling and gunshot, is that taken
25 information taken directly from the causes of death, for example, that we
1 saw with this the one on the war hospital record who died?
2 A. Well, causes of death were reported in both sources. In war
3 hospital records, causes of death were reported more frequently and were
4 available in a larger extent than in the death registries. Reporting of
5 causes of death in the death registry is really very poor, but there are
6 victims of shelling and gunshots reported in the death registries as well.
7 We actually based our distribution of deaths by cause of death on
8 the reporting, on the distribution observed in the war hospital records.
9 The proportions of deaths from shelling, gunshots, and violent deaths of
10 unspecified causes come from the war hospital records. These proportions
11 were applied to the master list of combined sources, to the list of 539
12 deaths; and by doing this, we could present also the absolute minimum
13 number of deaths by cause.
14 But in percentage terms, 45.3 per cent were deaths caused by
15 shelling, 10.4 per cent were deaths by gunshots, and 44.3 per cent were
16 violent deaths of unspecified cause. We are unable to say whether these
17 were victims of shelling or gunshots, but we know these were violent
18 deaths related to the siege of Mostar.
19 Q. How do you know they were violent deaths?
20 A. Well, of the patients who were brought to the war hospital because
21 of their wounds they acquired during the siege, these were the people who
22 died of these wounds in the war hospital.
23 Q. Do you know if there were other medical facilities or clinics
24 available for the people in East Mostar during this time?
25 A. Well, when we speak of in-patient facilities like the -- like
1 hospitals, then the war hospital is the only facility of this kind. But I
2 am aware that there were a number of outpatient facilities in this area.
3 These were small places that, however, could be contacted by the patients
4 and aid would be provided.
5 I think there were at least four first-aid clinics, if we can call
6 them clinics, and some other, like four perhaps more, out-patient clinics
7 in which aid could be provided. Very basic aid though, I must stress. I
8 don't think these out-patient clinics had the equipment that would be
9 useful for surgeries or more complex aid.
10 Q. Okay. So the gravely ill patients, then, were the ones who would
11 be reflected in the war hospital records?
12 A. Yes, I believe so, yes.
13 Q. Did you include records of these other clinics, out-patient
14 clinics, in either this study or in your study of the wounded people in
15 East Mostar?
16 A. No. We didn't have these records, so it is that we are unable to
17 say how many patients were treated in the out-patient clinics.
18 Q. Okay. Moving back to the slide. You've calculated that 18.7 per
19 cent of the people who died were females. What is that based on?
20 A. Well, the sex is reported in every source. It is a very complete
21 reporting. So in the master list in every record, almost every record the
22 sex is available, so that's the proportion. 18.7 per cent of deaths were
24 Q. Okay. And then moving to the next item, over a fifth of the dead
25 people were younger than 19 or over 64. How did you arrive at those
2 A. Well, it is also that, for most victims, year of birth is
3 available or a complete date of birth; so having these two, year of death
4 and year of birth, it was possible to obtain the age of victims. For Many
5 victims, age was reported as well. So this is another item that is
6 available relatively easily from the sources.
7 Q. Okay. I'm just going to -- just to amplify that a bit. Yes.
8 This is a slide that breaks that last point down a little bit on the
9 bottom part.
10 In terms of children and elderly, how do the numbers break down?
11 A. Well, these percentages that we just discussed can be seen here as
12 58 children and youth below the age of 19 years. Eleven of them were
13 girls. And when it comes to the elderly, there were 63 people at page 65
14 or more years, and 24 of them were women.
15 Q. Okay. So then it's the combination of these two percentages that
16 give the 22.5 per cent figure that we saw on the next slide?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Okay. Very good. And then the final point, again, I think it's
19 been made, why are these such conservative minimum numbers?
20 A. Well, these numbers are so conservative because sources that were
21 used were incomplete and deficient in several ways. So the sources didn't
22 allow us to accept more records to be included in the absolute minimum
23 numbers. At the same time, we are very convinced that absolute minimum
24 numbers are far too low, and the more complete minimum number is
25 approximately 1.023 deaths. This number is in line with other estimates
1 made by other people, which I did not discuss in this report. So I
2 probably won't go into it right now.
3 Q. Okay. Then, in the time that's left to us, Ms. Tabeau, we will
4 move then to the final report that you prepared based upon what appear to
5 be the same source of data; is that correct?
6 A. Yes. It's the same source and it's the major source, and it was
7 the only source used for the estimation of the wounded persons, for
8 obtaining statistics on the wounded persons.
9 Q. And that source being, again, being the hospital records --
10 A. Yes. Mostar war hospital books.
11 Q. -- such as the one we looked at earlier. All right. Now, before
12 we get into these numbers, the approach that you employed in making this
13 report, is it an approach that you've used in making other reports or
14 other testimonies here at the ICTY.
15 A. Well, the source as such is hospital records. It's not used for
16 the first time in my work. I also work with these records when I was
17 making my reports on the siege of Sarajevo, and this is a very useful
18 source and usually very reliable. Well, I have good experience with these
19 kind of records also from the siege of Sarajevo.
20 Q. Okay. Now --
21 A. The approach, of course, counting and estimations, statistical
22 estimation, it's exactly same as what we applied in the case of killed
24 Q. And so what we'll see is that estimation, then, is applied to
25 determine the breakdown types of wounding as between the -- the wounded
1 individuals who you've counted.
2 A. Yes, that's right.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One question.
4 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Witness, please. When you're
5 talking about the wounded, what kind of wounds are you talking about,
6 military wounds or traffic accidents that would result in wounds? So what
7 kind of wounds are involved?
8 THE WITNESS: Well, in the case of war hospital records, the
9 wounds that we are talking about are wounds acquired from shelling or
10 gunshots. That is the type of wounds that are reported in the diagnosis
11 field available from these records. There are no wounds related to
12 traffic accidents or reported.
13 MR. STRINGER: Your Honour, perhaps we could go back to Exhibit
14 P 02786 and look at that again now.
15 Q. And we could examine some of the language then concerning the
16 causes of the wounds that you would have included and perhaps excluded as
17 well. Okay.
18 Now, again, we're back to the same page of the exhibit that we
19 looked at before; and for the patient 4543, you mentioned already the
20 "vulnus explosiva." Do you see that?
21 A. Yes, of course.
22 Q. And then for the next witness down, are you able to read the
23 indication of the cause of that person's wound?
24 A. Well, I believe to some extent I can. It "V," and then
25 "explosiva," I guess.
1 Q. So you would have treated that, again, as what type of a wound?
2 A. It is a shelling -- a wounding from shelling.
3 Q. "Vulnus explosiva" is a shelling wound?
4 A. Yes.
5 MR. STRINGER: Now, if we could move down the page just a little
6 bit. Perfect. Thank you.
7 Q. The entry for the witness at 4546, can you tell us what's
8 indicated in terms of the nature of that individual's wound?
9 A. It is "vulnus," V, again, "trans-sclopetarium," which was a term
10 that was used for wounding acquired through gunshots.
11 Q. Okay. All right. So, again, that's terminology that you would
12 use to place this person in the category of having been wounded by a
13 gunshot; right?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Now, just having a look at the individual immediately above this
17 MR. STRINGER: If we could scroll up a little bit. Thank you.
18 Q. This individual, 4545, are you able to tell us what's indicated
19 for that individual's condition?
20 A. I wouldn't be able to say what is the meaning of this one.
21 Q. Okay.
22 A. But I wouldn't certainly include this person into the category of
23 wounding from shelling or wounding from gunshot.
24 Q. Okay.
25 A. As I don't see these familiar terms: "Vulnus explosiva,"
1 "trans-sclopetarium," or "sclopetarium."
2 Q. So, for this 4545, you did not include that or would not include
4 A. Not under the categories that we have just discussed.
5 Q. Okay.
6 MR. STRINGER: For the record, Mr. President, I believe the word
7 read "partumerius," or something to that effect, and I believe a previous
8 witness testified about this specific individual.
9 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Shouldn't it be "parturience"?
10 MR. STRINGER: Yes, Judge Trechsel. I believe that's correct.
11 That's how I would read it, so it may be that this was a person who
12 delivered a baby.
13 THE WITNESS: It's possible. There were two victims reported who
14 delivered babies, and one victim reported with a diagnosis that the person
15 received artificial limb. So these are three cases unrelated to the
16 wounding that we were looking at and studied in this project. These three
17 unrelated cases were excluded from our study.
18 MR. STRINGER:
19 Q. Okay. Thank you. Now, getting back to the PowerPoint slide then.
20 Let's talk about the overall totals of wounded that you arrived at based
21 on your work: Absolute minimum now and more complete minimum numbers.
22 Could you tell it us, first of all, the difference between those two as to
23 these numbers?
24 A. Yes. Absolute minimum number is, again, heavy underestimation.
25 It is the number of 2.549 wounded persons. This number does not include
1 the individuals that were reported on the missing pages. It is 465
2 individuals reported on these pages. We didn't have information about
3 these persons, so they had to be excluded altogether from this minimum
5 Nine persons of whom we didn't have enough information in the
6 books were excluded from this number as well. Moreover, from this number
7 a large group of records is excluded, specifically 2.844, for which there
8 is no diagnosis explicitly reported in the war hospital books. So that is
9 the major deficiency of the source that not for every patient the
10 diagnosis is available. So the patients for whom the diagnosis is not
11 available, not reported explicitly in the books, are excluded from the
12 absolute minimum number.
13 At the same time, we are convinced that this group for whom the
14 diagnosis is unavailable should be considered as records that are of
15 wounded persons. We studied these two groups, group of patients without a
16 diagnosis and a group of patients with the diagnosis. We compared basic
17 demographic distributions of these two groups, separately for civilians
18 and for militaries, and we tested the differences between those two groups
19 statistically. And the conclusion was that in terms of basic demographic
20 characteristics, like age and sex distribution, and, of course,
21 civilian-military distribution, these groups are not significantly
23 There are no significant differences between these two groups.
24 This, therefore, suggests that we should see the problem of not available
25 diagnosis as a reporting problem. It is a deficiency of reporting and not
1 of anything else. And based on this, we believe the group of 2.844
2 individuals without explicitly reported diagnosis should be included into
3 the more complete absolute minimum number, which is reported on the slide
4 as 5.393, 5.393. And this number is a better, more realistic estimate of
5 the number of wounded persons in the siege of Mostar.
6 Q. Okay. And from a statistical point of the view, it's in your
7 opinion correct, then, to include that figure, the 2.844 figure, in a
8 calculation of a more complete absolute minimum number?
9 A. Yes. I believe I have good reasons to include these records. As
10 I said, we actually invested quite some time in comparing and studying
11 these two groups, and I believe that these groups should be included in
12 the more complete number.
13 Q. Okay.
14 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I'm sorry, Mr. Springer, if I may.
15 Does this mean, madam, that other "parturience," other persons who
16 were there for entirely different reasons, might also be included in this
17 figure? Because you take those that say nothing, and some in fact might
18 have other causes.
19 THE WITNESS: I would like to stress that there were three
20 cases -- three cases out of approximately 6.000 cases reported in the war
21 hospital books that were unrelated to the wounding. So this is a
22 negligible fraction, proportion of all patients. And based on this, I
23 think it is safe to assume that unrelated cases are not represented
24 practically, in practical terms, in the patients with no diagnosis
1 JUDGE TRECHSEL: But I'm sorry -- if I must assist. I find it a
2 bit difficult to understand your statement that there were three out of
3 6.000, when here you have 2.500 and some where no diagnosis, no cause is
4 mentioned. Why do you still say they are all related?
