1 Wednesday, 8 December 2010
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 2.20 p.m.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Good afternoon to everyone. Madam Registrar, would
7 you please call the case.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. Good afternoon
9 everyone in and around the courtroom. This is the case IT-03-69-T. The
10 Prosecutor versus Jovica Stanisic and Franko Simatovic.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Tabeau, I'd like to remind you that you are
12 still bound which the solemn declaration that you've taken at the
13 beginning of your testimony. Mr. Jordash will continue and conclude his
14 cross-examination in the next 30 minutes. Mr. Jordash.
15 MR. JORDASH: Thank you, Your Honours.
16 WITNESS: EWA TABEAU [Resumed]
17 Cross-examination by Mr. Jordash: [Continued]
18 Q. Good afternoon.
19 MR. JORDASH: Could I ask that we turn please to P1661. This is
20 a proofing note prepared by the Prosecution.
21 Q. I think this is something that records some information that you
22 provided, Ms. Tabeau. And if we could go to the last page, I just want
23 to try to understand what this represents, please.
24 A. Shall I explain?
25 Q. Yes, please.
1 A. This is the list of 29 individuals that were identified on the
2 military lists in the integrated mortality database. These 29
3 individuals are also listed in the schedules to the indictment.
4 Q. And what does militaries mean, how you define that?
5 A. The lists which we call "military lists" are those that contain
6 names of fallen soldiers and other military personnel associated with the
7 Ministries of Defence of both the Federation of Bosnia-Herzegovina and
8 the Republika Srpska. These lists contain information about field
9 persons as well as about missing persons. They were made with the idea
10 of -- or for the purpose of post-mortal benefits to the families of these
12 Q. Right. And when we are looking at the second report, what is now
13 P1658, the victims' report, you accept, I think, that when looking at the
14 distinction between militaries and others, that you are not applying a
15 legal definition?
16 A. No, no, no, no. Well, it is just a simple fact. A military is a
17 person who is confirmed on the military lists. No more than that.
18 Q. And civilians are those who don't appear on the list?
19 A. That is correct.
20 Q. And you didn't, when conducting the analysis, look into the legal
21 definition of a combatant?
22 A. No, because even if I would have looked, then the information I
23 have at my disposal, I don't think it's complete enough, extensive enough
24 to apply this definition.
25 Q. And would you accept that there were more persons fighting during
1 the conflict than would have appeared on the military lists?
2 A. Well, I don't know that exactly, so the military lists I have are
3 only of missing persons and dead persons, so people who lost their lives
4 in the conflict and if you are thinking of the size of the armies, size
5 of other people associated with the armies, I don't know that.
6 Q. Well, the military --
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, could I ask you, it's suggested in your
8 question that those on the military list were fighting and I find no
9 basis for that assumption in what the witness told us because she didn't
10 say these are people that have fought during -- but just that they are on
11 that list, that's all. So therefore whether they have been fighting or
12 not and whether others have been fighting or not is not something the
13 witness apparently established. That's at least, Ms. Tabeau, how I
14 understand your testimony. Is that correctly understood?
15 THE WITNESS: Yes, this is correct. And this is what is said in
16 the report as well.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, so therefore the implied suggestion even seems
18 not to be correct. You asked would you accept that there were more
19 persons fighting during the conflict than would have appeared on the
20 military list, or did you want to ask were there more than 29 persons
21 fighting or were there more persons fighting in addition to the 29 on the
22 military list.
23 MR. JORDASH: Well, I was going a bit further and trying to look
24 into the victims' report and clarify the use of terms and who had been
25 defined, if anyone, as a combatant and who hadn't.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I do understand that this witness has not
2 formed any opinion about persons contained in the report as being
3 combatants or not and just relies on how others listed them, right or
5 THE WITNESS: Yes, that's correct.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Jordash. No, please proceed. I
7 just wanted to -- there was a suggestion implied in your question which I
8 thought was not -- was more or less denying what the witness says.
9 MR. JORDASH: There is, in the report, a distinction made by
10 witness between -- but I'll --
11 JUDGE ORIE: By the witness or by others?
12 MR. JORDASH: Well, by the witness.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Let's have a look at it and I asked you to proceed.
14 MR. JORDASH: Let's go to P1658, please. And if we could go to
15 page 15.
