1 Wednesday, 13 March 2002
2 [Open session]
3 [The witness entered court]
4 [The accused entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.32 a.m.
6 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.
7 WITNESS: BAJRAM BUCALIU [Resumed]
8 [Witness answered through interpreter]
9 Cross-examined by Mr. Milosevic: [Continued]
10 Q. [Interpretation] We left off yesterday with this big -- well, big
11 hump of paper and it says "Timetable" and a "Log." Do you consider that
12 this log should have been kept in the Albanian language?
13 A. Yes. I think it should have been kept in the Albanian language
14 because that was the case until before 1990s, as I said.
15 Q. First of all, that's not how it was. And the logbook is kept in
16 Serbian for purposes of transport. What do you think at the railway
17 station in England? Is it kept in English or what language? And in
18 France in French, in Germany in German? What do you think?
19 JUDGE MAY: That's not for the witness. He's given his view about
21 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
22 Q. How, for example, could a controller coming from Belgrade, from
23 the headquarters, how would he be able to control the work going on at the
24 railway station where you were employed? How could he look through the
25 traffic logbook if he didn't know the Albanian language, in a company
1 which was a state-owned company and owned by the State of Serbia, in
3 A. In such cases, either we translate it or the controller from
4 Belgrade, if that was the case, he would have asked a colleague in our
6 Q. All right. I think that's quite sufficient by way of an
7 explanation. I think any reasonable person understands what it means.
8 You said that there was a board in two languages which had been
9 taken down in Urosevac, which is not true. Throughout that time, it
10 always said "Urosevac" and "Ferizaj," the two names. Am I right or am I
12 A. This is pure lie, because since when I worked from 1982 to 1989,
13 it was first "Ferizaj" then "Urosevac." After 1990s, that signboard was
14 removed and then it was written only "Urosevac."
15 Q. Yes. Only the same sign, it said "Urosevac" and "Ferizaj." But
16 let's leave that for a moment.
17 At the entrance to your own village, on both sides there were
18 signs both in Albanian and in Serbian, the name of your village; is that
19 correct? There were name plaques in both languages; is that right?
20 A. Yes, that's right.
21 Q. Do you know who Njazi Asllani is from your village?
22 A. No. There isn't anyone by this name in my village.
23 Q. All right. He is the registrar in your office. Does that jog
24 your memory perhaps?
25 A. Yes. There is a Njazi in -- I mean, that was -- used to work in
1 my office, but he's not from our village. He worked there in that office.
2 Q. All right. But he was an Albanian; is that right? He was working
3 in your village, an Albanian?
4 A. Yes, he was Albanian.
5 Q. Did he issue documents to you in the Albanian language or in the
6 Serbian language?
7 A. I can't tell now, but when I needed to have a document, of course
8 I got it in the Albanian language. Then I never had to have a document,
9 to ask for one, so I don't know. But until 1989, all the documents we
10 used to get in the Albanian language.
11 Q. I'm asking you about after 1989. Did he issue documents in the
12 Albanian language to you or not?
13 A. I can't say anything now because, as I said, I never asked for a
14 document after 1989, so I don't know what he did. But I don't think that
15 they must have been in Albanian language. Probably they must have been in
17 Q. All right. But you know whether in those ten years Albanians
18 received documents in the Albanian language or not. Surely you know
19 that. Just say yes or no. I don't mind what your answer is; just give me
20 an answer. That's the easiest possible thing to ascertain. Just say
21 "Yes, they did," or "No, they didn't."
22 A. I can testify to what I saw and experienced in my workplace, where
23 the Albanian language was not used. In relation to other documents that
24 you are asking, I cannot testify anything, because I don't deem it
25 necessary to say anything about that here.
1 JUDGE MAY: We have now spent half an hour on this question of
2 language, which is completely peripheral, Mr. Milosevic. Let us move on
3 to another topic.
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The question of language is a basic
5 question, because untruths are being spoken here which claim that there
6 was some sort of discrimination.
7 JUDGE MAY: In the view of the Trial Chamber, it is a peripheral
8 issue. Now, move on.
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The topic that I haven't exhausted
10 and which was broached by the witness himself is the question of
11 constitutional changes, so I asked what rights were curtailed with these
12 constitutional amendments, to the Albanians and to him. He spoke about
13 language. So was any right curtailed with the advent of these
14 constitutional changes? What did he experience?
15 JUDGE MAY: You have explored that very fully over the last half
16 hour. Now, you've exhausted the topic. Move on.
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Does that mean that there is no
18 other right which he says he lost with the constitutional changes except
19 for the one referring to language?
20 JUDGE MAY: That is the one that he's referred to in his
21 examination-in-chief and your questions must be directed towards it. Now,
22 let's move on to another topic.
23 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. You said that the Albanians who used the Albanian language were
25 deprived of a percentage of their salary. I say that nobody was punished
1 because of that in that way. Do you insist that they were punished? Do
2 you maintain that?
3 A. Yes, very much so. We were docked certain shares of our salary.
4 We don't have written statements to prove that, but many people have been
5 punished for using their language, in this case, the Albanian.
6 Q. So that means when you received your salary, they would take away
7 out of your hands that percentage and wouldn't give you a slip of paper
8 saying that you were in fact being penalised; is that what you're saying?
9 A. You could see the payroll, in which it was reflected that
10 so-and-so was docked his salary, but we haven't kept those papers, because
11 more than a decade has passed. As far as I'm concerned, all my documents
12 were burned, and this happened to many other Albanians, so it was
13 impossible for us to have these papers to show here.
14 Q. I don't challenge that you can't show documentation, your
15 documents here, but not because they were burned. How come you didn't
16 have any documents, when there was no fire?
17 JUDGE MAY: He explained that. He said they were burned.
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right. If that's an explanation
19 that you're satisfied with, then I'm satisfied with that too.
20 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. In the written statement which you gave, you said that you were
22 penalised, up to 30 per cent of your salary was deducted, and yesterday
23 you said that your salary was docked up to 50 per cent of your salary. So
24 when is it that you're speaking an untruth?
25 JUDGE MAY: That's not a proper question.
1 It's said that in the statement you referred to 30 per cent, now
2 you refer to 50 per cent. Can you assist us to which of those is right?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. I didn't say 30 or 50. I only
4 say 15, 1-5 per cent, and up to six months. I said over a period of up to
5 six months. This is what I said.
6 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
7 Q. It says here:
8 "If, for example, an Albanian would write out a ticket for a
9 passenger with the name of the station of departure and destination in the
10 Albanian language, 30 per cent would be deducted from his salary."
11 That is what it says in your written statement, what I read out.
12 Yesterday you said 50 per cent, and that is what it says here on the
13 computer. So one of the two is obviously not true, and I say that both
14 those facts are not true, but you gave two completely different
16 But never mind. We're not only talking about that. You said
17 yesterday, as we're discussing the differences of this kind, you said
18 yesterday that the Serbs set fire to four houses on that particular day,
19 and it says so in exact terms here.
20 JUDGE MAY: Which day are we dealing with?
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Let me just find it. Just a
22 moment. Although I assume that you all have this. Just a moment. In the
23 first witness statement, one, two, three, four, five, the sixth paragraph,
24 at the beginning, it says:
25 "On the 5th of April, 1999, at around 9.00, the army, while
1 leaving the village, set fire to two houses which it had previously taken
3 That is what it says in the statement. And yesterday your
4 witness, or rather, the witness of this indictment, said that four houses
5 were set on fire. Probably --
6 JUDGE MAY: Now, there is a divergence between your statement
7 about the 5th of April when you refer to two houses being set on fire and
8 your evidence yesterday when you said there were four houses. Now, can
9 you clarify that, please?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I can. I don't think it's very
11 important, because that was only the beginning that I said. Then
12 afterwards, many other houses were burned. It may happen that I gave the
13 wrong date about the first four houses that were burned.
14 JUDGE MAY: Yes.
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I think that you have some of
16 your own Rules and Regulations and obligations to take measures with
17 respect to false testimony, which is quite obvious here.
18 JUDGE MAY: No, Mr. Milosevic. That is a comment. Now, if you've
19 got any other questions of this witness, ask them.
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Of course I have. I've just begun.
21 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
22 Q. I did not understand what you actually noticed with respect to the
23 movement of trains, the passage of trains. Yesterday, when you were
24 examined in chief, you said there were some sort of irregular train
25 running, so an extraordinary, irregular train which was not on a regular
1 line according to the timetable and log book, traffic logbook, and so it
2 did not stop at Urosevac. And then you say, according to the timetable,
3 it should have stopped there.
4 Now, my question for you is the following: How could it have --
5 should have stopped there, according to the timetable, if it wasn't a
6 regular running train on the timetable itself? How do you explain that?
7 A. Of course I can explain. If Your Honours allow me, I need a
8 little bit more time, if you think. Please tell me. You give me back the
9 log and I will explain to you.
10 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Let the witness have the exhibit, the log.
11 JUDGE KWON: Let the witness have the original.
12 MS. ROMANO: Yes, I have.
13 JUDGE KWON: That's better.
14 THE REGISTRAR: The log is Prosecution Exhibit 63. It was already
15 exhibited yesterday.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We took the example of train number
17 37893. This train is a normal train, a regular train that passes through
18 Ferizaj. When there is -- there are more passengers, they add a "3"
19 number. This is, this train should run according to the regular train.
20 That is, this train should normally have stopped in Ferizaj because that
21 part, "7893," stops. So when we add the "3," it is almost the same train,
22 and it should have stopped.
23 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. But it did not stop. So how come? What happened?
25 A. It didn't stop because it was full with passengers, and then it
1 left in the direction of Han i Elezit.
2 Q. So it didn't stop because there was no room in the train; is that
3 right? It was full?
4 A. That's right. It was full.
5 Q. And who decides whether a train is going to stop or not; the
6 stationmaster or the signalman, the dispatcher? Who makes that decision?
7 A. Usually the decision can be made by the most important authority
8 for Fushe Kosove, that he should order that the train mustn't stop. But
9 in extraordinary cases, even the dispatcher might do that.
10 Q. And in public traffic, urban traffic, when a bus is full, it
11 doesn't stop at a bus-stop, for example. What seems to you to be out of
12 the ordinary there?
13 A. But in the case of train circulation, there isn't such a rule.
14 Please. The train has to stop, no matter if there is room or not. It is
15 a rule. I think everybody should know that. Everybody has taken a
16 train. This is the case everywhere, in the West countries and
18 Q. All right. The point here is that the stop -- sorry, that the
19 train didn't stop at your station; is that right? Am I to understand what
20 you're saying like that? And you said that when there was no room in the
21 train, when the train was full, then the stationmaster would call the bus
22 company to help with the transport of the passengers. Was that standard
24 A. Normally this was not a standard practice. We didn't have such
25 instances before, but that happened that time when people were transported
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 even by trucks, lorries, or by freight carriages, which was not -- which
2 was a very unusual thing. My point was that unusual things kept occurring
4 Q. All right. You said that you heard from the priest about the
5 killing of three persons.
6 A. Yes, that's right.
7 Q. In your first statement, you said you heard about it on the 14th.
8 Yesterday, you said you heard about it on the 13th. But at all events,
9 you did not see those bodies, and you did not see anybody actually being
10 killed; is that right?
11 A. It's true that these three killings I didn't see myself, but the
12 fact is that people were killed on the 13th at about 8.00 p.m., and I
13 found out about that on the next day, on the 14th, at about 10.00. It is
14 likewise true that when we did return to the village, we found new dead
15 bodies. Not the three ones that I mentioned earlier but four other
16 persons. They were thrown in a well or a ditch maybe. Then we found the
17 remains of two elderly people who were burned in their homes, who were my
18 neighbours. But the bodies of the three that were killed on the 13th of
19 April, we have never found them to this day.
20 Q. How come in the written statement you gave you didn't mention
21 these new bodies?
22 A. In my written statement, which I gave in April 1999, I have
23 mentioned only three people who were killed and four who were taken
24 ransom, hostage. But after our return from -- to the village, we found
25 the bodies of these four people who were taken hostage. And then I can
1 give you even the names of those two who were burned in their own home.
2 And I couldn't give them in my first statement because this -- I found
3 this out when I returned home.
4 Q. When you returned home. You mean after the war; is that right?
5 A. Yes. Yes, after the war.
6 Q. So that means that when you returned, you didn't find any fresh
7 bodies that day, but you heard about it when you returned home after the
8 war; is that right?
9 A. [No audible response]
10 Q. In your written statement, you emphasised, in passing but you did
11 write it specifically, that you saw two truckloads of Serb families: men,
12 women, children.
13 A. Yes, that's true. I didn't say they were full of people, but I
14 said many -- I said I saw some Serb families getting off the train and
15 coming to Ferizaj. This is the truth.
16 Q. It says in your statement that you said they were jam-packed,
17 overfull, jam-packed with Serb families.
18 A. I don't know what is written there. I know what I said and what
19 the situation was like in reality.
20 Q. Well, there's an old well-known proverb that when you don't tell
21 the truth, you have to remember minutely what you said beforehand.
22 JUDGE MAY: Is that a question?
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes. I'm asking whether he knows of
24 that proverb, a proverb to that effect.
25 A. I don't know that old proverb, but that does not apply to me.
1 That might apply to you, the accused.
2 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. I'm asking you. I just wanted to know whether you had heard of
4 the proverb. But anyway --
5 JUDGE MAY: You got the answer. If you ask questions like that,
6 you must expect answers like that. They're not helpful. Now, let's move
8 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. So you saw Albanians on the move and Serbs on the move, in trains
10 in Urosevac, both Albanian families and Serb families. You claimed that
11 Albanian families were fleeing out of fear from the Serbs. Do you have
12 any assumption as to why the Serb families were fleeing?
13 A. I don't know when they went away. What time are you talking about
15 Q. I am talking about these Serb families that you talked about. I'm
16 only talking about what you talked about in your written statement.
17 A. Those Serb families didn't leave. They came to Ferizaj, I said.
18 They got off the train and remained in Ferizaj. They didn't leave
19 Ferizaj. I can't tell you from where they came, but it was from the
20 direction of Fushe Kosove maybe, whereas the Albanian families left out of
21 terror exercised against them by the Serb police and army.
22 Q. Well, according to your testimony, there weren't any such measures
23 in your village except that you had heard that three men had got killed.
24 Is that right or is that not right?
25 A. Yesterday I was -- we passed very quickly over these events that
1 happened in my village, and I was therefore unable to speak in greater
2 length about what happened then in my village. But since I have the
3 opportunity to answer to your questions, then I can explain to you, if
4 Your Honours allow me, to tell you what real terrible things happened to
5 us during all that time, and the accused can get convinced that it
6 was -- whether it was a right decision to leave the village or not.
7 JUDGE MAY: Just deal with it briefly.
8 A. When the Serb Chetnik forces occupied our village, it was really
9 horrible just to see, to look at them, Distinguished Honours, let alone to
10 have anything to do with them. They were bloodthirsty people. You could
11 see in their eyes their thirst for blood. They kept in their hands knives
12 stained with blood. Only to look at them, it was terrible, let alone to
13 have anything to do with them or to stay with them in the village.
14 Then they started to loot and raid the village all over. First
15 they took away all our vehicles of all the inhabitants of the village and
16 they drove around the village with our own very vehicles, showing off.
17 Then they started to rob us of our money. Every day they came and
18 asked us to give them money, and you had to give them money, because they
19 were armed, and we have given them money.
20 Then our sons, for nine or ten days, dug trenches for them, for
21 those Chetnik forces, and they maltreated them every day. The accused
22 would say that I was not there to see it, but my brother was there, and
23 many other witnesses, who can testify to what these young people went
24 through in the course of their labour for those forces. They were
25 threatened every day that after they finished digging the trenches, they
1 would have to kill them, because this is what they did in Bosnia too, they
2 were telling them. You can imagine yourselves what position we were in at
3 that time, when every day we heard threats that, "You are going to get
4 killed tomorrow."
5 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Thank you.
6 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
7 Q. How come you said none of that yesterday or in any one of your
8 written statements, what you've been saying just now?
9 JUDGE MAY: We need the statements. Can we have the copies,
10 please. There's going to be cross-examination about it.
11 MS. ROMANO: Yes, Your Honour. There are two statements.
12 JUDGE MAY: In fairness to the witness, he wasn't asked about this
13 yesterday, but you can ask him, Mr. Milosevic, about the statements.
14 What's said, Mr. Bucaliu, is that there is no mention in your
15 statements of this other maltreatment of villagers by the paramilitaries.
16 Can you help us as to that?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Distinguished Honours, I may
18 have not said it in my statement, and I don't know how that has come about
19 because I have said all these things even when I was giving the
20 statement. Maybe they haven't written it down because then the statement
21 would have become very lengthy. I don't know. But this is what I said
22 even during the time I gave my statement. I don't know if they have taken
23 down all of them.
24 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
25 Q. All right. This explanation is sufficient. Let's go back to
1 yesterday, to what you said yesterday. You explained that they had
2 forbidden you any kind of movement in the village except from 7.00 a.m. to
3 7.00 p.m. and that they told you that at no cost should you leave the
4 village, and you said that you were very frightened. How did you leave,
5 then? How did you leave the village when they had forbidden you to leave
6 the village and when they did not allow you to move around from 7.00 a.m.
7 to 7.00 p.m., only in that period?
8 A. I explained that. On the day that the Chetnik forces came, they
9 showed us the rules of how we could go out from our homes. I said that
10 they told us that we could leave the village only with their own special
11 authorisation, and they had closed both exits to the village. Then a
12 Chetnik called Milja, another called Musa, who were the most active in our
13 village, they told us that, "You cannot leave the village because if the
14 infantry troops of Clinton come to these lands, you will become our shield
15 and you will fight together with us." That is, they wanted to use us as
16 human shields or as cannon fodder, as we say. And this made us even more
17 afraid, fearing that one day they would really mistreat us and use us for
18 that purpose. But we stood there, nevertheless, until after all what we
19 went through, until the first killings came. If the accused denies that,
20 I don't know. He can do what he wishes.
21 Q. I am putting the following question: How did you leave the
22 village if it is true that they had forbidden you to leave the village?
23 How did you manage to leave the village, all of you together, as you had
24 put it?
25 A. I have explained the way how we managed to leave. I don't want to
1 repeat. If they saw us or not, if they wanted to prevent us or not, I
2 can't say, but we went, as I said, through that valley. Maybe they were
3 not very close, positioned very close to the place from where we left.
4 Maybe they didn't see us leave, because the emptying of the village lasted
5 only 30 minutes.
6 Q. All right. That assumption that they did not see you is probably
7 probable. Is it your claim that you did have paramilitaries in the
9 JUDGE MAY: Yes, he said that.
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right.