5 THE WITNESS: Well, because as I said -- well, we have the entire
6 population of patients, say approximately 6.000. We know that this
7 population of patients is composed of two groups -- actually, of three
8 groups: Unrelated cases, patients with diagnosis, and patients without
9 the diagnosis.
10 Now, first of all, if we calculate the proportion of unrelated
11 cases in the entire population of patients of the hospital, it is 3
12 divided by 6.000. Approximately, of course, it is a negligible
13 proportion. Of course I can apply this proportion to the patients of --
14 reported without diagnosis and I will end with a fraction, probably, of
15 say one and a half person or something like that. I can subtract this
16 person, but, in fact, would it really change what I'm trying to say? I'm
17 trying to say something completely different. I'm trying to draw a
18 conclusion about a large group of cases that I cannot include in the
19 absolute number because an important information item is missing.
20 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Yes. I think I understand the gist of it and can
21 accept it, but would it not have been correct to compare the three to
22 2.549 and that would give the proportion among the cases with the known
23 causes, and it would something different if you include the unknown. That
24 would seem more correct to me, but maybe I'm wrong.
25 A. Yeah. Well, if we considered the patient with the diagnosis, any
1 diagnosis, as one group, with the diagnosis as one group, then it would be
2 correct to compare the three with the 2.549, and then, of course, the
3 proportion would be higher because the denominator is smaller. But it
4 would still be three persons as related to 2.549. So we are speaking of
5 unrelated cases in the other group of a comparable size.
6 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Thank you.
7 MR. STRINGER:
8 Q. Ms. Tabeau, now we're at the final slide, and again what we've
9 done is to put up the overall conclusions in respect of wounded persons in
10 East Mostar. And if I could, as you did with the killed persons, perhaps
11 you could just walk down these bullet points and give us your final
12 conclusions and calculations.
13 A. Right. Well, we just discussed the two numbers, minimum --
14 absolute minimum number, 2.549, which is based on the cases with the
15 diagnosis reported and related to the siege of East Mostar. Well, there
16 is a more complete estimate obtained by combining the patients without
17 diagnosis with the records of patients with the diagnosis, which is 5.393.
18 I call it a more complete estimate. And of course this estimate is still
19 a minimum number because we are aware of cases that were never reported to
20 the war hospital, and these would be the patients treated in out-patient
21 facilities that were operating in this area during the siege. And there
22 are patients reported on the missing pages 465 names who are not included
23 in this number. There are 9 records excluded because they were too
24 incomplete to work with them altogether. So these records are also out of
25 this number. So this number is presented still as a minimum number.
1 Well, the next line on the slide --
2 Q. And excuse me -- yeah before you start talking about the
3 percentages, just let me ask you this: In respect of all the percentages
4 that appear now in these following bullet points that you're going to
5 address, are these percentages that are reflected in the known cases, that
6 is the 2549?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Those are cases --
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. -- which you had a causes of injury was expressly included in the
12 A. Yes, that's correct. These are percentages, proportions, obtained
13 from the sample of the patients with diagnosis known.
14 Q. All right. Thank you.
15 A. They are not exact proportions.
16 Q. So that again nearly 82 per cent of those injuries were from
17 shelling activity. 18 per cent from --
18 A. From gunshots and 44.5. Oh, this is another issue. Well, the 18
19 per cent of the injuries were from gunshots; right.
20 Q. Okay.
21 A. So the next line is related to the civilian military status. 44.5
22 per cent of the wounded persons were civilians. The civilians were
23 reported in the war hospital books. The status was reported, I think.
24 Q. Okay. Yeah. And then as between male and female, men and women?
25 A. 42 per cent of wounded persons were women. Again, sex was
1 reported in the source. And even if it wasn't, in some cases then a
2 judgement was made based on the first name.
3 Next conclusion is that almost all of the wounded persons, 97.7
4 per cent were Muslims. Again the assessment of ethnicity was made by
5 native B/C/S speakers based on names of the patients. And on the other
6 hand, it is not so surprising to see this high proportion because as we
7 know the hospital was located in East Mostar. It was meant in the
8 beginning as a hospital for the ABiH army, disregarding that it was meant
9 for the army only. All patients were treated, not only militaries but
10 civilians. Anybody who needed help was treated in this hospital.
11 And the last conclusion is related to the age distribution of
12 victims. 34.1 per cent of the wounded were at age 0 to 19 or older than
13 64 years.
14 Q. Thank you. That's all the questions I have, Mr. President?
15 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I would like to ask a question in relation to
16 this. Did you also correlate these percentages to the population? You
17 have just indicated, it's not surprising that a large per cent were
18 Muslims. Perhaps the population were also 97 per cent Muslims. In that
19 case, the distribution would be equal as a result. The same with the
20 females. What percentage of the population were females? Did you do that
22 THE WITNESS: Well, I would love to but we are speaking of East
23 Mostar, a small area, into which a large number of the Muslim population
24 moved in the early 1993, and there are reports. Several sources reported
25 that the population increased up to maximal 55.000; whereas, normally the
1 size of that population was much smaller.
2 Well, what I'm trying to say is the population changed at the
3 outbreak of the siege considerably, and I of course have no source that I
4 could use for assessment of age and sex structure in this population. But
5 regarding ethnicity, I think this is rather clear in my view, because it
6 is known from other sources, not necessarily from the sources I studied,
7 that the Muslim population was moving in early 1993 into this area, so I
8 would expect that it was mainly if not exclusively the Muslim population
9 that was living there.
10 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Yes, but it's a bit of a leading question. I'm
11 sorry, I don't know how to -- well, let's say it like this: To have
12 reliable percentages that are also significant, is it possible to have
13 them if you do not have the comparative figures of the population?
14 THE WITNESS: Well, I work here in this study with a sample,
15 sample of patients reported in the war hospital records. This is a very
16 big sample. It is almost 6.000 records that we have reported in these
17 books. So I believe it's a big sample, and I'm pretty sure that
18 percentage 97.7 is significant. Statistically speaking, there is no doubt
19 about it, I think. Whether it is a half of this population, 2.549 or
20 6.000, this relevant.
21 MR. STRINGER: I've completed my examination, Mr. President.
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We shall now have a break
23 because it's time to have a break, and we shall resume with the
24 cross-examination after the break.
25 [The witness stands down]
1 --- Recess taken at 10.35 a.m.
2 --- On resuming at 10.57 a.m.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] From what I understood,
4 Mr. Kovacic wanted to take the floor.
5 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. In
6 compliance with your instructions and further to the arguments we had two
7 days ago on this issue, I wish to draw attention to the following: I feel
8 that Mr. Praljak fulfils the conditions of your decision of the 10th of
9 May to examine this expert witness. Your decision of the 28th of April,
10 2006 imposed for the first time certain limitations on the right of the
11 accused to examine the witness himself directly, and the gist of that
12 decision is that accused can put direct questions in exceptional
13 circumstances. Those were the precise words of the decision.
14 The practice after that has been for the Trial Chamber to apply
15 this definition or this standard very extensively, without major
16 limitations, and Mr. Praljak was allowed, almost without exception, to
17 examine witnesses.
18 On the 10th of May, 2007, your second decision was handed down,
19 decision on the mode of interrogating witnesses, which in paragraphs 11
20 and 12 further develops the first decision from April 2006. And the
21 limitations on the accused's ability to question witnesses were extended.
22 There were additional limitations added on. It was decided that the Trial
23 Chamber would apply the criteria from the first decision of April more
24 strictly; that, as a rule, it will be counsel to examine witnesses; and
25 under exceptional circumstances, with the approval of the Trial Chamber,
1 the accused may question witnesses.
2 In the next paragraph, paragraph 12, the term "exceptional
3 circumstances" is clarified. It is stated here very precisely that
4 special or exceptional circumstances have to do with events in which the
5 accused participated personally, or they may be connected to topics of
6 which the accused has specific knowledge. The term used was, to be quite
7 precise, "issues for which the accused is specifically competent."
8 The next condition imposed was that before the examination the,
9 accused has to explain to the Chamber were he considers there are special
10 circumstances in place. After that, new restrictions or more precise
11 conditions were applied wisely and very extensively by the Trial Chamber;
12 and almost without exception, Praljak was able to question witnesses, and
13 only that is in areas that fell within the definition and the standard.
14 With respect to the second decision, one Judge gave a separate opinion.
15 On the 24th of August, the Appeals Chamber handed down a decision
16 pursuant to an appeal by the Defence, and the appeal was rejected.
17 Nothing new was added in that decision. Of course, grounds are given, but
18 the gist is that the appeal was rejected.
19 After the appeals decision, which confirmed the decision of the
20 Trial Chamber of the 10th of May, the rules established in the decision of
21 the 10th of May still apply. That's paragraphs 11 to 12.
22 Pursuant to that decision, Praljak has the right to examine
23 witnesses under the conditions I have just stated. He must explain to the
24 Chamber why he feels he has a right to examine the witness, that these are
25 events in which he personally participated, or topics for which he's
1 specifically competent.
2 In relation to the expert witness, who is testifying now and for
3 whom I'm asking the Trial Chamber for permission for Praljak to question
4 the witness himself, I wish to draw attention to the following elements:
5 First of all, the expert witness is a demographer. The basic of
6 discipline of demography is statistics. Statistics, as a scholarly
7 discipline, is based primarily on mathematics. Praljak graduated from a
8 university. He studied electronics, which includes an examination in
9 mathematics 4, that's the highest level of mathematics studied at
11 Praljak personally was involved in mathematics for a long time as
12 a kind of hobby, and particularly in areas which are important for
13 statistics. Praljak is the author of two books, one entitled "Refugees
14 and displaced persons from Bosnia-Herzegovina in the Republic of Croatia."
15 Parts of that book are in e-court under number 3D 01030. And the second
16 book is "Crimes Committed against Croats in 1991 to 1995," and parts of
17 the book are also in e-court. That's 3D 00322. And both these books
18 include statistical analysis prepared by Praljak himself.
19 Praljak also published two books, which Your Honours have not seen
20 in e-court yet. One is called "Estimates of War Damages in Croatia,"
21 which again includes statistics, and the author is Praljak. And the other
22 one is called "Aid Given by the Republic of Croatia to the Muslim Bosniak
23 people and the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina from 1991 to 1995," and again it
24 includes a great deal of statistics and statistical analyses.
25 Based on all this, it is evident that Praljak is specifically
1 competent to deal with the topic that the witness is testifying about;
2 therefore, the Chamber is moved to permit Praljak to examine the witness
3 based on their decision of the 10th of May, in view of his specific
4 competence. But I also wish to point out that he fulfils the second
5 condition also, that he was directly involved in the events.
6 Let's me remind you that there is an exhibit already in evidence
7 of the 24th of July, 1993, where Praljak is mentioned as the commander who
8 participated in all these events. I am referring to the data used by the
9 expert, the data on certain facts and certain events on the ground which
10 are data used for the analysis as entry data.
11 So these are two reasons why I consider that Praljak should be
12 granted this right. You have already heard that there is a lot of entry
13 data here dealing with Mostar, the division of the town, positions, and
14 Praljak is familiar with all of this because he was there.
15 I wish to point out one more thing, and that is that were the
16 Trial Chamber to insist on a restrictive application of the criteria set
17 out on the 10th of May, which has not been the case hitherto, in view of
18 the discussion two days ago, this would mean that those accused before
19 this Tribunal who refused to have counsel, to appoint counsel, became a
20 subject in their proceedings without being just an object; while those who
21 did appoint counsel, like Praljak, do not have the right to examine
22 witnesses themselves just because they have counsel. This would be an
23 absurdity and, therefore, we move the Chamber to apply the standards set
24 by the Chamber extensively rather than restrictively.
