1 Tuesday, 7 October 2003
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.02 a.m.
5 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Nice, you have Ewa Tabeau to call, a fairly short
6 witness in terms of evidence in chief, I would guess.
7 MR. NICE: Yes. Mr. Groome will be taking her, but certainly can
8 be dealt with very compactly.
9 JUDGE MAY: And what will the position be then, if you can help
11 MR. NICE: We're in a very unfortunate position not of our
12 creation. The following witness was to be a Mr. Rousseau, formerly a
13 colonel in the Canadian Armed Services and an ECMM monitor or something to
14 that effect, and he was a witness who covered some discrete matters. We
15 made arrangements I think on three occasions to suit his convenience for
16 him to come here. Cancellations -- I can't remember the details of the
17 cancellations, but nevertheless three, possibly two, but I think three
18 occasions for him to be here. Tickets were provided for him to fly over
19 yesterday or the day before. People were here at the airport to collect
20 him, and he simply decided of his own volition not to get on the plane,
21 not to tell us about it, and to refuse to come.
22 I fear that probably doesn't constitute contempt, but it seems to
23 me it's going to constitute enough material for us to seek to subpoena him
24 if we judge, in light of this extraordinary cost of all this exercise and
25 his potential value to the case, that that's worth it. We're very sorry
1 to say that there is, therefore, an unexpected hole in the witness list.
2 The following witness, C-255 - or was it 225? I've forgotten now
3 I haven't got my list in front of me - is fully ready to go but he's only
4 flying in this morning on the early flight. He's coming straight to the
5 building and if we finish Ewa Tabeau, he should be ready to give evidence
7 He is, of course, the subject of an application, a general and
8 particular application that evidence in chief should be taken in writing.
9 This is, I know, an application that my learned friend Mr. Kay has not yet
11 JUDGE MAY: It's an application arising out of the latest ruling
12 by the Appeals Chamber in relation to 89(F), and since it's -- since it is
13 partly a matter of principle and certainly going to be a matter of
14 practice, I think that we will have to spend a little time on that this
16 What I can say in general terms is that the view of the Trial
17 Chamber is that these applications will have to be dealt with singularly
18 and not a matter of course because that's what the ruling says, although,
19 of course, they can be dealt with expeditiously and orally, I should have
20 thought myself.
21 MR. NICE: Your Honour, may we perhaps address the position of
22 that witness and possibly the position more generally before or after one
23 of the breaks when we see how Ewa Tabeau is going.
24 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Certainly.
25 MR. NICE: Sorry. I have only one other, perhaps for the moment,
1 particular administrative matter to raise with you and it's this: There's
2 a particular witness ordered by the Court to come on the 3rd and 4th, a
3 Monday and Tuesday. The Court's ruling is that in general court sittings
4 will be Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday. On the week of the 3rd and 4th,
5 there is a witness due to come back on the Thursday the 6th, and it's the
6 only day upon which he could come back, so that there's a little bit of a
7 conflict there; Monday, Tuesday and Thursday. We are not approaching the
8 witness ourselves directly about the timetable because he's been ordered
9 to attend by the Court. We will approach him if the Court would like us
10 to see if he can move to the Tuesday and Wednesday if that would be more
12 JUDGE MAY: We had in mind in fact to order the sittings that week
13 to Monday to Wednesday --
14 MR. NICE: It's Mr. Harland.
15 JUDGE MAY: -- to accommodate that witness.
16 MR. NICE: It's Mr. Harland, who you'll remember has to come back
17 to conclude his cross-examination, who apparently can only come on the
18 Thursday and has been booked for the Thursday. I will, of course, make
19 inquiries to see if he is flexible.
20 JUDGE MAY: If you would make those inquiries, because that's a
21 week we'll have to -- we'll have to look at rather carefully.
22 I'm going to deal, before the witness comes in, with one other
23 matter, which is to give an oral ruling, a short oral ruling in relation
24 to the Prosecution motion of the 23rd of September, which was entitled "On
25 the Implications of the Recurring Ill Health of the Accused" and on which
1 some argument was heard last week.
2 In relation to the methods suggested of taking evidence in chief
3 in the absence of the accused through sickness, the Trial Chamber can see
4 no purpose to be served in extending Rule 92 bis together with a video
5 recording as a means of obtaining evidence in chief. However, the Trial
6 Chamber will keep under review the proposal to use deposition evidence and
7 rule on it if the relevant circumstances arise.
8 The Trial Chamber has extended the role of the amici and will
9 retain under consideration the possibility of assigning Defence counsel.
10 The Trial Chamber were going to order a sitting on the week of the 3rd to
11 the 5th of November, Monday to Wednesday. We will keep that under
12 consideration in the light of what we've just been told about Mr. Harland,
13 but I should point out that there may be other occasions when changes to
14 the schedule for Tuesday to Thursday are necessary.
15 [Trial Chamber confers]
16 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, you will have the opportunity. You see
17 the Prosecution have returned to the argument that Defence counsel should
18 be assigned, and you've heard me say that we will keep it under
19 consideration. If you want to say anything about that suggestion which
20 they have returned to then you can do so when the opportunity arises.
21 Yes. Well, we'll need to find time for administrative -- an
22 administrative hearing in any event, and that can be one of the matters
23 which is considered.
24 Yes, Mr. Groome.
25 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, the Prosecution calls its next witness,
1 Ms. Ewa Tabeau
2 [The witness entered court]
3 JUDGE MAY: Yes. If you would take the -- yes. If you would take
4 the declaration, please.
5 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the
6 whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
7 JUDGE MAY: Thank you very much. If you'd like to take a seat.
8 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
9 WITNESS: EWA TABEAU
10 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Groome.
11 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, the Prosecution will be tendering one
12 binder with 12 different exhibits. Could I ask that a number now be
13 assigned to that binder.
14 While we're waiting for that, Your Honour.
15 Examined by Mr. Groome:
16 Q. Ms. Tabeau, in one of the exhibits that will be tendered here this
17 morning there is a summary of your educational background and professional
18 experience on page 235 of tab 2. Can I ask you just to supplement that
19 and ask you for the record, are you an employee of the Office of the
21 A. Yes, I am.
22 Q. And how long have you been such?
23 A. Since September 2000.
24 THE REGISTRAR: The exhibit number will be 548.
25 MR. GROOME: Thank you.
1 Q. I'd ask that we begin your testimony by asking you to look at tab
2 1 of Exhibit 548. And while that is being presented on the screen before
3 you, there have been four demographic reports authored by you submitted in
4 this case. Can I ask you to begin your testimony by simply identifying
5 and differentiating the four different reports?
6 A. The first report is the report about ethnic -- Changing Ethnic
7 Composition and Internally Displaced Persons and Refugees in the Milosevic
8 Case Area. The three other reports, remaining reports, are devoted to the
9 casualties of the siege of Sarajevo. Two reports of the three, report
10 number 2 and 3, were made at request of the trial team engaged in the
11 General Galic case. And the fourth report, the so-called third Sarajevo
12 report, was made specifically for the Milosevic case and will be discussed
13 here as an addition to the two Galic reports.
14 Q. I'm going to first ask you questions about the first report that
15 you've identified, and that is the Ethnic Composition of Internally
16 Displaced Persons and Refugees From 47 Municipalities of Bosnia and
17 Herzegovina between 1991 and 1997. Can I ask you to briefly describe the
18 objective of that report. What was it that you set out to study?
19 A. In this report, we attempted at describing -- excuse me. I don't
20 see anything on my screen. Perhaps someone can help me.
21 Q. Can I ask that the witness be shown tab 2 of Exhibit 548. What
22 was it that you set out to measure statistically in this first report?
23 A. In the first report we described changes in the ethnic composition
24 in 47 municipalities in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The municipalities
25 jointly formed the Milosevic case area. This was the first objective.
1 The second objective of the report was to describe numbers of
2 internally displaced persons and refugees from Bosnia and Herzegovina.
3 Q. I'm going to ask you that you look at tab 2 of 548. Is that a
4 copy of the report that you submitted in this case?
5 A. Yes, this is the report.
6 Q. Now, how many municipalities in Bosnia did you undertake to study
7 for this report?
8 A. We studied 47 pre-war municipalities that jointly covered
9 approximately 50 per cent of the pre-war population of Bosnia and
10 Herzegovina as measured in the 1991 census.
11 Q. And then those 47 municipalities which are listed in your report,
12 were they municipalities that you yourself chose or given to you from the
13 trial team?
14 A. The list was given to us by the trial team.
15 Q. And how do you refer to that group of 47 municipalities throughout
16 the course of your report? What term do you use?
17 A. We consistently used the term "Milosevic case area."
18 Q. Now, before I ask you to talk about the report specifically, there
19 are two words that are used throughout the report, or two phrases. The
20 first is "internally displaced persons," you also refer to by the
21 abbreviation "IDP." Can you explain what that is for the purposes of this
23 A. For the purpose of this particular report, we used the statistical
24 definition of an internally displaced person. It is a person who between
25 1991 and 1997/8, changed the place of residence, so the municipality of
1 residence as reported in the 1991 census is different from the
2 municipality of residence in the 1997/8 period.
3 Q. And similarly, can you define the term "refugee" for us.
4 A. A refugee is a person - again it is a statistical definition - who
5 left the country between 1991 and 1997/8 so in 1991 was reported in the
6 population census and by 1997/8 moved out of the country and is reported
7 in a country different than Bosnia.
8 Q. Now, the data sources that you used --
9 THE INTERPRETER: Could Mr. Groome and the witness, please pause
10 between question and answer. Thank you.
11 MR. GROOME: My apologies to the interpreters.
12 Q. The sources that you used for your study can be found in table 1
13 on page 4. Can I ask you to now simply list the name of the source,
14 identify the custodian of those records, and any brief description that
15 you feel is warranted about those sources.
16 A. In the report we studied primary resources and used individual
17 records of persons in the analysis. We focused on three major sources,
18 the 1991 population census that reported the population as of the
19 particular moment of census 31st of March, 1991. For the whole country
20 the census included 4.4 million records. We also used voters registers,
21 actually two voters registers from the local elections in 1997 and 1998.
22 Merged together, the register -- merged register contained about 2.7
23 million records. OSCE, Organisation for Security and Cooperation in
24 Europe, established and maintained the voters registers.
25 The last source is the database of Displaced Persons and Refugees,
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 the DPR. It is an official register of internally displaced persons and
2 refugees in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The register was established by UNHCR
3 together with local authorities and now it is maintained by the government
4 of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
5 Q. Now, in addition to these three sources upon which you based your
6 findings, were there other sources that you used to compare and to check
7 some of your findings?
8 A. We additionally used two sources. These two sources were not used
9 in the form of individual records. We only used summary statistics
10 reported in these sources. These sources were two lists established by
11 the authorities of Republika Srpska. First list is the list of citizens
12 who moved out and into the area of Banja Luka sector, status as of 1993.
13 And the second list is an overview of data on the size and ethnic
14 composition of the population in the Banja Luka sector in 1991 and 1995.
15 Q. In comparing your findings against the findings by studies done by
16 the Republika Srpska, did you find any material discrepancies?
17 A. We could compare only a limited number of municipalities with
18 these two lists as the coverage of our report, 47 municipalities, is much
19 broader than the municipalities contained in the Banja Luka sector.
20 However, for the municipalities included in RS sources, we didn't find
21 discrepancies that could be seen as significant compared to other results
22 -- our results.
23 Q. Can I now ask you to describe for the Chamber briefly the
24 methodology that you followed before I ask you to detail some of your
1 A. The methodology can be described as tracing persons reported
2 before the war through the war period and looking for them in the post-war
3 sources. As a starting point, we used the population census 1991, and
4 after the war we could look for persons in the merged voters register
5 1997, 1998. In order to compare these two sources or persons in these two
6 sources, we had to establish individual links between records of the same
7 persons in these two sources, and once having done this, we could compare
8 place of residence, for instance, of one the same person in 1991 and
10 Q. Is it correct to say that what you attempted to do was to trace
11 the whereabouts of specific individuals in 1991 and to determine, if you
12 could, where they were in 1997 and 1998?
13 A. Yes, this is correct.
14 Q. What was the primary way in which you identified that you had
15 linked the same person from the 1991 census and the 1997/1998 register?
16 A. Linking is a procedure that is well known in statistics and
17 demography and is usually based on personal identification numbers. So if
18 two records in two different sources have one the same personal
19 identification number, it is very easy to conclude that these two records
20 are of one the same person.
21 Personal identification numbers were available in the two sources
22 in 1991 census and in the voters register for Bosnia as well. However,
23 not for all citizens of Bosnia these numbers were reported. Sometimes the
24 numbers were also deficient. Therefore, in addition to the personal
25 identification numbers, we used a number of other items, like names,
1 father's name, date of birth, place of birth, and make -- and we made a
2 criterion that contained a multiple number of items that were compared in
3 order to identify persons. Actually, this procedure is quite reliable in
4 the sense that if two records are exactly the same on a number of data
5 items, then the probability that the person linked is the same in the
6 census and in the voters is actually very high.
7 Q. What percentage of persons that you set out to link between 1991
8 and 1997, 1998 were you able to link in the way that you've described?
9 A. For the voters reported in the merged register 1997/8, it was 80
10 per cent, approximately, voters linked with the census.
11 Q. Now, before I ask you to discuss your findings in detail, can I
12 ask you to explain to the Chamber the -- the size of the sample that you
13 studied and how it compares to other samples that could be studied for
14 statistical examination of a phenomenon.
15 A. For 1991, we studied the complete population, the census record of
16 the 1991 population. So the coverage of the census is complete. It is
17 not a sample, it is complete information.
18 And regarding voters, it is indeed a sample. First of all, it is
19 a sample because it covers only certain ages, age groups in the
20 population, those who are eligible to vote, that is at age 18 or higher,
21 18 years or higher. Secondly, not all voters eligible to vote registered
22 in the elections in 1997 and 1998. OSCE estimated that on average for the
23 whole country, it was 75 per cent of voters who registered of all eligible
24 to vote. And finally, it is a sample because of the incomplete matching
25 rate. We lost like 20 per cent of voters due to 80 per cent matching
2 Q. Did you deem it although sample a sufficient sample to carry out
3 your statistical study of the numbers?
4 A. I believe as a sample it is a very large sample of the population
5 describing the status in 1997/8. We actually worked for the whole
6 country, for Bosnia, with a number like 2 million, more than 2 million
7 records of voters.
8 Q. And you can -- can you describe for the Chamber the relationship
9 between the size of the sample and the reliability of the findings taken
10 from such a sample?
11 A. While working with samples, we cannot draw conclusive remarks
12 about the absolute size of the population. All relative measures from
13 large samples are reliable. The larger the size of a sample, the smaller
14 the error we make when estimating measures like fractions, percentages.
15 Q. I'm going to ask you to now turn to your findings in this first
16 report and I'm going to ask you to discuss one particular municipality in
17 great detail and then take the remainder in a summary fashion.
18 Could I ask you to turn your attention to Srebrenica, and could I
19 ask you to begin by looking at Annex 6.5, table 1, on page 169 of your
21 A. Yes. I see this table on my screen.
22 Q. Now, this table compares the ethnic composition of the population
23 of Srebrenica in 1991 with the ethnic composition in 1997, 1998. Can I
24 begin by asking you, what was the overall population, people of all
25 ethnicities, in 1991 as compared to 1997, 1998?
1 A. In 1991, in the column titled "All," we see 29.198 individuals
2 reported. This is not the complete population of Srebrenica in 1991. It
3 is a group, a subgroup of the population who in 1997/8 became eligible to
4 vote. The total size of the Srebrenica population in 1991 was 36.666. So
5 the 29 approximately thousand is clearly a subgroup. These are those who
6 were born before 1980 and became eligible to vote in 1997/8.
7 Q. And did you take this subgroup of the 1991 census, that
8 subgrouping, those people eligible to vote, so you could more accurately
9 compare it to the registered voters in 1997, 1998?
10 A. Yes. This was the reason. We didn't want to compare things that
11 were uncomparable.
12 Q. And what was the overall population of people eligible to vote in
13 1997 in Srebrenica, all ethnicities?
14 A. I can say what was the size of those who registered to vote and
15 were matched with the census. The number reported here is 7.442. In
16 Srebrenica, this is the group of those who registered to vote in this
17 particular municipality.
18 Q. Can I ask you to now compare the size of the Muslim population in
19 1991 as compared to 1997, 1998.
20 A. For the Muslims, we see that for 1991 there were 21.361 Muslims
21 there, and in 1997 we were able to identify seven registered voters of
22 Muslim ethnicity in Srebrenica.
23 Q. And can I ask you to same question with respect to the Serb
25 A. For the Serb population, it is 7.205 in 1991 and 7.169 individuals
1 in 1997/8. So these two numbers is practically almost the same.
2 Q. And can I now ask you to speak to the same population change in
3 Srebrenica in terms of percentages.
4 A. For the Muslim population we see clear -- a clear decline, even I
5 would call it a dramatic decline from 73.2 per cent in 1991 to 0.1 per
6 cent in 1997. It is a dramatic change that is almost hundred per cent of
7 decline. And for the Serb population we see an increase from
8 approximately 25 per cent to 96 per cent in 1997.
9 Q. Now, drawing your attention to Annex --
10 JUDGE KWON: Just pause there. I wonder if the doctor has the
11 data in 1991 of the complete population of Srebrenica.
12 THE WITNESS: For 1991, it is a complete population of those who
13 were born before 1980. So it is complete --
14 JUDGE KWON: You said that this number, 29.000, is not a number of
15 complete population --
16 THE WITNESS: That's correct.
17 JUDGE KWON: -- rather it is a group, a subgroup. My query is
18 whether you have a total number.
19 THE WITNESS: Yes.
20 JUDGE KWON: What is that?
21 THE WITNESS: The total number for Srebrenica of all population in
22 1991 is 36.666.
23 JUDGE KWON: And what was the composition like?
24 THE WITNESS: The composition was very close to what we see for
25 1991 in our figures here. Again, this subgroup of those born before 1980
1 is a huge sample of the actual population of 1991, so if we look at
2 fractions, percentages, only minor differences would be seen when compared
3 for the complete population and for this particular subgroup. So we can
4 think of these percentages for 1991 as a good description of the ethnic
5 composition in Srebrenica, the whole population of Srebrenica in 1991.
