1 Monday, 26 May 2003
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 2.25 p.m.
6 JUDGE MUMBA: Good afternoon. Please call the case.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon. Case Number IT-95-9-T, the
8 Prosecutor versus Blagoje Simic, Miroslav Tadic, and Simo Zaric.
9 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, today we are hearing a new witness. Can she
10 please stand up and make the solemn declaration.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will
12 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
13 JUDGE MUMBA: Thank you. Please sit down. Defence, Mr. Lukic.
14 WITNESS: SVETLANA RADOVANOVIC
15 [Witness answered through interpreter]
16 Examined by Mr. Lukic:
17 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Your Honours. Good
18 afternoon to everybody in the courtroom. Good afternoon, Mrs.
19 Radovanovic. Can you hear me well, and can you hear the -- could you hear
20 the interpretation when Her Honour the Presiding Judge addressed you?
21 Before you begin your today's testimony, I'd like to draw the
22 attention of the Trial Chamber to the following: To begin with, the first
23 thing has to do with Mrs. Radovanovic's stay here. She told me that on
24 Wednesday she has a class in Banja Luka. Because this is the end of the
25 year, and the university courses are coming to the end, she needs to be
1 there. She need not finish today, but if she could finish earlier
2 tomorrow. I've already discussed it with Mr. Di Fazio, and I've told Mr.
3 Di Fazio, and I've already told Your Honours that I will need about an
4 hour for my examination in chief, and Mr. Di Fazio said that his
5 examination might last one hour -- an hour and a half or two. So I
6 believe that we could finish also the redirect today. I merely wished to
7 tell this, Your Honour, so that you have some idea as to how long the
8 examination of this witness would last.
9 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, thank you for the information. I just hope
10 that both parties will try as much as possible to deal with the most
11 relevant parts to the evidence of the witness. We have had the report for
12 some days now. Thank you.
13 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Of course. The second thing I wish to
14 mention has to do with two mathematical errors in the work. These are
15 only two figures which were erroneously typed, and if need be, we should
16 type it additionally during the break, and then introduce it as a
17 correction in an annex. In the English version on page 16, and on page 21
18 in B/C/S version, there is a table, number 4. And in table number 4 under
19 Croats, and percentages, I am talking about the fourth column, third line,
20 instead of 290, it has to be 29. You will see how it all adds up to 100,
21 so this 0 here is a typo, because in B/C/S, they put decimals, and that is
22 why the mistake.
23 The second error which occurred, which Ms. Radovanovic noticed
24 when she went through the original, is the correction, English text page
25 14, and B/C/S 19. In the line 4 in the English version, from the bottom,
1 figure 1.402, 1.402 Muslims. Instead of that figure, it should be 1.812.
2 This is an error which Ms. Radovanovic spotted and asked me to inform you.
3 If need be, we shall submit these corrections in writing.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have to say something. It is not
5 -- in the first table that you mentioned; it is 29.0. It is not 29, but
6 29.0. Not 290, but 29.0.
7 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Yes, we will explain it all to the
8 Chamber. I believe it is all quite clear.
9 Q. Now, Mrs. Radovanovic, we shall begin discussing your work. I
10 will now ask you, I've already drawn your attention, since the two of us
11 speak the same language, will you please wait until my question is fully
12 ended and then start answering so that the interpreters can have time to
13 interpret what we are saying. And the interpreters have also been
14 supplied with copies of your text.
15 Will you introduce yourself to the Trial Chamber.
16 A. I'm Svetlana Radovanovic, and shall I also tell you something
17 about my CV or what am I supposed to tell you?
18 Q. Only your name. In front of you, you have your paper. Will you
19 tell us if your signature figures on the last page of this work.
20 A. Yes, this is my signature.
21 THE INTERPRETER: Will the counsel and witness please break
22 between question and answer.
23 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Could we have the number, please. Can
24 we have the number for this expert analysis which we are tendering. Of
25 course, it has to do with all three Defences, but it can be Mr. Tadic's
1 Defence or whichever.
2 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
3 THE REGISTRAR: The report will be admitted as Exhibit D196/3.
4 MR. Di FAZIO: If Your Honours please, just on that issue that --
5 I'm sorry. As far as the number to be assigned to it, Mr. Lukic just said
6 that the report is part of the Defence of all three defendants. Is it
7 their position that they accept -- that all three defendants accept the
8 conclusions and the substance of the report? Because I understood that it
9 was only part of the Defence of Mr. Tadic. I'm not quarrelling with, that
10 but we want to be absolutely crystal clear about this. All three
11 defendants adopt the position in the report? I see counsel nodding, so I
12 assume that I'm correct in that. Thank you very much, and I apologise for
13 my interruption.
14 MR. LAZAREVIC: Yes, I can confirm on behalf of Mr. Zaric's
15 Defence that we also stand by this report.
16 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, Your Honour, the same position is also for Dr.
17 Simic Defence. And I would like just to respectfully remind my learned
18 friend that we filed our joint motion at the beginning of the Defence
19 case, designated our joint experts, including Dr. Radovanovic. So
20 everything is in file. Maybe it's --
21 MR. Di FAZIO: I've very grateful to Mr. Pantelic for pointing
22 that out to me. So we're now absolutely clear. Thank you.
23 JUDGE MUMBA: Thank you. I was just wondering about the
24 curriculum vitae. I thought it could have a slash or something, from the
25 registry assistant, just to separate it from the report.
1 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honours. The biography in English will
2 be treated as Exhibit D196/3, D196A/3. Thank you.
3 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, you can proceed.
4 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
5 Q. Mrs. Radovanovic, I will first ask you a few brief questions
6 concerning your curriculum vitae since the curriculum vitae that we have
7 attended, we hear about the experience, professional experience. And so I
8 will have to -- but it is very short. So will you please tell the Court
9 where do you work now? Except that I think that your microphone is not
11 A. I work at the faculty of geography of the University of Belgrade.
12 I'm head of department for demography.
13 Q. At that department, there are, I presume, several subjects. What
14 do you teach?
15 A. I teach introduction to demography [realtime transcript read in
16 error "democracy"], basic statistics of the population, and
18 Q. What I believe is important -- will you please repeat, but slowly,
19 the first two subjects that you teach.
20 A. Introduction to demography [realtime transcript read in error
21 "democracy"], to its introduction to the science, and then basics of
22 fundamentals of statistics and population statistics.
23 Q. Thank you, but we have to slow down.
24 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Excuse me, on the same note, Mr. Lukic, are we
25 talking about democracy, which is what is written here, or demography?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I teach demography.
2 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Thank you very much. We see "democracy" written
3 twice here. Thank you very much.
4 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
5 Q. What I think is important in your analysis, and for our case, is
6 what it says in your CV, that you work for the state statistics
7 administration, or as it says here, Institute of Serbia. What we'd like
8 to know in particular, in view of the source of information, what we'd
9 like to know is where did you work in 1991 and tell us in a few words how
10 long did you work at that institution?
11 A. At the state statistics administration of Serbia I worked from
12 1974 to 1991, until December 1991. From 1986 to December 1991, I headed
13 the population statistics department. I participated directly as a
14 methodologist, as a member of expert teams, inter-republican, I mean, in
15 the former Yugoslavia, in population censuses in 1981 and 1991, and
16 indirectly in the census population of 1971. I conducted the population
17 census in Serbia in 1991 as I was the head of the department. So this was
18 as official, and I was the secretary of the Population Census Bureau of
19 the SFRY.
20 Q. Thank you. Will you tell the Court what novelties, if there were
21 any novelties that were introduced in the population census of 1991.
22 A. The novelty was in the first place the manner of data processing,
23 since on the eve of the census, or rather a few months before that, it was
24 decided at the federal level to apply completely different forms from
25 those which were used in the previous census. The decision to use these
1 new forms was explained that it would speed up the census because, in view
2 of the technological innovations, it would be possible to scan the
3 material and computerise the whole processing. I was against it
4 throughout the process, however, this decision was taken at the level of
5 the SFRY, only Macedonia refused it and refused to conduct the census
6 whereas all the other republics used these new computerised forms to
7 conduct the censuses in their territories.
8 Q. And my last question relative to your general experience with the
9 population censuses will be: What did the results show at the federal
10 level and what drew your attention regarding this new form of forms and
11 electronic reading?
12 A. My personal experience and experience in all other republics,
13 especially Croatia which had already done it in 1991, is that it made the
14 feeding in of data slow down, because scanning constituted a major
15 problem. When we're scanning and feeding in the data, terrible
16 substitutions took place so that we had to slow down the feeding of data
17 into computers as we had to intervene all the time. And I would like to
18 show you something to simply explain what that means, I mean how it made
19 matters complicated.
20 The new forms, the new forms which we received a few months --
21 when I say "we," I mean the territory of the former Socialist Federal
22 Republic of Yugoslavia --
23 Q. Will you please slow down. Yes, you can continue.
24 A. Necessitated a certain, not to say a special manner of taking down
25 information, and it had to do both with figures and things which are in
1 letters. If you take the methodology of the census population of 1991,
2 and I'd like really to see it -- I do not know if you can see it this way.
3 Q. Can you put it on the ELMO, please.
4 A. That is, it was exactly explained what the shape of every
5 character should be and every numeral, what they should look like, because
6 we were told if they didn't look as they should, then it could become
7 complicated. And that complication really occurred later on.
8 Q. Very well. We shall come back to it if need be. And if
9 necessary, we shall copy it and submit it to the Trial Chamber.
10 Now, I'd like to ask you --
11 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Excuse me, Mr. Lukic. I'm just wondering, when
12 the witness mentions on page 7, line 20, you see it says: "The new forms,
13 the new forms which we received a few months," a few months when? It's
14 really quite unclear as it stands in the transcript.
15 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Yes, of course.
16 Q. Will you please explain. You said a few months before, but what
17 did you mean by that? A few months before what?
18 A. The population census is performed on the date of midnight of the
19 31st of March. So a few months before the census takes place, we start
20 getting ready, preparing the methodology, the forms, and so on and so
21 forth. And before that, a pilot census made in order to check whether the
22 forms are all right and whether the questions are formulated properly. So
23 we did this trial census perhaps two years or perhaps three on the forms
24 that were ready for the census of 1991. However, towards the end of 1990,
25 and I cannot say exactly whether it was October or November, it was
1 decided that new forms should be used for this census. That is, the
2 format would be completely new. It wasn't the contents which changed, but
3 the format was completely different, and necessitated something that
4 earlier censuses did not necessitate, that is, the recorders had to either
5 introduce only letters, which is characteristic, for instance, of Bosnia,
6 or numerals and characters, except that these forms did not include the
7 explanations as was the case in earlier censuses.
8 So that this didn't come as a surprise only for us who were
9 working there, because we had to translate our whole methodology to suit a
10 new format, but I also think that it was a shortcoming for those who were
11 conducting the censuses because it necessitated a completely different
12 approach and attention was drawn to us that one had to use very special
13 ballpoints, that figures and letters had to be written in a particular
14 way. Now, if you have in mind that we had about 100.000 people who were
15 involved, who were either instructors or pollsters, it is obviously that
16 it was too short a time to train all these people to write as precisely as
17 required. And then there were so many substitutions. I can go into that,
18 but that was hair-raising. That is, when you read the material, if the
19 figure is not written as was required, then number 1 can be read like 7 or
20 like 4 or like 1, and so on and so forth. And of course for statistics,
21 this is very important, because every figure in statistics is a code which
22 tells a great deal. So for instance, if you say marital status or single
23 is 1, divorcee means 3, separated 4, and so on and so forth, and it's very
24 important to have these exact numerals there. And that is why very
25 complicated situations happened when you received results which produce a
1 completely distorted picture.
2 In my paper, I wrote it down in relation to the ethnic structure
3 that for instance, in a locality -- for instance, in a locality in Serbia,
4 the figures which we got was that it was the English man with Danish as
5 the mother tongue, or the other way around; Danes with the English mother
6 tongue. So of course one had to intervene in all this material because
7 you know only too well that such people do not live there.
8 But such errors were merely the result of the substitution rather
9 than the ignorance of pollsters or somebody else. And I could quote you a
10 whole string of examples like that.
11 Q. Yes, I believe we've already clarified it. Mrs. Radovanovic,
12 we'll have to cut your answers short, nevertheless make it quite clear to
13 the Trial Chamber, because that is why you are here, but please cut your
14 answers shorter.
15 Now a few questions so that we can clarify what was the
16 methodology used in your analysis that you drew for the Defence. Did you
17 read the analysis submitted by the expert for the Prosecution, by Mrs. Ewa
18 Tabeau and Jakob Brijeg [phoen]?
19 A. Yes, I did.
20 Q. Did you read the statement of her -- the record of her testimony
21 before the Trial Chamber?
22 A. Yes, I did, but it was a long time ago.
23 Q. Will you just tell us very briefly, what was the task that the
24 Defence put before you when we asked you to do this analysis?
25 A. Well, the Defence asked me if I could do a correct and proper
1 analysis of the demographic structure in the two municipalities, and to
2 see whether for such a study, there were sources which could be accepted
3 as reliable and correct.
4 Q. Very well. And will you tell the Court, because this is something
5 that we insisted on, why did you think it was important to go into the
6 scanned information that the Prosecution had, or rather, the census lists
7 and the census applications?
8 A. When I read the expert opinion of the experts for the Prosecution,
9 I had numerous doubts regarding the quality of data, and especially the
10 identification numbers and the names. However, I wished to check whether
11 I was right to suspect that this information was not correct. So I went
12 through that material, and I'm afraid that I was right to doubt, and it
13 concerns especially the identification and numbers. I must say that the
14 identification numbers were for the first time collected at the level of
15 Yugoslavia in 1991. They were never controlled, and none of the former
16 republics never used them for any purpose. When I say "purpose," I mean
17 official purpose. Of course, I can explain why this was collected, if
18 somebody wants to know that.
19 Q. We'll address that issue later.
20 We'll now move on to certain matters that need to be clarified in
21 your report. I'd like to point out that with regard to the report, that
22 the Trial Chamber is familiar with, we will not discuss the contents of
23 the report, but we'll just try to clarify some matters that weren't quite
24 clear to me. And I assume that these issues might be of interest to the
25 Trial Chamber. It might be useful to clarify these issues.
1 First of all, I will put a few questions to you, few questions
2 that you dealt with and that have to do with the analysis of the
3 declaration of one's nationality. I think that was something quite new
4 for me. I'll draw the Trial Chamber's attention to paragraph 13 and to
5 paragraph 14 and 15. There's a table there, too.
6 In paragraph 13, I'll now read through it very slowly, it's the
7 second sentence. "Thus only general and rough statistics could be
8 obtained --"
9 A. I apologise, paragraph 13 is not the same in my version. Is that
10 the B/C/S version? The origin of sources of information?
11 Q. That's right, I'm reading the second sentence. I apologise.
12 "Thus only general and rough statistics could be obtained on
13 certain features, such as ethnic affiliation, because the answer -- and
14 this is what's important to me -- because the answer to this question was
15 often influenced by ideology." I would also like to draw your attention
16 to the middle of paragraph 15 when you carried out that analysis and came
17 to the conclusion that in both municipalities it served, the indicator of
18 the dynamics of change of the number of Serbs and Croats showed
19 significant oscillations, and what is important to me is that they cannot
20 be counted for by realistic demographic explanations. And so the only
21 logical conclusion is that there was a change of attitude from census to
22 census when declaring ethnic affiliation.
