Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 9612

 1                           Wednesday, 9 February 2011

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           --- Upon commencing at 9.02 a.m.

 5             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Good morning to everybody.

 6             Mr. Gajic, I see you on your feet.

 7             MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] Good morning to everybody.

 8             Your Honour, the Defence has a request.  Yesterday with the

 9     witness Acimovic, we used two documents, 65 ter 2063, and 65 ter 2064.

10     Those documents have been used in the previous proceedings and they were

11     part of the package according to 92 ter submitted by the Prosecution.

12     Those documents were used yesterday in the courtroom with the witness,

13     and we would like to tender them.

14             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Gajic, I don't have the documents with me.

15     We will come back to that later.  I think that was an omission due to

16     the -- the end of the hearing of yesterday.

17             At this point in time, I would like to deal with another matter

18     related to exhibits, in relation to the witness we are hearing today.

19             The Chamber is seized of the Prosecution's supplemental motion

20     for leave to amend its 65 ter exhibit list with two additional exhibits

21     filed on the 3rd of February.  By its motion, the Prosecution requests

22     leave to supplement its Rule 65 ter exhibit list to add two demographic

23     reports prepared by Witness Dr. Helge Brunborg in April 2009.

24             On Monday, Mr. Gajic, on behalf of Mr. Tolimir, orally responded

25     to this motion.  Mr. Gajic submits that the motion should be denied

Page 9613

 1     because the Prosecution's request is already contained in Prosecution

 2     confidential notice filed on 26th November 2009 and the motion is, thus,

 3     moot.  Further, he argues that he is awaiting a decision on the said

 4     notice and the accused's notice filed on 14th of January 2010.  Finally,

 5     he states that the accused does not accept Dr. Brunborg's reports and he

 6     wishes to cross-examine him.

 7             Following this oral response, the Prosecution replied,

 8     Mr. McCloskey argues that the accused has been on notice of

 9     Dr. Brunborg's two reports for a long time.  The Chamber first notes that

10     according to the 26th of November, 2009, Prosecution supplemental notice,

11     the two reports of Dr. Brunborg are updates of his reports created for

12     the Karadzic case on the 9th of April, 2009, after the filing of the

13     Prosecution's notice -- first notice filed on the 13th of March, 2009.

14             The Trial Chamber is of the view that these reports which are

15     updated versions of his prior reports are prima facie relevant to this

16     case and of probative value.

17             Further, by decision of the Chamber on 3rd of November, 2009, the

18     transcript of Dr. Brunborg's testimony and his associated exhibit were

19     provisionally admitted pursuant to Rule 92 ter which guarantees the

20     accused the right of cross-examining Dr. Brunborg.  That is why

21     Mr. Brunborg is scheduled to testify today pursuant to Rule 92 ter.

22             While the two reports are quite voluminous, the first report is

23     105 pages long and the second report is 239 pages long, since the filing

24     of the aforementioned notice, the accused has been notified of their

25     intended use with Dr. Brunborg even though they have not been added to

Page 9614

 1     the 65 ter exhibit list until now.  In this respect, the Chamber

 2     emphasises that the primary purpose of the 65 ter exhibit list is to give

 3     notice to the accused and his Defence team so that he can prepare his

 4     Defence and that by simply disclosing the material to the accused and his

 5     Defence team, the Prosecution does not fulfil its obligation under

 6     Rule 65 ter (E)(iii).  Yet, in the specific circumstances of this case,

 7     the Chamber considers that the Prosecution showed good cause for seeking

 8     the addition of the reports and that the accused is not unduly burdened

 9     by the addition at this stage of the proceedings.  For these reasons, the

10     Chamber finds that it is in the interests of justice to grant the

11     addition of the two reports to the 65 ter exhibit list.

12             The motion is thereby granted.

13             If there are no matters to raise, the witness should be brought

14     in, please.

15                           [The witness entered court]

16             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Good morning, sir.  Please take the earphones.

17             Welcome to the Tribunal again.  Would you please read aloud the

18     affirmation on the card which is shown to you now.

19             THE WITNESS:  Thank you.  I solemnly declare that I will speak

20     the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

21                           WITNESS:  HELGE BRUNBORG

22             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you very much.  Please sit down and make

23     yourself comfortable.

24             Mr. McCloskey has questions for you during his

25     examination-in-chief.

Page 9615

 1             Mr. McCloskey.

 2             MR. McCLOSKEY:  Thank you, Mr. President, and good morning.  Good

 3     morning, everyone.

 4                           Examination by Mr. McCloskey:

 5        Q.   And good morning, Mr. Brunborg.  Can you start off by just

 6     telling us your full name.

 7        A.   Helge, H-e-l-g-e.

 8        Q.   And your last name?

 9        A.   Brunborg, spelled B-r-u-n-b-o-r-g.

10        Q.   All right.  And as we'll soon go through a summary, you've

11     testified many times here at the OTP as a demographic expert for the

12     Prosecution; is that correct?

13        A.   That's correct.

14        Q.   And for this particular case have you had a chance to review your

15     testimony in the Popovic et al case?

16        A.   I've looked at it, yes.

17        Q.   And but for perhaps some updated data and information, would your

18     answers basically be the same, if you were asked the same questions

19     again?

20        A.   Of course.

21        Q.   All right.

22             MR. McCLOSKEY:  And Mr. President, at this time I have a series

23     of documents from the prior testimony to offer.  I have spoken briefly to

24     the Court Officer and it would -- it would begin with 65 ter 06660, which

25     is the transcript of Popovic.

Page 9616

 1             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  We'll deal with that first and admit it into

 2     evidence.

 3             It will be admitted.

 4             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit numbers will be assigned and a memo will

 5     be circulated at a later stage.  Thank you.

 6             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  But the Popovic transcript should have an exhibit

 7     number now, please.

 8             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, this document shall be assigned

 9     Exhibit P1774.  Thank you.

10             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you very much.

11             MR. McCLOSKEY:  And, Mr. President, we have a total of 29 such

12     exhibits that will be handled as the Court Officer just stated.

13             The 2009 reports that were just the subject of your ruling, I

14     will -- I will get to and ask briefly about the witness and so we'll get

15     the numbers when they come up if -- if you would agree with that.

16             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  That's fine.

17             MR. McCLOSKEY:  And I have a -- for this witness a relatively

18     short summary, Mr. President, and the testimony will be a bit longer than

19     perhaps some of the 92 ter testimonies just because of the subject

20     matter, and because the discussions with Mr. Gajic, the great interest

21     the Defence has.  I think it's a good idea to hear from the witness.  And

22     I encourage you to interrupt me at any time with questions on this

23     material, and so that it is as clear as possible.  I'll try to hit the

24     high points, but I'm sure I won't hit everything and that you may be

25     interested in.

Page 9617

 1             And I hope not to take two hours.  Dr. Brunborg and I have done

 2     this before and we should be able to be much lower than that, I hope.

 3     But we'll see.

 4             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you very much for that.  It is appreciated.

 5             MR. McCLOSKEY:  Okay.  And so the summary is:  Dr. Brunborg is an

 6     economist and demographer by profession and is employed as a senior

 7     researcher in the statistics department of the Norwegian national

 8     institute statistics, known as Statistics Norway.  He has primarily

 9     worked on projects for Statistics Norway but has also worked on

10     demographics projects in Palestine, Mozambique, Botswana, Bangladesh,

11     Albania, and in Afghanistan for the United Nations Fund for Population

12     Activities as well as other international projects.

13             From June 1997 through the end of 1998, Dr. Brunborg worked for

14     the Office of the Prosecutor for the ICTY.  He was first tasked with

15     collecting and evaluating data on population changes in Bosnia and

16     Herzegovina from the war period, 1992 through 1995.  In late 1998 or

17     early 1999, Dr. Brunborg was asked by the Office of the Prosecutor to

18     compile a list of missing persons related to the events in Srebrenica in

19     July of 1995.  Dr. Brunborg has testified regarding his work for the OTP

20     in ICTY trials of Krstic, Blagojevic, Milosevic, Perisic, Milutinovic,

21     Popovic, and Djordjevic.  His first Srebrenica missing report was

22     completed in 2000, and he updated that report in 2005 and worked with OTP

23     demographer Ewa Tabeau in the latest report finalised in 2009, which will

24     be the subject of some additional questions.

25             To form the list of Srebrenica missing persons, Dr. Brunborg

Page 9618

 1     relied on his analysis of the list of missing persons from Bosnia and

 2     Herzegovina generated by the International Committee of the Red Cross,

 3     and the list of missing persons compiled by the NGO, Physicians for Human

 4     Rights.  Dr. Brunborg extracted from those two lists those individuals

 5     whose disappearance was related to the fall of Srebrenica.  That is,

 6     those individuals who were reported missing by family members on or after

 7     11 July 1995 from locations around Srebrenica.  He received those

 8     directions from the Srebrenica OTP team.

 9             In his analysis to determine the accuracy of the ICRC and PHR

10     missing lists, Dr. Brunborg used various data sources, including the 1991

11     census conducted in the former Yugoslavia, a voters' registration list

12     collected by the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe in

13     1997 and on later dates.  In addition, he used the BiH army records of

14     fallen soldiers, ICMP DNA identification records for Srebrenica-related

15     victims and other records, as noted in his reports.

16             As part of his work, Dr. Brunborg reviewed and analysed claims

17     made by various groups.  It claimed that the number of missing from

18     Srebrenica was exaggerated in the ICRC list, some of those claims

19     included the following: Large numbers of persons on the missing list

20     were, in fact, alive and were on the voters' registration list of 1996;

21     number 2, large numbers of persons on the missing list had died before

22     the fall of Srebrenica and were thus not related to the fall of

23     Srebrenica; 3, large numbers of BiH soldiers from Srebrenica went missing

24     or died before the fall of Srebrenica and were thus not related to the

25     fall of Srebrenica.

Page 9619

 1             Dr. Brunborg did not find any substance to any of the above

 2     claims or any other such claim.

 3             Dr. Brunborg found no indication of any missing reports of

 4     fictitious persons on the part of Muslims who reported their relatives

 5     missing to ICRC and PHR.

 6             In his 12 February 2000 report, his first report, Dr. Brunborg

 7     concluded that at least 7.475 persons were missing or dead from

 8     Srebrenica, and in his most recent report of 9 April 2009, Dr. Brunborg

 9     has concluded that at least 7.905 people were missing or dead.

10             Dr. Brunborg testified in Popovic that the process of determining

11     the total number of persons who were missing or dead after the fall of

12     Srebrenica is an ongoing process and that new data, exhumations and

13     identification would likely increase the number of missing persons.

14        Q.   All right.  And, Dr. Brunborg, you have gone over your experience

15     and the -- defined your field in your previous testimony so I won't ask

16     you to get into that.

17             But one thing you do state is that your work in the Tribunal led

18     you to develop a new area of -- in the field of demography called the

19     demography of conflicts.  And can you briefly tell us what this

20     demography of conflicts is and how it is related to your previous work in

21     statistics and demography work.

22        A.   Thank you.  First, I wouldn't take responsibility for developing

23     that area myself.  There are many people who have worked in the field.

24     But it came -- became clear that in conflict areas the problems regarding

25     data and methods are special and unique and often very difficult, and

Page 9620

 1     that there was a need to place special attention on these issues.  So

 2     that's why we -- we organised a seminar on conflict demography in 2003

 3     which resulted in two special issues of well-known journals and "Journal

 4     of Peace Research" and the "European Journal of Population" and a book on

 5     conflict demography edited by me and my co-author here, Ewa Tabeau, and

 6     previous co-worker, Henrik Urdal.  In this way, I have been chairing a

 7     working group or a panel of the International Union for the Scientific

 8     Study of Population on these issues.  At conferences -- there have been

 9     special demography conferences.  There have been several sessions on the

10     demography of conflict which has received many contributions.  As you

11     know, there are many conflicts in the world and there is often a need to

12     estimate the fatalities, infant mortality in conflict areas, refugees,

13     even how fertility births, and migrations and marriages are affected by

14     conflicts.

15             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  May I ask you for a clarification.  You mentioned

16     two people with whom you edited this journal.  One was Ewa Tabeau and the

17     other name is missing on the record, and, therefore, I would like to ask

18     you to repeat the name.

19             THE WITNESS:  Excuse me.  The other name was Henrik Urdal, who

20     worked with me here in 1999 and co-authored the report mentioned by

21     Mr. McCloskey which was published -- not published but was finished in

22     2000 and used in the Krstic trial.

23             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you very much.

24             MR. McCLOSKEY:

25        Q.   Okay.  Now as we know, the task that you were asked to perform

Page 9621

 1     was to look at the ICRC lists, the PHR lists and evaluate them to create

 2     a credible missing list of people that went missing in Srebrenica.

 3             And, again briefly, what was it about your profession as a

 4     demographer that qualified you to be able to review and analyse

 5     critically the ICRC missing list?  Just the high points so the Court

 6     understands why you were called on for this task and why you may be

 7     qualified to take it on.

 8        A.   Thank you.  I think there were two reasons:  First, my general

 9     education and training and experience in demography.  It is important to

10     understand and have knowledge about demographic processes or which death

11     is an important and a final process, of course.  And, second, my

12     experience in Norway and many other countries working with data on

13     individuals.  Especially in Norway we do a lot of demographic work based

14     on registers, administrative registers, and we match data on individuals

15     from different sources to come up with the research and analysis.  For

16     example, we may match records on deaths by -- with other records on

17     education to study how education is related to mortality or the other way

18     around, actually.  And so I thought it was useful to have this experience

19     on working with data on individuals to work here, and that was the

20     approach taken right from the beginning, that it's important to collect

21     and analysis data on individuals because it is, in a way, more difficult

22     to lie with data on individuals.

23             During the war, the conflicts in Bosnia, there were many numbers

24     floating around on the number of deaths.  When I arrived, there were

25     numbers ranging from as low as 20.000 deaths for all of Bosnia for all

Page 9622

 1     ethnicities, of course.  Two more than 300.000.  And they could not all

 2     be true, and many of these have been collected by adding press reports

 3     and other reports, number of victims and such and such an incident added

 4     together and methods of prorating and other methods to estimate deaths in

 5     areas where they did not have any data, which I did not have any data

 6     for.  And so they were added together, and, as I said, widely different

 7     estimates, that is one of the reasons why the Tribunal wanted somebody

 8     with experience in population statistics and demographic to look at the

 9     data.

10        Q.   All right.  And as came out, I think, in the last trial your --

11     most of your experience was from -- working for Statistics Norway on

12     Norwegian material and I think you've testified that in Norway each

13     person in the census has a number and things are fairly well organised,

14     the population is relatively small and it's a much, much different world

15     than the former Yugoslavia.

