1 Wednesday, 16 March 2011
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.04 a.m.
5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Good morning to everybody.
6 Before we continue with the re-examination of the witness, I
7 would like to ask the Defence if they are in a position to respond to the
8 Prosecution's motion for leave to file an amended Rule 65 ter summary for
9 Witness Dusan Janc.
10 Mr. Gajic.
11 MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] Good morning to everyone.
12 Mr. President, yes, we are in a position to respond to the
13 Prosecution's motion for leave to file an amended Rule 65 ter summary for
14 Witness Dusan Janc.
15 I will try to be brief.
16 Mr. Janc has already testified here on a number of occasions. We
17 all recall him testifying about the maps, DNA analyses for which he
18 complied a report and numerous footage was introduced through him. Now
19 the Prosecution wishes to seek to tender some additional footage which
20 they list in their motion. They also want to tender some intercepts
21 through this witness, which were allegedly intercepted by Croatian
22 operators. I will deal with the second issue first.
23 I will quote a key sentence of paragraph 4 of the Prosecution's
24 motion, in which it is stated: "His testimony concerning Croatian
25 intercepts will have to do -- will be to the effect of their reliability
1 within the context of other relevant and material evidence in the case."
2 First, I'd like to remind you that Witness PW-070 testified. He
3 listened and was shown to those intercepts. We have his testimony on the
4 record. The Defence wishes to suggest that this issue be dealt in
5 written form the best. If they want to tender those documents, which I
6 believe is their intention, they should submit at least a bar table
7 motion which would resolve the whole thing. For an OTP investigator to
8 address the reliability of this document -- these documents within the
9 context of other relevant material in this case is, in our view,
10 inappropriate. We don't believe such materials should be introduced
11 through an investigator. If I understand correctly, Mr. Dusan Janc is an
12 investigator, rather than an expert. If the OTP wish to deal with those
13 intercepts within the context of all other material, although we don't
14 know what material exactly, because we don't know what their intention is
15 with Dusan Janc and what other documents they have, say, VRS, or AB and H
16 documents or some others.
17 In any case, we could deal with that easily in a written form,
18 and it is up to the Chamber to assign weight to the issue of reliability
19 of those intercepts and to drew conclusions about the various aspects
20 that have to do with the intercepts themselves.
21 Therefore, the Defence position is that in this part the
22 Prosecution motion should be rejected. That is to say, the parts which
23 deal with the Croatian intercepts.
24 As regards the footage, there is a number of such documents, such
25 as the visit of Canadian Serbs to General Mladic; next, the meeting of
1 General Mladic with General Rupert Smith of the 25th of July; then the
2 celebration when one of the VRS generals retired. That evidence has
3 already been introduced through another investigator. We will have a
4 number of other witnesses here appearing, especially from the VRS, but
5 perhaps we should, in view of that, think about whether such material
6 should be introduced through them, because they have direct knowledge of
7 those events, as opposed to the investigators. The Defence will not take
8 a definite position. Now whether it should be done through investigators
9 or some other witnesses, we will leave it in your hands, in keeping with
10 the practice so far and the rules that are in application.
11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much, Mr. Gajic.
12 Mr. McCloskey what is the position of the Prosecution.
13 MR. McCLOSKEY: Well, on the last point, Mr. Janc and the -- and
14 the videos, we're not intending that Mr. Janc will replace
15 General Milovanovic or the people that are seen on some of the videos.
16 But, as you recall, it's important for you to know how we got the videos
17 for their authenticity, when we got them, and for example, remember the
18 now famous the 25th of July video of General Tolimir in Zepa. You'll
19 need to explain why we think that is the 25th of July, and that is based
20 on things that Mr. Janc knows about in the investigation.
21 So like he did before when he testified about the Skorpion video,
22 I think his basic information is for the authentication of these videos
23 that have been around for a long time and we have just waited until
24 you've seen some of the videos, some of them you haven't. But this is a
25 good time now for you to you hear from him about the issues of why we
1 think this is the 25th, where we got this, how we got it. Those are
2 important things that is best seen from the witness and cross-examined,
3 frankly, in open court. It's much better that way, in my view, and I
4 think you have seen this kind of evidence before and it is not
5 prejudicial to anyone. I think the Defence will want to see this as
6 well. It is very important for them, I think, these dates, and when the
7 General is in Zepa.
8 On the issue of the intercepts, I think we have to go back and
9 remember and I think it was Mr. Elderkin that was putting on the Croatian
10 intercept operator, and who laid a very good foundation, I thought, for
11 those intercepts. And Mr. Elderkin and the team had chosen to, instead
12 of offering them as we could have then, to say, Well, we'd like to give
13 you a little bit more about the authenticity of the intercepts.
14 And now I'll go back to Stephanie Frease. We have to go back in
15 our memories even more. Stephanie Frease was an employ of the OTP. She
16 was a, on the Srebrenica team and on the leadership research team. She
17 testified about the authenticity of the BiH intercepts. If you recall,
18 she was able to compare those intercepts to things that happened on
19 video. When the intercept says there's a Serbian flag flying on the
20 church in Srebrenica she was able to find a video of a Serbian flag
21 flying on the church in Srebrenica. Those kinds of things, where she
22 just put material together from the investigation to show you that the
23 intercepts were, indeed, reflecting what the investigation was seeing on
24 the ground. That's the same thing Mr. Janc is doing. In fact, it's much
25 simpler. As far as I recall, he will be showing you some of the other
1 BiH intercepts that were matches for the Croatian intercepts, or
2 something on the ground that's mentioned in the Croatian intercept that
3 we can actually see through documents.
4 So it's simple, it's something that you should see and should be
5 cross-examined. It's not something that is best left to paper with
6 92 ter or 92 bis, you must be incredibly overwhelmed with paper. This
7 intercept material is important. I think we would like you to see this
8 final small chapter. The main chapter of the intercepts, like Mr. Gajic
9 said, was the witness. But this is the final little chapter of how they
10 connect with the world that was happening at the time.
11 And so that's what this is based on. Again, it is not
12 prejudicial; it's not untimely, and it's something that Mr. Elderkin
13 mentioned a long time ago that would be coming, and it's here.
14 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much. We have the positions of
15 the parties on the record.
16 Mr. Gajic, you want to add something. You have the floor.
17 MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President.
18 Mr. Peter McCloskey has just clarified some things concerning the
19 potential testimony of Mr. Janc.
20 First of all, he was not a witness to those events. He had no
21 direct participation so as to be able to address them appropriately as a
22 witness. First and foremost, he is appearing here as an OTP
23 investigator, somebody providing OTP lawyers with the material that they
24 use in the courtroom. It is our standing position that such
25 investigators put forth appropriate arguments. If an investigator
1 compares an event to an alleged intercept, in essence, it is simply
2 argumentation and we have final briefs and final arguments, closing
3 arguments for that. And the witnesses are here to say what happened in a
4 specific place. If Mr. McCloskey believes that a certain intercept is
5 authentic, he can put questions to the appropriate witness to see whether
6 such an event, indeed, took place and whether an intercept, indeed, took
7 place. If this is done through an investigator, then, I'm sorry, but it
8 is very difficult to cross-examine an OTP investigator, especially if
9 such an investigator is used, as Dusan Janc was in the past, to introduce
10 additional witness statements into evidence. We cannot expect him to
11 provide direct knowledge. He can only testify to what he has read. And,
12 of course, this Defence is entitled to doubt the veracity of such
13 investigators, because they have a vested interest in working for the
15 Therefore, as regards intercepts, the best way to address it is
16 in written form. We had PW-070, whom I mentioned. He testified about
17 the intercepts, about the way they did it, et cetera. He was
18 cross-examined, and I believe we have sufficient material to draw
19 conclusions about the intercepts.
20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Gajic, I would like to ask you one thing. We
21 have heard a lot of investigators of the Prosecution as witnesses. Some
22 were -- some names were mentioned by Mr. McCloskey just a minute ago.
23 Some others, like the witness who is coming today, is an investigator.
24 Of course, none of the investigators have taken part in the events or
25 were -- eye-witnesses of the events in 1995. But they testified about
1 other things, about the way the investigation was conducted, the chain of
2 chain of custody of some material.
3 What is, in view of you, the difference between the Witness Janc
4 in this respect, to the other witnesses? I just want to understand your
6 MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] In relation to other witnesses, what
7 is the difference between the testimony of Dusan Janc and other
9 Well, the difference is obvious. He is an OTP investigator. He
10 is not a witness to events. It is one thing when an investigator
11 addresses only the manner in which --
12 JUDGE FLUEGGE: [Previous translation continues] ... sorry,
13 Mr. Gajic, I was not comparing Mr. Janc to eye-witnesses, but to
14 investigators we have heard as witnesses.
15 What is the difference?
16 MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] Well, basically, none. I don't see
17 any great difference, save in the matter of topics they testified. There
18 are different topics between Mr. Janc, Erin Gallagher and Mr. Blaszczyk,
19 but they all fall within the group of investigators. It is one thing to
20 have an investigator testifying to the methods of something -- how
21 something came in the possession of the investigators, and perhaps it may
22 be the only investigator who can tell us about that. But I don't believe
23 it is fully appropriate that an investigator should address the issue of
24 authenticity of material by way of comparing it to some other material
25 and other evidence put forth in this case. That was the point of what I
1 was trying to say.
2 We have already had occasion to see that investigators are used
3 to introduce a large amount of evidence, including a number of witness
4 statements who will not appear in this courtroom. And this creates
5 certain problems. The Defence will take a position on that, and I
6 believe we have already stated what our position is on any evidence
7 provided by investigators. Such evidence cannot serve as the basis, the
8 underlying basis, for the judgement itself.
9 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. McCloskey.
10 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, and briefly. We need to remember Stephanie
11 Frease is what -- is basically what -- Janc is taking over her position.
12 She's now in another life. She was a super-investigator as you will,
13 because she was an expert analyst and speaks the language. She
14 testified, I don't believe there was an objection to her. I may be wrong
15 about that. That was a long time ago. But Mr. Janc is -- as will --
16 will be doing basically what Ms. Frease was doing, it shouldn't be very
17 controversial, but it should help the Court test those intercepts and it
18 will show the Court that the Prosecution has done that, that we're just
19 not taking this on face value, and I think that's important.
20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Now we have the positions of both parties heard
21 and on the record, and the Chamber will consider the situation and will
22 come back to you in due course.
23 Another matter, translations of exhibits of the Defence.
24 Mr. Gajic.
25 MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I would like to inform
1 the Chamber that the following translations have arrived. D38; D94;
2 D111; D123; D135; and D136.
3 They have been uploaded in e-court and made available to
4 everyone. I believe they should finally be tendered as such.
5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. McCloskey.
6 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, Mr. President, on the same topic actually.
7 As you recall yesterday when the Defence tendered Defence 183 and 184,
8 they didn't have translations. I now have 65 ter 7256, which is
9 identical to 184, and 7255, which is identical to 183, and those 65 ter
10 numbers do have translation. That was our oversight. Somehow these
11 documents had two ERNs, one had a translation and one didn't, and
12 unfortunately the ones we gave to the Defence did not have translations.
13 So they did not have them when they used them yesterday. But those
14 65 ter numbers do have translations now.
15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: And what is your position in relation to
16 admission of these documents? The first -- the D183 was only pending --
17 MFI'd pending translation. The other one was MFI'd.
18 MR. McCLOSKEY: Mr. President, that's an interesting question
19 because, as you could tell from my comments yesterday, it's -- the
20 Prosecution's been studying the authenticity of these materials, and I
21 was -- and they're so closely related to the Main Staff that when the
22 Defence said they trusted their authenticity, that meant a fair amount to
23 me in this context, which is why I brought out the other document. And I
24 think if we could discuss that other document now, the one that was on
25 the screen that you were talking to me about, that in -- it would help us
1 deal with all three of these. Perhaps together or -- or perhaps
2 differently. But I think this last one is sort of the last piece of the
3 puzzle and I did mention to Mr. Gajic that, as I had with the previous
4 two, I would be asking for his position on this 12 July Popovic document,
5 which is MFI'd as P2069, the one that you were mentioning yesterday,
6 that -- that it didn't have the connections with the witness that you
7 were -- that, according to the rules.
8 And if we could discuss that briefly then I think we can deal
9 with all of them at once. So my first question to the Defence is, if we
10 could put that up on the screen, so it's P --
11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Are you going to use it with the witness again
12 during your re-examination?
13 MR. McCLOSKEY: You know, I don't think so. I think I've pretty
14 much finished with it. I just wanted to get the position of the Defence,
15 and then decide whether or not I continued to offer it. Especially based
16 on your comments and also my concerns. But crucial to this process is --
17 is how the Defence feels or -- or doesn't feel. Of course, they don't
18 have to take a position. But this document is -- is sent from the
19 Drina Corps to the Main Staff, sector for intelligence and affairs, as
20 well as the command of the Drina Corps security. So their position, I
21 would be very interested to hear.
22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Firstly, we can state that the Defence documents
23 which have now a translation and the numbers were given by Mr. Gajic are
24 now in evidence and no longer MFI'd.
25 Mr. Gajic, what is your position in relation to P2069, MFI?
1 MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, first, I'd like to
2 address the previous two documents, where we have Momir Nikolic's name in
3 the signature block.
4 Regarding those documents, we said that currently we have no
5 reason to believe that the documents are inauthentic. So the formulation
6 is somewhat different than the one suggested by Mr. McCloskey.
7 As regards this document, I believe it will be best to ask
8 Mr. Nikolic about the authenticity of this document, once he comes here
9 to testify. And then this would apply to the previous two as well.