25 I think these are important arguments. The Chamber will decide on
1 the right of Praljak to examine the witness. He will, of course, adhere
2 to those areas for which he's specifically competent and a little bit
3 about the assumptions on which the analysis is based.
4 The Defence teams are preparing to cross-examine the expert
5 witness. The Prosecution disclosed the materials to us in June. In early
6 July, we spoke to the accused, we as the Defence teams, and analysed the
7 situation. My co-counsel and I are not familiar with mathematics, and we
8 understand that a knowledge of mathematics can certainly contribute to a
9 good cross-examination, and, therefore, Praljak took over the preparation.
10 He consulted demographers during his vacation.
11 And in view of this, because at that time, of course, the rule was
12 being applied extensively and we did not doubt Praljak's right to
13 cross-examine this witness. And some other accused have given him their
14 time based on this understanding. Should there now be a turnaround in the
15 practice, this would be highly detrimental to the Defence.
16 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, if I may, just one
17 minute. The Defence to which my colleague Mr. Kovacic referred as having
18 given their time to General Praljak is, in fact, General Petkovic's
19 Defence. It will be clear to Your Honours that preparations for the
20 examination of this witness began from the point in time we learned that
21 she would be testifying, and this was in July before the beginning of the
22 summer break.
23 Considering what could be done in half an hour of
24 cross-examination, and bearing in mind the specific competence of General
25 Praljak, which was has been described by Mr. Kovacic in detail, we agree
1 with General Praljak that he should take over our time. We know that
2 General Praljak spent his entire summer vacation preparing to examine this
3 witness, and I know that he cooperated with my client in part while
4 preparing for this examination.
5 We, therefore, are willing to give our time to General Praljak;
6 and for this reason, I ask that the rules which were in force in this
7 courtroom when the decision was made to call this witness be applied, when
8 the Defence teams agreed to prepare for the examination jointly and gave
9 their time to General Praljak.
10 Thank you.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Defence counsel having taken the
12 floor, Mr. Stringer.
13 MR. STRINGER: Thank you, Mr. President. Your Honours, we oppose
14 this application. The Trial Chamber's decision, now affirmed on appeal,
15 provides that this is to occur only in exceptional circumstances. When
16 every circumstance is exceptional, they're actually not exceptional any
17 more. I don't know if I phrased that well. But certainly what we're
18 seeing now is that, in our view, the Defence, the Accused Praljak, are
19 really not being candid with the Pre-Trial Chamber about their true
20 intentions. It's becoming evermore clear that this accused intends to
21 conduct the lion's share of cross-examination himself, perhaps all of it,
22 and that that is not an exceptional circumstance.
23 Exceptional circumstances don't exist here as that term is defined
24 in the Trial Chamber's decision. First of all, Mr. Praljak did not take
25 part in any of the subject matter of the testimony of this witness. There
1 aren't any events that he personally participated in, and so that
2 condition is not met.
3 Secondly, extraordinary circumstances might apply to areas about
4 which he might be specifically competent, and we reject the assertion that
5 this individual is specifically competent to -- in the sense that he is
6 more competent than certainly his counsel to conduct this
7 cross-examination. He's got highly qualified, skilled counsel who are, in
8 our view, probably more competent than had him to conduct the examination.
9 So those two factors have not been met here. Extraordinary
10 circumstances do not exist in respect of this witness in particular; and
11 indeed, Mr. President, if extraordinary circumstances are met in this
12 situation and cross-examination of a demographer, expert, a statistical
13 expert on reports concerning issues that this accused had nothing to do
14 with in a personal capacity, then really every circumstance will be
15 exceptional, and we might as well disregard the Trial Chamber's decision
16 entirely. That's really what's being proposed here by the Defence,
17 Mr. Praljak.
18 It's going to be a recurring issue. He clearly intends to do
19 this, not with just with this witness, not just with the last witness
20 yesterday, but he intends to do it clearly with the coming witnesses, and,
21 ultimately, hopes that the Trial Chamber will disregard its rulings and
22 allow him, really, to run his own defence, while having the benefit of
23 accused -- or counsel to sit in the courtroom with him. He wants it both
24 ways, and he can't have it both ways, Mr. President.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We shall withdraw for a few
1 minutes to deliberate, so please wait in the courtroom.
2 Mr. Praljak, what would you like to add?
3 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I'd just like
4 to add one more point. Except for my mathematical knowledge, which you
5 yourself said that nobody can even deal with integrals in the courtroom,
6 I'm a sociologist. I graduated from the Faculty of Sociology, and this
7 goes hand-in-hand with demographic research: The creation of certain
8 groups, comparisons, synchronising data, and consistency on the basis of
9 one -- on the basis of which one makes conclusions, matching of samples,
10 and so on. Those were part of my studies.
11 And there was, of course, an agreement that I would examine this
12 witness; and during the break, I consulted two leading demographic experts
13 in Croatia, so that everything should be scientifically based here. And I
14 think that, in my cross-examinations so far, I did strictly adhere to the
15 facts and information which I have at my disposal and which are essential
16 to the proceedings without going into some of the mistakes that perhaps I
17 made at the beginning.
18 I have learnt from them, so I just use facts, maps, tables,
19 charts, and I wish through my cross-examination to contribute to the
20 database in these proceedings.
21 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Might I be allowed just to say one
22 more sentence in response to the Prosecutor?
23 The Prosecutor, at the end of his argumentation, said that Praljak
24 cannot have it both ways; that is to say, his own -- the benefit of
25 counsel and to run his own defence. So let me just remind you of the
1 Rules and Statute, Article 21, which gives the accused the right both to
2 defend himself and to have the benefit of counsel. So it's not either/or,
3 it's both, and that has been clearly expressed in the Appeals request.
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We will return in a few minutes.
5 --- Break taken at 11.18 a.m.
6 --- On resuming at 11.28 a.m.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. The Trial Chamber
8 was seized of an application filed by Mr. Kovacic pursuant to the decision
9 taken on the 10th of May, 2007, to entitle the Accused Praljak to put
10 questions to the expert witness, a demographer. The Trial Chamber has
11 also noted that this application was supported by Defence counsel of
12 General Petkovic.
13 The Trial Chamber also acknowledges that the Prosecution has
14 objected to this procedure, submitting that the Appeals Chamber had
15 confirmed the previous decision handed down by the Trial Chamber cannot
16 permit in this particular case the accused to put questions.
17 The Trial Chamber has deliberated on the matter and has
18 unanimously deliberated on the matter, and I would like to recall all and
19 everyone that in the future the Trial Chamber will apply the decision
20 taken on the 10th of May, 2007. This decision has been upheld by the
21 Appeals Chamber. And prior to that date, practice would have it that in
22 certain cases questions were put, but this will no longer be the case, and
23 the Trial Chamber will apply the decision of the 10th of May, 2007, to the
25 In this particular case, the Trial Chamber, after having heard
1 both parties and after having heard the Accused Praljak, acknowledges
2 that, as far as this particular hearing is concerned, the Accused Praljak
3 has prepared some of the issues, technical issues, together with two
4 demographers. In addition, it seems that his counsel had decided that the
5 cross-examination would be conducted by his client. In addition, the
6 Accused Praljak has written a few books on the subject, provides
7 statistical data, and, therefore, may be competent, technically speaking,
8 and meet the requirements set out in the decision.
9 The Trial Chamber, therefore, unanimously authorises the Accused
10 Praljak to put questions, and this is an exceptional circumstance. And
11 the Trial Chamber would like to remind everybody present that the Accused
12 Praljak will have the 30-minute allotted time in addition to the 30
13 minutes given to him by Petkovic's Defence counsel.
14 We shall now bring the witness into the courtroom.
15 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I would just like to
16 inform you that the Defence of Mr. Stojic has given its examination time
17 for the examination of this witness to Mr. Praljak as well.
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Ibrisimovic.
19 MR. IBRISIMOVIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, for the record,
20 we also cede our time to Mr. Praljak.
21 [The witness takes the stand]
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, we have resumed our
23 hearing; and pursuant to a decision handed down by the Trial Chamber, the
24 Accused Praljak will now put questions to you as part of the
1 Mr. Praljak, you have the floor.
2 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours.
3 Thank you for your decision.
4 Cross-examination by the Accused Praljak:
5 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, madam.
6 A. Good morning. I don't see a transcript on my screen. If somebody
7 can help me rearrange. Thank you.
8 Q. Is it correct, madam, that in your analysis, you have something
9 that is called a source of information, which is indubitable, clear, and
10 so on, and created groups and samples that can be created on different
11 grounds? Is that right?
12 A. Well, I use sources of information. They might be complete, or
13 they might be samples.
14 Q. I'd like now to see how you created different groups. Among
15 others, you had a group which was the number of Muslims in what you refer
16 to as the eastern side of Mostar, and you established that group in the
17 following manner: According to your statement, this cluster was devised
18 by you on the basis of the fact that you asked people with their names and
19 surnames to tell you which ethnic group they belonged to, which
20 nationality, because you didn't have this column, and then you recorded it
21 subsequently based on the names that people told you were Muslim or
22 Bosniak names. Is that true?
23 A. Well, sources and groups are perhaps two different things.
24 Sources is where the information I use in my study come from, and the
25 groups as the Muslims that you mentioned are, indeed, groups of records in
1 these sources.
2 Regarding the ethnicity you are referring to, I am not exactly
3 sure what source you are speaking about, but I would guess it is Mostar
4 war hospital records, because it was the only source in which ethnicity
5 was assigned on the basis of names. If you can confirm that we are
6 talking about the war hospital records.
7 Q. Yes. We are talking about records from the war hospital in which
8 ethnicity was not recorded; and then, subsequently, when you looked into
9 subsequent data, you arrived at nationality or ethnic group on the basis
10 of names, because local people, judging by the names, said, "Yes, this is
11 a Muslim name. It's Mustafa, which means a Muslim name," and so on. So
12 is that correct?
13 A. In Mostar war hospital records, indeed, ethnicity wasn't reported,
14 and a group of B/C/S speakers, native B/C/S speakers, assigned the
15 ethnicity based on names. However, it's good to remember that this is a
16 very special source, Mostar war hospital regards. This is the hospital
17 that was meant to treat the population of East Mostar, and East Mostar
18 population was known to be composed of mainly, almost exclusively, Muslim
20 Q. Madam, in response to a question from the Prosecution, you
21 qualified certain things. You said that certain things were known and so
22 on. Now, I'd like to ask you to refrain from explaining what you knew or
23 what was known and what was not known, what was your source, whether you
24 were in Mostar or not. I asked you a specific question: Nationality,
25 ethnic group from the war hospital records, the source. You created that
1 on the basis of the fact that somebody told you that this name and that
2 name were Muslim names. Isn't that right?
3 A. I said it in my testimony. Ethnicity was created by native B/C/S
4 speakers. I didn't do that, neither my section, others in my section,
5 didn't do that. We received this created item from the investigations
6 team. This is -- this is what I said, and this is what I confirm.
7 However, I can't separate entirely from what I know about my
8 sources, as I believe the qualitative analysis and assessment of sources
9 is a very important step in producing numbers of victims in the conflict.
10 And I will use the qualitative knowledge of sources in this testimony.
11 Q. Madam, we'll get to that. Something that is referred to in
12 scholarly work was footnotes. So we'll get to the footnotes and statement
13 of sources. We'll come to that in due course. I'll ask you whether
14 scholarly work has footnotes and whether you have to name your sources in
15 the footnotes. But you're not talking about source here or I'm not
16 talking about sources.
