1 Thursday, 1st September 2011
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.01 a.m.
5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Good morning to everybody in the courtroom,
6 especially to you, Mr. Vanderpuye. We haven't seen you for a long time.
7 Mr. Tolimir, we are in the middle of the cross-examination of
8 witness Ewa Tabeau. A long time ago you indicated that you will need
9 five to six hours for your cross-examination. You have used a bit more
10 than three and a half hours. Therefore, you should try to finish in two
11 hours your cross-examination. And we all should try to conclude the
12 examination of the next witness today as well, if possible.
13 The witness should be brought in, please.
14 MR. VANDERPUYE: Good morning, Mr. President.
15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Good morning.
16 MR. VANDERPUYE: I just have a bit of information for the
17 Trial Chamber and that is we have translations uploaded for the following
18 exhibits: P1677, we have the B/C/S translation uploaded; P2162, we have
19 a replacement English translation for this document; and for P2265, we
20 have an English translation; as well as for P2444; and for P2447, we have
21 an English and B/C/S translation, the original of that document was in
23 [The witness takes the stand]
24 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much. We will come back to that
25 at a later stage in order to save court time today.
1 Mr. Gajic.
2 MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I would like to talk
3 about two submissions based on Rule 92 quater, that the Prosecution
5 On Monday or on Tuesday at the latest, the Defence will be ready
6 to submit written replies. I hope this will not be too late for -- for
7 this Trial Chamber. The schedule has changed a bit since we have
8 declared that we will not pursue Rule 98 bis, that we will not provide
9 arguments according to that rule.
10 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much. I am not aware of the exact
11 time-limit for your response, but if I remember correctly, it will be in
12 the time-limit if you respond at the beginning of next week.
13 MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I believe the
14 dead-line has not even started running because the translations have not
15 been received. The Trial Chamber has asked us to do it as soon as
16 possible, and I have provided you with a clear indication of time. And
17 now, I am informing the Trial Chamber when it will be physically possible
18 for us to do that.
19 JUDGE FLUEGGE: We are very grateful for that, Mr. Gajic. Thank
20 you very much.
21 Good morning, Ms. Tabeau. Welcome back to the courtroom. It's a
22 long time ago that you started your testimony in this trial. I have to
23 remind you that the affirmation to tell the truth you made at the
24 beginning of your testimony still applies.
25 Mr. Tolimir is continuing his cross-examination.
1 Mr. Tolimir, you have the floor.
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. May
3 God's peace reign in this courtroom and may His will be done in these
4 proceedings and not necessarily mine.
5 WITNESS: EWA TABEAU [Resumed]
6 Cross-examination by Mr. Tolimir: [Continued]
7 Q. [Interpretation] I would like to greet Ms. Ewa Tabeau. I wish
8 her a pleasant stay in this courtroom. I still have a few questions left
9 which is neither here nor there. What matters is that we have managed to
10 provide time for your testimony.
11 Ms. Tabeau, can we please look at 1D949 in the e-court. Thank
12 you. I apologise, I have not seen Mr. Vanderpuye a long time and I
13 forgot to greet him, as well as all the others in the courtroom.
14 We see this document which is not very legible, but this was a
15 document which was issued by the Ministry of Labour, Social Policy,
16 and Refugees --
17 THE WITNESS: Excuse me, could this be enlarged a little bit.
18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Please wait a moment. Perhaps it's only
19 necessary to have one of the documents on the screen.
20 Mr. Tolimir, please continue.
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
22 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
23 Q. I will repeat. You probably now see it better. The document was
24 issued by the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, from the Federation of
25 Bosnia and Herzegovina, from its Tuzla canton. It was compiled on the
1 28th of July, 1995. The title of the document is: "Breakdown of Refugees
2 from Srebrenica Accommodated in Municipalities in the Tuzla/Podrinje
3 canton on the 28th of July, 1995."
4 In this document it is listed that on the 20th of July, 1995, a
5 total of 27.130 individuals were accommodated in various municipalities.
6 And the remark reads:
7 "In the above figures, persons accommodated at Dubrava airport
8 are not included."
9 And this implies those that were accommodated within the
10 perimeter of the airport. My question to you, Ms. Tabeau, is this: Did
11 you have an occasion to see this document and similar documents that
12 speak about the time when the refugees from Srebrenica were accounted
13 for? And can you tell me whether such documents have been included into
14 your analysis? Did you include them and did you try to check those
15 documents against any others that were compiled in the course of 1995?
16 Thank you.
17 JUDGE FLUEGGE: For the benefit of the witness, I think we should
18 have only the English translation on the screen and be enlarged. Thank
19 you very much. I take it, Mr. Tolimir, that you have the B/C/S version
20 in front of you in hard copy.
21 Ms. Tabeau.
22 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
23 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Ms. Tabeau.
24 THE WITNESS: I didn't see this particular document, but sources
25 related to the so-called refugees from Srebrenica were used in our work.
1 We discussed these issues in the report. There is an annex -- there is
2 annex discussing the cross-referencing of the so-called refugees from
3 Srebrenica with our lists of missing persons from Srebrenica. The major
4 source we used for cross-referencing is called the DDPR. The source is
5 discussed in annex 3.5, and there is another annex discussing the
6 methodology of cross-referencing. And there is annex 3.7 in the report
7 in which we discuss the 1997 record of Srebrenica refugees.
8 These records are actually coming largely from the same source.
9 It is the registration of internal displacement during the war in Bosnia
10 and Herzegovina. The registration was done by local authorities. At
11 some point UNHCR got involved in the registration processes, and the
12 outcomes of these processes were databases. One of the them, central
13 database on displaced persons within Bosnia and Herzegovina and refugees
14 in this country, is called DDPR. We used it as one of the main sources
15 on surviving population from Bosnia and cross-referenced this source and
16 the so-called 97 refugees from Srebrenica with our list of survivors.
17 We have not said "survivors" but "missing persons," of course.
18 Sorry. It was my mistake.
19 Q. Thank you, Ms. Tabeau.
20 A. Excuse me, I am Tabeau, not taboo, please.
21 Q. Thank you, Ms. Tabeau. I apologise for not pronouncing your name
22 properly. And I apologise once again.
23 This document clearly shows that very precise numbers are given
24 rather than just estimates. Does this point to the fact that people who
25 had been evacuated from Srebrenica were registered as well as those that
1 had reached the territory under the control of the BiH Army in the
3 A. Well, the refugees -- or displaced persons, more correctly, have
4 always been registered in conflict affected countries. It is an
5 important group of people who need protection and aid and records of
6 displacement is an important one, so I never questioned the fact that
7 this kind of registration was done and was done systematically. So I
8 never questioned it in my report or any testimonies.
9 Q. Thank you, Ms. Tabeau. Do you agree with me if I say that the
10 basic data on the number of refugees and displaced persons from
11 Srebrenica should be the base for all the other analyses and estimates,
12 and I am talking about the expert reports provided by demographers and
13 similar experts? Do you also agree that your analysis should give those
14 numbers in a separate tables, that they should not be included with all
15 the other data? Thank you.
16 A. Well, I not only agree with you that separate analysis should be
17 made with regard to displacement and refugees of a conflict, but I, with
18 my people, have done several such reports which were submitted in several
19 cases in ICTY. But here in this case, we are speaking about a different
20 kind of report. The report we submitted is about victims, and in
21 addition it is a particular group of victims. It is the missing persons;
22 a very special group. We know very little in the beginning of our
23 process about the fate of these persons. So I don't see in what way
24 other than what we did in our work we could use data on displacement and
25 refugees to draw conclusions about missing persons. What we did, we
1 cross-referenced records of survivors, it would be displaced persons,
2 refugees, non-displaced population, with records of missing persons, in
3 order to eliminate potential survivors in the records of missing persons.
4 That is all we did, and this is all that should and can be done when
5 preparing a report on victims. Other than that, displacement
6 information, refugees information, cannot be used directly to draw
7 conclusions about victims.
8 Q. Thank you, Ms. Tabeau. Please, I would like you to look at
9 1D949. Thank you. I apologise.
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I wanted to tender that document,
11 and I would like to call up 1D947. The numbers are similar which made me
12 make that mistake.
13 Once again, I would like to tender 1D949 into evidence, please.
14 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Indeed, that is the correct number, and we have
15 error on page 3, line 11, there is a different number which is incorrect.
16 The document will be received.
17 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, 65 ter number 1D949 shall be
18 assigned Exhibit D313. Thank you.
19 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Now we would like to have 1D947 on the screen.
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
21 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
22 Q. We can see the document on the screen. It is again not very
23 legible. Can it be -- yes, thank you. This is a document issued by
24 UNPROFOR. It's Sector North-east whose headquarters were in the Tuzla
25 air base. The document was issued on the 4th of August, 1995. The
1 document reads: "Subject: Srebrenica, displaced persons situation
3 The following points are made as an update to the current
4 humanitarian situation in SNE concerning the Srebrenica displaced
6 "Total number: 35.632 (approximately).
7 "Housed in private accomodation: 17.383.
8 "Housed in collective centres: 9.749.
9 "Tuzla air base camp: 6.500."
10 This is a supplement to the first table which indicated 27.000
11 people with the 6.500 who were at the base. During your work, did you
12 have available to you the update that UNPROFOR had concerning people who
13 fled from Srebrenica to the territory under the control of the BiH and to
14 the Tuzla air base camp? Thank you.
15 A. I did not have this particular document, but the number as such
16 doesn't come to me as a surprise, the 35.600 something. If you, sir,
17 refer to annex 3.7, then you will find some statistics that are quite
18 comparable to this number. In my estimation, it would be about 30.000
19 displaced persons from Srebrenica in more or less the same period. As
20 you see from our report, we cross-referenced these records with the
21 records of missing persons. We identified about 100 individuals
22 potentially overlapping between missing persons and displaced persons.
23 We clarified these cases with the authorities in Bosnia and Herzegovina,
24 and compared with additional sources we have in our office, that would be
25 ICMP identifications of victims, and found many matches among the
1 identified for our potential 100 survivors. And the conclusion is that
2 is not correct to believe that these 100 potential candidates are the
3 persons reported as missing on our list. So the exercise ended with the
4 conclusion that no record of a missing person should be removed from the
5 list as a reported survivor, displaced person.