16 Q. Doesn't your report in general, Ms. Tabeau, try to make a
17 distinction between civilians and combatants? Am I reading this wrongly?
18 A. No, no, I'm saying in my report explicitly that the distinction
19 between civilians and militaries is not the same as civilians and
20 combatants because of the militaries we cannot say that all of them died
21 in combat as combatants. We only know that they are on the military
22 list, that means on the lists made by the authorities of the ministries
23 of defence of both political entities for the purpose of the post-mortem
24 benefits for the families, that's all. And on these lists, especially it
25 is explicit in the list related to the ABiH army, we know that there are
1 other persons, not only soldiers. We know that there is the staff of the
2 Ministry of Defence listed as well, that there are people who were
3 associated with the army in the sense that they worked in the services
4 that were provided to the armies. So these are most certainly not
5 military people and not combatants but we call the list militaries and
6 this is the best we can provide. That's all.
7 Q. Right. And amongst those who do not fall into the militaries
8 category, you didn't distinguish them either? You didn't look at which
9 civilians were combatants within those people falling outside the
10 militaries category?
11 A. Yes, that's correct. It works both directions. Yes.
12 MR. JORDASH: If we can go to page 9, please, of your report.
13 Let me just ask you a more specific question.
14 Q. Looking at the title "Military Status" you make the point there
15 that militaries does not correspond to combatants, and then go on to say:
16 "All other records in the database are considered to be
17 civilians. Note that our approach regarding the coding of soldiers
18 likely resulted in the underestimation of civilian victims of war. Among
19 the soldiers a number of them died in combat, but we have good reason to
20 believe that many died in non-combat situation; they were executed or
21 murdered and their bodies exhumed from the mass graves."
22 Now, just dealing with the first statement you make there of the
23 likely underestimation, are you suggesting that the underestimation was
24 the result of the reason given in the sentence following that, or did you
25 have other reasons in mind?
1 A. It was the second following sentence that was the main reason as
2 what the sentence says is that bodies of persons listed in military lists
3 were found in the mass graves, and considerable numbers of them were
4 found in the mass graves exhumed and identified.
5 Q. Why do you say that those found in mass graves are less likely to
6 be combatants than non-combatants?
7 A. You know, I'm thinking of the Srebrenica example which is
8 probably the most meaningful to me as I'm very familiar with it. It is
9 that there is forensic evidence for these bodies that they were not
10 killed in combat but were murdered and well, this is not my evidence, I
11 didn't produce it, there were other people, experts, forensic experts who
12 made this kind of declaration. So this is my reason for making this
14 Q. So you can only conclude an underestimation if you can then
15 identify through forensics that the civilians -- let me clarify that.
16 It's not the fact of the mass grave, it's the fact that forensic analysis
17 has taken place of bodies in a mass grave and identified them as likely
18 to have been non-combatant, is that what you are saying?
19 A. It is both. It is the mass grave and the documentation related
20 to the victims found in the mass graves.
21 Q. You didn't mention forensics in this report, did you?
22 A. No, because in this report my task was limited to providing --
23 well, I can't provide, right, I am not a forensic expert, I am a
24 statistician. I can tell you how many people were found in the mass
25 graves and how many of these who were reported on the military list were
1 found in the mass graves and it was a considerable percentage as far as I
2 remember. It was 40 per cent of the 4044 militaries that I identified in
3 this report that were confirmed in the mass graves. It is a considerable
4 number. If you go to --
5 Q. Well, that's which --
6 A. Page --
7 Q. Let's just stick with that, then. 40 per cent of the militaries
8 were identified in mass graves?
9 A. It is page 15 of the the report. The middle paragraph beginning
10 "some 4044 records." Towards the end of the paragraph: "These findings
11 are suggested about 44.7 per cent of militaries likely died in none
12 combat circumstances. The 40.7 per cent is exactly 1.644 cases."
13 Q. But we are back to the same point, what makes it more likely that
14 you will be buried in a mass grave? What are the factors which you would
15 identify which say this type of person is likely to be buried in a mass
16 grave in a conflict and this person is likely to get something more akin
17 to a normal burial?
