1 Tuesday, 7 December 2010
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 2.20 p.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good afternoon to everyone in and around this
6 courtroom. Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. Good afternoon
8 everyone in and around the courtroom. This is case number IT-03-69-T.
9 The Prosecutor versus Jovica Stanisic and Franko Simatovic.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
11 Before the next witness will be called, a few matters. The
12 Stanisic Defence has in addition to the reason given earlier for the
13 accused to be provisionally released added to that they would like to be
14 authorised to visit his father's grave. Mr. Groome, is there any -- do
15 you want to respond to that, if so, would you like to do it now or will I
16 set a dead-line for that.
17 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, on that specific matter if the Chamber
18 does grant provisional release the Prosecution will have no objection to
19 him visiting his father's grave.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you for that. The Stanisic Defence has
21 requested leave to reply to the Prosecution's response. Any objection
22 against this request?
23 MR. GROOME: No, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Then the Stanisic Defence request for leave to reply
25 is granted hereby.
1 Mr. Jordash, I think it would be in the interest of the Stanisic
2 Defence that we receive that reply as soon as possible. We are even
3 thinking about today but that might be too early. Tomorrow midday
4 that ...?
5 MR. JORDASH: May I just consult, please.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
7 [Defence counsel confer]
8 MR. JORDASH: Today, Your Honour, would be fine with us.
9 JUDGE ORIE: If you could manage, multitasking is that called, is
10 it? Yes, you would like to leave the reply, I was thinking about a
11 written reply.
12 MR. JORDASH: So were we, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Bakrac, you were on your feet.
14 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour, I wanted to add a
15 few words to this. I wanted to ask for leave, oral leave from the Trial
16 Chamber that we also file a response to the Prosecution's reply and we
17 would do that by late tonight. However, I think it's unrealistic that to
18 expect that we can file it by tonight, but we would manage to do so
19 during the course of the morning if we are granted leave to do so.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome.
21 MR. GROOME: Prosecution would not object to leave being granted.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Bakrac, leave is granted, we expect you to
23 file it tomorrow in the course of the morning until midday. If perhaps
24 already before filing tomorrow morning you would have a courtesy copy
25 available to the Chamber, that would be appreciated.
1 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Then last matter I put on the record that the
3 Chamber informed the parties on the 3rd of December, although relatively
4 late, at 7.00 p.m.
5 discussions in court and apparently discussions between the parties after
6 court time, that the testimony of Ewa Tabeau would commence on Tuesday
7 the 7th of December, as was then scheduled. That the testimony of
8 witness of JF-029 will not commence before Wednesday, the 8th of
9 December, and that in the event that the testimony of Ewa Tabeau does not
10 conclude by the end of Tuesday, the 7th of December, that the Chamber
11 will consider whether to interrupt the testimony of Ms. Tabeau in order
12 to commence with witness JF-029. We'll -- when making such a
13 determination, we'll of course carefully consider all of the
14 circumstances. This is hereby put on the record.
15 I have no further matters to be raised at this moment. Is the
16 Prosecution ready to call Ms. Tabeau?
17 MR. FARR: Yes, Your Honour.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Then could the witness be escorted into the
20 MR. JORDASH: Your Honours.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
22 MR. JORDASH: I should apologise, I should perhaps have jumped to
23 my feet earlier. It's -- may I address Your Honour, an issue concerning
24 this next witness's testimony concerning 14 additional victims that have
25 been the subject of an application to add to the exhibit list, dated the
1 1st of October 2010 as part of the Prosecution's submission of the
2 updated victim's support of expert witness Tabeau and motion to add proof
3 of death documents to Rule 65 ter exhibit list. We've been informed by
4 the Prosecution that to the extent the indictment or schedule attached
5 thereto expressly mentioned additional unnamed victims, those additional
6 victims, the 14, are, according to the Prosecution, to be added to the
7 indictment. This particular witness mentions those 14 and perhaps what
8 I'm requesting is that we be allowed to address you on whether those 14
9 are allowed to be added to the indictment in the way that the Prosecution
10 are proposing, which is to basically do it without asking.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Let's -- I suggest that we start hearing the
12 evidence of Ms. Tabeau and at the last five minutes before the break,
13 because I find it not very appropriate to let her wait outside, otherwise
14 if you would have asked before --
15 MR. JORDASH: No, it's my fault entirely.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, may the witness be brought into the courtroom.
17 [The witness entered court]
18 JUDGE ORIE: I take it that what, at least, I expect will be the
19 contents of the testimony, that it will not really become a problem.
20 MR. JORDASH: There will be no prejudice by dealing with it this
22 JUDGE ORIE: Good afternoon, Ms. Tabeau. Before you give
23 evidence, you are required to make a solemn declaration, the text of is
24 it handed out to you, may I invite you to make a solemn declaration.
25 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the
1 whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Ms. Tabeau. Please be seated.
3 Ms. Tabeau, you'll first be examined by Mr. Farr.
4 MR. FARR: That's correct, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
6 MR. FARR: Thank you, Your Honour.
7 WITNESS: EWA TABEAU
8 Examination by Mr. Farr:
9 Q. Good afternoon, Dr. Tabeau. Can you hear me clearly?
10 A. Good afternoon, yes.
11 Q. Could you please state your full name for the record?
12 A. Ewa Tabeau.
13 Q. Dr. Tabeau, I note that you've brought some papers with you to
14 court today, can you please tell the Chamber what those papers are?
15 A. One binder contains the text of my reports, and some additional
16 documents like my professional qualifications, like some presentations
17 prepared for this testimony, some sources that were used for this
18 project. The other two binders contain excerpts or full proof of the
19 documents that were compiled for this project.
20 MR. FARR: Your Honour, I would ask the Chamber's leave that
21 Dr. Tabeau be permitted to consult her reports and the other materials in
22 the course of her testimony as required. These are all materials that
23 have been disclosed to the Defence.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Leave is granted. Please proceed.
25 MR. FARR:
1 Q. Dr. Tabeau, your professional qualifications are outlined on page
2 108 of your IDP's and refugees report which is 65 ter number 5864, and in
3 your CV which has been uploaded as 65 ter number 5867, so I won't go over
4 your background in detail. I do have a few clarification questions,
5 though. Your CV indicates that you received your PhD in mathematical
6 demography in 1991. What was the focus of your research for your PhD?
7 A. I studied differences in mortality in Poland, regional
8 differences and factors underlying these differences.
9 Q. Your CV also indicates that you were a senior researcher and
10 project leader at the Dutch Interdisciplinary Demographic Institute from
11 1991 to 2000? What was the focus of your work there?
12 A. My research area was the study of mortality in western countries
13 and central European countries. I studied mortality, overall mortality,
14 mortality by cause of death, life expectancy, prospects for longevity,
15 this was a study meant to, first of all, focus mortality, overall or by
16 cause of death, and secondly, to explain the differences in mortality for
17 various social groups.
18 Q. Since 2000, you have been employed by the Office of the
19 Prosecution here at the ICTY. Your CV indicates that during that time
20 you've prepared approximately 40 expert reports. In how many of those
21 reports have you used a methodology similar to the methodology you used
22 for your reports in this case?
23 A. The methodology used for this report, for this case is a standard
24 methodology used by the demographic unit of the Office of the
25 Prosecution, so basically the answer would be practically in all other
1 reports, the same methodology was used.
2 Q. As far as you know, were these reports admitted as expert reports
3 in the cases in which they were presented?
4 A. Well, yes, of course, these were reports presented as expert
5 reports and tendered, majority of them into evidence.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Farr, would that not be something that you could
7 have agreed upon? I mean, let's try to get to the core, and of course,
8 I'm very happy to know exactly what the focus of Ms. Tabeau's work was in
9 the past, but I'm primarily interested at this moment in the report.
10 Please proceed.
11 MR. FARR: I'll proceed, Your Honour. Thank you.
12 Q. Dr. Tabeau, during your testimony here today we'll be dealing
13 with two reports you prepared specifically for this case. The full title
14 of the first report is: "Ethnic Composition, Internally Displaced
15 Persons and Refugees from Five Municipalities of Bosnia and Herzegovina
16 1991 to 1997/1998."
17 The updated version that we will be using in this case is dated 9
18 July 2010. The previous version was first filed on 15 December 2004 and
19 that report has 65 ter 5864. I will refer to that report as "the IDP's
20 and refugees report" in the rest of my examination.
21 A. Yes, it's correct, this is the first report.
22 Q. The full title of the second report is: "Victims of War Related
23 to the Jovica Stanisic and Franko Simatovic Indictment." It is dated 6
24 August 2010 with the exception of annex 4 to that report which is dated
25 23 September 2010
1 report as "the victims report."
2 A. Yes, that's correct, that's the second report.
3 Q. During your testimony today we'll discuss the sources,
4 methodology and results for each report. We'll deal with the IDP's and
5 refugees report first. In that report, you identify the 1991 population
6 census. And the 1997/1998 voters' registers as the two principal sources
7 and describe them at pages 5 to 9 in annex B. My question is: Can you
8 comment briefly on the size and completeness of those two sources as
9 compared to sources commonly used in demographic or statistical studies?
10 A. The population census is the most complete population survey
11 existing so in principal it is meant to cover the entire population, and
12 basically did cover the entire population of Bosnia and Herzegovina
13 March -- end of March 1991. The size of the population census for Bosnia
14 is 4.4 million individual records and we did use the individual
15 micro-level information about persons and not aggregate statistics, so it
16 is the most existing, most complete record of information about a
17 population, the population in a country.
18 The voters' register is not as large as the population census, it
19 is, basically speaking, a large sample of the population eligible to
20 vote, that is those who at the time of elections were 18 or older, 18
21 years or older, and it covers those eligible voters who registered to
22 vote. But still its size was large for Bosnia and Herzegovina; it
23 covered approximately 2.5 million individuals. Merged voters' register
24 1997 and 1998 covered altogether 2.7 million individuals and again we
25 used individual-level records from the voters' registration. So these
1 sources are exceptionally large and exceptionally broad.
2 In statistics and demography, sample surveys are often used which
3 are very small and of course even though they are representative, they
4 cannot compare with sources like the population census or the voters'
6 Q. And what is the impact on the reliability of your results of
7 having sources that are exceptionally large and exceptionally broad, as
8 you've just said?
9 A. Yes, any statistics made on the basis of census data are simply
10 not -- are complete. It is not that we have a large margin of error in
11 this case, statistics compiled on the basis of the voters' register have
12 very narrow confidence intervals meaning that uncertainty related to any
13 statistics compiled based on the voters is extremely low. That is the
14 effect of the very, very large size of this source. This is just
15 reliable statistics that are obtained.
16 Q. Can you tell us now what were the key pieces of data you used
17 from each of these sources when preparing the IDP's and refugees report?
18 A. When preparing the statistics on displacement of the population,
19 as I said individual data was used, basic items essential for this
20 analysis included ethnicity and the place of residence or registration to
21 vote in the case of the voters' register. But so that would be the
22 ethnicity and place of residence or registration to vote. But in
23 addition to this, these two sources in order to make the analysis had to
24 be linked with each other, that is, records from the census and the
25 voters' registers had to be matched and for this names of individuals
1 listed in the census and in the voters' register were used. So that
2 would be the next portion of information that was essential for this
3 study. In addition to this, the individual identification number
4 available in the population census and in the voter's register, the
5 so-called JMBG was used in the matching procedure as well.
6 MR. FARR: You've just started --
7 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Tabeau, could I ask you one additional question.
8 All the answers you've given, it is true that I find them all in the
9 first part of your report "objective and scope," that's mainly what
10 Mr. Farr is asking you about, isn't it?
11 THE WITNESS: Yes, this is all described in the report, partly in
12 the objective and scope and largely in the annexes, methodological
13 annexes and source-related annexes of the report.
14 JUDGE ORIE: There we find the detail, but the level of questions
15 put by Mr. Farr to you, let's say, 95 per cent answered in the objective
16 and scope.
17 THE WITNESS: Correct.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Farr, we've read that.
19 MR. FARR: Thank you, Your Honour.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
21 MR. FARR:
22 Q. Dr. Tabeau, you just started describing the linking process that
23 you used, and as Judge Orie has indicated, it's described in detail in
24 your report. Can you tell us why you decided to use this method of
25 linking records between your two large sources?
1 A. The method has its rationale in the idea of tracing individuals
2 who lived in Bosnia
3 individuals reported in the population census. Throughout I did a whole
4 conflict period, war period, and until the post-conflict situation.
5 So the linking process is just nothing else but tracing, looking
6 to -- for what happened to the same individuals over time and in this
7 particular case the place of residence, the changes in the place of
8 residence were the central question.
9 Q. And how long did this process of matching records between the
10 census and the voter register take?
11 A. It was a very long process that started in 1998 and the project
12 was finished in terms of matching and compiling basic statistics in
13 mid-2003, so it took at least five years to complete these matching
14 activities. Because of the size of the sources and because of the
15 complexity of the practicalities.
16 Q. And I think you just indicated that the place of residence was
17 one of the key pieces of data that you compared between 1991 and
18 1997/1998; is that correct?
19 A. That's correct.
20 Q. Now in your report you deal with two kinds of numbers of
21 internally displaced persons and refugees. Minimum numbers and estimated
22 complete numbers. My question is: Do the matched records correspond to
23 the minimum numbers or to estimated complete numbers?
24 A. The matched records correspond to the minimum numbers. The
25 minimum numbers could be documented if required by lists of name of
1 displaced persons, including their personal details before and after the
3 Q. Turning now to the estimated complete numbers, can you briefly
4 describe how these numbers were obtained?
5 A. The estimated numbers -- the idea of the estimated numbers, first
6 of all is related to the fact that the minimum numbers, as the name
7 suggests, are very minimum, that means they are incomplete and shouldn't
8 be seen as ultimate numbers of the displaced population. So in order to
9 compensate for this deficiency of the minimum numbers, we estimated the
10 more complete numbers for which we used some sampling statistics obtained
11 based on the voters' register which were applied to the pre-war census
12 population. It was a basic simple statistical procedure that should be
13 seen as extrapolation of sample statistics over the entire pre-war
15 Q. I'd like to turn now to the results of the IDP's and refugees
16 report. But before that I wanted to ask you a few questions about the
17 way in which you analysed the territory of the Stanisic-Simatovic area.
18 The number of the results in the report are presented with respect to the
19 portion of the territory that ended up in the RS versus the portion of
20 the territory that ended up in the Federation. Can you briefly describe
21 what portions of the five pre-war municipalities in the
22 Stanisic-Simatovic area eventually became part of the RS and which
23 eventually became part of the Federation?
24 A. Yes. As a matter of fact, the municipalities covered by the
25 indictment include just five pre-war municipalities. When I say pre-war
1 implies that there is a post-war division of municipalities as well, and
2 this post-war division we call post-Dayton division so the number of
3 municipalities, the administrative division of the country into the
4 municipalities obviously changed pre- and post-war periods. So the five
5 municipalities, Bijeljina, Bosanski Samac, Zvornik, Doboj and Sanski
6 Most, these five municipalities were correspond to 11 post-Dayton
7 municipalities. What happened in the post-war division of
8 municipalities, several municipalities were split into RS part and
9 federal part. This happened to four out of the five municipalities
10 included in this indictment. Bijeljina actually is the only one that has
11 not been split; all other municipalities were split and Doboj was split
12 into even four areas.