6 Q. Thank you, Ms. Tabeau. Under C in the document it says that:
7 "Plan for movement of displaced persons population from Tuzla air
8 base to collective centres is co-ordinated with BiH civil defence staff
9 through and by UNHCR head of office. Displaced persons will be
10 transported with BiH transport and moved to accommodations which have
11 been repaired or renovated by either SEA, IRC," and so on and so forth.
12 Please, did you establish the final list once those people from
13 the air base were transported to accomodation centres that had been
14 repaired or renovated by representatives of various international
15 organisations? Thank you.
16 A. There was no need to work with these kinds of lists because the
17 sources on survivors that we used for our work actually comprised these
18 kind of developments. This particular document is dated, as far as I
19 remember, August 1995, if we go to the -- yes. We worked with 1997
20 records, compiled by the authorities in Tuzla and later in Sarajevo in
21 the Ministry For Displaced Persons and Refugees, and we also used the
22 2000 version of the DDPR, that is the central system registering
23 displaced persons and refugees, and we as well used other sources on
24 survivors; that is, the sources that would be reporting on both displaced
25 persons and non-displaced persons. That would be the three large voter's
1 registers that we used to search for survivors.
2 I think that this is quite some work meant to find any possible
3 survivors, and it must be remembered that these searches were run in the
4 context of this one particular group: Missing persons, the persons of
5 whom no record existed as to their fate after the fall of Srebrenica.
6 Q. Thank you. Please, Mrs. Tabeau, could you tell me, since you
7 studied all this, whose data is more precise: Those that were based on
8 the lists of displaced persons and refugees in accomodation centres or
9 the data from 1997? Did you cross-reference those two sets of data in
10 order to establish any discrepancies?
11 A. You mean the 1997 data with the 1995 data, if I may clarify;
12 right? Yes.
13 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Microphone.
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, I apologise.
15 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
16 Q. Yes, the 1995 data and the 1997 data. Did you cross-reference
17 those two sets of data as you have already indicated in your previous
18 answer? Thank you.
19 A. I, as a matter of fact, didn't have to cross-reference anything
20 in this particular case because the records of 1997 refugees discussed in
21 annex 3.7 largely come from the local authorities in Tuzla, who actually
22 registered the displacement from Srebrenica in the period to which this
23 document is referring. So actually I have the data to work with and that
24 would be the 1997 records of Srebrenica refugees.
25 As you will see in this annex, there were four CDs [Realtime
1 transcript read in error "cities"] that were submitted to the Office of
2 the Prosecutor. The CDs one to three were coming directly from Tuzla
3 authorities, and only one CD was coming from the Ministry for Displaced
4 Persons and Refugees in Sarajevo. So these three CDs jointly comprised
5 about 20.000 records of displaced persons, so I simply had this data.
6 JUDGE FLUEGGE: The record should be record. We are not talking
7 about "cities" but "CDs."
8 Mr. Tolimir.
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
10 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
11 Q. Thank you, Ms. Tabeau. Please, since you said in the first and
12 second parts of your answer that you relied on documents from 1997, my
13 question is: Are the documents from 1997 more valid, more relevant, than
14 the documents that were developed in 1995 after people left collection
16 A. I think the 1997 records shouldn't be seen as made in 1997.
17 These are records that were collected over a longer period of time
18 starting already during the war, in this case 1995, and later, and the
19 record is dated as of 1997; that means, it is the status of this data of
20 this registration system that goes back to all the information that was
21 obtained in the course of time. So it is not about what is more
22 reliable, 1995 or 1997, it is just the data coming from a dynamic system
23 that is systematically updated as the new data is coming.
24 Q. Thank you, Ms. Tabeau. Was it finally documented definitively,
25 everyone that came out with the military column and the civilians, was it
1 supposed to be identical, this new data from 1997? Was it identical to
2 the records of collection centres from 1995?
3 A. Well, you are referring to a column. I refer -- I will refer to
4 records of displaced persons often also called, incorrectly, refugees in
5 this context, so it is just the population who ended in the Tuzla region
6 as displaced people; that is, people who no more were living in their
7 homes. Was it identical with this 1995 information? This is all we
8 have, and knowing how the data was collected I can say this is the same
9 information as was subsequently obtained or produced by the authorities
10 from Tuzla.
11 Q. Thank you, Ms. Tabeau.
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] 1D947 is a document I would like to
14 JUDGE FLUEGGE: It will be received.
15 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, 65 ter document 1D947 shall be
16 assigned Exhibit D314. Thank you.
17 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir.
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
19 Please, could we now display 1D958. That is a report from the
20 World Health Organization on persons displaced from Srebrenica to the
21 Tuzla/Podrinje canton. The document also identifies the number of
22 displaced persons on 29 July, 1995.
23 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
24 Q. And it says -- can you see it now so we can all follow?
25 A. Not yet.
1 JUDGE FLUEGGE: It's not on the screen. Did you provide us with
2 a correct number? The document with that number is not listed in your
3 list of documents.
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] My mistake. It should be 948. I
5 should have followed the same order as before. 1D948 follows 1D947. I
6 apologise to the electronic courtroom and Ms. Tabeau.
7 We need, in fact, 1D948. It's a report on recently displaced
8 people from Srebrenica to Tuzla-Podrinje canton.
9 JUDGE FLUEGGE: It's on the screen.
10 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
11 Q. They say the total is 34.341. In private accomodation, 17.137.
12 In collective centres, 9.804 persons. And at the air base, 7.400. My
13 question is: Did you have occasion to see this document before while you
14 were making your analysis and your expert report?
15 A. No, I didn't. As this document is not really a source for me in
16 my analysis of missing persons and exhumed persons and identified
17 persons. So I, myself, have estimated and presented in several reports.
18 The displacement from Srebrenica was very, very considerable, especially
19 with regard to the Muslim population living in Srebrenica area and
20 neighbouring municipalities. Many of them ended in the Tuzla canton, so
21 this is yet another confirmation that the statement about the large-scale
22 displacement from Srebrenica is correct, but it is not helpful to use
23 this kind of statement in the analysis of missing persons, of mass graves
24 and identified people.
25 Q. Thank you, Ms. Tabeau. And is it useful to have a document like
1 this when considering the number of displaced persons from Srebrenica to
2 the Tuzla-Podrinje canton?
3 A. Well, it is better to work with records of displaced persons and
4 refugees, and these records exist and are much more correct than these
5 kind of rough statistics. So it is just one of contextual documents that
6 confirm the scale of displacement, no more than that. But statistically
7 speaking, I would always prefer to work with individual records of
8 victims, displaced persons, refugees, killed persons, missing persons,
10 Q. Thank you, Ms. Tabeau. My question is: For demographers, are
11 numbers on the population and movement more interesting? Is this the
12 kind of data that indicates where these people are accommodated and in
13 what numbers?
14 A. Well, it indicates the places where people were accommodated and
15 some numbers, indeed.
16 Q. Thank you.
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I should like this document, 1D948,
18 to be admitted into evidence.
19 JUDGE FLUEGGE: It will be received.
20 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, 65 ter document 1D948 shall be
21 assigned Exhibit D315. Thank you.
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I thank the Registrar. Could
23 e-court please display P1777. Thank you.
24 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
25 Q. That is a list from the OTP on missing persons from Srebrenica.
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] And we need page 91 in e-court.
2 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
3 Q. While we are looking for that page, would you kindly tell us --
4 JUDGE FLUEGGE: It should not be broadcast.
5 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
6 Q. Ms. Tabeau, would you tell us, please, were you involved in the
7 drafting of this OTP list?
8 A. Yes, I was.
9 Q. Thank you. Could we then look at the name -- I don't know how to
10 deal with this, because maybe all of the names are protected.
11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: It's very easy. We can go into private session
12 for that part of your examination.
13 Mr. Gajic.
14 MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, the Defence has tried
15 to facilitate the proceedings by preparing hard copies of the document so
16 we don't have to call it up in e-court every time. If the usher could
17 just distribute the list to everyone in the courtroom, to all the
19 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Yes, please, that's helpful. Especially for the
21 Mr. Tolimir, are you going to mention specific names on the list?
22 In that case, we should go into private session, would you agree?
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. We have
24 now distributed the document, so I don't have to mention any names.
25 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
1 Q. I would like to ask Ms. Tabeau to look at entry number 7. Thank
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Thank you. Now, if you could answer this question: Does it
5 follow from this that the person under number 7 was born on the 2nd of
6 May and went missing on the 14th of July, 1995, in a place called
7 Buljim-Bratunac (redacted)
8 (redacted) Thank you?
9 A. Yes, that's correct.
10 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I'm sorry, I can't follow. On the first page, I
11 am now dealing with page number 91, which is on the screen. Then --
12 THE WITNESS: Record number seven.
13 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Yes, then that is the next page. Yes, thank you.
14 It's clarified.
15 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
16 Q. I emphasize that the date of birth is 2nd May 1952 and the date
17 when the person went missing is 1995, 14 July.
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we now see 1D950 [Realtime
19 transcript read in error "1D590"].
20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Gajic.
21 MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] I apologise. There is an error in
22 the record. It's 1D950.
23 JUDGE FLUEGGE: That is the number which was interpreted.
24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. What we see here is a
25 decision by the lower court in Lukavica determining that the death of the
1 person under number 7 occurred on the 7th of July, 1995.
2 JUDGE FLUEGGE: It should not be broadcast.
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
4 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
5 Q. And the statement of reasons indicates the cause of death. Since
6 there is no translation I have to read it to you. I will leave out only
7 the name and surname, and I will be referring to the person as entry 7.
8 The proponent, I will leave out the name, submitted an application to
9 this court to prove the death of her spouse, leaving out the name,
10 stating that as a member of the 28th Mounted Battalion he was killed on
11 7 July 1995 on an elevation called Ljubisavici.
12 The claims from the application of the proponent have been
13 confirmed by witnesses Muhudin Hasanovic [phoen] and Mevlida Osmanovic as
14 well as the temporary holder of custody, Osman Omerovic. The aforenamed
15 persons stated that, leaving out the name, was during the war a member of
16 the 28th Mountain Battalion, and his unit mounted an attack on the enemy
17 elevation called Ljubisavici on 7 July 1995. The name of the elevation
18 is Ljubisavici, on which occasion entry number 7 was killed.