18 A. Well, you are telling me that I must believe that people buried
19 in the mass graves just died, you know, natural deaths or died in combat
20 and are therefore buried in the mass graves? It does not make sense to
22 Q. No, why doesn't it make sense to you that combatants might be
23 buried in a mass grave?
24 A. Well, sir, I told you these questions I feel don't lead to
25 anything. I can tell you how many soldiers I identified in the military
1 lists, soldiers in the sense of the definition in this report. I can
2 further tell you about how many of them were found in the mass graves and
3 I have documentation related to the fact that they were found in the mass
4 graves and identified. But I'm not a witness who is going to testify
5 about the circumstances of their death because I cannot do that.
6 Q. No, but you have said, Mass graves make me think that we've
7 underestimated this particular figure.
8 A. Yes, this is what I said.
9 Q. So which appears to suggest, I mean, correct me if I'm wrong,
10 that you are saying, well, people who are civilians are more likely to be
11 buried in a mass grave than those engaged in combat, isn't that what you
12 are saying?
13 A. No, what I'm saying is that those who are buried in the mass
14 graves are not likely to have died in combat situations, sir, as
16 Q. That's just a reformulation of what I put. We are back to the
17 same --
18 A. So what do you want me to say?
19 Q. I'm asking you why do you think that a mass grave --
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. -- cannot contain and is not likely or is less likely to contain
22 combatants than it is civilians?
23 A. My answer was and I repeat it, based on my experience with
24 Srebrenica graves, with Srebrenica graves, the large number of soldiers
25 found in these graves, I can tell you that there is additional evidence,
1 forensic evidence that confirms these persons didn't die in combat
2 situations. That's all I'm saying. So this is my experience where I
4 Q. You extrapolated from the mass grave in Srebrenica to every mass
5 grave in the study that fall within the study that you conducted?
6 A. Well, not every mass grave, but generally, I believe this makes
7 sense --
8 Q. But what --
9 A. -- to extrapolate this experience.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, is it the position of the Defence that
11 the majority of persons found in mass graves are combatants or that it's
12 unclear? Because there may be some logic, I don't say it's compelling
13 logic, but on the basis of the evidence you find in how people, and
14 that's of course not the expertise of Ms. Tabeau, but that people that
15 were sometimes collected and brought to mass graves, which is something
16 which as far as I remember, but please correct me when I'm wrong, is not
17 often, has not often been the evidence in cases before this Tribunal, so
18 there is also a kind of a type of -- you could ask yourself whether
19 there's any common knowledge element in that.
20 MR. JORDASH: Well, this is what I was asking. We don't take a
21 position but it doesn't follow from Ms. Tabeau's report that this
22 conclusion makes -- or is well-founded. That's the only position we
24 JUDGE ORIE: The likelihood about which Ms. Tabeau talked you say
25 is based on, could I say shaky grounds or at least not established -- the
1 reasons are not clearly established, if that's what you wanted to
2 establish, I think Ms. Tabeau agreed to that and -- that it's based on
3 her experience which she relates, I do not know whether she exclusively
4 relates it to Srebrenica, but at least you relate it to your Srebrenica
5 experience. Any other experience which -- to which you relate this
6 assessment of likelihood, Ms. Tabeau?
7 THE WITNESS: Well, it is generally that missing persons, if
8 identified, they are confirmed to come from mass graves. So it is not
9 accidental that these people who are -- have been missing for such a long
10 time are not buried in normal graves. It is generally that the missing
11 persons list overlap largely with the persons with a list of persons
12 identified in exhumations.
13 JUDGE ORIE: One step in between then is people who went missing,
14 that you would not consider them to have turned into combatants at a
15 certain moment but that --
16 THE WITNESS: Why would they be missing? This is the simple
17 question. If they die in combat, these are known deads. There is no
18 need to report them as missing and have no information about where the
19 bodies are. So that's the whole thing. People who die in combat are
20 reported as known deads and we know exactly where they died and when they
21 died. End of story. But this is not the case with the missing persons
22 so it is generally, you know, Srebrenica, there is evidence, forensic
23 evidence, and this is not for 100 persons, it is for thousands of
24 persons. It is a very large group of militaries in the sense that they
25 were reported in the military lists, who at the same time are confirmed
1 in the Srebrenica mass graves and for whom not all of them, but for a
2 large per cent of them there is forensic evidence about that they didn't
3 die in combat.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Jordash.