6 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
7 MR. GROOME:
8 Q. Just perhaps for additional clarification, can we subtract the
9 number 7, the number of registered Muslim voters in Srebrenica in 1997
10 from the 21.361 in 1991 to find out the remaining population of Muslim
11 ethnicity in 1997? Would we be able to do that accurately?
12 A. I wouldn't do that. It is incorrect from the methodological point
13 of view. We would subtract a sample from the complete population and
14 there are newcomers reported for 1997 among those registered voters so
15 this is not the correct of doing this.
16 Q. Now, if I can draw your attention to figure 1 in Annex 6.5, that's
17 page 169 of the report, is this a graphic representation of the same
18 findings that you've just discussed?
19 A. Yes. We consistently use colours, green for the Muslims, red for
20 the Serbs, blue for the Croats and grey for the others throughout the
21 report. This is the illustration, so we observe a big decline, sharp
22 decline in the green bars and sharp increase in the red bars.
23 Q. Can I ask you to describe to the Chamber how it was you determined
24 that a particular individual was of Muslim ethnicity or Serb ethnicity or
25 Croat or other?
1 A. Ethnicity has been consistently used in our report according to
2 the definition as in the census. So for the voters reported for 1997/8
3 through the links we could take for them the ethnicity reported in that
4 census. So there is no bias in all these analyses that we present related
5 to changes in the definition of ethnicity of individuals.
6 Q. So the -- you collected your ethnicity or your description of
7 ethnicity from the census and which was in turn each individual describing
8 how they saw themselves; is that correct?
9 A. In that census, ethnicity was a self-reported item. It was an
10 open-ended question. Everyone was entitled to report a self-perceived
11 ethnicity. So this is how we used -- used that. Only that the category
12 others is a kind of remaining ethnicities category. All those who
13 reported themselves as Serbs or Muslims or Croats were taken as Serbs,
14 Muslims or Croats and all remaining ethnicity, including Yugoslavs and all
15 kinds of other ethnicities, were taken together in the others category.
16 Q. We can now move to table 2 of Annex 6.5. That's on page 170 of
17 the report. This table here and it's now being displayed on the screen
18 before you, can I ask you to describe the difference between table 1 and
19 table 2?
20 A. Table 2 shows only those voters who originated from Srebrenica in
21 1991. They were reported in 1991 census and were identified in the voters
22 register. So it is a subgroup of all those reported in the previous table
23 in the number of 29.000, approximately 29.000 whom we found irrespectively
24 were irrespectively of the place where they registered to vote. And in
25 this table, in table 2, we show the distribution of those voters according
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 to the place of registration, whether it was in Srebrenica or outside
3 Q. Now, your table indicates that in 1991, there were 3.152 Serbs
4 that you were able to find both in 1991 as having the same residence in
5 1997, 1998; is that correct?
6 A. Could you repeat the number.
7 Q. Can I ask you to explain the figure under Serbs at 1991 residence
8 3.152. What is the significance of that number?
9 A. This is those Serbs who used to live in Srebrenica in 1991 and
10 were reported in that census and were found as registered in Srebrenica in
11 1997/8. This is this group of Serb voters.
12 Q. And how many Muslims were able to be found filling the same
13 criteria, being there in 1991 and being also present in 1997, 1998?
14 A. So we see only four individuals of Muslim ethnicity that were in
15 1991 and 1997 in Srebrenica.
16 Q. Can I ask you to explain the numbers for both Serbs and Muslims
17 with respect to individuals that were there in 1991 but were no longer
18 there in 1997, 1998?
19 A. For the Serbs there were 771 such individuals. So this would be
20 the individuals who, according to our statistical definition of internally
21 displaced persons and refugees, must be considered internally displaced
22 persons or refugees. And for the Muslims, the number of those internally
23 displaced or refugees is 9.726. So these are all those Muslims who
24 registered outside Srebrenica in other municipalities in Bosnia or outside
1 Q. And just so it's clear, that figure of 9.726 does not include any
2 Muslims that may have died between 1991 and 1997, 1998?
3 A. Certainly it doesn't. Those are only those alive at the time of
5 Q. Could I now ask you to take a look --
6 JUDGE KWON: Just a second. Dr. Tabeau, the total number in table
7 2, which is 13.891, what significance does it have?
8 THE WITNESS: It is more than 50 per cent of the population taken
9 in the table 1 previously for studying.
10 JUDGE KWON: 1991.
11 THE WITNESS: Yes. So it is a sample, more than 50 per cent
12 sample, of the 1991 complete population studied in our report that we were
13 able to identify in the voters register in the post-war period as alive,
14 as surviving and registered somewhere to vote.
15 JUDGE KWON: I think I don't follow you when you say the samples.
16 How do you -- how did you choose them? They are not the population over
17 the voting age, or what sample is that?
18 THE WITNESS: Well, generally we always, always throughout the
19 report, always work with the population of voting age. But voting age can
20 be seen, defined at a given moment of time. For us, it is the voting age
21 18 plus at the time of 1997 election. And it is always this population.
22 Only that if we go back to that census, the same group of people is at
23 age, like, 12 years or older because we do it cohort-wise. We still look
24 at the same group of people to avoid any bias related to extra individuals
25 that would be analysed incorrectly. So we still want to compare
1 statistics for one the same group of people, for voters 1997, 1998.
2 JUDGE KWON: Okay. What about the samples then?
3 THE WITNESS: The sample, we didn't draw our samples following a
4 statistical procedure. Our samples, the size of our samples actually was
5 determined by our success in finding people from the census in the voters
6 register. So this number, for instance, 13.891, is a sample of those whom
7 we were able to find from Srebrenica, from the census 1991, in the voters
8 register. So this is how this sample was created. So this is our
9 matching success, I would put it this way.
10 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
11 MR. GROOME:
12 Q. I'm going to now ask you to look at a series of pie charts which
13 describe the statistical or the change in ethnic composition that you
14 found in the municipality of Srebrenica, and I'm now asking you to look at
15 page 171 of your report, and that's figure 2a. Can I ask you to describe
16 what we're looking at on the screen and in this figure.
17 A. It is a figure summarising the place of registration or residence
18 of the post-war population. According to it, all the residence at and
19 alternatively not at 1991, all the residence. So we see that
20 approximately 23 per cent of the -- of the population of voters who
21 registered in Srebrenica were found at all 91 residence, and 70 --
22 approximately 77 per cent of the population of voters registered in
23 Srebrenica were found not at 1991 residence.
24 Q. Now, this particular chart does not distinguish between ethnic
25 groups. Can I ask you to look at figure 2b from the same page and ask you
1 to describe what we are looking at here.
2 A. This is the ethnic composition of the voters originating from
3 Srebrenica by place of registration to vote. We have two subcharts. The
4 left one is the ethnic composition of those who were found at 1991
5 residence; this means in Srebrenica. And the right chart shows the ethnic
6 composition of those found at locations different than Srebrenica.
7 Q. And what was the --
8 A. After the war, yes.
9 Q. And what was the ethnic composition, what was the percentage of
10 the ethnic composition of those that remained until 1997, 1998?
11 A. Excuse me, once again the question?
12 Q. The left-hand chart, what does that chart indicate with respect to
13 the ethnic composition of those that remained in Srebrenica?
14 A. Well, 97 per cent, approximately, of them are of Serb ethnicity.
15 Q. And the right-hand chart, what does that say about the ethnic
16 composition of those that left Srebrenica?
17 A. This is an ethnic composition dominated by the Muslim ethnicity.
18 91 per cent, approximately, of them were Muslims.
19 Q. And finally, if I could ask you to look at chart number 2c on the
20 same page, of 171 of your report, can you please describe what these
21 charts represent.
22 A. This is a presentation showing each ethnic group separately. For
23 each ethnic group we show percentages, two percentages of those who became
24 internally displaced or refugees. This is the light-coloured part. And
25 the second percentage is the percentage of those who just stayed where
1 they lived, stayed after the war where they lived before the war.
2 So for the Serbs, for instance, it is that approximately 20 per
3 cent of the Serbs is the light-coloured part, and this is the fraction of
4 IDPs and refugees among the Serbs. The remaining 80 per cent
5 approximately is the domestic population who lived in 1991 in Srebrenica
6 and in 1997 in Srebrenica as well.
7 Q. Can I ask you to summarise your findings for the other ethnic
8 groups as well.
9 A. For the Muslim population, we see that the fraction, the
10 percentage of IDPs and refugees is 100 per cent, it is approximately
11 hundred per cent in our figures in tables. For Croats -- so this means
12 simply that all Muslims here in -- almost all of this group have become
13 refugees or displaced persons.
14 For Croats, the percentage of internally displaced or refugees is
15 approximately 47 per cent, and the rest, 53 per cent, are non-displaced
16 persons, non-refugees. And for others, the fraction of IDPs and refugees
17 is 67.4 per cent.
18 Q. That concludes all the questions I want to ask you about
19 Srebrenica specifically. Were you asked to look at six other
20 municipalities in similar detail, six other municipalities from Bosnia?
21 A. Yes. We actually looked at municipalities that were located at
22 the eastern border of Bosnia with Serbia, and these municipalities
23 included Bijeljina, Bratunac, Srebrenica of course, Visegrad, Brcko, Foca,
24 and Zvornik.
25 Q. Now, before I ask you to summarise your findings for all of these
1 municipalities, can you explain to the Chamber the phenomena where,
2 pursuant to the Dayton Accords, three of these municipalities were
3 actually divided and the border between the Federation of
4 Bosnia-Herzegovina and Republika Srpska actually fell in the middle of and
5 divided these municipalities?
6 A. Yes. The Dayton Peace Accords defined actually a number of
7 municipalities that were split between two political entities. In our
8 study, three such municipalities are included. It is Brcko, Foca, and
9 Zvornik. So instead of just one pre-war municipality of, for instance,
10 Foca, after the war, after November 1995, we have to deal with two
11 municipalities, RS part of Foca, and federal, FBH part of Foca. And this
12 is not only these three municipalities. There were many more
13 municipalities, split municipalities in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
14 Q. I'm going to ask you to first deal with the four municipalities
15 that were not divided by the Dayton Accords and draw your attention to
16 figure 2a on page 19 of your report. Can I ask you to, using that chart,
17 to summarise your findings for these four municipalities, understanding
18 that you've already told us about Srebrenica.
19 A. This is a presentation, these charts in figure 28 -- 2a of changes
20 in the ethnic composition in 1991 versus 1997/8. We do this for each
21 ethnic group separately. In these charts we show percentage of a given
22 ethnic group, like Serbs, for instance, in 1991, and next to it the
23 percentage of Serbs in 1997/8. So the left bar is always the 1991
24 representation, and the right one is the 1997/8 representation.
25 What happened to the Serb population of Bijeljina between 1991 and
1 1997, 1998?
2 A. The Serb population -- the percentage of the Serbs in Bijeljina
3 increased from approximately 60 per cent to approximately 91 per cent in
5 Q. The Muslim population?
6 A. For the Muslim population, we see a decline, very considerable
7 decline, from approximately 30 per cent to approximately 3 per cent. And
8 the changes for Croats and for others are less significant.
9 Q. If I can draw your attention to the municipality of Bratunac. Can
10 you please review your findings with us.
11 A. It is a very similar picture. The numbers are different, though.
12 For the Serbs, increase from approximately 36 to 97 per cent; and for the
13 Muslims, decline from 62 per cent to almost 0 per cent. And again, others
14 and Croats show less meaningful changes.
15 We discussed Srebrenica already, and Visegrad is the next
16 municipality, last chart. Again, very similar situation; rapid increase
17 of the Serb ethnicity group and the decline, very considerable decline of
18 the Muslim population.
19 Q. There seems to be no bar representing the Muslim population in
20 Visegrad in 1997. Does that mean that it fell at or near 0 per cent?
21 A. Yes. It is exactly the case, but it was the same with Srebrenica
22 and Bratunac; it was also near 0 numbers.
23 Q. If I can now turn your attention to figure 2b, and these are the
24 three municipalities that were divided by the Dayton Accords. And if I
25 could turn your attention to the first one, the municipality of Brcko.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 A. Yes. Municipality of Brcko, even though it was split, officially
2 was not considered to be split into federal part and RS part, but we still
3 show the RS and federal part because this what -- is what happened later
4 with Brcko officially.
5 In the RS part of Brcko, the pattern is very similar to what we
6 have seen already for other four municipalities, for Srebrenica, Visegrad,
7 Bijeljina and Bratunac. The federal part of Brcko shows an entirely
8 different perspective. In this case we see a decline of the Serb
9 population from 13 per cent to 0.3 per cent, while the population of
10 Muslims in the federal part of Brcko increased from 42 per cent to
11 approximately 78 per cent.
12 So this is a clear picture of population movements that likely
13 took place within the old Brcko municipality. It looks as if the Muslims
14 would be moving from the RS part of Brcko to the federal part of Brcko and
15 the Serbs the other way around. And it is very often the case for split
16 municipalities that these type of results are obtained.
17 Q. I'm going to now ask you to deal with Foca.
18 A. So with Foca, the RS part is not different from the general
19 pattern obtained for RS municipalities. We have increase of the Serb
20 population and decline of the Muslim population. And the federal part is,
21 as I said, we observe a decline of Serb population from 30 per cent to 0,
22 and increase in the Muslim population from approximately 69 per cent to 99
23 per cent.
24 Q. And finally, the municipality of Zvornik.
25 A. And municipality of Zvornik, very similar to what we saw for Foca.
1 RS part of Zvornik, as all other RS municipalities discussed here, the
2 most affected municipalities, and the federal part of Zvornik, a decline
3 of the Serb population from approximately 29 per cent to 0 and increase in
4 the Muslim population from 70 to 99 per cent approximately.
5 Q. Now, we've been looking at a bar graph summarising your findings
6 for these seven municipalities. Can I ask you to look at table 3M from
7 page 16 of your report, and can I ask you to describe what it is we're
8 looking at in this table.
9 A. These are the numbers that we just discussed in the form of the
10 graphics of the charts. This table, this particular table includes
11 fractions of the Muslim population in the 1991 and 1997/8.
12 Q. Can I ask you to focus on the change in percentage of Muslims, the
13 right-hand column, and maybe describe your findings of the change of
14 percentage of Muslims between 1991 and 1997, 1998, for these
16 A. So using this table, it is easy to make an assessment of the
17 overall change in the Muslim population between 1991, 1997/8 for these
18 particular seven municipalities. And such a summary figure is given in
19 the first row for all seven municipalities jointly. So the last column of
20 this table, 1991-1997 change in the percentage of Muslims is such a
21 summary measure of the change in the percentage of Muslims between 1991
22 and 1997/8, and the number reported here for seven municipalities jointly
23 is minus 78.9 per cent, and this must be interpreted as a decline by 78.9
24 per cent.
25 Q. So does that mean that the overall percentage change in ethnic
1 composition for these seven municipalities was a 78.9 per cent reduction
2 of the number of Muslims that you studied?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Did you do a similar table with respect to the Serb population?
5 A. Yes, we did.
6 Q. Before I ask you to talk about your findings with respect to the
7 Serb population, is it fair to say that the same sources and same
8 methodology was used in studying the ethnic -- changes in ethnic
9 composition of all ethnicities regardless of which particular one a table
10 may represent?
11 A. Yes, of course. So we were not selective all ethnic groups,
12 changes in the composition, IDPs, refugees were analysed on the basis of
13 exactly the same sources for every ethnic group.
14 Q. What was the overall change in the Serb population in these seven
15 municipalities that you were asked to focus on?
16 A. So again the summary measure in the first row of this table, last
17 column is plus 110.2 per cent. This is an increase by 110.2 per cent in
18 the Serb population in seven municipalities.
19 Q. Now, in the interests of time, I will not ask you to talk about
20 the other tables, similar tables, but is it fair to say that there are
21 similar tables created for the Croat population in these municipalities
22 and for this group called other?
23 A. Yes. These are tables 3O and 3C for the Croats.
24 Q. Now, Ms. Tabeau if we can now look at some of your overall
25 findings for the 47 municipalities you were asked to examine, and for this
1 if we can turn to table 2 on page 11 of the report. This table contains
2 both absolute numbers and percentages. Could I ask you to focus for the
3 moment on the change in ethnic population from 1991 to 1997, 1998, as
4 measured by the change in percentage of each population?
5 A. We are looking now at table 2, at the last column of table 2
6 showing the percentage change between 1991 and 1997 for the entire
7 Milosevic case area. So the measure we just discussed for the seven
8 municipalities jointly is also given here in this table for the whole
9 area, indictment area.
10 So actually the pattern is similar in terms of the direction of
11 changes for the Serbs and the Muslims. For the Serbs, we see a number of
12 35.4, which indicates an increase in the population of Serbs in the
13 Milosevic case area by 35.4 per cent. And for the Muslims, the number is
14 minus 21, which is a decline by 21 per cent in the fraction of Muslims in
15 the Milosevic case area between 1991, 1997/8.
16 In relative terms this change was even more substantial for
17 Croats. For Croats, the decline is minus 62.4 per cent. So the Croat
18 population declined in relative terms, the fraction of Croat population in
19 the Milosevic case area declined by 62.4 per cent.
20 And for the others, it is a decline by 24.6 per cent.
21 Q. Now, did you attempt to map these changes in ethnic composition on
22 two maps of Bosnia?
23 A. Yes. We prepared such maps, and they are included in the report.
24 And also I have copies I made.
25 Q. Are they figures 4a and 4b, found on page 26 of the report?
1 A. Yes, these are the two figures, 4a and 4b, page 26.
2 MR. GROOME: Your Honours, they are quite difficult to see because
3 of their size in the report. We have included as tabs 3 and 4 in the
4 binder larger copies of the same maps. Could I ask the usher to place tab
5 3 on the ELMO for the witness. Just tab 3. I'll get to that in a minute.
6 Q. And could I ask you just to first trace the line that is -- was
7 the border in 1997, 1998, between the Republika Srpska and Federation of
8 Bosnia-Herzegovina at the time you did your -- or at the time your data
9 was collected for the study?
