1 Wednesday, 6 October 2010
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.09 a.m.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. Good morning to
6 everybody in and around the courtroom.
7 This is case IT-08-91-T, the Prosecutor versus Mico Stanisic and
8 Stojan Zupljanin.
9 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]
10 [Trial Chamber confers]
11 JUDGE HALL: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
12 Good morning to everyone.
13 Before I take the appearances, I note the presence this morning
14 of Ms. Korner, and I take the opportunity on behalf of the Trial Chamber
15 to convey our condolences to her on the recent passing of her father.
17 May we have the appearances, please.
18 MS. KORNER: Good morning, Your Honours. Joanna Korner, Thomas
19 Hannis, and Gramsci Di Fazio, and Crispian Smith for the Prosecution this
21 I'm only here temporarily, but may I thank you very much for the
22 kind expression from the Trial Chamber.
23 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours. For
24 the Stanisic Defence team, Slobodan Cvijetic, Tatjana Savic, and
25 Deirdre Montgomery.
1 MR. KRGOVIC: Good morning, Your Honours. Dragan Krgovic, and
2 Aleksandar Aleksic appearing for Zupljanin Defence.
3 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
4 We have been alerted that there is a concern, if I could use as
5 vague a word as I could think of, that the Defence has in respect of an
6 upcoming witness.
7 Well, Ms. Korner was on her feet. Who wants to go first on this
9 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, I was going to say, this is the
10 Defence -- I'm on my feet, but I was simply, in case Your Honours haven't
11 been alerted, going to say that there's been an e-mail exchange which I
12 hope has been copied to Your Honours and I understand it's a Defence
13 application, which the Prosecution, I say immediately, resists.
14 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
15 Could we hear the application. Unless, of course, there's been a
16 change of mind, in which case we can move on.
17 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour, we did not change
18 our minds.
19 Our application is short and very clear. Lately, and not only
20 with this last witness, ST-163, but earlier witnesses as well, we were in
21 a situation to have disclosed to us just before the witness's appearance
22 voluminous material from the OTP that we have difficulty reviewing in
23 time for cross-examination. And, again, for this witness, we received
24 material over 270 pages in transcript, so it was impossible to study this
25 material properly and prepare well for cross-examination.
1 For that reason, and for the reasons I stated yesterday, and with
2 the tempo we are working at in the courtroom, I think we should postpone
3 this witness for a time that would allow us to prepare properly for his
5 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, as far as the
6 Zupljanin Defence is concerned, the witness we are discussing relates
7 mostly to Mr. Stanisic. But we haven't had the opportunity to see this
8 material, so we can only support the request made by Mr. Cvijetic. We
9 have not had occasion, as I said, to see this material overnight, but we
10 understand it's very large.
11 JUDGE HALL: We are, of course, aware of the substance of the
12 OTP's position from the e-mail exchange that we would have seen. But
13 could, Ms. Korner, we have, for the record, the Prosecution's response to
14 this application?
15 MS. KORNER: Certainly.
16 Your Honours, the Defence made a request very recently while I
17 was absent for disclosure under the Rule 66(B) of, effectively, any
18 interview that we had conducted with -- when I say "we," the OTP, over
19 the years had conducted with members of the RS MUP, regardless of whether
20 they were relevant or not to any issue that could be seen. During the
21 course of those searches, it transpired that although the two interviews
22 which were disclosed yesterday are not with members of the RS MUP, they
23 are with people who were interviewed by the OTP some years ago. And the
24 witness who is about to testify, testified in the State Court in
25 Bosnia and Herzegovina against those two people who have subsequently
1 been convicted, named Ratko Lalovic and somebody with the exceedingly
2 unlikely name of Soniboj - and I mean Soniboj - Skelaljic [phoen],
3 who were wardens of Kula prison, which is not in the indictment.
4 The searches showed that the next witness got a mention, not
5 surprisingly, because he dealt in his position with these two men. And
6 so as I said in the e-mail, effectively, in the spirit of total
7 cooperation, even though it doesn't strictly fall under the nature of the
8 request that was made, and out of an abundance of caution, we disclosed
9 those two interviews.
10 I have provided to the Defence the references where this man
11 appears, the page numbers. Out of the so-called 279 pages, in one
12 interview he receives references on 13 of those pages and in the
13 other, 14. And the references - can I just give Your Honours one
14 example, please - they are largely that he signed various documents,
15 which is not a matter which is going to be in dispute and, indeed, was
16 raised with an earlier witness. And if I can take this -- this is
17 page 77 of the interview with Soniboj, that on the 15th of November the
18 witness - for the moment I'm not mentioning his name, although I don't
19 believe he has protective measures - brought me the decision, namely,
20 that he was appointed governor. And it's small sentences like that.
21 Your Honours, we say there is absolutely no reason why this
22 witness's evidence should be adjourned. For some reason, I don't know
23 why, at the moment, the Defence are making attempts to delay almost all
24 major witnesses. Ewan Brown has already now been moved to January. And
25 we say, without giving proper reasons for why out of this, I think, one,
1 two, three -- five lawyers they have working on the Stanisic team, and I
2 believe it's one, two, three, four on the Zupljanin team, they cannot
3 look at those references to see whether it affects any cross-examination
4 of the witness.
5 And that's our position. Who is here and ready to go.
6 JUDGE HALL: Thank you, Ms. Korner.
7 [Trial Chamber confers]
8 JUDGE HALL: Does the -- does the Defence wish to respond to what
9 Ms. Korner has had to say?
10 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honours, briefly.
11 The Defence cannot use the references chosen by the Prosecution.
12 The Defence is entitled to prepare its cross-examination in keeping with
13 their own strategy, their own tactics, and to determine themselves what
14 they will use out of each and every document. So we have to study the
15 entire material, and then it is up to us to decide what references are
16 apt to be used for cross-examination.
17 I, therefore, believe that the arguments presented by Ms. Korner
18 do not stand and cannot be helpful in preparing for our work.
19 But Ms. Korner said something else that opens up another issue
20 that I wanted to raise; namely, I thought I would suggest that the OTP
21 not question that witness about the circumstances in Kula if that is not
22 an issue here. However, Ms. Korner says that she will have to deal with
23 that issue, particularly because of the fact that the persons whose
24 statements have been disclosed to us held posts in that correctional
25 facility of Kula. One was a warden; another was a deputy. So they are
1 very relevant to the events in Kula.
2 So if the Prosecution can guarantee that they will steer clear of
3 this issue, then we can -- we can drop this objection. We are prepared
4 to do the same.
5 JUDGE HALL: Well, of course, the Chamber has no comment on the
6 last half of Mr. Cvijetic's reply. It's -- it's entirely a matter for
7 the side calling the witness as to what -- having -- subject, of course,
8 to the rules of relevance, what evidence they lead.
9 As for the first part of his reply, we entirely agree with
10 Mr. Cvijetic's observation that it is not for the -- in this case, the
11 Prosecution, to determine what may or may not be relevant to the Defence
12 in the presentation of its case. However, we are not satisfied that the
13 material which the Defence would have recently been referred to is of
14 such ex facie relevance as to require that the calling of this witness be
15 delayed. Indeed, we would presume to add that the nature of advocacy
16 often requires, in terms of preparation for court, a continual adjustment
17 to new factors. And in this case, new facts have come to the attention
18 of the -- of counsel, and it is, of course, not for us to presume to tell
19 counsel how to divide up the work.
20 But the -- as I said, we see no reason to delay the appearance of
21 the witness, and counsel would have to decide how best to deal with this.
22 Thank you.
23 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, thank you very much. And I'll leave
24 the court, if I may, to Mr. Di Fazio and Mr. Hannis.
25 JUDGE HALL: Yes, please.
1 JUDGE HARHOFF: Yes, before the witness comes in, I would wish to
2 correct an indication that I gave yesterday which was erroneous on my
3 part, namely, that we had already admitted Ms. Tabeau's reports into
4 evidence. This obviously was not quite so because we have already ruled
5 that we will not admit the expert reports until after her testimony, at
6 the end of her testimony.
7 So with this little correction for which I apologise, we are
8 ready to continue with the witness.
9 Thank you.
10 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, Mr. Di Fazio -- I've -- I heard him
11 saying that's entirely understood. We understand the position with the
12 expert's reports.
13 [The witness takes the stand]
14 WITNESS: EWA TABEAU [Resumed]
15 Examination by Mr. Di Fazio: [Continued]
16 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you. May I proceed, Your Honours?
17 JUDGE HALL: Yes, please.
18 The -- I would remind the witness, Ms. Tabeau, that you're still,
19 of course, on your oath.
20 Yes, Mr. Di Fazio.
21 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
22 MR. DI FAZIO:
23 Q. Dr. Tabeau, I just want to quickly wrap up the issue of your
25 Yesterday the Trial Chamber asked you a number of questions about
1 testimony you've provided, and I'm going to shortly introduce a document
2 that will, I think, bring that up to date.
3 But your expertise is fully laid out in the Milosevic report, I
4 believe, and I'm not going to go through it chapter and verse; there's
5 just a few things I want to highlight.
6 You have a doctorate in mathematical demography, I believe?
7 A. Yes, I do.
8 Q. Incidentally, the -- your expertise and your background is set
9 out in Annex D of the Milosevic report, I believe?
10 A. Yes, it is in Annex D.
11 Q. Yes. And some of the matters concerning your past expertise and
12 work include these: You've worked now for, I think, well over a decade
13 or almost a decade in the Demographics Unit of the OTP?
14 A. Yes, ten years.
15 Q. And before that you worked at the Dutch National Demographic
16 Institute for about nine years?
17 A. Correct.
18 Q. At the time of the Milosevic report, I believe you'd -- you had
19 by then authored about 90 research papers and analytical expert reports.
20 Has that figure now changed?
21 A. Yes, of course. It is now approximately 150 research papers,
22 articles, books, expert reports. Well, we are ten years further. And
23 when we speak about expert reports, I have presented so far approximately
24 40 such reports.
25 Q. Thank you.
1 MR. DI FAZIO: Can the witness be shown 65 ter 10396, please.
3 Q. Just cast your eye over that. Is that a list of expert reports
4 that you've prepared in various cases at the ICTY?
5 A. Yes. These are -- this is a selection of these reports.
6 Q. Thanks.
7 MR. DI FAZIO: Could we have the next page, please.
8 Q. That's the continuation of that list.
9 A. Yes. This list does not contain the latest reports, like the
10 reports I prepared for the Karadzic case, for other cases.
11 Q. How many are missing, would you say?
12 A. Approximately ten, I think.
13 Q. I see. Okay. Thank you.
14 MR. DI FAZIO: And finally, the last page.
15 Q. And does that represent a more recent and more up-to-date list of
16 cases in which you have testified as an expert?
17 A. Yes, yes. These are the testimonies I yesterday missed, for
18 instance, my testimony in Seselj, in Prlic, in Perisic. So here is the
19 whole list of the testimonies.
20 Q. Okay. Thanks for that.
21 MR. DI FAZIO: And if Your Honours please, I seek to tender that.
22 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.
23 THE REGISTRAR: The exhibit number will be P1622 in order to fill
24 the gap from yesterday, Your Honours.
25 MR. DI FAZIO:
1 Q. Okay. Let's get back to the reports themselves.
2 We mentioned yesterday that there were three principal reports
3 that we're going to discuss. And it's clear from your reports that
4 you've used various sets of numbers or statistics in preparation of those
5 reports. Are the principle sets of statistics that you use or did use to
6 produce the reports basically these: The 1991 census conducted in
7 Bosnia; the 1997 and 1998 voters' registration for elections in Bosnia;
8 and, finally, 12 databases dealing with deaths and victims of war that
9 you obtained from various organs and institutions in Bosnia? Are they
10 the basic three sets of statistics that you used?
11 A. Yes, that's the case. And I rather call them statistical
12 sources, not statistics. These are sources that we used to make
13 statistics that are discussed in our reports. I want to make a point:
14 All these sources are individual-level sources. They are composed of
15 individual records, records representing persons. So we work with
16 individual data and not with aggregate statistics.
17 We occasionally do use some aggregate statistics compiled by
18 others, and this is done mainly for context to our purposes. But as a
19 matter of fact, we use individual-level sources, based on which we
20 compile our own statistics. And these sources you mentioned are the
21 major sources, not all of them, major sources that we used for making our
22 reports presented in this case.
23 Q. Thank you. Let's focus on the census, please.
24 You -- in your report, and particularly in the Milosevic report,
25 you provide a lot of detail of how the census itself was conducted. You
1 make the comment at page 5 of the report that in statistical practice
2 population census is the largest and most complete source of information
3 about the population in a country.
4 You stand by that?
5 A. Yes, of course. There are also other systems, especially in
6 developed country, western countries, in which there is no census at all.
7 But we are speaking of countries that have enough means to establish
8 individual population registers. In such situation, data is collected
9 systematically and kept in a central register from which any statistics
10 can be made.
11 In countries like the former Yugoslavia where there was no
12 central register, population register, the population census is the
13 source, the most important, most complete source, of information about
14 the population. Censuses were made every ten years. The last census,
15 before the war started, was in 1991, March 1991.
16 Q. Incidentally, there's the --
17 JUDGE HALL: Sorry, Mr. Di Fazio, before you go on, at line 6 in
18 the transcript -- page 10, line 6, I thought I heard the witness
19 "aggregate statistics." What appears is "aggravate statistics."
20 Could you clarify this with her, please.
21 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you.
22 Q. Can you -- you've heard His Honour's question --
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Clarify that, please.
25 A. Aggregate. Aggregate statistics, not aggravate. Aggregate
2 Q. What precisely are aggregate statistics?
3 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
4 THE WITNESS: Aggregate statistics are numbers presented for
5 group data, for instance, the size of population is an example of such an
6 aggregate statistics. This number is obtained obviously from counting
7 individual records representing different persons in a population.
8 Q. Thank you for that. In your -- in the Milosevic report, you
9 provide a lot of detail concerning the organisation and mechanics of the
10 actual census, and I believe you discuss matters such as the laws
11 regulating the conduct of the census, the organs in Bosnia that actually
12 did conduct the census, and the training and methods used by census
13 workers, including the interviewers or enumerators. Are they all
14 discussed at Annex B3 of the Milosevic report?
15 A. Yes. This is correct. This information was provided to me by a
16 person who participated in the conduct of the 1991 census in Bosnia and
17 Herzegovina. It was a person who actually, years long, was involved in
18 the preparations, also methodological presentations of the census. She
19 was part of the republican and also federal commissions, census
20 commissions, for this census.
21 Q. Okay. You also talk about issue, in the Milosevic report, about
22 the quality control that was adopted in -- in Bosnia for the actual
23 census itself. There's only one aspect that I want to you explain to the
24 Court and that is the pilot census that was conducted in Bosnia.
25 Can you please explain to the Court what the pilot census was and
1 what -- what they are and what -- what effect that has on the quality of
2 the statistical source?