19 [As read] "The next day on the 8th of July 1995 he was buried at
20 the town cemetery called Kazani. These facts follow from the death
21 certificate 07/02-216-22/50, issued by the command of the 28th Division
22 on 19 March 1997 which states that entry number 7 was killed on 7 July
23 1995 at the Ljubisavici elevation."
24 I will not read the passage which follows which states that it
25 was published in the Official Gazette, et cetera.
1 Now, based on this, Ms. Tabeau, I would like to ask: In this
2 case, the case of the person under number 7, is it an obvious discrepancy
3 between the list of the OTP which states that the person went missing on
4 the 14th of July whereas this court decision indicates that he was killed
5 on 7th July 1995?
6 A. Well, let me tell you, nothing is obvious. First of all, it is
7 very good to ask what kind of document is this. It is a court
8 declaration of a person death. The declaration is issued in response to
9 a request from a family member of this person. The family member -- the
10 family reported this person as missing. They don't have information
11 about what happened to him. If they did know what happened to this
12 person, there wouldn't be necessary to have a court to decide -- to
13 declare this person dead.
14 So these kind of declarations were issued for the missing
15 persons, conditionally on the fulfillment of a number of requirements.
16 The same type of declarations were used for the list of 58 names that
17 General Tolimir addressed at some point earlier and which I studied in
18 order to make an assessment of the possibility whether these cases were
19 of people who died in different circumstances and different places at
20 different moments of time than what is claimed in the OTP lists of
21 missing persons.
22 These court declarations, as a matter of fact, usually don't --
23 are not based on precise information about the death, because the death
24 is actually something that needs to be declared as the person is missing.
25 So the circumstances, the date, the place, the cause of death, are
1 unknown. This particular case, based on witness statements, based on
2 what they were tell the court, seems to be more complete in the sense
3 that the witnesses told the court about what happened. And based on what
4 they said, the court issued a decision. At the same time, in the OTP
5 list, this person is reported as a missing, with the date of
6 disappearance 14th of July (redacted)
11 Of course, it's a very difficult question. As a matter of fact,
12 what I would do in such case, I would go back and check both sources
13 because they contradict each other in some sense. (redacted)
17 So what I would do is I would go and check all the details and
18 come back with a conclusion. In both cases much more information should
19 be available. The ICMP will most certainly have complete reports from
20 the family members of the person. It is easy to figure out who reported
21 the person to the ICMP. Is this the same -- exactly same person reported
22 in both the court declaration and in the ICMP record, et cetera, et
24 So these kind of cases, at first impression contradictory, and
25 with a serious question which source should be trusted, can be sorted out
1 rather easily. This is what I have done for the 58 names addressed
2 earlier by General Tolimir, and the same can be done with this particular
4 Q. Thank you, Ms. Tabeau. Now, please, several facts are stated
5 here that we need to bear in mind: One, that the 28th Division issued a
6 certificate on 19 March, 1997, that the person was killed in combat on
7 the 7th of July, that's one; and second, two witnesses - I won't mention
8 their names again - say that he was buried at the local cemetery called
9 Kazani, and the wife claims the same. And the court determined it based
10 on witness statements.
13 (redacted) And could the same family
14 claim him as gone missing from the column, as saying that he was killed
15 earlier while being a member of the column, as determined by the court?
16 What should be more reliable to General Tolimir, a court determination or
17 an assessment made based on an analysis?
18 A. Well, I cannot tell General Tolimir what he should decide because
19 it is his decision, but what I would do, as I said, I would study this
20 particular document in a broader context of all available information
21 related to this case. And this is what I did, and if you give me a
22 second I will check my records because I possibly have more information
23 right now in the court, or I will do it in the break, but things are
24 sometimes not as straightforward as they look. For instance, the same
25 names can be associated with a totally different person, and there might
1 be a very small difference in the date of birth, small but significant in
2 the sense that this would be two different persons. These kind of things
3 happen quite often, and this is why we, in our method, don't work with
4 single source and single document, we work with a number of sources,
5 related sources, that overlap in the sense that one given case can be
6 compared across the sources. And what we would do, we would go back
7 first to the 1991 census record and check how many people with these same
8 names or very similar names were reported there in the census, and we
9 would track their fates in other sources of information. (redacted)
11 (redacted) We would go to other databases. If this person
12 is a known death, as it seems according to this court declaration, the
13 case should be reported in official death notifications, compiled by
14 statistical authorities in both entities in the federation and
15 Republika Srpska, and we have these records in our office. We would
16 search for the person, compare the records, we would check all kinds of
17 sources. And only then would we draw a conclusion. So I can do this. I
18 am not sure then how Tolimir can do this, but I can help, I can assist
19 this Court to clarify these kind of cases, and this is actually what we
20 have been doing since the very beginning of our work on Srebrenica.
21 Srebrenica is a mass atrocity case. It is very -- it would be
22 very difficult to analyse all the cases, one by one, approximately 8.000
23 victims. To clarify what happened to them by questioning witnesses is
24 actually an impossible thing to do. So what instead can be done, there
25 exists lists of victims issued by reliable organs, and we use these
1 lists, cross-reference them, and come up with our findings. This is, I
2 think, the best approach to answer these discrepancies.
3 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Ms. Tabeau, I would like to put an additional
4 question to you in relation to that. Thank you for this explanation.
5 Earlier in one of your answers you said:
6 "It could be sorted out quite easily. This is what I have done
7 for the 58 names addressed earlier by General Tolimir."
8 Are you referring to the beginning of your cross-examination in
9 this trial where we dealt with similar cases, and did you do this
10 research in the time between when after the last day in court in this
11 trial? What was the result of this check for the 58 names?
12 THE WITNESS: It is, indeed, so that the 58 names I mentioned
13 came up earlier this year. I think, already, for the first time during
14 the testimony of Helge Brunborg, as far as I'm not wrong. And the claim
15 of the Defence is that there are 58 persons listed on the OTP lists of
16 missing persons that, as a matter of fact, died at different places, at
17 different dates than the fall of Srebrenica, and in addition they died of
18 natural causes of death and shouldn't be kept on the OTP list.
19 So I studied these particular 58 names recently and made a little
20 report about my findings. All these 58 names were taken from a book by
21 Milivoje Ivanisevic. So that's the actual source for this the names.
22 All of these names were listed by him based on these kind of court
23 declarations as the one we are having on our screen. These declarations
24 were issued by local courts in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Most of them
25 rather in distant past from now, so in the year, say, 1997, 1998,
1 something like that, and all these declarations were addressed to the
2 courts by the families because the families actually didn't know what
3 happened to their relatives.
4 As a matter of fact, these declarations I studied were issued in
5 the context of missing persons. As -- the conclusion -- I did two
6 things: First of all, I collected the actual declarations and studied
7 them myself to confirm whether, indeed, these declarations related to
8 unrelated cases, not Srebrenica victims, and the second part of the work
9 was in line with what I just mentioned, it was cross-referencing of these
10 names with the sources the OTP has -- I have in my unit, including the
11 1991 population census, the missing persons list, the ICMP identification
12 of these persons.
13 To keep it brief, in both cases, I didn't find any reasons to
14 consider any of these persons unrelated to the fall of Srebrenica. As a
15 matter of fact, there is a lot of evidence to the contrary. Many of
16 these individuals were identified by ICMP. Only, I think, as far as I
17 remember, one wasn't, and three actually were siblings' identifications,
18 but the rest were identifications that link these names to certain mass
19 graves and records of DNA identification. So all in all -- actually, two
20 records, as far as I remember, were reported in the court declarations as
21 deaths from 1992, but I checked that these two names were actually
22 different persons than the persons included in the OTP lists. Those that
23 were on the OTP lists were with very similar or even identical names,
24 slight differences in dates of births but were different persons and died
25 in the fall of Srebrenica. The 1992 records on the Ivanisevic list were,
1 as a matter of fact, different people who died in 1992.
2 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Just one brief additional question.
3 THE WITNESS: Yes.
4 JUDGE FLUEGGE: If I understood you correctly, you didn't have
5 any reason to change your findings in your previous report; is that
7 THE WITNESS: Yes, that is correct.
8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Did you -- as you said, you compiled these
9 findings, the research in relation to these 58 persons in a little
10 report --
11 THE WITNESS: Yes.
12 JUDGE FLUEGGE: -- given to the OTP?
13 THE WITNESS: I think the report should have been disclosed to
15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: That was -- that would be my question to
16 Mr. Vanderpuye, if that report was disclosed to the Defence.
17 MR. VANDERPUYE: Indeed it was, Mr. President, and it's uploaded
18 as 65 ter 7518, which I intended to introduce it and to use it in a
19 redirect which, obviously, will be much briefer now. But the Defence
20 does have the report. I do note, though, that I don't believe the report
21 has been translated as yet. A request was submitted but it's not
23 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much for this update.
24 Mr. Tolimir, you may continue.
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. My legal
1 assistant wants to say something about the documents that Ms. Tabeau has
2 just mentioned.
3 MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, yesterday we reviewed
4 documents. Before we had not had an occasion to see over a hundred pages
5 of documents similar to the one on the screen. We could not read them on
6 the electronic disclosure system. Of course, we managed to review a lot
7 of those pages, but not all. We hope that we will continue dealing with
8 these documents. Unfortunately, there is still no translation of the
9 document into English.
10 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.
11 Mr. Tolimir, carry on, please.
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. Could
13 D950 be admitted into evidence, 1D950. This is the document dealing with
14 the person who was buried in the local graveyard before the conflict in
15 Srebrenica and subsequently in -- his body was excavated from a mass
16 grave. Thank you.
17 JUDGE FLUEGGE: The document will be marked for identification,
18 pending translation.
19 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, 65 ter document 1D950 shall be
20 assigned Exhibit D316, marked for identification, pending translation.
21 Thank you.
22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir.
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. Could we now look at
24 P1777. Thank you.
25 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
1 Q. This is a Prosecutor's list of people missing from Srebrenica.
2 It was compiled in 2009. I don't think it should be disclosed.
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] We are interested in page 13.
4 JUDGE FLUEGGE: It should not be broadcast.
5 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
6 Q. Since we can't say the names, we are interested in entry number
7 five from the top of the list.
8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: We can see the names. The names are on the
9 screen. We can see them.