5 MR. JORDASH:
6 Q. Do you know, Madam Tabeau, "asanacija," a-s-a-n-i-c-i-j-a?
7 A. I somehow recall the term but if you tell me what is meant under
8 this term. It comes probably from one of these documents.
9 Q. Well, I suggest to you it describes a process where dead
10 combatants are collected from the battle-field, wherever that might be,
11 and placed into mass graves.
12 A. Might be.
13 Q. You haven't heard of that?
14 A. I did hear but I don't recall exactly when, in what
16 Q. Have you heard of the process then if not of the word?
17 A. Yes, of course I heard about collecting bodies from the
18 battle-field and burying them in the graves.
19 Q. In mass graves in order to bury them quickly to prevent disease,
20 for example.
21 A. Yes, of course. I heard about it.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, you -- you asked whether the word is
23 known and then you describe it as a process where dead combatants are
24 collected from the battle-field, wherever that might be. Would the word
25 "asanacija," of course I've heard that word before in my life, I'm trying
1 to understand words and in their proper meaning, would that be limited to
2 clearing the terrain from combatants that have died or would that be a
3 more general term which would include clearing the terrain of any bodies
4 of persons who had died?
5 MR. JORDASH: Can I consult, please.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
7 [Defence counsel confer]
8 MR. JORDASH: We think it's generally used as a military term to
9 connote clearing dead combatants from the battle-field, but we cannot
10 exclude the second meaning, that it might be used to express the second.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Used as a military term, it might well be that it
12 would primarily refer to combatants but if used civilian way because
13 that's exactly what I'm pointing that, that the word "asanacija," may be
14 used in military context but I've heard that word also in more civilian
15 context, even referring, I think, to dead animals and sanitation.
16 That's -- therefore the question is not whether it's in military terms
17 used as, but the question is what does the word mean and is there any
18 difference in the meaning of that word if used in the military context or
19 in the civilian context. You'll understand that this might be a rather
20 vital matter in view of the understanding of the evidence and also in
21 view of understanding your questions. Please proceed.
22 MR. JORDASH: Thank you.
23 Q. Let's move on to another subject. I want to just clear up one
24 matter, with reference to Annex 4 of your report, yesterday you spoke
25 about what "very satisfactorily" meant in the last column, and I just
1 want to make sure that I understand what that assessment precisely
2 relates to. Are you, with that assessment, simply making the point that
3 the documentation that you've looked at leads you to conclude to a very
4 satisfactory level that the person identified is dead, or are you saying
5 more than that?
6 A. No, it is just that I'm saying -- I'm satisfied, very satisfied
7 with the documentation related to the death of this person.
8 Q. Right. You are not saying anything about the manner of death?
9 A. No.
10 Q. No. Let me take you - and I'm nearly finished - to page 15 of
11 your report.
12 A. Of the list --
13 Q. Sorry, no, of your report. The body of your report. The victim
14 report. And I want to ask you about the second paragraph there.
15 MR. JORDASH: Could we turn to that on the e-court, please. Page
16 15. The sentence I'm interested in or the paragraph is with reference to
17 the two humps which we see in relation to figure 3 on the page before.
18 And where you say:
19 "The two humps are related to war deaths of adult men of largely
20 Muslim ethnicity that normally would have been expected to die in combat,
21 this might mean that these men were killed to prevent their engagement in
22 active fighting."
23 Might it mean something else other than that?
24 A. No, it means what it says.
25 Q. You cannot think of any other explanation for those statistics,
1 for those two humps, as you refer to them?
2 A. What other explanations? I again --
3 Q. That the men were killed in fighting, for example?
4 A. Yes, that is a possibility as well, yes. I didn't study the
5 causes. The circumstances of death are not described here other than by
6 presenting certain measurements.
7 Q. Why did you then just include this sentence?
8 A. Because they are civilians, this particular chart is related to
9 the civilians. They are not listed in the military lists. These are
10 civilians by sex and age.
11 Q. Yes, but as we've acknowledged, as you have acknowledged that the
12 civilians doesn't necessarily mean non-combatant. I'm just wondering why
13 you picked out this explanation rather than a number of other
14 explanations such as they are of combat age and might have died in
16 A. Well, I don't know why I picked this one. This one seemed to be
17 more likely than other. This is probably why.