16             Were you able to take your experience from that Norwegian society

17     and adapt it to what you had described coming out of the war with

18     different numbers and press reports?

19        A.   Definitely.  First, I would say that I also have experience in

20     countries with efficient data, like Botswana and the census there.  But

21     there are many similarities between Norway and Bosnia.  The population is

22     about the same, between 4 and 5 -- population size, between 4 and 5

23     million.  Botswana, as the rest of the former Yugoslavia, has regular

24     censuses of reasonably good quality.  They even have a personal

25     identification number introduced in the former Yugoslavia in 1981.  And

Page 9623

 1     which would be then a good basis for linking records from different

 2     sources.

 3        Q.   All right.  We'll get into that a little bit -- a little bit

 4     later.  Let me just jump right into it.  When you were tasked with

 5     creating this Srebrenica list, who gave you the, basically, guide-line

 6     that it should be people gone missing from 11 July and beyond, in certain

 7     areas around Srebrenica?  Where -- who gave you that guide-line in your

 8     tasking?

 9        A.   That was investigators at OTP.

10        Q.   Okay.  And was that part of the team that I was a legal officer

11     on?

12        A.   Yes.

13        Q.   Okay.  All right.  And first, can you briefly tell the

14     Trial Chamber what this ICRC list is and how it was created, just briefly

15     so they understand what it is that you're going to be evaluating.

16        A.   ICRC is the a humanitarian organisation based in Switzerland,

17     International Committee of the Red Cross, and they collect such lists

18     to -- in conflict situations basically to make it possible to people to

19     find each other.  Again, when in a war -- in a conflict, and many

20     families are split, and it's difficult to know where people are.  Some

21     are arrested, some are dead, some are just fleeing to another part of the

22     country or to another country altogether.  And before Internet and cell

23     phones it was very difficult to locate people, so that is one major

24     reason why the ICRC started to collect data on -- in all over the former

25     Yugoslavia, and especially in Bosnia, and especially on Srebrenica after

Page 9624

 1     the fall of Srebrenica in July 1995.

 2        Q.   Do you roughly know how long ICRC has been taking -- doing this

 3     kind of work in conflict situations?

 4        A.   I don't know.  But Henry Dunant established the ICRC, I think,

 5     more than 100 years ago.  And when they started establishing such lists,

 6     I don't know.  Sorry.

 7        Q.   Okay.  And can you describe the list itself and how it was

 8     created by -- how they actually did it.

 9        A.   Excuse me.

10             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  At this point in time, you should drink some

11     water, it helps.  And I would like to draw your attention on the

12     reporter's, court reporter's note, it is -- you are using the same

13     language and therefore you should pause between question and answer.

14     Otherwise, it is very difficult for the report and especially for the

15     interpreters who have to interpreter all what you are saying into

16     different languages.

17             Now you may answer the question, if you recall.

18             THE WITNESS:  And may you repeat the question, please.

19             MR. McCLOSKEY:

20        Q.   Yes.  Can you just basically tell us how this list was put

21     together.

22        A.   Soon after the fall of Srebrenica, the ICRC started -- they

23     established some kind of office in Tuzla and relatives could come to them

24     and register family members that were lost, they were missing, that they

25     hadn't seen since the fall of Srebrenica.  And they continued in Tuzla

Page 9625

 1     and Sarajevo and other parts of Bosnia for several years.  In fact, they

 2     still continue to collect data on missing persons.

 3        Q.   And is their report -- was it published publicly?

 4        A.   Yes.  Several lists have been published.  First on paper in those

 5     days.  There was no Internet.  And thick books with names of more than

 6     7.000, or, for all of Bosnia, many more people missing in Bosnia.

 7        Q.   And what was the basic information they took besides obviously

 8     the name of the missing relative?  What else did they get -- did they try

 9     to get from the relative?

10        A.   Well, I'm taking a break as requested by the Judge.

11             First name and last name, of course, of the missing family

12     member, then father's name.  The dates they last saw the person alive or

13     the -- they heard that -- or the date the person died if they knew that.

14     The place where they believe that the person went missing or the last

15     place seen missing.  And place of birth.  And place of residence.  Was

16     the basic -- and gender also.

17        Q.   And can you tell us what problems you came across in the accuracy

18     of some of that data as you were studying it?

19        A.   The first thing - excuse me - the first thing we did was to look

20     for duplicates to see if somebody has been wrongly registered twice or

21     more.  And we did find some duplicates.  In a chaotic situation it is no

22     surprise that often, say, two different family members come forward and

23     register the same person twice, sometimes with slightly different

24     information.  One may remember the date of birth more accurately than the

25     other person.  So it is difficult to find these duplicates.  But we

Page 9626

 1     managed to find them using various methods.  That was a problem.

 2             And date of birth was not always complete or accurate because,

 3     again, in a chaotic situation, people did not always remember their

 4     family member's exact date of birth.  Usually they remember the year of

 5     birth, it is it missing for very few people but the exact date is not

 6     always known.  Those were the major problems.

 7        Q.   All right.  In the summary I mentioned, another list that you had

 8     said you used, the Physicians for Human Rights, or the PHR list, can you

 9     briefly describe -- the Court has heard about PHR as an NGO that supplied

10     pathologists for the exhumations, but can you tell what did PHR do in

11     this context, just briefly?

12        A.   You may have been told that their goal was quite different.

13     Their goal was to help families identify lost and killed family members.

14     So they created a so-called antemortem database.  And they collected --

15     they started collecting the data on Srebrenica in 1996 and collecting

16     more detailed information on, say, physical appearance of the persons

17     missing, especially clothing, special other characteristics about teeth

18     and other issues to help in the identification of exhumed bodies.

19             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  May I interrupt for a moment.  Do you have any

20     problem with the seat, with the chair you are sitting on?

21             THE WITNESS:  Does it look like?

22             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Yes, it looks like.  That you are struggling with

23     the chair.  Perhaps the Court Usher can assist you with fixing some parts

24     of it.

25             THE WITNESS:  It is leaning backwards too much, I think.

Page 9627

 1             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  This is the problem I realise.

 2             THE WITNESS:  Yes, for -- I sort of become more relaxed and ...

 3             Okay.  That is better.

 4             Thank you, Your Honour, for making my position better.

 5             MR. McCLOSKEY:

 6        Q.   All right.  So how long was PHR seeing relatives and taking this

 7     information you've just described?

 8        A.   For a couple of years, I believe.  I think they finished their

 9     work in 1998 or 1999.  The reason could possibly be funding problems.

10     But their database still exists and the data are used by other

11     organisations.

12        Q.   Did you get full computerised access to that data?

13        A.   Yes.

14        Q.   And did you get eventually access in a computerised electronic

15     format of the ICRC missing lists and its various updates?

16        A.   That is correct.

17        Q.   And did the PHR data have similar problems that you just

18     described for the ICRC data?

19        A.   Yes and no.  The -- there were not as many duplicates, as far as

20     I remember.  I don't know if there were any, but we checked.  The data --

21     the date of birth was complete in more cases and perhaps even correct in

22     more cases because the data were collected in more -- in a more calm

23     situation when not right after women had fled from Srebrenica.  So people

24     came forward and perhaps they had some documents to show the -- the exact

25     date of birth and so on.

Page 9628

 1        Q.   All right.  So for your initial work, what did you do with these

 2     two reports to make a one -- one list?

 3        A.   Well, first, we had several versions of the ICRC missing lists,

 4     so we had to merge those.  They were -- they were mostly overlapping but

 5     they were from different years and so there were some additional names.

 6     So we merged -- actually, merged all the lists.  We had two lists from

 7     the ICRC and two from PHR.  So we merged all these lists, removing all

 8     overlap and comparing information.

 9        Q.   And did you make an effort, as you have previously described, to

10     get rid of any duplicates from PHR and ICRC?

11        A.   Yes, we did.  But it was not always straightforward to know which

12     of the duplicates, pair of duplicate records, we should delete because

13     sometimes the information was different, and we -- we had to give some

14     attention to that also.

15        Q.   Was the -- was there another data source that helped you solve

16     that problem or determine whether these people on the list were actually

17     real people?

18        A.   Yes.  Fortunately for us there was a census in 1991, 31st of

19     March, right before the war broke out in all of Yugoslavia and in Bosnia.

20     And we got hold of a -- an electronic data base, data files for that

21     census with the name, date of birth, et cetera, for everybody in -- who

22     lived in the country in -- on the 31st of March, 1991.  The census was

23     taken in more quiet circumstances and we believe that the -- many of the

24     data items were a better quality in the census including the date of

25     birth.  Moreover, it was complete, so if there were -- say we were

Page 9629

 1     worried about duplicates whether two records that were almost the same,

 2     whether they represented one person or two different persons, we could

 3     check in the census to see whether there were two persons with almost the

 4     same information.  Say, same name, same father's name but slightly

 5     different dates of birth.  But there were also problems with the census.

 6     The most serious problem was that the names were often misspelled.  The

 7     reason for that is that scanning was used.  There were the -- enumerators

 8     used forms and wrote down the names of all the household members,

 9     afterwards the names were scanned but not corrected, and scanners did not

10     always read all handwriting, so some -- there were many errors.  But when

11     we looked up visually, we could check the errors but doing -- and related

12     develop methods to correct and improve the -- the names, the spelling of

13     the names.

14        Q.   Can you give the Court an idea, I think you testified about it

15     before, that no census is perfect.  Can you give us an idea of roughly

16     how accurate you think the census of the former Yugoslavia was for the

17     millions of households that would have had to -- or millions of people

18     that it would have had to try to account for -- just roughly, to get an

19     idea of -- for us.

20        A.   Well, I could not give you a number on the accuracy.  There's

21     often in censuses, there's something called a post-enumeration survey

22     where they go back to a sample of households and interview again and then

23     compare the first census to check the records, but this was not done in

24     Bosnia, perhaps partly because of the conflict that started in 1991.

25     And -- but generally I would say the quality is good.  Some of the

Page 9630

 1     problems are that -- what about people who are absent?  Some people were

 2     living abroad and were included.  It depends whether the census is

 3     based -- taken on the de facto or de jure basis.

 4        Q.   And can you describe -- I believe your early work in 2000, you

 5     have testified you did not use the census for all the people on the list.

 6     But as your work continued, you used the census more and more.

 7             Can you describe that?  So by the time we get to 2009, how were

 8     you using the census to -- to double-check the -- your list?

 9        A.   As I said, because of all the spelling mistakes, due to the

10     scanning of the census forms, we could not do an automatic computer-used

11     matching or the list of missing persons with the census in 2000.  But we

12     developed methods to correct the spelling.  And one was that in a

13     households -- in one household, different persons usually have the same

14     surname, and if they were spelled differently, and we knew that one or

15     two of them was a correct name, we changed -- we corrected the other

16     names.  Say, if Ljubic is a common name and Lj was often misinterpreted

17     as a Q, so then we change Q to Lj, and there were many similar.  Music

18     was sometimes spelled with a V, Mvsic, so then we changed the V to a U.

19     And then we get a much higher correspondence between the names in the

20     census and the missing list, and we could do an automatic matching and

21     find out much more, instead of checking just individuals as we had done

22     in 2000.

23        Q.   All right.  And did you get another major data source from a

24     group by the name of ICMP that assisted your work?

25        A.   Yes, gradually.  But I would also like to mention that -- another

Page 9631

 1     group that is, the -- that -- we got data from and that is the OSCE,

 2     Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, which provided us

 3     with a list of registered voters in 1997 and 1998.  Also by name even

 4     identification number.  And the reason for being interested in that is

 5     that we wanted to see if some of the missing persons were -- survived the

 6     war and were wrongly registered missing, and if they registered to vote

 7     they were -- they were obviously not dead.

 8             So we did compare the missing list with the voters' list.  But

 9     you asked about the ICMP, International Commission for Missing Persons,

10     and they started their work for doing exhumations or doing DNA analysis

11     of exhumed bodies and comparing the DNA profiles with blood samples of

12     family members of missing members -- missing persons.

13        Q.   All right.

14             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. McCloskey, I would to put a question to

15     clarify one thing.

16             MR. McCLOSKEY:  Please.

17             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  How were the list of the voters for this -- yeah,

18     for the voters in 1997 and 1998 compiled?  What was, for the national

19     authorities, the source on which they really could rely?  Did they count

20     the people and then register, or just did they take over the information

21     from previous lists?

22             THE WITNESS:  People had to come forward and register to vote.

23     But they had to be enumerated in 1991, so all the registration places

24     had -- had the census of 1991 and then people could prove their identity

25     and say, I'm such and such a person.  And if they were then found on the

Page 9632

 1     1991 census list, okay, then they were ticked off as a registered voter.

 2     Those who were not enumerated in 1991, they had to prove their identity

 3     and that they lived in Bosnia and had the right to vote.

 4             So people had to come forward to register.

 5             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  They had to show up personally and this is a

 6     clear indication that they really were alive at that time; is that

 7     correct?

 8             THE WITNESS:  Yes.  If they were missing persons who did that.

 9             But, of course, it could be that some people, to gain political

10     influence, used a missing person's identity or for other reasons.  It

11     could also be that when somebody showed up to register that the person

12     doing the registration ticked off the wrong person.  But we -- we can go

13     into the -- later into the results of that comparison.

14             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you.

15             Mr. McCloskey.

16             MR. McCLOSKEY:  Thank you.

17        Q.   When the person would come in to register, were they registering,

18     do you recall, with the OSCE official or with a government official?

19        A.   I'm not quite sure what they did.  I think obviously they were

20     Bosnians doing the registration, but whether they were official OSCE was

21     running these registration stations or not, I'm not quite sure.  I think

22     OSCE oversaw the whole thing so I think they were in charge.

23        Q.   All right.  And so you had the compiled lists that you worked on

24     from PHR and ICRC of people that had gone missing 11 July and onward.

25     Then you took these voters' list to compare to your lists to determine

Page 9633

 1     what, again, so it is perfectly clear?

 2        A.   Yes, we matched then the missing persons with the voters' list to

 3     see if there were any survivors.  We did find nine persons in 2000 who

 4     were on both lists.  So either they were not missing, they were not dead,

 5     at least.  Or there was some kind of voter registration.  So to be on the

 6     safe side, we deleted those nine records from the missing lists.

 7             Later it has been shown that one of them a has been found --

 8     identified as dead through DNA analysis and the remaining eight on that

 9     list, we don't know.  It's an unresolved issue.

10        Q.   But because it was unresolved, did you -- you took those people

11     off your lists so they're not reflected in the final number; is that

12     correct?