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, we can. But I am not going to
11 read them. Everybody can see the names. I am interested in number 5.
12 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
13 Q. Ms. Tabeau, does it arise from this that the person under number
14 5 was born on the 21st of January 1995 and that the last time he was seen
15 in Potocari on the 13th of July, 1995, in Potocari. And that his death
16 was confirmed? Thank you.
17 JUDGE FLUEGGE: The date of birth in this list is 21st of January
18 1965, not 1995.
19 THE WITNESS: Yes, with this correction, it is correct.
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, I agree with
21 Mr. President. I misspoke. 21st of January, 1996 -- or, rather, 1965.
22 Thank you.
23 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
24 Q. Ms. Tabeau, was it confirmed that the last time he was seen was
25 in Potocari and then that he was confirmed dead?
1 A. Yes, this is what we see on this list.
2 Q. Thank you.
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] And now I would like to show the
4 witness 1D951. Thank you. Thank you.
5 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
6 Q. Now we can see a decision where it says that the person under
7 number 5 was born on the 20th of January in Srebrenica and that his
8 family had filed a request for the date of death to be confirmed as the
9 15th March in Zepa municipality of Rogatica. 15th of March, 1995.
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] And now can we go to page 3 in
11 e-court? Thank you.
12 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
13 Q. Please, we can see another document issued by the municipal court
14 in Kladanj. This is a decision to correct the previous decision of the
15 same court in Kladanj, and in this decision it says that the date of
16 birth would be deleted and that it would be replaced by another date of
17 birth which would be the 21st of January, 1965. Everything else remains
18 the same as before. The decision that we see contains a correction of
19 the date of birth of the person who died and whose name is listed under
20 number 5. Thank you.
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we now go back to 1D951,
22 page 1.
23 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
24 Q. Now we can see it. This is a decision pursuant to which number 5
25 was declared dead, and at 15th of March 1995 is hereby determined as the
1 date of death. And I am going to read from the statement of reasons
2 where it says:
3 "Based on the testimonies of the applicant and witnesses, the
4 court has established that" - person under number 5, whose name I am not
5 going to read - "went missing on the 15th of March, 1995," as it stays
6 says here, but this is an error -- no, it's not an error, "he went
7 missing on the 15th of March, 1995, as a member of the Army of BiH, and
8 he went missing in Zepa. From then on there have been no news of his
9 life or death."
10 My question is this: Does this decision clearly point to the
11 fact that the court had to establish the date of birth twice? You also
12 mentioned such instances that were aimed at avoiding manipulations. Does
13 it also clearly show that person under number 5 who died in circumstances
14 unrelated to the events surrounding the month of July 1995? Thank you.
15 A. Well, if you're asking whether the date of birth has been
16 established twice, obviously it was, and probably because a reliable
17 document in which the date of birth would be reported was unavailable or
18 became available at a later moment of time. Inconsistencies in dates of
19 birth are seen very often across various documents reporting on the same
20 persons, especially if information is coming based on witness statements
21 or just statements. People are very bad in remembering dates.
22 So the second part of your question was -- I think there wasn't
23 second part, so it was the question.
24 Q. Thank you. Can we see here that the date of death was the 15th
25 of March, which was a few months before the date indicated in the
1 report -- in the Prosecutor's report, and that the place of death was
2 Zepa and not Srebrenica? Thank you?
3 A. Well, let's not forget that this court declaration is about a
4 missing person, a person whose fate is unknown. So we can't speak about
5 the actual date of death, the actual place of death, the actual cause of
6 death. Why? Because there is no proof other than statements of some
7 people who are saying things they are saying. The date 15th of March is
8 the date of last seen. This is when the person was last seen by those
9 who appeared before the court to give their statement, and they are
10 saying they saw the person in Zepa. That's it. This is all the document
11 is telling us. In order to be sure that this was the case with this
12 person, a lot of additional work is required.
13 In our records, ICRC records, coming also from informants, close
14 relatives, there is a different date of last seen. The date is the 13th
15 of July, and the place is different. Whom to trust more and better, this
16 is a very good question. What we believe is the right thing to do, it is
17 important to cross-reference these kind of statements with the DNA record
18 of identification of such people.
19 For many of these kind of cases, such identifications are
20 available. For some, not yet. But because these persons are often
21 included in siblings' identifications, this is a sign for us this
22 information is coming. For some other cases there won't be information
23 other than the report about the missing, the disappearance of this
24 person. If I am asked which source I trust more when it comes to
25 reporting of disappearances, missing persons, I do trust the ICRC. Why?
1 Because it is an organisation that has been collecting information about
2 missing persons for a very long time. They have developed procedures,
3 approaches, how to do it right. They, for instance, use questionnaires,
4 structured questionnaires in which information is collected about not
5 only just names and date of disappearance. There is much more in there,
6 in these questionnaires. There is also some information about the
7 informants, and we know that ICRC does not accept information from
8 anybody. They require that the informant is a close relative. They
9 check the ID of the informant. So they have an interview. They speak
10 about what happened. And it is all available from the questionnaires.
11 The other informant, I don't know. I have no idea who are those
12 people. Perhaps they are relatives of the wife who went to court and
13 requested that a declaration would be issued. Why did she need a
14 declaration? Perhaps because of property. I don't know why. Perhaps
15 because of some other things. So in order to have a clear idea about the
16 quality of these statements, I would have to go back and contact these
17 people and talk to them and check whether what this statement is telling
18 us is actually the truth. So it is not a quick decision to decide
19 what -- who is right, this court declaration or ICRC or ICMP. It is a
20 process, it is an investigation, and in many cases this investigation can
21 be done here using statistical databases. But in some other cases even
22 this is not enough. In some cases it is necessary to go back and find
23 these witnesses and to talk to them, as OTP often does, and this is the
24 way to make sure that the information provided to this Court is correct.
25 Q. Thank you, Ms. Tabeau. Now, please tell us, the applicant in
1 this case, isn't she the closest relative to the missing person? She was
2 his wife. And did the court use her testimony and the testimony of
3 witnesses in order to establish that he went missing on the 15th of
4 March, 1995, as an army member in Zepa? And in this courtroom, should we
5 have the records of all the courts, all the decisions of all the courts
6 showing what they based their decisions on? Should I, as an accused,
7 trust the decisions of such courts or should we go through the exercise
8 of reestablishing the data?
9 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, I think the witness answered this
10 question already in detail and explained the whole procedure she and her
11 colleagues were following to establish if such a declaration gives reason
12 to change the previous findings. She explained in detail and at length
13 how, in her opinion, it would be the best way to check the information.
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. In that
15 case, if we apply the same parameter to all court decisions, I have no
16 other questions for this witness. This brings my cross-examination to an
18 I just wanted to present different cases that were treated
19 differently. I did not want to apply the same criteria to every missing
20 person. And finally, I would like to tender this document into evidence,
21 1D951. Thank you.
22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: This document will be marked for identification,
23 pending translation.
24 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, 65 ter document 1D951 shall be
25 assigned Exhibit D317, marked for identification, pending translation.
1 Thank you.
2 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, and to clarify the situation, my
3 comment was in relation to your last question. Nothing else. Because
4 you asked for the best way to establish the truth and that was just the
5 last answer of the witness, in principle.
6 Nevertheless, I take it that this concludes your
8 We must have our first break now and we will resume at 11.00.
9 --- Recess taken at 10.31 a.m.
10 [The witness stands down]
11 [The witness takes the stand]
12 --- On resuming at 11.02 a.m.
13 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Vanderpuye, you have the floor for your
15 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President. And good morning to
16 you, Your Honours. I haven't had a chance to greet everyone, so good
18 Re-examination by Mr. Vanderpuye:
19 Q. And good morning to you, Dr. Tabeau.
20 A. Good morning.
21 Q. I have a relatively few number of questions to ask you, so let me
22 get started. You were asked some questions based on a few documents that
23 General Tolimir put to you. I have them as 1D949, and this related to a
24 document that presented certain figures, it's D313, presented certain
25 figures concerning refugees or displaced persons related to Srebrenica.
1 JUDGE FLUEGGE: This is now D313.
2 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
3 Q. And you were also presented with another document, 1D947, which
4 is D314; and 948, which is D315. All of these documents presented
5 figures of people that were displaced or referred to as refugees
6 concerning the Srebrenica events.
7 You indicated during the course of your cross-examination that
8 this was distinct from the -- you wrote your report concerning missing
9 persons. So what I would like to ask is if you could perhaps clarify for
10 us and for Chamber what the distinction is between those types of records
11 and the report that you produced concerning missing persons, are they
12 related to one another, are they distinct from one another? If you could
13 explain that.
14 A. I already mentioned this earlier during my cross-examination that
15 records of missing persons and records of displaced persons are two
16 different types of records. Displaced persons are, obviously, survivors
17 who are registered because of the fact they lost their homes and don't
18 have a place to live in.
19 Missing persons is a separate category. These are people who are
20 believed they didn't survive the conflict, and this belief is not just a
21 belief based on nothing. It is based on evidence from exhumation and
22 identification projects of victims from mass graves. There is an
23 extremely significant overlap between identified persons and exhumation
24 records and records of missing persons. That's the foundation of this
1 So when it comes to analysis, records of displaced persons, of
2 course, obviously are unrelated to those of missing persons.
3 Q. Thank you for that clarification.
4 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Judge Nyambe has a question.
5 JUDGE NYAMBE: Just a follow-up on your immediate answer. You
6 say, "displaced persons are unrelated to those of missing persons." Are
7 there any circumstances, tell me if you can, where a displaced person can
8 also be a missing person? To me, it's -- to me, a layperson, it's one
9 and the same thing. A displaced person can present themselves as missing
10 as well. Is that possible in your area of expertise? Thank you.
11 THE WITNESS: Your Honours, I believe that it is not, in fact,
12 possible for a displaced person to be a missing person at the same time,
13 because a missing person is somebody whose whereabouts are unknown and
14 for a long, long time. So that's the reason that the person is
15 registered as a missing person. When it comes to displacement, we have
16 records, incomplete, deficient, but we do have records. So these people
17 that physically exist can be contacted, can be spoken to, so that's a
18 totally different group. I hope it clarifies.