3 A. Pilot census is usually done a few years before the actual
4 census. In Bosnia, this pilot census took place in 1988. It is a census
5 based on the actual census questionnaire which is distributed by the
6 census enumerators in a small number of census enumeration areas. As far
7 as I remember, there were probably eight municipalities in which a random
8 sample of enumeration areas was selected for the pilot. So the main
9 purpose of the pilot census is to test the census questionnaire and to
10 test the behaviour of interviewers, coding practices, organisational
11 issues. Based on the results of the pilot census, still there is enough
12 time to make changes in the actual procedures that will be applied later
13 in the actual census.
14 So that was the main purpose of it.
15 Q. Thank you.
16 A. And it was done in Bosnia, yes.
17 Q. Thank you. Please explain now to the Trial Chamber the process
18 that occurred with the statistical source census from the point of time
19 when the interviewer went to the household, spoke to the person, took
20 down the information and wrote it in his form, to the point of time when
21 it was received by you, the OTP Demographics Unit.
22 A. Well, this is again only one part in the long chain of activities
23 related to the completion of the census. But anyway, the interviewers
24 went to see all households in their census enumeration areas. The census
25 enumeration areas are small geographic areas which covered the entire
1 country. Every interviewer had a number of them falling under his or her
2 responsibility. And in this region comprising a number of small
3 enumeration areas, this person was taking the interviews and was
4 responsible for covering all households living in this territory.
5 So once the interviews were completed, the interviewer had to
6 check the questionnaires, how complete they were, coded answers whenever
7 necessary; and once his or her own checks were done, the interviewer
8 provided the material to the municipal instructor, census instructor,
9 who, again, was supposed to check the completeness of the material from
10 this given interviewer, in terms of the coverage in terms of completion
11 of the census questionnaires.
12 Once the material was accepted, there were cases that
13 interviewers had to reiterate their efforts and make improvements in the
14 materials they provided, but at some point the municipal instructors
15 accepted the materials from the interviewers, and the municipal
16 commission checked, again, the completeness of the material for the
17 entire municipality.
18 Thereafter, the material was provided to the central census
19 commission for the entire republic, or Republic of Bosnia and
20 Herzegovina, who again conducted some checks of completeness, especially
21 geographic completeness of the questionnaires. Afterwards, based on
22 basically manual counting of information from census questionnaires, some
23 preliminary statistics were published already in 1991, two months after
24 the census was over. These were called preliminary statistics, and by
25 this, the central statistical authority reserved the right to revise
1 statistics once the entire material will be in the system, electronic
2 system, and again checked and processed.
3 The authorities of Bosnia and Herzegovina decided to computerised
4 this material by optical scanning, so these census questionnaires were
5 not entered by data entry clerks but were scanned. So immediately after
6 the material was received in the central statistical office, the
7 authorities started preparing for optical scanning. That means
8 questionnaires were reviewed, all the questionnaires were reviewed from
9 the point of view where the information is coded, whenever necessary, and
10 whether it's readable for -- from the point of view of the technicalities
11 of the process.
12 Optical scanning was finished, I think, in the beginning of
13 the 1992. Then, at this stage, electronic database could be established
14 in which the authorities could engage in certain checks. These are --
15 checks were called logical controls, relationships between related
16 variables were studied. And whenever necessary, corrections were made to
17 the census data. An example of such a relationship is, for instance, for
18 a child of ten years old, marital status cannot be that the person is
19 marries. So this is the type of logical controls that were conducted.
20 There were also other checks. And the portion of information
21 related to the population was checked completely. This cannot be said
22 about the agricultural census and housing part of the census. So this
23 particular census had three parts: Population, housing, and agriculture.
24 So for populations, checks were finished; not for agriculture; and not
25 for housing.
1 At that stage, the work kind of stopped because of the war. The
2 authorities never completed the checks for the two other parts of the
3 census, but they did prepare some publications related to the population.
4 The publications were issued already in 1995. Data was provided to the
5 Croatian Statistical Office. And then a publication was made for
6 settlements --
7 Q. I'll just interrupt you and ask you to slow down a bit.
8 A. Oh, I'm sorry.
9 Q. And can I also ask you to give us a more summarized view of the
10 procedure from the collection of the statistics through scanning through
11 the raw data and its arrival to you in the OTP Demographics Unit.
12 A. Well, if I'm going there, only that I will -- received the data
13 in around 1998, and I'm trying to say what happened with the data in, in
14 the meantime. And by saying that the data was published, the data on
15 population, ethnic composition, religion, I'm trying to say that
16 according to the authorities the data was good enough to come up with
17 official statistics based on the 1991 census.
18 So they obviously have done a lot of work with the data. They
19 published some statistics. And at that point we requested to receive a
20 copy of individual census records for our purposes. So we received an
21 electronic version of the data, of which we, ourselves, established our
22 databases and compiled our own statistics.
23 Q. Okay. So, you went from collect -- initial collection, through
24 various checks and -- various checks to make sure that the material was
25 collected properly, further checks in Bosnia to make sure that it was
1 coherent and logical, scanned, put into electronic data form, and
2 eventually received by the Demographics Unit.
3 Is that a basic but correct sequence of the way in which the
4 material was dealt with?
5 A. Yes. It's correct.
6 Q. Thanks. Focus now on the point of time when the materials
7 arrived here at the OTP Demographics Unit.
8 You -- you discuss various problems that you had to look at,
9 including problems with the Maticni Broj or identification number. I
10 don't want to deal with that.
11 One of the other problems you referred to was spelling mistakes
12 in the data. Could you please inform the Trial Chamber of what the
13 significance of the spelling mistakes were and how the OTP went about
14 dealing with the problem.
15 A. Spelling mistakes in the names was, for us, a major issue. Well,
16 it is -- I want to mention that it is not common for statistical
17 authority to provide data to an outside user - data, individual data -
18 with names. They did it for us at our request and with the understanding
19 that information about names and other personal items is essential in our
21 So statistical authority normally do not work with names. They
22 do not clean up the names. They do not process the names, because that's
23 the confidential part of information. This is the part that is removed
24 from the data while making statistics. So we have to sort out this
25 problem here, and we did. We -- there was several procedures we applied
1 to correct the spelling mistakes. One can imagine there are quite many
2 spelling mistakes after optical scanning, as that is the misreading of
3 certain characters by even the best computer programmes. So these
4 misshaped, misread characters must be corrected. Some must be removed
5 altogether, some must be replaced by the right characters.
6 First of all, we developed a computer programme code which was
7 automatically searching for misshaped characters and impossible
8 combinations of letters in the Serbo-Croat, in the B/C/S language. These
9 combinations were identified and were studied by native speakers, and the
10 native speakers made proposals about how to correct them. So once this
11 was done, the corrections were introduced back in the names. And in the
12 second step, frequency tables were made with the names, with the replaced
13 characters. These actual names, both surnames and first names, were
14 again studied by the native speakers who went and visually checked every
15 name in these tables and corrected, whenever necessary, to make a name
16 correct from the point of view of the language and naming traditions in
17 Bosnia and Herzegovina. These corrected names were again introduced back
18 in the data. So incorrect names were replaced by the corrected names.
19 Finally, we again thought there is a need for some more work on
20 these. He we applied a so-called household method. In the census
21 records there is information about the household composition for every
22 household, so we checked how the surnames are reported within households
23 and compared the different spellings within each household. All the
24 incorrect spellings were then replaced by the correct spelling for every
1 Q. Okay.
2 A. But we still keep a record of both originally scanned names and
3 corrected names. So there is a bridging system between the two, and
4 every name can be accessed. There is quite a lot of, I think, yeah,
5 correspondence to -- between these two.
6 Q. Thank you. Thank you for that explanation. So that's how you
7 went about cleaning up the material that you received to make sure that
8 you had corrected names.
9 Just explain, please, to the Trial Chamber why it was so
10 important -- or why, for your purposes, to -- to conduct this exercise to
11 make sure that you had correctly spelled names?
12 A. The basic concept with which my unit has been working all these
13 years is that we trace individuals in related sources of information,
14 starting from the information we have about the Bosnia and Herzegovina
15 population in the 1991 census. So the census is our basis. Starting
16 from there, we always wanted to find individuals as those reported in the
17 census in related sources of information. It is -- it can be seen as a
18 bit of detective work. It is just a system in which we want to know what
19 happened to various individuals. I mean, we want to know who died, we
20 want to know who survive. If persons died, we want to know where they
21 died, when they died, how they died.
22 And we have quite a number of sources that report on, on one
23 hand, the dead population, the missing persons population, but also about
24 post-war survives. So names from this point of view are crucial. When
25 searching for persons, we must use the information about persons' names
1 and other details, like date of birth, in related sources of information.
2 Normally, in western societies, developed countries, this
3 wouldn't be necessary because every person has an individual number, like
4 social security number. So if one has such a number, which is
5 consequently reported across a number of registers, then tracing
6 individuals is not such a big issue. It is just a matter of searching
7 for this particular ID, person ID, in sources, in various sources. That,
8 however, is not the case in the former Yugoslavia, even though
9 individuals started to be assigned personal identification numbers. In
10 the early 1980s, these numbers were only used in the 1991 census and a
11 few other sources, but the expectation that these numbers were used in
12 sources on war victims, missing persons, is simply wrong. Such numbers
13 were not included there.
14 So the other alternative was searching for persons using names.
15 I'm using the term "searching." As a matter of fact, searching, in this
16 context, should be seen as "matching." Matching records representing the
17 same persons in various sources.
18 Q. Hence, the need for an absolutely correct name that you know
19 is talking -- that relates to a real individual?
20 A. Matching, of course, relates to individuals. It is, as I said,
21 looking for the same individual in various sources of information, using
22 names, date of birth, place of birth, other characteristics. That is the
24 Q. Thank you very much for that explanation.
25 The census, of course, provided lots of information about an
1 individual, including where they lived. One of the other bits of
2 information that was provided was ethnicity, whether they're Muslims,
3 Croat, or other.
4 First of all - and please give us as brief an answer as
5 possible - the census, did it permit a person to write the whole -- quite
6 a large choice of answers to provide when asked about ethnicity?
7 A. It was an open-ended question in the census, so anybody and
8 everybody could report whatever they felt they were, in terms of ethnic
9 affiliations. As a outcome, final outcome, of the responses, we see a
10 list of 98 categories, three of which are major ethnic groups who lived
11 in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Muslims, Serbs, Croats. And the remaining
12 categories represent either mixed categories, Serbo-Croat, for instance.
13 Or there is an number of individuals who identified themselves as
14 Yugoslavs. And there are nationalities like Hungarian, Polish, French,
15 German reported under this term as well.
16 So it was an open-ended question.
17 Q. Thanks. So the source of someone's ethnicity in all of your
18 reports originates with that what person said about themselves?
19 A. Yes, it is correct.
20 Q. And the -- the issue of ethnicity, was the information in all of
21 your three reports, concerning ethnicity, did it only ever come from the
22 census information; or did you use any other statistics or other source?
23 A. Well, obviously ethnicity is our major concern, analytical
24 concern, I mean, because we want to know how the ethnic composition of
25 the population changed, what was the ethnic make-up of the victims.
1 These are basic questions that we have to answer in our work. So
2 ethnicity if extremely important.
3 Ethnicity, ideally, shouldn't be used based on the reporting from
4 various sources. This is because people tend to change their perceptions
5 of ethnicity. And it a well-known fact that political economic social
6 situation has a huge impact on how the people see themselves in concrete
7 socio-economic context. So the elimination of any bias, analytical bias,
8 related to ethnicity, was our major concern, of course. For this reason,
9 we decided to use, in any report that we will make, only one definition
10 of ethnicity. This was the definition taken from the 1991 population
12 Moreover, we decided not to work with 98 categories, as reported,
13 because it's far too many for any analytical report, so we decided to
14 group the ethnicities other than the three major ethnic groups. So we
15 separated Muslims, Serbs, and Croats as the major ethnic groups, major
16 from the point of view of our interest. And the remaining ethnicities,
17 whatever answer would it be, Yugoslav, mixed ethnicities, nationalities,
18 were grouped together under one category, the so-called others.
19 As a matter of fact, we had four mainly ethnic groups in our
20 analysis. And thanks to the fact that related sources of information, be
21 them dead, missing persons, or postwar survivors, these sources, thanks
22 to the matching with the census records, could be shown in our analysis
23 according to the ethnicity reported in the 1991 census.
24 What I said now is quite a complex issue. I'm speaking of
25 transferring information from the 1991 census through the matches,
1 through the links established between the records. So ethnicity from the
2 census is transferred through the links between the records into the
3 related sources of information.
4 Q. Okay. But in very simple terms, and trying and keep it as simple
5 as possible, whether someone, for the purposes of your statistical
6 sources, is -- is a Muslim or a Serb depends on what they said in the
7 1991 census. You didn't go to any other source taken during the war or
8 after the war asking the same question: What are you, a Muslim or a
9 Serb? Do you understand my point?
10 A. Yes, I do understand your point. Of course, that is my point
11 too. So we never used any other ethnicity [sic] than the one from the
12 1991 census.
13 Q. Okay. Thank you. Let's turn briefly to the OSCE voters'
14 register. You -- I'm not going to into the way in which you dealt with
15 the material there, but I just want you to basically explain what it was
16 to the Trial Chamber. Obviously it's voters who registered to vote in
18 And when did they register?
19 A. The voters' register of 1997 was established for the
20 September 1997 municipal elections in Bosnia and Herzegovina by the OSCE,
21 together with local authorities. And the one for 1998 election, it was
22 register largely based on the one for the 1997 election, but meant for an
23 election that -- parliamentary election that took place one year later.
24 The registration of the eligible voters took place around
25 May/June, as far as I remember, of 1997. And for 1998 election,
1 accordingly, one year later. So as a matter of fact, the voters'
2 register is a huge list of all individuals in Bosnia and Herzegovina who
3 were eligible to vote in 1997 and 1998 elections. Eligible to vote
4 relates to -- the term "eligible to vote" relates to the age, of course.
5 One has to be at least 18 in order to be eligible. But there was another
6 important requirement: To be eligible to vote in these particular
7 elections, first -- one of the first democratic elections in the country,
8 it was necessary to be listed in the population census of 1991 as the
9 citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
10 Q. Thank you. And I think your -- the expression you're using is
11 "eligible," not "legible."
12 A. Eligible, yes.
13 Q. All right. So you've got these two sets of numbers from --
14 sorry, statistical sources from 1997 and 1998. Did you compare them and
15 see if they overlapped?
16 A. They overlapped greatly. As a matter of fact, the 1998 list of
17 eligible voters is -- only contains approximately 150.000 new
18 registrations in 1998 and the rest were voters already registered for the
19 1997 elections.