13 So the RS municipalities relate to these parts of the pre-war
14 municipalities that became part of Republika Srpska and the federal part
15 is the one that belonged to the Federation.
16 I think it is convenient to perhaps take a look at this stage at
17 the population in the RS part and the federal part as reported in the
18 population census, so the RS part was approximately 240.000 individuals
19 and the federal part is about 80.000 individuals. So it is that the
20 population in the RS part of the municipalities was much larger. These
21 are the census data that are included in the report as well.
22 Q. Thank you, we'll now turn to the results of your report.
23 MR. FARR: And Your Honours, I would direct your attention to the
24 demonstrative exhibit of the excerpted results of the IDP's and refugees
25 report that was handed out before court. That's document 65 ter 5862,
1 and I'd ask that we can have that on e-court as well.
2 Q. Dr. Tabeau, I just have two introductory questions regarding this
3 demonstrative exhibit and the other we'll be using today for the victims'
4 report. First, is it correct that all the results in these demonstrative
5 exhibits come from your reports themselves in the places indicated in the
6 end notes to the demonstrative exhibits?
7 A. Yes, it's correct.
8 Q. It is also correct that the particular results presented in these
9 demonstrative exhibits were selected by a process of consultation between
10 you and members of the trial team?
11 A. Yes, it's correct.
12 Q. So looking at the demonstrative exhibit, let's start with table 1
13 of the summary of the IDP's and refugees report which divides the results
14 according to the RS part and the FBiH part of the Stanisic and Simatovic
15 area. The first row of the table is entitled, "Minimum numbers of IDP's
16 and refugees." Can you briefly tell us what these numbers are?
17 A. The first row as you said contains the minimum numbers. These
18 are the numbers of displaced population, internally displaced and
19 externally displaced; internally meaning within Bosnia-Herzegovina and
20 externally, outside Bosnia-Herzegovina. These numbers are the minimum
21 numbers, that is, they come from the matching procedure and can be
22 documented with personal and residence and ethnic details of every case
23 included in these numbers.
24 So the numbers are, first of all, given here only for the
25 individuals that were born before 1980. This was a necessary restriction
1 that had to be applied to both voters' registration and population census
2 in order to make the statistics comparable over time.
3 So it is the first remark. We have here two panels in this
4 table. The first panel relates to displaced population from the RS part
5 of the Stanisic-Simatovic area, and the second panel relates to the
6 federal part of the Stanisic-Simatovic area. The Stanisic-Simatovic area
7 are just five municipalities, pre-war municipalities, or alternatively as
8 they were transformed into the 11 post-Dayton municipalities.
9 So for the RS part the number mentioned in the table in the first
10 row is approximately 56.000 individuals, exactly 55.837, 55.837. So that
11 is the overall number of displaced population who used to live at the
12 outbreak of the conflict in the RS parts of the Stanisic-Simatovic area.
13 That is the first number. And further there is the ethnic breakdown of
14 this number, so there is, for instance, 44.798 Muslim displaced persons,
15 internally displaced and refugees, and 2.560 ethnic Serbs who became
16 displaced persons.
17 Q. Thank you, Dr. Tabeau. Moving to the next row, the second row is
18 entitled, "Per Cent of IDP's and refugees within ethnic groups." Can you
19 tell us conceptually what this number represents?
20 A. This is a statistic obtained from the voters' records. For
21 instance, 96 per cent that is given for the Muslim displaced persons
22 means that 96 per cent of the population identified as of 1997/8, 96 per
23 cent of this Muslim population became internally or externally displaced
24 as of 1997/8.
25 Q. Can I just ask a follow-up on that. I think I'm -- well, just
1 tell me if this is correct, is it correct that for every 100 Muslims from
2 the RS part of the Stanisic-Simatovic area for whom you were able to
3 match records, 96 would have left their 1991 municipality of residence by
5 A. Yes, that's the interpretation. Yes.
6 Q. And similarly for every 100 Serbs from the Federation part of the
7 Stanisic Simatovic area for whom you were able to match records, 99.6
8 would have left their 1991 municipality of residence by 1997/1998?
9 A. Yes, that's correct.
10 Q. Are these the numbers that are represented graphically by figure
11 2 at the bottom of the page?
12 A. Yes, that is correct.
13 Q. Is there anything in your data or other information that you are
14 aware of that allows you to conclude whether these two significant
15 population movements, that is, one of Muslims and one of Serbs, occurred
16 at the same time or at different times?
17 A. Probably these movements were occurring more or less in the same
18 time. I believe these were most likely parallel processes. I would
19 think so.
20 Q. The next row is titled, "More complete number of IDP's and
21 refugees." Earlier you described numbers that you developed using
22 statistical estimation methods. Are those these numbers?
23 A. The more complete number is the estimated number and this, I said
24 it is obtained by extrapolation, the sample proportion of displaced
25 persons over the entire 1991 population.
1 Q. And I think you, in addition to your estimated complete numbers,
2 you also show a 95 per cent confidence interval for those numbers. I
3 think you said earlier that a confidence interval is somehow related to
4 the degree of certainty related to an estimation, but can you just tell
5 us what these confidence intervals that you have for this estimate mean?
6 A. Confidence intervals indeed express the uncertainty related or
7 associated with the point estimate. Point estimate is just one single
8 number in this case of displaced persons, but of course it is just a
9 point estimate and we are not 100 per cent sure that that is the number.
10 So using certain statistical techniques, we can make confidence intervals
11 which are telling us what would happen if many samples would be taken
12 from a certain population and each time statistics, the same statistics
13 would be calculated based on a different sample. So this confidence
14 interval, for instance, for Muslims, it is 76.372 lower end, and upper
15 end 76.708, this is an interval which with a high confidence, in this
16 case 95 per cent confidence, comprises, contains the unknown number of
17 displaced person, displaced Muslims in this case. It is a very narrow
18 confidence interval which is related to the large size of the sample that
19 would be the voters' register, and this kind of narrow confidence
20 interval suggests that our point estimate is very precise, as a matter of
22 Q. You said a moment ago that it would theoretically be possible to
23 prepare a list of the individuals included in the minimum number by name
24 and place of residence in the two relevant years. Now, correct me if I'm
25 wrong, but my understanding that it would not be possible to do that with
1 your estimated complete numbers; correct?
2 A. Yes, partly correct, partly not, because the more complete number
3 as a matter of fact should be seen as containing the minimum number plus
4 the correction, say, or additional component that can be obtained using
5 statistical techniques. So for the minimum number, yes, but not for the
6 additional part on the top of it.
7 Q. All right. Can we now move to the top of the next page and take
8 a look at table 4. This also divides the results between the RS and the
9 Federation. And I'll ask you some more detailed questions in a minute,
10 can you just tell us briefly in general terms what table 4 sets out?
11 A. Table 4 summarises the ethnic composition in the RS and federal
12 part of the Stanisic-Simatovic area. Ethnic composition on one hand is
13 represented for 1991 and on the other hand it is the ethnic composition
14 as of 1997. The ethnic composition is expressed first of all by absolute
15 numbers and in addition to these in terms of percentage. It's important
16 to note that the absolute numbers for 1991 are complete, but for 1997,
17 it's again a sample. Large sample, but a sample.
18 So the 1997 absolute numbers are not the size of the 1997 actual
19 size of the 1997 population. Percentages however can be compared in
20 these two years, so the second panel of this table, of table 4 for 1991
21 and 1997 can be directly compared and assessed.
22 Q. And that's the panel that is titled "Per cent"; is that correct?
23 A. That's correct.
24 Q. And just to use an example to make this more concrete, is the
25 correct way to read this table that the Muslim population in the RS part
1 of the Stanisic-Simatovic area fell from 33.1 percentage points to 1.6
2 percentage points of the total population between 1991 and 1997 and that
3 this represents a decrease of 95.3 per cent?
4 A. Yes, that's correct.
5 Q. And at the same time the Serb population increased from just over
6 half to just over 90 per cent of the population of the RS portion of the
8 A. Yes, that's correct. That is an increase by 76.4 per cent.
9 Q. Is it these changes in ethnic composition in percentage terms
10 that are represented by figure 12 at the bottom of this page?
11 A. Yes, that's correct.
12 Q. Dr. Tabeau, I'd now like to ask you a few questions about a
14 MR. FARR: Could we please have 65 ter number 564 on the screen.
15 Q. This document has the heading of the Banja Luka Centre for State
16 Security Department of the Republika Srpska MUP. It's dated February
17 1995, and it is titled, "Overview of data on the number and ethnic
18 structure of population according to municipalities in the area of the
19 Bahn Luke RDB centre for 1991 and 1995."
20 This document was seised by the Prosecution on 27 February 1998,
21 from the Security Services Centre in Banja Luka.
22 Dr. Tabeau, are you familiar with this document?
23 A. Yes, I am.
24 Q. And you do have a copy of it in front of you; is that correct?
25 A. That's correct.
1 Q. Can you briefly --
2 JUDGE ORIE: Is it on our screen already?
3 MR. FARR: Your Honour, it's not.
4 JUDGE ORIE: In order to follow the evidence, it's good for us to
5 have a look at it.
6 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
7 JUDGE ORIE: Apparently there's something wrong with the system.
8 Nevertheless, Mr. Farr, if you would look at the screen as well, so you
9 would know whether the Judges have access to the material you are asking
11 MR. FARR: I can proceed to something else and come back to this,
12 Your Honour.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps you do so.
14 MR. FARR:
15 Q. Dr. Tabeau, we'll now turn to your victims report. I would first
16 note that there are two main parts to this report, the first part is the
17 body and the first three annexes which deal with all of the war-related
18 victims from the Stanisic-Simatovic area. The second part is annex 4
19 which deals specifically with the victims whose murder are charged in
20 this case. We'll deal with these two parts in that order, and again,
21 we'll deal with sources, methodology, and findings.
22 Starting with the main body of the report, pages 4 to 6 list the
23 sources you use to compile the victims report. Can you briefly explain
24 not what the sources are, because that's what is in the report already,
25 but what qualities or characteristics of these sources led to you select
2 A. I think it's important to note that finding appropriate sources,
3 reliable sources that would report on war victims is a very hard thing to
4 do. So in the times of conflict, the expectation that sources are easily
5 available, complete, and reliable and without any deficiencies is simply
6 wrong. So the sources that we use -- the sources that we use are
7 nevertheless the best we could identify and collect and should be seen as
8 largely complete and reliable. We made a lot of efforts to acquire
9 sources on both civilian and military victims of war. For instance, when
10 it comes to the military victims, we have complete lists of fallen
11 soldiers and other personnel associated with the ministries of defence in
12 Bosnia and Herzegovina. When it comes to the -- should I continue? Yes.
13 JUDGE ORIE: I'm still listening but at the same time I'm looking
15 THE WITNESS: Thank you, thank you. So when it comes to sources
16 related to civilians, we used two large databases that were compiled by
17 the statistical authorities of Federation and Republika Srpska in
18 Bosnia-Herzegovina in which they computerised at our request all death
19 notifications from the time of the war. There were two groups of deaths
20 in these sources. On one hand we had natural deaths that were excluded
21 from this report and any other report related to victims of war. But the
22 other part of information was explicitly reporting on victims of war.
23 These lists, RS and FBiH lists, the so-called Dem 2 [phoen] databases on
24 war-time mortality were importantly prepared by the professional
25 statisticians with appropriate training and experience in providing these
1 kind of information and secondly, these records are documented by, for
2 instance, death certificates or other documents, for instance, court
3 declarations of certain individuals to be dead.
4 We also worked with lists of missing persons, which is an
5 important source on victims of war. As long as there is no body of the
6 deceased -- of a deceased this person cannot be included in the records
7 of official death notifications, so including missing persons records is
8 an important thing to do in this kind of project. We also worked with
9 exhumation records, that would be the records of identification of
10 victims whose bodies were found in the mass graves in Bosnia and
12 So the sources that we used, I most certainly believe were the
13 best available for this kind of work and these are not just sources,
14 these are appropriate sources that report on victims of war. They are
15 reliable, large, however, I cannot say they are complete. They are
16 incomplete, and of course, they are deficient as well in several ways.
17 MR. FARR:
18 Q. At page 3 of the victims' report you indicate that mortality
19 sources were required to contain information on the date, place and cause
20 of death or disappearance. Why did you require sources to contain this
21 kind of information in order to be used?
22 A. Well, generally we require any source to be the individual-level
23 source, that means information must be available on persons. That means,
24 basically, these are long lists of victims, dead or missing persons or
25 exhumed or identified persons, and for in order to be able to process
1 this information and to cross-reference sources and eliminate
2 duplication, we first of all need to have personal details, like names,
3 date of birth, place of birth, et cetera, and in order to study the
4 details of their death or disappearance, we need to have information
5 about date, place, cause of death.
6 Q. And why is cause of death, in particular, important?
7 A. Well, cause of death is important because we are speaking of
8 victims of war, that is, the causes of death are, of course, violent in
9 this case, and cause of death is important not to mix natural death with
10 violent war-related deaths.
11 Q. Is it correct that you looked only at violent war-related deaths?
12 A. Yes, this is what I said, the subject of our study were the
13 violent war-related deaths.
14 Q. I would now like to turn to your methodology. In section 3 of
15 the victims' report you mention the 2010 integrated database and you
16 describe how it was constructed using your 12 sources. You also mention
17 two additional sources, one of which is the 1991 population census and
18 the second of which are the 1997/1998 and 2000 voter registers. Starting
19 with the 1991 population census, can you tell us how that was used and
20 what it was used for in the creation of the 2010 integrated database?
21 A. Perhaps I will come to this, but it's important to say what the
22 integrated mortality database is. This is a database that covers all
23 war-related deaths that we were able to identify in the course of time in
24 our sources, in the demographic unit. This database was put together
25 very recently, so its final version was available, became available, in,
1 I believe, January this year. So it summarises the results of our work
2 with sources reporting on war victims, the work experience which is, as I
3 think, about ten years long as of now. This database covers the entire
4 war in Bosnia and Herzegovina and entire territory of the country. So
5 this database was a match of 12 large sources on victims of war and, of
6 course, eliminating the duplications, overlap of sources, cleaning the
7 data, repairing gaps if possible, et cetera, et cetera. That is the
8 crucial part of the core of our work, but in order to make sure that all
9 these victims were indeed living in Bosnia and Herzegovina at the
10 outbreak of the conflict, the census population of 1991 is used. We
11 cross-reference the victims with the census population in order to
12 validate the personal details of the victims, and possibly to expand the
13 record of information on every person by including census information in
14 the records on deaths or disappearance.
15 So the role of census and validation and improving information
16 about the war victims. On the other hand, there is the other group of
17 sources. This would be the sources reporting on the surviving
18 population, that would be the voters' registers of 1997, 1998, 2000. We
19 also have the register, official register of internally displaced persons
20 and refugees of the government of Bosnia-Herzegovina; it's another source
21 of surviving population. So what we do is, as well, cross-referencing
22 the lists of victims of war with the records of surviving population.