17 You use the first person singular in your work, in your report,
18 and it does not explain the sources. You speak as if you are well aware
19 of those facts and that information. So now I'd like to clarify the
20 quality of the facts and assertions you arrived at when you said which
21 people were Muslims and which aren't.
22 Now, in the 1991 statistical data, the town of Mostar, and that
23 statistical data has already been supplied to the Court --
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] [No interpretation] We did not
25 get the answer from the witness. You didn't do the determination. You
1 said it was B/C/S speakers who actually made the determination. So I was
2 waiting for some additional information on this, and Mr. Praljak moved on
3 to other things. So this is my question: The people who helped you to
4 say that, for example, person number 4543 was of Muslim ethnicity; who
5 said that to you? Could you please tell us who came up with this
7 THE WITNESS: Well, I received electronic version of this data
8 from hospital books. In the spreadsheet that we received, ethnicity was
9 already included; and from the work log I received, together with the
10 spreadsheet, I read that native B/C/S speakers obtained or estimated
11 ethnicity based on the names. And these native B/C/S speakers were not
12 people I know or I knew. They were people employed by the investigations
13 team, probably part of the investigations team.
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine. So if we go into detail,
15 you obtained by mail these lists; and in the spreadsheet, the ethnic
16 background was noted. And you told us that the people who actually came
17 up with the ethnicity are the people working for the OTP; is that it?
18 THE WITNESS: My understanding, yes. These are B/C/S speakers,
19 native speakers, but working for the OTP.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.
21 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation]
22 Q. Madam, in your statement, you mention the fact that the death
23 registers in February 2001 was given over to you by the agency from -- AID
24 agency from Sarajevo. Now, my question to you is: Do you know what work
25 the AID agency in Sarajevo was involved in?
1 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, with your permission,
2 may I just intervene? In the record it is AID, the abbreviation of the
3 agency A-I-D, capital letters.
4 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation]
5 Q. Do you know what the organisation dealt with, that one in
7 A. Well, I see the question -- [French on English channel] -- to the
8 fact how I obtained the death registries, and I did not obtain the death
9 registries from the AID agency. I was provided with these death
10 registries by the investigations team, OTP. I didn't collect these
11 registries myself. I usually do collect my sources, but not in this case.
12 And it is possible that the team obtained these registries from AID. I do
13 know what AID is doing. This is an agency doing intelligence work.
14 Q. Madam Witness, Doctor, I am strictly adhering to what you said,
15 and here it says that: "In 2001, in the month of February, I handed over
16 by the AID agency in Sarajevo."
17 Now, you claim, you're saying - and we'll come back to this
18 because I'm not clear on it - it's your scholarly work, your expertise,
19 and this is what you say, and now you say you don't know and so on.
20 Now, I'm going to ask you very precise questions. I'll try and
21 get through this as quickly as possible, so please give me short answers
22 to my questions. Say, "Yes, I do know," "No, I don't know," with few
24 In 1991, the town of Mostar, according to the statistical data of
25 the 1991 census, it had a total of 75.865 inhabitants. Of that number,
1 people who declared themselves as Croats, there were 21.795 of those,
2 25.929 declared themselves as Muslims; 14.142 declared themselves as
3 Serbs; 11.555 declared themselves as Yugoslavs; and there was a category
4 of others, 2.444. So they declared themselves, as far as nationality is
5 concerned, 61.000-odd or 81.85 per cent; 13.999 persons did not declare
6 themselves, or 18.5 per cent.
7 Tell me now, please, with what right did somebody later on change
8 the -- the ethnicity of almost 20 per cent of people who had not declared
9 themselves on an ethnic basis, did not declare their ethnicity. That's my
10 first question.
11 And my second question that follows on from that is this: Was a
12 cluster or group created of ethnicities, ethnic groups, in the hospital
13 registers and death registers on the basis of the fact that every "Mujo,"
14 every person called "Mujo" or "Mustafa," was proclaimed to be a Muslim,
15 and that this was a very rough estimation. Because regardless of the fact
16 that the person's name might have been "Mujo" or "Mustafa," this person
17 could have declared himself as a Croat, a Serb, or not declared himself at
19 A. I see three questions in your question. And, well, first one is
20 related to AID. I would like that you would show me where, in my report,
21 I say that I obtain the death registers from the AID. As far as I
22 remember, I was provided the death registries by the investigations
23 teams -- team. This is my one comment.
24 Second comment, you are referring to figures on the ethnic
25 composition in Mostar. Again, I would like to hear what is the source, if
1 it is the population census or if it is published data. It would help us
2 if we could understand this.
3 And then, finally, there is the ethnic definition, ethnicity
4 issue. It's the third issue that you raised.
5 So if you can please help me first with the reference to my report
6 source as the --
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Praljak will help you, but
8 Ms. Alaburic is on her feet.
9 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, with your permission,
10 might I be of permission with respect to AID? The witness mentions this
11 in her expert report under P 9835 of killed persons with regard to the
12 siege of Mostar, and the figure was quoted in part 2, the Mostar death
13 registers in chapter 4 or paragraph 4 in the Croatian text. That is on
14 line 6 of that fourth paragraph, and I quote: "The death registers in
15 February 2001 were handed over by the AID agency from Sarajevo to the
16 OTP," and then the sentence continues.
17 Thank you.
18 THE WITNESS: Yes. I see this reference to AID. And, well, if it
19 is in the report, then this is the source how the team obtained it. But
20 I'm saying, once again, I obtained the death registries directly from the
21 investigations team. But perhaps it is important to mention on this
22 occasion that death registration is part of vital events registration. In
23 every country, every death is registered in the death register. There is
24 a period of three days within which -- after death, within which the death
25 needs to be reported to the authorities.
1 So even though the AID was involved in providing these death
2 registries to the OTP, I believe as a source, as a source as such, the
3 nature of the source has nothing to do with intelligence. It is just
4 reporting of deaths in a population. So I can't see what impact can it
5 have that the AID provided this source to the OTP in general.
6 Okay. So the answer I understand to the source of your statistics
7 is the book published by the Croat authorities, the figures -- census
8 figures published by the Crostat in 1995, and the question is related to
9 ethnicity. If you can please repeat it, I would be happy to hear it
11 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation]
12 Q. First of all, madam, in view of the fact that you had the right to
13 say all had this before, but you are a demographer. Do you agree that
14 you're not an expert on what AID was doing, what its intentions were, and
15 so on? Do you agree that it's not part of your expert opinion whether the
16 information provided to you by the AID are reliable or not? It's just a
17 simple fact that they were provided by the AID. Do you agree with that?
18 A. I agree I am an expert on demographics in this case, and I am
19 entitled to have my opinion as a demographic expert on the sources I
20 used. And death registries, this is my expert opinion, is a source that
21 is usually available in every population, and this is a statistical source
22 and a good source. And the source, as such, is a not compiled by any
23 intelligence agency. It is compiled by authorities who are responsible
24 for registration of vital events.
25 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour, if I may, I don't mean to interrupt
1 General Praljak, but the three hours were allocated to all of the Defence,
2 and I feel that I'm being disadvantaged here because the witness is being
3 non-responsive deliberately.
4 The question was --
5 MR. STRINGER: I object to that.
6 MR. KARNAVAS: The question was --
7 MR. STRINGER: I object to --
8 MR. KARNAVAS: If I may make my record, sir. Please sit down.
9 MR. STRINGER: I object to that, Mr. President, it's not the
10 view --
11 MR. KARNAVAS: I am entitled to make my record. If you look at
12 the -- the question was whether she was competent to testify about what
13 AID does in their intentions. You have a long explanation afterwards
14 without responding. Furthermore, she was asked earlier by what authority,
15 by what authority, she could change the names. Again, long explanation or
16 no explanation. What I'm saying is that the witness is a Ph.D.. She's
17 testified at least seven or eight times. She's a professional witness.
18 She works for the Office of the Prosecution. She is an employee of the
19 office of the Prosecution, and she should, therefore, I think, be more
20 forthcoming and shorter with the answers. She can answer the questions
21 very directly. I think that this is a deliberate attempt to eat up the
22 Defence time.
23 MR. STRINGER: Mr. President, I'll be brief. This tenancy to mix,
24 introduce argument, points very well known, very effective at times from
25 Defence, arguing the witness is biased, she's being non-responsive. Fine.
1 Those are legitimate arguments to be made, you know, all the time. Not as
2 to this witness, in my view, but it's all argument.
3 Counsel can make those arguments as much as he likes to the Trial
4 Chamber when the time comes for arguing what the Trial Chamber, in the
5 view of the parties, should attach to this witness's testimony at the
6 closing arguments. But now to have these sorts of accusations flying
7 around in the courtroom, while the witness is here, is quite another
8 thing. It's not appropriate cross-examination, and it, frankly, wastes
9 everyone's time.
10 In our view, the witness is doing her best to answer the compound
11 questions that are being put to her by a non-attorney now, who is being
12 allowed to cross-examine an expert. He's not asking her a question. He's
13 asking her three questions in the course of rather lengthy paragraphs. So
14 if perhaps Mr. Praljak could phrase his questions in a way that a skilled
15 advocate would do, enabling her to give measured answers to limited
16 questions, it would facilitate the process.
17 MR. KARNAVAS: Mr. President, let me just give you an example.
18 Mr. Praljak asked about receiving information from AID. He said "you."
19 She then said, "No. It won't me; it was some other folks," and so on and
20 so forth. Lengthy explanation, no concrete answer, and then you,
21 Mr. President, had to ask a series of questions, and, finally, we get a
22 confession from the witness who says, "yes." And then it is Ms. Alaburic
23 who has to point, and then she, says, "Where is this?" It's in her own
24 report, a report that she signed, that she did, .
25 So my question is: Why do we have to waste three or four minutes
1 on something where she said "yes." That's my point. It is not arguing.
2 What I am saying is: We have three hours collectively, and so these sort
3 of answers affect my time.
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Praljak, when you're asking
5 a question, don't put three questions in one, please. Just ask one
6 question; wait for your answer, yes, no, or maybe a bit lengthier; and
7 then move on to the second question. So please proceed step-by-step. It
8 will save time.
9 Mr. Stringer.
10 MR. STRINGER: Mr. President, I apologise. Since the record is
11 because mischaracterised, the question was whether she was handed the
12 records in a personal capacity. That's how I understand it. Now the
13 report says they were provided to the Office of the Prosecutor, so that's
14 quite a different thing. And I think that it's unfair to suggest that
15 she's evasive or has confessed to some sort of incorrect or false answer
16 before. Simply not true. It's only based upon spin and
17 mischaracterisation of the evidence.
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Praljak, please proceed, and
19 please make sure that your questions are short and extremely clear and
21 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] Thank you.
22 Thank you, Your Honour.
23 Q. My question is very simple: If the information I have quoted from
24 the census of 1991 says that 81.5 per cent of the population of the town
25 of Mostar declared their ethnic affiliation and 18.5 did not, my question
1 is on the basis of what analysis did you ascribe an ethnic affiliation to
2 20 per cent of those who did not declare themselves by ascribing to them
3 ethnicity based on their name?
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You can answer. It is a very
5 clear question, very straightforward, and I'm sure that the answer will be
6 very clear.
7 THE WITNESS: Yes. Thank you. In the publication by Crostat,
8 ethnicity is reported separately as Muslims, Croats, Serbs, Yugoslavs, and
9 as far as I remember, are other ethnicity and unknown, something like
10 that. So is this unknown ethnicity 18 per cent? I'm just making sure
11 that I understood you correctly. It is really a very high per cent. As
12 far as I know, it is --
13 MR. KARNAVAS: Excuse me. Excuse me ma'am.
14 THE WITNESS: -- it is a larger group.
15 MR. KARNAVAS:
16 THE INTERPRETER: Please do not overlap.
17 MR. KARNAVAS: The question is very clear. On what basis? Now
18 she can say, "This is a statistical methodology that we use." That's the
19 question. The question is very clear. What gives her the right, that was
20 the question, to impose these other nationalities? Is it something that
21 demographers do on all occasions? Is this something is they have to do
22 because of the extraordinary circumstances? That was the question. That
23 is the essence of the question.