20 Q. So that means that the majority of the -- the greater part of
21 this statistical source consists of people who registered in 1997?
22 A. Yes, it is correct. Well, we actually, as a matter of fact,
23 merged, or combined, in other words, the two registers into one, and we
24 did in such a way that we took first registrations from 1997 as the core
25 of this merged register, and from the 1998 register, it is only the new
1 registrations. So as a matter of fact, I often even say it is voters'
2 register 1997 because it represents the situation as of this period of
3 time. Not exclusively, but greatly. This is the majority of information
4 in this register that is associated with the 1997 -- year of 1997.
5 Q. And the effect of that is -- let me rephrase my question.
6 Your -- the Milosevic report and the addendum report prepared
7 specifically for this case very basically compares the -- the 1991 census
8 and these voters' registers in order to examine population movement by
9 way of ethnicity. The fact that there was a large overlap means that the
10 time-frame between the two snap-shot pictures that you are looking at is
11 reduced. It's 1991 and mostly 1997, not 1998.
12 Do you understand my question?
13 A. Yes. We, indeed, in our Milosevic report and the addendum based
14 on the Milosevic report made for this case, we did, indeed, looked at the
15 situation in 1991, based on the census, and in 1997, based on the
16 integrated merged voters' register, 1997, 1998.
17 Q. Thank you. I'd like to take you to your major conclusions for
18 the Stanisic/Zupljanin addendum report.
19 MR. DI FAZIO: Can we have 65 ter 10397 on the screen, please.
20 Can we focus a bit more on the set of numbers at the top the
21 page. Table 1 basically. Yeah.
22 Q. I'd like you to explain -- sorry. Let me start again.
23 This is the summary that you prepared of the principle findings
24 from the Stanisic/Zupljanin IDP report; correct?
25 A. Yes, it is.
1 Q. Okay. Let's took at Table 1 on that.
2 The first row -- sorry. My apologies. The first column,
3 that's -- they're the figures for the Stanisic/Zupljanin indictment area
4 for -- obtained from the 1991 census; is that right?
5 A. In the first column, indeed, we have some statistics based on
6 census data. They covered, indeed, the Stanisic/Zupljanin case study
7 area. That means, in this case, 18 municipalities specified in the
8 report. Importantly, these statistics, it is the population size,
9 basically, in this column, by ethnicity, only covers the individuals that
10 were eligible to vote in 1997/1998 elections. It is a sample -- well, it
11 is not a sample. It is a subpopulation reported in the census of the
12 individuals born before 1980. And we took this subpopulation in order to
13 be able to match these individuals with the voters registered for the
14 1997/1998 elections, and based on the matches that we would be able to
15 compare these individuals from the point of ethnicity, the ethnic
16 composition, and from the point of view of their place of residence in
17 1991 and 1997, 1998.
18 Q. Okay. So these 817.898 people that we see there have two
19 qualities: First of all, they were mentioned in the 1991 census; and
20 secondly they were eligible to vote in 1997, 1998?
21 A. Correct.
22 Q. And they all come from the Stanisic/Zupljanin case study area?
23 A. Correct.
24 Q. Okay. Could we please go to the second column, the minimum
25 number. What is that a minimum number of?
1 A. It is the minimum number of internally displaced person and
2 refugees, as the title of this table says, that we obtained based on our
3 methodology and our sources.
4 Q. And these are actual individuals, actual numbers of -- yes, of
6 A. These are numbers of individuals that we identified, that they
7 changed their place of residence in 1997/1998, as compared where they
8 lived at the outbreak of the war in 1991.
9 Q. So for the Stanisic/Zupljanin case study area, 40.895 Serbs, at
10 least, were displaced?
11 A. Yes, this is correct. This is the term we use in our report to
12 describe these individuals. And it is perhaps important to mention that
13 the term "displaced" statistically means that the person have totally
14 different residence, place of residence, in 1997/1998 compared with 1991.
15 Q. Thank you. And for Muslims, that figure of -- is 119.000-odd?
16 A. It is approximately 119.000 and is the largest number among all
18 Q. Now, they -- we can see what -- the numbers there, and we can see
19 what they are applying to, Croats and others. By far the biggest figure
20 there is Muslims.
21 The next column that you have is the estimated number. Now, is
22 that an extrapolation that the OTP Demographics Unit arrived at?
23 A. Yes, it is an extrapolation. While the minimum number can be
24 documented by personal details of all persons reported as displaced or
25 refugees, the estimated number is composed of the minimum number plus, on
1 the top of it, an extra part that comes from our extrapolation procedure,
2 statistical estimation procedure.
3 Q. So you applied your expertise as a demographer, and you estimated
4 that the real number is, in fact, higher than those of -- indicated by
5 the minimum numbers.
6 A. Yes. The minimum number is obviously incomplete for several
7 reason; one reason being that not all voters eligible to vote registered
8 and participated in the elections. There are other reasons as well,
9 like, for instance, that our matching rate was not 100 per cent, was
10 lower than 100 per cent, meaning that -- as a matter of fact, it was
11 approximately 80 per cent that -- meaning that 80 per cent of the voters'
12 records were matched with the census records. So that is the 20 per cent
13 records that remain unmatched, and these unmatched records cannot be
14 taken for the analysis because we don't have information about ethnicity,
15 we don't have information about their place of residence back in 1991.
16 So these are the main reasons that this number is incomplete.
17 To compensate for this incompleteness, there is a need to apply a
18 statistical estimation technique which give us a more complete number.
19 This is a simple technique, a standard statistical method that is used
20 for ages in statistics. It is a method based on extrapolation of a
21 sample proportion, sample proportion, of displaced persons in the voters'
22 register over the entire 1991 census population. Conceptually, the
23 method is simple; practically, applying the formulas to our data is also
24 simple. As a result, the outcome is a more complete number of displaced
25 persons and refugees.
1 As we see in the Table 1 when we compare the two, so for the
2 Serbs we have the minimum number of approximately 41.000 individuals, and
3 if we go to the estimated number, the estimated number is approximately
4 71.000 individuals. And a similar situation for every other ethnic
5 group: For the Muslims, on one hand, the minimum number is 119.000,
6 approximately, and the estimated number is 212.000, approximately.
7 So for the estimated number, we also provide confidence intervals
8 which are reported in the same table in the two columns next to the
9 estimated number --
10 Q. Just very briefly before we move on to the confidence interval,
11 in a nutshell, tell me if you agree with this: The minimum number
12 relates to real numbers that you obtain from your comparisons with the
13 1997/1998 voters' register and the census. Using those numbers, you then
14 extrapolated and came up the estimated number. Is that right?
15 A. It's in big lines. Well, minimum number is basically an
16 empirical count. It's a count. It's a count that we obtained from
17 counting records that we identified as displaced or refugees. Estimated
18 number is an estimated count. That means it's a statistical product,
19 product which is obtained from sample statistics that are extrapolated
20 over the entire population.
21 So in statistics, this is a regular procedure to have sample
22 surveys, usually these are small surveys, calculate certain statistics
23 for the samples, and applying these statistics, in terms of
24 extrapolation, over the entire populations. This is what we have done.
25 So the result is a number plus the confidence interval which gives us
1 some idea about uncertainty of this estimated number.
2 Q. Thank you. Can you just explain again, please, the confidence
4 A. As I already mentioned, confidence intervals are meant in
5 statistics to express the uncertainty associated with point estimates.
6 Point estimate is just one single number. As a matter of fact, we
7 produce our point estimates based on a given sample, but, if more samples
8 would, say, have been taken from the same population, like ten different
9 samples, 100 different samples, and each time the same parameter would be
10 estimated, based on all these samples, then the results would be slightly
11 different. So there would be a whole distribution of results, but our
12 number from our sample we can show with a certain degree of certainty
13 will fall under an interval, and I present here 95 per cent confidence
14 intervals. That means with a confidence of 95 per cent, leaving the
15 5 per cent room for error, so with the confidence of 95 per cent, our
16 point estimate is in this interval. So even if the other samples would
17 have been drawn, then every next estimate would be falling -- would be
18 contained in this interval.
19 Q. Somewhere between those two numbers?
20 A. Yes. It's important to stress that narrow confidence intervals
21 express low uncertainty, which is the case in our statistics here. That
22 is a simple fact related to the size of our sample. The voters' register
23 with which we work is, as a matter of fact, an enormously big sample. In
24 statistics, often we do analysis with 2.000 respondents representing
25 whole populations, we are speaking of 2.7 million individuals that were
1 included in the voter's register. That is our sample of the voters'
2 population that was approximately 3.2 million eligible voters. So we are
3 speaking of a huge, huge, enormous sample that is used for our analysis.
4 So it not surprising that the confidence intervals are, as a matter of
5 fact, extremely narrow.
6 Q. Thank you. I think that explains it.
7 Okay. Moving down from there, just take a look at Table 2,
8 please. That's just more of a visual representation of the numbers that
9 we can see above; is that correct?
10 A. Well, in the table above, we have the numbers of displaced
11 persons and refugees, but the second table actually is telling us a
12 slightly different thing. It is the ethnic make-up --
13 Q. [Overlapping speakers] ...
14 A. -- ethnic composition of the population as it was in 1995 -- 1991
15 and as it changed in 1997.
16 Q. Thank you. Okay. Yes, my mistake, and I'm grateful to you for
17 correcting me.
18 So the -- in the case study area for the Stanisic/Zupljanin
19 study, you can see the number of Serbs represented by this bar chart.
20 Obviously its increased considerably and the Muslims have decreased
21 considerably between 1991 and 1997. That's the significance of those --
22 of that picture.
23 A. Yes. This is correct. And I would like to mention one important
24 observation. The 1997 population is a sample, so please don't take
25 absolute numbers as the actual representation of the 1997 population.
1 These are minimum numbers. But if you look at percentages, the ethnic
2 make-up, the ethnic composition expressed in percentages in the second
3 panel of this table, so the percentages can be compared between 1991 and
4 1997. This is what I'm saying. So I'm saying please do not compare
5 absolute numbers. Please do not look at 1991 population that used to be
6 818.000, approximately, in 1991 and in 1997 is reported as 376.000,
7 approximately - that would be a large drop in the absolute size - please
8 don't do that because that is not really correct.
9 But do -- the sample of voters is a sample. It is not the entire
10 population of voters, right, unlike the 1991 population, which is
11 complete population, as reported in the census. However, if we go to
12 percentages, if we go to percentages, these percentages can be directly
13 compared between the two years, in 1991 and 1997. So if we look at the
14 Muslims' population, we see, for 1991, the number of 35.2 per cent
15 reported. There were 35.2 per cent Muslims in 1991, in the study area of
16 Stanisic/Zupljanin case; however, in 1997, there are only 18.4 per cent
17 Muslims remaining in this area.
18 Q. And conversely, for the Serbs --
19 A. And conversely for the Serbs, yes.
20 Q. [Overlapping speakers] ... 1991, 44 per cent in the case study
21 area. In 1997, that figure had gone to 72 per cent.
22 A. So that is what is shown on the figure, the percentages, the
23 percentages. These are directly comparable. So the drop in Muslim the
24 population and the increase in the Serb population, that is what we
25 really can take as a fact, as a fact. There was a significant drop in
1 the non-Serb population, not only of Muslims but also Croats and others,
2 and there was a significant increase in the Serb population in this area
3 by 1997, when compared with 1991.
4 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Di Fazio, if you allow, Ms. Tabeau, just for
5 my understanding, the numbers in the first part of Table 2, if I
6 understand it correctly, 1991, that's a count of the effective
8 THE WITNESS: Yes --
9 JUDGE DELVOIE: That's a total count?
10 THE WITNESS: Yes, that's correct.
11 JUDGE DELVOIE: But 1997 is not a total count?
12 THE WITNESS: That is also correct. This is only those voters
13 who registered to vote.
14 JUDGE DELVOIE: Only the voters who registered --
15 THE WITNESS: [Overlapping speakers] ... registered to vote. So
16 those unregistered and unmatched are not there.
17 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay.
18 THE WITNESS: So that is why it is a sample -- [Overlapping
19 speakers] ...
20 JUDGE DELVOIE: So we don't know -- we don't know whether the, if
21 I take the figures, all inhabitants, 1991 and 1997, we don't know, if I
22 may so, what happened to the - what is it? - 400.000 that are not in the
23 sample or how they are ethnically composed?
24 THE WITNESS: Well, basically, I would disagree with that because
25 based on the analysis of the large sample of the registered voters, we do
1 know what happened to the entire population. We are unable to give
2 absolute numbers, complete numbers, because the size of the population in
3 terms of absolute numbers, 1997/1998, is unknown until today. The size
4 of the actual --
5 JUDGE DELVOIE: [Overlapping speakers] ... I do -- I do agree.
6 THE WITNESS: Yes.
7 JUDGE DELVOIE: So you don't have the actual numbers of the total
8 population --
9 THE WITNESS: Yes.
10 JUDGE DELVOIE: -- and you had to do with that sample.
11 THE WITNESS: Yes, yes.
12 JUDGE DELVOIE: But is that sample not influenced, or did you
13 examine whether that sample is influenced, I mean, on the ethnic
14 composition of it by a wilful act of the people who wanted to register as
15 voters and the wilful act of those who didn't want to?
16 THE WITNESS: The participation rate in the 1997 election was
17 extremely high. It was higher than 80 per cent. So this is -- the
18 assessment --
19 JUDGE DELVOIE: Higher than 80 per cent of what?
20 THE WITNESS: Participation rate. Participation rate. This is
21 the assessment of the OSCE. That means a large group of eligible voters
22 registered to vote. The large group registered to vote. So that means
23 it is such a large representation that entire population that,
24 statistically speaking, it is most certainly a representative
25 representation of the entire population. So that we miss -- yes?
1 JUDGE HARHOFF: But 80 per cent of what exactly?
2 THE WITNESS: Of the eligible voters registered to vote and
3 participated in the election. This is --
4 JUDGE HARHOFF: Okay.
5 THE WITNESS: So it is, as a matter of fact, a very large
6 representation. So we don't have -- when we speak of the voters'
7 register as a sample, I think the discussion of any bias related to
8 non-registered voters I think is, statistically speaking, not really
9 relevant, because 80 per cent registered, and for them we have very
10 specific information about where they registered, where they lived.
11 I think that is all I can say. It is -- for 1991, we have the
12 complete record of the population. For 1997/1998, we have a large
13 sample, a large sample that is representative of the actual population.
14 Well, as a matter of fact, it will be very hard to even explore
15 those unregistered voters because there is no record of them other than
16 they are in the census. So we do have information from the census,
17 right? But we don't know how they moved, whether they became displaced
18 or not in 1997/1998. So from this point of view there is nothing that
19 can be done, as a matter of fact.
20 I -- I have no doubt whatsoever that the ethnic composition and
21 our estimation of the ethnic composition is very good and unbiased
22 because of the statistical properties of this sample.