13        A.   Yes.  And in later analysis with comparing missing with displaced

14     person, et cetera, more people were found.  I think up to 26 possible

15     matches.  And all those where there was a slight suspicious that these

16     were survivors who were living, we took them off the lists.  But we were

17     careful to check that these were really true matches and we did not

18     confuse person with almost the same characteristics.

19        Q.   Especially given the allegation they were people alive and voting

20     on your list, I would like you to be able to explain that match process

21     in a little more detail like you have before.

22             MR. McCLOSKEY:  So could we go to 00543, 65 ter number.

23             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  At this point in time, I would like to put on the

24     record a correction.  The transcript of the Popovic case was assigned

25     today on page 5, lines 5 and 6, with the wrong exhibit number.  The right

Page 9634

 1     number should be P1774, instead of 177 -- sorry, I misspoke again.

 2     Should be 1775, instead of 1774.  I think now it's correct on the record.

 3             THE WITNESS:  Could you please enlarge the version I see on the

 4     screen or do I do it or ...

 5             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  No, it will be done.

 6             THE WITNESS:  Okay.  Thank you.

 7             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Just a moment.  If you need --

 8             THE WITNESS:  It's okay now.

 9             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Okay.

10             THE WITNESS:  Do you want me to go through that exhibit?

11             MR. McCLOSKEY:

12        Q.   Well, let me, first of all, ask you is this basically something

13     out of your report on from your testimony last time?

14        A.   It's out of the 2005 report.

15        Q.   Okay.  We see this as an example of a false match and so can you

16     explain it and -- if we can blow up the English, it -- I think it's such

17     a basic document that I -- I trust the --

18        A.   Thank you.

19             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  I would like to ask Mr. Tolimir if this is

20     sufficient or do you need the B/C/S version at the same time on the

21     screen?

22             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.  I would

23     like to greet everybody who is present here in the courtroom and I hope

24     that this trial will end in accordance with God's will and not my will.

25             Now, one thing, if we are talking generally here we should then

Page 9635

 1     check the pairs to see if there are some differences with the B/C/S

 2     version.

 3             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  I think to deal with that the best way is that

 4     you will receive a hard copy of the B/C/S version and then you can

 5     compare.  Otherwise, it is really very small and illegible.  The

 6     Court Officer will provide you with a hard copy.

 7             MR. McCLOSKEY:  And I think as we can see it is mostly Bosnian

 8     names and it's self-explanatory data, so ...

 9             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Tolimir is receiving a hard copy of the B/C/S

10     version now.

11             Please carry on.

12             MR. McCLOSKEY:

13        Q.   So, Dr. Brunborg, could you explain this a bit.  We see the -- we

14     have a Delic from the ICRC list and from the voters' register list of

15     1997, and then we have two people with the same name from the census.

16     Tell us about why this is a false match and how you figured that out?

17        A.   Well, at the first glance this looks -- the Abdulah Delic on the

18     ICRC missing list, born in 1995, there is also Abdulah Delic, born in

19     1995, on the voters' register.  So at the first glance, this looks like

20     it's the same person.

21             But then we notice that the father's name, Husein, is not given

22     in the voters' register and we looked up the census and we found that,

23     indeed, there were two Abdulah Delic born in 1995 who were enumerated in

24     1991.  And there's the first Abdulah Delic has a father called Husein,

25     the other person's father was Kemal.  And they also had different

Page 9636

 1     identity numbers -- identification numbers, 183920 and 183954 for the

 2     other one.

 3             So we concluded that they represent different persons and that

 4     Abdulah Delic, whose father is Husein, is not on the list of -- on the

 5     voters' list and cannot be suspected of, if you like, being alive in

 6     1997.

 7        Q.   So is it fair, then, to say that you kept Abdulah Delic on your

 8     list and counted him as a missing person?

 9        A.   Exactly.

10        Q.   All right.  Let's go to another part of your report, 00542, which

11     you've used as an example of a true match.

12             And while we're waiting for that to come up, you mentioned, I

13     think, there is a -- a special number that people were assigned during

14     the census.  Do you remember what that was called in Bosnian?

15        A.   "Maticni broj" and it's a unique identification number.  It was

16     assigned to everybody in 1981 and people were then asked to record their

17     identification number, their "maticni broj," when the enumerators came

18     around to collect -- to enumerate people.

19        Q.   Did the ICRC list get this number?

20        A.   No.  They did not.  But the voters' list did get their number.

21        Q.   How about PHR?

22        A.   No.  And people would usually not know their name -- their number

23     of relatives.

24        Q.   All right.  So, again, we now see here that there is a Gabeljic,

25     Avdo.  Can you explain how you evaluated this?

Page 9637

 1        A.   Well, first we see there were there was one Mensur Gabeljic on

 2     the ICRC lists and after correcting a typo or a scanning mistake you see

 3     the LJ become a Q.  There is also Mensur Gabeljic on the voters' register

 4     in 1997.  The father's name of Avdo is given on the ICRC list but it is

 5     not given on the voters' register.  Moreover, they are recorded as being

 6     born in two different years, 1970 and 1971.  And so there are some

 7     differences but there are also some similarities.  We checked the census

 8     and we found only one Mensur Gabeljic, born on the 28th of 11th, 1971,

 9     his father's name was registered as Avoo, but I guess it should be Avdo.

10     But we concluded that this is a true match and that they are, indeed,

11     representing the same person and that this Mensur Gabeljic was then

12     excluded from our list of missing persons.  It remained on the ICRC's own

13     list, I believe, but on the OTP list it was removed, excluded, but it

14     could be considered later.

15        Q.   All right.  But, in any event, the -- you may have already said

16     this, but roughly, did you find very many people that you were able to

17     match from the various voters' register lists and your missing list?

18        A.   In 2000, we found nine, and we later we found, I think,

19     altogether 26 in different lists.  It's -- there's a table for that in

20     the 2009 report.  Some of these potential survivors have later been found

21     to be dead.  So we believe that there seems to be some -- have been some

22     faulty registration, not necessarily for bad reasons, but just perhaps of

23     mistakes.  But we have not really found any -- many examples of real

24     survivors.

25        Q.   All right.  And going back to your list, and you testified before

Page 9638

 1     that you didn't find any examples of Muslim families providing fictitious

 2     missing persons.  How did you look for that and is that correct?

 3        A.   That is correct.  We did, as I said, compare the missing list

 4     with -- with the census and we found for -- for the Srebrenica missing,

 5     we found that 87 -- we found 87 per cent of them in the 1991 census.  The

 6     exact same individuals were enumerated in 1997, and for the remaining

 7     13 per cent there could be various reasons why we did not find them.

 8     Some of them may not have been in Srebrenica in 1991 or in Bosnia.  They

 9     could have been living elsewhere, say, in Serbia.  And also because of --

10     all these spelling mistakes and all that, or lack of information, it

11     could be -- it was difficult -- they were difficult to match or

12     inconclusive matches.  But 87 per cent is a high proportion anyway.

13        Q.   All right.  Now, for your 2000 report where you assembled the

14     list and you did the quality control of the voters' list, did you have --

15     what kind of confirmed deaths did you have to compare to your actual

16     list, if any?  For that first report, way back when.

17        A.   In 2000, there were only 70 confirmed deaths.  Sixty-six of these

18     were found on our list of missing persons then marked as dead.  Two

19     additional persons were -- have been found in Srebrenica-related graves

20     and then were then added to the list of missing and dead.  And two

21     were -- had dates or place of disappearance that were not consistent with

22     our rules for selecting Srebrenica-related missing, were not considered.

23             So, to conclude, out of the almost 7.500 missing persons in the

24     first list, 66 were found to be dead.  That is, less than 1 per cent,

25     .9 per cent.

Page 9639

 1        Q.   Now you've mentioned briefly ICMP and the Trial Chamber has heard

 2     through the investigators about ICMP and about how they took family

 3     reports of missing and took their blood to compare to the DNA and the

 4     bones from the graves.  So they -- they've heard that.

 5             Were you able to -- in your ongoing work, after your initial

 6     work, able to get those records of DNA identified dead from

 7     Srebrenica-related graves and use that for your work?

 8        A.   Yes.  We started receiving reports from the ICMP on exhumed

 9     bodies whose DNA profiles had been matched to satisfaction with blood

10     samples from family members, and we got more and more.  Today we have

11     received more than 5.000 such reports.

12        Q.   Well, tell us.  We have forensic blood identification, which I

13     would -- might call some hard science, plus we have your demographic

14     reports of traumatised family members, in some cases, reporting missing

15     people which forms the guts of your list.  How does this forensic

16     identification help you or assist you in determining the validity of your

17     work, if at all?

18        A.   First, the forensic work proves that people are really dead.

19     They're not missing anymore.  They are found dead and most of them in

20     mass graves.

21             Secondly, the -- this is based on a comparison of -- with blood

22     samples drawn from family members and they came forward, family members

23     came forward voluntarily sometime after the events in Srebrenica in --

24     also in less chaotic circumstances, and several, often several family

25     members for each missing person.

Page 9640

 1             So their lists -- so ICMP has also a list of missing persons

 2     which we have not seen, actually.  What they give us is their confirmed

 3     and what we call identified deaths.

 4        Q.   And did you compare the names of the ICMP identified deaths with

 5     the names on your missing list?

 6        A.   Yes, we did.  That is exactly what we did.  And almost all of

 7     them were found on our lists.

 8        Q.   All right.  And perhaps to -- go ahead if you want to explain it

 9     more.

10        A.   It would be useful if you could show the exhibits with the

11     shaded -- based on the table in the report first, I think.

12        Q.   All right.  If we could go to 65 ter 07174.

13             MR. McCLOSKEY:  And again, perhaps -- and I will try in the

14     future to have these for the General, but we may need a hard copy of the

15     B/C/S, if you have one.

16             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  The accused will be provided with a hard copy.

17     There is no B/C/S version I am told.

18             MR. McCLOSKEY:  We'll just carefully go through this.  And it is

19     a very simple chart so it can be translated, and I will do that now for

20     the General.

21             It is entitled: "Overview of the progress in the DNA

22     identification of Srebrenica missing."  And then when we get down to the

23     tables, we see the strongly outlined one is the first one, and that is

24     the date of the OTP report, so we see the year and date.  And the next

25     one over is:  Srebrenica missing by the OTP; Srebrenica identified by the

Page 9641

 1     ICMP; the accepted overlap is the next chart; the excluded overlap is the

 2     next chart; the next one is new victims identified; the next one is

 3     excluded potential survivors; the next one is accepted victim integrated;

 4     the next one is per cent identified; and the next one is per cent

 5     identified, number 2.

 6        Q.   So Dr. Brunborg what -- can you explain we see that the numbers

 7     are charging from the various reports.  How does this assist you in

 8     answering my last question?

 9        A.   First, this is table 12 from the -- our most recent report.  And

10     first you see --

11             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. McCloskey, could you switch off your

12     microphone.  Thank you.

13             THE WITNESS:  First, you see that the number of missing on the

14     OTP list has grown from 7.475 to 7.692 by a little more than 200.

15             More interesting is perhaps that the number of identified dead

16     has grown from 68 in 2000 to 5.555 in 2009, according to DNA analysis.

17             We also see, if we then notice new victims.  That is one --

18     column number 6 or so, that there were in the most recent report from

19     ICMP there were 213 persons who were not on our list of missing persons,

20     so we add those.  We exclude 12 potential survivors, so the number of

21     potential survivors had grown from 9 to 12.  And we end up with 7.905

22     missing or dead persons related to the fall of Srebrenica, which has

23     grown from almost 7.500 in 2000.  So that is by little more than 400.

24             So it is now almost 8.000, the total number.  And may I finish?

25             MR. McCLOSKEY:

Page 9642

 1        Q.   [Overlapping speakers] ...

 2        A.   The last column which shows the proportion identified as dead.

 3     It was .9 per cent in 2000 and it is now 66.7 per cent, which is exactly

 4     two-thirds.

 5             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  What does it mean "now"?

 6             THE WITNESS:  "Now" means November 2008.  This report was

 7     finished in April 2009, based on -- the most recent ICMP report then was

 8     dated November 2008.  Since then, there are -- several more reports have

 9     been received with several hundred more identified persons.  But we have

10     not had been able to analyse all that.  So new data keep coming all the

11     time.

12             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you.

13             Mr. McCloskey.

14             MR. McCLOSKEY:

15        Q.   So how can you explain this -- I don't know -- I think over 400

16     new people or new numbers on your missing -- missing/dead list from the

17     early report, 7.475, to the latest here 7-9.  We know that PHR missing

18     list was stopped after two years; the ICRC, you've explained, had 200

19     more people on it.  But where are the other 200-plus coming from, besides

20     the -- the updated ICRC list?

21        A.   First, in what is listed as "Srebrenica missing OTP," you see

22     that from 2008 to 2009, or, actually, from 2005 to 2009, the list grew

23     by 29.  That is additional missing persons reported by the ICRC.

24             Then -- but -- as you indicated, the largest increase is in the

25     number of new victims, and these are then persons who have been exhumed

Page 9643

 1     from graves with -- which are mass graves which are Srebrenica-related,

 2     and then -- and these are then added to the total number.

 3             And the reason is that not all families reported, we think -- is

 4     that not all families reported their missing persons as missing for

 5     various reasons.  It could that be that the whole family was -- was

 6     eradicated, or there were special reasons why they did not report, living

 7     abroad, more difficult to report, say, wanting to forget the whole thing,

 8     not seeing the -- the sense or the meaning of -- of reporting, so there

 9     are various reasons.  So that's why bodies are found who were not

10     reported -- whose families did not report to ICRC.  But there are also

11     bodies -- have found that are not reported to anybody, not even ICMP, and

12     they are not listed here but they were -- they are so-called no-name

13     bodies and they were -- I think, the most recent report there were 294

14     bodies that had unique DNA profiles but could not be linked to anybody

15     and they, of course, are not included here.

16             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  May I go back to line 19 of page 30, you are

17     recorded having said:

18             "You see that from 2008 to 2009, or, actually, from 2005 to 2009,

19     the list grew by 29."

20             THE WITNESS:  Mh-hmm.

21             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  I know [indiscernible] but it should be 31, if

22     I'm not mistaken.

23             THE WITNESS:  Of course, you are -- that's right.  There's a

24     difference in one because one was excluded, and why, for technical

25     reasons.  So -- and one came in addition, so it must be 31.  Yeah, excuse

Page 9644

 1     me, I have been used to these 29 numbers -- number.

 2             I will look at it in the break to see if I can explain it.

 3             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you.