10 A. The inter-entity borderline do you want me to show?
11 Q. Yes, the borderline.
12 A. The line I am now showing is the so-called Dayton line. This is
13 the line splitting Bosnia and Herzegovina into two political entities.
14 Q. And that is the blue line that you've traced?
15 A. Republika Srpska here and the Federation here.
16 Q. The municipalities that are marked in a dark green, what does that
17 say about their ethnic composition in 1991?
18 A. Perhaps I should explain the principles of how this map was made.
19 As I said, we use consistently the red colour for the Serbs, green for the
20 Muslims, blue for the Croats, and grey for the others. In this map, we
21 use two types of, for instance, red or green or blue or others or grey.
22 Dark clear red colour and light red colour. The same with green and blue
23 and others.
24 In addition to that, we used combinations of colours like green
25 with red resulting in brown or other combinations.
1 The idea was to show absolute majority ethnic groups by clear dark
2 colours so that dark red would indicate an absolute majority of the Serb
3 population in a given territory. Absolute majority is more than 50 per
4 cent of ethnic Serbs in a given municipality. Light red would indicate or
5 just indicates a relative majority of the Serb population, that is, less
6 than 50 per cent but more than -- but 5 per cent or more to the second
7 highest share of other ethnic group.
8 Q. And does the same hold true for the other colours, green and grey?
9 A. Yes, yes.
10 Q. Can I ask now that tab 4 be placed on the ELMO in front you.
11 That's not that yet. It's tab 4 in the binder. It's the map solely of
12 1997, 1998.
13 Ms. Tabeau, if you could assist the usher with that. Could I ask
14 you now to take the pointer or that pen and just point to the
15 municipalities where there was a significant change from 1991 in the
16 overall case study of the 47 municipalities.
17 A. Well, a quick look at the previous map, this is the map for 1991,
18 tells us that the municipalities at the border, eastern border with Serbia
19 had a Muslim majority, and these are municipalities of Zvornik, Bratunac,
20 Vlasenica, Srebrenica, Visegrad, Rogatica, and here is Gorazde, Srpska
21 Gorazde. There were also a number of municipalities that had a mixed
22 ethnic composition, like Foca. This is a mixed composition with two
23 dominant ethnic groups, Muslims and the Serbs; Foca, Milici, and Prijedor.
24 Q. And how does that compare to 1997, 1998?
25 A. So if we now look at the map for 1997/8, we see a consistent red
1 colour at the eastern border, also in Foca, in Prijedor. So all the
2 municipalities -- all the municipalities I indicated just a minute ago
3 having a considerable fraction of Muslims or just even an absolute
4 majority of Muslims, after the war had an absolute majority of the Serb
5 population. It is generally the case that the territory of Republika
6 Srpska of the Milosevic case area is exclusively dominated by the Serbs in
7 terms of majority group. And the territory of the federation, as we see,
8 all the municipalities are either with Muslim majority or Croat majority.
9 MR. GROOME: I'm finished with the map now. Thank you to the
11 Q. Now, we've been talking about changes in ethnic composition in the
12 Milosevic case. Can I now ask you to turn your attention to your findings
13 regarding population movements that resulted in these changes to ethnic
14 composition. And could I ask that we begin by looking at table 5 on page
15 29 of your report.
16 A. Yes. I see it on my screen.
17 Q. And could I ask you to concentrate on that second line of numbers,
18 people found not to be at their 1991 residence. Can you please summarise
19 your findings in that regard.
20 A. This is in fact the minimum number or at least number of
21 internally displaced persons or refugees that we were able to identify in
22 our study for the Milosevic case area. So in the --
23 Q. Can I interrupt you? When you use the word "minimum number," is
24 that to say that this number could not be lower but could possibly be
1 A. Yes, this is the meaning of this expression.
2 Q. Please continue.
3 A. For all ethnic groups jointly, in the last column of the table,
4 under the title "All," in the second row there is a number of
5 approximately 400.000 - specifically 399.973 - and this is the minimum
6 number of internally displaced persons and refugees that we identified
7 from the Milosevic case area as of 1997/8. And in the remaining columns
8 under the titles "Serbs, Muslims, Croats, Others," we see the numbers of
9 IDPs and refugees by ethnicity for every ethnic group.
10 Q. What is the minimum number of Serbs that left their 1991
12 A. It is, in this table, a minimum of 115.411.
13 Q. What is the minimum number of Muslims that left their 1991
15 A. It is 231.830.
16 Q. The same question for Croats.
17 A. It is 29.581.
18 Q. And then same for the group designated as Others.
19 A. It is 23.151.
20 Q. If I could now turn your attention to figure 5a from page 31 of
21 your report. Can I ask you to quickly summarise what this -- these pie
22 charts depict.
23 A. Well, the first pie chart, the yellow one, shows the fraction, the
24 percentage of IDPs and refugees in the identified population, post-war
25 population for the Milosevic case area. So four -- we have in this figure
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 39.5 per cent of IDPs and refugees as compared with 60.5 per cent of those
2 who resided still in the same municipalities as before the war.
3 Q. In the interest of time, Ms. Tabeau, I'm going to ask you did you
4 also graph or depict these findings on maps as well?
5 A. Yes, we have done this.
6 Q. Can I turn your attention to figure 9. It's also included as tab
7 5 in Exhibit 548. Can I ask you to describe what this map of Bosnia
9 A. This is an ethnic majority map for internally displaced persons
10 and refugees originating from the Milosevic case area as of 1997/8. So it
11 is a similar map to the maps we just discussed for the overall population
12 in 1997/8.
13 Q. Let me ask you a hypothetical question that may illustrate what
14 this map depicts. If we take any one of these municipalities, it is
15 probably true that people from all ethnicities became internally displaced
16 or became refugees; is that correct?
17 A. Usually for every municipality we observed IDPs and refugees
18 practically from every ethnic group.
19 Q. What the dark green represents here, are those municipalities
20 where of those displaced people or refugees more than 50 per cent of them
21 were of Muslim ethnicity; is that correct?
22 A. Yes. So every green municipality indicates that the fraction of
23 Muslims among all displaced persons and refugees was higher than 50 per
24 cent, that this particular ethnic group was a majority group among all
25 internally displaced and refugees.
1 Q. And did you examine this phenomena and graph them on maps for each
2 ethnic group separately?
3 A. We made such maps, and these are figures from 10 to 12, I believe.
4 Q. And they are --
5 A. To 13 --
6 Q. There they are included --
7 A. -- in the report.
8 Q. They are included as tabs 6, 7, 8 and 9. I will not go into those
9 in detail now. I will ask the usher to place three maps that have been
10 juxtaposed. They are figures 4a and 4b and figure 10, or tabs 3 and 4 and
11 tab 6. They are now on the ELMO.
12 I apologise for the low-tech version of this, but Sanction was
13 unable to handle this particular need.
14 Now, I want to draw your attention to the municipalities in the
15 southern portion of the map, the municipalities of Trebinje, Milici,
16 Nevesinje, Gacko, Mostar, and Kalinovik.
17 We can see from tab 3 and tab 4 that there is no remarkable change
18 in ethnic composition between 1991 and 1997 that is depicted on those two
19 figures; is that correct?
20 A. Which municipality did you mention?
21 Q. That would be Trebinje, Milici, Nevesinje, Gacko, Mostar, and
23 A. Perhaps we should focus just on one municipality to make it easier
24 to follow.
25 Q. The question I have for you: In 1991 in each of those
1 municipalities there was a Serb majority; is that correct?
2 A. Well, not in Foca, Srbinje. I see a mixed ethnic composition in
3 1991 in Foca.
4 Q. I'm not asking you to --
5 A. In Gacko, Kalinovik, indeed was a Serb majority in 1991. These
6 are the two ethnic majority maps for 1991. This one for 1997/8, that
7 one --
8 Q. Leaving aside Foca, just those other municipalities --
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. -- they're red in 1991. They're red in 1997.
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. The map that's marked as tab 6, figure 10, those municipalities
13 are all green. What is the significance of the fact that those
14 municipalities are marked green in this map depicting internally displaced
15 persons and refugees?
16 A. This map shows the fraction of internally displaced persons or
17 refugees among Muslims from a given territory and can be read together
18 with these two maps. So for instance, in Gacko, which was dominated by
19 Serbs in 1991 and also in 1997/8 - so ethnic composition ignored change in
20 terms of ethnic majority group; Serbs were here in 1991 were here in
21 1997/8 - however, this doesn't mean that there were no internally
22 displaced persons and refugees of -- from this particular municipality,
23 and Muslims certainly were one of those who became refugees and displaced
24 persons from Gacko.
25 Q. And what does dark green indicate?
1 A. And dark green indicates that the fraction of Muslims among those
2 identified after the war was extremely high. It was between 80 to hundred
3 per cent. 80 to hundred per cent of the Muslim population from Gacko from
4 1991 that we traced in the voters register was not living in Gacko any
5 more but outside this municipality, in other municipalities in Bosnia or
6 outside Bosnia. That is the meaning of this -- of this map.
7 Q. That concludes all the questions I want to ask you on the first
8 report dealing with Bosnia in general. I want to now turn your attention
9 to your reports with respect to Sarajevo. And if I could ask you to begin
10 by examining tabs 10, tab 11 and tab 12 of Exhibit 548. If the usher
11 could assist in that. And can you identify them as reports regarding
12 demographic changes in Sarajevo that you are the primary author of?
13 That's tabs 10, 11, and 12.
14 A. Yes. This is the first Sarajevo report, Population Losses in the
15 "Siege" of Sarajevo 10 September 1992 to 10 August 1994.
16 Q. That's tab 10. Could I ask you to quickly look at tab 11 and
17 identify that document.
18 A. This is the second Sarajevo report. In fact, it is an addendum to
19 tab 10, to the first Sarajevo report made at the request of the Chamber of
20 the Galic case.
21 Q. And finally, tab 12.
22 A. This is the third Sarajevo report that we made recently, in August
23 this year, specifically for the Milosevic case, and we'll discuss it later
25 Q. I want to now ask you to deal with tab 10, this first Sarajevo
1 report that you authored. Can I again ask you -- we'll follow the same
2 procedure as the first report. Can I ask you to describe briefly the
3 sources of the data that you used in compiling this report.
4 A. We just -- before I will start speaking about sources, I want to
5 make clear that this is an entirely different report and has a different
6 subject. We don't speak about ethnic composition and internally displaced
7 persons and refugees. In this case, the objective of this report was to
8 estimate the number of casualties of the siege of Sarajevo, that part of
9 the siege that was covered by the indictment of the General Galic case.
10 So the subject is estimating casualties, casualties of the siege.
11 There are several sources that theoretically could be used in such a
12 study. However, it is difficult -- it was difficult to find a source that
13 would cover exactly the indictment area. The indictment area in the Galic
14 case was the area of Sarajevo located within the front lines at different
15 moments of the siege.
16 Q. Did you identify a source that you determined to be the most
17 comprehensive and the most reliable upon which you could do some
18 statistical analysis?
19 A. Yes, we have identified such a source. It was a huge household
20 survey conducted by local researchers from Sarajevo at 1994, that would be
21 during the siege, and the coverage of this survey, household survey of
22 Sarajevo as we will call it later, was exactly as required for the Galic
23 indictment. Therefore, we used this source, but it is not the only
24 reason. There were very many other reasons that this source suited the
25 needs of this report better than any other source.
1 Q. Your report describes in detail the questionnaire that was used in
2 compiling this data. Approximately how many households altogether were
3 interviewed in compiling this data?
4 A. This survey was meant or intended as a complete household survey
5 within the front lines. It covered approximately 85.000 households living
6 at the territory within the front lines by mid-1994. A simple
7 extrapolation based on the average number of persons in one household
8 resulted in a survey population of approximately 340.000 individuals, and
9 this is actually the material that was studied in the -- in our Galic
10 report, in the first Sarajevo report.
11 Q. In your study, is it fair to say that you selected any record that
12 had evidence of a death or wounding being recorded during the time period
13 that you were interested in examining?
14 A. Yes. Yes. This is exactly what we have done. We haven't
15 computerised complete material, far too costly and far too time-consuming,
16 but selected the questionnaires were deaths, natural or violent killings
17 and woundings were reported and it resulted in about 40.000 events. That
18 would be the complete coverage, this number, approximately 40.000, at
19 mid-1994 within the front lines.
20 Q. Can I draw your attention to table 2, on page 4 of that report in
21 tab 10 and can I ask you to summarise the overview of your findings?
22 A. This is an overview of survey statistics. We computerised, as I
23 said, approximately 40.000 questionnaires where events, deaths and
24 woundings were reported. We gleaned the data, recorded variables,
25 established a database, eliminated duplicates. There were several
1 thousand duplicates, approximately 3.000 duplicates found, and we ended
2 after all this with 37.057 events in the database, events meaning killing,
3 natural deaths and wounded persons.
4 Q. Now, this table doesn't distinguish between people wounded and
5 killed as combatants and those wounded or killed as civilians; is that
7 A. This table doesn't, but generally we were able to distinguish
8 between civilians and combatants.
9 Q. If I can draw your attention to table 1 on page 3 of the same
10 report. Does this table begin to distinguish those that were wounded or
11 injured as a result of combat and those that were wounded or killed as
13 A. Table 1, please.
14 Q. If we could have that up on -- it's on page 3.
15 A. Yes. Table 1 that begins on page 3 in the report and is continued
16 on page 4 gives an overview of major statistics obtained from this survey.
17 In Part I of the table, we give overall numbers without making the
18 distinction between civilians and soldiers, and on page 4 we present
19 numbers for civilians.
20 Q. That is what is on the screen now so let us spend some time on
21 that particular table. Can I ask you to go through the numbers about what
22 you were able to determine with respect to civilians that were killed or
23 wounded during the time period that you examined?
24 A. The overall number of killed civilians was 1.399, and the number
25 of wounded civilians 5.093.
1 Q. Can I ask you to break it down according to age of the victim?
2 A. This breakdown is available from this table. I will only discuss
3 statistics for children and elderly, and elderly. We see the number of
4 267 killed children at age from 0, from birth to 17. And the number of 83
5 killed elderly at age 70 or more years. The same numbers for the wounded
6 persons are for children 1.150, and for the elderly, age 70 plus, 172.
7 Q. Now, in the questionnaires that were done in this household survey
8 of Sarajevo, were the people or were the people being questioned asked how
9 the victim was either injured or killed?
10 A. Yes. The cause of killing or wounding was included in the records
11 of those killed and wounded.
12 Q. Did you compile the numbers of how people were wounded or killed?
13 A. Yes. We actually prepared a standard way of reporting of causes
14 of death or wounding and in this table we present four broad categories of
15 causes. First category is shelling. Second is sniping. The third one
16 are other firearms, and the last one are other casualties. All these
17 causes are definitely war related, that because the causes were reported,
18 we are able to attach a cause of death to every single death or wounding
19 in the study.
20 So for the killed persons, 932 of them were killed by shelling.
21 253 by sniping, 101 by other firearms and 113 were victims or casualties
22 of other causes, war related causes of death.
23 Q. Can I now draw your attention to figure 1, which can be found on
24 page 26 of your report, and that again is tab 10. Does this graphically
25 depict the relationship between civilian deaths and deaths of combatants
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 in the siege of Sarajevo for the time period that you studied?
2 A. We can see this figure in this way. In this figure, the overall
3 number of casualties, of killed persons, is distributed, first of all, by
4 sex. The left part of the figure is showing men, and the right part
5 women. We also show the age distribution of killed men on the left and
6 killed women on the right.
7 The colours, the green colour is used to depict soldiers,
8 militaries; combatants, in other words. The light blue colour is
9 depicting civilians. We also had a small number of casualties of unknown
10 status, we didn't know whether they were soldiers or civilians. They are
11 shown marked by grey colour - there are very few - so you can see them
12 here in this figure.
13 The conclusion is when looking at this figure that the vast
14 majority of killed persons in the Galic related part of the siege are
15 soldiers because of the green colour, and those soldiers were at age from,
16 most of them, 19 or 18 years of age to approximately 60 -- 60 years. The
17 rest are civilians. There is not that much difference in the number of
18 civilian men and civilian women killed, and there are various ages at
19 which they were killed. It is -- for women it is rather clear that these
20 were ages from, say, approximately 20 to 60 years of age.
21 Q. And this report --
22 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Groome, the time is coming for an adjournment,
23 when you get a to convenient moment.
24 MR. GROOME: I am actually at one now. I was just going to ask
25 her to answer one more question, and then ...
1 Q. This report is limited in time to the period between the 10th of
2 September, 1992, and the 10th of August, 1994; is that correct?
3 A. Yes, that's correct.
4 Q. And after the break, I will ask you to discuss your final report
5 which deals with the broader time period.
6 A. Okay.
7 JUDGE MAY: Dr. Tabeau, we are going to adjourn now for 20
8 minutes. Would you remember during that adjournment not to speak to
9 anybody about your evidence until it's over, and that does include the
10 members of the Prosecution team.
11 We will adjourn.
12 --- Recess taken at 10.32 a.m.
13 --- On resuming at 10.55 a.m.
14 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Kay.
15 MR. KAY: Your Honours, I rise at this stage to raise a matter of
16 concern that has come to my attention that I think the Trial Chamber ought
17 to be aware of. It's been apparent to me that Mr. Milosevic is not in the
18 best of health this morning, and the information that's come to me is that
19 his blood pressure at this stage this morning is 160 over 110, which I
20 believe is a very high level. It's not something I'm inclined to sit on
21 and do nothing about because I feel it is a matter that the Trial Chamber
22 should know about. So I raise it at this stage because it might not be in
23 his interests for him to continue today.
24 JUDGE MAY: Where do you get this information from?
25 MR. KAY: From Mr. Tomanovic, one of the associates who was
1 speaking to me outside.
2 JUDGE MAY: Not from a doctor.
3 MR. KAY: I believe there has been a blood pressure check this
4 morning, and that was what I was told. It was taken by a nurse, I think
5 in this building.
6 JUDGE MAY: But we have had no medical report to this effect.
7 This trial is being constantly obstructed.
8 Mr. Milosevic, it's your health that's under discussion. How are
9 you feeling?