10 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. McCloskey.
11 MR. McCLOSKEY: Mr. President, that is a change from yesterday.
12 My recollection is they felt that the documents were authentic. I don't
13 think you can offer a document on the basis that you don't have evidence
14 that it is not authentic. I think an officer of the court has to have a
15 positive reason to believe it is authentic. And I think did he that
16 yesterday, and that's why you don't find me objecting to these documents.
17 That is, I think, a morph, which we lawyers do sometimes, but I
18 don't think a document can go into evidence on that. There's no evidence
19 that it's a forgery, or there's no evidence that it is not authentic.
20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Gajic.
21 MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I only briefly touched
22 upon the interpretation provided by Mr. McCloskey. We, of course, stand
23 by what we said yesterday. Any document we receive from the OTP for
24 which we believe is authentic will be made use of. As regards the way of
25 how this document was procured, that is something we are ignorant of. We
1 received it from the OTP and from another source which also supplied the
2 OTP. We have no reason to believe something to be inauthentic, unless we
3 have a basis for that. Regarding the two documents of yesterday, for the
4 time being, we hold them to be authentic. It would be crazy if we acted
5 on the basis of some information, such as whether it tallies with this or
6 that event, or this or that belief of ours, and put forth statements
7 about its authenticity. If any information comes our way to the effect
8 that some documents may be inauthentic, we will, of course, raise that
9 issue with the Chamber. This is our position.
10 If Mr. McCloskey believes that the document needs to be admitted
11 then we won't object to that.
12 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. McCloskey.
13 MR. McCLOSKEY: I think Mr. Gajic clarified the position on the
14 first two documents, that he does believe they're authentic, not that
15 there's just no evidence that they are not authentic. He's still -- and
16 he's now told us that he doesn't object to us offering in the 12
17 July document that's on the screen now, but he still has not provided us
18 his view on whether the 12 July document is authentic. Now, of course,
19 he doesn't need to take a position on that. But I think it would be very
20 helpful if he did.
21 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I think this situation is quite clear now.
22 First, the document, D183, it was MFI'd pending translation. We heard
23 from Mr. McCloskey that there is a translation now, so that this will be
24 in evidence now.
25 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
1 JUDGE FLUEGGE: To have it clear on the record, the Registrar
2 will make a proposal how to deal with this document.
3 THE REGISTRAR: Thank you, Your Honours.
4 Considering that the Prosecution already has uploaded original
5 and the translation of both exhibits, D183 and D184, those exhibit
6 numbers shall be assigned to OTP 65 ter numbers 7255 for D183; and 7256
7 for D184.
8 Thank you.
9 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you. Now we have all different numbers
10 together for a single document, including the translation.
11 There are now two documents remaining. One offered by the
12 Prosecution; one offered by the Defence.
13 I take it, Mr. Gajic, in page 12, line 2, you said, "We won't
14 object to that." If there's no objection by either party, the Chamber is
15 inclined to accept both documents.
16 I don't see any objection by either party. Both documents will
17 be received as exhibits.
18 One question, Mr. McCloskey, has P2069 also a translation? It's
19 on the screen. That's fine. Both are no longer marked for
21 Mr. McCloskey.
22 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. That was
23 actually a simple way of dealing with a complex issue. We will be
24 providing you more information on this collection. I think it is
25 important. There are more documents in this collection. You've -- they
1 don't have 65 ter numbers on them. There's one reason I was reluctant to
2 bring them and didn't do it until after they had broughten two -- brought
3 in two. So we will have a motion for the rest to get 65 ter numbers, and
4 in that you will see the fascinating history of these documents and where
5 they came from and some of the difficulties associated with them.
6 But I think that's -- that's good for now, and I should be able
7 to finish up the re-direct.
8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you. The witness should be brought in.
9 We go into closed session to enable the witness to enter the
11 [Closed session]
15 [Open session]
16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Good morning, sir, please sit down.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning. Thank you.
18 THE REGISTRAR: We're back in open session, Your Honours.
19 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Good morning again, sir. Welcome back to the
21 I have to remind you that the affirmation to tell the truth still
23 And Mr. McCloskey is continuing his re-examination.
24 MR. McCLOSKEY: Thank you, Mr. President.
25 WITNESS: PW-075 [Resumed]
1 [Witness answered through interpreter]
2 Re-examination by Mr. McCloskey: [Continued]
3 Q. Good morning, Witness.
4 MR. McCLOSKEY: Could we put from yesterday page 11329 on the --
5 on the screen.
6 Q. And while that's coming up, Witness, you'll recall from yesterday
7 when General Tolimir was asking you about your interview with the OTP, it
8 was -- Bruce Bursik was the investigator. And he was -- you were talking
9 about whether -- when you had been told you were the -- a suspect. And
10 let me look at the part that I want to ask you about.
11 Okay. It's up there near the top and I'll read it. The question
12 starts as:
13 "Thank you. So until the end of your interview, you were told
14 that you had the status of a suspect, and that's what remained?"
15 And your answer was:
16 "It was -- I was told so only at the end. I wasn't told at the
17 beginning of the interview, when I asked."
18 Now can we go to D182, that interview. And let's start with the
19 first page, if we could. And we'll need it in this -- we'll have both
21 A. It's in English.
22 Q. It will take a minute or two for both languages to come up, so we
23 can take a look in the interview and see what you think.
24 Okay. There's page 1 of the interview. Let's go to the next
25 page in both languages.
1 And I'm going to read this a bit slowly. It's the bottom of the
2 page in both languages.
3 MR. McCLOSKEY: If we could go to the bottom. Mr. Bursik the
4 second page of the interview:
5 "I also don't want you to ask the interpreter any questions and
6 if you would kindly direct any questions that you have to me, the
7 interpreter will then interpret to me the answered question."
8 Now this is the part I want to ask you about: "Based on the
9 information that the Tribunal has, the Prosecutor of the Tribunal
10 believes that you may be a suspect responsible for committing acts which
11 may be chargeable under the Tribunal Statute. Before I ask any further
12 questions, I'm required to advise you of certain rights that you have,
13 because you are considered to be a possible suspect. Do you understand
15 And if we flip the second page of the B/C/S you'll -- that's
16 where it finishes up. It's page 3, the next page, excuse me.
17 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I think this should not be broadcast. I didn't
18 mention it at the beginning. But the Registrar confirms that it was not
20 MR. McCLOSKEY:
21 Q. So having looked at this, when General Tolimir said to you:
22 "So until the end of your interview you were told that you had
23 the status of a suspect, and that's what remained," he was wrong; isn't
24 that right? You were told right at the beginning of your interview that
25 you were a suspect. Isn't that right?
1 A. I didn't understand you. Are you asking me something?
2 Q. Sir, were you told you were a suspect at the beginning of the
3 interview with Mr. Bursik?
4 A. I don't remember that I was told that. But if it says so here,
5 then, yes.
6 Q. Okay. Now, on page 11337, you made this statement yesterday.
7 And I think I can read it without having to go to it. General Tolimir
8 asked you if you could be held responsible basically for transporting the
10 And your answer was: "Well, to tell you the truth, at the time,
11 I was even proud, in a way, that those people were able to move in an
12 orderly fashion, safely, without being mistreated and that they were
13 allowed to cross to the territory where they wanted to be. To me, it was
14 logical that they were going there, and it was probably because of that,
15 that I felt a kind of pride."
16 You'll also recall testifying, and it was in my summary, that as
17 soon as you got to that school you stayed a few minutes and left against
18 the instructions of -- of Colonel Popovic; is that correct?
19 A. I said that Nikolic ordered me to go back immediately.
20 Q. So, you did not have so much pride in what you and Popovic were
21 doing at that school that you were willing to follow the orders of a
22 colonel from the Drina Corps. You, instead, went back to Bratunac on the
23 orders of a captain?
24 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir.
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. I would like to greet
1 everybody here, the witness. May the peace reign in this house and may
2 this trial end in accordance with God's will.
3 The witness said that he obeyed one of the persons that he
4 considered his superior and went back. So it's his immediate superior.
5 MR. McCLOSKEY: [Overlapping speakers] ... Your Honour, this is an
6 argument. I'm sorry, this is an argument.
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] He didn't say that he didn't want
8 to --
9 JUDGE FLUEGGE: No, Mr. McCloskey, please don't interrupt.
10 You may please take off your earphones again.
11 Mr. Tolimir, you are not in a position to testify. You may
12 respond or object to a question of Mr. McCloskey. Please, you have the
14 Do you want to say something?
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I objected to one part of the
16 current conversation between the Prosecutor and the witness. He asked
17 him why didn't you stay there, and offered a conclusion. But the witness
18 said that he didn't stay there because Nikolic ordered him to go back and
19 that's the only thing that I said. I simply want the things that the
20 witness is putting us to be considered as such.
21 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, that is correct. We have it on the
22 record. Page 17, line 5. "I said that Nikolic ordered me to go back
24 That is on the record and it is the right of Mr. McCloskey now to
25 put additional questions to that statement.
1 Mr. McCloskey, please carry on.
2 And witness should take the earphones on again.
3 MR. McCLOSKEY: Mr. President, I think I made the point I wanted
4 to make. I have no further questions.
5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much.
6 [Trial Chamber confers]
7 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Sir, first of all, I want to apologise that we
8 started very late this morning because we had to discuss many procedural
9 matters. Now you will be pleased to hear that this concludes your
10 examination here in this trial. You are free now to return to your
11 normal activities and to go home, and the court usher will assist you.
12 Thank you very much that you were able to come to The Hague again and to
13 help the Chamber with your knowledge. Thank you.
14 We turn back into closed session.
15 [Closed session]
19 [Open session]
20 THE REGISTRAR: We're back in open session, Your Honours.
21 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. McCloskey.
22 MR. McCLOSKEY: And, Mr. President, and I -- I am very reluctant
23 to do what I just did, but when I watched what -- to me was repeated
24 signalling of the witness with these argumentative statements that have
25 nothing to do with an objection. That's why I did that, objecting at
1 that time as opposed to what we normally do and be courteous to let
2 someone finish. And I just -- I don't know how else to handle that kind
3 of thing when you have an important there and he's signalling him like
5 But in any event, I will try to refrain that that, of course, but
6 when it happens in important issues, I -- and I know you don't like it,
7 and I -- I apologise to that effect. But I just don't know what else,
8 how else to handle it. In any event, I just wanted to say that.
9 JUDGE FLUEGGE: If both parties would bear that in mind, that
10 during chief examination, cross-examination and re-examination, the
11 opposing party should be very careful to influence a witness. Not only
12 the opposing party but also the questioning party, because we, the
13 Chamber, have to get a full picture and we want to listen carefully to
14 witnesses to find out what we can rely on and -- at the end of this
16 Thank you very much.
17 Is the next witness ready to go.
18 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, he is, Mr. President. Mr. Elderkin is
19 here. And if I could be excused to say good-bye to the last witness.
20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Yes, indeed, you are excused.
21 Welcome, Mr. Elderkin.
22 MR. ELDERKIN: Good morning, Your Honours, and everyone else in
23 the courtroom. I understand that this is for the continuation of
24 Mr. Blaszczyk's cross-examination.
25 Before he comes in, Your Honours, I was reviewing the transcript
1 from the witness --
2 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Just a moment, please. Before the witness comes.
3 MR. ELDERKIN: [Overlapping speakers] ... it's fine if he is
5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Please come in.
6 [The witness takes the stand]
7 MR. ELDERKIN: I was reviewing the witness from the end of last
8 week with Witness David Wood and I noticed at transcript page 11106, line
9 3 --
10 JUDGE FLUEGGE: May I invite the witness to sit down.
11 Please go ahead.
12 MR. ELDERKIN: At the reference that I just gave that I misspoke
13 in referring to the date of a video clip, and I said a particular clip
14 was from the 26th of July, and on review, I realize that it's from the
15 19th [Realtime transcript read in error "9th"] of July. I wanted to put
16 that on the record so that that is clear.
17 In addition, this is one of the videos which Mr. Janc will
18 testify. Then it will be part of his testimony and hopefully we'll clear
19 up any confusion over that.
20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much. That is appreciated.
21 Mr. Gajic.
22 MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I follow the proceedings
23 in Serbian through my headphones and I also follow the transcript in
24 English and now here at page 20, line 20, I see the mention of the 9th of
25 July. Is it the 9th or the 19th, because I thought I heard the 19th.
1 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I think Mr. Gajic is right.
2 Mr. Elderkin.
3 MR. ELDERKIN: And indeed I thought I said the 19th. So I
4 certainly agree with that. Thank you.
5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you. Now we have the correction of the
6 correction on the record. And it's always appreciated if you, like me,
7 should too check the record if there are any mistakes which can create,
8 at a later stage, some difficulties in finding out the reality.
9 Good morning, Mr. Blaszczyk. Welcome back to the courtroom. May
10 I remind you that the affirmation that you gave months ago in this
11 courtroom to tell the truth still applies.
12 THE WITNESS: I understand, Your Honour. Good morning.
13 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir is continuing the cross-examination.
14 Or commencing his cross-examination, if I recall correctly.
15 Mr. Tolimir.
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I would
17 like to greet everybody once again, as well as Mr. Blaszczyk.
18 WITNESS: TOMASZ BLASZCZYK [Resumed]
19 Cross-examination by Mr. Tolimir: [Continued]
20 Q. [Interpretation] The last time we didn't have the chance to
21 finish the cross-examination so we are going to finish it now.