 4             Mr. McCloskey.

 5             MR. McCLOSKEY:

 6        Q.   All right.  Now from what I gather, you're saying there are

 7     several people on your final figure of 7.905 identified names that are

 8     not on your missing list.  So how do you associate those people with

 9     Srebrenica, if they were not reported missing from Srebrenica?

10        A.   First, they were reported to ICMP as associated with the fall of

11     Srebrenica.  That is the most important reason.

12             Second, we checked the dates of disappearance or last seen alive,

13     and the place of disappearance, and they were consistent with our

14     criteria.

15             And, finally, they were found in graves together with other

16     Srebrenica-related victims.

17        Q.   So how -- you said you don't have the ICMP missing list, so how

18     is it that you know they were reported missing to ICMP?

19        A.   Because ICMP had collected blood samples from family members of

20     missing persons, and they had their criteria for -- for inviting people

21     to give blood samples.  So this was defined by ICMP, whether this was a

22     Srebrenica-related missing person or not.

23        Q.   All right.  Let me put up another chart that you had just

24     recently, in the last day or two days, asked us to help your testimony,

25     which is the reason we didn't have the translation for the other one,

Page 9645

 1     Mr. President.  We just got this specific request.  But it is 07173.

 2                           [Prosecution counsel confer]

 3             MR. McCLOSKEY:  And, to be clear, both these last two charts came

 4     out of his report and should be translated, and I have those numbers on

 5     e-court, if it's necessary.  But this particular chart, I -- really

 6     doesn't need translation, I don't think, as soon as I read the top of it.

 7             THE WITNESS:  May I add that it is Figure 5 in the report.  On

 8     page 19 in the report.

 9             MR. McCLOSKEY:  And that's B/C/S 22 in e-court.

10        Q.   And this says at the top:

11             "Age distribution of Srebrenica-related missing and dead persons,

12     all missing versus confirmed dead (in per cent)."

13             And which one of these particular charts did you want to discuss?

14        A.   All of them.

15        Q.   Okay.

16        A.   I have split up the figure in the report in the two parts.

17             The first -- the top panel shows the age distribution of persons

18     on our missing lists.  These are -- has nothing to do with being

19     confirmed dead or not.  So it is just the pure age distribution based on

20     information on missing persons.  That is the top one.

21             The next panel with dark bars shows the age distribution of those

22     who have been identified as dead, and if can you see both the top ones at

23     the same time, you will notice there is some similarity.  There is, for

24     instance, a bump at age 55 to 59.  It is higher than the preceding and

25     the following age groups.  And also for 25 to 29, the number is lower

Page 9646

 1     than for the preceding.

 2             So when we put these together, these two sets of bars, remember,

 3     these are relative numbers, percentages so they add up to 100 percent.

 4             At the bottom, the bottom panel, there have been put together as

 5     in the report, Figure 5.  And you see the striking similarity.  You again

 6     see that the 55 to 59 group is -- has higher -- has a higher percentage

 7     than the preceding and following age groups, which there may be good

 8     reasons for.

 9             We did this similar graphs both in year 2000 and 2005 reports and

10     the age distributions are becoming more and more similar which shows that

11     they come from the same population.  You could say this is a population

12     of missing persons, and in exhumation there's a random process or the --

13     the exhumed persons come from the same population.  If that come from a

14     different population, the age distributions would most likely have looked

15     quite different.

16             So even the special characteristics of these humps and bumps in

17     the age distribution of the missing appears in the age distribution or

18     those confirmed dead.

19        Q.   I understand that you would get a -- a pretty good age from a

20     person confirmed dead, as the family member would be able to give you a

21     good age for their missing relative; is that correct?

22        A.   Yes.  Before the DNA analysis started, then -- and before bodies

23     were identified, the age was determined by physical anthropologists, and

24     they could only estimate the age in very wide age groups and with

25     considerable uncertainty.

Page 9647

 1        Q.   All right.  Now, as you have testified in several trials and as

 2     the record reflects, there are have been expert -- there has been at

 3     least one expert from the Defence, I think Ms. --

 4        A.   Radovanovic.

 5        Q.   Radovanovic, thank you.  And your data has been challenged in --

 6     in some of the trials and criticised.  Did you find any -- any justified

 7     criticisms or inaccuracies in your work that was pointed out by the

 8     Defence experts over the years?

 9        A.   Yes, indeed.  Mrs. Radovanovic, herself, a demographer, was given

10     access to the date in a room here at the Tribunal.  She was not allowed

11     to take any data out of the Tribunal, but she analysed the data and she

12     found ten or so duplicates on our missing lists indicating that we

13     were -- well, she didn't use the word cheating but some strong words

14     about our methodology.

15        Q.   Let me interrupt you for one second --

16             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Tolimir.  Mr. Tolimir.

17             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.

18             Can we please have a reference so that we would know what this is

19     about, so that we would have arguments and see whether the Defence can

20     use them rather than have the witness verify what he wrote and deny what

21     others said about the same subject.

22             Thank you.

23             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. McCloskey.

24             MR. McCLOSKEY:  Her testimony is part of the record and it's --

25     it's in the record of his testimony.  It's -- her reports are -- are part

Page 9648

 1     of the record that have been provided to the Defence.  And I'm just

 2     asking him to briefly outline the small areas where she was correct and

 3     have him explain it.

 4             THE WITNESS:  If I may add that this was in the trial against

 5     Blagojevic.

 6             MR. McCLOSKEY:

 7        Q.   Oh.  Thank you for the correction.

 8             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  That helps.  We need our first break now, but

 9     before we do that, I would like to ask both parties to liaise on the

10     matter.  Is there translation necessary for 65 ter 7173 and 65 ter 07174

11     we just used and have it on the screen.  But there's no translation yet,

12     if I'm not mistaken.

13             MR. McCLOSKEY:  7173 can be found on -- in B/C/S --

14             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Yes.  It is correct.  I was told by the Registry

15     there is a translation.

16             MR. McCLOSKEY:  Yeah, for both of those, there are.

17             It would be 32 for 7174.  We're having a slight bit of confusion.

18     But there's translations in the report and we'll make sure that that's on

19     the record.

20             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you very much.  And I think we need a

21     clarification in relation to all the other exhibits you have tendered

22     which were used during the previous trial.  Do they all have a

23     translation into B/C/S and, if not, we would like to know which of them

24     don't have a translation.  But you -- I would like to receive your answer

25     after the break.

Page 9649

 1             We have to adjourn for half an hour, and we'll resume at 11.00.

 2                           --- Recess taken at 10.30 a.m.

 3                           --- On resuming at 11.04 a.m.

 4             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Before we continue, just briefly, Mr. Gajic, on

 5     behalf of the Defence, tendered two exhibits used with the last witness

 6     of yesterday.  These are 65 ter 02064 and 02063, two OTP interviews with

 7     the witness of yesterday.  They will be received as exhibits.

 8             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, this two documents will be assigned

 9     the following exhibit numbers:  65 ter document 0264 shall be assigned

10     D157.  And the second document 65 ter 0263 shall be assigned D158.

11             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  The number is not correctly recorded, I think.

12             THE REGISTRAR:  The first one should be 157, D157, Defence

13     document, thank you.

14             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you.  Now it's correct.

15             Mr. McCloskey, please continue.

16             MR. McCLOSKEY:  Yes, and, Mr. President, the witness had a brief

17     comment to the Court Officer about something that he would like to

18     clarify, so I would -- and we all know that.  So if can he can ask the

19     witness to clarify the issue he wanted to.

20             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  I heard about that.

21             THE WITNESS:  Thank you, Mr. President.  You pointed out my

22     fault, the arithmetic.  So thank you for that.  In Table 12 which was one

23     of the exhibits, the reason is that the number on the 2009 OTP list was

24     revised from 7661 to 7663 in -- after that list was produced because of

25     duplicates that were not really duplicates and one survivor and one who

Page 9650

 1     was not a survivor and was found dead.

 2             This is all explained on page 6, the second paragraph from the

 3     bottom.  But I have become used to thinking of the difference between

 4     those two lists of 2005 and 2009 as being 29.  But it should, of course,

 5     be 31.

 6             Thank you.

 7             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you very much for that clarification.

 8             Mr. McCloskey.

 9             MR. McCLOSKEY:

10        Q.   Yes, I was asking you whether the Defence expert that --

11     Ms. Radovanovic, that testified in both Blagojevic and Popovic as a

12     Defence demographer, whether any of her criticisms were actually correct

13     and could you point out the correct criticisms she made?

14        A.   Yes.  After looking at the list of missing, she identified a

15     number or a small number of duplicates and criticised us for that.  We

16     looked at this and found that she was right in some of these cases, and,

17     indeed, we had identified these same records as duplicates when we did

18     the analysis.  But we had, through an oversight, forgotten to remove the

19     extra duplicates, because we had to make a decision on which of two

20     almost identical records should be removed.  And we also did some further

21     analysis, we identified a few more duplicates and removed those that were

22     incorrect or real duplicates.  But Mrs. Radovanovic, in fact, also found

23     some false duplicates where the records looked almost -- looked

24     identical, almost identical, as pointed out previously, but they were

25     not, in fact, identical.  This is a question of twins and brothers,

Page 9651

 1     et cetera, where the information are -- is almost the same but they are

 2     still representing different individuals.

 3        Q.   You may not know the exact numbers but can you give us just the

 4     rough numbers of where she was correct and --

 5        A.   I think it was, like, between five and ten, something.

 6        Q.   And I think you've said after looking and confirming she was

 7     right in that number, you went on and found a few more that you found

 8     yourself as duplicates.  Do you remember how many more roughly

 9     you found --

10        A.   I would need to check that in the report.  And there are

11     additional report, our rebuttal report, but I can do that tonight.

12        Q.   Great.

13        A.   But I would like to point out that some of the duplicates that

14     she found were false duplicates and a few were correct.

15             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Is this correction reflected in the last version

16     of your report?

17             THE WITNESS:  Yes, certainly, yeah.

18             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you.

19             THE WITNESS:  And also in the 2005 version.

20             MR. McCLOSKEY:

21        Q.   Any other things that she pointed out that you had to correct on

22     your report?

23        A.   She mentioned that what we did, this kind of matching or record

24     linkage was unscientific, not done before, but it has been done before,

25     and we have -- we can refer then to a large literature on record linkage.

Page 9652

 1     For example, by name which is a complicated procedure and there's an

 2     annex in a report that discusses this record linkage methodology.  It is

 3     Annex 5.  This is discussed -- there is a large scientific literature on

 4     this.  It's not something that we invented from scratch.

 5        Q.   All right.  But my question was anything that you found

 6     justified.  I know she had a long report with other criticism but any

 7     justified criticisms aside from what you have said?

 8        A.   No.

 9        Q.   Okay.  And since we're on the topic of mistakes or errors, have

10     you, in the last few days, had a chance to carefully go through your 2009

11     report, which is 07170, and did you identify any -- any mistakes there?

12        A.   Yes, a few.  There are several minor typos of a more grammatical

13     or typo nature but there are also some errors that could be misleading.

14     In such a large report there are many details and when you re-read it

15     after three years, you see new things.

16             So, on page 22, in the report, in the English version, page 22,

17     second -- no, third paragraph from the top --

18        Q.   Let me interrupt you for a second.  Page 22 English, that should

19     be B/C/S page 25.

20        A.   The second sentence that paragraph reads:

21             "The remaining 29.5 per cent have not yet been identified as dead

22     but the proportion keeps increasing."

23             It should, of course, have been "decreasing."

24        Q.   Why?

25        A.   Because as more people are identified, less people are not

Page 9653

 1     identified.  So it's logical.  I don't think anybody would misunderstand

 2     that.  But it was just a small logical error.

 3             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  You are referring to the paragraph above the

 4     chapter 1.5.

 5             THE WITNESS:  2.5, Your Honour.

 6             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Yes, yes 2.5.

 7             THE WITNESS:  Yes.

 8             MR. McCLOSKEY:

 9        Q.   And you pointed out another mistake on page 26 of the English,

10     should be page 30 of the B/C/S, and I believe it was the second big

11     paragraph in the English, right above the paragraph 2.6 in the B/C/S.  Do

12     you see that?

13        A.   That is correct.  It's just above the -- the section 2.6.  The

14     last five words in that -- the last sentence above should be deleted.

15     The words "compare to their preceding cohorts."

16             The reason is that it is not clear what the preceding cohorts or

17     preceding ages -- whether they are preceding ages.  The point is that age

18     group 15 to 19 have very high fatality rates which can you see from Table

19     11.

20        Q.   So just explain what's wrong with that sentence, why you want it

21     deleted now?

22        A.   If you interpret the preceding cohorts as age group 20 to 24,

23     that higher risk of disappearance is lower and not higher.  So -- but it

24     generally high, but it's not higher for all places of -- for all

25     municipalities.  So that's why we just want to make it -- point out they

Page 9654

 1     have very high risk of disappearance.

 2        Q.   Any other significant mistakes you want to call our attention to?

 3        A.   Not as far as I know.

 4        Q.   All right.  Now as I'd mentioned in the summary, there were some

 5     complaints that the ICRC list was exaggerated, and, in fact, the -- in

 6     the Tolimir trial brief on page 114 to 115, it appears that he is

 7     suggesting that the 1996 census -- sorry, the 1996 voters' registration

 8     list contained many of the names on your missing list, thereby suggesting

 9     your missing list is invalid because the people on the voters' list were

10     alive.

11             Can you -- have you heard of this complaint before?

12        A.   Yeah, this is a repeated criticism.

13        Q.   And is it a valid criticism?

14        A.   Not at all.

15        Q.   And can you explain that?

16        A.   Because the 1996 voters' list is -- was the 1991 census.

17     According to the Dayton Accord of November 1995, the 1991 census should

18     be used as a voters' list for the first election, because it was -- well,

19     not time or it was not possible to establish proper voters' lists.  So

20     anybody who was on the 1991 census could vote in 1996.  So then it is not

21     surprising that it would include a number of persons who were listed as

22     missing.  They did not have to register actively to vote as they did in

23     1997 and later.

24        Q.   So that process you described of people coming in and

25     registering, that first started in what year?

Page 9655

 1        A.   1997.

 2        Q.   All right.  And I made a mistake, I shouldn't have said pages in

 3     the Defence trial brief, I should have said paragraphs 114 to 115 where

 4     this allegation is made.  And the other allegations, are they dealt with

 5     in your 2009 report?

 6        A.   Some are.  Some have been left.  They were -- these -- the major

 7     allegations were addressed in the 2000 report.

 8        Q.   All right.  And I don't -- I don't think, given that they're

 9     addressed in the purpose of this testimony, that we need go into that.

10             And, Mr. President, I would like to offer the 2009 reports now in

11     evidence, that's 65 ter 07170, and 07171, 07173, and 4?

12             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  All these four documents will be received as

13     exhibits and assigned exhibit numbers now.

