1 Wednesday, 10 July 2002

2 [Open session]

3 [The witness entered court]

4 [The accused entered court]

5 --- Upon commencing at 9.03 a.m.

6 JUDGE MUMBA: Please call the case.

7 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. Case number

8 IT-95-9-T, the Prosecutor versus Blagoje Simic, Miroslav Tadic, and

9 Simo Zaric. Thank you.

10 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. The Prosecution.

11 MR. DI FAZIO: Good morning, Your Honours. If Your Honours

12 please, I seek to produce into evidence the report prepared by

13 Ms. Ewa Tabeau. It was filed, as you know, last year. I've got four

14 copies with court officials. They're in colour, so you can individually

15 have one copy each to follow the evidence, and one of them can be used as

16 the actual exhibit itself, if that's suitable to the Chamber.

17 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. We'll take the solemn declaration from the

18 witness.

19 MR. DI FAZIO: I apologise. I jumped the gun. But that will be

20 my course of action once the witness is sworn in.

21 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

22 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you.

23 WITNESS: EWA TABEAU

24 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the

25 whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

1 JUDGE MUMBA: Thank you. Please sit down.

2 Yes. You've already introduced the report. What about the C.V.,

3 the curriculum vitae? I see it attached --

4 MR. DI FAZIO: Within the report itself.

5 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

6 MR. DI FAZIO: I intend to produce the entirety of the report

7 because, of course, I rely on that as evidence of her credentials and

8 expertise.

9 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Anything else?

10 MR. DI FAZIO: I just wanted to -- I know that the Chamber is

11 concerned about time and so on. I just wanted to outline to you what I

12 propose to do and see if that's agreeable to you.

13 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. I'll hear from the Defence. They received the

14 report as indicated by the Prosecutor and ...

15 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, Your Honour. We can confirm that we received

16 that.

17 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

18 MR. PANTELIC: We don't have any objection to admission into

19 evidence.

20 JUDGE MUMBA: All right. Can we have the number, please?

21 THE REGISTRAR: It will be P133, Your Honours. Thank you.

22 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Di Fazio.

23 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes. Now, what I propose to do - I know that

24 you're mindful of time and so on - is just to ask the witness to identify

25 major features of the report. That will take me a matter of minutes, and

1 then sit down. If that's suitable to you.

2 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. You can go ahead.

3 MR. DI FAZIO: That's all I propose to do. Thank you.

4 And may I ask if the interpreters' booth could inform us whether

5 or not they have a copy of the report because, if not, I have an extra

6 copy here which I can make available.

7 I'm informed by my case manager that they do have copies.

8 JUDGE MUMBA: Very well.

9 MR. DI FAZIO: One final matter. I understand that the copy that

10 was filed with our motion last year is a colour copy. If it's in court

11 with registry officials now, if it's available now, I wonder if it might

12 be temporarily loaned to the Prosecution, as it's in colour and the

13 copies that we have are in black and white.

14 JUDGE MUMBA: Is it in colour?

15 MR. DI FAZIO: If not, we'll make do with the black and white, but

16 if it is available, could we just borrow it for the proceedings.

17 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honour. I brought the filing into

18 court, and it is in colour. It can be given to the Prosecution.

19 MR. DI FAZIO: If it could be simply kept here on the Prosecution

20 Bench just for the morning and I'll undertake, of course, to return it

21 once the evidence is finished.

22 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. I think that can be done.

23 MR. DI FAZIO: May I proceed, Your Honours?

24 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

25 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you.

1 Examined by Mr. Di Fazio:

2 Q. Madam Tabeau, I'd like you to just provide commentary on the major

3 aspects of this report, and I'd like you, please, to first of all tell the

4 Trial Chamber what the major features of the report are, and in

5 particular, what the major subject areas of the report are, please.

6 A. Good morning, Your Honour. This report is titled Changes in the

7 Ethnic Composition in Bosanski Samac and Odzak, 1991 and 1997. It is a

8 report, as suggested by the title, about the ethnic composition, how it

9 used to be before the conflict started in these municipalities and in

10 Bosnia and Herzegovina in the last year, for which we have excellent data

11 source, the population census, 1991, and we then further compare ethnic

12 composition from the pre-wartime with the ethnic composition in the year

13 1997.

14 Our major goal is to provide reliable statistics that would allow

15 us for assessment, proper assessment, of the scale of changes, and that

16 would give us a deeper insight into the population that used to live there

17 before and after the conflict. Yes. Shall I continue?

18 Q. Yes, please continue.

19 A. In our study, we used two sources, information sources.

20 Q. If I may just ask you to pause there. I was going to ask you

21 about that. Of course, you were about to go on and explain the sources,

22 and please do, but when you do so, can you comment on whether or not these

23 are commonly used sources for demographic studies; and secondly, if you

24 can offer any commentary on the reliability of those sources that you used

25 in preparing the report.

1 A. We used two sources: One is, as I said, the population census

2 from 1991; and the second source is voters register from the elections in

3 1997. Regarding the census, I can say that it is the best information

4 source that we can have as demographers to describe the population size

5 and structure, by very many different dimensions.

6 Population census covers the whole population living at a

7 particular moment of time in a country. Population census is usually

8 conducted and processed -- data is later processed very carefully. I

9 think that also the census in Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1991 was conducted

10 quite carefully. As to data processing, I am -- as we all know, the

11 conflict started directly -- almost directly after the year the census

12 took place, so certainly there was not enough time and there was not

13 enough attention to process the data in the usual way. But in my view,

14 the quality of this source is very good, even though there are certain

15 problems, like, for instance, errors in the spelling of names and certain

16 information actually would need to be recorded properly in order to obtain

17 a better picture of the changes of the population. Nevertheless, I

18 believe strongly that this is a very complete and reliable source of

19 information.

20 The second source, voters register, is not a source that we can

21 consider official, not at least a source that can be used for producing

22 official statistics. In no country statistical authorities use this type

23 of sources for producing statistics. But we must remember that it is very

24 difficult to find a source for any country in a similar situation to

25 Bosnia and Herzegovina that would be used to show, almost directly after

1 the conflict, the size of the population, and voters register actually can

2 be used for this purpose. It is a huge data source for the election in

3 1997, more than 2 million voters registered. It was almost 2 and-a-half

4 million voters who registered to vote in this election. If we realise

5 that the whole population, pre-war population of Bosnia and Herzegovina,

6 had 4.4 million individuals, then we realise that 2 and-a-half million is

7 more than half of the population size. This sample -- this must be seen

8 as a sample, as a part of the population, must be seen as a very large

9 sample, and certainly can be used to make conclusions related to the

10 population size, and this is what we have done.

11 Voters register does not include information about ethnicity. In

12 order to classify, regroup, individuals reported in the voters register by

13 ethnicity, we linked voters register with the population census. "Linked"

14 means simply that individual records describing the same persons were

15 searched in the two collections and connected with each other. And in

16 this case, once a person, the same person, was found in the two sources,

17 we could use information about ethnicity from the census for the person

18 who was reported in the voters register.

19 This is very important what I am saying, because all tables, all

20 figures, presented in our report show ethnic composition obtained from the

21 same definition of ethnicity as reported in the population census in 1991.

22 This is very important part of our methodology, the linking or, in other

23 words, matching records from different sources.

24 Q. Thank you. Can I ask you: Did you -- what sort of precautions

25 did you take to ensure that this linking process was reliable and safe?

1 A. The most reliable way of linking records is using individual

2 identification numbers, the so-called maticni broj, if available, of

3 course, in the sources that are being linked. Luckily, in the census and

4 also in the voters register, the maticni broj is reported. Unfortunately,

5 this is not reported for every single voter registered in the voters

6 register. Approximately 80 per cent, or even more than that, voters have

7 the ID. So it was a very fast procedure in this case. For about 80 per

8 cent of voters, about 2 million individuals for the whole country, we were

9 able to quickly link them with the same records in that census. So in

10 this case it was not difficult.

11 Q. Thank you. Now, if I may ask you: The subject-matter of the

12 study, geographic subject-matter of the study, I should say, am I correct

13 in saying that that was essentially the pre-war municipalities of

14 Bosanski Samac and Odzak and following upon the Dayton Agreement, those

15 same two municipalities but which had now been divided into four, namely,

16 Domaljevac Samac, or part of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and

17 Samac, the Republika Srpska part of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and as far as

18 Odzak is concerned, the federal part of Odzak and what is now Vukosavlje,

19 Republika Srpska. Is that correct?

20 A. Yes, this is correct.

21 Q. Thank you. And can I ask you just to show on the map that you

22 have in your -- or the relevant map that you have from your report, just

23 show Their Honours, please, on the ELMO, the basic geographic areas that

24 we are talking about and the Dayton line, and point out the old

25 municipalities and the four new municipalities that emerged following the

1 Dayton Agreement, please. And you've got the marker there to do that.

2 Thank you.

3 A. Unfortunately, I don't have coloured map, only black and white,

4 but still I think the map is relatively clear. It is, on the other hand,

5 not a very specific map but just an illustration of how the municipalities

6 looked like and where is the Dayton line.

7 What we see on the map are four municipalities, or two

8 municipalities if we would think of pre-war municipalities. So this is

9 approximately the pre-war municipality of Bosanski Samac. It consists of

10 two parts, in terms of post-war, post-Dayton municipalities: federal part

11 Domaljevac Samac and Serbian part, Samac. And a similar situation we see

12 for Odzak: This is the pre-war Odzak, and here the federal part of Odzak,

13 and Serbian part, Odzak Vukosavlje.

14 The Dayton line, as we see here, is going approximately like that.

15 In your coloured copy of the report, the Dayton line is marked with red,

16 so it is easy to see how the municipalities had been split by the Dayton

17 Peace Accords. So that's the geography. We actually analysed the four

18 municipalities, post-Dayton municipalities, in our study, instead

19 of two pre-war municipalities. The reason for doing this is that there

20 were huge population movements within the pre-war municipalities, and if

21 you would be looking at the pre-war municipalities, the larger entities,

22 then we wouldn't be able to find what was happening within the

23 municipalities with the population. So this is why. Analysing four

24 municipalities gives us the opportunity of being more specific and just

25 making a more thorough analysis.

1 Q. Thank you. Thank you very much for that. Now I'd like to ask you

2 to consider the major findings that you made in your report, and where

3 necessary, can you direct the Chamber's attention to any maps or tables

4 that illustrate the major points.

5 Firstly, can we deal with Bosanski

6 Samac. Did you, in fact, conduct a study of the pre-war population of

7 Bosanski Samac but by looking at the post-Dayton split, namely,

8 Domaljevac Samac and Samac Republika Srpska? If you did, what were your

9 major findings there?

10 A. I would like to show you a selection of figures and statistics.

11 All material I will be using during my presentation is part of the report,

12 right?

13 Q. Thank you. When you do show those materials, could you just tell

14 Their Honours what page of the report they will find that at so they can

15 follow it by looking at their own copy and also make a record of it for

16 the future. Thank you.

17 A. Yes. I will first refer to figure 1A, which is included on page

18 9. This figure shows ethnic composition in Domaljevac Samac, federal part

19 of the pre-war Samac, Bosanski Samac. It is a picture that is actually

20 very clear, and we will not spend much time on discussing it.

21 There are two groups of bars -- excuse me. There are four groups

22 of bars included in my charts. One, first group, shows the fraction of

23 Serbs in the population before and after the war. Here, actually, the

24 fraction was very, very small before and after. Next group shows the same

25 for Muslim population. Next one for Croat population, and the last group

1 of bars shows the fraction of other ethnic groups aggregated, taken

2 altogether.

3 First the bar to the left always -- here, for instance, it's

4 very clear. This bar always is illustrating the pre-war situation, 1991

5 data, and the bar to the right, the 1997 data.

6 In Domaljevac-Samac, before the war, there were 98 per cent of

7 Croats, and the same fraction of Croats lived there after the war, as we

8 obtained from the voters register.

9 Q. Thank you. So essentially, the north-eastern segment of Bosanski

10 Samac, the pre-war Bosanski Samac, has always had high numbers of Croats

11 living in that area?

12 A. Right.

13 Q. Thank you.

14 A. This has not changed, had not changed --

15 Q. All right.

16 A. -- between 1991 and 1997.

17 Q. Thanks. Can you go on to comment about the Samac part of -- Samac

18 Republika Srpska part of the former Bosanski Samac.

19 A. Here the picture is more complex. Before the war, Serbs were the

20 absolute majority, with representative 55 per cent, but there were also

21 Croats living there, 27 per cent before the war, 1991; also 10 per cent of

22 Muslims, and a small per cent, 8 per cent, of other ethnic groups.

23 Q. Thank you. Just before you continue: This, of course, is the

24 part of Bosanski Samac that includes the actual town itself, the city

25 itself, the town of Bosanski Samac?

1 A. Yes, I think so, yes.

2 Q. Okay. Thank you. Please continue.

3 JUDGE LINDHOLM: May I put a question just for clarification?

4 Figure 1A covers the whole municipality of Bosanski Samac, including both

5 the villages and the town of Bosanski Samac, and not only the town of

6 Bosanski Samac?

7 MR. DI FAZIO: May I just look at the transcript? I don't think

8 so, if Your Honour pleases.

9 Well, I think not, if Your Honour pleases. Figure 1A only

10 includes the north-eastern part of Bosanski Samac, of the whole pre-war

11 Bosanski Samac.

12 Q. Witness, I think you heard His Honour's question.

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Figure 1A, am I correct, only applies to a segment, a portion, of

15 the pre-war Bosanski Samac, the north-eastern segment of the former

16 Bosanski Samac?

17 A. Yes, that is correct. Yes.

18 Q. And it essentially is the part --

19 JUDGE LINDHOLM: If I might, just for my own sake. So it's the

20 part north-east of the red line on the map on side 2, where we have

21 Grebnice --

22 MR. DI FAZIO: That's right. That's absolutely right.

23 JUDGE LINDHOLM: And so on.

24 MR. DI FAZIO: That's correct.

25 JUDGE LINDHOLM: Okay. Fine.

1 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes. Thank you.

2 Q. Would you please continue with your commentary on the

3 Republika Srpska part of the former Bosanski Samac, please.

4 A. The post-war composition is very much different from what we saw

5 for 1991. This is the fraction of Serbs. It is 92 per cent of the

6 Serbian population that we had identified in the voters register. So the

7 representation of other ethnic groups is very small, 1.7 per cent of

8 Muslims, 1.3 per cent of Croats, and 5 per cent of others. So the change

9 in the ethnic composition is quite dramatic in this municipality.

10 Q. Thank you. So essentially, there were always large numbers of

11 Serbs in that part of Bosanski Samac that is now Samac Republika Srpska,

12 but following the war, that high proportion, 55 per cent, jumped

13 dramatically, and all other groups dropped dramatically.

14 A. Yes, that is correct.

15 Q. Is that fair enough?

16 A. Yes, this is correct, yes.

17 Q. The result would be, of course, that the population of that part

18 of Bosanski Samac became far more homogenous, far more -- purer, so to

19 speak?

20 A. Yes. Yes.

21 Q. Thank you. Yes. Please, can you comment on the ethnic

22 composition in the pre-war Bosanski Samac as a whole, please?

23 A. Pre-war composition of Bosanski Samac was mixed. There were 45

24 per cent of Croats living there, 41 per cent of Serbs, and Muslims and

25 other ethnic groups altogether -- each of these, Muslims were represented

1 at 7 per cent and others also at 7 per cent. So, obviously, the pre-war

2 Bosanski Samac, as a whole, in terms of the pre-war definition, had a

3 mixed ethnic composition, with two dominant ethnic groups: Croats and

4 Serbs. But there was no majority ethnic group, majority in the sense that

5 there would be one group which would be represented at more than 50 per

6 cent. So obviously, for the whole municipality, the ethnic composition

7 was mixed.

8 Q. Thank you. Now, can I ask you to go to your -- the major findings

9 that you made in respect of Odzak, please, and essentially cover the same

10 ground that we had covered, pre- and post-war general breakdown of the

11 population --

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. -- and then post-war breakdown of the population in the two

14 separate parts. And can I also ask you to, before you do that, to again

15 illustrate to the Court the geographic area that we are now looking at and

16 which figure we can find it at.

17 A. I am now back with the map of Odzak. This is the pre-war

18 municipality Odzak, divided by the Dayton line into Federal Odzak and

19 Odzak Vukosavlje, belonging to Republika Srpska after the Dayton Peace

20 Accords.

21 Q. Thank you. And can you please now comment on the pre-war

22 distribution of the population and its ethnicity, please, and direct us to

23 the relevant tables.

24 A. Yes. The pre-war ethnic composition in Odzak had a Croat

25 majority, 54 per cent of Croats living there, and two considerable

1 minorities. One of them was Muslims and the second one was Serbs.

2 Actually, Serbs were represented at 21 per cent and Muslims at 19 per

3 cent. So we have a situation municipality -- Croat municipality in the

4 sense of absolute majority of Croats living there, and two large

5 minorities, each approximately 20 per cent, mixed ethnic composition. It

6 must be seen like that.

7 Q. Thank you. Now, can you comment upon the demographic picture

8 presented post-war in the federal part of what was formerly Odzak?

9 A. I'm referring now to figure 3A, which is included at page 18 in

10 the report, figure 3A. This is page 18. And statistics shown in this

11 figure are included in table 11A, the same page.

12 Q. Thank you. And so can you comment on the picture that is

13 presented there?

14 A. In the Federal Odzak before the war, we observed 75 per cent of

15 Croats, which is a very strong majority of Croats, and 22 per cent of

16 Serbs, and actually, other ethnic groups, like Muslims and others, are

17 only very weakly represented.

18 Q. Thank you. So please tell me if this is a fair comment: It would

19 seem that the proportion of Serbs living in what is now the federal part

20 of Odzak dropped dramatically, the number of Muslims who went to live

21 there obviously climbed dramatically, and the number of Croats stayed at

22 more or less the same.

23 A. That is very correct. That is the post-war, 1997 situation, yes.

24 Q. Later in your report -- later in your report, do you comment on

25 where these people went?

1 A. Yes. We tried to trace the fate of those who actually lived in

2 these municipalities in 1991, and we have done this also for this

3 municipality.

4 Q. Can you briefly explain to the Chamber how you went about that?

5 A. We actually looked for place of residence of certain persons who

6 were identified as registered voters. In 1991, on the one hand, and in

7 1997, on the other hand.

8 Q. Thank you. And just while we're diverging briefly here, could I

9 ask you: Did you form any findings or conclusions as to where that

10 population of Serbs that you can see in the federal part, what is now the

11 federal part of Odzak, where they went?