23 This is done in order to eliminate false positives that would be the
24 persons reported dead or missing who at the same time are obvious
1 So that is the methodology that we used for this project and for
2 several other projects. Importantly, of course, not all the records were
3 used from the integrated database which is a large database. It's
4 altogether about 90.000 records of war victims from Bosnia. We extracted
5 the relevant records from this database using the criterion of area and
6 time, as exactly defined in this indictment.
7 Q. At pages 8 to 9 of the victims report, you indicate that
8 information on ethnicity was not universally available from mortality
9 sources, but that information on ethnicity could be obtained from the
10 1991 census for those records that were matched with the census. Just to
11 be clear, did you take any information on ethnicity from the mortality
12 sources or did you always take it from the 1991 census?
13 A. We always take it from the population census and one is that it
14 is not -- ethnicity is not universally reported but more importantly we
15 realise that ethnicity is, as a matter of fact, self-perception that may
16 change over time, depending on the circumstances one lives in. So in
17 order to eliminate any bias related to changing perceptions of ethnicity,
18 we also always ethnicity obtained on the basis of links with the
19 population census. So it's ethnicity as reported in the 1991 census, not
20 biased by any changes of -- in later reports.
21 Q. The victims' report also contains information regarding the
22 military or civilian status of the victims, and you explain in the report
23 the way that you assigned military status to certain victims. You also
24 indicated at page 9 of the victims' report that this designation does not
25 correspond necessarily to combatants, why do you say that?
1 A. The approach we have been applying for many years now is that any
2 victim included in the military lists -- we have three military lists,
3 the lists of ABiH soldiers, VRS soldiers, ABH soldiers, that are the
4 three factions involved, military factions involved in the conflict. So
5 we have these lists, altogether, I believe 54.000 records. These lists
6 were made for the purpose of postmortem benefits to the families of the
7 persons included, so whoever is confirmed, whoever of our victims is
8 confirmed in these lists, we assign this person the status "military."
9 But it has nothing to do with the circumstances -- or it has something to
10 do but not -- there is no one-to-one correspondence between the
11 circumstances of death and the fact of being reported a military in the
12 sense of our definition. What I'm trying to say being a military doesn't
13 mean that a person died in combat circumstances. It just means that the
14 person was associated in some way with the army or the Ministry of
16 Q. Thank you, Dr. Tabeau.
17 MR. FARR: Your Honour, I'm not sure exactly what time we
18 started, I don't know if this is an appropriate time.
19 JUDGE ORIE: We usually have a break after 75 minutes, but I'm
20 more concerned about the way your last question -- first of all, we know
21 that Ms. Tabeau worked on the job for five years. I don't know what the
22 relevance would have been if she worked on it for three years or seven
23 years, mainly looking at the quality of her work and that's, so therefore
24 that's a totally superfluous question. Apart from that, the military
25 status whether or not in combat or whatever, I find that on page 9,
1 military status is clearly explained. One line: "Among the soldiers a
2 number of them died in combat but we have good reasons to believe that
3 many died in non-combat situation. They were executed and their bodies
4 exhumed from the mass graves."
5 That's exactly what we spent two or three minutes on which you
6 read in half a line and so clearly explains by the expert that I really
7 wonder why we have not adopted as many other Chambers that if there is
8 clear evidence on paper we should not spend too much time in first, seek
9 the witness to be cross-examined. Mr. Farr, you've got ten more minutes
10 until the break, do you think that with this in the back of your mind
11 that you conclude the examination-in-chief of Ms. Tabeau? And perhaps
12 look at your questions, see to what extent it's just repetition of what
13 we tried hard to read because until now 40 per cent of your questions are
14 really just what is clearly explained and the remaining 60 per cent you
15 may have some doubt as whether we understood these statistics and what it
16 all meant, there's a fair chance that we did, but I can imagine that you
17 did not want to take any risk in that respect.
18 Mr. Farr, you've ten more minutes, see how far you can come in
19 those ten minutes.
20 MR. FARR:
21 Q. Dr. Tabeau, I'd now like to turn to the results of your victims
23 MR. FARR: Your Honours, I draw your attention to the document
24 entitled, "Main findings of the victims report" that was handed out
25 before court and I would note for the record that this document has been
1 uploaded as 65 ter 5863.
2 Q. Dr. Tabeau, at the top of this demonstrative exhibit we see the
3 minimum number and estimated overall number that come from your victims'
4 report. Can I just ask you, is it correct that for this minimum number
5 it would theoretically be possible to prepare a list naming each of those
6 victims as it is for the minimum number in the IDP's and refugees report?
7 A. Yes, it is practically possible, not only theoretically. It's
8 practically possible, we do have the lists.
9 Q. Thank you, Dr. Tabeau. Moving to the estimated overall --
10 MR. FARR: And Your Honour, I'll be guided by the Chamber whether
11 any clarification is required with respect to the way in which the
12 estimated overall number was calculated.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Seems to be clear.
14 MR. FARR:
15 Q. Dr. Tabeau, turning to table 3B at the bottom of the page, please
16 tell me if I'm interpreting this correctly. In the middle section where
17 it says, "percentages by ethnicity," and looking at the column that says
18 "civilians" is the correct way to read this table that of the minimum
19 number of 3.092 civilians, 73 per cent were Muslim, 19.2 per cent were
20 Serb, 3.7 per cent were Croats and 3.4 per cent were others?
21 A. Correct.
22 Q. And is it also correct that within the minimum number of 5.359
23 Muslim victims, for example, 42.5 per cent were civilians and 57.5 per
24 cent had military status?
25 A. That's correct.
1 Q. You've described the way in which the undercount was calculated
2 in your report. Can you please just tell us what the undercount
3 indicates, if anything, about the reliability of the minimum number?
4 A. The minimum number is the list of victims that we can document
5 using the information from our sources, but there is a number of
6 exclusions from -- that could not be extracted as relevant to the
7 Stanisic-Simatovic indictment.
8 Q. Dr. Tabeau, I apologise for interrupting you. I believe that
9 that's explained in your report. Could you just tell us, what, if
10 anything, the estimated undercount tells us about the reliability of the
11 minimum number?
12 A. Well, the -- we tried to by presenting in quantitative terms the
13 undercount of our minimum number, we expressed, we made an attempt to
14 express what part is missing in this number. So that it is the minimum
15 number is incomplete is obvious because we have been applying very
16 conservative approach, excluding deficient records, rejecting sources
17 that are not reliable enough, that we believe are biased, et cetera,
18 et cetera. So but it is not only that we have done all these exclusions
19 but we also know that sources are incomplete. So the undercount estimate
20 actually is a quantitative expression of the missing part in the minimum
22 Q. Could I summarise that or could I conclude that the existence of
23 this estimated undercount in some way illustrates that the minimum number
24 is a conservative number?
25 A. Yes, yes, yes, that is the confirmation of it as well.
1 Q. Dr. Tabeau, I'd now like to turn to annex 4 of the victims'
2 report. This is the portion that deals specifically with the victims
3 whose murder is charged in the indictment in this case. And I'll first
4 just ask you background, a few background questions regarding the kinds
5 of documents that you reviewed in the course of preparing the charts that
6 form part of annex 4. You list these documents at pages 3 and 4, these
7 kinds of documents at pages 3 and 4 of annex 4 and I'll just ask you very
8 briefly, can you estimate how many documents of these kinds you've looked
9 at during your work with the OTP?
10 A. I think the number of documents that were reviewed in our
11 project, proof of that project was 250 plus-minus a few, but 250
13 Q. Is that with respect to the victims in this case?
14 A. This is the documents that were -- that are covering, that
15 covered the victims of listed in the schedules to the indictment. Only
16 this group of victims.
17 Q. My question was more general, during the course of your ten
18 years of work in the Office of the Prosecutor, how many documents of
19 these types have you had the opportunity to look at?
20 A. I've been working with these kinds of documents systematically as
21 my unit is the one that is responsible for the OTP exhumations project so
22 we've been in touch, and I personally have been in touch with
23 organisations issuing these kind of reports, like the state commission
24 for tracing missing persons, in fact that the International Commission
25 for Missing Persons in Sarajevo
1 Tribunal, Srebrenica cases for instance, Krajina cases, these type of
2 documents have been used systematically.
3 Q. Could we say that you've reviewed thousands of documents of this
4 type during your work at the OTP?
5 A. Well, I believe that would be probably the case. I wouldn't be
6 able to say how many thousand but many, many documents of this kind have
7 gone through my hands.
8 Q. And during the course of reviewing these documents, have you
9 become familiar with their usual form, the functional position that would
10 usually be held by a person who would sign or prepare them, the specific
11 organisations that and the specific organisations that created them in
12 Bosnia and Herzegovina?
13 A. Yes, yes, of course, I as well personally visited several
14 organisations involved in the exhumation and identification processes in
15 Bosnia and Herzegovina, so it is not only that I had opportunity to
16 studies the actual documents, I also had the opportunity to speak to
17 persons who participated in exhumations and issued the documents.
18 Q. I'd now like to move to the charts appearing in annex 4 to the
19 victims' report.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask one question perhaps. You said you
21 reviewed some 250 documents here. I'm looking at page 3 of annex 4,
22 "Overview of exhumation and identification documents used as proof of
23 death," you come to 430. Is it -- that's not the same as 250 or that's
24 just a rough guess or... What explains the difference?
25 THE WITNESS: No, no, on this table as a matter of fact the 430
1 are links to documents, so there were a number of bigger documents that
2 contained lists of victims. So this increases the number of actual
3 documents when we speak of document links to victims to 430. So there
4 were actually 250 documents but because some of them were associated with
5 more than one victim, then if we rearrange the documents, associated
6 document with every victim then this increases the number of the actual
7 documents to the document links, that is 430. That means --
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, total documents is the total number of links
9 with documents.
10 THE WITNESS: Yes, yes, to every single victim from the list.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Where it may be in one document you find ten links
12 where it's still only one document.
13 THE WITNESS: Yes, that's correct.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So where you say that for one victim you
15 sometimes have more documents, what you could have added is that
16 sometimes one document you have more victims.
17 THE WITNESS: That's correct, thank you.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, please proceed.
19 MR. FARR:
20 Q. Dr. Tabeau, I'd now like to move to the charts appearing in annex
21 4 to the victims report.
22 MR. FARR: And obviously that's all been passed out to the
23 parties and the Chamber before court but could we please have page 7 of
24 the second document linked to 65 ter 5748 on the screen for the benefit
25 of the public?
1 Q. Dr. Tabeau, can you tell us what each row of this chart
3 A. This is one row in this table relates as a matter to fact to one
4 victim, and for this particular victim it relates to a given, to a
5 particular document in which details of the death or disappearance of
6 this person are described. So for victim number 1, this is Ivan Agatic,
7 Agatic Ivan, father's name Ante, there are two documents that were
8 associated with this particular victim and are presented in this chart as
9 two proof of death documents for this person. So the document order, the
10 item called "Document order" for Agatic, there is document order 1 and
11 document order 2. This item indicates how many documents were associated
12 with every victim. Yes.
13 Q. Thank you. So essentially one row is one document and when there
14 are multiple rows for one victim then that means there are multiple
15 documents for that victim; is that correct?
16 A. That's correct.
17 Q. This may be self-evident but can you tell us what it means when
18 the word "yes" appears in the authenticity column with respect to a
20 A. This comment means that this was a standard document that I was
21 familiar with and I did recognise as a -- yeah, as systematically
22 presented by authorities at various occasions and, the yes is just my yes
23 to the authenticity, yes.
24 Q. I'd now like to go through the notations --
25 MR. JORDASH: Sorry, we don't object to Mr. Farr continuing
1 later, but we would ask if we could have a break, please.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Farr, could you tell us how much time you
3 would still need?
4 MR. FARR: Less than 20 minutes, Your Honour.
5 [Trial Chamber confers]
6 JUDGE ORIE: After the break you have 15 minutes, Mr. Farr. We
7 take a break and we'll resume at five minutes past 4.00.
8 --- Recess taken at 3.33 p.m.
9 --- On resuming at 4.11 p.m.
10 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber apologises for the late start.
11 Mr. Farr, the 15 minutes.
12 MR. FARR: Thank you, Your Honour.
13 Q. Dr. Tabeau, I'd now like to go through the notations that we find
14 in the column entitled, "Comment of Dr. Ewa Tabeau in the proof of death
15 chart." And again being mindful of the time, I would ask you to give the
16 shortest possible answer that is complete and accurate. Starting with
17 the "associated POD" notation, what does that comment mean?
18 A. "Associated POD" means, in full, associated proof of death
19 document, and associated is related to a group of documents, exactly 38,
20 which had the name of victims handwritten on the front page. Other than
21 that, the name of the victim was not included in the text, body text, of
22 the document. "Associated" means simply that it is just one of the
23 documents related to a given victim, and the link between this document
24 and other documents was established based on, exactly speaking, body
25 label attached to the body of this victim and mentioned in the associated
1 POD, as well as other documents.
2 Q. Thank you, what about the notation "reliable POD"?
3 A. "Reliable POD" means that this was a regular proof of death
4 document and victims' details were included in the body text in the
5 standard form could be clearly seen from the document.
6 Q. What about "confirmed war victim," what does that notation mean?
7 A. This means that the record of the same victim was found in the
8 integrated mortality database and in brackets the numbers are related
9 with subsequent sources in which this record was confirmed. For
10 instance, in the third row, for the victim Antunovic, Jozo, document
11 number 2, there is - and 1 as well - there is in the brackets the number
12 2, 3 which mean that is the same victim was reported in the integrated
13 database in the underlying source number 2 and underlying source number
15 Q. And that was list of sources is found on page 5 of annex 4; is
16 that correct?
17 A. Yes, that's correct.
18 Q. Moving on to the next notation, what does "confirmed personal
19 details" mean?
20 A. This means that the record of this individual was found in the
21 the population census 1991, so a match could be established between
22 victim record and the census.
23 Q. Now, moving to the column entitled "final conclusion." Under
24 what circumstances did you put the entry "very satisfactory" in that
1 A. These were cases for which I could conclude that it was a
2 reliable proof of death document, that the victim record was confirmed in
3 the integrated mortality database, and finally that this person's record
4 was found in the population census.
5 Q. Does your conclusion "very satisfactory" relate only to the fact
6 of the person's death or does it also relate to other matters?
7 A. There were two victims for whom only a missing person report was
8 available and no other documents, and for these two persons, "very
9 satisfactory" simply relates to the fact that there is a satisfactory
10 record of missing for this person, not of death.
11 Q. And with respect to the other individuals for whom you've said
12 very satisfactory, does that relate only to the fact of the death or does
13 it also relate to other matters, and if so which other matters?
14 A. Well, very satisfactory relates to the documents themselves, type
15 and number of them, and the fact that the same victim could be confirmed
16 in other sources of information, population census is important and the
17 integrated mortality database.
18 Q. And under what circumstances did you use the entry
20 A. So these were cases for which the information was limited, for
21 instance, there was no link established with the population census or
22 integrated mortality database, and for associated POD documents, the 38 I
23 mentioned with 100 names on the front page.
24 Q. I'd now like to ask you about the 14 additional victims that you
25 identified while reviewing the proof of death documentation. How did you
1 identify those additional victims and why did you associate them with the
2 other named victims?