14             THE REGISTRAR:  Just one minor clarification.  If I'm

15     understanding it correctly, whether 65 ter document 07170A is also

16     tendered?

17             Thank you.

18             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  In my understanding this should be part of

19     65 ter 07170.  But, Mr. McCloskey, please clarify that.

20             MR. McCLOSKEY:  Could we put 07170A up on the screen.  I believe

21     this is something that Dr. Brunborg would like to replace with the

22     07170 -- sorry.  In any event, give me one second, if you could.

23                           [Prosecution counsel confer]

24             MR. McCLOSKEY:  And I didn't mean to suggest he was replacing the

25     whole report.  This, as with can see, is a table.

Page 9656

 1        Q.   And it's my understanding, Dr. Brunborg, you would prefer to

 2     replace this table with the similar table that is in the original report?

 3        A.   Yes.  The reason is purely editorial but only the first page was

 4     printed or included in the first report.  So the rest of the pages were

 5     missing by an editorial oversight or technical oversight.

 6        Q.   All right.  So there are -- in fact, this is a total of five

 7     pages, this exhibit?

 8        A.   Yes.

 9        Q.   Thank you.  I don't have any --

10             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Should that be treated as a part of the report,

11     65 ter 07170?

12             MR. McCLOSKEY:  Yes, Mr. President.  It should replace the -- the

13     table that is on the original report which is at page 97 in e-court.

14             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  We should avoid to have a different P number for

15     that part of the document.

16             MR. McCLOSKEY:  And it is on page 104 in the B/C/S.

17             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Registrar, is this a clear situation now for

18     you?

19             THE REGISTRAR:  Thank you, Your Honours.  I think I'm good at

20     understanding that 65 ter 07170A is not to be tendered.

21             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  It should be part of the report.  65 ter 07170

22     should be merged, in fact.

23             MR. McCLOSKEY:  That's correct.  However, you could it that.  So

24     we want it into evidence just merged as part of the report.

25             THE REGISTRAR:  Thank you, Your Honours, now it is clear.

Page 9657

 1             Therefore, the following exhibit numbers shall be assigned: 07170

 2     shall be assigned Exhibit P1776.  65 ter 07171 shall be assigned

 3     Exhibit 1777.  65 ter document 07173 shall be assigned Exhibit P1778.

 4     And 65 ter document 07174 shall be assigned Exhibit P1779.

 5             Thank you.

 6             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you very much.

 7             Mr. McCloskey.

 8             MR. McCLOSKEY:  I have nothing further.  We may have a -- a

 9     slight change of numbers on that last thing.  Ms. Stewart will explain to

10     me.  I may have created a problem.  But we'll sort that out.  But as for

11     the witness, I have no further questions.

12             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you very much.

13             Mr. Tolimir, your cross-examination, please.  You have the floor.

14             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.  Once

15     again, I would like to greet everybody present in the courtroom.  I would

16     like to greet the witness, and I wish that this testimony ends in

17     accordance with God's will and not my will.

18                           Cross-examination by Mr. Tolimir:

19        Q.   [Interpretation] I have for you the following questions:  First

20     of all, can you tell us whether, during your research, or during drafting

21     of your article or report, you endeavoured to find out how many people

22     were unlawfully killed and in how many cases death was caused by some

23     unlawful acts.  Specifically, have you managed to find out who died in

24     combat and who died after combat?

25        A.   Thank you.  You seem to ask several questions in -- and important

Page 9658

 1     questions.

 2             And, first, I was not asked to distinguish or focus or lawful or

 3     unlawful killings.  That was not part of my task.  I'm a demographer, and

 4     not a lawyer.  I don't really know what is an unlawful killing.  But I

 5     know, of course, that being killed in combat is legally different from

 6     being killed in -- not in combat.  And we don't -- we do not have data to

 7     distinguish between those who are killed in combat or not.

 8             The only thing we have is the number of missing but it has later,

 9     through exhumations, become clear that most of the missing persons that

10     have been identified as dead have been found in mass graves where they

11     also have been people are -- have been blind-folded or shot from the back

12     at a short distance.

13             So the indications are that -- well, this lawful, not lawful, I

14     will not touch upon.  But it seems like most of the missing persons were

15     not killed in combat.

16        Q.   [Microphone not activated]... I apologise for not having switched

17     on the microphone.

18             Can you tell us, this majority that you mention, what percentage

19     would that be?  You just mentioned people that were killed in combat and

20     yet found their place in your lists.  So what percentage are we talking

21     about?

22        A.   I do not have a percentage.  I did not say how many people are

23     killed in combat.  I don't know even if any were killed in combat.  But I

24     know that as people started walking through the forests towards Tuzla

25     there may have been some combats.  There may be not.  I know there was

Page 9659

 1     shooting at the column of people who waled through the forests, but

 2     nobody, as far as I know, has been able to determine how many died in

 3     combat during that march.

 4             Some additional figures.  We have analysed and looked at the

 5     number of soldiers, those who were registered with the Bosnian army, in

 6     the list of missing, and we found that 70 per cent of the missing were

 7     also listed in the army archives as being dead or missing.  But the army

 8     lists do not include place of death or circumstances of death, so they

 9     cannot be used to -- to tell us anything about whether they died in

10     combat or not.  Moreover, in the list, in the army list, there are also

11     civilians -- well, not active soldiers.  So, again, it is not possible to

12     tell from the army documents whether people army -- registered in the

13     army were killed in combat or not.

14        Q.   Thank you.  When you were writing your reports, did you receive

15     data from the OTP, data about the people killed in combat?  Did you use

16     such data in your analysis?

17        A.   I wrote the report together with two colleagues in the OTP,

18     although I was not employed by the OTP at that time.  Colleagues

19     Ewa Tabeau and Arve Hetland.  Ewa Tabeau is still with the OTP.  We did

20     not receive any data, as far as I know, on the number of people who died

21     in combat.  And, as far as I know, such data do not exist.

22        Q.   Thank you.  Does your report also include all the information

23     that was available to you up until 1998, as you mentioned in your report?

24     Thank you.

25        A.   We tried to include all relevant information not only up to 1998

Page 9660

 1     but until 2009, when the most recent report was written.  But we could

 2     not, of course, include all available information, otherwise the report

 3     would not be 105 pages, but thousands of pages.  But we included

 4     information that we thought were relevant for the case.

 5        Q.   Thank you.  Now I'm going to show you document D151.

 6             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we please see that in e-court.

 7             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

 8        Q.   The document was created on 20th of July, 1996, before you

 9     drafted your own report, where the OTP had information available about

10     persons who were killed in combat.

11             I would like to ask you this:  When you look at the document,

12     would you be able to then let us know if you're aware of this information

13     and whether this was something that you should have been told before you

14     did your analysis?

15             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we look at D151, please.

16             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  I was told this document is under seal.  In that

17     case, it should not be broadcast.

18             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right.  Since it's under seal,

19     perhaps you can just show page 2, paragraph 3, where no identifying

20     information is contained because this is from the testimony of a

21     protected witness.  This is just to inform the present witness.

22             Can we look at page 2 in the English as well, paragraph 4, and I

23     would kindly also like to show page 2, paragraph 3, in the English.  I'm

24     going to just say what the witness confirmed before you began your

25     investigation.  This was in the testimony of a witness who testified five

Page 9661

 1     days ago as a witness of the Prosecution.

 2             I am going to read this:

 3             "As we made our way through in the direction which the first

 4     group had taken, we came across warnings, or, rather, signs saying,

 5     Mined.  I assumed that our people who had passed earlier through these

 6     areas left these signs.  From there, we headed towards

 7     Pobudjanska Kamenica where we met up with a part of the first group, but

 8     the Chetniks surrounded us there and opened fire on us, killing over 300

 9     people and wounding a large number.  We were in disarray, as both

10     soldiers and civilians fled wherever they could, while the wounded were

11     left behind on the path."

12             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

13        Q.   My question is:  Was this information available to the OTP before

14     you started to write your analysis in accordance with the tasks given to

15     you by the OTP?  [Microphone not activated] ...

16             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, please.

17             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

18        Q.   I just need to clarify something, this statement, 1D51 that I was

19     reading and that you didn't see because it was given by a protected

20     witness was taken on the 20th of July, 1996, one year after the war.

21             I'm asking you this:  The Prosecution or the investigative organs

22     in Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Prosecution took this data.  So was

23     this information available to the Prosecution and was it known to the

24     Tribunal from that time onwards, and it was used in a number of cases.

25     Actually my other question is:  Had you known about this information and

Page 9662

 1     if you did, would you have used that in your own report?  Thank you.

 2             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Tolimir, you should put one question after

 3     the other and not mingle so many questions into one.

 4             But I think Mr. Brunborg has understood you.

 5             THE WITNESS:  I will try to answer.  First, I cannot talk on

 6     behalf of OTP and what kind of information and what kind of -- and

 7     which - excuse me - documents they had.  I do not recall having seen this

 8     document before.  Whether OTP had it or not, I do not know.

 9             If I had seen it, it does not give a list of names or -- of those

10     who -- except for a few, so it -- my task was to collect a list of names

11     of missing and dead.  Perhaps here we could add a few, Mehmed Suljic and

12     Hazim Suljic, perhaps.  But it -- I read the document now for the first

13     time.  I do not see that these were killed in combat or not.  Moreover, I

14     would like to repeat that I was not asked to distinguish between combat

15     deaths and other deaths.  I know that is an important distinction, but

16     that was not my task.

17             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

18        Q.   Thank you.  The OTP investigators said that in the sector of Bare

19     they found some 600 corpses that were killed in combat.  So those 600 and

20     those 300 and the wounded, that's almost 1.000 people.  Is that included

21     in your lists of persons in mass graves or not, regardless of way in

22     which these persons were killed?  Thank you.

23        A.   Thank you.  Those persons that have been identified as dead and

24     found in mass graves are included in the list of persons from mass

25     graves, and, consequently, if they have been identified in our list of

Page 9663

 1     missing persons.  But I do not think that all -- as many as 1.000 people

 2     from surface remains have been identified.  I have seen numbers of less.

 3     But that number could be increasing.

 4             So my answer is, some of them, most of them, have probably been

 5     included, if they were reported as missing.  Again, this is a small

 6     proportion.  Even if there were 1.000, even 1.000 is less than a seventh,

 7     so it is 12, 13 per cent of the total number of missing and dead.

 8        Q.   Thank you.  If we know that over 300 of persons killed were in

 9     the sector of Pobudjanska Kamenica which the witness refers to, and then

10     there are another 600 persons killed, referred to by investigator Ruez in

11     the Bare section, now if they were buried in graves and DNA analysis were

12     done on the bodies, were these bodies then included in your analysis?

13     Thank you.

14        A.   Yes, if they were identified with names, identified as dead, and

15     their names were either on the ICMP's own list of missing persons related

16     to the fall of Srebrenica or our list, they were included.

17        Q.   Thank you.  And did you look into whether the persons who were

18     killed at this location that the protected witness refers to in the

19     village of Bare, and this is something that was also mentioned by the

20     investigator when he was in the field, were these corpses taken from

21     those locations to the Federation, were they taken to some other location

22     for the DNA analysis or was this analysis conducted at the graves where

23     they were found?  Thank you.

24        A.   Thank you.  You are asking questions that go beyond my expertise.

25     I did not do any study of exhumations and grave-sites.  There are other

Page 9664

 1     experts that have testified on this or will testify on this.

 2        Q.   Thank you.  I asked you this at the beginning so that we would be

 3     able to test the validity of your analysis from the aspect of the events

 4     themselves in the field as referred to by the witnesses of the

 5     Prosecution and the Prosecution's investigators.

 6             My question is: Had you had this information, had you had the

 7     information that those persons from those locations were buried in the

 8     graves where the DNA analysis was done, would you have used that in the

 9     same way as you used information that refers to people who were killed in

10     combat?  Thank you.

11        A.   Thank you.  As I said, I was not tasked to make a list of people

12     who died in combat or not.  If I had been asked to, and if the

13     information about certain deaths or certain people who went missing later

14     identified as dead, if I had known the circumstances about their death,

15     killed in combat or not, and if the OTP had asked me to take that

16     distinction and make a special list, I would have done it, of course.

17     But, now, sorry for all the "ifs," but the reason is I was not tasked to

18     do it, I did not know, and I think the Prosecution, the OTP and nobody

19     else, knows exactly who were killed in combat and who were not.

20        Q.   Thank you.  Did the Prosecution ever tell you that after combat,

21     persons were buried in the same graves, both people who died in combat

22     and those who were not killed in combat?  Nobody was taken for burial to

23     another place, they were not taken back to the Federation, and they were

24     not buried in any particular locations in Srebrenica or the area around.

25     Did anybody give you this information or not?

Page 9665

 1        A.   Not really.  Only circumstantial I have heard that since 1995,

 2     many bodies have been found on the surface, so they were not part of the

 3     mass graves.  Some may have, some of those -- some of the people killed

 4     in the forests may have been buried together, but, personally, I think it

 5     is quite unlikely that many bodies killed in the forest were then

 6     transported long ways to mass graves in other places.  So, in fact, many

 7     have been found.  Again, on the surface, in the succeeding years.  But,

 8     again, I'm -- this is not the focus of my reports.

 9        Q.   Thank you.  Had you had this data, by chance, before you drafted

10     your report, would this analysis of yours be even more valid?  I mean,

11     you did the analysis very conscientiously.  I'm not remarking on the

12     quality of the work.  I'm just asking about the information that you had

13     at your disposal.  Would the analysis have been even more accurate and of

14     a higher quality had you also had this information and included it in

15     your report?

16        A.   Sir, I don't know what information you are referring to.  Are you

17     referring to the 300 or so bodies being killed in the forest, perhaps in

18     combat, perhaps not?

19             I don't believe it would have made any difference, unless the

20     data on these persons was very good, high quality, that they were killed

21     in combat or not, if that is what you are aiming at, and if I also had

22     been tasked to distinguish between combat deaths and non-combat deaths,

23     which I was not.

24        Q.   Thank you.  I presented some information to you that was given to

25     survivors, to witnesses who were there, and also information from

Page 9666

 1     investigators who were there in the Bare section.  So I just would like

 2     to conclude with this, can you please tell us this:  Had you had any

 3     information about the manner of death of these people or the location, if

 4     you had any information that they were buried in the mass graves where

 5     the DNA analysis were carried out, would you have indicated that in any

 6     way in your analysis?  Thank you.

 7        A.   In our report, for every missing person who has been identified

 8     as dead through DNA analysis, the site, the grave they have been found

 9     in, is indicated.  And there's a list also saying the number of bodies

10     found in each grave, the -- a mass grave is defined as -- a grave with

11     five or more bodies.  So it is clear from the lists what -- where the

12     bodies were found and where they were exhumed from.  There were also some

13     that listed as surface remains.