12 A. Yes, of course. We have done this also for the Serb population

13 who moved out from this municipality. And if I may refer you to figure

14 3B, page 19 in the report.

15 Q. Yes. Can you explain that figure to the Chamber and --

16 A. We --

17 Q. -- what it illustrates?

18 A. Please take a good look at this, only this chart, not all of them,

19 because now we are speaking only of the Serb population who moved out of

20 this municipality. In this figure we show the 1997 voters who used to

21 live in this area in 1991, by their place of residence in 1997. Some of

22 them registered to vote, only very few in this municipality, the same

23 municipality where they lived in 1991, but majority of them registered to

24 vote in other municipalities in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Some of the Serbs

25 moved out of the country. We can even say where they moved to: many of

1 them to Serbia, but also some of them to countries in Europe or America

2 and other countries. But this bar is the explanation of how they moved,

3 where they moved to. They just left this area and moved to other places

4 in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

5 Q. Thanks. As far as that bar in the middle of the red figure 3B

6 dealing with Serbs, indicating that many of them moved to other

7 municipalities, did you ever conduct a study of which other municipalities

8 they moved to?

9 A. We made some maps that are included in the report. For this

10 group, only this group, other municipalities, we can indicate on the map

11 of Bosnia and Herzegovina where we found them, and this is figure 3C, page

12 20 in the report.

13 Q. And essentially, what conclusion did you draw as far as the Serbs

14 from that part of Odzak are concerned?

15 A. Well, it is rather clear from this figure that very many of them

16 moved to Bosanski Samac, the part that is today Republika Srpska, but also

17 to other municipalities in the neighbourhood of Odzak and Samac, and other

18 municipalities in Republika Srpska. They just remained in the part called

19 today Republika Srpska.

20 Q. Fine. Now, I apologise for this brief diversion. If we can go

21 back now to your analysis that you were conducting of Odzak itself. And I

22 think we've dealt with the federal part. Can we now deal with the part

23 that is now part of the Republika Srpska.

24 A. I'm now showing you figure 4A. This is page 22 in the report. Am

25 I correct, or is it 21?

1 JUDGE MUMBA: I think it's page 21.

2 THE WITNESS: I'm very sorry. Yes. It is a matter of how the

3 text is distributed when printing. I'm sorry. 21.

4 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you.

5 A. We see again information about two ethnic compositions in two

6 years, 1991, 1997. 1991, we see two groups, Muslims and Croats, being two

7 large ethnic groups, 38 per cent each of the whole population in this

8 municipality. No one of these groups is a majority, absolute majority

9 group. Serbs are represented at 19 per cent, others 5 per cent. Again,

10 an example of mixed ethnic composition, with two groups, Muslims and

11 Croats, dominating in this municipality.

12 And a completely different situation in 1997: The groups,

13 dominant ethnic groups from 1991 were completely gone by 1997, and the

14 Serbian population increased up to 93 per cent, and practically it is a

15 very homogeneous ethnic composition, with symbolically represented Croats

16 at 2 per cent and 5 per cent of other ethnic groups. That is exactly the

17 same as in 1991.

18 Q. Of course, they're just figures of the percentage breakdown of the

19 population. It doesn't actually mean that a lot of Serbs actually went

20 there, but it means that of people who are now living there, that is, by

21 far, the dominant group are Serbs?

22 A. Yes. It is, of course, first of all, the result of the fact, the

23 change in ethnic composition, that other ethnic groups are absent in this

24 municipality. So it is not the absolute numbers that we are discussing

25 here, but relative numbers, fractions, percentages. So the increase is

1 dramatic increase, first of all, the result of the absence of other ethnic

2 groups. But there were certainly newcomers, Serb newcomers, who moved

3 into this municipality from other areas of this region, say, put it this

4 way.

5 Q. Thank you.

6 JUDGE LINDHOLM: Excuse me. When we are talking about the

7 relations between different ethnic groups, I think it would be most useful

8 also to have the figures of the total population in that area, because

9 otherwise this is misleading.

10 THE WITNESS: If I may answer. Yes? We actually include some

11 figures that say something about the population size, together with the

12 chart that I'm discussing right now, and for this particular municipality,

13 if we look at table 12A, page 22 in my copy -- is it correct?

14 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes.

15 THE WITNESS: Page 22, table 12A. Then we see -- this is a very

16 small municipality, and in the first column of statistics, where the

17 census figures are reported, we see a total of 5.850. 5.850. This is the

18 size of the population in 1991. This is only a sample of this population,

19 comparable with the population of voters in 1997. So this is not

20 necessarily what we really know about the size. This excludes children,

21 who are not eligible to vote in 1997. And for 1997, we have a number as a

22 total, 1.254. This is again an indicative size, not complete population.

23 Voters registered only when they wanted to. There is a group of voters,

24 eligible people, eligible to vote, who did not register or see who was

25 responsible for organising these elections estimates, that the

1 participation was approximately up to 75 per cent also in these areas. So

2 there is a group of voters who are excluded because they didn't register.

3 But still, we believe that this sample size is large enough to obtain

4 relative measures of the ethnic composition that we are discussing right

5 now.

6 MR. DI FAZIO:

7 Q. Thank you.

8 MR. PANTELIC: I'm sorry. If I may interrupt. We are running out

9 of time, Your Honour. We have a report here. We know that Madam Tabeau

10 is not available until September, so I would kindly ask my learned friend

11 to tell how much in chief we will discuss. Because all these figures,

12 maps, and reports, are in front of the Chamber and in front of the

13 parties.

14 So, Mr. Di Fazio, could you tell us how long you are going to take

15 in chief? Because otherwise we are getting into a serious problem,

16 you know.

17 MR. DI FAZIO: I'm not going to be long. I've just about

18 finished, in fact. As I said, I'm only going to go to the major features

19 of the report.

20 JUDGE MUMBA: All right. Then please conclude as quickly as

21 possible.

22 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you.

23 Q. Can you basically comment on the general population movements in

24 the two -- what are now the Serb parts of the former Bosanski Samac and

25 the former Odzak, please. What -- overall, what sort of demographic

1 change have we seen in those two parts of those two former pre-war

2 municipalities?

3 A. So it is that I am going to speak now about the population change

4 in these two municipalities. Before the war, in both these

5 municipalities, we observed mixed ethnic composition, practically, even

6 though in one of them there was a majority of Serbs, 55 per cent, in

7 Bosanski Samac.

8 After the war, in both these municipalities, the fraction of Serb

9 population dramatically increased, more than 90 per cent, 92, 93 per cent,

10 and is very much -- and the ethnic composition is very much different from

11 what we used to see there before the war, and not only in this one

12 particular year, 1991, but many, many years before 1991. I must say that

13 these type of changes must be seen as the most dramatic changes of the

14 ethnic composition in the whole of Bosnia-Herzegovina, and the size of the

15 changes, the character of the changes, certainly does not allow to see

16 them as regular population change related to population momentum, to how

17 population develops from one year to another. There had to be factors

18 that forced certain groups of people to move out from these

19 municipalities, because I cannot believe that demographic factors or

20 socioeconomic factors could play such a role.

21 Q. Thank you. Could I just ask you to comment on two matters that

22 arise out of the answer. You say that the type of changes seen must be

23 seen as the most dramatic changes of the ethnic composition in the whole

24 of Bosnia-Herzegovina. Are you comparing the changes that took place in

25 Odzak and Bosanski Samac with the rest of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and are

1 you saying that, in those two places, the changes were dramatic, as you

2 say?

3 A. Yes. In fact, I was comparing -- we studied also other

4 municipalities in Bosnia and Herzegovina, so we can place what we see for

5 these two municipalities in a broader context of changes in other

6 municipalities.

7 Q. Thank you. And is it correct of me to say that you do not take

8 the view that these demographic changes can be the result of what one

9 might call, broadly speaking, the usual sort of population changes that

10 one experiences?

11 A. Yes, this is what I said, that the factors, demographic factors,

12 cannot cause these type of rapid changes.

13 Q. And finally, would you conclude that the sort of changes that you

14 observed or have studied in those parts of the former municipalities of

15 Odzak and Bosanski Samac are along ethnic lines?

16 A. Yes. These were changes along ethnic lines, certainly.

17 MR. DI FAZIO: Would Your Honours just bear with me?

18 [Prosecution counsel confer]

19 MR. DI FAZIO: I have no further questions.

20 JUDGE MUMBA: Cross-examination, Mr. Pantelic.

21 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, Your Honour. We have some questions for this

22 witness.

23 Yes. I must inform the Trial Chamber that my learned friend

24 Mr. Lukic and myself, we shall conduct the cross-examination on behalf of

25 all Defence team. We divided our cross-examination. I will take part in

1 questioning of Bosanski Samac on general issues and Mr. Lukic will cover

2 the Odzak area.

3 JUDGE MUMBA: All right. Very well, then.

4 MR. PANTELIC: And some general regions, of course.

5 First of all, I have only, unfortunately, only two coloured maps,

6 map 1 of this region, if the Bench would like to have it to follow. It's

7 just instructive map from the report of Madam Tabeau, but bigger size.

8 It's not evidence. I mean, it's just for the facilitation of following --

9 JUDGE MUMBA: Is it the same map?

10 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, the same map.

11 JUDGE MUMBA: You can go ahead.

12 MR. PANTELIC: But it's a bigger -- and the settlements are much

13 clearer. If you need. I mean, it's my suggestion. I'm not --

14 JUDGE MUMBA: You can go ahead.

15 THE WITNESS: Excuse me. Can I have this map? Because I don't

16 have this size of map just in front of me.

17 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. The witness can have the --

18 MR. PANTELIC: And we could also have one map for the ELMO and one

19 for Madam Tabeau.

20 THE WITNESS: Thank you very much.

21 Cross-examined by Mr. Pantelic:

22 Q. Good morning, Madam Tabeau. I am Pantelic, Defence counsel for

23 Mr. Blagoje Simic. Welcome to our proceedings. I didn't interrupt

24 certain line of questioning, including the leading questions from our

25 colleague Mr. Di Fazio, because you two, you are coming from the

1 Prosecution office, so it was kind of internal discussion. Am I right:

2 You are a member of Prosecution office?

3 A. Yes, that is correct.

4 Q. Well, to be honest, Madam Tabeau, I'm -- well, morning sessions

5 are quite difficult for me; on the other hand, mathematics and statistics

6 are absolutely unknown zone for me, and due to that fact, I went to law

7 school in order to avoid these kind of things, and I would -- I hope that

8 you will help us, all of us here, because basically we are laypersons for

9 these issues. And also, Madam Tabeau, I hope that you would in that sense

10 try to help me because I have a taboo in mathematics and statistics. So

11 maybe you can do your best.

12 First of all, Madam Tabeau --

13 MR. PANTELIC: Mr. Usher, could you please put on the ELMO -- this

14 is figure 3 from your report in English, page 30. It's a map of actual

15 Bosnia and Herzegovina. Just a few comments.

16 Q. Madam Tabeau, my understanding is -- well, the map is speaking for

17 itself, of course. The red area is Republika Srpska? Yes?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. And the green area is Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Yes?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Consisting of two -- basically, two ethnic groups: Muslims and

22 Croats. Is that correct?

23 A. Well, there are all ethnic groups --

24 Q. Majority?

25 A. -- living in the Federation, but these are two major ethnic

1 groups.

2 Q. Two major ethnic groups. Yes. That was my understanding. Good.

3 And on the basis of Dayton Peace Accord, I mean, these boundaries were

4 settled; is that correct assumption?

5 A. Yes, that is correct.

6 Q. All right.

7 MR. PANTELIC: Mr. Usher, please, could you put on the ELMO --

8 Your Honours, it's on page 27 of the -- Madam Tabeau's report, figure 1A

9 and figure 1B, and I would like to have a few comments on that.

10 Mr. Usher, I would like to have all the page that you have on the

11 ELMO, because there are certain comparative issues. If you can zoom

12 adequately. Yes, thank you.

13 Q. My understanding, Madam Tabeau, is that the first map, 1A, is the

14 in fact ethnic composition in -- well, it says by itself, in 1991. Is

15 that correct?

16 A. Yes, it is correct.

17 Q. And we all know that Bosnia at that time was like a melting pot

18 with, you know, various ethnic groups in all Bosnia. It was not unique

19 by -- in sense of ethnicity. Yes?

20 A. It wasn't homogeneous, yes. There were many ethnic groups living

21 together in many areas.

22 Q. Right. Another map is actually the -- well, map speaks for

23 itself. It's also the map based on the Dayton Peace Accord; isn't that

24 correct?

25 A. This is a map which is made without marking the Dayton line, but

1 you certainly can see the Dayton line from the pattern shown in this map.

2 Q. Absolutely. But we would say, to be honest, Madam Tabeau,

3 comparing -- you are free to make a comparison, comparing figure 1B with

4 figure 3, a previous map, we could say that they are more or less the same

5 in terms of boundaries. Yes?

6 A. Yes. It is very similar to the reference map that you showed in

7 the beginning of your talk.

8 Q. Which brings me to the conclusion, Madam Tabeau, that in fact, due

9 to the significant efforts of international community from 1992 -- from

10 Cutilheiro's plan and the other, Vance-Owen plan, and Owen-Stoltenberg

11 plan, et cetera, finally by Dayton Peace Accord plan, in fact, the basis

12 for all these proposals was in fact unification, ethnic unification, more

13 or less. Is that -- would that be a correct assumption?

14 MR. DI FAZIO: I object to that question. This witness is not a

15 political expert. She can't comment on the Cutilheiro's plan, the

16 Vance-Owen Plan, and the Dayton Peace agreement as the basis for

17 unification of -- ethnic unification, whatever that might mean. She is

18 not here as a political expert. She is a demographer, and it's unfair on

19 her to ask her questions unless her expertise in the area has been

20 established. It's population and changes in the population that we're

21 concerned with.

22 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Pantelic. I think the Prosecution is

23 right.

24 MR. PANTELIC: Yes.

25 Q. Madam Tabeau, we shall speak in terms of demographic and

1 statistics issues, of course. We could say that the basis -- first of

2 all, you are familiar with all these peace negotiations; am I correct?

3 You know, in general terms, not details. Madam Tabeau, please. You know

4 Vance-Owen Plan. You are a Ph.D., you are a doctor, you are an educated

5 person. You know Vance-Owen Plan for --

6 A. I know many things from different areas, but I really don't feel

7 qualified to say anything about these type of issues.

8 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Pantelic. I think we move away from these

9 international agreements and deal with the expert report as it has been

10 presented by the witness.

11 MR. PANTELIC: Yes. Yes, Your Honour. Absolutely.

12 Q. Okay, Madam Tabeau. We could agree on the fact that seeing your

13 map, figure 1B, which is on the ELMO now, that there is no areas in

14 Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina where we have Serb majorities. Am I

15 correct?

16 A. We have what? I didn't hear you.

17 Q. I am speaking about the Federation of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

18 A. Yes, I understood.

19 Q. The green and blue area. Could we agree, Madam Tabeau, that

20 according to this map and according to your knowledge, professional and

21 personal, there is no area in Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina where

22 we have a majority of Serbian population? Yes or no.

23 A. We don't see it in this map, and this is what I must confirm. Of

24 course, we don't see it on this map.

25 Q. To be more precise, we don't see --

1 A. Majority of Serbs population, of Serb population in the

2 Federation.

3 Q. Again, we don't see the majority, any settlement or any town in

4 the area of Federation where we have majority of Serb population. Am I

5 correct? Yes or no.

6 A. Generally -- well, in order to be a hundred per cent sure, we

7 would have to draw on this map Dayton line and look carefully at all small

8 municipalities located at the Dayton line, and then we will see whether,

9 in these small municipalities, we observe Serb majority or not. But my

10 first general impression, as I see it now, is that we don't see

11 municipalities, we don't show certain ones but just municipalities in this

12 map with Serb majority.

13 I don't exclude that there are small municipalities located at the

14 Dayton line with Serb majority, very small ones. Some of these

15 municipalities at the Dayton line were really extremely small, so you

16 can't see them immediately from the map. You have to study them

17 carefully.

18 Q. The same approach applies for Republika Srpska; is that correct?

19 A. Yes, of course. Exactly.

20 Q. Thank you. I'm waiting a little bit between questions because the

21 translation --

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. -- is in the language of our clients. All right.

24 MR. PANTELIC: Mr. Usher, I don't need, for the moment, this map

25 on the ELMO. We could proceed. And please, put map 1 on the ELMO, the

1 big copy. Yes. Thank you.

2 Q. Correct me if I'm wrong: There is in Geneva, Switzerland, there

3 is headquarters of world demographic organisations, something like that.

4 Am I correct?

5 A. In New York, we have a population department of the United

6 Nations, but in Geneva we also have a section analysing population data

7 and producing population statistics, population department, an agency of

8 it.

9 Q. There is -- actually, there are certain scientific standards in

10 order to fulfil if one country would be in a situation to say, "Well, our

11 census or our procedure is in accordance with the international

12 standards," is that correct?

13 A. I'm not sure that I understand the question. If we are speaking

14 about standard guidelines --

15 Q. Yes.

16 A. -- for population censuses, I don't think that would be the

17 United Nations and population departments or units of the United Nations

18 who would produce such guidelines.

19 Q. Let me interrupt you, please.

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. You are an expert. Tell me: Is there, in your area of activity,

22 certain guidelines and standards that should be fulfilled by one country

23 to say -- I mean, in international, in terms of international standards,

24 that say, "Well, this census was fair" or, "It was unfair," because there

25 are lots of possibilities for manipulation. It's almost like in

1 elections. So from your point of view, from your professional point of

2 view, is there any -- we know in domestic jurisdictions there are laws, in

3 Poland, in Czechoslovakia -- in Czech Republic, in France, Serbia, Bosnia,

4 we know domestic laws about how the census should go on. I'm asking now:

5 Could you confirm that there are certain standards in international law

6 regarding demographic standards and census that certain countries should

7 fulfil in order to have fair process?

8 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please, I certainly don't object.

9 I understand what Mr. Pantelic is putting, and I think it's a fair enough

10 question, but it's the way it's phrased. He's asking if in international

11 law there are certain standards and so on. I don't know whether this

12 witness can comment on that. If the question is: Are there

13 internationally accepted guidelines for the conduct of censuses in

14 countries, can you please comment on them? That's fine. I've got no

15 problem with that at all. But it should be phrased along those lines.

16 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, yes. My term of international law was

17 strictly related to demographic and statistics issues, not in

18 international law by itself.