24 MR. STRINGER: Mr. President, Mr. Karnavas seems to be conducting
25 this cross-examination --
1 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, if I may say --
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] There is just one thing, please.
3 This witness is under oath. She made a solemn declaration. She is now in
4 the hands of justice and is no longer connected with the OTP and,
5 therefore, will undergo cross-examination. If she's in a difficult
6 situation, don't necessarily stand up to come and help.
7 However, the question is very simple. It's a mathematical
8 question. 20 per cent of the Mostar population did not declare itself as
9 being Croats or Muslim. We have 20 per cent; and we know that among these
10 20 per cent, we know that 11.000, more than 11.000, said they were
11 Yugoslavs. Of course, they were either probably Muslim or Croat, and
12 scientifically, no one can challenge the fact that, in 1991, there is a
13 chart regarding Mostar with ethnic composition in percentage.
14 So you're a demographer and then you carry out your work after --
15 from these figures, but the question that comes to mind is: Where are
16 these 11.000 Yugoslavs? What has become of them? How come you or who
17 were before you, how did they introduce these Yugoslavs in the total
18 population? Did you decide they were Muslims or Croats?
19 That's the question asked, and we need an answer. Tell us, "I
20 don't know," "I know," but we need an answer.
21 This is a statistical element that we need to understand;
22 otherwise, everything becomes extremely approximate with this 20 per cent
23 margin of unknown, because 20 per cent of the sample is not determined.
24 THE WITNESS: Well, I must say I disagree that 20 per cent is
25 unknown. That is my expert opinion because Yugoslav is an ethnic group
1 that is completely different from Muslim, Serb or a Croat. It is a group
2 in itself, and it is part of the 20 per cent; and in this 20 per cent, we
3 have Yugoslavs and others --
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] But don't play on words, please.
5 You are saying that Yugoslavs is a group in itself. Maybe statistically
6 it is, but these 11.000 Yugoslavs have some kind of ethnic background.
7 That's the whole problem. And when statistically they're distributed into
8 two ethnic backgrounds according to your work, the next question is: How
9 did you move them into one or the other category?
10 JUDGE PRANDLER: Thank you, Mr. President. I would like to say
11 that, as a matter of fact, I agree with the witness's view that the group
12 of Yugoslavs and the group of Muslims, they are two different issues and
13 two different groups. The group of Yugoslavs, they name themselves. They
14 call themselves "Yugoslavs" because when the census was taken, they didn't
15 want to belong to, say, Croat or Serb or whatever ethnicity or national
16 group. But it was mainly a question of citizenship, if I may say so, in
17 former Yugoslavia - and I hope that those who had lived there would
18 confirm this - and it was not a question of ethnicity.
19 And that is why I share the view expressed by the witness, that
20 whenever there was a finding that according to the names they were
21 Muslims, it could be accepted. It is another question if they themselves
22 previously declared themselves Yugoslavs or Croats or Serbs or whoever,
23 whatever. And for me also, frankly speaking, the shrapnels, the shelling,
24 the snipers' bullets did not make any difference between Yugoslavs and
25 Serbs and Muslims and Croats, and that is why I would accept the groupings
1 what the witness used.
2 Thank you.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Praljak, in light of what
4 was said, can you please proceed.
5 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] I partly agree with His
6 Honour. I agree that the Yugoslavs are a separate group. And we are not
7 questioning here that victims are victims and that everybody's affected in
8 the same way by a shell or a bullet, but the calculation of the number of
9 Muslims hit by the shelling is at issue.
10 If 20 per cent of the population did not declare their ethnicity,
11 they are transforming 20 per cent of the population into a certain ethnic
12 group based on their names and then calculating the percentage of Muslims.
13 If the percentage of Muslims hit on the west bank had been not calculated,
14 I would not have put this question. The error can be more than 20 per
15 cent, if they are transferred from one category to another.
16 Q. So my question is: Based on what scientific analysis did you
17 conclude based on people's names what ethnic group they belonged to,
18 because this is a piece of information that belongs to each individual, to
19 each individual's declaration in the census.
20 You say, "We did it this way." Let's move on. Just say that and
21 I'll move on. I'll be satisfied with your reply, and then my time is
22 running out so I do wish to move on. So please answer my question.
23 A. Well, I agree with you that ethnicity is a self-perceived item and
24 this is how it was reported in the census, and we didn't have these kind
25 of reports. It is an estimate that we made of ethnicity, but perhaps it
1 our discussion will become easier if I will say that our objective was to
2 measure casualties among the Bosniak population. The choice of sources
3 was to measure the casualties among the Bosniak population.
4 Q. Madam, please. Thank you very much. I have received the reply to
5 my question.
6 My next question is: Based on the information available, did you
7 arrive at the basic group? In other words, in that part of Mostar
8 municipality which was under BH army control, what was the population?
9 What was the number of men? What was the number of women? What number of
10 people were there in each season of the year? So did you have this basic
11 set, this basic group, of the population on BH army-controlled territory,
12 yes or no?
13 A. Well, I assume that territory controlled by the ABiH army is East
14 Mostar. This is what you're referring to. And I said earlier today, I
15 didn't have the size of the population in East Mostar. There exists
16 estimates from 35.000 to 55.000, and that is all we know. There is no
17 statistical record of this population.
18 Q. Thank you very much. Wouldn't it have been simpler if you had
19 said, "We did not create this set"? Let's move on. My next question is:
20 Within this set that you did not create, did you conduct any kind of
21 analysis as to mortality in the pre-war period? If you have a set of
22 citizens of Mostar between 35 and 55.000 in number, and based on
23 information you could have gathered, you could have said the natural
24 mortality rate in this set is such-and-such: Traffic accidents, murders,
25 suicides, and so on accounts for so many. Injuries are such-and-such.
1 Mortality in hospitals during surgeries which went wrong is such-and-such,
2 and so on.
3 Did you calculate how many people died of natural causes because
4 of illness, disease, or accident, so as to have reference, a set to refer
5 to of people who had died of natural causes in that area? Did you do that
7 A. Well, you know that, in my reports, I didn't deal with natural
8 causes, and there is no reference made to natural mortality in Mostar or
9 in a smaller area within the Mostar municipality before the conflict
11 Q. Please, in that basic set, did you analyse the mortality according
12 to the criteria that I have set out, yes or no, madam, Doctor?
13 A. I don't understand what is the basic set to you. I said I didn't
14 study mortality, pre-war morality, in Mostar, or in a smaller area within
15 Mostar, mortality from natural causes.
16 Q. Are traffic accidents, murders, suicides, death during childbirth,
17 or surgery, are all these natural causes to you?
18 A. Well, they are causes. These are external, I would put it this
19 way. These are natural causes. What we mean are natural causes is
20 age-related causes.
21 Q. Thank you.
22 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] My questions, Your Honours,
23 are very simple.
24 Q. I'm trying very hard to put simple questions. Every population in
25 Paris, London, or Zurich has a statistic that say so many people die of
1 old age a year, so many are murdered each year, so many commit suicide
2 each year, so many die in traffic accidents, and so on and so forth.
3 Did you conduct such an analysis among the population of East
5 A. Of course not. It wasn't my objective.
6 Q. Thank you very much. Thank you. You said here today that there
7 was an unexpected rise in mortality in September and October 1993 --
8 August and September, that is, 1993. And you say that the expected
9 mortality rate would not have been so high because in winter and in the
10 autumn or in spring more people die. There is a higher mortality. Do you
11 have this information for the city of Mostar? It could have been found in
12 all the previous statistical information.
13 The reason I'm asking this is that Mostar is a very warm town. In
14 summer, temperatures rise as high as 40 to 45 degrees. So can you
15 transfer statistical data referring to Europe to a town such as Mostar
16 which has no snow in winter, which doesn't have cold winners, but has very
17 hot summers? So did you analyse the mortality, the pre-war mortality, of
18 the citizens of Mostar by season of the year?
19 A. No. I didn't do this for Mostar.
20 Q. Thank you. Thank you. You used the original data from the Mostar
21 hospital and the record of deaths, and then you improved that by also
22 using the military records of those killed in the army of
24 My question is as follows: Apart from soldiers of the army of
25 Bosnia-Herzegovina, did others participate in combat, in military
1 activities, that is; for example, the civilian protection, for example,
2 carrying food to the front lines and so on, without being recorded in
3 these military records? Are you aware of that?
4 A. Well, I believe that these are set on special lists, the military
5 lists. Not everybody, not the Civil Defence is there, I believe.
6 Q. After the end of the war, during the time of privatisation in
7 Bosnia-Herzegovina, all those who had participated in the war, either in
8 the civilian protection, the civilian police, or in the army of
9 Bosnia-Herzegovina, had vouchers distributed to them. These were vouchers
10 they could use to acquire shares in publicly opened companies.
11 Did you obtain the lists of those who were issued with vouchers
12 because they had taken part in military activities but were not soldiers
13 of the army of Bosnia-Herzegovina, and did you compare those lists with
14 the military records?
15 A. No, I didn't. I didn't use this.
16 Q. Thank you very much. When creating the set of killed soldiers and
17 civilians, did you calculate in the civilian police which, as we know,
18 wore military uniforms when they walked around Mostar, but they are not
19 included in the list of those killed as members of the army of
20 Bosnia-Herzegovina? So did you collect lists of civilian policemen killed
21 in the town of Mostar?
22 A. No, I didn't, but --
23 Q. Thank you, thank you. Did you look at the number of members of
24 the 4th Corps which were located on the territory of the town of Mostar?
25 Did you do that?
1 A. Sir, I said what military sources I used. These were the lists
2 provided by the Ministries of Defence of both entities. Well, whether the
3 4th Corps soldiers were reported in these lists, I wouldn't exactly know,
4 but I would guess that they were. This is just a guess.
5 Q. Thank you very much.
6 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] Could the witness be shown
7 document 3D 01065, 3D 01065. That is a book published by General
8 Drekovic, the commander of the 4th Corps after General Pasalic left. So
9 it's 3D 01065, and open to the page where there is a table. It's 1857.
10 The page is 3D 26-1857. There's a table there.
11 THE WITNESS: What page is this?
12 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation]
13 Q. It's on your screen. It lists the numbers of those killed in 1992
14 and up in 1993 up to the 19th of January 1994, and the upper table refers
15 to units of the 4th Corps and the second to the 4th and 6th Corps. Did
16 you know that the 4th and the 6th Corps were one and the same corps, the
17 4th Corps, up to the 19th of January, 1994?
18 A. Why would I know this? I'm not a military expert.
19 Q. Madam, just give me a simple answer. Say, "I don't know." You
20 don't have is to justify yourself. You're not the accused. I'm the
21 accused here. Just say you don't know, and I can move on.
22 A. No. You can move on.
23 Q. Thank you, madam. Now, take a look at the following data. Up
24 until the 19th of January, 1993, and part of 1994, 579 people were killed,
25 members of the 4th Corps, and 1.168 people were wounded. Is that what it
1 says here?
2 A. Well, it obviously does.
3 Q. Thank you. Now, my question to you is this: Do you know that, in
4 addition to the 4th Corps units, at the time that you talk about, August,
5 September, there were additional units added from the 1st Corps, from
6 Sarajevo, in the fighting around Mostar? Do you know that some other
7 units, Zuka's men or whatever, that other units arrived in Mostar?