14             So as far as we know, all of this information has been included.

15        Q.   Thank you.  Can you please indicate the places in your report

16     where persons found outside of mass graves are referred to?  Can you give

17     us the number of these people?  Is it a negligible number, is it a high

18     number?

19        A.   Excuse me, I need to go through the report and find the right

20     place.  Let me see ...

21             Sir, on Table 4 in the report, on pages -- in the English

22     version, pages 8 and 9, gives the number of identified for each grave,

23     for each mass grave.  It also says remaining sites surface, it says on

24     page 9 of the English version, last line.  It says, "703."

25             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  It would be helpful to have that on the screen.

Page 9667

 1     If I'm not mistaken, that's P1776.

 2             THE WITNESS:  That is correct.  You see on ... yes, on page 9 in

 3     the English version, Table 4 where it says 30 -- 70 it says almost on the

 4     bottom of that table, remaining sites/surface, 703 ICMP identified of

 5     which 647 were matched with the OTP missing lists.  That is a matching

 6     rate of 92 per cent.

 7             And at the very bottom of the table, it says per cent remaining

 8     or surface, 12.7 per cent.  12.7 per cent.  I indicated earlier as 12 or

 9     13 per cent for surface exhumations.

10             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

11        Q.   Thank you.  Can you say whether, in this sector we've just read

12     out, this portion of the protected witness's statement, close to

13     Pobudjanska Kamenica and whether in the Bare sector is a single person

14     who figures on your lists and was found in these locations, or were these

15     people who were found and picked up along the road down which the column

16     was breaking through.

17             So where did you collect this information?  Thank you.

18        A.   This data comes from the ICMP data on exhumations and identified,

19     and also from the ICTY exhumations, which started in 1997 -- or, 1997,

20     where on the number of bodies per grave-site.  And also bodies on

21     surface.

22        Q.   Thank you.  I understand.  I would ask you to tell me whether on

23     the basis of your analysis we can establish who was killed in the sector

24     of Pobudjanska Kamenica, never mind how many of them, and how many lost

25     their lives in the sector of the place called Bare.  Can one conclude

Page 9668

 1     that on the basis of your analysis?  It doesn't matter in which manner

 2     they lost their lives.  The Trial Chamber will judge that later on.

 3     Thank you.

 4        A.   Sir, I don't think we can really tell that.  As you're aware of,

 5     many people -- people were buried in mass graves were often then moved to

 6     other mass graves.  So some bodies were moved once, some were moved twice

 7     to secondary or tertiary graves.  So it is impossible for many of these

 8     to say where they were killed, and how they were killed.  There may be

 9     cases of witness reports having overseen an execution and later having

10     recognised persons and later these people have been exhumed in certain

11     graves.  Maybe it is possible to tell, but this is not the kind of

12     analysis I have made.  There were-- excuse me, there were, for example,

13     people who managed to escape from exhumations.  Perhaps they noticed --

14     they knew the names of some who have later been identified and found in

15     mass graves, then you could establish link between execution site or

16     death site and a mass grave.  I don't know if this has been done or

17     not -- anyway, it's outside the realm of my mandate and my expertise.

18        Q.   Thank you.  Does your report mark in any way that in the analysis

19     of data all victims are included, regardless of the manner they lost

20     their life, both in the area of Srebrenica and in the area through which

21     the Muslims were breaking through, in order to reach Tuzla from

22     Srebrenica?  Thank you.

23        A.   Your question is whether we mark an analysis -- let me see.  I

24     have to re-read your question.  Could you repeat your question, please,

25     one at a time.

Page 9669

 1        Q.   Thank you.  My question is this:  Does your report note anywhere

 2     that all the victims from Srebrenica and in locations through which the

 3     Muslims were breaking through from Srebrenica in the direction of Tuzla

 4     and in locations where executions were carried out?  Thank you.

 5        A.   Now, again, I think this was several questions.  But, as I said

 6     at the beginning, I was given a list of places of disappearance that were

 7     related to the fall of Srebrenica.  Some were on their way through the

 8     forest from Srebrenica to Tuzla; some were known mass graves near -- near

 9     or far from execution sites.  So all those being reported as having been

10     missing near these places or have later been found in these mass graves

11     were included.  Those who were found outside are not included.

12             Let me mention one example.  In the first report in 2000, we did

13     not include bodies that were found in the river Drina because we thought

14     that were -- was too far away and Drina is a long river.  Later this

15     is -- in the most recent report, we included bodies found in the Drina

16     because ICTY and -- sorry, not ICTY, but ICRC have included such bodies

17     as Srebrenica-related depending on statements of families.

18        Q.   Thank you.  This is my question for you:  When were these

19     statements submitted?  Do you know that and did you investigate that

20     while you were drawing up your analysis?  And how truthful are they in

21     connection with the critical period which you investigated; namely, from

22     the fall of the enclave and up until ten days after this fall?  Thank

23     you.

24        A.   Thank you.  On the transcript here, I see three question marks.

25     I do one at a time.

Page 9670

 1             When were these -- the first one, when were these statements

 2     submitted?  Please, which statements are you referring to?

 3        Q.   Thank you.  I mean the statements of the families who reported

 4     that the dead had gone missing in the Drina River.

 5        A.   This was information collected by the ICRC and when they were --

 6     families were asked where was the person last seen alive or where did the

 7     person go missing, and they started collecting this information in

 8     July /August 1995.

 9             Exactly how many there were who reported family members as having

10     gone -- disappearing in the Drina River, I don't know.  But that could be

11     investigated.

12             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  When did you receive these reports?

13             THE WITNESS:  We -- what we received from ICRC was a long list of

14     names of persons and place of disappearance.  We did not see the

15     individual reports, say, which is a sheet of paper for each missing

16     person.  Actually, they also asked -- the ICRC asked the family members,

17     did the person disappear in connection with the fall of Srebrenica.  That

18     information was not provided to us but it was used, I believe, by the

19     ICRC to establish their own list of Srebrenica-related victims of

20     October 2008.  That was the first time we received information from ICRC

21     on relationship to the fall of Srebrenica.  All previous lists were just

22     covering all of Bosnia and there was nothing about relationship to fall

23     of Srebrenica or not.

24             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you.

25             Mr. Tolimir.

Page 9671

 1             Perhaps you can make it short.  The second question was:  Do you

 2     know that and did you investigate that while you were drawing up your

 3     analysis?  That was the second question of the three.

 4             THE WITNESS:  Hmm.  We knew about -- as I said, we knew -- when

 5     we knew -- wrote the first reports, we did not know anything about

 6     whether these events were Srebrenica-related or not for the ICRC data.

 7     For the PHR data, we did know.  We had information on

 8     Srebrenica-relatedness.  Excuse me.  But for the most recent report, our

 9     2009 report, we could base the analysis on the information from ICRC in

10     their October 2008 report, where -- which was based -- which was for

11     Srebrenica-related missing persons.

12             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Third question was the following, I quote:

13             "And how truthful are they in connection with the critical period

14     which you investigated; namely, from the fall of the enclave and up until

15     ten days after this fall?"

16             THE WITNESS:  Thank you.  We have also wondered about the quality

17     of the reports given by family members to ICRC, but we have found no

18     indications of any kind of lying, falsification, exaggeration, et cetera.

19     So we think the quality is quite good.  But, of course, we should

20     remember that the family members often did not know much about their

21     missing relatives because some of them may have seen a person in

22     Srebrenica or outside in the forest or in Potocari, and, later, and they

23     did not know what happened to that person, whether that person was

24     transported away or not.

25             So it is to the best of their knowledge, but, as far as we know,

Page 9672

 1     the -- the quality is good.  They have been truthful.  As far as we know

 2     they have been as truthful as they could given the difficult

 3     circumstances and lack of knowledge about the exact happenings of their

 4     family members.

 5             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you very much.

 6             Mr. Tolimir, it is always better just to put one question to the

 7     witness.

 8             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.  We'll

 9     try to do it that way.  I just wanted, first of all, as a basis for the

10     questioning, to have these elements.

11             Can we please see in e-court 65 ter 7170.  Thank you.

12             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

13        Q.   It is a report which you drew up, Dr. Brunborg.  And in it, you

14     say that, in addition to you, the authors are --

15             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  This is now P1776.

16             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.  We can see the report

17     now.

18             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

19        Q.   And we see that the signatories, in addition to yourself as the

20     authors of the report, are Ms. Ewa Tabeau, and Mr. Arve Hetland.

21             Can you please tell us before we deal with the report itself who

22     are this gentleman and this lady?  Thank you.

23        A.   Thank you.  I left the ICTY in December -- sorry, 1998, and then

24     the OTP had decided that this kind of demographic work was valuable and

25     they decided to make a permanent position.  I was only there for --

Page 9673

 1     temporarily.  A permanent position was established, advertised, there

 2     were many applicants.  I participated in the process, and Ewa Tabeau was

 3     then selected as demographer to work on this.  She's a Polish and Dutch

 4     citizen with extensive experience in demographical analysis, widely

 5     well-known especially in mortality analysis, has worked at the

 6     prestigious NIDI Institute in The Hague.  NIDI stands for the Netherlands

 7     Inter-Disciplinary Demographic Institute.  And she has worked then for

 8     the OTP since the year 2000, end of year 2000.

 9             Arve Hetland is also a Norwegian.  He used to work with me

10     previously in Statistics Norway.  He is basically a computer person, a

11     computer specialist and he was hired then, I think he worked here for six

12     or seven years.  He left about one year ago.  And he is now back working

13     in Statistics Norway.

14        Q.   Thank you.  Can you please tell us whether Ms. Tabeau and

15     Mr. Hetland worked for the OTP or just for ICTY?  Just so we have this

16     clear on the record.  Thank you.

17        A.   Thank you.  They worked for the OTP in the -- called LRT,

18     Leadership Research Team, in the Demographic Unit.

19        Q.   Thank you.  Can you tell me whether they were all at the same

20     time employed by the OTP at the time when you were making these analysis,

21     because you said he worked for eight years and so on?  Thank you.

22        A.   Thank you.  I am -- worked here in 1997 and 1998 for the OTP

23     in -- since then as a consultant on short-term basis.  In 1999 and 2000,

24     I came every two months and spent about one week, later more occasional

25     after Ewa Tabeau became a full-time permanent OTP employee.  I have been

Page 9674

 1     here in the OTP on many occasions, co-operating with Mrs. Tabeau and

 2     Mr. Hetland.

 3        Q.   Thank you.  Did any of these people visit the area where the

 4     events happened before you wrote your report?

 5        A.   I know that Mrs. Tabeau has visited Bosnia on a number of

 6     occasions.  I'm not sure about Mr. Hetland, but I think he also went to

 7     Bosnia.

 8        Q.   Thank you.  Can you tell us, did they visit Bosnia during the war

 9     or after the war?  Thank you.

10        A.   They did not visit Bosnia after the war -- during the war.

11             My first visit to Bosnia was in 1997, and I think Ewa Tabeau's

12     first visit was in 2000 or 2001.

13        Q.   Thank you.  Well, then, in order to lay the foundation for my

14     following question, could you please identify the parts of the report

15     drafted by you as opposed to the parts of the report drafted by the

16     co-authors, like Ewa and Mr. Hetland?  Thank you.

17        A.   Thank you.  That is difficult, sir, because we have worked

18     closely together.  Some has been drawn from previous report that I

19     contributed to, so that is quite difficult.  And I do not see why that is

20     important.

21        Q.   Thank you.  If you don't see why this is important, still, can

22     you tell us, we are talking here about demographic research.  How

23     important is it to know facts about the war that took place in the area

24     that you're researching?

25        A.   It is, of course, very useful to know the basics about the area.

Page 9675

 1     But since we are dealing with numbers, we do not need to know a whole

 2     lot.  But don't misunderstand, it is useful to know as much as possible,

 3     but where do you draw the limit to what is useful to know and what is

 4     not?

 5             Here, we have, on the one hand, we have knowledge about

 6     demography and population statistics.  We have less knowledge about the

 7     country and the conflict.  Somebody who has more knowledge about the

 8     country and the conflict would have more or -- less knowledge about

 9     demography and statistics.  Where we have lacked knowledge, country-base

10     knowledge, we have consulted other people who have more knowledge.  There

11     were people in OTP, there was consulted literature where we needed to do

12     it so ...

13        Q.   Thank you.  Since your analysis deals with war demography of a

14     certain area, such as Srebrenica, or even a whole region, would it be

15     better if you had somebody who could help you, a person who took part in

16     these events that you are now trying to analysis from a demographic point

17     of view?  Thank you.

18        A.   Possibly.  I have travelled to Srebrenica myself to see the area,

19     seeing Srebrenica, the hills, Potocari, Bratunac, et cetera, and I have

20     talked to many people who were survivors who had family members, or who

21     lived in Srebrenica before the conflict, both the organisations like

22     Mothers of Srebrenica, Women of Srebrenica, authors of books and reports,

23     et cetera.  So I have talked to many people, both in Bosnia and in

24     The Hague who were familiar with what happened.

25        Q.   Thank you.  Can you give us any name of any person that supplied

Page 9676

 1     you with information or instruction significant for your analysis and for

 2     the period that you have analysed, i.e., from the beginning of the war in

 3     1991 until 1995?  That's at least what I see from your reports, since you

 4     have used the census of 1991.  Or, in short, from whom did you receive

 5     information?

 6        A.   Well, if you first stick to the lists we have received,

 7     electronic lists with lists -- data on names, we received the OSCE -- the

 8     ICRC list from ICRC in Sarajevo, and I don't remember the name of

 9     those -- the person who provided that to us.  But I did meet with ICRC

10     people in Sarajevo.

11             The voters' list we received from Michael Yard of the OSCE, whom

12     I met in Sarajevo on several occasions.  The census data we received from

13     the director of the federal statistical office in Sarajevo whom I also

14     met on several occasions.  I'm sorry -- I now do not recall his name, but

15     I could find that.

16             So those are the most important sources of data that we have

17     received.

18             I did not receive instructions from anybody, I would like to

19     underline.  But, of course, I also met with many other people trying to

20     find out if they were -- were -- they had data available that we could

21     use that be would useful.  I met with the so-called MAG, the Muslims

22     Against Genocide.  I met with Mr. Tokaca [phoen] of the documentation

23     centre; Mr. Smajlic of the public health centre, I believe, and -- but

24     this was in 1997, 1998, 1999, long time ago, so I don't remember all the

25     names.  But I have written reports, and meeting with new people all the

Page 9677

 1     time in Tuzla, in Mostar, in Sarajevo, to try to find out other, Do you

 2     have lists of names, and by list of name, I mean it has to include date

 3     of birth and particulars.  Because there were three types of information

 4     we were interested in.  First, what happened during the war, those went

 5     missing or dead; second, lists of people before the war, census, which is

 6     an excellent source; and, third, lists of survivors of the war and there

 7     we managed to collect data on voters' lists and refugees and displaced

 8     persons.