23 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you.
24 JUDGE HALL: I think this is a convenient point to take the
1 We return in 20 minutes.
2 [The witness stands down]
3 --- Recess taken at 10.30 a.m.
4 --- On resuming at 10.57 a.m.
5 JUDGE HALL: Before the -- we resume with the witness, there's a
6 matter that's unresolved from yesterday.
7 The OTP had requested, or indicated that it would request, an
8 extended sitting tomorrow in order to complete one of the witnesses
9 scheduled for this week, and we hadn't gotten a -- we said we would
10 inquire of the Defence this morning as to what their reaction was to
11 that -- to that proposal.
12 First of all, in terms of the remainder of this week, is it still
13 the OTP's view that an extended sitting is necessary? And before you
14 answer, I would remind you that it is only one session that is possibly
15 available and that is tomorrow afternoon.
16 MR. HANNIS: Your Honours, I think it's still our position that
17 we think it will be necessary to have that extra one session in order
18 to -- to complete the next witness and the additional two crime-based
19 witnesses that we've scheduled for this week.
20 JUDGE HALL: Sorry. Today is Wednesday. We have a witness who
21 has just started her testimony. You said the next witness and then two
22 other witnesses?
23 MR. HANNIS: Yes, Your Honours, ST-163.
24 JUDGE HARHOFF: But not 227 and 251.
25 [Prosecution counsel confer]
1 MR. HANNIS: Our primary concern is to be able to finish
2 Witness ST-163 this week. The other two witnesses that were previously
3 scheduled for this week are crime-based witnesses addressing adjudicated
4 facts, and they should be fairly short. And if we have time on Friday to
5 do one or both of them, we hope to do that. But, if not, we'll push them
6 off to next week or some later date.
7 But our primary concern was to have that extra session in order
8 to be sure that we completed ST-163.
9 JUDGE HALL: And I take it that the Defence, having had overnight
10 to consider it, has no difficulty with the one extra session tomorrow
12 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, there will be no
13 problem with one session.
14 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Krgovic, your position is likewise?
15 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we don't have a
16 problem with that extra session. But as far as I understood the OTP
17 position, I think it is their problem, because when I spoke to the
18 witness, I heard he to travel on Friday morning. I'm talking about
19 ST-163. He has to travel to attend a family event on Saturday.
20 So I don't think one session will help, if he has to complete his
21 testimony tomorrow.
22 JUDGE HALL: Well, the reality is that there's only one session
23 available. So if there is no problem with it, we will plan accordingly.
24 Thank you.
25 [The witness takes the stand]
1 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]
2 JUDGE HALL: The session would -- thank you. The session would
3 be from 2.30 to 4.00.
4 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Di Fazio, just one follow-up question for the
5 witness, please.
6 Madam Tabeau, the 80 per cent we were talking about, the
7 80 per cent of registered voters. How is that 80 per cent determined?
8 THE WITNESS: This is an assessment made by OSCE who were
9 monitoring the elections, who were present in every office where the
10 voters registered and, well, I believe were in touch with local
12 I said there is no record of the population size as of this time,
14 JUDGE DELVOIE: And there is no -- there is no register of
15 possible eligible voters? So it's an estimation. The 80 per cent is an
17 THE WITNESS: There is no register other than population census.
18 As I said, to be eligible, one had to be reported in the population
19 census. And the age was required 18 years, right.
20 But I can imagine, and this is my theory, that the local
21 authorities did have information about the local populations living in
22 the municipalities. I guess that based on the census, on one hand, the
23 record of population eligible to vote in the census plus the information
24 of the local populations, OSCE was able to produce this estimate. I
25 don't know the technicalities, I don't know the method, but it is quite
1 normal that the international monitors, OSCE, present this kind of rates,
2 participation rates. And as a matter of fact, I said it was 80 per cent.
3 I saw two alternative estimates. In one report, OSCE report, I said I
4 saw 80 per cent participation rate, and in another I saw 89 participation
5 rate. I took the lower to be conservative, and not to overestimate.
6 However, it is at least 80 per cent. And judging, in addition,
7 from the size of the register itself, for 1997 it was 2.6 million
8 individuals registered.
9 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay.
10 THE WITNESS: So if you apply the 80 per cent, you end with the
11 required size of all eligible to vote. So that is a straightforward
12 calculation. So statistically, it is at least 80 per cent who
14 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you.
15 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you.
16 Q. Part of your Stanisic/Zupljanin case-specific report refers to
17 some limited aggregate statistics based on documentation obtained from
18 the Republika Srpska authorities. And I think you provide an overview of
19 that at Annex A5 as well. Is that correct?
20 A. Yes, it is correct.
21 Q. I just want to show you two of the document -- two documents, and
22 can you tell us if these are the documents that you used and that were
23 obtained from the Republika Srpska authorities.
24 MR. DI FAZIO: Can we have P425, please. Thank you.
25 Q. Is that the document that you used?
1 MR. DI FAZIO: And perhaps if we can go in one page on both of
2 them, please, both the B/C/S and the English.
3 Q. Now having seen the first page and at least the second page, is
4 that one of the documents that you used to look at the figures emanating
5 from the Republika Srpska?
6 A. Yes, this one of the documents, the 1993 survey.
7 Q. Thank you. And on page 1 we can see that the document is dated
8 May 1993. It's produced by the Banja Luka SNB, National Security
9 Service, dated May 1993.
10 If we look at Prijedor, we see statistics there of 42.000 Muslims
11 moving out, 2.000 Croats moving out. You -- this is the sort of -- you
12 used these statistics and others from relevant indictment --
13 municipalities in preparation of this section of your report.
14 A. Yes, this is correct. It was important to have some context that
15 would be covering the period between 1991 and 1997, and May 1993 is just
16 one of these years that can be seen as filling the gap.
17 Q. Okay. Thank you.
18 MR. DI FAZIO: Could we have 426 up on the screen, please. And
19 this, I believe, has been marked for identification only. P426, MFI, I
21 Q. Again, have a look at the front page.
22 MR. DI FAZIO: And then can we swing in, please, to page 6 of
23 the -- of the English. And the B/C/S should be ...
24 The B/C/S is on page 6. Thanks.
25 Q. Secondly, is this document that you've just seen coming across
1 the screen, P426, MFI, is that the second document that you used in
2 relation to preparing this section of your report?
3 A. Yes, it is.
4 Q. Thank you. And that -- obviously, I can tell you that relates to
5 February 1995, again prepared by the centre for state security in
6 Banja Luka. And that shows the picture in Prijedor in 1991. We have
7 those figures there: 47.000 Serbs, 49.000 Muslims, and about
8 6.300 Croats.
9 In 1995, for Prijedor, 61.000 Serbs; 49.454 Muslims had gone down
10 to 3.600; and the Croats reduced as well.
11 Are they -- are they the figures that you used in prepare -- some
12 of the figures that you used in preparing this part of your report?
13 A. Yes, these are the figures.
14 Q. Good.
15 MR. DI FAZIO: I would like to ask the Trial Chamber to fully
16 admit P426. It was used in this particular report as well. It's been
17 introduced in evidence in the past. I'd ask for its full admission into
18 evidence. If Your Honours, please.
19 [Trial Chamber confers]
20 [Prosecution counsel confer]
21 MR. DI FAZIO: Indeed, I'm grateful to my Case Manager. I think
22 the comment of the Trial Chamber was, at T4071:
23 "Judge Hall: We'll mark the document for identification and
24 pending the testimony of the demographer."
25 So now, I submit, is the appropriate time for it to go in.
1 JUDGE HALL: De-MFI -- we'll remove the MFI qualification.
2 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you. Thank you, Your Honours.
3 Q. Okay. Now, when you prepared the section of your report based on
4 these two documents, I think you had omitted -- not you in particular,
5 but, somehow, the figures for Sanski Most which are included in these
6 documents were -- didn't go into your analysis. Is that correct?
7 A. Yes. Somebody typing, I guess, omitted two numbers for
8 Sanski Most.
9 Q. Okay. And you prepared new pages, 23, 24, and 65, which are
10 identical to your report, but which now have the correct -- now have the
11 figures for Sanski Most inserted as well, alongside the other figures for
12 Banja Luka, Donji Vakuf, and so on; correct?
13 A. Yes, correct.
14 Q. Thank you.
15 MR. DI FAZIO: And if Your Honours please, eventually my
16 application -- the Prosecution application will be to included 10399.1 as
17 part of the report because it's the corrected pages, the corrected pages
18 of the report.
19 Which means that we can now go back to 65 ter 10397, please.
20 Can we get that up on the screen, please.
21 Thank you. And can we go to page 2 of this. Great. Thank you.
22 Q. Ms. Tabeau, this is the -- the analysis that you conducted of
23 using material extracted from these two document, P426 and P425; right?
24 A. Yes, it's correct.
25 Q. Okay. And I don't want to dwell on -- I went to get through this
1 Table 3 as fast as we can, please.
2 First of all, the first column, 1991, number. Do you see those
3 numbers there? Where did you obtain those numbers from, the document or
5 A. I would start with the column "municipality." There are only
6 seven there mentioned.
7 Q. Yes, of course, I'm sorry. I should have made that point. These
8 figures do not cover the entire indictment area; correct?
9 A. Yes, it is correct. These seven municipalities overlap in the
10 RS documents with the municipalities in the Stanisic/Zupljanin study case
11 area. So there were seven which could be compared. RS sources versus
12 what we obtained, based on other sources. So this is why the list only
13 contains seven municipalities.
14 And going to the column, first column, titled: 1991, number.
15 These are the numbers of the -- in Panel A, Muslims living in the seven
16 municipalities, according to the 1991 census.
17 Q. And the remaining numbers in the columns thereafter, are they
18 numbers that you obtained from the documents?
19 A. The columns -- the three --
20 Q. 1993 moved out, and --
21 A. Yes. 1993 moved out and 1995 residents come from the
22 RS documents. The last column is for comparison. Some percentages from
23 our results, for these municipalities.
24 Q. Thanks. Again, just -- yes, I'm done with that.
25 MR. DI FAZIO: Can we please turn over to -- go to page 3 of
1 the -- of the document.
2 Q. [Microphone not activated] ... bar charts representing the
3 numbers that you can see on the previous page?
4 A. Yes, it is correct. The numbers for 1991 and 1995 are shown in
5 these three bar charts. First chart is for Muslims, second for Croats,
6 third for Serbs. But I think it's important to point out that 1993
7 numbers are not shown on these charts and are only shown in tables of the
8 previous page. And these are important numbers, as a matter of fact.
9 Q. Yes. Okay. Thank you --
10 A. Because --
11 Q. I'm grateful to you for that. And I now realize the point that
12 you make. So this only shows the two snap-shot figures, based on
13 RS sources of 1991 and 1995; is that right?
14 A. Yes, that's correct, the charts. Yes.
15 Q. So if we look at Muslims for those particular --
16 A. [Overlapping speakers] ...
17 Q. [Overlapping speakers] ... two snapshots -- pictures in 1991,
18 1995, their numbers have dramatically decreased in all of those -- all of
19 those municipalities; right?
20 A. Yes, this is correct. A dramatic decline in every of the seven
21 municipalities between 1991 and 1995. According, 1995, to Serb sources,
22 RS sources.
23 Q. Thank you. And if you go down to the bottom bar chart that
24 relates to Serbs across the board in those municipalities, you see
25 increases, some of them grater than others, but certainly significant
2 A. Yes, it is correct. It is the opposite picture, so there is no
3 decline here. There is significant increase in the numbers of the Serb
4 population in every of the seven municipalities by 1995.
5 Q. And the same for Croats who you can see at -- in the middle, bar
6 one exception which is Kljuc where, for some reason, there were more
7 Croats there in 1995 than there were in 1991. But other than that
8 exception relating to Kljuc and Croats, there were significant decreases
9 in Muslims, significant decreases in Croats, and significant increases in
10 Serbs resident in those municipalities, based only on RS sources.
11 A. Yes, it's correct.
12 Q. Thank you.
13 MR. DI FAZIO: And I apologise, but we must go back to page 2
14 again, please.
15 JUDGE DELVOIE: Just before we do that.
16 Madam Tabeau, the figures in the left column, vertical, are they
17 percentages? Percentages of the total population?
18 THE WITNESS: Yes. This is the percentage of Muslims in the
19 total population.
20 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you.
21 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you.
22 If we go back now to the page 2.
23 Q. Some of the -- and let's just look at Muslims.
24 Again, perhaps if we look at Prijedor. In -- we've got the
25 1991 residency rates there, 42.000, according to RS sources, moved out in
1 the year 1993. Or rather -- rather not in the year 1993, but rather as
2 at May of 1993?
3 A. Yes, that is correct. The 42.000 who moved out were reported
4 between 1991 until May 1993 by the RS sources for Prijedor.
5 Well, it is --
6 Q. And -- sorry?
7 A. Yeah, I wanted to make a comment that while in 1991 the Muslim
8 population in Prijedor was approximately 44 per cent, exactly 43.9
9 per cent, you know, then we see the decline, 42.000 moved out by
10 May 1993, and we go further to 1995, the number of those who still
11 remained in Prijedor as of February 1995 is 3.600.
12 Q. Oh, I see. Yes, of course. So --
13 A. And this is only 5.4 per cent of the 1995 population.
14 Q. Yes, yes.
15 A. So ...
16 Q. So according to these RS police sources, yes, of course, the
17 situation didn't improve for Muslims in terms of residency, at least in
18 Prijedor. Moving on from May 1993, because in 1993 there were
19 approximately 7.000-odd still remaining in -- according to these sources,
20 in Prijedor. And that had gone down from 7.000-odd to 3.600 in 1995;
22 A. 7.000. Where does 7.000 come from?
23 Q. 49.000 take away 42 -- [Overlapping speakers] ...
24 A. Oh, yes, yes. Yes, yes, yes. That is your reading of it, yes,
25 of course. Yeah. That's correct.
1 Q. Okay. And just finally, the shaded areas in blue, they represent
2 the statistics relating to Sanski Most that for some reason or another
3 had been omitted and that you recently included; is that right?
4 A. That's correct. That's correct.
5 Q. All right.
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Good.
8 A. Well, if you read the last row of the table, so for 1993, the
9 number of 93.470 is given for Muslims, and this number is approximately
10 58 per cent of the initial 1991 population of Muslims in these
11 municipalities. So that is the number who moved out as of May 1993. It
12 is a very huge number. And by 1995, the 23.807 who are still there
13 comprise approximately 15 per cent of the initial 1991 population,
14 approximately 15 per cent still there. That simply means that the
15 85 per cent are not there. So that is the percentage who are not there
16 anymore as February 1995.
17 That -- this result is absolutely highly consistent with what we
18 produced in our report, so it is that these numbers just confirm the
19 general picture that we present about the ethnic composition and
20 population movements.