23 What I'm interested in in relation to your report, which is quite
24 clear, is whether this was characteristic only for the municipality of
25 Samac and Odzak, or was this something that was also characteristic for a
1 wider area in Yugoslavia?
2 A. It's characteristic for the wider area of Yugoslavia, for all
3 those who are involved in statistics or in demographics. It was something
4 that was characteristic for the entire Yugoslav area, and if you follow
5 the censuses in various areas, you can obtain information that could be
6 contested. And why could such information be contested? Because there
7 are such oscillations, such fluctuations that can't be demographically
8 explained because you need time for demographic processes. Nothing
9 happens overnight, naturally, apart from certain tectonic disturbances, et
10 cetera. So if a census is taken every ten years, you have five or six
11 censuses, 48, 61, if you have six censuses, and you have such great
12 fluctuations with regard to certain nationalities, then this can't be
13 explained demographically. However, there is a explanation. According to
14 this explanation, the criteria used - and this is something that is part
15 of the methodology - the criterion that is used when trying to obtain an
16 answer to what one's nationality is, the criterion is a subjective one.
17 It is a criterion which means that at a given point in time, you
18 can declare yourself to be whatever you want to be. The census taker had
19 to record what individuals declared, so if in times of tension, then the
20 interviewee would have to give various answers for various reasons,
21 perhaps fear, perhaps subjective feelings. And this subjective feeling
22 with regard to declaring one's nationality is the cause of such
23 significant fluctuations. This is very characteristic in many
24 communities, for example Yugoslavs, and then certain small ethnic groups,
25 the Roma, so these situations change depending on the census, depending on
1 the situation, and that is why it can't be explained demographically.
2 What can explain this is the fact that people made various declarations
3 for various censuses. There are quite a number of works that deal with
4 this matter. You also have to take into consideration the period -- the
5 historical period concerned, the social organisation within which we
6 lived, and in that system, they tried to deal with the national question
7 as one that had been solved.
8 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I would like to ask the technical
9 booth, if possible, to lower the ELMO as I don't have a direct view of the
10 witness. Thank you.
11 Q. Now we will address an issue that is very significant to me. This
12 concerns people, guest workers abroad, and you spoke about this in
13 paragraph 16 and 17, and in table number 2. First of all, a simple
14 question that I will put to you: Citizens who were temporarily working
15 abroad, were they treated as a special category during the census of 1991?
16 A. No. In none of the censuses from 1971, which is when we started
17 obtaining information for them, right up to 1991, this category of
18 citizens were treated as the permanent inhabitants of their places of
19 residence regardless of -- regardless of their location at the time of the
20 census and regardless of the period of time spent there. So they could
21 have spent 20 years away from their place from which they were originally,
22 but they were Yugoslavs and that was taken to be their permanent home, and
23 they were recorded as permanent citizens of the -- of Yugoslavia.
24 Q. In your opinion, 1.420 people were born abroad in that census.
25 What does that indicate, according to you?
1 A. Well, that shows that it was perhaps the third generation living
2 abroad. People started leaving in the mid-1960s, and this third
3 generation, perhaps they never even saw their place of origin. Perhaps
4 they had never even been in Yugoslavia, but they were recorded as
5 permanent citizens of, in this case, Samac, and Odzak.
6 Q. Tell me, when an analysis is carried out, such as the one that you
7 carried out with the purpose of determining the migration of the
8 population in these two municipalities during a specific period of time -
9 we're interested in 1992 and 1993 - in such cases, must these citizens be
10 included in the mass of population or excluded from it?
11 A. Well, it would be more logical to exclude them from it.
12 Q. Thank you.
13 A. However it's not just a matter of migration, it's a matter that
14 concerns the ethnic composition of the population.
15 Q. Very well. I'm making a mistake.
16 I would now like to have a look at paragraph 20. We would like to
17 talk about personal identification numbers, but this matter that you
18 explained a minute ago, you said that these identification numbers were
19 first used in the census of 1991. And the last sentence that I'm going to
20 read also concerns our observation of the census material. This was
21 evident during our examination of the census material which revealed an
22 extremely large number of inaccurately recorded first and last names and
23 nonexistent, inaccurate, or duplicated personal identification numbers.
24 More than 40 per cent in Odzak, and more than 31 percent in Samac you said
25 on direct examination. On what basis did you come to this conclusion?
1 A. Well, I can't remember the date now, I can't remember when we were
2 there. That was last month. But I'll have to have a look. From the 14th
3 to the 16th of April, 2003, we were granted permission to directly examine
4 the documents. And by doing this, we came to the conclusion, or rather,
5 we confirmed what we had suspected; namely, that it was a matter of
6 statistical characteristics that contained so many errors that it was
7 quite useless in statistical terms. You couldn't make any claims on the
8 basis of such information. You couldn't claim that you had a reliable
9 source of such information. And on that occasion, we came to the
10 conclusion that about 40 per cent of the population in Odzak, and over 31
11 per cent of the population in Samac had erroneous or incorrect personal
12 identification numbers, or nonexistent personal identification numbers.
13 Q. Thank you. If you have such defective census information, can
14 this be relevant to indicate -- as to be used in statistical demographic
16 A. Well, it's not just a matter of the defects. There are many other
17 problems that are involved. In addition to those defects, there are a lot
18 of failings. I said that 40 per cent is not correct; that doesn't mean
19 that the 60 per cent that is correct was used in an appropriate manner.
20 Q. With regard to the electoral lists from 1971, I will go back to
21 paragraph 11 where you say -- and I need this to be clarified so I believe
22 that the Trial Chamber will need this clarification too. In the last
23 sentence, you say that such a sample is not representative and has been
24 reduced twice, first in terms of ethnic identity, and secondly, it was
25 reduced to the administrative and territorial borders from 1997. Could
1 you perhaps clarify what you wanted to say when addressing the matter of
2 electoral lists.
3 A. In fact, it was replicated on three occasions, not just twice, and
4 first of all it related to the personal identification numbers. The
5 second time, it concerned the ethnical composition, and the third time it
6 concerned the territorial sense. What does it mean to say the personal
7 identification numbers? You mean you have 40 per cent of the population
8 whose personal identification numbers are nonexistent, but since they do
9 not exist you exclude this segment of the population and you don't take
10 them into consideration when you compare them with the electoral list. So
11 you yourself perform a reduction. Among those 40 per cent, there must
12 have been some who were on the electoral list, but they can't be coupled
13 up because there are no -- there's no information that would allow you to
14 do this, or it's very difficult to do this. That is the first reduction.
15 The second one, which concerns ethnic affiliation, the lists don't
16 have information on ethnic affiliation. Ethnic affiliation with regard to
17 the electoral list is taken, is adopted from the census of 1991. In 1997
18 and 1998, if you can find me, you'll link me -- you'll take my information
19 on ethnic membership and you will make it correspond to the relevant year.
20 If the personal identification numbers were correct, if you were able to
21 couple this up successfully, namely, with regard to Svetlana Radovanovic,
22 and then you use my statement that I made eight years ago, very well. But
23 what if you do it on the basis of the name, the first and last name and
24 the initials? In such a case, are you really taking over what was
25 declared to be one's ethnic affiliation in 1991? So this is the second
1 reduction that occurs.
2 The reduction on the territorial basis is as follows: You have a
3 framework which was valid in 1991, and you have a framework instituted by
4 the Dayton agreement in 1995. This framework, from 1995, and the
5 framework from 1991 do not overlap in territorial terms because places are
6 divided. The Dayton agreement caused division among certain villages,
7 certain places. When you have such places that were divided, it's not
8 possible to statistically calculate who from the population went to the
9 left side and who to the right side. So what do you do? What do the
10 experts do? What are the Prosecution's experts doing? They are excluding
11 those places, those villages, and pretending that they don't exist, or
12 rather, the population from those places. If they followed this principle
13 through to the end, there would be no problem. If they exclude this in
14 1991, but in 1997 or 1998 they make partial use of it or they don't use it
15 at all, and this is very easy to prove, and this is the mistake that they
16 have made. I doubt that it was intentional but they made this mistake
17 because in statistical terms they can't cover the tame territory, because
18 in 1991, in addition to the code for the municipality, you have a code for
19 a village, for a place. And a municipality is composed of several places,
20 several villages. In 1997, you only have new codes for municipalities,
21 you don't have any for villages. So you don't know, even if you were
22 willing to know about this, if you don't know about the villages from
23 1991, you don't know where to place the population that you found
24 somewhere because there are certain villages, certain places that are
25 missing. And then you make errors. You're comparing two different
1 territorial entities but you claim to be comparing the same territorial
2 entity. And this is methodologically not allowable. It's very evident,
3 it's very obvious because there are surpluses that appear, and this hasn't
4 been explained in the case of the Prosecution. But I can claim that this
5 is the result of the fact that there is a lack -- the territory of
6 municipalities don't overlap.
7 Q. Could we have a look at paragraph 29 in your work now, because I
8 think that that is where the subject that you are discussing now is
9 addressed. I'm going to read the second sentence. This is what interests
10 me. "Leaving aside the question as to whether this sample is good or not,
11 you mentioned the sample that you coupled up earlier on, which is quite
12 similar to what the Prosecution mentioned, we shall point to the fact this
13 is not the sample that the said experts used as the basis for their
14 conclusions on changes in the ethnic structure."
15 A. Yes. That's quite clear when you look at the information from the
16 Prosecution's expert. Their experts in certain tables provided one figure
17 of those who had been coupled, and when they distribute this on the basis
18 of the newly formed municipalities, the number, the figures is quite
19 different. And I can show that the result is absurd. For example, in the
20 table for Bosanski Samac, the Prosecution's experts say -- I've got the
21 Serbian version.
22 Q. Just a minute so that this is clear for the transcript. The
23 witness is now looking at the Prosecution's report, P133 of the B/C/S
24 version. That's for the sake of the numbers of the tables.
25 Perhaps you could put it on the ELMO, and then explain those
2 A. I have to look at those numbers, but I'll put something else on
3 the ELMO.
4 I apologise. This is Odzak. I want to put Bosanski Samac on the
6 For example, table 3 shows everything that the Prosecution experts
7 matched up and, as they said, identified, so it means that someone who was
8 Svetlana Radovanovic in 1991, this person they found in 1997 and 1998 by
9 using the personal identification number and the name. So such identified
10 individuals, they found 14.315 of them, but they were not able to locate
11 them later on.
12 Before I move on to the tables, I would just like to mention the
13 number of Serbs. In Bosanski Samac, the Prosecution experts claim that
14 they identified 7.704 Serbs. And when they carry out a division, they
15 have 10.000 -- could you please have a look at table -- just a minute.
16 5B, table 6A in the Prosecution expert report.
17 If you compare table 3 where they say that they identified 7.704
18 Serbs with table 6A where they claim that they have 10.362 Serbs on the
19 electoral list, then it's quite incredible to see that you have 7.000, but
20 you're also talking about the figure of over 10.000. So they have claimed
21 that there are over 35 per cent of Serbian individuals on the electoral
22 list. And this is interesting. This is also applicable to Odzak. It's
23 interesting to have a look at tables 7 and 8 which show the number of
24 electors who haven't been assigned to any category. I'll now mention
25 table 8, page 27 in the Serbian version, after paragraph 49.
1 A total 14.315 were identified, according to the Prosecution's
2 expert, when they were distributed on the basis of the newly formed
3 municipalities, and then you have 2.486 electors, and they weren't able to
4 distribute them. They didn't know what to do with them because the
5 methodology that was used was not correct because they neglected the
6 territorial level, and they compared apples and pears.
7 Q. Very well.
8 A. There's just something else that I would like to say. Here you
9 can quite clearly see that you have a number of electors who have been
10 identified, a number that has not been identified, located, and it's not a
11 clear number.
12 Q. Let us just make it for clear that you meant your table 7.
13 A. No. It isn't. In my analysis, this is not my table. This is the
14 table of the Prosecution expert. In my case, it is table 8, table 8. And
15 -- but there is, however, the source. Ewa Tabeau, these are the tables
16 which are 6A, 5B, and 6B which were taken over from the Prosecution.
17 Q. Very well. Let us move to another topic, but we won't be talking
18 much about that topic. I'd rather like you to explain in a few words,
19 because it is frequently mentioned in your analysis and in Prosecution's,
20 what is the personal identification number of a citizen? What is that?
21 A. Well, to explain, it means their first, last name, the year of
22 birth, the principle characteristics of every individual. In the former
23 Yugoslavia, its introduction started in 1982. And it includes -- it has
24 13 figures. These 13 figures, the first seven are the day, month and year
25 of birth, then there are two numerals which indicate the area where you
1 are registered, where you were assigned this, three figures indicating
2 your gender, and the third one is derived.
3 In the former Yugoslavia, there is a law on the identification
4 number, so one knows exactly who and how assigns identification numbers,
5 and there is a specific instruction, an official one, as to how
6 identification numbers are controlled. Because they cannot be repeated,
7 or rather, it simply should not happen in the former Yugoslavia to this
8 day, because I do not think that anyone has done anything in this regard
9 in the former republics. It should not happen to have two individuals
10 with the same identification number in a territory.
11 Now, if you allow me, because I haven't finished, these
12 identification numbers, as I have said, they are made of 13 figures which
13 can be good or bad, that is, they can be good insofar as the structure is
14 concerned and bad because they are inaccurate. You can write down 13
15 figures, but when you start checking it, you see that these figures were
16 just invented, that is they simply do not tally. They can be complete and
17 accurate. That is, you have these 13 figures, and it is precise because
18 it is accurate and it does mean Svetlana Radovanovic. Or it can be
19 incomplete, which automatically means that they are not good when one is
20 controlling an identification number because they simply contain the
21 information about the same date of birth. These identification numbers
22 were introduced, and I think a number of advanced countries have such
23 numbers. In 1991, they were for the first time included in the population
25 Q. Yes, please go on.
1 A. With the view to make population registers based on population
2 censuses and these numbers, such as developed countries have. However,
3 this idea was thwarted for the simple reason that it was noted, and I am
4 speaking about Serbia, but I think it holds true of the rest of the
5 Yugoslav territory with the exception of Slovenia, because it was noted
6 that the information was not good. Nobody can change one's identification
7 number. I mean, there is a whole procedure if one embarks on this.
8 And secondly, I was against the incorporation of identification
9 numbers, and never in the census, either in 1991 or in 2002 in the census
10 in Serbia, I did not give the pollsters the information about the
11 identification number because I think this is a violation of privacy, and
12 I think that a large number of people think that because that has nothing
13 to do with statistics.
14 Q. We have to move on somewhat faster because there are a few more
15 topics we have to cover. Paragraph 35, and I believe that the Chamber is
16 quite clear about duplication of identification numbers, about incomplete
17 numbers, and so on and so forth. But what I found curious was relevant
18 information in paragraph 35, when you speak about names, about first and
19 last names.
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And then in paragraph 35A, the last sentence -- excuse me, sorry,
22 35C, the last sentence, that you established that in Odzak, 589
23 individuals in Odzak had identical names, father's names, and last names,
24 and that about 10 per cent of them even had identical identification
25 numbers, and then you give your comment.
1 A. Yes. That is what we established, and that automatically means
2 that the source of information is highly suspicious. Generally speaking,
3 to use such a source, of course, brings into question all the findings.