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, now that we had the break,
11 a nurse came and took my blood pressure, and that is what Mr. Kay is
12 talking about, during the break. I didn't ask her to come. I didn't ask
13 for my blood pressure to be taken. She simply came during the break and
14 took my blood pressure. Those are just facts, nothing more than that. So
15 it was not at my request that the nurse came nor have I asked for any
16 adjournment. Probably somebody sent her to me.
17 JUDGE MAY: Thank you. The legal officer, please.
18 [Trial Chamber confers]
19 JUDGE MAY: My colleagues are concerned about your health. We
20 will hear the witness to the examination-in-chief. We will then adjourn
21 and take advice.
22 Yes, Mr. Groome.
23 MR. GROOME:
24 Q. Ms. Tabeau, I would now ask you to turn attention to tab 12 of
25 Exhibit 548. That is your report entitled, "Death Toll in the Siege of
1 Sarajevo, April 1992 to December 1995, A Study of Mortality Based on Eight
2 Large Data Sources."
3 Can I ask you to first describe the difference in scope between
4 this report on Sarajevo and the report that we've just been discussing?
5 A. The coverage of the third Sarajevo report, the death toll report,
6 is broader than the coverage of the report called first Sarajevo report we
7 have just discussed made for the General Galic case.
8 In the death toll third Sarajevo report, we present an estimate of
9 the number of casualties in the siege of Sarajevo from April 1992 to
10 December 1995, and the territorial coverage of this report is also
11 broader. We estimate casualties on the territory of six complete
12 municipalities, entire municipalities, while in the Galic report, first
13 Sarajevo report, only the territory within the front lines was covered.
14 These are also the same six municipalities but taken as a part of the
15 overall territory of those six municipalities.
16 Q. There is a full description of the sources you relied upon in this
17 report in your report. Can I ask you to simply list the sources that you
18 relied upon now?
19 A. I will do that, but let me finish regarding the municipalities.
20 The municipalities included in this study are the following: Sarajevo
21 centre, Novi Grad, Stari Grad, Novo Sarajevo, Ilidza and Vogosca.
22 The sources that we used for the third Sarajevo report were the
23 following. We used just a number of sources jointly not one single source
24 as has been done in the Galic report. The sources are the following: We
25 used the mortality database called FIS mortality database. FIS stands for
1 Federal Institute for Statistics. This was a database established by the
2 federal statistical authorities in Sarajevo through a backwards collection
3 of death records from the territory of the Federation of Bosnia and
4 Herzegovina and covering the period of the entire conflict.
5 Q. The next one?
6 A. The second source is the list of missing persons for Bosnia and
7 Herzegovina completed by international committee for Red Cross and
8 Physicians for Human Rights, frequently used source and actually the best
9 existing on missing persons who are all believed to be dead.
10 Q. The next source?
11 A. The next is the database established by the non-governmental
12 organisation Muslims against Genocide, covers also the entire country and
13 the whole conflict period. Then next one is the household survey
14 Sarajevo, the source that we used for the Galic report.
15 Q. And --
16 A. The next one is the list of death records from Bakije Funeral
17 Home, Muslim, a Muslim funeral home. The oldest Muslim funeral home in
18 Sarajevo. Again the coverage is the whole conflict and the territory
19 urban part of Sarajevo practically within front lines.
20 In addition to these five sources, we used three lists of fallen
21 soldiers. These are official records of fallen soldiers, soldiers who
22 died in the Bosnian war. Coverage is the entire conflict period and the
23 territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
24 It is important to note that the lists of fallen soldiers that
25 were provided to us by Ministries of Defence in Republika Srpska and in
1 the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the FIS mortality database
2 are official records, death records existing for Bosnia and Herzegovina
3 for the conflict period.
4 Q. Now, did these last three sources of lists of fallen soldiers
5 enable you to distinguish between deaths caused to civilians and deaths to
7 A. These are just deaths of soldiers, combatants. So this is the
8 information about -- complete information about deaths of militaries
9 during the Bosnian war.
10 We used these records, after matching, of course, to
11 distinguish -- to -- to mark the deaths of militaries, to make the
12 distinction between civilians and militaries.
13 Q. Can I ask you now to briefly describe the methodology you employed
14 in this final report.
15 A. It is very important in -- when estimating war related mortality
16 related to a conflict, it is extremely important to work with more than
17 one source. There are no sources that would be complete and that would be
18 perfect. All sources are incomplete and deficient. All sources taken
19 together give a much better chance to produce a reasonable number of
20 casualties than just one single source.
21 So the idea of this work was to merge the sources together, to
22 eliminate duplicates, to make a list of unique records, death records
23 related to the siege of Sarajevo, and to present this number as the
24 overall number of casualties of the siege.
25 Q. And were you able to combine these sources, perform the analysis
1 that you say you did and result -- resulting in a single, reliable and
2 comprehensive source of information for your study?
3 A. We were able to achieve this goal. First of all, we worked with
4 each source separately, cleaned, structured, recorded, eliminated
5 duplicates within each source. Then we merged the sources and matched
6 them with the population census through the links with using the same
7 principles for the matching as already discussed on the example of
8 internally displaced persons and refugees report.
9 Q. Now --
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. This report is contained in tab 12 of Exhibit 548. Can I draw
12 your attention to tables 1a and 1b, both to be found on page 2, and can I
13 ask you to describe your findings or summarise your findings for us.
14 A. The table 1a gives the numbers of matched or linked records,
15 records linked with the census that at the same time were unique each and
16 were all related to the siege of Sarajevo as defined by six municipalities
17 in the period from April 1992 to December 1995. These are only linked
18 records. This means that a number of records are left aside, not included
19 in this table. We just were unable to match all records. Under the
20 table, the average matching rated is included. It is 76.6 per cent. So
21 the related loss of information is like 23.4 per cent.
22 In table 1a and 1b as well, we see four categories of death
23 listed. We have soldiers and three categories of civilians. The most
24 important for our purposes are civilians war related. These were deaths
25 -- these are the deaths that we are most interested in.
1 Next to those civilians are two other categories of civilians not
2 related to war. This means natural deaths, of causes like aging or
3 disease. And civilians, other deaths, of which we didn't know exactly
4 what was the cause of death and we were unable, therefore, to decide
5 whether a death was related to the conflict or resulted of the conflict or
7 Q. Can we focus on your figure of war related civilian deaths in 1a,
8 the figure of 4.015. Can you explain the difference between that number
9 and the figure of 4.954 for the same category in table 1b.
10 A. This number, 4.015 is a minimum number, at least number, obtained
11 on the basis of linked records. So with losing 23 per cent,
12 approximately, of records. The other number, 4.954, is a corrected number
13 by increasing the number 4.015 by 23.4 per cent just to compensate for the
14 unmatched records that we still have in our sources but because unmatched
15 couldn't be included in this table.
16 Q. I'm going to ask you now to address the point of how the Chamber
17 should use the first Sarajevo report and this Sarajevo report, and my
18 question is: Are the numbers of civilian casualties in the first report,
19 the report originally submitted in the Galic case, reflected in these
20 figures here on tables 1a and 1b?
21 A. The number of civilian casualties, killed civilians from the Galic
22 report, first Sarajevo report, is of course included in the number in
23 tables 1a and 1b. It was 1.399 deaths, as we remember. So the 4.015
24 deaths do include those 1.400 deaths from the other report. And of course
25 the number 4.954 does also include the number reported in the first big
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 Galic report.
2 So these two reports should be read together. So the big Galic
3 report is just a case study in which we showed how number of war related
4 casualties are produced. We studied the survey data, large survey,
5 complete survey, and on the basis of this survey produced certain numbers
6 related to the Galic indictment, and however, it is not enough to present
7 a number based on one source and on a part of a conflict. We made the
8 third Sarajevo report to produce a complete, more complete statistic, and
9 these are the numbers in table 1a and 1b. These are actually the numbers,
10 especially the number in table 1b, 4.954, almost 5.000 civilian deaths,
11 war related deaths. This is the number. This is the closest to the
13 MR. GROOME: Thank you. I have no further questions.
14 JUDGE MAY: We will now consider the position. We have a note
15 explaining the nurse's view.
16 [Trial Chamber confers]
17 JUDGE MAY: We've got the answer, Mr. Milosevic, to your health.
18 The position is this, that the test which you didn't ask for, as you say,
19 it was a routine matter which the nurse is carrying out. In the opinion
20 we have, you can go on today here, and the view is that the blood pressure
21 reading is not dangerous, but we will ask the doctor to come and have a
22 look at you to make sure you're all right this afternoon.
23 Now, it's for you to cross-examine the witness.
24 Cross-examined by Mr. Milosevic:
25 Q. [Interpretation] Ms. Tabeau, you entitled your paper "Ethnic
1 Composition, Internally Displaced Persons and Refugees from 47
2 Municipalities" from 1991 to 1997.
3 Is it correct to say that you didn't have the figures from March
4 1991 until December 1999 [as interpreted], that is, until the end of the
5 war, and that is why you had no sources, because they don't exist for that
7 A. Well, I had the figures from March 1991. It was the census. The
8 Bosnian war, as far as I know, ended in 1995, in the end of 1995, not in
9 December 1999. So I think I did have sources for the post-war period, the
10 voters register that could be used in studying changes in ethnic
12 Q. Perhaps the translation was not correct. I was talking about
13 March 1991 until December 1995 and not 1999, that is, up until the end of
14 the war you didn't have sources because they don't exist. Is that right?
15 A. For the war period, between the year 1991 and 1995, I didn't have
16 sources to study changes in between.
17 Q. That is precisely what I am referring to, because you say on page
18 5 that for the period from March 1991 to December 1995, we do not have
19 sources which could be used for complex analysis such as those that are
20 being reviewed in this report. Such sources do not exist. Is that right?
21 A. Yes, that is correct. That is what I wrote.
22 Q. And then you analyse seven municipalities and not 47 as stated in
23 the title; is that right?
24 A. This is not correct. I studied 47 municipalities, and in addition
25 to that, I took seven municipalities that were shown as case studies. The
1 seven municipalities are included in 47 municipalities of the Milosevic
2 case area.
3 Q. On page 17, you say in paragraph 22: "We continued examining
4 changes in the ethnic composition by focusing on seven selected
5 municipalities all located in the Milosevic case area."
6 This is a new discovery of the opposite side. Those
7 municipalities are Bijeljina, Bratunac, Brcko, Foca, Srebrenica, Visegrad,
8 and Zvornik.
9 A. Well, it is -- I can only repeat what I said. I studied all 47
10 municipalities. Seven municipalities, Bijeljina, Bratunac, Brcko, Foca,
11 Srebrenica, Visegrad, and Zvornik are just part of the 47. It is a
12 subgroup of municipalities that I wanted to show more specifically.
13 Q. Very well. But will you please answer my question, because I
14 really find it quite unclear. How did you choose --
15 JUDGE MAY: For the moment, it sounded as though you were going to
16 repeat the question, but you can go on if you're going to ask a different
18 How did you choose --
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] They're different certainly,
20 Mr. May.
21 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
22 Q. How did you select those particular seven different municipalities
23 if you wanted a sample of migrations or persecutions, whatever you want to
24 call it, why didn't you take the largest towns, for instance, in Bosnia
25 and Herzegovina instead of those seven municipalities? For instance, in
1 Sarajevo, you had 175.000 Serbs, and in 1995, you know yourself how many
2 were left. How did you select those particular seven municipalities?
3 A. These municipalities are called a representation of the most
4 affected municipalities in the Milosevic case area and were selected
5 according to their percentage change in the ethnic composition between
6 1991 and 1997/8. So these municipalities showed the highest change in the
7 ethnic composition. And this is just a representation. Not all of them
8 with the highest rate of change.
9 Q. So they represent the highest ethnic changes in the whole of
10 Bosnia-Herzegovina. Is that right, madam, Madam Tabeau?
11 A. It is in the Milosevic case area, not the whole country. But I
12 believe if we would look at the whole country, these municipalities still
13 would belong to the group of most affected municipalities. But the
14 subject of our report is the Milosevic case area, 47 municipalities.
15 Q. So that those municipalities were selected by Mr. Groome's team;
16 is that right?
17 A. At a certain point we certainly discussed the selection, and I
18 believe there were also other reasons to discuss in our report these
19 municipalities, but demographically speaking, without any problems I
20 included these municipalities as case studies due to the change in the
21 ethnic composition.
22 Q. Very well. Since you studied the whole of Bosnia and Herzegovina,
23 I assume, Madam Tabeau, what would the picture be like if you took the
24 municipalities, for example, of Grahovo, Drvar, Glamoc, Petrovac. In
25 Grahovo and Drvar, more than 99 per cent of the population were Serbs were
1 before the war, and after 1995, not a single one remained. What would
2 your conclusions be then?
3 A. I would like to draw your attention to the fact that I showed a
4 number of municipalities in the Milosevic case area where the Serb
5 population between 1991 and 1997 declined considerably. So it is not that
6 I avoided in my report to give statistics on the changes in the Serb
7 population, but the Milosevic case area comprises mainly municipalities
8 from Republika Srpska. Many of these municipalities were just dominated
9 by Serbs in 1991 and remained dominated by Serbs in 1997/8.
10 So it is -- you asked me to study municipalities located in the
11 Federation that perhaps had a Serb majority in 1991, and in 1997/8 became
12 Muslim dominated but which are not part of the Milosevic case area. Why
13 would I study those municipalities?
14 Q. I understand. So from the demographic point of view as a science
15 on population, you are narrowing your focus to several municipalities
16 assigned to you by this so-called Prosecution. Does that seem to you to
17 be a proper scientific approach for drawing conclusions?
18 A. I indeed studied 47 municipalities indicated to me by the
19 Prosecution team, and I said so in the beginning of my testimony, and I
20 have no problems with making a report that is meant for this particular
21 case with the Milosevic case area of the study area. If I would be
22 requested to make a report for the whole country Bosnia and Herzegovina, I
23 would do that, I would make such a report. It is not -- it has nothing to
24 do with scientific or non-scientific approach that I use in my work. This
25 report, 47 municipalities, was needed for this case. I made it, and today
1 we are discussing the figures.
2 Q. But that is the point, because as you know, if you take from a
3 whole a particular segment and review it alone, then you lose the full
4 picture of the reality of the whole. Isn't that so, madam?
5 A. It is that a context, a broader context is always useful in
6 comparison, sir. We have made a limited number of comparisons of our
7 figures with the figures for Bosnia and Herzegovina, a limited number of
8 comparisons, sir. I don't think that because of the limited number of
9 comparisons we lost the reality of the whole. I don't think so.
10 So if anything more is needed, I am open to provide any analysis,
11 any comparisons that would be requested, that will be requested.
12 Q. Very well. And is it in dispute, since you are a specialist in
13 figures, according to official data and the 1991 census data in Bosnia and
14 Herzegovina, there was 1.905.274 inhabitants of Muslim ethnicity? Is that
15 correct? And furthermore, in the category of Yugoslavs, there were
16 239.857 recorded as Yugoslavs.
17 Madam Tabeau, is it disputed that in the seven mentioned
18 municipalities, there were 12 per cent --
19 JUDGE MAY: The witness must deal with these matters one by one.
20 The first suggestion is to the census data for 1991. Can you help us
21 about that, Dr. Tabeau, or not?
22 THE WITNESS: Well, I can help, but I don't have the figures with
23 me. I have a publication in my office, official figures from the census,
24 that we can use to check the figures. It is probably that these are the
25 numbers that Mr. Milosevic is quoting here.
1 JUDGE MAY: Very well.
2 THE WITNESS: But I cannot confirm with hundred per cent certainty
3 because I don't have anything on paper in front of me.
4 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Now, go on, Mr. Milosevic, and deal with the
5 seven municipalities.
6 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
7 Q. Let me just ask you, what kind of demography do you specialise in?
8 A. At this moment I am working for the Office of the Prosecutor, and
9 I am responsible for estimating demographic consequences of the conflicts
10 in the former Yugoslavia, in particular Bosnia and Croatia.
11 Q. All right. Before you became a specialist for The Hague and
12 demography in that sense, you took part in several projects, international
13 conferences, et cetera. So tell me, which field of demography were you
14 particularly dealing with in those papers?
15 A. It was analysis of mortality, and my first research domain was
16 modelling and prediction of mortality by cause of death in European
17 countries, in the Netherlands in latest years before I came here and also
18 in countries in Europe, including countries in Central European region
19 like Poland, Czech Republic, or Hungary.
20 Q. All right. So most of your papers deal with the field of
21 mortality. Until you became an expert for The Hague, did you ever deal
22 with census statistics, and were you ever in a position to study Yugoslav
24 A. Until I came to The Hague, my experience with censuses was indeed
25 limited. I participated at one time in a census as an interviewer in
1 Poland, as a student, but this cannot be taken as a professional
2 experience relevant to the work I have been doing here.
3 I don't have -- I didn't have any previous experience with
4 Yugoslav censuses.
5 Q. All right. So in terms of your scientific work before you became
6 an expert here, what was primary, sources from vital statistics, that is
7 to say deaths, births, divorces, marriages, et cetera? So you dealt with
8 this kind of information coming from vital statistics; isn't that right,
9 Mrs. Tabeau?
10 A. It is indeed the case that statistics come from vital events
11 registration. Indeed, you are correct when saying that my experience,
12 previous experience, was with other sources and related but not
13 necessarily exactly the same methods.
14 Q. All right. At that time you did not have to be familiar with the
15 methodology that is used in censuses, population censuses. Quite simply,
16 you didn't deal with these matters.
17 A. But that I didn't deal personally with that census or other survey
18 data doesn't mean that I don't understand the survey data, individual
19 level analysis. Yes, it was part of my education to study these issues.
20 The very first information we received at demography lectures in the
21 university was about sources, statistical sources used in demography, and
22 the population census was mentioned as the first place. And since then,
23 systematically throughout all the years of my professional career, I
24 referred to census at different occasions. So I cannot entirely agree
25 with you that I am not aware of censuses, other large population surveys,
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 specificity of survey data and methods used in the analysis of survey
3 Q. All right. But did you publish a single paper or take part in a
4 single scientific project that required a detailed knowledge of such
6 A. Well, if you think -- if I am thinking about what I have written
7 in my life, last 13 analytical reports produced here were all made on the
8 basis of individual level data. Some of them based on census and other
9 large population sources. Other reports were based on smaller surveys, on
10 mortality. So I think even though the reports have not been published
11 outside this Tribunal, but many of them were submitted as evidence in
12 several cases, and I think it was -- it is quite a portion of experience
13 that I can refer to today.