3 MR. JORDASH: Your Honours.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Jordash, before we entered court I said to
5 my colleagues, we have not given Mr. Jordash his five minutes. I had on
6 my mind to do it at the end of the examination-in-chief, but this might
7 be a good moment as well. Ms. Tabeau, there was a procedural issue which
8 does not directly affect you but I do not think there was any problem if
9 Ms. Tabeau would listen to you, would it, if you make a submission?
10 MR. JORDASH: No, I think that must be right.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Then perhaps we since we are now moving to the 14
12 additional victims, that we give an opportunity to Mr. Jordash to raise
13 the matter he wants to raise. And you've still got ten minutes left,
14 Mr. Farr.
15 Mr. Jordash, I had five minutes in my mind.
16 MR. JORDASH: I'll do my best. The application is to -- for
17 Your Honours to order the Prosecution that if they wish to add 14 victims
18 to the indictment against the accused they do so by applying to amend the
19 indictment, rather than the intended process, which is to, as they've
20 done, to apply to add the victims to the Rule 65 ter exhibit list in the
21 filing of the 1st of October, 2010 and then seek to adduce the evidence
22 through Ms. Tabeau, and thereby create an additional liability for the
24 And it is an additional liability for the accused in so far as
25 what the Prosecution seek to do is increase the number of unlawful
1 killings by 10 per cent. And in our submission, that must be done in a
2 way which allows the parties to make submissions to Your Honours as to
3 the prejudice which arises by that intention and application, and that
4 must be done, in our submission, through an application to amend the
6 The Prosecution's position is, as far as I understand it, that
7 they may do it, they may add these victims firstly in the way that I've
8 just outlined, and secondly, because the indictment annex E part 2 has a
9 permitting phrase, as they would see it, where, for example, the victim
10 list for Bosanski Samac names 16 victims and then has at the bottom with
11 asterisks at the side of it "plus additional victims." And the same goes
12 for Doboj and Sanski Most and Zvornik. In our submission, there's clear
13 authority, and Your Honours, I rely upon Kupreskic appeal judgement, but
14 I also rely upon the series of cases which followed Kupreskic in which --
15 has Your Honours received a copy of the -- I think your learned Registrar
16 has the copies to be given to Your Honours, it's Kupreskic appeal
17 judgement, paragraphs 88 to 90. And stated in straightforward terms, the
18 Prosecution must state the victims on an indictment. There is an
19 exception, a very narrow exception which arises in cases of mass-scale
20 crimes, and in those instances the jurisprudence doesn't require each
21 victim to be named.
22 And if Your Honours look at paragraph 88, that sheer scale
23 exception is referred to:
24 "Obviously there may be instances where the sheer scale of the
25 alleged crimes makes it impracticable to require a high degree of
1 specificity in such matters as identity of the victims and the date for
2 the commission of the crimes."
3 And then as an illustration of what a sheer scale or what a --
4 the type of scale that the jurisprudence has in mind, Your Honours can
5 see at paragraph 80 an example there of where an accused is alleged to
6 participate as a member of an execution squad in the killings -- in the
7 killing of hundreds of men.
8 And if one then looks at our indictment, we fall, in our
9 submission, well outside of that exception. Bosanski Samac, the
10 Prosecution have named 16 victims, Doboj 20, Sanski Most 11 -- I beg your
11 pardon, Sanski Most 36, and so on. In our submission, it is -- it was
12 well within the possibility that the Prosecution could specify these
13 victims and name them prior to the case commencing at the time the
14 indictment was drafted. And to do so now or to attempt to do so now,
15 one, without applying to amend the indictment is in principle wrong, and,
16 two, if that application was to be made, in our submission it ought to
17 fail on the basis that the sheer scale exception cannot be said to apply.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Farr, Mr. Groome, whom should I attend at this
19 moment? Please, Mr. Farr.
20 MR. FARR: I'll just respond on a couple of points. First of
21 all, with respect to the applicability of Kupreskic, I'm speaking off the
22 top of my head to some extent, but I believe that that related to more or
23 less to the events of a single day in Ahmici. It was a geographically
24 and temporally limited incident and the accused were direct perpetrators
25 or very nearly direct perpetrators. We would submit that this is a much
1 different case, this a much larger case and it's a case in which the
2 that's more like the exception that Mr. Jordash was referring to than it
3 is like Kupreskic.
4 Just specifically with respect to the incidents with respect to
5 which new victims have been identified, in the indictment schedule for
6 Doboj we say, "plus additional victims," and only one additional victim
7 has been identified. With respect to Zvornik, we say, "plus additional
8 victims," and there it's a different situation, eight new victims have
9 been identified. However page 62 of the indictment does charge the
10 killing of approximately 20 non-Serb civilians, and I believe that these
11 additional victims bring the number up to 26, if I'm not mistaken. The
12 final example is the example of Sasina and Sanski Most. In that
13 situation we, in fact, plead only plus one additional victim and
14 Dr. Tabeau has identified five new victims. So that's a situation which
15 I think we would concede that we might be required to amend the
16 indictment. Or be guided by the Chamber as to how else we might proceed
17 by filing new victims list or whatever is appropriate.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Jordash.
19 MR. JORDASH: Briefly in our submission, Mr. Farr doesn't address
20 the nub of the issue. One has to break down the crime bases. Was it
21 impracticable for the Prosecution when naming 16 victims relating to the
22 Bosanski Samac crime base to name a handful more and give the Defence an
23 ample opportunity to deal with those alleged killings throughout the
24 whole of the Prosecution case rather than at the end of it. And
25 secondly, it isn't an issue in our submission with concerning how large
1 the additional victim list. It's an issue of an addition. The
2 Prosecution may say, well, we are only adding one unlawful killing.
3 Well, that's one unlawful killing.
4 JUDGE ORIE: You started talking about percentages, Mr. Jordash.
5 MR. JORDASH: Only to show the gravity of the situation.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Okay, so apparently there the quantity, not to say
7 exclusively, has some importance to you as well.
8 MR. JORDASH: It has some importance for those who are prejudiced
9 by it. It doesn't have importance for those who are benefitting from it.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Benefitting is perhaps not ...
11 MR. JORDASH: Perhaps that's not the right word.
12 JUDGE ORIE: I do understand what you mean, in whose favour it
13 would be. So the issue, if I could summarise it briefly, is the
14 following: We are talking about the relevance of this evidence because
15 it's the position of Mr. Jordash that in order to name victims which were
16 not named at any earlier stage, that this would require an amendment of
17 the indictment for which the Chamber should give its approval, whereas,
18 Mr. Farr, you take the position that it's just filling in names for until
19 now unidentified persons. I don't know whether I've missed it, the 14
20 additional victims, the identity is here of course established, it's part
21 of the list now, when did the Office of the Prosecution identify who they
23 MR. FARR: Dr. Tabeau identified the additional victims as she
24 was preparing annex 4 to the report.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Then perhaps the question to you, annex 4 exactly
1 was prepared when? It may be that I said I read everything, but I might
2 miss some details.
3 THE WITNESS: The date is 23rd of September, 2010. That is the
4 date of the report and this is when the work was finished and it became
5 obvious that these are new entries.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You linked them to the incidents by name, so
7 that was -- without this knowledge, the Prosecution could not have named
8 them at any earlier stage. I think we have to further look at the case
9 law. It is my recollection that in the Gotovina case a similar matter
10 played a role, although the scale was perhaps not exactly the same.
11 Kupreskic, the scale is also not the same but perhaps at the other end of
12 the scale. I suggest that the Chamber will consider the objection and,
13 Mr. Jordash, it finally comes down to the relevance of the evidence on
14 the 14, isn't it, because if they are not included in the indictment, it
15 is at least to prove killed victims in the indictment, it would be
16 irrelevant because they would not be covered by it. You say you first
17 should name them, ask for an amendment of the indictment and then we'll
18 oppose and then therefore whether it's -- this is relevant evidence or
19 not depends on how we should look at the indictment and there the parties
20 are 180 per cent opposed.
21 You say it's not part of the indictment if the indictment is not
22 amended. Mr. Farr says these are the unnamed but meanwhile known victims
23 we refer to already in the indictment and therefore covered by the
24 indictment. Is that --
25 MR. JORDASH: I think that is the position, yes.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. If that is the case, then I suggest that we
2 would continue, that the Chamber considers whether Mr. Jordash is right
3 or Mr. Farr is right on whether, in order to make these 14 victims in the
4 indictment, whether the indictment should be amended or not, and then of
5 course, we'll draw consequences as far as the evidence is concerned how
6 relevant and how probative it is for what has to be proven.
7 MR. JORDASH: Your Honour, yes, I agree with what Your Honour has
8 just said, but may I just add this, that I think the situation is more
9 complicated though than the indication just given by Ms. Tabeau. For
10 example in relation to when the victims names were discovered or
11 discoverable, and I say that because I'm in possession of 65 ter 4871 and
12 there is the name of one victim there, I don't think there's a problem
13 saying his name in open court, Omar Delic, who was named in a document to
14 Mr. Brammertz, the chief Prosecutor on the 5th of June, 2008, and he is
15 one of the 14. So in our submission, the Prosecution ought to at least
16 set out with some specificity when it is they came into possession of
17 each name.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, which raises another matter, that I don't know
19 what document you are referring to, but if one sends a letter and says A,
20 B, or C was killed at that same moment, if you have no other evidence
21 whether you should immediately amend the indictment or not or whether...
22 Again, I do not know what the document exactly is about, but not the mere
23 fact that a name is mentioned in a document would justify to seek an
24 amendment of the indictment.
25 MR. JORDASH: I completely agree. I'm just submitting that the
1 situation is more complex than that indicated by --
2 JUDGE ORIE: If there's any way for the parties to agree on these
3 kind of factual matters which are underlying the more principled
4 arguments so that we don't have to -- of course, if you disagree on those
5 matters, whether you could or could not have earlier identified those
6 persons, then of course we'd have to take that into consideration as well
7 when deciding upon your application, if that is a relevant answer.
8 MR. JORDASH: We would still, of course, say, even if they
9 couldn't, there ought to be a proper opportunity for the Defence to lay
10 out any prejudice which arises from the late discovery of victims names.
11 [Trial Chamber confers]
12 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber would prefer to receive brief written
13 submissions on the matter. We are talking about the scope of the
14 indictment, what is covered by the indictment, what is not covered by the
15 indictment, which is of course always a fundamental issue in a case and
16 therefore the parties are invited to make brief submissions. How much
17 time would you need for that?
18 MR. JORDASH: Well, if the Prosecution as the moving party were
19 to file their submissions, we could respond within a very short time.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You are the moving party here, isn't it,
21 Mr. Farr? You want to add this information to the 65 ter list, suddenly
22 the 14 pop up and --
23 MR. FARR: I believe there's a motion pending already to add the
24 documents to the 65 ter list but we are happy to file submissions first,
25 that's not a problem.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Of course what we could do is first ask Mr. Jordash
2 to respond to that and give you an opportunity to reply. If you already
3 would make an additional filing in which you explain your point of view
4 as you just did on under what circumstances the exception applies and
5 then Mr. Jordash will have an opportunity to respond to the motion in its
6 entirety, whether there will be any need to have a second round, we'll
7 see once we've read your submissions. Meanwhile, Mr. Jordash, I don't
8 think it's prejudicial if we would continue at this moment hearing the
9 evidence. I mean, either it's relevant or it's not relevant, and it's
10 only 10 minutes.
11 MR. JORDASH: Yes, I agree. Thank you, Your Honour.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. The Simatovic Defence shares the position of
13 the --
14 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. My learned
15 friend Mr. Jordash spoke on behalf of our Defence team as well.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Then we'd like to receive your
17 submissions by Friday close of business. That's the 10th of December.
18 MR. FARR: Yes, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
20 MR. FARR:
21 Q. Dr. Tabeau, can you please tell us as briefly as possible, how
22 you identified these additional victims and how did you associate them
23 with the victims already on the list for the given incidents?
24 A. The one victim from Doboj was included based on the letter
25 mentioned already from the V8 [phoen] Prosecutor's Office to the
1 Prosecutors of ICTY Serge Brammertz, and in addition to these there was
2 an exhumation report in which several other victims were listed. This
3 exhumation report relates to the Makljenovac sites. Other victims were
4 already included in the indictment list except for this one so that is
5 the reason that I decided to consider this person as a new victim. For
6 Sasina, there are 5 reports and five new victims, all of them are
7 declarations, court declarations of the lower court in Sanski Most
8 declaring these individuals dead and death circumstances as related to
9 the Sasina incident. There are witness statements summarised in these
10 declarations which all confirm the relevance of the circumstances of
11 death to the Sasina incident from the indictment.
12 Finally in relation to Zvornik, the eight victims were included
13 based on the identification reports for these victims. Each of these
14 reports includes partly information from the families and as well DNA
15 matching results confirming the identity of these victims. So there is a
16 date of that report here and the place of death and they are all related
17 to Zvornik.
18 Q. Thank you. One of the additional victims you identified is
19 Munevera Resic. Since identifying her as an additional victim, have you
20 changed your opinion with respect to her?
21 A. Yes, it at some point when cross-referencing documents related to
22 this victim and another victim, well, at that time we thought another
23 victim, it was Munevera Alagic, as far as I remember, yes, Alagic, from
24 the document related to the Munevera Resic, obviously it was a court
25 declaration with some witness statements, one of the persons giving the
1 statement was her husband, Mr. Resic, it became obvious that the maiden
2 name of the person was Alagic, so it was Resic that was the name the
3 person acquired through the marriage.
4 I also had run a census search, additional census search as this
5 person wasn't found in the first run of searches and I did eventually
6 find her in the census, but with misspelled name but was able to confirm
7 all the personal details as reported by her husband. So it is not a new
8 victim, it is a victim already included in the schedules.
9 MR. FARR: Thank you. Could we now please have 65 ter 564 on the
11 Q. And Dr. Tabeau, you indicated earlier that you are familiar with
12 this document. Can you tell us as briefly as possible what this document
13 sets out?
14 A. It's the so-called census, so-called I'm saying because it was
15 just a survey and the survey was run by the Ministry of the Interior of
16 Republika Srpska in early 1995. In this so-called survey, numbers of the
17 size of ethnic groups in the territory of the Banja Luka sector were
18 produced. I think the date of this document is February 1995, early
19 1995, as part of the result from this survey, there is the ethnic
20 composition in a number of municipalities in the Banja Luka sector
21 presented as of approximately this moment. In addition to this, this
22 document contains as well for reference purposes some 1991 census
23 figures, also by ethnicity in the same municipality.
24 Q. In preparation for your testimony in another case recently, did
25 you analyse how the data on population change related to seven of the
1 municipalities contained in this document compared to your data for the
2 same municipalities.
3 A. Yes, I did. I analysed this information in the
4 Stanisic-Zupljanin case and prepared summary graphs and some summary
5 tables, so there our conclusion was that the pattern and the size --
6 approximate size of changes in that composition, that we obtained in our
7 project on IDP's and refugees and what is shown in this document are very
9 Q. In preparation for your --
10 MR. FARR: Sorry, can we please have page 17 in English and page
11 15 in B/C/S. It's the last page in both languages.