21 Q. Yes, they confirm what you found. What you found find, when
22 looking at the two snap-shot pictures, 1991 and 1997. But this confirms
23 that situation in a much smaller time-frame, 1991, 1993; right?
24 A. Yes, that's correct.
25 Q. And finally, down at the bottom, we see Serbs [Overlapping
1 speakers] ...
2 A. Yes, for the Serbs, the summary is again in the last row. So
3 there were 255.000, approximately, in 1991. By May 1993, only 1.000 were
4 reported as moved out.
5 Q. Thank you.
6 A. Which is a very small per cent. And by February 1995, we see a
7 very large number, almost 300.000, which is higher than the initial
8 1991 population by approximately 16.5 per cent.
9 Q. Okay. Could you just keep that page 2 of the -- of this summary
10 that we've just been talking about open. I'd like you to have it
11 available just to answer some questions about Kotor Varos, in particular.
12 MR. DI FAZIO: And can we please now get up on the screen
13 65 ter 3382.
14 Q. Now, in the interests of getting through this quickly, I'll just
15 lead you on this, if I may, unless there's an objection.
16 This -- you didn't use this document in -- in creating the
17 section of your report dealing with RS -- [Overlapping speakers] ...
18 A. I didn't.
19 Q. No. Okay. Again, we can see what this document is right from
20 the face of it. It's an RS document, again emanating from Banja Luka
21 State Security, and it relates to Kotor Varos.
22 This one, unlike the other ones, other two documents, gives a
23 picture for June of 1994. The others relate to May 1993 and 1995. So
24 this is June 1994 only for Kotor Varos. All right. And it gives you the
25 numbers for -- the numbers for -- of Serbs, Croats, and Muslims there
1 living in -- in Kotor Varos.
2 Does that -- do those numbers largely accord with the figures
3 that you have before you?
4 A. Actually, yes, although there are some differences in the
5 population reported in this document prior to the outbreak of war, but
6 the differences are small.
7 Q. [Overlapping speakers] ... any significance --
8 A. [Overlapping speakers] ... no, no, no. General picture is the
9 same. And the data reported in this document for June 1994 are highly
10 consistent with the data I have in front of me, in Table 2 that we just
11 discussed. So the picture I have for 1995 is largely the same as that
12 one presented in this document for June 1994.
13 Q. Okay. So the picture you get here in front of you on this one
14 here, 65 ter 3382, basically consistent with the figures that you
15 extracted from P425 and P426, the two RS documents; correct?
16 A. Yes, correct.
17 Q. Okay.
18 MR. DI FAZIO: I'd like to tender that into evidence, if
19 Your Honours please.
20 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.
21 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P1625, Your Honours.
22 MR. DI FAZIO: I'm grateful for that. Thank you.
23 Q. Let's move, now, away from IDPs and on to victims of war, please.
24 You prepared this particular report specifically for this case,
25 and it relates to the -- to the -- to the Stanisic/Zupljanin indictment
1 area; is that right?
2 A. Yes, it's correct.
3 Q. Now I earlier mentioned in -- early this morning, or earlier in
4 the testimony at least, the 12 databases that you used to write this
6 A. Yes. These databases are listed in the report.
7 Q. Page 5 and 6, I think, are they?
8 A. Page 5 and 6, English version of the report.
9 Q. I'm not going to take you to them and -- go to them just yet.
10 Did you use the census again to verify the personal details of
11 individuals mentioned in the 12 databases that you used in order to
12 eventually write this report?
13 A. Well, yes, of course. But the 12 databases you have just
14 mentioned are, as a matter of fact, 12 large sources that report on
15 deaths or missing persons. These are sources on victims. And this is
16 war victims. These sources are broader than the study case area,
17 Stanisic/Zupljanin study case area. They cover, as a matter of fact, the
18 entire territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina and entire war period.
19 Having said this, for this particular report, for this case, I
20 only used a part, a portion, of all these 12 databases. Portion that is
21 relevant to this study area, indictment area, and indictment period. And
22 in addition to this, I also used, among others, the population census of
24 Q. What did you use that for in particular, the census? How was
25 that of assistance when you were looking at the data contained or the
1 sources contained in these 12 databases?
2 A. It is, again, for matching purposes. We matched the records of
3 victims with the information about them in the 1991 population census.
4 In this way, we validated their personal details. And as a matter of
5 fact, we confirmed that these were not fictitious persons; these were
6 persons who lived at the outbreak of war in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
7 Q. Okay. What about ethnicity? Did the 12 -- the information that
8 you got out of the 12 - I'll call them databases, okay - the 12
9 databases, did that give you any idea about the ethnicity of the people,
10 or did you have to go the census in order to ascertain that, once you got
11 the information out of the 12 databases?
12 A. Ethnicities are usually not reported on sources on victims, so
13 the ethnicity is, again, taken here as reported in the 1991 census.
14 Q. Incidentally, I should have also mentioned that there's a
15 temporal limitation on your report. It -- it not only covers the
16 indictment area, but it relates to a certain period of time. It's the
17 indictment period in this case, isn't it, April to December 1992? That
18 was the way that -- the -- the report focussed; area, indictment area,
19 and time, April to December 1992?
20 A. Yes, that is correct.
21 Q. Thanks. The -- from these -- from the information that you
22 obtained -- you obtained from the 12 databases, you, I believe, were able
23 to get a list of people killed in that time-period and in that area,
24 eventually, after conducting all your studies; right?
25 A. As a matter of fact, it is the list of people killed and -- or
1 who went missing, who disappeared, and are reported as missing persons.
2 Q. How did you make sure that they hadn't -- that people who were
3 listed as killed in the -- in this list of statistical sources, the
4 12 databases were, in fact, killed and didn't turn up and vote, for
5 example, in 1997?
6 A. Well, we -- as I said, I used the census, the 12 sources on
7 victims. But also other sources that you were used. The voters' records
8 were used in order to eliminate false positives. That means if -- dead
9 people cannot be alive at the same time. So if there is an alive person,
10 this person has to go.
11 But this is a complex issue. As a matter of fact, as -- while
12 there is, as a matter of fact, little interest of the living population
13 in reporting false positive as dead people, then records of dead people
14 can be sometimes found in the voters' register. So as a matter of fact,
15 what I'm trying to say is it's not a straightforward issue to decide,
16 even if there is a match between a record of a dead person or missing
17 persons with the voter record, that this person has not died or -- and
18 survived the war.
19 This is what I'm trying to say. I'm not -- so, yeah.
20 I -- I will use an example. In Srebrenica cases, we studied --
21 we identified 24, approximately, 24 records in the voters' register of
22 Srebrenica victims. We studied these records and compared how they were
23 reported in the voters' register 1997, 1998, and another source on
24 surviving population. We have a registration of internally displaced
25 person and refugees. And these 24 records were reported in some of these
1 sources and a few of them in all three sources. At the same time, these
2 persons were all reported as missing persons from Srebrenica. And for
3 some of these persons, we had DNA identification reports based on the DNA
4 study of the remains from exhumations. So obviously they cannot be both
5 dead and surviving.
6 The problem is -- well, we studied these records. We
7 distinguished the records reported in all three sources on surviving
8 population and distinguished the records for whom that DNA identification
9 was possible. So for these records for whom the DNA identification is
10 obtained, obviously, are confirmed dead. There is a proof of death.
11 This is a DNA matching result with the surviving family members.
12 So in this situation, we accepted the superiority of this
13 reporting. And from the 24 initially reported as potential survivors, we
14 accepted 12 as possible survivors and rejected 12 as confirmed deaths.
15 So this -- what I'm trying to say, these are complex issues.
16 There are examples of families who reported dead people as IDPs in order
17 to obtain more aid. These are practicalities of life in a war-affected
18 country. So we did our best and flagged all records of dead people in
19 the voters' register. And these records shouldn't be reported among the
20 dead or missing persons.
21 However, as a matter of fact, it is in my view an extremely
22 conservative approach which eliminates --
23 MR. DI FAZIO: [Microphone not activated] ... slow down a bit,
25 THE WITNESS: -- which eliminates a number of actual deaths. That
1 is what I'm saying.
2 But we, nevertheless, did control for the reporting of records in
3 the voters' register. That was part of our methodology. We've been
4 using this methodology for a long time. Well, we call this methodology a
5 proof-of-death methodology. In brief, this methodology is: Once we have
6 a list of victims - it can be a list from the indictment schedules - we
7 look at this list, we check how these victims are reported in our
8 12 sources on war victims, on one hand, we link these records with the
9 1991 census to confirm the personal details and the -- the actual fact
10 that these are people from Bosnia and Herzegovina. We do look at voters'
11 register and make a summary of all these results.
12 So that is what we usually do to provide as much information as
13 possible on every victim.
14 Q. Thanks. As brief as possible, can you tell the Trial Chamber if
15 you found anything significant or any significant numbers of people that
16 you had isolated from the 12 databases as being people killed during the
17 indictment period and in the indictment area and later turned up as
18 having registered to vote.
19 A. Well, the -- I don't think the number was significant, although I
20 myself wasn't looking for it. But the scale I mentioned for Srebrenica,
21 the 24 potential, 12 accepted out of approximately 8.000 victims, is the
22 scale we are talking about in this case.
23 So, as a matter of fact, these kind of marginal numbers do not
24 have any significant impact on the overall picture that is presented in
25 our victims report.
1 Q. Thank you. In your report, you -- the "Victims of War" report,
2 you touch upon the reasons why you included some databases, and we --
3 what I call the database is the statistical sources, and we know that you
4 used 12. But you reject -- you included some and you rejected others.
5 What -- what features did the ones you accepted have, and what
6 features did the ones you rejected have, in order to come up with your
7 final list of numbers?
8 A. The 12 sources, or databases as you say, are the essential part
9 of our method. This is not that we use just any source on victims of
10 war. These are 12 sources that we consider the best existing sources on
11 war victims for Bosnia and Herzegovina. Among them we have exhumation
12 records; among them we have DNA identification records; we have missing
13 persons records of ICMP; we have records from military lists, that is,
14 the military records of fallen soldiers and associated military
15 personnel; we have, finally, records from official death notifications
16 from both authorities of the FBiH and RS statistical authority, who
17 compiled a wartime registration of these deaths at our request and
18 provided this for use in my unit in the ICTY cases.
19 So, sources that we have selected for this report and several
20 other reports are not accidental. They are large, they are relatively
21 less, far less, deficient than any other source, yet they are not
23 But going to the point. Some sources that he we have at our
24 disposal were not used in this work. And I'm giving examples of these
25 sources in my report. These were sources compiled by all sides, by
1 Bosniaks, by Serbs, and also by Croats. And the main reason is that,
2 first of all, the coverage of the rejected sources is already very good
3 in the sources included among the 12; that is one thing. And the quality
4 of reporting in the rejected sources is far lower than the quality of
5 reporting than in the included sources.
6 Reliability is another issue. The sources we included have been
7 inspected, as also the other sources. And we believe the reliability of
8 these sources is generally good.
9 So these are the reasons for rejections.
10 Q. Thanks for explaining that.
11 And one last question about the databases. You've mentioned
12 12 databases. Did you do anything to check to make sure that people
13 weren't being counted more than once? In other words, that you, you
14 know, you got rid of duplicates within a database, as opposed to, with
15 any one database, the 11 others?
16 A. Yes. We, of course, always check for duplicates, first within
17 each source. And then when we combine sources, when we match sources,
18 integrate sources, we look at the overlap. That would be the duplicate
19 between the sources. Of course, duplicates and overlap have to go, so
20 what remains are records representing different individuals.
21 Q. And that final set of numbers or -- that final statistical source
22 is what you refer to as the "integrated database" in your report; am I
24 A. Yes, it is correct. This integrated mortality database, as we
25 call it, is a database for Bosnia and Herzegovina, the entire country, as
1 we didn't do it only for this case, we did it for the entire country in
2 order to be able to extract statistics for any case, any episode of the
3 war, any incident even. So this is the integrated mortality database.
4 Its coverage is Bosnia and Herzegovina and the entire war period. From
5 this database, relevant records were extracted for this report,
6 Stanisic/Zupljanin victims report, on the basis on the two criteria:
7 Territory, that would be the indictment municipalities, and the
8 time-frame, that would be the period of the indictment, April to
9 December 1992.
10 Q. Okay. Thank you.
11 MR. DI FAZIO: Can we please get page 8 of the "Victims of War"
12 report - that's 65 ter 10400 - up on the screen.
13 Q. There's just one table that I want you to look at in particular
14 from your report.
15 MR. DI FAZIO: So it's page 8 of the English.
16 Q. Okay. You also have it in front of you in hard copy, I believe.
17 I want to get through this swiftly, if we can, please,
18 Madam Tabeau.
19 Table 1. Is the figures that you see there are figures that you
20 obtained from these 12 databases, and are they Bosnia-wide, that is, not
21 just confined to the indictment area?
22 A. Yes, it's correct.
23 Q. Thank you. And you can see we've only got 8 databases there.
24 And so far we've been speaking about 12. What's the explanation for
1 A. The 12 sources have been grouped for radical purposes for a
2 report that we present later. And there have been made eight groups out
3 of the 12 sources. Sources of similar nature are combined together.
4 Like, for instance, FIS, RS, and most are death notifications. They all
5 represent the same type of sources. It is, therefore, one group,
6 numbered 1.
7 Q. Thank you. Let's go to the first column. The source size
8 overlap contained. What do those numbers that you can see there
10 A. Well, this is the size of the sources, source by source. So the
11 overall total of 181.000, approximately, is the overall total of initial
12 records taken for the analysis.
13 Q. Thanks. Moving on to the next column. The source size overlap,
14 overlap excluded. What does that represent?
15 A. That means overlap is not there. So what remain is the records,
16 unique records representing different persons. For Bosnia and
17 Herzegovina, such a number is 89.881, which is almost 90.000 records for
18 the entire war period.
19 Q. Okay. So the "overlap excluded" means you got rid of the
20 duplicates and so on and these are the final figures, not including any
22 A. Correct.
23 Q. Okay. So 89.881 dead in Bosnia for that time-period, 1992 to
25 A. Yes, it is the minimum number again, as unusual inn our analyses.
1 Q. Thank. 89.881 dead soldiers and civilians?
2 A. Dead and missing; right? Dead and missing persons.
3 Q. And amongst the dead, that includes soldiers and civilians?
4 A. Correct.
5 Q. Just explain the next column, please, matching rates with the
6 1991 census. What does that mean?
7 A. This is the percentage of records, source by source, that have
8 been matched with the population census. All together, for -- as an
9 average, there is 89.5 per cent reported. That is almost 90 per cent,
10 which is -- which is very high rate. Usually it is very hard to obtain
11 this kind of matching.
12 Q. [Overlapping speakers] ... thanks --
13 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Di Fazio, just one moment.
14 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes.