22 My first question is: Did you investigate or did you know before
23 you got the notebooks where they were and on whose orders were they
24 transferred from the MUP of Serbia? Thank you.
25 A. As I testified before, we received this information from the
1 authorities of Republic of Serbia, and they inform us also where the
2 notebooks were found. If this is your question. But before that, we
3 didn't know about the notebooks.
4 Q. Thank you. I know that you didn't know. I wanted to ask you
5 whether you investigated where those notebooks were before they were
6 seized by the MUP of Serbia and before they came into your possession.
7 Thank you.
8 A. No. We have no information when -- where the notebooks were
9 before they were seized by the Serbian MUP and before we got it from
11 Q. Thank you, Mr. Blaszczyk. Did you personally, as an OTP
12 investigator, while reviewing the notebooks, find out whether something
13 was erased from the notebooks or whether some additional notes were made
14 subsequently in the notebooks? Thank you.
15 A. From my reviewing of the notebooks, I didn't notice anything
16 unusual that something was erased from the notebook or was added later
17 on. For me, the notebooks looks authentical.
18 Q. Thank you. Did you investigate where those notebooks were during
19 the war? Thank you.
20 A. It is obvious that the notebooks in the war were in the
21 possession of General Mladic, and ... I don't understand your question.
22 Q. I wanted to ask you whether you investigated it. Then you can
23 say that you did or that you did not investigate it. Thank you.
24 A. No, it was obvious for us that they were in the possession of
25 General Mladic. And we see from the video, for example, from Potocari,
1 or from Bratunac, or from Zepa, from Boksanica. Especially this notebook
2 related to 1995, July 1995.
3 Q. Thank you. Did you investigate why those notebooks were not
4 given to you earlier and whether they were present earlier in the
5 buildings which were searched, as well as whether there were any searches
6 made before the search which yielded the notebooks? Thank you.
7 A. I believe I tried to explain the situation. Also I was wondering
8 why these notebooks were not seized during the first search made by the
9 Serbian MUP before the proper search, let's say. And their explanation
10 was that they didn't find these notebooks at that time because they were
11 not concentrated or -- and they seized any documents from -- from this
12 house from this apartment. They were more concentrated to find whether
13 there is General Mladic at that time, to check whether he is over there.
14 And regarding the 17 notebooks seized in 2010, according to
15 information we received from MUP, these notebooks, these 17 notebooks,
16 were hidden in -- in house, were not seized during the first search, the
17 proper search for the documents, which was done in 2008, December.
18 Q. Thank you. You have just said it was in December. But, tell us,
19 did you investigate how many searches of the house of General Mladic were
20 conducted before the notebooks were found? Thank you.
21 A. I don't know the exact number, how many searches was done -- were
22 done in the house of General Mladic, but at least two or three times
23 before, the MUP was in this house. Before December 2008. But I don't
24 remember right now off the top of my head, no, how many times they were
1 Q. Please, sir, can you tell us now where the original notebooks are
2 and whether they will be returned to their owner, once the OTP has copied
3 them and used in accordance with the procedure applied to things found in
4 searches? Thank you.
5 A. I think this is question not to me. I cannot say whether these
6 notebooks can be returned to the owner of these -- of these notebooks
7 when the proceeding is over here in the Tribunal. But, so far, we have
8 all the originals here in the Tribunal.
9 Q. Thank you. Can you tell me what the procedures are that are
10 applied by the Tribunal regarding the return of objects seized on the
11 occasion of searches? Thank you.
12 A. These particular notebooks, they are evidence, Tribunal evidence,
13 evidence you are keeping these -- these -- these notebooks here in our
14 evidence unit in The Hague. And what would be the fate of the archive
15 later on of the evidence unit, really, I am not fully aware what is going
16 to happen to this archive, to the evidence unit.
17 Q. Thank you. The archives of Serbia or the Republika Srpska or the
18 VRS, or, rather, items taken from there, will they ever be returned; and
19 what is the position of the OTP in that regard? Thank you.
20 A. My answer would be the same. I am not aware what is going to
21 happen to this evidence after the Tribunal is closed. But, so far, these
22 documents are treated as evidence here in the Tribunal, and these
23 documents have to be kept in our evidence unit.
24 Q. Thank you. Do you know if the originals in the possession of the
25 OTP, seized by the OTP were -- or, rather, whether certificates were
1 issued to the owners about the seizure of the originals? Thank you.
2 A. If OTP seize any documents wherever, you know, definitely the
3 investigators, whoever seized the documents, they are issued a
4 certificate, yes, to the owner of the documents. We did, for example, in
5 case of documents from Fontana Hotel, of documents seized in the Fontana
7 Q. Thank you. Was, in this case, a certificate issued for
8 temporarily dispossessed items, or was it a certificate of permanent
9 seizure? Thank you.
10 A. As far as I remember, together with my investigator, my colleague
11 investigator, we -- we issued a certificate of permanent seizure, or
12 confirmation, whatever, you know, whatever we seized over there, we
13 issued a certificate to the person who was responsible for the documents
14 from Fontana Hotel, who were guarding the documents. It's too big of a
15 word, for example, to use just he was in possession of the documents. He
16 was guarding the Fontana hotel, and we issued a certificate to him that
17 we seized these documents.
18 Q. Thank you. Can you please remind the Trial Chamber about the
19 nature of the documents found at the Fontana Hotel and whether they are
20 documents that constitute part of these notebooks about which you're
21 testifying today?
22 A. No. These documents are not the part of the notebooks. I used
23 the Fontana Hotel as example, just what we did when we seize, the OTP
24 seized some documents. I refer to Fontana Hotel because I personally
25 participated in seizure of the documents from Fontana Hotel. But these
1 documents from Fontana Hotel are not the part of the notebook at all.
2 Just they are receipts, they are as far as I remember, they are
3 information, you know, how many people stayed in Fontana Hotel, who used
4 rooms in Fontana Hotel in interested period for us at that time. But
5 they are not connected to the Mladic notebooks at all. I used this
6 information as a sample what we did with the documents seized by us. But
7 if, in regards to the documents seized by -- by local authority, like in
8 Serbia or Bosnia-Herzegovina, wherever, we are not issuing them any --
9 any certificate or whatever, you know, to the owner of these documents.
10 It was done exclusively by the people, by the authorities who seized
11 these documents.
12 In the case of -- of -- of Mladic notebook, it was Serbian MUP
13 who issued certificate to the owner of -- in fact, not to the owner, but
14 to the family of Ratko Mladic.
15 Q. Thank you. Let us forget the Fontana case, because it is
16 unrelated. Let's not confuse the Tribunal.
17 Tell us, what difference do you see between documents seized by
18 the MUP, and those seized by the Tribunal? Since they are in the
19 possession of the Tribunal, do they have any sort of document that they
20 issued to the owner?
21 A. If you are referring to the notebooks, the notebooks were seized
22 by the Serbian MUP, by Serbian authority in Belgrade. They issued a
23 certification to the person who kept this material at his accommodation
24 and where -- where the material was seized.
25 In this case, it was Bosiljka Mladic, wife of General Mladic, and
1 also his son, Darko Mladic.
2 Q. Thank you. We are interested in the legal status of these
3 documents. That's why let us see P1389. It is in e-court and let us see
4 whether these documents are seized or confiscated.
5 Thank you. Now we see on the first page of both linguistic
6 versions, it's a document of the Ministry of Interior of Serbia. It is
7 a -- it's titled: "Confirmation regarding temporarily seized items."
8 And that's what it says in Serbian too.
9 Here's my question. Since this is a certificate of temporarily
10 seized items, rather than confiscated items, tell me, is there a legal
11 deadline for returning temporarily seized items to their rightful owner?
12 Thank you.
13 A. Yes. I have been informed by the Prosecution that they have
14 rules that they should after, I believe, after 90 days they should return
15 all the seized material to the owner of this material. But it was made
16 clear to the Office of the Prosecutor from Serbia that this material will
17 be in the possession of the Tribunal till at least till the end of the
18 ending of the proceeding here in the Tribunal. And, in fact, recently I
19 have been remind by the Prosecution office from Serbia to send additional
20 information, how long or whether we are going still to keep these
21 documents in -- here in The Hague.
22 Q. Thank you. Tell us, please, is there a ruling of the Tribunal to
23 the effect that -- a ruling in this particular case, to the effect that
24 the items are permanently confiscated, which means that they will not be
25 returned within 90 days? Thank you.
1 A. Sir, you are referring to this notebook? General Ratko Mladic
3 Q. That is precisely what we're talking about. It says here,
4 "temporarily seized". Which means that they should be returned within 90
5 days. What is the procedure applied if the 90-days' deadline is not
6 observed? Thank you.
7 A. The procedure is in such a way that, as I said, just a few
8 seconds ago that I have been remind by the Serbian authorities that I
9 should send additional information that those notebooks is not going to
10 be returned right now to Serbia. We are going to keep these notebooks
11 here at least until the end of the proceedings by the Tribunal.
12 Q. Thank you. Could you please tell us now why this is so, given
13 the fact that all electronic documents have been made based on the
14 notebooks and nothing can be changed anymore?
15 A. There is a difference between the originals and between the
16 scanned version of the documents. Always the best evidence are the
17 original evidence, not the scanned version or second copy of whatever.
18 You know, just document. The best evidence are originals.
19 Q. Thank you. Tell us, then, if the one in whose possession the
20 original is can alter the original and then claim that the original is
21 the most trustworthy source? Thank you.
22 A. If you are talking about the notebooks, it's not possible, and I
23 don't believe that any alteration can be done with these notebooks while
24 they are here in the Tribunal in our evidence unit, preserved by trained
25 people who are working in the evidence unit.
1 Q. Thank you. Is it a rule that one of the parties to the
2 proceedings has the monopoly over the documents and the evidence used in
3 the trial? Thank you.
4 A. I don't understand what you mean saying "monopoly". The evidence
5 kept at the evidence unit are for the disposal of OTP as well as Defence.
6 If Defence wants to look, for example at some documents, these documents
7 are accessible, the originals are accessible for them. And for them and
8 also for Trial Chamber. The OTP has not exclusive custody of these
9 documents. It is not OTP. The evidence unit is a part -- is independent
10 part, you know, not a part of OTP, I think.
11 Q. Thank you. Can you give us information if this material is
12 accessible to both the Prosecution and the Defence on an equal basis?
13 Thank you.
14 A. I don't see big difference. Definitely we -- easier for us to
15 get access to this material because evidence unit is located in this
16 building, even in my floor, at least one of the vaults. And if I need to
17 get originals, I am just submitting request to evidence unit. They are
18 signing out documents to me, and I'm getting access to these documents.
19 With Defence, probably I don't know exactly the procedure, but
20 several time I received also request from Defence that they would like to
21 see the originals, and probably easier through us, you know, just inform
22 the investigators that Defence would like to see the particular
23 documents, original document, and we are submitting this request to
24 evidence unit. Evidence unit is signing out the documents to us, and we
25 are showing these documents to the Defence people or whoever would like
1 to see these documents from other parties.
2 But, definitely, Defence has no limited access to these
3 documents. If they want to see these documents, the originals, there's
4 no problem at all. I don't see any problem why not. And I never met
5 situation that they never -- they -- their request has been denied or not
7 Q. Thank you for what you said.
8 Please tell us, does the service that has custody over this
9 material part of the OTP, which would make you -- which would make it
10 easier for you to access that material than for the Defence, which has to
11 go through you? Thank you.
12 A. To be honest, Your Honour, I am not sure whether evidence unit is
13 the part of OTP. Could be the part of registry. But I can be wrong.
14 For example, the witness section is part of registry. But, yes, yes, we
15 are working closer to the evidence unit because we are the person, I
16 mean, the OTP let's say, this is the body who are submitting evidence
17 to -- to the evidence unit.
18 Q. Thank you, Mr. Blaszczyk. It wasn't my intention to ask you
19 questions that you -- or, rather, to which you cannot provide full
20 answers. The Trial Chamber can establish that and see to it that equal
21 conditions prevail. You or I cannot do anything about that.
22 Here's my following question: Have you ever considered in the
23 OTP when the material will be returned to its rightful owner; and has any
24 decision been reached about that? Thank you.
25 A. I am not aware about any decision about that, but, for sure,
1 management has to decide what we can do after the Tribunal is closed,
2 after the proceeding is -- is over, what to do with the archive and
3 with -- especially with the evidence and with the original material kept
4 in our evidence unit.
5 I believe this is still in process, you know, just what to do
6 with this material.
7 Q. Thank you. But somebody else has authority there. It's in
8 somebody else's remit.
9 But tell me, do you distinguish between diary and notebook; and,
10 if so, what do you mean by either term? Thank you.
11 A. Yes, of course, it can be distinction between diary and
12 notebooks. Notebooks are used, you know, just to make notes, just during
13 the meetings. The diary is -- is also the notebook, but conducted -- or
14 just where the person is putting -- putting information on daily basis.
15 And telling information on daily basis from his activity, not only from
16 his meetings but whatever he is doing.
17 Q. Thank you. Are we talking about documents that were created and
18 that reflect the thoughts of the one who created them, the thoughts and
19 feelings, or do they contain facts? Thank you.
20 A. It could be both, you know, it could be thoughts, and also
21 containing the facts.
22 Q. Why don't you use the same term then? If they are notebooks,
23 then you will agree with me that they should be called notebooks and not
24 diaries, because a diary can be of a very subjective nature. Something
25 in which the author of the diary enters his or her thoughts and feelings,
1 right? Thank you.