19 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. So you are asking about internationally

20 accepted standards.

21 MR. PANTELIC: Standards.

22 JUDGE MUMBA: As Mr. Di Fazio put it. All right.

23 MR. PANTELIC: Yes.

24 Q. So do we have certain international, recognised standards?

25 A. Well, I must say I don't know. I may expect there are such

1 guidelines, but as far as I know, every country is free as to how to

2 apply, induce, these guidelines. This is, first of all, countries'

3 decisions that are involved when conducting censuses. With respect --

4 another example I certainly know very well from my own work is

5 international classification of diseases, causes of death. There are

6 very, very specific standard guidelines regarding how to code and classify

7 causes of death, and countries actually are almost obliged to follow these

8 rules. But still, there is a certain freedom they have in the way how

9 they apply these guidelines. I expect that the same situation is with

10 censuses.

11 Q. Would you agree with me with the fact that there was an obligation

12 of the national assembly in Bosnia, for example, if you are aware, of

13 course, to confirm the result of census 1991? Are you aware about that?

14 MR. DI FAZIO: Again, if Your Honours please, it's a question for

15 lawyers --

16 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. It's out of the expertise of this witness.

17 MR. PANTELIC: Well, Your Honour, it's closely related to the

18 issue. But I will maybe put another question.

19 Q. You are familiar with Polish regulation?

20 A. Not really, because I left Poland ten years ago.

21 Q. Okay. Thank you. At that time, ten years ago --

22 A. I didn't work in statistical office on censuses at that time. I

23 worked at the university, so I just don't know whether there is an

24 obligation for the parliament to approve, say, the results of a census.

25 But to be honest, it is rather up to statistical authorities to take the

1 responsibility for the quality and reliability of statistics they produce

2 using censuses and other service.

3 Q. I understand. Thank you. Another question which follow after

4 your submission. From your professional background, in fact, I see that

5 you were dealing mostly with mortality. Is that correct?

6 A. Yes, this is correct.

7 Q. Not with the demographic issue and statistics?

8 A. Very much --

9 Q. Not census, to be honest?

10 A. Not census as such. I was never involved in conducting census.

11 Q. Thank you. Let's go on. I got what I want.

12 Madam Tabeau, tell me: According to your personal and

13 professional knowledge, is there any obligation after the procedure of

14 census to make additional control census, not in the same size, but I

15 would say from one smaller part in order to verify correct results? Am I

16 right?

17 A. To a certain extent, you are. First of all, before the census is

18 conducted, a pilot survey, like a micro-census, is always completed first,

19 and the results from the pilot are used to improve the question and the

20 way of conducting the proper census. Often, after the census is done,

21 additional surveys, sample surveys, are conducted in order to estimate the

22 errors that are seen in the responses of the participants of that census.

23 Errors are just a part of every survey, including population census, and

24 this is why the additional surveys are often done.

25 Q. And are you aware about the situation in Bosnia in 1991 where they

1 arranged these control census? Are you aware, or you don't know?

2 A. I don't think so. As far as I know, they didn't run any

3 additional surveys after the census. But I might be wrong.

4 Q. Thank you. Thank you. Tell me, Madam Tabeau: You spent some

5 time in the archives of Bosnia and Herzegovina, statistic archives,

6 because I'm taking from your report that you developed certain software

7 for checking this, as we say, "maticni broj," the personal number of

8 citizen, and the other forms. Am I correct?

9 A. With the software? Not me myself, but the staff working in our

10 unit and other units indeed developed software to correct mistakes in the

11 names --

12 Q. Tell the Chamber --

13 A. -- from the census.

14 Q. Tell the Chamber, please, in short -- well, you said you developed

15 software. Tell me, and tell the Chamber: You were in the mission, in the

16 field in Bosnia. Am I correct?

17 A. I was several times, yes.

18 Q. You visited statistic offices and archive of Bosnia and

19 Herzegovina; am I right?

20 A. I visited Statistical Institute in Sarajevo and also in Banja

21 Luka. I didn't work in the archives of these institutes, not one of

22 them.

23 Q. But could you explain us when and how you were -- you take certain

24 information about the form of -- for census, where you found all this

25 personal data?

1 A. We have a copy of the questionnaire in our office.

2 Q. Of -- here in The Hague?

3 A. Here in The Hague.

4 Q. Of all Bosnia and Herzegovina?

5 A. You mean the census data, you mean, or the questionnaires? We

6 don't physically have all the questionnaires, because this is a very huge

7 quantity of paper, 4.4 million questionnaires, a questionnaire of several

8 pages, so we don't have possibility to store this type of information.

9 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please, I'm not objecting, but I'd

10 like to follow this evidence. I'm having some difficulty here, and I

11 think that Mr. Pantelic ought to clarify with the witness what exactly

12 he's driving at. The witness has mentioned a copy of a questionnaire, and

13 I don't think Mr. Pantelic has established the purpose of the

14 questionnaire, what it was meant to cover, the reason for its existence,

15 and what it was directed at. And unless you know that, it's a bit

16 obscure. And it's not the witness's fault, of course; it's Mr. Pantelic's

17 because he's not clarifying that particular issue.

18 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, Your Honour. In fact, in the report of Madam

19 Tabeau, she speaks about the special software developed in the Office of

20 the Prosecution, where they checked certain important data from census in

21 1991, and therefore, that is a basis for my questioning: What was the

22 sources for this report, how Madam Tabeau finally found the numbers,

23 ethnicity background, ethnic background, et cetera, which is relevant to

24 her report, the way, the procedure. Is that clear now?

25 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes. I'm grateful to my learned friend. I think I

1 understand now.

2 MR. PANTELIC: Okay. Now I will proceed.

3 Q. Madam Tabeau, you gave us certain digits, figures here. I'm

4 asking you, very directly: Did you make a scanning of the questionnaires?

5 Am I correct?

6 A. I understand your question, and we didn't scan the data. We

7 obtained electronic copies of the data, which was scanned by statistical

8 authorities in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

9 Q. And which is now in your possession, because you have to have

10 materials to give your report. Yes or no?

11 A. Yes, it is.

12 Q. Thank you.

13 MR. PANTELIC: That was the basis of my questions.

14 And probably we could put on the ELMO and you could confirm -- I'm

15 not so sure, but this is a form of the 1991 questionnaire in Bosnia.

16 Q. Am I correct? Madam Tabeau, could you confirm that this is some

17 kind of questionnaire or form that you are familiar and accustomed from

18 the census 1991?

19 A. I believe so. I only know the B/C/S language, say -- not

20 definitely, but I can understand it a little bit.

21 Q. No problem.

22 A. But this is only one part of the complete questionnaire. There

23 are many more questionnaires.

24 Q. Yes. Let's go to another --

25 JUDGE MUMBA: Can we have that marked.

1 MR. PANTELIC: Sorry, Your Honour?

2 JUDGE MUMBA: Can we have that document marked?

3 MR. PANTELIC: It's only one copy. Maybe I can do that during the

4 break, enough copies, and then I can --

5 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. But we still have to have it marked.

6 THE WITNESS: It is in B/C/S only.

7 MR. DI FAZIO: That has to be marked now.

8 THE WITNESS: Not translated.

9 MR. PANTELIC: Or maybe I can tender it now and maybe the

10 registrar would be so kind to make in certain copies for us. Only one

11 copy we need, in fact.

12 MR. DI FAZIO: I object to its being tendered at the moment. I

13 ask that it be marked for ID.

14 JUDGE MUMBA: For identification.

15 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, for ID.

16 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Can we have it marked for identification

17 purposes only.

18 MR. PANTELIC: And in the mean -- sorry. Sorry. Go ahead,

19 please.

20 THE REGISTRAR: It will be D48/1 ter ID. Thank you.

21 JUDGE MUMBA: What is its title, Mr. Pantelic?

22 MR. PANTELIC: It's a questionnaire for census.

23 MR. DI FAZIO: Perhaps a more accurate version would be: Extract

24 from a questionnaire. And given what the witness has said, she said

25 there's a lot more material, and that's just one page.

1 JUDGE MUMBA: So what are we going to call it? Extract from

2 questionnaire. Does it have a date?

3 MR. DI FAZIO: Indeed, Your Honour, I'm not trying to be difficult

4 but, I mean, the witness hasn't even identified what it is. She doesn't

5 read B/C/S; we haven't had any of it translated. It might be a health

6 insurance form for all I know, if you want to do it strictly speaking. I

7 just don't know. It probably is part of the questionnaire, but there's

8 nothing on the record that shows clearly what it is.

9 JUDGE MUMBA: What it is, yes. Let's just have it marked.

10 MR. PANTELIC: No problem.

11 Q. Another question, Madam Tabeau: Did you obtain all these data

12 that we have spoken about from Federation, as well as from

13 Republika Srpska?

14 A. To be honest, I didn't myself obtain the data. I just found the

15 data in my office when I arrived here. So it was someone else who

16 collected these data from Bosnia. I don't know.

17 Q. Okay. My understanding is that you don't know whether a part was

18 from Federation of Bosnia and the part was Republika Srpska. Am I

19 correct?

20 A. I don't know, but the data is complete in the sense that it covers

21 the whole country, the whole Bosnia and Herzegovina.

22 Q. Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much, Madam Tabeau. Allow me

23 now to go in the -- into the merit of our case, in fact. You -- probably

24 you are familiar with the indictment in this case.

25 A. I've read it, yes.

1 Q. You know that your colleagues from Prosecution office claim that

2 Serbs in Bosanski Samac, in Odzak, allegedly expelled around 17.000

3 non-Serb population? Am I --

4 A. Well, if it is in the indictment. I don't remember exactly the

5 numbers, but I believe you are referring precisely to the numbers --

6 Q. Good.

7 A. -- mentioned there.

8 Q. Good. Okay. My first question, maybe you can have a piece of

9 paper, because we shall have a number of figures and digits here, if it is

10 comfortable with you.

11 MR. PANTELIC: Mr. Usher, I would like to have this map on the

12 ELMO again.

13 Q. Madam Tabeau, according to the, I would say, unofficial,

14 unofficial data of census 1991, could we agree on the fact that in

15 speaking about the municipality of Bosanski Samac, the total population of

16 non-Serbs was 16.964?

17 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please, I don't object to the

18 question. I understand what Mr. Pantelic is saying. But if the witness

19 goes on to answer the question, there might be some view to some tacit

20 acceptance that there is unofficial data of census. I don't recall the

21 witness saying that there is unofficial data of the census of 1991. If

22 she has said it, I don't recall her saying that. I think that's something

23 that Mr. Pantelic has come up with. So I don't mind the rest of the

24 question, that's fine, but what unofficial data?

25 MR. PANTELIC: In order to clarify that, my dear friend

1 Mr. Di Fazio, I will just put the answer to the witness.

2 Q. Madam Tabeau, could you confirm that this census from 1991 was

3 never officially proclaimed, and these are just, I would say, quite

4 precise but not official data of the census 1991? Are you aware of that

5 fact?

6 A. I wouldn't agree with you that the data is unofficial. Why?

7 Because, first of all, there were several publications presenting ethnic

8 composition at municipal level and also settlement level, and I have these

9 publications in my office. I believe one of those publications is in your

10 hands right now. Croatia published one.

11 Q. All right. We shall --

12 A. Let me finish. I must say, I compared statistics from our data

13 with those officially published, and I believe we have the same data. So

14 I don't know what you mean by "unofficial." For me, if statistical

15 authorities in a country issue a publication with official statistics,

16 their official statistics, for me it is official.

17 Q. Yes. We shall discuss that in Defence case. Don't worry,

18 Madam Tabeau. Let's go to the subject-matter.

19 So could you agree with me that in municipality of Bosanski Samac,

20 according to the census 1991, lived 16.964 non-Serb population, meaning

21 Croats and Muslims?

22 A. In 1991?

23 Q. 1991.

24 A. In 1991, you mean? I believe more than that, as far as I see it

25 here in table 3, page 7 in the report. The figures presented in this

1 table come from an official publication that is mentioned as a source

2 under the table. And as I see in this table for 1991, we have 13.628

3 Serbs --

4 Q. No, no, no.

5 A. -- and the total population --

6 Q. No, no, no. I must interrupt you. Sorry. According to your

7 table - I'm speaking about the 1991 data for Croats - could we agree that

8 it's 14.731? Yes or no.

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. And could we agree that for the Muslims, the digit is 2.233? Yes

11 or no?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. Good.

14 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Pantelic, you are -- these are figures already

15 in the report.

16 MR. PANTELIC: Yes. Your Honour, now I want to establish the

17 basis, so I'm just simply asking: Speaking about Croats and Muslims --

18 JUDGE MUMBA: No, no. My point is, you are asking the witness

19 questions which are already contained in the report, so you objected to

20 that when the Prosecution was doing what you objected to. Can you just

21 ask questions you want to ask the witness without making her repeat what

22 is already contained in the report.

23 MR. PANTELIC: That is a mathematical operation, Your Honour,

24 which will follow, and this is a basis; this is a start. This is my basic

25 knowledge about mathematics, you know. And I just want to establish the

1 number of Croats and Muslims in Bosanski Samac municipality, and my

2 question was very simple.

3 Q. Madam Tabeau, given the fact of these two numbers, these two

4 figures, could we agree that non-Serb population, consisting of Croats and

5 Muslims in Bosanski Samac municipality, is 16.964? Because nowhere in

6 your report -- we don't have this data in total. We have only

7 particulars. So could you agree with me? You are better --

8 A. You are very correct and your mathematics is fine. The sum of

9 Muslims, number of Muslims and Croats, is 16.964.

10 Q. Excellent. Let's start from this figure, finally. Okay. That

11 was 1991.

12 A. But this is not the non-Serb population in this municipality --

13 Q. Yes, yes, yes.

14 A. -- because you realise that there are other ethnic groups.

15 Q. I'm speaking about the indictment, Madam Tabeau.

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. We have a problem here, that your colleague from Prosecution

18 claims that Serbs expelled Croats and Muslims in approximate number of

19 17.000. So my question is here related to Muslims and Croats, okay?

20 A. Yes, but approximately 17.000 and 16.964 is the same.

21 Q. Absolutely. But please, let's go to another topic.

22 Are you aware, Madam Tabeau, of the data of how many persons from

23 Bosanski Samac municipality, at the time of 1991 census, were abroad as

24 the workers in Western European countries? Because that was a very often

25 situation in former Yugoslavia. Do you have knowledge about the figures?

1 A. Not right now, but I can provide you a number later today.

2 Q. But I can do that maybe -- because, well, I am the lawyer. I'll

3 try to do my best. I have data with me, and since -- I don't know how we

4 can discuss that, but -- Okay. I will give you my numbers, you can

5 check, and then you will be back. But now let's go with the

6 cross-examination. During the break you can confirm --

7 A. Mm-hmm.

8 Q. Okay.

9 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Excuse me, Mr. Pantelic. Before you move on to

10 that: You mentioned that the indictment speaks of the expulsion of Croats

11 and Muslims, but you also mention specifically, page 39, line 25 and

12 following, that the indictment speaks of the number of 17.000. Now, to my

13 knowledge, the indictment does not mention a specific number.

14 MR. PANTELIC: Your Honour, it's paragraph 35 of the indictment.

15 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Okay.

16 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you.

17 Q. Okay. Madam Tabeau, I have --

18 MR. DI FAZIO: However, it does speak of non-Serb civilians,

19 and --

20 MR. PANTELIC: No, no, no, no. You forgot your own document, my

21 dear friend. Croats and Bosnian Muslims. End of story. You will check

22 that during the break. And I think it's a break now. It's time for a

23 break, Your Honour?

24 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Mr. Pantelic, can you organise your questions

25 so that we don't waste a lot of time?

1 MR. PANTELIC: Yes. And then Madam Tabeau can check.

2 Q. Well, I have a data, Madam Tabeau, that, according to the census

3 of 1991, from Bosanski Samac municipality, abroad were 2.931 persons, and

4 plus, and plus, 1.033 persons as members of family.

5 A. Members of their families; right?

6 Q. Plus members of their family, yes. Because former

7 Yugoslavia was very much interested about how much money they are earning,

8 so --

9 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please --

10 MR. PANTELIC: For Odzak, Your Honour, maybe I can give the data,

11 too. For Odzak, it's 4.923, plus members of family, 1.559. So these two

12 data are of our interest. Thank you.

13 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Di Fazio.

14 MR. DI FAZIO: As Mr. Pantelic observed, it's time for the break,

15 if Your Honours please.

16 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

17 MR. DI FAZIO: However, just before we break, if Mr. Pantelic is

18 going to show the witness any figures -- or sorry, any documents

19 containing --

20 MR. PANTELIC: No. No, no, no. I don't have any intention.

21 MR. DI FAZIO: Very well. However, after the break, I will be

22 objecting to any further questioning unless there is some sort of

23 identification --

24 JUDGE MUMBA: So --

25 MR. DI FAZIO: Identification to the witness precisely what the

1 source is of this question.

2 THE WITNESS: May I --

3 MR. PANTELIC: Your Honour, wear in the area where maybe our

4 friend is not so familiar.

5 JUDGE MUMBA: We shall adjourn the proceedings and continue at

6 1100 hours.

7 --- Recess taken at 10.32 a.m.

8 --- On resuming at 11.01 a.m.

9 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Pantelic.

10 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, Your Honour. Thank you. Allow me to address

11 the Chamber with the other issue. It's quite important. Your Honour, we

12 are in situation that we need audiotape of hearing of 8th of July, because

13 next week we shall proceed with the cross-examination of Witness A. It's

14 of crucial importance for us, and we are facing certain problems in that

15 regard, because we filed this request, but probably it will be in seven or

16 more days, and then Witness A will leave the Tribunal. So if Madam

17 Registrar can do something so that we can get that by next Monday, it

18 would be the great importance for the Defence. Thank you. We shall see

19 later.

20 JUDGE MUMBA: But this is a witness -- you were in court when the

21 witness was giving evidence.

22 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, but there is some, I would say, discrepancies

23 of his answers and what was recorded, and then we would like, during the

24 cross-examination, to clarify that issue, but without audiotape we cannot

25 do that. And then if we shall be able to get this in seven or more days,

1 the witness will leave the Tribunal.

2 JUDGE MUMBA: But those are matters which you can clarify during

3 cross-examination. You don't necessarily need an audiotape, because you

4 were in court.

5 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, but he already denied, during our

6 intervention, Your Honour, and then we are stuck, we are blocked. Without

7 this proof, material proof, we can do nothing. That's the reason,

8 specific reason, why we are asking the assistance of Trial Chamber with

9 regard to that.