12 Q. In preparation for your testimony here today did you compare the
13 figures on the last page of the document which appear to be figures for
14 the entire region with results obtained from your data for the area that
15 eventually ended up in the RS?
16 A. Yes. I produced my statistics, based on my sources, that means
17 the population census and the voters' register 1997, 1998, for the same
18 municipalities that are indicated in the MUP document of 1995. It was
19 interesting to see a very high level of similarity of what the 1995
20 document is showing us compared with the statistics I obtained from my
21 data. There will be small differences of course because the timing is
22 different. I have data as of 1997/8. Here it is 1995, early 1995, also
23 might be some territorial differences as I don't think they analysed, as
24 a matter of fact, the very same territories as I did due to the war
25 activities, but I think generally it is the same territory, slightly
1 different time-period, high similarity of the results.
2 MR. FARR: Your Honour, I tender this document at this time.
3 JUDGE ORIE: I hear of no objection, Madam Registrar.
4 THE REGISTRAR: This would be Exhibit P1656, Your Honours.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
6 Could I ask one question, a question for clarification. Page 17
7 of this document and we see the document now for the first time, isn't
8 it, Mr. Farr, or was it --
9 MR. FARR: Yes, Your Honour, I believe that's correct.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask you the following: We see in 1991,
11 well, substantial number of Yugoslavs, whereas in 1995, apparently the
12 Yugoslavs is not a category. At the same time the Yugoslavs have not
13 become certainly not all of them -- they are not now under the category
14 of others because the 17.000 at least it's unlikely that all the 52.000
15 are now part -- or what remains of them are now part of the 17.000. If
16 the Yugoslavs in 1995 have found their way into one of the traditional
17 ethnical groups, to what extent would that create difficulties in
18 interpreting the material? You see my point if someone said, I'm a
19 Yugoslav, in 1991, and if he says in 1995, I'm a Serb, that's ...
20 THE WITNESS: Yes, they might have been included under Serbs in
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
23 THE WITNESS: Difficulties, now, the number of Serbs increased of
24 course by 1995 considerably, if we compare the number of Serbs in 1991
25 with 1995, it is obvious it is a far higher number. And at the same time
1 the Yugoslavs disappeared, my assumption would be that some of them just
2 moved out and some might have reported themselves as Serbs. I don't
3 think it is, here obviously there is some bias related to the reporting
4 of ethnicity, but generally, I don't think that this bias is considerable
5 and we can still compare the statistics. So the population of non-Serbs
6 was outflowing from these territories at high numbers during the
8 JUDGE ORIE: Unless the Yugoslav were Serbs?
9 THE WITNESS: Well, with the Yugoslavs, it depends on the
10 context, how they see themselves. In this particular case they would
11 report themselves as Serbs if they wanted to stay in Republika Srpska, I
12 think, but it is not so that I would agree that all of them just changed
13 the self-perception in order to stay because it wasn't easy to live in
14 this territory, so it is as other known Serbs were living, so were the
15 Yugoslavs I believe, because Yugoslavs it's not that simple that all of
16 them were from mixed marriage, Serb plus another ethnicity, so Yugoslav
17 means as well other mixed marriages between Muslim and Croats, for
18 instance, or just people who identify themselves as Yugoslavs, they
19 perceive themselves as Yugoslavs, as a separate ethnic category. In the
20 census there were 98 categories reported, ethnicity was an open-ended
21 question, so anything could be reported and Yugoslavs were reported
22 explicitly as a separate ethnic group, and I have no reason to believe it
23 was not possible for people to feel Yugoslavs. There were people who
24 didn't feel Serb, Croat, any other ethnicity, they felt we were Yugoslavs
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, the only reason why I'm raising it because we
2 have an increase of Serbs from 1991 to 1995 of approximately 70.000 more
3 or less in number on a total population which decreased considerably, and
4 just -- I do understand that it may be very unlikely that suddenly all
5 the Yugoslavs became Serbs, but theoretically -- I see your point, that
6 of course there's knowledge about who declared themselves Yugoslavs, but
7 it's difficult perhaps to estimate exactly what proportion of the
8 increase of Serbs and what proportion of the decrease of the total
9 population may be explained by what the Yugoslavs -- or what the persons
10 who declared themselves Yugoslavs in 1991 where they are found in 1995?
11 THE WITNESS: I understand exactly what Your Honour is saying but
12 it's impossible to provide a quantitative measure that would answer this
14 JUDGE ORIE: I'm not saying, I'm just asking myself whether there
15 is a question which is where there's no quantitative answer to that yet,
16 and therefore that it should make us a bit cautious about the
17 percentages, perhaps not but the 10th of per cent but by 1 or 2 and then
18 the matter is how important 1 or 2 per cent would be on the totality of
19 the study. If you'd like to add anything to this, please do so.
20 THE WITNESS: Yes, in my study, there is no ethnic bias, and I
21 have some results related to these particular municipalities which I can
22 share with everybody in this courtroom and from this we see that there is
23 an increase in the Serbs in these territories and this increase is not
24 biased, it's unbiased, it's based on the ethnic definition from 1991
25 census. That's the answer I can provide.
1 JUDGE ORIE: You say you did not -- comparing this with your
2 study where there's no bias as far as ethnicity is concerned, this,
3 although not entirely easy to interpret, nevertheless gives the same
4 picture as yours, where we know that there's no bias as far as ethnicity
5 is concerned.
6 THE WITNESS: That's what I'm saying. Yes.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Farr, I've stolen another 3 minutes of your
8 time. And I think there were four left.
9 MR. FARR:
10 Q. Dr. Tabeau, could I ask you to -- looking at your two reports
11 together, could you tell us comparing them in a big picture sense what
12 conclusions can be drawn by looking at the reports together, and in other
13 words, does the IDP's and refugees report provide any context to the
14 victims' report and vice-versa in your opinion?
15 A. First of all, it is important to note that the scale of
16 displacement as we present it in our report is not usual. It is most
17 definitely that there were large numbers of displaced persons,
18 extraordinary large numbers of displaced persons internally and
20 We identified the displacement as of 1997/8, so comparing 1991
21 with 1997/8 leaves a certain period between which is kind of uncovered by
22 this report. However there must have been some push factors that forced
23 the population to change the place of residence in this period and
24 because of the scale we need to think that these factors operated in the
25 conflict period. So this is one remark about the IDP's refugees report.
1 When we take the victims' report, this report provides some context for
2 the factors, push factors that were operating during the conflict period.
3 It is not so that there were no reasons for the population to leave the
4 houses and move in large numbers to other places. So these factors,
5 unusual factors must be seen as reported in the victims' report, so there
6 is a timing of killings and disappearances reported in the victims'
7 report, there are municipalities assessed from the point of view of the
8 killings and disappearing. So the victims' report most definitely can be
9 seen as the context for the IDP's and refugees report.
10 Q. I now just have a couple of questions about the proofing note
11 dated 24 November 2010
12 list of discrepancies between the indictment schedules and your proof of
13 death chart and give your comments on what you believe to be the reasons
14 for those differences?
15 A. Yes. I did review these differences.
16 Q. And are those recorded in the proofing note dated 24 November
18 A. Yes, I believe that's the note. Yes. Yes.
19 Q. And did that proofing note also contain the the list of the names
20 of the 29 victims from this case who you identified as having military
22 A. Yes, I identified 29 cases reported as militaries, yes.
23 Q. And finally, does the proofing note also contain --
24 MR. FARR: I see we don't have the right document on the screen.
25 I may have misidentified it; it may be 5866.
1 Q. And finally, does the proofing note also contain corrections to a
2 number of typographical errors in your report?
3 A. Yes, this is correct.
4 MR. FARR: Your Honours, at this time I have a number of items to
5 tender and to keep it simple, I'll go step by step. First the two
6 reports IDP's and refugees report, which is 65 ter 5864 and the victims'
7 report, which is 5748.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, we go step by step. Let's first go to the
9 IDP's and refugees report. Any objections against admission? Madam
10 Registrar, the number would be?
11 THE REGISTRAR: Document 5864 becomes Exhibit P1657,
12 Your Honours.
13 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence. I did not take them
14 together. The victims report, any objections to that? No objections, no
15 reservation as far as the 14 additional --
16 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] I have -- I apologise if my
17 colleague wanted to speak. I was just about to say that perhaps it
18 should be left as an MFI
19 surrounding these 14 victims, that would be my suggestion.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, do you you agree with that or would you
21 say it's just irrelevant evidence if so, which might be a reason not to
22 be admitted on that portion, but.
23 MR. JORDASH: Well, our position would that be all of the
24 evidence concerning victims not referred to on the indictment must be
25 directed to some other purpose than the evidence concerning --
1 JUDGE ORIE: Than to prove the killing of those persons in
2 relation to the indictment, that's what your position is.
3 MR. JORDASH: Yes.
4 JUDGE ORIE: That is the only objection from both Defence teams.
5 I think under those circumstances, we would MFI the document and then
6 decide on admission together with the -- with the decision on the motion
7 to add to the 65 ter list. Madam Registrar, the number would be?
8 THE REGISTRAR: Document 5748 becomes P1658, marked for
9 identification, Your Honours.
10 JUDGE ORIE: And keeps that status. Mr. Farr, please proceed.
11 MR. FARR: The next items are the two demonstrative exhibits,
12 that would be 65 ter 5862 for the IDP's and refugees report, and 5863 for
13 the victims report.
14 JUDGE ORIE: No objections, Madam Registrar, the number would be?
15 THE REGISTRAR: Document 5862 becomes P1659 and document 5863
16 becomes P1660, Your Honours.
17 JUDGE ORIE: P1659 and P1660 are admitted into evidence.
18 MR. FARR: The next item, Your Honour, is the proofing note dated
19 24 November 2010
20 JUDGE ORIE: I hear of no objections. Madam Registrar?
21 THE REGISTRAR: Document 5866 becomes P1661, Your Honours.
22 JUDGE ORIE: P1661 is admitted into evidence. Please proceed.
23 MR. FARR: Dr. Tabeau's CV, which is 65 ter 5867 and I would just
24 note that this version is not on our 65 ter list, so this is a motion to
25 add it to our 65 ter list simultaneously.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Any objection against the CV being added to 65 ter
2 list or to admission? No, then leave is granted to add the CV to the
3 65 ter list and the Exhibit number Madam Registrar would be?
4 THE REGISTRAR: Document 5867 becomes P1662, Your Honours.
5 MR. JORDASH: Sorry, Your Honours, I perhaps should have jumped
6 up sooner, I noticed from that the proofing note of 24th of November 2010
7 also has reference to new victims, so consistent with Your Honours'
8 earlier ruling, perhaps that should be MFI'd.
9 JUDGE ORIE: We'll have a look at it, whether we change the
10 status or -- because it also explains some of the circumstance and to
11 that extent, it might even be relevant to our decision that it's not the
12 result of but the explanation of to some extent.
13 MR. JORDASH: Your Honour, yes.
14 JUDGE ORIE: So we leave it for the time being and P1662 is
15 admitted into evidence. That's the updated CV.
16 MR. FARR: I would next tender the underlying documents listed on
17 the proof of death chart for victims other than the additional victims.
18 Unfortunately, I don't know exactly what the number of those documents
19 is, I only have an overall number.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Then you prepare the list, give it to Madam
21 Registrar, Madam Registrar will provide numbers to it. But could I hear
22 already whether there would be any objection against the underlying
23 documents, if not, you are requested to proceed as I suggested, Mr. Farr.
24 MR. FARR: Finally, we would just ask for at the same time the
25 remaining documents with respect to the additional victims to be MFI'd as
1 well, pending resolution of the matter.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, you also make a list of those and that should
3 undergo the same fate as -- that means those numbers are assigned for
4 purposes at this moment for marking for identification. Anything else?
5 MR. FARR: No, Your Honours, thank you.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Then Mr. Bakrac, is it you or is it Mr. Jordash who
7 will go first?
8 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, your guess was right.
9 I'm going to go first.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Tabeau, you'll now be cross-examined by
11 Mr. Bakrac. Mr. Bakrac is counsel for Mr. Simatovic. Please proceed,
12 there seems to be an additional noise in my earphones. There was one
13 moment when it disappeared, but I don't know what changed it.
14 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] I think it's my microphone that's
15 causing the noise. I'll try using the other one.
16 JUDGE ORIE: But at this moment -- okay. Please proceed the best
17 possible way using the best microphone.
18 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
19 Cross-examination by Mr. Bakrac:
20 Q. I don't know how much the microphone is going to help me but I'm
21 going to do my best to continue in the best possible way, right. Good
22 afternoon, Ms. Tabeau, I have a few questions for you in order to clarify
23 certain matters, both for our Defence and for the Trial Chamber actually.
24 I'm going to focus on the first part of your report now that speaks about
25 ethnic composition and internally displaced persons and refugees from six
1 municipalities, that's what it says here, but actually reference was made
2 to five municipalities from 1991 until 1997 or 1998. Actually, my
3 understanding was that these municipalities, these five municipalities
4 after Dayton
5 what we are talking about?
6 A. Well, perhaps you are looking at the old version of the report.
7 I actually have in the title five municipalities. This is one point.
8 But indeed the five municipalities were split and resulting
9 municipalities are post-Dayton municipalities and there were 11 of them.
10 Q. Very well. Ms. Tabeau, if I understand you correctly, this is a
11 report that pertains to the entire period from 1991 up until 1997, or
12 rather 1998; is that right?
13 A. That's right.
14 Q. Again if I've understood you correctly, Ms. Tabeau, the basis for
15 your report, or rather, the two basic foundations of your report are the
16 census of Bosnia-Herzegovina for 1991, and the voters' list compiled
17 after the Dayton
18 fundamental sources, you compiled your report; is that right?
19 A. These were the major sources. There were additional as well, but
20 these were the major, that's correct.
21 Q. If I understood things correctly, this document from Banja Luka
22 from 1995, I don't know whether it's the public security centre or the
23 state security centre, I'm not sure now, but that is the additional
24 document that you used; right?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Ms. Tabeau, in addition to these basic sources and this
2 additional one that our learned friend Mr. Farr showed us, could you tell
3 us what else you know concerning demographic figures or documents or
4 evidence that in a demographic sense reflects what happened in 1992,
5 1993, 1994, 1995, and 1996 in the territory of these five municipalities
6 that were later split up on the basis of the Dayton Accords?
7 A. We have another source that I also used as contextual in my
8 report, this is the BH government registration of internally displaced
9 persons and refugees in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and these persons
10 registered in that source are all related to the events during the
11 conflict 1992 to 1995. And I am aware of another document by the
12 Ministry of the Interior, state security sector, related to 1993 which
13 unfortunately I didn't use in this particular report but in which there
14 is mention or there are reports about the population movements from the
15 municipalities in the Banja Luka sector. I mean, population movements,
16 mainly outflow of the population of ethnicities other than Serbs and
17 inflow of population of Serb ethnicity. So there are some documents.