11 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. Who is this Mile person that you've mentioned as somebody I cannot
13 make out? Who is this person? What's his role? Who is this man anyway,
14 this man you've been calling Mile? In all these events, that is.
15 A. Mile and Musa were two rabid Chetniks and I know that they were
16 their names. This is all I know. But I also know our neighbour Milan
17 Rudovic was always seen in their headquarters. He was in uniform and kept
18 going to the headquarters of the Chetniks. And he may know better who
19 Mile and Musa were. We couldn't know more than that, than the pseudonyms
20 they used.
21 Q. And who knows better who Mile and Musa were? I did not quite
22 understand what you've been saying.
23 A. The person who may give you better information is my neighbour
24 Milan Rudovic, who was wearing uniform, Serb uniform, and who used to stay
25 with them all the time at their headquarters.
1 Q. Did you believe these claims? Did you believe that they wanted to
2 use you as a human shield?
3 A. When we saw what people they were and how they were behaving with
4 us, we believed everything they said, everything bad that they said, with
5 the exception of anything good.
6 Q. But according to what you said, nobody stopped you, nobody
7 directed you in a certain way, nobody made you go in a certain direction.
8 So is that correct?
9 JUDGE MAY: It's right. Just say yes.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Please, I need to explain. I just
11 can't say no or yes.
12 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Bucaliu, we've heard your evidence on the point.
13 It's right, isn't it - you haven't said otherwise - that nobody directed
14 you to go to a particular place when you left the village?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Unfortunately, nobody told us where
16 to go, but they threatened us at --
17 JUDGE MAY: No. We'll get on more quickly if you just answer the
18 questions shortly.
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we go on?
20 JUDGE MAY: Yes.
21 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
22 Q. You worked in Slovenia as a signalman, and you came to Urosevac in
23 the late 1970s, and then you continued to work as a signalman; is that
25 A. Yes. I did my school in Slovenia and worked there for one and a
1 half years. Then in 1982, I started to work in Ferizaj train station.
2 Q. In 1987, you caused an incident when you let a fast train go by
3 and it hit a freight train. There were many injured persons, and you were
4 suspended from work for six months. And then instead of being dismissed
5 altogether, you were returned to work but you got a job as a cashier in
6 the commodities department, and you remained in that position before the
7 war and during the war; is that correct?
8 A. Yes. It's correct that there was an accident in 1987. There were
9 accidents, but this happens everywhere. It's nothing extraordinary that
10 happened. I went even to -- I was taken to police stations and taken to a
11 detention cell, but after that, I was never punished. And that is true
12 that I continued my work for a time as inspector of goods or commodities
13 as then as a cashier.
14 Q. And you stayed there all the way up to April or, as it says here,
15 May 1999?
16 A. I worked there until 24th -- sorry, until -- yes, on the 24th of
17 March in my workplace, but in the station, I reported until the 14th of
19 Q. And do you know the names of Mahmut Shabani, Muhail Rexhepi, Medi
20 Hoxha [phoen], and Yseni Ysen who worked with you?
21 A. Yes. They were my colleagues. I know them.
22 Q. Precisely at that time these four men reported to Ilic, the
23 trainmaster, and informed him that they had orders from the KLA to go,
24 with the explanation that they would return earlier in that way. However,
25 as opposed to them, I here have a note that you did not report to the
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 trainmaster as they did.
2 JUDGE MAY: There are two questions there, two questions there.
3 Do you know about the four men it's alleged having orders from the
4 KLA to go?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is ridiculous, distinguished
6 Honours. I can't say anything to testify that -- to that because it is
7 equally true in their case, like it was in my case. That is, we were
8 ordered not to work any more there. It's not true at all what the accused
9 is alleging here.
10 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. So it is your claim that you did not get orders from the KLA to
12 leave the workplace?
13 A. No. There wasn't any KLA in that part where I lived, and I've had
14 never any contacts then with KLA, and I never got any orders from them.
15 Q. All right. And do you know Ramadan Muharemi who worked there as
17 A. Yes. He was also another colleague.
18 Q. He also reported to the trainmaster, and he said that due to KLA
19 pressure, he had to leave. He had to sell his house in the centre of
20 Urosevac and to move, because he was not an Albanian, he was a Roma. He
21 did that indeed, and he moved to Subotica where he's been living until the
22 present day, and he can confirm this. Do you know about that?
23 JUDGE MAY: What is the question? Do you know anything about
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I know Ramadan Muharemi. He was a
1 cleaner in our station and he then worked there. He was in Ferizaj after
2 the war for a long time. Then he why left his house -- it was three or
3 four months after the war. He stayed in the Ferizaj station for only
4 three or four months. I don't know where he is now. If he said that he
5 has left the village for this reason that you are claiming, I don't know
6 about that.
7 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. Is it correct that you held meetings at the warehouse of the train
9 station, and when salaries were handed out, you collected money for the
10 KLA? Yes or no.
11 A. No, that's not true.
12 Q. And is it correct that you were involved in smuggling foreign
13 exchange, and that is to say, to and from Slovenia, relying on your old
15 A. That's not true either. The accused is trying to catch at a straw
16 because he's seeing that he's drowning. So he is saying things here which
17 I don't think matters for this Court either.
18 JUDGE MAY: Now, Mr. Bucaliu, it's for us to decide what matters.
19 Yes, Mr. Milosevic.
20 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. Do you know a person by the name of Ymer Neziri?
22 A. Ymer Neziri, yes. He's my neighbour.
23 Q. Together with Ymer Neziri, you participated in the demonstrations
24 of 1981.
25 JUDGE MAY: No. We've been back to 1981 before. We're going to
1 move on.
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'm not dealing with 1981 in
3 relation to the demonstrations. I want to ask him whether he remembers
4 that together they were breaking windowpanes on the department store
5 called Napredak. That is the department store from Djakovica and
6 Urosevac. And they also took goods from that store, and there is a
7 document to prove that.
8 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. Do you recall that?
10 JUDGE MAY: You are making a series of allegations against this
11 witness which you will have to produce some evidence to support. At the
12 moment, they are pure allegation.
13 We will allow the witness to answer this one and shortly.
14 It's alleged that you were breaking windows in a demonstration in
15 1981. Were you?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I said that at that time I was in
17 Slovenia, in the school. You can say what you want.
18 JUDGE MAY: Yes. That's the answer. He was Slovenia at the
19 time. Now, let's move on to something more recent and more relevant to
20 the indictment.
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Everything is related to the
22 indictment, everything that has to do with the witness, and the validity
23 of his statements, the reliability and authenticity of them.
24 JUDGE MAY: I'm not sure we're going to be helped, even if he was
25 breaking windows in 1981, in deciding whether he's telling the truth about
1 events in 1999.
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'm talking about credibility,
4 JUDGE MAY: Yes, I'm talking about credibility too. It's a
5 question what is relevant to credibility.
6 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
7 Q. All right. The first cousin of witness Bajram Bucaliu, who is
8 also called Bajram, do you remember when he was caught in 1987 at the
9 Bulgarian border and 300 kilogrammes of drugs were found in his van?
10 JUDGE MAY: What is the relevance of what his cousin was doing,
11 even if his cousin was doing it? It's totally irrelevant.
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It is a well-known fact that the
13 entire family was involved in smuggling tobacco, weapons, and drugs.
14 JUDGE MAY: Very well. You can put that to him.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] These are genuine lies. That's not
16 true at all, that my entire family, or even members of it, were ever
17 engaged in illicit activities or trade.
18 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
19 Q. Is it correct that your father was in prison in Nis because of
21 JUDGE MAY: No. I think this is enough. Attempts to smear
22 witnesses do not help the Court. They don't help anybody. If you've got
23 an allegation to make involving the witness's credibility, then you can
24 put it, as you have done, but to start attacking his own family is not
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I was just asking questions which
2 relate exclusively to the facts and not to any kind of value judgement,
3 but let's move on from that topic to another area.
4 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
5 Q. As the witness explained the reasons which, according to him, were
6 the reason for the departure of citizens from his village to Macedonia, I
7 have the following question: In the neighbouring villages, that is to
8 say, in that area, the neighbouring villages of Talin -- Talinovac
9 [phoen], Nekodim, the village of Varos, Tankosic, Gadnje, Trebno, Plesina,
10 Mirosavlje -- I have been asked by the interpreters to speak more slowly.
11 So the villages of Talinovac [phoen], Nekodim, Varos, Tankosic, Gadnje
12 Trebno, Plesina, Mirosavlje, all of mixed composition, and the village of
13 Rajovica, where the inhabitants are purely Albanian, the inhabitants,
14 throughout the time, remained in their villages; is that true? Is it true
15 that the villagers in all these surrounding villages did not move but
16 stayed in their villages throughout? Is that right?
17 A. I don't know about all these villages you enumerated. I knew
18 about the neighbouring villages which were all emptied of people. I said
19 Kamoja [phoen], Sore [phoen], Bibaj, and Varosh. These four villages,
20 they were evicted from Albanians [sic].
21 Q. NATO bombed a large storehouse area belonging to your cousin,
22 where your father and brother were employed; is that correct or not?
23 A. NATO had struck that object after we had left the village, because
24 in that place, military forces were deployed, which were there even when
25 we were there, but the bombing came after we left the village. And not
1 only that facility was bombed, but all other facilities. Two tanks were
2 burned and a truck was burned from this bombing.
3 Q. Do you know why a warrant was issued for [indiscernible] Bucaliu,
4 your first cousin?
5 A. I am Bajram Bucaliu. I don't know what was issued. I don't
6 understand that.
7 Q. Have you got a first cousin whose name is Brahim Bucaliu, that is
8 to say, your uncle's son on your father's side?
9 A. Yes, I have a cousin called Brahim, and there's another one called
10 Brahim too.
11 Q. I'm referring to the person who has a house between the railway
12 station and bus station. Have you been able to identify him now?
13 A. Yes, I can identify him, yes.
14 Q. Do you know why a warrant was issued?
15 JUDGE MAY: Do you know -- first of all, do you know if a warrant
16 was issued?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know anything about a
18 warrant. How could I know anything about that? I don't know anything
19 about that, no.
20 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. All right. I won't pursue this and go on with my questions
22 relating to that.
23 Does your family own a gas station on the Urosevac-Pristina road?
24 A. Yes. Not my direct family, but my relatives or cousins do have a
25 gas station. Two cousins, in fact.
1 Q. And do you work at that gas station yourself?
2 A. Yes, I work there now at the gas station.
3 Q. Is that a gas station that was built by your cousin Nazmija
5 A. Yes. Muhamet, his son. It's his son, Muhamet, who built the gas
7 Q. Was the gas station built on the property of a Serb called Milivoj
8 Injic [phoen], on his land?
9 A. That's not true. He built it on his own property, on property
10 that he had bought with his own money.
11 Q. Do you remember the bombing when Bajram Reka's house was hit? And
12 otherwise, next to the house of Bajram Reka, you have a field that you
13 own, so I assume that you know about that.
14 A. Around the house of Bajram, there's no land, but I know that the
15 house of Bajram Reka was used as a centre for the Chetniks. Bajram Reka
16 and all his family and all the neighbours were thrown out of their
17 houses. And it was there that the Chetnik staff had their centre. Tanks
18 didn't destroy the house. They were near the building, but the house
19 itself was not. It was the tanks which were burned. The house itself was
20 not touched. And a truck was destroyed from the bombing.
21 Q. And do you know whether anybody fell victim to the bombing? Were
22 there any casualties?
23 A. I don't know about that. No Albanians, at least, from our
24 village. As to the forces, the military forces, I don't know. I couldn't
25 tell you.
1 Q. You claim that none of the Albanians at the time were either
2 wounded or injured or killed, that there were no casualties. Is that what
3 you're saying?
4 A. That's true. We weren't there -- the houses weren't bombed. That
5 happened after we left. Everything took place after we left.
6 Q. All right. But when you returned, do you know that all the Serb
7 houses were set fire to except the house belonging to Dragutin Veljkovic
9 A. Yes, they were burnt. They were all burnt down, both Serb and
10 Albanian houses, yes.
11 Q. Did you go, just before the aggression, to the village of Biba at
12 Osman [phoen] and Nabi Biba [phoen] to attend meetings there?
13 A. I don't know what time you're talking about, but I was an activist
14 of the LDK, and it's possible that I was there.
15 Q. And the meetings that you held, were they in connection with the
16 KLA activities?
17 A. No. We had nothing to do with the KLA. We didn't even know
18 anything about the KLA at the time, and we had nothing to do with their
19 activity, with such activities.
20 Q. All right. Let's go back to the end of your statement, what you
21 said at the end, and your departure for Macedonia. Is it true that in the
22 meantime you went back from Macedonia, back to Urosevac, for short
23 periods, at certain intervals, before you finally went back after the war?
24 A. Well, the first day we tried -- on the 15th of April, we tried to
25 cross the border, but we couldn't. When we tried to get to Macedonia on
1 train and were returned to Ferizaj, that's the only time. That's not true
2 what you're saying.
3 Q. I'm asking you: Did you go back now and again? I don't claim
4 that you did; I'm asking you.
5 A. No, that's not true. I didn't return. I was in Stankovec for
6 about a month, which the accused said didn't exist, but I was there.
7 JUDGE MAY: Deal with it shortly, if you would. The answer is you
8 didn't go back.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I didn't, because --
10 JUDGE MAY: It doesn't matter about the reason.
11 Yes, Mr. Milosevic.
12 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
13 Q. Did anybody take away your documents when you went to Macedonia?
14 A. No, they didn't take away our documents.
15 Q. Did anybody direct you to go to Macedonia, tell you to go?
16 A. They didn't tell us to go, but we went to Macedonia. We were
17 accompanied by the police, by the police and the army. They didn't say to
18 go to Macedonia, but they accompanied us, escorted us to the border.
19 Q. I understood that they drew your attention to the fact that you
20 shouldn't leave the railway line because it was -- that you shouldn't go
21 along the railway line because it was mined and somebody might be killed.
22 Not to go outside the lines.
23 A. Yes, that's what they said. We were afraid. That's what they
24 said, at any rate. I don't know if it was true. So we kept on the rail
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 Q. Well, it was undoubtedly true. But do you consider that they
2 helped you in that way or that they were doing something evil towards you
3 by telling you not to leave the railway tracks and not to lose your lives
4 by doing so?
5 A. I don't know what they were thinking, whether they were trying to
6 save our lives or not. I told you what happened.
7 Q. Well, I'm asking you how you -- what your understanding was of
8 this gesture on their part. How did you understand it?
9 A. I don't know what I understood. They just said, "Keep on the
10 train tracks." And I know they said that. What they thought, what their
11 reason was, I don't know. We didn't think about that.
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have no more questions.
13 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Tapuskovic.
14 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. As
15 Slobodan Milosevic today brought up the statements himself and presented
16 them to Witness Bucaliu, it will be easier for me to focus on matters
17 which he did not touch upon when asking the witness questions. So let me
18 start off with the list, the list that was brought in and presented as an
20 Questioned by Mr. Tapuskovic:
21 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Bucaliu, on the 24th of March, it says that
22 you were not working, as you said. Is that correct?
23 A. On the 24th of March, I was working.
24 Q. That's why I'm asking you. So on the 24th of March, you were
25 still working. Now, on this list, do you see that half the column has not
1 been filled in and that on that day particularly not half the trains
2 passed by. At least, there were half as many trains as there were the
3 previous day, because four, six, seven trains passed by on that particular
4 day, whereas the previous day many more trains passed by. How do you
5 explain that?
6 A. On the 24th, trains were moving, but on the 25th, there were no
8 Q. How do you explain that, that after the bombing started, the NATO
9 bombing started, not only did the number of trains not increase, not only
10 was there more in circulation, but on the 24th and 25th of March, on one
11 day there were no trains at all, and on the 24th of March there were half
12 as many trains as usual. How do you explain that? And you said that the
13 number of trains increased.
14 A. It's possible the 24th, 25th, up to the 29th, it's possible that
15 there were no trains. But from the 29th on, there are no -- lots of
17 Q. As far as I can see here, and I'm looking at it, I have the 29th
18 in front of me and that's where I'll end, the 29th, and then it goes on to
19 the 1st of April, there were trains, and you said, depending on what the
20 last figure was, whether it was an odd number or an even number, that that
21 meant that the train was moving in one direction or in another direction.
22 Now, when the last digit is 0, what does that mean?
23 A. The 0 is an even number. It's an even number.
24 Q. Now, if you look at the list dated the 29th of March or any other
25 after that date, you will see at that there are about seven, seven trains
1 moving in one direction and seven trains moving in another direction. So
2 the number of trains was equal going to Macedonia and from Macedonia.
3 A. But that's normal. Every train that goes to Macedonia has to
4 return. They can't all stay in Macedonia.
5 Q. All I'm saying is that there were no upsets in the timetable, that
6 everything took place regularly, that trains moved regularly in both
7 directions, as stipulated in the timetable. Is that correct?
8 JUDGE MAY: So we can understand it, this is -- just a moment.
9 So you're putting that up until the 29th of March or on the 29th
10 of March, the timetable was working normally.
11 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] And onwards. It was working
12 normally afterwards too. Trains moved in a regular fashion after that
13 date, going to and from.
14 JUDGE MAY: The witness's evidence was there were more trains on
15 the 3rd of April. That's the date that he dealt with in his evidence.
16 What is suggested is that you're wrong about that and there
17 were -- the trains were running normally. What is your answer to that
19 Less the witness answer.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can only tell you that the trains
21 up to -- the trains were running regularly. They were going in both
22 directions. And after the beginning of the bombings, there were more
23 trains, and they were exceptional trains running an exceptional -- an
24 exceptional schedule. There were also regular trains, normal trains, but
25 most of them then were irregular trains. That's what I said yesterday. I
1 said there were regular and non-regular trains.
2 JUDGE KWON: Just a second. Because you are looking at the date
3 of 29th of March, I don't see any trains in this log between 25th of March
4 to 28th of March. Am I right? Could you check up this matter?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, you're right. There were no
6 trains from the 25th to the 28th.
7 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
8 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] That's what I wanted. I wanted
9 to reach the 3rd of April, in fact, and I have it here in my hand.
10 Q. If 0 is an even number, as you yourself say, then seven trains
11 left in one direction towards Macedonia and seven trains returned from
12 Macedonia on that day in April. That's what I wanted to hear. I wanted
13 to hear the witness's explanation of that. Nothing changed.
14 A. No, it changed. I said on the 3rd of April, I told you how they
15 passed through -- how the trains passed through Ferizaj. They didn't stop
16 there except for the train 37897, which stopped in Ferizaj, and the other
17 train that returned from Elez Hani. Aside from that, all the other trains
18 just passed through Ferizaj.