8 A. No, I don't know.
9 Q. When you looked at the table referring to 1993, did you make an
10 analysis of those who were killed up until the 9th of May from this corps,
11 based on records that I'm sure exist, and those who were killed after the
12 9th of May, 1993? Did you make that record?
13 A. You mean the table from the book?
14 Q. Yes.
15 A. No. I didn't make any analysis with this table.
16 Q. Do you know how many soldiers of the 4th and 6th Corps had
17 together? What was its strength together?
18 A. Of course, I don't. I don't.
19 Q. Thank you. If the -- when the soldiers came back from the front
20 line after doing their shift, do you know whether they changed into
21 civilian clothes, and when if it they were taken to hospital, they would
22 be registered as civilian deaths or members of the civilian police or
23 soldiers who came to the hospital wearing civilian clothes? Did you look
24 at that kind of thing? Do you have any information about that, that in
25 the war hospital records they had records of that nature?
1 A. Of course, they didn't have record of clothes and changing the
2 clothes in particular; not in hospital books.
3 Q. All right. In your -- among your data, you say that 5.393 persons
4 were wounded soldiers according to the war hospital Mostar records, and
5 you cover this until the 20th of April, 1994, and that is 380 days -- 382
6 days. Now, if 5.000-odd is divided by the number of days -- if 5.393
7 persons is divided by 380 days, the average number of persons arriving in
8 hospital per day is 14. Is that right? So 5.000-odd divided by 380 gives
9 us the sum of 14.
10 A. One correction. 5.393 is not wounded soldiers. It is all wounded
11 persons, a part of them being soldiers, but being civilians.
12 Well, you made some calculations, and you are telling us the
13 number of persons arriving on average is 14. Perhaps it is correct. I
14 didn't do the calculation right now.
15 Q. Madam, I didn't say that they were soldiers. I said they were
16 patients during that period of time. Now, if we assume that number can
17 vary twice or three times in any given day, then my question is this, and
18 we're talking about the quality of the evidence or the lack of quality of
19 the records --
20 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: Not evidence, records.
21 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation].
22 Q. Now, if 14 people are admitted to hospital, is that a small number
23 which allows the doctors to write down the reasons for which the people
24 were brought to the hospital in the first place. So it says vulnus
25 explosiva as the diagnosis. That would be correct because these are
1 qualified doctors who were able to write the diagnosis for each person,
2 because the number of people admitted to hospital wasn't that great. It
3 was, on average, 14 per day.
4 A. Well, it was, on average, 14, if you are right, of course, and
5 some days it was higher than that. And, well, I believe 14 per day, if we
6 assume it is correct, it is certainly a possible thing to do, to record
7 the details of all 14 people. But there is, I understand, a group of
8 people that perhaps were never registered in these books as well, as
9 knowing the source.
10 Q. Yes. Let's move on, madam. I might come back to certain issues,
11 but as my time is running out -- well, it hasn't run out yet. I don't
12 want to use Mr. Karnavas's time, so I'll go through this quickly.
13 Would you take a look at your report on the deaths as a result of
14 the conflict. According to the war hospital records and the death
15 registers -- would you take a look at that, please.
16 A. Could you give us a page number perhaps?
17 Q. We'll start off with page 1 where you say that as a place of death
18 the sources usually quote municipalities. Those are the last two lines on
19 the first page. So that it is impossible to establish which deaths
20 occurred in East Mostar and which occurred outside that area.
21 Do you state that loud and clear there on page 1 and part of page
22 2? The first line on page 2.
23 A. Well, I remember what I wrote. Generally, sources report the
24 municipality of that, and there is also a place of death which is not
25 always available. In this particular sources we also had this problem,
1 especially with the deaths registers, that not every record was available
2 in terms of a specific place of death. For many only municipality was
3 reported as a place of death, which was not good enough to study and to
4 include in our absolute numbers.
5 Q. Very well. Now, do you consider that the data from the death
6 registers are more precise than the data in the Mostar hospital?
7 A. When it comes to personal details they are. Not when this comes
8 to details about the death.
9 Q. Thank you. Would you now turn to page 632, please. 632. That's
10 the Croatian version. I can't give you the English page number. It's the
11 portion in table 1. After table 1 where you address the death registers
12 and what is contained in them. Table 1, please. It's number 4 in the
13 English version. After table 1 you say the following: "Only some places
14 can be classified as being East Mostar, whereas the other places can't be
15 recorded under that column so that places that have not been designated as
16 East Mostar need not necessarily be outside the East Mostar area;
17 although, the category, East Mostar is not quoted, and this refers to
18 deaths outside the area of East Mostar. Data from East Mostar for some
19 reason have not been designated as East Mostar. They have also been
20 included into this category."
21 Now, can you tell me, please, what were the reasons that you
22 decided that those which were not designated at East Mostar you should
23 include in the East Mostar category? Could you explain your reasons for
24 that, please?
25 A. Well, I -- first of all, I didn't include in my analysis any
1 deaths of which I couldn't be sure that they were in East Mostar. So all
2 the deaths of which I either didn't know, or I did know that they were
3 from outside East Mostar, these were excluded. They are not in the
4 minimum numbers. So there is no reasons that I would include these
5 deaths. I didn't include these deaths.
6 Q. Very well. So the minimum numbers are those numbers which because
7 of sentences like this that you use can say certain numbers either in the
8 war hospital records or the death registers. So the minimum numbers are
9 the actual numbers, the most reliable numbers, that they are
10 scientifically the most reliable numbers, these minimum numbers. Can we
11 say that?
12 A. Yes, this is what I'm saying in the report, yes.
13 Q. All right. Now would you turn to page -- or, rather, to table
14 number 3 on page 1032 of the Croatian text. It is page 7 of the English.
15 Take a look at that. And you say judging by everything, the number of
16 deaths due to all the different causes, including natural causes as well
17 in certain cases, although we noted earlier on that you didn't research
18 that, recorded in space and time contained in the indictment was 773, and
19 this related to the overall area of Capljina, Jablanica, Mostar, Prozor,
20 and Stolac. And you have table 3 with 773 deaths, including, as you say,
21 a certain number of natural deaths. But is that the correct table? Is
22 that right? For five municipalities the total is 773 deaths. Is that
24 A. Well, it is at this stage just a table reporting on some
25 intermittent results, but it is not a table that should be taken as a
1 table with minimum absolute numbers for Mostar. It includes many more
2 municipalities and Mostar as a whole, not only East Mostar. You should
3 rather refer to the next table, table number 4, in which these seven --
4 the number for Mostar 524 --
5 Q. Madam, please. I'm reading your own words, and these are your
6 words. The number of deaths all in all recorded within the space and time
7 comprised in the indictment was 773. Table 3. And there you go on to
8 enumerate 11, Capljina; Jablanica, 227; Mostar, 135; Prozor, 5; and a
9 total of 374, and then you have known and unknown quantities. But this is
10 773, a total of 773. And then you go on to say the total number for the
11 Mostar municipality is 524 cases of which only 373 cases satisfy the
12 strict demands of relevance and relating to the siege of Mostar. That is
13 to say those deaths which occurred in East Mostar in the period between
14 May 1993 to April 1994.
15 Now, madam, are those your words? Is that what you said? And
16 then we'll see what follows. But is this the demand for relevance and
17 reliability, this figure 773?
18 A. Sir, you are reading section 2, which is summary of the source,
19 and there is another section which contains final statistics. If you need
20 final numbers, you should go to section on final statistics and not to go
21 through the summary of the source. I am summarising the source in order
22 to make sure that everybody understands that I'm not taking the entire
23 source, that I exclude large parts of this source, and I only take a small
24 group of record of which I know they are relevant, and the small group of
25 record is 373.
1 Q. Madam, now take a look at the following page --
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Praljak, we need to have a
3 break now. We'll have a 20-minute break and resume after that and go on
4 until a quarter to 2.00.
5 [The witness stands down]
6 --- Recess taken at 12.35 p.m.
7 --- On resuming at 12.55 p.m.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I believe Mr. Stringer want to
9 take the floor.
10 MR. STRINGER: Yes, Mr. President. If we could briefly go into
11 private session.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine.
13 [Private session]
3 [Open session]
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] And we may be in the witness.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're back in open session.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, registrar.
7 [The witness takes the stand]
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Praljak, you have used up 47
9 minutes so far out of the two hours which were allocated to you.
10 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation]
11 Q. Doctor, madam, let's continue. On page 10, underneath table 3,
12 you say the following: The real causes of death were these 773 cases for
13 these municipalities that you mention and which are relevant for the
14 indictment are stated as following: Violent death linked to the conflict,
15 violent death perhaps linked to the conflict, natural death, unknown
16 causes killed by gunshot, shelling, murder, suicide, et cetera, all these
17 other causes. And we can add to that traffic accidents and so on, or
18 death caused by other reasons.
19 Now let's move on to page 11 and table 4. You have a table there
20 and you say East Mostar. And you say that this is -- these are valid
21 cases from Mostar judging by the date and place of birth, and you say that
22 91 persons for 1993 and 1994. 91 persons that the place of death is not
23 known, but 373 persons do have a known place of death; and then you say
24 this number of 373 recorded in East Mostar during the siege in May -- from
25 May 1993 to April 1994, considers to be relevant and valid for the needs
1 of analysing the fatalities of the siege, the victims of the siege.
2 Do you stand by that statement? What we're not challenging, what
3 is from the base of date that you have at your disposal, things are not
5 A. Well, these 373 are related to the siege at Mostar.
6 Q. Thank you. Let's now move on to table 6 on page 14, page 9 of the
7 English. And you go on to elaborate, and we have comparative data there.
8 In table 6, cause of death as a result of the siege, siege-related deaths
9 reported in the Mostar war hospital books and in the Mostar death
10 registries; and then you say gunshots 49, shelling 214, unknown 209,
11 wounding 0. With the death registers, we have 6 who were killed, natural
12 deaths 11, shelling 14, unknown 333. 333 unknown.
13 Can you explain to us - and we can stay with these figures -
14 whether under "Unknown" in the war hospital, was it really unknown?
15 And if you made a new group or looked at a new group or cluster,
16 hadn't you perhaps forgotten that the physicians did not write the cause
17 of death -- or rather, did write the cause of death. So doctors are to be
18 trusted. So if somebody dies in hospital, they can know the wounds that
19 caused death.
20 So how do you know -- how could they have wrote that, in 209
21 cases, the cause of death was unknown?
22 Because if they were killed as a result of gunshot wounds or
23 shelling, you would see injuries on the body -- or rather, they would see
24 injuries on the body.
25 A. Regarding the 209 unknown cases reported from war hospital books,
1 what is known is that these were violent deaths and deaths were because of
2 wounding. What is unknown is unknown whether it was a wounding by a shell
3 or it was a wounding by a gunshot. So here they are reported as unknowns.
4 Q. Thank you. How come you're able to claim that it is unknown
5 whether they -- this death was caused by shelling or gunshots, when you
6 say that they have three ways of determining this, the traces on the body,
7 vulnus sclopetarium, whether it was and entrance/exit wound, or wounds of
9 I don't see that you studied that the unknown persons died of
10 wounding if this was not recorded. So how do you explain this?
11 A. Well, we discussed problems of reporting in the war hospital
12 books; and I said, and I stand behind it, that the source is incomplete
13 and many records lack the diagnosis. At the same time, we know that this
14 is a very special source. These are records from a war hospital located
15 in the siege area and that was established to treat patients, victims of
16 the siege, and who was treated in the hospital were, except for three
17 cases of whom we know were unrelated, were cases all related to the siege
18 and were victims of wounding by shell and gunshots.