19 MR. VANDERPUYE:
20 Q. If I may just ask you a follow-up question to Her Honour's
21 question --
22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: One moment, please, Judge Nyambe has a follow-up
24 JUDGE NYAMBE: Yes. If we can put it the other way around, can a
25 missing person turn up as a displaced person at some point?
1 THE WITNESS: Only if there is a misreporting of some kind. It
2 happens that families include missing persons among the displaced of
3 their families, but these are incidental instances that are absolutely
4 marginal and insignificant. But, yeah, that the missing person after a
5 while would appear as a displaced person, yeah, in theory it might be so,
6 but I am thinking of people who left the country, move overseas, and
7 don't show any sign of life. But -- even the family doesn't know and
8 believe -- the family believes it is a missing person, but again I
9 wouldn't think this is a massive process. These are, yeah, infrequent
10 incidents, I would say.
11 JUDGE NYAMBE: Thank you.
12 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Vanderpuye.
13 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you.
14 Q. I just have two follow-up questions to that. The first is: In
15 the figures that we have seen that General Tolimir presented to you in
16 D313, I think, or 315, is it your understanding that the numbers that we
17 see there, roughly 34.000 or 35.000 people displaced or refugees in
18 respect of the Srebrenica event, that those numbers include or do not
19 include people that are missing as is reported in your -- in your
21 A. These figures on displaced persons do not include missing
22 persons. That is what we checked by cross-referencing relevant sources
23 of information, and at several occasions we did so, and the persons that
24 were marked as potential survivors out of this exercise were just 12
25 people, and they are listed in our report.
1 Q. And, formally speaking, as a demographer, in your analysis of --
2 in your experience, rather, in analysing a multitude of records regarding
3 displaced persons and missing persons, is it formally generally
4 documented or an expectation that displaced persons are people that whose
5 whereabouts are known that can be accounted for as distinguished from
6 missing persons or is the line somewhat blurred, professionally speaking?
7 A. I don't think the line is blurred. These two groups are clearly
8 distinguished in the way how they are recorded and presented in all kinds
9 of circumstances.
10 Q. All right. I'd just like to move to another area, and that is
11 your report.
12 MR. VANDERPUYE: If I could have 65 ter 7518 in e-court, please.
13 Just so the record is clear, this relates to the report on 58 Srebrenica
14 cases that was raised by the Defence during the course of the
16 Mr. President, I would have to move to add this to the 65 ter
17 exhibit list because it wasn't originally on it.
18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, do you have any objection to add
19 this document to the 65 ter exhibit list?
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. We have
21 no objection, except that the Prosecutor could have tendered the document
22 we have had admitted during our cross-examination in this segment.
23 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I am not sure if I understand your comment.
24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. My comment was that the
25 document should be identical to the document we used in the first part of
1 our cross-examination. That's all, thank you.
2 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I take it that this is the report we discussed
3 earlier during the cross-examination when I asked Ms. Tabeau if there is
4 a report about these 58 cases. This is the report. And you said you
5 have no objection to add it to the 65 ter exhibit list. Leave is granted
6 to do that, Mr. Vanderpuye.
7 Now Judge Nyambe has a question.
8 JUDGE NYAMBE: Yes, just a follow-up question to understand the
9 difference between "missing person" and "displaced person."
10 My understanding of a displaced person during war times is one
11 who has been displaced by the war and moves from his usual place of abode
12 to another place, and then is registered. At that point they become a
13 displaced person; is that correct?
14 THE WITNESS: Yes, it is correct.
15 JUDGE NYAMBE: Okay. Now what happened to this individual before
16 they are registered as displaced persons? To their families, they are
17 missing persons, no?
18 THE WITNESS: It is what happens between the registration and the
19 moment a person goes missing or disappears. There is a period of
20 uncertainty because there is a hope at the family that the person would
21 join them, and sometimes occasionally they even report, as I said, such
22 people as displaced persons. I can't say more about it, because that is
23 all what can happen in this period. But in this particular case, we are
24 discussing, in this courtroom, it is not that the records of missing
25 persons we have used for our work were taken in this uncertain period
1 when many things were happening, displacement and killings and combat
2 activities, we are -- we have used for our work very many additions of
3 the ICRC list of missing persons, starting with the 1997 edition, then
4 1998, 2000, 2004, 2005, the latest is 2008.
5 So it is not that we have taken a sample dated at a given moment,
6 an early moment in time when the war was still going on. We have
7 confirmed these records again and again and again in order to make sure
8 that we work with the right information. So that is the whole point of
9 updating this work, that we wouldn't be working with records of missing
10 persons who eventually were found alive. ICRC has identified a few cases
11 of such people. They are explicitly flagged in ICRC records as found
12 alive, and we separated them, excluded them from our analysis.
13 JUDGE NYAMBE: So then this process is ongoing? Potentially
14 somebody listed as missing could turn up somewhere still alive?
15 THE WITNESS: Well, theoretically, yes, but we are speaking of
16 very small numbers. I don't remember exactly the number, but say 30
17 people, 50 people at most, found alive out of 22- 23.000. These are
18 insignificant numbers.
19 JUDGE NYAMBE: Thank you very much.
20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Vanderpuye.
21 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you,
22 Your Honour.
23 Q. Let me show you what we have in e-court here. You recognise this
24 as your report, Dr. Tabeau?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. And it's entitled: "Report on 58 allegedly unjustified
2 Srebrenica cases."
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And dated 28 July, 2011?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. In the introduction here you explain the reason and the purposes
7 that you carried out this particular analysis.
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. All right. And then you indicate a number of sources that you
10 consulted in putting the report together.
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Could you just briefly tell the Trial Chamber what those sources
13 were? You don't have to -- you don't have to tell us what you did with
14 them just yet, but just what they are?
15 A. On first group of sources, included the actual court declarations
16 based on which this list was compiled. Second group of sources included
17 the OTP sources, that would be the 1991 population census, the 2009 OTP
18 list of missing person, and including the information about the
19 identification, and finally we also used the latest ICMP update on
20 Srebrenica victims of December 2010.
21 Q. All right. And were the methods that you used in order to
22 compare the data that was provided concerning these 58 names to the
23 material that you've identified the same or similar to the methods that
24 you've used previously in connection with, for example, the April 2009, I
25 believe it is, report on Srebrenica missing and dead?
1 A. The methods are the same.
2 Q. All right. And what I would like to do is to briefly to go into
3 what your findings were with respect to the 58 names that you examined.
4 MR. VANDERPUYE: We will have to go to page 2 of the report for
5 this, in e-court.
6 Q. And you summarised them here. But I wonder if you could explain
7 those findings a little bit more so that the Trial Chamber has a good
8 understanding of what you did in order to reach these results. Here you
9 say initially that some 44 cases out of 58 that were reported in these
10 decisions. Can you tell us what that shows or what that means?
11 A. This first paragraph relates to the outcomes of cross-referencing
12 the list of 58 names with the actual court declarations. In total, we
13 received approximately -- not approximately, 58 documents plus 1
14 irrelevant that was excluded completely. The question was whether these
15 58 documents cover the actual individuals from the list. So it was a
16 matter of checking what kind of documentation of the cases was received.
17 And the conclusion is for 44 cases, we see from these documents that
18 these persons were presented in the court declarations as missing
19 persons; moreover, as related to the fall of Srebrenica.
20 Further, two persons were reported in the court declarations as
21 disappeared in 1992 and were declared as dead with dates of death in
22 1992, and for these two persons we later checked, these were different
23 individuals than those that we have on our OTP lists. In addition, there
24 were three persons in the court declarations that were different from
25 those names on the 58 list. For nine cases there was no documentation,
1 but generally the conclusion is that there was enough documentation to --
2 to see that the cases documented were not presented the way as they were
3 communicated by the Defence to this Court as based on the book
4 Milivoje Ivanisevic.
5 Q. I just want to make sure that we are clear on the record, when
6 you refer to documentation in this context, are you referring to the
7 B and H court decisions that were provided pursuant to a request made by
8 the OTP?
9 A. Yes, this is the documentation. This is what I understand under
11 Q. You indicate in the second paragraph under this heading that
12 there was cross-referencing with OTP lists, and based upon that 52 cases
13 were confirmed to be on the Srebrenica missing and identified persons
15 A. Yes, that is in this paragraph that I discuss the results of
16 cross-referencing the list of 58 names with the OTP sources. They
17 matched very well, except for the fact that two persons listed with very
18 similar, almost identical, names and similar but different dates of
19 birth. These two indicated as deaths in 1992 in the documents are
20 different persons on the OTP list. Generally, 52 out of 58 were
21 confirmed as missing, OTP missing persons, and at the same time as
22 identified persons according to the ICMP DNA identification records; 52
23 records, both missing and identified. Four persons were confirmed as
24 just missing persons. For three out of four, identification is available
25 in the form of siblings' identification. So it seems it's coming but not
1 yet available for complete names. Only as sibling identification.
2 And, yeah, that would be 58, so that is the conclusion from this
3 exercise. Yeah.
4 Q. You testified on cross-examination that - and I think it might
5 have been pursuant to a question that was put to you by
6 Her Honour Judge Nyambe - that if there was -- if you were to compare the
7 records, or if there was an inconsistency between the records that were
8 provided and the OTP records, (redacted)
9 (redacted) that that would be your preferred method of
10 establishing what the fate of that person was. Do you recall saying
11 something to that effect?
12 A. Yes. We discussed this. I think it goes -- and this is what I
13 said, that the approach we have taken for this work is based on the ICMP
14 confirmations. This is an important part to us. If a given missing
15 person is or not confirmed in the DNA identification records, and it is
16 about the reliability of both ICRC and ICMP as the record makers in each
17 case. It goes into the mandates but also the methods they operate, the
18 standard procedures they use, general approach how things are done.
19 Q. All right. I think I may need to correct myself, and it may have
20 been the result of a question that was put to you by General Tolimir
21 about that, but in particular I want to draw your attention to one
22 document that General Tolimir showed you which concerned a person that
23 we've referred to in the record as entry number 7.
24 MR. VANDERPUYE: And that was in P1777. It would have been, I
25 think it's page 91 of that document, but we had hard copies distributed.