19 Q. No. My question wasn't that. Yes, I know. You explained that.
20 You explained that. All I'm doing is noting that you said that nothing
21 changed. There were no irregular trains. Seven regular trains went in
22 one direction, and according to the timetable, they returned from the
23 opposite direction as the timetable states.
24 JUDGE MAY: His whole evidence is that the trains were irregular.
25 That's the whole point of his evidence.
1 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] That's why I'm asking, Mr. May --
2 Judge May. That's what I'm asking, because --
3 JUDGE MAY: Why are you challenging it? What is the basis of your
4 challenge to this evidence which he's given?
5 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I'm not challenging it. All I'm
6 doing is saying that I think the documents show that for the most part
7 everything ran regularly, that a certain number of trains run in one
8 direction, a certain number of trains ran in the opposite direction.
9 JUDGE MAY: [Previous translation continues]... more quickly.
10 We'll ask the witness.
11 Were the trains running regularly that day or not, according to
12 the document which you have in front of you?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If we're talking about this date --
14 there's a lot of dates, but let's take this one here. According to the
15 list, there is no regular train. They are all irregular trains.
16 According to the numbers we have here, you can see that they are irregular
18 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. I won't pursue the
19 matter. I think there is a logic that has to be applied, but I'll leave
20 it to the Trial Chamber to assess.
21 Q. What I wanted to ask in connection with everything that was said
22 here with respect to the events at the railway station, I won't go back to
23 the language problem, the language issues, but in your previous statement,
24 that is to say, in your statement dated the 16th of -- no, the 29th of
25 August, 2001, you said that the money fines were prescribed generally
1 because for the train tickets, the name of "Urosevac," the place, was
2 written in the Albanian language, "Ferizaj," as the ultimate destination;
3 is that right?
4 A. I said there were times when it was -- it was questioned why was
5 it written "Han i Elezit" on the ticket. A friend of mine was punished
6 for that because he wrote it "Han i Elezit."
7 Q. I wanted to ask you something else in fact. You work at the
8 railways, in the railways, and you've been working there for many years.
9 You know the problems that existed. When you leave Kosovo, it's not a
10 large, a great distance. When you leave Kosovo -- the Albanians travelled
11 a great deal. They went to Bosnia and Montenegro, passed through Serbia
12 on their way to third countries, and they used that main road a lot
13 through Croatia. And you know that very often there were problems on the
14 railway lines, at railway stations, that when you write "Ferizaj" most
15 people, not in Kosovo but further on in Yugoslavia, which existed until
16 1990, that there were problems because they couldn't tell where the people
17 had -- where the point of departure was for these passengers, that they
18 were even asked to leave the trains because of that. Is that true? Did
19 you know about that problem?
20 A. I don't know anything about that. There may have been certain
21 problems. I think the inhabitants of Yugoslavia itself didn't have any
22 problems whereas people abroad, from abroad, might have had a problem with
24 Q. Let me now go on to the statement. Slobodan Milosevic has focused
25 on the statement. But I should just like the witness to explain one
1 point. He said on the 2nd of April, when the army arrived, when the army
2 came to your village, Witness, and you explained that there was an
3 officer, that you had a conversation with him, but in your statement, you
4 told the investigators that, "The officer had said that they were the
5 regular army and that we should not flee." Was that it? Is that what he
6 told you, that you shouldn't flee because they were the regular army? Is
7 that what he said to you and is that what you've said in the statement?
8 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Tapuskovic, so that we can follow your
9 examination, will you tell us where this is; which statement and where we
10 can find it.
11 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] The statement is dated the 24th
12 and 25th of April. It is his first statement given in 1999. And on page
13 1, paragraph 4 is what I'm referring to. In the English version, the one
14 you have, that is --
15 JUDGE MAY: Yes, we have it.
16 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. Is that correct, that he said, "We are the regular army, and you
18 needn't flee"?
19 A. Yes, that's true. That's what he said. But later, we found out
20 that that was not the case at all. He did say that. He said, "There's no
21 reason to leave. We are the army. Don't be afraid of us." That's what
22 he said.
23 Q. But you also said over the past two days that you left but that
24 nobody told you to leave, that nobody demanded that you leave.
25 A. Yes. We stayed in the village for several days after that.
1 Q. And then you decided to leave the village?
2 A. Yes, on the 14th of April.
3 Q. Thank you. Now we come to your second statement, dated the 16th
4 of June, and the English version -- in the English version, it is on page
5 4. Page 4. And the date is the 15th of April, the date that is
6 mentioned. And you say, "That first morning, the 15th of April, 1999,
7 once again at the railway station I saw the police." Is that right? Is
8 that what you said? Is that right?
9 A. Yes, that's right.
10 Q. Next you go on to say, "They were looking at what was going on and
11 tried to introduce a certain amount of law and order." Is that what you
13 A. I didn't think they were -- say that they were trying to introduce
14 law and order. I didn't see anything particular. I was just there.
15 Q. That's what it says in your statement.
16 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters apologise, but they haven't got
17 a copy of the statement.
18 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]
19 Q. All right, but what is important is the following. You say:
20 "At the station, there were about ten policemen. I didn't notice
21 whether they were preventing people or directing people in which direction
22 to go."
23 Is that correct?
24 A. They didn't tell anyone where to go. They -- people were
25 leaving. It didn't matter where they went.
1 Q. Thank you. Two paragraphs lower down -- so they didn't address
2 you in any way or make any suggestions to you, did they?
3 A. Not at the station in Ferizaj, no.
4 Q. Thank you. Now, two paragraphs further down, you state the
5 following --
6 JUDGE MAY: I'm going to interrupt you. It's now a minute past
7 11.00. Are you going to be many minutes longer?
8 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Two more minutes. Two more
10 JUDGE MAY: Very well.
11 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. Two paragraphs lower down, you state the following: Vule, you
13 mentioned Vule. Who is Vule?
14 A. Vule was the station head at Han i Elezit.
15 Q. In your statement, you said: "Vule offered to see my family and
16 myself off to the border, to escort me, together with the policemen, but I
17 didn't take up his offer." So he offered to transfer -- transport you and
18 your family, but you didn't accept the offer because it wouldn't have been
19 honourable for you to leave your fellow villagers; is that right?
20 A. Yes, that's true, because the station head at Elez Han, after the
21 first day when we couldn't get across the border into Macedonia, offered
22 to help me and my family, but because I was with all the other people who
23 were in the train, I didn't want to accept the offer to cross the border
24 just with my family. And then the next day, we tried and got across.
25 Q. Thank you.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Judge May, with the Court's
2 indulgence, I wanted to clear up one more matter, and it is to be found on
3 paragraph 3 of the second statement, on page 1. After the break, may I be
4 allowed to clarify one more point, after the break, in that second
5 statement of his?
6 JUDGE MAY: Yes. We'll adjourn now for half an hour.
7 --- Recess taken at 11.05 a.m.
8 --- On resuming at 11.35 a.m.
9 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Tapuskovic.
10 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I just want to draw
11 your attention to the third paragraph in the second statement, please.
12 Q. Mr. Bajram, earlier on you said that all the way up to 1998, you
13 did not support the KLA.
14 A. Yes, that's right, because at the beginning the KLA was something
15 which I knew nothing about, so how could I respect it?
16 Q. Also you said then:
17 "I thought I could not do anything against Serbia, and I knew
18 that it would be hard to achieve anything without some help from outside
19 the country."
20 A. Yes, this is what I thought then, because having to deal with such
21 a major military force like Serbia was, I would normally think that we
22 would suffer great consequences.
23 Q. You said that, "When the bombing started, I changed my position."
24 What did you mean by that?
25 A. It may coincide with the bombing, but when I saw what one
1 man -- one human being can do to another human being, from what I saw
2 happen in my village, it was but normal and clear to all of us that if
3 you -- that if we sat cross-legged, we would be killed just the same.
4 Then I had to change my mind.
5 Q. Before I put another question to you, let me ask you the
6 following: Once, as you said, you helped a KLA soldier when the unit
7 withdrew due to the presence of strong Serbian forces. In which way did
8 you help him?
9 A. Yes. There was a great offensive of the Serb forces against the
10 KLA positions in the Sharre Mountains, and the KLA had withdrawn. In so
11 doing, the son of a colleague of mine happened to be left behind in the
12 village, and my colleague asked me to help him, to transfer him from -- to
13 take him to another place.
14 Q. How big was this unit that was retreating? How many men were
15 there in that unit?
16 A. I have no information about their number. I can't tell you.
17 Q. All right. Do you know whether before the bombing and after the
18 bombing there were clashes between the KLA and the army and the police of
20 A. I know about that after I read in the information media. Yes,
21 there were clashes.
22 Q. I'm just asking you the following. That's why I've been asking
23 you all these other questions. Due to these clashes between the KLA - I
24 mean before the bombing and after the bombing - did that lead to the
25 withdrawal of the population, either Serb or Albania, from these areas
1 where the fighting was taking place?
2 A. That is not true. It's not that it was because of the NATO
3 bombing that we left the village, either we Albanians or Serbs. The
4 Albanians left because of the tragedy perpetrated against them by the
5 Serbs, while the Serbs stayed there and didn't leave. I can testify to
6 this in several ways.
7 I may tell you -- I may cite only an example when I was in town
8 and the alarm went off about -- for the NATO airstrike, and I could see
9 the Albanians, that none of them left the town because they thought that
10 NATO doesn't shoot at the civilians, doesn't strike at the civilians, and
11 that was the case, while the Serbs left. They tried to find shelter in
12 cellars, in other secure places.
13 Q. You said in your statement here - I don't want to show it to you
14 yet again - that you and all your people gathered together during the
15 bombing in one house. While the bombing lasted, that is.
16 A. Yes. We got together in a house. Not because of the bombing but
17 because we felt safer in the face of the Chetnik forces who were in the
18 village. Because if it were for the bombing, there were no place we could
19 go because there wasn't any shelter for us. But the fact is that we felt
20 so secure, so safe that only the fact that when bombing started on the
21 24th of March it was a great joy for us because it was there that we saw
22 our salvation.
23 Q. There were power cuts often from the 24th onwards. That's the way
24 you had put it as well.
25 A. Yes. The power was cut at about 8.00 p.m. and came -- was
1 released in the morning.
2 Q. Let me ask you one more thing. Did this have anything to do with
3 the bombing?
4 A. I think that this was so to make it easier for the Chetnik
5 military forces to do what they intended in the night, to circulate freely
6 without being seen. And this is what happened, because the people, the
7 three people, were killed precisely when the power was cut, Emin Zeka and
8 his two sons.
9 Q. This happened every evening? The first five or six days, the way
10 you had put it.
11 A. During the time I was in the village, this is what happened. The
12 power was cut off every night.
13 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
14 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Any re-examination?
15 MS. ROMANO: Yes, Your Honour, two areas just.
16 Re-examined by Ms. Romano:
17 Q. Mr. Bucaliu, on cross-examination you were asked about the 2nd of
18 April when the army came to your village and they told you that they were
19 the regular army and that you should not flee. But you continued saying
20 that it changed after. What changed?
21 A. Yes. That situation changed because that army, which described
22 itself as a regular army, started to burn our homes, to raid and loot. So
23 the very army that told us not to be afraid started to do all these
24 things. So they didn't suit action to words.
25 Q. Mr. Bucaliu, did you see them burning the houses, and did you see
1 them looting?
2 A. Yes. I saw them burning the houses. As to the looting, I can
3 give my own example. They took away my car, my tractor, and so.
4 Q. Thank you. Also on cross-examination, you answered that you
5 decided to leave on the 14th of April. Did you want to leave?
6 A. I don't know if there is anyone in the world to wish to leave his
7 own property, home, everything at the mercy of such Chetniks and to leave
8 his home and his fatherland. If there is someone to think that, to leave
9 his home and go to an unknown destination, I don't think that this can
10 happen. But for us, it was important to save our lives. We didn't feel
11 any pains at leaving behind all our properties. The only concern for us
12 was to save our lives.
13 Q. So was there any particular moment or particular fact that made
14 you decide that you were leaving at that moment?
15 A. Yes. As I said during my testimony, apart from various acts of
16 maltreatment, looting and raiding, they started to kill people. That did
17 it, when we heard that people were starting to get killed. Then we
18 decided to leave, because we were afraid that the same thing might happen
19 to us. And this is shown by the people who were left behind, Fehmi Hoxha
20 and his wife, my first cousin, who we found only their remains, when we
21 returned, in their burned house.
22 Q. Mr. Bucaliu, that applies also to the other people that left with
23 you; do you know if that was the same -- they would have the same fear as
24 you had?
25 A. Yes. Yes. It was normal for all of them to feel the same thing.
1 When we start to hear that people began to be killed, nobody had anything
2 to say. It was chaos. It was confusion prevailing among all of us. We
3 didn't know where to go. It was quite spontaneous when we started to flee
4 the village on -- through the road that I always -- already explained to
6 Q. Thank you, Mr. Bucaliu.
7 MS. ROMANO: No more further questions.
8 Questioned by the Court:
9 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Bucaliu, so I can be clear about this
10 question of the regularity of the movement of the trains, I'd like the
11 usher to give you the logbook and for you to look at each day from the
12 24th of March until the 3rd of April. And I'd like you to comment on the
13 question of the movement of the trains on each day; how many trains there
14 were, whether the trains were full, matters of that kind which are
15 relevant to the question of the regularity of the movement of the trains.
16 So each day from the 24th of March.
17 A. As I said earlier --
18 JUDGE KWON: Could you please put the log on the ELMO, please.
19 JUDGE ROBINSON: Are you now looking at the 24th?
20 A. This is the 24th March.
21 JUDGE ROBINSON: How many trains were there that day?
22 A. On the 24th of March, there were seven trains running: three in
23 one direction, apparently four in the opposite direction.
24 JUDGE ROBINSON: And what is your evidence - remind me - as to the
25 average number of trains each day?
1 A. The average number was six: three in one direction, three in the
2 opposite. That was the regular schedule. Six trains over 24 hours.
3 JUDGE ROBINSON: So on the 24th, we had three and four. And were
4 the trains full, are you able to say, on the 24th?
5 A. On the 24th, I don't think they were full, because I was at work,
6 and the trains had only two carriages each and were not full. But after
7 the 24th of March --
8 JUDGE ROBINSON: The next day now, the 25th, and give us the same
9 information on the 25th.
10 A. On the 25th of March -- there are no notes until the 29th of
11 March. If I may continue from 29th onwards --
12 JUDGE ROBINSON: Until the 29th, there's no record in your logbook
13 of the movements of the trains?
14 A. No, there isn't any.
15 JUDGE ROBINSON: Why is that?
16 A. I can't be sure why that is, but probably the trains didn't run.
17 I can't remember precisely this particular time, but this is what can be
18 inferred from the log.
19 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you. Let's move to the 29th, then, the
20 next day when you have information. How many trains were there on the
22 A. On the 29th, there was only one train. It has come up to Ferizaj
23 station and has returned, from what I see in the log.
24 JUDGE ROBINSON: Any indication as to how many passengers were in
25 that train?
1 A. There isn't any indication as to the number of passengers.
2 JUDGE ROBINSON: Let's move to the 30th.
3 A. On the 30th, there were two trains, I see here. On the 31st,
4 there were more trains.
5 JUDGE ROBINSON: No. Just -- we haven't finished with the 30th.
6 Two trains in each direction or just one direction?
7 A. One in the direction of Ferizaj, one in the direction of Fushe
8 Kosove; opposite.
9 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. And the 31st?
10 A. On the 31st, there were eight trains; four in one direction and
11 four in the opposite direction.
12 JUDGE ROBINSON: And any indication as to the capacity, the number
13 of passengers?
14 A. No. Unfortunately, no, I don't see any records here about the
15 number of passengers. As you can see, there are records only about the
16 number of trains that passed through. As to the number of passengers,
17 this is taken down at the departure station.
18 JUDGE ROBINSON: Let's move to the 1st.
19 JUDGE KWON: Just a second. In terms of a capacity problem, I'd
20 like to clarify this matter. You testified that the reason the train did
21 not make a stop at Ferizaj station, you explained the reason as being due
22 to the fact that the train was full; is it right?
23 A. Yes, that is right. When I was there, I saw such trains passing
24 by and not stopping, and they were full of travellers.
25 JUDGE KWON: According to this log, not only the trains with odd
1 numbers, but those with even numbers didn't make a stop at Ferizaj
2 station. Does that mean that trains from the border were also full?
3 A. In very rare cases they have been full, as the case was with our
4 train when we returned back from the border to Ferizaj station. But in
5 other cases, the trains that went were full; when they returned, they were
7 JUDGE KWON: But also some empty trains did not make a stop at
8 Ferizaj station; am I right?
9 A. Yes. When they returned from Han i Elezit to Ferizaj, they were
10 empty. Sometimes they did not stop, from what I see in the log.
11 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
12 JUDGE ROBINSON: Let's continue. I think we were at the 1st of
13 March -- 1st of April, rather, 1st of April. How many trains were there
14 on the 1st of April?
15 A. On the 1st of April, there were seven trains.
16 JUDGE ROBINSON: Give us the breakdown as to the direction. How
17 many in the direction of the border, going to the border?
18 A. Four went to the border direction, three returned from Han i
20 JUDGE ROBINSON: And is there an indication as to the capacity?
21 A. No, there isn't any indication as to the capacity. Unfortunately,
22 no such records are ever kept.
23 JUDGE ROBINSON: 2nd of April.
24 A. On the 2nd of April, there were 13 trains.
25 JUDGE ROBINSON: And give us the breakdown as to the direction.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 A. Seven in the direction of Han i Elezit and six in the opposite
2 direction, from the border to Fushe Kosove.
3 JUDGE MAY: Now, can you tell by looking at the log whether these
4 were regular or irregular trains?
5 A. On the basis of the number of the trains I see here, all these
6 trains were irregular trains, I mean not normal trains, and from the log,
7 not regular -- not a single regular train has run. All have been
8 irregular trains.
9 JUDGE MAY: Did they stop at Ferizaj or not?
10 A. On the 2nd of April, only train with number 14395 [as interpreted]
11 stopped. It came to Ferizaj at 6.08 and left at 15 [as interpreted]. The
12 other trains didn't stop.
13 JUDGE MAY: And how can you tell that they didn't stop?
14 A. I can tell from this arrow that you see here, which shows that it
15 has only passed through the station. The train that stops, you see a mark
16 the time when it has arrived, how long it has stopped, and when it has
17 left the station. So this train 4935 [as interpreted] has come at 6.08
18 and has left at 7.15. And you can see the same with other trains have not
19 stopped at Ferizaj, and we come at another train here that has stopped,
20 and so on.