 9             So these were the three major data sources.  We could group all

10     data sources into these three groups, and we continuously asked for new

11     datas or new data sources.  After I left the Tribunal, Ewa Tabeau

12     managed, for example, to get data from the Bosnian army, which I did

13     not -- I did not say I did not manage but that was not -- I didn't have

14     time to do that when I was -- when I worked here.

15        Q.   Thank you.  I have listened carefully to what you said.  Can you

16     tell me, did you contact anybody from the other side in the war, or did

17     you contact only people from the side of the Muslims, or, rather, BiH

18     army, and, of course, the Prosecution, including NGOs?  Thank you.

19        A.   Yes, I was in contact with several people, several Serbs and

20     Croats.  In fact, I was on the way to Banja Luka in December 1998 to try

21     to collect data.  When -- right before I was going to leave in the

22     afternoon in a heavy snowstorm, I was told that Mr. -- General Krstic had

23     been arrested and for security reasons I could not go.  So I missed that

24     chance of going to Banja Luka to collect data.

25             But other people have collected data from Banja Luka, and we

Page 9678

 1     have -- and -- Republika Srpska and we have looked at that data too.

 2        Q.   Thank you.  Can you identify any point in your report where we

 3     can find this information that you received from people from

 4     Republika Srpska where, as you told us, you were unable to go because of

 5     the war situation?  Thank you.

 6        A.   Sir, in Annex 3, Annex 3.8, it says:  Sources not used:  RS and

 7     FIS mortality databases and the Bosnian book of dead.  It is -- let me

 8     see -- so that on page 61 in the English version, it talks about the

 9     Republika Srpska mortality database which was finalised in June 1995,

10     which we requested and received.  It was requested in OTP and received --

11     and the project leader for that was the director of the Republika Srpska

12     statistical office, Slavka Sloboc [phoen].

13        Q.   Thank you.  Can you explain to the Trial Chamber why did not

14     you -- why didn't you use those sources?

15        A.   It is written in the reports that they were cross-referenced to

16     find out whether there were additional deaths and missing, but we did not

17     find any -- any -- the information was not in this form that it was --

18     did add anything to what we had already.

19             Moreover, what is important about these two mortality databases,

20     they included all deaths during the war period, not only all -- including

21     natural deaths from old age or disease, so we could not just add all

22     these deaths in our list of missing persons, of course.  The list of

23     missing persons for Srebrenica is, of course, for persons who went

24     missing or died, in connection with the fall of Srebrenica.  Somebody who

25     lived in Srebrenica and died from lung cancer or tuberculosis before

Page 9679

 1     11th of July or after, was obviously not included in our list.  They did

 2     not go missing or died in connection with the fall of Srebrenica.  We

 3     could only use information that had -- had -- we could only use records

 4     that had that information that was precise on that.  And these data

 5     sources that was developed kindly by the federal statistical office and

 6     the Republika Srpska statistical office did not have that information.

 7             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  At this point in time, Judge Nyambe has a

 8     question for the witness.

 9             JUDGE NYAMBE:  Thank you.  I wonder if you can clear some doubts

10     or some -- I just need some clarification.

11             At page 56 of today's transcript, between lines 17 and 25, you

12     have said and I quote:

13             "In the first report in 2000, we did not include bodies that were

14     found in the river Drina because we had thought that it was too far."

15             And then down, you saw:

16             "But the ICRC have included such bodies as Srebrenica-related

17     depending on the statements of witnesses."

18             How do you determine which body is Srebrenica-related and which

19     one is not in the particulars circumstances of your testimony?

20             THE WITNESS:  That depends on the statements of the family

21     members who reported a person as missing.  So if a family member said

22     that we -- our relative, father or son, or whoever, was in the Srebrenica

23     area and went missing, then that is the basis.  It's the place of

24     disappearance and the date also, very important, the date of

25     disappearance.

Page 9680

 1             So we did not include Drina because we thought that, as I said,

 2     it was too far away, but then when they say that this was

 3     Srebrenica-related, they have been accepted anyway.  There were few.

 4             JUDGE NYAMBE:  Thank you.

 5             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  May I put another question to you.  Page 19,

 6     line 25, I asked you about the list of voters compiled for the elections

 7     1997, 1998.  And you said:

 8             "People had to come forward and register to vote but they had to

 9     be enumerated in 1991, so all the registration places had the census,"

10     and so on.

11             There is no need for further quotation.

12             Now, later, you told us that -- this is page 60 -- no, sorry,

13     it's -- it's page 42, line 5, you said:

14             "Because the 1996 voters' list is -- was the 1991 census.

15     According to the Dayton Accord of November 1995, the 1991 census should

16     be used as a voters' list for the first election."

17             I need to -- need some clarification.  Were they used as a basis

18     for the voters' lists for the next election; or did they have to show up

19     personally to find out if they are still alive or not?

20             Can you help to clarify this?

21             THE WITNESS:  Excuse me, for that question, whether people had to

22     show up personally to find out whether they're still alive or not, I

23     think they knew whether they were alive or not, if you excuse me.

24             But I believe -- in 1996, I believe that people could just show

25     up to vote and as long as they were in the census, they could vote.  If

Page 9681

 1     they were not and wanted to vote, they had to show evidence.  In 1997, it

 2     was not enough just to show up to vote and be on the list.  In addition,

 3     they had to actively register beforehand.  And I think then --

 4             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  In 1991?

 5             THE WITNESS:  Yes, they had to be on the 1991 list, but in

 6     addition, they had to show up in 1997 and register to vote.

 7             And we know from the voters' registration received from OSCE, we

 8     have four items of local identification:  That is, where they registered

 9     to vote, the municipality first; the municipality where they registered

10     to vote, the municipality where -- which they wanted to vote for; the

11     municipality they lived in 1991.  And is there was one more, but I don't

12     recall.  At least there were three.

13             So, say, a displaced person from Srebrenica could then register

14     vote in -- in Sarajevo and say that he or she wanted to vote for

15     Srebrenica.  Actually, the municipal council in Srebrenica.

16             This was also the case for the 600.000 or so refugees living

17     elsewhere in the word.  They could also register, say, in Norway or the

18     Netherlands and say, I want to vote in the election in 1997, which I

19     think was a national election, actually, and say -- then they had to

20     state which municipality should the vote be cast in, or cast for.  But

21     they could do -- vote abroad.

22             I hope this clarified -- answered your question.

23             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Indeed, it did.  Thank you very much for that.

24             We must have our second break now and we will resume at 1.00.

25                           --- Recess taken at 12.30 p.m.

Page 9682

 1                           --- On resuming at 1.02 p.m.

 2             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Before we continue with the cross-examination, I

 3     just briefly have to raise some other matters dealing with some documents

 4     in this trial.

 5             Recently, the Chamber was approached by one of the Defence teams

 6     in the Popovic case, the Popovic appeal case, in relation to this

 7     Chamber's decision on Defence request for access to confidential

 8     materials which was issued on the 2nd of June, 2010.

 9             The Defence team in the other case claims that they have not yet

10     been disclosed any confidential material in this case.  They also request

11     that disclosure of this material be conducted on a two-weekly basis.  In

12     this regard, I note that the decision of our Chamber orders, inter alia,

13     that the Registry shall provide access for all the accused in the

14     Popovic et al case subject to Rule 70 consent with -- where applicable

15     and with exception of material related to personal information about

16     Mr. Tolimir and his family members to all inter-parties confidential

17     material in the Tolimir case and that the parties shall assist the

18     Registry by identifying such documents.

19             Could the parties please provide any update as to the progress of

20     disclosure tomorrow during our hearing.  That be would fine and then we

21     can deal with that.

22             That's it.  There's no need for discussion now on this topic,

23     Mr. Gajic, we should do that tomorrow, but that was just an invitation to

24     prepare for this matter during the hearing of tomorrow.

25             Mr. Tolimir, please, continue your cross-examination.

Page 9683

 1             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.

 2             Can we see 65 ter 1708 on e-court, please.  Thank you.  And then

 3     we see it, I'm going to just say that this is an article co-authored by

 4     Mr. Brunborg which is entitled:  "Accounting for genocide:  How many were

 5     killed at Srebrenica?"  This was written in 2002.  When the witness looks

 6     at this, then I'm going to put my question to him.

 7             We can see the study, the paper.

 8             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

 9        Q.   Are you able to tell us or explain to us, to the Trial Chamber,

10     what was the purpose of this paper, and is it based on the reports that

11     were drafted for the purposes of trials being conducted at this Tribunal?

12     Thank you.

13        A.   Thank you.  This paper was written after I left the Tribunal as

14     an employee and also my co-authors were not working for the Tribunal.  We

15     wanted to write an academic paper on the missing and dead in Srebrenica.

16     Writing academic papers for international journals is part of what we do

17     as researchers.  It is both a duty and also something that we should do,

18     really, to get credit in the academic world.  So we wanted to summarise

19     our findings and discuss the methodology which was, in ways, new.  We had

20     better data than in any -- most other war crimes cases, so we wanted this

21     to be known to the rest of the world.  That's why we wrote this article,

22     which was then accepted, reviewed, refereed, as it is, peer review, in

23     "European Journal of Population."  This article here is a draft and it

24     was then submitted to the "European Journal of Population" where it was

25     published in the year 2003 and well received.  Immodestly, I would say

Page 9684

 1     that one expert on this, Dr. Selsura [phoen], previously of the

 2     United Nations Statistics Division called this the gold standard

 3     of analysis of conflicts material, conflict cases.

 4        Q.   Thank you.  Well, in this gold standard, the last sentence

 5     says --

 6             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's note, we do not see the last --

 7             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

 8        Q.   The last sentence of the abstracts states:

 9             "We conclude that at least 7.475 persons were killed after the

10     fall of Srebrenica.  We also present estimates of the probability of

11     being a victim:  More than 33 per cent for Muslim men who were enumerated

12     in Srebrenica in 1991."

13             My question is:  Were the Muslims from Srebrenica who were living

14     there in 1991, the only victims or was the figure that the calculation

15     should have been made on supposed to be based on the total population in

16     the Srebrenica enclave at that time?  Thank you.

17        A.   Thank you for asking that question.

18             That result, which is -- which you just referred to, is based on

19     additional methodology after our 2000 report.  It is based on the linking

20     of the missing list with the 1991 census.  And when linking, we linked

21     the missing persons to those who were enumerated in Srebrenica and

22     elsewhere in 1991.  And when we did the linking, we found 87 per cent on

23     the missing lists.  A few may have been lived -- been enumerated in

24     Serbia and, thus, in 1991.

25             So this does not refer to the population of Srebrenica before the

Page 9685

 1     11th or 12th of July, 1995.  It refers to the population in Srebrenica in

 2     1991.  We did not know how many were --lived in or stayed in Srebrenica

 3     in June, July, 1995.  Some figures give an estimate of 40.000.  Could be

 4     right, could be wrong.  We have not used that figure.  We have tried, we

 5     have asked different sources -- institutions and even the political

 6     leaders of the town council whether there are such lists of persons who

 7     were in Srebrenica in 1995.  But nobody has come forward with such a

 8     list, which would have -- very much like to see.  Because that would

 9     be -- yes.

10        Q.   Thank you.  I would like to show the witness D117 now, please.

11             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Tolimir, are you tendering this document,

12     this article of Mr. Brunborg into evidence?

13             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, we're going to use it.  And

14     then after that, we definitely do want to tender it, yes.

15             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Okay.  Go ahead, please.

16             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

17             Can we zoom in on this document a little bit, please, so the

18     witness can see it better.

19             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

20        Q.   You can see a document here signed by the municipal leadership of

21     Srebrenica in 1995 about the number of citizens.  We have the total

22     number of the population, the households, the local population, the

23     displaced population in the municipalities of Srebrenica, Bratunac,

24     Vlasenica, Zvornik, Han Pijesak, and so on.  And then if we look at the

25     fifth column from the bottom, it says that there were only --

Page 9686

 1             THE INTERPRETER:  The accused is asked to repeat the last figure.

 2             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

 3        Q.   Based on this figure that in Srebrenica the overall population

 4     was 16.639, did you take into account that figure when you were making

 5     the calculations that you used for your study?  Thank you.

 6        A.   Excuse me, sir, what you referred to was the number of women.  If

 7     you include the number of men, it becomes close to 36-, 37.000.

 8        Q.   Thank you.  This calculation of yours, in your paper, was that

 9     done on the basis of the total number of 36.051 or was that based on the

10     other number, 19.566, who were mentioned in the census of 1991?  Thank

11     you.

12        A.   It was mentioned -- it was on neither of these.  It was the

13     number of Muslim men who lived in -- who -- excuse me.  Who were

14     enumerated in Srebrenica in 1991.  I don't remember how many Muslim men

15     there were.  It's given somewhere in the report that -- the total, and I

16     could easily find it.

17             But it's not based on the number on the -- on what we see on the

18     screen.

19        Q.   Thank you.  Can we now go back to your article, your published

20     paper.  This is 65 ter 1708.  Thank you.

21             As I quoted a little bit earlier, you said here that you

22     concluded that at least 7.475 persons were killed after the fall of

23     Srebrenica.

24             My question is:  Were these people the inhabitants of Srebrenica,

25     or were they inhabitants of a number of municipalities, some of which I

Page 9687

 1     referred to from the document that we were looking at just a little bit

 2     before.  Thank you.

 3        A.   They were inhabitants of a number of municipalities as of 1991.

 4     As of 1995, we don't really know, but most of them probably lived in the

 5     city of Srebrenica.  At that time, or the -- they were in -- in --

 6     obviously they were in the city of Srebrenica in 1995, before the fall.

 7     But many of them had come from other -- from Zvornik, Bratunac, and other

 8     municipalities to Srebrenica during the war period, or some even before.

 9        Q.   Thank you.

10             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Judge Nyambe has a question.

11             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

12             JUDGE NYAMBE:  I just need a clarification.

13             In the context of your report here, are you able to establish or

14     determine who died before 1995 and after the fall of Srebrenica?

15             THE WITNESS:  Before 1995?

16             JUDGE NYAMBE:  Yes.  Before the fall of the enclave.

17             THE WITNESS:  No.  But we did not use that data.  That is why

18     this proportion of 33 per cent is a low estimate.  It's on -- it's on the

19     low side.  Because those who died before the fall of Srebrenica from

20     natural reasons or other reasons are not -- are still included in the

21     denominator but not in the numerator.  So the population at risk of being

22     missing or being killed in 1995 is -- has then become too large because

23     you not subtracted those deaths and also out-migrations that occurred

24     before July 1995.