4 I'd like to underline, if you have duplicated identification numbers in
5 such numbers, and so many duplicated names and last names, then there is
6 always a risk, then you find one person, but you've found ten such
7 persons. Ten duplicated identification numbers mean the following: If we
8 have an identification number in 1991, say, of Svetlana Radovanovic, if it
9 repeats ten times --
10 Q. Will you slow down, please.
11 A. When you match them, then you have -- and you see it only once in
12 the list, but you put on the identification number, and then you match it
13 ten times with the identification number of Svetlana Radovanovic in the
14 list with one identification number, and you are showing that you've
15 matched, that is, identified, ten individuals. Sorry, that is absolutely
16 inaccurate because you've identified only one individual, but because of
17 all these doubles, the procedure is such that you have to say, "I matched
18 so-and-so many" because they were matched indeed except that this
19 duplicate shows that the quality of identification numbers in population
20 censuses is highly doubtful because the pollsters were instructed to
21 attach special attention when taking down identification numbers.
22 Q. Very well. Let's move on to paragraph 37, because to my mind,
23 this is one of the crucial paragraphs in your whole expertise. And I'll
24 read out to you a sentence which is somewhere in the middle of this
25 paragraph, and we are talking about the distribution of persons without
1 the municipality code number.
2 A. You said what number?
3 Q. Number 37. The sentence is: "It seems it would appear the person
4 from this category without a code are treated according to the displaced
5 persons living abroad. This is unacceptable. If it is not indicated how
6 many members of this group are migrants." I do not know, why doesn't it
7 say that they are migrants.
8 A. This is no single information in our OSCE list which says we are
9 making a census of migrant workers. They even talk about Bosnia and
10 Herzegovinian citizens, but citizens, that is. You do not have a single
11 information from the OSCE list that shows that they are displaced persons.
12 And in view of the number of migrants abroad, migrant workers abroad --
13 Q. Yes, do go on.
14 A. -- the number of these persons who are treated as displaced
15 persons by the Prosecution's expert are very likely those citizens, that
16 is, those migrant workers.
17 Q. Now, let us look at what should be the result of your method of
18 the manner in which you used these results. These are tables 4 and 6.
19 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Just one little question before you move on, Mr.
21 From your sort of expert point of view, how would you
22 differentiate between a displaced person working abroad and a migrant
23 worker working abroad?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm not sure I quite understand you.
25 If you are talking about people who were abroad in 1991 already, then I do
1 not see how such a person can be treated as a displaced person. He is
2 registered as a citizen of Samac or Odzak, and perhaps has a house or some
3 farm or perhaps nothing, perhaps lived in the parental home, and that
4 person left in 1991, and perhaps he came every fifth year, perhaps every
5 15 years. Perhaps he never came back in 20 years' time, so that person is
6 not a displaced person. Sure, there could have been people who are
7 displaced because their house had been burned down, and that is how they
8 feel like. But if you're asking me how one can tell apart people who are
9 displaced abroad and those who are migrant workers abroad, I'm not sure I
10 can do that, but I could if there is some kind of a reference point
11 allowing us to establish whether they are migrant workers because, you
12 know, very many of those workers have households where you still have
13 grandparents, that is, somebody who can provide information about them, or
14 there's nobody who can provide information about them. So at this moment,
15 I cannot really tell them apart.
16 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. But whatever the case, in 1991, it was established who were those
18 people who were migrant workers at that time abroad.
19 A. That's right.
20 Q. Thank you. Now, let us look at your tables 4 and 6, and they show
21 how you made the distributions according to your methodology. And two
22 words only, and you can explain how you addressed the territorial
23 principle. But would you say that this method is more reliable than any
24 other when you have this kind of sources of information that were
25 available both to you and to the Prosecution?
1 A. In my view, there is no reliable way to arrive at a reliable
2 analysis. But in any event, it is statistically more accurate because you
3 are dealing with a mass of people who you know where they are. We are not
4 making assessments, we are not trying to make conjectures; do they belong
5 to this or that category, whether they are displaced or not? That is, of
6 those who are identified, those who had identification codes, we knew
7 where to distribute them; and those who didn't, well, here they are.
8 Q. Thank you. Now, we shall address a topic which you mention in
9 your paragraphs 44, 45, 46, when you speak about the different localities
10 in the municipalities of Samac and Odzak, and I would like to benefit from
11 the presence of Mrs. Radovanovic here to analyse briefly something that
12 frequently came up before this Court because His Honour Judge Lindholm
13 asked Tadic about some settlements in the municipality of Samac.
14 So I would like the expert witness to be shown a document. The
15 witness will tell us what it is. The Defence has already supplied it to
16 the Chamber, but we have a sufficient number of copies in both B/C/S and
17 English. And here, will you please give Their Honours this. We shall not
18 need them for a long time, but the Prosecution already has this.
19 Your Honours, we frequently spoke about the territory which was,
20 in fact, under the control of Serb authorities and part of the territory,
21 the municipality which wasn't, and this is the part of the Defence
22 thesis, especially when we refer to the indictment and figures mentioned
23 in the indictment.
24 Now, Mrs. Radovanovic, will you please, but please, let us wait a
1 MR. Di FAZIO: If Your Honours please, might I just have a look
2 at the document that --
3 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] It is simply blown up. I did provide
4 it to the Prosecution on Friday. It was simply blown up, and perhaps
5 that is why you didn't recognise it.
6 MR. Di FAZIO: [Previous interpretation continues] ...
7 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. Tell us, Mrs. Radovanovic, what is it that you have in front of
10 A. This is the publication of the statistics administration of the
11 Republic of Croatia, the population of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the ethnic
12 structure per settlement, final results of the population census of
13 Bosnia-Herzegovina linked with the permanent residents of Bosnia, 1940 to
14 1991, per ethnicity.
15 Q. To make it simpler, does this include also the census of 1991, the
16 official ones?
17 A. Yes, precisely. This is the official information of the
18 population census of 1991.
19 Q. Now, I will ask you to take a piece of paper and pencil, and I
20 want you to add up something.
21 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we are now looking
22 at -- I have the book in front of me. This is the document. Page 70 and
23 71. In English, they are pages 3, 4 [as interpreted]. That is what the
24 translation says. Bosanski Samac, if you can see that.
25 Q. Now, will you please look at how many -- what is the population
1 of a place called Basik [phoen] in 1991?
2 A. 539.
3 Q. Will you look at Domaljevac?
4 A. I'm sorry, I have a pencil. You told me to take it.
5 Q. Yes, I want you to take it down and then add it up so that we can
6 put it in the record.
7 A. Domaljevac, 4.152.
8 Q. What about Grebnice? And I'd like to know the number of Croats,
10 A. Grebnice, 1.933 Croats.
11 THE INTERPRETER: Could we please have the table on the ELMO.
12 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, I think the table could be put on the ELMO.
13 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Yes, just a moment. Colleagues are
14 correcting me.
15 Q. Grebnice. Will you please repeat the figure? Place, Grebnice.
16 How many Croats?
17 A. 1.933.
18 Q. And what about Prud? What is its population?
19 A. 1.293.
20 Q. Now, could you please add this up if it's not too difficult.
21 A. 7.917.
22 Q. 7.917. Is that it?
23 A. Yes.
24 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. I don't need this document
25 any more. But I'd also like to tender this, this part of the information
1 into evidence. This is the document that the expert witnesses for the
2 Prosecution used it for their analysis, and I think there will be no
3 problem in admitting it. At the end, we have also Odzak as per village --
4 population per village, but I do not think it is important. These are
5 merely -- I wanted the Trial Chamber to see what was the ethnic
6 composition of settlements in individual municipalities in 1991.
7 [Trial Chamber confers]
8 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Lukic, the Trial Chamber is of the view is
9 there's no harm in having them on record and in having them admitted since
10 they are showing the figures which the witness has added up, and they have
11 a significance in showing, explaining the faults which she is pointing in
12 the way the Prosecution expert dealt with the figures and the information.
13 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I'm sorry, I didn't understand. Could
14 I -- I would like to tender this document into evidence. May we do
16 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
17 [The Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
18 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I merely wished to say - perhaps I
19 wasn't clear enough - this source of information, the statistical source
20 of 1991 is the one which was used -- oh, I see. Right. Can we tender
21 into evidence this piece of paper which Mrs. Radovanovic just wrote down.
22 Shall I do it? We need it.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Can I just have a sheet of paper so
24 that I can write it down separately because I did it on a document which I
25 need, so I'll need a clean sheet of paper, please, and I'll copy it.
1 THE REGISTRAR: This will be Exhibit D196B/3, and ter for the
2 B/C/S. And the handwritten note will be D196C/3. Thank you.
3 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
4 Q. Finally, Mrs. Radovanovic, before I come to my final questions,
5 I'd like to invite you to make a brief comment on something. In your
6 analysis, you also touched upon the expert analysis of the Prosecution,
7 and you devoted a special chapter to it. So what I'd like to know is
8 paragraph 56, where you speak about the inaccuracies in distribution of
9 identified persons, and you mention there table 7, the Prosecution's
10 table. Can you please tell us very briefly what is this interesting thing
11 in the distribution of identified persons?
12 A. I could point out that this also applies to table 13 as well as to
13 table 7, but I mention only table 7. Table 7 in the Prosecution's
14 analysis shows the emigration in Bosanski Samac between 1991 and 1997 and
15 says, I quote: "Table 7 summarises the emigration, that is outmigration,
16 from the prewar municipality of Bosanski Samac." And what does it show
17 us? It shows us emigration from Bosanski Samac between 1991 and 1997.
18 And it is said that two sources were used; one is the population census,
19 and the other one are the electoral rosters, the voters registers of 1997.
20 Now, would you look at the sum total. For this period, 1991 and
21 1997, 3.339 individuals moved out of Bosanski Samac. However, if you go
22 back to tables 5B and 6B, which the experts show the population out of the
23 country as distributed per newly formed municipalities, 6B and 5B --
24 sorry, 6B and 5B, you can then see, if you look at them, that from
25 Samac RS, 2.489 people left, that is, they are out of the country. And
1 from Samac, which came under federation, 203 persons.
2 Q. What does that mean?
3 A. Well, I'm going slowly. Which means that 2.692 persons moved out.
4 And if we look at table 7, then we get a surplus of 647 individuals. I
5 don't know where this comes from. But since the Prosecution's expert
6 quotes the population census of 1991, and I claim that such information
7 does not exist in the population census of 1991, then we get a difference
8 of 25 per cent, that is, 647 persons emigrated more in 1997 than in all
9 the other tables out of the country which are shown by the Prosecution.
10 And then we can move on and say if these people moved out, left in
11 1991, then the emigration process followed by the expert is much smaller,
12 that is for this whole period, than the number of persons who emigrated in
13 1991 alone.
14 Q. Thank you. Now, I'll ask you some final questions.
15 MR. PANTELIC: I do apologise. Just for the sake of clarity, if
16 we are looking at the table 13, it's page 26 English translation, I think
17 that's a typing error in the first line that this table is related to the
18 year 1977. Obviously, it should be 1997. We have to correct.
19 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Yes, yes, of course.
20 MR. PANTELIC: Also, B/C/S version is page 32, the same table,
21 because it was translated from B/C/S where we found this probably typing
23 JUDGE MUMBA: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Pantelic.
24 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I only have a couple of
25 final questions. Shall we make a break, or perhaps -- but it won't take
1 more than five minutes after the break if we're taking the break now.
2 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, we will take our break now.
3 --- Recess taken at 3.45 p.m.
4 --- On resuming at 4.17 p.m.
5 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Lukic. You continue.
6 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
7 Q. Mrs. Radovanovic, I have a few final questions. You could answer
8 them briefly as everything is contained in your report, but I would like
9 you to express your official position. In your summary of the results
10 from paragraphs 1 to 8, and in your conclusion under heading 7, you've
11 expressed your main positions with regard to the tasks you were assigned.
12 We don't have to look at those paragraphs mentioned, but I would like to
13 ask you the following question: Are there any sources, demographically
14 speaking, that could be used as reliable sources in relation to the
15 changes in the ethnic structure caused by migration in the territory of
16 the municipalities of Samac and Odzak?
17 A. There are no official sources.
18 Q. In your opinion, as a professional, as an expert in that field,
19 what would constitute a reliable source that could indicate whether there
20 were changes in the ethnic composition of the population?
21 A. A complete census of the population, and naturally it would be
22 necessary to have all the relevant questions concerning the subject one is
23 interested in.
24 Q. With regard to the sources, the existing sources that you used,
25 and I'm referring to two key sources, the census and the OSCE voters
1 registers, on the basis of those sources, is it possible to claim when
2 there was migration of the population, if this actually did occur?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. No, can you answer that question again. It hasn't been correctly
5 recorded in the transcript.
6 A. No, it is not possible to establish this correctly.
7 Q. When analysing the Prosecution expert's report, in paragraph 6,
8 you stated that the objective assigned -- that the Prosecution's expert
9 had was not attained. Why do you believe that the Prosecution expert's
10 objective was not obtained, was not successfully obtained in the report?
11 A. Well, first of all, I would like to quote the Prosecution's
12 experts, the summary of the results on page 1, and I'll quote: "Our
13 objective is to provide reliable demographic statistical information that
14 provides a basis to evaluate the kind of changes that occurred and the
15 extent of these changes." Such an objective cannot be attained if you do
16 not have reliable sources of information. And it is not possible to
17 obtain such -- to attain such an objective if you want to establish the
18 nature and extent of such migration, and it's not possible to consider
19 these results to be absolutely correct if you don't have reliable sources
20 of information and if the methodology you use is not appropriate, if your
21 approach to the task assigned is not appropriate, then it is absolutely
22 impossible to attain your objective.
23 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. I have
24 concluded my examination-in-chief.
25 JUDGE MUMBA: Very well. The Prosecution.
1 MR. Di FAZIO: Thank you, Your Honours.
2 Cross-examined by Mr. Di Fazio:
3 Q. Dr. Radovanovic, my name is Di Fazio, I will ask you a few
4 questions on behalf of the Prosecution. I hope a few questions. I'd be
5 grateful if you can try to limit your answers and keep them as brief as
7 Dr. Radovanovic, the demographics report of the Office of the
8 Prosecutor concludes at page 24 that the study shows two clear examples of
9 ethnic cleansing which have been shown in the report. Croats and Muslims
10 largely disappeared from Serb Samac and from Serb Odzak --
11 A. I apologise. I can't follow you. You have to give me the page
12 reference for the Serbian version.
13 Q. I'm afraid I don't have it.
14 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] The page numbers are not the same.
15 Just a minute, please.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Very well, then. You're reading out
17 the conclusion of the experts. Is that what you're reading out to me?
18 MR. Di FAZIO:
19 Q. Yes.
20 A. Very well.
21 Q. Paragraph 3.3. I'll start again.
22 The conclusion of the demographics report of the Office of the
23 Prosecutor is this: "Two clear examples of ethnic cleansing have been
24 shown in this report. Croats and Muslims largely disappeared from Serb
25 Samac and from the Serb Odzak and Vukosavlje municipalities. Based on --"
1 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Lukic.
2 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I'd like to object to this immediately
3 because the Prosecution expert provided an additional analysis, and in
4 that part, his findings were changed -- her findings were changed, and she
5 said --
6 JUDGE MUMBA: That is paragraph?
7 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] In the addition, the paragraph wasn't
8 mentioned. But I'll read this out in English. [In English] "From Samac
9 RS." [Interpretation] I apologise. I made a mistake. She also added
10 Odzak, Vukosavlje, but it was changed in that they didn't form the
11 majority in Vukosavlje. It was in that respect that her main findings had
12 been modified.