15 JUDGE DELVOIE: Ms. Tabeau, does that mean that more or less
16 10 per cent of the records, that people in those records were not in the
17 1991 census and probably came from elsewhere?
18 THE WITNESS: No, it doesn't mean that.
19 JUDGE DELVOIE: No. Okay.
20 THE WITNESS: That only means we were unable to declare this
21 remaining 10 per cent as matched. And this was caused by --
22 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay.
23 THE WITNESS: -- deficiencies in reporting. An example --
24 MR. DI FAZIO: [Overlapping speakers] ... you couldn't find them
25 in -- you couldn't find them --
1 THE WITNESS: We couldn't find them in the census. We couldn't
2 find them in the census because of the deficiencies in reporting.
3 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you.
4 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you. Yes, that's all I want on that.
5 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Di Fazio, may I remind you that you have
6 about five minutes left of your time, so you should round up.
7 MR. DI FAZIO: Your Honours, I have done better than I thought.
8 Would you be minded to give me an extra ten or 15 minutes? It's -- I can
9 tell you what issues I want to cover. I want to cover the final summary
10 of this report, which I think is clearly the most important remaining
11 topic. But there's just one or two other issues that I want to very
12 briefly cover and that is the -- the issue of the division of numbers
13 into war-related deaths -- sorry, to civilian deaths and military deaths.
14 That might just take me over.
15 [Trial Chamber confers]
16 JUDGE HALL: You have until the break, Mr. Di Fazio. That's a
17 total of 15 -- of 16 minutes. Sorry, yeah, 16 minutes.
18 MR. DI FAZIO: All right. Thank you, Your Honours.
19 Can we go to 65 ter 10400.2, please. And get that up on the
20 screen, if we may.
21 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
22 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Di Fazio, we're advised that this number is not
23 in the system.
24 THE WITNESS: Oh.
25 MR. DI FAZIO: 10400.2.
1 Would Your Honours just give me a moment. Sorry, it's .02,
2 apparently. Is that number -- that's it, that's the one. Thank you.
3 Q. This is your -- what it says, it is main findings. Now, this
4 relates to the main findings derived from the numbers of people killed in
5 the indictment area in this case and also during the period of time,
6 April to December 1992. Is that right?
7 A. Yes, it's correct.
8 Q. Okay. Again, the minimum number that we see there at the top,
9 12.000 people killed in the indictment area and for that period of time,
10 that's just the -- that minimum number is -- is individual records, based
11 on individual persons; right?
12 A. Yes. These are individual records that are documented in our
13 12 sources. And for them we can give personal details as well as details
14 of their death or disappearance in terms of time and area. And several
15 other items can be provided as well for every victim.
16 Q. Okay. Now, we see there an estimated overall number, and we can
17 tell from the components of the overall total that that estimated overall
18 number is made up of the minimum number which we know about, plus
19 something called exclusions and the estimated undercount.
20 Now I want you, just very briefly -- very briefly and succinctly
21 tell the Trial Chamber what exclusions are. And then when you've done
22 that, what the estimated undercount is. Again, being as brief as you
24 A. Yes. First of all, we have a minimum number. It is called
25 minimum because our sources are incomplete. There is a part which is
1 missing, and we don't know what part is missing. This can be
2 statistically estimated using certain modern techniques. And this is, in
3 our report, in our work, called estimation of the undercount of the
4 undercount, that is, of what is not counted.
5 However, when we extracted records, as I said, we used two
6 criteria: Time and area. There is a number of records reported in the
7 database incompletely. We know they are deaths or missing persons from
8 1992, but we don't know exactly what month in 1992. So such records had
9 to be excluded from our minimum number. Or we know these records were in
10 the time-frame of this indictment but we didn't know the municipality of
11 that, so these records had to be excluded.
12 So the minimum number is minimal in two ways. First of all,
13 because in our records not all relevant records could be taken, and,
14 secondly, because sources are incomplete.
15 So the first component, 2.278 is our statistical estimate of the
16 records that could not be taken from our databases because of the missing
17 data items. And the second component is the undercount estimate, that
18 is, the part of the information that is completely uncovered by our
20 And the methodology of obtaining both these numbers is explained
21 in the annex to our report with details. All together, these two
22 undercount estimates amount to approximately 5.000 cases that are not
23 included in our minimum number.
24 So the estimated number, overall estimated number, is not 12.047
25 but 17.060 killed and missing persons.
1 Q. Okay. Thanks for that explanation.
2 Then you talk about the division into military and civilian
3 victims. Is that -- 37.8 and 62 per cent civilians, is that based on the
4 estimated overall number or the minimum number?
5 A. It is based on the minimum number, that is, on the numbers -- of
6 the number of 12.000, approximately. So these are the documented
7 victims. And the distribution into military and civilian comes as part
8 of our methodology. Is based on the reporting in our sources.
9 Q. Okay. Thank you. And then you -- finally, you give this ethnic
10 distribution of civilians. Now, of the civilians from this number of
11 17 -- sorry, 12.047, of the civilians, taking away the soldiers and
12 military, 84 per cent of them were Muslim; is that a correct statement of
13 that -- how that figure's derived?
14 A. Yes. The -- approximately 85 per cent of civilian victims were
15 of Muslim ethnicity. About 8 per cent were Serbs; three and a half,
16 Croats; 3.8, others. That is the civilian victims, the ethnic
17 composition of the civilian victims.
18 Q. [Overlapping speakers] ... civilian -- civilian victims.
19 A. Now, it is -- the civilian victims as we see in Table 3 towards
20 the end of the same page, towards the end of the same page. So it's
21 page -- first 1 -- page 1. So in the first column of Table 3, we have an
22 absolute number of civilians and militaries. The number of civilians is
23 7.499. 704.099. [Sic] This is the minimum number of civilians. And of
24 them, approximately 85 per cent were Muslims.
25 Q. Thanks.
1 A. That is what we are talking about.
2 Q. Thank you. In the -- quickly go through figure 4.
3 Firstly, that -- I don't know what you call it, a bar table, or
4 that type of representation?
5 A. Bar chart.
6 Q. Bar chart, thank you. Bar chart. That's based on the minimum
7 number, 12.047, not 17.000.
8 A. It's correct. It's correct.
9 Q. Okay. And let's just take a moment to look at that.
10 Of all Muslims who were killed, individuals here, we've got
11 individuals, not -- not based on extrapolations or statistical methods
12 but just the minimum number, of all Muslims who were killed in April to
13 December of 1992, and who lived in the Stanisic/Zupljanin area,
14 indictment area, about 65 per cent of them were civilians.
15 A. Strictly, speaking, it is exactly two thirds, that is,
16 66.7 per cent.
17 Q. [Overlapping speakers] ... yeah --
18 A. Two thirds of Muslims --
19 Q. [Overlapping speakers] ... right --
20 A. -- were civilians, and one third is reported as militaries in our
22 Q. And the other feature that immediately jumps out at you from that
23 bar chart is that of Croats and the others, the group called "others," it
24 was civilians who were disproportionately killed, as opposed to military,
25 but quite the opposite for Serbs. That's right, isn't it?
1 A. For the Serbs, for the Serb victims, the proportions are
2 opposite. 34 per cent were civilians and 66 per cent were soldiers. So
3 for the non-Serbs, we observed the distribution two-thirds civilians,
4 one-third militaries; and for the Serbs, the other way around, generally
6 Q. Thanks.
7 MR. DI FAZIO: Can we have the next page please, page 2.
8 Q. I want you to look at Figure 5. Now, you see 1992 and the
9 following -- and this bar chart deals with 1992, 1993, 1994, and 1995.
10 A. Yes, it's correct.
11 Q. Okay. Does it deal with the Stanisic/Zupljanin indictment area?
12 A. Yes. It contains statistics only related to the
13 20 municipalities from the indictment.
14 Q. Yes. Okay. So it relates to our indictment area but not our
15 indictment period, because obviously it goes into the following years.
16 A. Correct.
17 Q. Okay. And you obtained these figures from your Bosnia-wide
19 A. Correct.
20 Q. Okay. So we can see that for Muslims in the indictment area,
21 1992 was a dramatic year by far. The vast majority of them were killed
22 in that year.
23 A. Correct.
24 Q. And, well, it's -- it's obvious what -- what -- the remainder of
25 1993 and 1994 were, if I can put it this way, relatively quiet years in
1 terms of deaths. And the again in 1995 there was a spike again; right?
2 A. Correct.
3 Q. And those figures include both soldiers and civilians.
4 A. Correct.
5 Q. All lumped together.
6 A. Correct.
7 Q. In -- go to Figure 7.
8 Now, this, on the other hand, focuses on the months of 1992. And
9 I suppose you got time of death from the 12 databases, that they had the
10 period of time when the person died, obviously?
11 A. Of course.
12 Q. Yeah. Okay. And, again, focus on the green for the --
13 representing Muslims. We can see that in 1992, and I'm looking at the
14 first Figure 7 which only relates to civilians; right?
15 A. That's correct.
16 Q. Right. In 1992, for civilians living in the Stanisic/Zupljanin
17 area, from April to December of that year, by far, the worse months for
18 them were May, June, and July, when, obviously, the majority of them were
20 A. That is correct.
21 Q. Okay. And we can see the same again at the bottom for
22 militaries. And my last question is just this: The -- is there any
23 significance in the scale? I look at the scale of civilians. At the top
24 there, there's 2.500 - and I'm looking at Figure 7 - and for militaries,
25 it's 1.600.
1 A. Yes, it's correct. So the scale is broader for civilians, being
2 that larger numbers generally were killed in at least these three top
3 months. But another observation is that this pattern shown for civilians
4 and soldiers is not identical. For soldiers, there is one month, June,
5 which represents a peak of deaths, unlike for the civilians. Simply
6 speaking, it is not only the scale so that the numbers of civilians were
7 greater than soldiers but also that the pattern is not the same, so there
8 is no direct association or one-to-one correspondence between the two.
9 Q. Yes, yes. So from -- over May -- over three months, May, June,
10 and July, a lot more civilians were being killed than for soldiers who
11 were mainly killed, or were significantly killed, higher numbers killed
12 in June; right?
13 A. Right.
14 Q. Thank you.
15 [Prosecution counsel confer]
16 MR. DI FAZIO: And if Your Honours please, that brings me to the
17 end of my examination-in-chief.
18 Just one matter. I know, and you mentioned it, referred to it
19 earlier, you wanted to -- you'll make a decision on which parts of the
20 Milosevic report will go in. You want to make that decision having heard
21 all the evidence of this witness.
22 May I just say this to you, that for the purposes of
23 understanding all of this evidence and -- yes. The parts that the
24 Prosecution submit to you ought to include, you ought to include, if
25 you're minded to make the order, is this: Section 1, objective and scope
1 from the Milosevic report; Annex B, overview of sources, in its entirety;
2 Annex C, overview of methods of the analysis; and, of course, the Annex
3 D, professional qualifications of the authors.
4 They are the most significant parts of the Milosevic report that
5 the Prosecution says you really need in order to understand the IDP
6 reports. And, of course, I'll be -- when you eventually make your
7 orders, I'll be asking that the corrections and the summaries go in as
8 part of the full list of exhibits from this body of evidence.
9 Thank you.
10 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
11 So we take the break now and resume in 20 minutes.
12 [The witness stands down]
13 --- Recess taken at 12.06 p.m.
14 --- On resuming at 12.37 p.m.
15 [Trial Chamber confers]
16 [The witness takes the stand]
17 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please, perhaps before the witness
18 continues, one particular document I didn't use with the witness - I
19 don't think it's necessary to, I hope - it was an addendum to her
20 "Victims of War" report, correcting some typos and some tables. It was
21 prepared before the summer break. It wasn't necessary for my purposes to
22 go through it this morning. It's 65 ter 10400.01. If there's no
23 objection by the Defence, then I would ask that you eventually consider
24 that for inclusion when you come to make your orders regarding the expert
1 It's just, as I said, an addendum, some corrections in relation
2 to the "Victims of War" report. And, of course, if you admit that, then
3 this should be part of it. I don't need to go into it in any more detail
4 than that.
5 So 65 ter 10400.01.
6 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
7 Yes, Mr. Aleksic.
8 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.
9 Cross-examination by Mr. Aleksic:
10 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, ma'am.
11 My name is Aleksandar Aleksic. I'm a member of the Defence team
12 of Mr. Stojan Zupljanin, and I have a few questions for you.
13 To avoid being repetitive, we'll sum up your examination by the
14 OTP. As far as sources are concerned, on one hand, you had a census from
15 1991, and as a result of a shortage of data not generally speaking but
16 you missed certain data from 1997, so you matched electoral data from
17 1997 with the 1991 census. Is that correct?
18 A. Yes, it's correct.
19 Q. Would you be able to tell me, to the best of your professional
20 knowledge, are electoral lists used anywhere else in the world for
21 developing scientifically based reports?
22 A. Yes. Electoral lists were used for Cambodia in the estimation of
23 the number of victims of the Khmer Rouge region in the second half of the
24 1970s. They were used by an American scientist, Patrick Heuveline.
25 Q. In this regard, may I ask you if that report is perhaps used in
1 the ad hoc Tribunal for Cambodia?
2 A. As a matter of fact, it might be. As a matter of fact, it might
3 be. The results of his study were published in "Demography," which is
4 the leading journal of demographers in the world. It is located in the
5 United States of America. And Patrick Heuveline, actually his study was
6 part of a broader overview I actually made of the victims of the
7 Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia. And his results were one of the more
8 reliable, say, compared to many others by other authors. Yes.
9 So it might be. It might be.
10 Q. As you told us at the beginning, you testified before this
11 Tribunal in many cases and you provided numerous reports in your field.
12 A. Yes, it's correct, yes.
13 Q. Among other case, you testified in the Simic et al. case
14 concerning Bosanski Samac; correct?
15 A. Correct.
16 Q. Let me just remind you of a certain portion of the Samac
17 transcript dated 10 July 2002, transcript page 10784, the very end of the
18 page, and page 10785. On page 10784, the same Prosecutor, Mr. Di Fazio,
19 asked you to tell him something about the reliability of the sources you
20 used for preparing your report.
21 Going over to the next page, 10785, you answer that question, and
22 you explain about the 1991 census, how reliable it is. And then at
23 point 1020, you say:
24 "Voters' register is not a source that we can consider official,
25 not at least a source that can be used for producing official statistics.
1 In no countries statistical authorities use these type of sources for
2 producing statistics."
3 I said in no, not now, "in no country."
4 [Interpretation] Do you recall saying that in the Simic case?