2 A. Yeah, this is a matter of using the word, you know, "diary" or
3 "notebooks". But it is visible if you look at the notebooks, these
4 particular notebooks of General Mladic, he is putting the facts over
5 there, he is putting the meetings. He is saying who participated in the
6 meetings and who said what said. This type of information over there.
7 Whether we use the term diary -- maybe we are wrong, but it is,
8 rather, notebooks. Maybe you are right. Mostly they are facts in these
9 documents, these Ratko Mladic notebooks.
10 Q. Thank you. As an investigator, please tell us whether you
11 distinguished between what was entered in the notebook as fact and what
12 was entered as opinion? Thank you.
13 A. I never had the time to analyse all collection of these
14 notebooks. I mostly concentrated on the notebooks from 1995, but in this
15 notebook most of the material they are facts, you know, put by
16 General Mladic. They are information about meetings, about the people
17 who participated during the meetings and what was said during these
18 particular meetings.
19 Q. Thank you. Please tell us the following: You can enter in a
20 notebook what happened, but in a diary you can also describe what
21 happened. What is the difference? And did you, as an investigator, go
22 into that regarding some entries in the documents which have been
23 temporarily seized? Thank you.
24 A. I -- I would say that the notebooks seized from family of
25 General Mladic, I never made such investigation, just whatever, you know,
1 just tried to distinguish these notebooks or just to make investigation
2 whether these notebooks are more diaries or notebooks itself. But, for
3 me, they are containing more facts than -- than thoughts of -- of
4 General Mladic. In this context, it would be rather, notebooks - you're
5 right - not diaries.
6 Q. Thank you. In this trial there are court reporters. They record
7 every word spoken by the Judges, you, me, and so on. And journalists
8 report and add their subjective opinions and conclusions, and that's how
9 they inform the public. What is more trustworthy? The record made by
10 the court reporter or a journalist report which reflects the essence what
11 happened but does not offer a complete record? Thank you.
12 A. Having exact record, what has been said, is better because you
13 can easily came to your own conclusion what was said, or to what -- what
14 is going on exactly, you know, just what the meeting was about, for
16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, I think it's time for our first
18 We have to adjourn, and we will resume at 11.00.
19 --- Recess taken at 10.31 a.m.
20 --- On resuming at 11.02 a.m.
21 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Yes, Mr. Tolimir, please continue.
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
23 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
24 Q. Mr. Blaszczyk, we left it off just as I was about to ask you
25 whether you investigated or analysed the possibility of personal entries
1 made in the notebooks.
2 My question is this: If a person is merely documenting the
3 positions stated by another, is there the possibility of presenting one's
4 own view, in that case, minimal?
5 A. Of course, there is possibility. Depends, you know, what the
6 person understood from -- from -- from the words from another person.
7 Q. Thank you. Unless somebody is a stenographer and wishes to take
8 down everything said in this courtroom, for example, do -- does such a
9 person have any room for subjective thoughts instead of being able to
10 transcribe accurately what each and every person stated?
11 A. If we are referring to General Mladic notebooks, the entry from
12 these notebooks, it is possible, of course, that General Mladic was not
13 professional stenographer, but whatever he put in these notebooks is
14 visible that it -- he put what he understood from -- from -- from another
15 person who -- who were present during this meeting, for example. But how
16 he understood it, of course, this is other -- other -- other thing.
17 Whether he correctly recorded what -- with a -- what his person with whom
18 he had conversation passed to him or not, this is another thing.
19 Q. Thank you. If someone is writing a diary, as opposed to making
20 entries in a notebook, is the possibility of presenting one's own views,
21 conclusions, and interpretations even greater?
22 A. If someone is writing a diary, he can put in diary whatever he
23 wants. He can put whatever, his thoughts, his -- information about his
24 private life. Whatever he wants.
25 Q. Thank you. Tell us this, please: When taking over the
1 notebooks, did the OTP receive any restrictions from the MUP of Serbia
2 regarding any confidential use of the whole or parts of the material,
3 precisely for the reasons we have just been discussing?
4 A. We were in touch with the Serbian MUP, with the Serbian
5 authorities, and we got -- they were informed that we were going to use
6 these notebooks and entire contents of the notebooks in the court
7 proceedings here in the Tribunal. There was no condition from the
8 Serbian MUP, you know, how to use these notebooks.
9 Q. Thank you. Were there any conditions put that some parts be used
10 in private instead of open session? You realize that we move into
11 private or closed session here, if there are protective measures applied
12 to a witness.
13 Were any such requests of that nature put forth by the MUP of
15 A. I am not aware of such request. I don't remember, at least. I
16 don't -- I don't think that I -- I saw such requests from the Serbian
18 Q. Thank you. That means that any request a state had to do -- had
19 to make of the Tribunal would be known to you? To the -- to the OTP,
20 that is to say.
21 A. Yeah, it's -- if there was such request, for sure it would be --
22 would be known to the OTP, to the Tribunal. It should be sent to the
24 Q. Thank you. Did you review the entire correspondence between the
25 Serbian MUP and the Committee for Cooperation with the Tribunal and this
1 Tribunal, so as to furnish the complete information covered by my
3 A. I believe I reviewed all the material, all the correspondence
4 between the Serbian MUP and -- and the Tribunal related to these
5 particular searches.
6 Q. Thank you. Does it mean that the State of Serbia and its bodies
7 did not seek any data protection used before the Tribunal, regardless of
8 whether such data is about individuals or institutions?
9 A. Sir, we are talking about the entry from Ratko Mladic notebooks,
10 or generally about documents?
11 Q. Thank you. I'm asking about the documents that are introduced
12 through you, such as the notebooks.
13 A. As far as I remember at the beginning, there was discussion
14 about -- about confidentiality of this material at the time when the
15 material was seized and handed over to the Tribunal. But later on, it
16 was made clear to the -- to the Serbian side that this material is going
17 to be used in the court in -- in the court proceeding here but I am not
18 aware about any -- any restriction made by the Serbian -- by the Serbian
25 Did the Serbian state put any conditions before us as the
1 participants of these proceedings to use the material introduced through
2 you? Yes or no, please.
3 A. I'm not aware about any conditions.
4 Q. Thank you. Do you know whether in other cases the hearing is
5 moved into closed session when reference is made to some material
6 provided by Serbia which is considered state secrets, such as meetings of
7 the Supreme Defence Council, et cetera?
8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Elderkin.
9 MR. ELDERKIN: Your Honours, could we go into private session for
10 a brief moment.
11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Private.
12 [Private session]
24 [Open session]
25 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
1 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir.
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. I apologise to the
3 Registrar, and I'd like to thank Mr. Elderkin for his remark. I merely
4 used that as a general example without stipulating any specific data
5 about the persons appearing here.
6 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
7 Q. Tell us this, please, since you were interrupted in your answer.
8 I asked you whether you knew that in some other proceedings before this
9 Tribunal data provided by Serbia is protected; for example, when it comes
10 to the meetings of the Serbian state leadership, attended, among others,
11 by General Mladic.
12 A. I didn't follow another proceedings, to be honest. I don't know.
13 Q. Thank you. Are you in a position to receive answers to all the
14 questions we refer to so that we could have a clear position during these
15 proceedings and the use of material, given the fact that we, as citizens
16 of Serbia, have to abide by the requests and instructions provided by the
17 Serbian government?
18 A. Depends of kind of question you have.
19 Q. Thank you for these answers you provided. I apologise for going
20 into some things which are not in your competence but given the fact that
21 this material is introduced through you, I had to put those questions now
22 so as to know how to conduct myself in the future.
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'd like to thank Mr. President and
24 all those who assisted us in this part of cross-examination. As far as
25 I'm concerned, this concludes the cross-examination and I'd like to thank
1 Mr. Blaszczyk on behalf of the Defence. I wish him fruitful work and may
2 God bless him in his tasks.
3 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much, Mr. Tolimir. And, of
4 course, you are entitled to put these questions to the witness.
5 Mr. Elderkin, do you have re-examination.
6 MR. ELDERKIN: Your Honours, very briefly, yes, please.
7 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Go ahead.
8 MR. ELDERKIN: Could we have P1407, please, in e-court. And it
9 should be at page 242 in the B/C/S, page 239 in the English, please.
10 I also have with me the original of this exhibit, and I'd like,
11 if I may, to pass that up to the witness, first showing to the Defence
12 and the Bench, if necessary.
13 This is relating, obviously to the earlier questions by
14 General Tolimir concerning the possession of the originals of the
15 notebooks which we've been discussing.
16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Yes, please forward it first to the accused and
17 Mr. Gajic. And then it should be given to the witness.
18 Re-examination by Mr. Elderkin:
19 Q. Mr. Blaszczyk, if you could turn to the page, please, with the
20 yellow Post-It, and, first of all, confirm that that corresponds with
21 what should be coming up on the screen in e-court.
22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir.
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
24 During the cross-examination, the contents of the notebooks was
25 something that was not covered at all. I have nothing against
1 Mr. Elderkin put forth his own ideas during re-direct, but he needs to
2 stay within the framework of the cross-examination and needs to provide
3 precise reference.
4 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I think the rules are known, well-known, to the
5 Prosecution, and I hope you will keep these in mind.
6 Go ahead, please.
7 MR. ELDERKIN: If I may continue.
8 Q. Mr. Blaszczyk, during cross-examination you were asked about,
9 first of all, the characterisation of the materials from General Mladic,
10 whether they were characterised as diaries or notebooks, and you were
11 then asked several questions concerning whether these documents contained
12 references of fact or of intention or personal viewpoints. With that in
13 mind, could you please look at the part of this page, starting on the
14 right-hand side stating "Boksanica mountain" and "27th July 1995". Tell
15 us what is written there and particular the second -- the final of the
16 starred points on that page.
17 A. There is information, or just words of the General Mladic: "Zepa
18 is free. It will never be Turkish again."
19 Q. Now on 27th July 1995, which of those comments would constitute
20 fact and which would constitute an intention or personal comment?
21 A. The first is: "Zepa is free," means that Zepa in the hands of
22 the Serb army. But the comment: "It will never be Turkish again" can
23 constitute rather comment, personal comment of General Mladic. And below
24 we see his signature also, initials.
25 Q. And what would it mean, "it will never be Turkish again"?
1 A. That definitely he intends to say that they are not going to give
2 up Zepa again to the Muslim forces or to -- to the Muslim authority.
3 Q. Okay. I'm finished with that document.
4 I'd like to remind the Court that when, during Mr. Blaszczyk's
5 testimony in-chief on this particular subject, we tendered Exhibit P1391,
6 there was one correction to that document that I propose should be made
7 for the clarity of the record. I -- I could call that up on the screen
8 to remind everybody what I'm talking about. But this was the document
9 where we had corroborating materials for certain entries in the
11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: The original notebook should be given back to the
13 At the moment, I'm not sure, and I can't recall, what is it
14 about, you are correcting now.
15 MR. ELDERKIN: Your Honours, the table we're seeing on the screen
16 consisted of entries down the left-hand half of each of the pages within
17 the various Mladic notebooks and corresponding, corroborating materials,
18 identified by 65 ter number from the centre through the right-hand half
19 of the document. If we perhaps could just put up the English across the
20 whole screen as an example to see the layout, it should be clear what I'm
21 talking about.
22 And also, if we could go to the second page, please.
23 Actually I'll ask the witness.
24 Q. Mr. Blaszczyk, it's the one figure on this page that is
25 mistakenly a 65 ter number from the Karadzic case.
1 A. Yes, yes, yes. I corrected this page after some time.
2 Q. And that's the figure in the second row down and in the -- column
3 in the centre of the page where we have 65 ter 4795, and should that be
4 corrected and has that been corrected in another version to 65 ter 6801?
5 A. Yes, this is correct. It has been corrected to the version,
6 65 ter 6801.
7 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Elderkin, I just was informed by the
9 Registrar that this correction was already made in December.
10 MR. ELDERKIN: I believe still, Your Honour --
11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Or in November.
12 MR. ELDERKIN: Whenever it was Mr. Blaszczyk gave his testimony
13 in-chief. I understand simply that the document that we have loaded up
14 for this exhibit doesn't have the correction in it, so whilst the
15 correction was explained in the record we now have a corrected version,
16 in both English and B/C/S, and it may be helpful given the time we'll all
17 be spending in future where this may have been forgotten, to have a
18 correct version in the record that can be looked at by anyone without the
19 need to see that there is a replacement number.
20 So with Your Honours' permission, I would ask if we could replace
21 this version with a correction simply to that single digit.
22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: If there was a -- just an error in a number in
23 that way, it should be permitted to replace this document.
24 MR. ELDERKIN: Simply because it has been admitted as an exhibit
25 now, we need to make that request to the court rather than doing it
1 ourselves in e-court. So we will liaise with Registry and sort that out.
2 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I think that's the best way to deal with that.
3 MR. ELDERKIN: Thank you very much. And I have no further
5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much.
6 [Trial Chamber confers]
7 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Blaszczyk, you will be pleased to hear that
8 this now concludes your examination in this Court, in this case. Thank
9 you very much that you were able to come again. Now you are free to
10 return to your normal work.
11 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honour.
12 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much.
13 [The witness withdrew]
14 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Elderkin.
15 MR. ELDERKIN: Your Honours, the next witness, Ms. Tabeau, is
16 going to be led by my colleague, Mr. Vanderpuye, and I'd ask whether I
17 may be excused to return to my other activities.
18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Indeed, you should work at your desk. Thank you
19 very much.