14 Q. My question was -- my question was about before you became an
15 expert here. Did you deal with that before you became an expert here?
16 No, you didn't. Isn't that the answer?
17 A. The publications from the period before I came here were based
18 indeed on other sources than censuses and slightly different methods,
19 different methods, analytical methods than the methods I have been using
21 Q. All right. That is what I wished to clarify. But before The
22 Hague, did you ever deal with ethnodemographic matters?
23 A. I didn't personally, but demography of ethnic group is a
24 dynamically growing field of demography and many colleagues from the
25 institute where I worked before I came to the Tribunal did this type of
1 research. So it is not a new subject to me. And after all, what is
2 demography of ethnic group? It is just studying the population by
3 ethnicity and making comparisons of different distributions for different
4 areas and different time periods or looking at historical trends. It is
5 not such a complicated issue that you wouldn't be able to learn within a
6 relatively short time.
7 Q. All right. Well, tell me then, did you ever publish a single
8 paper before The Hague which looks into demographic matters in relation to
9 ethnic characteristics?
10 A. No, I didn't.
11 Q. Very well. And do you know which questions in Yugoslav censuses,
12 including Bosnia and Herzegovina censuses, are considered to be
13 significant for determining ethnicity, ethnic affiliation?
14 A. Well, it is just one single question that is asked in censuses
15 about ethnicity, and this is an open-ended question in which respondents
16 are expected to identify themselves in terms of an ethnic affiliation.
17 But I am aware of studies where ethnicity was measured in a different way,
18 still based on census date. Ethnicity was a constructed variable for
19 which not only self-reported census response was taken as part of the
20 variable but also the language and religion, for instance.
21 Well, for me personally, and there are many people like me,
22 ethnicity is a self-perception of a person. So the open-ended question
23 from the census in which people identify themselves in terms of one ethnic
24 group is the best way of measuring ethnicity of a person. Any other
25 variable, constructed variable, is not appealing to me. It is just an
1 artificial variable that is measuring something, but I don't understand
2 exactly what is the variable measuring.
3 Q. All right. In view of the fact that you mentioned yourself that
4 in addition to this ethnic affiliation that is put as a question and then
5 the person completing the questionnaire says himself what his perception
6 is, that you also refer to mother tongue, religion, et cetera. And
7 according to the information I know, this was part of the Yugoslav
8 censuses in 1948, 1953, 1961, 1971, 1981, and religion was in 1953 and in
9 1981. So did you do your expertise taking into consideration a
10 combination of all three of these characteristics that determine ethnic
12 A. I didn't, and I did it on purpose. This is because I believe that
13 the best measure of ethnicity is just the self-perception. The single
14 question about ethnicity, not a variable, constructed variable that would
15 be based on other items like religion and mother tongue, next to
16 ethnicity, self-reported ethnicity.
17 Q. All right. Tell me, Ms. Tabeau, how did you deal with Yugoslavs?
18 How did you categorise them? There were 239.857 of them according to the
19 official figures published in the census from 1991.
20 A. I already explained this today, but I will repeat. The Yugoslavs
21 were taken under the term "Others," and not only Yugoslavs were covered by
22 the term "Others" but also all ethnic groups reported in that census that
23 were different than the three specific groups, Serbs, Muslims, and Croats.
24 So it is a kind of reminder. All other ethnic groups are taken together
25 under the name "Others," including the Yugoslavs.
1 Q. So you included Yugoslavs among "Others."
2 JUDGE MAY: She just said that. You just said that. Yes.
3 THE WITNESS: Yes, I did.
4 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
5 Q. All right. We'll go back to that later. And tell me, what did
6 you use as your main source of information for your analysis?
7 A. I used population census from 1991. I used two voters registers
8 from 1997 and 1998 merged together as just one source. And we also used
9 the official Registration of Displaced Persons and Refugees that was
10 obtained from the government of Bosnia and Herzegovina. I believe the
11 last source also exists in Serbia, Montenegro, Croatia. These are just
12 official registers that are used for the purpose of various benefits the
13 internally displaced and refugees are entitled to.
14 Q. If I understand this correctly, your main sources were the census
15 of 1991, which was a comprehensive one, and it is no doubt reliable data
16 as such, and you also have the registers of the OSCE from 1997 and 1998.
17 What was the main methodological problem for using jointly, in a way,
18 these rather unequal sources in terms of reliability?
19 A. I don't know exactly what you mean. If you could reformulate your
20 question. Do you --
21 Q. On the one hand you have a population census, the one from 1991,
22 and it is a comprehensive one, and it was done in accordance with -- it
23 was done lege artis, if we can put it that way. On the other hand, you
24 have, by way of comparison, voters registers of the OSCE, including the
25 citizens of age who voted, who voted in the elections. This is, no doubt,
1 a piece of information that cannot be nearly as reliable as the census
2 can. So that's why I'm asking you, what was your main methodological
3 problem in terms of relying on these two sources that are so different in
4 terms of comprehensiveness and reliability?
5 A. I believe that these two sources are indeed very different, but at
6 the same time, there are many similarities of these two sources. The
7 census is a complete, say, comprehensive source of information about the
8 1991 population. The voters register is just a sample, but the voters
9 register was established on the basis of census records. The complete
10 lists of all eligible voters came from the 1991 census. The personal
11 identification numbers included in the voters register are exactly same as
12 in the census. So it is, after all, not so difficult to work with these
13 two sources together, because part of information -- of the information in
14 these two sources was just overlapping. That part related to personal
15 details, including the identification number, names, father name, date of
16 birth. And the main methodological problem was of course to link these
17 two sources once matching have been achieved, satisfactory matching rate
18 has been achieved. Then many analyses became possible.
19 Q. Well, that is precisely why I put the question, because this
20 matching seems quite troublesome to me if one bears in mind the fact that
21 the census deals with the permanent population throughout the years,
22 including workers temporarily employed abroad and their family members
23 staying with them and so on and so forth; whereas, the OSCE registers
24 include only persons of age who volunteered to vote in the elections.
25 Is there any data concerning ethnic affiliation in the voters
1 registers of the OSCE?
2 A. No. There is no information about ethnicity in the voters
3 register, but the ethnicity of voters can be taken for every record
4 matched with the census from the census record of the person. And this is
5 what we have done and what was actually the best way to avoid any bias in
6 ethnicity as reported after the war.
7 Q. Did I understand you correctly, Ms. Tabeau, that actually this
8 matching, as you refer to it, means to take a person from the census of
9 1991 and according to definite criteria find a matching person in 1997,
10 1998? Would that be right?
11 A. In principle that's the way to do it, but I would think of taking
12 a person from the voters register and looking for the person from the
13 census as well. It can be done both ways. But in principle, it is that
15 Q. Yes. But for the most part, you said here that your main source
16 was the personal identification number; is that right?
17 A. I said that the personal identification numbers were included in
18 the criteria for matching, and this is indeed the most important part of
19 criterion -- of a criterion, the personal identification number.
20 Q. That is what I wished to hear, that the personal identification
21 number is the most important part of a criterion.
22 And do you know what the percentage number was of wrong personal
23 identification numbers in the population census of 1991 and in the voters
24 registers of 1997, 1998 of the OSCE? Do you know what the margin was?
25 A. Well, I don't remember exactly the number. We can provide you
1 with specific statistics on that. But I never said that the personal
2 identification numbers were perfect. On the contrary, I mentioned during
3 this testimony that personal identification numbers were frequently
4 deficient, and this is why while matching we had to use many more items as
5 part of every criterion than the personal identification number only. So
6 we used also names, first name, father's name, family name, and other
7 items in matching criteria.
8 Q. Well, according to the information our demographers have, the
9 percentage of wrong personal identification numbers in the census of 1991
10 and in the voters registers of 1997, 1998 ranges between 30 to 40 per
11 cent. Is that also your estimate, Ms. Tabeau, or not?
12 A. It depends how you look at the personal identification number.
13 This number contains several components. One of them is just a record for
14 date of birth and place of residence at the moment of census in terms of a
15 region of residence. There is also a check number included in this
16 personal identification number, et cetera.
17 The most important part of the number is the date of birth and
18 region of residence, and this part of JMBG was certainly correct for than
19 more than what you mentioned in your statistics here.
20 Q. Tell me, as you apply this method of matching information from the
21 census of 1991 and the OSCE voters registers, did you do any other pieces
22 of expertise?
23 A. I don't exactly understand the question. If you could
24 reformulate, please.
25 Q. I mean apart from this matching, as you call it, and comparisons
1 between data such as personal identification numbers from 1991 and 1997/8,
2 that is to say, the census and the voters registers, did you -- did you
3 work on any other expert opinions?
4 A. Well, it is that you are asking about other sources, external
5 sources, figures produced by others on the ethnic composition and
6 displaced persons and refugees?
7 Q. I saw some information somewhere, for example, that you worked in
8 the cases of Samac, Odzak, et cetera, that you looked at other data as
9 well and produced expert opinions.
10 A. Well, it is also in this report that we included an additional
11 source, additional to the census and voters analysis. We analysed data
12 from the official register of displaced persons and refugees received from
13 the Bosnian government. So my answer is yes, I did use additional sources
14 in my report, additional to the census/voters analysis, but not as many as
15 you would expect. The principle we followed in this report and we try to
16 follow also in other projects is to work with primary sources and includes
17 statistics that can be assessed from the level of individual records that
18 can be studied. All the sources I included were the primary sources,
19 individual records that could be assessed through analysis.
20 Q. All right. As you applied these same sources, that is to say, the
21 census, the OSCE register, and the matching method, did you reach such
22 results on the basis of which you came to the conclusion that this was
23 ethnic cleansing, that this involved ethic cleansing?
24 A. Well, I showed the scale of changes in the ethnic composition and
25 presented numbers of internally displaced persons and refugees and tried
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 to estimate the real extent of the displacement process and process of
2 becoming a refugee. So I -- in my view, in many instances you can think
3 of ethnic cleansing because of the dramatic changes in ethnic composition,
4 but I don't think I put it on paper in my report as one of the major
6 Q. And how is the notion of ethnic cleansing defined in demography?
7 I mean, in demography as a science related to the population.
8 A. I wouldn't think of a formal definition of ethnic cleansing. Such
9 a thing doesn't exist in demography. I don't know, probably not in other
10 science disciplines.
11 Q. That's what I think too. I think it doesn't exist in demography.
12 As far as I know, in demography there are some changes of ethnic
13 structure, things like that, but --
14 JUDGE MAY: We're not going anywhere at the moment. There's no
15 argument about this. It's not a term of demography, it's a general term
16 which is used. What you can ask the witness about is what's in her
17 report, and she doesn't use that term, as I recollect.
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right.
19 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
20 Q. As you used the census from 1991 and the OSCE registers from 1997,
21 1998, were you able to receive data about the causes that led to changes
22 in ethnic structure and pattern?
23 A. I didn't study the causes that led to the changes presented in the
24 report, and I never mentioned that the intention of this report was
25 studying the causes.
1 Q. All right. That is very important. This should be borne in mind.
2 And tell me, on the basis of available sources, are you in a
3 position at all to give very accurate information about the changes taking
4 place between 1991 and 1995 as the war went on or, rather, to establish
5 that these changes did not take place between 1991 and 1992 or between
6 1991 and 1997, 1998? I'm trying to say before or after the war.
7 A. I think during the war or after the war.
8 Q. Yes. On the basis of the sources you have available, can you
9 place these changes within a time frame, between 1992 and 1995 when the
10 war was on, or, rather, can you claim that they did not happen, say,
11 between 1991, 1992 or between 1995, 1997, 1998, for instance?
12 A. Well, these sources I studied summarised the status as of 1991 on
13 one hand and 1997/8 on the other hand. And indeed, no data were used from
14 the period in between to show changes year by year or month by month even,
15 not at all. However, I would be very, very -- it would be very unlikely
16 that such huge changes in ethnic composition would occur in the years
17 after the war as all written reports I saw regarding the years 1996/7 and
18 8 were related to the problem of returns of the huge numbers of refugees
19 and displaced persons home, not to mention the reports of UNHCR on
20 refugees and internally displaced persons during the war. There are many
21 reports of UNHCR presenting summary statistics. I don't refer to these
22 reports because I couldn't study the individual data underlying the
23 statistics presented in these reports. This was not our purpose to refer
24 to summary statistics that I cannot assess at all.
25 But I believe that there is a lot of truth in these UNHCR
1 statistics. Our figures compared to the figures presented by UNHCR for
2 1997 are very extremely small, but this is what we can prove. These are
3 minimum at least numbers that we can present in terms of individual
4 records. So we can be sure that our numbers are the numbers of real
5 people who became displaced or refugees and were still displaced and
6 refugees as of 1997/8.
7 We didn't count returns, for instance. There were not many
8 returns after the war until the elections in 1997/8, but if there were any
9 returns, there were a few, a few, especially of minority groups. The
10 returns are not shown in our statistics of displaced -- as displaced or
11 refugees because those who returned were found in our data at home,
13 So I wouldn't believe, to answer your question, that such dramatic
14 changes in ethnic composition and in becoming a displaced person or
15 refugee could take simply place after the war.
16 Q. Well, let me give you example that speaks to the contrary. You
17 certainly know the dramatic change that occurred with the moving out of
18 the Serb population from Sarajevo after Dayton. You are familiar with
19 that, I'm sure.
20 A. Well, according to the data on Sarajevo, several municipalities of
21 Sarajevo were split between Republika Srpska and the Federation and there
22 was a flow of Serb population into the RS parts of Sarajevo.
23 Q. According to your criteria, can that be considered a radical
24 dramatic change or not? And it occurred after Dayton.
25 A. Probably it would be shown as a radical change indeed, but even
1 though it occurred after the Dayton peace agreement, it was a result of
2 this conflict and what happened during the conflict that those Serbs
3 actually moved out of federal part of Sarajevo and moved into the RS parts
4 of the country.
5 Q. A similar event, similar development occurred among the Muslims
6 who moved to the territory of the Federation. And let me digress for a
7 moment. On page 16 of your report, having analysed some data, it's at the
8 very end. There's a paragraph which says: "Summing up. Even though in
9 relative terms the changes in Republika Srpska and the Federation of
10 Bosnia-Herzegovina, parts of the Milosevic case area were not different
11 for the Muslims." You say, "Minus 95.5 per cent in Republika Srpska and
12 for the Serbs, minus 88.2 per cent in the Federation." So the figures are
13 quite close. The same order of magnitude. Isn't that right, madam?
14 A. If measures are indeed are, this is what I indeed wrote. But I
15 further concluded that in absolute terms, the losses of the Muslim
16 population were much higher than the losses of the Serb population in the
17 Milosevic case area.
18 Q. Very well. I understand that, Madam Tabeau. But as a demographer
19 and a statistician, you know very well that the relative figures are
20 decisive. The Muslims were more numerous generally. So I assume that
21 could be one of the explanations why there were more victims on their
22 side. I am talking about the relative figures which are close, even for
23 this very narrow focused area of seven municipalities selected by the
24 Prosecution. Isn't that right, Madam Tabeau?
25 A. In relative terms, there is quite some similarity between these
1 two numbers you referred to. But at the same time, I --
2 Q. What you referred to.
3 A. I preferred to the two numbers 95.5 per cent decline of Muslims in
4 Republika Srpska and 88.2 per cent decline of Serbs in the Federation area
5 of the Milosevic case area. It is all about, you know, the two parts, two
6 political entities of the Milosevic case area. And indeed these two
7 numbers are mentioned in my report on page, I think 15, not 16.
8 JUDGE KWON: English.
9 THE WITNESS: In the English version on page 15, indeed, perhaps
10 in B/C/S version, page 16. As I said in the beginning, we analysed
11 changes of ethnic composition and showed all ethnic groups, Muslims,
12 Serbs, Croats, and others. It is a report that is fair in the sense that
13 we used the same data sources and the same methodology to estimate
14 consequences for every ethnic group. I am not saying that the Serbs
15 didn't suffer during the war or didn't become displaced or refugees or in
16 certain municipalities Serbs -- fraction of Serbs declined and fraction of
17 Muslims increased instead. I'm not saying this. I have shown all these
18 changes for all ethnic group. But in my view, it is the Muslim population
19 who suffered most, and it is both in absolute terms and in relative terms
20 too. This is the major conclusion of this report.
21 Q. Very well, Ms. Tabeau. Let us leave aside the Milosevic case
22 area, because I really do not know what these seven or 47 municipalities
23 have to do with the Milosevic case. But let's see what this small segment
24 that you have shown and that was assigned to you by the other side, we can
25 find almost the same level of casualties in relative terms, and what would
1 the situation be if you had taken municipality with a purely Serbian
2 population such as Grahovo, Drvar, Glamoc, Petrovac, where the population
3 was 99 per cent Serbs. Wouldn't the situation be far more dramatic than
4 what you have shown in this case, applying the statistics and methods that
5 you applied for this report?
6 A. I believe it is a highly hypothetical conversation. You please
7 just ask me for statistics for a municipality or number of municipalities,
8 and I will just present you with the figures.
9 Q. This is not hypothetical, Madam Tabeau. If in Grahovo 99 per cent
10 were Serbs and now there's not a single one left, then those figures must
11 surely be dramatic.
12 Let us look at your 167th page, attachments A63, the Federation of
13 Bosnia-Herzegovina, Brcko. On the tables, the changes in the Muslims,
14 population plus 83.5 per cent, 1991 to 1997. And Serbs, minus 97.8 per
15 cent. So that's the whole trick in the choice of the points being
16 presented here.
17 JUDGE MAY: I'm not following the question. You're putting, are
18 you, that this is a selective use of statistics? Is that what you're
19 trying to put?
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Absolutely so. I'm not trying to
21 say that it's selective, but what I'm saying is that the opposite side has
22 made a malicious manipulation of statistics.
23 JUDGE MAY: Yes. We've heard these kind of allegations before.
24 That's not for the witness to answer, allegations of that sort against the
25 Prosecution. The witness is here to give evidence about the study and the
1 report which she's made.