25             JUDGE NYAMBE:  Thank you.

Page 9688

 1             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Tolimir.

 2             Judge Mindua has a question.

 3             JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Yes, Witness.  As a follow-up to

 4     Judge Nyambe's question, I would like to discuss this exhibit,

 5     65 ter 1708 entitled: "Accounting for genocide: How Many Were Killed in

 6     Srebrenica?"

 7             This morning, during cross-examination, the accused asked you

 8     whether, in your calculations you taken into account those people that

 9     had been killed illegally and those people that had been killed in

10     action, or in any other way.  I remember that you said, no, that you had

11     not taken these differences into account since you are not a lawyer, and

12     that was not something which interested you.

13             I'm a little bit uneasy when I look at the title of your paper,

14     because you talk about those people that were killed in Srebrenica, and,

15     at the same time, you use the word "genocide."  I haven't had the

16     opportunity to read your article in detail yet, but at this stage I would

17     ask -- like to ask you this question:  When you talk about those people

18     that were killed in Srebrenica, did you, once again, take into account

19     those people that died in action, or did you take into account all the

20     people that died without establishing a difference between them?

21             THE WITNESS:  Thank you.  We did not include those people who

22     were killed and were known to have been killed on or before the 11th of

23     July, 1995.  We only took into account those people who were reported as

24     missing.  That's an important distinction.  So if there were people who

25     were known to be killed in action, there was no need for families to

Page 9689

 1     report them as missing, and they were not included.  They were never part

 2     our lists.  They were -- only included those reported or registered as

 3     missing.

 4             That is the point.

 5             JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Very well.  So you based your

 6     calculations on the number of missing persons; I understand now.

 7             Given that you are not a lawyer, I would just like to know this:

 8     Did you use the word "genocide" on purpose in your article, or was this

 9     something which you used randomly?

10             THE WITNESS:  Thank you.  Well, it was not used randomly, and --

11     but this article is not a legal document.  And it was written after

12     the -- General Krstic was found guilty of complicity of genocide.  So

13     that is why we did not assign any -- we did not use the word genocide in

14     [indiscernible].  It was part of a sentences that had already been -- the

15     sentence had already been made, so that's why we could use that term.

16     But we did not use it in a legal sense.  As you know, genocide is a term

17     that is used in many different ways by media, general population,

18     et cetera, and it has different definitions.  I'm fully aware of the

19     legal definition of genocide at this Court, but as long as already the

20     Court had found General Krstic guilty of genocide, I don't think we made

21     a mistake in using that in the title.

22             JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Thank you.  Very well, Witness, I

23     understand this better.

24             I see that your article was drafted in 2003; is that correct?

25             THE WITNESS:  I think it was drafted in 2002, and finally

Page 9690

 1     published in "European Journal of Population" in 2003.  It says 10th of

 2     July, 2002, at the top.  And, of course, we had written many drafts

 3     before July 2002 also.

 4             JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.

 5             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Judge Nyambe has another question.

 6             JUDGE NYAMBE:  Just another follow-up clarification.

 7             Given your earlier testimony where you have said you did not have

 8     the skills to determine who died in combat and who did not die in combat,

 9     in the context of this report, how do you come to associate people who

10     died categorically as if they died in the context of a genocide?  Because

11     a genocide, as you say, is a legal term, giving particular meaning to the

12     death of a person.

13             THE WITNESS:  As I said, we did not use genocide in a legal

14     context here.  And -- but our analysis found that all but -- almost all,

15     99.1, of those reported as missing were Muslims.  And .9 were -- .9

16     per cent were non-Muslims.

17             So I'm also aware in the legal terminology that there should be

18     an intent to destroy, in full or in part, a population by ethnicity,

19     et cetera.  But here, genocide is used in a more, sort of, general sense,

20     where people understand by a large -- the general understanding that it

21     is a killing of a large group of people who, by, say, ethnicity, or

22     another characteristic.

23             But, anyway, it does not conflict with the finding of this Court,

24     that, indeed, Krstic was sentenced to -- guilty of genocide.

25                           [Trial Chamber confers]

Page 9691

 1             JUDGE NYAMBE:  Thank you.

 2             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Tolimir, please carry on.

 3             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.  Thanks

 4     to the members of the Trial Chamber, Ms. Nyambe and Mr. Mindua.

 5             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

 6        Q.   I would ask the witness the following:  In the last sentence

 7     which we can see here, the per cent, 33 per cent, is it something that

 8     you calculated on the basis of the total number of inhabitants of

 9     Srebrenica, which is 19-odd thousand before the war, or on the basis of

10     the total number of inhabitants of the municipalities of Bratunac,

11     Vlasenica, Zvornik, Han Pijesak, Visegrad, Rogatica, Srebrenica and those

12     who were reported by having lost their lives by 1995 by the BiH army, and

13     that number is 1.394?  Thank you.

14        A.   Thank you.  It is based on the number of people who lived in each

15     of these municipalities before the war.  Please refer to Table 11 in

16     the -- my report on page 24 in the English version.  I don't know if you

17     want to see it or not.

18             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  The report is P1776.

19             THE WITNESS:  Thank you.  At the very top, that is Table 10B, you

20     will see that the number of people who went missing in the connection

21     with the fall of Srebrenica by residents in 1991, and will you see that

22     in -- of these of the 7 and a half thousand, 500, that went missing,

23     4.195 were Muslims living in Srebrenica in 1991.  At the same time, there

24     was one Croat and no Serbs, 44 others, no unknowns among those who lived

25     in Srebrenica in 1991, making a total of 4.240.

Page 9692

 1             All those reported missing, 1.827 resided in Bratunac in 1991

 2     before the war; 921 in Vlasenica; 409 in Zvornik; and 98 in Han Pijesak.

 3     Total of 7.495.  That is the adjusted counts.  Thank you.  And if you --

 4     okay, I think that's it.

 5             Now, when we compare these numbers by -- if you can move down to

 6     the bottom of Table 11, you see the total at the bottom, you see there we

 7     have taken those figures only for men, Muslim men, and compared to the

 8     number of Muslim men being enumerated in each municipality in 1991.  We

 9     see that in Srebrenica there were 34.2 per cent, who lived in -- in

10     Srebrenica in 1991, who went missing in 1995.  All those living in

11     Bratunac, there were 19.4 per cent; all those enumerated in Vlasenica,

12     11.3 per cent were reported as missing; Zvornik, 1.9 per cent;

13     Han Pijesak, 8.6 per cent.  Total in those five municipalities,

14     14.2 per cent of those who were enumerated in 1991 were registered as

15     missing in 1995.  One of seventh, that is.

16             In particular, we notice that the age group, 45 to 49, had the

17     highest proportion, and also 50, 54 with more than 50 percent of

18     Srebrenica Muslim men were reported as missing, and -- or dead.  That is

19     half of those who lived there in 1991.  That does not include those who

20     went -- died from natural reasons in between, 1991 to 1995.  So it is a

21     very high proportion.

22             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

23        Q.   Thank you.  Does that also include the number of soldiers from

24     more municipality -- from all municipalities, including Srebrenica, which

25     were killed during the war and which are mentioned in the table which we

Page 9693

 1     recently showed as the soldiers who were killed as part of the number of

 2     1.384, and where can they be found here?  Thank you.

 3        A.   As I said before, those soldiers who were enumerated in

 4     Srebrenica and the other municipalities in 1991 and who had been

 5     registered missing after the fall of Srebrenica are included here, just

 6     like everybody else.  We do not distinguish between soldiers and

 7     non-soldiers.  And, in fact, 70 per cent of the missing were members of

 8     the Bosnian army, but that does not necessarily mean that they fell in

 9     action.

10        Q.   Thank you.  And when the Trial Chamber is to decide about guilt,

11     how are they to know who are the ones who were killed and who are the

12     ones who did not die in battle?  Can you help us about that?  Thank you.

13     How will they know?

14        A.   Well, again, as I said this is not my area of expertise but to

15     remind you a few facts.  Thirty per cent of those reported missing were

16     not part of the army.  So they were not listed as part of the army, so

17     you can subtract those.  Then a number of -- also of those who were part

18     of the army were found in mass graves.  Some were -- or many, I don't

19     know many, were blind-folded.  And usually people in mass graves did not

20     die in action.  Some surface remains are more likely, but, again, there

21     are other people who have studied this more closely.

22        Q.   Thank you.  I am asking you about your report.  Does it include

23     all those who were found in graves, regardless of the manner in which

24     they died?  Thank you.

25        A.   Yes.

Page 9694

 1        Q.   Thank you.  Can you please tell us whether, for this report and

 2     the article that we read, you listed all cases where death was the final

 3     result and included them in the calculation of genocide, as you called

 4     it.  Yes or no?  Thank you.

 5        A.   Yes.  But let me repeat, that we only included deaths amongst

 6     those who were reported as missing.  Deaths among people who were not

 7     reported as missing because there was no need to, they -- the families

 8     and the army or whoever knew about it, the body was usually there, was

 9     usually recovered, they were not reported as missing and are not included

10     in our figures.  The only -- only the uncertain, those with an uncertain

11     fate, we are including, and in our first list, as of the year 2000, there

12     were 7.475, of which 66 later was found to be dead.  But that was found

13     independently of the reporting of the missing.  So I think even for the

14     66 missing, the families did not know that the persons were dead.

15        Q.   Thank you.  Can we please show again 65 ter 1708 in the e-court.

16             Thank you.  We can see it again.  Could we please show

17     paragraph 3 of your article.  Paragraph 3.  It's page 3 and paragraph 3.

18             Where you say -- we can see it now.  Paragraph 3, page 3, so we

19     can see in it English as well.  We can see it in Serbian as well.

20             Can you tell us whether during your work for the OTP, because you

21     are discussing the number of victims here, for which a case of genocide

22     was established.  And as you discuss that, my question is this:  During

23     your work for the Prosecutor's office of this trial, did you ask the

24     investigators and other persons employed by the OTP for an interpretation

25     by which they would ask you to be obliged to establish certain numbers so

Page 9695

 1     that you could base on that the accusation of genocide?  Thank you.

 2        A.   No.  The conclusion about genocide was written in a non-legal

 3     paper outside the OTP.  I did not work for the OTP at that time.  Meant

 4     for an academic audience.  And this was after the sentence against

 5     Krstic.

 6             I think we have been more precise on the use of the term

 7     "genocide" than is usually the case in literature on -- on armed

 8     conflicts.  The word "genocide" is often used in a very imprecise way, as

 9     you know.

10             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  My I interrupt for a moment?  Judge Nyambe has a

11     question.

12             JUDGE NYAMBE:  Thank you.  I just need some more clarification.

13             At page 80 of today's transcript, lines 9 on, in answer to the

14     question you say, and I quote:

15             "... also of those who were part of the army were found in mass

16     graves."

17             "Those who were part of the army were -- are to be found in mass

18     graves."

19             And then in the next line, you jump in and after that you say:

20             "And usually people in mass graves did not die in action."

21             So what was your finding as to the people who were found in mass

22     graves?  They were -- they were the army people and also they did not die

23     in action.

24             Can you just clarify that for me.

25             THE WITNESS:  Well, we do not have precise - as I've said

Page 9696

 1     before - information about the cause of death of those found in mass

 2     graves, whether they are civilians or soldiers.  The only thing we know

 3     is that, first, they are found in mass graves; secondly, in those mass

 4     graves there were many or a number of people were blind-folded or hands

 5     tied or shot from behind, which indicate that they did not fall in

 6     action.  That doesn't exclude the fact that the some may have fallen in

 7     action, but it is -- we don't have information on that.  And that it is

 8     unlikely that a majority fell in action.

 9             But nobody has precise knowledge on this.

10             JUDGE NYAMBE:  Thank you.

11             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Tolimir.

12             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

13             MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

14        Q.   As you are using this as arguments, can you also tell the

15     Prosecution and the Defence what is the number of those who were found in

16     graves with blind-folds or with their hands tied?  Does your report

17     contain that information anywhere?

18        A.   No, not in my report.  I refer to testimony of exhumation experts

19     here Dean Manning and Dusan, I don't recall this last name, on exhumation

20     sites whether it is known how many people were handcuffed, I do not know,

21     but remember that if people -- not handcuffed but ties -- their hands

22     tied or blind-folded.  If exhumations are made ten years after the

23     executions, most textiles have probably gone away, and it is difficult to

24     see.  If exhumations are done soon after the executions, are more likely

25     to identify textiles such as used for handcuffing and blind-folding.  I

Page 9697

 1     believe that was the case but I do not have any numbers.

 2        Q.   Thank you.  Can you please answer me this:  Whether these people,

 3     Mr. Manning and Mr. Janc are expert witnesses or are they just employees

 4     of the Prosecutor's office?  Thank you.

 5             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  This is well-known to [Realtime transcript read

 6     in error "not"] the Chamber, I think.

 7             Mr. McCloskey.

 8             MR. McCLOSKEY:  Yes, and Mr. President, I just want to remind the

 9     Court that Professor Brunborg has stated that these particular areas are

10     not his areas.  He stated that very early on.  But out of courtesy and

11     because he has basic knowledge, he has attempted to answer some of these

12     questions and now he is being led further and further astray into areas

13     regarding the investigation, and even suggested that these -- this

14     material is part of his report, much of which is not.  I have no problem

15     with any of this as a report but now he is taking him into evaluating,

16     you know, in detail Dean Manning, and Dusan Janc is the person we're

17     talking about.  I think these questions are far afield, frankly, and --

18     and we're asking him to get way outside his area of expertise in this

19     particular situation.  Many do not.  But in this situation, we are, in my

20     view.

21             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  First, I have to correct line 20 of page 83.  I'm

22     recorded as having said, "This is well-known not Chamber."  I said, "This

23     is well-known to the Chamber," because we have had some of them as

24     witnesses here in the courtroom.

25             Secondly, I am very happy that we have our break now.  We have to

Page 9698

 1     adjourn for today and we will resume tomorrow in the afternoon at 2.15.

 2             Perhaps you should consider and think of what Mr. McCloskey has

 3     said, Mr. Tolimir, during the break and for preparation of the

 4     continuance of your cross-examination tomorrow.

 5             May I remind you that it is not allowed to have contact during

 6     the break to either party.

 7             Thank you very much.  And we adjourn.

 8                            --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.46 p.m.,

 9                           to be reconvened on Thursday, the 10th day of

10                           February, 2011, at 2.15 p.m.