21 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Thank you.
22 JUDGE ROBINSON: And is the situation the same as to the capacity;
23 you are not able to say whether the trains were full on that day, the 2nd?
24 A. I didn't keep a diary for every day, but most of the time that I
25 was there, and I saw with my own eyes, the trains were full of people.
1 JUDGE ROBINSON: Okay. On the 3rd, the last day now, the 3rd of
2 April, how many trains were there?
3 A. On the 3rd of April, there were 16 trains.
4 JUDGE ROBINSON: How many in the direction of the border?
5 A. Seven towards the border.
6 JUDGE KWON: Isn't it 14? Could you count it again?
7 A. Yes, 14. You're right.
8 JUDGE ROBINSON: Did they stop at Ferizaj?
9 A. Only the train number 37897 stopped at Ferizaj, and the other one
10 from the border stopped at 1456, 1458. The other trains didn't stop at
11 Ferizaj at all. There, at the bottom, you can see trains stopping at
12 Ferizaj, et cetera.
13 JUDGE ROBINSON: Were they regular trains?
14 A. No, none of them were regular trains.
15 JUDGE MAY: Did the trains normally stop at Ferizaj?
16 A. The Ferizaj station is one of the largest stations, and all major
17 trains, all international trains, always stopped in Ferizaj. All
18 passengers trains stopped, because it's one of the biggest stations in
20 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Bucaliu, that concludes your evidence.
21 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] One thing was not done, Your
22 Honours. These two statements that were made by the witness to the
23 investigator, they did not receive a number.
24 JUDGE MAY: Yes. They will be exhibited.
25 THE REGISTRAR: Witness statement dated 24, 25 April 1999, will be
1 Prosecution Exhibit 64, and the next one Prosecution Exhibit 65.
2 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Now, what is it, Mr. Milosevic?
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I assume that I have the right to an
4 additional question with respect to what has been said so far after my
5 cross-examination, the re-examination. Do I have that right or not?
6 JUDGE MAY: No. No, you can't have another question. The only
7 question you could ask would arise from the questions which the Judges
8 ask. If you want to ask anything about the train timetable, you could.
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Only on the basis of what the Judges
10 asked; is that right?
11 JUDGE MAY: Yes, about the train timetable.
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] About what Judge Robinson asked.
13 JUDGE MAY: Yes, you can ask about.
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] We just heard the witness answer
15 that on the 25th, 26th 27th, 28th there were no trains and that on the
16 29th there was just one train which arrived at Urosevac and returned, went
18 That means that for practically five days there was no
19 communication and traffic towards Djeneral Jankovic. And then the next
20 five days are taken, of which the first two days was regular traffic and
21 in the following three days, it was doubled. Now, if we make an average
22 for the first five days in which there was no traffic and the next five
23 days in which traffic was increased, can we note there that, on an
24 average, there was a regular number of trains running over a period of ten
25 days. Because if there are no trains five days, then it is quite normal
1 that over the next five days, traffic is increased. Can we draw that
2 observation? Can we take note of that? That is my question. Is that
3 what we are able to conclude?
4 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, that is a comment. The witness has
5 given his evidence about the number of trains and you can address us on it
6 and on the average.
7 Now, Mr. Bucaliu, thank you for coming to the Tribunal to give
8 your evidence. You are free to go.
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have --
10 JUDGE MAY: No more questions. No, Mr. Tapuskovic. The witness
11 has been here long enough and answered enough questions.
12 Yes. You're free to go.
13 Let the original of that document be given to the Court.
14 The witness can go.
15 [The witness withdrew]
16 [Trial Chamber confers]
17 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Nice.
18 MR. NICE: Patrick Ball, please. The Chamber has his report. I
19 don't think it yet has his curriculum vitae. I'm not sure about that. It
20 has a supplement to his report, or an addendum.
21 Your Honour, I'm proposing to take the report shortly but to
22 explain it in terms that are comprehensible to non-experts, and I hope
23 that's an acceptable course.
24 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Judge May.
25 JUDGE MAY: There is a way to address a Court, Mr. Tapuskovic,
1 which you should bear in mind. Yes. Let the Senior --
2 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I apologise.
3 JUDGE MAY: Let the Senior Legal Officer come up.
4 [Trial Chamber and Senior Legal Officer confer]
5 JUDGE MAY: Yes.
6 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Judge, I was on my feet. I
7 didn't think you saw me on my feet.
8 Before Patrick Ball comes in, as the amicus curiae, we decided to
9 set forth certain matters in respect of that. So my I please have several
10 minutes during which I can set forward some of our positions with respect
11 to --
12 JUDGE MAY: Just keep the witness out for a moment, please.
14 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] What I want to say is the
15 following: We first of all have to clear up the status that the next
16 report entitled Killings and Refugee Flow in Kosovo, March to June 1999,
17 and it is dated the 3rd of January.
18 Patrick Ball has the status of an expert witness. Now, during
19 disclosure and all the addendums, the Prosecution refers to Rule 94 bis.
20 That means that it acts according to Rule 94 bis, and the report plus the
21 additions may be considered as expert evidence.
22 I agree with the President of the Chamber, presented two days ago,
23 that the report can be read and should be read by at least two members of
24 the amicus curiae. I read it on time. I have my assistant, and I have
25 become well-acquainted with the report when it was disclosed, since the
1 very beginning. However, that is not what I want to bring up here,
2 whether the amici have read the report or not or which language. But what
3 we're discussing here is the accused and his guaranteed minimum rights,
4 according to Article 21 of the Statute, and one of these rights is to
5 provide the accused enough time to prepare for his defence.
6 For the first time, the report of Mr. Ball, in the English
7 language, was served on the 18th of January, 2001, to both the accused and
8 the amicus curiae. This disclosure of the material and the report, with
9 some exceptions, was performed simultaneously. We took that. Then we
10 received another copy of that same report in English and became acquainted
11 with it. In its lists, the Prosecution, with respect to the order of
12 witnesses dated the 7th of February and the 8th of February, indicated to
13 us that the translation would be disclosed on the 18th of February 2002,
14 but it was disclosed three weeks late, exactly three weeks late.
15 The Rule is, Rule 94 bis and the amended Rule of the 20th of
16 December, 2001, when on the 6th of March when we were given an addition,
17 provides for the fact that expert witness reports should be disclosed
18 within a time limit prescribed by the Trial Chamber or by the Pre-Trial
20 This Trial Chamber, on the 11th of January, issued an order
21 confirming the oral orders given from the pre-Status Conference on the 9th
22 of January, and it was decision number 4 or order number 4 which states
23 the following, and I'm going to read it out word-for-word:
24 "Written statements by all witnesses who are to testify in person
25 must be disclosed to the accused in a language which he understands before
1 the beginning of trial. The witness whose report has not been disclosed
2 in this way can be called exclusively with permission by the trial --
3 pre-trial Chamber."
4 That is what the order states. After a request made by the
5 Prosecution after the 18th of January, the Trial Chamber changed its order
6 of the 11th of January. Therefore, after that, at the request of the
7 Prosecution on the 18th of January, the Chamber changed its order dated
8 the 11th of January, extended the time limit for disclosure, and in point
9 3 of that order, of the order of your Trial Chamber, it states that the
10 accused and the amicus curiae should make maximum time of the time
11 disposal and prepare for cross-examination of these witnesses, although
12 the Trial Chamber, at the trial, will take into consideration all demands
13 and requests for deferring cross-examination because of insufficient time
14 for preparation. That was your own decision.
15 And the report of expert Ball is very complex. It requires
16 knowledge of the material in hand and methodology.
17 As the amicus curiae and the obligations entrusted to us, I wanted
18 to draw your attention to these circumstances to ensure a fair trial for
19 the accused, and we therefore consider the Trial Chamber should assess
20 whether disclosure was conducted in keeping with the Rules and Regulations
21 and whether it is in keeping with the time limits prescribed.
22 If the Trial Chamber decides that disclosure in the language
23 understood by the accused was done within the stipulated time limit, we
24 are of the opinion that the position of the accused set out on the 11th of
25 March towards the end of the day at trial, when he said he didn't have
1 enough time to prepare for this expert witness, namely Mr. Patrick Ball,
2 that there was reason enough to defer cross-examination as you yourself
3 provided for in your order dated the 21st of January, 2002.
4 Thank you. And I apologise, Judge May, for the misunderstanding a
5 moment ago. I really was on my feet because I didn't think you had seen
6 me standing.
7 Those, then, are our reasons and our position. Thank you.
8 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Nice.
9 MR. NICE: The report was disclosed in accordance with the Rules
10 in English on several occasions. It was on 18th of January first, on the
11 6th of March second. I can deal with the addendums and appendices and
12 matters of that sort which have different dates. The B/C/S was forecast
13 as being available at an earlier date than in the event CLSS were able to
14 provide, but it was certainly provided at the first available
15 opportunity. The material has been available for the accused to read by
16 himself or his associates, and in our respectful submission, the evidence
17 should be taken not just in chief with deferred cross-examination but in
18 full now.
19 What I propose to do is to go through, as I've already suggested,
20 the report in a way that will make its concepts understandable by the lay
21 observer, reader, or listener, and it may be that any question of
22 deferment could be considered at the end of the examination-in-chief.
23 [Trial Chamber confers]
24 JUDGE MAY: We'll hear the evidence in chief.
25 MR. NICE: The witness can come in, please.
1 It may be the Chamber, before the contribution from
2 Mr. Tapuskovic, was checking on the documents it had before it, which is
3 the report itself, and then there's the addendum, which is a three-page
4 document, I think, and the curriculum vitae, which I think you don't
6 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Let the witness take the declaration.
7 WITNESS: PATRICK BALL
8 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the
9 whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
10 JUDGE MAY: Thank you. If you'd like to take a seat.
11 Examined by Mr. Nice:
12 Q. Full name, please.
13 A. My name is Patrick Ball.
14 MR. NICE: Your Honour, I propose, rather than going slavishly
15 through a curriculum vitae, with the Court's leave to produce as an
16 exhibit his curriculum vitae, simply to ask him a couple of questions
17 about his background, if that would be acceptable.
18 JUDGE MAY: Yes.
19 MR. NICE: Curriculum vitae, then.
20 THE REGISTRAR: Prosecution Exhibit 66.
21 MR. NICE:
22 Q. Dr. Ball, you, I think, have university degrees, ultimately a
23 Ph.D. in Sociology.
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Sociology, including matters of statistics?
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Have you, in the course of passing those various exams, which are
3 set out in the curriculum vitae, used statistics?
4 A. Yes, quite a bit.
5 Q. And for the last how many years have you been full-time engaged in
6 working as a statistician?
7 A. Full time since 1997, I think all of my work has been quantitative
8 and analytical. Quite a bit before that, but not full time.
9 Q. Have you, for some years, focused on human rights events and the
10 application of disciplines of sociology and, in particular, statistics, to
11 those events?
12 A. Yes, since 1991.
13 Q. And so if we look - and this comes on the fourth and fifth pages,
14 I think, of your curriculum vitae, fifth and sixth - working in reverse
15 order, have you worked on projects in Sri Lanka; Kosovo; Guatemala; South
16 Africa, for the Truth and Reconciliation Commission; Haiti; Guatemala
17 again; Ethiopia, two projects, I think; and El Salvador?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Dr. Ball, in the course of working for human rights events as a
20 statistician, did you develop something of a relationship with the
21 organisation Human Rights Watch?
22 A. Yes, I did.
23 Q. And did you find yourself lecturing them or addressing courses in
24 some way from time to time?
25 A. I give talks at Human Rights Watch offices in New York and
1 Washington, yes.
2 Q. And in the course of your lectures to them, did you focus on
3 something, perhaps a bit of an obsession or a bee in your bonnet?
4 A. I often spoke about the difficulty of understanding a massive
5 phenomenon with purely qualitative methods; that is, if the human rights
6 event being studied has more people involved than you can easily
7 interview, then perhaps statistical methods would assist an understanding
9 Q. And does that explain how you first became involved in the Kosovo
10 project --
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. -- at least for the preparation of this report?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Did Human Rights Watch get in touch with you in April of 1999?
15 A. First in March of 1999.
16 Q. March of 1999.
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Inviting you to do what and to go where?
19 A. They asked me to assist them in the field, perhaps to design my
20 own project, not a Human Rights Watch project, but they saw the need for a
21 project like the ones I had done in the other countries you had listed.
22 So they invited me to accompany them to Albania to design such a project.
23 Q. I'm going to remember, Dr. Ball, to leave a gap between your
24 answer and my question, because as we are speaking the same language,
25 there's the risk that we will overtax the interpreters otherwise.
1 A. Understood.
2 Q. Did you go to Kosovo, and in particular, to a border point in the
4 A. I went to Albania, actually, and --
5 Q. Sorry, yes, to Albania.
6 A. Yes. And then to a border point in northern Albania.
7 Q. Which is on the south-west of Kosovo?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. When there, did you notice something about the method or methods
10 of recording events that was going on?
11 A. Yes. There were two methods by which refugees were being counted
12 as they crossed the border from Kosovo into Albania.
13 Q. Two different methods, being what?
14 A. The first were registries prepared by the Albanian border guards.
15 They had developed a form on which they attempted to register the name, or
16 the surname, the year of birth, the place of residence or location, and
17 the quantity of each party or group that crossed the border from Kosovo
18 into Albania. That was the first method.
19 Q. The second?
20 A. The second were teams of observers from UNHCR and the OSCE, or
21 former OSCE mission in Kosovo, who maintained head counts with mechanical
22 hand-held counters that they reported to UNHCR, I believe in Kukes, the
23 Albanian town some distance from the border, a few kilometres, and then
24 those were recorded in daily press reports in Tirana.
25 Q. To a statistician, is there any significance or value in matters
1 being recorded not in one way but in two or more?
2 A. Yes. Having two measurements of the same thing is enormously
3 valuable because we can compare the two and determine how they might
4 differ, and then if they differ, which might be more important, reliable,
5 or sound.
6 Q. And I'll take the story comparatively swiftly and then get to the
7 report. Did you return to America to seek initial funding for a project
8 and did you obtain funding from, I think, the Ford Foundation?
9 A. Yes. I returned to America --
10 Q. If it's yes, yes will do.
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. I'll deal with how you obtained some of the records, in any event,
13 when you were back at the border crossing shortly, but I just want to
14 conclude the question of funding. Were there earlier publications by you
15 or by you and others in relation to the work you did, publicly available?
16 A. Earlier than the current report.
17 Q. Yes, earlier than this report.
18 A. Yes. There were two.
19 Q. Were they funded by the Ford Foundation or were they funded by the
20 second funder, to whom we'll turn?
21 A. The first report, entitled "Policy or Panic?" was published in
22 March of 2000 and was funded by the Ford Foundation and the John D. and
23 Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation and the Institute for Civil Society, all
24 American private foundations.
25 The second report, published in September of 2000, entitled
1 "Political Killings in Kosovo," was published with the American Bar
2 Association and Central and East European Law Initiative, and it was
3 funded by funds provided to ABA/CEELI by the US government.
4 Q. And is that the funding that leads to the report that's before
5 this Court --
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. -- today?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Did you make any presentations to the United States funders?
10 A. Yes, I did.
11 Q. One or more than one?
12 A. I made one presentation in July 2001.
13 Q. Did you have any further contact with the United States funders
14 other than that?
15 A. No.
16 Q. Let's go back, then, to your return to the border once you had
17 started the process of obtaining funding for the project, and you can deal
18 with this very shortly, I think. Did there come a time when it was not
19 possible to go with safety to the border point, where you believe records
20 to have been?
21 A. Yes. When I returned to the border in early June 1999, the border
22 post had been fired upon a few days previously. A journalist had been
23 seriously hurt and the border guards decided to withdraw several hundred
24 metres into Albania, to a point where they believed they would be safe.
25 Q. To cut this long story short, I think you believe the records to
1 be in the border post, or some of them.
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Eventually you went to the border post yourself.
4 A. Yes, I did, personally.
5 Q. With an accompanying guard. Did you find some records?
6 A. I did.
7 Q. Which type of records did you find? Did you find the first type
8 or the second type that resulted from the clickers?
9 A. I found the border guards' registry forms.
10 Q. And did you gather those up --
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. -- bring them back, and use them as part of your source material?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Before we now move to the report itself, at that early stage, was
15 there any divergence between the total numbers of people moving that you
16 can tell us about at that post?
17 A. Divergence --?
18 Q. In numbers, at that early stage.
19 A. After we had obtained the records and keyed them into a database,
20 we looked at the number of people reported each day crossing the border
21 and compared the numbers reported by UNHCR to the numbers reported by the
22 border guards.
23 Q. So this is right at the beginning, raw material?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Did the figures differ, and if so, what was each?
1 A. They differed on some days, and all of the days on which they
2 differed were days of very heavy flow over the border. And in every
3 difference, the registries by the border guards were fewer; they were
4 smaller numbers than the UNHCR figures.
5 Q. And the two different figures were?
6 A. The total figures that there were 272.000 people registered by the
7 border guards, and four hundred, four thousand [sic] people registered in
8 the UNHCR daily counts reported in their daily press reports.
9 Q. So the clickers reported more than the handwritten records?
10 A. That's correct.
11 MR. NICE: Your Honour, I'm going to ask that the report that has
12 already been made available should become an exhibit, and I'm proposing in
13 due course that we might use a version of the report which I've got here,
14 page by page laid on the overhead projector so that those listening and
15 watching can understand the points we're making. But first of all, may
16 the report become an exhibit, Exhibit 67.
17 JUDGE MAY: Yes.
18 MR. NICE: I'm afraid not every page is numbered, because the
19 first thing I want to look at, very briefly, is the Scholarly Review
20 Panel, which comes two pages after the last numbered page, page 69.
21 THE REGISTRAR: Prosecution Exhibit 67.
22 MR. NICE: And if the usher would be so good, what we can do with
23 our loose-leafed version is make available to the usher - it might be
24 easier that way - pages to which I'm referring, and then he can display
25 them. It's two pages after 69, the Scholarly Review Panel. If that could
1 just go on the ELMO, please, the overhead projector.
2 Q. You'll see that on the screen in front of you. Did you, in
3 accordance with -- well, you must tell us if it's in accordance with
4 practice. Did you submit drafts of the report that's been produced to a
5 scholarly review panel?
6 A. Yes, I did.
7 Q. Is that standard practice for reports of this general kind or not?
8 A. This is a bit more rigorous than reports submitted to non-expert
9 groups. Things that are published in professional journals are reviewed
10 according to a standard and formal process. Since we were submitting this
11 to the Office of the Prosecutor, we had to create a panel of reviewers who
12 could give this equally rigorous review.