5 A. Well, I might have said it, but you, of course, skipped the
6 context. The voters' registers are not used in -- for producing official
7 statistics. In normal times, it is not a source that statistical
8 authority uses to produce official statistics because there are other
10 However, in the wartime, the normal statistical sources usually.
11 Or if exist, are incomplete and deficient. So in normal times, missing
12 person lists are not used to calculate statistics on deaths. In normal
13 times, exhumation records are not used to calculate statistics of killed
14 people. But that's the difference. In normal times, we have many
15 regular sources, especially in developed countries. And Yugoslavia --
16 if -- is -- if it was not most developed, it belonged to developed
18 So in normal times, we would not have to use it. But for
19 calculating statistics related to demographic consequences of war, there
20 is sometimes a need to use an unconventional source like the voters'
22 Q. Very well. In your report for this case and in the course of
23 examination-in-chief, you said that the expert report for this case is an
24 addendum to your Milosevic report and exactly the same methods and
25 sources were used for both; correct?
1 A. Correct, yes.
2 Q. Now, in the Milosevic report, page 7 in B/C/S, paragraph 2, and
3 page 6 in English, penultimate paragraph, you say:
4 "One has to bear in mind that the list of voters may not be used
5 to estimate the total population in 1997 or 1998. At that time, it was
6 certainly over 2.7 million voters entered in the lists. However, it can
7 be used with certainty to develop statistics, characterising ethnic
8 make-up, and internally displaced persons and refugees in the period
10 Do you agree with this?
11 A. Well, I recall something like that, and we already have discussed
12 this today, as you recall, earlier today during in-chief examination.
13 And can I only repeat what I said earlier today, that we cannot take the
14 voters' population, that is, the voter population, as the record,
15 complete record, of the population living in the country as of the time
16 of the elections. But it is a large and reliable sample of this
18 Q. In your evidence today as well, you said that you used the lowest
19 possible numbers, the minimum numbers from these sources, if I understood
20 you correctly?
21 A. Yes, correct.
22 Q. Now, perhaps you will not agree with me, but if these are the
23 minimum numbers for 1997/1998, did you compare these minimum numbers with
24 the maximum total population numbers from 1991, from the census?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. And it was not a problem for you in making your report?
2 A. [Previous translation continues] ... I -- I think I don't
3 understand you correctly.
4 Comparing, meaning looking; or comparing, meaning analysing them?
5 What do you mean by compare, did I compare? I produced, of course,
6 certain numbers also on the population based on the voters' register, and
7 they are in the report, in the annex of this case report. There are
8 numbers of the voters, registered voters, overall sample size for every
9 ethnic group, every municipality, and next to them there would be 1991
10 numbers. So in this sense the numbers are there in the report. But as I
11 stressed earlier today, the absolute numbers for 1997 is not the overall
12 population size so are not directly comparable with the overall
13 population size in 1991. And this is what I'm saying again.
14 Q. I understand what you're saying. But you have to show some
15 understanding for us as well. Most of us here in the courtroom are not
16 experts in statistics or mathematics or your methods, and I'm trying to
17 translate all this into layman's language to be able to understand,
19 As you've said more than once, in the voters' registers from 1997
20 there is no information about ethnicity, and you said you took over that
21 information from the 1991 census using the method of comparison?
22 A. [Previous translation continues] ... yes.
23 Q. Now, scientifically speaking, can that then be then considered an
24 independent source if you are using one source of information and then
25 you graft onto it a portion from another source? Can we speak, in that
1 case, about an independent source?
2 A. I think the issue of independency of a source here is completely
3 irrelevant. So these are two related sources that report on the same
4 population largely. The voters' population is a subpopulation from the
5 census. There is nothing wrong in matching these two sources and taking
6 pieces of information from Source A and moving these pieces into Source B
7 for the purpose of compiling statistics. There is absolutely no problem,
8 statistical problem, or whatever other problem. And independence is
9 completely irrelevant.
10 Q. Very well. Now, as far as the estimates of population are
11 concerned, would you agree that, on the one hand, we have 1991 population
12 born before 1980, which means that in 1998 they would be of age, that
13 means 18 and over.
14 A. I don't see a question here.
15 Q. Right. I will move on.
16 This population born between -- born before 1980 imply that the
17 figure from -- for 1991 includes all those people and also those who are
18 under 18 but who could be voters in 1997 and 1998?
19 A. Well, this is what we did. We, from the town's population, took
20 a subpopulation of people who later, in the future, as of 1997, for the
21 first time would become eligible to vote. So it isn't a incomplete
22 census population; that's correct. If it is your question.
23 Q. Yes. And I have a follow-up question to this.
24 Can you tell us, because it's not in the report, what is the
25 population that, in 1991, was 18 and over, as opposed to the other
1 portion of the population who could become voters later?
2 A. Well, I can't say it from my head. I could calculate statistics.
3 But this is irrelevant because the method we used in our study is a
4 longitudinal method. That means longitudinal is following the same
5 individuals over time. The same individuals over time. So the age of
6 eligible voters in 1991, during the census, only matters from the point
7 of view of whether or not they were eligible in 1997 to vote.
8 So it is not that we have cross-section in 1991 of the population
9 18 plus and a cross-section of population 18 plus in 1997, we work with
10 longitudinal data, as I said. We trace the same individual over time.
11 So the age structure of this population of eligible voters in 1991 is not
13 I can provide it with you, if you like to have it.
14 Q. If I may pick up on that, did you consider as potential voters in
15 1997 all those who, in 1991, were over 75 years old?
16 A. As far as I know, there is no limit, age limit, for eligible
17 voter. I mean, upper limit. But I guess, yeah, you might expect that
18 elderly, the elderly, because of the health status or so, show less
19 interest in voting, yes. But formally, there is no age limit, upper
21 Q. I agree with you on that. But did you have any database on
22 mortality that would enable to conclude out of the 1991 census how many
23 people died a natural death between 1991 and 1997 and, therefore, could
24 not be voters in 1997?
25 A. Well, I have some information on natural death during the war.
1 Not in 1996, not in 1997. And I do have records of war victims for
2 entire country. It is approximately at least 90.000 deaths. So, most
3 obviously dead, people don't vote; right? So it is not automatic that
4 all people who were eligible to vote, according to the 1991 census, will
5 be found as registered voters in 1997 elections. That is an obvious --
6 obvious observation, of course.
7 Q. I think you said in chief that you received a database in 2004 on
8 mortality. If you had had this data, if you had included it, would you
9 also have been able to decrease the 1991 census by using the comparison
10 method, the same way you did with the ethnicity of voters?
11 In case I didn't make myself clear, I can -- if I understood your
12 paper correctly, you take a voter registered to vote in 1997 and find him
13 in the 1991 census and then you also take his nationality, his ethnicity,
14 from there?
15 A. Correct.
16 Q. Couldn't you use the same method to find all those who died a
17 natural death and exclude them as possible voters in 1997?
18 A. If they are dead, they are not in the voters' list because they
19 are dead. So it really is irrelevant.
20 Well, the thing is that -- hmm. I don't think that that's matter
21 in our assessment of the ethnic composition in 1991 or 1997. It --
22 they -- there is no bias whatsoever related to deaths or missing persons
23 or whatever. Natural deaths, unnatural deaths, they don't matter.
24 Q. And to conclude this portion, the total of 1991 population
25 includes people who were, in 1991, over 18, those who would be 18 and
1 over in 1997, and unknown number of people who died between April 1992
2 and the elections in 1997; is that correct?
3 A. Well, the census population includes, of course, everybody who
4 was living in Bosnia at the time of the census. Some of those who lived
5 in Bosnia at that time died during the war of natural deaths. So that's
6 the fact. This is all I can say.
7 Q. I think you've already said that in making this report you used
8 some sources from Republika Srpska but not for 1993 and 1995. Did you,
9 however, have the official statistics from the Republic Statistical
10 Institute of RS about the total population in 1996 and 1997?
11 A. Hmm, I didn't have any statistics, population statistics, from
12 the RS statistical authority for 1996 and 1997. And I think if they had
13 some statistics on the population, these must have come from estimates,
14 population projections, and not actual observed counts, as those from the
15 population census.
16 Q. I agree with you absolutely. But I will also share with you that
17 the estimates, in official statistics of RS, are that in Banja Luka there
18 were a total population of 218.519; and in your report, we read the
19 number of 86.456, although I see now that these are only people 18 and
20 over. I apologise. So we'll move to something else.
21 In your report, you said that all persons who left to work abroad
22 before the war and who, in 1997, reported to vote from abroad, you
23 treated them all as refugees. Is that true?
24 A. [Previous translation continues] ... yes.
25 Q. In your Milosevic report, where you explain your methodology, you
1 say, on page 6 in B/C/S and in English, you say:
2 "If the war had not broken out in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the
3 pre-census emigres would have maybe returned. However, in 1997/1998,
4 they registered as voters still living abroad. We therefore consider
5 that all voters outside the country may and should be considered as
7 A. Yes, this is what I said.
8 Q. Based on what relevant facts do you make this conclusion? Is
9 there any statistical category to include wishes and intentions? How can
10 you know what people would or would not have done? It's a subjective
11 decision and choice, and you spoke about objectivity.
12 A. You are right that I didn't study the intentions, return
13 intentions, these kinds of things.
14 However, I did study this issue from the statistical point of
15 view. In the Milosevic report, there is a separate annex that is
16 discussing exclusively the issue of the oversea population, as we call
17 it, and the impact of this population being abroad at the time of the
18 census on our statistics on IDPs and refugees and internally displaced
20 And this is annex, if I can direct your attention, it is
21 Annex B4. It's Annex B4, which is extremely relevant to your question.
22 So approximately there were 420.000, as far as I remember,
23 individuals, 420.000 individuals, that are reported in the voters'
24 register as the out-of-country voters.
25 So the question is: What portion of this population left the
1 country after the population census and what portion left the country
2 before the population census?
3 We studied this number and identified only 28.000 individuals,
4 approximately, who left the country before the 1991 census. This is an
5 extremely small portion of the entire population reported in the census,
6 and, further, we are showing in this annex that the bias related to,
7 including this one little group in our statistics, is negligible. It has
8 practically no significant impact on our statistics on IDPs and refugees
9 and ethnic composition.
10 Well, there are, in statistics, two concepts of the population:
11 The population call de facto and the population called de jure. De facto
12 population is the population that actually lives in the territory of a
13 country during the population census. And de jure population is the
14 population that includes de facto population and, as well, individuals
15 who temporarily stay abroad, that means are not saying physically in the
16 country during the census.
17 So Bosnia and Herzegovina and the entire former Yugoslavia was,
18 as a matter of fact, known of a large group of people temporarily staying
19 abroad. And this phenomenon started in the year 1970s, I believe, and
20 continued still until the war broke out in the 1990s.
21 So we compared the ethnic composition in the municipalities in
22 Bosnia and Herzegovina for both de facto and de jure population. That
23 means excluding and including the population temporarily staying abroad.
24 And the result of this exercise is, as far as I remember, there were only
25 two municipalities in which the ethnic composition would have been
1 different, if instead of de jure population we analysed and based our
2 statistics on de facto population. And these are only two municipalities
3 out of 109 municipalities in the entire country. So that's the impact
4 which could have been noted in our statistics.
5 And -- I think I even estimated the error, the bias, which was
6 less than 5 per cent. The usually accepted error in statistics. So if
7 you like to go to Annex B4.
8 Q. No, no, no.
9 A. [Previous translation continues] ... in this annex, you can find
10 a thorough explanation of your question, and my answer is there is no
11 significant impact at all.
12 And one important thing needs to be mentioned: That of these
13 overall number of out-of-country voters, at least 100.000 individuals
14 were travelling in the 1990s between their permanent residence in
15 Bosnia and Herzegovina to workplaces in Croatia or Serbia. So they
16 returned home weekly or even daily, a large portion of them daily. So as
17 a matter of fact, well, we call them de jure population, but it is
18 de facto population living in the same country. So that explains, I
19 think, the essence of the problem. As a matter of fact, we can -- I
20 cannot agree that the population temporarily staying abroad is a major
21 issue that has impact on our statistics.
22 Q. Bearing in mind that you just said that the entire territory of
23 the former Yugoslavia was well known for these migrations, wherein in the
24 1950s and 1960s people left abroad en masse to work there, therefore, we
25 cannot consider these migrations as consequences of war. That -- that
1 part of the population could have been excluded. Perhaps for the
2 purposes of your research it is not important, but for me ...
3 A. If I may comment here. To give you a good illustration of the
4 scale of war-related migration, at the end of the war in Bosnia and
5 Herzegovina, more than two million people were displaced or refugees.
6 Basically UNHCR estimated it was 2.2 million people at the end of the war
7 who were displaced, externally or internally.
8 If you take into account the size of the population in 1991 which
9 was 4.4 million, we are speaking of 50 per cent of people who became
10 displaced internally or externally. If I say that this is a regular
11 migration, educational for work, for family reunion or whatever, I'm
12 sorry, I totally and completely disagree. So the war-related migration
13 has other -- had other motivation and other underlying mechanics than the
14 pre-war migration. That was mainly economical migration in the case of
15 the Yugoslav people, I believe.
16 Q. I agree with that. But let us speak about something else.
17 In your report about this, on page 5 in the last paragraph, you
18 say -- and it's page 6 in Serbian and page 7 in English:
19 "In order to integrate these two data sets," referring to the
20 1991 census and the 1997 voters' register, "we applied a complex matching
21 procedure. In that procedure, the huge majority of persons entered in
22 voters' registers, that is, about 80 per cent was found in the 1991
24 Is that correct?
25 A. Yes, correct.
1 Q. Well, now, let us take a look at Table 1M. It's on page 30 of
2 both the English and the Serbian versions.
3 MR. DI FAZIO: [Microphone not activated] ... sorry, which report
4 are we ...
5 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] For this case.
6 MR. DI FAZIO: The Milosevic report? Or the other one, the
7 addendum? Oh, I see. For the case-specific report. My apologies. I
9 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] 65 ter 10399; that's page 30.
10 Q. You say that:
11 "Inhabitants of all ethnicities in 1991 make up a total of
12 817.898, and you matched with -- to them 376.050 persons according to the
13 data from 1997, which is 45.9 per cent."
14 Can you explain what this is about?
15 A. Yes, I can. This number, 376.000, approximately, is not the
16 number of matched voters that can be directly related to the total of
17 817.898. Here, in this table, in Table 1, whether for Muslims or any
18 other ethnic group, we present the ethnic composition and the fractions
19 and sizes of the population as of 1991 and as of 1997. This is a
20 snap-shot. That means that the population living in these municipalities
21 in 1991 is shown, on one hand, and 1997, on the other hand.
22 However, if you think a little bit, if you take the 1991
23 population and you look for these persons, how they moved during the war
24 period and in the years after war until 1997, why would you expect to
25 find them in exactly the same municipalities as shown in this table?
1 So the thing is that this table is prepared according to the
2 municipality of case study area; right? So the persons from Prijedor,
3 for instance, that were in Prijedor, 94.000, all ethnicities, of which
4 40.000 Muslims, approximately, we read on page 30, 94.000, approximately,
5 of all ethnicities, 40.000 of Muslims.