18 I'm sure that many more documents could be identified. I am aware of a
19 number of UNHCR documents, reports, monitoring reports, further
20 monitoring reports of other international monitors that were reporting on
21 the population movements during the conflict period. I didn't use them
22 all in this particular report. Why? Because it is far more reliable to
23 use primary sources like the census and the voters' register and compile
24 statistics from individual data. This is something that one can have
25 full control of, and moreover, every displaced person can be documented
1 by information from these sources.
2 So context is one thing, and there are quite a number of, a large
3 number of sources that can be used to discuss the context in terms of
4 aggregate statistics, but using primary sources, individual micro-level
5 sources and making statistics based on these sources is a totally
6 different thing. It is a far more reliable, more specific, well-defined
8 Q. Very well. Now, you explained to us why you hadn't used these
9 other sources, why you ignored them. I would be interested in the
10 following: While you compiled your report, did you have information to
11 the effect that towards the end of 1991 for instance, from the area of
12 Western Slavonia, about 40.000 refugees, Serbs, came to the area of
13 Banja Luka? Did you include that in your report when you provided the
14 final figure of 1997, 1998 about the census? Actually, the ballot and
15 the persons who were eligible to vote?
16 A. Yes, I did not have records of the refugees from
17 Western Slavonia
18 somehow. It was not my purpose to collect them. However, the, yeah,
19 refugees from Western Slavonia wouldn't be citizens of
20 Bosnia-Herzegovina, right? So that is a totally different group of
21 population, so the target population of my report was the population who
22 resided in Bosnia
23 this population.
24 Q. But, Ms. Tabeau, let us take the assumption that out of these
25 40.000, say, 20.000 in the meantime received Bosnian documents, that is
1 to say, documents of the Republika Srpska, and were therefore on the
2 voters' register of 1997 and 1998. Would that not affect the ratio and
3 the number that you presented to us in your report?
4 A. No, no, this is not as you are saying. In order to be registered
5 as an eligible voter in 1997/1998 elections one had to be included in the
6 population census in 1991. Unless one could demonstrate using IDs and
7 other documents that this person even though not registered was the
8 citizen of Bosnia-Herzegovina at that time. So as a matter of fact, it
9 was a precondition, you know, to participate in the elections to be the
10 citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1991 of course, yes.
11 Q. As for your report, Ms. Tabeau, did you incorporate in it the
12 250.000 refugees from Croatia
13 Operation Flash and the same number came after Operation Storm? Did you
14 look at that number of persons, Serbs who fled from the Krajina area?
15 Did you take that into account when you worked on your statistical
17 A. I think it is wrong to say that the refugees in such large
18 numbers, 250.000 Croatian Serbs came to Bosnia-Herzegovina. As far as I
19 know, they did not come to Bosnia-Herzegovina in these large numbers.
20 They did come to Serbia
21 numbers. Statistics that show the country of origin of these refugees as
22 well as the time of arrival in Serbia
23 Croatian Serbs ended in Serbia
24 again, this is the same issue. In order to participate in the elections
25 of 1997/1998 one had to be listed on the population census of 1991. One
1 had to be the citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina. My statistics are not
2 flawed because of the alleged high numbers of refugees from Croatia
3 you are telling entered in Bosnia
4 there were not that many in Bosnia and Herzegovina as the many country of
5 destination of the Croatian Serbs was Serbia, not Bosnia
6 some thousands and they are reported in the BH registration of IDP's and
7 refugees, but it's not 250.000, it is 25.000 as of the year 2000, so it
8 is a totally different number. But as I'm saying, it is the 1991 census
9 population who must be taken into account when speaking of the election
11 Q. Dr. Tabeau, very well, we are not going to debate the figures.
12 You do allow for the possibility of some 25.000 Croatian Serbs remaining
13 in the territory of these municipalities. My question is as follows:
14 When you worked on your final figure of the number of Serbs in these
15 municipalities in 1997 and 1998, did you find all of these persons on the
16 list of persons in Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1991? I mean the census, that's
17 what I meant.
18 A. Well, the matching rate for the voters with the population census
19 is 80 per cent, so that means 80 per cent of records of the voters from
20 the registered 1997/1998 were confirmed in the population census. It
21 wasn't 100 per cent. There were 20 per cent that were not matched,
22 basically because of deficiencies in the data. But I'm telling you once
23 again, in principle the voters 1997/1998 had to be listed in the
24 population census, moreover I can assure you that every registration
25 office in Bosnia-Herzegovina during the elections had two copies of the
1 population census, one was the hard copy, one was the electronic copy.
2 And when people were coming to register to vote they had to prove they
3 were on the census lists. So that is how it worked. It was the first
4 serious democratic elections in 1997, after the 1996 election basically
5 wasn't perfect as we know, right, and things were prepared in such a way
6 that any fraud would be prevented and this is why the relationship
7 between the census and the voters' list.
8 Q. Yes, but if I understood you correctly, you included in your
9 figure these 20 per cent of the Serbs who were not on the census at all
10 in 1991. The census of Bosnia-Herzegovina, that's what I'm talking
11 about, or did you simply ignore that figure in your report?
12 A. My statistics are based on matched records, so only the 80 per
13 cent matched are included in statistics. The 20 per cent unmatched are
15 Q. Ms. Tabeau, do you remember, or can you tell us now, what was the
16 number either in terms of numbers or in terms of percentage points in the
17 census in Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1991, how many Yugoslavs were there in
18 terms of numbers or percentages?
19 A. I cannot say it from my head. I would have to check but it
20 wasn't significant. The percentages of the two major groups, Bosniaks
21 that would be the Muslims and the Serbs were considerable but not the
22 percent of Yugoslavs. I don't recall the exact number.
23 Q. Ms. Tabeau, I would not agree with you. I think that
24 Bosnia-Herzegovina was the republic that had the largest percentage of
25 Yugoslavs in that period of time, however, the conclusion is that you
1 cannot tell us now what the actual number was. Can you tell us how you
2 treated such persons? Is it possible that some of these persons who were
3 Yugoslavs in 1991, in the 1991 census, came to vote in 1997 and 1998 and
4 was on the voters' register?
5 A. As I mentioned earlier today, there were 98 categories, ethnic
6 categories reported in the 1991 census. We regrouped the categories and
7 created four major groups: Muslims, Serbs, Croats and others. Muslims,
8 Serbs and Croats, three major groups, were taken as reported in the
9 census without any modifications. The others is a large category that
10 comprises among others the Yugoslavs, and many many other categories
11 imported in the census. And one more remark I have that you said that
13 that this number was very high. It is relatively high as compared to
14 other republics, so it might be so but it doesn't mean that they were 40
15 per cent of Yugoslavs living in Bosnia and Herzegovina because they were
16 not the major group in that republic, former republic.
17 Q. Thank you, Ms. Tabeau. If I understood you correctly, actually
18 let me just try to confirm this, in your research, you established that
19 there was more or less parallel population movement in that period. If
20 we look at the percentage of Muslims or non-Serbs who left the area of
21 Republika Srpska, if that is 96 per cent and if the number of Serbs who
22 left the area of the Federation where the population is predominantly
23 Muslim and Croat, the percentage is 99.6 per cent, did I understand that
25 A. Yes, I recall these two percentages and I agree it was a parallel
1 movement. Serbs were moving out from the Federation and non-Serbs from
2 the others' territory, this is the picture.
3 Q. Madam, Ms. Tabeau, in view of your rich experience as a scholar,
4 can you tell us in situations or circumstances that prevailed then in the
5 territory that was the focus of your study, was that customary in view of
6 all the hotbeds of crisis that you analysed?
7 A. If you could be more specific, what do you mean by circumstances
8 that prevailed? So there was a conflict, a war going there in the
9 territory of the country, certain areas were affected more than other
11 Q. Yes. Yes. That is what I'm saying. In these five
12 municipalities during this period of time that we are discussing, there
13 was a war going on among the ethnic groups there and that conflict
14 practically engulfed all of Bosnia
15 yourself that it seemed to you that this migration went along parallel
16 lines, so in this situation of ethnic fighting, conflicts, is it logical
17 that, say, Muslim inhabitants are going into areas where the population
18 is predominantly Muslim and the other way around, that Serbs go to areas
19 where the population is predominantly Serb when there is a war going on?
20 A. Well, I think what I meant when saying that there was war in
21 these territories, most certainly there were combat activities, but most
22 certainly there were incidences of mass violence and from the victim's
23 report, it is clear that the Muslims were the major group who actually
24 suffered in the war and mass violence incidents as well.
25 Well, I am not, you know, I don't feel okay to say that it is
1 normal that large groups of population moved this way or that way in war.
2 I don't think these movements are voluntary because there must be some
3 factors that force people out from their homes. Why? Because numbers of
4 people who moved were so extremely high, so the situation must have been
5 dramatic in order to push them out and leave their homes. And if there
6 are killings and large numbers of killings, we are speaking of about
7 10.000 excess deaths related to war in these territories in the war
8 period so that is not neglectible [sic], it is a high number of
9 predominantly Muslim population who actually suffered in this war and
10 mass violence incidents.
11 Q. Ms. Tabeau, I do apologise, it's probably that I used a clumsy
12 term when I said normal. I actually meant customary, usual. When you
13 spoke about suffering now, actually, in order to leave your home, you
14 assume that it has to do with forcible expulsions, when you are talking
15 about Muslims, you are also referring to those Serbs who left the
16 Federation, over 90 per cent of them; right?
17 A. That is the number, yes.
18 Q. Now, Ms. Tabeau, as you worked on your statistics, and we all
19 know that sometime in November 1995 the Dayton Agreement was signed,
20 peace was established on the the basis of the Dayton Agreement, right?
21 And did the Dayton Agreement return the right to every refugee to go back
22 to his or her place of residence, his or her home, are you aware of that?
23 A. Yes, it was part of the Dayton Agreement, the right to return
25 Q. I think this is a very important question. When we are supposed
1 to make such judgements about forcible expulsions, et cetera. Did you
2 devote your report or part of your report to facts and figures pertaining
3 to the number of Muslims who returned to their homes after the Dayton
4 Agreement or how many Serbs or how many Croats returned to their homes
5 after the Dayton
6 force involved anymore, people were not under threat, people could go
7 back home, couldn't they?
8 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Tabeau, Mr. Bakrac announced this question as a
9 very important question.
10 THE WITNESS: Yes.
11 JUDGE ORIE: I get the feeling, but please correct me if I'm
12 wrong, that Mr. Bakrac is moving in areas where your expertise might not
13 allow you to give answers to all of his questions. If you feel that your
14 expertise does not allow, don't hesitate to say because we are moving
15 from demographic statistical analysis to an assessment of circumstances
16 of matters which, as this Chamber and the Judges know and you most likely
17 know as well, of an extremely complex nature what means force, what
18 circumstances made it easy or less easy to move from one place to. If
19 you look at the case law of this Tribunal, everyone will become aware of
20 the complexity of this issue. So if you at any point feel that your
21 expertise does not allow you to answer the questions with a sufficient
22 level of reliability, do not hesitate to tell us.
23 THE WITNESS: This is what I was going to say, it was beyond my
24 expertise to assess the circumstances. However, it was an interesting
25 question for us to assess how many minority returns took place between
1 1995 December and the moment we provided our statistics for. Why?
2 Because if there were many returns, so that only means that our
3 statistics are far too low as a matter of fact, but and that is the my
4 interest, of course, as demographer to understand what is the extent of
5 the underestimation, which is, basically speaking, actually the
6 conservative approach and underestimation is in favour of these
7 defendants, of course.
8 However, I must conclude that I studied minority returns, there
9 are statistics published by UNHCR for the years after the war, and there
10 were not that many minority return. There were returns but minorities
11 were not returning in large numbers in these two years 1996 and 1997. So
12 what I'm saying there is a certain degree of underestimation in our
13 report of the displacement, especially internal displacement, but also
14 external displacement, but, yeah, I think it is a good statistic simply
15 to work with. They are conservative, they are methodologically solid
16 based on good sources and can be documented with individual records, so
17 that is all I have to say here.
18 JUDGE ORIE: I'm looking at the clock, Mr. Bakrac.
19 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] I'm looking at the clock too. I'm
20 looking at the clock too but I did have one question, Your Honour.
21 Perhaps could we just have a minute or two because then we might round it
22 off. Actually, we can do it after the break as well, but could
23 Ms. Tabeau just explain to us how does this minimal return of refugees
24 confirm her analysis. Let that be the question that will be answered
25 after the break. Let us give the doctor a time to focus on it and say
1 what she wishes to say.
2 JUDGE ORIE: How much more time would you need apart from this
4 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I assume that after
5 the break I would need another half-hour and then I should be done. And
6 I think that my colleague, Mr. Jordash, said that he will not take more
7 than half an hour either. I don't think that he is actually hearing me
8 now in a language he understands. Maybe things have changed.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, Mr. Bakrac was giving an assessment of
10 how much time you would need. He thought that it might be half an hour.
11 MR. JORDASH: I think I need at least an hour, maybe an hour and
12 15 minutes. I did speak to Mr. Bakrac earlier, but we've changed our
13 mind, I am afraid.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that's what he suggested as a possibility.
15 We'll have a break and we'll resume at 6.00 and the parties are
16 urged to confer and see whether there's any possibility to conclude the
17 testimony of Ms. Tabeau today. If not, then we'll see how to proceed.
18 We resume at 6.00.
19 --- Recess taken at 5.33 p.m.
20 --- On resuming at 6.06 p.m.
21 JUDGE ORIE: As always, the breaks are as busy, if not busier
22 than court hearings and we apologise again for the late start.
23 Mr. Bakrac, I think you asked the witness a question before the
24 break. Perhaps she still remembers the question and could answer it.
25 THE WITNESS: Yes, I do remember. So minority returns, what is
1 the impact of minority returns of the statistics of displaced persons and
2 refugees presented in our IDP's and refugees report. Minority returns
3 wouldn't be included as among the statistics, the numbers of displaced
4 persons and refugees. Why? Because these persons would have be back
5 home. So wouldn't be listed as displaced persons. So this is the source
6 for an underestimation, what I'm saying is in fact there were more
7 displaced persons, but because there were certain returns, not many, but
8 there were returns, so the statistics that describe the status of
9 displacement as of the fall of 1997, 1998, this is an underestimation of
10 the actual number of displaced persons.
11 And I have more reasons to believe that our numbers are an
12 underestimation, the reasons are explained in the report in section 7.
13 I'm not going to go into reasons but think for instance born after 1980
14 not included in our statistics, that is, children, think of unregistered
15 voters, et cetera et cetera. These reasons, we tried to compensate for
16 some of them by presenting the more complete estimate in our record. So
17 et cetera et cetera, so our numbers are very conservative as a matter of
18 fact, if you compare them with the UNHCR statistics, then you see that
19 UNHCR is much less conservative.
20 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. Dr. Tabeau, can we agree and can you agree with my view that your
22 estimations are more of a mathematical nature and that to a lesser extent
23 they indicate what the percentage of those who returned did so forcibly,
24 of their own will or otherwise; is that right?
25 A. I didn't study the causes for displacement. It is just the
1 statistics that describe the status of displacement.
2 Q. Thank you. Thank you, Dr. Tabeau. We were able to see the two
3 primary sources that you drew upon. Do you know that following the
4 Dayton Accords, in November 1995, some 30 to 40.000 Serbs who hailed from
6 records in 1991 and that they were in fact the population that migrated
7 to what later became these 11 municipalities. Were you aware of this?