1 Q. This was a person who -- for whom a certificate -- or, rather, a
2 court record was received indicating a data of death of 7 July, 1995, as
3 you may recall?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. That individual was, according to that record, ostensibly buried
6 on the 8th, I believe, of July, in a local grave. (redacted)
16 A. Well, as we discussed earlier today I compare related sources of
17 information, major sources being the ICRC records of missing persons and
18 ICMP records of DNA identification. And these records jointly with the
19 court record doesn't seem to be obvious contradiction to what was
20 observed by some witnesses earlier this year, by March 1995. So it is
21 perfectly possible, in my eyes, that the person disappeared in July 1995
22 at -- this was reported on the ICRC by some close relatives of the
23 person, (redacted)
1 Q. Okay. Now, you had mentioned that there were included in this
2 material, that is the records that you received, some deaths that were
3 indicated in 1992. Do you recall that?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And what was the disposition of those records; in other words,
6 did you analyse them and what was your conclusion?
7 A. Yes, I analysed these records. And in order to present the
8 Chamber with the approach applied, we perhaps could move to page 8 of
9 this report, table 7.
10 MR. VANDERPUYE: All right. We will have to go back to 65 ter
11 7518. And we'll need to go to page 8. And just for the benefit of
12 General Tolimir it does read at section 2.4, it refers to the two
13 deaths -- two 1992 deaths which are referred to in the report as case 13
14 and 50, and indicates how that material or those cases were analysed.
15 Q. And Dr. Tabeau, you can tell us a little bit about how you did
17 A. In table 7, there are results from my searches in the 1991
18 population census --
19 JUDGE FLUEGGE: This page should not be broadcast.
20 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
21 THE WITNESS: Yes. The search was done using the names. First
22 name, father's name, and the surname of both individuals. First
23 individual, I won't say the name of the person, is presented by showing
24 four different records from the census. All these four individuals have
25 identical last name, first name, father's name; the differences are seen
1 in the date of birth. The date of birth reported in the census for each
2 of these individual is one from 1958, one from 1962, then 1964, 1956.
3 Obviously four different persons living in Bosnia with the same names in
4 different municipalities. Two individuals are bolded in this table, the
5 individual number one and the fourth individual. One -- the first one is
6 born in 1958, the second one is born in 1956. One is from Bratunac, one
7 is from Srebrenica. So in the actual court declaration provided to us,
8 the individual born in 1958 is covered and in the OTP lists of missing
9 persons and identified, the individual born in 1956 is covered. So
10 obviously two different persons.
11 The second case is of the same nature. The more confusing part
12 is the date of birth. One of the individuals is found in the census and
13 presented in the second panel of this table. One is born in 1941 and one
14 in 1940. Again, different municipalities, and the same names. And
15 similarly, one -- the one born in 1941 is covered in the actual court
16 declaration and the one born in 1940 in the OTP records. So the census
17 information actually was extremely useful, allowed me to establish how
18 many people with the same names lived in Bosnia in the outbreak of the
19 war and, obviously, they experienced different fates. This happens
20 sometimes and we can see it in our lists.
21 Q. Just in conclusion: Of the 58 names that have been identified by
22 the Defence and by Milivoje Ivanisevic in his book, how many of these
23 names actually -- that is, you know, conflict with the list of names that
24 are indicated in the OTP list of missing and dead related to Srebrenica?
25 A. Of the list of 58 persons was presented by General Tolimir as
1 conflicting in its entirety, so all the 58 names were suggested either to
2 be taken off from the OTP records, but the conclusion from this study is
3 there is no need to take off even one record from our lists.
4 Q. Thank you, Dr. Tabeau. I don't have any further questions.
5 MR. VANDERPUYE: Mr. President, I would like to tender the
6 report. I do note, actually, that there are parts of this report that
7 probably should be under seal, so I will have to identify that.
8 Alternatively, I could offer in the whole report under seal which might
9 be more efficient.
10 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I think so. It's much easier to work with it.
11 It should be marked for identification, pending translation, and put
12 under seal.
13 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President. I just want to note
14 also --
15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Just a moment, please.
16 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, 65 ter document 7518 should be
17 assigned Exhibit P2586, admitted under seal, marked for identification
18 pending translation. Thank you.
19 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Vanderpuye.
20 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to note
21 that the third annex which concerns the results of documents that have
22 been reviewed and cross-referenced concerning these 58 names is a -- it's
23 a spreadsheet and so we'll provide that on a CD.
24 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much.
25 Ms. Tabeau --
1 THE REGISTRAR: Just one correction for the record, Your Honours.
2 65 ter document 7518 was assigned Exhibit P2586 under seal, marked for
3 identification pending translation. Thank you.
4 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you for this clarification.
5 Ms. Tabeau, you will be pleased to hear that this now concludes
6 your examination in this trial. Thank you very much that you were able
7 to provide us with your expertise and your reports. Now you are free to
8 return to your normal activities. Thank you very much again.
9 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
10 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Vanderpuye, is the next witness ready?
11 MR. VANDERPUYE: Yes, Mr. President. The next witness is ready.
12 And my colleague, Mr. Elderkin, will be handling him, so in light of that
13 may I be excused?
14 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much. You are.
15 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you.
16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: And the next witness should be brought in,
18 [The witness withdrew]
19 JUDGE FLUEGGE: We -- before the next witness appears in court I
20 would like to raise two matters. This morning we heard that there are
21 some translations available now. I was informed by the Registrar that
22 three of them should be now marked -- no longer marked for identification
23 but be exhibited now. These are P1677, P2265, and P2447. The other two
24 mentioned by the Prosecutor, namely, P2164, and P2444, P2444, and not
25 "P244", not P244, are already in evidence. There is no need to mark them
1 as exhibits now.
2 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
3 [The witness entered court]
4 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Just another correction. The number P2164 is
5 wrong. It should be P2162. The previous translation may be replaced by
6 the new complete translation.
7 Good afternoon, sir. Welcome to the courtroom. Please read
8 aloud the affirmation on the card which is shown to you now.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will
10 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much. Please sit down and make
12 yourself comfortable.
13 WITNESS: DRAGAN TODOROVIC
14 [Witness answered through interpreter]
15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Sir, you will be first examined by the
16 Prosecutor, Mr. Elderkin, and later in cross-examination by Mr. Tolimir.
17 Mr. Elderkin, you have the floor.
18 MR. ELDERKIN: Mr. President, Your Honours, everyone else in the
19 courtroom, good morning to you.
20 Examination by Mr. Elderkin:
21 Q. And witness, good morning to you. As you know my name is
22 Rupert Elderkin. I want to remind you before we get started to try to
23 keep your voice up and speak into the microphones and speak a bit slowly
24 so that the interpreters have time to translate what we are saying. And
25 if there is anything that I or anyone else asks you that is unclear, then
1 please let me know and I will do my best to rephrase the question.
2 We start, please, by stating your full name.
3 A. Dragan Todorovic.
4 Q. Are you a Bosnian Serb?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Do you recall testifying in this court during the Popovic trial
7 in 2007?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Yesterday, did you listen to the audio recording of your
10 testimony in that trial?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Having listened to your testimony, does it fairly and accurately
13 reflect what you would say were you to be examined here today and if you
14 were asked the same questions?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Sir, yesterday did you also read in your own language the
17 transcript of an interview that you gave to investigators from this
18 Tribunal in December of 2004?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And did you also read in your own language the notes of an
21 interview that you gave to American investigators in June of 2005?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Are the facts stated in those two documents accurate and correct?
24 A. Yes.
25 MR. ELDERKIN: Your Honours, I would move to have the witness's
1 Popovic testimony admitted. There are two 65 ter numbers, 7512 is the
2 confidential version under seal, and 65 ter 7513, which is the public
4 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Both documents will be received, the first under
6 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, 65 ter document 7512 shall be
7 assigned Exhibit P2587, admitted under seal. And 65 ter document
8 P2588 -- pardon me, 65 ter document 07513 shall be assigned
9 Exhibit P2588. Thank you.
10 MR. ELDERKIN: Your Honours, I would also request the admission
11 of the associated exhibits which are indicated in the exhibit list for
12 this witness, and those are 65 ter numbers 2072, 2073. Your Honours, for
13 your information, Exhibit -- 65 ter number 2074 has already been admitted
14 as Exhibit P233.
15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you, the first two documents will be
16 received as exhibits.
17 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, 65 ter document 2072 shall be
18 assigned Exhibit P2589. And 65 ter document 2073 shall be assigned
19 Exhibit P2590. Thank you.
20 MR. ELDERKIN: And I would now like to read a short summary of
21 the witness's evidence.
22 Q. Dragan Todorovic was a member of the VRS during the war. He
23 served with various units, including a period when he served in the
24 RS MUP Special Police Brigade's 2nd Sekovici Detachment. In late 1994,
25 he joined the Vlasenica platoon of the VRS's 10th Sabotage Detachment
1 based in Dragasevac, a village around 4 to 5 kilometres from Vlasenica.
2 He worked in logistics supporting both the Vlasenica and Bijeljina
3 platoons of the 10th Sabotage Detachment.
4 On different occasions during the war, Todorovic encountered
5 senior VRS officers, including the Main Staff chief of intelligence,
6 Colonel Petar Salapura, who communicated the most with the
7 10th Sabotage Detachment; the Main Staff chief of security,
8 Colonel Ljubisa Beara; and their superior, General Tolimir. Todorovic
9 testified that he saw General Tolimir for the first time in Zepa.
10 On the 10th of July, 1995, Todorovic's unit received a written
11 order to prepare to deploy into the field. The order was sent in the
12 name of Milorad Pelemis, the commander of the 10th Sabotage Detachment,
13 but signed by Franc Kos, a fellow member. The unit packed their gear and
14 waited for the Bijeljina platoon, then drove to Zeleni Jadar, where they
15 spent the night.
16 The next day, 11th of July, Commander Pelemis arrived. He
17 ordered the unit to divide into two groups and to enter Srebrenica town.
18 They entered the town in the afternoon without meeting any resistance and
19 secured the police station. Todorovic saw senior officers, including
20 General Mladic and Drina Corps commander General Milenko Zivanovic.
21 Mladic ordered the unit to continue the blockade at the police station to
22 secure any important documents that might be there, and then issued an
23 order for other soldiers to move towards Potocari. General Mladic
24 relieved the unit of its duty in Srebrenica on the evening of 11th of
25 July. He told them to retreat and that they had 48 hours to search and
1 take whatever they wanted.