19 So these are the reasons that I know that these deaths of which we
20 don't know the particular cause. But let me finish. We know that these
21 are violent deaths related to the siege.
22 Q. We'll come to discuss the siege later on. I'll ask you something
23 about the siege. It's a term that can be disputed, but I'm not clear on
24 anything now.
25 From the fact that you know something exactly - and it's these
1 three cases that I'm referring to - it would emerge that based on the fact
2 that you know something exactly, then you can conclude that it's another
4 Where in the war hospital records for the 209 persons does it say
5 that they died a violent death, if we see that we have 214 for shelling
6 and 49 gunshots? So what else is there that is unknown, if we do know
7 that we have 214 cases of death through shelling and 49 through gunshot
9 So the doctor says he died, that there was shelling, and so-and-so
10 died; and then under the "Unknown," you say that those unknown were also
11 violent deaths. What are your grounds for asserting that these unknown
12 were due to violent deaths as well?
13 A. Because of the fact that the patients treated in the hospital were
14 wounded persons. This is what is in the data. There is a group of
15 patients of whom the diagnosis is unknown; but for all those for whom the
16 diagnosis is known, and who can be reliably to be considered as a sample
17 of all patients of the hospital, we see that these are wounded persons.
18 And three cases, unrelated cases, were all unrelated cases we saw in the
20 Q. Madam, please. We're not here to perform statistical exercises
21 and training. We're here to establish the facts. If a doctor -- if the
22 doctors say there were 49 deaths due to gunshot wounds and 214 due to
23 shelling and some unknown ones, 209, then please tell me, when you looked
24 at these unknown, they must have died from shelling and gunshot wounds,
25 must they not? How else?
1 A. Regarding the deaths that are listed here in the table as unknown,
2 209, we know that these are violent deaths of people who first got wounded
3 and died in hospital of their wounds.
4 Q. How? Where does it say that? Where is that written? Did they
5 fall down the stairs? Were they perhaps injured when handling weapons
6 themselves? Where does it say? Because it says "Unknown."
7 These are not statistical exercises. I'm not your student. Here
8 it says "Unknown," where you say, "We know full well." So tell the Trial
9 Chamber: How do you know full well? It's a simple question.
10 If you don't want to answer, I can move on, but then don't say we
11 know. What is the basis for the "we know"?
12 A. The basis for the "we know" is the nature of the data and the
13 nature of the source. It is not just a regular hospital that treats any
14 patient of any condition. This is a war hospital and treats patients who
15 are victims of fighting. This is so simple, and this is one thing.
16 Another thing is: Well, I had the opportunities to see some
17 videos and some pictures of the hospital during the siege and of what kind
18 of patients were treated in this hospital. It only confirms what I know
19 about the source.
20 Q. Madam, at the beginning --
21 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] And Their Honours can look
22 at Dr. Rajkov's statement.
23 Q. -- you quoted yourself: "50 per cent of our patients were
24 civilians," he says, and this is something that you quoted. Is that
25 correct, that you accepted Dr. Rajkov's statement to the effect that that
1 war hospital was the only hospital; and as the only hospital that was able
2 to undertake surgery, they took in the population which was between 33 and
4 So, if there were fractures, bone fractures, falling downstairs,
5 traffic accidents, this hospital would take all of these people in. And
6 the fact that you did not look into these and study them, you say it's the
7 unknown, because this is a war hospital and I saw pictures.
8 So this 209, is that anything other -- do you have grounds to
9 state that this is anything other than just unknown?
10 A. Well, in terms of reported diagnosis, I don't have diagnosis for
11 these cases. What I do know of these cases, these are deaths in war
13 Q. Thank you. Thank you. That will do. Unknown, right.
14 In table 7, you have the distribution according to the months.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just one thing for
16 clarification. You're talking about a war hospital, and you draw
17 conclusions out of this. I was quite surprised to see earlier this lady
18 who came obviously came to give birth. So maybe this hospital's main
19 calling was to treat all the injured in the conflict, but also used as a
20 general hospital. And because it was also used as a general hospital,
21 other kinds of patients could come to get treatment, patients who were not
22 direct victims of the conflict. Somebody who suddenly has a heart attack
23 just one kilometre from this hospital will be taken to this hospital. And
24 if he dies in the hospital after the heart attack, maybe the cause may be
25 unknown. He's not shot by a sniper and not caught in an explosion.
1 So you told us that you saw some video and so on, but I'd like to
2 know the following: Is this just a war hospital whose only calling is to
3 treat the military and to treat the victims of the conflict, or is it a
4 hospital that has a double purpose; military, on the one hand, and also
6 THE WITNESS: Well, there was another hospital in Mostar in the
7 west part of Mostar --
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I'm talking about Mostar east,
9 not west.
10 THE WITNESS: Yes, yes. In East Mostar, this hospital was
11 established as a war hospital for the ABiH army, and it was established at
12 the outbreak of the siege in East Mostar, and the main purpose was to
13 provide medical services to the wounded soldiers, I believe. But, at the
14 same time, it was the only hospital in the area and a very poorly equipped
15 hospital. And, well, it is understandable that, if somebody happened to
16 give birth in the siege period and didn't have any other opportunity, they
17 would come to this hospital, of course, and this is what we see.
18 There are three records of unrelated cases in the hospital, but
19 this is all what we see in the records.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] But let's have a theoretical
21 example. Let's imagine that a child under 12 suddenly has appendicitis
22 turning into peritonitis, and, of course, this child is sent to the
23 hospital immediately, this hospital. Unfortunately, this child dies; but
24 then, in that case, which category would this child fall into
25 statistically, the unknown? What category would you put this person in,
1 this child?
2 THE WITNESS: Well, if the diagnosis would be reported, then I
3 would put it as an unrelated case, I believe, because of the history of
4 the case. But if the diagnosis is unknown, then it would be among the
5 unknown cases. Why the child died of such a simple surgical thing is
6 another question. I believe it wasn't a hospital that was able to offer a
7 high quality service to everybody because of the conditions in which the
8 hospital operated.
9 So I can imagine that some patients died of medical complications
10 or whatever; right? I can't distinguish how many cases of this kind were
11 there, but this is another issue, I believe.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Praljak.
13 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation]
14 Q. Let's move on, madam, to chapter 3.4 and look at table 8. It's
15 page 11 of the English. Table 8. Age and sex distribution of victims,
16 men and women separately. My first question is this: In views of the
17 laws prevailing in Bosnia and Herzegovina that recruits range from the
18 ages of 16 to 65, why did you have the group for 15 to 19 and a group from
19 60 to 64 and not to 65? Why did you choose groups which do not correspond
20 to the laws governing conscripts in case of war?
21 A. Well, these groups are the usual age groups used in demographic
22 analysis, so this is why they were used. But, of course, any age grouping
23 is possible, and if you want to see 16 to 65, I can provide this age
24 distribution as well.
25 Q. Well, I think such a distribution would be more precise, but what
1 is interesting here is the following: The ratio of men who were killed,
2 according to the records of the war hospital, it says 375 males, and the
3 ratio of males to females is 4.3 to 1; whereas, in the death registers of
4 Mostar -- East Mostar, it's 296 men and 76 women, and the ratio is 3.821.
5 My question is the following: At that time, in Mostar, were there
6 4.3 or 3.8 per cent less women, in view of the fact that women died less
7 from shelling, which had to do with the whole town? Were there fewer
8 women in Eastern Mostar at the time?
9 A. Well, I told you today that I didn't have population data on East
11 Q. Well, just say, "I don't know," madam.
12 A. That is what I said.
13 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] So from the ratio 4.3 or
14 3.821, concerning the shelling of East Mostar, Their Honours can draw
15 their own conclusion as to who was killed and how in particular places.
16 Q. Let's go to table 9. Table 9. You say, East Mostar records in
17 the war hospital, and this is the sex distribution. And we have the war
18 hospital records and the death registers, and then, again, the ratio of
19 men to women is 7 to 1. Shelling, 65 men and 45 women. The ratio is 3.6
20 to 1. And in the death records, it's 271 men, and accidents and woundings
21 are very different.
22 Is this table correct?
23 A. Well, the table is correct. There are no sex ratio in the table.
24 Q. Yes. Well, it can be calculated, and one can see whether I
25 calculated it correctly, but you yourself say that both sources agree that
1 in absolute terms men were killed more often because of violent
2 war-related causes a bit more frequently than men.
3 So, if this is the ratio of men to women dying of violent
4 war-related causes, is it clear that men were killed a lot more, precisely
5 because they participated in the combat operations which were ongoing in
6 Mostar at the time?
7 I will not ask you, of course, who was attacking who, because
8 that's not your field of expertise, but does this table show correctly
9 that the number of men far exceeds the number of women?
10 If there were not fewer women there, then maybe more men were
11 killed because they were engaged in carrying out wartime duties. Can you
12 say something about that or not; if not, I will move on?
13 A. Well, there were many more killed, and you see it in the table.
14 So why there were more men killed, well, perhaps, they were fighting more
15 actively than women. That's all I can say.
16 Q. Thank you very much. Let's go to table number 10. Table 10 on
17 page 1932 of the Croatian text, and we shall see that it is a breakdown by
18 ethnicity. In the war hospital, according to you, there were 345 Muslims,
19 and the records, the registries have a different number. There are 4
20 others, and 110 unknown. In relation to 345 Muslims, that's 2.7 to 1.
21 That's the ratio of numbers to unknown.
22 My question is: In your subsequent analysis, by looking at the
23 names, you transformed all these unknowns into Muslims just by reading
24 their names; is that correct? And, yes, just first answer. Is that
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Thank you. And, in the next table, you calculated that 95.3 were
3 Muslims and 87.6 in the death records. What happened to those 110 when
4 calculating these percentages? Do they account for 30 per cent of 345?
5 You are saying there were 95.3 Muslims here in your calculations,
6 but you did not take into account the 110 unknowns. This table correct?
7 Can we consider it correct or incorrect?
8 A. You are correct, 110 are excluded from the calculation of
10 Q. And, then, in the next table, you say that the number of civilians
11 in the war hospital was 160. There were 12 detainees, 158 military, and
12 142 unknown. So there were 160 civilians, and this is war hospital. Is
13 this table correct?
14 A. Yes, it is.
15 Q. Thank you, madam. Now, to round this off, please look at table
16 16. Table 16. That's 2632, page 17 in English. You say distribution of
17 the victims of the siege according to cause of death, table 16; and then
18 you say, shelling 76, killed 34, gunshots 18, wounding 6, and then we have
19 unknown 404.
20 If your table is correct, I'm a little confused by the constant
21 changes in some information; although, for the most part, the calculations
22 are correct, but some of the entry data -- well, is this correct that 404
23 are unknown?
24 So, in the case of 404 persons, we don't know what the cause of
25 death is; whereas, we know that 76 were killed by shelling, 34 were
1 killed, 18 by gunshots, and so on.
2 A. This table is correct. But further in the text, I say that it's
3 not fully reliable. And there are good reasons that I'm showing this
4 table, because it's important to address problems with the sources. If I
5 wouldn't address the problems, then you wouldn't understand what's the
6 quality of the statistics I produced.
7 Shall I continue explaining why the table is unreliable or --
8 Q. Well, I agree that it's unreliable. I'm not saying it's reliable.
9 I was only trying to challenge if someone says "Unknown," and those are
10 doctors in the hospital who say that, that's the most we can have before
11 this Court. All the rest are just statistical exercises. I can do
12 statistical exercises myself, but here we have a fact. It's 404 unknown.