13 MR. Di FAZIO: I'll proceed with my question.
14 JUDGE MUMBA: You followed that, Mr. Di Fazio.
15 MR. Di FAZIO: Yes. I want to stick with my original question,
17 Q. The Prosecution demographics report concluded that two clear
18 examples of ethnic cleansing have been shown. Croats and Muslims largely
19 disappeared from Serb Samac and from Serb Odzak, Vukosavlje. Based on
20 everything that's contained in your report and everything that you've said
21 today, you, of course, disagree with that conclusion, don't you?
22 A. I don't agree with that. I can say that -- I have to tell you why
23 I don't agree. I don't, because --
24 Q. Madam, I asked you -- if you wouldn't mind. I can assure you that
25 your time here will be a lot shorter short if you just answer my questions
1 as briefly as you can, and Mr. Lukic will clarify anything that remains
2 unclear from my questions, so rest assured that he is there to carry out
3 that task and he will clarify anything that's left unclear and correct any
4 unfairness that may be perceived in the course of my questioning.
5 So you disagree. In your particular report, part 7 of your
6 report, you set out your major conclusions. And at page 28 of the
7 English, and in any event, it's part 7 of your conclusion, the first
8 conclusion that you draw --
9 A. At the conclusion?
10 Q. Yes.
11 A. Very well. Thank you.
12 Q. The first, under the letter A, is that the radical change in the
13 ethnic structures of federal Samac and the other municipalities studied
14 presented in the expert report of the OTP demographics unit are the
15 consequence of erroneous methodological approaches. You recall that?
16 A. Yes, I do. Yes, that's what I stated. That's my claim.
17 Q. Thank you. And in paragraph C of the three conclusions that you
18 set out, you set out a major finding that by looking at the same
19 territorial framework in 1997 as in 1991, there were no significant
20 changes in ethnic structures in Bosanski Samac and Odzak. Shares of the
21 various ethnic groups in the total population in 1991 and 1997 remain
22 approximately the same.
23 You recall that conclusion?
24 A. Yes, I do.
25 Q. The result is, therefore, that you deny that any ethnic cleansing
1 took place in those areas.
2 A. Ethnic cleansing is not a matter I can discuss. I'm a
3 demographer. I can discuss changes in the ethnic composition. I'm
4 claiming here that the ethnic composition was not drastically changed, but
5 this conclusion was reached on the basis of the tables provided by your
6 experts. And if you read -- if you have read the report carefully, this
7 part concerns -- has to do with comments on your experts' findings, and I
8 am claiming that they had tables that they used, but they ignored them,
9 and they didn't reach these conclusions on that basis because they didn't
10 take into account the territorial integrity when examining 1991 and 1997.
11 I can show you these tables in your expert's reports.
12 Q. [Previous interpretation continues] ... thank you.
13 MR. Di FAZIO: If Your Honours please, I wish to quote from D2/2.
14 Q. Madam -- Dr. Radovanovic, this is the definition of ethnic
15 cleansing that I am referring to adopted by the Special Rapporteur for the
16 United Nations in his report to the General Assembly Security Council on
17 the 17th of November, 1992.
18 Paragraph 9, page 6: "The term `ethnic cleansing' refers to the
19 elimination by the ethnic group exercising control over a given territory
20 of members of other ethnic groups." That's the -- what I mean when I
21 refer to ethnic cleansing. Do you understand that?
22 A. I've understood that, now that you have said what you had in mind.
23 Q. Thank you. The same rapporteur provided another report on the
24 28th of August, 1992, if Your Honours please. I'm referring to P161, page
25 2 of that report.
1 In the course of that report, he commented on the policy of ethnic
2 cleansing, and he said this: "Most of the territory of the former
3 Yugoslavia, in particular Bosnia and Herzegovina, is at present the scene
4 of massive and systematic violations of human rights as well as serious
5 grave violations of humanitarian law. Ethnic cleansing is the cause of
6 most such violations."
7 Does that alter your conclusions that you reached in your report?
8 A. No, it doesn't. I'm a demographer. My field of interest is
9 demography and population statistics. That doesn't contain the
10 definitions of ethnic cleansing, and a demographer does not deal with such
11 matters. The demographer's task is to demonstrate what the situation is
12 and demonstrate what changes occur. You're a lawyer. I really don't know
13 what the definition of ethnic cleansing is, but if this is the definition
14 you used, the one that you have just read out, then I will believe you.
15 As a demographer, this is not within my field of interest. My task is to
16 be objective and to use information on the basis of which I can
17 demonstrate what the actual situation is.
18 Q. In the course of your study, and in preparing your report, you
19 concluded that there was no large-scale change in the ethnic composition
20 of those relevant territories, didn't you?
21 A. Radical changes, yes.
22 Q. That is inconsistent with there having been any ethnic cleansing
23 having been carried out on those territories, isn't it?
24 A. What are the demographic or political conclusions, well, I can't
25 reach a judgement in that way. What I did, I dealt with two
1 municipalities; the former municipality of Bosanski Samac, and the former
2 integral municipality of Odzak, and I am quite capable of discussing these
3 matters, but what you have read out to me, I can believe you, but I can't
4 discuss radical and nonradical changes of the ethnic composition.
5 MR. Di FAZIO: Will Your Honours just bear with me for one
6 moment, please.
7 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
8 MR. Di FAZIO: Thank you. I wish to put a portion of another
9 report, if Your Honours please, to another report presented to the
10 Security Council and dated the 27th of May, 1994, to the witness. This
11 one is not in evidence. I have enough copies to provide to place it in
12 evidence, and it has been disclosed to the Defence. For my purposes, I
13 need not produce it in evidence, however, I'm in a position to do so if
14 you insist, or if you wish me to.
15 JUDGE MUMBA: Is a Security Council report, as you say?
16 MR. Di FAZIO: Yes.
17 JUDGE MUMBA: So it's in the public domain.
18 MR. Di FAZIO: Yes, that's precisely --
19 JUDGE MUMBA: And the date is correct, 27th of May, 1994.
20 MR. Di FAZIO: 27th of May, 1994. It's -- it carries the
21 identifying number S/1994/674 dated 27th of May, 1994.
22 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Lukic.
23 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we're not going to object
24 to a United Nations document. This is a decision for the Trial Chamber,
25 but I would just like to inform the Trial Chamber that we received this
1 document half an hour before the beginning of the hearing.
2 I was in contact with Mr. Di Fazio and Mrs. Radovanovic. It was
3 -- Mrs. Radovanovic doesn't know the English language well enough, I
4 translated two paragraphs that were relevant for her, but I would like to
5 inform you of the fact that the entire document has not been translated
6 for the witness. So could questions put to the witness please be framed
7 in such a way that they don't have to do with the contents of the document
8 because it was not possible to present this witness with the translated
9 version of the document.
10 MR. Di FAZIO: I have one paragraph consisting of about eight
11 lines that I wish to put to the witness from the body of the document.
12 That's all. Nothing more.
13 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, provided you read it very slowly so that it's
14 properly translated.
15 MR. Di FAZIO: That's exactly what I propose to do.
16 JUDGE MUMBA: For our purposes, if we could just have the
17 paragraph number.
18 MR. Di FAZIO: Yes, I'll provide all of that.
19 Q. Dr. Radovanovic, from the report that I mentioned earlier, I wish
20 to provide you with one paragraph of that report.
21 And if Your Honours please, you will find this at page 34 of the
22 report, and it's paragraph 133 of the report. I'll read it slowly.
23 "The manner in which the policy of ethnic cleansing is carried
24 out by Serbs in Bosnia is consistent throughout a certain geographic area
25 represented by an arc ranging from Northern Bosnia and covering areas in
1 Eastern and Western Bosnia, adjoining the Serb Krajina area in Croatia.
2 The practice of ethnic cleansing is carried out in strategic areas linking
3 Serbia proper with Serb-inhabited areas in Bosnia and Croatia. This
4 strategic factor is significantly relevant to understanding why the policy
5 has been carried out in certain areas and not in others." Now, of course
6 the area that we are concerned with in this case is in the north of
7 Bosnia, and it's in a strategic position because it links Western and
8 Eastern Bosnia.
9 Does the fact that the UN report indicates the carrying out of
10 this policy of ethnic cleansing in this area affect your final
11 conclusions, given that ethnic cleansing, of course, results in population
13 A. You are, in fact, asking me whether I agree with what you have
14 just read out, although this has nothing to do with demography, nothing at
15 all. I would like to stress the fact that I am a demographer. If I had
16 the opportunity to examine this and saw on the basis of which information
17 this conclusion was reached, I don't know if I would agree with that or
18 not, but at the moment, I can't just agree with you without having any
19 other information.
20 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Excuse me, Mr. Di Fazio. You mentioned the
21 report number and the date. You haven't indicated in the transcript,
22 though, who or which body presented this report to the Security Council.
23 Was it the Special Rapporteur of the earlier report, or was this some
24 other international organisation for states?
25 MR. Di FAZIO: I'm sorry, I will do that now. If Your Honours
1 would just give me a moment, please.
2 Thank you. Your Honours, it's the final report of the Commission
3 of Experts established pursuant to Security Council resolution 780(1992).
4 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Thank you.
5 MR. Di FAZIO:
6 Q. One of the defendants who has called you here to give evidence,
7 Mr. Simo Zaric, has written a book called "On The Hague Cross." And in
8 that book, he reproduces an interview that he had with Croatian media. He
9 described ethnic cleansing having taken place in that interview. In the
10 course of that interview with Croatian media, he describes how "not one of
11 the 6.000 Serbs who lived in the municipality - referring to Odzak, of
12 course - remains there now." If you'd had that information prior to
13 preparing your report, would that have affected your conclusions, do you
15 A. Well, this is the first time I've heard about this book. But I'm
16 not sure to what extent Mr. Simo Zaric is capable of providing
17 professional evaluation of this. You know, I'm involved in serious
18 matters. Maybe Mr. Simo Zaric mentioned what he saw, what he heard about,
19 but there had to be serious arguments. If I had known that Mr. Simo Zaric
20 had said this, I would not have taken this for granted. I would have
21 tried to find information so that, as a professional, as a scientist, I
22 would have formed an opinion.
23 Q. I appreciate Mr. Simo Zaric is not a professional --
24 MR. LAZAREVIC: I don't have a problem of posing questions related
25 to Mr. Zaric's book, but when talking about this, Mr. Zaric was talking
1 about the process that appeared after the Dayton peace agreement, not
3 MR. Di FAZIO:
4 Q. I appreciate that Mr. Zaric is not a demographic expert. However,
5 he was a man who lived and operated, carried out his duties and
6 activities, in the area. Isn't the fact that he says that not one of the
7 6.000 Serbs who lived in Odzak remains there now of significance?
8 A. If that is a fact, because I had your expert report which related
9 to the facts that a state institution had issued an OPS, and these facts
10 were not used correctly, they were interpreted in a bad manner. So you
11 would have to define what a fact is, whether it's Mr. Zaric's statement or
12 do you have to have certain arguments to establish what facts are? In
13 general terms, without going into discussing what the facts are.
14 Q. He was -- he arrived in Odzak in July of 1992 and held an
15 important position there. And he was able to describe the fact that there
16 were no Serbs left in Odzak. Now, that's an important fact to take into
17 account, isn't it, in describing population movements?
18 A. I have to ask you, are you advising me to use Mr. Simo Zaric as a
19 source of information when addressing the problem of the changed ethnic
20 structure in the municipality of Odzak or Bosanski Samac? If that is so,
21 I must say, this is a very poor source. After all, it is only one
22 statement and only source. I'd need to have more sources if I wanted to
23 be objective and try to present things objectively. And that is my task.
24 Every thinking man should be objective. I do not know whether Mr. Zaric
25 is biased or not biased. I really --
1 MR. LAZAREVIC: I will have to add a few words. Mr. Zaric said,
2 when he arrived, there were no civilians at all, not just Serbs. He was
3 referring to each -- to all three nationalities.
4 JUDGE MUMBA: Is that understood, Mr. Di Fazio, the explanation by
5 Mr. Lazarevic?
6 MR. Di FAZIO: It's understood, yes. I don't necessarily accept
7 it, without having an opportunity to go back and read the transcript, if
8 Your Honours please.
9 Q. In the course of being interviewed by the Office of the
10 Prosecutor, Miroslav Tadic, another defendant in this case, described
11 population movements that occurred in the area of study, Bosanski Samac
12 and Odzak. And he referred to a movement of people in June of 1992 from a
13 village called Srnice involving about 2.000 people, being Serbs, and these
14 people moving into the area of Bosanski Samac and taking up residence in
15 the villages in Bosanski Samac, the villages being Gornji and Donji
16 Hasici, and told the interviewers that those people are still there today,
17 at least as at 1998. And furthermore, that the people who lived in those
18 two villages, namely Croat villages, had left. If that's true, would that
19 affect your conclusions?
20 A. Did your expert use these conclusions? If so, then it affected
21 her. But it cannot affect me, a statement of one man, because I do not
22 deal with statements. I deal with numbers, with verifiable figures. In
23 demographic [realtime transcript read in error "democratic"] research, one
24 can [realtime transcript read in error "cannot"] take note of statements,
25 but that is not a common procedure. We're not talking about concepts and
1 do we use this or that? We're talking about whether something changed or
2 didn't. What one man said, if I conducted a questionnaire in Logaco Samac
3 [phoen], and then I heard a thousand people or a hundred people, and so on
4 and so forth, even then I don't know whether I would have taken it into
5 account because this is what people say, and I am not an expert on what
6 people say. I deal with exact sound figures.
7 MR. KRGOVIC: The transcript reads the witness said democratic
8 research; the witness said demographic research.
9 MR. Di FAZIO: That's quite correct, and there's an additional
10 error in the transcript if Your Honours please. The witness did not say
11 line 19 of page 45, "one cannot take note of statements"; the witness said
12 "one can take note of statements but that is not a common procedure."
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, let me correct myself. What I
14 said, in demographic research, especially what individuals say, cannot be
15 really taken into account, and then serve as a basis for conclusions. To
16 make a demographic conclusion, I repeat, you must have accurate data, and
17 not basic -- not be influenced by one statement. Besides, I think that
18 the serious professional may not be under the influence of whatever. He
19 must weigh all the possibilities. He must assess all the possibilities.
20 Q. If one can take note of statements, even though that may not be a
21 common procedure, reports prepared by offices of the United Nations would
22 be a good and reliable source to use, wouldn't they?
23 A. No, that is not a source. If you have to make a report, you have
24 sources on the basis of which you draw your conclusions. Of course I
25 assume that what the United Nations write, even though I don't know it, is
1 a sort of conclusion that was made. Now, I may accept that conclusion or
2 not accept it, but I have to go through all the elements that underpin it.
3 So I really cannot give you a general answer whether I will respect that
4 or not. But if in that report you have something that deals with Bosanski
5 Samac and Odzak, I'm ready for that, because I studied the matter. But to
6 discuss Bosnia and Herzegovina as a whole, I really cannot do, especially,
7 and this is intertwined with geostrategic, geopolitical or whatever other
8 positions, because that is not something that I am expert on.
9 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I have to object to the
10 question even though we already heard the answer. If the next question
11 goes in the same direction, then if the Prosecutor wants the witness to
12 say whether the United Nations report is based on individual statements,
13 we do not know that from the paragraph that we heard, so the witness is
14 invited to make guesses. But we have to see that this Secretary-General's
15 report is based on statements.