2 Todorovic's unit spent the night of 11th of July near Srebrenica
3 town. On 12th of July he went with a driver to Dragasevac to prepare for
4 the return of soldiers to the base. Later that day, as the
5 10th Sabotage Detachment units returned from their deployment to
6 Srebrenica, there was a vehicle accident in which a soldier was killed.
7 Todorovic and others were assigned to make the necessary arrangements for
8 the soldier's body to be returned to his family in Trebinje. They
9 travelled there on the 13th July and the soldier's funeral was on the
10 14th of July.
11 The soldiers who had travelled to Trebinje arrived back at
12 Dragasevac by around 11.00 a.m. on the 15th of July. Commander Pelemis
13 was absent, and the troops did not have any activities to perform. Then,
14 VRS Main Staff officer Dragomir Pecanac and Drina Corps security chief,
15 Lieutenant Colonel Vujadin Popovic arrived. Pecanac came into the camp
16 and asked 10th Sabotage Detachment member Zoran Obrenovic for some
18 Pecanac said that he had a meeting in Zvornik with Colonel Beara.
19 Pecanac rounded up a group of soldiers and took them from the camp down
20 the road towards Sekovici. Todorovic provided equipment and supplies to
21 these soldiers, including zolja rocket-launchers, a machine-gun, and
22 ammunition for automatic rifles. Todorovic saw the soldiers leaving.
23 The group included Franc Kos, who was in charge; Boris Popov;
24 Marko Boskic; and Drazen Erdemovic. Todorovic testified that he did not
25 know what task the group was used for.
1 Regarding Popovic's presence at the Dragasevac compound,
2 Todorovic testified that the gate-keeper told him that Popovic was
3 outside. Todorovic saw Popovic's car and could see a person inside it,
4 however he claimed that he did not see Popovic.
5 Todorovic was read notes of his FBI interview where he stated:
6 "When he got back to Dragasevac, a senior officer named Popovic
7 was also present, although he waited for Pecanac by his Volkswagen Golf
8 outside the driveway's gate."
9 In addition, he was read part path of his OTP interview statement
10 in which he states that:
11 "Between 10.00 a.m. and 12.00 noon, Major Pecanac arrived at
12 Dragasevac with a security officer, Lieutenant Colonel, or
13 Colonel Vujadin Popovic. They arrived in two separate seeks. Pecanac
14 came into the compound whilst Popovic remained on the outside ... all the
15 while, Popovic remained outside the compound area."
16 Todorovic then admitted that he did, in fact, see Popovic that
18 MR. ELDERKIN: Your Honours, that concludes my summary. I have
19 just a few questions, if I may, that I would like to ask the witness.
20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Yes, go ahead, please.
21 MR. ELDERKIN:
22 Q. Sir, you previously testified that you saw General Tolimir for
23 the first time in Zepa, and I want to ask you about that topic. When did
24 you go to Zepa?
25 A. We arrived in Zepa on the 20th or the 21st of
1 June [as interpreted].
2 Q. Could you confirm the month and the year that you are talking
3 about? In the transcript I see the 20th or 21st of June.
4 A. It was in July. It was July, the month of July, not the month of
6 Q. And just for the transcript records, sir, the year as well,
8 A. 1995. But the month is July, not June.
9 Q. Thank you, sir. I believe the month is now correctly recorded in
10 the transcript. Sir, with whom did you go to Zepa?
11 A. With my detachment, the 10th Sabotage Detachment.
12 Q. Since there are two platoons of the 10th Sabotage Detachment,
13 which platoon or platoons were deployed there?
14 A. I was with the Vlasenica platoon.
15 Q. Did members of the Bijeljina platoon go to Zepa or not?
16 A. Yes, they did.
17 Q. Did your commander, Pelemis, deploy to Zepa?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And what was the task you were deployed to in Zepa?
20 A. We were supposed to be engaged in an action to take, to conquer
22 Q. And, sir, where did you travel to when you went towards Zepa?
23 Where did you arrive?
24 A. We travelled across Han Pijesak.
25 Q. And where did you make your camp? Where did you spend the night
1 on the day you arrived in the Zepa area?
2 A. We camped above Zepa on an elevation, and I don't know its name.
3 Q. Do you know the name of any of the villages closest to where you
4 were deployed?
5 A. No.
6 Q. And can you describe the immediate location, were there any
7 buildings where you were, were you by a road, were you in the forest?
8 Please give a description as best you can.
9 A. There by the road there was a house. There was a slope, a
10 hillside, there was a United Nations transporter.
11 Q. And how long were you deployed to that location?
12 A. We spent the night there and the entire following day.
13 Q. Apart from other members of the 10th Sabotage Detachment, who did
14 you see during your deployment to that area?
15 A. The Army of Republika Srpska, units of the Drina Corps.
16 Q. And was it during this deployment that you saw General Tolimir,
17 as you mentioned in your previous testimony?
18 A. No, not that day.
19 Q. Can you tell us about when you did see General Tolimir, please?
20 A. When we went down to Zepa, up to a bridge, where there are four
21 or five wooden huts.
22 Q. How much time did you spend at that location you've just
23 mentioned, the bridge where there are four or five wooden huts?
24 A. Three days, I think.
25 Q. What was your task or your unit's task during those three days?
1 A. To guard the bridge. Nothing else.
2 Q. Describe the occasion or occasions when you saw General Tolimir?
3 A. Well, it was not really a personal encounter. I did not meet him
4 as a person. He was passing by with his entourage in two vehicles of the
5 VRS, two jeeps.
6 Q. Who else was in his entourage?
7 A. General Ratko Mladic was in one of the vehicles.
8 Q. And did you see any other officers from the VRS Main Staff?
9 A. Not from the Main Staff, but there were officers of the
10 Drina Corps who were there with their troops.
11 Q. During your time in the Zepa deployment, did you ever see the man
12 Pecanac who you described in your previous testimony?
13 A. I did not see him in Zepa.
14 Q. Sir, right at the beginning of your testimony today, you recalled
15 that yesterday you reviewed the interview statement from investigators
16 from this office, and you confirmed that the contents of that statement
17 were correct. And in that statement, sir, you describe in a little bit
18 of detail the time in Zepa, and you also mention Mr. Pecanac. Would it
19 help you to recall whether you saw Mr. Pecanac if you were to review what
20 you said in that statement back in December of 2004?
21 A. I don't think Pecanac came to Zepa. I should look to see where.
22 Q. Sir, if it would help you to look --
23 MR. ELDERKIN: -- then can I ask for the document to be put on
24 screen. It's actually on the Defence list, so I understand that it is
25 loaded up, and it's 65 ter 1D946. And the relevant page in both
1 languages is page 4 in e-court. It's the bottom half of that page, if it
2 can be zoomed in.
3 Q. Sir, if you just take a moment when the document is up on the
4 screen to look at the paragraph you'll see numbered 11, and that's the
5 paragraph in the statement where you describe the deployment to Zepa. It
6 should come up on the left hand side of the screen in the Serbian
7 language. Let us know if the text is big enough for you to read.
8 A. Pecanac was there for negotiations. When the negotiations
9 started, when contact was made with Avdo Palic, also known as Professor,
10 it's then that Pecanac and others from the security detail came. Our
11 soldiers also went on the security detail. But that day when we came to
12 the bridge and when we were there, he did not come to see us. He was
13 passing by in the security detail of Mladic, but he did not really come
14 to address us at the check-point while we were there.
15 Q. So you say he was in the security detail of Mladic, does -- are
16 you referring to the time when you say Tolimir and Mladic came by in two
17 vehicles or are you referring to another time?
18 A. That's a different occasion when contact was made with Avdo Palic
19 to negotiate the surrender of Zepa. That's when Pecanac came, and our
20 soldiers from the sabotage detachment went with him on his security
21 detail to the location where the negotiations were held. But the first
22 two days we were alone with our commander at the bridge. Nobody came to
23 visit us.
24 Q. Now, how often during the whole of your Zepa deployment did you
25 see General Tolimir or his vehicle?
1 A. I didn't see him personally. I just saw his vehicle pass by, the
2 vehicles just passed by. We had no right to stop anybody. They were
3 passing back and forth.
4 Q. Was that on a single occasion or on more than one occasion?
5 A. More than one.
6 Q. Did any of your colleagues from the 10th Sabotage Detachment
7 perform any protection duties for General Tolimir during the deployment
8 in the Zepa area?
9 A. I don't know, because General Mladic was also there. Perhaps
10 they were protecting him, perhaps Tolimir. I don't know what they did,
11 who they protected. I just saw them going to Zepa. They must have been
12 on somebody's security detail, perhaps in another location. I don't
14 Q. Did you see General Tolimir at the same time you saw
15 Major Pecanac, or did you see them only on separate occasions?
16 A. Separate.
17 Q. Did you hear anything about what General Tolimir was doing in the
18 Zepa area?
19 A. I did.
20 Q. And what was that?
21 A. That he was to negotiate with Avdo Palic, commander of the
22 Zepa Brigade, about the surrender of Zepa.
23 Q. Were you in the Zepa area when the Muslim population left the
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. What did you see?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. What did you see?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. I am not sure if the translation is working. Can you describe
6 whether you saw the population leaving? Did you see buses? Did you see
7 people gathered in groups? Can you describe, if you can remember, how
8 you -- or what you saw?
9 A. Transport was provided for the population of Zepa, including
10 buses. Without weapons, women and children were to come out first, then
11 the wounded, then soldiers.
12 Q. Were any soldiers from the Serb side escorting the Muslim
14 A. There was the military police of the VRS.
15 Q. And when did you last see General Tolimir or General Tolimir's
16 vehicle during your deployment to the Zepa area?
17 A. That day when they were supposed to agree on the evacuation of
18 the population of Zepa, when he finished those negotiations with Palic.
19 Q. Sir, thank you very much. I don't have any further questions for
20 you at this time.
21 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.
22 Sir, now it's the turn of Mr. Tolimir to put questions to you
23 during his cross-examination.
24 Mr. Tolimir, you have the floor.
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. I hope
1 this trial day ends in keeping with God's will, not mine. I would like
2 to greet Mr. Elderkin whom I haven't seen in the courtroom in a long
3 time. I would like to greet everyone else in the courtroom, including
4 the witness and wish him welcome.