13 This table is correct. And how we can go from there, I can't go
14 into that. I can produce completely different statistical data. I asked
15 you whether the table is correct, and you said "Yes, it is."
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, I would like some
17 clarification about a particular point. On this table where it is
18 indicated "Cause of death," the first cause is shelling, and then the
19 number of people killed, and then the gunshot wounds.
20 I have a question about the people killed. The cause of death
21 killed, that doesn't mean anything. When somebody's killed, there is a
22 reason; either the person has been hit by a bullet or shrapnel, or the
23 person has been strangled. There is a reason. What did you mean by that?
24 THE WITNESS: This table is --
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Throat cut.
1 THE WITNESS: This table is related to merged sources, to the two
2 sources combined together: Death registries and war hospital records.
3 The causes are here reported according to the source, original source.
4 It's important to understand that, in the merge, the first source from
5 which records were accepted were the death registries; and in addition to
6 records from the death registries, we accepted new records from the war
7 hospital. And I explained this earlier today. This is because the
8 personal information is much better in the death registries than in the
9 war hospital records.
10 This type of merge has certain consequences on the recorded cause
11 of death and some other items, like military/civilian status and
12 statistics obtained directly from the merge. This merge gives unreliable
13 information about reported causes of death and reported civilian/military
14 status. And this is related to the fact that these two items were
15 practically not reported in the death registries, our first source taken
16 for the merge.
17 So this is not a good way of making an assessment of the actual
18 cause of death distribution or the civilian/military distribution of
19 victims reported in the merged sources. A different way must be applied
20 in order to obtain more reliable, better statistics on that, and we did
21 apply this other way.
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Let me finish, and I shall give
23 the floor to my colleagues.
24 The Bench will have to determine the number of victims there were
25 in Mostar, the number of people killed and the number of people wounded.
1 If we take the lower end of the assumption, 539 people killed, and that is
2 the lower end of the assumption due to the cross-referencing of two
3 tables, as you've just mentioned.
4 If, after that, I need to look into the reasons or the causes of
5 death of these 539 people, on reading your table, 78 are reported as being
6 casualties due to the shelling, 18 are due to gunshot; and then I have
7 34 - I don't know what this stands for; I have no answer to that
8 question - unaccounted for, and then I have 404 which are also unaccounted
9 for because the statistics are unknown.
10 So, in statistical terms, those 34 people, shouldn't they have
11 been added on to the 404, so as to only indicate 76 for whom you were
12 sure, due to the cross-referencing of your sources, you knew that these
13 people had died due to the shelling, and 18 that were killed due to
14 gunshots. So, quite honestly, I don't have an answer to this question.
15 THE WITNESS: Well, killed is as reported in these registries. It
16 is killed people. This is how it is reported, killed people. And,
17 basically, the killed category, which is 34 persons, could be reported
18 jointly under unknown. This is exactly the same thing.
19 But as I said when Your Honours would make your assessment of the
20 cause of death distribution of victims, this table shouldn't be taken into
21 account because it is a biased table. I still do include this table to
22 address the problems with the sources. We are not working with perfect
23 sources. It's very difficult situation. We do what is the best in this
24 particular situation. We have these sources, and we have no others
1 We have to live with the sources as they are. Certain things can
2 be taken directly from the sources, but certain other things cannot. And
3 only statistical estimates can be provided, and this is what we did for
4 causes of death, for cause of death distribution, an estimate.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I understand what you're saying.
6 I would like to finish off with one question, and then hand the floor over
7 to my colleague. I understand now that these 34 people have been reported
8 thanks to the death registries. What I don't know is whether this death
9 registry was probably established by a municipal authority; and if I
10 assume there is a dispute between two individuals and one dies after the
11 fight, his name will be on the death registry, and will it say in that
12 that the person has been killed because there was a fight or because there
13 was shelling?
14 This is why I have questions this. And you have taken these
15 figures from the death registries which indicate that the people are
16 dead. But are the death registries such that the people have been killed
17 because of the siege, or maybe they could have been killed for another
18 reason? Because the person who reads your table, understands that there
19 is a connection here with the siege, and one has reason to believe that
20 there's a direct link between these figures and the siege. But maybe
21 there are some people who have died for totally different reasons.
22 THE WITNESS: Well, death registries is a source established by
23 municipal authorities. It is the responsibility of these authorities to
24 take record of every death that occurs. These death registries are meant
25 for all deaths: Violent deaths related to conflict, unrelated to
1 conflict, natural causes of death. It's all there. This is the source.
2 So, in this source, we actually, in principle, should have a very
3 specific information about causes of death. And, normally, we do have
4 this for Mostar. For the period of the siege of East Mostar, the
5 reporting is extremely, extremely poor. Practically, causes of death are
6 unavailable for the majority of these records; but, but, at the same time,
7 when we compare this source with war hospital record, then we see there is
8 an overlap, and considerable overlap, of these two sources of victims
9 reported in war hospitals.
10 We have good reasons to believe that these are really victims of
11 the siege. So a majority of the deaths reported in the death registries
12 for this period, for this area, will have similar causes of death. That
13 is the rationale that we have behind taking a group of records with
14 unknown causes from the death registries and including them, according to
15 the criteria of relevance, time relevance and area relevance, and
16 including these records in the statistics.
17 But I'm not saying that we have causes of death for every single
18 victim reported in the death registries. I can't offer this. I'm -- I
19 would love to, because that would help to make clear decisions and produce
20 very obvious statistics, but this is not the case.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] If I've understood you
22 correctly, Witness, those 34 people who are in the registry which was
23 established by the authorities of East Mostar, the names of these 34
24 people, I should be able to find them again in the war hospital registries
25 as people having been admitted into evidence, theoretically.
1 THE WITNESS: Well, if not all of them, some of them certainly.
2 The correspondence of these sources is not 1 to 1 that every single record
3 reported in the war hospital is at the same time included in the death
4 registries. In principle, this should be the case. This should be the
5 case, because death registries is the source meant for all deaths in this
6 period and in this area; but, in the conflict situation, it is not
7 realistic to expect that sources are complete and correspond to each
9 Sources are incomplete. Sources are deficient. Sources have
10 misreporting. Sources have biases. So the best we can do, we can work
11 with the sources as they are and understand the problems in the sources.
12 And based on this, we try to make an informed judgement and produce
13 statistics on the victims. This is what we have done.
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Witness. I think my
15 colleague wanted to put a question to you.
16 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Yes, a small question, and I'm not quite sure I
17 admit to what degree it is relevant. It strikes me, as it struck
18 Mr. Praljak, I believe, that in tables 10, 11, 16, you have quite a
19 considerable proportion of unknown; and when you then indicate
20 percentages, you simply strike those outs. Why? How is this justified?
21 THE WITNESS: Well, I exclude the unknowns from the cases of which
22 I know causes of death, or civilian/military status, or age distribution,
23 sex distribution, et cetera. And I consider the cases known values of
24 certain data items as smaller samples of all cases that I have in the war
25 hospital records. These are cases, well-defined cases.
1 For the well-defined cases, I am allowed to calculate a certain
2 distribution of certain categories reported; and considering these
3 well-defined cases as smaller samples, I use the sample-based statistics
4 and apply the sample-based statistics to the unknown and distribute the
5 unknowns. That's the basic principle I use.
6 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Just to be sure that I understand correctly. You
7 operate an extrapolation. You say, if the relationship between one
8 category of the known and the other category of the known, it is justified
9 to suppose that within the unknown, it is the same proportion and
10 therefore I can exclude them.
11 Did I understand you correctly?
12 THE WITNESS: Very correctly, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We have 10 minutes left,
14 Mr. Praljak -- or six minutes.
15 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation]
16 Q. Madam, I would only repeat what you said. I do not have data for
17 such-and-such reasons; but because I do not have, the data the objective
18 picture is different. So you are saying that there is an objective
19 picture that you can create beyond the data you have from the war hospital
20 and the death registries. Is that correct?
21 A. Well, you call it an objective picture. I would call it
22 statistically justified and, therefore, objective picture.
23 Q. So when you look at your statistics, His Honour Judge Trechsel
24 asked you about extrapolation. You refer to a sample. A sample is part
25 of larger set. When we have one set, in your science, that set is part of
1 a larger set. And a representative sample is a sample that, with a high
2 degree of probability, reproduces on a smaller scale what holds for the
3 whole scope. So a representative set reflects the whole set; whereas, a
4 sample is simply a random selection of the whole set.
5 A. Well, representative sample represents well the larger population
6 it comes from. So you are right when saying this.
7 Q. A representative sample when, for example, taking a poll of
8 voters, a Gallup poll or something similar, represents on a smaller scale
9 the whole picture. If you were to downsize Praljak and have a miniature
10 Praljak, but he would also have a beard and a nose and so on, that would
11 be representative; whereas, a sample is simply a random part of the whole
12 set. Is that correct?
13 A. If it is random, then it would be very good. But I will help you
14 with this representativeness of our samples, sir, if you want me to, of
16 Q. No, no. I'm saying this because of what you've said. You are
17 comparing two sets. You say, "I have one sample, and I am transferring
18 this to another sample because I assume is they are the same. They are
19 coherent. They are identical." That is a comparison of two samples or
20 two sets.
21 My question is: Can two sets be compared in this way when, and
22 only when, one proves beforehand that those two sets are highly similar to
23 one another, that there is a high percentage of similarity between them in
24 order to transmit a statistic from one set onto another set. Is that
1 A. Yes, it is correct.
2 Q. But nowhere have we seen this other set to which you are
3 transferring your data. So did you create a set of the citizens arriving
4 at the hospital according to all the elements I asked you about? Because
5 that would then be a basis for comparing the two sets according to the
6 principle that what applies in one set also applies in the other. Did you
7 do this?
8 A. Well, I didn't create such a template sample, say. I didn't. So
9 I can't compare all these little samples, the unknowns with the template
11 Q. Madam, these are not small samples. It's, in your words, around
12 35.000 people, 35 to 55.000 people, and we don't have this it fundamental
13 sample to show similarity. Someone may have had a heart attack. People
14 dying in conditions where there is no food, no water. We don't have that
15 set, do we?
16 A. Sir, I was thinking we are speaking of samples; that is, data from
17 war hospital or death registries. These are samples. I wasn't thinking
18 of the overall population on which -- on whom I don't any data at all.
19 So any comparison with the overall population of East Mostar, during the
20 siege in East in Mostar, is impossible. These data don't exist.
21 Q. Correct, madam. But, in you words, Dr. Rajkov says: 50 per cent
22 were civilians, 50 per cent were soldiers. So to compare the two sets
23 here, you had to have some statistical data on what civilians fell ill of
24 or died of, so that you could so elegantly transfer them to the group of
25 those killed by shelling. Is that correct?
1 A. Well, first of all, I want to separate that I took Dr. Rajkov's
2 statement and applied in this study. I didn't. I mentioned what he
3 thinks about the distribution into civilians and soldiers. But I made my
4 own estimates into the distribution into civilians and soldiers, and I did
5 it with two different methods and ended, from these two methods, with
6 similar results. And my results are, indeed, consistent with the results
7 of Dr. Rajkov, but that is all. They are consistent, but I didn't use his
8 estimate, in my work as such.
9 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] Thank you.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, we have to stop now.
11 We shall resume your cross-examination on Monday at a quarter past 2.00.
12 Between then and now, of course, you are not to discuss any of these
13 matters with Mr. Stringer because you are under oath, and, therefore, you
14 are a witness of the Chamber.
15 So we will all reconvene on Monday at a quarter past 2.00.
16 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.47 p.m.,
17 to be reconvened on Monday, the 3rd day
18 of September, 2007, at 2.15 p.m.