10 JUDGE MUMBA: Proceed with your cross-examination.

11 MR. PANTELIC: Yes. Thank you.

12 Q. Madam Tabeau, prior to the break, we have discussed the matter of

13 the citizens of municipality of Bosanski Samac in 1991 who were abroad. Is

14 that correct? Do you remember that?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Yes. And according to my sources and my data here, which are

17 actually part of this official results of census of 1991, I gave you

18 certain numbers.

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Did you check that in the meantime?

21 A. I was only able to find our source for this type of information,

22 but these figures are shown separately for each country, and ethnicity,

23 and someone is now aggregating the figures. So I can submit a copy from

24 the source with partial figures, and the totals will be available later

25 today.

1 Q. Yes. But the basic issue, Madam Tabeau, is that you saw the

2 questionnaire probably during your preparation of your report. You saw

3 the questionnaire and then there is a part in that questionnaire of these

4 citizens who are living and working abroad. Are you familiar with that?

5 A. Yes, of course.

6 Q. And according to these sources, we have these figures. So I don't

7 know which document you have, but simply, we are speaking about the

8 certain number of persons of Bosanski Samac municipality who were, at the

9 moment of census 1991, abroad?

10 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please, I'm just not following this

11 at all. Is Mr. Pantelic referring to that extract of the questionnaire

12 that was given an exhibit number -- I'm sorry --

13 JUDGE MUMBA: No. It was numbered for identification.

14 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes, numbered for identification, first of all. Is

15 that what --

16 MR. PANTELIC: Yes.

17 MR. DI FAZIO: Is that what Mr. Pantelic -- okay. Perhaps we

18 should put that into the record of the evidence so that we're clear, and

19 that's D-ID, whatever it is.

20 JUDGE MUMBA: It's D48/1 ter ID.

21 MR. DI FAZIO: I'm grateful to the Chamber for that. And then

22 Mr. Pantelic says: "And according to these sources, we have these

23 figures." I don't know what sources and what figures he's talking about.

24 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Pantelic. If you can --

25 MR. PANTELIC: I'm speaking about the results of census of 1991

1 for Bosnia-Herzegovina.

2 Q. Because you can confirm, of course, Madam Tabeau --

3 JUDGE MUMBA: Where is the document you are dealing with?

4 MR. PANTELIC: It's just information -- it's an extract from the

5 report. It's a fact of common knowledge, as I can say, because this

6 witness --

7 JUDGE LINDHOLM: Which page?

8 MR. PANTELIC: In fact, my aim, Your Honour, during

9 cross-examination, is to show that this witness didn't include that

10 important figure. So there is no -- this figure is not in this report,

11 and that's a line of my cross-examination because it brings us to certain

12 situation where we can manipulate with the figures.

13 JUDGE MUMBA: No. But the point is, if you are challenging the

14 witness with figures from another source, you must identify that source.

15 Because how does it help the Chamber?

16 MR. PANTELIC: Yes. I will clarify that with the witness because

17 we are speaking about the same issue, in fact.

18 JUDGE MUMBA: How does the Trial Chamber know whether that source

19 of yours is official?

20 MR. PANTELIC: Yes. In fact, this is the -- how I can say?

21 Like --

22 Q. Madam Tabeau, you are familiar with the cross-stat, Croatian book

23 that you made certain references in your report? Yes?

24 A. Yes. This one, I see front page of this publication. I don't

25 know what is inside that you have there, but this is the front page of the

1 publication.

2 Q. Yes. And you can agree with me, and to help this Chamber, with

3 the fact that all data during one census, including the ethnic background,

4 identification number, number of children, property, et cetera, also the

5 presence abroad, is practically the basis for results of census? Am I

6 correct?

7 A. The questions from the questionnaire are indeed used to produce

8 certain statistics, and then we see this type of publications, as the one

9 you showed us, the front page you showed us, with just aggregate

10 statistics with figures related to municipalities or settlements and

11 showing ethnic composition, other variables like income, socioeconomic

12 situation of individuals covered by the census, et cetera, et cetera.

13 Q. Yes. And during your work, during your professional activity, it

14 came to your attention data with regard to the number of citizens working

15 abroad. Am I correct?

16 A. It was a very commonly known fact that citizens of the former

17 Yugoslavia were allowed to freely move abroad and to work there, and of

18 course this was also the case with people from these two municipalities.

19 Q. And my question was: Did you personally come to that fact while

20 examining the sources from statistical -- Bosnia-Herzegovina statistical

21 institute or whatever?

22 A. To publications, you mean?

23 Q. No, no. I'm speaking about these particular figures of the

24 citizens working abroad. Did you -- did it come to your attention?

25 A. Yes, of course. I brought here a copy from a publication issued

1 by the statistical -- by the Institute for Statistics. It is, I believe,

2 the federal institute who published that, although -- no. The year of

3 publication is 1994. It is just publication of the Statistical Office of

4 Bosnia and Herzegovina. And I have these figures, official statistics. I

5 am not sure whether these figures and your figures are the same, but these

6 figures I have are definitely non-zero figures.

7 Q. Yes, of course. So, well, my idea was just if you can confirm my

8 figures, because I have these figures also from the same source, I would

9 say statistical basis for this particular issue. So if you cannot agree,

10 you say so. No problem.

11 A. Well, I have some --

12 Q. We are speaking -- excuse me. We are speaking about, as I said,

13 2.931 from Bosanski Samac --

14 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please. If Your Honours please,

15 I'll explain my objection. Mr. Pantelic, I hope, will listen and reply.

16 My objection is very simple. If Mr. Pantelic wants to put figures of

17 people who are working overseas from the Bosanski Samac and Odzak

18 municipalities, or indeed for the country as a whole, I have no objection

19 at all, no problem with that at all. But he has to identify his source so

20 the expert can comment upon the source and then upon the figures. That's

21 the proper way of doing it. He cannot just simply mention in court,

22 without giving anything to the witness, figures, because you don't know

23 the origin of the figures, I don't know the origin of the figures, the

24 witness doesn't know the origin of the figures. And so I've got no

25 problem with his endeavouring to do what he was trying to do. On the

1 contrary; I encourage it. But do it with some proper documentation or

2 some proper source of the figures and then the witness can say, "Yes,"

3 "no," "I agree," or not.

4 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Pantelic. Otherwise, the information is a

5 waste of time. You've been asked about the source. I think this is the

6 fourth time. You appear to be reluctant to produce it.

7 MR. PANTELIC: No, no, Your Honour. Please understand me. I'm

8 speaking about the source which is in the possession of Prosecution

9 office, Your Honour. They are in possession. They scanned everything

10 from Sarajevo. They scanned questionnaires. They --

11 JUDGE MUMBA: No, no.

12 MR. PANTELIC: They are in possession of these sources, not me.

13 JUDGE MUMBA: What is that document you have in front of you?

14 MR. PANTELIC: I have just an extract of the official census of

15 1991 with regard to the ethnicity, with regard to the compilation from

16 1971, 1961, 1953, and all other things.

17 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Where did you get that extract?

18 MR. PANTELIC: In a bulletin in manual of this census of 1991,

19 which is in possession exactly of the Prosecution. And Madam Tabeau

20 confirmed that. So I don't know how I can operate with their sources and

21 their data.

22 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. -- yes.

23 MR. PANTELIC: They are in possession, Your Honour, not me. It's

24 a fact of common knowledge.

25 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Di Fazio --

1 MR. PANTELIC: Where is the mountain, what is the exact figure --

2 JUDGE MUMBA: Can we clear this, then? Mr. Di Fazio, is it the

3 document that the witness has? Can we clear this.

4 MR. DI FAZIO: I've not seen either of the two documents. I've

5 not seen the document that the witness got wherever from during the break,

6 and I've not seen the document that Mr. Pantelic has. I don't know.

7 That's why I'm saying that the -- that he should put to the witness --

8 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Usher, maybe we can resolve this. Can you get

9 the document the witness has been referring to?

10 MR. PANTELIC: Because, Your Honour, if I may --

11 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Pantelic, can you be quiet?

12 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, yes.

13 JUDGE MUMBA: Okay.

14 THE WITNESS: These are just two pages taken out from a larger

15 document and copied together with the front page of this publication.

16 JUDGE LINDHOLM: Excuse me. I would like to ask a question, put a

17 question to Mr. Pantelic.

18 By your examination now, are you trying to question the

19 credibility of the witness or the credibility of her report? Give me a

20 straight answer.

21 MR. PANTELIC: Absolutely, Your Honour. Gladly. Gladly, Your

22 Honour. This witness is a part of Prosecution team. The position of the

23 Defence is that this witness is biased, one-sided, and the report is

24 not -- report is to some extent a manipulation of figures, which means,

25 Your Honour -- I will give you an example. We have a number of 1.000.

1 We could say whether in this number of 1.000, 300 are here or there, or

2 we cannot speak about that. The census, Your Honour, is a large area of

3 various sources, and I, hypothetically, as an expert, I would say, "Well,

4 from this area, I pick this flower but I don't take this flower." And

5 then in my cross-examination I'm challenging the way, the methods, and

6 approach of this witness. And it is not my duty to have in my possession

7 all these data. This witness is a well-established and experienced expert

8 and she should know about what we are talking, and she should be ready,

9 with all these data in front of her, not only this report. Because you

10 are a very well-experienced person, Your Honour. You know how the figures

11 can be manipulated. And I will show -- I will explain just right now what

12 is the manipulation in this report. That is the position of the Defence.

13 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Di Fazio.

14 MR. DI FAZIO: I've got no problem with Mr. Pantelic attacking the

15 credibility of the witness, and by doing so with statistics, with numbers,

16 figures. If he wants to show that the figures that the witness has

17 produced have failed to take into account numbers of people from

18 Bosanski Samac and Odzak working in Europe at the time, fine. I've got no

19 problem with that. I encourage him to do that. But if he's going to put

20 figures to the witness, show her the document and the source so that she

21 can comment upon it. That's simply, in a nutshell, what I'm saying.

22 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Di Fazio.

23 MR. PANTELIC: Your Honour, may I reply just --

24 JUDGE MUMBA: No, Mr. Pantelic. The witness has got a document,

25 and can we have it -- because we haven't got it marked, we haven't got it

1 described.

2 MR. PANTELIC: No problem.

3 JUDGE MUMBA: Madam Tabeau, can we have the title of the document

4 you are discussing?

5 THE WITNESS: It is a publication based on the -- this is not the

6 title what I'm saying. I don't want to translate because I am not an

7 interpreter. I want to explain briefly what is this. This is not the

8 publication of the basic census data as the one Mr. -- I'm sorry, I've

9 forgotten your name.

10 MR. PANTELIC: Pantelic.

11 THE WITNESS: Pantelic showed us a moment ago. This was a

12 different publication that contains information about ethnic composition

13 and only ethnic composition of the population in municipalities and

14 settlements in the whole country, in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The

15 publication I brought with me is something else.

16 In addition to this type of publication as the one Mr. Pantelic

17 showed us, every statistical office produces additional publications,

18 sorts of bulletins that only contain selected information from the census.

19 The information I brought with me is related only to population working

20 abroad and families of this population staying with them abroad. And this

21 is, in this publication, done --

22 JUDGE MUMBA: For what year?

23 THE WITNESS: It is for the census -- it shows census data. It

24 was published in the year 1994, but the data shown here is from 1991.

25 JUDGE MUMBA: All right.

1 THE WITNESS: I extracted two pages.

2 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

3 THE WITNESS: Double-printed from this publication. One page is

4 Bosanski Samac, one page is Odzak. It is very likely that my information

5 is hundred per cent consistent with the figures you gave me, but I don't

6 know this yet because these figures here are given by country of residence

7 of those working abroad, and you gave me total numbers of all

8 persons working abroad, without distinguishing among the countries. So I

9 have to aggregate the figures, and this is already being done by someone

10 in my office, and later today we can see that ourselves. But I think the

11 intention is here to speak about those who resided abroad at the moment of

12 the census and were physically absent in the two municipalities in that

13 time. And I agree there were such people who worked abroad, who resided

14 in other countries, even though they were included in the census. This is

15 my answer.

16 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, Your Honour. And one should expect --

17 JUDGE LINDHOLM: Excuse me. One further question. You are now

18 talking about the figure of, if I understand you right, correctly, about

19 2.500 from the municipalities of Bosanski Samac and Odzak, abroad, and --

20 MR. PANTELIC: Sorry, Your Honour. The total for Samac, with

21 members of family, is 4.000.

22 JUDGE LINDHOLM: Okay. Okay. 4.000. 2.500 and 4.000. It

23 doesn't matter. But if you look at Article 28 in the indictment, the

24 Prosecution is talking about a total number of 17.000. So I'm just

25 interested in what's the relevance of your line of questioning about 2.500

1 or 4.000.

2 MR. PANTELIC: Absolutely, Your Honour. This is just the

3 beginning of the mathematical operation that I will bring to your

4 attention. The bottom line is that we shall show that the Prosecution

5 completely erred, and furthermore, they tried to -- well, I will not

6 explain that. Anyhow, we have -- I will show you in a couple of minutes

7 what was the situation with the population in Bosanski Samac. It is just

8 beginning, Your Honour. It is just beginning.

9 JUDGE MUMBA: Now, I wanted to ask Mr. Di Fazio about the document

10 which the witness has been -- has brought out.

11 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes.

12 JUDGE MUMBA: Would you like it marked for identification?

13 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes, I would. I would like it marked for

14 identification. She's referred to it in her evidence, and clearly it

15 should be.

16 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Can we have the number, please? Although we

17 just have one copy which is with the witness, it will be surrendered

18 later, I think. It will be marked for the Prosecution.

19 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes, indeed. Thank you.

20 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, it will be P134 ter ID. Thank you.

21 JUDGE MUMBA: All right.

22 MR. PANTELIC: Yes.

23 Q. Madam Tabeau, since -- well, you are not at the moment familiar,

24 but you will check, of course, although you confirm that there was such a

25 number.

1 Okay. I gave you two figures. You remember? 2.931 plus members

2 of the family, 1.033, from Bosanski Samac municipality, working abroad.

3 A. Mm-hmm.

4 Q. Could we agree on the fact -- it is a well-known fact, in fact,

5 you said that the percentage of Croats in Bosanski Samac municipality in

6 1991 was 45 per cent. Am I correct? This is --

7 A. Approximately, yes.

8 Q. - page 1 of your --

9 A. Yes. In the whole municipality, pre-war municipality.

10 Q. Yes. Serbs 41 per cent. Am I correct?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. And Muslims, 7 per cent. Am I correct?

13 A. Or a little bit more. Approximately, say.

14 Q. Let's say --

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Okay. Although the Defence claims that -- probably you should

17 not -- you are not in a situation to know that, but let me explain that in

18 this way: Around 80 per cent of workers abroad were Croats. We know that

19 from the area, you know, from checking ID. But now we cannot introduce

20 that percentage. And I suggest - and correct me if I'm wrong - to use

21 official and your percentages of the ethnic structure, for example,

22 Croats, 45 per cent, plus 7 per cent of Muslims, which is 52 per

23 cent. Could we agree on that?

24 A. Well, these are figures.

25 Q. Yes. Why I'm asking you to help me and to help the Chamber with

1 these percentages? Because the number of workers abroad, which are around

2 4.000, we could now examine with 52 per cent, and we could say, after - it

3 was quite complicated operation for me, I must admit - but 55 per cent of

4 this number brings me to 2.061.

5 A. But I don't understand. Why do you apply this per cent to the

6 number, total number of those working abroad? There is no reason to apply

7 such an assumption that the ethnic composition of those working abroad and

8 the ethnic composition in the municipality were the same. I don't think

9 they were the same. Why?

10 Q. In order to help this Trial Chamber, in order to help to find the

11 truth. Madam Tabeau --

12 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Pantelic, you've understood the question that

13 the --

14 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, yes, yes. I will give the explanation. Yes.

15 Absolutely. Yes, Your Honour.

16 Q. Madam Tabeau, we are speaking about the population -- you remember

17 that we are speaking about the population of Croats and Muslims, which is

18 16.964, according to the census. Now we have around 4.000 citizens,

19 people, no matter which ethnicity, abroad. What I'm trying to establish,

20 because you are familiar with the issues, with the voters register in

21 1997, which is completely different than the census of 1991, so we have to

22 establish certain standards. Help me if I'm correct. I would like to say

23 that applying the proportion of 52 per cent of the population in Bosanski

24 Samac consisting of Muslims and Croats, in total number of 4.000, says

25 that 2.061, more or less, Muslim and Croats were abroad. You know, we

1 have to establish certain matters.

2 A. But there is no need to do so because the data I already submitted

3 is given by ethnicity of those working abroad. So why should we estimate

4 it? It's a matter of just adding up the numbers by ethnicity, and we know

5 it exactly.

6 Q. I agree. So we could simply -- because, you know, we are speaking

7 about Serbs, Muslims, and Croats, Madam Tabeau, and I would not say from

8 this initial figure of 16.000, where we are speaking about Muslims and

9 Croats, I don't want to deduct number of 4.000, where we are including

10 Serbs, then we should have our own conclusion. So that was my own

11 suggestion to help me, whether we could consider this ethnic structure,

12 saying of 4.000 people abroad, 52 per cent were Muslim and Croats, which

13 brings us to amount of 2.000. That was my idea.

14 A. Intention. But I think it is important to know, right now, that

15 the census actually reports the population who actually lived in this

16 area, stayed physically, at the moment of census. So it is -- those who

17 were abroad were just abroad, and that's it.

18 Q. Yes. Respect -- I must --

19 A. So there is no need to speak about the population staying abroad

20 in the context of the figures I presented.

21 Q. No, no. Yes, yes, yes, but I think you are wrong and we shall --

22 I will explain you why you are wrong. Respectfully, I think that you are

23 wrong. You have a total of population, according to the census of

24 Bosanski Samac, of 32.960, and then divided by the ethnic groups. In

25 these groups actually are included peoples abroad. That's -- you know,

1 that's a general figure, and then there are various figures in that

2 figure. So probably you should check your data, because --

3 A. If you could give me a source that shows that it is indeed that

4 workers abroad and their families are in the totals presented, because I

5 am not sure that you are correct.

6 Q. I get it from the official statistics that you have in possession.

7 So maybe it's a matter of dispute. We shall resolve that. I mean, you

8 can change --

9 A. I didn't see this type of figures.

10 Q. Okay. Let's proceed with your proposition. Could you agree with

11 me that we could deduct this number of 4.000 from 16.000?