20 MR. ELDERKIN: Thank you.
21 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Good morning, Mr. Vanderpuye. Welcome to the
23 The witness should be brought in, please.
24 [The witness entered court]
25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Good morning, Ms. Tabeau. Welcome to the
1 courtroom. Please read aloud the affirmation to tell the truth on the
2 card which is shown to you now.
3 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the
4 whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much. Please sit down and make
6 yourself comfortable.
7 Mr. Vanderpuye for the Prosecution is conducting his
9 Mr. Vanderpuye.
10 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President. And good morning to
11 you, Your Honours. Good morning everyone.
12 WITNESS: EWA TABEAU
13 Examination by Mr. Vanderpuye:
14 Q. And good morning to you, Dr. Tabeau.
15 A. Good morning.
16 Q. I'm going to jump right in, since you've done this on a number of
18 Do you recall having testified in the case of The Prosecutor v.
19 Vujadin Popovic et al. on 5 February, 2008, Dr. Tabeau?
20 A. Yes, I do.
21 Q. Have you had an opportunity to review your testimony prior to
22 coming to court today?
23 A. Yes, I did.
24 Q. Having reviewed your testimony, Dr. Tabeau, can you confirm
25 whether it accurately and fairly reflects what you would say were you to
1 be examined here today, and if you were asked the same questions?
2 A. Yes, I confirm these would be my answers.
3 Q. Thank you.
4 MR. VANDERPUYE: Mr. President, I would move to admit the prior
5 testimony of Dr. Tabeau. It is 65 ter 6675, which I believe is the under
6 seal version, and 6676, the public version.
7 JUDGE FLUEGGE: They both will be received. The former under
9 MR. VANDERPUYE: And I move to admit.
10 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Just a moment.
11 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, 65 ter 6675 shall be assigned
12 exhibit number P2070, admitted under seal. 65 ter document 6676 shall be
13 assigned exhibit number P2071. Thank you.
14 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President. I will also move to
15 admit the exhibits that are associated with Dr. Tabeau's prior testimony.
16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I take it that these are nine documents in your
17 list. I think to save some time it's the best way to deal with that by
18 internal memorandum. And the Registry will assign P numbers to these
20 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President. They are nine
21 documents. I do confirm that.
22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Please go ahead.
23 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you.
24 I have a brief summary of Dr. Tabeau's prior testimony that I
25 would like to read into the record.
1 Dr. Tabeau testified in the case of The Prosecutor v.
2 Vujadin Popovic et al. on 5 February 2008.
3 Dr. Tabeau holds a Ph.D. in mathematical demography from the
4 Warsaw School of Economics and is a demographer by profession. She was
5 employed by the ICTY, beginning in 2000, and has worked as the project
6 leader of the Demographic Unit since. Dr. Tabeau's work encompasses the
7 study of the demographic consequences of the conflict in the former
8 Yugoslavia, and, in particular, in Bosnia and Herzegovina. She has
9 prepared numerous expert reports for court and maintains an information
10 system on the victims of the conflict, killed persons, missing persons,
11 and displaced persons.
12 In January 2008, Dr. Tabeau produced a report entitled: "The
13 Srebrenica Missing: 2007 Progress Report on the DNA-Based Identification
14 by ICMP." Based on records provided by the ICMP showing DNA matches for
15 Srebrenica-related victims, the report updated a 16 November 2005 report
16 and list concerning the missing and dead from Srebrenica. The 2007
17 progress report effectively summarized the statistics for identified
18 persons and cross-referenced the list of identified individuals provided
19 by the ICMP against the November 2005 OTP list. In addition, the report
20 examined the list of unique DNA profiles provided by the ICMP.
21 During her testimony, Dr. Tabeau discussed the methodology used
22 to prepare the report, which is set out in the November 2005 report and
23 has been consistently applied by the Demographics Unit. In particular,
24 Dr. Tabeau explained the methodology used to assess the quality of the
25 information upon which the report was based and the process of matching
1 the cross-referenced lists that were used. This process involved, inter
2 alia, checking the names, first, family, and father's names, dates of
3 birth and controlling for duplicate records. Several other criteria were
4 also used. Similar criteria was used to check for duplicate records in
5 the ICMP data in which some information deficiencies were initially
6 observed, typically as between reassociations and main cases and in
7 relation to protocol numbers. These discrepancies were subsequently
8 clarified by the ICMP, resulting in good and reliable data for analytical
10 Based on the analysis of the ICMP data at the time, the number of
11 main cases through 4 October 2007 was 4263, representing discreet DNA
12 profiles. There were 2346 reassociated cases, that is, secondary DNA
13 match to a main case. And 3837 individuals on the November 2005 OTP list
14 were matched to the ICMP list of DNA-identified individuals. This
15 represented around 90 per cent of the ICMP records and approximately 50
16 per cent of the November 2005 OTP list. Some 10 per cent of the ICMP
17 list entries were found to be "less certain matches," either because only
18 names could be matched without more, such as complete dates of birth on
19 either ICMP records or ICRC records, or because more than one name was
20 alternatively attributed to a given DNA profile, as was the case with
21 missing siblings. Finally, there were some records that could not be
22 matched to any extent. Dr. Tabeau noted, however, that while there is
23 never a one-to-one relationship among various missing persons lists,
24 there tends to be a large overlap or common part.
25 In comparing Dean Manning's 2007 report to the 2007 progress
1 report in terms of the total number of Srebrenica-related victims found
2 in grave-sites, Dr. Tabeau attributed differences in the findings to
3 narrower criteria used by Manning in the selection of grave-sites for
4 analysis. She noted that Manning did not include grave-sites containing
5 mixed remains, but only those containing remains exclusively related to
6 Srebrenica. These sites are recognised by the ICTY and accepted as such.
7 However, the OTP list did include the remains of mixed graves and relied
8 on ICMP data in respect of defining additional Srebrenica-related graves.
9 In order to eliminate the possibility of counting survivors among
10 the missing and dead, the November 2005 report compared data against
11 several lists, including the population census, the voters' registers for
12 1997, 1998 and 2000, as well as the official register of internally
13 displaced persons and refugees from 2000. This was ultimately retained
14 in the 2007 progress report. Similarly, as BiH army records were not
15 used in producing the 2005 November report, they were not relied on in
16 the 2007 progress report, which listed a total of 7.661
17 Srebrenica-related missing and dead.
18 That concludes my summary, Mr. President, and I have some
19 questions for Dr. Tabeau.
20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you for this quite lengthy summary. You
21 may go ahead with your questioning.
22 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you very much, Mr. President.
23 Can I have, please, 65 ter 7172 in e-court.
24 Q. Dr. Tabeau, you heard me mention a little bit about your
25 educational background in mathematical demography. Can you tell us, just
1 briefly, what that is and whether or not you apply that in relation to
2 the work that you're doing now.
3 A. Mathematical demography is a subarea of demography. Demography
4 belongs to social sciences. I studied statistics and econometrics as my
5 major subjects and graduated with the masters degree in economics. In my
6 Ph.D., I completed a project that was based on the use of mathematical
7 models in the analysis of demographic issues, and my degree in -- based
8 on this dissertation was seen as Ph.D. in mathematical demography. It is
9 a quantitative subfield of demographic analysis of the population, simply
11 Q. I noticed well, first of all, can you tell us what we have in
12 e-court so we're clear for the record?
13 A. This is my CV, the brief version of my CV. First page, basic
14 information about me and my education and degrees and my work experience.
15 It also summarizes my competencies. I consider myself specialist in
16 statistics, inferential and descriptive. I'm specialist in handling
17 deficient data sources, such as surveys, population surveys, population
18 census, other sources. I'm also an expert in modelling techniques and
19 other areas of demography and statistics.
20 Q. I noticed in your CV that you sent some time working for the
21 Netherlands Interdisciplinary Demographic Institute?
22 A. I worked there approximately nine years, between the year 1991
23 and the year 2000.
24 Q. And what kind of work were you doing there?
25 A. This institute is the national demographic institute of the
1 Netherlands. I was -- there, I was conducting scientific research of
2 mortality, mortality in developed countries, in Western countries of
3 Europe and Central European countries. My research area included
4 forecasting of mortality and studying prospects for life expectancy.
5 Also the study of mortality by cause of death, longevity. So that was
6 basically the nine years before coming to the Tribunal, I was doing this
7 kind of research.
8 Q. And one other thing I'd like to ask you about is your work for
9 the Extraordinary Chambers of the Courts of Cambodia. Here it is
10 indicated between May and September of 2009. Can you tell us a little
11 bit about what you were doing?
12 A. Yes. It was a project I completed as you mentioned in the second
13 half of 2009, at the invitation of investigative judges of the Khmer
14 Rouge Tribunal. In this project, I provided an assessment of the victims
15 of the Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia. This report is meant to be used
16 in court proceedings in the upcoming casings in the Tribunal in
17 Phnom Penh. It is an expert report.
18 Q. Does your CV contain a list of publications that you have done?
19 A. The second page contains a selection of publications and research
20 reports and expert reports that I have written. The complete CV contains
21 many more, but the selection here are the most recent papers. So if we
22 could see the second page on the -- and the third page, perhaps, then we
23 will see that there are a number of titles I, so far in the past ten
24 years, I was able to produce approximately 40 expert reports for the ICTY
25 cases. Of course, there is the expert report for Khmer Rouge Tribunal.
1 There are -- there is a special issue of the Journal of the European
2 Demographers. There is a book on demography of war, published by
3 Springer. There are several articles published in international
4 journals. So I am saying it is just a selection of the latest papers.
5 There is a third page, I think, that we are not seeing right now in the
7 JUDGE FLUEGGE: May I interrupt you for a moment. The court
8 recorder is requesting that you slow down while speaking, especially you
9 are using different terms which are quite difficult to record. Please
10 slow down while speaking.
11 THE WITNESS: I am very sorry. I'm very sorry. Perhaps I should
12 repeat what I was saying.
13 There are several categories of publications presented in this
14 CV. There is a number of expert reports completed most recently for ICTY
15 cases. There will be monographs, and next category included here, on the
16 first place, there is a book that was published by Springer about
17 demography of war, that I edited jointly with Helge Brunborg and
18 Henrik Urdal from Norway. There are also other monographs, including a
19 book published recently.
20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Please slow down. You have the same speed again.
21 It is very difficult and you are referring to different names and
22 different languages. Please a little bit more slowly.
23 THE WITNESS: Yes. The book was -- the book by Springer was
24 edited jointly by me with Helge Brunborg and Henrik Urdal. These are
25 researchers from Norway and the title of the book is demography of war.
1 There is another book. It is a book containing a selection of
2 public expert reports from ICTY cases. This book was published by the
3 Helsinki Committee of Serbia in Belgrade. There are two language
4 versions; one English, one Serbo-Croat. There is a special issue of a
5 journal of the European demographers, "The European Journal of
6 Population". I edited this special issue, again, with some co-authors,
7 in this case just one, Helge Brunborg. And there is an expert report
8 among monographs, the assessment report of the Bosnian Book of Death.
9 That is the largest existing database on victims of war in Bosnia and
10 Herzegovina compiled by a local NGO from Sarajevo headed by
11 Mirsad Tokaca. This assessment was made at the question of Ambassador of
12 Norway and Switzerland and of Tokaca, himself.
13 And the last portion of my papers, selected papers included here
14 are some articles, journal articles, and some more are just conference
15 papers. Because it is all on record. I don't think I will be going
16 through it any further.
17 Q. Thank you. Mr. President, I would like to tender this exhibit?
18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: What is the number again.
19 MR. VANDERPUYE: 65 ter 7172.
20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: It will be received.
21 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, 65 ter document 7172 shall be
22 assigned exhibit number P2081. Thank you.
23 MR. VANDERPUYE: Mr. President, I understand there is not a
24 translation for it yet but one has been requested. So in keeping with
25 the practice of the -- of the Chamber, perhaps it should be marked for
1 identification, pending that translation.
2 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Indeed, we will mark it for identification,
3 pending translation.
4 MR. VANDERPUYE:
5 Q. Dr. Tabeau, you -- well, we can see a number of expert reports
6 that you have produced in a number of cases. Let me ask, have you been
7 qualified as an expert in proceedings before this Tribunal?
8 A. Yes. I appeared in the capacity of an expert witness 16 times in
9 various trials, including the trial of Popovic, from 2008 but also other
10 trials, Slobodan Milosevic, Vojislav Seselj. I also testified in
11 Sarajevo cases, that is, General Galic, General Dragomir Milosevic. I
12 testified recently in Stanisic and Simatovic and the other Stanisic case,
13 that is, Stanisic-Zupljanin case. I also testified as an expert in
14 Herceg-Bosna, Prlic et al. case, and several other cases, so the complete
15 record is 16 expert testimonies.
16 Q. Now in your work at the ICTY, when you started in 2000, you
17 became the project leader, as I understand it, for the Demographic Unit;
18 is that correct?
19 A. Yes, it's correct.
20 Q. And can you tell us, basically, what duties and responsibilities
21 you had in that role?
22 A. The major responsibility was to produce demographic expert
23 reports that -- for use in the ICTY trials. I was working as a
24 Prosecution witness, so the Prosecution perspective was represented in
25 these reports, but more generally, the reports were always made with the
1 idea of fair representation of all affected victims. Further, my
2 responsibility was to collect information sources, in particular,
3 statistical sources, on the consequences of the wars in the former
4 Yugoslavia. A particular type of consequences were, of course,
5 demographic consequences of the wars. Bosnia and Herzegovina was our
6 first priority, so collection of sources implied the next responsibility,
7 organisation of information system that can be used in the OTP for the
8 needs of demographic analysis and then the other needs of trials.