6 Prijedor is one of the municipalities where extreme population
7 movements took place. As we discussed earlier this morning, there were
8 very large groups of Muslims that moved out from this municipality and
9 ended in several other municipalities. These other municipalities being
10 in the Federation, of course, not in the RS, as the case study area is
11 defined. So the expectation that you would find them here under 1997,
12 those originally reported in Prijedor as 40.000 is completely wrong.
13 These are different people simply. Why? Because Muslims moved out,
14 Serbs moved in. And the 1997 statistics does not give us the impression
15 of the matched records that can be directly related to 1991 population
16 from a given municipality but it gives the status as of 1997, which can
17 be done. Which can be done based on the voters' register simply.
18 But when we move to Table 2 where the IDPs are discussed, then we
19 can compare the linked records, right, because then we look at the
20 municipality of origin and how did they move to all other kinds of
22 So this is how the linking works.
23 Q. I was going to ask you just that. In all tables, marked as 2,
24 let's take 2M. The item that's called "A Total Population Identified in
25 1991," you speak about 600-odd thousand, whereas there was a different
1 figure elsewhere. Can you account for the difference? Is the difference
2 due to the fact that the -- their whereabouts, that is, the municipality
3 in Bosnia-Herzegovina where they were found, was disregarded, if I
4 understood you correctly?
5 JUDGE DELVOIE: Excuse me, can we have Table 2 on the screen,
7 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please, just one thing arising out
8 of that question. The witness is being asked to do a comparison, but we
9 know part of what's being looked at for comparison purposes but not what
10 else has to be looked at for comparison purposes. Mentioned "elsewhere."
11 Do we know elsewhere, or what other table is being referred to?
12 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] From the previous answer, the
13 witness spoke about tables marked 1. She explained in her previous
14 answer how those figures in Table 1 came about, and in Tables --
15 Tables 1, that is, 1M, for example, we see population sample from 1997,
16 all, that is, all ethnicities, it says 376.050. And here in Table 2 we
17 see total population 1997, all, 439.000 and something.
18 Can you explain, please.
19 JUDGE DELVOIE: [Microphone not activated]
20 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the Judge, please.
21 JUDGE DELVOIE: Sorry. We are looking for page 2 -- table 2. We
22 need a page number.
23 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] 38.
24 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you.
25 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] I apologise.
1 MR. DI FAZIO: It starts on 37, so if -- are we to look at the --
2 at page 38 in the English or 37? Just curious.
3 JUDGE DELVOIE: We seem to have it now on the screen, Table 2M.
4 THE WITNESS: May I start answering? Yes?
5 MR. ALEKSIC: Yes, of course.
6 THE WITNESS: I think, first of all, I would like to clarify that
7 the tables in Annex A, whether A1, A2, or A3, cannot be used in order to
8 obtain the exact matching rates. That is one thing.
9 Second, I want to clarify that in these tables there will be two
10 types of the population numbers presented. The first type is the
11 so-called population in, as I call it, and the other time we will speak
12 about the population from. In and from population. What does it mean in
13 and from population? Well, it's good to realize that in the analysis of
14 migration there are always two perspectives. The municipality of origin
15 or place of origin, region of origin; and the municipality or place of
16 destination. So my migration is a two-dimensional process. And this, in
17 some extent, is to be seen in this results presented in Annex A.
18 So in annex A there is one perspective, the in perspective. That
19 means -- well, the listing of municipalities is exactly as in the
20 indictment. This is the municipalities of the origin of the population.
21 So for 1991, we have the census figure. That was the population
22 in these municipalities in 1991.
23 Then we move further, and we look at the 1997 sample population,
24 and it is again the in population. So the population that was observed
25 in the same municipalities, municipalities of origin, in 1997. These are
1 two snap-shots. It is very important to realize that the 1997 in
2 population will be composed of several parts. One part will be people
3 who didn't move. They stayed. They just remained in the same
4 municipalities. But there will be newcomers as well, and that won't be
5 listed here because they are gone; right? Moreover, it is a sample. It
6 is a sample population. It is the voters' register. So those who did
7 not register to vote are not here, are not reported. And those who are
8 not matched are not reported either, because we have this analysis done
9 by ethnicity. So this is why I have been repeating all the time: Don't
10 take the 1997 population absolute numbers as the size of the population
11 in 1997.
12 As a matter of fact, these are two cross-sections, two
13 snap-shots: One is 1991 one is 1997. The population that lived in. So
14 in 1991 there was a certain ethnic make-up, and then we move to 1997 and
15 this is what we observe, if we compile our individual data according to
16 the municipality as in the indictment.
17 And now we move to Table 2. So the in and from population are
18 not the same. So these numbers cannot be ever the same, you see?
19 Q. I apologise. Let me ask you something. Did I understand you
20 correctly, when we speak about the figure from Table 1, that is, 376.050
21 persons, we're talking about identified persons who in these
22 18 municipalities registered as voters in 1997; and when we speak about
23 the 439.601 persons, we're talking about all identified persons who live
24 in these 18 municipalities or hail from one of them, no matter in which
25 municipality of Bosnia-Herzegovina you were able to find them in 1997, as
1 registered voters?
2 Did I understand you correctly?
3 A. Oh, in 1997, we have the people who registered to vote in 1997 in
4 these municipalities. In these municipalities.
5 So if you go to Prijedor, to illustrate my statement, for Muslims
6 we have a very small number, 397. This is a sample of Muslims who
7 registered in Prijedor to vote in the 1997 election. This is the meaning
8 of snap-shot. This -- so this is the in population in 1991 and in 1997.
9 Disregarding the place of origin, this is the number of Muslims who
10 registered to vote in 1997 in Prijedor. 397.
11 JUDGE DELVOIE: Can we have the next page on the screen, please,
12 with the Prijedor municipality?
13 THE WITNESS: So it is the table at page 38.
14 JUDGE DELVOIE: So, Madam Witness, could you -- could you please
15 explain all the figures, the numbers that are there with regard to
16 Prijedor, with regard to what you just explained?
17 THE WITNESS: The Table 2 is a little bit more complex because
18 here we look at the municipality of origin. So Prijedor are all those
19 who, in the census, registered in Prijedor, and we identified in 1997
20 49.019 Muslims in all kinds of municipalities. In all kinds of
21 municipalities. 49.019.
22 JUDGE DELVOIE: So that's people that are still living in
23 Prijedor or living elsewhere within Bosnia-Herzegovina --
24 THE WITNESS: Yes.
25 JUDGE DELVOIE: -- but hailing from Prijedor, coming from Prijedor
1 in 1991?
2 THE WITNESS: Yes, yes.
3 JUDGE DELVOIE: [Overlapping speakers] ... thank you. For the
5 THE WITNESS: [Overlapping speakers] ... yes, that's correct. In
6 Prijedor or elsewhere in Bosnia or out of country, if the person was a
8 So this is the longitudinal character of this statistic; right?
9 So that many were there in the voters' register from Prijedor from 1991,
10 in all kinds of places.
11 So --
12 JUDGE DELVOIE: I would have like to have the other numbers
13 explained as well.
14 THE WITNESS: Yes. Well, this is the total population. Sorry, I
15 was speaking of Muslim population, but in the first column it is the
16 total population. So in the next panel, it is the Muslim population.
17 Sorry. Sorry. So the first three columns is the total population
18 identified in 1997, so it is all ethnicities. But in the next three
19 columns, it is the Muslim population identified in 1997.
20 JUDGE DELVOIE: Sorry, the three first columns --
21 THE WITNESS: Yes.
22 JUDGE DELVOIE: -- are total -- total population of --
23 THE WITNESS: Of Prijedor. Of Prijedor. All ethnicities. Yes.
24 JUDGE DELVOIE: And what is 21.964, then?
25 THE WITNESS: It is the IDPs and refugees among them.
1 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay.
2 THE WITNESS: And the --
3 JUDGE DELVOIE: [Overlapping speakers] ... and the percentage --
4 THE WITNESS: -- next percentage, how many was it. The 21.964.
5 JUDGE DELVOIE: The percentage of the refugees?
6 THE WITNESS: Yes, that is correct.
7 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay. Thank you.
8 THE WITNESS: In all ethnicities. All ethnicities.
9 JUDGE DELVOIE: Yes.
10 THE WITNESS: And the next three columns, it's exactly the same
11 numbers only for Muslims. For just one ethnic group. So we have 19.658
12 of Muslims from Prijedor in 1991 identified in all kinds of places, and
13 of these 19.658 there were as many as 19.290 IDPs and refugees, which is
14 98.1 per cent.
15 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you.
16 THE WITNESS: That explains the little number in Table 1 for
17 Muslims who registered in Prijedor to vote in 1997 elections.
18 So there is -- these are two different, obviously, two completely
19 different types of population figures, and you cannot relate them and say
20 we are inconsistent because this number is different than that number.
21 These numbers tell us two different things. Table 1 tell us about the
22 ethnic composition as identified in 1991, 1997. Table 2 is meant for a
23 totally different purpose. It is meant to tell us how many persons, in
24 relative terms as percentages, became displaced as 1997/1998. So as of
25 1997/1998 they are still not living at their 1991 place of residence.
1 That's the point.
2 So these are two completely different tables.
3 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation]
4 Q. I understood what you said, but let us take a look at Table 1S on
5 page 37 in the Serbian and page 36 in the English.
6 In line 1, column 5, we see 1997 sample population, and it says
7 that there's a total of 271.209 Serbs.
8 Have you found it?
9 A. I think you are speaking of the entire area; right? 271.209;
10 right? The entire area. Yes, yes, yes, yes.
11 Q. I apologise if I was imprecise.
12 Table 2S, on page 39 -- actually, it will -- it's probably
13 another page that. It should be 45. I apologise. Yes.
14 And now here again for the entire area, line 1, column 4, we see
15 Serb population identified in 1997, all, and the number is 216.009.
16 A. Sir, again, you are comparing what is incomparable. These are
17 two different populations, sir. This number, 216.000, is according to
18 the municipality of origin. That would be the study case area as such
19 and found anywhere, anywhere, in Bosnia or outside it. Which is
20 different from the first number, the 271.000, which is giving the number
21 of Serbs in this particular area.
22 Again, in and from. In and from. Two different numbers. We
23 don't compare them because it is wrong to compare them.
24 Sorry, migration is a complex phenomenon. People move starting
25 from the place of origin, and they go to different places and arrive at
1 their destination at some point, and on their way they stay in all kinds
2 of other place. So migration is a multi-dimensional process, and that is
3 seen in our statistics.
4 Q. I believe when you when you say it is a multi-dimensional
5 process, but where I want to deal with other things here, so we need
7 Let us return to Table 1S, therefore, which is on page 37 in the
8 Serbian and page 36 in the English. I'm interested in some percentages.
9 You said that in 1991 Serbs accounted for 44.7 per cent of the
10 overall population, the population that was of age. And in 1997, the
11 percentage was 72.1 per cent.
12 Please explain that. Because, to my mind, the share of Serbs
13 rose by 27.4 per cent, rather than by 61.3. If we're talking about
14 shares. It may be amusing to you, but I show you I said goodbye to math
15 long ago. Could you please explain.
16 A. Well, it is higher, perhaps, by these number of per cent points
17 that you mentioned, but it does not express the overall change in this
18 per cent; right?
19 So it is -- the 61.3 is the so-called relative difference. So if
20 you take an absolute difference between 44.7 and 72.1 and then divide
21 this difference by the initial 44.7, then you obtain the change -- change
22 in the percentages.
23 I think one of the Defence experts raised this issue and was also
24 confused about it, but one has to be careful. So the increase or decline
25 expressed as an absolute difference between two percentages is a wrong
1 measure of the change. It doesn't show the actual character of the
2 change. I must disappoint you, my measure is correct statistically and
3 not yours.
4 Q. Fortunately, I chose another job to do in life and not
5 statistics. That was a joke, of course.
6 I have some questions about internally displaced persons that you
7 mention in your reports. Even today, in the examination-in-chief, you
8 made mention of them.
9 The Milosevic report, on page 8, paragraph 3, in the Serbian; or
10 page 7, last paragraph in English, you say:
11 "Note that our definitions of internally displaced persons and
12 refugees are statistical not legal."
13 And you mentioned as much today. Could you please repeat the
14 statistical definition of IDPs and refugees.
15 A. As I said earlier today, we compared places of where people
16 resided in 1991 and at the time of election, which was expressed in the
17 voters' register in the variable called the municipality of registration
18 and the registration centre.
19 As a matter of fact, there exists a legal definition of an
20 internally displaced person or a refugee. This definition involves a
21 certain fear that a person experienced because of being persecuted due to
22 all kinds of reasons, including the ethnicity, for instance, religion,
23 language, nationality and others. These legal definitions are used by
24 organisations like UNHCR and by governments when registering people as
25 internally displaced persons and refugees. In order to be registered,
1 one has to fulfill a certain legal criteria, including this fear element
2 of being persecuted, for certain reasons. And once a person is
3 registered, the person is entitled to certain benefits. To financial
4 aid, for instance, material aid, accommodation is provided, et cetera,
5 et cetera.
6 We, of course, did not, could not use this kind of definition
7 because it is not in our data. And, as a matter of fact, well, I think
8 it was not fully available even to the UNHCR and the -- the government of
9 Bosnia and Herzegovina. In our statistics, we used a statistical
10 definition, that is, the comparison of the actual place of residence in
11 1991 and 1997. It was the municipality of residence in both cases. If
12 it was different in 1997 from 1991, we assumed, we took such a case as a
13 case of displaced person. The place was in Bosnia but different than
14 1991 for internally displaced persons, and it was outside Bosnia in 1997
15 for persons whom we considered refugees.
16 So a refugee also in the legal definition is a person who left
17 his or her own country and moved to other countries. And internally
18 displaced persons stayed within the borders of a country but doesn't live
19 anymore in his or her original place of residence.
20 So we didn't use the legal definition. We used the statistical
22 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, there are only a
23 couple of minutes left, but I would like to move onto another topic. And
24 I would like to take the opportunity to take another look at the
25 transcript and possibly reduce the scope of my cross-examination that's
2 So I would, therefore, suggest to stop here. And I can continue
4 JUDGE HALL: Yes. So we take the adjournment to 9.00 tomorrow
6 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
7 JUDGE HALL: The -- I remind counsel that -- of the extended
8 sitting tomorrow. We will be back in this courtroom for the 2.30-to-4.00
9 sitting tomorrow afternoon.
10 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
11 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Aleksic, how much time do you expect that you
12 would need when we resume tomorrow morning?
13 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, maybe another hour.
14 But I really cannot be certain. It may be less than that, actually.
15 JUDGE HALL: Yes. Thank you.
16 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.47 p.m.,
17 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 7th day of
18 October, 2010, at 9.00 a.m.