12 A. No, I cannot, because in my view, they are not included in this

13 16.000.

14 Q. They are not included?

15 A. No.

16 Q. Okay. That's your position. Good.

17 A. I must check this to be hundred per cent sure, but as far as I

18 understand my figures, it is the case.

19 Q. Do that when you can.

20 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Excuse me, Mr. Pantelic.

21 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, Your Honour.

22 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Where you just mentioned on line 13, page 57,

23 that you've got your information from the official statistics that

24 Ms. Tabeau has in her possession, I'd like to know where, you know, what

25 page or something further, something more concrete, if there is this

1 dispute as to where the information is that you're relying on versus the

2 information that Ms. Tabeau is relying on.

3 MR. PANTELIC: Yes. Yes, yes, Your Honour. I will gladly explain

4 that. Madam Tabeau and the Prosecution are in possession of the official

5 questionnaires. They scanned it in Sarajevo. She confirmed that. They

6 are in possession of all official documents, including official bulletins,

7 official editions like this one, like this one from Zagreb, and she made

8 certain reference to that. These are statistical books, Your Honour, and

9 she knows very well. And I'm now saying and outlining that we know - this

10 is a matter of science, Your Honour - that these people working abroad are

11 actually included in the number of total population of Bosanski Samac

12 municipality, and very easily we shall prove that with our expert during

13 the Defence case.

14 The problem here is that this witness, with all due respect, is

15 not ready for the cross. She is not in possession of all these necessary

16 data. Because probably the Defence will not open the cards prior to the

17 cross. So we can expect that this witness will be armed with all these

18 sources. So we are speaking about official sources from Sarajevo of the

19 statistics. But let's move on, Your Honour.

20 MR. DI FAZIO: Let's not move on, if Your Honours please. Your

21 Honour asked a perfectly reasonable question, and before Your Honour did,

22 I was about to ask very much the same question. Figures are being put to

23 the witness for which there is absolutely not one skerrick of evidence,

24 not one -- nothing, nothing at all. They are just figures that are coming

25 out of the blue. The witness has repeatedly said that the figures that

1 she used in her report do not take into account people who were living

2 away, living in Europe. So they're absolute figures. That's the end of

3 the matter.

4 Now, if Mr. Pantelic wants to show that the figures do include

5 people who were in fact working in Switzerland or in fact working in

6 Turkey or wherever, let him put it to the witness so she can say, "Yes,

7 I'm wrong. I can see your point." But that's not being done.

8 MR. PANTELIC: Your Honour, my consultant, my demographic

9 consultant, just gave me these figures, and he said that in scientific

10 world, it is a fact of common knowledge that these figures came from the

11 official bulletins. And I will --

12 JUDGE MUMBA: No, no. I think let's sort it out this way. If the

13 Defence are saying that the figures they are putting forward, they will be

14 able to show in the Defence case, then let's move on.

15 MR. PANTELIC: Absolutely. That was my position. And we shall

16 with our evidence show how this witness is unreliable.

17 Q. Now, Madam Tabeau, speaking about the other number, we have on the

18 ELMO map of pre-war municipality of Bosanski Samac, and speaking about

19 Bosanski Samac, and map speaks for itself. The black line is a border of

20 pre-war municipality of Bosanski Samac, in the legend it says. That's

21 correct; yes?

22 A. Yes, but I said in the beginning that this map is just an

23 illustration and that we don't -- we shouldn't take it very literally that

24 every line marked on this map is exactly the same as in reality

25 Q. Okay, Madam Tabeau, it's illustration. Call it how you want it.

1 No problem, it's illustration. It's not reliable source. But still, it's

2 a part of your report. Anyhow, so could we agree that in your, this such

3 -- call it illustration or sketch, whatever, the black line is the border

4 of the pre-war municipality of Bosanski Samac? Am I correct? Yes or no?

5 A. Which black line?

6 Q. Okay. Show --

7 A. This one?

8 Q. Take the pointer and show -- okay. Take the pointer and show the

9 Chamber what is the pre-war municipality of Bosanski Samac.

10 MR. DI FAZIO: The witness did that twice in examination-in-chief,

11 from what I recall, possibly three times. What's the point of the

12 question?

13 MR. PANTELIC: Okay.

14 Q. Now, we could agree, Madam Tabeau, that in 1995 Dayton Peace

15 Accord was introduced, and you explained it very well that the red lines

16 are showing the number of the territory of pre-war municipality of

17 Bosanski Samac now in Federation. Now, Madam Tabeau, could you agree with

18 me that 8.200 non-Serb citizens, namely, Muslims and Croats, are in the

19 territory out of Serbian municipality of Bosanski Samac, according to the

20 Dayton line? Could you confirm, or you cannot confirm, or you don't know?

21 A. How can I see that from this map?

22 Q. Well, not from this map. Madam Tabeau, you should see from your

23 source which is called cross-stat, and you make certain references in your

24 report, and I will refresh your memory. First of all, are you

25 familiar with the fact that Domaljevac -- could you show to the Chamber

1 where is Domaljevac on the map? Just take a pointer and show -- mark --

2 put your pointer on the document.

3 A. This?

4 Q. Yes. Okay. Could you agree with me that from the source that you

5 make certain references in Domaljevac according to census of 1991, there

6 were 4.072 Croats? Could you confirm or not?

7 A. How many you said?

8 Q. I said 4.072 Croats.

9 A. I see 4.597.

10 Q. Oh, yes. It's my mistake. Sorry, because I didn't --

11 A. Table 4, page 8.

12 Q. Yes. Yes. Okay. Yes, yes. That's my mistake. I made it. Plus

13 Muslim population here, so that -- you are right. So we could agree --

14 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Excuse me for interrupting, Mr. Pantelic, but

15 just for the sake of clarification, I want to make sure that I understand

16 your question on page 60, beginning line 22, correctly. If you go to the

17 third line of that question, which is line 24, you talk about -- sorry.

18 Sorry, page 61, line 1. You talk about Muslims and Croats are in the

19 territory out of Serbian municipality of Bosanski Samac. And I'm not

20 certain what you're meaning by "are in the territory out of Serbian

21 municipality."

22 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, yes, Your Honour. Yes, Your Honour. Yes, I

23 will clarify that.

24 Q. Madam Tabeau, you showed the parts north of red line where

25 Domaljevac is, and then west of the red line where Prud is. These are the

1 territories now in the territory of Federation of -- Muslim Croat

2 Federation. Am I correct?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. And also, in fact, these territories are a part of pre-war

5 municipality of Bosanski Samac?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Good.

8 A. We are speaking about this?

9 MR. PANTELIC: Is that, Your Honour --

10 THE WITNESS: Prud?

11 MR. PANTELIC: That's correct. Does that satisfy your inquiry,

12 Your Honour?

13 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Yes. I understand the questions and the answers

14 now. I think it was just the phraseology in that line I pointed out which

15 was unclear.

16 MR. PANTELIC: My English is far from good, so I am really facing

17 certain linguistic troubles. Sorry.

18 Q. Okay. You have number of 4.597 in Domaljevac Croat population,

19 plus certain number of -- or includes Muslims in that number. Yes. Is

20 that correct, Madam Tabeau?

21 A. I mentioned 4.597 Croats --

22 Q. Okay. Good.

23 A. -- living in Domaljevac.

24 Q. Yes.

25 A. In 1991.

1 Q. According to census, it was 7 Muslims in Domaljevac. Probably you

2 know -- probably, you don't know anyhow. But it's not so significant

3 number, so let's stick to your figure. Let's stick to your number.

4 Okay. That's not in dispute.

5 Are you familiar, Madam Tabeau, that in village of Basik, which is

6 also in the territory north of this bordering line of Samac, was,

7 according to census of 1991, 526 Croats? Are you familiar or you are not

8 familiar?

9 A. I must say, I don't know all the numbers for all settlements from

10 my head. I could check this, of course.

11 Q. Okay. Yes. Are you familiar with the fact that according to the

12 census of 1991, official data, of course -- I'm always relying to your

13 sources when I'm speaking about these data, Your Honours. I'm relying to

14 the cross-stat which was mentioned in her report. So I just simply take

15 this edition and I'm speaking with this witness.

16 So, Madam Tabeau, could you confirm that in Grebnice -- could you

17 show Grebnice, please? This is on the upper side of --

18 A. [Indicates]

19 Q. Yes. Could you confirm that in Grebnice, which is now in Muslim

20 Federation, there is 1.933 Croats? Can you confirm or you cannot?

21 A. Well, as I said, I don't remember all numbers because these are

22 thousands of numbers published in this book.

23 Q. Okay. But we are speaking now about criminal proceeding case and

24 I was --

25 MR. DI FAZIO: Well --

1 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Pantelic. The questions must be fair to

2 the witness. She can't remember. You can just be putting them to her.

3 MR. PANTELIC: Absolutely.

4 JUDGE MUMBA: And she can't be expected to remember all those

5 tiny, tiny details.

6 MR. PANTELIC:

7 Q. And then, Madam Tabeau, are you familiar with the number in Prud,

8 according to the census 1991, a number of 1.144 Croats?

9 A. As I said before, the same story. I can check this and confirm

10 later.

11 Q. Okay. The total number of Croats in these actually settlements of

12 the Bosanski Samac municipality in 1991, you have confirmed that

13 Domaljevac, Basik, Grebnice, and Prud are now in the territory of

14 Muslim-Croat Federation. Am I correct?

15 A. This is how we see it from this map, but in order to be hundred

16 per cent sure, I would refer to the OSCE classification scheme, which

17 shows precisely how to classify settlement, to which municipality they

18 belong. Prud, I know for sure is not part of Domaljevac Samac. It is now

19 part of Odzak.

20 Q. I'm speaking about pre-war municipality. Okay. My calculation

21 shows that 8.200 Croats lived practically in the pre-war municipality of

22 Samac, in the territories which are now a territory of Muslim-Croat

23 Federation. Am I correct with my position?

24 A. You might be correct, but we said already in the beginning -- I

25 said that Domaljevac is a Croatian municipality, 90 per cent -- 98 per

1 cent of Croats there.

2 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, Your Honour.

3 JUDGE LINDHOLM: You are mixing up the municipalities, because

4 Prud was a part of Odzak and not a part of Bosanski Samac. So you can't

5 include the people living in Prud into the people living in Bosanski

6 Samac.

7 MR. PANTELIC: With all due respect, Your Honour, it is not the

8 case. In fact, Prud was a part of pre-war Bosanski Samac municipality.

9 JUDGE LINDHOLM: No.

10 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, yes, Your Honour. You see the line left of

11 the Prud -- black line, and our --

12 THE WITNESS: Pre-war, yes. Pre-war, but not post-war. The thing

13 is that the borders changed, sometimes very considerably, after Dayton,

14 and Prud, actually, is a very good example of --

15 MR. PANTELIC: No problem.

16 THE WITNESS: It is moved to the other municipality.

17 MR. PANTELIC:

18 Q. This calculation, Madam Tabeau, brings me to conclusion that

19 calculation of 8.200 Croats living in Grebnice, Basik, Prud, and

20 Domaljevac, and everything -- Madam Tabeau can check that during the

21 break, her source that she relied upon.

22 A. What was the last settlement? Domaljevac, you said?

23 Q. Yes. Domaljevac. I said Grebnice, Basik, Domaljevac, and Prud.

24 We can check that during the break.

25 Okay. What I would like to say: These Croats were not displaced.

1 They stayed in the same territory where they lived in 1991. Am I correct?

2 A. This is what I said --

3 Q. Excellent.

4 A. -- in the beginning of my testimony; at least, I said it very

5 explicitly for the municipality Domaljevac/Samac, excluding Prud.

6 Q. Yes. For the purposes of our cross-examination, we have to

7 include Prud because Prud was a part of pre-war municipality

8 Bosanski Samac, and that is why it's important, why it's important for our

9 case.

10 That brings me to number of -- when I -- when I deduct 8.200 from

11 the number of, let's say -- well, it's in dispute, but my way is that the

12 workers abroad are included in these figures, et cetera, et cetera. So

13 that brings me to the conclusion that the Croat population still lived in

14 Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Now we have a figure of 6.703,

15 because we have to be focused on the issue of our case. There is an

16 assumption, there is an allegation from the Prosecution, that 17.000

17 Croats and Muslims were expelled. Now I'm showing that a significant

18 number still stayed on the same place where they were in 1991.

19 But are you familiar with the fact, Madam Tabeau, that in village

20 of Kornica -- can you find on the map village of Kornica? Ill help you.

21 Kornica is actually on the -- you see Modrica, on the south. Below letter

22 "A" of Modrica, you will find Kornica. Did you find that settlement?

23 A. I must say, I can't see it.

24 Q. You know where is Modrica?

25 A. Yes, of course. It is here.

1 Q. Find letter -- no, no. The letters of "Modrica."

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. I would like to help you.

4 A. Perhaps you can take it --

5 Q. No, no, no. Below -- I cannot approach. Below the letter "A" of

6 "Modrica," go below, and you will see on the border this name "Kornica"?

7 JUDGE MUMBA: Modrica, the one in bigger letters, on the white

8 part.

9 THE WITNESS: Here. I see.

10 MR. PANTELIC: Big letter. Yes, yes, that's correct. Excellent.

11 Q. Another -- just go to the right, to your right, from Kornica, and

12 you will see Srednja Slatina.

13 A. Yes, I see it.

14 Q. Okay. During your preparation of your report, are you familiar,

15 Madam Tabeau, that prior to the end of June 1992, before the military

16 operation called Corridor, the complete population of these two villages -

17 in total, I'm speaking about Croats, in total is 1.720 - left this area to

18 the territory where the Croats were controlling that area? Are you

19 familiar or are you not?

20 A. I am not. Well, we are speaking about 1991, population census,

21 and you are now mentioning 1992, prior to June 1992, so I assume you are

22 speaking about first months of the year 1992. And you are referring to

23 population movements, outflow of Croats, this number you mentioned from

24 these two settlements.

25 Q. Yes, yes. Since you are a member of Prosecution office, so I

1 thought maybe you were in discussion, proofing. Just say no. No problem.

2 A. No, no. I am working independently.

3 Q. I take your answer as "no."

4 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Pantelic, you should allow the witness to

5 complete the answer.

6 THE WITNESS: Yes. Thank you. So I wanted to --

7 MR. PANTELIC: Sorry, Your Honour.

8 THE WITNESS: -- stress that I am an independent demographer, even

9 though I'm part of the Prosecutor office. And I do my work to the best of

10 my knowledge and my skills, and I use sources that I believe are reliable

11 and can be presented here in Court. This is what I do. And I don't

12 communicate every single detail with the trial team.

13 MR. PANTELIC:

14 Q. That's understandable, perfectly understandable. No problem,

15 Madam Tabeau.

16 This calculation brings me to another subtotal, which is -- I'm

17 speaking about the population of Croats and Muslims with regard to the

18 first number, and now it brings me to a subtotal of 4.983. Now we are

19 going to your page 8 of your report, when you are speaking about split

20 settlements. You will see that, in fact, the number of Croats were 3.004

21 and Muslims was 7. In total, it's 3.011, and the position of the Defence

22 is that this population actually was now physically in the territory of

23 Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

24 A. I'm sorry. I didn't follow you. I didn't follow you, the

25 numbers. I couldn't see them.

1 Q. Page 8 of your report.

2 A. Yes, I have it in front of my eyes.

3 Q. You see first item, which is split settlement?

4 A. Yes, I see that.

5 Q. You see the Croats: 3.004? [Realtime transcript read in

6 error: "3.000 004"]

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. You see Muslims: 7?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Total is 3.011.

11 A. Yes, that's correct.

12 Q. Madam Tabeau, the position of the Defence is the following.

13 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, correction in line 11. 3 million, well,

14 court recorder, give us -- it's a correction. It's not, of course -- page

15 69, line 11, it is not 3 million and 4 Croats.

16 JUDGE MUMBA: What is the figure?

17 MR. PANTELIC: Figure is 3.004

18 JUDGE MUMBA: All right.

19 MR. PANTELIC: It's a correction.

20 Q. We said earlier that we have 3.004 Croats, plus 7 Muslims,

21 according to your report, and it brings us to 3.011.

22 Madam Tabeau, the position of Defence is the following: Although

23 you didn't include this number of 3.011 in your calculation, the Defence

24 is of the opinion and position that this number of 3.011 should be

25 included in the territory of Federation of Muslim-Croat Federation, and we

1 have to deduct our subtotal of 4.983 with these 3.011. And I will put you

2 certain questions with that regard.

3 Could you agree with me that the settlement Doljani --

4 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please, I don't mind the general

5 line of the cross-examination, but surely the witness should be -- what's

6 happening here is that Mr. Pantelic is making a statement: This is the

7 truth of the matter or this is the situation or this is what we say, and

8 then goes on to ask a different question. When you come to read the

9 transcript, it's going to be very difficult to understand exactly what the

10 witness is saying and what she is meaning. Why can't Mr. Pantelic ask the

11 witness to comment upon that calculation? After all, that's the purpose

12 that she is here, it's the reason why she is here, the calculation and the

13 methods of including -- and the reasons why various numbers are included.

14 MR. PANTELIC: I'm laying -- sorry, my learned friend. I'm laying

15 my foundation, Your Honour. We have to clarify the foundation and then

16 I'm going with the examination.

17 Our position, my learned friend, is that your expert did not

18 include 3.011 Croats and Muslims in the territory of Muslim-Croat

19 Federation.

20 MR. DI FAZIO: Fine. Fine.

21 MR. PANTELIC: That's our position. That's our foundation.

22 MR. DI FAZIO: Fine. Terrific. Wonderful.

23 MR. PANTELIC: And now I'm proceeding with certain line of

24 questioning, to see whether your expert is familiar with the issues that

25 we are discussing. If your expert is not familiar, then the Trial Chamber

1 will draw certain conclusions.

2 MR. DI FAZIO: No objection to the question. No objection. But

3 can the witness comment on --

4 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

5 MR. DI FAZIO: -- the proposition. That's all.

6 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Pantelic. Allow the witness to comment.

7 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, of course. Now I will pose a question and

8 then she can comment. Of course. Gladly.

9 Q. Madam Tabeau, let me clarify things. There is certain

10 settlements, because I have a bigger map, and I make certain changes.

11 This, by the way, is Prosecution map of UNPROFOR operational map series

12 which was submitted well in advance. I don't know. It was --

13 JUDGE MUMBA: Was it produced in evidence?

14 MR. PANTELIC: No, no. It's just for my -- because I have to

15 follow the names of the settlements. It's just for my - I don't know -

16 notes or something like that.