18 Q. But why is it more likely?
19 A. I don't know. To me personally it seemed more likely.
20 Q. But why though? What's the reason behind that? Why do you
21 conclude it's more likely?
22 A. Well, if they were soldiers they would be included in the other
23 chart. It's as simple as that.
24 Q. Not necessarily.
25 A. It is, you know, it is just a distribution of age and sex of the
1 victims. Civilian and military victims. No more than that.
2 Q. Okay. I'll leave it there.
3 MR. JORDASH: Can I just have a moment, please.
4 [Defence counsel confer]
5 MR. JORDASH: No further questions. Thank you, Ms. Tabeau.
6 Thank you, Your Honours.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Mr. Farr, do you have any questions in
8 re-examination for --
9 MR. FARR: Just a few, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Tabeau. Please proceed.
11 Re-examination by Mr. Farr:
12 Q. At page 10 of today's transcript you were asked about your
13 assumption that people in mass graves are non-combatants. At page 6 of
14 Annex 4 to the victims report you indicate that 3 of the 6 Skorpions
15 victims from Trnovo were militaries. Is this an example of the kind of
16 situation in which you concluded that people from mass graves might have
17 been non-combatants?
18 A. Yes, of course.
19 MR. JORDASH: That was a leading question. Extremely leading.
20 JUDGE ORIE: It certainly is, Mr. Farr. The question has been
21 answered, will you please refrain from leading.
22 MR. FARR: I will, Your Honour.
23 Q. At page 13 of today's transcript you were asked about the meaning
24 of "very satisfactory," as it appears in your chart and you indicated
25 that it referred to the quality of the documentation. Is there any
1 relationship between the documentation and the incidents?
2 A. Of course there is a relationship. This documentation relates to
3 the victims from these incidents and I believe there is -- there are also
4 witnesses who testified or will be testifying about these incidents, so
5 the documentation strictly relates to the mass graves that are related to
6 incidents reported in the indictment.
7 Q. Pages 9947 to 9948 of yesterday's transcript you were asked about
8 the percentage of Yugoslavs in the BiH population in 1991 you indicated
9 that you weren't able to recall the percentage off the top of your head.
10 Can I just direct you to footnote 10 at page 28 of the IDP's and refugees
12 A. Yes, yes, there is a table in this footnote which reports the
13 number of Yugoslavs in Bosnia and Herzegovina as a whole and also in the
14 Stanisic-Simatovic area, so as compared with other ethnic groups, the
15 numbers of Yugoslavs are much lower, of course.
16 Q. And are those numbers from which we could reliable calculate the
17 percentage of Yugoslavs?
18 A. Most certainly. Yes. These are census data. Yes.
19 MR. FARR: Your Honour, at this time I just have no more
20 questions I just have two documents to tender. They are 65 ter 5876 and
21 5877. These are Dr. Tabeau's analysis of the numbers from her data
22 related to the RS MUP survey that was admitted yesterday as P1656 and I'm
23 tendering them mostly because they are relevant to the issue raised by
24 Your Honour regarding the possibility of a change in the number of Serbs
25 related to Yugoslavs reclassifying themselves in 1995. As Dr. Tabeau has
1 testified her numbers use only the ethnicity from 1991 so that problem
2 doesn't arise here. Those documents, however, are not on our 65 ter
3 list, so I'm moving to add them at the same time.
4 JUDGE ORIE: I do understand that you want to have them admitted
5 to the 65 ter list because questions were raised in relation to this
6 matter and that now explains why you are seeking it to be added.
7 MR. FARR: That's correct.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Where you couldn't foresee that we would put those
9 questions. And then second admission, could I hear from the Defence,
10 Stanisic first.
11 MR. JORDASH: We object to the process that is being pursued to
12 put in a report, realise it's not quite what you want, and then seek to
13 add further evidence to correct and support that report. We submit
14 that's wrong in principle.
15 MR. FARR: Your Honour, if I could just respond --
16 JUDGE ORIE: Let me first ask whether the Simatovic Defence has
17 any objections.
18 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] We subscribe to what our colleague
19 Mr. Jordash said.
20 [Trial Chamber confers]
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Farr.