2 Now, you can ask questions about that, and indeed you can call
3 evidence in due course, if you want, to support what you say happened, but
4 we're not going to get much further with this sort of argument.
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Please don't worry that I will not
6 produce such evidence.
7 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. Look, please, at page 167 of your report, ERN 0308081.
9 JUDGE MAY: We'll find it in the English. What's it supposed to
10 be showing? Which figure is it?
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It is showing an opposite instance,
12 but I want to use it as an illustration. It is annex A6.3. A6.3,
13 Brcko-Rahic, the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. So let's look and
14 see what happens, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Groome?
16 MR. GROOME: That's page 149.
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] In my version it's 167.
18 JUDGE MAY: We've got different versions, that's why we need to
19 get them right.
20 JUDGE KWON: If you can give the number of figure or table.
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The table is A6.3, figure 1. Table
22 1, I'm sorry. A6.3, table 1, Ethnic Composition in Rahic in the
23 Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1991 versus 1997.
24 JUDGE KWON: 154, page.
25 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
1 Q. Please look at the change. The last horizontal column, "Change."
2 For the Muslims, it's plus 83.5, Croats minus 58.1, for the Serbs minus
4 THE WITNESS: It is page 149, table --
5 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone.
6 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Milosevic, what is the point?
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The point is, Mr. May, that these
8 phantom seven municipalities were taken out of context. And even in them
9 we see that the level of suffering in relative terms is roughly the same,
10 even using such highly selected cases for the demographer to study,
11 selected by the opposite side.
12 JUDGE MAY: I misspoke: What is the question for the witness?
13 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
14 Q. Is it clear that a selection has been done in such a way so as to
15 satanise the Serb side, Madam Tabeau, to demonise them?
16 A. I --
17 JUDGE MAY: If the answer is no, just say no.
18 THE WITNESS: No. The answer is no. No intention of demonising
19 any ethnic group.
20 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. To go back to the fact that in Bosnia and Herzegovina, according
22 to the official census, there were 1.905.274 Muslims, and in the seven
23 municipalities of yours, assigned to you by the side opposite for
24 analysis, you have 212.811 members of Muslim ethnicity, which means 12 per
25 cent of the total Muslim population in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 Now, tell me, please, what do these seven selectively chosen
2 municipalities in which before the war and according to the 1991 census 12
3 per cent of the Muslim population lived proves in relation to the total
4 population and the 109 municipalities that existed in Bosnia and
6 Do you consider this to be a methodologically permissible
7 extraction of elements out of context?
8 A. Well, the answer to the first question, per cent of the Muslim
9 population in seven selected versus percentage of the Muslim -- versus the
10 entire Muslim population in 109 municipalities, it wasn't studied in our
11 report, so it is just a different story, I would say.
12 Methodologically --
13 Q. I think it's a different story too.
14 A. A methodologically permissible extraction of elements out of
15 context, I don't think we have done this. We just made a case study for
16 seven selected municipalities as an illustration of most affected
17 municipalities, and that's it. But at the same time, we presented
18 complete statistics for the whole area, 47 municipalities constituting the
19 Milosevic case area. And this is certainly permissible.
20 JUDGE MAY: It's now time to adjourn. Mr. Milosevic, you can have
21 three-quarters of an hour more to cross-examine this witness and then
22 we'll hear from the amicus.
23 We will adjourn now.
24 --- Recess taken at 12.18 p.m.
25 --- On resuming at 12.42 p.m.
1 JUDGE MAY: I should make it plain there has been consultation
2 with the medical officer, the point about the accused's health having been
3 raised, and there is no reason why the hearings cannot continue.
4 Yes, Mr. Milosevic.
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, I first have to make an
6 objection regarding the time. You have given me as much time as
7 Mr. Groome had, and this is an expert witness who is not testifying only
8 viva voce but also through the rather voluminous material given through
9 her so that the two cannot compare.
10 JUDGE MAY: We have that in mind. In fact, you will have longer
11 than the Prosecution. We've timed that. You will have longer than them.
12 Now, you should make the best use that you can of the time which remains.
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.
14 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
15 Q. Madam Tabeau, a moment ago you said that these were the most
16 affected municipalities, and that is how you studied them or, rather, the
17 side opposite selected them.
18 According to your data, Bijeljina, Bratunac, Brcko, Foca, et
19 cetera, these municipalities, were they not more affected in terms of the
20 consequences that you are analysing than, for instance, Grahovo, Petrovac,
21 Drvar and other municipalities in which 99 per cent of the population used
22 to be Serb? On the basis of your own information, is that what you are
23 claiming, that these were worse affected?
24 A. I said the seven municipalities selected for the case studies are
25 representation of the most affected municipalities. I didn't say that
1 these are the most affected municipalities. It is just an illustration of
2 what happened in the worst case scenario.
3 Q. You haven't answered my question. If we were to compare them with
4 Grahovo, Drvar, Petrovac, for instance, what would your finding then be in
5 terms of the figures that you have at your disposal?
6 A. We would have to take a closer look at these municipalities, and
7 the data are available in tables -- in Annex 1, I guess. So -- so for
8 Bosanski Petrovac, I think it is only Bosanski Petrovac that is located in
9 the Milosevic case area. I don't see Grahovo and Drvar as part of the
10 indictment area.
11 Q. That's where the problem lies.
12 A. You are saying that I didn't include --
13 JUDGE MAY: That's a comment, Mr. Milosevic. We know what it is
14 that the witness has sought to set out to do and what she has done. Now,
15 you can ask her about her evidence and her report, but I don't think there
16 is very much point in going on to ask about speculation about other
17 municipalities. I made the point and I make it again that if you wish to
18 bring evidence about those other municipalities, of course you can in due
19 course, but there is no point arguing with the witness about it when she
20 hasn't made a study.
21 Mr. Groome.
22 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, I'm going to point out that I'm not sure
23 whether it is a misunderstanding on Mr. Milosevic's part or a
24 misrepresentation, but the report wasn't a generalised demographic study
25 of Bosnia. Mr. Milosevic was charged with crimes originally in 47
1 municipalities and Mrs. Tabeau was charged with studying the demographic
2 effects of those 47 municipalities, not on unrelated municipalities to the
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.
5 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. Towards the end of the examination-in-chief, Mr. Groome put
7 several tables or reviews to you. There were several towns, the
8 municipality of Kalinovik, Gacko, Mostar, Foca. He showed you those.
9 Tell me, please, what about Mostar? Where are the Serbs from
10 Mostar? This was on the ELMO.
11 A. Yes, I know. I know. But we didn't study Mostar, not in this
13 Q. But Mr. Groome mentioned it a moment ago. He mentioned Mostar
14 when he placed it on the ELMO. Maybe he misspoke.
15 A. Well, we can look again at the maps, but I think that Mostar is
16 not part of the indictment area, at least in terms of 47 municipalities.
17 It is not. If you look at the copies of the maps that you have in front
18 of you, then you will see it.
19 Q. Very well. So that only illustrates the selective nature of this
20 review. You mentioned Gacko. Now, tell me, please, what was the
21 percentage of Muslims living in the Gacko municipality according to the
22 1991 census?
23 A. We can check this in the publication of census results made in
24 Croatia. In this publication, the results of that census are mentioned
25 for each municipality. This is how it is done for Gacko.
1 We don't see the percentage, but we see the number of Muslims,
2 3.858 in Gacko in 1991. And now we can go to table 1M in our annex. In
3 our study, 3.014 Muslims are reported for 1991. It is page 70 of our
4 report. Page 70 of our report, table 1M. The 1991 population of Muslims
5 in Gacko is 3.014.
6 Q. And what was the total population of Gacko in 1991?
7 A. The total population as reported in that census, based on this
8 publication, is 10.788.
9 Q. So the Muslims --
10 A. So the Muslims would be approximately estimated in our report 34
11 per cent. But this is a percentage from our report that was made for
12 those eligible to vote in 1978, so born before 1980. But it would be more
13 or less the same percentage. Thirty-four per cent in 1991.
14 Q. So 34 per cent in all in 1991. I have a lower figure, but never
15 mind. And then you say out of those 34 per cent, a large percentage left
16 Gacko; is that right?
17 A. Probably, yes, but in order to make sure that I said so, we go to
18 table 1.2 -- sorry, 2M in our report. 2M, page 86 in the English version
19 of the report. For Gacko, the number of internally displaced and refugees
20 as of 1978 is 2.034. The minimum number. This is the minimum at least
21 number of Muslim IDPs and refugees from Gacko.
22 Q. And what is, for you, a refugee? Does that include everyone who
23 left his home?
24 A. A refugee is a person who left the country, Bosnia and
25 Herzegovina, and moved into another country in the region of the former
1 Yugoslavia or an entirely different region.
2 I must note here that the refugee component is relatively weakly
3 represented in our analysis. This means that in the sources that we used,
4 only 300 -- approximately 325.000 records for 1997/8 were the refugees, so
5 people who were registered to vote in other countries, most of them in
6 the region of the former Yugoslavia, in Croatia and Serbia. We did not
7 study records of refugees registered in major receiving countries like
8 Austria, Switzerland, Sweden, Germany, of course. These are hundreds of
9 thousands records that we were unable to collect and to study at the
10 individual level. This is perhaps why our numbers of refugees and IDPs
11 shown jointly are so relatively low.
12 Q. Did you, when talking about refugees, you're talking about
13 refugees of all ethnicities or only about Muslim refugees?
14 A. I'm talking about refugees of all ethnicities, but the records
15 that we had at our disposal were mainly the refugees of Serbian and
16 Croatian ethnicity, Bosnian Serbs and Bosnian Croats, I would say.
17 Because those two ethnic groups moved to countries in the region, Serbs --
18 Bosnian Serbs to Serbia and Montenegro, Bosnian Croats to Croatia.
19 Muslims actually moved to Western countries, countries of Western Europe,
20 like Germany, Switzerland, Austria. And the records that we had on
21 refugees, these were out-of-country voters, 325.000 in total, 325.000,
22 it's a very small representation of the universe of all refugees from
23 Bosnia and Herzegovina, but the Serbs, Bosnian Serbs, are included in
24 those records.
25 Q. Very well. But before 1997, do you know that, for instance, in
1 Serbia there were more than 70.000 registered Muslim refugees from
3 A. I don't -- I'm not aware of this particular number, but I believe
4 it is perhaps the case as Serbia was a receiving country for very many
5 refugees from Bosnia and Herzegovina, but mainly Bosnian Serbs.
6 Q. I'm mentioning 70.000 Muslims, and there were half a million
7 refugees from Bosnia-Herzegovina in Serbia. Are you aware of that figure?
8 A. Well, I am aware of the existence of the registration of
9 internally displaced persons and refugees in Serbia and in Montenegro. I
10 know that Serbia and Montenegro established registers, official registers
11 of persons internally displaced and refugees in Serbia and Montenegro
12 already in 1992, and I know that there are official databases that contain
13 these type of records.
14 Q. I have here, due to circumstances -- this is nothing to do with
15 Serbia, it's a questionnaire. It says Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina,
16 ERN 03032112. It's a questionnaire for registering households in the free
17 areas of the city of Sarajevo: The present address Novi Grad; the local
18 commune, Dobrinja 1; there's a street number, a street and a house number;
19 and then it says, question number 4: "Members of the family household who
20 have fled or who have moved outside Sarajevo or who have remained within
21 the territory of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina which is under the
22 control of the aggressor." And then there is a lady here. Where is she
23 now, and the answer is: "With her son." When a woman goes to stay with
24 her son, do you treat her as a refugee as well? You can have a look at
25 this questionnaire. I told you what the ERN number is. It's your
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 document, 030321102. So I don't have to give it to you, I think.
2 A. Well, in order to answer this question, I would have to search for
3 this woman and her son and check in our databases, especially voters, for
4 details regarding this particular person.
5 But the questionnaire you mentioned, it's the questionnaire from
6 household survey Sarajevo 1994 that we used for entirely different
7 purposes than counting the displaced -- internally displaced persons and
8 refugees. There was such a question in this questionnaire, but from this
9 questionnaire we only have taken killed, natural deaths, and wounded
10 persons and didn't collect information on internally displaced and
12 It is -- I'm aware of the fact that there are more sources that
13 could have been used for presenting a better estimate of internally
14 displaced persons and refugees. I am aware of this. But due to time
15 constraints and resources, limited resources that we had at our disposal,
16 we have done what we have done.
17 I would love, for instance, to analyse the statistics from the
18 Serbian register of internally displaced persons and refugees, and I
19 requested this database in March this year, but so far we haven't received
20 any response yet from Belgrade. So it is a matter that collecting certain
21 information is a very time-consuming and difficult process. If I'm
22 thinking of collecting records of refugees from Western countries, Western
23 Europe, at least five, seven major countries would have to be approached
24 regarding these records, and I would have to apply for permission to
25 obtain individual records with every single country separately and this
1 would have to go through every government of these countries and it all
2 costs a lot of time. So certain things in principle can be done, but
3 cannot be done within a limited period and having the limited resources at
4 our disposal. So these are -- these are the reasons that not all existing
5 sources have been studied in our report.
6 Q. Tell me, please, from the territorial point of view, the
7 municipalities you looked at in 1997, 1998, do they coincide with the
8 territorial levels of the municipalities from 1991?
9 A. Well, in fact in our analysis, they -- they do. We statistically
10 analysed the same type of municipalities as defined after the Dayton peace
11 agreement. These are the so-called new municipalities. But the new and
12 the pre-war municipalities are not all identical. There is a number of
13 municipalities, new municipalities that were introduced after the war, and
14 some municipalities have a different territory before and after the war.
15 Q. All right. But since the territories of the municipalities do not
16 coincide when one compares 1991 and 1997, what was the percentage of the
17 population of 1991 that was no longer there?
18 A. I think I should clarify here that in order to be able to study
19 exactly the same areas before and after the war, we had to restructure the
20 records from the census according to the new administrative division of
21 Bosnia and Herzegovina. The new division introduced after the Dayton
22 peace agreement.
23 This means that for every individual reported in that census, a
24 new code was created reporting the place of residence of this person as a
25 new post-Dayton municipality.
1 In principle, for the vast majority of individuals, this was
2 easily possible. However, it -- there was also a number of individuals
3 for which we couldn't do that because the individuals used to have place
4 of residence in 1991 census as reported as a settlement. Settlement is
5 just a smaller area within a bigger area that is municipality. So each
6 municipality consists of a number of settlements.
7 A number of settlements have been split by the Dayton line between
8 the Federation and the RS, and there are no statistical records of
9 recalculating for split settlements the place of residence in terms of
10 either of the split municipalities, RS or FBH.
11 So simply speaking, for those individuals who were reported in
12 split settlements in that census, we were unable to present a post-Dayton
13 municipality. The number of such individuals is not large for Bosnia and
14 Herzegovina. If I recall it correctly, it was approximately 150.000
15 individuals from split settlements, but I -- I would have to be -- in
16 order to be sure, I would have to check this, the exact figure.
17 These individuals had to be excluded from our study, and we have
18 done so.
19 Does that answer your question, Mr. Milosevic?
20 Q. Well, my question was what the percentage was of the population
21 that was practically expelled from this comparison because of the
22 differences between the territories of the respective municipalities in
23 1991 and 1997.
24 A. For me it would be the answer. The individuals excluded from our
25 analysis due to difficulties in assigning them post-Dayton municipality
1 code. Perhaps I misunderstood the question. I don't know.
2 Q. Since you say that this has to do with about 150.000 persons
3 because of these shifts in borders, is it correct that in Sarajevo,
4 according to the census in 1991, that is to say before the war, there was
5 a total of 185.000 Serbs? Is that piece of information correct?
6 A. We can check this by looking into the big Sarajevo report, Galic
7 report. There is a table there. On page, I believe, 25 in the English
8 version of the report, there is table 4.
9 So here in this table we have numbers of individuals for each
10 ethnic group for the territory of six urban municipalities of Sarajevo.
11 The number of Serbs here is 126.113.
12 Q. That pertains to four municipalities only; is that right?
13 A. Six municipalities. To six municipalities. But if you take ten
14 municipalities, then of course the number can be as you mentioned. I
15 don't have statistics for ten municipalities in front of me.
16 Q. But since now in these municipalities, this includes Pale, Trnovo,
17 there is less than 30.000. That means that these 150.000 could have been
18 accounted for by Sarajevo only. What about the rest of Bosnia-Herzegovina
19 and the said municipalities that you referred to who are outside the
20 comparisons made between 1991 and 1997 therefore?
21 A. I must say I'm confused now. I would like you to reformulate your
23 Q. I am going to reformulate it. You mentioned the figure of 150.000
24 who somehow got excluded from the comparison. As for this 150.000, there
25 are only 150.000 Serbs that are missing from Sarajevo, and where are the
1 remaining tens of thousands of people from the seven municipalities or the
2 47 municipalities that you could not compare?
3 A. What do you mean by missing from Sarajevo? In what table are the
4 Serbs missing from Sarajevo in my report? You know, reading statistics
5 is --
6 Q. I'm not saying -- your report includes the census. You mentioned
7 the 1991 census, which was done lege artis. According to that census in
8 the entirety of the city of Sarajevo there was a total of 185.000 Serbs
9 and now there are only 30.000 left or less than 30.000. Where are the
10 remaining 150.000? Is that right?
11 JUDGE MAY: Just see if the witness can deal with the question. It
12 may be she can't. That's the question, Dr. Tabeau.
13 THE WITNESS: I'm afraid I don't understand the question. In my
14 view, it is good to remember that our report deals with the population
15 eligible to vote in 1997, 1998. This means that from that census, we only
16 included records of those born before 1980. These statistics for --
17 cannot be taken literally as the numbers of the complete population in the
18 municipalities studied. It is just a smaller population. So if there is
19 any Serbs missing or Muslims or Croats or whatever. So first of all, we
20 have to think of those not included, or those excluded due to the design
21 of this study. And you cannot compare our numbers for 1991 with official
22 statistics published by statistical authorities because these numbers will
23 be different then.