13 Q. Did they review it on two occasions?
14 A. They did.
15 Q. At each review, did you receive advice as to further steps to be
16 taken, further elements to be introduced into the report?
17 A. That's correct, yes.
18 Q. And we see listed various names: Dr. Helge Brunborg, Dr. Ronald
19 Lee, and Dr. Francoise Seillier-Moiseiwitsch, the first three. Do any of
20 those occupy particularly senior positions in the world of statistics?
21 A. I consider that all three of them occupy senior positions.
22 Dr. Brunborg formerly worked for the Office of the Prosecutor here and is
23 very well regarded in international demography, in addition to his --
24 Q. Well, that's enough for these purposes. Dr. Ronald Lee?
25 A. Was formerly President of the Population Association of America,
1 the Professional Association of Demographers in the United States.
2 Q. And then Dr. Francoise Seillier-Moiseiwitsch?
3 A. She is the chair of the Human Rights Committee of the American
4 Statistical Association.
5 Q. Well, that's all I need to ask. Others can ask about other names
6 if necessary. Just this: At any stage in the review process, did you
7 either reject the advice you were given by the panel or did the panel ever
8 challenge your conclusions as unacceptable or in any doubt?
9 A. No.
10 Q. Is that no to both?
11 A. That's no to both. That's correct.
12 Q. Thank you. Now let's go to the report.
13 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice.
14 MR. NICE: Yes.
15 JUDGE ROBINSON: Earlier the witness said that since he was
16 submitting the report to the Office of the Prosecutor, I wanted to find
17 out whether the report was commissioned by the Office of the Prosecutor or
18 whether it was done independently and then submitted.
19 MR. NICE:
20 Q. Can you give us the history of that? You've already told us that
21 your earlier two reports or the two earlier reports with which you were
22 associated were published publicly. Just explain how it was that you were
23 involved with the Office of the Prosecutor.
24 A. After I completed each of the previous two reports, before they
25 were made public, I came to The Hague and gave brief presentations to
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 people here at the Tribunal, covering the basic findings of the report.
2 On that basis, I was asked by people in the Office of the Prosecutor if
3 this evidence would be sufficient to go -- to bring before the Court, and
4 I answered that, in order to bring it before the Court, it should be done
5 with additional data and in an even more rigorous fashion.
6 They assisted me, negotiating with the Organisation for Security
7 and Cooperation in Europe for a third source of information, and they
8 provided me, the Office of the Prosecutor provided me with a database of
9 exhumation records based on the fieldwork of the exhumation teams.
10 At no time did the Office of the Prosecutor suggest findings or
11 suggest what I should conclude. They did ask me to do this with the
12 highest scientific standards, and they emphasised the importance of that.
13 MR. NICE: We're going to see some of these matters reflected at
14 two places in the evidence in the course of the morning or the early
16 Q. Before we turn to looking at particular pages of the report and in
17 order to have exhibits in good order, can we produce one exhibit that's
18 outside the report, which is an example of the record you took from the
19 border crossing point, which I think was Morina, wasn't it?
20 A. Yes.
21 THE REGISTRAR: Prosecution Exhibit 68.
22 MR. NICE: Thank you. Which I think has a translation with it.
23 If the original can go onto the overhead projector. And the -- if the
24 original could go onto the overhead projector - thank you very much -
25 briefly so those viewing can see it. And then having been viewed, if the
1 original can go -- well, no. We can now look at the translation, putting
2 that on the overhead projector in English.
3 Q. Can you just tell us, please, Dr. Ball, what this particular page
5 A. This is one of the 690 pages that I recovered from the border post
6 at Morina.
7 Q. And it shows, in respect of individuals, their name, their address
8 - that is the address from which they had come - their year of birth, and
9 what does the last column help us with? Do you know?
10 A. That's the total number of people in their group that crossed the
11 border with them. Only the name of the head of household or head of the
12 party was registered.
13 Q. So that name number one from Suhareke, 27 people in that party, is
14 that what you're saying? It says "Tool type" I see on the translation,
15 but --
16 A. I don't think it's "Tool type." Yes, that's what it means.
17 Q. Thank you. I think it will be helpful if we go first of all to a
18 first graph which we can find on page 5 of the report, and then we'll come
19 back a few pages to fill in a few blanks, but let's go to page 5 first of
21 MR. NICE: We have both text and the graph, but I'd like the unit,
22 if it can, to focus on the graph, please. Thank you.
23 Q. This is one of many graphs that we're going to be looking at.
24 This is -- or several, not many. This is an "Estimated total refugee flow
25 over time," and in the vertical axis it's "People leaving their homes,"
1 and we can see the dates concerned moving along the bottom. Yes.
2 Now, this particular graph, was this a graph simply drawn from the
3 raw material that you were able to collect? We'll discover what sources
4 of raw material you had in due course, but yes or no, was this a graph
5 that was provided from raw material?
6 A. No.
7 Q. All right. What was it, then?
8 A. The raw material consisted of the border records we discussed
9 earlier, supplemented by the UNHCR reports and a number of other smaller
11 Q. Yes. Am I or am I not using the word "raw material" correctly?
12 You had other sources.
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. We'll identify them in due course. Having various sources of
15 material, you then read from the material whether someone's left their
16 home in the period 24th of March, 25th of March, 26th of March, and so
18 A. Uh-huh.
19 Q. You total up the figures from all sources, making such allowances
20 for duplication as you have to, and then you've got this particular
22 A. We also corrected for the time it takes people to travel to the
23 border --
24 Q. Yes.
25 A. -- from their homes.
1 Q. We'll come to all those details in a minute. Yes.
2 A. With that clarification, yes.
3 Q. Right. To a statistician and perhaps to anybody, is there a
4 characteristic in this particular graph?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Namely?
7 A. There seem to be three quite distinct phases or points at which
8 refugee flow is high. First, the flow rises to high points during late
9 March and early April. Then this declines to a relatively much lower
10 point. It rises again to a peak in mid-April, subsequently declining to a
11 low point in later April. Then toward the end of April and early May, it
12 rises in a series of small peaks, finally declining toward near zero for
13 the remainder of the period.
14 Q. So three peaks, as it were, and two troughs?
15 A. That's correct.
16 Q. We're going to see something similar in other graphs a little
17 later, but immediately what does that shape suggest when contrasted with,
18 for example, the possible assertion that there was a constant cause
19 causing people to become refugees in the way suggested by the line?
20 A. This pattern would not be characteristic of a constant cause. The
21 stop-and-start pattern of the peaks and troughs suggests more strongly a
22 cause that itself started and stopped.
23 Q. Well, again we'll break this down in due course into a little bit
24 more detail, but did you from some stage then in the project, once you
25 became aware of these peaks and troughs, consider three possibilities as
1 causes or possible causes for peaks and indeed troughs?
2 A. Having seen this graph and others with this characteristic pattern
3 of peaks and troughs, we concluded that there must be some cause.
4 Accordingly, we considered three possible causes that might account for
5 this peak and trough pattern.
6 Q. Namely?
7 A. Those were, first, that KLA activity, in particular clashes with
8 Serb forces, could be a cause; second, that NATO airstrikes might have
9 been a cause; and third, that Yugoslav force activity might have been a
11 Q. At the end of the exercise, when we reach your conclusions, in
12 general - just yes or no - is it possible to identify causes or is it more
13 the scope of the statistician in this sort of work to consider what causes
14 may be excluded?
15 A. The methods we used test hypotheses. Each of the three causes I
16 proposed, we treated as a hypothesis. The methods allow us to reject
17 hypotheses or to find that data are consistent with a hypothesis; however,
18 the matters do not allow us to prove a hypothesis.
19 Q. With that overview of what you found yourself engaged in and the
20 scope of the statistician's skill, range of his potential skill as applied
21 in this case, can we now go back, please, to page 3. There are one or two
22 things I wanted to clarify in the report, and it will be helpful to have
23 those pages on the overhead projector so that people can follow what I'm
24 asking about.
25 And "Data and analysis," paragraph 1.2, you set out, as we already
1 know, that you went to Morina, which is the one border point in the
2 south-west of Kosovo, north of Albania.
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Could one border point be sufficient? What's your comment on
6 A. This border point could be sufficient because, according to the
7 available data, I believe that more than half of all Kosovar Albanians who
8 left Kosovo did so through this point. In the report mentioned earlier
9 that looks specifically at refugee flow, we found that all the other
10 evidence available from other border points in Albania as well as the
11 border points in Macedonia and data from Bosnia, Kosovars who went to
12 Bosnia, suggest that their movement patterns and departure patterns were
13 substantially similar to the patterns found among refugees who entered
15 So, yes, I believe these data are sufficient for these
17 Q. The second bullet point of the same paragraph turns from the
18 material you had in respect of refugee flow to the data you had in respect
19 of killings, because as we're going to discover, you were looking at
20 simultaneously -- not simultaneously. In the course of your work, you
21 were looking both at refugee flow and at killings.
22 Set out there and just run through for us the sources of
23 information you had to tell you when, where, and whatever else you knew
24 about killings.
25 A. We learned about killings from interviews conducted by the
1 American Bar Association, Central and East European Law Initiative, and
2 their partners, interviews that they conducted, as well as interviews
3 conducted by Human Rights Watch and interviews conducted by the
4 Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe. We --
5 Q. So that - just pausing - are three, as it were, narrative
7 A. That's correct.
8 Q. Right. And then you had a fourth record or fourth source.
9 A. Yes. And those were the exhumation records of the exhumations
10 conducted by international teams on behalf of the Tribunal.
11 Q. So you did not have and therefore did not rely on witness
12 statements of the ICTY, OTP?
13 A. No, I did not.
14 Q. You did have records in relation to the bodies found and material
15 in relation to that?
16 A. That's right.
17 Q. Human Rights Watch -- I beg your pardon. OSCE's records are, of
18 course -- well, you better tell us if they are. Are those records that
19 are also reflected in the two OSCE reports, one on the suffering of the
20 Kosovar Albanians and one on the Serbs --
21 A. I believe so.
22 Q. -- the KLA?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And as we can see, in all, "The statistical analysis of killings
25 aggregates information from more than 15.000 interviews and exhumation
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. All right. Can we go now just to clarify one or two things on
4 page 4. At the bottom of page, I think, "Statistical analysis of refugee
6 We've already looked at the graph because I wanted to provide the
7 Court with an overview.
8 MR. NICE: The top of that paragraph. Well -- thank you very
9 much. That's -- no. Paragraph 3. Thank you. That's fine.
10 Q. You set out in this part of your report a description of the
11 departure of ethnic Albanians from Kosovo from late March to May of 1999,
12 saying that approximately 95 per cent of the Kosovo Albanian refugees who
13 did so entered between the 24th of March and the 19th of May. And there's
14 a reference. It says: "(Ball 2000, p.5)." Is that a reference to one of
15 the two earlier reports published publicly that you've already spoken
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Was the work of those reports, although you yourself judged them
19 not to be sufficient for presenting to Court in themselves, was the work
20 of those earlier reports incorporated in the report that you have
21 presented to this Court?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. The 95 per cent, is that an estimate?
24 A. Yes, it is.
25 Q. Is it one by which you stand?
1 A. Yes, it is.
2 Q. In what way? Just tell us about it.
3 A. I used the border records supplemented by the UNHCR records and
4 the much smaller head-count records done by the Albanian government's
5 emergency management group in May, and I divided the refugees who flowed
6 in during this period from those who flowed in either before or after,
7 according to those records, and calculated a simple proportion.
8 Q. Footnote 6 we may focus on. I think deal -- it says at the end of
9 it --
10 MR. NICE: That's it, thank you very much.
11 Q. Says this: "The three phases..." and we've already looked at the
12 diagram. We'll look at it once more in its first depiction. But it says
14 "The three phases reflect patterns of refugees departing their
15 homes, not the patterns of refugees crossing the border. On any given
16 day, slightly more than half of the refugees who crossed the border had
17 left their homes earlier that same day. However, the remaining refugees
18 crossing the border that day had been in transit for longer times. The
19 transit delay was accounted for in the analysis of the data."
20 Well, you've already dealt with that in general. How did you
21 calculate the transit delay for your statistical purposes?
22 A. I had three surveys that had been conducted in refugee camps and
23 other refugee housing locations in Albania and Macedonia during March
24 through June of 1999. In those surveys, refugees reported the sequence of
25 events that took them from their homes, their home departure, to the
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 camps. From that, I was able to calculate the transit time for refugees
2 and then look at that time for refugees who left different places and
3 different times and compare the process of transit in a statistical sense
4 over those different -- over refugees from different times -- different
5 places and who had left at different times.
6 Q. Now, if we go back to page 5 on which I have one supplementary
7 question and following which, with the Chamber's leave, I would seek a
8 one-minute private session to deal with the ordering of witnesses today
9 and tomorrow, looking at page 5 again, and just to remind us, the graph
10 at the top is the graph from the material that you had available on
11 refugee flow, adjusted for the time that people left their homes before
12 they reached the border; yes?
13 A. That's correct.
14 Q. If we can go down the page to the last paragraph, you say this in
15 the last sentence: "The mass exodus of Kosovar Albanians on this scale
16 and in this pattern could only have been driven by a common cause."
17 We've seen three peaks. Common cause or two or three different
18 causes? Can you help us?
19 A. By "common cause" here, my co-authors and I refer to the -- that
20 the refugees who departed would have had a cause common with respect to
21 each other. At this point, we, without additional data, I don't think we
22 could distinguish between whether there was one cause for all three peaks
23 or three different causes. Additional data would allow us to refine that.
24 Q. Or I suppose, indeed, two causes and one cause, or two causes,
1 A. Any combination, sure.
2 Q. Turning to page 6, on which I have a few questions --
3 MR. NICE: I don't know if that would be a convenient moment.
4 JUDGE MAY: If there's another matter you want to raise, we'll
5 adjourn now.
6 MR. NICE: Yes.
7 JUDGE MAY: Dr. Ball, you are giving evidence. Don't speak to
8 anybody about it during the adjournment or any other adjournments there
9 may be until it's over, and that does include members of the Prosecution
10 team. Could you be back, please, at half past 2.00.
11 Yes. We'll go into private session.
12 MR. NICE: Can Dr. Ball withdraw? It has nothing to do with him,
13 I hasten to say.
14 [The witness stands down]
15 [Private session]
12 Page 2164 – redacted – private session.
23 --- Luncheon recess taken at 1.05 p.m.
1 --- On resuming at 2.33 p.m.
2 [Open Session]
3 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Nice.
4 MR. NICE: Page 6 of the report. We'll be looking at all of
5 this. This has just been laid on the overhead projector, and I'd ask the
6 booth to focus on relevant parts as we require them. This is one of about
7 two or three parts of the report which need some explanation, for they
8 are, to a degree, technical.
9 Q. If we look at the body of the report first, at the end of the
10 first paragraph, we see a reference to 10.000 victims - thank you very
11 much - reported by name. This process identified 4.400 unique
12 individuals. In a couple of sentences, explain how 10.000 reduces to
14 A. Many of the people who were reported to the data-gathering
15 projects that I described earlier are reported by more than one witness,
16 so a particular individual may be reported two or three times. One
17 individual in particular, you'll remember, was reported 27 distinct times
18 to one of the four projects. So we removed the individual - I mean the
19 duplicate references - we identified them and removed them, and then we
20 identified the references which were in common among more than one
21 project. Someone may have been reported to the OSCE but also identified
22 in an exhumation. After all of those reductions are complete, we are left
23 with 4.400 unique individuals.
24 Q. Let's now go to the next paragraph, which begins in this way:
25 "Second, because the victims identified in the data sources were
1 not the only victims of killings, it was necessary to estimate the number
2 of undocumented victims to determine the overall estimate of total number
3 killed. This figure, 10.356 ..."
4 I pause there straight away. Ten thousand, three hundred and
5 fifty-six, the estimated number, is rather close to the 10.000 figure from
6 which the reduced figure was itself derived. Is there significance in the
7 similarity figures or is that entirely coincidental?
8 A. Entirely coincidental.
9 Q. So you're now going from your 4.400 reduced figure to calculate
10 another figure, and as you say in the paragraph, "generated by means of a
11 widely used demographic statistical technique known as multiple systems
12 estimation." In terms that the layperson can understand, please explain.
13 A. Multiple systems estimation uses the overlap among multiple
14 projects to determine how many people fall outside the documentation of
15 any of those projects. So, for example, there were 4.400 unique
16 individuals reported by name to one or more of the four projects. There
17 are some additional numbers of people who were not reported by name to any
18 project. Our effort is to estimate that.
19 Q. Now, because of the constraints of time and because this is a
20 technical matter, I am probably going to leave it there, although I know
21 there are illustrative diagrams you can draw to help us, and I may ask you
22 to come back to one of them. But am I right in suggesting this: Because
23 you had four sources of information - not just one, not just two, not just
24 three, but four - differently prepared, you're able to engage in this
25 multiple systems estimation to reach an approximate, an estimated global
2 A. Yes. The method can be done with only two systems. With the
3 addition of each additional system, we gain the ability to more deeply
4 test our assumptions. Four systems is a quite thorough test.
5 Q. Now, you, of course, proceeded in your report on the base of
6 10.356; is that correct?
7 A. Yes, it is.
8 Q. But it happens - and this is shown in the footnotes to this
9 page - it happens that you had available to you, and we can see it at
10 footnote 10, I think, some other independent studies that had been
11 prepared in entirely different ways; is that right?
12 A. That's correct, yes.
13 Q. And so do these operate not as part of your database but as a
14 check, if you like --
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. -- something to cause you to look again if they are wildly
17 different? In this case, if we look at the reports, PHR report of
18 ABA/AAAS, what figure did that reach by a different system?
19 A. The Physicians for Human Rights -- Human Rights report, cited as
20 "PHR," approximated 9.600 deaths.
21 Q. And then if we go to the other one, which was Spiegel and Salama?
22 A. Yes. They are epidemiologists at the Centre for Disease Control.
23 Q. What figure did they reach? Although I think they included a year
24 that you didn't include.
25 A. That's right. Their estimate includes 1998, which is excluded
1 from our analysis. They reached a figure of approximately 12.000.
2 Q. So more than you, but they've got another year.
3 A. Plus the months from January to mid-March, which are not in -- of
4 1999, which are not in our study.
5 Q. So thus you reached your figure of 10.356. And if we then take
6 that figure and look at the top of the page to the two graphs, please.
7 MR. NICE: That's all right. I think the booth will do it for
8 us. Thank you very much.