8 A. Well, I didn't study Sarajevo
9 population of the voters as of 1997/1998, so newcomers were included in
10 these statistics. So if there were any Serbs, from Sarajevo, who were
11 listed in the census in 1991, and moved from Sarajevo and ended in any of
12 these five municipalities or 11 split municipalities, they are included
13 in statistics.
14 Q. The statistics, or rather, the voters' registers, did they show
15 or did you draw any comparisons or try to find matches to establish
16 whether a certain number of inhabitants who left Sarajevo were in fact
17 later on on these voters' registers, or did you simply not try and
18 identify if these persons are to be found on both these primary sources?
19 A. Well, it was so, the target population was the population who in
20 1991 lived, resided in the five municipalities. So for this target
21 population, we traced them to see how they moved and whether they became
22 displaced or not. So in displacement statistics, you will only see the
23 population of the five municipalities and their movements. But there is
24 a different, the second sort of statistics, this is the ethnic
25 composition of municipalities. And the ethnic composition in 1991 is
1 based on the census data, census population in five municipalities on one
2 hand and on the other hand there is the ethnic composition of the
3 population based on the voters' register 1997/1998. But still this is
4 the population as reported in the voters' register, right, and matched
5 with the census. So anybody who newcomer who moved into one of these
6 municipalities and was reported in the census, would be listed as a
8 Q. Yes, if my understanding of what you are saying is correct, you
9 now say that you focused on the population that was to be found in the
10 the census record of 1991 in relation to these five municipalities; is
11 that right?
12 A. In displaced statistics, yes.
13 Q. Yes. Then in 1997/1998 there is a significant increase in Serb
14 population in these five municipalities in terms of percentages. Can you
15 explain to us the following: If you focused only on the population
16 residing in these five municipalities according to the 1991 census, how
17 did there come about a sharp increase in the number of Serbian
18 inhabitants in these five municipalities?
19 A. What I said I would repeat it. So for the ethnic composition we
20 studied de facto population in 1991 versus 1997/1998, right? The
21 1997/1998 population was as reported in these municipalities, these
22 municipalities meaning including also newcomers. Newcomers subject to
23 being registered in the 1991 census. 1991 census in general in
24 Bosnia-Herzegovina, right? Not necessarily in the five municipalities.
25 There might have been municipalities from other municipality, of course
1 there might have been newcomers from other municipalities. Were they
2 from Sarajevo
3 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask to try to see if I understand,
4 Mr. Bakrac, because I'm a bit surprised as a matter of fact by your
5 question, rather than by the answer. If I have a population of 100.000,
6 let's keep it simple, 50 per cent Serbs, 50 per cent Muslims. Yes. Now,
7 if 49.000 of the Serbs -- of the Muslims leave, I'm not saying this is
8 what happened, and let's say that all the Serbs remain, I'm not saying
9 that this happened because usually the number in the statistics you see
10 decreased slightly. Then from 50 per cent, suddenly you have close to 98
11 per cent Serbs. The shift in percentage, I'm trying to give you this
12 answer to see -- to check also whether I understood it well, depends on
13 how much Serbs are leaving, how many Muslims are leaving even if the
14 Serbs were leaving in a certain number or their number decreased because
15 they went elsewhere, but if the Muslims would have left in by far larger
16 numbers, then the percentage of Serbs would of course increase. And now
17 I do understand that Ms. Tabeau also is a bit cautious there because
18 what -- how many Serbs there were in 1997 we do not exactly know because
19 they might not all have registered as voters therefore also the
20 percentages are limited to the matched persons which means that there may
21 have been far -- at least a substantial number more of certain ethnicity
22 but that they did not match and that they did not register as voters.
23 Ms. Tabeau, I'm just trying to see whether I understand you well,
24 and was again a bit surprised by the question of Mr. Bakrac because it
25 seems relatively simple to me, but I might have underestimated the
1 complexity -- one second, please. I might have underestimated the
2 complexity, please tell me whether my understanding more or less matches
3 your understanding.
4 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, if I may, before the
5 answer provide you with an explanation. It seems to me that Ms. Tabeau
6 also raised her figures, not only estimates --
7 JUDGE ORIE: Let me just first try to seek Ms. Tabeau's answer to
8 my question whether I more or less understood --
9 THE WITNESS: Yes. Here is the thing, when preparing statistics
10 on the displaced persons, we use the restriction that we only looked at
11 the original 1991 population and for this population, only this
12 population, from five municipalities we observed how many of them became
13 displaced and how many just stayed in the original municipalities as they
14 lived in 1991. That is one thing. So there was a restriction. However,
15 if you assess changes in the ethnic composition, then it is de facto
16 composition, de facto ethnic composition in 1991 and also 1997/1998. In
17 five municipalities or 11 split municipalities. That means for the 1991,
18 the population of the census is analysed and ethnic makeup of this
19 population is shown. For 1997/8 it is all who registered in these
20 municipalities for whom the ethnic makeup is shown. So there is no
21 restriction here that the municipality of origin.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, part of them might have come from another
24 THE WITNESS: Yes.
25 JUDGE ORIE: And at the same time it might be that there is
1 another number which doesn't match at all which I ignored.
2 THE WITNESS: Yes. This doesn't mean I cannot make any other
3 ethnic makeups, I can do all kind of makeups, this was the purpose to
4 show the actual makeup as it became after the war versus as it used to be
5 before the war.
6 JUDGE ORIE: And to the extent they had registered as voters.
7 THE WITNESS: Yes, that is correct.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Yes, Mr. Bakrac, I'm glad that
9 Ms. Tabeau at least corrected some of my understanding and it's important
10 that the Chamber understands what the testimony is about. Please
12 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I'd rather
13 I have an expert to guide me, but there we are, I'm trying to wade
14 through the complex subject matter.
15 Q. Madam Tabeau, to your knowledge, are voters registered used
16 anywhere in the world for the development of scholarly demographic
18 A. Yes. Yes.
19 Q. Is that a customary method?
20 A. For the victims of war or regime, I would think it is not
21 surprising that this source is used. For instance, for Cambodia, an
22 American demographer, well established, known demographer,
23 Patrick Heuveline used voters' register to estimate the number of victims
24 of the Khmer Rouge regime. And it was a meaningful study that is
25 respected and was published in a good scientific journal. The problem is
1 that if you want to speak about sources on war victims, you can't keep in
2 mind that these sources must be exactly the same as the sources on that
3 in the peacetime. In the peacetime we had the official death
4 notifications that are obligatorily to be made within three days from the
5 moment a person dies. And there is a extended specific record of every
6 death that is later processed in statistics.
7 Q. Therefore, Ms. Tabeau, if my understanding is correct and you'll
8 correct me if I'm wrong, you say in such situation this method can be
9 used, but do we agree that a voters' register is not an official basis
10 for the development of a demographic study?
11 A. It is not an official statistical source, that is not made by
12 statistical authority, but you will be really surprised how many sources
13 and what kind of sources are used in demographic studies, in historical
14 demography, parish records, for instance, are often used, parish records
15 that is the church records which are a very rich source of information
16 about individuals, families, life histories of persons. I don't think
17 that demography is restricted to standard sources like death
18 notifications or -- in migration research, migration is a phenomenon,
19 demographic phenomenon that is hard to document. We don't have in
20 demography specific sources, systematic sources in which migration would
21 be reported. Especially now in times of global movements of the
22 population. Many people never register as migrants in the countries, yet
23 this doesn't mean that they didn't change the place of residence.
24 Q. Can data about ethnicity be found in these voters' registers?
25 A. No, they don't include ethnicity, but ethnicity can be
1 transferred from the census through the individual links of the voters'
2 records, the census records.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Bakrac, there again the question surprises me
4 because I think the report clearly explains what is the case, that is
5 that you match personal details from persons in the voters' register with
6 the 1991 census and since the 1991 census gives the ethnicity, that is
7 the source of comparison, Ms. Tabeau, did I understand that well?
8 THE WITNESS: Yes, that's correct. We always use the ethnicity
9 as reported in the census.
10 JUDGE ORIE: That's clearly explained in her report. So that
11 explanation would not be needed at all if there would be an ethnicity in
12 the voters' register because that would have created a perhaps totally
13 different picture. Please proceed.
14 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I'll move
16 Q. Dr. Tabeau, you said that when you took into account the data
17 from 1991, you took into consideration the population born before 1980.
18 Was it respect of 1991 everything taken into account which concerned
19 individuals who were of age in that year including the individuals who
20 were not of age in 1991, but could possibly be voters in the 1997
21 elections? Perhaps I should simplify, I take it by the expression on
22 your face that I wasn't as precise that I should like have been. I'm not
23 on the same expertise level as you are so I may even put a stupid
24 question to you. What was the reason why the individuals born before
25 1980 were taken into consideration, let's start with that question and
1 then we'll move on.
2 A. This is because of the second source that we use, the voters'
3 register. We use two registers 1997/1998 but de facto, the vast majority
4 of records in our register is from 1997. Actually, these two registers
5 overlap greatly so there is a small number of records from 1998, we took
6 all first registrations in 1997 as the core. So the voters' register
7 represents the situation as of 1997. Now, in order to compare this
8 population with the right population in 1991, one has to make a selection
9 from the census in order to compare what is comparable and reject what is
10 not comparable, so that is why the restriction on the year of birth.
11 Q. So if my understanding is correct, you took into account in
12 respect of 1991 those individuals which would in 1997 and 1998 have the
13 legal age for voting; is that right?
14 A. Yes, that is correct. So the children were not taken for the
16 Q. Ms. Tabeau, with the caveat that I tried to read your report as
17 carefully as possible, I don't think found the following: Can you tell
18 us what is the number of inhabitants who were 18 and above in 1991, what
19 was the number of such inhabitants or percentage, and how many
20 individuals did you take into account who were age 13, 14, 15 or 16 only
21 because you knew that they would be eligible to vote in 1997 or 1998?
22 A. I think that I must explain to you that it is a longitudinal
23 study that we did, right? So we work regarding voters, they are matched
24 with the census. How can I explain this? I'm not sure I do understand
25 your question correctly. So it's the restriction on age that make it is
1 possible for me to extract a subgroup of the population in 1991, a
2 subgroup in 1991, from which the voters originate. A large group of them
3 becomes the voters, registered voters which I have in my source. So I'm
4 still working with the same group of people. I'm extracting records from
5 the census that all potentially will become the voters in 1997/1998
6 right. And in the census I take all of them, all potential voters, then
7 I match them. Some are lost because they are not matched and that's it.
8 This is how I make the statistic, I'm not sure I answered your question
9 but that's the meaning of longitudinal and individual data, so the
10 matching goes forth and back, it is still the same group, comparable
11 group of individuals.
12 Q. So all the individuals whom you included in your calculations for
13 these five municipalities were individuals who were on the population
14 census records back in 1991 and bearing in mind all the aspects you
15 referred to, you matched these individuals against the 1997 voters'
16 register, including the category which was to become of age and eligible
17 to vote in 1997 and 1998?
18 A. Yes, yes, that is the meaning, yes.
19 Q. Dr. Tabeau, as for potential voters, did you also take into
20 account the individuals who were back in 1991 aged 75 or above, or did
21 you also have this upper age threshold in terms of the 1991 census?
22 A. No, there was no upper age limit. So some probably died, some
23 became war victims and died, but these numbers are not considerable
24 especially not the number of deaths.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Just for my understanding, Ms. Tabeau, is it well
1 understood that those of 75 year old in 1991 who had died before 1997
2 were just among the 20 per cent you could not match. They were just not
3 there anymore.
4 THE WITNESS: Probably because they were not registered, they
5 were not registered, they were not among the voters and they were not
6 matched and rejected.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Was the registration of voters, was that done in
8 1997 itself, so it couldn't be that someone would register in 1995 as a
9 voter -- no, no, we are talking about those who actually qualified in
10 1997, early 1998 as voters and had registered as such?
11 THE WITNESS: Yes, yes, yes, yes.
12 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation]
13 Q. Dr. Tabeau, so you did include a number of individuals who were
14 on the 1991 census records as citizens of Bosnia-Herzegovina, but had
15 died a natural death by 1997/1998 and were not on the voters' register,
16 so did you take such individuals into account and if so what is their
18 A. Well, I said that we didn't control for deaths, that means if
19 somebody died, the person was not registered as a voter, it was not
20 included in statistics. Who knows how many died during the war, there is
21 no complete registration of natural deaths. There is a number of war
22 deaths which is also uncertain but at least we have some ideas. So I
23 could make a guesstimate, but I don't really want to speculate because
24 the numbers we are talking about wouldn't have impacts on these
25 statistics anyway. They wouldn't be shown as displaced persons anyway,
1 that is simply not the case.
2 Q. Ms. Tabeau, I'm nearing the end of my examination. Now, I have a
3 couple of questions left. Kindly tell me if you included in your report
4 the individuals who before the war went to work abroad and as you know,
5 they were kept on the list of citizens of Bosnia-Herzegovina, and who
6 reported in 1997 having come back from abroad to vote in the elections,
7 did you include them in your report and did you qualify them as refugees?
8 A. Actually, we studied this issue in detail, and there is one annex
9 in the report in which the analysis is explained. If you could please
10 refer to annex B4, B4, page 80 in the English version. So you see that
11 we actually studied this issue thoroughly because those persons who left
12 the country before the war, before the war, could create certain bias in
13 our statistics. But obviously the number of such persons who could have
14 introduced bias in our statistics is very small. As you will see in this
15 annex there were about 28.000 of such persons who as a matter of fact
16 didn't have a significant impact on the ethnic composition and not on the
17 numbers of displaced persons and refugees. The error that is because of
18 this small number is less than 5 per cent in the displacement statistics.
19 So it is a fairly acceptable level of error in statistics.
20 Q. Dr. Tabeau, let me conclude, with all due respect, your expertise
21 is primarily that of a mathematical demographer; is that right?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. In substance, your report and your study constitutes a
24 statistical and mathematical overview of the size of the population
25 without going into much detail into the reasons, the underlying reasons?
1 A. I said earlier today, I didn't study the causes for population
2 displacement. It is just a measurement of the displacement that I
4 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Dr. Tabeau, I thank you and I
5 apologise if my questions were not professional enough and if I taxed you
6 in any way with my inexpert questions. Thank you, Your Honour, those
7 were all the questions I had.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Bakrac. Mr. Jordash, are you ready
9 to cross-examine the witness.
10 MR. JORDASH: Your Honour, yes.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Tabeau, you'll now be cross-examined by
12 Mr. Jordash. Mr. Jordash is counsel for Mr. Stanisic.
13 Cross-examination by Mr. Jordash:
14 Q. Good afternoon.
15 A. Good afternoon.
16 Q. I think just so that I'm clear, what we've established amongst a
17 number of things is that your - I'm dealing with the first report, the
18 IDP refugee report - your report doesn't deal with what happened between
19 1991 and 1997, it's just looking at what was the situation in 1991, what
20 was the situation in 1997/1998?