24 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
25 Q. All right, Ms. Tabeau. Let's not waste any time. You gave a map,
1 and on that map you provided municipalities in their entirety, and then,
2 depending on the proportion of the population involved, you used the
3 colours red, green, et cetera; is that right? And then that conveys a
4 certain picture, doesn't it? I hope you will agree that a more accurate
5 picture would have been given by a survey of municipalities also using
6 these colours if it were done according to individual neighbourhoods,
7 settlements, not municipalities as a whole, because municipalities as a
8 whole can give a somewhat different picture. So if it were done in
9 greater detail according to individual settlements or neighbourhoods; is
10 that right? So I have here a map that was made at the time of the census
11 in 1991. It has a legend in both the Serbian and English languages. It
12 was at the faculty of geography. According to settlements, Serbs are
13 blue, Muslims green, the rest are red. Croats are orange, then grey is
14 without an overwhelming ethnicity, and then the inaccessible areas or
15 whatever are yellow but that's a negligible amount. So could you please
16 have this map put on the ELMO and please note how different it is from the
17 picture that you portray on the basis of the administrative borders of the
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] On my monitor, one cannot see a
20 thing. Well, now perhaps. But could I please ask the usher to put the
21 map sort of -- to flatten it out. That would make it easier because there
22 is a shadow in the middle. Perhaps you could use a ruler to flatten it
23 out so there wouldn't be this shadow so that the map can be seen properly.
24 Now it can be seen properly.
25 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation].
1 Q. So can you see how different this picture is, the one that was
2 done by the faculty of geography? It looks like a mosaic. It was done
3 according to settlements. See how different it is from the map you made
4 according to municipalities where a large concentration in individual town
5 or big city can completely change or distort the actual picture that can
6 be seen here.
7 A. Well, first of all, I agree that such maps can be made at
8 different levels. We use municipalities, and this is how ethnic majority
9 maps are made in many, many other organisations active in the area of the
10 Bosnian conflict, Yugoslav conflict and other conflicts. UNHCR, for
11 instance, shows municipalities; international monitoring group that is
12 looking at property and damaged -- damages of property; German government
13 who is particularly interested and active in the population issues related
14 to the conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina; they all prepared maps of
15 ethnic majority at a certain point and used municipalities to show changes
16 in the ethnic composition.
17 The -- first of all, I don't agree that the picture is so
18 different in this map and our map. If you look carefully at
19 municipalities like Prijedor, for instance, [indicates], that is -- yes.
20 Thank you. This area. Then you see two colours there, not only blue that
21 depicts the Serbs but also green that depicts the Muslims. And in our
22 map, the municipality of Prijedor was shown as a brown municipality, a
23 municipality with a mixed ethnic composition of Muslims and Serbs as two
24 dominant ethnic groups.
25 If you look carefully at the municipalities located at the eastern
1 border of Bosnia with Serbia, then again you see not only one colour, the
2 blue colour depicting the Serbs, but a mixture of the two, blue and green,
3 and green is the colour of Muslims. So it is not necessarily that the map
4 you showed us is so different from the map we presented at the municipal
5 level, it is a matter of how you read the map, and this is the key issue
6 for drawing conclusions, I think.
7 Q. Well, this, Ms. Tabeau, shows the ethnic pattern according to
8 territory regardless of administrative borders of municipalities. So
9 administrative borders of municipalities were not taken into account when
10 calculating how many people there were but, rather, the distribution of
11 Serbs, Croats, Muslims, et cetera, in various territories. And as you can
12 see, this blue territory that we can see on the screens, these are the
13 Serbs who carried out an aggression against their own land. That's the
14 picture according to the 1991 census.
15 So they carried out an aggression against their own country, and
16 that is what is referred to in your report, in these lists, aggression and
17 so on.
18 JUDGE MAY: This is your interpretation of what the witness said.
19 She cannot possibly answer any questions of this sort.
20 THE WITNESS: I only see that this map is depicting the ethnic
21 composition in 1991. This would be the population census in 1991. It was
22 published in 1992 in Belgrade, and the principles of this map are similar
23 to the principle we used in our mapping projects. The difference is that
24 colours are different and the settlements are used as a basic unit for the
25 mapping, not municipalities. But for the rest, in my view, this map is
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 very much in line with all maps I know for Bosnia, all maps of ethnic
2 majority in that census.
3 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
4 Q. Very well. Now, you wrote your expert opinion entitled "Human
5 Losses During the Siege of Sarajevo"; is that right?
6 A. We wrote several reports related to the losses -- population
7 losses of the siege, casualties of the siege, yes.
8 Q. And what were the sources you used then?
9 A. I'm trying to get transcript. Yes.
10 Q. What were the sources, the data sources you used?
11 A. We used several sources. The number of sources we used altogether
12 is eight. Three of the sources were lists of fallen soldiers, official
13 records of fallen soldiers in the Bosnian war, and five of the sources
14 were sources such as household survey Sarajevo, like official records of
15 the Federal Institute for Statistics in Sarajevo, like ICRC list of
16 missing persons, MAG - Muslims Against Genocide - mortality database,
17 Bakije Funeral Home records.
18 Q. All right. This house hold survey that you refer to and that is
19 very often mentioned in your report, this household survey, was it ever
20 officially recognised and published anywhere else but in your report?
21 A. No, it wasn't, and I clearly state this in my report. This was a
22 huge survey. Eighty-five thousand questionnaires were distributed and
23 85.000 interviews were taken during the census, or say this survey, don't
24 call it a census, a population census, it wasn't a population census. And
25 in total, information of about 340 approximately thousand individuals was
1 collected. It was such an incredible quantity of material, statistical
2 material, that this research institute who conducted this survey has never
3 been able to computerise this material and to analyse the data
5 We requested the material and computerised the records that we
6 needed for the Galic report at OTP.
7 Q. All right. Now how this was done is what you were told. You
8 don't actually know how this was done. You were told how this material
9 was compiled; right? You did not take part in compiling this material.
10 A. We -- me personally and other colleagues from the demographic unit
11 did not participate in the survey itself. It was in 1994, mid-1994 when
12 the survey took place. It was rather impossible for us to participate.
13 We learned about the survey after several visits to the research
14 institute who conducted the survey, and we learned from the researchers
15 from this institute that such a survey took place.
16 Q. All right. But in your opinion, since you're a demographer and
17 since you are involved in scientific work, do you think that this approach
18 is partial?
19 A. Well, I can make an assessment of the scientific quality of the
20 questionnaire and how the survey was conducted on the basis of what I know
21 about the survey and the questionnaire, and indeed this is one thing. I
22 cannot say whether it was partial or impartial. I can say that the
23 material was probably biased a little bit towards more frequently counting
24 Muslim casualties than casualties from other ethnic groups. Why? Because
25 people who conducted the survey and were engaged in the survey were mainly
1 the Bosnian Muslims from Sarajevo. So therefore they could have had a
2 little bit easier access to the respondents of the same ethnicity than as
3 to respondents from other ethnic groups.
4 But the Sarajevo case is not a case of ethnic cleansing or
5 anything like -- you know, we don't say anything about genocide in the
6 ethnic composition, disappearance of certain ethnic groups from the
7 territory of Sarajevo in our report. It is a report about casualties,
8 casualties of the siege of Sarajevo. And the casualties were from all
9 ethnic groups, Muslims, Serbs, Croats, others. All ethnic groups are
10 there amongst the casualties.
11 So if you want me to make an assessment of the scientific quality
12 of the survey and the questionnaire, I can do that. And it is, on the
13 other hand, also done in the report itself.
14 Q. All right. But I assume you've noticed. I mean, I have 03031234
15 here, a questionnaire. Please take a look at this questionnaire. Most of
16 the questions -- look at number 5. Most of the questions refer to some
17 kind of aggression. So no impartiality can be referred to in this
18 context. Those wounded during the aggression, those who went missing
19 during the aggression, who were in prison during the aggression, newly
20 born babies during the course of the aggression, then also stillborn
21 babies during the course of the aggression.
22 I imagine that what the target group of this questionnaire is is
23 quite obvious and what the approach is of those who organised this
24 questionnaire and this poll, generally speaking.
25 How can you rely on this as a reliable source? What is this
2 A. Well, the aggression, how would you feel being in Sarajevo with
3 the Serb forces, armed forces standing there on the hills and shooting
4 people, with snipers shooting people? It's enough to understand that it
5 was war going there.
6 So first of all, to me, this means -- this term "aggression"
7 refers to the war circumstances in Sarajevo at the time of the survey.
8 This is one.
9 Secondly, by mid-1994, the war in Bosnia had been going already
10 for a long time, as we all know, and it was -- it was clear that there
11 were certain forces fighting with each other. Perhaps the term
12 "aggressor" had a different meaning for Muslims and Serbs and for Croats,
13 depending on the time, in addition, and location, but I don't think there
14 is any doubt about that there was a conflict there by mid-1994.
15 Q. You saw the colours and the ethnic distribution and where people
16 were. As far as I can see, the Serbs were around Sarajevo even according
17 to the 1991 census. They didn't come there in 1992. That is quite
18 obvious from the map that you looked at a moment ago.
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could the usher please give me back
20 that map. I'll need it again.
21 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
22 Q. So is it your position that such a source of data such as this
23 household survey can be considered a reliable source of data?
24 A. Well, we are speaking about a source that was used to estimate the
25 number of casualties, that is deaths, in the siege of Sarajevo.
1 I said earlier today that all sources, mortality sources, all
2 lists of deaths, in other words, from the war period, and I am speaking
3 about not only about the war in Bosnia but generally, all these sources
4 are incomplete and deficient and are uncomparable with official records
5 from death registration that normally takes place in every country in
6 normal circumstances. But the normal registration system doesn't function
7 during conflicts.
8 The war in Bosnia is an example of a human emergency situation
9 which caused that normal structures, organisations, did not function in
10 Bosnia. So you cannot expect that you will have, in order to estimate the
11 number of casualties, that you will have at your disposal just regular
12 statistics from vital events registration, that you just take them and you
13 look at that records, you just add them up and then you come up with this
14 one number with the estimate. This is not that simple.
15 So the way we look and assess the sources for use in estimating
16 war casualties in conflict times and under peace must be different. The
17 sources are simply must be different because normal sources don't exist.
18 Sarajevo household survey is an example of a source that certainly can be
19 used as a source to measure casualties in a human emergency situation.
20 There is no doubt about that. It is a large survey, conducted in a
21 relatively thorough manner, prepared starting with the questionnaire,
22 quite clearly designed with clearly formulated questions that can be later
23 easily used in data processing and producing statistics. It is a survey
24 that was prepared by the means of organising a training for interviewers.
25 The interviewers were instructed how to deal with questions, and the
1 respondents, and what was missing in the survey was that final step, the
2 computerisation of the material, cleaning of the material, and analysis.
3 And that is what we have done starting from the computerisation, and as
4 such I believe that this source can be used to produce statistics as to
5 ones we show for Sarajevo for General Galic case.
6 Q. Very well. Ms. Tabeau, could you please give briefer answers,
7 because the length of answers cannot compensate for the absence of
8 validity of these data.
9 Tell me, in the expert report for Sarajevo, was there an
10 assessment of the population figures, the number of inhabitants?
11 A. Yes. We included an assessment, 340.000 individuals covered by
12 the survey.
13 Q. Fine. In relation to your assessment regarding the total
14 population, the mentioned 340.000, what is the share of registered Muslims
15 as opposed to all the other ethnicities together?
16 A. Well, it is that we made an assessment of ethnicity in the survey
17 population, but ethnicity is not available from the survey for every event
18 like that or wounding. We actually assessed ethnicity through linking the
19 records from the survey with the census. So ethnicity that we studied, we
20 showed in the Galic report is just ethnicity as reported in that census.
21 It is again the same table, table 4, on page 25, English version of the
22 report, that shows our assessment of ethnicity for the casualties, for
23 killed and wounded persons -- actually, only killed persons.
24 Q. I'm not asking you about the killed persons. As you yourself
25 said, you made an assessment of the population at 340.000, will you tell
1 me in relation to that total figure what was the share of registered
2 Muslims as compared to all the other groups or ethnicities?
3 A. And my answer was that we -- we don't have --
4 Q. Your answer was that you don't know.
5 A. Yes. The answer is that we don't have the ethnic breakdown of the
6 survey population from the household survey Sarajevo, 1994. We haven't
7 used these numbers.
8 Q. Very well. I understand, Ms. Tabeau. But is it in dispute that
9 the targeted group of this survey of households in Sarajevo was primarily
10 Muslim households?
11 A. Not at all. Not at all. Ethnic targeting is not the subject of
12 this report. It is -- the subject of this report is estimating the number
13 of casualties irrespective of ethnicity. That we included ethnicity --
14 Q. No, no, Mrs. Tabeau. You haven't heard my question. I am asking
15 you -- I'm not asking you about your report. I'm talking about the
16 household survey for Sarajevo done in 1994. Is it disputed that the
17 targeted group of that survey was Muslim households?
18 A. I would disagree, because I am not aware of any procedures or any
19 activities conducted during the survey preparation and the survey itself
20 that only the Muslim households would be primarily meant as the
21 respondents for this survey. I don't think so, especially the ethnicity
22 is available for every household as ethnicity of the head of household and
23 this can be easily checked at least for the records that we have in our
24 database. And I can assure you that all ethnic groups are represented
25 there amongst the records that we have, the records of casualties.
1 Q. Ms. Tabeau, how can you say that you can guarantee that they were
2 represented when a moment ago in answer to my question as to the
3 proportion of Muslims in the 340.000 inhabitants, you've said that you
4 didn't know. I'm not denying that there may be a Serb or a Croat name
5 among them.
6 JUDGE MAY: This is all argument. You've heard what the witness
7 has said.
8 Now, you've had nearly ten minutes more, Mr. Milosevic, than you
9 would have otherwise had. You've gone beyond your time by ten minutes.
10 We'll give you another two minutes and then you must wind up.
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I can't finish in two minutes,
12 Mr. May, but that has become the customary practice here. It's not the
13 first time.
14 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
15 Q. Tell me, please, Madam Tabeau, were all mortality rates in the
16 report for Sarajevo expressed in relation to the figure 100.000
18 A. Yes. This is how we show --
19 Q. Why? Now, why? Why were they shown in that way?
20 A. In order to make it possible to recalculate the rates. If you
21 would be interest in daily rates, for instance. In order to make this
22 possible relatively exactly.
23 Normally the rates in statistics, official statistics, are shown
24 per 1.000 population. Rates for mortality by cause of death, especially
25 for less frequent causes of death are shown in epidemiology per 100.000 of
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 population, but the same rate can be easily recalculated from the number
2 per 100 population to 1.000 population just by dividing by 100 every
3 number, and this is still the same intensity, that intensity. So I don't
4 think it is really so essential to have the rates shown. Per 10.000
5 population as the daily rates are shown or per 1.000 population as the
6 annual rates are shown or per 100.000 population as the rates that we have
7 shown in our report. These are still the same relative measures. The
8 same intensity is shown by the rates.
9 Q. Those are the same relative rates. I'm sure you will agree,
10 Mrs. Tabeau, for experts, but for a layman in statistics, it's not the
11 same when you see the rate 548 to -- per 100.000 or 54.8 per 1.000. But
12 judging by the rate, he has an impression of the scope. So unlike the
13 customary practice, you used a hundred thousand because you get a bigger
14 figure and it sounds better for the media. Wouldn't you agree with that,
15 Ms. Tabeau?
16 A. That would be very naive of myself, I think, to believe that media
17 don't read statistics.
18 In table 17 of page 42, we show ratios of the event rates for
19 Sarajevo, September to August, September 1992 to August 1994. Ratios are
20 just the rates compared with a baseline standard. The baseline standard
21 used for our rates is the empirically observed deaths rates for the six
22 Sarajevo municipalities in the period of 1990, 1991. This is exactly the
23 same period two years long as the period of the siege studied in Galic,
24 two years long. So we took a baseline and every rate was recalculated as
25 a ratio that can be read immediately in terms of how much higher, how much
1 lower given that rate was compared with the baseline standard. And this
2 is all in our report. So I don't think I wanted more publicity about the
4 Q. Tell me, please, just a few points of explanation. On the basis
5 of which assumptions do you reach the conclusion -- and this is on page 6,
6 paragraph 3 of your report. On what grounds do you come to the conclusion
7 that the pre-census emigration, the emigration would return? What -- on
8 what grounds do you make such a conclusion?
9 A. To what are you pointing now?
10 Q. Your basic report --
11 JUDGE MAY: Which one?
12 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
13 Q. -- submitted here in this case.
14 JUDGE MAY: Which one? There are two reports. Which one are you
15 referring to?
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I think it's the first one.
17 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, I believe he's referring to the first
18 report, and it's page 6, top of the page of that report.
19 THE WITNESS: The displacement report. The displacement report.
20 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. Yes. You say they may perhaps return. The emigration --
22 pre-census emigration, they may or they may not return. They were not
23 influenced by the war. They left before the war. They started in the
24 1960s onwards. People from all over Yugoslavia went to work abroad, and
25 on what grounds do you come to the conclusion that perhaps they might now
1 return? For them the war was not a factor that prompted them to leave.
2 A. Well, I believe you are referring to the data included in that
3 census, data on the population residing temporarily abroad in 1991 and
4 still enumerated in that census and included in our study as well.
5 Well -- and indeed I say that we include these records of the
6 pre-census emigration in our statistics of displaced -- of refugees in
7 this case. It is all people in other countries. And I believe that
8 perhaps they would have returned if there was no war in Bosnia. Perhaps
9 not. We don't know.
10 Q. That's what I'm saying. Perhaps they wouldn't. You say perhaps
11 they would. But they didn't leave because of the war; they left to find
12 jobs, to make a living. How many people from other countries, not from
13 Yugoslavia, are working in Germany, Austria, France, or in other countries
14 of the European Union? "Gastarbeiters," as they're known, "guest
16 A. Well, in official statistics on the census published in the former
17 Yugoslavia, the population temporarily residing abroad was always included
18 as the population of a given territory in a given municipality or even in
19 a settlement.