16 MR. Di FAZIO: Thank you. I'm going to leave this topic.
17 Q. The OTP report, the OTP demographics report, of course, uses two
18 fundamental sources; the 1991 census, and the 1997 and 1998 voters
19 register. That's correct, isn't it?
20 A. Yes. But the fundamental is the first one, the census of 1991.
21 We could talk about the other one, whether and how fundamental is it,
22 especially when it comes to demographic research because the population
23 census always was the basis for voters rosters and voters lists could
24 never be used to come to the figure about the census, about the
25 population, especially since when it comes to the methodology, the manner
1 in which data are gathered are completely different. The OSCE lists are
2 based on a voluntary principle, and the second has different methodology
3 and represents one of the major and most important state tasks of any
4 statistical institution.
5 And there are very many other methodological differences. One
6 records the overall population resident permanently in a place where they
7 are recorded, and the others register people who voluntarily apply, so
8 whether they will or will not participate in the elections, not to mention
9 that even in the most advanced countries, you have a number of citizens
10 who never apply to be put on voters lists. Then the population census
11 covers all sorts of features and things and has its purpose and its tasks,
12 and it is based on establishing a total number of the population,
13 distribution, vital statistics, migratory features, and so on and so
14 forth. Voters lists will take only the identification number and
15 the place of residence, or rather, the place where you register for voting
16 and will include only the date of birth and the name. So I do not really
17 see that the two both are fundamental. One of them is but the other one
18 could serve as an aid, but only if it is reliable, if it is trustworthy,
19 and yet once again not for research of such a serious nature as this, and
20 not when it uses such features - and by this, I mean identification
21 numbers and names - which are indecorate, which are unreliable in both
22 sources. So these two features statistically, I mean, in serious
23 statistics and among serious statisticians - and in the first place, I
24 mean the identification number - they are never used, not even in the
25 official statistics. And the name, the first and last name, is something
1 that has never been used as data, as information in any serious
2 statistics. It is taken down during the census simply for easier filing,
3 that is, at the time, they didn't have identification numbers and
4 therefore you used that.
5 Q. Dr. Radovanovic, is your answer to my question yes?
6 A. I simply didn't understand. If I said two fundamental, and I say
7 no, they are not both fundamental.
8 Q. Unfortunately, my question has gone right off the screen, but it
9 was a very, very simple question. The OTP report uses two fundamental
10 sources; the census in 1991, and the 1997 and 1998 OSCE voters register.
11 Now, surely you can answer that with a yes or a no.
12 JUDGE MUMBA: In fairness to the witness, I think she has answered
13 that. She had described the other one and also discussed the second
14 source. So...
15 MR. Di FAZIO: Thank you.
16 Q. In your report, you claim there are no reliable sources to study
17 changes in ethnic composition. If you can possibly, possibly answer the
18 question with a yes or a no, I'd be most grateful. So do you agree that
19 in your report, you claim there are no reliable sources to study changes
20 in ethnic composition?
21 JUDGE LINDHOLM: Please, Mr. Di Fazio, could you make a clear
22 reference to the report.
23 MR. Di FAZIO: Yes, paragraph 1, page 2 of the English report, if
24 Your Honours please.
25 Q. Paragraph 1, page 2 of the report in the English, I think you'll
1 find it easily in paragraph 1 where you deal with "Summary of Results."
2 Your position is there are no reliable sources. Correct?
3 A. Could you be preciser, please. Is it my position that there are
4 not reliable sources for 1991 - 1997 period? If that is your question,
5 then I say yes.
6 Q. Thank you. In fact, it's the very first sentence of paragraph 1:
7 "In order to conduct an objective expert analysis of changes in the ethnic
8 composition of the population of Bosanski Samac and Odzak in the period
9 after 1991, it's necessary to have valid ethnostatistical data obtained
10 from reliable sources. There are, however, no such sources." Correct?
11 A. It is.
12 Q. And you repeat that criticism in paragraph 10 where you say - and
13 this is page 5, if Your Honours please, of the report - paragraph 10 of
14 your report, midway through the paragraph: "Even if one takes the 1991
15 census, flawed as it is in terms of the validity of ethnostatistical data
16 as the starting point, ethnostatistical data from the later period are
17 still missing." So you make the point several times that the statistical
18 data relied upon in preparation of the OTP reports was nonexistent or
19 flawed. Correct?
20 A. You ask me questions about what your experts relied on or experts
21 in general? But never mind, I'm saying that such facts, such information,
22 does not exist.
23 Q. Thank you. You then go on in part 3.1, or part 3 of the report,
24 Sources of Data and Content Related and Methodological Issues and
25 Problems --
1 A. Just a moment. Let me try to follow you. Three point what?
2 Q. 3.1. It's part 3, or paragraphs 12, 13. Do you see that?
3 A. Right.
4 Q. One of the main criticisms that you make of the data used by the
5 OTP demographics unit is subjectivity. You make the observation that
6 answers to questions regarding ethnic affiliation are completely
7 subjective, and you also touched upon this topic earlier today in your
8 examination-in-chief. Do you recall that?
9 A. I do.
10 Q. In fact, that's a fundamental and major criticism that you make of
11 the census data, isn't it?
12 A. We are now talking about that characteristic, and I am saying that
13 this characteristic is variable, is changeable, because the criterion for
14 it has not been as firmly established as in some other cases because this
15 criterion is subjective and depends on the changing opinions. And this
16 criterion as a changing one is not something that I will come up with. It
17 has been established a long time ago in all the methodological
18 descriptions of the censuses, it usually says a citizen is free to answer
19 the question about his ethnic origin and nobody may lead it to him or
20 something. We frequently received nonsensical answers because it is very
21 subjective. All depends on how you feel at a given moment or how you
22 sense the situation. You can say whatever you like.
23 Q. Thank you. And in fact, you go on to say in paragraph 13, about
24 two-thirds of the way down: "So the statistical picture of the ethnic
25 structure based on census results can be accepted as officially
1 established, but we have to take a critical view of it."
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And then you go on to say: "This claim is further supported by
4 the fact that data on mother tongue and religion from 1991 were never
5 officially published, and therefore, it's impossible to compare these
6 parameters." Do you see that?
7 A. Sorry, sorry, I've lost you because this does not exist in my
8 expert analysis. Yes, please, go back. I don't see it, and therefore I
9 cannot follow. You said para 13, chapter 3. Is that right?
10 Q. Yes.
11 A. And now tell me -- I really cannot follow you because -- will you
12 please help me. Will you please help me.
13 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Page 9 B/C/S, and a sentence begins
14 with words, "U prilog tome ide i..." "This is further supported by the
15 fact..." It is paragraph 13, and about ten lines from the bottom. "This
16 is further supported by the fact..."
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes, yes, I've found it. Thank
18 you. I'm sorry. My apologies. I've found it.
19 MR. Di FAZIO:
20 Q. Okay, you say that you have to take a critical view of the
21 official statistics, and you go on to say: "This claim is further
22 supported by the fact that data on mother tongue and religion for 1991
23 were never officially published and therefore it's impossible to compare
24 these parameters." You're saying there, if you did have information about
25 those parameters, it would assist you to help fix the ethnicity of a
1 person who was responding to the questionnaire, correct?
2 A. No. In this case, in the case of Bosanski Samac and municipality
3 of Odzak, it is of little relevance because they practically speak one and
4 the same language. I'm talking here about the population census as such,
5 and in SFRY, and then you have a situation, since it is ethnically a
6 heterogenous region. Sometimes you have the ethnicity and do not compare
7 with it other characteristics which could be called ethnic features, then
8 you can get a different picture.
9 For instance, I will take Vlachians, who are an ethnic group and
10 who often say they are ethnically affiliated with the milieu they live in.
11 Fine, this is an objection in principle. It does not have to do with
12 Samac, I'm saying generally. When you talk about ethnic features, you
13 cannot choose only one of them, you have to use a number of elements. And
14 in this case, in Bosanski Samac and Odzak, this is irrelevant because they
15 all speak the language they understand, as you call it here, and which is
16 called B/C/S right now. So comparing this, comparing this would not give
17 us a particularly nice result.
18 Q. Dr. Radovanovic, is it the case that you cannot use religion,
19 answers to religion and answers to mother tongue to assist you in fixing
20 identity in the case of Bosanski Samac and Odzak?
21 A. No, I've said that neither language nor religion in this expert
22 analysis did not play a single role. You're talking about the general of
23 things; this is about problems of census populations and everything. So
24 in this case, neither religion nor anything else plays a relevant role.
25 Q. You complain, don't you, that subjectivity affects reliability of
1 people reporting their ethnicity, don't you? You say that's a problem
2 associated with the 1991 census. Correct?
3 A. Subjectivity means that you can change your position from one
4 census to the other. And if you do, then you must assess that critically.
5 If over ten years period, the number of Yugoslav grows from 10 to 30.000,
6 then this is not demographically explicable. Then this is a subjective
7 decision. Or vice versa, if the number decreases, somebody wanted to be a
8 Yugoslav and later on he didn't want to be a Yugoslav, so it is the
9 subjective position which affects it, and it is in this sense that
10 I spoke about it.
11 Q. There are no objective ways for fixing ethnicity. You can't
12 measure the skull of someone or their blood grouping or any other physical
13 characteristics; ethnicity is something that depends upon how a person
14 thinks of themselves. That is so, isn't it, Dr. Radovanovic?
15 A. It is more -- it becomes more objective if you juxtapose two or
16 three characteristics, which perhaps can be ethnically related. And that
17 is for certain. In many countries, you just do not do that. They simply
18 have their nationality. Another thing is your mother tongue. Religion
19 can be a third thing. And then in demography --
20 Q. Thank you. Dr. Radovanovic, can I just ask you about that last
21 matter that you mentioned, mother tongue. You testified a few moments
22 ago that in Bosanski Samac and Odzak, it couldn't be relevant; they all
23 speak the same language, right? So that's not going to help you in
24 defining ethnicity in that area, in that area of Bosanski Samac and
1 A. Well, it doesn't have to help me. I'm not defining anything. I'm
2 claiming that there is no absolutely accurate statistical picture about
3 the ethnic composition of those two municipalities, and there is no way we
4 can arrive at it from OSCE lists, and it is taken over from 1991, how can
5 they do it to begin with? Because in view of the issue at hand, between
6 1991 to 1997, eight years later, somebody, for instance, has opted for a
7 different ethnicity, or saying he didn't belong to any ethnic group. So
8 it has nothing to do with the mother tongue or any other characteristic.
9 You have a source which contains information about ethnicity which has to
10 be dealt critically, and a source which does not include that. But then
11 the Prosecution's expert decide, when we do not have this information,
12 then let's take this and then say that that is the state of affairs in
13 1997. And that is what I'm objecting to.
14 Q. Dr. Radovanovic, the -- you make a fundamental criticism, don't
15 you, in your report of the methodology of the 1991 census because you say
16 the question relating to ethnicity -- or questions relating to ethnicity
17 are subjective. Now, am I correct, yes; or am I incorrect, no?
18 A. Yes, I am treating it critically and say they are subject to
19 changes because they are subjective. But I am not denying the official
20 statistics. I'm merely saying that one needs to approach them cautiously
21 and that it is very risky to take them over and accept them after such a
22 long period of time.
23 Q. Given the ethnic tensions that existed in the early 1990s in
24 Yugoslavia, would that not be a factor that would cause people to identify
25 strongly with a particular group?
1 A. Could you be more precise? I don't really understand what you're
2 asking me.
3 Q. Given the ethnic tensions that existed in the early 1990s in the
4 former Yugoslavia and in Bosnia, would that be a factor that would cause
5 people to identify more strongly with a particular grouping, not being
6 Yugoslav? So for example, Croat, Muslim, or Serb?
7 A. Yes, because the ethnic classification in the statistics of the
8 former Yugoslavia and therefore in Bosnia-Herzegovina includes 32
9 different options. You have 18 or 17 possibilities. You have peoples,
10 national minorities, ethnic groups, and so on and so forth. You can say
11 that you are affiliated, to opt for a regional affiliation, and you can
12 refuse to answer it. So when I say regional affiliation, I say I'm a
13 Sarajevan, I'm a Belgrader, a Krajinian, that could also be an answer to
14 the question about ethnic affiliation. So in addition to Yugoslavs, you
15 had a number of other options. You could say whatever. You could say --
16 you could say anything.
17 So that it varied from one census to another, and whether it had a
18 role, well -- I'm sorry. And that is why there is the category called
19 "other." So when the information about the ethnic composition is
20 demonstrated and one doesn't use very broad classifications, because in
21 Bosnia-Herzegovina and other areas, you don't have only Serbs, Croats, and
22 Muslims. They have Jews, and Roma and Germans. Now, the share of each of
23 these groups, of course, is another matter. Turks, and many other ethnic
24 communities. So that all that is under "other". When you present the
25 chief result in the census publications, then you select ethnic
1 communities based on their share. But if you go to the administration,
2 then you will find the background material, well, you would find 39
3 different ethnic options. And this is this very broad national
5 But such a broad national classification is very difficult to show
6 in published census results, then you usually get only most numerous
7 ethnic communities, and all the other figures, all the other findings, are
8 kept in the files.
9 Q. Thank you.
10 You agree, don't you, that the object of the OTP study,
11 demographics unit, was to reconstruct the 1991 population and its ethnic
12 composition and then look at that same population in 1997, using the OSCE
13 voters register. Now, please, please do not tell us whether you consider
14 they achieved that, or mistakes they may have done in carrying that out,
15 but that was their object.
16 A. You're asking me to confirm what the objective of your experts
17 was. Well, they wrote down that these were -- this was reliable
18 information, reliable demographic information. That's their objective.
19 Am I supposed to confirm their objective?
20 Q. Let me revise the question. I put it to you - do you agree - that
21 the object of the study conducted by the OTP demographics unit was to
22 reconstruct the 1991 population and its ethnic composition, and then look
23 at that same population in 1997, using the OSCE -- 1997 and 1998, using
24 the OSCE voters register. And do you agree with that?
25 A. Please, could you define this precisely. We know what the
1 objective of your experts was. I don't agree that they carried out their
2 work correctly. The reconstruction of population was totally erroneous,
3 and the matching was not correct either.
4 Q. Madam Radovanovic, if you know what the objective of the
5 Prosecution experts was, you can answer my question. My question is
6 this: The objective of the Prosecution experts was to study, to
7 reconstruct the 1991 population and its ethnic composition, and then look
8 at that same population, using the 1997/1998 OSCE voters register. Agree
9 or disagree?
10 A. I can't agree because they wrote down what their objective was,
11 and you are rephrasing it. They said: "Our objective is to provide
12 reliable demographic and statistical information which provides a basis to
13 assess the kind of changes and the extent." It didn't say that their
14 objective was to reconstruct the population and to make a comparison, so
15 there is a significant difference between these two objectives.
16 Q. Do you agree that the objective of the OTP study was to study the
17 movement of people who in 1991 gave themselves the tag of Croat or Muslim
18 or Serb, or that at least that was one of its objectives?
19 A. If that was their conception, well, I don't know about that, but
20 this isn't something that they wrote down. They didn't say that they
21 would be examining the movement. There was nothing we could discuss on
22 the basis of maps, but I have never seen anything in the course of my
23 professional career. They said their objective was to provide their
24 opinion, provide their professional findings about the changes that
25 occurred in the ethnic composition. They mentioned that this was their
1 objective in the municipalities of Odzak and Bosanski Samac in 1991 and
2 1997, and then they quite explicitly stated what their objective was.