17 Q. But now, tell me, Madam Tabeau: Are you aware of the settlement

18 or village Doljani, which is north of line -- of bordering line of Dayton?

19 It is not on your map, unfortunately.

20 A. Isn't it this one?

21 Q. No, no.

22 A. This is also called Doljani.

23 Q. Doljani, you have?

24 A. And it is likely that it is a split settlement or something like

25 that.

1 Q. Oh, yes. Okay. Yes, yes, yes. Sorry. My mistake. Okay. So

2 Doljani is in this line of split settlements. Are you aware also of the

3 settlement of Vranica, although it is not on your map, but it's also in

4 the same area?

5 A. It is on my map.

6 Q. Vranica.

7 A. Just on the Dayton line, I believe.

8 Q. Yes, just on the Dayton line. Yes, that's correct. Are you aware

9 about the Tursinovac?

10 A. It is also on my map.

11 Q. Are you aware about the Odmut?

12 A. I don't see it on my map, I must say, but if you see it, if you

13 could show me.

14 Q. It's a problem with the ... Correct me if I'm wrong: North of

15 Doljani, is there a Masici settlement? Because it's not so good copy.

16 A. Probably. But indeed, the font is very unclear and we cannot

17 read.

18 Q. Yes. And then also we have in your map a settlement Snoge? Yes?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Okay. So all this area, split settlements, according to your

21 report, consist of 3.011 Croats and Muslims?

22 A. Yes, this is what I mentioned in table 4, on page 8.

23 Q. Why you -- or could you agree with me, of course, that in fact all

24 Croats and Muslims, in total of 3.011, are now living on the territory of

25 Muslim-Croat Federation?

1 A. Well, this is something that I cannot agree with, because I said

2 that split settlements were actually excluded from the analysis because

3 they were split. This means that part -- one part of each split

4 settlement was in the Federation, another one in Republika Srpska. And

5 these are split settlements not because I split them but because they were

6 split due to -- according to the Dayton Peace Agreement. And OSCE,

7 organisation responsible for establishing a classification scheme for

8 statistical analysis, like my work, didn't include them as part of the

9 federal or Serbian municipality. They are just split, so you need

10 specific addresses of every citizen in order to include these persons

11 either to the Federation or to Republika Srpska. I didn't have this

12 information to use in my work. This is why split settlements were

13 excluded entirely from any municipality. They were just left aside from

14 the analysis.

15 Q. But, Madam Tabeau, we could agree that in these settlements, there

16 are 3.011 Muslims and Croats, could we not?

17 A. Yes, it is correct.

18 Q. And they are living in their homes in these split settlements,

19 obviously, because you made certain registration, analysis, and then you

20 locate them in these areas. Am I correct?

21 A. No. They lived in their houses, likely, but I don't know whether

22 certainly.

23 Q. Okay. That is my point.

24 A. But it is --

25 Q. That is my point. That is my point.

1 JUDGE MUMBA: Let the witness complete her explanation.

2 A. That we don't know whether their homes now are Federation or

3 Republika Srpska; at least, I don't know, because I don't have a

4 classification scheme, a guideline, that I could use for me, as a

5 statistician, to include them. I cannot just aggregate individuals using

6 my feeling or intuition. I really always try to use official

7 classification schemes and official documents, guidelines, the so-called

8 guidelines, in doing my work.

9 MR. PANTELIC:

10 Q. You see, Madam Tabeau, the point is here, from the point of view

11 of Defence, that these people are still in their homes. They were not

12 expelled. They are living in these neighbouring areas. Because you just

13 said that, according to the analysis of voters register, you assigned

14 them, ascribed them, to the split settlements. And my point is not to

15 have academic discussion about where and what it is, but it's very simple.

16 My question is: According to your knowledge, according to your data,

17 could you confirm that these 3.011 Muslim and Croats lives in that split

18 settlements? Yes or no.

19 A. I'll answer this question in a different way. I have shown in my

20 report, even excluding the split settlements, that in Domaljevac-Samac,

21 Croats, 98 per cent of the whole population living in this municipality

22 still lived there in 1997, in their own homes. So I said already in my

23 report that those who lived there still lived there after the conflict.

24 But I think what I also tried to do in my report, I tried to look at the

25 other municipalities in this region, and for me, as a demographer, this

1 what happened in the municipalities belonging to Republika Srpska is

2 dramatic because there the ethnic composition changed in a way that I

3 don't see Muslims, Croats, the same way as they used to be there before

4 the war. This is what I am saying. That's it.

5 Q. Yes. And also, you confirm that also there is no Serbs in

6 Muslim-Croat Federation. That's the same story. Yes? You said that

7 earlier.

8 A. Well, if you are thinking of a part of Odzak municipality --

9 Q. No. You are speaking about general Bosnia and I'm speaking about

10 general Bosnia. The follow-up question is --

11 MR. DI FAZIO: The witness is not speaking about general Bosnia.

12 She is talking about --

13 MR. PANTELIC: No, no, no. Just read the transcript.

14 MR. DI FAZIO: If I may be permitted to finish my objection,

15 please.

16 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Di Fazio.

17 MR. DI FAZIO: The witness isn't talking about general Bosnia.

18 She's talking about the municipalities of Odzak and Bosanski Samac that --

19 and those parts thereof that belong to the Republika Srpska. That's what

20 she is talking about.

21 MR. PANTELIC: Okay, Madam Tabeau.

22 MR. DI FAZIO: Not Bosnia in general.

23 MR. PANTELIC: Municipalities to Republika Srpska is line 17.

24 Q. Okay. I don't want to argue with you, Madam Tabeau. You showed

25 us, and you can confirm also, that there is no Serb population in Odzak.

1 Yes? Now --

2 A. In the federal part?

3 Q. In the federal part.

4 A. Yes. This is what I showed in my report.

5 Q. And also you can confirm that there is no Serbs in Odzak, is that

6 correct, now in federal part?

7 A. Did I show this in my report for Orasje, particularly --

8 Q. Do you have knowledge --

9 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Pantelic, allow the witness to complete the

10 answer. The record will be so confused. Because you keep speaking before

11 she finishes the answer.

12 MR. PANTELIC: Sorry, Your Honour. It's my mistake.

13 A. So I agree I showed no Serbs or hardly any Serbs after the

14 conflict in 1997 in the federal part of Odzak. This is what I showed.

15 And I presented -- discussed these figures today, in the morning. But I

16 didn't say anything about Orasje as such in my report, I think.

17 MR. PANTELIC:

18 Q. Speaking about Domaljevac in this part of pre-war municipality of

19 Bosanski Samac. But my friend will cover the issue of Odzak.

20 My question was very simple, Madam Tabeau. Let's go back. My

21 question was: Could you agree with me that 3.011 Muslims and Croats,

22 according to your analysis, according to register of voters of OSCE and

23 your sources and your report, are still living in the split settlements,

24 Yes or no? And then we shall move on. Don't give me a broad answer.

25 Just "yes" or "no."

1 A. I cannot, because the 3.011 Muslims and Croats you mentioned were

2 reported in the 1991 population census, and now you are saying that the

3 same number of Croats and Muslims were registered as voters in 1997, which

4 is not necessarily the truth. The table actually, here, shows 1991

5 population only. So this is the status before the conflict and not after

6 the conflict.

7 Q. So am I understanding well --

8 A. I would have to run a query to check for these persons identified

9 in that census, whether they indeed lived or registered to vote in 1997 in

10 the same settlements or the same at least municipality, and then I can

11 answer your question.

12 Q. Okay. And finally, could we agree, Madam Tabeau, that -- now we

13 are jumping into the other area which is the number of voters. Let's see

14 your table 6B.

15 A. Yes. Page 13?

16 Q. Yes, page 13. Speaking about Muslims, in the first column, am I

17 understanding correctly that 187 Muslims voted from the municipality of

18 Samac, Republika Srpska?

19 A. No, it is not correct. They registered to vote in this

20 municipality. There were two location items in the voters register. One

21 was municipality of registration, where people physically registered to

22 vote, and there was another location item, the municipality they wanted to

23 vote for, which is a different story. You physically didn't need to be in

24 a particular municipality to vote for this municipality. And as we all

25 know --

1 Q. Yes, yes, yes. But, you know, I'm just trying to clarify this

2 table, table 6B. If I understood correctly, 187 Muslims were in

3 municipality of Bosanski Samac, Republika Srpska --

4 A. Registered to vote, yes.

5 Q. Registered to vote. Then other municipalities, 349, and then out

6 of country, 505, and then 1.041. Okay. My understanding was -- I'm not

7 speaking where they are and whether they vote or not, because you

8 introduced that matter, and I would like to seek clarification from you.

9 You said that this is number registered in Samac, according to your

10 sources from OSCE documentation. You said this municipality. This

11 municipality means Bosanski Samac RS. Am I correct?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. Okay.

14 A. They were registered in this municipality.

15 Q. Okay.

16 A. This is at least -- we found them as registered.

17 Q. Also on the basis -- on the same principle, you registered 104

18 Croats?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Which means that they are voters over the age 18. Yes?

21 A. 18 or more. People eligible to vote.

22 Q. Good. Would you agree with me that certain number of people don't

23 want to go to vote, and they --

24 A. Of course.

25 Q. Accordingly, they don't want to be registered. Am I right?

1 A. Yes, because this is election, so you don't have to go. You

2 choose to go.

3 Q. So these figures, these digits, are, to some extent, not reliable,

4 for the two reasons: They don't show the population below the age of 18,

5 and then they don't show the real population because we have certain

6 voters which don't want to be registered. Am I correct?

7 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, but all that is contained in the report

8 already.

9 A. Yes. If I may say, it is not about the reliability of the

10 figures; it is about completeness of the source. And I said in the

11 beginning, when commenting on the sources, that while census is a complete

12 population survey and covers the whole population living in an area,

13 voters register is a sample, a sample that, as estimated by OSCE, covered,

14 in this particular election, approximately 70, 75 per cent of the

15 population. Of course, only certain age groups, not the whole population.

16 MR. PANTELIC:

17 Q. Okay. My question is the following: Madam Tabeau, applying your

18 method, and given the fact of these two issues that I spoke, could we

19 agree that this number of Muslims and Croats registered in municipality of

20 Bosanski Samac RS should be -- on this number should added at least the

21 same number, given the fact that they are not all registered, and then we

22 should say at least 20 per cent of the population less than 18 year?

23 Because my friend, my learned friend, will show you -- afterwards he made

24 certain analysis of how you made these calculations, and then that,

25 according to this calculation, we have approximately 700 Croats and

1 Muslims in the municipality of Samac RS, roughly.

2 A. Right. You said.

3 Q. Okay.

4 A. Not me, but ...

5 Q. Then, according to my calculation, Madam Tabeau, following these

6 standards, I came to the figure of 1.200 Muslim and Croat population,

7 which are approximate number that they left, for different reasons,

8 Bosanski Samac municipality. Am I correct?

9 A. I don't know, but I would like to comment on what you said about

10 the completeness of the figures in table 6B. You said that it is

11 necessary to increase the number by at least the same. I wouldn't agree

12 with that. You could increase the numbers by a certain per cent,

13 according to the participation rate in the election --

14 Q. Can I give you my example and then you --

15 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Pantelic.

16 MR. DI FAZIO: Let the witness finish.

17 JUDGE MUMBA: I will stop you from cross-examination, because you

18 don't want the witness to complete the answer. You don't want the witness

19 to explain.

20 MR. PANTELIC: I'll give her my idea and then she can correct me.

21 That may be easiest for all of us. And then she will say no, it is not

22 correct. She's an expert. That was my idea, nothing more. Okay. I

23 agree.

24 A. But increasing the number equally by the same percentage is not

25 necessarily a good idea, because those who don't participate in elections

1 are usually very particular groups, and they don't go for certain reasons.

2 So we don't know the ethnic composition of those who didn't register to

3 vote. Well, we always say that we present minimum numbers in our report.

4 It is not that we present complete population size; we speak

5 about minimum population size. And these are the figures in this table.

6 MR. PANTELIC:

7 Q. Yes, but correct me if I'm wrong, Madam Tabeau. We see here 187

8 plus 104 voters more than 18 years old. Could you agree with me that we

9 have to -- these are voters, but there is a certain number of

10 non-registered voters. Could we increase this number -- what is your

11 suggestion for which percentage we should increase these two digits?

12 Please, tell me.

13 A. I don't know.

14 JUDGE MUMBA: Can you wait, Mr. Pantelic? The interpreters are

15 having a problem because you are using the same language. So we have

16 forgotten about pausing to allow the questions to be completed.

17 MR. PANTELIC: Sorry.

18 Q. So, Madam Tabeau, we cannot say how many -- what is the percentage

19 of increasing of these people given the fact that there is some passive

20 voters, in fact. You cannot give us the precise answer?

21 A. Are you --

22 Q. Would you say 10 per cent, 20, 30?

23 A. I wouldn't mention any figure.

24 Q. Okay.

25 A. I would have to study the responses of non-registered voters

1 somehow, based on a sample, to say anything more about it.

2 Q. Okay. I agree with your position, although the figures are a

3 different one.

4 Now I would like to just put to you several questions. I've

5 finished with this kind of analysis. Just several questions about your, I

6 would say, reliability.

7 First of all, Madam Tabeau, I think that, looking at first page of

8 your report, where you bolded, in this subparagraph 4, you bolded the

9 words "Croats and Muslims largely disappeared from Samac." Could we agree

10 with me that the word "disappeared" is not more appropriate? Could we

11 agree upon the maybe better -- maybe "population movement" or

12 "immigration"? Because I clearly -- and I, frankly, don't understand.

13 What does it mean, that they physically disappeared or simply in terms of

14 immigration? Could you be so kind to explain this to the Chamber?

15 A. If you feel more comfortable with the expression "moved out" or, I

16 don't know, "migrated out of the municipality." But the meaning is

17 basically the same; they are not physically there.

18 Q. Yes, but you can understand my worry. The word "disappeared" is a

19 little bit, you know --

20 A. If you think of negative connotation.

21 Q. Okay.

22 A. We agreed upon the immigration of population movement, stuff like

23 that. Yes?

24 A. I think so.

25 Q. Okay. Looking at page 2 of your report, you also used that word,

1 but we clarified that. But my attention was brought to the word in your

2 last paragraph, "summing up," two clear examples of ethnic cleansing.

3 Tell me, Madam Tabeau, what is the basis and what is your professional

4 knowledge, since you are not a legal expert, to say that it was an ethnic

5 cleansing? You are a scientist, you are a demographer, so could you agree

6 with me that you are not a professional lawyer who knows the notion of

7 ethnic cleansing? Yes or no?

8 A. Well, if there is a legal definition of ethnic cleansing, then I

9 must say, I don't know it.

10 Q. Thank you. Let's go to another topic.

11 A. But let me finish. In --

12 MR. PANTELIC: Your Honour, this is a cross-examination. Your

13 Honour --

14 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Pantelic, let the witness explain and complete

15 her answer.

16 THE WITNESS: But as a demographer, when I see that in such a

17 short period of time one ethnic group is completely gone from an area, and

18 this is completely really, indeed, because if it is half a per cent of one

19 per cent who remained out of, say, 40 per cent or something. So for me,

20 as a demographer, it is an ethnic cleansing in the sense of demography.

21 This group is not there any more. So what I meant was demographically

22 speaking.

23 MR. PANTELIC:

24 Q. Not legally. Yes?

25 A. Well, not. I am not a legal person. I don't have legal

1 background.

2 JUDGE LINDHOLM: Mr. Pantelic --

3 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, Your Honour.

4 JUDGE LINDHOLM: I'm a bit annoyed by your questioning of the

5 witness. I'm coming from a system where I have been used to both sides

6 behave like gentlemen, and I would ask you to behave like a gentleman.

7 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, Your Honour. I'll take your instructions, of

8 course. It is not my intention to behave on the other way. I'm just

9 following the standards in common-law cross-examination, where the leading

10 questions are allowed and where the control of the witness is of certain

11 significance. That was my way how I posed the questions, and of course,

12 Your Honour, it was not my intention to behave on the other way.

13 Q. Madam Tabeau, could you also check in your page 7. At the end of

14 this page, you speak about 1997 figures, that give you some impression of

15 the ethnic structure. Could you agree with me that, as a scientist, we --

16 or you should avoid impressions and you should rather speak about the

17 facts and figures? Am I correct?

18 A. No, you are not. I disagree, that here, using the expression

19 "some impression" is wrong. I stressed in this way that the figures

20 shown for two years, 1991 and, on the other hand, for 1997, are not fully

21 comparable because of the difference in the age groups included in both

22 cases. However, because the group of voters is so large that relative

23 measures, as fractions, percentages, may be very well representative of

24 the whole population, I still can put them together with the figures

25 showing all age groups in the population. And this is even -- I didn't

1 have to do this some impression, but I did it just to warn you that not to

2 take these figures too literally. Further in the report I correct this

3 inconsistency and I only show comparable, hundred per cent comparable

4 figures.

5 Q. My few last questions: How many years you are employed in

6 Prosecution office?

7 A. Almost two years. Not yet two years.

8 Q. You receive your salary from the Prosecution office. Am I

9 correct?

10 A. I receive my salary from the United Nations.

11 Q. As a member of Prosecution office?

12 A. As a member of the Prosecution office.

13 Q. Tell me, Madam Tabeau: You, as a scientist, why you mixed two

14 methods, namely, I'm speaking about the OSCE voter register and statistic

15 census 1991? I think that it's a kind of a mixing apples and oranges or,

16 in our language, there is a saying that it's a mixture of grandmothers and

17 frogs. So I think that you are a biased expert, that you are a one-sided

18 expert, and that you didn't show a scientific approach to this report.

19 Are you agree with me or not? Just yes or no.

20 A. No.

21 Q. Thank you.

22 A. I don't agree, and I don't think that using the census, population

23 census, together with voters register, is wrong. These are both

24 individual level data sources and can be used in the same way. Matching

25 is not a method I applied first in demography. Matching is a very

1 well-established standard and has a long tradition, especially in

2 Scandinavian countries, like Norway, for instance, or Finland. So I

3 believe I properly used the same type of sources and well-established

4 scientific standard as methods for producing this report.

5 Q. Thank you very much, Madam Tabeau.

6 MR. PANTELIC: Your Honours, I've finished with my

7 cross-examination.

8 JUDGE MUMBA: Very well.

9 Mr. Lukic.

10 Cross-examined by Mr. Lukic:

11 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Ms. Tabeau. I will address you

12 in my native language. As Mr. Pantelic said, I will put questions to you

13 regarding your analysis of the pre-war municipality of Odzak and

14 post-Dayton municipality of Odzak in the Federation, and Odzak-Vukosavlje.