20 So you yourself, your statisticians include -- consider this
21 population as part of the population of Bosnia and Herzegovina or Croatia,
22 and you ask me now to exclude them from the census statistics and not to
23 trace them in the post-war sources. So I think I would be, first of all,
24 inconsistent compared with official sources; and secondly, what I said
25 about the intention or the actual return of those who temporarily stayed,
1 these are people who still have their houses in Bosnia and Herzegovina
2 whose often family members live there in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
3 Q. Ms. Tabeau, wait a moment, please. I am not arguing with you at
4 all. Of course people at the time, citizens of Yugoslavia who have their
5 houses, who have Yugoslav passports who are working abroad should be
6 included in the census of citizens of Yugoslavia. My question was why do
7 you assume that they might return? And then you link that to the war.
8 And why are you counting those people who left before the war to work all
9 over Europe, do you consider them refugees? How can you qualify them as
10 refugees? Somebody who may have left from Serbia or Bosnia, Slovenia,
11 Croatia, anywhere. They may have gone to Australia. Why would he be
12 considered a refugee, for instance, if he went to Germany or Austria to
13 work there?
14 JUDGE MAY: The time is very nearly up. The witness can answer
15 this question so far as she can, so far as it's relevant, then you have
16 one more question, Mr. Milosevic.
17 Yes, Ms. Tabeau.
18 THE WITNESS: We dealt with this problem. We included these
19 persons in our refugee statistics. At the same time we made an assessment
20 of the error that we possibly made by including them, and the error is 4.2
21 per cent, which is less than widely accepted 5 per cent error in
23 So because it is unclear whether they would return -- have
24 returned or not but they still were abroad in the time of elections
25 1997/8, according to our statistical definition, they had to be included
1 in the refugees statistics. So -- but even you think that it is an error.
2 The error is fairly acceptable.
3 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
4 Q. Very well, Ms. Tabeau. I think that we don't understand one
5 another, because my belief is that they cannot be considered refugees. It
6 would be the same as if you were to count tourists as refugees.
7 Now, is it clear from the data at your disposal that the increase
8 of the Serb population in Republika Srpska is a direct consequence of the
9 persecution and reduction of the Serbian population in the territory of
10 the Federation of Bosnia-Herzegovina?
11 A. I don't think that there is such a conclusion in my report, so I
12 don't think we have shown something like that.
13 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Amicus, please. We'll sit on to try and finish
14 this witness.
15 MR. KAY: Let us just turn to the report at tab 2 of the bundle,
16 page 5.
17 Questioned by Mr. Kay:
18 Q. And I want to ask you a question about a matter that Milosevic has
19 just asked you concerning the percentage of population temporarily
20 residing overseas. You described it as 4.2 per cent.
21 A. This was a different per cent I mentioned. It was the possible
22 error that we make by including those who were pre-census emigration and
23 were still abroad by 1997/8. But the percentage of population overseas in
24 the 1991 census is 5.4 per cent.
25 Q. Yes.
1 A. This is what is mentioned on page 5.
2 Q. Yes. Is that a different statistic to the one you gave a moment
3 ago or the same statistic but you got it wrong?
4 A. It is a correct statistic, and it is an entirely different
6 Q. Thank you. In your report, the base population statistic, is that
7 derived from the population census of 1991? Is that right?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And in that census, it included those people working abroad who
10 would be known before 1991 as economic migrants?
11 A. Well, it is the census, and it includes the population working and
12 staying abroad.
13 Q. You're familiar with the phrase "economic migrants"?
14 A. Yes, I am, but in statistics, official statistics published in the
15 region of the former Yugoslavia on the population temporarily residing
16 abroad, working or staying with family members, this term is never used.
17 It is just the population overseas, temporarily abroad.
18 Q. I'm asking you, though, about your report and about the
19 terminology. Working abroad is something that is known as "economic
21 A. Yes, that's correct.
22 Q. And in considering the statistics that were later produced, these
23 were not considered as economic migrants but as refugees.
24 A. That's correct. We included this subgroup in the statistics of
1 Q. That is an inconsistency in their status, isn't it?
2 A. Well, it is questionable. Well, first of all regarding the
3 population working abroad, I must make clear that among the records of --
4 that we had at our disposal, we in total are speaking about 325.000
5 records. 325.000 records of those who were found in 1997/8 in total as
6 refugees abroad. So among those records approximately 110.000 persons,
7 110.000 persons, roughly one-third of the persons were persons who worked
8 in neighbouring countries like Croatia or Serbia. So it is one-third of
9 records that have a different meaning, the economic migration. It is not
10 that simple that all these records can be considered economic migration
11 from Bosnia and Herzegovina to Western countries. This were people who in
12 1991, one-third of them, one-third of them, roughly 110.000 people at 1991
13 census were in Bosnia. And probably already at that time worked in
14 neighbouring countries like Croatia and Serbia. So would you consider
15 this an economic migration?
16 Q. You don't know where they were, though, do you, where they were
18 A. I do know in terms of a country. I do know.
19 Q. How do you know that?
20 A. Because the country of residence was reported in the records that
21 we have.
22 Q. In the 1991 census, was it?
23 A. In 1991 census and also in 1997/8 records of voters,
24 out-of-country voters.
25 Q. In the 1997 census, was there a category there that dealt with
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 economic migrants?
2 A. Well, we had a category of out-of-country voters, and we didn't
3 know how many of them were the economic migration and how many of them
4 were just people who were working abroad because they couldn't return to
5 their own homes in Bosnia.
6 Q. The basis of the census then chose the address, the building in
7 which a person lived as the place at which they were to be determined for
8 the purpose of the census; is that right?
9 A. Address is indeed available from the census records for every
10 resident of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Indeed it is information that is
11 available. But for those who at the time of census were not in Bosnia and
12 Herzegovina but resided in a different country, the address is
13 unavailable. Only the country is available.
14 Q. In the 1997 census, did it deal at all with the reason why someone
15 might be living abroad?
16 A. Not at all. The 1997/8 census, as you call it, it was just voters
17 register which didn't deal at all with matters as the reasons for staying
18 abroad at the time of the elections.
19 Q. So if someone had been an economic migrant before 1991, in the
20 1997 census, he wouldn't be shown as an economic migrant. He would be
21 shown as a refugee.
22 A. He would be shown as a voter abroad, as an out-of-country voter.
23 And statistically speaking, we would consider this person a refugee due to
24 the fact that the place of residence of this person in 1991 and 1997/8 is
1 JUDGE ROBINSON: Dr. Tabeau, the -- are you familiar with the
2 definition of refugees in the refugees convention?
3 THE WITNESS: Yes. This is the legal definition that we, I said,
4 haven't used in our report. We use the statistical definition of an
5 internally displaced person as refugee as well.
6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Because the most important element of that
7 definition is the fear of persecution. You don't take account of that is
8 correct the motivation.
9 THE WITNESS: No, we don't take the motivation into account
10 because it is impossible on the basis of the sources we used.
11 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Kay.
12 MR. KAY:
13 Q. That is the point I was making, that it was your interpretation of
14 them as refugees rather than whether they were in fact refugees according
15 to any legal definition.
16 A. May I say something?
17 Q. Yes. You can answer the question. That's why I asked it.
18 A. This is not my interpretation. It is the way we have done this
19 using the statistical approach, and I wrote how -- what -- who was a
20 refugee in our study in the first section of the report. I never
21 pretended to use the legal definition of a refugee in this report, because
22 it was impossible. From the beginning we used the statistical definition
23 of a refugee who is defined in our report in the first section, I believe.
24 Yes. It is on page 7 in the English version of the report. This is the
25 third last paragraph in the bottom. Starting "Refugees were the persons,
1 were persons who in 1991 were reported in the population of Bosnia and
2 Herzegovina, including those temporarily residing abroad and who in 1997/8
3 registered to vote in countries different than Bosnia."
4 So I am -- I have been clear about this from the very beginning of
5 this report. The refugee statistics in the sense of the legal definition
6 or the motivational definition, that would be the records of refugees from
7 Western countries. Not only Western countries but also from Croatia or
8 Serbia, Montenegro, because these type of definitions were used when
9 giving people, when granting people the status of a refugee, the certain
10 legal status that brings with it certain material benefits and certain aid
11 to which a person is then entitled.
12 Q. Just as another matter on this particular subject, again in the
13 1997 census, had there been any distinction made in relation to those who
14 were abroad but registered to vote who were there for economic reasons,
15 who were economic migrants?
16 A. No, I don't think so.
17 Q. In your report at page 5, you said that there were deficiencies in
18 the population census of 1991 because of the unstable political situation.
19 Could you tell the Court what impact that would have had for the
20 collection and accuracy of that data in the 1991 census?
21 A. I think the census as such has been conducted -- had been
22 conducted following the procedures and methodological guidelines as
23 required for the census. So I don't have any doubts about that the census
24 was conducted correctly and the coverage of the census was complete, but
25 because it was such a huge population survey, a few individuals could not
1 be covered, but this is -- we are speaking about numbers that can be
2 safely neglected. So it is a complete population survey reporting the
3 status of the population as of the critical moment of that census, March
4 31, 1991.
5 After the census was completed, the data processing issue started,
6 and the deficiencies of the census are related to this phase of that
7 census statistics, of producing that census statistics. First of all, the
8 census -- but I should add that there is a report in annexes in our report
9 made by a person, by the head of population section from the statistical
10 office in Sarajevo who was involved in that census from 1984/5, from the
11 very first preparations, and was part of the Belgrade commission,
12 methodological commission on the census since the very beginning of
13 preparations. So all details about how census was conducted and what were
14 the problems met at that time, how the data computing processing was done,
15 how the data were computerised, what has not been finished, is in this
16 report in detail.
17 What I want to say, there were deficiencies related to the data
18 processing phase of that census. First of all, the census material had to
19 be scanned. Optical scanning was the method of getting the data
20 computerised. The optical scanning was not perfect. There were mistakes
21 in the names of the listed in the census questionnaires, spelling
22 mistakes. That is a problem, a big problem because it cost us a lot of
23 time to improve, to eliminate the mistakes, at least largely if not all of
24 them, in order to -- and with correct names that were used in matching.
25 Secondly, the data cleaning phase was not entirely finished due to
1 the conflict. So this simply means that there is one portion of the
2 census material, and this is the portion related mainly to dwelling census
3 and agricultural part of the census, that have never been finished in
4 terms of data quality control and recording of variables. But we haven't
5 used any information from the dwelling and agricultural censuses. So the
6 items that we used were actually cleaned largely, and recorded if there
7 were inconsistent cards reported, and could be used in the analysis as our
9 So this would be, in brief, what I can say about deficiencies. So
10 that would be mistakes in the names and unfinished data quality control.
11 JUDGE ROBINSON: Essentially, Dr. Tabeau, essentially I mean,
12 you're looking at people who were displaced by the war either internally
13 or, I suppose, externally. Those displaced externally, you call them
14 refugees irrespective of their motivation for leaving. But a person who
15 leaves for economic reasons may not have left because of the war
16 conditions, and wouldn't that lead to a mistake in the analysis?
17 THE WITNESS: Well, this is what -- what we were afraid of, and we
18 investigated this issue in a very great detail, and there is one annex in
19 our report in which we thoroughly discuss consequences of inclusion of
20 population temporarily abroad into our study. I am speaking about Annex
21 C, I believe.
22 JUDGE ROBINSON: And you said earlier that it is within acceptable
24 THE WITNESS: Yes. I already summarised the error, possible error
25 that we are making by including those people in the statistics of
1 internally displaced and refugees, and the error is 4.4 per cent. This is
2 a very small bias. If -- I don't think it is a problem in our report, not
3 at all. Not at all. Especially, as I said earlier today, the refugee
4 component of our report, of our statistics, is very limited. It is
5 heavily underestimated because of lack of sources that report on refugees.
6 I am speaking about sources like the Serbian and Montenegrin registers of
7 refugees in these countries and also about records of refugees from
8 Western European countries, mainly receiving countries.
9 So these are huge numbers that are not included here. So this
10 error I mentioned would become close to nothing if these records would
11 have been included in our refugee statistics. Well -- that I didn't
12 include any references by others like UNHCR on refugees and internally
13 displaced persons from Bosnia is because it was impossible for me to work
14 with individual records underlying the statistics compiled by UNHCR, and
15 UNHCR themselves always concluded that their statistics are very
17 So it is not a good reference to be included in reports like this
18 one that we are presenting today, but these statistics are available, and
19 for your information we can compile an overview of UNHCR statistics on
20 internally displaced persons and refugees from Bosnia starting in 1992,
21 throughout the war - we have a few reports from the war period - and then
22 until 1997. That is for your information if it is -- if you would request
24 MR. KAY: I note the time, so I'll ask one more question, Your
1 Q. In relation to the household survey of 1994, in answer to
2 Mr. Milosevic's questions, you said that the research institute involved
3 was properly biased a little bit. Who was the research institute that was
4 probably biased a little bit?
5 A. This is the Institute for Research of War Crimes and International
6 Law in Sarajevo, led by Professor Smail Cehic. To make things absolutely
7 correct, I didn't say that the institute was biased towards the Muslims
8 but generally how the survey was conducted, that the people who did the
9 survey were mainly Muslims who had perhaps, and this is my opinion,
10 personal opinion, easier access to the Muslim population than to other
11 ethnic groups.
12 Q. And if so, of course, then the statistics can be mistaken.
13 A. This is a misunderstanding. Ethnicity doesn't really play any
14 role in the Sarajevo reports, any of them at all, because it is not that
15 we discuss ethnic cleansing or whatever. We discussed casualties,
16 casualties irrespective of ethnicity, the number of how many people died,
17 were killed or wounded in the siege of Sarajevo.
18 Q. But it's casualties expressed by ethnicity. The report clearly
19 has that.
20 A. We have such an information in our databases, and this is included
21 for the readers, for those who will look at the numbers, but I myself
22 wouldn't use these figures as an example of targeting a particular ethnic
23 group, like Muslims. It was a siege. It was -- I don't know how is it
24 possible to be selective, you know, in shooting from a hill a few hundred
25 metres below and to know whether you are shooting a Muslim or a Serb. It
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 is absolutely impossible if my view.
2 Q. So if the figures are used in that way, it would be a misleading
3 use of the statistic, would it?
4 A. I don't think it is misleading because this is the correct
5 ethnicity, the numbers reported under ethnicities are correct in the
6 sense, were obtained from a certain source in a certain way. So they are
7 correct statistically speaking. But you must be careful with your
8 interpretation. I never interpreted these numbers as an example of ethnic
9 cleansing in any of the Sarajevo reports.
10 JUDGE MAY: Very briefly.
11 MR. GROOME: Just one question, Your Honour
12 Re-examined by Mr. Groome:
13 Q. Both the accused and Mr. Kay have asked you about the reliability
14 of this household survey of Sarajevo. My question to you is, in the third
15 Sarajevo report, you worked with seven other sources of data and you
16 talked about the process of comparing them and putting them together, and
17 my question to you is: In the course of that process, did you form a view
18 as with respect to the reliability of the household survey of Sarajevo
19 when it was worked with in -- with these other seven independent sources?
20 A. Well, the analysis of the Sarajevo household survey in the context
21 of other sources just confirmed that this source can be used as a source
22 for estimating casualties. There was a large overlap between this source
23 and other sources, good sources like the official records, death records
24 of the Federal Institution for Statistics. This confirms that after all,
25 these responses in Sarajevo household survey made a lot of sense and I
1 definitely believe it is a reliable source to be used for this purpose.
2 MR. GROOME: Thank you. No further questions.
3 JUDGE MAY: Dr. Tabeau, that concludes your evidence. Thank you
4 for giving it. You are free to go.
5 We will adjourn now unless Mr. Nice has an announcement.
6 [The witness withdrew]
7 MR. NICE: No. Only that the witness tomorrow is one whom the
8 accused may want to know is the subject of the recent application, and he
9 may wish to ensure that he reads both the witness statement and the draft
10 proofing summary ahead of tomorrow morning's session. I forecast that by
11 then the witness will have signed the proofing summary and it may be that
12 I will make an application that we should deal with the evidence in some
13 more expeditious way than --
14 JUDGE MAY: Just a moment. So that he follows -- just clarify
15 that it is witness -- he has a number. 225.
16 MR. NICE: 225. He's not going to be protected once he starts
17 giving evidence, but it's probably better --
18 JUDGE MAY: For the moment he is.
19 MR. NICE: For the moment he is.
20 JUDGE MAY: So the accused has it, it's B-225 next up.
21 JUDGE KWON: Was the proof summary translated?
22 MR. NICE: No, and I don't imagine it's going to be possible for
23 it to be translated by tomorrow. I can discuss those matters generally
24 tomorrow, but in any event, he will have signed it. I'm not necessarily
25 suggesting that I'm going to be seeking to rely on that, but he will have
1 signed it and we'll see how we go from there.
2 JUDGE MAY: Is it a case in which there is much added in the proof
3 summary which wasn't in the statement?
4 MR. NICE: There's quite a lot. I have just been checking it. I
5 think it's at least 20 per cent.
6 JUDGE MAY: We may have that indicated to us tomorrow.
7 MR. NICE: You will find on most paragraphs at the end of the
8 paragraph there's a reference to either -- that is the paragraphs of the
9 proofing summary, there is a reference to either a paragraph in the
10 statement or to proofing or to both.
11 JUDGE MAY: We're not going to go into it now, Mr. Milosevic, but
12 there will be an application tomorrow morning by the Prosecution to adduce
13 those, either the summary or the statement instead of the
14 examination-in-chief. We will rule on it, that application, tomorrow
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May.
17 JUDGE MAY: Yes.
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May.
19 JUDGE MAY: Yes.
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] This is some kind of new practice
21 now, and in effect, this abolishes the examination-in-chief as such. What
22 is presented here is some kind of a summary that is not written by the
23 witness but by Mr. Nice and his team, and then the witness serves the
24 purpose of cross-examination only here. This has gone even further than
25 that Rule of yours, 92 bis. I think this is unacceptable. The
1 examination-in-chief has to be heard.
2 JUDGE MAY: Tomorrow morning. We're going to adjourn now. You're
3 quite right, but that is ruling of the Appeals Chamber by which this
4 Chamber is bound. Perhaps you would like to have a copy of it. No doubt
5 Mr. Kay could give you a copy of it if you haven't got it. We will
6 adjourn now.
7 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at
8 2.21 p.m., to be reconvened on Wednesday,
9 the 8th day of October, 2003, at 9.00 a.m.