9 Q. We now see at the top the same graph of "People leaving their
10 homes" prepared in the way you've already described, but we now have
11 underneath it a "People killed" graph. And is this prepared on the basis
12 of raw material in the loose way I used or is this prepared on the basis
13 of the figures as derived from multiple systems estimation?
14 A. This is from multiple systems estimation.
15 Q. What do we notice about the similarity or dissimilarity of the
16 shape of this graph in comparison with the earlier graph?
17 A. They are very similar in several respects.
18 MR. NICE: Sorry again to the interpreters. I've not been leaving
19 a gap.
20 Q. My mistake, Dr. Ball. I will try and do so.
21 Your observations about looking for a cause or separate causes for
22 peaks, would that apply similarly for the "People killed" graph?
23 A. Yes, the same reasoning would apply.
24 Q. Page 7 of the report, please.
25 MR. NICE: Text first, for the booth, and then the map.
1 Q. The text still relates to the graph you've been showing, and it
2 makes one further explanation that we should have in mind.
3 "When the estimated number of people killed is considered over
4 time, using the same two-day intervals employed with the refugee flow
5 data..." and so on. Now, I don't think I got you to deal with the two-day
6 interval. Perhaps you could now.
7 A. As I described earlier, the data from the Albanian border guards
8 was transformed into data on people leaving their home by using the
9 transit time. The transit time comes from surveys. As I described,
10 several hundred surveys from my own project plus those from two other
12 When we look at the survey data day by day, there are some days
13 with no data, and that's because we -- a survey is conducted with only a
14 small sample. So on a day with relatively few refugees crossing the
15 border, there are relatively few survey datum about it. As a result,
16 there can be a lot of zeros if we look over time. Zeros may be real
17 information or they may simply be points in the data that are
18 insufficiently covered. By summing days together into two-day periods, we
19 stabilise those estimates.
20 I made this decision to do two-day intervals in the migration
21 study, however, it proved useful throughout the subsequent study and the
22 current study so we have maintained it all through for its property of
23 giving us an additional stability, by which I mean specifically reducing
24 the number of zero points in survey information.
25 Q. Thank you. Identifying intervals of whatever item or event
1 material, is that a common and necessary technique in statistics?
2 A. Very much. The language that statisticians use is that of
3 aggregating or adding things to bigger units, or disaggregating, breaking
4 things into smaller units. It's a standard technique that every data
5 analyst must employ to find the place where there's enough data to say
6 something meaningful.
7 Q. Thank you. Let's move on to the next topic, which is first
8 revealed by the map at the top of this page.
9 Having prepared your first graph of "People killed," did you
10 decide to break Kosovo down into four regions, north, east, south, and
11 west, as shown on this map?
12 A. Yes, I did.
13 Q. The divisions between parts of the territory have no relationship
14 with political, geographical, or any other divisions. They're simply for
15 statistical purposes.
16 A. That's correct. That's correct.
17 Q. Can we go over now briefly to page 8. And at the top of the page
18 we see "Refugee flow and killings by geographic location."
19 "In addition to examining when refugee flow and killings
20 happened, it is important to study where the events occurred. An analysis
21 of the locations where the refugee flow originated, and the killings
22 occurred, shows widespread patterns consistent with acts of violence
23 associated with displacements."
24 Those last few words are, I think, the conclusions of the
25 following passage. Would that be correct?
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 A. That's correct.
2 Q. Can we then go over -- we're going to come back to footnote 11,
3 but can we now go to pages 9 and 10.
4 On 9, Figure 4 at the top of the page has again the same "People
5 leaving their homes" graph, but the bottom one now shows what?
6 A. The bottom graph is the number of people killed. Both of the
7 curves shown in Figure 4 are for people leaving their homes or people
8 killed in the northern region.
9 Q. Yes. My mistake. The top map is not the familiar one. It's now
10 unique to the northern region.
11 A. That's correct.
12 Q. It's been extracted. Thank you.
13 And the bottom one, again prepared in the different way, still on
14 the basis of the technique you told us about, is again just for the
15 northern region.
16 A. The bottom one is for the southern region.
17 Q. Sorry. The bottom of the two graphs at the top is for the -- at
18 the top you've got two graphs, the top one being for "People leaving their
19 homes" and the bottom of the two for "People killed" in the northern
20 region. Do we here see similarity with early graphs or dissimilarity?
21 A. The similarity we see in the two graphs of Figure 4 is with each
23 Q. Yes.
24 A. Here what's interesting to me in particular, I think, is the quite
25 distinct peak in both graphs during phase 2.
1 Q. The bottom figure is for the southern region. Again, it contains
2 two graphs. Are they similar, one to the other, in statistics terms?
3 A. These curves are quite similar to each other. They both show
4 almost no activity in phase 2. Rather, in the southern region, nearly all
5 the activity is concentrated in phase 1.
6 Q. We see -- sorry. I'll just pause. We see on the "People leaving
7 their homes" graph a little free-floating point with discussion in the
8 text. I'll come back to that. If we go now to page 10 --
9 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, before you go to page 10, can I just
10 ask the witness to return to the peaks in phase 2 of the northern region,
11 and he highlighted the significance of those peaks. But the peak at the
12 top, that is, for people leaving their homes, is actually higher than the
13 peak at the bottom in respect of people killed. Is there -- does that
14 indicate anything or ...?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The curves are not identical, as
16 Your Honour has observed. What I think is most significant about these
17 two curves is the existence of a very substantial peak during phase 2.
18 That is what we will contrast with other regions in a moment.
19 JUDGE ROBINSON: I see.
20 MR. NICE:
21 Q. Reducing to non-technical terminology, correct me if I've got it
22 wrong: Is it the fact and general quantum of a peak or trough that is
23 significant rather than the precise scale of the peak? And if you don't
24 accept that, don't adopt it simply because I've suggested it.
25 A. The general pattern of high points and low points is important.
1 The more closely they track each other, the more strongly a statistician
2 would argue that they correlate.
3 Q. Right. We ought -- perhaps, since we're looking at figures 4 and
4 5, still on page 9, is it important for us just to have in mind that the
5 scale -- the vertical scale in each graph is in fact different because
6 you've adjusted the graphs to the maximum number of either people leaving
7 their homes or people killed to make best use of the space?
8 A. That's right. More than -- approximately 40 times more people
9 left their homes and are represented in these graphs than were killed, so
10 the scales must, by necessity, be different.
11 Q. And indeed, as between the northern and southern region, the graph
12 at the top, people-leaving graph is 7.900, the bottom people-leaving graph
13 is 24.000?
14 A. That's right.
15 Q. And similar differences, even more substantial in proportionate
16 terms, I think, as seen on page 10, which shows the eastern region at the
17 top and the western region at the bottom. By now we can probably start to
18 work things out for ourselves. In each case, the people-leaving and
19 people-killed graphs, do they have similarities to each other?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. However, is the western region graph similar or dissimilar from
22 the eastern?
23 A. The west is dissimilar from the east.
24 Q. Coming back to page 9, does it have any points of similarity with
25 the southern?
1 A. Yes. The western and southern patterns are quite similar, as
2 distinguished by absence of significant peak during phase 2.
3 Q. Going back from page 9, and in particular, we'll go back to page
4 8, because I drew your attention to the free-standing point that is said
5 to require discussion in the text. On the footnote at page 8, do you
6 observe that there is an anomalous point in the southern region in late
7 May? It's at the footnote on that page, right down at the bottom.
8 A. Yes, we do observe that, my co-authors and I.
9 Q. And you say this in the text of the footnote:
10 "This estimate of more than 200 people killed in one two-day
11 period results from fewer than 20 documented killings."
12 And then you say this:
13 "Appropriately, this point also has a high level of error
14 associated with it, as shown in Appendix 2, Figure 12. As is clear in
15 that figure, most points have modest errors which do not weaken the
16 interpretation of the pattern. This point, however, has a sufficiently
17 wide margin of error that the point may not be significantly different
18 from zero."
19 Two or three things from that: If statisticians, or even Their
20 Honours, want to follow the error or the margin of error calculations,
21 they may do so at Appendix 2. I think it's page 53. We don't need to
22 turn to it. But looking at any one of the graphs - page 9 is open before
23 me - do the figures represented on these graphs have margins of error
24 associated with them?
25 A. Yes. Every point in the people-killed graphs has a margin of
2 Q. Do you assess those margins of error to ensure that they are not
3 at such a level as to invalidate the figure that you're representing?
4 A. Yes, we do.
5 Q. The free-standing point dealt with in the footnote and to be seen
6 on Figure 5 is one which you eliminate because of the scale of the error,
7 the margin of error, but as to the other figures, have you allowed for the
8 possibilities of margins of error, nevertheless standing by the graph that
9 you've drawn?
10 A. Yes, we have.
11 Q. Thank you. In that case, may we turn to page 11.
12 JUDGE KWON: Excuse me.
13 MR. NICE: Just one minute.
14 JUDGE KWON: I'm not sure. You might have mentioned this, but
15 regarding the date in the refugee flow data, do they refer to the date
16 when the refugees entered the border or those when they left their
18 THE WITNESS: We refer to the latter, the dates they left their
20 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
21 MR. NICE:
22 Q. Page 11. We start with a text, which actually begins on the
23 previous page, 8. Don't worry about that. The text explains how you're
24 exploring the hypotheses you've already described; is that correct?
25 A. That's correct.
1 Q. So we can see at the beginning of the text:
2 "However, if airstrikes and KLA activity do not precede the peaks
3 in the number of killings ... then the causal relationship should be ...
5 Well, let's just have from you your approach to connection or
6 non-connection of either KLA activity or, in due course, NATO activity,
7 with refugee movement or killings. What was your approach?
8 A. Our idea is that if something is to cause something else, then the
9 cause must precede the effect. Accordingly, we looked at the peak level
10 of killings and refugee flow for each municipality. There are 29. We
11 then considered whether, during the two-day period of the peak or in the
12 preceding two-day period, there was some KLA activity. If we found any
13 KLA activity whatsoever in the period of the peak or in the period
14 immediately preceding the peak, we counted that in the first row.
15 However, if we found KLA activity either not at all in that municipality
16 or following the peak, we counted it in the second row. Finally, if KLA
17 activity preceded the peak of the killings or refugee flow by more than
18 four days, we counted that as an inconclusive pattern.
19 Q. Right. Well, before we look at the table that sets out your
20 findings, it's necessary to know, first for the KLA and then for NATO,
21 what your sources of material were on the basis of which you then built
22 the table. Let's deal with KLA first. What sources of material for KLA
23 activity did you have and rely on?
24 A. We began, my co-authors and I, began by examining open sources
25 that were placed on Internet by the government of Yugoslavia, and as well
1 as Serbian non-governmental organisations. These documented casualties
2 suffered by Serb authorities in Kosovo as a result of KLA attacks, and the
3 sources documented exchanges of fire, battles, between KLA forces and
4 Yugoslav government or police forces.
5 Q. Was that your only source or did you have other sources for KLA?
6 A. We supplemented those sources with additional sources provided to
7 us by the Office of the Prosecutor. The open sources in total constituted
8 55 per cent of our source material, and the Tribunal sources constituted
9 45 per cent of our sources.
10 Q. Going back, as I said I would when His Honour Judge Robinson asked
11 you this morning, to the topic of your instructions by the Office of the
12 Prosecutor, two things about the material - three things - about the
13 material provided by the Office of the Prosecutor: One, was it statements
14 or was it reduced to a statistical or summarised form?
15 A. It was reduced to a highly summarised form.
16 Q. Second, how did that material compare in its general shape and
17 effect with the 55 per cent of open-source material that you had obtained
18 from Serb sources?
19 A. In the statistical terms, they looked approximately the same.
20 Q. Third, at the time that that material was provided to you, had the
21 Office of the Prosecutor any advance knowledge or knowledge of the
22 findings to which your report may have been moving?
23 A. When I met with the Office of the Prosecutor's representatives in
24 early November, we had none of the results on killing that are presented
25 here complete. However, the migration report had been in the public
1 domain for a year and a half or so, so that was available to anyone who
2 wanted to look at it.
3 Q. Back to the text: In the next paragraph, beginning "To test the
4 conclusions drawn by this method, we used another statistical method to
5 consider the joint correlations of ..." I'll come back to that perhaps
6 later. But -- yes, I'll come back to that later.
7 Let's go to the chart at the top of the page, then, please, if we
8 can. Reminding ourselves that "preceded or coincided with peak" means
9 really the four-day period that ends in the peak; is that right?
10 A. That is correct.
11 Q. Of the 29 municipalities, there was killing preceded by KLA
12 activity in 11; killing followed by KLA activity in 12; and killing with
13 inconclusive findings as to KLA activity - either none or outside those
14 parameters - in 6.
15 A. Yes, that's correct.
16 Q. And the refugee flow shows respectively 10 for Preceded or
17 coincided, 11 for Followed, and 8 for Inconclusive. The percentages in
18 each case being set out. What does that tell you?
19 A. If we hypothesise that KLA activity directly or indirectly caused
20 killing or refugee flow, we would expect that KLA attacks and activity
21 would be very frequently present at the peak of the hypothesised cause. I
22 believe that this table shows that there is no KLA activity at all
23 preceding the peak in more municipalities than we see the hypothesised
24 coincidence. We interpret this to mean that this tends to reject the
25 hypothesis that the KLA was the cause of killings and refugee flow.
1 Q. May we now move to the possible significance of NATO, page 12.
2 What were your sources of information for NATO attacks on a geographical
3 basis so as to explain or not to explain killings and refugee flow?
4 A. The data on NATO airstrikes came exclusively from Yugoslav press
5 and government sources that were publicly available in the period
6 approximately June to August 1999.
7 Q. You restricted yourself to that source for what reason?
8 A. There were two reasons: One, because my two phone calls to the US
9 Department of Defence went unanswered and unreturned, so I did not get
10 data from the US side; but second, it seemed to me the best possible test
11 of this hypothesis to use the data from Yugoslavia. At the time, the
12 hypothesis I was focusing on was the relationship between NATO airstrikes
13 and refugee flow. So the claim that NATO airstrikes had motivated in some
14 way refugee flow was in part advanced by authorities in the Yugoslav
15 government. It seemed to me the best test of that hypothesis to use data
16 from Yugoslavia.
17 Q. The table at the top of page 11, in a form similar to the previous
18 table, shows thus that there were NATO airstrikes preceding refugee flow
19 in three of the 29 municipalities. There were -- did I say that
21 A. I think it's preceding in killings in three.
22 Q. In killings, I should have said, in three of the municipalities.
23 There were airstrikes preceding refugee flow in nine of the
24 municipalities. The remaining figures, 20 and 6, 13 and 7 being
25 municipalities where there was either such strikes or inconclusive
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 material. Sorry, such strikes following or inconclusive material.
2 A. That's correct.
3 Q. Now, what does that tell you about the possible significance of
4 NATO airstrikes in the killings or the refugee flow?
5 A. The pattern that in 20 municipalities NATO airstrikes followed
6 the -- the first NATO airstrike followed the peak of killings makes NATO
7 airstrikes a highly implausible cause of the pattern of killings. After
8 all, the peak occurred and passed before the first airstrike in 20
9 municipalities. Similarly for refugee flow, NATO airstrikes are an
10 implausible motivator, directly or indirectly, for refugee flow since, in
11 13 municipalities, the peak came and went without the first airstrike
12 having occurred.
13 JUDGE KWON: Excuse me once again. Whether the NATO bombing
14 preceded or not was decided municipality by municipality?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's correct.
16 JUDGE KWON: So if a nearby village was bombed yesterday and the
17 villagers left on today and it was bombed tomorrow, so that was -- you
18 mean that it is not -- the NATO bombing was not preceded in that case?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If the nearby village was across a
20 municipal border --
21 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- that would be correct. We
23 consider that in the next section.
24 JUDGE KWON: Yes. Thank you.
25 MR. NICE:
1 Q. Can we come back briefly to page 11, because I said there was
2 something that needed explanation, it being a term of art, that we should
3 have explained on the record for those of us who will be reading the
4 report in months to come.
5 In the middle of the page you set out this: "To test the
6 conclusions drawn by this method, we used another statistical method..."
7 Are we now moving to a different tool from the one we've already looked
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. "... to consider the joint correlations of KLA and NATO activity
11 with refugee flow and killing patterns. The point is to use the second
12 statistical technique..." and then these words, "... to control for the
13 correlation of KLA activity...."
14 We're going to see the word, or we may see the words "control for"
15 elsewhere in your report. It's a term of art. What does it mean?
16 A. In this analysis, we are examining first the pattern of killings
17 over time and space and then the pattern of refugee flow over time and
18 space. Our question is: What statistical relationship do the patterns of
19 NATO airstrike and KLA activity have with the patterns of killing and
20 refugee flow? The technique employed is to use the statistical
21 relationship of KLA activity and NATO airstrikes to make an estimate of
22 each point and then remove the effect of that estimate from the pattern,
23 from the pattern of killing or migration. That removal is what we mean by
24 "control for."
25 Q. Before we leave this page, and I should have dealt with this
1 earlier, but I'd just like you to explain footnote 12, which actually
2 relates to the earlier -- the earlier examination reflected in the two
3 tables, the KLA and the NATO tables. You say that, "... for this
4 analysis, we used only the number of reported killings, not the estimated
5 total number."
6 Just explain that, please.
7 A. In order to determine when the peak occurred for killings in
8 Figure 8 and 9, we took the simple number of victims reported in each
9 municipality over time. That is, we used only the 4.400 people whose
10 names we can list in order to conduct the analysis in figures 8 and 9.
11 The reason was that, as I discussed earlier in my description of
12 the two-day periods, when we break the data down to 29 municipalities, it
13 is too thin. There is not enough data. There are too many zeros to make
14 the estimates.
15 Q. Thank you. And I remind the -- it may help if we just remind the
16 learned Judges that your initial process was to go from the figure of
17 10.000-odd or down to 4.400 and then to expand it, in the method you've
18 described, to 10.356. What you're saying is, on this occasion, you
19 couldn't do that second step?
20 A. That is correct.
21 Q. In general -- and I'm sorry to have done this slightly out of
22 order, but there it is. In general, how conservative were the figures you
23 were relying on in every stage of your report?
24 A. We made every attempt to be as conservative as possible. In this
25 sense, I mean conservative as we made decisions that would all tend to
1 reduce the total estimate and to reduce the estimates at each
2 space-and-time point. The point of that was to present a statistical case
3 which would be as favourable as possible to the hypotheses which we
4 ultimately have rejected here, but we gave that the strongest test we
6 The most obvious sense of conservatism that I can give as an
7 example is that whenever we compared two people who may potentially -- two
8 names which potentially might refer to the same person, we assumed that
9 the names did refer to the same person unless we were able to demonstrate
10 positively that they did not refer to the same person. Again, that tends
11 to reduce the total lists and to reduce the overall estimates.