15 And then later on I will ask you a few general questions.

16 So one question that will be a continuation of the few last

17 questions put to you by Mr. Pantelic is this: Based on the methodology

18 that you used, you, in fact, cannot tell us when, in the period between

19 1991 and 1997, these movements of the population in fact occurred. You

20 were unable to establish that fact. Is that right?

21 A. Yes, this is correct. I didn't use any statistical information

22 for the years between 1991 and 1997.

23 Q. First I would like you to take a look at the table 5. This

24 pertains to Samac, but I think it is a good table to use for this question

25 regarding the analysis that you used. So table 5A is the ethnic

1 composition in Domaljevac, Samac, pre- and post-war population, residents

2 18 years or older.

3 According to your table, in 1991 there were 26 Serb voters in

4 Domaljevac-Samac municipality; is that right?

5 A. In 1991, you mean? This is the number mentioned in the table. If

6 it is a question related to age, I must tell you that we applied a cohort

7 approach. So in this table, we, for the year 1991, showed the same

8 cohort, the same group of people, who became eligible to vote in 1997. So

9 it is not necessarily that this is the number, the 26, of all Serbs who

10 were 18 and older in the year 1991.

11 Q. You have established that six Serbs voted in 1997.

12 A. This is what we see in the table, registered to vote in 1997.

13 Q. Can you tell us what percentage of the total number of 27 is 6

14 voters?

15 A. So it would be a bit more than 2 per cent -- 20. A bit less than

16 20 per cent.

17 Q. So if 26 Serb voters lived there in 1991, and then in 1997 only 6

18 voters lived there, what percentage is that?

19 A. Do you ask me questions now about the fractions that I included in

20 the next columns of the table? So these fractions you can calculate in

21 different ways. The fractions I showed in the table show the

22 distribution, ethnic composition, for each year. It doesn't make any

23 sense to relate the two numbers of Serbs to each other, because these

24 numbers may not be related to each other.

25 Q. Why cannot they be related to each other in order to establish

1 what the reduction in percentages of the Serbs were? You have two

2 identical categories of voters. You have voters in 1991 and then you have

3 a category of voters in 1997. You made a comparison of the described

4 categories and the voters, but now you are refusing to compare the amount

5 of voters in 1991 and 1997. I'm asking you to please tell us what

6 percentage of Serb voters remained in 1997 as compared to those in 1991.

7 I'm not interested in the percentage of voters in relation to the entire

8 population; I'm only interested in the population in relation to the Serb

9 population.

10 A. Well, first of all, I want to explain why these two numbers, 26

11 and 6, cannot be related to each other. The population of voters,

12 1997/1998 voters, as mentioned in the table, includes also Serb newcomers,

13 so those Serbs who didn't live in this municipality in 1991. While 26 is

14 only those who resided in this municipality in 1991. So it doesn't make

15 much sense to compare two different figures. I could answer your question

16 -- I can check how many of the 26 registered to vote, because they are

17 included in the 6, and then I can show you, of course, what is this

18 fraction. Of course, the numbers are very small, so I don't believe the

19 fractions are really reliable because of the small sample size.

20 JUDGE MUMBA: Shall we take our break now, Mr. Lukic.

21 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] If I could just put a few more

22 questions in order to close this topic.

23 Q. So you are claiming that among those six, there were those Serbs

24 who came to Domaljevac-Samac after 1991. Is that what you're claiming?

25 A. Possibly. Possibly. I would have to check this. But this is how

1 the figures were produced. This is the fact of population in these two

2 years. 1991 census is the resident population in this municipality, and

3 1997 is the population who registered to vote. And this is only part of

4 this population in 1997 originally lived in this municipality in 1991.

5 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] We can take our break now. Thank you.

6 JUDGE MUMBA: We shall continue at 1250 hours.

7 --- Recess taken at 12.31 p.m.

8 --- On resuming at 12.53 p.m.

9 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Lukic.

10 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

11 Q. Ms. Tabeau, we don't have much time left, and I will try to be as

12 expeditious as possible so that we can finish today. So please refrain

13 yourself to yes-or-no answers, if possible. If you need an explanation,

14 then the Prosecution can do that during their re-direct. So, if you can,

15 please follow my instructions.

16 Now I will focus on Odzak municipality. I would like to remind

17 you of what you said on page 16 of the English version of your report,

18 namely, that in 1991, in municipality of Odzak - we're now talking about

19 statistics - there were 10.056 residents. There were --

20 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter didn't hear the percentages of

21 Croats.

22 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Lukic, can you speak slowly? The interpreters

23 missed out the numbers. Perhaps you can repeat your numbers, yes.

24 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

25 Q. So therefore, according to you, there were 30.056 residents, out

1 of which, percentage-wise, 54.4 Croats, which is 16.338; 20.7 Muslims,

2 which is 6.220; and 18.9 per cent of Serbs, or 5.667. So these are the

3 official statistics that you used based on the 1991 census. Is that

4 right?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. And this applies to the entire municipality of Odzak?

7 A. Yes, pre-war municipality.

8 Q. Yes, that's right. The pre-war municipality. Now, I have

9 information, and it is similar to the equivalent of the information used

10 by Mr. Pantelic. Based on the results of this census, before the war the

11 municipality of Odzak, which, I have to say, is one of the municipalities

12 with the largest number of economic immigrants, or people who went to work

13 abroad in the former Yugoslavia. There were 4.923 residents working

14 abroad at the time and that there were 1.559 members of their families.

15 So by adding these two figures, I came to the number that a total number

16 of residents from the municipality of Odzak working abroad in 1991 was

17 6.482, which is almost 25 per cent. And I would like to ask you, in

18 relation to the answer you gave to Mr. Pantelic, the following: This

19 number of 30.056 inhabitants which were found by the census of 1991 to be

20 residents of the municipality of Odzak does not include those working

21 abroad and members of their families; is that your claim?

22 A. This is what I said is, in my opinion, the case. But again, I

23 would need to look for statistics to check whether it is really the case.

24 Q. Now I would like to turn to the topic of Odzak itself. We will

25 now first focus to Odzak in the Federation. On page 16 of the English

1 version of your report, in paragraph 1, you come up with a conclusion that

2 I would like to analyse now. In your last sentence, you stated that in

3 the Odzak municipality, the fraction of Serbs remained more or less

4 unchanged between 1991 and 1997. I would now like to turn to page 18 of

5 your report, where you claim that, percentage-wise, in 1991, there were

6 22.6 per cent of Serbs eligible to vote in the territory covered by Odzak

7 in the Federation. Is that right?

8 A. Yes, that's the number in table 11A on page 18.

9 Q. And that there were 28 Serbs who reported as voters and that there

10 was 0.48 Serbs remaining -- percentage of Serbs remaining among the entire

11 population. Is that right?

12 A. This is the same table. Correct.

13 Q. Now, if we compare Muslims in the municipality of Samac, we

14 conclude that there were many more Serbs than the Muslims in the

15 municipality of Samac and that many more Serbs disappeared as compared to

16 Muslims and Croats in the municipality of Samac. Am I right? I am

17 deducing this based on the information that you provided.

18 A. I'm sorry. Are you now referring to Serbian part of municipality

19 of Bosanski Samac? What -- I didn't get your point. I'm sorry.

20 Q. I wish to make a comparison between the departure -- I would

21 rather use that term than "dramatic decrease" in the Serbian population of

22 Odzak municipality as compared to the disappearance or departure of the

23 Muslim population in the municipality of Samac. There were more Serbs in

24 Odzak than Muslims in Samac, based on your data, and more Serbs

25 dramatically disappeared than Muslims in Odzak than Muslims in Samac. So

1 am I right? I am quoting this from the information you provided.

2 A. I would like to be sure that we are referring to the same

3 municipalities. We can speak about pre-war and post-war municipalities.

4 So are you now referring to the pre-war or post-war municipalities? And

5 if post-war, then which ones?

6 A. In pre-war municipality of Odzak, there were 3.000 Serb voters; is

7 that right? Only 0.48 per cent of the entire population of them remained

8 in the municipality of Odzak in 1997. This is your table 11A.

9 A. Yes, the Federation, yes. That is correct. Yes, yes. And you

10 compare this municipality with which municipality? RS? Bosanski Samac?

11 Q. And now I would like to compare your conclusion, which states that

12 in Samac municipality - so another municipality - there was a dramatic

13 decrease in the numbers of Muslims and Croats as compared to the pre-war

14 municipality of Samac. You claim that in both of those municipalities

15 there was a dramatic decrease: Serbs in Odzak and Muslims and Croats in

16 Samac. Is that right?

17 MR. DI FAZIO: I don't object to the question. I understand what

18 my learned friend is driving at. But the witness hasn't said that. The

19 witness was talking about the dramatic decrease in those numbers occurring

20 in certain portions of the pre-war Bosanski Samac and Odzak

21 municipalities. They were divided up. So the dramatic decrease that she

22 talked about, for example, of Muslims and Croats from the Bosanski Samac

23 area was from the Republika Srpska part of the Bosanski Samac -- of the

24 former Bosanski Samac area. And that's -- my learned friend's question

25 fails to take that into account. You see, she compared movement

1 populations in four areas, not two; four. The two municipalities that

2 have been split. And that's -- Mr. Lukic isn't taking that into account,

3 with respect.

4 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I think that I wanted to be, and I

5 was, fairly clear, but perhaps you are of a different view.

6 Q. Let me ask you: Was there a dramatic decrease of Serb population

7 in Odzak municipality if we compare the pre-war and post-war municipality?

8 Yes or no, please.

9 A. In the federal part of Odzak, yes, decrease of Serbs. In the

10 federal part of Odzak municipality, we observed, after the war, compared

11 with 1991, a dramatic decrease in the fraction of Serbs.

12 Q. And based on your statistical view of ethnic cleansing, as you've

13 told my colleague Pantelic, does that, if we take into account the short

14 time period during which this population disappeared, does that, according

15 to your standards which you used both for Muslims and Croats, represents,

16 in statistical sense, a classical example of ethnic cleansing? Yes or no,

17 please.

18 A. Because we used this term for a situation in which Muslims and

19 Croats moved out or disappeared from a certain area. I think the same

20 applies to the situation here, to be consequent.

21 Q. But you did not state so in your report.

22 JUDGE LINDHOLM: Why don't you ask the crucial question: Why the

23 Serb population in Odzak diminished in such a great number? This is the

24 crucial question, not looking at the figures here on page 18, but for what

25 reason.

1 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I entirely agree with you, Your Honour

2 Judge Lindholm, but I'm not sure that the witness will give us that kind

3 of an answer. But I will put the question to her.

4 Q. Do you know why, what caused this dramatic decrease in the Serbian

5 population in the municipality of Odzak as compared to the pre-Dayton

6 population composition? Do you have any knowledge of this?

7 A. Well, this report and my testimony is about presenting a picture

8 of changes, and not about explanation, so I, of course, cannot give this

9 answer. I can only think that, again, such a rapid change cannot be

10 caused by normal factors like demographic factors and socioeconomic

11 factors, unless a crisis situation took place in this region.

12 JUDGE LINDHOLM: Thank you.

13 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] May I continue?

14 Q. And now that you have confirmed that we can use the term "ethnic

15 cleansing," using the same standards for Serbs in Odzak, can you tell me

16 why, on page 16, you claim that the fraction of Serbs in municipality of

17 Odzak remained more or less unchanged between 1991 and 1997, if we can see

18 that only 0.48 Serbs remained? Why did you come up with this conclusion

19 on page 16 of your report?

20 A. Because on page 16 I discuss the whole municipality of Odzak,

21 without looking at the two parts of this municipality, federal and Serbian

22 part of the municipality, and this is the reason why the figures that we

23 present for the whole municipality must be different than the figures that

24 are presented for certain smaller areas, parts of the municipalities.

25 I said in the beginning of my testimony that the population was

1 distributed within the pre-war municipalities very unequally, already in

2 1991, that certain ethnic groups were concentrated in certain areas. So

3 if you look particularly at these areas where, for instance, Serbs were

4 concentrated only, and other areas where only Croats were concentrated,

5 then you obtain other fractions, other ethnic compositions. This is, I

6 hope, understandable.

7 Q. You are trying to say that these Serbs from Odzak, from the

8 Federation, went on to live in Odzak-Vukosavlje, and that this is why the

9 number of Serbs remained unchanged, more or less, in the entire

10 municipality of Odzak. Is that what you're trying to tell us? Or perhaps

11 they went somewhere outside the boundaries of the old Odzak municipality.

12 A. Well, I'm not trying to say that these particular Serbs who lived

13 in the federal part of Odzak municipality moved to the Serbian part of the

14 municipality during the conflict. I can check this in my data. That is

15 possible. I am trying to say - and I say it, I hope, very clearly - that

16 there were population movements within the Odzak municipality, as there

17 were between other municipalities, split in the Dayton Peace Accords. It

18 is likely that many of them moved from the federal part to the RS part.

19 It is likely. Certainly, it is. But we can check this even more

20 thoroughly using results presented in this report by looking at figure --

21 Q. Which are on the table. Yes. We will come back to that when we

22 examine Odzak-Vukosavlje. You are claiming that the fraction of Serbs

23 remained more or less unchanged in the municipality of Odzak between 1991

24 and 1997. This is your conclusion on page 16, and this is what you are

25 still upholding now. Yes or no, please.

1 A. It is true for the pre-war municipality of Odzak, but it is not

2 true for the federal part of the municipality of Odzak.

3 Q. Madam Tabeau, we will now focus on the municipality of

4 Odzak-Vukosavlje. You qualify this municipality as one in which there was

5 significant ethnic cleansing. First I would like for us to look at the

6 map in front of you, and tell us what constituted the municipality of

7 Odzak pre-Dayton and what constitutes municipality of Vukosavlje

8 post-Dayton. So the municipality of Odzak before Dayton, please, and now

9 the municipality Odzak-Vukosavlje.

10 A. It is this part.

11 Q. Now I will ask you this: Are you quite sure, and are you

12 claiming, that the pre-war Odzak was what you have just shown us, or was

13 it perhaps a little bit smaller? Now I'm referring to the boundaries of

14 the pre-war municipality of Odzak. Please try to recollect what you put

15 in your report. On page 20, you go on to say that several settlements

16 from Modrica were added onto the municipality of Odzak. Page 17,

17 paragraph 4 in the English version.

18 I will read it out now. This is what it says. You stated that

19 several additional settlements, which in 1991 belonged to the neighbouring

20 municipality of Modrica and Bosanski Samac, became part of the two new

21 Odzak municipalities, according to the Dayton Agreement. Specifically, in

22 1995, Prud became part of the Federal Odzak, whereas Serb Odzak

23 municipality received three settlements: Pecnik, Jakes, and Lug from

24 Modricki, which, in 1991, were administrative part of Modrica. Can we

25 please find these settlements on the map? They are quite easily

1 discerned, near --

2 A. [Indicates]

3 Q. Near the municipal border. Pecnik and Jakes, yes, that's

4 right. So we will agree, won't we, that before the conflict broke out or,

5 rather, in 1991, these three settlements belonged to the municipality of

6 Modica. This is what you said in your report. Is that right?

7 A. This is what I took from the OSCE classification scheme.

8 Q. That's right. Then you go on to say, on the same page, paragraph

9 4 in B/C/S version, that pre-war ethnic composition had 40 per cent of

10 Croats and Muslims respectively and some 18 per cent of Serbs in this

11 territory. As far as I understood it, this territory encompasses Dayton

12 municipality Odzak-Vukosavlje, which had about 40 per cent Muslims, 40 per

13 cent Croats, and about 17 or 18 per cent Serbs. Is that right?

14 A. Approximately, the figures are correct. We are speaking about RS

15 Vukosavlje. I want to note that the settlements that were under Modrica

16 administration in 1991 are excluded from our analysis. So these fractions

17 were obtained from data from which these settlements were excluded. We

18 didn't increase our sample by including these settlements.

19 Q. Well, Ms. Tabeau, that's not what you tell us in your report, and

20 we will now be able to determine this based on your table. You did

21 something completely opposite when you reached this conclusion that, in

22 Vukosavlje municipality, there were 40 per cent Muslims and 40 per cent

23 Croats. Namely, to the autonomous region of Odzak-Vukosavlje, you added

24 5.000 of residents from Modrica for the very simple reason of wanting to

25 increase the number of Muslims and Croats. And I will prove this to you

1 now. I'm using your data only, Ms. Tabeau.

2 But first of all, let me ask you this, and this is something you

3 already said to Mr. Pantelic, namely, that you have read the indictment.

4 Have you read the indictment?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. And you have seen in the indictment that it covers,

7 geographically, the municipalities of Bosanski Samac and Odzak from 1991;

8 is that right?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. All right. Then let's examine table 10, Odzak-Vukosavlje, where

11 you claim -- and now I'm referring to percentages that you established

12 based on the voters registration. You say that Odzak-Vukosavlje residents

13 who lived in the pre-war municipality of Odzak, there were 2.050

14 residents. This is the sum of the first column. Yes or no, please.

15 A. That's the number that we see in the table, yes.

16 Q. And then you determined that, percentage-wise, in the pre-war

17 settlements constituting Odzak municipality, which later belong to

18 Odzak-Vukosavlje, there were 55.3 per cent Serbs, 0.3 per cent Muslims, or

19 a total number of 7 Muslims; that there were 35.5 per cent Croats; and

20 some 8.9 per cent of others. Is that right?

21 A. Yes. These are --

22 Q. And then you added to this residents of other villages, which are

23 Gnojnica, the settlements that we just mentioned, Jakes, Modricka Lug, and

24 Pecnik, and we -- you got a sum of 7.116 residents who are now

25 currently living in Odzak or who then lived in the entire territory

1 covered by today's Odzak-Vukosavlje. And then the population of Modrica

2 was increased. In the population of Modrica, you increased the share of

3 the Muslim population to 40, when before there were only 7, and I repeat,

4 only 7 residents. So can you explain this? And let me add: 37.3 Croats

5 and 4.5 per cent of others.

6 Your conclusions are based on this data. We here - Trial Chamber,

7 myself, and the Prosecution - are only interested in the pre-war

8 municipality of Odzak. We are not interested in the residents of other

9 municipalities that were added to this, other municipalities that have

10 nothing to do with the indictment. My question is: The settlements that

11 were included in the pre-war municipality of Odzak, were Serbs a majority

12 there, with 55.3 per cent? Yes or no, please.