5 Cross-examination by Mr. Tolimir:
6 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
7 Q. Dragan, since we can we have speak the same language and this is
8 to be interpreted, both my questions and your answers, let's try to make
9 a brief pause between questions and answers so that they can follow,
10 otherwise they don't be able to catch up and our questions and answers
11 will overlap.
12 A. All right.
13 Q. Thank you. In your previous testimony in the Popovic case, you
14 said you left Kladanj when the conflict in Bosnia started and from
15 Kladanj you went to the territory of Republika Srpska. Could you please
16 say whether that's correct?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And describe the circumstances how and why you left Kladanj.
19 A. I left Kladanj in 1992, I believe it was in the month of May. I
20 lived there before, I worked there, I had a house and family. And then
21 the day came when I saw the units of the BH Army had come in, the
22 Patriotic League, my family and I became suspicious. As soon as we saw
23 those rifles, I thought I should take my family to a safer place, so I
24 believe we left Kladanj in May 1992.
25 Q. Thank you, Mr. Todorovic. Could you tell us whether you left
1 your family house and everything and whether you returned after the war,
2 and whether you left all the immovable and moveable property there that
3 you couldn't take with you?
4 A. I had only one tracksuit and a pair of sneakers. The same goes
5 for my wife and child. I left my house behind, all my property, and
6 everything was burned down later.
7 Q. Did the VRS do that or did the BH Army units do that waging war
8 against the Serbian population?
9 A. Well, the BH Army came later. First of all, there was the
10 Patriotic League and all the men who were creating problems before the
11 war joined the Patriotic League.
12 Q. Maybe I wasn't clear. Did the VRS, after it was established,
13 fight in Kladanj where your house was?
14 A. No.
15 Q. Thank you, Mr. Todorovic.
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we now look at 1D946. That's
17 your statement. It's already on the screen, in fact. We want to look at
18 page 1, paragraph 4. More precisely, paragraph 2 in number 4.
19 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
20 Q. It says that group in Bijeljina had the task to act behind enemy
21 lines. And before that you said the sabotage detachment was linked to
22 the security administration. So tell us, the sabotage units, including
23 your detachment that were inserted into enemy territory, were they linked
24 to the security administration or to the intelligence administration?
25 A. Well, my unit was subordinated to the Main Staff. Now, whether
1 to intelligence or security, I don't know. The contract was with the
2 Main Staff of the VRS.
3 Q. Thank you for that answer. If you don't know under which
4 administration at the Main Staff you were, it doesn't matter. In any
5 case, you were a member of the VRS and a member of the
6 sabotage detachment?
7 A. Yes, yes.
8 Q. In the course of the reading of this summary by Mr. Elderkin, he
9 said at page 50, among other things -- in fact, he asked you when you
10 entered the town and where your unit spent that first night. And you
11 said you entered the town on the 11th and you spent the night near
12 Srebrenica. That's what you said in your statement.
13 I would like to know, did you arrive to Srebrenica from
14 Zeleni Jadar without fighting?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Then, before that, on the 11th, when you travelled, when did you
17 journey from Zeleni Jadar to Srebrenica?
18 A. On the night of the 10th we spent the night near Srebrenica, or
19 perhaps it was closer to Zeleni Jadar. I am not really sure about the
20 geography. In any case, we came from the direction of Dragasevac,
22 Q. Thank you. Now, on the 10th, the night of the 10th, where you
23 spent the night there, did you hear or see members of the 28th Division
24 or had they already pulled out from the territory of Srebrenica?
25 A. When we arrive at Srebrenica, there was still sporadic gun-fire,
1 but there was no indication that there was any fighting. We were put up
2 there, we spent the night, there was no combat, we didn't shoot, nobody
3 shot at us. Occasionally, a round would be fired just to make it clear
4 that there were troops around to mark the territory.
5 Q. Can you remember that night of the 10th and the 11th when you
6 entered the area of Srebrenica after spending the night and entering the
7 town, can you remember whether you saw any members of the BH Army?
8 A. While entering Srebrenica, that morning when we got orders to go
9 in, when we divided -- when we split into two groups, when we got order
10 from our commander Pelemis who lined us up and gave us orders on how we
11 are to act, how to be careful, that we shouldn't hurt anyone who
12 voluntarily surrenders, that we should search houses in groups of three,
13 we entered Srebrenica, perhaps it's a disgrace to say, but without firing
14 a round.
15 Q. Since you entered without firing a round, can we conclude based
16 on your answers that you did not encounter any resistance when you
17 entered the town of Srebrenica from Zeleni Jadar?
18 A. On the axis that our unit was, there was no combat.
19 Q. On page of an earlier transcript, that's the Popovic case, you
20 said that you were guarding the police station?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Thank you. At the police station did you find anyone of the
23 residents, Muslims, Serbs, or perhaps prisoners?
24 A. No.
25 Q. During the examination-in-chief, you were asked a few questions
1 about your time in Zepa during the combat for the liberation of Zepa.
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. You indicated clearly on page 54 that you came, you passed by a
4 house, and there was a UN APC next to that house, and you spent the whole
5 day there?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Did you engage in any combat in the area of Zepa at all?
8 A. No.
9 Q. In the questions and answers that followed concerning whom you
10 had seen, et cetera, you said you were guarding a bridge?
11 A. It was a very small river, the entrance into Zepa. There were
12 some mills there and a few houses, four or five houses.
13 Q. And you said then that you had seen officers pass by across that
14 bridge towards Zepa, and you said you saw Tolimir and Mladic and also
15 Pecanac. There was some question about Pecanac. My question is: Did
16 you personally ever talk to Mladic, Tolimir, or Pecanac in Zepa?
17 A. No.
18 Q. Thank you. The Prosecutor asked you in this examination-in-chief
19 whether you had seen residents of Zepa leaving Zepa for Kladanj. My
20 question is: Did the residents of Zepa start leaving after the agreement
21 was signed between the VRS and the BH Army on the evacuation of the
22 population of Zepa?
23 A. Yes. And we were very happy to see it end that way without
24 casualties on either side.
25 Q. Thank you. I want to ask: Based on your entire engagement in
1 Srebrenica and Zepa, did you and the soldiers who were with you fight at
2 all in Zepa or Srebrenica from the time when you came from Zeleni Jadar
3 to the time when you came to Srebrenica, and later on the 20th of July to
4 Zepa? Did anyone engage in any fighting?
5 A. No.
6 Q. Thank you, Mr. Todorovic, for all the answers you provided here
7 during my examination. That was based on your statement and your earlier
8 testimony. I have no further questions. Thank you for coming to this
9 Court, for giving testimony. I wish you a pleasant journey and a safe
10 return home. May God be with you and bless you. I hope you return
11 safely to your family.
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, the Defence has
13 completed its cross-examination of this witness. We have no further
14 questions. Thank you.
15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much.
16 Judge Mindua has a question.
17 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Yes, Witness Todorovic. Following
18 up on the questions of General Tolimir, I would like one clarification.
19 You entered Srebrenica on the 10th?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The 11th.
21 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Thank you very much for this
22 clarification. Was your unit the first unit of the VRS to enter the
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It was one of the first, certainly.
25 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Very well. Thank you very much.
1 Do you know if other VRS units had engaged in fighting against the
2 28th Division of the BH Army to take Srebrenica?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, but not in the numbers that
4 they tried to portray. In much smaller numbers.
5 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Sorry, I didn't understand that
6 really. What do you mean in much smaller numbers?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I meant to say that there were
8 troops of the VRS and the police there, but not in the numbers reported
9 by reporters from Srebrenica. There were much fewer troops than they
10 portrayed in the media, on TV, et cetera. Fewer troops were involved in
11 the entry into Zepa than the Muslims said. They said 30.000 Serb
12 soldiers attacked Srebrenica, and there was not even half that number.
13 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Very well. So according to you
14 there were not 30.000 soldiers on the Serb side attacking Srebrenica, but
15 I would like to understand this: This enclave of Srebrenica fell after a
16 battle or battles with the 28th Division of the BH Army, or the town
17 fell, as you've said, without a single bullet fired by the VRS without
18 any resistance.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My unit did not fire a single
20 bullet. I am not saying there was no fighting anywhere on other sites.
21 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Thank you. I understand now.
22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.
23 Mr. Tolimir, you have used 1D946. That was the OTP statement of
24 the witness. Are you tendering that document?
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. It may
1 be admitted. This is a Prosecution document that has been of use to us
2 and may be of use to the Trial Chamber as well.
3 JUDGE FLUEGGE: It may be admitted is not a clear answer. Are
4 you tendering it or not? It's in your hands.
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President. I said that I
6 am tendering it because it can be used by all the sides in these
8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much. It will be received as an
10 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, 65 ter document 1D946 shall be
11 assigned Exhibit D317. Thank you.
12 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I think it should be 318 because we have already
13 a document with that number. D317 MFI'd is the document 1D951.
14 THE REGISTRAR: Correct, Your Honours. Apologies. 1D946 shall
15 be D318. Thank you.
16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much.
17 Mr. Elderkin, do you have re-examination?
18 MR. ELDERKIN: Your Honours will be glad to hear that I don't.
19 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much.
20 Sir, you will be pleased to hear that this concludes already your
21 examination in this trial. The Chamber would like to thank you that you
22 were able to come to The Hague and to help us, and now you are free to
23 return to your normal activities. Thank you very much, again.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Elderkin, is there another witness available
1 for today?
2 MR. ELDERKIN: I'm afraid not, Your Honours. I believe the next
3 group of witnesses are arriving over the weekend, so we have gone a
4 little faster than we had expected.
5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Indeed. We are in the same position.
6 We have to adjourn for the week, and we will resume on Monday,
7 2.15 in this courtroom. We adjourn.
8 I am very sorry. Everybody was already rising. I have to
9 address the parties with one matter, very briefly.
10 On the 8th of September we will have the videolink of one
11 witness, and that probably start at 10.30 I was told by the registry, but
12 we -- the relevant courtroom won't be available for us the whole day
13 because there might be some technical problems. Please be aware that
14 10.30 we will start with that videolink conference. Sorry for this late
15 notice. We adjourn now.
16 [The witness withdrew]
17 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 12.33 p.m.,
18 to be reconvened on Monday, the 5th day of
19 September, 2011, at 2.15 p.m.