12 Q. After that digression, then I can return to the second method, the
13 controlling-for method. Can we go to page 13 of a 15, 16-page report?
14 We're approaching its conclusion. Here is the third and, I think, last
15 part of the report where we'll have to have some guidance on statistical
16 concepts from you.
17 If we look at the graph at the top of the page, we can see a new
18 word featuring, underneath "People killed" and another line, called
19 "Residuals." People can consume technical ideas in different ways,
20 sometimes by reference to the matter in hand, sometimes by reference to
21 generalities. Can you give us, in a sentence or so, first of all, how
22 Residuals operates in the most general terms? And then we'll look at the
23 facts of this case.
24 A. Referring to the discussion of controlling for, if we think about
25 the top line in Figure 10, the dark line which --
1 Q. You're now dealing with specifically on the facts of this case. I
2 was wondering if you could just help us conceptually with what a residual
3 is --
4 A. Right.
5 Q. -- and then we'll come to the facts of the case.
6 A. When we wish to examine the effect of one variable upon another,
7 we control for, as I discussed, the hypothesised cause and then we can
8 look at the resulting pattern in the hypothesised effect. If we deduct
9 that quantity created or accounted for by the cause, the remaining value
10 from the original is called the residual, that which remains. The pattern
11 of the residual can tell us a great deal about the structure of the
12 explanation, the internal relationship of these two variables.
13 Q. Now let's, having described it in conceptual terms, look at Figure
14 10, the facts of this case. What do these two lines, "People killed" and
15 "Residuals" show?
16 A. The bottom line, the Residuals, describes the net effect or that
17 which remains after we have controlled for KLA activity and NATO
18 airstrikes. What is striking about the residual pattern is that it
19 largely follows the original pattern. They follow quite closely.
20 Q. We'll come to the significance of that in a minute, because I
21 think it may help the learned Judges if we break it down step-by-step.
22 The top line is the line we've already seen before, for example, on
23 page 6.
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. What you're doing in reaching the residual is deducting in some
1 statistical way that part of that line which is explained by NATO and KLA
2 activity; correct?
3 A. That is -- that's broadly correct, yes.
4 Q. Were it the case that NATO/KLA activity explained every killing,
5 what would be left? What would be the Residual line?
6 A. The Residual line, if the explanation were stronger, the Residual
7 line would be merely a roughly flat line, squiggling around the horizontal
9 Q. Because you will have explained by the hypothesis everything on
10 the Residual line?
11 A. A statistical correlation would explain the original pattern,
13 Q. So here you remove what may be explained by KLA or NATO activity
14 and you're left with a line of shape similar to the original line.
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. What does that tell you as a statistician?
17 A. It tells us that the explanation has not changed the pattern very
18 much. The explanation provided by the statistical relationships of NATO
19 airstrike activity and KLA activity does not explain the pattern of
20 killing over time.
21 Q. Page 14, please. This figure, the figure at the top of the page,
22 Figure 11, is the same exercise conducted for refugee flow; correct?
23 A. That is correct.
24 Q. Same thing: If it was wholly explained by KLA and NATO, it would
25 be a flat line hovering around -- or a flat-ish line hovering around the
2 A. Correct.
3 Q. What do you say about the shape that we see of the Residual line?
4 A. The Residual line does track the original pattern, with peaks and
5 troughs at roughly the same points.
6 Q. As strong as in the killings or not?
7 A. Less strong. Less strong.
8 Q. We see here in footnote 17 that you suggest in the middle of the
9 page in the text that it has -- let's just read that. Shall we go down in
10 the text a little bit? The results, you say, are shown --
11 MR. NICE: If the booth could take us down in the text a bit.
12 Thank you very much.
13 Q. You say, in Figure 10 -- you set that out:
14 "The same analysis can be performed for the refugee flow. The
15 results are shown in Figure 11. As with killings, the pattern of the
16 refugee flow, controlling for the correlations with the NATO and KLA
17 patterns, is strongly similar to the original pattern. However, the
18 statistical measures suggest that the KLA activity (but not NATO
19 airstrikes) has a weak but noticeable relationship with the refugee flow
21 Just explain that again.
22 A. I think -- well, when a statistician looks at Figure 11, he or she
23 will ask: There does seem to be some explanation here. Which factors
24 might be responsible for that explanation? So she or he would want to
25 conduct a more detailed analysis, looking at the individual factors - KLA
1 activity and NATO activity - and consider their individual contributions
2 to the explanation. We also, my co-authors and I, also felt that this
3 warranted a more detailed analysis over both region and time, which we
4 conducted, and that is referred to in the footnote.
5 Q. And we should have in mind, without referring back to it, that the
6 figures of refugee migration had shown different patterns regionally; in
7 particular, the southern and the western differing from the northern and
8 the east?
9 A. That is correct.
10 Q. So if we can go, quite briefly, in the annexes of the report, to
11 pages 59, 60, and 61. We can look at 59 very briefly.
12 A. I believe you mean 58.
13 Q. Oh, yes, 58 as well maybe. Yes, 58. 58, I think, requires some
14 technical explanation. Can you give us that, please. What is it, first
15 of all? It's headed "Regression Coefficients" and "Response Variables,"
16 and then we have a number of titles: "Killings Over Time and Region," and
17 so on. Can you explain it, please.
18 A. These are the coefficients, the actual statistical coefficients
19 that are the model used for the residual analysis we just discussed. Each
20 of the coefficients describes the relationship, all else being equal,
21 between a particular variable and the response variable, that which we are
22 trying to explain.
23 So, for example, going to the top of the third column in the "KLA
24 (kill)" variable under "Refugee Flow Over Time," the interpretation of the
25 number -634.9 is that, all else being equal, in a given region, at a
1 certain point in time, the presence of each additional Serb casualty
2 caused by the KLA would result in 635 fewer refugees leaving that
3 municipality - or excuse me, excuse me - that region in that time, in that
5 Q. Thank you. We're going to be able to understand this chart
6 ourselves probably with but one more or, at the most, two more examples,
7 but it's got one deficiency in it at the moment, by typographical error,
8 and that is that there should be one more asterisk - we'll explain the
9 asterisk - and the remaining asterisk should be in the figure immediately
10 below that, 2.728.6; should it not?
11 A. That's correct. There should be an asterisk there.
12 Q. And the asterisks on page 58 - and it's either a single asterisk,
13 as that last entry, or a double or a triple asterisk - what do they
14 represent, or what do they signify, rather?
15 A. The asterisks describe the relationship between the coefficient
16 listed in the table and the error associated with that coefficient.
17 Q. There can be cases where the error swamps the statistic so the
18 statistic becomes of no value?
19 A. That is correct. In fact, those statistics without asterisks
20 should not be interpreted. They are -- the error is too great.
21 Q. And in the most approximate terms, where the correcting error
22 figure, in brackets, is half or more than the numeric figure above it,
23 plus or minus, then the figure is of no value?
24 A. It's quite close to half. It's actually -- but it's 1.96. But
25 yes, in terms, you're correct.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 Q. The smaller the error figure is, as a proportion of the numeric
2 figure above it, the larger the number of stars, the stronger the value of
3 the conclusion?
4 A. Broadly, yes. Broadly, yes.
5 Q. So let us then do one more example to see if we understand this.
6 And "KLA (kill)," "KLA (battle)," self-explanatory, as is "NATO," but what
7 about "Lag-KLA (battle)"? Can you explain that as a title for us?
8 A. Yes. "Lag" is the statistician's term for what happened in the
9 previous period. So "Lag-KLA (battle)" is the effect of a battle that
10 occurred in the previous two-day period to the migration or killing we are
11 explaining. So we want to consider in this model not only what has
12 happened in the current two-day period, but also what happened in the
13 previous two-day period in order to explain the pattern of killings and
14 refugee flow.
15 Q. And so to check that we understand how the table may be read by
16 the Chamber, or indeed by other statisticians who may look at the
17 document, if we stay with "Lag-KLA (battle)" and then, at the top,
18 "Killings Over Time and Region," so it's the figure 11.6, with 11.9 in
19 brackets -- well, that won't do, because it hasn't got an asterisk to go
20 against it, so we won't rely on that. "Lag-KLA (battle)" and then
21 "Refugee Flow Over Time and Region," 2.138.4, with three asterisks, that
22 interprets as --?
23 A. All else being equal, and here I mean all the KLA killings and
24 battles, NATO activity being equal, the effect of each additional KLA
25 battle in a region is to predict 2.138.4 more refugees departing their
1 homes on the next two-day period, in the following two-day period. So
2 it's in the next two-day period.
3 Q. When you're referring to a battle, you're referring to a battle
4 between the KLA and --?
5 A. And Serb forces.
6 Q. Page 59, please, briefly. Simply, the charts at the top within
7 the appendix, this is the same scheme of killings charted, with the
8 residuals underneath, but now broken down by region. And taking it very
9 shortly, do we see a close correlation of residuals and original chart in
10 both north, east, south, and west?
11 A. Yes. The relationship is close in all four regions.
12 Q. The same conclusion; namely, that KLA or NATO activity does
13 nothing to explain the pattern of killings.
14 A. Not quite nothing, but it does very little.
15 Q. Very little. Thank you. Page 60, please. When we look at
16 refugee flow with the same approach, broken down by regions north, east,
17 south, and west, to the eye, the residuals track less closely than with
18 killings, although they track in the south and west, it may be, more
19 closely than the north and east. But what would your interpretation be?
20 A. Following that, in the north and east, until the phase 2 peak in
21 mid-April of refugee flow in both regions, the patterns, residual pattern,
22 does not track very closely the original pattern. Then in that mid-April
23 peak, they converge closely, then follow each other roughly through the
24 end, with some divergences, some divergences in the less significant
25 periods toward the end when the magnitudes are very small. In the south
1 and west, the residual pattern actually tracks quite closely in the south,
2 and closely, but not as closely, in the west, where there are a few
3 smaller divergences.
4 JUDGE MAY: Judge Robinson.
5 JUDGE ROBINSON: Dr. Ball, I wanted to have clarified a few
6 matters. In answer to me earlier, you said that when you first presented,
7 I think, your first two reports to the OTP, you indicated that you would
8 have to make them more rigorous for presentation in Court. I'd like you
9 to tell me what you did to make it more rigorous. I heard you mention one
10 particular matter which perhaps could have had that result; that is, you
11 said wherever there was a conflict, then you took the course which was
12 favourable to the hypothesis that you eventually rejected. If that is
13 one, then you can say so and tell me what are the other methods that you
14 used to make the presentation more rigorous.
15 THE WITNESS: That is indeed one, the one that Your Honour
16 listed. Let me highlight three others quite briefly.
17 The first is that, relative to the first two reports, we sought,
18 my co-authors and I sought much more extensive peer review, as we
19 described at the beginning of the presentation, with a substantial
20 committee of statisticians from Europe and the United States, each of whom
21 had the opportunity to review two preliminary drafts of the report. In
22 earlier work, I had been less formal and worked with a number of advisors
23 who read drafts and made comments to me, but not in this much more formal
24 process that we instituted for this report.
25 The second additional rigour that we applied has to do with the
1 matching process. Recall that the data source for killings are lists of
2 names of people who have been described as having been killed in witness
3 reports, and to do the estimation that we describe here, from 4.400, we
4 have to determine which killings are in multiple reports. I have to look
5 at the list from Human Rights Watch, several hundred names, and determine
6 which of those names are also in the other lists. This is hard because
7 there are a number of factors which complicate making exact comparisons.
8 To assure that that was as reliable and rigorous a process as we
9 could, every intersystem comparison, as I just described, between the
10 ABA/CEELI data, the exhumation information data, the HRW data - Human
11 Rights Watch data - and the OSCE data, every one of those comparisons was
12 done by two or more different coders, different staff people,
13 independently. So I -- every single one of those matches was done by two
14 people, and many of them were done by three, some by four, and some by
15 five. Those people went through an extensive training process, as
16 described in Appendix 1.
17 For purposes of your question, I think the most important note was
18 that we were able to measure, and thus quantify, the reliability of the
19 matching process, reliability here in a formal, statistical sense, which
20 is that if we did it again, we would reach the same conclusions. That's
21 what I mean by "reliability." The agreement between the raters was 94 per
22 cent. Ninety-four per cent of the decisions were reached the same way by
23 all the coders, all the staff people who looked at the names to make
24 decisions about whether they should be matched. All the disagreements
25 that were found in the remaining 6 per cent were reviewed by a supervisor
1 and a final decision reached.
2 So that's the second of the additional kinds of rigour we brought
3 to this process that I had not done in earlier projects. It's very
4 difficult. There's one more.
5 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Go ahead.
6 THE WITNESS: The final one is that the statistical calculations
7 that we've just been discussing, the estimation procedure and all this
8 analysis, was done twice by two different people independently, on
9 different computers, using different software, in fact, using completely
10 different operating systems. We started with the same data, we
11 established the mathematical procedure we were going to use, and then she,
12 one of the co-authors here, and I independently wrote all of the software
13 to do the estimation. And we kept doing it until our answers agreed to
14 many different -- to many digits. We made sure that completely different
15 estimation procedures, completely different software, different computers,
16 different analysts, reached the same conclusions. Again,
17 that's -- they're expensive, but we felt that it was warranted in this
18 case, given the gravity of the questions. So those are the three.
19 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you. Notwithstanding the initial rigour
20 and the additional rigour that you applied, are you able to put your
21 conclusions any higher than what you said in relation to Figure 8 on page
22 11, that it tends to reject a particular hypothesis? Are you able to put
23 it any higher than that, or that's the highest that you can put it?
24 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour, I can put it higher than that.
25 And I think what I would say is at the point of Figure 8, the strongest
1 conclusion, if I were to stop there, the strongest conclusion I would want
2 to make is that it tends to reject. As we continue through these
3 additional analyses which I've just described, we can make substantially
4 stronger conclusions.
5 JUDGE ROBINSON: I see. Okay.
6 The next question I wanted to ask you was whether this statistical
7 method that you have developed, whether it has been used in court
8 proceedings before, in judicial proceedings.
9 THE WITNESS: Let me separate my answer into three small parts, if
10 I may. The procedure used to describe the migration process is composed
11 of a statistical tool kit of many different methods, each one of which
12 would be easily recognisable to any professional statistician or
13 demographer. I don't know if it is -- if those methods have been combined
14 in this way before, but certainly the component methods would be widely
15 used in any statistical presentation, including those that would be given
16 before judicial proceedings. I do not have specific knowledge.
17 On the second method, which is the multiple systems estimation,
18 which uses the -- which estimates the total number of people killed, again
19 I don't have specific knowledge about judicial use; however, this method
20 is widely used to adjust censuses, which, as Your Honours are probably
21 aware, is the basis for legislative apportionment, and so tends to have
22 very high stakes.
23 So it is a closely investigated scientific method. It is well
24 known. And since censuses are always partial - they never count
25 everybody - this is the method to which demographers turn to to adjust
2 In the third answer, I can answer yes, although I can't provide
3 examples. In the regression analysis, in the residual analysis, this is
4 among the most common statistical techniques used anywhere. I mean, any
5 time social scientists, statisticians, or demographers want to examine the
6 relationship of several or many variables over a large --
7 JUDGE ROBINSON: I'm talking about court proceedings in
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I believe it must have been, sir,
10 Your Honour. I don't know of a specific case. I'm not a lawyer, so I'm
11 unfamiliar with the details.
12 JUDGE ROBINSON: The next matter that you can help me with is
13 this: I can understand the utility of your method in analysing broad
14 patterns and broad trends, but in this case, we are concerned with
15 specific allegations that relate to particular geographical areas.
16 There's an allegation that there was a movement of people from A to B.
17 This was caused by a particular phenomenon. There is evidence that, prior
18 to the movement, there was KLA activity, there was NATO activity, and
19 there was Serb activity. The task which the Trial Chamber has is to
20 determine what was the cause in relation to the particular charges in the
22 I'm not sure I understand how your statistical method, which I
23 think is very useful for broad patterns of conduct, is particularly
24 helpful in relation to that specific issue which is particular and
25 specific to a particular area and in relation to which there may or may
1 not be evidence.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think that when I reach the
3 conclusions of the -- my direct presentation, it may shed some light on
4 your question about the causes which you've proposed and which I've
5 adopted as hypotheses here, as I will find two of those causes to be
6 statistically implausible, given the available evidence.
7 JUDGE ROBINSON: Where, for example, the NATO bombing took place
8 after the movement. I mean, I would have thought the conclusion that the
9 NATO bombing was not the cause to be quite an unremarkable conclusion.
10 But the real issue is where we have evidence of the two or three phenomena
11 I mentioned taking place before and where there is a conflict, and that is
12 what I think we need help with, and I'm trying to see how your exercise
13 helps us with that particular issue. But I understand you'll be coming to
15 MR. NICE:
16 Q. We have yet to reach the conclusions, but in light of the
17 questions you've been asked, just a couple of matters to pick up on.
18 First of all, just dealing with peer review. Can we find some
19 examples in the report? I think one may be at page 61 of additional
20 things that you did as a result of peer review suggestion. Am I right
21 about page 61?
22 A. Yes. Yes.
23 Q. I wasn't proposing to go into it in detail for the reason you'll
24 give in a second, but "Estimated killings over time with alternative date
25 assignments," what do these mean, "alternative date assignments"?
1 A. Much of our argument turns on whether killings in this case
2 happened exactly at the time that we estimate that they occurred, and so a
3 reasonable question might be: What if the witnesses got the dates wrong?
4 What would happen to your analysis? So our response to that quite
5 reasonable question is to look at each date reported by the witnesses and
6 move them as far earlier and later as is remotely plausible. And I can
7 describe how that was done in detail if there are additional questions.
8 But we shifted the dates as early and as late as were possible or we
9 thought were plausible for each date.
10 Q. This was a peer review proposal?
11 A. It was a question that was asked, simply: What would happen to
12 your analysis if the date reporting were imprecise?
13 Q. And -- sorry. I mustn't go too fast. And the charts or graphs we
14 see, did they lead to any different conclusion of any kind?
15 A. I do not think so. I believe they are substantially the same,
16 given the radical adjustment that we made to test that.
17 Q. The second point arising from His Honour's questions, or one of
18 them, in particular multiple systems estimation and its use in court, in
19 fact, multiple systems estimation was not used for the first and, in a
20 sense, most readily accessible conclusions in figures 8 and 9, was it?
21 A. That's correct.
22 Q. It was used in the others.
23 A. It was used in the others.
24 Q. But now let's come to --
25 JUDGE MAY: Before you do, it's now five to four. Plainly we're
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 not going to get to another witness tonight. Four o'clock is the time for
2 a break. Are you going to be finished shortly?