9 So, generally, this unit has operated as a small statistical
10 office in the Office of the Prosecutor, but predominantly the first and
11 most important task was producing the expert reports, demographic expert
13 Q. I'd like to ask you a little bit about the background related to
14 the April 2009 report and the missing list. You are familiar with that,
15 of course.
16 MR. VANDERPUYE: For the record, that is P1776 and P1777.
17 Q. Let me ask first -- maybe we should get the first one up on the
18 screen. That would be P1776, just so you can see what I'm talking about.
19 All right, I think you recognise what is on the screen.
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. This is the 2009 report that I've just referred to, is it?
22 A. That's correct.
23 Q. And is this the most current progress report concerning
24 Srebrenica-related missing and dead as well as the list that accompanies
1 A. Yes, it is.
2 Q. And as one of its authors, can you just remind us what the report
3 is intended to show. And I mean in a very brief, if you can, and simple
4 way, because I know it contains a lot of information. And you will
5 remember that Dr. Brunborg has already given evidence about it.
6 A. This report relates to the victims of the fall of Srebrenica in
7 July 1995. It is meant as a background report that would be showing the
8 scale of victimisation, first of all, in terms of the reported missing
9 persons, related to the fall, and, secondly, also, in terms of identified
10 persons. The term "identified persons" in this context is very important
11 while -- whereas, for the missing persons a list can be made with all
12 kind of details. This list is no more than just a list of missing
13 persons. The identified persons is a different category. It is a
14 category that relates to the human remains exhumed from the mass graves
15 and other graves in the territory of Srebrenica and neighbouring
16 municipalities in Eastern Bosnia. For the identified persons, the DNA
17 matching reports are available. So this report is a integration of these
18 two perspectives, one perspective is the missing persons, the second
19 perspective is the identified persons, DNA-identified persons. By
20 cross-referencing these two categories, or generally speaking, these two
21 lists of persons, a clearer picture emerges of the overlap between the
22 two, of how the two perspectives corroborate each other.
23 So the whole concept of this report is to show our initial list
24 of missing persons enlarged by integration of the latest information on
25 the DNA matching of Srebrenica victims.
1 Q. Thank you for that. Let me just focus on the first part of this
2 analysis, and that has to do with the missing persons as distinguished
3 from the identified persons?
4 In terms of establishing a list, an OTP list, of missing persons,
5 can you tell us what basic data sources you relied on in order to do
7 A. For establishing of missing persons list, we used the lists
8 compiled by ICRC, International Committee for Red Cross, various
9 editions. The latest edition that we used for 2009 report was the 2008,
10 as far as I remember, edition of the ICRC reports.
11 Secondly, the second type of lists were the -- was the list
12 prepared by American organisation, Physician for Human Rights, but this
13 component in the latest report became very small. It is predominantly
14 the ICRC list of missing persons for Bosnia and Herzegovina as the major
15 source for the list as such. It doesn't mean that no other sources were
16 used as contextual for this list or supportive. If I can go a little
17 longer on that?
18 Q. Let me just ask you one thing while we're on the topic.
19 You mentioned -- you mentioned that you used various editions of
20 the ICRC lists, and in particular, the most recent one was 2008. Can you
21 tell us why various editions of the ICRC list were used?
22 A. The ICRC didn't stop their work on registration of missing
23 persons. Soon after the war ended they have continued this work until
24 the present time. So the latest list that we acquired from October 2008
25 is the best we -- we -- the most recent, the best we can have and this is
1 why we used it. Moreover, this particular list from October 2008 was a
2 list particularly compiled for Srebrenica victims which makes it
3 different from other lists that were covering the entire country, Bosnia
4 and Herzegovina.
5 Q. You made use of the census --
6 A. That is correct. Yeah.
7 Q. -- in respect of establishing this list. Can you tell us what
8 purpose that was for?
9 A. That census, as such, is not a source that was used to make the
10 list. It was a source that we used to cross-reference our list of
11 Srebrenica missing, to validate the records, simply speaking, to confirm
12 that these individuals did, indeed, were -- live in Bosnia and
13 Herzegovina, the outbreak of the conflict and to improve the information,
14 personal information about the victims. The census is a very rich source
15 of information and we, in this way, could learn a lot about the victims,
16 including their ethnicity. Ethnicity is important and is, unfortunately,
17 unavailable from the ICRC list of missing persons.
18 Q. In terms of your use of the voter registration, my understanding
19 is that you used voter registrations, or voter registers I should say,
20 for 1997, 1998 and 2000. First of all, is that right?
21 A. Yes, it is correct. We used these lists in order to eliminate
22 false positives in case if there would be records of missing persons
23 overlapping with the records of survivors, post-war survivors, then, of
24 course, this would give good reasons to reconsider the inclusion of
25 certain cases of missing persons in our list of Srebrenica missing. So
1 it was the elimination of false positives. That was the purpose.
2 Q. And in terms of the voter registrations list, to your knowledge
3 was there such a list available in 1996, immediately after the cessation
4 of the hostilities?
5 A. I recall there was the election in 1996, but the statistical
6 system for this election was not exactly the same as what was done later
7 for 1997 and 1998 and 2000 elections. There were certain problems
8 related to the 1996 election. Cases of fraud were frequently addressed.
9 So I -- there was no registration of voters who wanted to -- to vote.
10 This was done totally differently in the later elections. So for our
11 purposes, the 1996 elections was -- wouldn't be a good idea, and we
12 didn't have this information anyway.
13 Q. You mentioned the use, in your prior testimony, of a list of
14 internally displaced persons. First, can you tell us what that is; and
15 then how you used it.
16 A. It is it yet another source on the survivors of the war. This
17 list of internally displaced persons and refugees is simply a
18 registration system of the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina and
19 UNHCR, a system that was actually operating already during the war, but
20 after the war, the UNHCR considerably improved the registration and the
21 electronic system which resulted that a large database of IDPs and
22 refugees in Bosnia and Herzegovina became available in the year 2000.
23 The number of cases registered in this system is 508.000 of cases, almost
24 600.000 individuals, most of them being the internally displaced persons,
25 and we were able to acquire these records for the use in the OTP and also
1 in this particular report, 2009 report on Srebrenica victims.
2 Q. Now, in terms of your analysis of this material, in your prior
3 testimony you mentioned some fundamentals concerning the matching
4 criteria that you used. If you could, and I know there is a section of
5 this in your report, if you could explain in a nutshell what that process
6 involves. Let's start with, for example, how many matching criteria you
7 considered in order to use this data effectively?
8 A. In order to understand the importance of matching, it is
9 important to stress that we have been working with individual records
10 representing persons, so record of information is a set of data items
11 that describe a given person.
12 In order to trace a person's fate, starting at the outbreak of
13 the war, throughout the war, and later, after the war, it is necessary to
14 match sources with each other using the individual data items reported
15 for every person.
16 Matching is also called linking of records. Another term used
17 for matching is cross-referencing of sources. So what we basically do in
18 our work, in the work of my unit, is every person, be it a victim or a --
19 I mean, killed person, missing person, detained person, or a displaced
20 person, this person is first identified in our core source, that is the
21 population census of 1991, and starting from there we can check using the
22 matching how the person is reported and whether the person is reported in
23 any other source.
24 Matching in statistics is usually done, if possible, using
25 numeric characteristics, that would be record numbers for instance, or
1 personal identification numbers. If they are reported in the compared or
2 cross-referenced sources then matching is limited to searching for the
3 same personal ID as reported in the census in any other source. That is
4 the simplest variant the matching, which however is not always possible.
5 In many sources, especially on sources related to victims, such personal
6 identification numbers are unavailable.
7 So matching must be based on different criteria. Predominantly
8 on descriptive criteria, descriptive, including, for example, names of
9 persons, surname, first name, father's name; date of birth; place of
10 birth; place of residence; et cetera, et cetera. So matching becomes a
11 complex process as the descriptive characteristics are sometimes
12 difficult to compare.
13 If you think of problems that can be associated with reporting of
14 persons in various sources, like, for instance, spelling of names,
15 completeness of dates, reporting of place names, these are all challenges
16 that must be overcome, in order to proceed successfully with matching.
17 Matching based on descriptive characteristics is not uncommon in today's
18 world. In statistical offices like US Bureau of Census this kind of
19 matching is quite common. Why? Because the personal identification
20 number is often not reported in various sources. So matching has to be
21 done based on names and other personal details.
22 There exists various forms of matching, machine-based matching,
23 for instance, exists that would involve artificial intelligence and there
24 are other forms of matching. The other spectrum would include rule-based
25 approaches. Rule based means that decisions about declaring the true
1 match are made by a human expert. And this is the kind of approach that
2 we have taken at this Tribunal. So we don't rely on automated matching
3 in 100 per cent of our cases. Whenever possible, we do the automated
4 matching. In other cases, when automated matching is impossible, or too
5 risky, we use the rule-based approach, with human expert deciding on the
6 possibility to declare a match -- a true or non-true match.
7 Q. Dr. Tabeau, I think we still have P1776 up on the screen here and
8 I will need to go to page 6 in the English. I hope it corresponds in
9 B/C/S. We should have Table 1.
10 I want to ask you about these numbers that we have here. What we
11 have are, under item 2.1, it reads, "Basic statistics on Srebrenica,
12 missing and identified," and then it says "Number of Srebrenica missing
13 and identified." Under table 1, we have 7.663 for 2005, and then it --
14 OTP list, and then it says, "2008 ICRC list," 29 for a total of 7.692.
15 So first with respect to the last number, 7.692, that is the
16 total number of missing persons that are listed in the OTP list; is that
18 A. Yes, this is correct. This is our first perspective, as I
19 mentioned earlier today. The number of missing individuals related to
20 the fall of Srebrenica according to the ICRC records of missing persons
21 in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
22 Q. Now, if we go to page 7 and Table 2 --
23 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Before we move away from this document,
24 Judge Mindua has a question.
25 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Yes, I am very sorry. Just before
1 you take the next page, I would like to ask Mrs. Tabeau the following
3 On this page, in English, I'm looking at table number 1, we see
4 that it says, "Number of missing people for Srebrenica," and you also
5 talk about identified persons who are identified as missing people in
6 Srebrenica. So I see that for 2005 on the OTP list of Srebrenica missing
7 persons, we have a total of 7.663 people who are missing. And in 2008,
8 according to the ICRC, we have 29 people. I don't know if I understood
9 you correctly.
10 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honour. This table should be read
11 as following: This second number of 29 individuals reported, according
12 to 2008 ICRC list, are just additional persons that are not included in
13 the previous component. And the previous component, is in this table,
14 reported under 2005 OTP list.
15 So this table, as a matter of fact, reports not only the overall
16 number of missing but also, it's a progress report. As it used to be in
17 2005, we have a number of 7.663. This is based on our previous work.
18 But more recently, we additionally analysed a new list provided by ICRC,
19 October 2008 list, and in this list, we identified additional 29 persons,
20 but this list of October 2008 was much longer for Srebrenica than just
21 the 28 [sic]. I think in the paragraph below, following the table, there
22 is a discussion that 2008 ICRC list comprises in total 7.613 cases.
23 7.613 cases, that's the ICRC report from October 2008, a report on
24 Srebrenica victims. We studied and matched this list on individual
25 level. That means, case by case, with our previous work, previous list,
1 from 2005, and having done this, we concluded 29 cases are new. And we
2 don't have them yet.
3 So that is the way of reading these particular names.
4 JUDGE FLUEGGE: May I interrupt you for a moment, and
5 Judge Mindua will have another question.
6 You said line 14 of this page: "We identified additional 29
7 persons, but this list of October 28 was much longer for Srebrenica than
8 just the 28."
9 And you said 28, but I think --
10 THE WITNESS: 29.
11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: -- you misspoke. Thank you very much.
12 THE WITNESS: Thank you very much. 29, yes.
13 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much.
14 Judge Mindua.
15 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Yes, I understand better. Thank
16 you very much, Ms. Tabeau, because it seemed a bit strange that in 2005
17 on the Prosecutor's list, there's more than 7.000 people and in 2008,
18 even if it is three years later, all of a sudden there are only 29 people
19 on the CICR -- ICRC list, rather.
20 So, thank you very much. I understand your explanation.
21 THE WITNESS: [Previous translation continues] ... thank you.
22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Vanderpuye.
23 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
24 Q. I was just about to go over to table number 2, but I don't think
25 I need to. I think it's sufficiently explained in the record.
1 What I'd like to do, though, is you mentioned earlier there was
2 an important distinction between the OTP list and -- of missing people
3 and people that have otherwise been identified through DNA. And what I'd
4 like to know is, does the OTP list itself incorporate both people that
5 have been identified by DNA as well as people that are missing?
6 A. Yes, it does. As a matter of fact, we can speak of several types
7 of the OTP list. The initial type is the OTP list of Srebrenica missing
8 persons, but then we have the ICMP list of identified persons, as a
9 source that we used for our OTP list of Srebrenica identified persons.
10 So the second category is the OTP list of identified Srebrenica
11 victims, based on ICMP records.
12 And then there is the third type. The third type is an
13 integration of the two, the list of missing, OTP list of Srebrenica
14 missing, with the OTP list of Srebrenica identified. Integrated means
15 the two lists of missing and identified have been matched case by case,
16 that means cross-referenced. And from this cross-referencing, a new list
17 emerged, a new -- in terms that information from both ICRC and ICMP
18 information on both missing persons and identification of these persons
19 is available from one single document, which is attached to the annex of
20 the 2009 report.