3 Q. Thank you. You would agree, don't you -- you would agree,
4 wouldn't you, that the OSCE voters register for 1997 and 1998 provided no
5 information as to ethnicity?
6 A. I'd agree with that.
7 Q. So the only way that movements of people between 1991 and 1997 can
8 be achieved is by looking at the tag they gave themselves in 1991 in the
9 census. Correct?
10 A. Could you please be more precise. I don't understand you at all.
11 What do you mean by "movement of the population"? Migration or movement
12 in the changes to the ethnic composition? And what do you mean when you
13 say what they assigned to themselves, the tag they gave themselves?
14 Q. I mean movement in and out of the municipalities. And by the tag
15 that they gave themselves, I mean the answer that they provided in the
16 census questionnaire.
17 JUDGE MUMBA: I thought you -- when you talked of the tag, I
18 thought you meant the ethnicity they choose for themselves.
19 MR. Di FAZIO: Yes, I'm sorry. Your Honour is quite correct.
20 Perhaps I should rephrase my question. The answer they provided in the
21 census questionnaire as to their ethnicity.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Could you please clarify the
23 question, because after all these interventions, I'm no longer sure as to
24 what you're asking me.
25 MR. Di FAZIO:
1 Q. Because the OSCE voters registers provided no information as to
2 ethnicity, if you want to study movements of people within the
3 municipalities of Bosanski Samac and Odzak and without, and going out of
4 the municipalities of Bosanski Samac and Odzak, the only way to do that is
5 by ascertaining the tag they gave themselves in 1991 in the census
6 questionnaire; that is, how they described themselves; as a Serb or a
7 Croat or a Muslim.
8 A. I really don't understand you. You're asking me if the OSCE
9 monitors the movement, but they don't do that. They have a list of the
10 registered voters. And the only way is for those voters to take the
11 national declaration from 1991, to base themselves on the national
12 declaration, what they declared themselves to be in 1991. OSCE doesn't
13 follow, doesn't monitor any kind of movement, they just register the
14 voters in the three municipalities. They don't monitor movement of any
16 Q. I appreciate that. But if you want to see what happened to people
17 who answered the questionnaire in 1991, you can use the voters register to
18 see where they were in 1997. Correct? That is, by reference to the
19 municipality in which they register to vote. And so if a Serb answered
20 the questionnaire in 1991 saying he's a Serb, you can use the OSCE voters
21 register to see where that person is in 1997, regardless of whether or not
22 he has changed his mind as to whether he's a Serb or a Croat or a Muslim.
23 A. You can't use it for the simple reason that the electoral lists
24 don't contain references to the nationality of the individuals. You have
25 to answer what your name is, you have to provide your personal
1 identification number, mention the municipality in which you are
2 registered, and there is other information that has to be provided. So it
3 is by no means possible to make a comparison, to say whether a Serb or
4 someone in 1991 said the same in 1997, because such information is simply
5 not available. According to the methodology followed by your experts, you
6 can adopt this, you can take this over and say a Serb from 1997 is a Serb
7 from 1997, and I can agree with you that in 90 per cent of the cases, that
8 might be true. But what to do when you erroneously match up a Serb, or
9 rather, when the personal identification number and the name is not
10 correct, when you carry out the matching up process on the basis of
11 initials, and then someone who was perhaps a Croat or a Muslim, you claim
12 - I don't know on the basis of what information - you claim that someone
13 was a Muslim or a Serb or a Croat. And that is where the problem lies.
14 I'm not wondering -- I'm not addressing the issue as to whether what was
15 stated in 1991 is correct or not. The methodology used, especially if you
16 use the first and last name, this is not relevant information.
17 You saw that in Odzak there were identical names for various
18 individuals. There was a lot of -- a lot of personal identification
19 numbers were duplicated. Many names and surnames were duplicated. There
20 were many illegible names and last names. If the personal identification
21 number is not valid, then one uses the initials to match it up with
22 someone else. How many times do the letters SR appear? What do you
23 think? So the first SR that I come across, if I think that this is the
24 correct SR, then I attribute the nationality that I found in some list.
25 And I think that this methodology is not correct. And whether the
1 nationality is a hundred per cent correct or not, I won't discuss this.
2 I'm just talking about the possibility that in the case of some
3 individuals, they might have -- some individuals who might have declared
4 themselves to be of another nationality, in such cases, they were probably
5 described as something that they weren't. I would like to see the
6 information from 1997. I would like to see how many Yugoslavs there are
7 now in Samac and in Odzak. And I'd like to see what the figure is, what
8 the declarations of nationality would be like. So adopting this
9 information, taking over this information, is methodologically not a valid
10 procedure because you are comparing and matching up bad information with
11 bad information and You are trying to obtain good results.
12 MR. PANTELIC: I do apologise to my learned friend. In the last
13 answer of Dr. Radovanovic, it's the last passage, page 61, line 13 until
14 line 22, Dr. Radovanovic mentioned that it should be "and we all expecting
15 a new censuses in the coming years." So maybe that will be important for
16 the understanding of the explanation because it is not in the transcript
17 due to the fast explanation of Dr. Radovanovic. And I kindly ask her to
18 slow down a bit because of the interpreters' efforts to precisely
19 translate what was said. Thank you.
20 MR. Di FAZIO:
21 Q. Is it your position that you can't use the 1991 census to provide
22 accurate analysis of ethnic composition in Yugoslavia?
23 A. No, my position is that you can't use OSCE lists together with
24 characteristics that are not correct in the 1991 census. I'm not
25 contesting the census; I am contesting certain characteristics provided.
1 Q. Thank you. You agree, don't you, in your report that you complain
2 about features of the 1991 census, for example, the topic that we just
3 spent the last half an hour talking about, subjectivity. Another example
4 that you use in your report are the problems with scanning. These are
5 fundamental problems. They would lead the Trial Chamber to conclude,
6 wouldn't they, those matters that you raise in your report, that you can't
7 use the 1991 census to provide reliable figures for ethnic distribution or
8 composition in the former Yugoslavia? Otherwise, why on earth did you
9 spend all that time in your reports making those observations?
10 A. That's not what I said. You're putting words in my mouth. I said
11 that the characteristic -- the national characteristic, whenever you're
12 doing anything, whether you're using information from any census, not only
13 that of 1991, when using such information, you have to have a very
14 critical and cautious approach. I'm not denying or contesting anything.
15 But you know if you're a serious expert and professional, you just -- you
16 don't just base yourself on such characteristics, but you make comparisons
17 from that same census. This is not a matter I'm contesting.
18 I'm just drawing your attention to the fact that this has to be
19 used cautiously or, rather, such information cannot simply be adopted
20 seven years later. And on the basis of that information, you cannot then
21 claim we have reached these findings. With regard to this matter, I have
22 written several articles about this, and this is the criticism of the
23 methodology used in obtaining information on nationality.
24 Ethnostatistical information.
25 So this is not a matter of contesting of the validity of the
1 census; it's a matter of drawing attention to the fact that if you are a
2 serious scientist, you have to be very cautious when weighing up the
3 information, and especially when taking over information, when adopting
4 information after so much time has passed.
5 Q. Thank you. Can I ask you, and I'm asking you about the 1991
6 census. Can you explain this to the Trial Chamber: Paragraph 20: "In
7 the 1991 census, personal identification numbers and first and last names
8 were optically read for the first time. But this was not checked, and so
9 this data is considered statistically useless because there are too many
10 errors." Now, you told the Trial Chamber how it is that if the scanning
11 process produced data that is statistically useless, how does that
12 translate into your saying that you can use this 1991 census in studies
13 relating to ethnic composition? Tell the Chamber what "statistically
14 useless" means, please.
15 A. You're asking me about the personal identification numbers. Well,
16 in all censuses, and in all types of statistics, you have information that
17 is reliable and information that is less reliable. This is a well-known
19 Q. With respect, I'm not asking you about that. I'm asking to you
20 explain to the Trial Chamber what you mean when you say that "in the 1991
21 census, personal identification and first and last names were optically
22 read for the first time, but this wasn't checked so this data is
23 considered statistically useless." What does that mean?
24 A. It means that they contained a lot of errors. But this is just
25 one of the characteristics of the census, and it was introduced for the
1 first time on that occasion. And this doesn't mean that if one
2 characteristic is erroneous, that the census is not valid. If you have 30
3 or 40 or 50 per cent of errors in statistical terms, you can't claim that
4 this information is reliable. This was demonstrated in the case of Samac
5 and Odzak.
6 Q. Dr. Radovanovic, if the census can't give you accurate information
7 relating to the name of a person or their identification, that's a pretty
8 serious criticism, isn't it?
9 A. No, it isn't. The first and last name was never an essential part
10 of the census in terms of processing information.
11 Q. You, of course, have used the 1991 census in your own articles and
12 studies, haven't you, apart from this particular study that you're
13 discussing now?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And in fact, you used the 1991 census as a source in your article
16 entitled "Demographic Growth and Ethnodemographic Changes in the Republic
17 of Serbia" didn't you, published in 1995?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. I know that you don't have the B/C/S version of that article, but
20 it's obtainable, isn't it, on the internet from the internet library of
21 Serb culture. Correct?
22 A. Probably. I wasn't aware of the fact that it was on the internet.
23 Q. Okay. And its source is "Serbian Question in the Balkans,
24 University of Belgrade publisher, faculty of geography, Belgrade, 1995."
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. I'd just like to read to you the introduction to that article that
3 you wrote. "Complex processes in the ethnodemographic growth in the
4 Republic of Serbia could be continuously followed only from the time when
5 regular statistical research was organised. The most important
6 statistical data are the data on the natural movements of population and
7 the censuses. In today's Republic of Serbia, censuses were conducted at
8 irregular intervals and in differing historical circumstances. So an
9 abundance of data derived from 36 population censuses in the period 1934
10 to 1991 (18 Serbian, 5 Austro-Hungarian, 5 Bulgarian, and 8 Yugoslav)
11 though with different degrees of reliability, non-uniform identifications,
12 and incomparability and scope, still present a valuable source of
13 information which we will use by applying ethnostatistics to briefly
14 demonstrate the population growth, ethnic structure, and changes in the
15 ethnic structure of the population in Serbia. The censuses in Yugoslavia
16 after World War II offered very meager ethnostatistical data of
17 restrictive distribution. Precise questions on the basis of which
18 conclusions about the ethnic structure of the population in Serbia could
19 be made were asked for the first time in the 1948 census. Some of the
20 earlier censuses contained only the information on religion or the data
21 both on religion and native language, which offered rather ambiguous
22 results for the population in the territory of today's Serbia."
23 You felt confident, didn't you, in using the 1991 census to study
24 ethnic structure and changes in ethnic structure in Serbia, didn't you?
25 And I'm sure you can answer that, I think, with a yes or a no. Did you
1 feel confident in using the 1991 census to study ethnic structure and
2 changes in ethnic structure in Serbia?
3 A. Yes, I used that, but you didn't read everything. First of all,
4 this is an excerpt from another article that was published at the faculty
5 of geography, and in a book called "The Ethnic Territory of the Serbs" and
6 that contains a criticism of the methodology of obtaining information,
7 statistical information. And if you read on, you'll see that when I say
8 real information, et cetera, I put that in inverted commas, real
9 information on the national composition. But I conclude that this is our
10 reality, this is the situation we are facing, and this is what we will
11 have to use. So I'm not at all contesting the census, and I'm not
12 contesting the issue of nationality. All I am saying is that it is
13 necessary to be cautious.
14 Q. Can I ask you this: You would agree, wouldn't you --
15 A. I apologise, but I haven't answered your question. You said that
16 I used the census. I did. But eight years later, I didn't give anyone
17 from that census the same description. This is the state at a given point
18 in time, and whether someone likes this or not, that's the way it
19 is. It's official state information. I wouldn't dare to get involved in
20 foreseeing what the case would be in five, seven, or ten years' time. I
21 wouldn't dare attribute to give an individual something that that person
22 stated six or seven years ago.
23 MR. PANTELIC: I do apologise again. Just in order to have a
24 clear transcript, page 65, line 22, instead of year 1934, it should be
25 1834. Thank you.
1 JUDGE MUMBA: Actually, that's the year I heard, 1834.
2 MR. Di FAZIO: Yes, 1834, that's right.
3 Q. Is there any reason why the 1991 census is not -- let me rephrase
4 that. You would agree, wouldn't you, given your answer, that the 1991
5 census is a valuable source of information that you can use to demonstrate
6 ethnic structure and changes in ethnic structure in Bosnia and
8 A. The census is the official source that we will use for information
9 on the national composition. I would agree with that.
10 Q. Thank you.
11 Let's try and turn to another topic, Dr. Radovanovic, and again,
12 if you could possibly answer questions briefly, it would benefit us both,
13 I can assure you.
14 MR. Di FAZIO: What time do Your Honours wish to break? Would now
15 be an appropriate moment? I'm leading to another topic.
16 JUDGE MUMBA: I think we have two minutes. You say you want to
17 start another topic?
18 MR. Di FAZIO: Another topic.
19 JUDGE MUMBA: We can break now and continue at 18.05.
20 --- Recess taken at 5.44 p.m.
21 --- On resuming at 6.07 p.m.
22 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Di Fazio, continue.
23 MR. Di FAZIO: Thank you, Your Honours.
24 Q. Dr. Radovanovic, essentially your position is this, in paragraph
25 20 of your report: "The 1991 census provides names and identity numbers
1 which were read optically and not checked." And you say this data is
2 considered statistically useless because there are too many errors.
4 A. Correct.
5 Q. This is also referred to in your report as the process of
7 A. Process of substitution is something else. But some of the
8 problems are due to substitution, too.
9 Q. Thank you. I'd like to show you a document, please.
10 MR. Di FAZIO: And if Your Honours please, can we very briefly go
11 into closed session because this contains confidential material, people's
12 names --
13 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, we can go into private session.
14 MR. Di FAZIO: Yes, private session. The document I'm about to
15 show to the witness has already been provided to the Defence.
16 [Private session]
12 Pages 20185 to 20189 – redacted – private session.
5 [Open session]
6 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session.
7 MR. Di FAZIO:
8 Q. One of -- your position is, isn't it, that because of the census
9 -- because the census material may contain mistakes in name and ID
10 numbers, one cannot match the 1991 census material with the OSCE
11 material. That's one of the problems, correct?
12 A. No, they can be matched, but not in a relevant way because you're
13 automatically excluding a large percentage of the population. 40 per cent
14 in Samac, 36 per cent in Odzak who cannot be matched because their
15 personal identification numbers are not correct and perhaps their names
16 are not correct. And you are simply disregarding them, and that is not a
17 small percentage. Even if they live there in 1991, and perhaps in 1997,
18 in the same territory, you simply deny them the possibility of being
19 matched, represented, included, and having them contributing to a more
20 reliable information. It is a highly selective approach. And you say,
21 well, now I've matched it, right, so that's it. It's not it.
22 Q. Thank you. In paragraphs 24 and 25 of your report, you talk about
23 this problem of data coupling or matching, don't you? 24 and 25. Do you
24 see that?
25 A. I do, yes.
1 Q. You make the complaint, or you make the observation, I should say,
2 that in the 1991 census in Odzak and Bosanski Samac, there are a
3 surprisingly large number of identical first names, father's names, and
4 last names. Do you see that?
5 A. I do.
6 Q. And you came up with 1500, approximately, pairs of identical first
7 and last names. And in Odzak, approximately 589 -- well, 589 persons had
8 the same first name, father's name, and last name. Do you see that?