13 A. Well, it is probably you are right, that, by mistake, we indeed

14 included all information, all records, also from the settlements, from

15 Modrica. But I indeed must check the data and correct these tables and

16 all related results. But it seems to me right now, when I compare these

17 two figures from these two tables, that it was indeed the case.

18 Q. Well, Madam Tabeau, then we will draw another conclusion based on

19 that. Your conclusion on page 24 of the English version, in which you

20 say - your final conclusion - you claim that Muslims and Croats presented

21 a considerable fraction of the actual population in the municipality

22 Odzak-Vukosavlje before the war. Do you now agree with me that this

23 cannot be true, that you cannot continue to uphold this? Yes or no,

24 please.

25 A. Indeed, the composition now, I see, is different. The Croats are

1 still represented considerably, but not Muslims, in 1991.

2 Q. But Serbs were a majority population?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Thank you. Seven Muslims, or 0.33 per cent, do not constitute

5 considerable fraction of the population; yes or no, please.

6 A. Of course not.

7 Q. Another question that stems from this: Can you categorically

8 claim, and can you agree with me, that perhaps these seven Muslims that

9 before the war lived in Odzak-Vukosavlje municipality, who were voters,

10 simply did not want to participate in the elections in 1997, did not want

11 to report? Can we conclude this?

12 A. I don't know. Regarding the intentions of -- I don't know. I

13 cannot comment on this.

14 Q. You were unable to establish this, and it is possible that a

15 hundred per cent of Muslims are living today in Odzak-Vukosavlje

16 municipality. It is quite possible. We cannot establish this. On page 8

17 -- on page 2 - I beg your pardon - you claim that Croats and Muslims were

18 a dominant group in Odzak-Vukosavlje municipality. Is that right that

19 this conclusion cannot be supported any more?

20 A. Well, it is all conditional on what you said, and I wrote in my

21 report that these settlements that were from -- under Modrica

22 administration, were indeed under Modrica administration in 1991.

23 Q. Madam Tabeau, we read your report in its entirety, and we analysed

24 it and we understood how you reached the conclusion and what data you

25 used. But my question is as follows: In your conclusion, you say that in

1 Odzak-Vukosavlje, before the war, in both of these areas, Croats and

2 Muslims represented a considerable fraction of the actual population. Can

3 you tell me now that Serbs and Croats, before the war, did not constitute

4 a considerable fraction of the actual population? That's all I'm asking

5 you now.

6 A. Croats indeed constituted a considerable fraction of the pre-war

7 population in this municipality, in Odzak municipality, in both parts, but

8 not the Muslim population.

9 Q. But Serbs were dominant in Odzak-Vukosavlje municipality. Am I

10 right or not?

11 A. [Previous translation continues]... new fact. Serbs were dominant

12 ethnic group in the Odzak-Vukosavlje Republika Srpska part of Odzak before

13 the war.

14 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have concluded my

15 cross-examination.

16 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Any re-examination, Mr. Di Fazio?

17 MR. DI FAZIO: Well, there is. Whether I can conclude today is

18 another matter, of course, and that depends on the Chamber, but I'd like

19 to go as far as I can, if I may.

20 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes

21 Re-examined by Mr. Di Fazio:

22 Q. Just some features of your report, please. If you look at one of

23 the maps that Mr. Pantelic showed you, page 30 -- I apologise. I think it

24 was page 27. You were being asked questions as to the -- whether the

25 Dayton line basically followed the ethnic outlines that you can see on

1 that map in the bottom part of the page. You agreed. The red sways that

2 you can see on the map there in fact merely show areas where Serbs were

3 greater than 50 per cent of the population; therefore, there could be

4 situations in which there were significant proportions of non-Serbs living

5 in those red areas, up to 49 per cent. Is that right?

6 A. Is that question to me?

7 Q. Yes.

8 A. So the red areas are where Serb population was in absolute

9 majority, 50 per cent or more?

10 Q. That's right. But in those red areas, of course, there could be

11 very significant numbers of non-Serbs living, up to 49 per cent.

12 A. Yes, that's correct.

13 Q. You were asked questions about your expertise by Mr. Pantelic.

14 You were asked questions regarding whether you had dealt with demographic

15 issues prior to your work here at the Office of the Prosecutor, and you

16 established that you had indeed done work on mortality issues and not

17 census issues. Can you tell us when you gained your expertise in

18 demographics and whether or not that included the gaining of any expertise

19 on the use of censuses in studying demographics.

20 A. I studied statistics and econometrics, and graduated in statistics

21 and econometrics. As part of the courses at my university, I followed a

22 course in demography, including, of course, population surveys and

23 censuses, with an extensive empirical part as part of this course. Later,

24 I worked at a university where I taught statistics and descriptive

25 statistics, mathematical statistics, demographic forecasting, these type

1 of issues. I did my Ph.D. in mathematical demography, and throughout my

2 thesis about regional mortality differences in Poland, in the 1980s. I

3 also proposed an explanation to these differences.

4 Later I moved from Poland to the Netherlands, and last ten

5 years -- not last ten years, but I worked ten years in the Dutch National

6 Institute of Demography. In this institute, I was responsible, as a

7 senior researcher and project leader, for conducting projects and

8 proposing new projects in the area of mortality forecasting, but I also

9 have done some work related to population forecasting.

10 MR. PANTELIC: Objection, Your Honour. We have that in report. I

11 mean, we have running out of time. We have all this data in her report.

12 This is my objection. We have in the report. And this is not a crucial

13 moment for the re-direct. And then we shall be in problem. Thank you.

14 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Di Fazio.

15 MR. DI FAZIO: Do you want me to reply to that, if Your Honours --

16 well, it was a topic raised by my learned friend. He was the one who

17 raised the issue with the witness --

18 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, but --

19 MR. DI FAZIO: -- regarding her expertise in censuses.

20 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, but it's contained in her C.V., isn't it?

21 MR. DI FAZIO: Well --

22 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, because you could have just referred her C.V.

23 to her.

24 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes, certainly, it is contained. I assumed,

25 therefore, that Mr. Pantelic had read it before he even asked the

1 question, but perhaps I'll leave it and move on to my next question.

2 Q. The census in 1991 that was conducted in Bosnia and Herzegovina,

3 did it distinguish between people who were actually resident in Bosnia and

4 Herzegovina and people who were working overseas?

5 A. In my view, the census covered the population who resided at the

6 moment of the census in the country, in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and those

7 who resided abroad were actually not reported in the census.

8 Q. What's your reason for saying that?

9 A. Well, we have some materials, instructions, for instance, for the

10 interviewers, and legal grounds for the census, in which this type of

11 guidelines are included, and of course we studied these guidelines before

12 we started to analyse this data.

13 Q. Therefore, based on the guidelines that you're aware of, the

14 census was not recording people who lived and worked overseas, or out of

15 the country?

16 A. Yes. Yes.

17 Q. Thank you. In your report, you refer throughout to split

18 settlements. Can you explain to the Chamber what exactly you mean

19 by "split settlements"?

20 A. Split settlements are small geographic areas located very -- in a

21 very close neighbourhood of the Dayton line, and in these settlements, one

22 part of the settlement belongs to one political entity and the other part

23 to the other political entity. It is possible to distinguish who is

24 living where, who is residing where, only on the basis of the addresses of

25 the population living in these settlements. We didn't have any official

1 classification schemes that would include addresses that we could then use

2 to regroup individuals to either municipality. So this is why, taking the

3 conservative approach, not to increase any statistics, we excluded all

4 split settlements from our analysis.

5 Q. Putting it very crudely -- tell me if I'm right or wrong, please,

6 but putting it very crudely, is this the case: Some of the split

7 settlements of towns or villages that have got a line drawn through them,

8 that's basically the Dayton line, people might claim to come from the

9 town, but when they do, you can't tell which side of the line they're

10 living on because they don't give you --

11 A. No. I think, in reality, it is clear where they live, whether in

12 federal or RS part of the pre-war municipality of Odzak or Bosanski Samac.

13 I'm speaking about statistical definition of the place of residence. In

14 order to be able to statistically distinguish between different

15 municipalities, one belonging to the Federation, one belonging to the

16 Republika Srpska, I need a guide with addresses that I could use to

17 regroup individuals. So it is not that in reality it is unknown, unclear,

18 where the people live in.

19 Q. I see. Thank you. Why did you exclude them from your

20 consideration?

21 A. Well, because I didn't have such guidelines. I didn't have any

22 knowledge that I could use to include these records in my analysis. This

23 is why.

24 Q. Thank you. Did, in your opinion, your decision to excluded them

25 from your consideration have a general impact on the general conclusions

1 that you reached?

2 A. I believe not, because we looked carefully at the sample size in

3 each particular municipality analysed in this report, and the sample sizes

4 were big enough to produce statistics, especially relative measures, like

5 fractions, percentages, and to discuss them in that report.

6 Q. Thank you. Now let's look at the last issue raised by Mr. Lukic,

7 the very last issue, a few moments ago, regarding your conclusions about

8 the population in the Republika Srpska part of Odzak. Did you take into

9 account a number of -- in looking at that part of the former municipality

10 of Odzak, a number of towns that had formerly been part of Modrica?

11 A. Three settlements, three small settlements, well, were not

12 apparently part of Odzak municipality before the war, but this had been

13 the case -- had become the case after the war.

14 Q. Right. I see.

15 A. And actually, my intention was not to include these settlements

16 but exclude them from the analysis.

17 Q. Fine. Now, do you have any idea of the sort of numbers that we're

18 talking about as far as those three settlements are concerned?

19 A. I think I know. It is mentioned in the table that Mr. Lukic

20 discussed with me.

21 Q. Where? Can you show us in the report?

22 A. It is on page 17 in my English version of the report, table 10.

23 Q. Right.

24 A. So the difference, if we look at the total given for

25 Odzak-Vukosavlje, we have two total numbers. One number is 2.050,

1 reconstructed from the pre-war Odzak, and the second number, all

2 components, is 7.116.

3 Q. I see. And --

4 A. So the difference would be related to the settlements, new

5 settlements, that were under Modrica administration, I understand.

6 Q. And is the inclusion of those three settlements in your

7 calculations likely to have pumped up, increased, the figure that we can

8 see of 7.116?

9 A. I think the most important consequence of including these figures

10 is that the Serb population shown in our report is not in majority in the

11 Serb part of Odzak in 1991. And, in fact, if we would exclude these

12 settlements, Serb population would become a majority, in 1991. So it

13 would be a municipality that would have an absolute majority of Serb

14 population before the war.

15 Q. Okay. That means greater 50 per cent?

16 A. Yes, greater 50 per cent.

17 Q. Right.

18 A. But still, we would have 35.5 per cent Croats in this

19 municipality, which is a very considerable minority.

20 Q. Yes. Okay. How long and how easily -- let me withdraw that

21 question and start again. If you had to recalculate those figures,

22 excluding the figures that you wrongly took into account from the three

23 settlements of Modrica, how long would it take you to do that?

24 A. I think that we could do it immediately, and, well, I understand

25 that Monday is the next session of this Court. Then we could present new

1 figures by Monday.

2 Q. Have those figures by Monday, and figures not including the three

3 settlements that were wrongly included?

4 A. Yes. The only thing is will be -- would be then corrected and

5 adjusted by excluding the three settlements from Modrica.

6 Q. Thank you.

7 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please, I seek an adjournment at

8 this stage. It's almost 1.45, and I seek an adjournment so that the

9 witness can complete that task that I've just directed her attention to.

10 If you want to get the full benefit of her evidence, in my submission, it

11 would be time well spent and would enable her to present a more accurate

12 picture to the Tribunal -- to the Chamber, and I could finish her evidence

13 briefly, my re-examination, on that occasion. And if she were to prepare

14 a small extra report, I could provide it to my learned friends so that

15 they're not prejudiced, and of course I would have no objection to any

16 further re-examination by them on that, if you were to grant me my

17 application.

18 JUDGE MUMBA: This is using the same figures that are already

19 contained in the report, excluding those settlements which she described

20 having been included?

21 MR. DI FAZIO: That's right.

22 JUDGE MUMBA: I see.

23 MR. DI FAZIO: It's just basically relooking at --

24 THE WITNESS: Revising.

25 MR. DI FAZIO: Revising.

1 THE WITNESS: One table.

2 MR. DI FAZIO: Revising one table, the Serb part of the former

3 Odzak.

4 [Trial Chamber confers]

5 MR. PANTELIC: Your Honour, may I address the Court?

6 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. The Trial Chamber wanted to find out from the

7 Defence -- because all the witness would be doing is to revise this table

8 by deducting the population from those settlements which were wrongly

9 included. The Trial Chamber wanted to find out whether the Defence would

10 want to raise questions with that.

11 MR. PANTELIC: Yes. Your Honour -- yes, I will be very brief.

12 First of all, this report could be done -- it's just minor changes,

13 although we could do that immediately. I mean, everyone can deduct these

14 figures. But for the sake of fairness, we do not object that this witness

15 will prepare a report, revised version of this table, and submit by

16 Monday. But, Your Honour, we strongly and firmly object to any further

17 re-examination of the Prosecution of this witness because, point

18 1: My learned friend informed this Trial Chamber that this witness,

19 Madam Tabeau, will not be able here in the Hague until September, and we

20 designated today a day for this chief and cross-examination. Point

21 2: This witness just said to us - and it's on the transcript - that

22 actually, she will be here on Monday. Point 3: We prepared our

23 cross-examination in view of these time limits for one day, and therefore,

24 we think, and we strongly oppose, and we respectfully move this Trial

25 Chamber to preclude the Prosecution for further examination in re-direct.

1 Should that be the case - I don't know how and when - then the Defence

2 reserve its right for expand the time for our initial cross-examination.

3 Thank you very much.

4 [Trial Chamber confers]

5 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Only a second or two, Your Honours,

6 because this topic has to do with my cross.

7 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Lukic, can you wait?

8 MR. LUKIC: Sorry.

9 [Trial Chamber confers]

10 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

11 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] My explanation, Your Honours, would be

12 the following, since this is the topic that I covered in my

13 cross-examination: I cross-examined -- and the witness can confirm this

14 on the basis of the data contained in her statement. All the questions

15 raised by my learned friend are contained in the statement. Perhaps we

16 were reading these statements, and that made everything more complex and

17 complicated, but everything that has to do with the Odzak-Vukosavlje

18 municipality is contained in this report. I don't know why this has to be

19 repeated. The figures that have to do with 1991 are contained in the

20 first column, and they were confirmed by the witness. One thing.

21 Another thing, Your Honours: We really coordinated our

22 cross-examination given the limitation of the time available today.

23 First, the learned friend said that it would only take him a few minutes

24 for the direct, and it took us much longer. I abbreviated my cross so

25 that we can complete today, and I really strongly object to this

1 situation in which, in the re-direct, new topics are being raised. My

2 only reason to reduce the number of my questions by about 30 - and

3 Mr. Pantelic says that I tried to cover the general topics - was done for

4 the sole purpose of finishing the cross with this witness. And everything

5 that I raised can be confirmed by the witness, either orally or the

6 witness can do it later in writing, but we certainly strongly object to

7 any additional re-direct of this witness on Monday.

8 [Trial Chamber confers]

9 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. The Trial Chamber has decided that the witness

10 can revise the table in question and sign her revised report and file it.

11 There will be no further re-examination of the witness.

12 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you. So -- fine. So I just want to be clear

13 so that everything is done properly and so the witness is clear.

14 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

15 MR. DI FAZIO: What the Chamber is saying is that she will go

16 back, prepare another written report, or brief report, or summary --

17 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, to correct this table.

18 MR. DI FAZIO: -- correcting the table, explaining why she has

19 corrected it and how she has corrected it --

20 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

21 MR. DI FAZIO: -- any conclusions that she draws from that, and we

22 would -- she would then provide it to the Prosecution, it will be filed,

23 that's the end of the matter.

24 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

25 MR. DI FAZIO: Fine. I understand. Thank you very much. I have

1 nothing further to say on the topic.

2 JUDGE MUMBA: We'll adjourn until Monday.

3 Oh, I see. Yes. I forgot to release the witness. Thank you very

4 much, Ms. Tabeau, for giving evidence to the Tribunal. You are now free

5 to go.

6 THE WITNESS: Thank you.

7 [The witness withdrew]

8 JUDGE MUMBA: Starting from Monday, we are sitting in the

9 afternoon because of the video conference. We hope it will take place.

10 So we will start at 1415 hours.

11 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this has nothing to do

12 with the witness, but it is indeed of crucial importance that the Trial

13 Chamber be informed about a very important fact that has to do with our

14 clients. We would need only one or two minutes to clarify this issue,

15 which has to do with the status of our clients in the prison.

16 JUDGE MUMBA: Why can't it be done in writing? Because we are

17 delaying the afternoon session, as you know. We can deal with it on

18 Monday.

19 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Well, our clients, yesterday, in the

20 afternoon, were told that tomorrow, on Thursday, they would be

21 transferred, and I am speaking on behalf of Zaric and Tadic, that they

22 would be transferred to another building of the detention facility. We

23 are concerned that should we fail to inform the Trial Chamber about this

24 fact today -- I apologise for doing it now. This hasn't got anything to

25 do with the direct trial procedure, but it has to do with the rights of

1 the clients.

2 Our clients Tadic and Zaric are very much concerned with the fact

3 that they will now be transferred from one detention facility to

4 another. They were told that this would happen tomorrow, and they were

5 told yesterday. And in this stage of the trial, it is indeed very

6 difficult for them to change the environment. This is a very important

7 fact which might be considered by some as a technical detail only, but our

8 clients are afraid that in this stage of the trial they would

9 psychologically find it very distressing.

10 When we learned about this fact, we tried to establish contact

11 with the detention facility management. We will try to do it this

12 afternoon. However, the clients asked us to address the Trial Chamber, to

13 inform the Trial Chamber about this fact, and we would certainly not want,

14 in this stage of the trial, to deteriorate their situation. They have

15 been in this facility for quite some time. They got accommodated with the

16 facilities, and they would find it very difficult indeed to be transferred

17 to another environment. You can imagine yourselves what the situation

18 would be if they had to adapt in the middle of the trial to another

19 environment. Of course, I personally will also contact the detention

20 facility management, but I wanted to inform the Trial Chamber, and I

21 apologise for taking all this time.

22 JUDGE MUMBA: Very well. The Trial Chamber will respond in

23 writing, since we are not sitting tomorrow.

24 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at

25 1.52 p.m., to be reconvened on Monday,

1 the 15th day of July, 2002, at 2.15 p.m.

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25