21 Q. Just before we -- just before we get there, let me show you Table
22 4 in the report. That's on page 8 in the English. All right. We have
23 it up, I think. We have it in the B/C/S as well.
24 This Table 4, we have Srebrenica identified by site of
25 exhumation, November 2008 ICMP update that lists a number of mass graves
1 or grave-sites. And then we have a column indicating ICMP identified and
2 then a column that says, "OTP matched". Just in principle and as briefly
3 as you can, can you explain what that means, "OTP matched"?
4 A. In this table, "OTP matched" are records from the OTP missing
5 persons list that have been confirmed as identified persons in the ICMP
6 list of DNA-identified victims for Srebrenica.
7 So the OTP matched is a subset of missing persons of the number
8 that we discussed today earlier, which is reported in Table 1, and
9 several other tables. This number of 7.692 of those, there is 5.061
10 individuals that have been confirmed as DNA identifications in the ICMP
12 And this is all shown by site, as you noted, obtained from the
13 ICMP records of identifications.
14 Q. And Dr. Tabeau, when you say that these records have been
15 confirmed as matched in the ICMP data or records, as of when are you
16 referring to in this report?
17 A. These records are obtained from ICMP by November 2008. So as of
18 now, it is a rather long time ago. The most recent update on Srebrenica
19 identified was acquired in December 2010, and there are many more
20 identifications in this update, 6.420, as far as I remember, as compared
21 with 5.555 from November 2008 in Table 4.
22 Q. Let me show you P1777. Can you tell us what we have on the
23 screen now, Dr. Tabeau?
24 A. This is the annex, front page of the annex, attached with 2009
25 report. This annex is basically the list, the integrated list, of
1 missing, Srebrenica missing, with Srebrenica identified.
2 Q. If we could just go over to page 7 of this report, of this
4 Okay. And here we can see that this is the list of Srebrenica
5 missing and dead integrated with the DNA-based identifications, right?
6 A. Yes, that's correct.
7 Q. If we could just go to the next page.
8 And what I'd like to do is just focus on the column designations.
9 If we can go all the way to -- well, we have the name, the sex, date of
10 birth, date and place of disappearance, and if we pan over to the --
11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Vanderpuye, is there any problem with
12 broadcasting this list?
13 MR. VANDERPUYE: No, Mr. President, I don't believe it's
14 confidential or anything.
15 THE WITNESS: I am not so sure because ICMP identifications are
16 part of this list, and names of individuals are listed one by one. So
17 perhaps ...
18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Should be on the safe side and not broadcast that
19 list, including names.
20 MR. VANDERPUYE: [Overlapping speakers] ... I think that's right.
21 [Prosecution counsel confer]
22 MR. VANDERPUYE: All right.
23 Q. Let's go over to the far right where we can see date -- date and
24 place of disappearance, the status, and it says registration number, I
25 think, ICRC, protocol.
1 Now, under the status we see some are designated still missing
2 and some are identified. Tell us what that means in the context of this
4 A. I would like to make a comment first. These data items on this
5 page partly come from ICRC list of missing persons, and partly from ICMP
6 DNA identifications. All the items, including names up to the record
7 number, the BAZ, B-A-Z number, these items come from the ICRC list of
8 missing persons.
9 The two last items, protocol number and grave-site, come from the
10 ICMP list of DNA identifications of Srebrenica victims.
11 We report the results of our integration of these two sources by
12 inserting for the cases confirmed in ICMP records, the information about
13 the protocol and about the site name.
14 So grave-site and protocol are only given for the cases that have
15 been confirmed on the ICRC list of missing. That is the individual
16 matching, and this is how the integration look -- looks like.
17 The status is an important item that I actually said it comes
18 from the ICRC list of missing, and it largely does, but not exclusively.
19 For categories reported under the status as identified, these cases will
20 have this status, identified, according to the result of integration.
21 All the remaining categories, like still missing, are coming from the
22 ICRC lists. There will stilling missing persons reported. There will be
23 persons called confirmed deaths. These are closed cases, ICRC cases of
24 closed deaths. There will be another category. There will be cases of
25 missing persons, still missing persons, with information about the
1 location of body known, and all this is coming from the ICRC.
2 So for cases, whatever case ICRC would be reported for identified
3 persons confirmed in the ICMP records, we would always take the
4 identification status as the most essential information that we know
5 about these victims.
6 Identification, DNA identification, is -- this is what is -- what
7 matters most, simply, to say about the missing persons.
8 Q. Thank you.
9 MR. VANDERPUYE: Mr. President, I'm just about to go to a
10 different area, and so I think it is the break time, it would be a good
11 time to take it.
12 JUDGE FLUEGGE: That is correct. We must have our second break
13 now, and we will resume at 1.00.
14 --- Recess taken at 12.33 p.m.
15 --- On resuming at 1.03 p.m.
16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Gajic, I see you on your feet.
17 MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I have one brief
18 question. Since most likely on Monday, we'll have Mr. Smith testifying,
19 and he is one of the most demanding witnesses in the proceedings, there
20 are still a number of outstanding documents without a translation into
21 Serbian, and it's a nightmare for us to work with documents in the
22 courtroom, without having received a translation first, because then we
23 have to personally translate parts of documents.
24 I just wanted to know when those documents will be available to
25 us. I was told by the OTP in the coming two or three days, some will be
1 made available, but I was actually hoping for a more precise information.
2 Maybe the trial Bench could intervene, in order to have those
3 translations produced more quickly. I have in mind specifically around a
4 dozen documents.
5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Vanderpuye, could you address the Chamber
6 about the -- the actual situation with the translations?
7 MR. VANDERPUYE: My understanding, Mr. President, is that the
8 translations requests have been put in, and I understand also that we
9 have asked for them to be done as expeditiously as possible. If it's
10 possible, Mr. Gajic can indicate which documents he has a preference for
11 to receive as a priority. We can inquire about the status ever those
12 particular ones and that might be more helpful. But other than that, I
13 can't give him any more precise information.
14 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Gajic, we would appreciate if you could give
15 the Chamber, the Registry, a list with priorities, which documents are
16 the most urgent ones. And then we will try to assist you and the -- both
17 parties to get the relevant translations as soon as possible.
18 Mr. Gajic.
19 MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President. I will send an
20 e-mail to both the Prosecution and the Bench some quarter of an hour
21 following the adjournment today.
22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.
23 Mr. Vanderpuye.
24 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Please carry on.
1 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
2 Q. I was just about to move to a different area with you,
3 Dr. Tabeau.
4 What I'd like to ask you is you've indicated in your report at
5 Annex 3.8 - just a moment, I think we can get it up on the screen for
6 you - it's P1776 and it should be page 61 in the English.
7 While that's coming up, you identified in the report a number of
8 sources that were not used, in particular. One of those was the --
9 referred mortality databases, I believe. If could you tell us a little
10 bit about, in as brief terms as possible, why those databases were not
11 used, that would be helpful?
12 A. Thank you. We have in our hands two large databases, one
13 obtained from the statistical authority of the Federation of Bosnia and
14 Herzegovina, and another one obtained from the statistical authority of
15 the RS, Republika Srpska. Both databases are large. The two together
16 comprise 140.000 individual records, each representing a death, a case of
17 death, during the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina from 1992 to 1995.
18 These databases were compiled based on -- on the death
19 notifications made by the families of the deceased to the statistical
20 authority. This is the death records that also in normal time, in peace,
21 are usually collected and processed by statistical authority. In order
22 to make an entry it is necessary for the statistical authority to have a
23 document, in most cases a death certificate, based on which the person is
24 registered in the death register.
25 In our project on Srebrenica, we -- it wasn't our purpose to
1 compile a complete list of persons who died in the fall of Srebrenica in
2 1995. Our focus has always been the missing persons, the missing persons
3 and, subsequently, the plan was to link the missing with exhumation
4 records. This approach is because of a belief the OTP, and, I think, of
5 our own, that missing persons, unfortunately and sadly, are, in most
6 cases, confirmed in the exhumation records.
7 So this is a very special group of victims which actually we
8 concentrated on in our work. Obviously these kind of records, records of
9 missing persons, cannot be entered and accepted by statistical authority
10 to register as in the statistical system. As for the missing persons,
11 the important document confirming the death, the death certificate, is
12 unavailable, obviously. The body is unavailable, and there is no
13 rationale for registering these cases.
14 So this is my explanation related to the two major sources, large
15 sources available at the OTP that were not used in our work. There was
16 one more source that we didn't use, a source that is large that I
17 mentioned already today, this source. This is the so-called Bosnian Book
18 of Death. It is the largest existing list or database on victims of war
19 in Bosnia and Herzegovina in the entire country, beginning in April 1992,
20 until the end of 1995. This database shortly, BBD, as we call it, BBD,
21 is a -- comprises at this stage approximately 100.000 cases, which is
22 believed to be almost complete in terms of victims of war.
23 The databases -- this database was compiled in Sarajevo by a
24 local NGO called Research and Documentation Centre. It is a human rights
25 NGO headed by Mirsad Tokaca, and database is a result of the work of this
1 NGO, years-long work, with regard to collecting information on deaths and
2 missing persons and maintaining -- establishing and maintaining a
4 Well, this is not a database that should be seen as a statistical
5 standard. It is a product of a NGO and there are a number of issues
6 related to this work, although, generally, this database is seen as a
7 very important and positive product. But, as a matter of fact, one of
8 the deficiencies of the database is that records have been edited
9 constantly by -- when entering -- when making new entries. The editing
10 of records leads to integrating various sources in one record and makes
11 it impossible to track original source for every data item. What I'm
12 trying to say, the database become -- has become a source in itself, and
13 it is not that it is a very straightforward thing to link it back to the
14 actual sources used.
15 In our work, this is a very serious problem because whatever list
16 is presented in a court of law we must be able to justify our sources, to
17 assess the sources, to eliminate any bias, possible bias included, simply
18 we must have a 100 percent transparency in presenting our list of
19 victims, and that is not really possible when working with the BBD.
20 Q. Thank you for that explanation. Would it be fair to say then
21 that the mortality databases weren't used because the absence essentially
22 of a death record does not speak to the issue of whether or not a person
23 is missing?
24 A. I don't really understand your question. Perhaps you could
25 rephrase it. Yes?
1 Q. It's okay. Let's move to a different area.
2 In terms of the use of the ABiH, well, the Army of BiH records,
3 were those used in compiling the list or consulted in compiling the list
4 that is the subject of this 2009 report?
5 A. The record, the army records, let's call this source army
6 records, were consulted in compiling the -- the 2009 list of missing and
7 identified persons. But consulted doesn't mean were used as a source,
8 based on which records would be extracted or selected for the list. The
9 consultation that was basically meant as a monitoring of the individuals
10 included in the OTP list from the point of view of whether or not these
11 persons were reported in the army records.
12 Q. Let me show you 65 ter 7252.
13 First, do you recognise what we have on the screen here?
14 A. Yes, I do. It's an internal memorandum that I made some time in
15 the summer of 2008.
16 Q. And can you tell us what it's about, briefly?
17 A. It's about the process of cross-referencing of the 2005 list of
18 OTP missing and identified person with the army records.
19 Fragments of this memorandum are also included in the 2009
20 report, specifically it is one of the annexes where the results of this
21 memorandum are included, and this is Annex 6.4 on page 93, which
22 basically reports on the same results as in this memorandum.
23 Q. And that refers to the 220 ABiH records?
24 A. Yes. It also includes the 220 records, army records or missing
25 persons records with inconsistent date of disappearance when compared
1 with the date of disappearance or death reported in the army records.
2 It is specifically --
3 Q. Can you --
4 A. -- Table 6.42 that begins on page 97.
5 Q. I think this was the table that we had to replace because of a
6 typo. Just a second. Let me see if I can get the P number for you.
7 [Prosecution counsel confer]
8 MR. VANDERPUYE:
9 Q. P1779, I believe it is.
10 A. If I may, it wasn't a typo in the report. The table is
11 incomplete. It is only one page that was included in the 2009 report.
12 As a matter of fact, the table is much longer than just one page.
13 Q. I think it actually is now reintegrated in the report. So if we
14 can go to page 93 of P1776, we should find it there.
15 MR. VANDERPUYE: Page 97, I'm sorry.
16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: It should not be broadcast.
17 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
18 Q. I think we've got it now up on the screen, Dr. Tabeau, and if you
19 could just explain this in the context of the memorandum, 65 ter 7252
20 that we just had up there, that would be very helpful.
21 A. This memorandum has --
22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Just a moment, please.
23 Mr. Gajic.
24 MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I don't think we have
25 the corresponding page in the Serbian. It should be page 104 in Serbian,
1 if I'm not mistaken.
2 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Indeed. That can't be the right page.
3 Now we have it on the screen.
4 Please continue.
5 Now your answer, please.
6 THE WITNESS: Yes. Thank you.
7 The memorandum reports on the results of cross-referencing the
8 army records that would be the records of fallen soldiers and other
9 military personnel, military and non-military personnel, associated with
10 the Ministry of Defence of the -- of the Federation of Bosnia and
11 Herzegovina. So cross-referencing of army records with the 2005 OTP list
12 of Srebrenica missing and identified persons.
13 In the result of cross-referencing, a number of army records were
14 found among the OTP missing persons, Srebrenica missing. Approximately
15 70 per cent of the Srebrenica missing was, as well, reported in army
16 records. This particular table that we have on the screen reports on
17 another result from this little project. The other result was our
18 comparing of dates of disappearance as produced by ICRC included in our
19 OTP list of Srebrenica missing, versus the date of disappearance or death
20 as reported in the army records.