3 MR. NICE: I would think I'll be finished shortly because I only
4 have the conclusion page of the witness to go to apart from one or two
5 other references.
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have a comment to make.
7 JUDGE MAY: Well, Mr. Milosevic, make it shortly.
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] An objection, in fact. Very
9 briefly. As you're speaking about the next witness, I did not ask for any
10 postponement of the cross-examination. I have heard that that was
11 something that one of the friends of the Court asked for. But as you
12 know, the friends of Court do not represent me. And a moment ago when I
13 showed a whole lot of papers, I did so, I showed them as being an example
14 of the improper manner and prejudicial manner and not as being my request
15 for anything, for any kind of understanding, because there's no
16 understanding for me at all, and especially no understanding with respect
17 to my possible consultations with the advisors and consultants that the
18 other side mentioned, because I cannot contact my advisors other than by
19 telephone. So please bear that in mind.
20 JUDGE MAY: Let us see what you're saying. Are you saying you
21 want to cross-examine the witness now?
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I said that I did not ask for any
23 postponement of cross-examination, which implies that I shall continue,
24 once this witness finishes his testimony, with my right to examine him in
25 cross-examination. That is, I suppose, something which is the normal
1 order of the day and nothing that I make a special request of or for.
2 JUDGE MAY: Very well. We'll adjourn now for five minutes for a
3 break and then we'll go on with the rest of the evidence.
4 --- Break taken at 3.55 p.m.
5 --- On resuming at 4.01 p.m.
6 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Nice.
7 MR. NICE: Thank you.
8 Q. If we can now go to the conclusions on page 15.
9 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, just to explain, the questions that I
10 asked, I had intended to ask them after your examination-in-chief. So I
11 thought you had finished, because it's not my style to interrupt
13 MR. NICE: I'm grateful for your explaining that. No, no. I
14 diverted to the appendices because they were referred to in the body of
15 the text.
16 Q. Page 15, then, please. The format of it, we can see you've
17 already been dealing with the two hypotheses. First of all, KLA, NATO,
18 and then with the Yugoslav forces, but --
19 MR. NICE: A little up the page, please, if we may. The other
20 way. Thank you very much. A bit further. Thank you very much.
21 Q. Dr. Ball, first of all, on the analysis so far described using the
22 different techniques and samplings that you've referred to, what was your
23 conclusion as to the possible involvement of NATO and or the KLA in either
24 the refugee movement or the killings?
25 A. First, we rejected the hypothesis that NATO involvement caused
1 either killing or the migration. In both of the methods, NATO showed
2 inadequate correlations to be considered a plausible cause. Therefore, we
3 rejected the hypothesis that NATO was a cause of either killing or
4 migration patterns.
5 Second, we reject the hypothesis that KLA activity caused the
6 patterns, the statistical patterns, of killing. Thus KLA activity is not
7 a plausible cause for more than a small fraction of the killing, a cause
8 directly or indirectly of more than a small fraction of the killings.
9 The fourth sub-piece of it is a bit more complex, as we were
10 discussing earlier. There does seem to be some correlation at certain
11 times and certain regions between KLA activity and refugee flow.
12 Q. And by "KLA activity," as you've already told me, you were
13 referring to KLA/Serb conflict?
14 A. That's right. Serb casualties caused by the KLA and exchanges of
15 fire between KLA forces and Yugoslav forces.
16 Q. Let's now turn to the third hypothesis which we can see on the
17 page, headed "Yugoslav forces."
18 A. Uh-huh.
19 Q. Turning to that third hypothesis, you say in your report that:
20 "Yugoslav forces organised and implemented a systematic campaign of
21 violence resulting in killings and refugee flow: the statistical analysis
22 of correlations cannot prove that the Yugoslav forces were the external
23 influence responsible for the observed patterns. However, the findings of
24 this study are consistent with the hypothesis that action by Yugoslav
25 forces was the cause of the killings and refugee flow."
1 Just pausing there and knowing that there's something in the
2 following paragraph, does that remain your opinion?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And of course, as well as -- I mustn't go too fast, particularly
5 at this time of the day.
6 As well as peaks, there are troughs in both the refugee flow and
7 in the killings, and do you find one circumstantial link that may assist?
8 A. Yes, we did.
9 Q. Which would be the best chart for us to look at to see this
10 circumstantial link, or will any of them do?
11 A. Any of them will do. Perhaps Figure 2 is the clearest. I believe
12 from page -- it might be 6. I'm not sure.
13 MR. NICE: I wonder if you can just lay that back on the ELMO.
14 Q. Page 6, the earliest and, in one way, the simplest, but the others
15 to similar effect. Yes, please go on.
16 A. On the evening of April 6th, Yugoslav official sources announced a
17 unilateral ceasefire by Yugoslav forces to honour Orthodox Easter, which
18 that year fell on April 11th, Sunday. The 6th of April was a Tuesday, and
19 the announcement was made that evening. On the following day, what is
20 very interesting is that using these widely differing statistical
21 techniques and completely different data, we find a consistent and drastic
22 decline in both refugee movement and people being killed. That decline is
23 exactly coincidental in time with the Yugoslav government declaration of a
24 ceasefire. Both people leaving their homes and people killed declined
25 drastically on the 7th and remained at low levels for several days.
1 I don't know if the Yugoslav government rescinded the ceasefire,
2 but it seems that it -- that hostilities began again sometime during the
3 weekend, approximately at the time of Orthodox Easter. Both people
4 leaving their homes and people killed increase again at that point.
5 That circumstantial link, which is, I think, quite dramatic in
6 light of the very high levels of killing and refugee flow a few days prior
7 to the ceasefire announcement, leads my co-authors and I to confirm - or,
8 excuse me - to state that the evidence that we have found, the statistical
9 evidence, is consistent with the hypothesis that Yugoslav forces are the
10 cause of the observed patterns.
11 Q. Thank you. In addition to requests from your peer review to
12 consider certain matters and to add matters to your report, did you
13 receive a request or instructions from the Office of the Prosecutor, to
14 which you responded by the short two-and-a-half, three-page supplement,
15 with annexes, that's been served on the Court?
16 A. Yes. We were -- several requests were made of us in February this
18 Q. I'm going to break them down, now that we are familiar with what
19 you were doing, to very simple proposition and very simple conclusions,
20 you being in a position to turn any questioner to the workings it asked.
21 Were you asked to do some further breakdowns and to check results
22 by different broken-down approaches?
23 A. Yes, we were.
24 Q. Explain just in a sentence or so.
25 A. We were asked to consider the relationship between refugee flow
1 and killing directly, those two compared to each other, using the same
2 method that we looked at in Figures 8 and 9, with the different
3 percentages. We called that the peaks-versus-presence method.
4 Q. Yes.
5 A. We conducted the analysis, and the hypothesis there would be that
6 if the two series are closely related, then we would find the presence of
7 killings before the peak refugee flow for each municipality, there would
8 be a high level of coincidence there. Similarly, we would expect that the
9 peak in killings would coincide with or occur just before a very high -
10 or, excuse me - a recorded refugee flow. We found that in both cases, the
11 number of municipalities which satisfy the hypothesis was quite high, 69
12 and 83 per cent respectively.
13 Q. The second exercise you were asked to perform?
14 A. We were also to consider the independent effects of the NATO and
15 KLA activity on killing and migration.
16 Q. So if we want to look at a chart or a map and say that you
17 reconsidered the same topic but now with one factor on its own, which
18 would be the best ones to look at? Figures 10 and 11 in the original?
19 A. Figures 10 and 11 would be the ones we took apart in the
20 subsequent figures.
21 Q. So Figures 10 and 11 deal with KLA and NATO collectively. You
22 then dealt with them separately?
23 A. That's right.
24 Q. Are the conclusions the same or different?
25 A. The conclusions are the same, that bombing has very little effect
1 on either pattern -- NATO airstrikes, bombing, has very little effect on
2 either pattern. KLA activity has no effect on killing but seems to have a
3 relationship with refugee flow in the northern and eastern regions.
4 Q. And my last question, which is just a matter of detail, but it may
5 help the Chamber. If you can just look at Appendix 3, the additional
6 sources on KLA and NATO activity, please. It's page -- just the page
7 before page 64. It's an unnumbered page, so it's really 63, but it hasn't
8 got a number on it. Two pages of this, I think, that page and the
9 following page.
10 To give us an idea of the rigour of your report, this is simply
11 your sources or additional sources, as you explain, for KLA and NATO
12 activity. You list, starting with the Albanian Human Rights Group and
13 running on that page down to Kosovapress, and on the following page you
14 can see all the names and bodies to which you referred. On the following
15 page, we pick it up at Kosovar Media and run down to V.I.P. Daily News
17 Are these all bodies that you turned to or scoured or searched for
18 details of NATO and KLA activity in order to run your hypothesis?
19 A. Yes. The NATO activity was limited to the Yugoslav sources, a
20 subset of the ones listed here, but all of these contributed elements to
21 the sources we used for the KLA measures.
22 Q. Thank you, Dr. Ball. If you wait there, you may be asked some
23 further questions.
24 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I wish, first and foremost, to
1 finish with my objection, because you interrupted me. I consider this to
2 be an elementary minimum of decency --
3 JUDGE MAY: What is the objection?
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I said why and for what reason I
5 illustrated the extreme incorrectness and isolation and every possible way
6 of depriving me of any equality before this illegal institution of yours.
7 I asked for a minimum of decency at least for this list of witnesses that
8 the opposing party is bringing here, that I should be given this list at
9 least a week in advance, and I expect to be given in the future a list of
10 the right order of witnesses one week in advance. As for this witness, I
11 shall start with the cross-examination immediately.
12 Cross-examined by Mr. Milosevic:
13 Q. [Interpretation] In order to put the first question I have, I
14 shall first quote what it says in these papers, because there is an
15 explanation here of the organisation that the witness works for, that is
16 to say, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, et
18 This is what it says here:
19 [As interpreted] "The material contained here are the opinions of
20 the author and editors and cannot be considered to be the view of the
21 American Association for the Advancement of Science...," in parentheses,
22 "... (The original American Association for the Advancement of Science,
23 AAAS)...." And further on, "... or the Central and East European Law
25 So they cannot be construed to be the view of either one
1 institution or the other.
2 And also, it says here:
3 "The ABA/CEELI, the American Bar Association, Central and East
4 European Law Initiative, or any of the contributing organisations. The
5 AAAS Committee on Scientific Freedom and Responsibility ... in accordance
6 with its mandated and Association policy, supports publication of this
7 report as a scientific contribution to human rights. The interpretations
8 and conclusions are those of the authors and do not purport to represent
9 the views of the AAAS Board, Council, the CSFR, or the members of the
11 So they do not represent the views of any one of them.
12 "Likewise, the views expressed herein have not been approved by
13 the House of Delegates or the Board of Governors of the ABA and,
14 accordingly should not be construed as representing the policy of the ABA.
15 "Nothing contained in this publication is to be considered as the
16 rendering of legal advice for specific cases, and readers are responsible
17 for obtaining such advice from their own legal counsel. This publication
18 and any forms and agreements herein are intended for educational and
19 informational purposes only."
20 That's what it says here. Signed by the American Association for
21 the Advancement of Science.
22 Since this is what it says here, my first question is the
23 following: What it says here, does that mean that your work cannot be
24 used for purposes of the indictment?
25 A. This report is not legal advice. I am not a lawyer. I am,
1 however, a scientist, and I believe that I can offer some scientific
2 insight into these patterns. That has been my effort.
3 Q. You have said that this is statistical research.
4 A. I'm sorry, is there a question?
5 Q. Yes, that is a question. This is statistical research.
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. So this is not sociological research.
8 A. Something may be simultaneously sociological and statistical.
9 "Statistical" refers to the methodological approach taken.
10 Q. You spoke exclusively about statistics and statistics experts.
11 There are no elements of sociological research in here. Yes or no.
12 A. The question confuses me. I think that sociological research in
13 my country and as practised at the university where I took my doctorate is
14 highly quantitative in nature and this would be recognised, I believe, by
15 any American or probably most European sociologists as sociology.
16 "Statistical," as I said earlier, refers to the methods that were used.
17 Q. These are not methods; these are methodological procedures that
18 you apply. There is a major difference between a method and
19 methodological approach. Do you know how to explain the difference
20 between a method, a sociological method, for example, and a methodological
21 procedure that you applied here?
22 JUDGE MAY: What is the point of this question?
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, what is the point of
24 explaining that this statistical analysis of incorrect data is a
25 sociological research? The witness mentioned the application of a
1 method. He mentioned that all sociologists accept, espouse, quantitative
2 methods. Quantitative methods have their limited reaches, and not
3 everything can be explained by quantitative methods, because if everything
4 could be explained statistically, then there would be no need for
5 sociology to exist, as the most general of sciences about society.
6 Therefore, I ask the witness, who, as we have heard, has a doctorate in
7 sociology, to define briefly the difference between sociological method
8 and methodological procedure applied herein.
9 JUDGE MAY: This is an irrelevant question. Ask him about his
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, you cannot restrict me in
12 my questions, especially --
13 JUDGE MAY: I can in what is relevant. Perhaps Dr. Ball can help
15 You've heard what's being put. Is there any point that you think
16 you can answer in relation to it?
17 THE WITNESS: Not really.
18 JUDGE MAY: Thank you.
19 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
20 Q. That answer is sufficient for me as well. As a doctor of
21 sociology, you cannot answer this question about the difference --
22 JUDGE MAY: [Previous translation continues]...
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right. I'm not going to make
24 any comments.
25 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
1 Q. So in addition to the fact that we have such an explanation of the
2 American association, your answer to the question whether this explanation
3 precludes the possibility of using your work for the needs and purposes of
4 the indictment is that you are not a lawyer. You didn't say yes or no.
5 A. I'm not a lawyer, and therefore I do not believe I'm competent to
6 speak to whether this is -- this answers your question or not. That's my
7 answer. I'm a statistician. I've offered statistical and sociological
9 Q. Well, that's precisely what I have been asserting, that you are a
10 statistician, and that this is not a sociological analysis but a
11 statistical approach.
12 My next question: Were you asked to look at the movements of Serb
13 refugees during the NATO aggression?
14 A. No.
15 Q. You said that this work of yours was financed by US government
17 A. In part.
18 Q. In greater part or smaller part? Predominantly or negligibly so?
19 A. The prior study to this was financed to my partners with US
20 government funds, and this report was financed through funds to my
21 partners with US government funds.
22 Q. Since you were not asked to study the flows of Serb refugees from
23 Kosovo and Metohija, was it perhaps in your interest to compare in your
24 statistical analysis, to do this at your own initiative?
25 A. No.
1 Q. Have you ever heard of any figure related to the number of Serb
2 refugees who left the area of Kosovo and Metohija during the bombing?
3 A. I saw a paper presented at an international conference by a Serb
4 statistician in September 2000 on this topic.
5 Q. And do you know that this figure is about 100.000 Serbs who fled
6 due to the intensive bombing of Kosovo?
7 A. I do not know that. I do not recall the specifics from his
9 Q. And is it your assessment that for the purposes of statistically
10 analysing the data you have analysed here, it would have been useful for
11 you to have taken into account these flows as well, related to Serbs and
12 the non-Albanian population of Kosovo in general, and compared it to these
14 A. This study looks at refugee flow and killing against Kosovar
15 Albanians. As such, it does not contain analysis of other groups.
16 Q. But you know very well that you are dealing with a complex issue
17 related to a very complex conflict that was taking place in Kosovo and
18 Metohija. Do you think that it is a considerable simplification or
19 one-sided approach to have this boiled down to a statistical
20 representation of figures pertaining to Albanian refugees only?
21 A. I'm sorry. There's a lot of parts to that question. I'm not sure
22 I understood. Could you rephrase it for me? I'm sorry.
23 Q. In Kosovo, was this a complex conflict, a conflict that cannot be
24 reduced only to one of its factors, that is to say, the statistical study
25 of Albanian refugee flows?
1 A. I'm not a political analyst, so I'm not -- I don't think I can
2 answer whether this is complex. I have done a study of killings and
3 refugee flows.
4 Q. Can studies be made about refugee flows if there are no elementary
5 ideas about the historical, political, military, economic, social - and
6 let me stop there - and any other context in which this analysis is sought
7 to be made?
8 A. This study examines the statistical patterns in light of three
9 hypotheses, which I believe are the most important hypotheses that have
10 been advanced to explain them. Neither I nor my co-authors are competent
11 to make any additional analysis beyond the conclusions in this report.
12 Q. And who put these three hypotheses forth, the ones that you just
14 A. We took the hypotheses from political debates which we have heard
15 expressed by different actors. Most locally to our work today, I have
16 heard two of the hypotheses advanced by the accused in this case, and the
17 other is in some sense advanced by my highly non-technical understanding
18 of the indictment. So I believe they are relevant to our discussion
20 Q. Are you referring to some of my hypotheses? Did I understand you
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Then you misunderstood them, but we are going to get to that
25 When presenting your C.V., when your C.V. was being presented, we
1 heard that you had dealt in such statistics, in such statistical research,
2 in a considerable number of countries over the past few years.
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Is it possible to state that all the mentioned countries had
5 crises, conflicts, and that the American administration was involved in
6 all of these crises and conflicts?
7 A. Yes, all the countries had some sort of crisis or conflict. I
8 don't think the involvement of the US government is clear in all of them.
9 In some, it might be.
10 Q. And where was it not involved out of those that you mentioned?
11 JUDGE MAY: What's the relevance of this, Mr. Milosevic, in
12 relation to his evidence?
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, the relevance is in the
14 fact that statistics that are well-known among the greatest statisticians
15 of the world that can prove anything by statistics [as interpreted], and
16 this is done to serve the purposes of the American politics aimed at
17 enslavement. Chemistry is being misused for making chemical bombs, atomic
18 energy for making atomic bombs --
19 JUDGE MAY: [Previous translation continues]... the witness.
20 In the various -- just a moment. In the various studies that you
21 were carrying out, were they in any way to serve the purposes of American
23 THE WITNESS: I have never had, knowingly, contact with a
24 representative of the US government in any of my work, in the sense that
25 they would advance US interests through my work. However, I think there's
1 a misconception, which may be helpful here, since my work in both El
2 Salvador and Guatemala was actually quite critical of US interest and of
3 US policy at the time. So this may help clarify the question.
4 JUDGE MAY: We'll adjourn now. It's past half past 4.00.
5 Would you be back tomorrow, please, half past 9.00, Dr. Ball.
6 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 4.35 p.m.,
7 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 14th day of March
8 2002, at 9.30 a.m.