22 MR. FARR: Your Honour, this is not an attempt to fix the report.
23 These numbers, in fact, are not related to Dr. Tabeau's report; they are
24 related to the RS MUP survey, which addresses a large number of
25 municipalities, only one of which are overlaps with the report that
1 Dr. Tabeau prepared. This is simple evidence of the reliability of a
2 document that the witness testified about independently of her report.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Let me ask the witness for a moment. The documents
4 Mr. Farr is referring to, could they shed some light on the questions I
5 raised with you yesterday and would it assist the Chamber in better
6 understanding your answers?
7 THE WITNESS: I think, yes, because the timing in this particular
8 report is different than the timing of displacement I analysed. It is
9 1995, early 1995 that is presented in the MUP report, and already at that
10 time significant changes in the ethnic composition are identified and
11 these changes are further seen in my report in a later time, so it is
12 just a corroborating evidence to my report.
13 JUDGE ORIE: May I ask the Defence teams, in view of the last
14 answer given by the witness, I asked some questions about documents which
15 were tendered by the Prosecution. I asked for some explanations and
16 apparently the witness says that looking at this material would clarify
17 answers and would make it better understandable which even raised for me
18 the issue which I briefly discussed, consulted on that issue with my
19 colleagues, whether it would if the Prosecution would not tender it not
20 be appropriately called by the Chamber.
21 MR. JORDASH: If Your Honours feel you would be assisted by it,
22 then we couldn't possibly object.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Now, we make it very difficult to say not 65 ter but
24 called by the Chamber, would you still object against the route the
25 Prosecution suggests?
1 MR. JORDASH: No, no.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Bakrac.
3 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, under the circumstances
4 and given the explanation, we do not object either. I would only suggest
5 for the Trial Chamber that with all due respect perhaps we should ask
6 Madam Tabeau if when she was compiling the report she had an opportunity
7 to see the additional documents or was it only now when this issue
8 emerged. Just so that we may have it for the record.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Well, one thing is for certain, that Ms. Tabeau was
10 not aware of the questions I raised in relation to that material, that's
11 for sure. But if you could answer that question, Ms. Tabeau, whether you
12 had known that material for a longer period of time.
13 THE WITNESS: This material initially has been included in the
14 2003 expert report on IDP's and refugees presented in the
15 Slobodan Milosevic case and already in that report a comparison was made
16 between these figures and our figures. So it was a useful material, it
17 has been a useful material that has been presented in several reports.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but you didn't consider it of primary relevance
19 for your report you produced now.
20 THE WITNESS: It is a contextual report -- source, it's not the
21 primary source I used, yes.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Has this changed the position, not of the
23 Simatovic Defence? Leave is granted to add the two documents to the 65
24 ter list. Madam Registrar, the number for these two documents would be.
25 THE REGISTRAR: Document 5876 becomes P1663, and document 5877
1 become P1664, Your Honours.
2 JUDGE ORIE: P1663 and P1664 are admitted into evidence.
3 MR. FARR: Nothing further, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Farr, nothing further. Let me see whether ...
5 Mr. Jordash, I would have one question with the witness, I'm just looking
6 for the page with the humps. Yes, I find it already. Page 15.
7 Questioned by the Court:
8 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Tabeau, I've got two questions for you. The
9 first is more or less a follow-up from Mr. Jordash. If we would assume
10 that a lot of civilian men were engaged in active fighting, would the
11 humps look statistically approximately the same?
12 A. No, I think that we would see the picture as it is in -- for
13 militaries. So that's the typical age pattern of men who die in combat.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Then I slightly change my question. If a large
15 number of men which on the lists appear as civilian would have engaged in
16 combat activity and if only those of the usual military age would have
17 done so, would then the statistics have looked, or the graphs would they
18 have looked more or less the same?
19 A. What I'm trying to say, I must repeat my answer because the
20 militaries have a particular age pattern.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
22 A. Which is presented in figure 3 under the C.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You would say there we find --
24 A. The hump --
25 JUDGE ORIE: A lot between 20 and 24, little bit less 25, so you
1 say the distribution is.