9 A. I do.
10 Q. You got those figures, didn't you, from your study of material
11 provided to you some time ago, some weeks ago, by the office of the
12 demographics unit? You studied the material and you came up with those
13 figures, didn't you?
14 A. I did. And if you'd like me, I can illustrate this.
15 Q. Just answer the question. And I might add, too, Dr. Radovanovic,
16 that the Prosecution entirely agrees with those figures that you have
17 reached. You're quite correct, you're quite correct, that there were 1562
18 pairs of essentially same names, and 589 similar cases relating to Odzak.
19 However, when you add the year of birth to those names and compare them,
20 would it have the effect of reducing those matches?
21 A. I've found a large number of pairs that are absolutely identical
22 identification number. I didn't take out only the names, but also the
23 identification numbers. And I told you that it is unique, I mean, there
24 are not two, so I took out pairs who have the same first name, the same
25 last name, and the same personal identification number, and also those
1 with same first and last names but different identification numbers. So,
2 sir, I'm not talking only about the identical first and last names, but
3 also identical identification numbers.
4 Now, your experts used the years of birth. I can quote you
5 strings of people with the same names and same year of birth. And also
6 people with different names and identical identification numbers, which is
7 impossible because that number is unique. Names can, of course, be --
8 there can be many same names, but your expert says that it is really
9 seldom that in one territory one finds persons with first -- with the same
10 first and last names and the same identification numbers. And I can quote
11 it even here. But I'm showing you the opposite. Not only that it is not
12 -- does not happen seldom, but traditionally speaking, in our country, or
13 in our former country, in Yugoslavia, you come frequently across the first
14 and the last names because grandchildren are often given their
15 grandparent's name; a son will get his grandfather's name or a daughter a
16 grandmother's name so that is not a rare occurrence.
17 And your expert says -- he says, I'm quoting page 6 of the B/C/S
18 version of the expertise of your people. It is very unusual for two
19 different persons to have -- to bear identical names and to have been born
20 on an identical date.
21 Q. So is it the case that --
22 A. Our research shows the opposite. So that it is not an exception.
23 It is not exceptionally rare for people to have the same first and last
24 names, and to have been born on the same dates, and there are examples
25 which I can quote. But I also have to say --
1 Q. We agree. It's very common, isn't it, for people in those areas,
2 very common, very common indeed, for people in those areas to have the
3 same surname, for fathers to hand on their names to their sons, for a lot
4 of people to have the same name, surname and first name. It's part of the
5 naming tradition in that area, isn't it, so you really run into a lot of
6 people with the same name, don't you? Correct?
7 A. That's correct.
8 Q. Now, if you add the year of birth as another variable and compare
9 these names, would you expect the number of matching pairs to reduce?
10 Would you expect that to take place?
11 A. Can you define what you mean by reduction? If you find ten out of
12 a thousand cases, is that -- does that mean that it has been reduced? If
13 your sample is bad, if you have a small sample which is not
14 representative, well, in that case, you have to define what it means to
15 say that the number is reduced.
16 Q. If you compare, if you analyse the 1.562 people with identical
17 first names, father's names and last name, and then add another variable,
18 being their year of birth, would you expect that number of 1.562 to be
19 reduced? Say, for example, to an order of around a hundred or perhaps 92,
20 in particular. Would you expect that? Would that sort of result surprise
22 A. I would expect the number to be reduced, but I wouldn't start
23 speculating as to the order by which it would be reduced because I haven't
24 had the opportunity to check this and to claim that it would be reduced to
25 the figure of 90. I don't know.
1 Q. You know, don't you, that by adding variables, something as simple
2 as the year of birth, when you're analysing people who have got the same
3 name, first name, father's name, and surname, when you add something as
4 simple as the year of birth, you really reduce, and drastically reduce,
5 the number of matches, don't you? And I can tell you, and I put it to
6 you, that in fact, that's what our OTP demographics expert did, and he
7 came up with a figure of 92 matches in Samac, and 26 for Odzak. And that
8 is, in fact, 46 pairs of people who have been recorded twice, or 13 pairs
9 of people who have been recorded twice out of a population of about 30.000
10 for each of those municipalities of Odzak and Bosanski Samac. What's your
11 comment on that?
12 A. My comment is that I really don't know what the figure would be.
13 But if I have the names in front of me and the year of birth, and if I
14 asked myself whether out of 1.568, whether out of that number, one would
15 obtain this result --
16 Q. But you know, don't you, that by introducing more variables, as
17 the OTP demographics team did in their report, you can really reduce that
18 number of matches, those sorts of numbers of false matches. You know
19 that, don't you?
20 A. If you have the full name, I assume that this would be possible.
21 But this is guesswork, and I don't like guessing. But your experts, on
22 page 6 of the B/C/S version, heading 2.4, said the following, and I quote:
23 "For people who have not been matched in the first round, we gradually
24 extended the criteria for search for one or two orders of change. For
25 example, including the year but not the full date. By including the first
1 letter of [realtime transcript read in error "or"] the first and last
3 Only the years without the date and the initials.
4 Q. And you know also don't you that --
5 MR. LAZAREVIC: I apologise. We have something here in the
6 transcript. The answer that our expert gave was "by including the first
7 letter of the first and last name." Not "or the first and last name,"
8 because the way it is now in the transcript would suggest that the full
9 first and last name was one of the criteria. And the witness said that it
10 was just first letter of the name.
11 MR. Di FAZIO: Yes, I agree with that. That's probably right. In
12 fact, I'll put to you what I have in the -- what I have in the OTP
13 demographics report.
14 Q. "Consequently, for persons not matched in the first round we made
15 the search criteria gradually broader for one or more variables, for
16 example by only including the year and not the full date of birth, or only
17 the initial of the first name in addition to the surname. The results of
18 such matches have, however, to be inspected visually to decide if the
19 matches are more likely to be the same person or not, by looking at other
20 available information, such as municipality, place of birth, or residence.
21 For example, the place of birth may be given as a municipality on one list
22 and a small hamlet located in the municipality on the other list. It
23 would be very complicated, if possible at all, to automate such checks.
24 For difficult cases, we checked the 1991 census for additional
25 information; for example, information about family members of the person
1 in question."
2 So your complaint - I wouldn't say it's a complaint - your
3 observation that there are 1500, thereabouts, matching pairs for Samac,
4 and I think about 800 or so matching pairs for Odzak, is really not the
5 full picture at all, is it, because you can use other variables to reduce
6 that and reduce it drastically.
7 A. It would be intellectually honest if your expert had said how many
8 cases had been matched in the first round and how many matches had been
9 found in the second round, and I would then be able to adopt a position.
10 But in statistical terms, this first phase of matching on the basis of the
11 personal identification number is really important, and here this was not
12 done very frequently.
13 Q. But the Trial Chamber can be satisfied, can't it, that according
14 to the face of the report anyway, the OTP demographics report, that a lot
15 of -- more than one or two variables were used and, in difficult cases,
16 visual inspection of the records was conducted.
17 A. Well, you're wrong there, too. In difficult cases, in my opinion,
18 contain the initials and the year of birth. That is what your expert has
19 mentioned. "SR, 49, Bosanski Samac." How is your expert going to know
20 who and what SR is, if the expert find, let's say, just 50 such SRs, what
21 is the ethnic affiliation of this person SR?
22 Q. Okay. I think I would like to move on rapidly, if I may, to the
23 last issue that I want to ask you about, and that's the final conclusions
24 reached in both the OTP demographics report and your report. You said --
25 sorry. In your report, you make it clear that you observed no significant
1 changes to the ethnic composition of the territory of Bosanski Samac and
2 Odzak. Correct?
3 A. No. That's what it says in the conclusion, but that is not what I
4 stated in my report. That is a criticism and a comment on your experts'
5 report. I said in the summary - it's item 4 - given everything mentioned
6 above, we conclude that by comparing and combining statistical information
7 obtained from the regular census of 1991, and from the electoral lists of
8 1997 and 1998, it is not possible to carry out a statistical and
9 demographic analysis that would be -- that would objectively demonstrate
10 the changes to the ethnic composition of the population in the territory
11 of the municipalities of Bosanski Samac and Odzak. And this conclusion
12 that follows the heading containing comments on your experts' report has
13 to do with the fact that I commented on what had been done. And it has to
14 do with why this last conclusion in -- under C in your experts' table, I
15 said that your experts had this table, but I stated that I do not know why
16 they did not take it into account. I'll provide you with the reference
18 Q. It's okay. Could I just ask you to look, please, at your report,
19 because I must confess I'm having some trouble understanding your answer.
20 It's in the English at page 28, if Your Honours please. And in your
21 report, it's headed VII "Conclusion," c-o-n-c-l-u-s-i-o-n. Do you see
23 A. Chapter 7?
24 Q. Chapter 7, yeah. Could you just read out, please, what you have
25 at the top there, please. Read it into the transcript, chapter 7, and
1 then the word next to it. What word is there, so the interpreters may --
2 A. I can't see the transcript.
3 Q. Your report. Your report. Your B/C/S report, chapter 7, VII, and
4 then there's a word next to that. In English it comes out as
5 "conclusion." What is it --
6 A. I apologise. I can't see the transcript here, but it's not
7 important. Chapter 7, conclusion, under A: "The radical change --"
8 Q. Can I just ask you one other question. "Conclusion," that's your
9 -- your conclusion, isn't it? You wrote this report, and you prepared it,
10 so that's your conclusion, isn't it? Correct?
11 A. It's my conclusion, but please bear in mind that it refers to what
12 your experts did. So my conclusion, well, yes, I will accept that it is
13 mine, if that's important, and if you allow me to read it out. It has to
14 do with what was claimed by your experts, and I do agree that they had a
15 look at the tables and that this relates to conclusion C.
16 Q. And your conclusion, your conclusion, in part C, under chapter VII
17 of your report, is this: "Looking at the same territorial framework in
18 1997 as in 1991, there were no significant changes in the ethnic
19 structures of Bosanski Samac and Odzak. The shares of various ethnic
20 groups in the total population in 1991 and 1997 are approximately the
22 Now, it is rare to see such plain, simple, and obvious language.
23 That's your conclusion, isn't it? You'd have to agree with that.
24 A. Yes, I do agree with that.
25 Q. And you would agree, wouldn't you, that without going into huge
1 amounts of detail, that essentially the conclusion of the OTP demographics
2 unit was that if you study the territory, territory of the post-Dayton --
3 the post-Dayton four municipalities that were carved out of Bosanski Samac
4 and Odzak, you end up with a preponderance of Serbs in some of them and a
5 preponderance of Croats and Muslims in others. In other words, in Serb
6 Odzak, there is an overwhelming majority of Serbs; and in federation
7 Odzak, there are an overwhelming majority of Muslims and Croats. And the
8 same applies in Bosanski Samac. In Republika Srpska Samac, the vast
9 majority are Serbs; and in Domaljevac Samac, the vast majority are
10 Croats. That's essentially -- whether they are right or wrong, but that's
11 essentially their conclusion. Correct?
12 A. That's not correct. That is their conclusion, but the conclusion
13 that they reached was reached on the basis of erroneous information
14 because if you are discussing Muslims in federal Odzak, there are no
15 Muslims in RS Odzak. As the villages were divided, these Muslims are in
16 the same place; in the same house, the same street. They did not move
18 Q. I'm not asking you to comment on the accuracy. I understand that
19 you challenge that. Please understand I understand your position. You're
20 not happy with their methodology. I understand that perfectly well. But
21 that essentially is the difference in the two major conclusions reached in
22 your report and in their report, in the OTP demographics unit. Correct?
23 Is that a yes?
24 A. I'm not sure I've understood your question. Do I agree with their
25 methodology? If the methodology is incorrect, the conclusion cannot be
1 correct. Do I agree with their conclusion? No, I don't. The differences
2 between our conclusions are the result of the application of different
3 methodologies, a good methodology and a bad one, if you're asking me this
5 Q. I'll start again, Dr. Radovanovic. Let's see if we can, if
6 possible, scoot home to a nice finish before 7.00, okay? If we can
7 possibly do that, that would be good. Essentially, the conclusion of the
8 OTP demographics unit is that of the four municipalities that were carved
9 out of Bosanski Samac and Odzak, the former 1991 municipalities, ethnic
10 preponderances or majorities are to be seen, namely a lot more Serbs, the
11 overwhelming majority of Serbs in Republika Srpska Samac, a lot more
12 Croats in Domaljevac Samac, a lot more Serbs in Odzak Vukosavlje, and a
13 lot more Croats and Muslims in federation Odzak. That essentially is
14 their conclusion.
15 Now, I'm not asking you if it's right or wrong, but that's
16 essentially their conclusion, so that Their Honours know and it's clear.
17 A. That not is the essence of their conclusion. You have paraphrased
18 their conclusion, which is very brief. I could read it out. I'll quote
19 the Prosecution's expert reports: "To conclude, we can say -- summing up,
20 two clear examples of ethnic cleansing have been shown in this report.
21 Croats and Muslims largely disappeared from the Serb Samac, and from the
22 Serb Odzak Vukosavlje. Before the war in both these areas, Croats and
23 Muslims represented a considerable fraction of the actual population."
24 That is the conclusion that is not correct and it is a conclusion that I
1 Q. Thanks, that's fine. That's just fine. Thank you very much for
2 pointing it out. That's from the addendum to the report that was
3 initially provided, correct, the addendum report that the Prosecution OTP
4 demographics unit provided?
5 A. This is not an addition. This is what appears in the conclusion
6 of the Prosecution's expert report.
7 Q. Would you please have a look at this document that I produce to
8 you. In fact, these two documents.
9 MR. Di FAZIO: If Your Honours please, copies have been provided
10 to the Defence, served on the Defence. I have copies here for the
12 Q. Can I ask you, please, to look at what I describe as the more
13 colourful map headed with the English words - I hope that you can identify
14 it - "Ethnical Majority Recently." I know you don't read English, but on
15 the bottom left-hand corner of that document, there are the words
16 "Sources, present population, UNHCR, September 1999." Do you see that?
17 A. Yes, I do.
18 Q. All right. And it -- the colouring code, I'll assist you on that,
19 it's very, very simple for our purposes, exceptionally simple. The
20 brightest red refers to Serb over 66 per cent, and the darkest blue refers
21 to Croat over 66 per cent. So you can see that very, very easily because
22 we're just going up to the top of Northern Bosnia, and you can see the
23 municipalities up there. You can see that Odzak, federation Odzak, is
24 blue, all blue, and that indicates at least 66 per cent Croats in that
25 particular municipality. Do you see that?
1 A. I can see it.
2 Q. And underneath, and although it's in small writing, you can
3 Vukosavlje, and that, of course, is Serb Odzak, and that's all in red, so
4 that indicates Serb population of over 66 per cent. Do you see that? And
5 essentially, the same applies to the next-door municipality, Samac and
6 Domaljevac Samac. Do you see that? Essentially the red and the blue.
7 It's very clear. Those figures on the face of this document obtained from
8 the UNHCR in September of 1999 tend very much to suggest majority Croat
9 populations in Odzak federation and Domaljevac Samac, and majority Serb
10 populations in Vukosavlje and RS Samac, don't they?
11 A. No. This is the position of the IMG company. You can see in the
12 lower right-hand corner, it says that it is a map, a sort of guiding map,
13 an orientation map. It doesn't say that it is founded on a scientific
14 basis. I'm just assuming - this is guesswork again - that this involves
15 estimates. I don't know what the basis for these estimates is. This may
16 be acceptable for media purposes, but in professional terms, I'd be very
17 cautious in accepting this because they themselves emphasise the fact that
18 this map is not to be taken as necessarily representing IMG views. It
19 just says it's a sort of guiding map. It's the position of the company
20 that probably based itself on some of the UNHCR estimates.