21 So if we could take a look now at the table, there will be a few
22 items, starting with the last name in brackets there is the OTP
23 mentioned, so all the OTP flagged items would be those coming from the
24 OTP list of missing persons. As a matter of fact, it would be the ICRC
1 So we have last name, first name, father's name, date of birth,
2 DOB, with the OTP in brackets. This comes from the ICRC reporting.
3 Then we have the next item called DOD military. And these are
4 the date of disappearance or death as reported in military records.
5 The ICRC dates are not include because obviously they are all
6 consistent with our criteria for including records, including cases in
7 our OTP list. So the DOD military, the format is a little bit unclear
8 perhaps, because the year is reported in the three last digits of the --
9 of the whole string, and these three digits begin with 99, and in the
10 first record, there is a 2, 992, simply means the year 1 -- 1992, right?
11 92. So the one is missing. This is what I am trying to say.
12 Over than that, rest is clear. The first date is 26 April 1992.
13 That would be the date of death or disappearance of this person.
14 In the next portion of the table, there are items that relate to
15 our efforts to clarify the inconsistencies. Of course, any inconsistency
16 requires attention, our attention and it must become clear whether or not
17 a case with an inconsistent date of disappearance or death may remain on
18 our OTP list. So in the case of the first record, the next item, POD
19 corrected and DOD corrected well, first there is the DOD corrected, that
20 would be the corrected date of death or disappearance. The next one POD
21 corrected, already suggests that there have been corrections of the
22 original military records, and, indeed, there have been corrections of
23 initial military records.
24 At the time we saw the inconsistencies, we requested a
25 clarification and additional documents from the federal Ministry of
1 Defence. We sent a RFA which was responded some time later, and in the
2 response, for a number of cases that we sent down to Bosnia, the date of
3 disappearance and the place of disappearance were corrected. The
4 corrections obviously were in line with the information reported by ICRC
5 and included in our list of missing, so these two items, DOD corrected,
6 POD corrected, summarize the status of corrections obtained from the
7 military authorities in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
8 In the report --
9 Q. Let me just ask you with respect to what you have told us now
10 concerning the table that's before the Chamber, 6.4.2, starting at page
11 97 of P1776, is that specifically referred to in the memorandum that I
12 just had up on screen before? This is 65 ter 7252, your memorandum from
13 24 July 2008?
14 A. Yes, it is the same -- the same list and the same table that we
15 are talking about.
16 MR. VANDERPUYE: Just before we go forward, Mr. President, I'd
17 like to tender that document, that's 65 ter 7252. If you would like, I
18 can put it on the screen so we can all have a look at it.
19 JUDGE FLUEGGE: No, no, we have seen it already. But I take it
20 that you are moving for leave to add this to document to the 65 ter
21 exhibit list.
22 MR. VANDERPUYE: That is a fair question --
23 JUDGE FLUEGGE: And I don't see an objection by the Defence. Am
24 I correct? Again, I saw in the list at the end, this remark "with leave
25 of the Trial Chamber."
1 Mr. Gajic.
2 MR. GAJIC: [No interpretation]
3 JUDGE FLUEGGE: We didn't receive --
4 MR. TOLIMIR: [No interpretation]
5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I'm very sorry, I didn't receive interpretation.
6 MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] No objection.
7 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much. That was your own
8 translation. Thank you.
9 MR. VANDERPUYE: [Overlapping speakers] ... Mr. President --
10 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Leave is granted and the document will be
12 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, 65 ter document 7252 shall be
13 assigned exhibit number P2082. Thank you.
14 JUDGE FLUEGGE: May I put a question to the witness at this point
15 in time.
16 We have seen this list which we have on the screen now already
17 earlier. Can you give us your opinion how it came that in the DOD
18 military column that there are some dates from 1992, 1993, and 1994,
19 which were later corrected?
20 What might be the reason, taking into your account your
21 experience with these data, for stating by the military of BiH, the date
22 of disappearance or date of death prior to 1995?
23 THE WITNESS: It is good to note that these kind of systems are
24 dynamic, so the version that we have of these military records was made
25 at some point, and it is not necessarily so that all the records included
1 in this list have been updated. It is possible that during the war
2 certain individuals were reported as disappeared in 1992, 1993, 1994,
3 long before Srebrenica happened, the fall of Srebrenica. And nobody has
4 ever corrected this information. This happens. This happens frequently.
5 We are speaking of a wartime registration, a war situation is a special
6 situation. Many structures that work in peace normally don't work
7 normally during war.
8 So these kind of omissions, I would call it even not an error, an
9 omission and lack of updating of information, leads eventually to seeing
10 these kind of inconsistencies. So this is not the only source in which
11 these kind of problems I noticed, so that would be the most
12 straightforward explanation of the issue.
13 So using the actual current-day status, the authorities have
14 possibilities to check what is the current-day status of certain persons
15 reported earlier as missing, and it is perfectly possible that they could
16 have provide -- have provided us with corrections.
17 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much.
18 Mr. Vanderpuye, please carry on.
19 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President, I appreciate that. I
20 do have here 65 ter 2770 that I'd like to show the witness.
21 I understand there's not a translation for this.
22 Q. But can you just tell us for the record, so that is clear to
23 General Tolimir, what this is.
24 A. This is a RFA, our Request for Assistance, that was sent in
25 June 2004 to the Ministry of Defence of the Federation of Bosnia and
1 Herzegovina. In this RFA, we request, for 142 persons, to provide us
2 with information about their place of death, cause of death, and further
3 confirmation of the date of death.
4 I already mentioned this RFA earlier today in the context of the
5 memorandum that we are discussing. And here it is, we have it on our
7 MR. VANDERPUYE: Mr. President, I would like to tender this
9 JUDGE FLUEGGE: It will be marked for identification pending
11 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour, 65 ter document 2770 shall be
12 assigned exhibit number P2083, marked for identification, pending
13 translation. Thank you.
14 MR. VANDERPUYE: I'd like to show the witness 65 ter 2771.
15 Q. Now, Dr. Tabeau, in respect of the RFA that you just testified
16 about, was there any request, to your knowledge, made by the OTP for the
17 Ministry of Defence or the Bosnian authorities to change or correct any
18 of the dates of death or disappearance or place of death or disappearance
19 with respect to any one of the 142 persons indicated in that RFA?
20 A. In response to this RFA, we obtained corrections for 127
21 individuals out of initially requested number of 142 --
22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: May I interrupt for a moment.
23 Is there an English translation.
24 MR. VANDERPUYE: Yes, Mr. President. The translation is actually
25 on the second page of the document.
1 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Then we should have it on the screen as well.
2 Thank you.
3 Sorry for interrupting. Please continue with your answer.
4 MR. VANDERPUYE:
5 Q. My question was, Dr. Tabeau, whether or not any request was made
6 by the OTP, to your knowledge, or anybody else, to have the Bosnian
7 authorities, the Bosnian Ministry of Defence, change or correct the place
8 of death, cause of death, or -- or dates relating to either, concerning
9 the 142 individuals referenced in the RFA.
10 A. It wasn't our request that they would correct an information in
11 their systems. It was our request to obtain information about certain
12 characteristics of the cases that we sent them, the characteristics,
13 including the date of death, place of death. So that was our request, it
14 wasn't -- why would we correct their databases? Of course, not.
15 Q. And did you receive that information in response to the RFA?
16 A. Yes, we received a number of records, documents mentioning the
17 correct date of disappearance or death, and place of disappearance or
18 death for quite a number of cases so that we could use this information
19 in our revising, or not, the cases that we already had on our list of
20 Srebrenica missing.
21 Q. And is that the subject of this response? In other words, did
22 you get that information as a result of -- or as contained in this
24 A. Yes, of course. Yes, that is the subject, and in the 127 cases,
25 the information obtained from the federal Ministry of Defence
1 corroborated the information that we had from the ICRC regarding these
3 Q. All right. I'd like to tender this document as well,
4 Mr. President. 65 ter 2771.
5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: It will be received as an exhibit.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour, this document shall be assigned
7 exhibit number P2084. Thank you.
8 MR. VANDERPUYE:
9 Q. Lastly, Dr. Tabeau, I had some questions concerning --
10 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Gajic first, please.
11 MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I would like to put
12 forth a remark. The Defence used this same document during the
13 cross-examination of the witness Brunborg. This is 65 ter 1D137. So I
14 think that the record should contain the information that this document
15 was used previously; although, of course, now it bears a different
17 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Always helpful to all numbers together to be able
18 to link them. But if I recall correctly, we postponed a decision about
19 that. It was marked for identification or not; I don't recall. Perhaps
20 you can help us with that.
21 If you used it with Mr. Brunborg, I think it should have been
22 marked for identification.
23 MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, at the time, we did not
24 request that this document be tendered into evidence because we also
25 intended to use it with this witness. Our use with Mr. Brunborg was
1 rather limited. Maybe you would recall that we were talking about
2 certain documents relating to certain persons, and information such as
3 age and the exact date of disappearance between Srebrenica and Tuzla.
4 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much. Now it is clear. We have
5 P2084 on the screen.
6 Mr. Vanderpuye.
7 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
8 Q. Lastly, Dr. Tabeau, I wanted to ask you about certain information
9 that was provided to you from a book that was published by
10 Milivoje Ivanisevic. And concerned some 58 names of individuals that was
11 broached by the Defence during the testimony of Dr. Brunborg. First, do
12 you know what I'm talking about?
13 A. Yes, I know.
14 Q. Okay. Second, have you had an opportunity to look at these names
15 or review these names against the OTP missing list?
16 A. Yes, I did. I -- these are my preliminary observations that I
17 will be talking about. The work is not yet finished. But I did
18 cross-reference this list with the OTP of -- the OTP list of Srebrenica
19 missing of 2009, and the conclusion is these records do, indeed, match
20 the records of the missing persons. There are a few inconsistencies. I
21 cannot say that every record can be matched with 100 percent consistency.
22 I also tried to match the 58 names with other sources, with the census,
23 for instance, of 1991. Here, the situation is more complex. For the 58
24 names, there are many more candidate records in the census than the 58.
25 This only means that it is not that for each case there is strictly one
1 case reported in the census, so a possibility exists that the persons
2 characterised by Milivoje Ivanisevic are not exactly the same persons as
3 the one on the Srebrenica missing persons list.
4 In order to draw my conclusions with more certainty, I need
5 additional information about the individuals listed by Ivanisevic than my
6 matching with the census and the ICRC list of missing will be more
7 certain, but there is also one more interesting finding. I was trying to
8 match the 58 names with the two mortality databases, the RS mortality
9 database, and FIS, that is FIS mortality database with official death
10 notifications. We discussed these databases earlier today and, as a
11 matter of fact, court declarations that were used in the book by
12 Milivoje Ivanisevic is this sort of document that would be accepted by
13 statistical authority in the absence of death certificate. And honestly
14 my expectation was that I could find the 58 names, in particular, in the
15 RS mortality database, but it wasn't the case. So I wonder why not and
16 what kind of court declarations are those declarations used by
17 Mr. Ivanisevic.
18 On the other hand, it is important to note that Mr. Ivanisevic is
19 a very well-known activist that is engaged, and has been for years
20 engaged, in fighting for the truth about the suffering of the Serb people
21 during the war, especially in Bosnia and Herzegovina. He is one of the
22 people associated with Radovan Karadzic and his Defence, and, yeah, I
23 don't think he is 100 percent reliable source for this kind of work. He
24 is not a statistician. He used to work in cultural planning. He is
25 based in Belgrade, in Serbia, so he worked there. So I don't think this
1 source is -- can be 100 percent trusted.
2 So --
3 Q. Dr. Tabeau, were you able to find out if any of the names that
4 are indicated, that is, of the 58 names you reviewed, were found in mass
5 graves or identified in the ICMP data concerning those graves?
6 A. Oh, yes, it is very many of the 58, 52 have been identified by
7 ICMP and for the 52 cases, DNA matching reports are available and site
8 names are available and this can be provided, of course, any time. So it
9 is quite a number, 52 out of 58.
10 Q. Okay. Thanks?
11 MR. VANDERPUYE: We're out of time and that concludes my direct
13 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much. One clarification, please.
14 You have mentioned the person, I heard the name Ivanisevic. It
15 was recorded in different ways: Ivanisovicis, Ivanovic, can you spell
16 the name for the record, please.
17 THE WITNESS: It is Milivoje Ivanisevic. Milivoje Ivanisevic
18 Milivoje Ivanisevic -- I will look at it. It is Milivoje, not Milivoj.
19 The E is lacking at the first name, the last letter. Milivoje, yes.
20 Ivanisevic, I-v-a-n-i-s-e-v-i-c.
21 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much for that. We must adjourn
22 for the day -- Ivanisevic. Now we have it on the screen.
23 Mr. Gajic.
24 MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] Just one more thing about the same
25 topic I mentioned at the beginning.
1 Very briefly, I would like to list four documents whose
2 translation we need as soon as possible. The 65 ter numbers are as
3 follows. 2152, 7225, 7227, and 7224.
4 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Would you please look at the transcript, if these
5 numbers are now recorded correctly.
6 MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] Yes, they are, Your Honour. I was
7 checking it as I was reading it out.
8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I'm sure that the Registry will forward this
9 request to the relevant translation unit.
10 We have to adjourn for the day, and we will resume tomorrow at
11 9.00 in this courtroom.
12 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.50 p.m.,
13 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 17th day of
14 March, 2011, at 9.00 a.m.