2 A. Different. It is different.
3 JUDGE ORIE: It's different.
4 A. But there are --
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, if this is a representative sample of
7 A. Yes, that's correct.
8 JUDGE ORIE: And that's not yet established, is it?
9 A. No, no, no, absolutely not.
10 JUDGE ORIE: So therefore --
11 A. Yes.
12 JUDGE ORIE: So if C represents what would -- could be expected
13 among military apart from whether -- apart from that the military we are
14 talking about are only those registered as military and most likely quite
15 a number of them perhaps non-combatants but if it would be representative
16 then it would surprise, but we do not know.
17 A. No.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Then a second question is the two humps, why are
19 there two humps? Why -- what explains could I say the valley between the
20 first and the second, if there's an explanation for that.
21 A. Not that I have any. I don't have any. This is what I see and
22 this is not often that I see this kind of pattern. So I unfortunately
23 don't have any explanation. It is as it was.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Unexplained why there are two humps and why there's
25 a little valley in between them.
1 A. I don't know.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
3 Has the questions in re-examination or the questions by the Bench
4 triggered any need for further questions?
5 MR. JORDASH: I'm not sure in relation to a question that
6 Mr. Farr asked and it relates to the expert's conclusion concerning "very
7 satisfactory." The witness appeared to say "very satisfactory" just
8 related to the fact of death. The Prosecution's question seem to open up
9 the issue again and with the implication that "very satisfactory" meant
10 somehow that that conclusion related to the circumstances of the death as
11 alleged in the indictment. If the former is correct, then I have no
12 questions. If the second is the situation, then I would like to clarify
13 that with the witness.
14 JUDGE ORIE: The witness has heard your hesitation, perhaps we
15 would invite her to explain herself in what exactly is and what is not
16 included in this column where "satisfactory" or "very satisfactory" is
18 A. Yes. The answer -- my written answer, comment in the column in
19 the chart, last column in the chart, of course, relates to the
20 documentation, the purpose of my project was to assess the documentation,
21 reliability how it is associated with everyone victim and I receive the
22 documentation from the Prosecution. I did not collect these exhumation
23 reports, identification report, autopsies, et cetera myself. However, in
24 several of these documents, there is mention of the incidents in which
25 these people were killed and to which events exhumation reports are
1 related. So from this point of view, this documentation is obviously,
2 obviously related to the incidents in the indictment, but of course, I'm
3 not the witness who witnessed the circumstances of death of those
5 JUDGE ORIE: You would say how reliable that presented linkage
6 between the incident and the report is, you have not formed your own
7 opinion about that, you just were satisfied that if there's a report, an
8 autopsy report or other report, that by names, by places, et cetera, it
9 matched with what you found there and whether these were forgeries, or
10 whether these were -- you have not verified it in any way?
11 A. Well, I assess the documents.
12 JUDGE ORIE: On face value.
13 A. I didn't make the documents myself, I received the document from
14 the authorities through the Prosecution team, but I'm familiar with the
15 standard form of the documents and with the authorities who issued these
16 documents. I myself spoke with these authorities several times on my
17 missions to Bosnia and Herzegovina. So from this point of view, I was in
18 the position to make an assessment of the authenticity and reliability of
19 these documents. However, as I'm saying, I'm not a witness who can
20 testify about circumstances of death, but obviously the documents as
21 presented to me relate directly to the incidents in the indictment.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, does this sufficiently clarify, if
23 not --
24 MR. JORDASH: No, that's sufficiently clarified. Thank you.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Which means that this concludes your
1 evidence, Ms. Tabeau. I'd like to thank you very much for coming and for
2 answering all the questions that were put to you by the parties and by
3 the Bench and I wish you a safe return home.
4 THE WITNESS: Thank you very much.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Usher, could you please escort Ms. Tabeau out of
6 the courtroom.
7 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
8 [The witness withdrew]
9 JUDGE ORIE: Is the Prosecution ready to call its next witness
10 who will testify in closed session?
11 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour, the Prosecution calls JF-029.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Then we turn into closed session.
13 [Closed session]
11 Pages 10003-10062 redacted. Closed session.
8 [Open session]
9 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session, Your Honours.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
11 We adjourn for the day. We'll resume on Thursday, the 9th of
12 December, that is tomorrow, quarter past 2.00 in this same courtroom, but
13 we'll most likely turn into closed session immediately after we have
14 started. We stand adjourned.
15 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 6.58 p.m.
16 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 9th day of
17 December, 2010, at 2.15 p.m.