21 Q. Thank you. Mr. Lukic assisted you in studying this map, didn't
22 he, and he translated bits of it to you, didn't he?
23 A. Mr. Lukic provided me with this map and translated parts of it
24 because I insisted that he do so. I don't know English, and I wasn't
25 provided with the Serbian translation.
1 Q. Of course, I understand that, and I understand the difficulty that
2 you're labouring under, and I'm not trying to take advantage of that by
3 any means. But it says that the map is not to be taken as necessarily
4 representing IMG views on boundaries or political status. If the
5 International Management Group used UNHCR figures from September of 1999,
6 and if those figures are reliable or reasonably reliable, they suggest,
7 don't they, ethnic preponderances in those municipalities in the way that
8 I've described to you in my earlier question.
9 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Objection, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Lukic.
11 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I think that the question is asking
12 the witness to speculate. What could the organisation IMG have concluded
13 on that basis? But apart from the map, we don't see how this was
14 compiled, we don't know about the sources. I think that the expert is
15 being asked to speculate on what the organisation, what the company wanted
16 to do.
17 MR. PANTELIC: I do apologise, maybe my learned friend can give us
18 a little more details about the background of this IMG company, because
19 after our research, the IMG is the world's largest, most diverse and only
20 truly global company dedicated to the marketing and management of sport,
21 leisure and lifestyle and so on. I don't know if we are speaking of the
22 same company.
23 MR. Di FAZIO: My understanding -- but of course this is only from
24 the bar table my understanding is that it is the organisation responsible
25 for handling reconstruction from war damage in Bosnia.
1 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, but I think the more important point is the one
2 mentioned by Mr. Lukic where he says it is not known on what they based
3 the information on, their sources, their data, to come to this conclusion
4 which is shown on the map.
5 MR. Di FAZIO: Very well. I'd ask that the document be marked for
6 identification at this stage. And its sources -- and in addition, I also
7 note that the document does go some way to answering that question,
8 present population, UNHCR, September 1999.
9 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for Her Honour, please.
10 JUDGE MUMBA: Sorry. It does say that, but what I'm saying is how
11 they came to compile these population figures, what methodology they used,
12 what sources of information they used.
13 MR. Di FAZIO: Very well. Thank you. If Your Honours please, can
14 I ask that the document simply be marked for identification.
15 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Lukic.
16 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I don't object to having this document
17 marked for identification, but it will really be a serious problem if the
18 Prosecution subsequently provides some evidence with regard to this
19 matter. Our expert will then have to express a position on this analysis.
20 That's what the Prosecution wanted from the expert. The expert will
21 leave, and if the Prosecution subsequently provides documents without
22 having had the expert express an opinion, then the Trial Chamber will have
23 to assess the validity of such a document in a special way. I appreciate
24 the fact that my learned colleague didn't know when the expert would be.
25 We got these maps over the weekend. We tried to find something about
1 these sources. Mrs. Radovanovic herself couldn't find some information,
2 and we were really at a disadvantage. If we get these maps and we don't
3 have other information, I think we'll have problems. But I don't object
4 to marking them for identification.
5 MR. Di FAZIO: Thank you. And I'd like to do that in respect of
6 the second document as well, if Your Honours, please, and that will then,
7 I think, complete my cross-examination.
8 JUDGE MUMBA: So which one do you call the first one?
9 MR. Di FAZIO: "Ethnical majority recently," and the second one is
10 the "ethnical breakdown recently."
11 I would ask that the number be ascribed so I can finish this
13 THE REGISTRAR: The map on ethnical majority will be treated as
14 Document P184 ID. And the map on ethnical breakdown will be treated as
15 Document P184A ID.
16 I apologise, P183. Thank you.
17 MR. Di FAZIO: In fact, I have no further questions because that
18 document speaks for itself, and any later use of it we will sort out
19 later. So that, in fact, completes my cross-examination, if Your Honours
21 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Lukic, the re-examination will begin tomorrow.
22 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I wanted to inform the Trial Chamber
23 that I only had two questions. I don't know whether the Trial Chamber has
24 any questions, but I have two fairly short questions. We know that the
25 interpreters have had a difficult day today, but if they would agree to
1 carry on for ten minutes, unless the Trial Chamber thinks that there will
2 be more questions, then of course I will accept your decision.
3 JUDGE MUMBA: The Trial Chamber would like to ask the interpreters
4 to bear with us so that we can complete this expert witness since the
5 re-examination will be very brief, and perhaps one question from the
7 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Very well, Your Honours. I should
8 also like to thank the interpreters.
9 Re-examined by Mr. Lukic:
10 Q. [Interpretation] Mrs. Radovanovic, in the very beginning of the
11 cross-examination, the Prosecutor did not allow you to explain why you
12 disagreed with their analysis, so this would be my first question, why you
13 disagree with the conclusions?
14 A. Is that it?
15 Q. Why do you disagree with the Prosecution's claim that we are
16 dealing with a co-national form of ethnic cleansing?
17 A. Because the Prosecutor says that on the basis of the conclusions
18 of their experts. And I claim under full responsibility that the
19 Prosecutor's team used very deficient statistical data, and on the basis
20 of deficient statistical data, you cannot come to a correct decision. Why
21 are they deficient? They are deficient regarding the structural
22 population because they simply exempted a large number of the population
23 of 1991 and disregarded completely. It is also deficient because they are
24 not considering the identical territorial entity, and because they do not
25 know what is the territorial entity, we get a misrepresentation, and it is
1 a misrepresentation because it is due either to the administrative
2 subdivision or statistical errors.
3 For instance, if we have a look at this, for instance, Odzak.
4 Odzak, yellow here represents settlements which were exempted from
5 survey-tion [as interpreted] because the Dayton boundary goes through
6 them, so they say we shall exclude this population. But what that means
7 is that you're excluding a complete Muslim population concentrated only in
8 the settlement of Odzak. It is this here. This is the municipality made
9 of different settlements.
10 Now, what happened in the elections in 1997? I'm sorry so sorry.
11 Since the Dayton boundary goes through these places, when registering for
12 voting, you are bound to register according to the new municipal code and
13 say, "I now live in federal Odzak," which is number 20, or in Odzak which
14 belongs to Republika Srpska, which is number 19. So this settlement and
15 the population there, owing to the statistical code and the Dayton
16 boundary, is split into federal and RS Odzak.
17 The population - and we are interested in Muslims here - who live
18 in the settlement of Odzak, in the same house, on the same street, when
19 they go to vote, give a new code, and then it turns out, because that part
20 where they are registering is in federal Odzak, that in federal Odzak,
21 according to the Prosecution's analysis, a certain number, and we can
22 forget whether the figure is accurate or not, but that we have there a
23 certain number of Muslims, and in Odzak, which is in Republika Srpska,
24 these Muslims do not exist.
25 And on the basis of that, a conclusion is made that in Serb Odzak,
1 ethnic cleansing has taken place, but that is not accurate. They were not
2 there. I mean, their house, their street was not in that part. They were
3 not there in 1991. So they all stayed where they were, but they have been
4 split by a statistical code that is the Dayton boundary.
5 And on the other hand - and I think this is a good example - the
6 Prosecution's experts disregard the principle of settlements and show even
7 the direction of migrations, and say from Samac RS, Republika Srpska,
8 Croats were expelled. Disregarding, ignoring that a whole settlement,
9 which is Prud, has administratively been relocated from Samac and annexed
10 to the municipality of Odzak. So all those Croats who come to register to
11 vote say they are Croats from federal Odzak. They have all stayed in
12 their homes in the same settlement. They have not moved anywhere. I
13 mean, all, I mean I don't mean all down to the last one, but I'm saying
14 that this is the population which has not migrated. They migrated by a
15 statistical code, the whole settlement. And the Prosecution expert gives
16 the migration routes and say Croats from Samac, disregarding the
17 settlement of Prud or those which are divided and which with population in
18 Samac, you have two, for instance, Croat settlements and one where Croats
19 are predominant.
20 I'm sorry, I was showing you Samac and spoke about Odzak, but you
21 understand what I am talking about.
22 Q. It is clear that yellow means settlements which were split?
23 A. That's right.
24 Q. This question arises from Prosecution's question when they asked
25 you about the matching methodologies and what they used in addition to
1 personal identification numbers and mother tongues and all the rest in
2 view of the scanning. Will you please look at paragraphs 28 and 29 of
3 your report, and in that report, you say first that on the basis of your
4 matching principle, you only used the principle of identification numbers,
5 that is, you didn't use the broad methodology used by the Prosecution.
6 That is what you say in paragraph 28. And then you show how many you
7 managed to match. And what does the paragraph 29 say? Is there a
8 significant difference between your matching strictly only PINs, that is
9 personal identification numbers, and what the Prosecution did, and could
10 this produce then a discrepancy in results obtained?
11 A. Well, yes, we have a discrepancy because we obtained completely
12 different numbers for Muslims, Croats, and Serbs, but statistically
13 speaking we found 37 per cent matched numbers, and the Prosecution's
14 witness, 40. So there is a difference in conclusion. If you observe a
15 correct principle, a correct methodology, there shouldn't be such
17 Q. So you're only matched personal identification numbers to get 37
18 per cent matched, and the Prosecution, by using some other methods, to
19 obtain 40-odd percentages matched?
20 A. That's right.
21 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. Your Honours, I do not
22 have any further questions.
23 JUDGE LINDHOLM: Yes, Dr. Radovanovic, I have only one question.
24 I know that you don't like to make guesses. You are only interested in
25 valid scientific research. But let us for a moment assume that the data
1 you had from the year 1991, from the census, and the data you had from the
2 voters list in 1997 were correct in all respects, and that you used them
3 in a scientifically valid manner to compare what was the situation in 1991
4 and in 1997. How much does it tell us about what was the situation and
5 the movements of people from one place to another in the years 1992, 1993,
6 and 1994? This is my question.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Only if you have accurate data for
8 1991 and 1997, you cannot -- and I claim it under full responsibility.
9 You cannot learn what went on in 1992 and 1993.
10 JUDGE LINDHOLM: Thank you.
11 JUDGE MUMBA: Thank you very much, Dr. Radovanovic. We have
12 finished. You may leave the courtroom.
13 Before we rise, there's one matter the Trial Chamber would like to
14 deal with. The witness can be escorted out.
15 [The witness withdrew]
16 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, we can start. This is a matter concerning the
17 decision of the Appeals Chamber regarding the cross-examination and
18 refreshing memory of some of the Defence witnesses. The decision affects,
19 the Trial Chamber, has noted about three witnesses. This is Vaso Antic,
20 Dodek Tubakovic, and Stefan Nikolic. So the Trial Chamber wanted to find
21 out from the Prosecution what they would like to do.
22 MR. RE: The Prosecution would be content to tender the parts of
23 the 92 bis witnesses which we say are inconsistent with the witness's
24 evidence in respect of Nikolic, and Mr. Tubakovic. The difficulty, of
25 course, with Mr. Antic, Vaso Antic, is the appeal was on the basis of his
1 not being allowed to refresh his memory from a statement, and merely
2 tendering the statement would not allow him to refresh his memory as the
3 Appeals Chamber says he should be allowed to.
4 JUDGE MUMBA: No.
5 MR. RE: I did discuss this briefly with my colleagues from the
6 Defence. I understand Defence of Mr. Zaric would want the two witnesses
7 recalled to explain why there are differing versions. And I understand
8 Mr. Tadic's Defence is content with our tendering of those portions. The
9 Prosecution is basically in the Trial Chamber's hands on this. We don't
10 wish to unnecessarily prolong things or bring people back because our
11 submission will be our witnesses have said one thing, and their witnesses
12 have said two different things; therefore, our witness is more reliable.
13 But if the Trial Chamber wishes to hear from the witness and hear the
14 explanation, we, of course, wouldn't oppose that. But as I say, in the
15 case of Mr. Antic, I can't really see a practical solution other than his
17 MR. LAZAREVIC: Your Honours, maybe I should state the position of
18 Mr. Zaric Defence. This is not what was our position regarding those two.
19 I still haven't had the opportunity to discuss this issue with Mr. Zaric
20 because we have received this decision of the Appeals Chamber right before
21 these proceedings started in the afternoon, and this was not the position
22 of ours. Furthermore, I think that we will not ask for these two
23 witnesses to be brought back to The Hague and to give their testimony.
24 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Lukic. Before I go to Mr. Lukic,
25 Mr. Lazarevic, so you have stated your position in spite of the fact that
1 you haven't --
2 MR. LAZAREVIC: Yes, Your Honours, I did. We don't ask these two
3 witnesses to come again.
4 JUDGE MUMBA: All right.
5 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, on behalf of Mr. Tadic's
6 Defence, we shall neither insist on recalling Mr. Tubakovic for, I would
7 say, a very simple reason. I'd like him to come back and clear these
8 matters up, but when Mr. Tubakovic finished his testimony, he was relieved
9 of any further testimony. I talked with him. It was just an ordinary
10 conversation, and we talked about it. What I mean to say is that if a
11 witness is recalled to testify about his testimony, with all due respect
12 to the Appeals Chamber, if the witness was released and if the Prosecutor
13 asks him, "did you discuss this subject with the Defence counsel," then
14 obviously the validity of the words of his testimony will be less.
15 So in my closing argument, I will also express my argument how is
16 one to weigh, to judge, what their witness has not testified about. But I
17 do not object to tendering that part of the statement into evidence for
18 the appreciation by the Chamber.
19 JUDGE MUMBA: That is, you are speaking for the witness --
20 regarding the Witness Tubakovic? Yes.
21 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Yes, that's right, Your Honour.
22 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Lazarevic, you are speaking in connection with
23 Vaso Antic?
24 MR. LAZAREVIC: Yes, on behalf of my client for witnesses Nikolic
25 and Vaso Antic.
1 JUDGE MUMBA: What about the Prosecution's proposal that they
2 would tender that part of the evidence which is being disputed?
3 MR. LAZAREVIC: I don't have a problem with this.
4 JUDGE MUMBA: All right. So that leaves us with Vaso Antic and
5 the point which the Prosecution pointed out, that...
6 MR. RE: Well, it goes further. The difference is the intended
7 purpose with Mr. Nikolic and Mr. Tubakovic was impeachment. With
8 Mr. Antic, his statement actually goes to the acts and conduct of the
9 accused, that is, that Mr. Simic -- Dr. Simic telephoned him. So that
10 can't be admitted for the purpose of --
11 JUDGE MUMBA: No, no, it can't. This is what I'm saying. Because
12 the other two, that could be dealt with admitting the parts that were
13 disputed. But with Vaso Antic, it seems appears he has to come back.
14 MR. RE: But that appears to be the difficulty with that
15 approach, yes, Your Honour.
16 [Trial Chamber deliberates]
17 JUDGE MUMBA: In that case, then the Trial Chamber has decided
18 that Mr. Vaso Antic will have to come back to complete the evidence. The
19 Victims and Witnesses Unit will be informed so that they can locate him
20 and try to bring him at the earliest opportunity possible, and the parties
21 will be told as to the date and time.
22 I think we've come to the end of our proceedings. We show our
23 appreciation to the supporting staff.
24 We'll adjourn now.
25 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned sine die
1 at 7.23 p.m.