21 A. Correct.
22 Q. Let me take you to your report, page 35, where you --
23 MR. JORDASH: This is P1657.
24 Q. You, in paragraph 2 make the comment that:
25 "The 1992, 1995 conflict in Bosnia is an example of a
1 humanitarian emergency in which a large civilian population was affected
2 by war and cruel attempts to restructure the ethnic composition of the
3 population, leading to large scale population displacement, deterioration
4 of living conditions, severe health problems, and increased mortality."
5 Now, I just want to pick up on some comments that you made in
6 response to my learned friend Mr. Bakrac just before the break in which,
7 forgive me if I'm wrong, but you appeared to suggest -- you appeared to
8 go further than that and make comments concerning the non-accidental
9 reasons for that displacement. Did I understand you correctly?
10 A. I didn't say -- I wouldn't say non-accidental, I would say I
11 cannot agree that the usual causes of migration like educational
12 migration, socio-economic migration, that includes work migration, we can
13 say operated during the war period and caused these large numbers of the
15 Q. You wouldn't, would you, proffer an opinion concerning whether
16 displacement was due to the war conditions generally as compared to, say,
17 an ethnic group forcibly transferring another population out of a region?
18 A. As I said, I didn't study the causes and I can only say I see the
19 causes as most certainly different from usual and this is where my
20 expertise ends with regard to causes of migration, yes.
21 Q. And "usual" is a reference to peacetime as compared to war time?
22 A. Yes. Yes, that's correct.
23 Q. Yes. Your opinion is that this is a displacement which is not
24 usual in peacetime, it is characteristic of a war situation?
25 A. Most definitely not of a conflict -- not of a peace situation but
1 of a war situation. If you think of the entire country Bosnia and
3 end of the war became displaced. We are speaking of 2.2 millions of
4 people who were displaced. So that's the scale. It cannot be seen as
5 regular migration, peacetime migration.
6 Q. Right. I don't think you and I are disagreeing about that. What
7 I was looking at is whether you were trying to offer further opinion
8 concerning whether these displacements that you record were the result of
9 a specific activity during a war situation?
10 A. I don't think I was looking for such an explanation.
11 Q. Thank you.
12 A. In my report, yes.
13 Q. Am I also correct in reading your report as not being able to
14 cast comment on whether the displacement was the result of voluntary
15 movement following the Dayton Agreement?
16 A. I didn't make any statements of this kind in the report. But
17 what would be the voluntary movement following the Dayton Agreement, I
18 wouldn't really know.
19 Q. Populations deciding they would rather live in the Federation
20 rather than in the RS?
21 A. Well, I didn't comment on this in the report.
22 Q. But that was part of the Dayton Agreement, wasn't it? Certain
23 areas designated to be governed by one ethnic group or religious group
24 compared to other areas in the Federation?
25 A. I think it would be wrong to believe that all this migration took
1 place after the Dayton Agreement. There are many documents, contextual
2 documents, which I had opportunity to study, even though I didn't discuss
3 them in the report which suggest that the migration was taking place in
4 the war period.
5 Q. No, and I'm not suggesting all the movements did take place, but
6 your report doesn't really comment on whether Dayton Agreement
7 consequences or consequences during the war?
8 A. No, I didn't look at this.
9 Q. Now, can I ask you to please turn to page 31 of P1657. I think
10 just following on from what we've been discussing, looking at the
11 statistics at the bottom of the page, in the period 1991 to 1997, the
12 share of Serbs in the RS parts of Stanisic-Simatovic area increased from
13 52.5 to 92.5, i.e., by 76.4 per cent, and over the page, just looking at
14 that paragraph and the next paragraph and I think you've given the
15 statistics of -- I'm looking at the 95.3 per cent offered at the bottom
16 of the page, the share of Muslims decreasing in the Serb -- RS part of
17 the Stanisic-Simatovic area and over the page the share of Serbs
18 decreasing in the Federation part by 99.3 per cent. Are there
19 differences between those two figures statistically relevant?
20 A. Why would we compare these figures? I don't know, I didn't look
21 at the significance of the differences.
22 Q. You didn't?
23 A. I didn't, no. But this is not the point that to compare the
24 differences, because I think the point is to measure what happened and
25 express this in quantitative terms, this is why I didn't test the
1 significance of the differences of the change.
2 Q. Can we have a look at page 25 then, please, just for some
3 clarification for my understanding. Looking at Sanski Most on figure 10,
4 could you just explain in straightforward terms what the figure 10
5 represents in relation to Sanski Most?
6 A. It is the -- as the title says, the percentage of Serb displaced
7 persons, both IDP's and refugees as of 1997/8 in relation to the entire
8 population of Serbs.
9 Q. So does figure 10 suggest, I might be wrong about this I'm not --
10 A. It's the number of 99.6 which is mentioned just above the figure,
11 right, the dark part of the map.
12 Q. So 80 to 100 per cent of the Serbs who were living in the
13 Federation part of Sanski Most were displaced?
14 A. Exactly it is 99.6.
15 Q. Right.
16 A. That would be the interval you mentioned, 80 to 100 per cent.
17 Q. Now, you also made the point that you considered that -- excuse
18 me for paraphrasing, that overall movements of populations were occurring
19 at the same time and likely to be parallel processes. Why do you reach
20 that conclusion?
21 A. Why do I reach this conclusion? Because I believe that the push
22 factors, push factors were operating in the same time. Only that the
23 direction of movement caused by the push factors was different for the
24 Muslims and other non-Serbs and the Serbs.
25 MR. JORDASH: Can I just have a moment, please.
1 [Defence counsel confer]
2 MR. JORDASH:
3 Q. Let me just clarify, you're suggesting when you say parallel
4 processes, parallel processes happening at some point between 1991 and
5 1997 or parallel processes which are actually happening at the same time,
6 say for during particular incidents?
7 A. Well, first of all, let me clarify, I did not study the exact
8 timing of the population movements because there is no data to study such
9 a thing. So the data describes the status in 1991 and compares with
10 1997/1998. So what I can think of which is not surprising, it is just a
11 straightforward thinking, is that certain factors were pushing out the
12 population and forced them to move, all population, all ethnic groups.
13 It is hard to imagine that these pushing factors were rapidly different
14 at different moments of time, although it is not impossible, I would say,
15 right? What I mean by parallel is the movements as such of the
16 population, as measured using the data I had at my disposal.
17 Q. Right. So your opinion in this regard -- well, let's stake
18 Bosanski Samac -- sorry, let's take Sanski Most. It's the Prosecution
19 case that in May of 1992 the Serbs attacked and took over Sanski Most.
20 And so then moving forward in mid-1995, I think it's the Prosecution case
21 that the Serbs were pushed out of Sanski Most, so your analysis of
22 parallel processes would be in 1992, it's likely there was a transfer of
23 non-Serb population out of Sanski Most, the parallel process is in 1995
24 the Serbs are pushed out of Sanski Most?
25 A. No, my thinking is not as you mentioned. My thinking is much
1 simpler. I just measure what I can measure, and parallel for me means I
2 clearly see that non-Serbs are moving out from Serb-controlled
3 territories and Serbs are moving out from the federal territories. That
4 would be the territories controlled by the federal government. Of course
5 at different moments of times these controls were probably different over
6 territories, but as I'm saying, I measure what I can measure and I don't
7 discuss what I cannot measure. This is as simple as that.
8 Q. Are you aware of a refugee crisis arising from the Serbs being
9 pushed out of Sanski Most in 1995?
10 A. The crisis meaning what?
11 Q. Meaning --
12 A. That they were living in large numbers, I mean, the Sanski Most
13 FBiH-controlled territory, what do you mean by this crisis?
14 Q. Let me show you an exhibit.
15 MR. JORDASH: 65 ter 1D01635. It's a proposed exhibit, I guess.
16 It's page 46 of the English and page 46 of the B/C/S.
17 Q. And for your information, this is a diary or said to be a diary
18 written by -- well, said by the Prosecution to be a diary written by
19 Mladic, who obviously you must have heard of; am I correct?
20 A. Obviously, yes.
21 Q. Page 46, which -- and just for your orientation the entry is
22 dated the 22nd of September, 1995, and if we look at page --
23 A. I see the 25 of September -- of August, sorry.
24 MR. JORDASH: We should be on, I hope, page 46 of the English at
25 least. And bottom 5273. Yes, that's right.
1 Q. And I hope that is matched by page 46 on the B/C/S. But just
2 looking at the English, look at the bottom there:
3 "By assessing the wave of refugees we can observe the change of
4 mind after the 150.000 refugees from the RSK and the 120.000 refugees
5 from Prijedor and Sanski Most ..."
6 Did you hear about that?
7 A. Well, I'm reading this for the first time in my life, this
8 particular paragraph, there is a mention of 120.000 refugees from
9 Prijedor and Sanski Most and --
10 Q. Have you seen things to corroborate that? Have you read
11 documents in your studies which corroborate that number?
12 A. First of all, I don't know what is the source for the number.
13 This is one thing, how was it obtained, I have no idea. So I have right
14 now no opinion about this particular number, how reliable it is, how
15 close to reality it was. As I said, in my report, I did look at
16 contextual sources, some of them are included in the report. Some are
17 not but the statistics I prepared in the report are based on other
18 sources and it is not so that every source will be 100 per cent
19 consistent with another source, that's the whole thing about statistics
20 on war victims, and displaced persons is just one type of war victims.
21 Q. Let's put aside the exact number, these things are perhaps not
22 close to the event exact science.
23 A. I am afraid not, you know, because if you look at the population
24 size of Sanski Most Serbs and Prijedor, how one could come to 120.000
25 Serb refugees from these two municipalities only?
1 Q. I guess it would depend on who was living there at the time?
2 A. We have the census to check how many lived there at the moment of
3 the census.
4 Q. At the moment of 1995 we don't have a census, do we?
5 A. No, we don't, that's correct except for the Banja Luka census and
6 Sanski Most is part of it. So is Prijedor and I still don't think this
7 120.000 is consistent with that statistic.
8 Q. Have you read contextual sources which do cast a light on the
9 refugee crisis which this seems to be referring to?
10 THE INTERPRETER: Kindly pause between questions and answers,
11 thank you.
12 THE WITNESS: I don't know what contextual sources. You gave me
13 one example, I said, no, I'm unaware with this one example you gave me.
14 MR. JORDASH:
15 Q. I'm asking you to consider from your broad experience, the wide
16 range of material you must have read over the years, whether you have
17 heard at all about the refugees which fled from the attacks in September
18 of 1995 in Sanski Most? If you haven't, then that's fine.
19 A. Yes, yes, this is what I wanted to say. I did not study this
20 particular episode of the conflict.
21 Q. So --
22 A. So I did study sources, but not particularly related to this
23 particular episode.
24 Q. So you can't provide any assistance in what the situation might
25 have been?
1 A. Based on my report?
2 Q. No, no, based on your knowledge.
3 A. Not immediately, I couldn't. No. Not immediately.
4 Q. You would be able to though if we were to come back, or if you
5 were to come back?
6 A. I don't know. I would start a search and see what I could find.
7 But the problem is that finding is one thing and assessing is another. I
8 am afraid assessing of -- assessment of sources is an important issue,
9 you know.
10 Q. Okay. Well, for now, nothing --
11 A. I would need more time than just one day or something to bring
12 assessments, say. Sources plus assessment.
13 Q. For now, nothing then comes to mind.
14 A. Not immediately, no.
15 Q. Okay.
16 MR. JORDASH: I notice the time, Your Honours.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We have to consider how to proceed tomorrow.
18 I'm thinking about, of course, the next witness waiting. I'm sorry,
19 Ms. Tabeau, we are talking about the next witness, but for scheduling
20 purpose we cannot avoid that. Mr. Groome.
21 MR. GROOME: The next witness is in The Hague and is ready to
22 appear tomorrow.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Ready to appear. Of course we are thinking about
24 whether that witness can be concluded, Ms. Tabeau, perhaps I simply
25 explain to you, that whether or not we'll continue to hear your evidence
1 or whether we would prefer to start with another witness who has to
2 travel and which we would very much like to conclude this week is a
3 matter still under consideration.
4 How much time you would need for the next witness?
5 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, we have the witness scheduled for three
6 hours. I think I've' taken every reasonable measure to try to reduce
7 that time with a number of mechanisms. I hope to be substantially less
8 than that, but I'm really reluctant to give an estimate other than to say
9 I think I will be substantially less than the three hours.
10 JUDGE ORIE: So which brings some two hours in my mind.
11 MR. GROOME: I think, yeah.
12 JUDGE ORIE: On my mind, not yet on the clock. Yes. Could I
13 hear from the other Defence teams.
14 MR. JORDASH: It is very difficult to assess, as Mr. Groome has
15 said he has taken many measures but those measures necessarily put work
16 on us. So we've been served yesterday with a 22-page exhibit chart with
17 detailed comments upon it which we haven't even had the chance to go
18 through. The witness I think is going to make some various comments
19 about intercepts which we are not precisely sure of at this stage. And
20 so it's -- I wouldn't like to say less than three hours.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Mr. Bakrac. Mr. Petrovic.
22 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, with every possible
23 reservation my best guess would be three hours as well. Perhaps it's
24 going to be shorter than that, but perhaps we'll even have to ask you for
25 some more time.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. What about using Friday morning instead of a
2 housekeeping session?
3 MR. JORDASH: I think I would prefer that to a housekeeping
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, you would prefer that. Yes. Mr. Petrovic.
6 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Likewise, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I do therefore see that you both are available
8 Friday morning, is that the right conclusion? We'll seriously consider
9 that also in view of the witnesses we'll have to travel back.
10 [Trial Chamber confers]
11 JUDGE ORIE: Keeping in the back of our mind that we might keep
12 the Friday morning and we have a day scheduled for a housekeeping session
13 early next week, that leads the Chamber to give us guidance to the
14 parties that we like to conclude the testimony of Ms. Tabeau tomorrow and
15 Mr. Jordash time needed for that? May I urge you to ask Ms. Tabeau about
16 what is in her report and not to spend 70 per cent of your time on
17 identifying what is not in the report.
18 MR. JORDASH: Point taken, Your Honour. I think no more than 45
20 JUDGE ORIE: Which brings you well over the estimate of one hour.
21 MR. JORDASH: Actually, Your Honour, I don't want to take up too
22 much time. If I could say 30 minutes.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Let's -- if you could conclude your
24 cross-examination in 30 minutes. Mr. Farr, how much time do you think
25 you would need to re-examination? For you the same is true, let's ask
1 what we cannot read in the report and not what either we can read in the
2 report or what doesn't appear in the report because if it isn't there
3 then it's not there.
4 MR. FARR: It would be just a few minutes, Your Honour, if
6 JUDGE ORIE: Few minutes. That's taken. Then we would like to
7 see you back tomorrow at quarter past 2.00 in the afternoon, Ms. Tabeau.
8 I would like to instruct you that you should not speak nor communicate in
9 any other way with anyone about your testimony either given today or
10 given tomorrow and there's a fair chance that we would conclude hearing
11 your evidence in a little bit over half an hour. We stand adjourned and
12 we'll resume tomorrow, Wednesday, the 8th of December at quarter past
13 2.00 in this same courtroom.
14 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.03 p.m.
15 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 8th day of
16 December, 2010, at 2.15 p.m.